Dr. Steffen Jaksztat, Sociologist at the German Center for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), investigates how social background shapes the path to a doctorate—from the decision to pursue a dissertation to careers afterward. In the DRS podcast interview, he explains the importance of financial security, family expectations, and role models, the opportunities offered by formalized selection processes, and why mentors play a key role in the success of first-generation doctoral candidates.

Audio

highlights

„What may also be relevant in this decision-making situation is that, in my opinion, pursuing a doctorate often requires greater adjustment on the part of children of non-academics and may also be accompanied by a certain degree of alienation from their social background.“

„If you take a broader view of costs, or rather, let’s say, psychological costs, then it’s also a question of how do I deal with uncertainty? Will I manage to successfully complete my doctorate? Do I believe I can do it? Do I have any idea what I’ll do with my degree? Yes, these are decision-relevant questions that are likely to be answered differently depending on social background.“

Dr. Steffen Jaksztat

Links

Find links to resources for first-gen academics and different support systems here.

Transcript

Intro

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I am Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I am delighted to be hosting today’s episode, in which I will be talking to Dr. Steffen Jaksztat. He is a sociologist and has been working at the DZHW, the German Center for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, since 2008. His research focuses on the educational and career paths of doctoral graduates and on how social background influences decisions to pursue a doctorate and career opportunities.

This makes him the perfect guest for today’s episode topic: first-generation doctorates and the influence of social background on the decision to pursue a doctorate. We talk about how the social composition of doctoral candidates in Germany has changed, the role of the parental home in the decision to pursue a doctorate, why role models and expectations are so important, and what needs to change to better align educational advancement and doctoral studies.

Interview

Welcome, Mr. Jaksztat. It’s great to have you as a guest on the DRS podcast today. You conduct research at the German Center for Higher Education and Science Studies on the educational and career paths of doctoral graduates. Social inequalities play a recurring role in this research. Perhaps we could start by you briefly introducing yourself. What are you currently working on, and what fascinates you most about doctoral research?

I am also very much looking forward to the interview. My name is Steffen Jaksztat, I am a researcher at the DZHW and I am the project manager of the Nacaps project. Nacaps stands for National Academics Panel Study. What we do in this project is try to improve the data available on young academics, i.e. doctoral students and doctoral graduates in Germany, by conducting regular surveys within these groups.

We have been doing this for several years now with a team of currently seven employees and two student assistants. We conduct long-term studies with doctoral candidates and doctoral graduates to learn more about their qualification progress during their doctorates, about the heterogeneity of doctorates, and, of course, about their career paths after graduation. The data we collect will be made available to the scientific community via Scientific Use Files, and we also want to give the universities participating in our project the opportunity to learn more about their doctoral candidates.

If you look at your data and studies, who is doing a doctorate in Germany today and who is not?

The official statistics from the Federal Statistical Office provide a relatively large amount of information about doctoral candidates and graduates. The latest figures available show that there are currently over 200,000 doctoral candidates at German universities. And yes, there are clear focal points in terms of subject groups. The largest group are doctoral candidates in human medicine and health sciences, followed by doctoral candidates in mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering. So those are the largest groups of doctoral candidates.

If you look at this over a longitudinal period, i.e., over time, and take a look at the number of doctorates completed, you can clearly see that the number of doctorates completed in Germany has tended to rise in recent decades. Here, you also have relatively long time series to look at, covering the last 30 years. And we can see that at the beginning of the 1990s, we still had 21,000 doctorates completed annually in Germany.

And now, a good 30 years later, there are just under 27,000 doctorates, which is a noticeable increase, but one that has not been linear; there have always been peaks and valleys. And what you can also see quite clearly in the figures is that this upward trend in the number of doctorates is largely due to the fact that, over time, more and more women have completed a doctorate.

So here, too, we have a comparison over time. In 1993, just over 30 percent of all doctorates were completed by women. And now, 30 years later, the figure is 46 percent. What we can also see in the data is that we have seen significant growth in the number of young international researchers in Germany, who now account for more than a fifth of doctoral degrees. That’s just some structural information, so to speak, about the size of the group we’re talking about.

Thank you very much for this interesting information. You have already mentioned a number of developments that have taken place over the last few decades. Do you think that structured doctoral programs or new funding programs, for example, have also had an influence?

I think you can see that… I mentioned that the number of doctorates has not increased linearly, but that there have always been peaks. This is certainly also related to funding programs, such as the Excellence Initiative, in connection with which many structured doctoral programs have of course been developed. Basically, I think it’s fair to say that the doctoral landscape has become more diverse in recent years, with more structured programs being added. However, this does not mean that the classic doctorate in a research assistant position is no longer relevant, but rather that there is now a coexistence of different forms of doctoral study.

You mentioned at the beginning that there are major differences in terms of the subjects in which doctoral degrees are awarded. You pointed out that women now account for a much higher proportion of doctoral degrees—almost half, not quite, but almost half. What is the situation beyond that in terms of the social composition of doctoral candidates? Can you say anything more about that?

There are several studies that have looked into this question, i.e., the extent to which social background influences the likelihood of pursuing a doctorate. And all of these studies actually come to the conclusion that there are social differences. In other words, the higher the level of education in the parental home, the more likely it is that someone will start a doctorate after completing their studies.

Yes, I find it very interesting that even at this, if you will, very late or final stage of education, which is the last one you can tackle, so to speak, inequalities still exist, because inequality research and education research have consistently shown that social inequalities also occur in all preceding educational decisions and stages of education, i.e., in the transition to high school, the acquisition of a high school diploma, the commencement of a degree program, and the successful completion of a degree program. In other words, social inequalities can be found in all preceding stages of education. To perhaps back this up with figures once again, there is a regular publication called the Education Funnel, which is published by the DZHW, and it shows that in Germany, out of 100 children from non-academic families, 25 children find their way to university. And if the parents have studied, 78 out of 100 children take up a course of study. So, inequalities in educational attainment accumulate over time, so to speak.

Do you happen to have the figures for doctoral students at hand? How much difference is there?

That depends very much on which study you look at and what data was used. I once conducted a study myself, which looked at university graduates from 2005. I looked at who had started a doctoral program in the five years after graduating, and found that around a quarter of those from non-academic backgrounds had started a doctoral program, while over 40 percent of those whose parents both had a university degree had started a doctoral program.

Okay, so it also makes a difference whether both parents went to university or just one parent.

That’s what the data shows, yes. It’s relatively clear. I mean, it’s a relatively broad categorization. We have non-academics, then the group with one academic parent and with two academic parents. Of course, that’s still a relatively broad categorization. If you were to differentiate further, for example, the group of non-academic children, that could mean many different things. Either the parents have no professional qualifications at all, or they have vocational training, or whatever. And even among academics, one could differentiate further, for example, whether the parents have a doctorate. If one differentiates further, one naturally gets a more differentiated picture, and a particularly high tendency to pursue a doctorate is naturally found among people who come from a family where either the father or mother has a doctorate.

So, in summary, we could say that the higher the level of education attained by parents, the more likely it is that I will also attain a high level of education or a comparably high level.

Yes, one can say this for sure.

I have another question about the definition. You just mentioned it. When we talk about first-generation doctoral students, which is often the case, are we referring to doctoral students from working-class families, or are we referring to doctoral students whose parents may have studied but did not earn a doctorate themselves?

Yes, ultimately it’s a question of operationalization. I would say that first-generation students are people who come from a family where their parents did not attend university themselves. But as I said, it’s a question of how educational background was ultimately measured in empirical studies.

Yes, I find it more detailed for students. For the doctoral candidates, I have always asked my self, is this about whether the parents have also done their doctorate or is it more about whether they have an academic background.

Well, I would say that I would personally define first-generation doctoral candidates as people from non-academic backgrounds who are pursuing a doctorate.

I would like to come back to the point you mentioned earlier, which I find very important and also very interesting. Namely, how strongly the parental home influences the decision of whether someone pursues a doctorate or not. Can you say a little bit about that?

Studies on this topic often attribute differences in background to so-called primary and secondary background effects. Primary effects of origin essentially refer to differences in performance between individuals from academic and non-academic backgrounds, which are mainly the result of different socialization and support conditions. It can therefore be assumed that the level of education in the parental home and its cultural proximity I would say, to university-relevant educational content, the early promotion of cognitive abilities, cultural, linguistic, and social skills, and that this ultimately results in the performance potential of members of education-oriented social classes simply being better exploited because they are simply better supported.

And this, of course, leads to better school and university performance and higher participation in education. So, primary effects of origin: performance differences due to socialization. And the secondary effects of origin, which refer to origin-specific decision-making behavior. Educational research often assumes that educational decisions involve weighing up costs, benefits, and probabilities of success.

And this shows that educational qualifications are valued differently depending on social background and, consequently, are pursued with varying frequency. For example, it’s about the question of to what extent a doctorate or other educational qualification can be a means of status reproduction. In other words, can I achieve at least the same level as my parents with the educational qualification I’m aiming for? This, especially when referring to a doctorate, means that those from higher social classes are the primary beneficiaries.

So for everyone else from non-academic backgrounds, this goal is essentially already more than achieved the moment they obtain a university degree. On the cost side, it’s about the question of whether I can imagine temporarily foregoing income, because I generally earn less during a doctorate than if I enter the job market directly with my master’s degree. If we broaden the concept of costs, perhaps to include psychological costs, then it also involves the question of how I cope with uncertainty. Will I be able to successfully complete my doctorate? Do I have the confidence to do it? Do I have an idea of ​​what I will do with the degree? Yes, these are crucial questions that are likely to be answered differently depending on one’s social background.

One can assume that for people from materially privileged backgrounds, not every decision necessarily has to be evaluated based on its, let’s say, direct benefit, simply because material security allows more room to perhaps try things out or pursue one’s own interests more strongly, without immediately knowing what one will do with it, without a guarantee that it will ultimately benefit one.

What is also perhaps relevant in this decision-making situation is that pursuing a doctorate for children from non-academic backgrounds often requires greater adjustments and may also involve a degree of alienation from their social environment. So, these would be, if you will, psychological costs that can arise for those from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, but not to the same extent for those from more highly educated backgrounds.

Yes, very interesting. And that also shows how multifaceted and complex the influence of one’s family background is on the decision to pursue a doctorate. All these things can play a role to varying degrees. What role would you say role role models or family expectations play with regard to the decision to pursue a doctorate?

I think both of those things play a very important role. Educational expectations are generally a good predictor of educational success, I think that’s fair to say. And social role models are especially important, and this is often what children from non-academic backgrounds lack, because they don’t necessarily know people in their family who have already earned a doctorate, and therefore might not have such a clear idea of ​​what career paths are possible with a doctorate.

And the reaction isn’t always positive, because, as you mentioned, you can become estranged from your family, who might also be afraid of losing you if you pursue a doctorate. I remember my mother, who didn’t study herself, actually said to me when I told her I wanted to do a doctorate: „Does this really have to happen too?“ So, the expected reaction from your family, whether it occurs or not, certainly plays a role when you decide to pursue a doctorate or are even considering it.

Yes, I think many people from non-academic backgrounds are familiar with this, especially after graduating from high school. They often hear things like, „Well, now you have your high school diploma, you can choose what kind of training you want to do, what kind of vocational training.“ Or, „Why don’t you do vocational training before university, so you have something to fall back on and not this…“ They’re often advised against making the uncertain decision of going to university, studying something with an unclear career path, so to speak. And that certainly applies to doctoral studies after university as well.

Or perhaps even more so.

Yes.

We’ve talked a lot about the decision to pursue a doctorate, specifically the point at the end of one’s studies, or perhaps even later, when one considers starting a doctorate. Now, let’s look at doctoral candidates who are already well into their studies: What challenges do doctoral candidates without an academic background most frequently face during their doctoral studies?

I think it’s often about gaining confidence in one’s own abilities, developing the feeling, „Yes, I can do this, I can achieve this, I have what it takes to pursue this further education.“ And I would guess that people from less privileged backgrounds can particularly benefit from mentors who simply give them positive feedback. This can even happen during their studies. For example, if I work as a student assistant alongside my studies and make contact with professors or other early-career researchers, and simply realize that what I’m doing, the work I’m doing, is recognized and I’m receiving positive feedback. This can, of course, have a positive impact on self-efficacy, on confidence in one’s own abilities.

Thank you for highlighting the importance of mentors. That leads perfectly into my next question. One thing you repeatedly emphasize in your research is the importance of supervision and working conditions. Why do you think these play such a crucial role?

Yes, it has been shown, for example, that close contact with the supervisor can have a positive effect and, for instance, reduce the risk of dropping out of the doctoral program, as can the exchange with other doctoral candidates who are in the same situation. In a sense, one could break this down to social and academic integration, which I believe is an important factor for all doctoral candidates in order to master this long doctoral phase, which is inevitably associated with minor crises and challenges of varying degrees.

You just mentioned dropping out of doctoral studies. Is there any evidence that students from non-academic households drop out more frequently or perhaps take longer to complete their studies? Or are there no available statistics on this?

There is not enough data for that. It seems to be that people from non-academic households could have a somewhat bigger possibility of dropping out. Same goes for women during the doctoral studies.

Do we know why that is?

I can only speculate at this point. Perhaps it’s due to issues of integration into this academic context. Perhaps they also become somewhat discouraged during their doctoral studies by the uncertain prospects that arise after a doctorate, especially when considering academic careers. These are primarily just assumptions.

Let’s stick with the point in time, namely the end of the doctorate or the period after the doctorate. How do the career decisions of doctoral graduates from non-academic backgrounds differ from those of graduates from academic backgrounds after completing their doctorates?

What we’re seeing is that only a small percentage of graduates actually remain in academia in the medium term. We conducted a study looking at where graduates are employed five years after completing their doctorates, and it showed that far less than a third are still working in academia five years later. The vast majority move into non-academic or non-scientific fields, into the private sector, or into the public service after their doctorates. That seems to be the norm.

What I find interesting is that a doctorate is an academic qualification; it’s supposed to teach you how to conduct independent research and demonstrate that through an independent contribution to research. And yet, due in part to career structures and the number of available positions at universities and research institutions, the vast majority leave academia after completing their doctorates. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t use the skills and abilities they learned during their doctoral studies; rather, it means that they simply move into other fields of activity and still frequently perform science-related tasks there as well.

There are also studies—you asked about this—on whether these groups differ, meaning people from academic and non-academic backgrounds. Several studies have specifically examined academic career paths, and these show little to no difference. In other words, background doesn’t necessarily influence the likelihood of someone remaining in academia after their doctorate. There are isolated studies, for specific disciplines, such as those focusing on postdoctoral researchers, that show social background can play a role in professorial appointments, but overall, there don’t seem to be significant differences between background groups regarding career paths after the doctorate. However, there are also other, older studies, such as the one by Michael Hartmann. He investigated whether social background affects the chances of reaching top positions in the private sector, for example. He did find disadvantages for doctoral graduates from non-academic backgrounds.

Yes, so perhaps a cautiously positive outlook for the future. In your more recent work, you often talk about the so-called job mismatch, meaning that someone is employed below their qualification level. Is this something that occurs very frequently among doctoral graduates, and how exactly can we imagine it? Do you perhaps have a few examples?

Exactly, I’m currently working on a study about this with a colleague. We’ve found that job mismatch does occur, but it doesn’t seem to be a very big problem. We’ve found that approximately 15 percent of graduates are affected by job mismatch in the first seven years after completing their doctorate. Job mismatch here means that someone has a professional position where their doctorate plays no role, might even be a disadvantage, or where there’s no connection to the skills and knowledge gained during their doctoral studies.

But this only affects a relatively small percentage of graduates overall. We’re also seeing significant differences between disciplines and that it’s strongly linked to the fields of work graduates enter after completing their doctorate. For example, if you imagine an engineer moving into private sector research and development, that would be a good example where there’s likely to be a very close match between the job and the qualifications acquired through the doctorate. And in other areas, the situation might look different. For example, if you switch to a non-research-related position in the public sector or to the private sector. Here, the data shows that there are also differences depending on the discipline, meaning that people with humanities backgrounds are particularly affected by job mismatch than, for example, people with technical or scientific backgrounds.

To be honest, I almost expected it to primarily affect humanities scholars, although 15 percent is a relatively small percentage. And as you said at the beginning, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one might be unhappy in the position one has afterwards, just because it’s no longer directly related to the doctorate or the skills acquired there.

Yes, exactly, if I may chime in. While switching to fields outside academia does increase the risk of job mismatch, there are also several positive aspects, such as higher income in the private sector or greater job security. This is because, at least below professorships, temporary contracts are the norm in academia, which is quite different in other professional contexts. And research also shows that doctorate holders can generally generate income advantages, particularly in the private sector. So, a doctorate is financially worthwhile, if you will.

I’d like to briefly return to an aspect you touched upon earlier, namely that I believe only about a third of graduates are still working in academia five years after completing their doctorates. Who stays in academia, who changes careers, and for what reasons?

The decision regarding which career path to pursue depends, among other things, on one’s personal preferences. For example, our data shows that graduates with strong career aspirations—that is, those who prioritize earning a high salary, having high status, and holding a prestigious position—are more likely to move into the private sector. Conversely, graduates with strong preferences for autonomy tend to remain in academia. Of course, objective labor market conditions also play a role.

Here, the specific field of study, subjective assessment (how do I perceive my opportunities in a particular area?), and support also come into play. To what extent was I encouraged during my doctoral studies to consider different career paths and explore my professional options?

Now back to the first-generation doctoral students. What would you say helps those who are the first in their family to study and then also earn a doctorate the most to successfully complete their doctorate?

I think this probably applies to all doctoral candidates: you need to create an environment that is supportive and beneficial for you. And I don’t think there’s one specific context you have to choose; rather, you can have a very supportive relationship with your supervisors, with other doctoral candidates, and of course also with your personal social network. It’s about reflecting on what kind of support you need and then considering where and how you can get it.

Perhaps specifically for first-generation doctoral candidates, it can also be helpful to examine your own biography and become aware of your own strengths and successes—your educational background, what you’ve already achieved, and what obstacles you may have already overcome. It might also be helpful to exchange experiences with others who have similar biographies. I think these could be ways to get support. In addition, of course, a certain degree of stability is necessary, in terms of employment and funding for the doctorate; this should be a given for everyone. That one has scholarships or doctoral positions that actually make it possible to carry out a doctoral project from beginning to end.

That leads directly to my next question. Thinking about the future, what would need to change in the doctoral system, in the academic system, so that social background eventually no longer plays a role?

Do you mean the educational system in general or just regarding doctoral candidates?

Especially with regard to doctoral candidates, but I suspect it would probably have to start earlier so that more doctorates are pursued by people from non-academic families.

Yes, fundamentally, I believe we must assume that the education system as a whole needs to provide special support, particularly for those from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, simply to unlock the full potential that people possess. And if this potential cannot be realized through support at home, then it should happen within the education system, in schools or universities. I think that what people from non-academic backgrounds can benefit from are things like, if we’re talking about doctoral studies, formalized selection and evaluation procedures. For example, when awarding doctoral positions, decisions should be made based on objective criteria and not ultimately on personal fit.

That could be one possibility. If we think about students, the research assistant positions I already mentioned would be a way to provide support before the doctoral phase, simply because I think research assistant positions have the potential to inspire people to pursue research, to encourage them to undertake a doctorate, to make contacts, and simply to get a glimpse into academic work contexts. I think that could be helpful.

Mr. Jaksztat, we are nearing the end of our interview. Is there any important aspect we should definitely address that we haven’t mentioned yet?

Another point worth mentioning, which also explains some of the differences in access to doctoral studies, is the choice of subject based on background, which plays a significant role in the emergence of inequalities. Certain subjects, like medicine or law, are more commonly chosen by children of academics. And these are also subjects with relatively high doctoral graduation rates. Medicine, in particular, where a doctorate is practically the standard qualification. We haven’t yet discussed this path. I think it’s a relevant point for understanding how inequalities arise.

Yes, thank you for this important explanation. It’s definitely a very interesting point and might give some people pause for thought, especially those who are just starting their studies or deciding on a career path, although they probably aren’t yet considering a doctorate. I’d like to thank you for this wonderful interview. I learned a great deal and gained a lot from it, and I’m sure our listeners feel the same way.

Yes, thank you very much for the interview.

Outro

This was Dr. Steffen Jaksztat discussing educational background, social inequality, and the role of one’s family in the decision for or against pursuing a doctorate. This is the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. The conversation made it very clear how strongly background and environment can shape one’s path into academia, from the initial decision to pursue a doctorate to the subsequent career steps. Further perspectives on doctoral studies and the academic world can be found in other episodes of the DRS Podcast, covering topics such as supervision, funding, and the dynamics of power in academia. Thank you for listening, and we look forward to the next episode here on the Dahlem Research School Podcast.

This interview was conducted by our trainer and co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlies Klamt.