Reframing the skills agenda in higher education: graduate identity and the double warrant

Len Holmes, The Business School, University of North London (at time of presentation)

Presented at The Future Business of Higher Education conference

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, March 2000


Please do not quote without author's permission

Len Holmes,
The Business School,
University of North London,
Holloway Road,
London N7 8DB

tel. 020- 7753 5349

The rise of the skills agenda in higher education

       That there is some relationship between higher education and the occupational order is not in much dispute, albeit that the question of whether this should be so remains a matter of contention. Certainly both the Robbins and the Dearing Reports (Robbins, 1963; NCIHE, 1997) took the view that the purposes and aims of higher education include that of preparation for employment. Current government policy on funding for higher education assumes that graduates will pay a significant part of the costs of their education through loans, which will be repaid from their post-graduation earnings in employment; such earning are expected to be enhanced by virtue of having undertaken higher education (Steel and Sausman, 1997). Employers continue to recruit graduates, and graduates' employment rates and earnings are considerably better than for the workforce as a whole. However, none of this tells us anything about the nature of such a relationship.

        The currently dominant understanding of the relationship between higher education and the occupational order is framed in terms of the notion of 'transferable skills'. Such skills are presumed to be generic in nature (rather than specific to any particular subject-discipline or occupation), capable of being acquired and/or developed in the educational context, and 'transferable' to other contexts, particularly the various occupational settings to which graduates aspire and into which they are recruited. A variety of terms are used, usually phrases which are composed of various combinations of the words 'personal', 'transferable', 'generic', 'core', 'key', with the words 'capabilities', 'abilities', 'competencies', 'skills'. Whatever term used, there is generally assumption by proponents that the same concept is being used see, eg, the Key Skills in Higher Education Dissemination Project, ( ), and Murphy and Otter, 1999.

       For slightly more than a decade now, a variety of lists of such purported skills have been developed, at course, departmental and institutional level (see Drew, 1998, for review). Noting that the potential list of skills can become so long as to be self-defeating, the Dearing Committee emphasised four of such skills, referred to as 'key skills' (NCIHE, 1997: 9.17), which it recommended should be included in the course programme specifications by all institutions of higher education. Various other agencies have promoted the notion that programmes of higher education should aim to develop students' 'skills' (eg AGR, 1995; CVCP, 1998), such that we might term this the 'skills agenda' in higher education.

       This paper will contest the conventional presentation of the skills agenda. It will be argued that the methods typically adopted for purportedly researching such skills are questionable, and fail to accomplish what is claimed in respect of empirical support for the skills agenda. More importantly, the concept itself, it will be argued, is flawed and fails to explain the nature of the relationship between higher education and graduate employment. A proposed reframing of the skills agenda will be presented, based on the notion of 'graduate identity'. Adopting a relational social theory approach to the notion of identity, the model of 'emergent identity' will be explored. It will be argued that identity claim, and its affirmation (or disaffirmation), are effected through conventions of warranting. The graduate identity may be seen as involving a two-fold process of warranting: claiming the right of entry into the occupational arena and claiming the right of re-entry to academia for advanced study and research. The implications of this for research and for the undergraduate curriculum will be considered.

A plethora of lists, but little achievement?

       The emphasis upon 'skills' can be dated back to the statement on 'Higher Education and the Needs of Society', jointly published by the National Advisory Board for Public Sector Higher Education and the University Grants Committee (NAB/ UGC, 1984). Drawing attention to the rapidity at which specific knowledge becomes outdated in the modern world, and the speed of change in the contexts of the application of such knowledge, the statement asserted that

       Such an assertion appears to have arisen within the arena of policy-advocacy, as there is certainly no indication that, at that time, employers themselves framed their own requirements and expectations in terms of 'skills' The study by Roizen and Jepson (1985), based on interviews with 139 employers, rarely uses the term 'skills', particularly in chapter 3, subtitled 'A degree and What Else?'. Nor is the term 'skills' much in evidence in the Directory of Opportunities for Graduates, 1981.

       The NAB/ UGC report had stated that the skills included

Various initiatives since the mid-1980s have been concerned with the development of the skills agenda, particularly with the funding impetus of Enterprise in Higher Education (Drew, 1998). Many projects, resulting in various listings of the 'skills' deemed to be necessary or desirable, were undertaken at course, departmental and institutional level. More widely, the Association of Graduate Recruiters report adopted the term 'self-reliance skills' which was presented as a set of twelve 'career management and effective learning skills' (AGR, 1995). The Dearing Committee (NCIHE, 1997) emphasised four 'key skills', and in 1998, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals appeared to endorse the skills agenda, with the publication of a report on skills development in higher education, which particularly emphasised 'employability skills' (CVCP, 1998). However, these various lists appear not to have been based on empirical research. It is unclear, then, how any form of adjudication might be made between these lists.

       Research studies include that of Smith et al. (1989) which resulted in a list of 20 'transferable employment skills', and the action research project at Sheffield University which produced a 'model' of 108 'skills' organised into eight categories within four 'zones' (Allen, 1993). The Quality in Higher Education project at the University of Central England came up with a set of 'generic or core skills' which, it was claimed, employers and academics agreed should be demonstrated by graduates. These include:

       From these, we end up with a plethora of different list and 'models' with little indication of how any particular list relates to others. Taking a conservative view, whilst we might conclude that there has been much progress in terms of activity, there is no evidence that substantive achievement has been made. The practical question of which list should be adopted, because it is the most valid, remains unanswered. If one aim was to provide employers with assistance in recruiting graduates, by providing better information about applicants than that indicated solely by degree classification and subject studied, then there is clear failure. The diversity of information has multiplied so as to make it unuseable. If the aim is to improve educational provision by clarifying (and/ or improving) aims and objectives and developing better forms of assessment, the result has been to raise unsurmountable problems of validity.

       A more positive view is put forward by protagonists for the skills agenda. The report to CVCP by consultants PriceWaterhouse Coopers (CVCP, 1998) claims that "there are many lists of skills being produced but considerable similarity between them". Murphy and Otter (1999) assert, but do not demonstrate, that there has been 'intensive research and development in the field'. However, the research reported through the DfEE sponsored Key Skills Dissemination Project This was based at Nottingham University, managed by Murphy - see website: ( - accessed 20 February 2000 ) (2000) appears to be evaluation of funded projects. In her report on progress by 10 UK universities in implementing key skills across whole institutions, Otter (1997) states that "the use of the same ability in different universities does not mean that they necessarily share common understanding, and it often obscures fundamental differences of principle". Such a view is consonant with the conclusions reached by Hirsh and Bevan in their study of 'managerial skills language' This study is noted by Smith et al. (1989) but, despite the caveat they issue by citing from Hirsh and Bevan, they nevertheless engage in an analysis of 20 'transferable employment skills', by employment sectors.:

If the meaning of the concept of skill, as the skills agenda seeks to use it, cannot be shown to be robust, no confidence can be placed in the purported findings of the various projects.

Identifying skills: methodological problems

       The variety of skills terms, and the plethora of lists of purported 'skills', are understandable when we consider the methods of enquiry adopted by their protagonists. Some lists appear to be wholly the product of the semantic elaboration of some notion of the sort of graduate that 'we' (ie a particular department, faculty or institution, or the higher education system) are attempting to 'produce'. Whilst the outcomes of 'brainstorming' exercises may give a sense of achievement to the staff involved, their conceptual validity must surely be rated low. It is surprising that academics who would challenge such a crude approach to enquiry in their own disciplines can be so uncritical in their acceptance of it in relation to this vital area.

       Other lists are the outcomes of what appears to be a more sophisticated approach, usually accorded the honorific of 'research' Murphy and Otter (1999) refer to 'intensive research and development in the field', but do not indicate what research has been undertaken. It seems clear from the website established as part of the project referred to in their article that they are referring to evaluation research on development projects, none of which appear to have involved empirical studies of graduates to identify how their education relates to the post-graduation employment.. Yet even here we find that the methodology poses serious doubts on the validity of the 'findings'. Typically, the approach is to present a list of skills to a target audience and to seek feedback in the form of rating or ranking. Thus Harvey et al report (1992) the use of a questionnaire to employers, asking them to rate the importance of fifteen qualities that graduates might be expected to have. Similarly, Kemp and Seagraves (1995) used questionnaires listing skills to ask both teaching staff and students about how these were part of the teaching programmes and assessment methods. Smith et al. (1989) sent questionnaires to recent graduates, with a list of 20 skills, asking them to rate the importance of each in their current jobs, on a five-point scale. From such methods, conclusions are reached about the importance of particular skills and the 'restructuring' of courses so that they explicitly develop and assess such skills.

       However, in none of these studies is any satisfactory explanation given as to how the lists of skills have been derived. Thus, despite noting Hirsh and Bevan's (1988) caveat regarding the lack of agreement on skills language at the level of meaning (quoted above), describe their approach as follows:

In developing what is perhaps the most extensive list of (104) skills, Allen reports that Harvey et al. (1992), the Association of Graduate Recruiters (1995), and Hesketh (1998) all present their lists of purported skills with no statement as to how these were determined.

The problem of conceptual validity

       It is clear that the concept of 'transferable skills' is rarely subject to critical scrutiny by protagonists for the skills agenda. Indeed, Griffin (1994) refers to the 'aura of untouchability' of the concept of transferability:

There are a number of published critical analyses of the concept (Wolf, 1991; Bridges, 1992; Griffin, 1994; Gubbay, 1994; Barnett, 1994; Holmes, 1995; 1999; Hyland, 1997). Bridges' (1992) challenges that, without a theory of social domains, the notion of transferable skills is neither intelligible nor applicable.Similarly, Wolf (1991) argues for 'the primacy of context' in our understanding of 'core skills', the term cognate with 'transferable skills' as used in National Vocational Qualifications until its replacement by the term 'key skills' The Review of Qualifications for 16-19 year olds (Dearing, 1996) recommended the use of the term 'key skills', rather than 'core skills'. The NVQ/ SVQ framework now includes 'key skills units..        To such critiques, we might add other issues (Holmes, 1997). These include questions concerning the notion of 'meta-skills' (Blagg, et, 1993), which purport to explain how a person decides which skills should be used, and how, in the different contexts to which they are deemed to be transferable, but merely yield a seriality of meta-levels ad infinitum. The problem of whether we take a binary approach to 'measurement' of skills as in the NVQ/ SVQ system (competent/ not competent Assessment of competence for NVQs/ SVQs allows for three judgements: 'competent', 'not yet competent', 'insufficient evidence'. As the last-mentioned is a judgement about evidence, not about the candidate's competence, there remain two possible judgements. The addition of the word 'yet' adds nothing substantive to the judgement ('not competent'), merely serving to emphasise that assessment may be undertaken at any time.), or allow for assessment across a range, as is normal for assessment in higher education As the assessment of 'skills' is intended to enable employers to discriminate between potential employees, a binary approach would not be useful. This implies therefore that the concept of key skills must allow for qualitative degrees of difference, with attendant difficulties that such conceptualisation brings for practical implementation (Holmes, 1997).. More problematic is the question of the stability of a skill, the extent to which, having been judged to possess a skill, the individual's performance in specific situations to which such a skill is deemed appropriate remains consistent, ceteris paribus. Given the interactive nature of many of the purported skills, particularly 'communication' and 'teamworking', it is highly questionable how lack of consistency of performance is to be judged: is it lack of skill on the part of the individual, or due to characteristics of the other party, or even a consequence of the situation itself? Just as the failure of negotiations in industrial and political disputes may be attributed as much, if not more, to historical circumstances and differences of interests, than to lack of 'negotiation skills' of the parties concerned.

       Despite such criticisms, advocates for the skills agenda present it as a matter of 'common sense' (Murphy and Otter, 1999). A variety of factors are presented as providing the rationale for including 'skills' development and assessment explicitly within the undergraduate curriculum. These include the increasingly global nature of economic competitiveness, technological change, consequent changes in organisational structures and of career patterns for graduates, increased demands for public accountability and quality assurance on the part of universities, and so on (AGR, 1995; Coffield, 1995; Coffield and Williamson, 1997; NCIHE, 1997; CVCP, 1998; Drew, 1998). However, whilst the term 'skills' may be used in describing the nature of graduates' work, it does not follow that the meaning of the term in such a context is the same as the meaning it has in the context of higher education. The 'need' for higher education to engage in pedagogic practices for developing and assessing key skills, for 'transfer' to graduate employment, cannot be simply read off from political, economic, social and technological analyses.

Even if it were to demonstrated that the meanings were stable within each arena, itself a dubious proposition (Hirsh and Bevan, 1988; Otter, 1997), there is no evidence that there is stability of meaning between them. Mangham and Silver (1986) state that employers generally "do not appear to have the concepts to describe managerial competency", reporting that

Close examination of the material presented in the study by Harvey et al. (1997) of 'graduates' work', shows that employers by and large do not express their requirements in terms of 'skills' (nor even 'attributes'). Rather, they tend to talk about the 'type of graduate' they seek, and the 'kind of work' to be undertaken. Thus, for example, the discussion of what Harvey et al. refer to as 'self-skills' (cf AGR, 1995, on 'self-reliance skills') is presented with five extracts from interviews none of which include the word 'skills', but do include the following phrases: "I actually expect them to self-start...", "I don't want somebody who is extremely bright...", "I need someone who is single-minded...", "we want somebody who has a certain tenacity...", "you need people to be very conscientious...", "you don't want people coming in and using initiative 100% ...". The language of skills, it may be argued, is not the way that graduate employers normally articulate what they require in prospective recruits and actual employees, but is more an artificial vocabulary imposed on discussions about the education-employment relationship.

       Murphy and Otter's (1999) reference to "intensive research and development in the field" presumably refers to the various projects undertaken within institutions of higher education, usually presented as case studies of successful introduction of 'skills' into undergraduate curricula, at course, department or institutional level. Of course, such case study reporting has limited value in research terms, because of their context-bound implementation Such projects are usually funded by external agencies, under competitive bidding arrangements, and require evaluation reports. It is not necessary to argue that any such reports do not reflect the 'ungarnished truth' in order to question their reliability, given the well-attested tendency for accounts of such publicly-funded projects to be 'massaged' (see Holmes and Grieco, 1991).. More seriously, their 'ecological validity' (Usher and Bryant, 1989) is highly contestable. That is, what these projects typically (claim to) achieve is relevant solely to the context in which it is achieved, the educational context. Even if a set of students were to be put through a regime of teaching, learning and assessment activities which purportedly demonstrated that their 'skills' in, say, problem solving had improved, this would tell us nothing about the extent to which those students were better prepared for employment as graduates where their work would include what might be called 'solving problems'.

Considering performance

       Such methodological and conceptual difficulties with the skills agenda suggest that there is a need to reconsider the matters in question. As the main concern is that of preparation for graduate employment, we might take as a point of departure for reframing the agenda a consideration of the nature of performance in such employment. The skills agenda assumes that what a person does, their performance, is objectively observable, such that descriptions of desired performance may be articulated and used to assess actual performance. However, such an assumption is flawed because it fails to distinguish between behaviour, actions and acts (Harré, et al., 1985). Once such a flaw is remedied by recognising the distinction, an alternative approach is suggested to address the issues which the skills agenda seeks but fails to address.

       If we distinguish between activity, as bodily movement and utterance of sounds, and performance, as socially meaningful action within particular situations, then the question arises as to how activity is transformed into performance. This is clearly not a matter solely under the control of the individual whose activity is in question; rather it implicates processes of interpretation by those who are party to the situation. This view is a key insight of the interpretive traditions within sociology, particularly phenomenological sociology (Schutz, 1967), symbolic interactionism (Rose, 1962; Manis and Meltzer, 1967; Blumer, 1969) and social constructionism (Berger and Luckman, 1966; Gergen, 1999), and of linguistic philosophy, particularly in the work of Wittgenstein (1953) and Austin (1962). Moreover, the particular meaning that is attributed to any situated activity is subject to social interaction, ie an aspect of 'negotiated order' (Strauss et al, 1963).

       Performance, then, is subject to interpretive construction and cannot be objectively observed. In order for any particular situated activity to be construed as performance-of-a-kind, it appears that there are two key criteria:

  1. there must be some set of social practices, appropriate to a social arena, such that the current situation is located within that social by the actors involved and the activity is taken to be an instantiation of one of such practices;
  2. there must be a set of identities or positions (Harré and Van Langenhove,1999) appropriate to that social arena, such that the individual whose activity is under interpretation in the current situation is deemed to occupy one such identity<<
[NOTE: cf. Austin's conditions for the 'felicity' of a performative utterance: 'There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect [...] the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked." (Austin, 1962: 14-15). Note also Bhaskar's argument for what he terms a position-practice system (of concepts) mediating between structure and action (Bhaskar, 1979: 51). ]

Figure 1 represents pictorially the elements within this process of the interpretive construction of performance, which we might therefore refer to a the 'identity-practice model of performance'.
Figure 1: Practice-Identity Model of Performance

      Applying this to the issues of concern here, we may say that we are dealing with some form of understanding of what constitutes the practices of the social arenas into which graduates typically enter, and the nature of what may be called the 'graduate identity'. Thus, if we are attempting to analyse the work of graduates in employment, and what counts as 'competent' performance or the exhibition of 'skills' in such work performance, then it is necessary to establish how that performance is construed as the instantiation of the practices within that occupational arena, and how the persons undertaking the work are accepted as having a distinctive identity as graduates relevant to such work performance. Both aspects properly require examination, but for the present we shall focus mainly on the issues concerning identity .

Graduate identity

       The concept of identity has taken a major part in recent social science theorising A list of the various literatures addressing issues of identity, position, subjectivity, and self would be extensive. [NOTE: for a recent review, see Jenkins (1996)], particularly in recent social psychology seeking to address the nature of the social, and in sociological analysis concerned with understanding the individual actor within the structured social world. The concept of the person as a monadic entity, a sovereign self acting freely and totally rationally, is replaced by that of a 'social self', situated within social relations and a moral order, whose actions are based in explicit or implicit understandings of what should be done (morally and/or pragmatically) given their social positioning.

       The concept of identity thus provides an analytical link between the personal and the social, between action and structure. The patterned nature of the processes of social life can be as it is only in so far as there is patterning of the actions of members of the social world. Such patterned action is 'as it should be', expected and predictable, taken-for-granted because of who those members are in relation to each other. Personal identity meshes with social identity; as Jenkins (1996) puts it, there is an internal-external dialectic of identification. The term 'identification' indicates the processual nature of identity, that is continuously undergoing socially production in a process which implicates both the individual person (self-identification) and social ascription.

       Taking these aspects of the processual and of the internal-external dialectic, it seems appropriate to adopt the term 'emergent identity' to distinguish this analysis from those based either on identity as social ascription (social identity) or on identity as self-concept (personal identity). What is socially salient is neither the one nor the other, but the situated outcome of the interaction between both. Another way of considering this is that of claim (by the individual) and affirmation Affirmation and its contrary, disaffirmation, may be considered as ascription in relation to claim (and disclaim). (by significant others), or their contraries, disclaim and disaffirmation. The relation between these may be shown orthogonally, in figure 2.
Figure 2: Claim-Affirmation Model of Emergent Identity

       In this diagram, cell 1 (identity disclaimed and disaffirmed) designates 'indeterminate identity'; the individual neither claims nor is seen by others to occupy the identity of particular concern. Where an individual makes a claim on an identity, eg as a graduate and this is affirmed by significant others, then the individual is seen (by self and others) as having that identity, eg they 'really are' a graduate (cell 4). However, where the individual is seen by others as having a particular identity, but this is disclaimed by the individual, then we could say they have an 'imposed identity' (cell 2). On the other hand, where an individual lays claim on an identity, but this is disaffirmed by others, then we might say that they have a 'failed identity' (cell 3).

       We must also consider the issue of emergent identity diachronically, in terms of the processes by which identity claims and affirmations (and disclaims and disaffirmations) are made and have their outcomes over time. Harré (1983) uses the term 'identity projects' to refer to the trajectory by which an individual achieves 'uniqueness within a moral order'. The model in figure 2 may thus be used to consider the identity projects undertaken by individuals, their trajectories from (in the model) 'indeterminate identity' (cell 1) to 'agreed identity' (cell 4). For the issues of concern here, this relates to an individual's trajectory through higher education into their desired position as a graduate. Cells 2 and 3 indicate emergent identities which are the subject of contestation; the individual attempts to disclaim their identity ascription by others (cell 2), or the individual's claim on an identity is disaffirmed by those who are in 'gatekeeper' positions See Holmes and Robinson (1999) for discussion of this in respect of ethnicity of persons seeking entry to managerial positions.. Of course, in principle all emergent identity positions are fragile, ie subject to potential challenge and negotiation. In practice, some form of accommodation may be accomplished, such that an individual's identity in a particular social arena becomes (relatively) uncontested or, we might say, 'stabilised'.

       The question now is that of how identity claims, and affirmation/ disaffirmation of such claims, are made. Here we may draw upon the notion of 'warranting', the process whereby, of all the possible ways of construing a certain situation, one particular way is presented as 'correct'. Certain 'conventions of warrant' (Gergen, 1989) are typically drawn upon in such identity claims and affirmations/ disaffirmations. That is, the individual will attempt to present themself as someone 'worthy' of entering the type of occupation for which being a graduate is normally deemed necessary, making such presentation on the basis of what they anticipate will be seen as legitimate grounds. Likewise, those who are 'gatekeepers' to such occupations will seek justify their decisions to allow or disallow entry, by making reference to certain legitimated grounds for such decisions. The language of 'skills' may be seen as constituting such a 'convention of warrant' in respect of 'graduate identity' (Holmes, 1995, 1999).

       It is important to distinguish between the conventional skills agenda, and this graduate identity approach, in respect of their implications for the language of 'skills'. The skills agenda seeks to engage in definition, in precise usage of language such that a skills term, a word or phrase, will be taken to denote some particular skill. In contrast, the graduate identity approach seeks to understand how the variety in the language of skills, its rich diversity, provides for the interaction between the parties engaged in the processes (of claim and ascription) by and through which emergent identity arises. It is the extent to which an individual is able to express their claim on the graduate identity through the use of skills language that is likely to improve their prospects of being selected.

Double warrant

       Taking such an approach, what is socially consequential is not so much the formal possession of a degree but the social accomplishment of an emergent identity as a graduate. This has been explored so far in this paper mainly with regard to employment, the grounds on which the debate is primarily conducted. However, 'being a graduate' is socially consequential not only in the employment arena, for it is the basis on which re-entry to higher education is obtained, for advanced study and particularly for higher degrees by research. There is thus what we might term a 'double warrant' at work.

       The conventional skills agenda has little to say about this other aspect of the pos-graduation trajectories of graduates, except to assert that 'key skills' apply also to advanced study. After all, it is argued, research is just a form of problem solving, and oral and written communication is required in work for a higher degree.

       If we use the term 'knowledge' in a general sense to express what constitute the practices in the arena of graduate employment and also the practices in academia, we can identify some critical differences. In the employment arena, we would say that knowledge is applied whereas in academia knowledge is produced. Whilst knowledge production certainly takes place in other arenas (cf Gibbons, et al, 1994), its production within academia is characterised by values of universalism, open access, and essential contestibility. By contrast, in the employment arena knowledge is taken as an asset to be closely guarded; once certain knowledge claims are taken as being the basis for organisational decisions, such claims take on the character of incontestability. The style of textual communication differs largely because the conventions of business and of academic writing have arisen under different orientations to knowledge, its application and its production.

       Confusion between these different modes of warranting the graduate identity is likely to hinder rather than help individuals in moving between the different social arenas of employment and academia. Whilst the graduate identity approach accepts the importance of examining the relationship between degree level study and post-graduation employment, it also values the relationship between such study and post-graduate study. This suggests the need for an emphasis in the undergraduate curriculum for students not only to engage with what is taken to be the body of knowledge in a field, for the purposes of application of such knowledge, but also for them to engage with this as a set of knowledge claims and essentially contestable.

Reframing the skills agenda: research and pedagogy

       The argument here has been that the conventional skills agenda is seriously flawed, and fails to provide an adequate basis for understanding the relationship between higher education and graduate employment. Once it is recognised that performance implicates interpretation of activity, and that such interpretation requires that the emergent identity (of the persons whose behaviour/ action is under interpretation) be taken into account, then a new set of issues are suggested, both for research and for pedagogic practice. The approach is consonant with current developments in social science theorising which take a 'relational perspective' (Hosking et al, 1995), and with the 'legitimate peripheral participation' approach in situated learning theory (Lave and Wenger, 1991), an approach which has typically been used outside of formal education contexts. However, the amount of sponsorship and funding support for the conventional skills agenda far outweighs that provided for developing the 'graduate identity' approach. Nevertheless, examples of the explicit adoption of such an approach are available, both in terms of pedagogy (Holmes, 1999) and research (Holmes, Green, and Egan, 1998). A variety of other 'personal troubles and public issues' (Mills, 1959) would also appear to be amenable to examination through the 'graduate identity' approach and the practice-identity model which underpins it. These include the inequitable employment outcomes experienced by certain groups (particularly in respect of ethnicity (Brennan and McGeevor, 1990; Berthoud, 1999), age (AGCAS, 1999), and socio-economic class (Purcell et al., 1999). Rather than adopting a skills-deficit explanation, or attributing such outcomes to employer discrimination tout court, the graduate identity approach would seek to understand the processes by which the articulation of identity claim and of ascription tend towards 'failed identity' or 'imposed identity' (cf Holmes and Robinson, 1999).

       The graduate identity approach also provides, through the notion of a 'double warrant', a coherent reframing of the 'traditional academic' purposes of higher education ('academic competence') in the context where it is rivalled by notions of 'operational competence' (Barnett, 1994). The ability to engage in knowledge production, according to the traditions of academia (universality, essential contestability, etc) may be articulated as being amongst the aims of the undergraduate curriculum alongside the ability to apply knowledge, in different contexts. The approach has merely been sketched here, but its fuller theoretical elaboration, deployment in empirical studies, and application in pedagogic practice is warranted by its apparent fecundity.


AGCAS (Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services) (1999) Attitudes and more..., London: AGCAS

AGR (Association for Graduate Recruiters) (1995) Skills for Graduates in the 21st Century, Cambridge: The Association of Graduate Recruiters

ALLEN, M. (1993) A Conceptual Model of Transferable Personal Skills, Sheffield: Employment Department

AUSTIN, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words, Oxford: Oxford University Press

BARNETT, R. (1994) The Limits of Competence, Buckingham: Open University Press

BERGER , P. and LUCKMANN, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Doubleday & Co.

BERTHOUD, R. (1999) Young Caribbean men and the labour market: a comparison with other ethnic groups, London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

BHASKAR, R. (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism, Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press

BLAGG, N., BALLINGER, M. and LEWIS, R. (1993) Development of Transferable Skills in Learners, Employment Department Research & Development series, report 18, Sheffield: Employment Department

BRENNAN, J. and MCGEEVOR, P. (1990) Ethnic Minorities and the Graduate Labour Market, London: Commission for Racial Equality

BRIDGES, D. (1992) 'Transferable Skills: A Philosophical Perspective', in Studies in Higher Education, summer 1992

BLUMER, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

COFFIELD, F. (ed.) (1995) Higher Education in a Learning Society, Durham University

COFFIELD, F. and WILLIAMSON, B. (1997) Repositioning Higher Education, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University

CVCP (Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals) (1998) Skills development in higher education, London: CVCP

DEARING, R. (1996) Review of Qualifications for 16-19 year olds, London: Schools and Curriculum Authority (now Qualifications and Curriculum Authority)

DREW, S. (1998) Key Skills in Higher Education: Background and Rationale, Birmingham: SEDA

GERGEN, K. (1989) 'Warranting Voice and the Elaboration of the Self', in J. Shotter and K. Gergen, (eds.) Texts of Identity, London: Sage

GERGEN, K. (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction, London: Sage

GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H, SCHWARZMAN, S., SCOTT, P., and TROW, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage

GRIFFIN, A. (1994) 'Transferring Learning in Higher Education: Problems and Possibilities', in R. Barnett (ed.), Academic Community: Discourse or Disorder?, London: Jessica Kingsley

GUBBAY, J. (1994) 'A critique of conventional justifications for transferable skills', in D. Bridges (ed.) Transferable Skills in Higher Education, Norwich: University of East Anglia

HARRÉ, R. (1983) Personal Being: A Theory for Individual Psychology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

HARRÉ, R., CLARKE, D., and DE CARLO, N. (1985) Motives and Mechanisms: An introduction to the psychology of action, London: Methuen

HARRÉ, R., and VAN Langenhove, L. (1999) Positioning Theory, London: Sage

HARVEY, L., BURROWS, A. and GREEN, D. (1992) Someone who can make an impression: Report of the QHE employers' survey of qualities of higher education graduates, Birmingham: QHE, The University of Central Englan in Birmingham

HARVEY, L. and GREEN, D. (1994) Employee Satisfaction Summary, Birmingham, Quality in Higher Education Project

HESKETH, A. (1998) Graduate employment and training towards the millennium, London: Hobsons

HIRSH, W. and BEVAN, S. (1988) What Makes a Manager? In Search of a Language for Management Skills, Institute of Manpower Studies report no. 144, Brighton, Sussex: Institute of Manpower Studies

HOLMES, L. (1995) 'Skills - A Social Perspective', in A. Assiter (ed.) Transferable Skills in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page

HOLMES, L (1999) 'Competence and Capability: From "Confidence Trick" to the Construction of the Graduate Identity', in D. O'Reilly, L. Cunningham, and S. Lester (eds.) Developing the Capable Practitioner: Professional Capability through Higher Education, London: Kogan Page

HOLMES, L. (1997) 'One more time, transferable skills don't exist (... and what we should do about it)', paper presented at Higher Education for Capability conference on Embedding key skills across the curriculum, Nene College Northampton, February 1997 (available on )

HOLMES. L. and GRIECO, M. (1991) "Overt Funding, Buried Goals, and Moral Turnover: The Organizational Transformation of Radical Experiments", in Human Relations, vol 44, no.7 1991

HOLMES, L., GREEN, M., and EGAN, S. (1998) Graduates in Smaller Businesses: A Pilot Study, Management Research Centre, University of North London

(also available at - accessed February 2000)

HOLMES, L. and ROBINSON, G. (1999) 'The Making of Black Managers: Unspoken Issues of Identity Formation', paper presented at 1st International Conference on Critical Management Studies, UMIST, 1999 (available on

HOSKING, D.M., DACHLER, H. P., and GERGEN, K. (1995) Management and Organization: Relational Alternatives to Individualism, Aldershot: Avebury

HYLAND, T. (1997) 'The skills that fail to travel', in Times Higher Education Supplement, 2nd May, p.12

JENKINS, R. (1996) Social Identity, London: Routledge

KEMP, I. and SEAGRAVES, L. (1995) 'Transferable Skills - can higher education deliver?', in Studies in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 3

KEY SKILLS IN HIGHER EDUCATION DISSEMINATION PROJECT (2000) - accessed 20 February 2000, last updated 1 January 2000

LAVE, J. and WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

MANGHAM, I. and SILVER, M. (1986) Management Training: Context and Practice, Bath: ESRC

MANIS, J. and MELTZER, B. (eds.) (1967) Symbolic Interactionism, Boston: Allyn and Bacon

MILLS, C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press

MURPHY, B. and OTTER, S. (1999) 'A common sense issue', Times Higher Education Supplement, 6 August 1999

NAB/ UGC (National Advisory Board for Public Sector Education/ University Grants Committee) (1984) Higher Education and the Needs of Society, London: National Advisory Board for Public Sector Education

NCIHE (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) (1997) Higher education in the learning society [note: references are shown by paragraph numbers]

OTTER, S. (1997) The Ability Based Curriculum, or Key Skills in Higher Education: Some Snapshots of Progress, report to Ability Based Curriculum network, mimeo (available through welcome.html - accessed 20 February 2000)

PURCELL, K. and HOGARTH, T. (1999) Graduate Opportunities, Social Class and Age: Employers' recruitment strategies in the new Graduate labour market, London: Council for Industry and Higher Education

ROSE, A. (ed.) (1962) Human Behaviour and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

ROIZEN, J. and JEPSON, M. (1985) Degrees for Jobs, London: SRHE and NFER-Nelson

SCHUTZ, A. (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World, London: Heinemann (original German Edition, 1932)

SMITH, D., WOLSTENCROFT, T. and SOUTHERN, J. (1989) "Personal Transferable Skills and the Job Demands on Graduates", Journal of European Industrial Training, vol 13, no 8

SMITH, J., HARRÉ, R., and VAN LANGENHOVE, L. (1995) Rethinking Psychology, London: Sage

STEEL, J. and SAUSMAN, C. (1997) 'The contribution of graduates to the economy: rates of return', Report 7 to National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education,

STRAUSS, A., SCHATZMAN, L., EHRLICH, D., BUCHER, R. and SABSHIN, M. (1963) The hospital and its negotiated order, New York: Macmillan

USHER, R. and BRYANT, I. (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research, London: Routledge

WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

WOLF, A. (1991) 'Assessing Core Skills: wisdom or wild goose chase?', in Cambridge Journal of Education, vol. 21, no. 2