Introduction

Change has been a constant faced by academic professions around the world. For the past few decades, various aspects of change in academia have been discussed in the book series The changing academy—The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective. These changes reflect rapidly changing social conditions, such as mass higher education, globalisation, and new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence; all of which have placed different demands and expectations on universities and academic professions (Bearman et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022; Teichler et al., 2013). Consequently, these changes have raised questions about what an academic profession is, who academics are, and what academics do—questions that have become more pertinent in the time of the university environment characterised by ‘supercomplexity’—different internal and external forces interacting all at one (Clement & Grant, 2010; Krause, 2020).

A changing academic profession begs another question: what academic profession are aspiring academics trained for? Aspiring academics broadly refer to individuals with an interest in pursuing an academic career, who often have a postgraduate research degree (a masters by research or doctoral degree). In a context where PhD training is expected to prepare doctoral graduates for various employment destinations (Sarrico, 2022), efforts to improve doctoral graduates’ employability for non-academic careers have overshadowed concerns about improving academic training for doctoral candidates who will stay in academia (Edwards et al., 2011; Probert, 2014a, 2014b). Not all doctoral graduates wish to pursue or will end up in academia, but for those who do, understanding their perspectives would give insights into improving academic training and how we can support them better.

This paper addresses the following questions: what types of activities do aspiring academics consider academic work? And what are the implications for doctoral training and the future of the academic profession in Australia? It draws from interview data from a qualitative PhD research project exploring the academic profession from the perspectives of aspiring academics—doctoral candidates and recent doctoral graduates with an interest in pursuing an academic career—at one research-intensive Australian university. The research centred on the premise that a genuine effort aiming to improve academic training and the academic profession’s attractiveness should take into account the perspectives of aspiring academics and reflect on how the profession could adjust and evolve to accommodate their needs.

The rest of the paper is divided into five sections. The first section focuses on issues related to training doctoral candidates for a changing academic career in Australia. The second section discusses Boyer’s scholarship typology as the analytical framework for this paper. The third section details methodological underpinnings, data collection, and data analysis. Findings are presented and discussed in the fourth section. The final section concludes with some reflections and implications for academic training and the attractiveness of the academic profession.

Doctoral training for a changing academic profession in Australia

The traditional PhD model—independent research based on supervision—originated from the University of Berlin founded in 1810 by Wilhelm von Humboldt, which has evolved and been adapted to national contexts over time (Schneijderberg & Teichler, 2018). While differences in the research training systems exist, the core element of a traditional PhD remains conducting independent research supervised by experienced academic staff (Shin et al., 2018). According to the Australian Qualification Framework (2013, p. 65), a doctoral candidate is expected to produce ‘significant and original research outcomes’. Thus, one of the aims of PhD training is to ensure the supply of high-quality researchers and specialists of disciplinary knowledge (McGagh et al., 2016, p. 36). Due to the emphasis on research, traditionally PhD training was expected to prepare doctoral candidates to work in academia.

Although the growing complexity of academic work has been acknowledged (Coates & Goedegebuure, 2012), less attention is paid to preparing doctoral candidates beyond the traditional tasks of research and, to a lesser extent, teaching (Probert, 2014a). For example, a review of Higher Degree by Research (HDR) training by the Australian Council of Learned Academies noted, ‘Compared with Doctoral education offered in the US or in Europe, graduates in Australia are not as well prepared for academic teaching’ (McGagh et al., 2016, p. 39). Findings from a large-scale survey suggested that Australian HDR students had a limited understanding of the academic tasks, mostly learning through observations; some of them did not feel adequately prepared for teaching (Edwards et al., 2011). As a result, some have called for considering the meaning of scholarship in doctoral training (Probert, 2014b), integrating teaching training (Edwards et al., 2011; Probert, 2014a), and re-designing the structure of doctoral programs (Coates et al., 2020).

In addition, the changing nature of academic work in Australia means that the bifurcation of academic tasks (research versus teaching) fails to reflect the internal diversification of academic roles (Kenny & Fluck, 2018; Probert, 2014a, 2014b). Gardner (2011) argued that a potential ‘collision’ exists between ‘the reality of academic work in large, complex universities and our construction and understanding of the core requirements and accountabilities of those academic roles’ (p. 14). For example, besides research and teaching, a third area of work is service, which is an umbrella term encompassing different activities, including service roles internal to the university, such as involvement in faculty committees, and those external to the university, such as reviewing journals or serving on professional bodies (Kenny & Fluck, 2018). In addition, engagement is another domain of academic work that has attracted significant scholarly work recently (Doberneck et al., 2010; Renwick et al., 2020). These variations indicate that what constitutes academic work remains open for debate. Having a realistic understanding of academic work is important for maintaining the profession’s attractiveness, as Coates et al. (2015) argued:

If academic life is to be an attractive future career choice for clever and dedicated people, then it is necessary to be able to paint them a realistic picture of what becoming an academic means, coupled with a career structure that meets the reality and expectations of an increasingly diversifying workforce. (p. 299)

A study focusing on aspiring academics provides insights into their expectations and how the academic profession can work to accommodate those. In addition, focusing on the perspectives of aspiring academics can open new possibilities in thinking about the academic profession of the future. These are the foundation for the current research.

Analytical framework: Ernst Boyer’s scholarship typology

This paper used Boyer’s scholarship typology (Boyer, 1990) as an analytical starting point to examine academic work. His typology was first introduced in the 1990 report Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities the Professoriate, in which he aimed to ‘move beyond the tired old ‘teaching versus research debate’ to acknowledge and recognise the diversity of academic work in the US at the time’ (Boyer, 1990, pp. 15–16). Boyer broadly defined scholarship as ‘the ability to think, communicate, and learn’, which has four ‘separate, yet overlapping’ functions (p. 15). The scholarship of discovery refers to ‘the commitment to knowledge for its own sake, to freedom of inquiry and to following, in a disciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead’ (p. 18). The scholarship of integration recognises scholars who ‘give meaning to isolated facts, putting them in perspective’ (p. 18). The scholarship of application emphasises the relevance and application of knowledge. It requires the scholar to ask questions such as ‘How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems? How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions?’, or ‘Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation?’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 21). The scholarship of teaching refers to work based on disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge that ‘both educates and entices future scholars’ (p. 23). In a later publication, Boyer (1996b) proposed the fifth aspect of scholarship, the scholarship of engagement, which calls for strengthening academia-society partnership ‘in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic, and moral problems’ (Boyer, 1996b, p. 27).

Since its publication, Boyer’s typology has attracted significant scholarly interest and critiques both on the conceptual level—the construction of scholarship dimensions—and practical levels—the operationalisation of these dimensions. For example, some authors have argued that the meaning of the scholarship of teaching and learning remains elusive (Kern et al., 2015), making it challenging to operationalise this concept (Canning & Masika, 2020). Another critique comes from Angela Brew (2010), who has argued that scholarship manifests itself in the quality of academic work, such as meticulousness or rigour, rather than the type of work. In other words, scholarship is determined by how academic work is done rather than what type of academic work is done. Thus, an essentialist approach to scholarship—putting scholarship into neat boxes—may not adequately reflect how academics perform and conceptualise their work in practice (Brew, 2001).

These critiques are valid and have contributed to developing a more robust understanding of scholarship. However, they do not undermine the merit of Boyer’s proposal: to reframe the conversation about academic work to reflect its diversity (Boyer, 1990, 1996b; Rice, 2002). Boyer’s typology remains relevant in higher education debate not only because the topic of his proposal—scholarship—touches the heart of academia, but also because it allows for scholarly reinterpretation and creativity (Rice, 2002). As a heuristic device, these scholarship dimensions can serve as an analytical framework for exploring the perspectives of aspiring academics by providing general direction while not restricting the possibilities for discovering new concepts to think about academic work. In a university environment that has been described as changing and ‘supercomplex’ (Clement & Grant, 2010; Krause, 2020), Boyer’s typology allows for an ‘ecosystemic perspective on scholarship’ (Krause, 2020) to account for the increasing diversity of academic work. In addition, the loose articulation of these dimensions allows for interpretations and development, which is suitable for exploring the perspectives of aspiring academics in this study.

The study

Research approach and data collection

This research adopted a qualitative approach that allows for investigating the nuances in individuals’ lived experiences and meaning-making (Patton, 2002). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which provides the structure necessary to examine the analytical framework, Boyer's scholarship typology, while permitting opportunities to probe into emerging issues or insights during the interviews. Ethics approval from the author’s institution had been obtained before data collection took place.

The study recruited doctoral candidates who indicated an interest in pursuing academia after their graduation. Participants were recruited from four disciplines, representing soft-hard, pure-applied categories (Becher & Trowler, 2001), including physics (hard-pure), biomedical engineering (hard-applied), history (soft-pure), and economics and business (soft-applied). Participants were recruited first through PhD candidates’ emails published on the departments’ websites. Three rounds of recruitment emails were sent in July 2019, October 2019, and February 2020, respectively. The research was also advertised through student societies and departments’ notice boards. These recruitment strategies resulted in 32 participants, most of those were in the mid to late PhD stages, and some were already doing their postdoctoral research while still waiting for PhD examination results. A summary is provided in Table 1, details are provided in the Appendix. The interview questions revolved around participants’ doctoral experience, involvement in and understanding of academic work, values attached to this work, and career prospects. This paper only focuses on the academic work aspect of the findings.

Table 1 Research participants
Full size table

The research site was a comprehensive research-intensive university in Australia. The university was chosen because of its comprehensive breadth of the PhD programs, which allowed for recruiting participants from different disciplinary fields. As a member of the Group of Eight, this university was highly ranked internationally for its education and research. The institution offered PhD programs in a range of subjects, often in collaboration with industry and other sectors. The university also actively provided professional development activities to facilitate transferable skills for their graduate researchers. These characteristics might influence how participants view academic work, particularly in terms of research focus and engagement outlook. For example, the promotion of transferable skills through professional development activities might mean that graduate researchers are oriented towards work that is other than research and more industry- and public-focused.

Data analysis

With permission from participants, all interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data analysis approach was most closely aligned with analytic induction, a process moving between open coding (coding of the interviews from the ground up) and selective coding (looking for specific concepts and salient themes) (Given, 2008; Patton, 2002). Ideally, the intention was to document interesting insights emerging from the interviews that were not captured in the pre-existing analytical framework. In practice, there was a limited extent to which 'interesting insights' could emerge since the interview schedule was designed based on existing analytical concepts. Nevertheless, semi-structured interviews allowed participants to introduce their own interpretation of these analytical concepts.

Limitations

Even though the study touched upon issues of academic identity and doctoral experiences—and benefited greatly from this body of literature—its focus was not on research development or academic identity formation of early career researchers or doctoral candidates; the latter would have required a different research design (for example, see McAlpine & Amundsen, 2018). The analysis did not consider factors that could contribute to a fine-grained understanding of the participants’ perspectives, such as gender, type of study (part-time or full-time), student status (domestic or international, with a scholarship or without a scholarship), or personal preferences and attributes. Consideration of these factors would require a different research design, for example, a quantitative approach and consequently a larger size of research participants. This limitation points to a potential avenue for future research.

The findings from this study reflected the views of aspiring academics who had been trained in a research-focused environment. While the findings are not expected to be generalisable, they can provide initial starting points for other studies of larger sample sizes. Acquiring this snapshot of perspectives, captured at a particular stage of the participant’s current situation, can contribute to the ‘horizontal’ knowledge building—having a range of perspectives on the same issue—in the social sciences (Pratt et al., 2020). While the detailed analysis and descriptive findings are not expected to be replicated, a more abstract level analysis linked to existing literature can make theoretical contributions (Green et al., 2007).

Finally, data collection was finalised in late March 2020, just when the pandemic’s impact started deepening. The timing of this project means the findings reported in this paper reflected a pre-COVID-19 perspective that set a comparison point for future research.

Findings and discussions

The essence of academia

Participants in this study had different degrees of interest in pursuing academia. Some were committed to pursuing an academic job as their only option, others were more open to seeking a career outside academia. Despite these differences, there was a unifying thread in their accounts, which is underpinned by four interrelated themes.

First, most participants associated academia with learning and intellectual inquiry, using phrases such as ‘learning new things,’ ‘seeking answers for questions,’ ‘figuring out how the world works,’ ‘[doing] dope [excellent] research.’ For most participants, academia, or the university environment interchangeably, was a place where they could focus on deep and rigorous thinking on an idea, a theoretical or a practical problem. Second, most participants emphasised a sense of agency in this intellectual process. This sense of agency was often expressed in different terms such as ‘curiosity,’ ‘creativity,’ ‘inquisitive,’ ‘flexibility,’ and ‘freedom.’ Participants emphasised the importance of thoughts and actions being personally motivated rather than externally dictated.

The third theme was the view that academia allows for an unending process of intellectual inquiry whose outcome could be built upon. One participant talked about the ability to ‘keep chasing the questions’ (Physics 1); another referred to academic research as a ‘never-ending process’ (Biomedical Engineering 7). For some participants, the continuity of research distinguished research in industry that is externally dictated and targeted from research in academia that is curiosity-driven, allowing for the ‘why’ and ‘how’ to be pursued. The fourth theme referred to the view that the outcome of the intellectual inquiry would make contributions that are expected to be wide-ranging and long-lasting—whether it be to the pool of knowledge, the transformation of people’s lives, or the betterment of society.

These four themes constitute the essence of academia: a sense of personal agency in pursuing intellectual inquiry that allows a person to make a contribution that can be built upon. Establishing the essence of academia is important as it underpins what was considered academic work, as opposed to non-academic work, by aspiring academics in this study. The essence of academia is associated with the act of research, which lays the foundation for what will be argued to constitute three other domains of academic work based on a communication perspective, as will be discussed next.

Domains of academic work from a communication perspective

When aspiring academics were asked about the types of academic activities, their responses came from a combination of experience, observation, and imagination. Some had experience in academia as a casual tutor or a research assistant; some deliberately observed academic and professional staff; others simply ‘guessed’ or ‘imagined.’ The responses included a range of activities centred around research and teaching. Other activities were also mentioned, including industry engagement or collaboration, community engagement, community outreach, public engagement, public outreach, or policy engagement (see Appendix for a summary). In general, these activities fell into Boyer’s broad dimensions of scholarship.

However, explicit in some responses, and implicit in most, was a distinction between doing research and the meaningfulness of research; the latter is attached to the communication aspect of research. One participant insisted on this distinction: ‘Research is not meaningful if all it does is build up a folder of information; the meaningfulness comes from the writing or the teaching’ (History 8). Another participant was more critical, hypothetically asking: ‘What’s the point of discovering some really valuable knowledge if you can’t communicate it? Yeah, that makes it utterly useless’ (Economics and Business 4).

These comments reflect the importance of research communication widely acknowledged in the literature (Becher & Trowler, 2001). The communication aspect was also reflected in Boyer’s thinking and writing when he remarked, ‘[scholarship] only takes on life when it is shared’ (Boyer, 1996a, p. 132). Indeed, underlying Boyer’s scholarship typology is the distinction between doing research—scholarship of discovery and scholarship of integration—and sharing or communicating research outcomes—scholarship of teaching, scholarship of application and scholarship of engagement.

While all participants converged on the interest in research—the process of intellectual inquiry driven by personal agency—the majority of them did not see research as an end in itself. Even for those who valued intellectual inquiry without immediate contribution, such as those in physics, research must be communicated in some form. The interview data suggested three domains of academic work based on how research outcome is communicated.

The first domain was academic publishing, which refers to the publishing of research outcomes in academic written forms, often directed at an academic audience. The usual outlets included articles, books, or conference papers. For many participants, academic publishing was important for sharing research results to facilitate knowledge development. Implicit in this domain was the distinction between research and academic writing; the former aligns with the process of thinking and intellectual inquiry while the latter communicates the result of that inquiry in a written form.

The second domain was teaching, which primarily refers to teaching in the university classroom context. Some participants believed university teaching differed from teaching at other educational levels due to its dependence on state-of-the-art knowledge stemming from research. In addition, the communication skills required for teaching were considered different from the academic publishing domain. Some participants pointed to the differences by giving the example of an academic who could write but failed as an effective communicator in the classroom.

The third domain was engagement, which includes a range of activities directed at the broader public audience and stakeholders beyond the university walls. These activities reflect the application and engagement dimensions, emphasising the university’s commitment to society. Some examples of engagement included building partnerships with industry; outreach activities to share knowledge and attract younger generations to science; communicating to a larger public audience in layperson terms, whether via writing, public lectures, TV interviews or policy advising. The variety of activities reflects the different forms of engagement reported in the literature (see, for example, Doberneck et al., 2010).

Preferences for academic work domains

The previous section outlined three domains of academic work based on a communication perspective, in addition to research. However, individual preferences to be involved in these domains varied. Overall, participants’ preferences can be categorised into three groups (see Appendix for a summary). The first group, Academic publishing, includes participants who preferred to focus on research and academic publication, which they considered central in establishing and maintaining an academic career (Fig. 1). In contrast, teaching and engagement were considered peripheral, if not distracting, to building an academic career. Seven participants belonged to this group: two from biomedical engineering (2,5), three from economics and business (7, 8, 9), and two from physics (3, 6). No participant in history fit in this model, suggesting that a sole focus on academic publishing was not preferred or common in history. A response from one participant represents the view of this group:

So publishing means getting your knowledge verified by other experts.… So I believe, yes, getting your work published is the most important.… So whether or not teaching is important, yes, it’s not. (Economics and Business 8)

Fig. 1
figure 1

Academic publishing group (Model 1)

Full size image

The second group, Academic publishing and teaching, includes participants who preferred to focus on both academic publication and teaching domains that were considered mutually supportive (Fig. 2). The outer third layer is engagement which encompasses a group of activities considered an optional component in ensuring the meaningfulness of research or the social responsibility in exchange for the privilege of being an academic. The view of this group resonates with Kogan’s (2000) argument that academics start with the core tasks of ‘teaching, promoting learning and the creation and testing of knowledge’ before engaging with other groups ‘outside its walls’ (p. 208). Sixteen participants belonged to this group: three from biomedical engineering (3, 4, 6, 8), four from economics and business (1,5, 6, 10), four from history (2, 4, 6, 7) and four from physics (1, 2, 4, 5). One response from a history participant illustrates the view of this group:

I think research and teaching are the main things. They can be beneficial towards each other and can reinforce each other.… Personally, I think academics do have a social responsibility rather than just sitting there doing research for themselves.…You want to produce certain output that can benefit the wider society rather than just the intellectual community. (History 6)

Fig. 2
figure 2

Academic publishing and teaching group (Model 2)

Full size image

The third model, Academic publishing, teaching, and engagement, includes participants who preferred to be involved in all three domains alongside research (Fig. 3). They considered the third domain, engagement, an essential part of academic work. This view reflects the increasingly emphasised engagement area as the university’s third mission (Doberneck et al., 2010). Nine participants belonged to this group: two from biomedical engineering (1, 3), three from economics and business (2, 3, 4), four in history (2, 3, 5, 8). No participant in physics fit in this group indicating that doing engagement at the same time with academic publishing and research was not preferred or common in physics. One participant in economics and business who belonged to this group described their ideal work arrangements:

Workload wise for me, that would mean some research, so at least 50 percent research perhaps, then some teaching…and then some kind of direct industry engagement for me would be also part of my ideal mix. So like maybe 25 percent of working with companies, going into companies, talking to them about what problems they’re having.… So I would want to have some sort of balance between all three of those things. (Economics and Business 4)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Academic publishing, teaching, and engagement group (Model 3)

Full size image

Constraints on academic work in a future academic career

Participants’ responses indicated a distinction between an ideal vision, what work domains they personally preferred, and a reality, what they would actually end up doing. Most participants showed an understanding and expectations that their preferences would have to be matched with institutional demands, particularly at this stage of their career. For example, when asked about ideal work arrangements as an academic, one participant in economics and business immediately pointed to the compromises he would have to consider 'being in a low position of power early in my career, I have to take what’s out there based on the universities that are offering jobs and what their prerogatives are... that’s up to them' (Economics and Business 2). In addition, participants also mentioned that any academic role would typically involve non-academic tasks, some of which were considered unimportant or inessential. Among them are the ‘paperwork’ component and the management or administration of a research project or lab. One physics participant captured this sentiment by referring to ‘the annoying parts of research that no one really wants to talk about’ that ‘get brushed under the carpet a bit’ (Physics 2).

The non-academic tasks, however, could be divided into two categories. The first one included activities that were considered non-academic yet essential to keep the work running, such as grant writing. The second group of non-academic activities was considered inherent in any academic role yet unessential, such as bureaucratic procedures or committee work. Some participants thought that these activities do not contribute to the ‘real’ work and should be ‘got rid of’ to make give them more time to focus on research.

In addition, the mismatch between what was considered personally meaningful and what was rewarded or incentivised by the university was another concern. For example, one participant in history highlighted the mismatch between the institutional rhetoric of engagement and how it was recognised ‘I don’t think [engagement] is judged in the same way as a publication in a prestigious journal’ (History 2). The focus on academic publication, as a measure of career success, was indeed brought up frequently. However, what participants seemed to question was not an excessive focus on research but, rather, research without communicating or communicating through certain channels to limited audiences, often confined to academic circles. One participant raised her concern about the ‘publication race’ in which the research is ‘conducted for the sake of publications, not for the sake of actually production of new interesting knowledge that is relevant and that is useful’ (Economics and Business 3). Another participant likewise emphasised industry engagement to translate his work and preferred ‘a moderately successful career that I felt was actually impactful rather than a career that was just marked by publication success’ (Economics and Business 4). These remarks are telling because they suggested aspiring academics perceived institutional incentive and reward structures commonly found in contemporary universities as distorted. These structures could discourage the type of work that is meaningful to academics and society.

Conclusions

Situated against the backdrop of a changing academic profession, this paper examined academic work from the perspectives of academics and its implications for academic training and the future of the academic profession. Here, I highlight three implications based on the findings discussed above.

First, the different domains of academic work based on a communication perspective—academic publishing, teaching, and engagement—reflect the nuances in how academic work is undertaken and could be recognised accordingly, at least from the perspectives of aspiring academics. The research contributes to the scholarly effort in conceptualising the complexity of academic work (Boyer, 1990; Coates & Goedegebuure, 2012), particularly in integrating the domains of engagement (Doberneck et al., 2010; Renwick et al., 2020). Future research could build on this to investigate whether these academic work domains represent the views of a larger population of aspiring academics, especially those in different types of institutions.

Second, aspiring academics perceived academics work to involve more than research and publication. This understanding reflects the reality of academic work that is complex and evolving in Australia (Coates & Goedegebuure, 2012; Krause, 2020). This finding has important implications for the academic training system and policies in Australia if one of its aims is to equip doctoral candidates to work effectively in academia. Specifically, to prepare aspiring academics to become fully functional academics, perhaps options should be given to them to understand, explore and gain experience in other domains of academic work, such as teaching or engagement. This is easier said than done given the importance and weight of research in the current training model, for understandable reasons. Yet, without a systematic rethinking of the academic training model—training for an academic career—doctoral candidates in Australia could be disadvantaged in the international academic job market (Mantai & Marrone, 2023)—and eventually academic job performance—compared to their counterparts in countries where opportunities to engage in these domains are made open and accessible (see Shin et al., 2018).

Third, findings from this study also pointed to an engaged academic profession: a profession whose members have an interest in engaging with society beyond the university walls. But a concern raised among participants was whether this domain of work would be recognised by the institution, thus creating tension between what is considered personally meaningful and what is recognised in the institutional reward structure. An implication for the future academic profession is to understand engagement activities in academic work, what forms of engagement activities take place in different disciplines, and the possibility to account for them in the workload model and for evaluation and promotion. This suggestion is particularly relevant to the context of Australia, where engagement has become a focus on national and institutional policies in recent years (Barker, 2015). Building a stronger civic agenda will become an important mission for Australian higher education, as highlighted in the Australian Universities Accord Interim report that outlines a vision for the future of Australia’s higher education system (Australian Government, 2023). Indeed, if engagement has become a focus of academic work and an interest in engagement existed among doctoral candidates, a question that should be asked is how relevant engagement is to research training for doctoral candidates, especially those who would like to pursue academia.

The attractiveness of working in academia has been in question for some time (Coates et al., 2009; Fortune et al., 2023; Le, 2023). Findings from this study suggest that improving the academic profession’s attractiveness means designing an institutional structure that encourages and recognises diverse career aspirations based on different preferences for and values attached to academic work. This suggestion reflects the ‘creativity contract’ between a scholar and their institution, one that allows for each person’s strength to flourish and can be recognised appropriately (Boyer, 1990). Aspiring academics in this study demonstrated a strong drive for intellectual inquiry that could lead to positive contributions. But to harness their intellectual enthusiasm, creativity and commitment should be put into making academia a more attractive place to work. Building a healthy, sustainable academic profession is a critical and necessary step to achieving a high-quality Australian higher education system.