When perusing the University World News issue 0089, I came across an article titled “The Economic contribution of PhDs” by Bernard H. Casey (2009). It mounts a theoretical argument that hypothesizes how the production of PhDs may add broader economic value to a society. He enumerates 4 major outputs (paraphrased):
- earnings of PhD graduates
- economic performance of a society
- knowledge produced is a social good
- PhD skills contribute to organizations and society as a whole (p. 220)
The article’s abstract raises the issue of the value “to employers in particular and to society and the economy at large.” The abstract could lead one to the following misconceptions about the article:
- A phrase like “society and the economy”, using “and”, makes them seem separate and equal concepts — social benefit, and economic benefit.
- Talking about PhDs in general also makes it seem like PhDs, regardless of field of study, may contribute equally to the economy.
However, the title of this article, written by an author from an “institute for employment research,” hints at its continual emphasis on economic outputs–despite the occasional use of the word “social” as if it designated a separate category. It also argues for the higher value of PhDs in the technical fields.
The “social” benefits in this article seem to be completely dependent on their worth to the economy, and the field of study is also weighed according to its potential for economic benefit.
In the following analysis, Casey’s article is examined critically for the way that it enables or constrains public debate about the good of a Liberal Arts PhD education. The rhetorical analysis leads to the suggestion of several avenues of argument and research that could be productive for Liberal Arts studies advocates.
This article contains an argument, therefore, for Liberal Arts advocates to learn the following
- How can the article help us understand the usual arguments and presumptions of many of the public and internal audiences with whom we may engage in discourse?
- How can Casey’s arguments be refuted or critiqued or subverted? How can it be supplemented by what he omits from consideration?



