Competencies in higher education: identifying and selecting important competencies based on graduates & professionals in food technology

ABSTRACT

Students in higher engineering education should develop competencies to be prepared for their future professional careers. However, in the field of food technology it is not clear what set of competencies is most relevant. This paper created a comprehensive list of competencies for food technologists by combining both domain-specific and general literature (n = 4), and policy documents (n = 6). This list was used to establish the relative importance of its elements and map opportunities for optimal curricular improvement at Wageningen University. Data were collected via a survey and interviews with graduates and professionals. A comparison of the perceived importance of competencies versus the perceived opportunities for learning showed that analytical thinking, critical thinking, problem solving and decision making needed more attention in the study curriculum. The comprehensiveness of the list was assessed by pilot testing with respondents. The list and method show potential for other disciplines to identify and select important competencies.

KEYWORDS:

• Competencies
• higher education
• food technology
• graduates

1. Introduction

Technological innovations and societal changes bring new challenges for higher engineering education, as students must be prepared to deal with an increasingly complex world. To deal with this, students should acquire skills such as problem solving and critical thinking, since gaining disciplinary knowledge is not sufficient in our times (Gerstein and Friedman 2016; National Research Council 2011). The affective domain, involving feelings and motivation, is acknowledged as important as well, and together with knowledge and skills often clustered under the broader concept of competencies (Bartram 2005; Mulder 2014; Rieckmann 2012). Since the term competencies is more inclusive than the term skills and therefore more appropriate to describe complex domains such as problem solving and critical thinking, this paper will use the term ‘competencies’. The exact definition of competencies varies. Rieckmann (2012) defines competencies as ‘an interplay of knowledge, capacities and skills, motives and affective dispositions’, while Bartram (2005) defines competencies as ‘sets of behaviours that are instrumental in the delivery of desired results or outcomes’. Mulder (2014) summarises competencies as a cluster of knowledge, skills and attitude, a definition that we will adopt in this paper. Competencies help to deal with complex situations and can be applied in various contexts (Rieckmann 2012). Several studies explored teaching of competencies in higher education. Many challenges have been reported when fostering competency development, such as ineffective teaching pedagogy and difficulties in the assessment. Furthermore, it was concluded that a lack of consensus on the meaning of competencies makes it difficult to implement and develop them (Chan et al. 2017). Therefore, competencies should first be defined (Green, Hammer, and Star 2009).

1.1. Food technology at the Wageningen University

Since competencies are taught and explained differently across disciplines (Jones 2009), it is often advised to study competencies in a specific discipline. This paper therefore focuses on Food Technology at Wageningen University (WUR), an international and multidisciplinary university with a focus on active learning, personal development and creativity with study programs ranging from social sciences to engineering sciences. WUR aims to educate students to become ‘T-shaped’ professionals, with in-depth knowledge of a specific discipline and the ability to collaborate and integrate with other disciplines (WUR 2017). Food technology is a discipline in which students develop into graduates who can work on solutions for, among other things, food security and the sustainable production of food. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) acknowledges food technology as the discipline in which the technology of food is applied to select, preserve, process, and package food, whereas food science is seen as the discipline in which engineering, biological, and physical science are used to study foods. However, the terms food science and food technology are generally used interchangeably (Campbell-Platt 2009), and the study program Food Technology at WUR should be regarded as a combination of food science and food technology. The program starts with a three-year bachelor program, consisting of 2.5 years of compulsory courses – ranging from food engineering to food microbiology - in which students develop a sufficient background in the field of food science and technology. Most students continue with the two-year master program Food Technology, in which they choose their own specialisation and courses. Graduates pursue careers in many professions in both academia and industry – contexts that require potentially different types of and emphases on competencies. The program Food Technology is therefore an interesting case for studying competencies. Comparing the competency development in the curriculum of the program with the importance of competencies as perceived by graduates and professionals, can identify potential discrepancies between the curriculum of the study programs and the required workspace competencies.

1.2. Lists of competencies for food technology

It is not yet clear what a comprehensive set of food technology competencies entails, and what competencies are perceived as crucial and broadly agreed upon by different stakeholders in and outside academia. Inside the WUR, teachers have indicated that cognitive competencies, such as critical thinking and problem solving, are important. However, students are also educated to work outside academia and therefore it is important to take into account perspectives from industry and other stakeholders. The field of food science and technology employs different lists of desired learning outcomes, skills, and/or competencies. Although we use the term ‘competencies’ in this paper, in the following sections we use the terms that organisations and studies use to describe them, such as graduate attributes, skills, and learning outcomes, or refer to them in general as ‘terms’. For instance, the IFT has described standards and Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs) to approve undergraduate food science and food technology programs (IFT 2019; Santau, MacDonald, and Roberts 2020). The Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST) provides a list of key requirements for accreditation of programs as well (IFST 2021). However, these organisations focus on food-specific terms since these lists are mainly used for accreditation purposes, leaving generic cognitive and soft terms unaddressed. Furthermore, it is not clear how these lists are defined, and on what criteria they are based.

A number of scientific studies reported lists of competencies or skills and used these to investigate their importance in the field of food science or to develop a competency framework. Metcalfe, Fourie, and Myburgh (2020) developed a list with generic graduate attributes, personal attributes, and fundamental food science and technology knowledge, skills, and competencies. They used a survey with 176 participants to identify an extensive list of required graduate capabilities. Bohlscheid and Clark (2012) used the IFT list (IFT 2019) to compare graduate requirements and graduate abilities via a survey with 58 graduates and 27 employers. They concluded that graduates from Washington State University and University of Idaho were adequately prepared for their jobs. Flynn et al. (2013a) identified the ideal skills set via a survey with 109 participants across Europe, conducted workshops (Flynn et al. 2013b), and concluded that the desired skills differ per geographical region, level, and employment area. Weston et al. (2017) conducted 12 interviews with industry stakeholders, recent graduates, and a recruitment consultant to create a list of important competencies for food graduates, which was used to develop the competency framework Competencies for Food Graduate Careers (Weston et al. 2020).

Despite these existing studies on food technology competencies, a complete and clear list that is suitable to study the importance of food technology competencies does not exist yet. First of all, a list with competencies should distinguish between knowledge, skills, and attitude (Mulder 2014). However, some lists do not make this distinction; Flynn et al. (2013b) describe communicating, being adaptable, and product development at the same level. Second, cognitive competencies, such as critical thinking, are important for students to develop (Magno 2010) and should therefore be included in lists. Several lists focus on food-specific terms and/or ‘soft skills’, such as product development and being responsible, while leaving cognitive competencies unaddressed (Bohlscheid and Clark 2012; Flynn et al. 2013b). Metcalfe, Fourie, and Myburgh (2020) include cognitive terms, but since their list is extensive, it is not clear what the main competencies are for food technologists. Last, it is important that competencies for all graduate roles in food are taken into account, including academic roles. Weston et al. (2020) provided a list including cognitive competencies, but this explorative study did not involve any people working in academia because it aimed to identify key competencies for graduate roles in food industry. However, in our context, it is important to take academic competencies into account since the university aims to educate students to become academic professionals (WUR 2017). In all lists, it is not clear what these competencies encompass and to what extent students Food Technology are able to develop competencies during their studies, compared to the importance of these competencies as indicated by either employers, experts, alumni, or students and teachers.

1.3. Lists of competencies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Organisations and scientific studies in the comparable field of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) defined lists with skills, criteria, or competencies as well. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) provides criteria for accreditation (ABET 2021), while the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) approach provides lists of skills (Crawley et al. 2014). These lists are not suitable for food science and technology, since they include terms that are not important in this field, such as implementing knowledge on hardware manufacturing processes. Furthermore, competencies such as critical thinking are listed as ‘attitudes’, while these can be regarded as cognitive competencies. Craps et al. (2021) developed the Professional Roles Model for Future Engineers. However, this model focuses on the differences in essential competencies for three professional roles of engineers. Therefore, it emphasises the key competencies for each role and does not provide a complete list of competencies. Jang (2016) compared a database of required skills, knowledge, and work activities in STEM disciplines with frameworks of twenty-first-century skills. It was concluded that these frameworks lack important competencies such as problem-solving. These findings indicate that there is no existing list with important competencies in comparable fields which is suitable for the study program Food Technology at WUR.

1.4. Purpose of this study

To summarise, current lists of food technology competencies are not complete and clear enough for our study program. Furthermore, it is not clear whether competencies are lacking attention in the program of Food Technology at Wageningen University, according to different stakeholders. Therefore, the aim of this study is two-fold. First, existing lists are collected and evaluated, to draft a comprehensive list of competencies for a freshly graduated food technologist, including relevant descriptions and cognitive competencies. Second, competencies will be selected that should receive more attention in the curriculum, using surveys and conducting interviews with graduates and professionals in food technology. Both the list with competencies and the method to identify the most important and to be improved competencies will be discussed on their suitability to other study programs.

2. Methods

2.1. Research design and methodology

First, an extended list with competencies was drafted to be used to explore the importance of these competencies using an explanatory sequential design method (Creswell 2012). For this, a survey was designed and used to determine the importance of competencies for a food technologist. Last, interviews were conducted with participants of the survey to obtain further in-depth information on the competencies that we selected from the survey. An overview of all phases of the study is illustrated in Figure 1. This study met the ethical guidelines as described by the WUR.

Figure 1. Phases undertaken for the study to select competencies that should get more attention in the bachelor program Food Technology at Wageningen University.

2.2. Developing a preliminary list with competencies

Terms were collected from food technology organisations and educational studies that outline the competencies and individual needs for people working in the field of food science and technology (ASKFOOD 2020; Crawley et al. 2014; Flynn et al. 2013b; IFT 2019; Metcalfe, Fourie, and Myburgh 2020; Nextfood 2019; O*NET 2021; Weston et al. 2020). Since we aimed to improve the curriculum of Food Technology at Wageningen University, we included the Vision for Education of WUR (WUR 2017) and the Wageningen University & Research Strategic plan (WUR 2019).

In total, 473 terms from these studies and organisations were collected and listed. Many terms were more or less synonyms, such as ‘analyse problems’, ‘analysis’, ‘analytical thinking’, and ‘analytical reasoning’. Therefore, similar terms were fused into generalised competencies. Since we aimed to create a list with competencies as a cluster of knowledge, skills, and attitude, it was decided to only include competencies as a whole and exclude factual disciplinary knowledge and individual attitudes, such as ‘food production’ and ‘initiative’. The competencies were grouped into three types of categories, based on the clusters of the National Research Council (2011): cognitive competencies, interpersonal competencies and intrapersonal competencies. After discussion amongst authors, the list was improved by combining competencies, such as data analysis and researching, to make a more concise list and to avoid overlap. In the first draft, several competencies were clustered together in a category, while they showed large differences in complexity and context. Therefore, the cognitive competencies were split into other categories, inspired by de Jong and Ferguson-Hessler (1996), who describe the different types of knowledge and make a distinction between strategic knowledge and procedural knowledge. Strategic knowledge is defined as knowledge that ‘helps students organise their problem-solving process by directing which stages they should go through to reach a solution’, while procedural knowledge is defined as ‘actions or manipulations that are valid within a domain’. For example, in solving a complex mathematical problem, procedural knowledge focuses on the steps and actions of solving it. Strategic knowledge can be seen as a way of analysing and planning how to solve the problem, which is applicable to a wide range of problems within a domain. Therefore, we hypothesised that procedural knowledge can be taught step-by-step and is supported by strategic knowledge; the student can only be stimulated to develop strategic knowledge. We translated strategic knowledge into thinking competencies and divided procedural knowledge into cognitive competencies and academic competencies. This resulted in a (preliminary) list of 26 competencies (Table 1), divided over five categories. A description was given for each competency, using and combining descriptions of the existing lists that were mentioned before.

Table 1. Preliminary list of 26 competencies divided into five categories, to be used in the pilot study.

Thinking competencies	Cognitive competencies	Academic competencies	Interpersonal competencies	Intrapersonal competencies
Critical thinking Analytical thinking Conceptual thinking Design thinking Systems thinking Creative thinking	Decision making Logical reasoning Modelling Problem solving	Information literacy Digital literacy Researching Developing Designing Innovating Ethical reasoning	Oral communication Written communication Collaborating Relating Networking Negotiation and debating	Self-regulation Organising Developing professional identity

2.3. Developing the survey

The list with competencies was the basis for a survey, to find out to which extent students perceived that they had opportunities during their bachelor and master program for developing these competencies. Furthermore, we investigated the importance of these competencies and the extent to which freshly graduated students could apply these competencies. The survey was designed for three different groups: BSc graduates, MSc graduates, and Employers were invited to participate, as described in section 2.4. Based on a set of demographic questions, participants were categorised into a certain group and received a specific set of statements (Table 2). By giving different statements to different groups, outcomes could be compared to reveal differences between groups.

Table 2. Grouping of participants and statements posed to them.

Group	Statements
BSc graduates: Person that recently (0–2 years) graduated from the bachelor program Food Technology at WUR	Statement 1: There were opportunities within my bachelor programme to develop this competency
MSc graduates: Person that graduated from the master program Food Technology at WUR with 0-5 years of work experience	Statement 2: There were opportunities within my studies (Bachelor and Master) to develop this competency Statement 3: This competency is important in my current role.
Employers: Professionals in Food Technology with more than 5 years of work experience	Statement 4: Employees who graduated in Food Technology and just graduated (<1 year ago) are able to apply this competency Statement 5: This competency is important for students to develop during the study Food Technology

Participants were asked to respond to statements 1 and 2 using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) – rarely (2) – occasionally (3) – often (4) – very often (5). For statement 3, 4, and 5, a 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from strongly disagree (1) – somewhat disagree (2) – neither agree nor disagree (3) – somewhat agree (4) – strongly agree (5).

Moreover, BSc and MSc graduates were asked to indicate what opportunities they had experienced for developing these competencies during their studies. MSc graduates and Employers finalised the survey by selecting the five most important competencies that students should develop during the study Food Technology from the cognitive, academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal competencies. Open questions were included to give respondents the possibility for additional explanations or comments and to indicate if they missed competencies in the survey. A pilot survey with five participants from each group was done to assess the adequacy of the survey and the preliminary list with competencies, to improve the flow of the survey and the clarity of the competencies and descriptions.

2.4. Survey participants

The final survey was distributed through email to students and employees from the Food Science departments at Wageningen University and to network connections in industry to include all stakeholders. Furthermore, the survey was posted on several social media platforms. In all communication, participants were asked to forward the survey to their network. We used this snowballing method (Creswell 2012) to recruit a heterogeneous group and a large number of participants. We continued the process until we had more or less similar number of participants in each group. In total, 193 participants completed the final survey, of which 75 BSc graduates, 61 MSc graduates, and 57 Employers (Table 3).

Table 3. Demographical distribution of participants: BSc graduates: graduated from the bachelor Food Technology; MSc graduates: graduated from the master Food Technology and <5 year work experience; Employers: professionals in food science and technology and >5 years work experience.

		BSc graduates	MSc graduates	Employers
Total		75	61	57
Gender
	Female	47	41	30
	Male	28	20	27
Workplace
	Netherlands		47	42
	Europe other than Netherlands		7	10
	Asia		4	1
	Africa		1	1
	North America		2	1
	South America		0	2
Type of organisation
	Academia
	University		26	26
	Industry
	Large enterprise (>250 employees)		20	22
	Small and medium-sized enterprise (<250 employees)		11	4
	Other		3	3
	Research institute		1	2
Type of current job
	PhD student		18	3
	Product developer		15	5
	Researcher		7	8
	Researcher/teacher		1	16
	Process engineer		5	4
	Manager		0	8
	Other		15	13

The survey was completed by people working in different types and sizes of organisations, types of jobs, and countries. In Table 3, types of organisations and jobs that were mentioned twice or less times are combined into ‘Other’. Other types of organisations that were mentioned are consultancy, governmental organisations, or non-profit organisations. Other types of jobs that were mentioned are teacher, quality assurance specialist, food safety specialist, consultant, and project leader. The male-to-female ratio is realistic since it reflects the student population of Food Technology at WUR, of which about two-thirds is female and one-third is male (of the ± 130 bachelor students who start each year).

2.5. Data collection and analysis

The Likert scale was transformed into a five-point scale (1 = never/strongly disagree, 2 = rarely/somewhat disagree, 3 = occasionally/neither agree nor disagree, 4 = often/somewhat agree, 5 = very often/strongly agree). For each question, the mean and standard deviation was calculated. The Kruskall–Wallis test for nonparametric values was used to reveal statistically significant differences between the outcomes of different statements, using p < 0.05. If statistically significant, the post-hoc Dunn’s test was used to determine between which outcomes there was a statistically significant difference, using the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing with p < 0.05. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was conducted to measure internal consistency, using 0.7 or higher as acceptable (Cortina 1993).

Flynn et al. (2013a) indicated that the importance of skills varies with the employment area. The bachelor program Food Technology provides students with a strong background in all aspects of food technology and graduates can fulfil different roles. Therefore, to investigate whether people working in different types of organisations responded differently, statement 3 and 5 were divided into respondents working in academia and respondents working elsewhere, grouped into ‘industry’. In this way, it could be investigated whether different organisations prefer other competencies and if this survey could be used to distinguish between organisations. Participants working at research institutes were excluded from the results from statement 3 and 5, since this type of organisation resembles both academia and industry and thus we expected that their priorities would be in between these two.

The vote for the top five competencies was analysed by counting the times that a particular competency was mentioned. Open questions were used to explain the Likert scale and ranking question.

2.6. Criteria to select competencies

At first glance, many competencies seemed to be important for the program Food Technology, with only minor differences between competencies, while it was aimed to identify a limited number of competencies to give more attention in the study program. Therefore, we defined criteria to be able to select a small number of competencies (Figure 2). Competencies were regarded as important to receive more attention in the program when they could not be developed sufficiently yet by students (statement 1 significantly lower than statement 3 and/or 5) or when graduates could not apply them sufficiently (statement 4 significantly lower than statement 3 and/or 5). A competency was also regarded as important to give more attention when statement 4 was lower than 3.5. This cut-off was chosen to make a distinction between all competencies and reduce at least half of the competencies, since the outcomes of many competencies on this statement had similar scores. For that same reason, it was decided that a competency is important for a food technologist when statement 3 and/or 5 are higher than 4.5 on a 5-point scale. Furthermore, competencies were regarded as important when they were mentioned more than 5% of the times in the question where people indicated the top five most important competencies. Statement 2 was not included in these criteria since our aim was to select competencies for the bachelor. However, the statement was included in the survey to gain more insight into the differences between the bachelor and master.

Figure 2. Criteria to select competencies that should receive more attention in the program or are important for a food technologist. All statements from the survey use a 5 point scale. Statements are statistically significantly different when p < 0.05.

Competencies were identified as important and deserving more attention in the program, when at least four of the five criteria for ‘Important to give more attention in the program’ were met and at least one criterion of the three criteria ‘Important for a food technologist’ was met. These selected competencies were further discussed in interviews. In the example from Table 4, the outcomes of the statements per competency are compared; different competencies are not compared with each other. In this example, competency 1 would not be selected: statement 3 and 5 are both not significantly higher than statement 1, which can be seen in this table since all three statements are marked with the same letter, indicating no statistically significant difference. Therefore, less than four criteria are met for ‘Important to give more attention in the program’. Competency 2 would be selected, since statement 3 and 5 are significantly higher than both statements 1 and 4. Furthermore, statement 3 is higher than 4.5, which means that both criteria are met.

Table 4. Example results of survey. Statements are compared for each competency: different letters in a row indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

	Statement 1	Statement 2	Statement 3	Statement 4	Statement 5
Competency 1	4.0ab	3.9b	4.7a	3.8b	4.6a
Competency 2	3.4b	3.6b	4.6a	3.4b	4.3a

2.7. Interviews

To better understand and deepen the outcomes of the survey, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with MSc graduates and Employers who completed the survey and were willing to participate in a follow-up study. Participants were selected based on gender, type of organisation, and type of job to create a diverse group. In total 12 participants were interviewed; 6 MSc graduates and 6 Employers. Five of the participants work in academia at Wageningen University, whereas the other seven work elsewhere, well spread over the groups.

Through conducting interviews, we made a further selection of important competencies that deserve more attention in the program. In the interviews, questions were raised about the importance of the selected competencies, the ability of graduates to employ them at the start of their career, and the opportunities to develop these competencies in the study program and/or in their career. Interviewees were asked to give examples of situations in which competencies came forward, to gain more in-depth information. Furthermore, participants were asked whether students should develop this competency better than currently achieved and whether this development should occur in their studies or at the start of their career. Last, participants were asked to specify which competencies are most important for a food technologist, and which competencies are most important to develop better in their studies.

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Atlas.ti software. Topics as mentioned above were coded and categorised into positive or negative values (e.g. important to develop or not important to develop).

3. Results

In this study, a list of competencies that are important for a food technologist was developed, to explore if students in the program Food Technology at WUR are able to develop these competencies and to find out which competencies should receive more attention in the program. This section describes the results of the survey and the interviews.

3.1. Pilot study on survey and list of competencies

A pilot survey was sent to a group of 15 people, to evaluate and improve the flow of the survey. Based on the outcomes and remarks about unclarity and ambiguities of the competencies and its descriptions, the preliminary list of competencies (Table 1) was adapted. First, some competencies were combined because of their perceived overlap: conceptual thinking was merged with analytical thinking; creative thinking and design thinking were combined into designing. Second, modelling was changed into data science to make it more comprehensible and complete. Third, we removed developing and innovating because of their overlap with designing. Last, the descriptions of the competencies were adjusted to more concise and unambiguously interpretable sentences. For example, the description of critical thinking was changed from ‘Use reflective thinking, that focuses on deciding what to believe or do; have a critical attitude to interpret, analyse, evaluate, infer (reason), explain and self-regulate’ to ‘Use a critical attitude that focuses on deciding what to trust or to do’. All adjustments resulted in a final list of 22 competencies for food technologists (Table 5).

Table 5. Final list of 22 competencies for food technologists, distributed over five categories.

Category competencies	Competencies	Description
Thinking competencies	Analytical thinking	Break down a larger complex whole, step-by-step, into the parts of which it is composed.
	Creative thinking	Generate design concepts by looking at issues or problems in a new way; bring new perspectives.
	Critical thinking	Use a critical attitude that focuses on deciding what to trust or to do.
	Systems thinking	Predict systems behaviour by identifying and understanding dynamics, generated by the systems and its relations.
Cognitive competencies	Decision making	Make decisions and judgments; when facing uncertainties, make estimations.
	Logical reasoning	Verify and draw conclusions based on provided and interpreted information, and the associated rules and processes.
	Problem solving	Identify and formulate problems; review information to develop, implement and evaluate solutions.
Academic competencies	Information literacy	Select, understand, integrate and evaluate existing literature; refer and cite (information) sources.
	Digital literacy	Use general and food technology specific digital software; navigate and communicate safe through digital environments, while considering privacy and confidentiality.
	Data science	Process large amounts of (existing) data into comprehensible information: define the question, gather and analyse data; make and identify the model that answers the question.
	Researching	Define a research question, hypothesis and research plan; choose the appropriate methods for research; collect, process and analyse data; communicate the results.
	Designing	Design or innovate a product or process, based on an idea/problem; develop detailed description of design (plans, drawings), using a creative attitude.
	Ethical reasoning	Understand, deal and reflect on ethical aspects in the domain.
Interpersonal competencies	Oral communication	Present ideas and results to an audience on appropriate level.
	Written communication	Communicate ideas and results in writing to an audience on appropriate level.
	Collaborating	Collaborate with others; give and receive feedback; listen actively; convey information effectively; take different roles.
	Relating	Understand people from a different background, culture, discipline and stakeholders; empathise with others; operate in communities; be aware of diversity.
	Networking	Establish connections to exchange information.
	Negotiation and debating	Use arguments to negotiate and debate; take a stand.
Intrapersonal competencies	Self-regulation	Monitor, assess and improve own performance; set goals; reflect for personal development; manage time and work under pressure; provide personal leadership and responsibility; motivate him/herself; work independently.
	Organising	Organise and plan project, studies or meetings; provide leadership.
	Developing professional identity	Construct own identity by defining the values that are important; position yourself and take/justify a stand; working professionally in a work environment.

3.2. Outcomes statements survey: selecting competencies for interviews

By means of an online survey, the three groups of participants (BSc graduates, MSc graduates, and Employers) rated five different statements (Table 2) for each of the 22 competencies (Table 5). A significant difference was found in the mean (p < 0.001) between the five statements for all competencies (Table 6). Therefore the post-hoc Dunn test was done to reveal the significant difference between competencies with p < 0.05. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, to test the internal consistency of competencies, provided scores between 0.81 and 0.95, which indicates that the survey is reliable. Table 6 shows an overview of the data. Below the results are discussed via comparing the outcomes of statements, based on the criteria to select competencies as described before.

Table 6. Responses to the statements: (1) There were opportunities within my bachelor program to develop this competency; (2) There were opportunities within my studies (Bachelor and Master) to develop this competency; (3) This competency is important in my current role; (4) Employees who graduated in Food Technology and just graduated (<1 year ago) are able to apply this competency; (5) This competency is important to develop for students during the study Food Technology. Statements are compared for each competency: different letters in a row indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

	BSc graduates		MSc graduates						Employers
	Statement 1		Statement 2		Statement 3				Statement 4		Statement 5
	n = 75		n = 61		n = 26 (academia)		n = 34 (industry)		n = 50		n = 26 (academia)		n = 29 (industry)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Analytical thinking	4.03bc	0.73	4.11bc	0.66	4.84a	0.37	4.47ab	0.66	3.76c	0.92	4.54a	0.90	4.72a	0.59
Creative thinking	3.60b	0.90	3.43b	0.85	4.52a	0.77	4.32a	1.01	3.30b	0.97	4.23a	1.11	4.34a	0.67
Critical thinking	3.88b	0.94	3.89b	0.88	4.84a	0.47	4.50a	0.75	3.48b	1.03	4.58a	0.90	4.62a	0.56
Systems thinking	3.71b	0.85	3.39b	0.94	4.20a	0.87	4.12a	0.84	3.28b	0.93	4.04a	0.96	4.45a	0.57
Decision making	3.49cd	0.96	3.27d	0.88	4.50ab	0.51	4.66a	0.55	2.96d	1.19	4.08abc	0.91	3.81bcd	1.04
Logical reasoning	4.19bc	0.79	4.16bc	0.83	4.75a	0.61	4.62ab	0.49	3.76c	0.92	4.48ab	0.87	4.56ab	0.51
Problem solving	3.81b	0.80	3.70b	0.87	4.67a	0.56	4.72a	0.59	3.78b	0.96	4.44a	1.00	4.52a	0.70
Information literacy	3.78bc	1.06	4.27ab	0.79	4.65a	0.78	3.22c	1.22	3.96bc	0.82	4.24ab	0.88	4.04abc	0.98
Digital literacy	2.97b	1.11	2.92b	1.10	4.13a	0.69	3.48ab	1.28	3.57ab	0.89	3.88a	1.01	3.81a	0.92
Data science	2.86b	1.17	2.85b	1.18	3.96a	1.11	3.96a	1.16	2.98b	1.02	4.16a	0.99	4.04a	0.94
Researching	3.75c	0.84	4.10abc	0.93	4.43a	1.08	3.63bc	1.15	3.65bc	1.14	4.44a	0.96	4.37ab	0.69
Designing	3.52bcd	1.01	3.06d	1.00	3.22cd	0.95	4.33a	0.88	3.31cd	0.85	4.12ab	0.93	3.96abc	0.76
Ethical reasoning	2.77b	0.99	2.85b	1.02	3.48ab	1.12	3.07ab	1.11	3.30ab	1.00	3.96a	0.98	3.78a	0.85
Oral communication	3.67c	0.82	3.98bc	0.83	4.45ab	0.51	4.48ab	0.64	3.85bc	1.03	4.52a	1.00	4.70a	0.47
Written communication	3.83bc	0.94	4.23ab	0.76	4.82a	0.39	4.37ab	0.69	3.56c	0.92	4.40a	1.00	4.22abc	0.64
Collaborating	4.24ab	0.88	4.06b	0.87	4.45ab	0.67	4.78a	0.51	3.90b	1.06	4.36ab	0.99	4.48ab	0.70
Relating	2.79b	1.17	3.67a	1.06	4.23a	0.81	4.30a	0.82	3.69a	1.11	4.16a	0.99	4.26a	0.90
Networking	2.10b	0.95	2.65b	1.08	4.09a	0.75	4.37a	0.88	3.50a	1.05	4.00a	1.15	4.22a	0.64
Negotiation and debating	2.19d	1.01	2.44cd	1.11	3.68ab	0.99	4.07a	1.04	3.06bc	1.04	4.00a	1.00	4.00a	0.92
Self-regulation	4.03c	0.73	4.11bc	0.66	4.84a	0.37	4.47a	0.66	3.76bc	0.92	4.54ab	0.90	4.72a	0.59
Organising	3.60c	0.90	3.43c	0.85	4.52a	0.77	4.32a	1.01	3.30bc	0.97	4.23ab	1.11	4.34ab	0.67
Developing prof. identity	3.88b	0.94	3.89b	0.88	4.84a	0.47	4.50a	0.75	3.48b	1.03	4.58a	0.90	4.62a	0.56

3.2.1. Which competencies cannot be developed sufficiently yet by students?

Statement 1 – the extent to which students have opportunities to develop competencies in the bachelor program – was compared with statement 3 and 5 to explore which competencies could not be developed sufficiently by students yet during their studies. When comparing the outcome for statement 1 with people from both academia and industry for statement 3 – this competency is important in my current role –, 13 (out of 22) competencies were rated significantly higher for statement 3: creative thinking, critical thinking, systems thinking, decision making, problem solving, data science, oral communication, relating, networking, negotiation and debating, self-regulation, organising, and developing professional identity. This indicates that MSc graduates perceived these competencies as more important at the start of their career, than that BSc graduates recognised opportunities for development of these competencies during their bachelor program. Ethical reasoning and collaborating did not show any differences for both groups, which might be explained by the perceived low importance of ethical reasoning and the many opportunities to develop collaborating.

The extent to which students could develop competencies during their bachelor (statement 1) was significantly lower for most competencies when compared with the extent to which students need to develop this during their study program according to employers (statement 5), except for decision making, logical reasoning, information literacy, designing, and collaborating. These competencies did not show significant differences, which might be explained because of the many opportunities for development of logical reasoning and collaborating, or the low importance of decision making, information literacy, and designing. Both comparisons suggest that for most competencies, students reported to have fewer opportunities in their bachelor program to develop these competencies, than that MSc graduates and employers found them important.

3.2.2. Which competencies cannot be applied sufficiently yet by graduates?

Statement 4 – the extent to which graduates were able to apply competencies – was compared with statement 3 and 5 to explore which competencies could not be applied sufficiently by graduates yet. When comparing statement 3 and 4, for most competencies the extent to which competencies were considered important in a graduate’s role was perceived higher than the extent to which graduates are able to apply it. All thinking, cognitive, and intrapersonal competencies showed a significant difference.

In both academia and industry, the importance of development in the study program (statement 5) was significantly higher than the extent to which graduates were able to apply this competency (statement 4) for analytical thinking, creative thinking, critical thinking, systems thinking, logical reasoning, problem solving, data science, oral communication, negotiation and debating, and developing professional identity.

These comparisons suggest that graduates could not apply competencies to the same extent as they perceived them as important to develop during their study program or for a graduates role. Especially decision making (average of 2.96) and data science (average of 2.98) could not be applied sufficiently by graduates.

3.2.3. Do graduates and employers have the same idea of what important competencies are?

Overall, the outcomes of statements 3 and 5 were comparable, which indicates that the importance of a competency in a graduates role is equal to the extent to which students need to develop this during their study program. However, a significant difference was found between MSc graduates working in different types of organisations. MSc graduates who work in industry indicated that information literacy and researching are less important in their role than people who work in academia, while designing appeared to be more important in industry. Another interesting significant difference can be found in decision-making: MSc graduates found decision making important in their current role (average score of 4.66), while it was considered less important to develop during their studies according to employers (average score of 3.81).

3.2.4. Competencies selected for interviews

The criteria as described in the methods section were used to select competencies to discuss in interviews. In total, eight competencies were selected: analytical thinking, critical thinking, decision making, problem solving, data science, oral communication, written communication, and self-regulation (Figure 3). These results suggest that students should develop these competencies better during their study program.

Figure 3. Number of criteria met per competency for ‘Important to give more attention in the program’ (blue, out of 5 criteria) and for ‘Important for a food technologist’ (orange, out of 3 criteria). For criteria, see Figure 2. Competencies in bold are selected to discuss in interviews.

3.3. Outcomes from the interviews

The eight competencies that were selected from the survey were discussed in interviews to find supporting information for the results of the survey.

3.3.1. Definitions of competencies

We assessed the completeness of the descriptions of the competencies. Interviewees were asked to give definitions for the eight competencies and to give examples in which situations food technologists require them. Overall, the definitions of the interviewees covered our previously defined descriptions well. For example, when interviewees were asked to define analytical thinking, interviewees came up with ‘Analysing a problem by breaking it into pieces and looking to it from different perspectives’ or ‘Going through a problem step-by-step’. These definitions resembled our previously defined description well: ‘Break down a larger complex whole, step-by-step, into the parts of which it is composed’. However, interviewees did not mention all parts of the competency Data science. While our definition also includes ‘Make and identify a model that answers the question’, interviewees did not mention these aspects. This suggests that modelling might be a competency in itself. Furthermore, self-regulation was difficult to define: most interviewees were not familiar with this term and were not able to define this. The interviews gave a good overview in which situations the eight competencies are applied; after 12 interviews, no new elements of definitions and examples were brought up that were not already mentioned in former interviews.

3.3.2. Clusters of competencies

Competencies were discussed in clusters of the same type of competencies; analytical thinking and critical thinking were discussed simultaneously, as well as problem solving and decision making, and written and oral communication. Interviewees confirmed that these competencies were difficult to separate from each other and often clustered these competencies when answering questions. However, an interesting distinction was made by interviewees between analytical thinking and critical thinking: analytical thinking was considered to be mainly useful when designing or preparing a project or experiments, while critical thinking was considered to be applied mostly afterwards when evaluating.

3.3.3. Selecting competencies to give more attention to in the study program

To make a further selection of competencies, the interviewees were asked which competency they considered as most important for a food technologist and which competency should get more attention in the study program. The thinking competencies analytical thinking (seven times mentioned) and critical thinking (four times) were considered as essential for a food technologist and foundational for other competencies and were therefore regarded as extremely important, especially in jobs on academic level. Despite their importance, people reasoned that these competencies are difficult to teach since these competencies are part of a person’s personality. Therefore they were only mentioned three and two times respectively as most important to develop better.

Problem solving and decision making were frequently considered to be most important (two and three times mentioned respectively) and important to further develop (three and four times mentioned respectively) as well, since interviewees see opportunities for students to improve. However, interviewees argued that artificial situations in courses reflect decision making less than the opportunities that graduates encounter to develop decision making during the early phases of their career. These findings support the results of the survey, in which it was found that MSc graduates find decision making more important in their role than employers find it important that students develop decision making during their studies. Problem solving was regarded as very important, especially in industry where many problems occur and where problems need to be solved fast.

Data science was not valued as most important. However, MSc graduates reported that they did not have opportunities in their program to develop this competency, and they suggested that it would be useful to pay more attention to the study program. They argued that they could have benefited in their current role from a better development of data science, since a basic background of data science could help them in understanding the application of data and further development in this field. Interviewees with more work experience and/or working at larger food companies believed that not all food technologists need to be an expert in data science: large companies hire data scientists. However, they acknowledged that food technologists do not always recognise possible applications of large amounts of data.

Interviewees argued that in general graduates master the competencies oral and written communication, which means that these do not have to be improved. Furthermore, they indicated that in industry written communication is less important because of the focus of communication via presentations or emails, while academia focuses on scientific reports, which confirms the high difference in the survey between both types of organisations. Written communication was mentioned once as most important to develop better, but both oral and written communication were not considered as the most important competencies.

Two interviewees found self-regulation most important, since it is seen as a toolbox to maintain and develop yourself and therefore essential for everything in life. However, this competency was only mentioned once as important to develop better, because people doubt whether the university is the best time and place to teach this competency.

The aim of this study was to select competencies that should receive more attention in the curriculum. Analytical thinking, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making were regarded as most important for a food technologist, and most important to develop better in their studies. Therefore, these four competencies were selected as most important to give more attention to the study program.

4. Discussion

In this study, we created a list with competencies that are essential for a food technologist. We then selected the most important competencies that should get more attention in the study program Food Technology at WUR. Both the list and method to select competencies for improvement in the curriculum provide opportunities to be used in other disciplines.

4.1. Review of list with competencies

A list was created with 22 competencies that are essential for a food technologist, divided over five categories of competencies: thinking, cognitive, academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal competencies. Our hypothesis that the thinking competencies support the other competencies, was confirmed by the interviewees. They emphasised that these thinking competencies are essential when working on academic level, and thus are key in academic education. Furthermore, interviewees believed that self-regulation - an intrapersonal competency - is important as well for everything in life. Therefore, we suggest that both thinking competencies and intrapersonal competencies are foundational for other competencies, as well as for each other (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Overview of connections between the five categories of competencies.

The definitions of the competencies that the interviewees gave, corresponded with our own definitions, which indicates that our competencies and descriptions are suitable and recognisable for food technologists. Data science and self-regulation were an exception however. According to interviewees, data science includes more sub-competencies, whereas some participants could not come up with a definition of self-regulation. Therefore, further study may be required to verify and optimise the descriptions of all competencies, instead of the eight selected ones.

We conclude that the final list with competencies is complete according to participants of the survey. This indicates that the addition of specific competencies such as the cognitive competencies is appropriate and that the list is more complete than the existing lists that lack these competencies (ASKFOOD 2020; Crawley et al. 2014; Flynn et al. 2013b; IFT 2019; Metcalfe, Fourie, and Myburgh 2020; Nextfood 2019; O*NET 2021; Weston et al. 2020). Overall, to create a list of competencies, combining existing lists and clustering competencies into categories may lead to a more complete list. Using the categories as described above also ensures that all types of competencies are taken into account, including cognitive competencies, which are often not included.

Interviewees mentioned that this list is suitable for different professional roles of a food technologist, which indicates that this list is useful for studying competencies in food technology. Although this list has been developed for and tested with food technologists and it is advised to study competencies in a specific field (Jones 2009), this list could be used in other disciplines. We aimed to develop a list which is suitable for different career perspectives of food technology. Furthermore, no disciplinary specific knowledge was included. These two aspects make the list recognisable and applicable for other academic studies and disciplines, such as STEM or engineering study programs. Therefore, it can be seen as an addition to the existing frameworks, such as the Professional Roles Model for Future Engineers (Craps et al. 2021) or the Competencies for Food Graduates Careers framework (Weston et al. 2020). These frameworks differ from our list, since they linked competencies to professional roles, while our list aimed to be applicable for all roles, since students are broadly educated in the BSc to be prepared for all future careers. Moreover, the existing lists are more extensive, while we aimed to develop a short list to be able to select the most important competencies. However, even though the list of competencies and descriptions is complete for the field of Food Technology, it should always be verified first for other disciplines.

4.2. Review of methodology to identify most important competencies

We identified the most important competencies for a food technologist that should get more attention in the study curriculum, using a survey and conducting interviews. It is difficult to compare our findings with previous studies, since these did not always publish the exact degrees of level of importance, did not make a ranking on importance (Flynn et al. 2013b; Metcalfe, Fourie, and Myburgh 2020; Weston et al. 2020) or focused on food-specific skills and did not include cognitive competencies (Bohlscheid and Clark 2012; Flynn et al. 2013b).

We used surveys and conducted interviews with BSc graduates, MSc graduates, and employers to gain more insights between different stakeholders. Employers were asked how they perceived the capability of graduates after graduation. This was compared to the extent to which students currently can develop these competencies during their studies. We could then identify gaps between required competencies and the opportunities for development in the study program. Well-defined criteria were used to select the most important competencies out of a list of 22, while in other studies relative importance or selection of competencies was not considered. By involving several types of stakeholders, opinions from different perspectives were taken into account. This is important to ensure the relevance of the educational program to the professional activities of the graduates, as suggested by Jang (2016).

4.2.1. Limitations of the survey

Employers were asked to indicate whether graduates were able to apply the competencies, but reported that it was difficult to keep the average graduate in mind when answering the statements, since they often worked together with graduates with different personalities and specialisations of the study program. Furthermore, some BSc graduates and MSc graduates followed several study programs or performed extra-curricular activities, which they might have taken into account as opportunities for development of competencies (Seow and Pan 2014), which might have led to an overestimation of the opportunity to develop competencies in the study program. Additional questions could have been added about extra-curricular activities, to explore if and how these activities influenced their development of competencies. Furthermore, via studying the learning outcomes of the study program, it can be determined whether courses indeed provide opportunities for competency development.

The results of the survey showed a high variance, partly caused by a difference in the type of organisation. The explanatory sequential design (Creswell 2012), using a survey and continuing with conducting interviews to obtain qualitative insights about the results of the survey, was useful to clarify this high variance and differences between type of organisations. While the interviews gave more information on the differences in the cognitive, academic and interpersonal competencies, no reasons were mentioned for the thinking competencies and self-regulation. These competencies were considered to be essential and important for all types of organisations. Since the standard deviation ranged from 0.37 to 1.28, we assume that this spread was caused by unknown differences in the perspectives of the participants. Further research is therefore suggested, to identify other factors that could influence the importance, such as age, gender, region, size of organisation, and employment area. Flynn et al. (2013a) suggested that the importance of skills depends on the region where people work, so a possible factor of the high variance is the workplace of participants, as 25% of all survey participants work outside the Netherlands. However, many graduates start their career abroad, because of the international character of the study program, so this international perspective is very relevant.

Next to the high variance, BSc graduates indicated that they had more opportunities to develop competencies than graduates who also completed the MSc. This implies that BSc graduates might have overestimated themselves, which could be explained by the Dunning–Kruger effect, which states that lower performers are more unaware of deficiencies, compared to higher performers (Dunning 2011). This overestimation might also have been caused by BSc graduates who continued with the master and included their MSc experiences. Another possible explanation is that MSc graduates did not correctly remember the opportunities for development during their BSc program, since they started studying five to ten years ago (memory loss effect).

The results of statement 2, the opportunities of MSc graduates to have developed this competency during their studies, were not included in the criteria to select competencies since our main interest was to select competencies for the bachelor program. However, by including this statement we were able to check the alignment of development of competencies between the bachelor and master. Furthermore, including this statement allowed us to define extra criteria to be able to have a further distinction between competencies, in case a further distinction between competencies was needed. However, during exploration of the results of this study, it appeared that the outcomes of statement 1 and 2 were similar and that it was therefore not useful to include statement 2 in the criteria.

4.3. Implications and further research

The outcomes of this study can be used to improve the bachelor program Food Technology at Wageningen University, since competencies are identified which could receive more attention in the program. The next step would be to explore the presence of these competencies in the individual courses, and use that to compare the intended curriculum with the implemented and attained curriculum (van den Akker 2007).

4.3.1. Specify definitions of competencies

Insights from the interviews can be used to further specify competencies; participants were asked to define competencies and to explain in which situations they are addressed. This information can be translated into sub-competencies with a detailed description.

4.3.2. Improve curriculum of food technology

Very limited research has been done on teaching and assessment of competencies in food technology. When implementing teaching and assessment methods, it is important to take the concerns of the interviewed participants into account about focusing on competencies.

First of all, interviewees might have been worried that the academic level and nature of their program would be affected by a focus on competencies. They associated such a focus with vocational education (Sturing et al. 2011) and the so-called soft skills (Berdanier 2022). It is therefore important for the current purpose that competencies are addressed at an academic level, even though one could also use the survey to identify the most important competencies for graduates in (higher) vocational education. The main differences in importance between the university and other educational contexts can then be explored explicitly, to ensure sufficient focus on academic (level) competencies at the university.

Second, interviewees might be afraid that disciplinary knowledge gets underexposed when there is a focus on competencies. It is a fact that being challenged within the disciplinary domain is crucial for the development of the competencies, and therefore the disciplinary domain will always be essential. However, disciplinary knowledge alone is not sufficient anymore to succeed in organisations. Therefore, the focus of universities nowadays should be on teaching students to become resilient and flexible and should have attention to competencies that are important for a variety of professional careers (Gerstein and Friedman 2016). Disciplinary learning is an important context for this, while the disciplinary knowledge itself is also an important factor in the development of academic professionals. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate how competencies can be implemented in the context of food technology at an academic level, and be best integrated with teaching disciplinary knowledge.

5. Conclusion

In this study, we identified competencies of importance in food technology that should get more attention in education, namely analytical thinking, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making. The list and methods show potential for other study programs to identify competencies. The explanatory sequential design method (Creswell 2012), in which we first used a survey to obtain quantitative results and then conducted interviews with different stakeholders to obtain qualitative insights, proved to be a good approach to select four competencies out of a list of 22 competencies. Furthermore, the list with competencies shows potential to be used in other studies and disciplines. An important next step in this research is exploring the opportunities in the curriculum to teach the as important defined competencies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was conducted while the first author, the main researcher, was provided with funding from the Food Sciences & Technology chair groups at Wageningen University.

Notes on contributors

Melanie van Berkum

Melanie van Berkum works at the Food Process Engineering group as a teacher and doctoral student. The main focus of her work is to improve the bachelor Food Technology at Wageningen University by developing and implementing teaching and assessment methods for competencies.

Julia Diederen

Julia Diederen is a teacher in the Food Chemistry group and researcher in designing (digital) learning material.

Carla A.P. Buijsse

Carla Buijsse is a teacher in the Food Process Engineering group and works on educational innovation.

Remko M. Boom

Remko Boom is professor and chair of the Food Process Engineering group.

Perry J. den Brok

Perry den Brok is full professor in and chair of the Education and Learning Sciences group at Wageningen University and Research. He is also chair of the 4TU Centre for Engineering Education, a centre aimed at educational innovation and research at the four universities of technology in the Netherlands.