The Perceived Level of Importance of Competency Constructs for Future Graphic Design Graduates in Malaysia

Although a number of studies on identifying the competency constructs required by future graduates for working effectively in the professional practice of graphic design (GD) have been conducted, there is a lack of empirical evidence within the literature showing the ranking of importance of these constructs. Therefore, the study intends to determine the perceived level of importance among GD experts regarding the essential competency constructs for future GD graduates in the context of Malaysia. Survey questionnaire was used to collect data from 19 university-level design academics and 13 industry practitioners. Relative of Importance Index (RII) was used to analyse the data. The top 10 competency constructs in order of their ranked importance as perceived by the experts were: teamwork and leadership skills, project management skills, marketing fundamentals, self-efficacy, advertising design skills, reflective thinking skills, communication skills, industry knowledge, emotional intelligence, and design fundamentals. The results suggested that education of graphic designers must go beyond the conventional scope of technical training to prepare students for the evolving work of design practice.


Introduction
GD is a relatively young profession as compared to some other professions in the creative field such as architecture and fine arts (Short, 2011). GD was officially considered as a profession during the Industrial Revolution in the 18 th century when a line was drawn between fine art and commercial art (Hollis, 1994;Meggs & Purvis, 2012). The early GD education system was adapted from the vocational training ideology of the Bauhaus in early 20 th century. Students are trained to related, including: 2D software skills, teamwork skills, project planning and administration skills, creativity, and aesthetic skills, and detailing and production skills. AIGA (2015a), the oldest, largest, and most prestigious American professional design association in the world had been working closely with Adobe Inc. to predict the future of GD practice. The result uncovered a range of 13 desired competencies that will be required, in various combination, by graphic designers of the future to deal with the emerging trends in design. These competencies are: 1. Ability to create and develop visual response to communication problems, including understanding of hierarchy, typography, aesthetics, composition, and construction of meaningful images. 2. Ability to solve communication problems including identifying the problem, researching, analysis, solution generating, prototyping, user testing and outcome evaluation. 3. Broad understanding of issues related to the cognitive, social, cultural, technological, and economic contexts for design. 4. Ability to respond to audience contexts recognizing physical, cognitive, cultural, and social human factors that shape design decisions. 5. Understanding of and ability to utilize tools and technology. 6. Ability to be flexible, nimble, and dynamic in practice. 7. Management and communication skills necessary to function productively in large interdisciplinary teams and "flat" organizational structures. 8. Understanding of how systems behave and aspects that contribute to sustainable products, strategies, and practices. 9. Ability to construct verbal arguments for solutions that address diverse users / audiences; lifespan issues; and business / organizational operations. 10. Ability to work in a global environment with understanding of cultural preservation. 11. Ability to collaborate productively in large interdisciplinary teams. 12. Understanding of ethics in practice. 13. Understanding of nested items including cause and effect; ability to develop project evaluation criteria that account for audience and context. According to AIGA (2015a), these competencies should be considered by higher educational institutions (HEIs) when developing and delivering GD curricula to empower the graduates to meet the demands of the future.
This body of literature, in short, suggests that future GD graduates are expected to be multiskilled to begin their professional careers in modern society (Adu, 2015). However, of so many skills, knowledge, and traits that have been previously identified, which should be focused more on the education to best prepare the students for future practice? This question is tricky, and it always serves as a topic of debate among design academics and industry practitioners (Dziobczenski & Person, 2017). This is the case because, as highlighted by Cheung (2012), that "The purpose of academia is to train up students to become professionals, whereas the design company's purpose is to provide design solutions for profit maximization" (p. 9). As a result, the perceived level of importance of certain competencies is different in between design academics and industry practitioners. Nevertheless, up to the best notice of the researchers of this study, there is a lack of empirical evidence showing the ranking of importance of the competencies required by future GD graduates, specifically in the context of Malaysia. Therefore, the study aims to fill this gap within the literature. Accordingly, the research questions addressed by the study were: 1. What is the ranking of importance of the constructs as perceived by design academics and industry practitioners in Malaysia? 2. Do design academics' perceptions differ from the industry practitioners' perceptions of the competency constructs?

Methodology Sample
This study utilized purposive snowball sampling technique to collect data from various fields of GD academics and industry practitioners in Malaysia. In total, 39 experts were identified to answer the questionnaire comprising competency constructs and their respective items required by GD graduates for effective work performance in the future. The participating experts were asked to rank each item from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Of the distributed questionnaires, 32 were returned, representing 82.1% of response rate.

Instrumentation
A new questionnaire was developed the researchers to answer the research questions addressed by the study. The questionnaire consisted of both demographic information and survey instrument. Aside from demographic data of the respondents (current position, area of specialization, years of experience, age, gender, and academic qualification), the questionnaire comprised 134 items seeking information on 33 competency constructs. These constructs were grouped further in five competence components, i.e., cognitive competence, functional competence, personal competence, ethical competence, and meta-competencies, as proposed by Chivers (1996, 1998). The constructs and items were identified through extensive reading on the related literature within the past 10 years and consultation with prominent experts in the field.
The questionnaire was reviewed by two experts prior to distribution. They were recruited based on their knowledge and experience in GD education and industry. The survey instrument was examined for ease of use and clarity, and to ensure that the items were relevant for data collection and analysis, free of construction problems, logically arranged and grouped, and grammatically correct.

Data Analysis
Relative importance index (RII) was used to analyse the collected data to determine the ranking of importance of the competency constructs. The RII is calculated using the equation (Somiah et al., 2015;Muhwezi et al., 2014): Where: W = weight given to each item by the respondents and ranges from 1 to 5; A = the highest weight; and N = the total number of respondents.
The group index was calculated by taking the average of constructs in each group. Mann-Whitney U Test was performed to examine if there is a significant difference between the perceptions of design academics and industry practitioners on the level of importance of the constructs. The data was analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.

Demographic Information
The results of the descriptive analysis of the design academics suggested that (n=13, 68.4%) of them were working at the private HEIs, while (n=6, 31.6%) were working at the public HEIs. The majority of them were teaching visual communication design (n=12, 63.2%). This was followed by digital and interactive design (n=5, 26.3%) and advertising design (n=2, 10.5%). (n=13, 68.7%) of the participants were having more than 10 years of teaching experience in relevant programmes in the field of education, and most of them were master's degree holders (n=10, 52.6%). (n=13, 68.4%) of the participants were males, while (n=6, 31.6%) were females. Details are depicted in Table 2. The results of the descriptive analysis of industry practitioners indicated that majority of them (n=6, 46.2%) were currently working at GD studio. The participants specialize in a wide variety of different areas in GD, ranging from advertising design (n=1, 7.7%), brand identity design and consultancy (n=4, 30.8%), graphic communication design (n=3, 23.1%), illustration (n=1, 7.7%), digital and interactive design (n=2, 15.3%), to motion graphics or videography (n=1, 7.7%) and environmental GD (n=1, 7.7%). (n=10, 69.2%) of them were creative, art or design directors. (n=3, 23.1%) of the participants had more than 20 years of practical working experience. Table 3 illustrates the details.

Ranking of Importance of Competency Constructs
RII was used to analyse the collected data from the experts to determine the degree of importance of the constructs. The RII for all the items was calculated. The overall index was calculated by taking the average of constructs in each key component. The details are tabulated in Table 4. Based on the findings, marketing fundamentals (RII=0.877) was found to be the most important construct for cognitive competence component. It was followed by industry knowledge (RII=0.853), design fundamentals (RII=0.840), and contextual awareness (RII=0.835). Business fundamentals (RII=0.777), multidisciplinary knowledge (RII=0.740), and art and design history (RII=0.540) were in the last three places of ranking.

Differences between Design Academics and Practitioners on the Level of Importance of the Constructs
Mann-Whitney U Test was employed to compare differences between design academics and practitioners on the level of importance of all investigated constructs. With reference to Table 5, the greatest difference of mean rank between academics and practitioners was professional expertise (8.42). This was followed by conceptual design skills (7.65), marketing fundamentals (7.32), contextual awareness (6.28), and graphic print production skills (6.03). Overall, the average of mean rank for design academics was 19.74, while for practitioners was 11.77, which showed a difference of 7.97. Table 5 displays the mean rank and sum of ranks of each construct for these two groups. With reference to Table 6, the obtained significance values of contextual awareness (.039), marketing fundamentals (.015), conceptual design skills (.017), and professional expertise (.009) were less than .05. Such findings indicated that academics and practitioners differed in their perceptions on the level of importance in these four constructs. Finally, the overall significance value obtained was .018. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between design academics and practitioners on the perceived level of importance of the constructs measured in this study.

Discussion
The top 10 competency constructs in order of their ranked importance as perceived by the design academics and industry practitioners involved in the study were: teamwork and leadership skills, project management skills, marketing fundamentals, self-efficacy, advertising design skills, reflective thinking skills, communication skills, industry knowledge, emotional intelligence, and design fundamentals. In addition, based on the findings, meta-competencies appeared to be the most important competence component and followed by personal competence component. Metacompetencies refer to those generic and overarching 'soft-qualities' that are able to support the acquisition and development of other competencies (Brown, 1993;Cheetham & Chivers, 1996, 1998, while personal competence covers those social behaviours, desires, psychological impulses or emotions displayed by individuals in work-related situations (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). These findings suggested that while 'fundamental' design skills and knowledge for form-making will still be relevant in the future, they have become relatively less important in the employment market as compared to some generic skills and personal traits. To develop and possess these traits and generic skills will favor university graduates in their job seeking process as they are prioritized by a collective of prominent experts in the field of GD. The study believes that GD graduates will experience a more autonomous career if they are properly trained and prepared for these competencies.
Furthermore, the findings also indicated that the role of designers is changing as a result of the changing context for practice. Instead of focusing on 'making beautiful things', GD will be assumed to play a more 'managerial' and 'strategic' role in areas such as business strategy, innovation management, and service design in the future job market (Davis, 2005). This could be the reason why teamwork and leadership skills, project management skills, self-efficacy, reflective thinking skills, communication skills, and emotional intelligence were ranked in the top 10 most important competency constructs for future GD graduates to obtain. Similar findings and insights could also be found in previous studies in Ghana (e.g., Adu, 2015), Finland (e.g., Dziobczenski et al., 2018), and United Kingdom (e.g., Dziobczenski & Person, 2017)  are becoming more complex, and therefore the students need to be inculcated with additional skills and abilities to gain a competitive edge after graduation. It is believed that with these additional skills and abilities, the graduates are able to draw on experience and knowledge from a wide range of disciplines in the process of design, anticipate the problems at various scales, propose sustainable and ethically sound solutions, identify effective means to reach the targeted audiences, and create information that can stimulate and sustain people's attention (AIGA, 2015b).
The findings also revealed that of the 33 constructs measured in the study, the bottom five lowest rankings were software skills, research skills, user-centred design skills, data visualization skills, and art and design history. To some extent, it is no surprise that art and design history was ranked the lowest because, as what had been argued by Heller (2005), that the value of art and design history knowledge has long been underappreciated in modern GD education and practice, and it is always overshadowed by other practical competencies. However, according to several studies and literature (e.g., AIGA, 2015aAIGA, , 2017Davis & Littlejohn, 2017;Dziobczenski et al., 2018;Muratovski, 2016;Walker, 2017), research skills, user-centred design skills, data visualization skills are considered as highly important for designers to deal effectively with emerging trends in design, but in the current study, they were ranked at the bottom of the lists by the experts. Furthermore, previous studies in the United Kingdom (e.g., Dziobczenski & Person, 2017) and Brazil (e.g., Dziobczenski & Galeotti, 2017) suggested that software skills was one of the most highly demanded skills by design academics and practitioners. In other words, a small part of the results of this study was inconsistent with the findings of some studies from different regions.
Overall, the results also revealed that there was a significant difference between design academics and industry practitioners on the perceived level of importance for the constructs measured in this study. The major difference showed in the results was the discrepancy in marketing fundamentals, contextual awareness, conceptual design skills, and professional expertise. Nevertheless, these constructs were ranked at third (3), fourteenth (14), nineteenth (19), and twentieth-second (22) place respectively, which were considered relatively higher than some other constructs in the lists.

Implications of the Study
Both theoretical and practical implications could be drawn based on the findings of the study. Theoretically, the results of this study have contributed valuable empirical insights into the literature in GD field. They can serve as a springboard for studies on future design education and practice in the context of Malaysia. Practically, the findings are useful for various local stakeholders. GD programme providers are encouraged to reexamine their programme and curriculum structures with reference to the findings to enhance the employability of their graduates. Design academics are encouraged to extend the scope of teaching. Apart from technical design skills, they need to shape their students more holistically from various perspectives to prepare them for additional competencies. However, this requires further study on how those required competencies can be effectively transferred to the students. Therefore, regulatory bodies such as the Malaysian Qualifications Agency, Malaysia Design Council, and Graphic Design Association in Malaysia are encouraged to introduce enrichment workshops for design academics so that they are better enabled to inculcate required competencies across their educational practices. Besides, students are encouraged to take the initiative to discuss with lecturers to work out a mutually agreeable strategy to further strengthen their level of competency in a holistic and integrated manner. To promote lifelong learning, students can take the initiative to update themselves with the latest knowledge to accommodate changes in the world. Certainly, these require facilitation from lecturers. Finally, with reference to the findings, industry practitioners are encouraged to share the responsibilities to facilitate the learning of fresh graduates. This is particular important, as pointed out by Cheung (2012), that "the real problem only occurs when graduates are unable to learn because the workplace does not offer a safe [encouraging] environment for learning or the graduates are not expected to learn in certain working condition" (p. 5).

Limitations and Recommendations
There are several limitations of this study need to be addressed in future research. First, the number of respondents was small. Only 32 GD experts in Malaysia were involved in the study. Further studies with a larger number of respondents could be conducted to provide a better picture on the perceived level of importance of competency constructs for future GD graduates in Malaysia. Second, the questionnaire used in the current study was developed based on extensive literature review and consultation with prominent experts, rather than using a validated survey instrument. Therefore, future studies could validate the factor structure and psychometric properties of the competency scales.

Conclusion
Eraut (1994) noted that "the first two or three years after qualifying are probably the most influential in developing the particular personalized pattern of practice of every professional acquires" (p.11). However, the key challenge in these few years involves "different types of discourse and epistemologies" (Eraut, 2007, p.116). This means that education and industry practice value different types knowledge and skills: while the former focuses more on theoretical frameworks, publication, and research-based materials, the latter prioritizes mainly on the ability to make appropriate decisions to achieve desired outcomes with the limited budget given (Cheung, 2012). As a result, university graduates suffer from a 'learning gap' when they enter the job market (Boshuizen, 2003). This phenomenon also happens in GD discipline (Cheung, 2016;Debbie, 2011;McCoy, 1997). To close this gap, it is important for design academics and practitioners to come to an agreement in terms of what should be prioritized in the education to best prepared the graduates for future practice. Although the findings reached to a conclusion that overall there was a significant difference between two parties on the perceived level of importance for the competency constructs investigated in this study, it is critical for both parties to keep their doors open for communication to ensure the fit between graduate labour market supply and demand.
The findings also indicated that there is a shift of focus with regards to the competencies required by GD graduates in the future employment market. Of the top 10 most important competency constructs as perceived by design academics and practitioners who involved in the study, only advertising design skills and design fundamentals belong to the typical scope of GD training or practice. In other words, non-design related, generic, and personal skills are highly valued by the experts. On the other hand, there is a need for an in-depth qualitative investigation to find out how academics and practitioners in Malaysia perceive the usefulness of research skills, data visualization skills, user-centred design skills, and art and design history in future design practice.
As a conclusion, the study suggests that the providers of GD programme, the authorities who prepare the curriculum, persons who implement the curriculum, individuals who work as graphic designers, and employers who hire graphic designers in Malaysia to work together to close the 'learning gap' of GD graduates. Efforts from various stakeholders are needed to ensure that the university students will graduate with the most needed skills and abilities to face the ever-changing world.