In recent years there have been discussions surrounding the under-preparedness of Ph.D. graduates of highly specialized doctoral programs, lacking interdisciplinary focus and professional skill development, to succeed in future complex work environments. To address these concerns, Golde and Walker suggest re-conceptualizing doctoral education such that Ph.D. holders are developed as "stewards'' of their disciplines. To provide initial insights into how engineering can be viewed through a stewardship lens, the authors conducted a content analysis of thirty-six curricula vitae of engineering Ph.D. holders who have been employed in one of four occupational sectors- (1) academia only, (2) industry only, (3) academia and then industry, or (4) industry and then academia. This effort seeks to operationalize their experiences into the three tenants of the stewardship framework-generation, conservation and transformation-and provide a new perspective for future discussions around the preparation and expectations of engineering Ph.D. holders. Industry participants reported higher generation and conservation than academia only participants; academia to industry participants reported higher instances of generation followed by conservation; industry to academia participants, on average, reported higher generation; and a new category, "other,'' was the lowest instance across all groups.