Education for Employability (Volume 2) : Learning for Future Possibilities [1 ed.] 9789004418707, 9789004418691

Citation preview

Education for Employability (Volume 2)

Practice Futures VOLUME 4 Series Editor Joy Higgs (Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia) Advisory Editorial Board Steven Cork (Australian National University, Australia) Geoffrey Crisp (University of Canberra, Australia) Debbie Horsfall (Western Sydney University, Australia) Will Letts (Charles Sturt University, Australia)

Scope The way people act and work – and are enhanced or replaced by technology – in employment and practice settings in the future, will inevitably evolve incrementally or radically. This series considers probable, possible and preferable practice futures and employability, along with accompanying educational influences and support. Wisdom is a key dimension of our discussions of practice and education. The books in this series examine directions that are currently underway, future visioned and at the edge of imagination in transforming practices. The authors reflect on how these transformations are being or could be influenced by many factors including changes in society, nations and global connections, in the physical environment, workplaces (physical and virtual) and in the socio-economic-political contexts of the world and its nations. The authors in this series bring a rich range of practical and academic knowledge and experience to examine these issues. Through the conversations in these books readers can enter into these debates from multiple perspectives – work, organisations, education, professional practice, employability, society, globalisation, humanity, spirituality and the environment.

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/pfp

Education for Employability (Volume 2) Learning for Future Possibilities Edited by

Joy Higgs, Will Letts, and Geoffrey Crisp

අൾංൽൾඇ_ൻඈඌඍඈඇ

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

ISSN 2665-9263 ISBN 978-90-04-41868-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-90-04-41869-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-41870-7 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

Part 1: The Future and Employability 1.

The Employability Agenda Geoffrey Crisp, Joy Higgs and Will Letts

3

2.

Practice Futures Joy Higgs

13

3.

University Employability Agendas, Targets and Strategies Will Letts

21

4.

Digital Literacy Meets Industry 4.0 Jo Coldwell-Neilson and Trudi Cooper

37

5.

Addressing Key Concerns in Graduate Employability: Changing our Expectations of Universities Noel Edge, Edmond Fitzgerald and Lesley Willcoxson

51

Part 2: Education Directions 6.

Developing Personal and Population Employability: Understand, Pursue and Manage James Cloutman and Joy Higgs

7.

Pursuing Employability: A Journey More Than a Destination Will Letts

8.

Going beyond “Getting a Job”: Graduates’ Narratives and Lived Experiences of Employability and Their Career Development Ruth Bridgstock, Michelle Grant-Iramu, Christine Bilsland, Matalena Tofa, Kate Lloyd and Denise Jackson

9.

Marketing Graduate Employability: The Language of Employability in Higher Education Dawn Bennett, Elizabeth Knight, Aysha Divan and Kenton Bell

67 81

89

105

10. Taking a Whole of University Approach to Employability Shirley Alexander, Julieanne Cutrupi and Brett Smout

117

11. Building Student Employability from Day One Leoni Russell and Judie Kay

133

v

CONTENTS

12. Reimagining University Curriculum for a Disrupted Future of Work: Partnership Pedagogy Simon Barrie and Jenny Pizzica

143

Part 3: Teaching and Learning Employability 13. Pursuing Employability through Generalist and Specialist Degree Programs: Australian Perspectives Deanne Gannaway and Karen Sheppard

155

14. The Place of Student Assessment in Pursuing Employability David Boud and Rola Ajjawi

167

15. Career Services: Roles beyond Job Seeking Mark Young

179

16. Edupunks and Universities: Employability Engagement Possibilities Joy Higgs

189

17. Understanding Employability in the Creative Industries Noel Maloney

203

18. Learning to be Employable: The UNSW Hero Program Anatoli Kovalev

215

19. Learning for Employability in the Workplace: Developing Graduate Work Capabilities Lina Markauskaite and Narelle Patton

227

20. Teaching Resilience and Self-management Skills: Fostering Student Psychological Wellbeing for Future Employability Rachael Field

237

Part 4: Reflections 21. Reimagining Careers, Contributions and Professional Development in Later Life Nita Cherry, Janet Gregory, Alison Herron and Helen McKernan

249

22. Where to Next with the Employability Agenda? Geoffrey Crisp, Joy Higgs and Will Letts

263

Notes on Contributors

273

vi

PREFACE

The Employability Agenda is a core driving force for tertiary education and will remain so for as long as higher and vocational education are seen to be avenues for shaping the transition of post-secondary and mature learners to work and further learning. There are several key points to consider here. First, the term tertiary education means post-secondary and includes both university or higher education and vocational education conducted through private and technical post-secondary educational institutions. Second, the split between university (higher) education and vocational education has blurred considerably over recent decades with the latter offering more degree programs and the former marketing much of their education to students (school leavers and mature age) seeking employment. With the massification of higher education students today are pursuing university studies for the sake of learning and a very high percentage are enrolling in tertiary studies for the sake of employment whether this is initial or future employment or whether the studies relate to an occupation or the acquisition and development of collections of skills and knowledge development in the form of co-curricular and self-advancement or employability-enhancement learning. So, we all need to take this little word work seriously. It includes: doing the work of a professional practitioner, a researcher, a skilled tradesperson, a disciplinary scholar/professional (e.g. historian), an entrepreneur or other type of businessperson, a person inventing a new job in the rapidly evolving gig economy and people who are inventing jobs to create the life occupations that people need to fill their time since more of our work is being done by computers and jobs have disappeared. More and more we find that work is about making work or making entertainment or streamlining work. Work deals a lot with making and re-making work. So – another so – tertiary education (and for that matter secondary and primary education plus education for the third age and re-employment training) all need to have a different mindset about education in relation to the purpose of education. It needs to help people to change their mindset and understand more about the seismic changes occurring in work so that learning – how we learn as well as what we learn about and what we learn to do – including learning new ways of learning – all need to change. And, very certainly it is not just the remit of the education sector to take responsibility for the Employability Agenda or to charge ahead with it like another shiny and gimmicky new bandwagon. Industry and the professions can’t sit back and bemoan the lack of appropriate preparation of graduates for their new work arena. We must ask, are industry partners constructively contributing to curricular and university strategic agendas and workplace learning? Are they working with tertiary education to blend pre-entry education and workplace development or just resisting and rejecting the former? Are the educational institutions moving past their traditions of work integrated learning to collaborate with industry on new avenues? What about the workers – their biggest recognition needs to be that they are the only ones who are with them throughout their whole working career – it is they alone who can take

vii

PREFACE

the ultimate responsibility for their employability in each new job situation, in creating a multi-occupation career that is rewarding to self and beneficial to their employers and other stakeholders (e.g. clients, colleagues, mentees). Employability is a work–lifelong endeavour pursuing understandings, capabilities, dispositions, new visions, understanding of context and stakeholders’ needs and interests – and recognising that all of this is occurring in a rapidly changing world. Such shifts in context include many scenarios created by four overwhelmingly rapid changes: first, escalating globalisation (with increasing consequences of changing political and economic impact agendas); second, barely understandable or imaginable consequences of the rate of change of digital technology on how people live, work and interact; third, the massively – and generally not for the better – changes occurring to our world (particularly climate change); and finally, how people are responding to the first three – the crusaders, exploiters, ignorant disregarders and disempowered. These four mega changes are the context for employability’s enactment and they influence many other things that employability as an agenda and way forward need to deal with, such as: the impact on work, workforce capacities and consequences of work (e.g. national budgets) of such things as aging populations, gross changes to the professions and their role in serving society, rapid automation of many occupations and loss of work in these arenas, invention of new occupations (particularly in the digital arena and sharing/gig economies) and constant invention of jobs we did not even imagine “yesterday”. Employability is not a simple thing – does this worker have the checklist abilities and qualifications (maybe not even these any more) for this job? Rather it is a re-imagining and reformulating of work from its biggest picture to its everyday successful and rewarding practices to its future imaginings and contributions to the improvement of our lives. Joy Higgs, Will Letts and Geoffrey Crisp

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors wish to acknowledge the excellent support received by Kim Woodland in book management and copy editing. We appreciate the support of Graduate Careers Australia whose sponsorship assisted in the production of the book, and the Australian Learning and Teaching Fellows Network for their funding support of dissemination of research findings and publications.

ix

PART 1 THE FUTURE AND EMPLOYABILITY

GEOFFREY CRISP, JOY HIGGS AND WILL LETTS

1. THE EMPLOYABILITY AGENDA

Most universities have chosen to embrace employability as a central part of their mission in the light of government, community and industry demands that higher education should be more closely aligned with the national agendas for economic growth and social cohesion (Andrewartha & Harvey, 2017). Although the definition of employability may not be consistent, it is often framed around the ability of an individual to build capacity and capabilities to seek and retain useful employment and prosper in the work environment (Yorke, 2006). This capacity and capability development usually focuses on what employers say they are seeking in graduates, although more recent interpretations of employability include behavioural characteristics such as adaptability, innovation, self-reflection and disposition to maintain sustained employment (Bennett, Richardson & MacKinnon, 2016). What is interesting is that employment rates can be measured relatively easily but there is no definitive way to measure employability. In our previous book (Higgs, Crisp, & Letts, 2019) on this topic many authors reviewed and critiqued strategies that universities have implemented to promote students’ (and thus graduates’) ability to develop and sustain their own employability across changing employment market places. In the past, employability was more closely aligned with stable, long-term employment within a narrower range of options, whereas the modern economy is much more fluid and unpredictable, and employability may involve moving in and out of various opportunities and careers over time (Donald, Ashleigh, & Baruch, 2018). Obtaining a formal testamur from a higher education institution is no longer the principal determinant of employability as graduates now require a range of experiences from which they can draw a narrative about what differentiates them from the other graduates in the labour pool. Students need to accumulate a range of experiences from their time at university if they wish to be successful in this more competitive and dynamic labour market. In this book we explore why employability has become such a core issue for universities and how people are addressing it. The nature of work and study has changed significantly. Jobs are no longer necessarily for life, they may not even be for long. There’s been a proliferation of ways to work and configurations of employment. More people are freelancing and piecing together a tapestry of employment opportunities. In terms of study, flexibility is the buzz word, micro credentials and badging are in their ascendency, work integrated learning has pride of place in many degrees, and employability is seen as essential and central to academic credentials rather than ancillary or extra-curricular. Concomitantly, governments, industry, the professions and the wider community have all increased their expectations of universities to demonstrate that they are aligned with the © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_001

CRISP ET AL.

national employability agenda. In this book we explore how universities are responding to these changes in expectations and how academics and students are engaging with the new employability agenda. THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EMPLOYABILITY

As the nature of work, careers, employment and employability changes it is inevitable that the purpose of higher education and the role of universities is questioned (Sin, Tavares, & Amaral, 2017; Smith, et al., 2018). Genuine discussions are taking place, particularly in Western cultures, about the nature of social justice and equality and their place in higher education, the relationship between mass education and employment, employability and the impact of government policies and funding arrangements for higher education (Kromydas, 2017). Universities are being seen more as a source of skilled labour rather than a place to question current thinking and challenge social norms. Having a degree is becoming more akin to an entry ticket into the labour market pool and universities are then seen as competing with each other to offer experiences that will lead to the most valuable tickets. If the perceived value of a particular university’s ticket drops (as measured by national employment league tables) then those universities come under increasing pressure to change their curricula or introduce more “work ready” experiences for their students. The implication from these national employment league tables is that universities bear the blame if their graduates do not fare as well in the employment market place. Do we expect universities to be centres for the training and development of people for the current job market and for current economic needs or do we want our universities to educate and develop people to challenge the status quo and propose new ways of living and earning? Should universities foster the growth of individuals who will change the very nature of work itself and the economy we currently have or foster individuals who will accept the status quo and fit seamlessly into societal and labour market expectations? These are fundamental questions that are alive and debated in universities and the wider community. As with most deep questions such as these, the answer lies somewhere in the middle with different individuals and different universities taking their chosen place along the continuum. The question for governments is how to allocate public funding to the range of activities and expectations on universities so that we have an appropriate balance between supporting what we currently have in terms of economic structures and output, and how we design for a future that may be significantly different from what we have come to accept as the norm. Employability can be described as the combination of a set of professionally oriented capabilities, disciplinary knowledge and personal attributes that allow an individual to make a positive contribution to society and the economy (Yorke, 2006). Employability is assumed to be a good thing as it promotes social cohesion and societal development as well as individual wellbeing and prosperity. The current employability agenda is most often premised on human capital theory which directly links an increasing level of education within the population with better prospects for 4

IMPLICATIONS

overall economic outcomes and assumes that ongoing economic growth (in the form of increased demand for goods and services) is a positive thing (Kalfa & Taksa, 2015). The development of cultural capital can be just as critical for students and so the social context in which the abilities and knowledge are attained will influence the employability prospects of graduates. The development of cultural capital can be more difficult for academics to build into the curriculum, yet there are implicit pressures on academics to design learning activities for students that will enhance their employability prospects that will be dependent on both human and cultural capital development. A current trend in universities is to integrate career development learning (CDL) and work integrated learning (WIL) into the discipline core of a degree so that graduates will be more “work ready” (Billet, 2009; Boud, 2016) or more dynamically and future oriented, “work ready plus” (Scott, 2019). Universities may take an approach based on the assumption that employers want more of the same from our graduates and make them ready for the economy that exists today, expecting them to make incremental improvements to an accepted system. It is also possible to design CDL and WIL experiences that encourage students to question what they experience in the workplace and reward them for challenging the accepted system, expecting them to assist in redesigning the system itself. The question for universities is how to cater for both types of experiences as governments and industry would not be satisfied with graduates who simply challenged everything and made little contribution to the current economy but at the same time would expect universities to be developing minds that can come up with new approaches that will benefit society and the economy in a future state. This debate about the purpose and nature of the university experience and its relationship to employability can be confusing for many academics trying to design academic programs. Often academics receive mixed messages about priorities from their university management in terms of what is expected of an academic and what will be rewarded in academic promotion. The Humboldtian idea (Lüde, 2012) of a university as a place somewhat set apart from the rest of society where academics and students discuss and debate the nature of truth and ways of thinking is not at odds with the more pragmatic and instrumentalist role of universities as contributors to economic growth and sustainability (Karseth & Solbrekke, 2016). Graduates can contribute to and concurrently change the societies to which they belong; they can also enhance economic growth as well as redesign the economic system. The role of the university is to organise its teaching and research so that it can make concurrent contributions to the current and future employability agendas by promoting both the “employ” and “ability” components of employability. It is possible for academics to integrate the abilities required for employability into the learning activities associated with capability development within a discipline and so align the requirements of various stakeholders as well as provide room for the development of individual self-awareness and the ability to innovate (Speight, Lackovic, & Cooker, 2013). We will discuss authentic learning and assessment later in this chapter, but we do need to acknowledge that “authentic” can also be a contested term in higher education. 5

CRISP ET AL.

TEACHING FOR EMPLOYABILITY

Teaching employability capabilities, attributes and behaviours should be an ongoing and integrated part of the higher education curriculum (Jollands et al., 2016). This may be difficult to implement if the institution lacks a coherent framework that specifically allocates time and resources to the development of content, learning experiences and assessment tasks where the learning outcomes are specifically targeting employability. Academic staff will likely need professional development programs that assist them in integrating employability into their discipline units as a whole-of-program approach will be required rather than each academic taking responsibility for an isolated unit. For students to benefit from specific activities aimed at enhancing their employability prospects, academic staff need to believe that the employability outcome of graduates is one of their key responsibilities. Students will quickly realise if merely token efforts are being made to provide a few “authentic” activities in which the academic has little interest. Employability experiences for students are not limited to WIL placements which can often be quite separate from the core discipline units in a program. The integration of CDL into discipline units can take multiple forms, including activities that develop a sense of professional identity, the use of role plays and scenario-based activities, learning based on developing teamwork and communication skills, and meta-cognitive exercises that develop self-understanding, reflection and empathy. Industry, professional organisations and government agencies all need to be active partners in the teaching for employability. There is little sense in standing on the side-lines and criticising universities for not paying more attention to the employability agenda if all stakeholders are not prepared to contribute to a holistic solution to the problem (Tran, 2016). Universities then need to reflect on the emphasis being placed on “work ready” versus “work changing” graduates. Melding the Humboldtian ideal of a higher education with the instrumentalist pragmatism of an industry aligned program may be a difficult task for many academics. Perhaps we need more academics who specialise in integrating the pragmatic aspects of industry engagement (work ready) with the more Humboldtian approach of contesting current thinking (work changing). Academics involved in teaching employability activities have been described as having a Vygotskyian-oriented approach (Verenikina, 2010) based on a combination of interventionist and scaffolding behaviours that assist in promoting students to develop as autonomous learners (Graham, 2017). The development of employability capabilities is dependent on the social context of learning where reflection and student agency are actively promoted. It is tempting to posit that academics specialising in, and dedicated to, the design and delivery of employability units might be a more efficient means of scaling employability-enhancing programs in universities. A negative consequence of this approach is that students might see the teaching of discipline content as separate to learning for employability. Moving more towards a team-based approach to teaching in universities would reduce this possibility but the learning activities would need to be seamlessly integrated for students to benefit from both the depth and breadth approach to curriculum design. 6

IMPLICATIONS

The teaching of teamwork abilities is seen as one important aspect of enhancing the employability prospects of graduates (Riebe, Girardi, & Whitsed, 2017). Despite the stated importance of students developing their ability to work in, or lead teams, there is little evidence to suggest that this ability is formally taught as opposed to just emerging from expectations that students should work in teams. Most universities include teamwork or group work in their statements on graduate capabilities and this will be translated into statements in unit or course outlines about group work activities or assessments. Cultural diversity and mixed ability membership of groups are seen as two critical factors for successful teamwork and the mechanisms used to construct teams can sometimes be contentious (Jackling et al., 2014). It is important that students understand the expectations on them in group work and how their performance and participation will be assessed. The pressure is on universities to contribute to the employability agenda and this has led to a range of options in the design and delivery of experiences to enhance graduate employability (Jackson & Oliver, 2018). The pace of change in the economy and the needs of the labour market necessitate a more agile approach to course development in universities. The use of technology to provide more contemporary experiences for students and enhance their social networking skills has been explored by many institutions. Technology also affords the opportunity to personalise learning activities through adaptive designs for the student experience. This allows students to experience and explore the ethical and social dimensions of a topic, concept or issue and so develop their ability to engage with multiple stakeholders with a greater awareness of the complexities of working in a “real world situation”. This promotes the development of transferrable abilities that are not dependent on discipline content. Adaptive learning activities can present different students with different scenarios and so foster individual development of key capabilities. Coupling adaptive learning with portfolios and reflective activities should encourage students to develop a pool of experiences from which they can draw their narratives about their employability capabilities. Students should be able to demonstrate that they have the potential to take on complex tasks that require an appreciation of dealing with multiple stakeholders and how they might propose solutions for problems which do not have simple solutions (Jackson & Oliver, 2018). LEARNING FOR EMPLOYABILITY

So how should students approach their learning if they want to increase their employability capacity? We have already discussed the necessity for students to increase both their human and cultural capital if they wish to be adaptive, resilient and competitive in the modern labour market. Students will also need to ensure they have an appropriate level of information and digital literacy (IDL) to be able to function effectively in the digital marketplace (Mawson & Haworth, 2018). Not only will graduates be required to seek and use information and data from multiple sources, but the modern economy is becoming more dependent on the Internet for sourcing resources, including other people, in order to complete tasks. Graduates

7

CRISP ET AL.

will be expected to interact digitally with clients and colleagues across the globe and so knowing how to engage digitally is a key capability for employability. One of the descriptions for a desirable graduate is that of the “T-shaped professional” who has deep disciplinary knowledge in a particular specialisation (long vertical line) and a breadth component (wide horizontal line) that allows them to function effectively in teams and to innovate when dealing with complex problems (Demirkan & Spohrer, 2018). Thus, students should be seeking experiences that develop both dimensions and allow them to demonstrate capabilities in discipline analytical thinking as well as contextual appreciation of what is required when dealing with people from different backgrounds. Ideally both CDL and WIL would provide opportunities for students to develop these capabilities, but the very nature of traditional WIL placements means there is no guarantee that students will have an environment that fosters these developments in a systematic way. This highlights the need for students to seek multiple experiences throughout their studies to ensure they have provided themselves with sufficient opportunities to develop the portfolio of experiences from which to draw their story about themselves when seeking their place in the labour market. Students need to be proactive in taking ownership of their career development and the integration of CDL into the core curriculum can assist students in prioritising their career development so that they can begin working towards being T-shaped professionals (Donald et al., 2018). There are many opportunities for students to gain practical work experience on campus through university sponsored jobs, on-campus schemes and through student unions or guilds or clubs and societies (Andrewartha & Harvey, 2017). Many universities have introduced formal employment strategies for their students and also facilitate a variety of volunteering or service learning opportunities, including through student unions. Volunteering and service learning can be just as beneficial to students for enhancing their employability as more formal WIL placements (Caspersz & Olaru, 2017). Volunteering and service learning are often undertaken with a community-based organisation or not-for-profit group and financial remuneration is the not the main point of participating from a student’s perspective. Students gain a wide range of opportunities to reflect on social responsibility, equity, sustainability and how to make an impact on the lives of others. This can provide students with a rich source of narrative to draw from when they are describing the breadth of their experiences to potential employers and also allow students to identify areas of interest for their future careers. Since the nature of work is changing so rapidly, students need to reflect on the new opportunities for “work” that are arising in the economy. Phenomena such as crowdsourcing and the gig economy (temporary positions where organisations contract independent workers to undertake specific short-term tasks) are fundamentally different to many existing corporate structures and methods for financing the production of goods and services and so require a different set of capabilities compared to more traditional concepts of employability (Oliver, 2015). Employability in a gig economy will be reliant on a contingent workforce seeking “work” through microtask sites that assign the work and connect the various stakeholders who will never meet in person or be in the same physical location. The 8

IMPLICATIONS

profile that students need to develop for this type of employment needs to align with the fast-paced approach required to bid for, and complete, short-term tasks and the university testamur is not the primary determinant of employment success. Social media and one’s digital footprint will be crucial to success and employability capabilities will be related more to visual representations and succinct descriptions of current activities and successes (Carr et al., 2017). What type of WIL experience would allow students to gain appropriate capabilities relevant to the gig economy? Providing students with opportunities to bid for work on campus or make a pitch to redesign services or products on campus would be one approach universities could consider. The task would be real and allow students to demonstrate innovation and the ability to have an impact beyond their study program. Encouraging students to sign up to legitimate online sourcing agencies and develop an online footprint in LinkedIn or an equivalent professional networking site would also assist in developing a professional presence that would potentially enhance employability in the new gig environment. ASSESSING STUDENTS FOR EMPLOYABILITY

Assessing students for the development of abilities, attributes and behaviours that will lead to employability can be quite difficult. Many of the behavioural characteristics associated with employability such as self-awareness, resilience, perseverance and self-belief are measured or assessed using psychometric methods rather than traditional discipline-based tasks. Most academics are not in a position to set tasks that specifically measure the efficacy of these non-cognitive abilities. Academics could set tasks that require students to analyse and reflect on how they use their non-cognitive abilities to solve discipline-related problems. The use of role plays and scenario-based activities, or the requirement for students to work on group projects, all provide opportunities to capture evidence of the use of non-cognitive abilities and for students to demonstrate an understanding of their own application of these abilities to the problem at hand. The assessor’s judgement is then related to the quality of the analysis rather than the behaviours themselves. This approach would allow academics to include a range of assessment activities, beyond quantitative measurements and beyond cognitive skills and knowledge retention, which focus attention on capability development directly relevant to employability. This would also allow students to incorporate non-cognitive behavioural development and the development of complex practice-based capabilities into their formal coursework. A common approach to assessing employability capabilities in higher education is to use an e-portfolio where students can deposit examples of their work and annotate it with structured commentary explaining what each piece of work is evidence of (Kehoe & Goudzwaard, 2015). These annotations could be directly related to employability characteristics so that students would be able to both evidence their capabilities but also analyse their strengths and weaknesses in relation to approaches that would enhance their employability. E-portfolios allow for the integration of discipline-specific content and learning activities to develop useful 9

CRISP ET AL.

non-cognitive behaviours which can be assessed together to provide a more holistic view of an individual student’s capabilities and their learning journey. The use of eportfolios is more aligned with a whole-of-program approach to assessment and facilitates a more personalised approach to assessment and feedback. Role plays, scenario-based activities and games all allow the assessment of procedural and functional knowledge (knowing how and why) in addition to declarative knowledge (knowing what). Assessments using these formats allow for a more concise representation of a student’s ability to be a T-shaped professional and probe many of the non-cognitive characteristics associated with enhanced employability. Students can practice their abilities and receive feedback in a nonthreatening environment and prepare themselves better for more public and responsible activities such as WIL placements where the stakes are higher for the individual and the institution. The development of employability capabilities does not stop when a student graduates or enters their initial employment state; improving one’s employability prospects is a lifelong process. The development of a lifelong learning approach to employability can be fostered by the use of more sustainable assessment tasks during a student’s time at university (Boud, 2000). By providing opportunities for students to develop the ability to make more informed judgements about their own learning and a more sophisticated understanding of professional standards, academics can promote an attitude of lifelong learning and also lifelong evolution of employability that will continue to impact on a graduate’s employability aspirations, capacities and prospects well after graduation. CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored some of the theoretical and practical concepts surrounding the roles and responsibilities of higher education (and other stakeholders) in the development of employability capabilities that will enhance the career, choices, life and work pathways and employment outcomes of graduates. Universities are expected to contribute to the national employability agenda but also need to be true to their Humboldtian origins to ensure that they also produce graduates who are willing to challenge the status quo and challenge us all to think differently about how we live and work. REFERENCES Andrewartha, L., & Harvey, A. (2017). Student voice and influence on employability in Australian higher education. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 8(1), 202-214. Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., & Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 205-222. Bennett, D., Richardson. S., & MacKinnon, P. (2016). Enacting strategies for graduate employability: How universities can best support students to develop generic skills Part A. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Billett, S. (2009). Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827-843.

10

IMPLICATIONS Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. Boud, D. (2016). Taking professional practice seriously: Implications for deliberate course design. In F. Trede & C. McEwen (Eds.), Educating the deliberate professional: Preparing for future practices (pp. 157-173). Switzerland: Springer. Carr, C. T., Hall, R. D., Mason, A. J., & Varney, E. J. (2017). Cueing employability in the gig economy: Effects of task-relevant and task-irrelevant information on Fiverr. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 409-428. Caspersz, D., & Olaru, D. (2017). The value of service learning: The student perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 685-700. Donald, W. E., Ashleigh, M. J., & Baruch, Y. (2018). Students’ perceptions of education and employability: Facilitating career transition from higher education into the labor market. Career Development International, 23(5), 513-540. Demirkan, H., & Spohrer, J. C. (2018). Commentary-cultivating T-shaped professionals in the era of digital transformation. Service Science, 10(1), 98-109. Graham, D. (2017). Embedding employability behaviours. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 9(1), 35-50. Higgs, J., Crisp, G. & Letts, W. (Eds.). (2019). Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Jackling, B., Natoli, R., Siddique, S., & Sciulli, N. (2014). Student attitudes to blogs: A case study of reflective and collaborative learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 542-556. Jackson, T. P., & Oliver, S. (2018). Adaptive Learning Program for Developing Employability Skills. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 8(1). Jollands, M., Clarke, B., Grando, D., Hamilton, M., Smith, J., Xenos, S., Brodie, M., Pocknee, C., Carbone, A., & Burton, A. (2016). Developing graduate employability through partnerships with industry and professional associations. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SP13_3256_Jollands_Report_2015.pdf Kalfa, S., & Taksa, L. (2015). Cultural capital in business higher education: Reconsidering the graduate attributes movement and the focus on employability. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 580-595. Karseth, B., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2016). Curriculum trends in European higher education: The pursuit of the Humboldtian University ideas. In S. Slaughter & B. Taylor (Eds.), Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada (pp. 215-233). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Kehoe, A., & Goudzwaard, M. (2015). ePortfolios, badges, and the whole digital self: How evidencebased learning pedagogies and technologies can support integrative learning and identity development. Theory Into Practice, 54(4), 1-18. Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: Past knowledge, present state and future potential. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-12. Lüde, R. V. (2012). From Humboldt to market: Competition and excellence as new governance principles in the German university system. In H. G. Schuetze, G. Á. Mendiola, & D. Conrad (Eds.), State and market in higher education reforms: Trends, policies and experiences in comparative perspective (Vol. 13. Comparative and international education: A diversity of voices) (pp. 149-166). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Mawson, M., & Haworth, A. C. (2018). Supporting the employability agenda in university libraries: A case study from the University of Sheffield. Information and Learning Science, 119(1-2), 101-108. Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56-65. Riebe, L., Girardi, A., & Whitsed, C. (2017). Teaching teamwork in Australian university business disciplines: Evidence from a systematic literature review. Issues in Educational Research, 27(1), 134150.

11

CRISP ET AL. Scott, G. (2019). Preparing work ready plus graduates for an uncertain future. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 107-118). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Sin, C., Tavares, O., & Amaral. A. (2017). Accepting employability as a purpose of higher education? Academics’ perceptions and practices. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1402174 Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D., & McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Wollongong, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia. Speight, S., Lackovic, N., & Cooker, L. (2013). The contested curriculum: Academic learning and employability in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(2), 112–126. Tran, T. T. (2016). Enhancing graduate employability and the need for university-enterprise collaboration. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 7(1), 58-71. Verenikina, I. M. (2010). Vygotsky in twenty-first-century research. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 16-25). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Williams, S., Dodd, L. J., Steele, C., & Randall, R. (2016). A systematic review of current understandings of employability. Journal of Education and Work, 29(8), 877-901. Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is, what it is not (Learning and Employability Series 1). York, England: The Higher Education Academy.

Geoffrey Crisp PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9994-8939) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Vice-President University of Canberra, Australia Joy Higgs AM, PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-1016) Emeritus Professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia Director, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia Will Letts PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0266-5703) Associate Dean, Academic, Faculty of Arts and Education Charles Sturt University, Australia

12

JOY HIGGS

2. PRACTICE FUTURES

This book commenced in the last chapter with an overview of “the employability agenda”. That label draws together the future of work and the future of higher education in the following two targets. The first is higher education: along with vocational education, this takes on the responsibility of identifying and shaping the possible futures of work and practice. And, second is work: which sets multiple trajectories for higher education. These goals are realised through many factors… Our work is our livelihood it is our role and what we call ourselves. It is who we are in the employment arena. It is what we do in the social world that extends beyond person, family and self. It shapes us as we shape others through our world of engagement with other members of our society and with our community of practitioners who serve society for the wellbeing of others. What lenses help us see and recognise work And interpret its meanings and its influences at times of great change like the Great Depression and the Industrial Revolution? Our working lives took on great unbelievable change following such seismic shifts. What evolutions and revolutions will future generations face? Many people reflect on these very points They see artificial intelligence confounding our futures, communication revolutions changing our ways of interacting out of recognition from any recent past – changing not only how we interact but also what it means to interact. Work is being re-defined by what it means to be human by radical changes in technology that is making much of human toil redundant by what is involved in sharing our planet and how we work in time and space and even why we choose or need to work. Will the future re-define what it means to be living and working? © .21,1./,-.(%5,//19/(,'(1_'2,: 9789004418707_002

HIGGS

CHALLENGING FUTURE PRACTICE POSSIBILITIES

Change is a certainty and the pace of change in the 21st century is omnipresent with no part of our lives remaining unaffected. This includes changes in technology, work, political systems, how goods and services are provided, how we are cared for and care for others, how our children grow, the nature of our relationships and how we communicate with each other, what we eat and how that food is produced, changes in the natural world, our notions of social justice and fairness, how we warm and heat our houses, public buildings and shared spaces, even changes to the very air that we breathe. There are many reactions to this fast pace of change: excitement, curiosity, greed, exploitation, hope, anxiety, alienation, blame, avoidance, and bewilderment. And, we hope that our responses include a sense of possibility that yes the world could be a better place for future generations. What is certain is that it will be a vastly different place that the next generations including our children and grandchildren inhabit and it will be vastly different in terms of what, where and how we work. While the rate of change may possibly be overwhelming we do not want to be passive or immobilised bystanders, uncritical followers or colluders in changes which are not for the greater good. (Practice Futures Forum)1 The authors of the recent book Challenging Future Practice Possibilities (Higgs, Cork, & Horsfall, 2019) explored the topic of future practice and work possibilities and chose the term practice to refer generally to what people do but more specifically to what they do in work and professional practice/work. They examined future practice through its emerging trends, possibilities and challenges. Some of these matters are occurring around us while others are being born in our imaginings. Still others are unimaginable today. Within this space the authors explored such issues across a wide range of settings and interests. The book focused on this key question: What might practice and work look like in a range of possible futures? In asking this seemingly straightforward question, argue Cork and Horsfall (2019), people are being challenged and preparing for possible futures ranging from the unthinkable to the catastrophic. In part people are asking this question today to consider what forms of work we need to educate people for tomorrow, particularly within universities. Beyond employment projections it is important to consider the context of work and why it is being shaped like it is. What factors are impacting on economics and society? What opportunities are the new affordances of technology (particularly communication and knowledge technologies) creating? How are the support features of the world around these new jobs helping people to cope with new work arenas? What changes are arising from different ways of owning and influencing knowledge and power in these new work and power spaces? In reflecting on the back cover of that book the editors mused: What might the futures of practice be like? This is far from a straightforward question. Emphasising the before the word future, implies one future. But futures thinkers have identified a range of futures that people think about. In 14

PRACTICE FUTURES

this book we reflect on possible, probable and preferable futures in relation to practice and work. Readers are invited to consider how their own engagement in shaping possible futures will support ways of working that they deem preferable, even those they can hardly imagine. Challenging Future Practice Possibilities also examines influences that are maintaining the status quo and others that are pushing interest-driven change. Authors consider the major challenges that practice and practitioners face today such as wicked problems, fears for the future, complex demands and opportunities posed by the digital revolution. A number of examples of future-oriented work directions such as protean careers and artificial intelligence enhancing or even replacing human workforces, are considered along with concerns like the vulnerability of many work situations and workers. In some cases workers and employers alike are unprepared for these challenges, while others see adapting to these situations as yet another pathway of the evolution of practice futures.2 PRACTICE AND THE PROFESSIONS

We often write about practice and the professions in the same context, recognising the way that work in the professions references professional practice. In recent decades the rate of change of work across the professions has escalated significantly. In part this has reflected a change in the attitude of some professionals to their practice in the sense of economic worth replacing vocation. Susskind and Susskind (2015) draw our attention to the original emergence of the professions as institutions that were trusted to help society deal with complex concepts and information that required training and experience beyond what most people could achieve. Cork and Alford (2019) have raised questions about whether the responsibilities embodied in this concept of the professions are being met and whether in the future very different institutions will take on this name of profession and the roles of their counterparts today. And, if they do – what will be the implications for both professional work and professional education? In a related manner, Horsfall and Higgs (2019) ask whether amidst trends like widespread apparent professionalisation of many occupations and the replacement of ethical decision makers and carers by artificially intelligent agents, professional practice for the public good and practice that follows codes of conduct is being lost in a tide of advanced technologies and practice revolutions. Cherry (2005) reminds us that professions, by definition, deal with the application of knowledge to a range of varying problems and situations but that the range of that variation of the professions is now susceptible to a speed of change (and sometimes scale of complexity) that defies prediction. Cherry notes the exhortation by Bowden and Marton (1998) to educators and students to use the known to prepare for the unknown.

15

HIGGS

THE PLACE OF TERTIARY EDUCATION

Tertiary education has the role of ensuring that graduates have the skills and capabilities to succeed in the workplace (Artess, Hooley, & Mellors-Bourne, 2016; Sewell & Dacre Pool, 2010). Many research projects have explored the attributes and capabilities that members of the workforce are required to demonstrate. These include teamwork, conflict management, written, verbal and non-verbal communication, confidence, resilience, flexibility and stress management skills (Stagnitti, Schoo, & Welch, 2010; Walker et al., 2013). Recent research has listed an additional set of contemporary proficiencies that graduates require, including a design mindset, virtual collaboration skills, cross-cultural competency, novel and adaptive thinking, new media literacy, social intelligence, epistemic fluency and emotional intelligence (Davies, Fidler, & Gorbis, 2011; Goodyear & Ellis, 2007; Little, 2006). Employability is considered a critical factor in human flourishing in the contemporary working world; it encompasses graduate attributes particularly personality, attitudes and motivation, as well as the individual’s vocational ability (Van Der Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006). Recently, many universities, as well as employers and recruiters, have embraced the concept of employability as an important outcome for graduates entering the workforce (Hager & Holland, 2006; Oliver, 2015). The remainder of this book explores many aspects of employability, particularly as this relates to education for employability. THE GIG ECONOMY

Not just the nature of work but the context of work is changing significantly. Kalleberg and Dunn (2016) talk about the rapid growth of new economies, which include the sharing economy, collaborating economy, access economy, on-demand economy, freelance economy, 1099 economy and platform economy, among other terms like crowdworking. These authors alert us to the positives of such jobs, such as promotion of entrepreneurship and innovation, jobs with flexibility, autonomy and work–life balance, and opportunities for individuals to monetise their resources (e.g. their time, talents, minds, physical abilities, cars, computers). Kalleberg and Dunn (2016) also identify potential problems such as worker disenfranchisement, worker exploitation and lack of a social safety net (including health insurance, portable retirement benefits and wage insurance). The Gig Economy can be thought of as a free-market system in which temporary positions are common and organisations, employers and/or clients contract shortterm engagements with independent workers. This economy matches providers to consumers on a gig/job basis in support of on-demand commerce. The Sharing Economy focuses on collaboration. This could be across consumers and workers and indicates the ability and perhaps preference of individuals to rent or borrow goods rather than buy and own them. Cusumano (2015) examines the way the sharing economy challenges and competes with traditional companies. He sees the new companies as Web platforms that bring together individuals with underutilised assets with people who would wish to rent those assets short-term. 16

PRACTICE FUTURES

Examples of these assets include spare time for everyday tasks (e.g. Fiverr), spare time and automobiles to drive people around (e.g. Uber, Lyft), spare rooms (Airbnb, Flipkey, Roomba) and such items as used tools and household items (Streetbank, Snap-Goods/Simplist). According to Cusumano (2015), sharing-economy startups can be seen as a logical outgrowth of social media platforms such as Facebook, Pinterest and TripAdvisor, which bring together people who have common interests to share information, ideas or personal observations. These startups threaten traditional companies through the capacity of the new companies with their peer-topeer networks to grow exponentially. De Stefano (2016) describes two main forms of work in the gig economy. The first is “crowdwork”, which involves completing tasks through online platforms. The second is “work-on-demand via app”, in which apps (applications) are used to connect workers to traditional work like transport, cleaning, clerical work, etc. Entrepreneurship is the creation of new enterprises (Low & MacMillan, 1988). It implies growth, innovation and flexibility; it can apply to both people and organisations (Stevenson & Jarillo, 2007). Successful entrepreneurship has the goal and outcome of creating value (Sharma & Chrisman, 2007). While entrepreneurship, under various names, has been around for centuries, in the 21st century it appears to be increasingly more common and potentially in the future it will be the norm or a necessary part of all work and organisations. Means and Schneider (2000) talk about “metacapitalism” as a major change in the 21st century global economic and business conditions that involves a realignment from traditional corporate structures to Internet-leveraged, brand-owning, customerfocused companies. Such companies, they argue, are accelerating economic growth and value creation by capitalising on: – – – – –

global expansion of market access improvements in the efficiency of capital markets better leverage of capital dramatic unleashing of human potential and capital significant advances in operating efficiency.

“Brand-owning” companies, as opposed to manufacturers, develop controls and systems to guarantee that their network partners are well integrated with each other and the marketplace. And the “value-added communities” support brand owners in dramatically reducing costs, increasing quality and responding rapidly to customer demand and market shifts. The e-business industry has boomed in the 21st century with many successful startups being formed in North America, Europe, China and India, in particular (Garbade, 2007). Examples include Google, Yahoo, MSN, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Photobucket, Last.fm, Gumtree, Kijiji, Joost, Tradera, Tom Online, etc. These businesses are characterised by mergers, acquisitions and incorporations. Nilsson (1998) presents a progression of artificial intelligence (AI) systems or “agents”: from elementary AI agents that react to sensed properties in their environments, to evolutionary AI agents that can use techniques beyond sensing to exploit information about the task environment. AI “is concerned with intelligent 17

HIGGS

behavior in artefacts. Intelligent behavior, in turn, involves perception, reasoning, learning, communicating, and acting in complex environments. AI has as one of its long-term goals the development of machines that can do these things as well as humans can or possibly even better” (ibid, p. 1). AI may be a potential threat, an inevitability or a highly beneficial part of the workforce of the future. Stephen Hawking, for instance, while acknowledging the value of AI to date, warned that AI that can match or surpass humans could end mankind (Cellan-Jones, 2014). There are numerous consequences, implications and changes needed to many aspects of life and society arising from these new modes of work. New privacy and copyright laws have been required to deal with online communications, retirement benefits have been significantly affected, the cost of unemployment to the public and private purse is high, tertiary education has required constant reinvention and so on. Of particular concern in the labour market is the growth of vulnerable work, which accounts for 1.5 billion people or over 46% of total employment (ILO, 2017). Vulnerable workers are likely to experience volatile income, limited access to social protections, poor working conditions, little career development and greater exposure to unethical behaviours including harassment and bullying … The conditions which lead to vulnerable work include fierce competition for work and networked forms of employment, both of which are common in sought-after graduate occupations as graduate numbers rise and the number of traditional full-time positions declines. (Bennett, 2019, p. 36) CONCLUSION

How exactly the past gets remembered (and forgotten), how it gets worked into arresting images and coherent stories, how it gets ordered into reliable explanations, how it gets pulled and pummelled into reasons for acting, how it gets celebrated and disavowed, suppressed and imagined – all have tremendous consequences for how the future might be shaped (and for) … how the present can be grasped. (Eley, 2005, p. ix) We, as workers ourselves, as leaders and educators of future generations and just people puzzling how to go forward, all have a place in answering this question. The futures – possible, probable, preferable and inevitable – have a place in understanding and shaping the future of higher education. Subsequent chapters in this book have many insights to offer as we pursue education for employability. NOTES 1 2

18

https://www.practicefutures.com.au/ Back cover: Higgs, J., Cork, S., & Horsfall, D. (Eds.). (2019). Challenging future practice possibilities. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense.

PRACTICE FUTURES

REFERENCES Artess, J., Hooley, T., & Mellors-Bourne, R. (2016). Employability: A review of the literature 2012 to 2016. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/employability-review-literature2012-2016 Bennett, D. (2019). Meeting society’s expectations of graduates: Education for the public good. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 35-48). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in higher education. London, England: Kogan Page. Cellan-Jones, R. (2014, December 2). Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540 Cherry, N. L. (2005). Preparing for practice in the age of complexity. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 309-320. Cork, S., & Alford, K. (2019). Plausible practice futures. In J. Higgs, S. Cork, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Challenging future practice possibilities (pp. 29-40). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Cork, S., & Horsfall, D. (2019). Thinking the unthinkable: Challenges of imagining and engaging with unimaginable practice futures. In J. Higgs, S. Cork, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Challenging future practice possibilities (pp. 17-28). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Cusumano, M. A. (2015). How traditional firms must compete in the sharing economy. Communications of the ACM, 58(1), 32-34. Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved from https://uqpn.uq.edu.au/files/203/LIBBY MARSHALL future_work_skills_2020_full_research_report_final_1.pdf De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the ‘gig-economy’. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office. Eley, G. (2005). A crooked line: From cultural history to the history of society. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Garbade, M. J. (2007). International mergers & acquisitions, cooperations and networks in the e-business industry. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1291375 Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). The development of epistemic fluency: Learning to think for a living. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press. Hager, P., & Holland, S. (2006). Graduate attributes, learning and employability. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Higgs, J., Cork, S., & Horsfall, D. (Eds.). (2019). Challenging future practice possibilities. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Horsfall, D., & Higgs, J. (2019). Re-claiming social purpose and adding values to the world around us. In J. Higgs, S. Cork, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Challenging future practice possibilities (pp. 65-78). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Kalleberg, A. L., & Dunn, M. (2016). Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy. Perspectives on Work, 1013, 74. Little, B. (2006). Employability and work-based learning. York, England: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/employability-and-workbased-learning Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161. Means, D., & Schneider, G. (2000). Metacapitalism: The e-business revolution and the design of 21stcentury companies and markets. New York, NY: John Wiley. Nilsson, N. J. (1998). Artificial intelligence: A new synthesis. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

19

HIGGS Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56-65. Sewell, P., & Dacre Pool, L. (2010). Moving from conceptual ambiguity to operational clarity: Employability, enterprise and entrepreneurship in higher education. Education + Training, 52(1), 8994. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, S. J. J. (2007). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. In Á. Cuervo., D. Ribeiro, & S. Roig (Eds.), Entrepreneurship (pp. 83103). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Stagnitti, K., Schoo, D., & Welch, D. (2010). Clinical and fieldwork placements in the health professions. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (2007). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. In Á. Cuervo., D. Ribeiro, & S. Roig (Eds.), Entrepreneurship (pp. 155-170). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Van Der Heijde, C. M., & Van Der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 449476. Walker, A., Yong, M., Pang, L., Fullarton, C., Costa, B., & Dunning, A. M. T. (2013). Work readiness of graduate health professionals. Nurse Education Today, 33(2), 116-122.

Joy Higgs AM, PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-1016) Emeritus Professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia Director, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia

20

WILL LETTS

3. UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS, TARGETS AND STRATEGIES

Over the past two decades in particular we have seen seismic shifts in relation to understandings and conceptualisations of employability and whose responsibility it is to cultivate and maintain it. Clearly the employability agenda has taken centrestage as universities and other tertiary providers demarcate and even celebrate it as a strategic priority. And given that The Foundation for Young Australians (2016) predicts that “today’s 15-year-olds will likely navigate 17 changes in employer across 5 different careers” (p. 6), there are startling and pressing implications for the employability agenda. Although we’ve moved away from a conception of employability as being primarily about securing the first job, so many predicted job changes through one’s working life intensifies our concern not only with gaining a level of graduate employability, but also with maintaining and pursuing lifelong employability. As a predictable result, we are seeing not only a proliferation of curricular, co-curricular, pedagogical and policy strategies to enhance and build graduates’ employability, but also the increased dissemination of the variety of initiatives being deployed (e.g. Universities Australia, 2019) as higher education institutions tout their latest innovative practice in this space and market their “products”. As Holmes (2013) wrote, The way in which higher education institutions help prepare students for their post-graduation lives is, then, a legitimate concern for a variety of stakeholders, particularly in relation to policy interventions and institutional practice. (p. 538) While at face value the pursuit and promotion of employability might be seen as a good thing and a laudable goal to strive for (this is, after all, Volume 2 of Education for Employability), “as a wider policy narrative, employability maps onto some significant concerns about the shifting interplays between universities, economy and state” (Tomlinson, 2012, pp. 426-427). These concerns must be considered and addressed, especially given that various stakeholders involved in HE [higher education] – be they policymakers, employers and paying students – all appear to be demanding clear and tangible outcomes in response to increasing economic stakes. A number of tensions and potential contradictions may arise from this, resulting mainly from competing agendas and interpretations over the ultimate purpose of a university education and how its provision should best be arranged. (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 412) I’ll take up some of these concerns in the next section. © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_003

LETTS

But we are right also to question the motives and intentions of such moves, compelling ourselves to articulate better reasons for them than just a neoliberal response to the changing global market and the worlds of work. Those better reasons exist, we just need to work at better articulating and foregrounding them. In this chapter I will consider this shift to prominence of graduate employability coinciding with a changing understanding of what employability is and what the future of employment looks like. I’ll explore some of the agendas and targets that often accompany a focus on employability and I’ll end by considering some of the prevalent strategies and persistent issues that remain the focus of debate. THE CURRENT CONTEXT

Both volumes of Education for Employability1 are replete with examples of the current contexts shaping, constraining and creating affordances for people’s diverse efforts at educating for employability. At a global scale, frequent and rapid change is ubiquitous and shapes the ways we make sense of and engage with our worlds. Shifts in the global knowledge economy, the emergence of the gig economy, increasing reduction in communication and connection gaps, the predominance of neoliberal political and social agendas, continued fractiousness around issues of diversity, social justice and multiculturalism, and a surge in technological solutions or strategy replacements to problems or tasks in place of skills previously deployed by people, are all having profound effects in shaping the employability agenda. Because of the changing dynamic between higher education and the labour market, and expectations of graduates with more access to higher education, we’re experiencing a glut of graduates. Demand-driven funding, for example, has increased the numbers and diversity of students participating in higher education while also contributing to the massification of higher education systems resulting in “new notions of what a university education is and indeed should be, and new forms of relationships between universities and states that largely fund and regulate them” (Boden & Nedeva, 2010, p. 37). There has been increased attention to and pressure on universities to provide evidence of their value to the economy and to society in general and of their effectiveness in achieving their mission. As Clarke (2018) writes, “As a result of policy decisions, and despite an overall decline in public funding for higher education, policy-makers want to see measurable outcomes from their investment (Holmes, 2013) which means that graduates are expected to exit their studies in work-ready mode and with demonstrable levels of employability” (p. 1923). Likewise, Tomlinson (2012) notes: “In effect, individuals can no longer rely on their existing educational and labour market profiles for shaping their longerterm career progression” (p. 413). Times have changed, as have our expectations of universities and other higher education providers and what their roles should be. The world of work continues to change at a rapid pace as well. Changes to investment in higher education and the massification of higher education have “coincided with what has typically been seen as a shift towards a more flexible, postindustrialised knowledge-driven economy that places increasing demands on the workforce and necessitates new forms of work-related skills (Hassard et al., 2008)” 22

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

(cited in Tomlinson, 2012, p. 409). In terms of the changing nature of work we’re seeing a shift to more transactional working arrangements with diminished employment security that leads to more uncertainty. There is rapidly increasing automation which affects 20–30% of jobs directly, but will affect all of our jobs eventually. It’s less about whole jobs being automated (although this is happening), but more that more aspects of many jobs are being automated and that’s changing both the nature of those jobs and the nature of work and workplaces. Every role will eventually change and graduates need a mindset to grow into roles and to grow with roles rather than simply being prepared (e.g. well educated) for a single, knowable role. As The Foundation for Young Australians (2017) notes, “today, automation and globalisation have led to a loud and compelling narrative about the future of work, and career paths appear more complicated” (p. 6). We can’t deny or ignore this rapidly changing space. As Daniels and Brooker (2014) caution, “The supply-and-demand approach that still continues to dominate the thinking around graduate attributes and work readiness (Tomlinson 2010) assumes, to some extent, stability and order in a global environment that is characterised by change and fluidity (Blackmore 2002; Rizvi 2010, 2011)” (p. 73).

In the eyes of many employers (and perhaps graduates as well) universities are seen to be “failing to instil in graduates the appropriate skills and dispositions that enable them to add value to the labour market. The problem has been largely attributable to universities focusing too rigidly on academically orientated provision and pedagogy, and not enough on applied learning and functional skills” (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 412), so the line goes. In the face of critiques of university education as a necessary and sufficient precursor to gainful employment “both policymakers and employers have looked to exert a stronger influence on the HE agenda, particularly around its formal 23

LETTS

provisions, in order to ensure that graduates leaving HE are fit-for-purpose (Teichler, 1999, 2007; Harvey, 2000)” (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 410). There have also been articulate critiques of the pivots toward a greater focus on employability as symptomatic of wider neoliberal moves in society. For instance, Boden and Nedeva (2010) document recent shifts in focus at universities explicitly foregrounding the “student experience” and a neoliberal manifestation of universities as businesses and students as customers that has translated into a range of new foci for universities – including an increasingly explicit foregrounding of graduate employability development. These authors explicate three ways in which neoliberalism has negatively shaped the discourses of employability: power balances in favour of employers; creation of a two-tiered tertiary education system resulting differentially in employees and employers/leaders; and employability discourses that may be adversely affecting pedagogies and curricula, to the detriment of students, institutions and their employees, employers and, ultimately, a just and civil society. This move to a more central focus on employability for universities has coincided with larger societal shifts and pressures including the changing nature of work, an epistemic crisis about the role and place of universities in society, the emergence of the gig economy and technologies such as artificial intelligence and robots, the often lagging tertiary education system which is slow to orient towards a focus on the future, and more general social and political disruption occurring globally. Neoliberalism is also manifest in the preoccupation of investment in higher education “paying off” (e.g. Burke et al., 2017) for graduates, universities and employers. Such contextual factors must be reckoned with and figured into our strategies for moving the employability agenda forward in ways that don’t privilege one stakeholder group over others, or that don’t disadvantage or disempower any stakeholder group. UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYABILITY AS DISTINCT FROM EMPLOYMENT

Employability is variously defined and its definitions are evolving (e.g. Bridgstock, 2019), so for the purposes of this chapter I will refer to a few definitions to depict and highlight the ground each covers and what a broader conceptualisation framing these various definitional iterations might accomplish. These choices are indicative rather than definitive and are aimed to cover the territory on the map of employability and to suggest possible starting points for an employability agenda. To begin, it’s now uncontested that employability is not the same as employment (Yorke, 2006). Moving into gainful employment after tertiary studies is undoubtedly one (very important) goal of the employability agenda, but getting employed is not the sole goal, nor does it equate to building and maintaining employability. This requires a departure from the past “skills and attributes” approach, which “tends to take graduation as the end state of higher education, the point at which the students should have acquired and should now possess the requisites for gaining suitable employment. Little or no account is taken of the reality that higher education is merely one stage, albeit an important one, within the biographical trajectories of students and graduates” (Holmes, 2013, p. 548). Drawing on the three-part typology 24

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

from Holmes (2013) I acknowledged the flaws and limitations of both the possessive and positioning approaches to graduate employability and set out to canvass various definitions that would fall within his processual approach – “it can claim to be conceptually and theoretically robust, to be empirically supported and to provide the basis for curriculum intervention” (p. 551). I’ll start with a description of employability as when: Students and graduates can discern, adapt, and continually enhance their skills, understandings, and personal attributes that make them more likely to find and create meaningful paid and unpaid work that benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy. (Oliver, 2015, adapted from Yorke, 2006) Such a definition moves beyond Yorke’s (2006) original possessive definition by empowering students to do more than acquire and possess a set of achievements or engage in a series of activities. It also foregrounds the agency of the student/graduate in cultivating their own employability. Further, it portrays the attainment of employability as something continual, as a journey with no end. It’s not about surpassing a certain threshold to now be deemed employable with no further work necessary. Instead, it’s about a constant striving to keep (re)positioning oneself in relation to the opportunities that become available through one’s working life. Finally, this description usefully gestures to the variety of constituents that are benefitted by one’s engagement in paid or unpaid work. This model embeds the individual attainment of meaningful work in the societal ecosystem of all who benefit. Employability is also defined as: Put simply, to be successful an individual must become a graduate, not just in the formal sense of being awarded a degree but in socially and biographically significant terms, whereby they act in ways that lead others to ascribe to them the identity of being a person worthy of being employed (i.e. in the kind of job generally considered appropriate to someone who has been highly educated). (Holmes, 2013, p. 549) This sense of employability foregrounds nurturing and inhabiting the identity of someone who is employable, someone with the education, knowledge, skills and capabilities of being employable – not just to have attained them, but to embody and enact them. It’s akin to an employability habitus (Bourdieu, 1977) – an inhabiting and embodying of the cultural practices of employability that is ingrained, recognisable and shared. Jackson’s research (2016) is indicative of the identity turn in employability work and contributes to the discussion by noting that graduate employability: should be redefined to encompass the construction of pre-professional identity (PPI) during university years. PPI relates to an understanding of and connection with the skills, qualities, conduct, culture and ideology of a student’s intended profession. It is ‘the sense of being a professional’ (Paterson, Higgs, Wilcox & Villenuve, 2002, p. 6) and ‘work-related 25

LETTS

disposition and identity.’ (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 409). It may be considered a less mature form of professional identity. (Jackson, 2016, p. 926) Such a construction of employability foregrounds the place and role of identity in the journey towards employability. As Jackson (2016) writes, “As students undertake their learning trajectory across the HE landscape of practice, they will form PPI through their membership, engagement, non-engagement and boundary and peripheral interactions with different communities” (p. 926). Insisting that a hallmark of attaining employability is doing the necessary identity work, this view values that enculturation into the profession must start with pre-professionals (students) where they are, and teach, guide and help them develop, craft, experiment with and solidify their identities. Centring employability in the university experience, or in one’s life-journey through work and career(s), has raised questions about the role of universities and other tertiary institutions in particular (but not to exclude the entire schooling system) in developing employability and helping to sustain it. As such we have witnessed a shift from the mentality that a variety of extra-curricular services, such as a careers centre with career counselling, can be made available to students and employability will result. Such strategies have now been identified as partial and misaligned to the current view of what employability is and how it gets developed. I’ll explore this point further later in the chapter. This move to the centre of the agenda of preparing students for employability has also altered the determination of whose responsibility it is to develop and sustain employability. In an earlier conceptualisation a range of services were made available to students but it was their responsibility to avail themselves of said services. This often translated into students with more cultural capital benefitting from the services while the remaining students would not and therefore miss out. The move of employability to the centre of the tertiary education agenda has seen a shift to a shared responsibility between students, educational institutions and employers in this regard. Cautioning against an instrumental approach to employability marked primarily by a generic skill-based approach, Clarke (2018) insists that there are six key dimensions to a broad framework of employability: human capital, social capital, individual attributes, individual behaviours, perceived employability and labour market factors. This model “offers a more comprehensive framework than currently portrayed in the higher education literature thereby adding to, and enhancing, our understanding of employability in the graduate context” (ibid, p. 1924), which is often seen as nested inside the broader employability context. This model offers a multidisciplinary perspective that “contributes to our understanding of the individual, institutional and contextual factors that influence employability and career outcomes among graduates, thus providing a framework for universities as they grapple with the demands of multiple stakeholders” (ibid, p. 1934). The final model of employability I want to canvass is Bridgstock’s Graduate Employability 2.0 which might be conceptualised as

26

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

A systematic approach … taken to the development of students’ social network capabilities, commencing from the first year of their studies. It involves ongoing partnerships with professional representatives, industry and community in which learning experiences for all are based in communities of practice. Throughout their degree experiences, students develop and consolidate connections. (Bridgstock, 2019, p. 104) A focus in this model is assisting students to develop social network literacies and to learn to make good use of networks and connections integrated with all of the other activities and strategies they are utilising to bolster their employability. This is a good example of a model that is accounting for and anticipating the ways that technologies are shaping what’s possible in terms of connecting, communicating and networking. In attempting to address the question “what is employability?”, it’s hopefully now evident that it’s a mindset about how to approach the world of work and future careers, not merely a discrete, decontextualised or generalisable skillset. As a result of these new conceptualisations of what employability is, oversight of these issues of employability and building employability now see their home in academic portfolios where once they sat as careers advice services, etc., with other units such as health service, counselling, IT, bookstore, etc. We’ve seen the emergence of senior portfolios in universities badged as focusing on graduate employability and student life after graduation. This is a significant shift, aligning these issues with the dialectics of curriculum, learning and teaching rather than with one-way service provision. And it means that these issues can be central to the curriculum rather than peripheral, can be assessed to illustrate their value, can be aligned to course and subject outcomes, and mapped to illustrate where they are taught, practised and assessed in courses. AGENDAS IN THE SECTOR

The most notable intention of tertiary providers in relation to employability is to acknowledge that employability is a journey not a destination (see Chapter 7), and then to cultivate a much broader range of ways that students can be supported along that journey. Employability and the activities and opportunities that contribute to employability are viewed as broadly and diversely as ever, an explicit move away from thinking that it was sufficient to have a career service, some graduate attributes and a period of work integrated learning embedded into the degree and employability could be attained. The move of responsibility for graduate employability into academic portfolios, for instance, has affected the shift from solely seeing graduate employment as the role of a careers service that only the enlightened students use. By embedding these issues into the teaching and learning in courses, in addition to a range of co- and extra-curricular offerings, we can support students to attain and maintain employability. But as Cranmer (2006) points out, there are tensions within the broad employability agenda:

27

LETTS

There are difficulties inherent within the employability in higher education agenda at every turn: from defining, to measuring, to developing, to transferring. The elusive quality of employability makes it a woolly concept to pin down. (p. 172) Such difficulties must be acknowledged and grappled with in order to assure ourselves (and our students and their future employers) that our collective efforts will accomplish what we intend them to accomplish. Another agenda increasing in prominence in the sector involves more involvement of the students’ voices – the very people whose employability preparedness and identities we are trying to enhance. This voice has largely been missing from the discourse and debates about graduate employability (Tymon, 2013) and that’s been, perhaps, to the detriment of some of our efforts to improve in this space. For instance, in Tymon’s (2013) study with over 400 students he found “there is only limited alignment between the views of students and other stakeholder groups” (p. 841) about employability-related development. More work needs to be done to assist students to shift from believing “that employability is a short-term means to an end, being about finding a job, any job, or employment” (ibid, p. 852) to seeing that it’s about their preparedness for the life’s journey of work that lies ahead. Increasingly, work to enhance employability is seen first and foremost as identity work (e.g. Daniels & Brooker, 2014; Finn, 2017; Jackson, 2016; Smith et al., 2017). That is, employability is bolstered as students come to see themselves as employable and build their employability self-concept. Traditionally this has been attempted primarily through work integrated learning in the forms of professional or placement, clinical work placements, internships and volunteering. But more recently tertiary providers have been using a suite of strategies to try to achieve this identity development, including “meet and greet” nights with professionals, simulations, explicit teaching about one’s professional identity, shadowing professionals in the workplace, explicit attention to building and maintaining networks, role-playing professional scenarios, and mentoring and coaching. In the zeal to help students develop graduate or professional identities, Daniels and Brooker (2014) caution against overlooking their need to cultivate and nurture student identities as well. In relation to graduate attributes, for example, the authors note that “graduate attributes show little evidence that students have been encouraged to explore their development as students, or that institutions see this student identity development as an asset for their graduates or for their potential employer” (ibid, p. 68). They are concerned that “a graduate identity is being constructed for them, with no opportunity to explore, as students, how identities are formed, developed, shaped and so to begin to understand their own agency in the process” (ibid, p. 68). Universities would shudder to think they are “doing to” students rather than “doing with” them, so these are important perspectives to take on board. And as Daniels and Brooker point out these identity development processes don’t need to occur in a sequential fashion, they can occur simultaneously. Importantly, time needs to be devoted to identity formation because it “enables students to become practitioners with a sense of self and purpose both as members 28

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

of a given community and as global citizens” (Trede & McEwen, 2012, p. 27). Allowing for this identity work is also consistent with Jackson’s research (2016) mentioned earlier. This is important because “students gain valuable experience in identity work. Students will find themselves shaping and adapting their identities many times over as they apply their developing understandings to different stages of their university experience” (Daniels & Brooker, 2014, p. 73). We don’t want to over-rely on the outputs at the expense of the invaluable inputs, such as investment in identity development and identity work. As Daniels and Brooker (2014) remind us, A return to a revaluing of the student identity, and the student’s role in this, as part of a process of learning at university would encourage students’ understanding of the importance of identity formation and would equip them, as graduates, with agentic skills for their current and future experiences. (p. 74) In relation to the employability agenda, Finn (2017) implores us to look beyond what the university can do for students to consider students’ own lives and backgrounds and how impactful one’s personal life can be and how these can serve as resources for cultivating employability. She notes that “university to work transitions are valued and narrated in much broader terms than skills and attributes, status or salary. Indeed finding a ‘good’ job and feeling good about post-university employment was expressed as relational and emotional processes that related strongly to feelings of wellbeing, stability and personal satisfaction” (ibid, p. 428). Such contributions remind us that the employability agenda must also entail attention to the relational practices inherent in identity formation, identity maintenance and transitions from education to the world of work (and between jobs and careers). Attention to employability must exceed curricular strategies and working towards graduate attributes in isolation from the contexts individuals emerge from and operate within. Tomlinson (2012) prompts us to recall that “employability also encompasses significant equity issues” (p. 427). Although the massification of the sector has seen many new and more diverse entrants, this too has exacerbated and surfaced societal inequalities that get reproduced and magnified by the educational system. Tomlinson (2012) writes that, “Kupfer (2011) highlights the continued preponderance of structural and cultural inequalities though the existence of layered HE and labour market structures, operating in differentiated fields of power and resources” (p. 427). These must be acknowledged and explicitly addressed in employability efforts. TARGETS IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR

The overall trend we have seen in the higher education sector is a ramping up not only of a greater diversity of targets that contribute to employability, but a much greater use of these targets in the marketing and branding efforts of tertiary institutions. This includes a much greater attention to partners/employers and how they are connected not only to the students, but to the curriculum, teaching and learning. There are many employment opportunities in the forces shaping the labour

29

LETTS

market and higher education institutions are working hard to take advantage of those opportunities. The biggest challenge in relation to setting targets might be the measurement challenge – how do we know if we’re doing a good job? As Tymon (2013) reminds us, “one potential problem with trying to develop employability is a lack of coherence about what is meant by the term itself and the subsequent measurement of it” (p. 842). Daniels and Brooker (2014) extend this point when they write, “Without clear guidelines and a common vision, there can be considerable variation in how these graduate attributes that produce work-readiness are envisaged by administrators, taught by teaching staff and understood by students (Barrie 2006; Curzon-Hobson 2004; Green, Hammer, and Star 2009; Tymon [2013])” (p. 68). In relation to graduate attributes, for instance, Tymon (2013) points out that “This difference, between employment rates and employability, makes measurement of the concept challenging. Currently most stakeholder groups use statistics from graduate destination surveys to measure employability, whereas what these provide is a limited snapshot of employment” (p. 843). For employability exceeds employment or getting your first job as in fact one could have high employability and still be underemployed or indeed unemployed. So we need better measurements of the various aspects that contribute to employability, and we need a better metric that helps us understand these additively, not in isolation from one another in an artificial and oversimplified manner. This will necessitate, in part, better (more comprehensive, more nuanced) qualitative portraits (Lawrence Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) as well, since much of what constitutes employability would be better captured in that manner. Another target across the sector is ensuring that employability efforts reap better dividends for students. In the face of research like that by Cranmer (2006), tertiary institutions are keen and working assiduously to ensure that employability efforts can be shown to yield benefits for those students focused on building their employability knowledge, skills and capabilities. Cranmer found that “measuring employability outcomes is even more difficult than defining them, and methods to do so have met with reservation” (ibid, p. 173). So the sector continues to strive to move beyond single-source measures like QILT2 data to confirm that their efforts are well-placed and having the desired effects. STRATEGIES IN THE SECTOR

Information abounds in the sector about the approaches higher education institutions are taking to build and sustain graduate employability (c.f. Minocha, Hristov, & Reynolds, 2017; Universities Australia, 2019). A quick scan of university websites offers ample information about how specific institutions are framing and centring these issues, and what opportunities are available to students to build and maintain employability. There is not enough space left in this chapter to catalogue the breadth and depth of the strategies currently employed by higher education providers to nurture and maintain employability. Other chapters in this volume and Volume 1 provide rich examples. So what I aim to do in this section is consider some broad 30

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

strategic approaches to building employability, look at whose responsibility employability development is, and finally ask what all this means for higher education institutions. Farenga and Quinlan’s (2016) three-part qualitative typology of employability approaches utilised by universities – hands-off, portfolio and award – offers insight into how employability is built and sustained in particular institutions. In the Handsoff model employability development is not embedded within a degree, but rather happens through non-award, non-credit bearing activities and events. At one point in time this was how almost all employability development probably took place. Many institutions have certainly moved away from this model. Portfolio opportunities are where students can access a range of employability development activities, some of which might be embedded within degrees, and are variously credit and non-credit bearing. The Award approach is where the university formally recognises employability activities, perhaps on the transcript, a co-curricular record or a certificate. To this Bennett et al. (2017) have added a fourth approach, Nonembedded, “which sits between hands-off and portfolio and is characterised by the availability of multiple, centrally-delivered employability development opportunities, all offered outside the formal curriculum” (p. 57). Bennett et al. (ibid) have positioned the four employability development models along “a continuum of institutional involvement and responsibility, with Hands-off at one end, followed by Non-embedded, then Portfolio and ending with Award at the opposite end of the continuum” (p. 57). A scan of Australian university websites, for instance, reveals that most institutions are presently employing either the portfolio (more common) or award (less common) models. Many institutions are grappling with how to move to an award model, but there are lots of logistical, policy and process issues to work out to bring this to fruition. Overall, we have seen a marked shift from a “self-serve” listing of possibilities to enhance employability to an intentional, curricular and increasingly award-bearing (in the form of badges or other micro credentials or acknowledgement on testamurs and transcripts) approach. While in the past the “dominant discourses on graduates’ employability have tended to centre on the economic role of graduates and the capacity of HE to equip them for the labour market” (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 408), increasingly institutions are putting into practice their commitment to a shared responsibility, and involving employers as well to shoulder their responsibilities in employability development and maintenance. The past model of making a menu of services and activities available to students is yielding to a model where employability opportunities exist in the curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular spaces and where students themselves are the authors and creators of many of these opportunities. Such moves are serving to intervene on the mindset that the expectation is that what you study is what you become. This belief is more understandable in some areas like nursing where 90% of nursing graduates become nurses but it doesn’t make sense in relation to many degrees. For instance, only 50% of law graduates ever become lawyers. While we often first think about the tight links between what one studies in tertiary education and what job or career one eventually takes up, a Pro-Vice Chancellor (Graduate Employment) (D. Mather, personal communication, 31

LETTS

February 19, 2018) reminds us that “What you study doesn’t define what you become”. For example, a degree with high “proximal employability” (Letts, Chapter 7 in this volume) such as a teacher education degree cultivates skills, dispositions and capabilities that can be applied in a wide range of contexts that well exceed a school classroom. So even when much of the knowledge developed in a degree seems to be preparing one for a limited range of contexts (e.g. a school classroom), the portability of the skills, dispositions and capabilities means that the range of opportunities available with that credential is much wider than perhaps originally conceptualised. Decrying the oversimplification of a “skills and attributes” approach Tomlinson (2012) wrote: Furthermore, as Bridgstock (2009) has highlighted, generic skills discourses often fail to engage with more germane understandings of the actual careersalient skills graduates genuinely need to navigate through early career stages. Skills and attributes approaches often require a stronger location in the changing nature and context of career development in more precarious labour markets, and to be more firmly built upon efficacious ways of sustaining employability narratives (p. 413) But despite the critiques of an over-reliance on graduate attributes (several canvassed earlier in this chapter), these broad skills and attributes that exceed individual disciplines are more important than ever in assuring employability (Oliver & Jorre de St Jorre, 2018). Oliver and Jorre de St Jorre took stock of not only what areas were identified as graduate attributes across the tertiary education sector in Australia but also how universities and other tertiary providers provide evidence that students are attaining the attributes. What resulted from the study was a list of seven actions for better practice that providers could undertake to continue to improve on assessing graduate attributes and evidencing their attainment. These are the sorts of evidencebased explorations that we need to keep engaging in to benchmark our practice against. However curricular solutions alone aren’t enough. For instance, Smith et al. (2017) found the important influences on students’ identity work in the context of employability were found to be: their life experiences before and outside of university; their routes into their courses; and the ways in which employability initiatives were supported within their different departments. (p. 10) From their work surveying 199 students and then conducting follow-up interviews these authors found that, “strategic development of the curriculum to enhance graduate employability should acknowledge the intersection of student identity, graduate/professional identity, social and cultural factors together with the vagaries of the labour market” (ibid, p. 10). So university employability efforts shouldn’t neglect the development and dissemination of student identity resources and opportunities for students to “try on” and experience different identities as they journey towards and within employability. If they continue to put students at the centre of employability efforts then “targeted, student-focused employability

32

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

elements, with clear messages designed to signpost advice and mentoring provided by the university, could align initiatives with student aspirations” (ibid, p. 10). The pace of change of technologies has also presented both opportunities and challenges for higher education institutions. Opportunities abound in the new methods of communicating, networking, marketing, simulating, capturing data and enhancing teaching and learning. But universities are notoriously poor at keeping pace with the rapidly changing technology landscape, so they are challenged to realise that the future is here, that it starts now. But because universities and other tertiary providers have not necessarily kept pace with the changing technologies a myriad of opportunities exist for them to become more future-focused and to harness the capabilities that these evolving technologies afford. Every role will change – not just “out there” in the workforce beyond university, but including the roles of student and lecturer (which in this context sounds like such an outdated name) and we need to be prepared. But for all of the talk about technology as a disrupter and changes in technology happening more quickly than the sector can keep up with there are also examples of the sector embracing changes in technologies to improve its practice. For instance, Schech et al. (2017) explored the affordances of a simulated workplace in which students gained professional experience. Not hindered by the resourcing required to source and place students in professional experience or internship placements, this innovation afforded students who might have otherwise missed out on a (simulated) workplace experience an opportunity within which to learn. So the story with emerging technologies is not all doom and gloom, but institutions do need to lift their games. In all, there are a wide range of innovative strategies that higher education institutions are using to engage students and graduates in creating and enhancing their employability identities to foster lifelong employability. With a sharing of responsibility for the development of employability between students/graduates, higher education institutions and employers, employability is best conceptualised and achieved when thought of as a journey rather than a destination. PREPARING FOR THE CAREERS OF THE FUTURE, AND SO MUCH MORE

Employability is not just about getting jobs but entering careers – careers of the future. What’s the predominant narrative about career prospects? That all of our roles have changed already or they will change. How do we anticipate and prepare for this? The primary challenge is mindset over skillset. Employability is a mindset about how to approach the world of work and future careers. Graduates must have a mindset to grow with and into the roles they will fill – roles that don’t even currently exist. This will entail needing to cultivate lifelong employability, an employability that’s dynamic and sustainable through one’s working life. It starts with being passionate about what you’re studying and intentionally participating both in terms of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. And we need to remind students (and ourselves) that this journey is not simply about preparing for the world of work, it’s about preparing for life as an engaged and knowledgeable citizen of the world, as an advocate for a just and fair society, and as an interested and active contributor 33

LETTS

to one’s local community. The research about the “neoliberal turn” in universities to operational conceptions of employability serves as a cautionary tale that requires urgent attention. Boden and Nedeva (2010) write, “If students are seeking economic return in preference to an educational voyage of discovery then a degree becomes simply a means to an economic end. Students-as-customers may develop a goal rather than process-oriented attitudes to their learning” (p. 50). Let’s have universities put this on their agendas and devise strategies that find a middle way forward that doesn’t eliminate (or deaden) the journey, but still offers tangible and fruitful outcomes to the travellers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am deeply indebted to Dineli Mather for numerous conversations that have influenced the shape and contents of this chapter. NOTES 1

2

34

The first volume reference is: Higgs, J., Crisp, G., & Letts, W. (Eds.). (2019). Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. https://www.qilt.edu.au

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYABILITY AGENDAS

REFERENCES Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215-241. Bennett, D., Knight, E., Divan, A., Kuchel, L., Horn, J., van Reyk, D., & Burke da Silva, K. B. (2017). How do research-intensive universities portray employability strategies? A review of their websites. Australian Journal of Career Development, 26(2), 52-61. Blackmore, J. (2002). Globalisation and the restructuring of higher education for new knowledge economies: New dangers or old habits troubling gender equity work in universities? Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), 419-441. Boden, R., & Nedeva, M. (2010). Employing discourse: Universities and graduate ‘employability’. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 37-54. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31-44. Bridgstock, R. (2019). Graduate employability 2.0: Learning for life and work in a socially networked world. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 97-106). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Burke, C., Scurry, T., Blenkinsopp, J., & Graley, K. (2017). Critical perspectives on graduate employability. In M. Tomlinson & L. Holmes (Eds.), Graduate employability in context: Theory, research and debate (pp. 87-107). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Clarke, M. (2018). Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923-1937. Cranmer, S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: Best intentions and mixed outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 169-184. Curzon-Hobson, A. (2004). The marginalization of higher learning: An interpretation of current tertiary reform policy in New Zealand. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 211-224. Daniels, J., & Brooker, J. (2014). Student identity development in higher education: Implications for graduate attributes and work-readiness. Educational Research, 56(1), 65-76. Farenga, S. A., & Quinlan, K. M. (2016). Classifying university employability strategies: Three case studies and implications for practice and research. Journal of Education and Work, 29, 1-21. Finn, K. (2017) Relational transitions, emotional decisions: New directions for theorising graduate employment. Journal of Education and Work, 30(4), 419-431. Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes? Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 17-29. Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 3-17. Hassard, J., McCann, L., & Morris, J. L. (2008). Managing in the new economy: Restructuring white collar work in the USA, UK and Japan. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538-554. Jackson, D. (2016). Re-conceptualising graduate employability: The importance of pre-professional identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 925-939. Kupfer, A. (2011). Towards a theoretical framework for the comparative understanding of globalisation, higher education, the labour market and inequality. The Journal of Education and Work, 24(1), 185207. Lawrence Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Minocha, S., Hristov, D., & Reynolds, M. (2017). From graduate employability to employment: Policy and practice in UK higher education. International Journal of Training and Development, 21(1), 235248.

35

LETTS Oliver, B. (2015). Assuring graduate capabilities: Evidencing levels of achievement for graduate employability. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Oliver, B., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2018). Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond: Recommendations for Australian higher education providers. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 821836. Paterson, M., Higgs, J., Wilcox, S., & Villenuve, M. (2002). Clinical reasoning and self-directed learning: Key dimensions in professional learning and professional socialisation. Focus on Health Professional Education, 4(2), 5-21. Rizvi, F. (2010). International students and doctoral studies in transnational spaces. In M. Walker & P. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion: Supporting effective research in education and the social sciences (pp. 158-170). London, England: Routledge. Rizvi, F. (2011). Experiences of cultural diversity in the context of an emergent transnationalism. European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 180-188. Schech, S., Kelton, M., Carati, C., & Kingsmill, V. (2017). Simulating the global workplace for graduate employability. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1476-1489. Smith, S., Smith, C., Taylor-Smith, E., & Fotheringham, J. (2017). Towards graduate employment: Exploring student identity through a university-wide employability project. Journal of Further and Higher Education. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1390077 Teichler, U. (1999). Higher education policy and the world of work: Changing conditions and challenges. Higher Education Policy, 12(4), 285-312. Teichler, U. (2007). Does higher education matter? Lessons from a comparative survey. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 11-34. The Foundation for Young Australians. (2016). The New Work Mindset: 7 new work clusters to help young people navigate the New Work Order. Sydney, Australia: Author. The Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The New Work Smarts: Thriving in the New Work Order. Sydney, Australia: Author. Tomlinson, M. (2010). Investing in the self: Structure, agency and identity in graduates’ employability. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 4(2), 73-88. Tomlinson, M. (2012). Graduate employability: A review of conceptual and empirical themes. Higher Education Policy, 25, 407-431. Trede, F., & McEwen, C. (2012). Developing a critical professional identity: Engaging self in practice. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (pp. 27-40). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Tymon, A. (2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 841856. Universities Australia. (2019). Career ready graduates. Canberra, Australia: Author. Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is – what it is not (Learning and Employability Series 1). York, England: The Higher Education Academy.

Will Letts PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0266-5703) Faculty of Arts and Education Charles Sturt University, Australia

36

JO COLDWELL-NEILSON AND TRUDI COOPER

4. DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the need for digital literacy across disciplines and explores how this is changing as society responds to the social and technological changes consequent upon the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its employability demands. The background sets out the assumptions that underpin this chapter, and the kinds of technological and social challenges that graduates will face as the Fourth Industrial Revolution unfolds as their workplace. The chapter discusses the elements of digital literacy that will be required and suggests how these can be embedded in disciplinary (course) content. Finally, the conclusion draws out implications of this for university education more generally and for digital literacy development in particular. WHY IS DIGITAL LITERACY IMPORTANT?

With increasing digitisation and the rapid expansion of the digital economy since the beginning of the 21st century, the labour market has quickly evolved, requiring a workforce that possesses extensive digital skills. “Digital disruption” affects roles that are not just information and communication technologies (ICT) specific but it also has implications for the broader workplace. This requires clarity about what is meant by digital literacy, and particularly digital skills, digital competencies, digital capabilities and digital information discernment. It is estimated that over half of Australian workers will need to be able to use, configure or build digital systems in the near future (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2015). A helpful framework for classifying the digital skills required in our workforce emerged as part of the UK Digital Skills Taskforce which classified four bands of digital skills and estimated the proportion of the workforce expected to be in each category1:  Digital Muggle: no digital skills required (7% of workforce).  Digital Citizen: the ability to use digital technology purposefully and confidently to communicate, find information and purchase goods/services (37% of workforce).  Digital Worker: the ability to evaluate, configure and use complex digital systems. Elementary programming skills such as scripting are often required for these tasks (46% of workforce).  Digital Maker: skills sufficient to build digital technology (10% of workforce). As reported by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA, 2015), “[c]hanging demands from firms, consumers, students and communities means that apprenticeships, vocational qualifications and degrees need to deliver © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_004

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER

more general and also specific digital capabilities” (p. 163). Further, “technologyenabled HE [higher education] requires a mind-set change for which universities must focus more strongly on what their students want and what employers are looking for in graduates” (Gallagher & Garrett as cited in CEDA, 2015, p. 229). The move for greater focus on digital skills is reinforced by the Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda (Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, 2015), which strongly supports improvement of digital literacy skills, amongst others. This is reflected in the substantial investment in programs to boost digital literacy and interest in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) amongst young Australians. A report published by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Hajkowicz et al., 2016) indicates that “to enter the labour market of the future Australians will need to be literate, numerate and digitally literate. These capabilities will be threshold requirements for most jobs” (p. 13). The report further suggests that: While numeracy and literacy have long been on the radar for education providers, digital literacy is a relative newcomer. A challenge is the rapid change in computer software and hardware, which can make learned skills redundant. However, there are likely to be fundamental and enduring concepts of digital literacy which will be important for future job seekers to have mastered. (p. 13) In 2018, Korn Ferry’s research revealed that there is a looming talent shortage in a number of sectors internationally which has the potential to threaten economies worldwide. In order to successfully leverage technological advances, the mismatch between the skills and experience of workers and technological advances must be addressed. “Technology cannot deliver the promised productivity gains if there are not enough human workers with the right skills” (Korn Ferry, 2018). A basic requirement will be that the human workers need to be able to use digital technologies, effectively and efficiently, to support their work practices; in order to do this, they need sound digital literacy skills to build upon. WHAT IS DIGITAL LITERACY?

Digital literacy is a complex term that does not have one agreed upon definition. It is often confused and interchanged with other terms such as ICT literacy, technological literacy, media literacy and information literacy. These terms overlap with digital literacy and share similar characteristics in their definitions. Consequently, the term digital literacy is often misused and misunderstood (Coldwell-Neilson, 2017). A commonly used definition of digital literacy was originally conceptualised by Paul Gilster (1997) as “…the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when presented via computers” (p. 1). Bearing in mind the considerable transformation of the digital space since the 1990s, we should question the relevancy of this definition as we head into the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 38

DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0

Gilster published his definition of digital literacy at a time when mobile phones could handle voice and text only, when personal computers were the most powerful small digital device, when Internet traffic was measured in gigabytes per day. The modern digital world is very different. We have access to a plethora of smart, mobile devices and many of us have more than one device. A lot of Internet traffic is generated through the use of social media; in fact, it seems at times that social media is the primary means of communication in the modern world with individual daily downloads measured in gigabytes! We can use our phones to take pictures, which can include metadata related to time, date, location etc. We shop online; do our banking online; share personal data across potentially open networks. We can even control our environment with mobile devices, remotely managing the heating or cooling, security cameras and household devices like vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers in our homes before we leave the office. The advent of augmented and virtual reality means we can experience the wider world in the comfort of our own homes; we can view inaccessible parts of the world in incredible 3D, all of which have significant implications for the capabilities that should be included under the banner of digital literacy. The significant enhancement and disruption created by digital technologies is just as prevalent in the workplace. The introduction of personal computers “represented a paradigm shift in computing … [leading to] a fundamental change in the way in which people worked” (O’Regan, 2012, p. 65). These days it is difficult to imagine the workplace without some form of digital technology on every desk. You do not have to be a computer expert to have more computing power in your pocket, in the guise of a mobile phone, for example, than that of an IBM mainframe computer of the last century. What are the implications for users of modern digital technology? Do typical users fully understand the implications of using the technology or the extent to which they could use it or the risks and ethical dilemmas presented by digital technologies? If we accept the framework suggested by the UK Forum on Computer Education, as described in the previous section, 93% of the workforce need to be at least digitally literate in the near future. Are we preparing our students for a digitally enhanced and disrupted workplace? Do we actually understand what it means to be digitally literate in the 21st century and what it should entail? A common understanding of digital literacy needs to be developed that reflects the demands of current and future digital technologies and how they are used. This should inform a framework which defines the underlying digital skills and capabilities which can be used to support digital literacy development contextualised within curricula. This will ensure our graduates are digitally fluent and have the skills and capabilities that are not only appropriate to their career aspirations but are sufficiently robust to support their transition to a world of work that is digitally enhanced and has been, and will continue to be, significantly disrupted. Although Gilster is attributed as being the first to articulate a definition of digital literacy, the terms information literacy and computer literacy (including variations) were prominent from the 1980s (Bawden, 2001). These three terms (computer,

39

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER

information and digital literacies) are often used interchangeably, contributing to much of the confusion around what digital literacy entails. Computer literacy was widely used in the context of “knowing and being able to use computers and related software” (Ala-Mutka, 2011, p. 23). According to Bawden (2001), a pragmatic skills-based approach was adopted towards computer literacy initially, providing “the skills required to operate a variety of computer application packages … together with some general IT skills” (pp. 225-226). The term information literacy existed well before the advent of personal computers, for example Burchinall’s (1976) definition states that “…information literacy requires a new set of skills … to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision–making efficiently and effectively” (p. 11). In 1989, the Association of College and Research Libraries stated that to be information literate requires the ability to “recognise when information is needed and have an ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information” (p. 1). Neither of these refer specifically to digital technologies. However, Gilster’s definition of digital literacy does successfully combine these concepts of information literacy and computer literacy. As explained by Bawden (2008), Gilster’s definition is not about any particular technology; rather it is about the “ideas and mindsets, within which particular skills and competences operate, and about information and information resources, in whatever format” (p. 19) and is “a very broad span, from specific skills and competences to rather general awareness and perspective” (p. 20). The American Library Association’s (ALA) definition of information literacy has persisted, particularly within the higher education community, and appears in a number of models, most notably SCONUL’s seven pillars model (SCONUL, 2011) which goes beyond the elements included in ALA’s definition to include “softer skills such as evaluation of information and recognition of information need” (Bawden, 2008, p. 22). However, the SCONUL model, even with a digital lens, is still basically information literacy. Definitions post Gilster were attempting to capture the implications of the new technologies that were becoming prominent at the time (e.g. media literacies, communication, etc.). This approach did limit the usefulness of the definition as the technologies developed and the functionality available to users extended well beyond the thinking of the day. Conceptualisation of information literacy has changed and is continuing to evolve in response to developments in digital information creation, storage and transmission. In the pre-digital context, information was difficult to find and information literacy focused on honing information retrieval skills. However, in the evolving digital era, information is over-abundant. The focus for information literacy has changed from information retrieval to information discernment (Cooper, 2019). Since the end of the 20th century the boundaries of the concept of information literacy have expanded as library resources have moved away from being print-based repositories, to become primarily web-based access points. Librarians’ roles have changed from assisting people to locate high-quality printed sources, to assisting people to become information informed users and creators of web-based resources (Špiranec & Banek Zorica, 2010). 40

DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0

Information discernment, a key component of digital literacy, has become a necessary skill because through “just Google” and the various electronic assistants (Siri, Alexa, Cortana, etc.) the Internet has become the main source of information for most people. This is convenient, but also problematic because the medium contains an undifferentiated mix of information and opinion, truth, half-truths and lies. Reliable information is presented alongside opinion that masquerades as fact, and is mixed with disinformation that is false, or intended to deceive. A recent ALA (2015) definition reflects this change, and has a greater focus on understanding the contextual nature of information and of authority, where “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” and searching is viewed as “Strategic Exploration” (p. 2). Information discernment has also come to the fore because the Internet is saturated with advertising, public relations presentations and propaganda, all of which are intended to persuade people to believe things or do things against their better judgement and against their interests, for commercial or political reasons. In this context information discernment is often referred to as social media literacy. Opportunities for disinformation and propaganda have increased with the growth of literacy and the mass media in the 19th and 20th centuries, and in the 21st century micro-targeting of disinformation for the first time became possible. Micro-targeting is a propaganda technique whereby disinformation is presented differently to people according to what each person is most likely to believe (Cooper, 2019), through a combination of echo chambers, filter bubbles and fake news. For example, algorithmic mass data analytics, and trend prediction methods based upon Facebook “likes” (Kosinski, Stillwell, & Graepel, 2013), have been used to profile people, to infer their beliefs and preferences and to develop individual digital profiles. These have been used by Cambridge Analytica and others for commercial and political purposes, including to influence elections, in the USA, the EU referendum in the UK and to influence elections in Nigeria (Cadwalladr, 2018). Through personalising our feeds, filter bubbles are created, resulting in a state of intellectual isolation generated from personalised searches when a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see. Filter bubbles are based on information about the user, such as location, past click-behaviour and search history (Pariser, 2011). The impact of filter bubbles results in users becoming separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles. Similarly, through machine learning algorithms that humans do not fully understand, social media channels are generating echo chambers, which are metaphorical descriptions of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system, again based on users’ activity online. The echo effect is being reinforced by the algorithms where readers are shown content that aligns with their current views, beliefs or personal choices only. Together with fake news, which is the deliberate propagation of disinformation or hoaxes, filter bubbles and echo chambers are impacting on all aspects of our lives with consequences ranging from an amusing interlude to catastrophic situations. These developments mean that information discernment continues to be a significant 41

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER

skill within digital literacy and has become particularly important as an employment skill as well as in everyday life. As can be seen from this brief introduction to digital literacy, the capabilities encompassed in the term changes as technology advances. Technology is advancing rapidly, and any definition must be technology independent as it is inevitable that future developments in digital technology and digital use will outstrip our current thinking about what digital literacy should include. Here, we will use the definition of digital literacy that is an outcome of the work undertaken through an Australian Learning and Teaching Fellowship (ColdwellNeilson, 2016). An aim of the fellowship was to develop a common understanding of digital literacy that can be used to support digital literacy development within higher education curricula. Through an investigation of recent work of digital literacy experts, a definition was developed that captures the need for digital skills across all aspects of our lives: Digital literacy is the ability to identify and use technology confidently, creatively and critically to effectively meet the demands and challenges of living, learning and working in a digital society.2 A DIGITAL LITERACY FRAMEWORK

Underlying this definition of digital literacy is a framework, which captures a broad spectrum of skills, capabilities and understandings that a digitally literate person needs in order to be able to participate and grow effectively and as needed in the modern, digital-disrupted world. Digital literacy is not static, and it is not the same for everyone, but it does need to be fit for purpose. There are some fundamental and foundational skills and capabilities that everyone needs in order to provide the scaffolding for future development. ICT capability is a basic necessity of being digitally literate. If we did not have the technology, we would not be trying to address this issue! Of course, information literacy, and its more advanced cousin, information discernment, are also essential skills in this era of fake news and reliance on social media to learn about the world we live in. But what else constitutes being digitally literate? Current higher education graduates are not displaying the basic, functional digital literacy skills required by academics or employers (Coldwell-Neilson, 2018). Therefore, it is essential that, regardless of the understanding of digital literacy that is adopted within a learning environment, the capabilities are developed within specific contexts. Australia is approximately 10 years behind Europe and the UK as far as addressing digital literacy in educational contexts is concerned. It was not until 2015 that the Australian Government and others (CEDA, 2015; Deloitte Access Economics & Australian Computer Society, 2015; The Foundation for Young Australians, 2015) highlighted the need for higher education to respond to the fast-changing future employment environment. The European Commission has been a leader in identifying the need for building capacity in the digital space since it identified digital competence as one of eight key competencies for lifelong 42

DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0

learning in 2006. These have had a significant impact on subsequent developments, guiding the development of digital literacy, competency frameworks and programs. The Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc) has been leading digital literacy developments in higher education in the UK for some time. Jisc suggests that digital literacy goes “beyond functional IT skills to describe a richer set of digital behaviours, practices and identities. What it means to be digitally literate changes over time and across contexts…” (Jisc, 2014, n.p.). Jisc has developed a six-element model of the literacies underpinning their definition,3 including ICT proficiency, information, data and media literacies, digital creation, problem solving and innovation, digital communication, collaboration and participation, digital learning and development, and finally, digital identity and wellbeing. Jisc places ICT proficiency as foundational for the other elements, which are interconnected and overlapping. Sharpe and Beetham (2010) developed a pyramid model which can be used in conjunction with the Jisc model to describe the process of building digital capabilities. This provides a sound basis for developing an understanding of what capabilities should be captured under the banner of digital literacy in the context of the Jisc model. The process starts with access to and awareness of digital technologies, followed by functional skills development to higher-level capabilities and, finally, identity. This model is particularly helpful in facilitating and understanding how students can be motivated to explore new technologies and gain new skills by presenting them with challenges at the higher levels of the pyramid. The four levels of the pyramid can be interpreted as tools (I have …), skills (I can …), practices (I do …) and attributes (I am …) and share similarities with Barnett and Coate’s (2004) “knowing”, “acting” and “being” curriculum framework. These well-established models and associated practices are used as the basis for the digital literacy framework, which underpins the digital literacy definition articulated above. This framework captures the ever-changing skills and capabilities that are required to navigate our digital world, including the following items, plus understanding the role that digital technologies have in facilitation, promotion and obfuscation.       

ICT proficiency Information and media literacy Communication, collaboration and participation Information and data management Creation and innovation Digital identity and wellbeing Privacy and security.

As skills and capabilities interact and grow over time they develop someone who is confident using technologies as needed in their personal, working and learning lives. In other words, they are digitally fluent. A key aspect of being digitally literate is being able to recognise when there is a gap in knowledge or skills, and knowing how to address that gap. Being digitally literate should also mean being able to identify when using technology (or particular technology) is not appropriate. 43

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER

THE ROLE OF EDUCATION

The purpose of education, including higher education, has always been tied to economic and social change. Table 4.1 provides an overview. Table 4.1. Overview of industrial revolutions and implications for education. Era

Technological changes

Social changes

Educational changes

Industry 1.0 (19th century)

Machines assist people.

Work moved from home to factories. Division of labour, deskilling, ruralurban migration begins.

Primary education becomes compulsory.

Mechanisation of agriculture, decline of rural employment, mass production. Taylorism. Piece-rate. Wars. Nuclear threats.

Secondary schooling becomes compulsory.

Growth in professional, paraprofessional and service industries. Rise of globalism. Decline of manual work. Rise of the consumer.

Massification of higher education – serving needs of economic growth.

Social media, surveillance, growth in income inequality in developed economies.

Expansion of higher education (e.g. MOOCs). Education to resolve digital ethical dilemmas arising from automation and machine–human interaction (drone warfare, automated vehicles, medical ethics). Serve needs of society/humanity – becoming human?

Mechanisation.

Industry 2.0 (Early–mid 20th century)

People assist machines/people extension of machine. Mass production.

Industry 3.0 (late 20th century into 21st century)

People manage machines.

Industry 4.0 (21st century)

Machines manage machines OR machines manage humans? “Internet of Things”.

Knowledge economy.

Casualisation of work. Blurring boundary between home–work. Ecological crisis. Greater leisure?

44

DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0

This discussion focuses on the changes in education during the Third and Fourth Industrial Revolutions. During the Third Industrial Revolution the focus of economic production changed from mass manufacture to the “knowledge economy”. Mechanisation removed many unskilled jobs, and there was a need for a more highly trained, skilled workforce. These socioeconomic changes profoundly affected both vocational and higher education. For higher education the growth in professional and para-professional roles led to a massification of higher education, and a focus on the role of universities to meet the needs of employers primarily, and later the needs of students as consumers of higher education. Politically, the Third Industrial Revolution coincided with a transition away from a social democratic welfare state, away from unionisation of labour, and towards neo-liberal political dominance, where individuals displaced communities as the most important social unit, where work is more casualised, and where welfare services became displaced by marketised transactional relationships. During this period economic inequality grew. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is now upon us. In this era, machines manage machines and the requirements for human labour are predicted to decline sharply. Unlike the Third Industrial Revolution, this decline will apply not only to unskilled labour, but also to skilled jobs and to professional work. Whereas in the Third Industrial Revolution an unskilled workforce could be “upskilled”, during the Fourth Industrial Revolution even many skilled jobs will be at risk. Although many still claim that other jobs will emerge, it is less clear if they will emerge in sufficient quantity, or appear rapidly enough, to absorb the impending loss of employment. The Fourth Industrial Revolution will bring changes in many areas of life, including in relation to our sense of purpose (as robots take our jobs), in the area of ethics (as new ethical issues arise from technological and medical possibilities) and in social justice. Many possible social implications are not clear at this point, and decisions being made now about how to legislate and manage the interaction of humans and technology will determine to what extent the Fourth Industrial Revolution moves us towards a utopia or a dystopia. In any event, the purpose of university education is highly likely to change and to move away from such a strong employment focus. A challenge for higher education generally and for digital literacy in particular, is how to ensure that a university education prepares graduates for a changing world where flexibility, agility and resilience will be highly valued. The current indications suggest that digital literacy will be a central component of university education for all students, but the focus of digital skills for most will be less on technical and more on skills that support management of the personal, social and ethical implications of using digital technology. Two areas are key: ethical judgement about social issues and information discernment of digital sources. Firstly, for the population as a whole, present and foreseeable changes in the use of digital technology raise, and will continue to raise, highly complex social and ethical questions, for example, about information and image sharing, privacy, and about self, identity, relationships, being human and the meaning of life, beyond consumption.

45

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER

Technology cannot answer these questions, which is why Scott (2018) suggests that the arts and humanities have an important role in university education of the future, alongside technology, science and mathematics. The second necessary life and work skill will be information discernment. This will enable people to improve their judgement about the veracity and authority of information gained from digital sources. To do this effectively students need to learn how to identify different sets of assumptions and different worldviews that underpin opinions and other digital and non-digital information. A goal of academic inquiry in humanities education is to equip students to learn how to name and critique different tacit assumptions and worldviews. If people do not gain these skills the basis for democracy and social justice (that people are not unduly manipulated) will be weakened. This is why we have argued in this chapter and elsewhere (Cooper, 2019) that digital literacy must now focus upon strengthening information discernment skills for student in all disciplines. Technical skills will also be required, but differing groups within the population will have varying digital competency educational needs. Returning to the UK Digital Skills Taskforce framework, we will now discuss the possible technical curriculum implications for each group. Digital Makers are expected to comprise 10% of the workforce in the near future. It is not self-evident that this proportion will grow very much. It might be assumed that there would be an expanding need for Digital Makers, but this remains to be seen, as more diagnostic roles may become automated and de-skilled. However, it is evident that there are significant shortages of skilled labour in this area as described by Deloitte Access Economics and the Australian Computer Society (2018). The ICT workforce continues to grow (up 3.5% in 2017 in Australia), but development of ICT-qualified workers, through further and higher education, is not keeping pace with demand. Information technology education is important for this group, and this will evolve as the frontiers of technology move. Digital Makers will require the highest level of technical capabilities under the banner of digital literacy. These are the skilled developers of future digital technologies, with increasing demand from industry for formal qualifications and professional accreditation. Digital Workers are expected to be the greatest proportion of the workforce at 46%. At present, competent use of digital computer packages is a necessary work skill that limits employability if it is lacking. It is not clear how this will change in future but it is probable this role will be deskilled, and ultimately merge with the Digital Citizen level of skill. This could occur as packages become more intuitive and voice controlled with natural language, as computers manage computers, program other computers and manage package interactivity. Many Digital Worker skills are currently taught at school or on the job, in vocational education and training or in the early stages of IT and business courses. They form only a limited part of the university curriculum for most students, and this is unlikely to change. Unfortunately, this formal learning of digital skills does not necessarily extend to the broader understanding of digital literacy presented in this chapter. This gap needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. 46

DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0

Digital Citizens are expected to make up 37% of the population and are likely to be the second largest group; their skills are learnt in everyday life rather than in education institutions. Most Millennials who have grown up with the Internet, smart phones and computers can manage these skills, sometimes even before they commence formal education, and yet if and when they do enter further or higher education their digital literacy skills are often found to be lacking, in key respects. Although they are adept at using social media, their information discernment skills have not been developed and their understanding of the impact of their digital presence is lacking. They also often lack the ability to ensure their privacy and security in online environments is maintained. Digital Muggles, at 7% of the workforce, are likely to literally die out, with the possible exception of some workers with severe intellectual disabilities. There are likely to be few work options for people who do not attain technical skills at least at the level of Digital Citizen, and already many services presume that all users have skills at this level with ready access to the Internet, which again raises equity issues for the minority who do not have these skills or access. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we have explored what it means to be digitally literate in the context of a rapidly changing employment environment that the world of Industry 4.0 entails. We have presented a case for digital literacy to be explicitly explored in curricula and the need for digital literacy development to be contextualised to meet changing industry expectations. A framework for exploring the various facets of digital literacy is presented, as well as the Sharpe and Beetham (2010) model, for growing digital literacy skills and capabilities. We need to encourage our students to develop a digital mindset, regardless of what direction they expect their careers to take. This involves being flexible and adaptable in all aspects of their learning development, particularly in the context of using digital technologies to support their learning, recognising these technologies will continue to change and develop. The Sharpe and Beetham model provides an excellent basis for supporting this growth towards a digital mindset through extending and practising digital literacy skills and capabilities to become digitally fluent in a digital culture. But, how can we become digitally literate and discerning if the information we are receiving is being managed and controlled by sophisticated digital technology artefacts that we don’t understand? What are the likely consequences of leaving our own critical thinking capabilities aside and relying on artificially intelligent influencers? Developing skills in ethical judgement about emerging dilemmas arising from digitally mediated interactions in the digital world, whether they are with intelligent machines, which are already able to out-perform humans by some measures of intelligence; or with (ro)bots masquerading as humans; or with other humans who may be deceptive about their identity and intentions (scammers, groomers, con-artists and manipulators), has become a basic requirement of being digitally literate. We all need to develop digital literacy skills more broadly to: 47

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER

 develop a better understanding of how digital technologies work  build confidence in using these technologies  develop the agility and flexibility to engage with, and manoeuvre, a rapidly changing digital environment  actively develop skills to understand the modern media world to enable critical engagement with the environment  develop the skills to be able to recognise when information may not be reliable at best or fake at worst  develop the skills and capabilities to be responsible digital global citizens  develop skills in ethical judgement about emerging dilemmas arising from digitally mediated interactions in the digital world  develop the skills and capabilities to harness the power of digital technology for the betterment of ourselves, our communities and more broadly, the world we live in. In other words, we all need: the ability to identify and use technology confidently, creatively and critically to effectively meet the demands and challenges of living, learning and working in a digital society. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Support for this study has been provided by the Australian Government Department RI(GXFDWLRQDQG7UDLQLQJ)HOORZVKLS)6í 7KHYLHZVLQWKLVVWXG\GRQRW necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training. NOTES 1 2 3

See http://www.ukdigitalskills.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Binder-9-reduced.pdf http://www.decodingdigitalliteracy.org/ https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-students-digital-literacy

REFERENCES Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding (Technical Note JRC 67075). Luxembourg: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. American Library Association (ALA). (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (1989). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. (2015). Embracing the digital age: National Innovation and Science Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/embracing-digital-age

48

DIGITAL LITERACY MEETS INDUSTRY 4.0 Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259. Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacy: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Burchinall, L. G. (1976, September 24). The communications revolution: America’s third century challenge. In The future of organizing knowledge: Papers presented at the Texas A&M University Library’s Centennial Academic Assembly. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Library. Cadwalladr, C. (2018, March 22). Cambridge Analytica's ruthless bid to sway the vote in Nigeria. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/21/cambridgeanalyticas-ruthless-bid-to-sway-the-vote-in-nigeria Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2016). Unlocking the code to digital literacy (Office for Learning and Teaching Fellowship). Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2017). Digital literacy – a driver for curriculum transformation. In R. G. Walker & S. B. Bedford (Eds.), Research and development in higher education: Curriculum transformation (Vol. 40, pp. 84-94). Sydney, Australia: HERDSA. Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2018). Digital literacy expectations in higher education. In M. Campbell, J. Willems, C. Adachi, D. Blake, I. Doherty, S. Krishnan, S. Macfarlane, L. Ngo, M. O’Donnell, S. Palmer, L. Riddell, I. Story, H. Suri, & J. Tai (Eds.). Open oceans: Learning without borders: ASCILITE 2018 Conference Proceedings (pp. 103-112). Geelong, Australia: ASCILITE. Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA). (2015). Australia's future workforce? Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ceda.com.au/research-and-policy/policypriorities/workforce Cooper, T. (2019). Calling out alternative facts: Curriculum to develop students’ capacity to engage critically with contradictory sources. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(3), 444-459. Deloitte Access Economics & Australian Computer Society (2015). Australia's digital pulse: Key challenges for our nation: Digital skills, jobs and education. Retrieved from https://www.digitalpulse.pwc.com.au/ Deloitte Access Economics & Australian Computer Society (2018). Australia’s digital pulse: Driving Australia’s international ICT competitiveness and digital growth. Retrieved from https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-publications/aadp2018.pdf European Commission. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, L394/10. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006H0962&from=EN Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: Wiley Computer Pub. Hajkowicz, S., Reeson, A., Rudd, L., Alexandra Bratanova, A., Hodgers, L., Mason, C., & Boughen, N. (2016). Tomorrow’s digitally enabled workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years. Brisbane, Australia: CSIRO. Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc). (2014). Developing digital literacies. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies Korn Ferry. (2018). The global talent crunch: Introduction. Retrieved from https://futureofwork.kornferry.com/introduction/ Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802-5805. O’Regan G. (2012). A brief history of computing. London, England: Springer. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York, NY: Penguin. SCONUL. (2011). The SCONUL seven pillars of information literacy: Core model for higher education. SCONUL Working Group on Information Literacy. Scott, G. (2018, November 29-30). Preparing work ready plus graduates for an uncertain future. Paper presented at the Talking Teaching Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

49

COLDWELL-NEILSON AND COOPER Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: Towards creative appropriation. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. de Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for the digital age: How learners shape their experiences (pp. 85-99). London, England: RoutledgeFalmer. Špiranec, S., & Banek Zorica, M. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or discourse refinement? Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140-153. The Foundation for Young Australians. (2015): The New Work Order: Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/new-work-order/

Jo Coldwell-Neilson PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3602-8334) Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment Deakin University, Australia Trudi Cooper PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4758-5881) School of Arts and Humanities Edith Cowan University, Australia

50

NOEL EDGE, EDMOND FITZGERALD AND LESLEY WILLCOXSON

5. ADDRESSING KEY CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY Changing Our Expectations of Universities

The graduate employability agenda is a focal point for Australian and international universities with most offering employability skills programs for their students (Smith et al., 2018). Universities also acknowledge the need to participate in the QS Employability Rankings.1 Underpinning these initiatives is the combination of fulltime graduate employment plateauing at historically low levels and a range of workplace disruptors that are dramatically changing business models and consequently the graduate workforce market around the world. Australian universities must urgently respond to these changes that are already reshaping the graduate workplace, focusing on future work with particular attention to the impact of emerging digital disruptors. This initiative must be driven at the highest levels of institutional management with advice from expert industry panels. GRADUATE EMPLOYMENT

Stagnant full-time graduate employment levels are a key factor triggering the development of employability programs in Australian higher education institutions. For most of the past decade, graduate employment rates for new graduates have tended to plateau around 70% for full-time employment four months after graduation. This level falls significantly below the historically consistent 80%-plus levels of previous decades (Australian Government Department of Education and Training [DET], 2018; Graduate Careers Australia [GCA], 2015). Research by The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) (2015) points to almost one in three graduates being unemployed or underemployed while waiting on average 4.7 years to find full-time work in the graduate employment marketplace. In addition to declining workplace demand, perhaps an even more significant factor affecting graduate employability over the past decade has been a sharp increase in domestic undergraduate commencements in Australian universities. These have risen 49% from under 190,000 in 2008 to over 280,000 in 2016 (Australian Government DET, 2016). An institution’s graduate full-time employment rate features as a significant variable in the USA-based QS Employability Rankings. Along with measures of university interaction with industry, graduate employment rates are factored into the index with a weighting of 10%. In 2018, with almost 500 participating universities worldwide, two Australian universities were ranked in the top 10 with a further six ranked in the top 100 (QS World University Rankings, 2018). The QS index is © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_005

EDGE ET AL.

quickly becoming the international standard measure for employability and an important marketing factor for the international student market. In addressing key concerns in graduate employability, we defined employability as the skill-set graduates will need to be work ready. Guided by the relevant literature, we focused on two key factors that universities will need to monitor as a continuing priority for their academic and graduate employability programs: – Future Work: the changing nature of work being brought about by all workforce disruptors with particular attention to digital disruptors – Developing Future Work Skills: the education processes and structures to prepare students with the employability skills for the future work environment. FUTURE WORK

Future work is of increasing concern for society at large including governments, employers, employees, educators, parents and students, and is an increasingly frequent discussion topic in most forms of the media. We have undertaken an extensive review of reports by relevant leading international and national organisations, governments, academic researchers, business analysts, journalists, bloggers and others (GCA bibliography, 2018). It is now generally accepted that a number of interrelated mega trends (disruptors) are having a growing impact on both the availability and nature of work (e.g. its casualisation). This impact is so extensive and increasing so rapidly that it is now being referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Dobbs, Manyika, & Woetzel, 2015; Schwab, 2016). Its forces include technological developments (especially the internet, automation, artificial intelligence [AI] and digital platforms), globalisation, offshoring, demographic shifts and climate change. Whilst all of the above and many other disruptors are at play, the most widely discussed in relation to its impact on future work – and thus a particular focus of this chapter – is the change attributed to automation, especially when it incorporates AI and/or robotics. Automation, an integral part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is increasingly being implemented by businesses and governments in their ongoing search for greater efficiency and lower costs (Gumbel & Woetzel, 2018). There is wide agreement that the advent of the automation economy with its focus on improved performance is a major reason why the Fourth Industrial Revolution has led to work changes and for the pace of these changes to be continually increasing. However, as shown by the literature’s contrasting predictions, there is little agreement on what the outcomes will be for future work. There is a diverse range of conclusions, with varying levels and credibility of supporting evidence, ranging from: – some of the easily automated, low-skill jobs will go [already happening – considerable evidence] but there will still be lots of jobs (Gittins, 2017) [scant evidence, mainly assumptions], though much of the work may be different (World Economic Forum, 2018) [considerable “evidence”]; or

52

CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

– many easily automated jobs will go, and not necessarily just low-skill ones [already happening – considerable evidence] but they will be replaced by new, higher-skill and more interesting ones – especially work requiring flexibility, creativity and abstract reasoning (Mortensen, 2017) [some evidence]; to – there will be few jobs as most work will be automated (The Economist, 2014; Maudlin, 2017) [not widely held but the rapid enhancements in AI are widening the fear that this could become the reality]. Technological Disruptors Just as there are a lot of mega trends disrupting work nowadays, within the technological disruption classification there are a lot of fields of study where advancements are contributing to the disruption by building on and amplifying one another (World Economic Forum, 2018). These include developments in automation, robotics, AI, Big Data analysis, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, cryptocurrencies, nanotechnology, biotechnology and gene technology. In the future-work literature that we consulted (GCA bibliography, 2018), the disruption is most frequently attributed to the first three, the key digital disruptors: automation, robotics and AI. The most inclusive of the three terms is undoubtedly “automation”. Nearly all applications of robotics are a form of automation and, with the introduction of the term “software automation” to describe the usage of AI in office-work software applications, the one term “automation” may encompass all three. AI is increasingly being included in many forms of automation in order to attain more sophisticated technological levels. Related developments in a number of areas, especially those incorporating AI and/or robotics (e.g. Big Data Analysis and the IoT), are also major participants in workplace disruption. Big Data Analysis. Big Data are very large and often complex data sets. They include the large volumes of data that all levels of government, big businesses and other organisations store on their servers or in the “cloud” as part of their normal operations. The tools, some incorporating AI, that are now widely used in their analysis include decision analytics, text analytics and forecasting. Big Data are the grist to the mills of many major AI applications. The Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT is a very large network of physical objects around the world that are collecting and sharing data, by being connected to the internet (SAP, 2018). As exemplified by the rise of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), the availability of cheap processors and wireless networks enables just about anything to be connected to the IoT. The IIoT is the becoming-widespread use of incredibly powerful connected computing in almost every industry. “This change will rewrite vendor relationships, redefine profitability, and re-imagine delivery from environment to cost to product” (Schneider, 2018, p. 2). An indicative example

53

EDGE ET AL.

is GE Healthcare’s IIoT soon to be deployed in the USA which will be capable of handling up to 200,000 connected devices in a 1,200-bed hospital (Schneider, 2018). Digital Disruptors: Status and Impact While the names of many of the key digital disruptors have become part of modernday language, keeping abreast of their ongoing development and impact requires constant monitoring. This is especially so for those that are currently less visible to the public, such as the software automation applications that are increasingly taking over even higher-skill-level white-collar jobs. This section focuses on just three key digital disruptors: Digital Platforms, Software Automation and Autonomous Vehicles. All three are examples of automation that incorporate AI and/or robotics and that have major implications for future work. The overall disruptive impact of automation – one of the most profound and disruptive forces in human history and a key element of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwab, 2016) – was addressed earlier in this chapter. Digital Platforms. There are a large number of digital platforms which have already become part of modern life, including Facebook, Google, Uber, AirBnB and Twitter. Their impact on employment has also already been widely felt – often replacing full-time with part-time jobs (the gig economy) or even decimating some industries while providing few new jobs in Australia. Examples of this disruption in existing industries include: Facebook and Google’s impact on the print media’s advertising revenues and journalist jobs (Slattery, 2017); Uber’s on the taxi industry; and AirBnB’s on the accommodation industry. This disruption – and the fear that more digital platforms will follow – is giving rise to considerable public concern especially as most of the current digital platforms have been introduced without accompanying regulation. Consequently, in December 2017, the then Australian Federal Treasurer directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to conduct an inquiry into some of them. The inquiry is examining the effect that digital search engines, social media platforms and other digital content aggregation platforms have on competition in media and advertising services markets. The preliminary report is to be submitted to the Treasurer by 3 December 2018, with a final report due by 3 June 2019 (ACCC, 2017). Software Automation. The relatively long-term extensive use of “machine” robots on vehicle assembly lines and in various other manufacturing processes, including, for example, steel production and more recently in retail despatch centres (Banker, 2016), is widely known. However, the term “robots” now also refers to software programs that include AI. Many online technical reports are using the term “software automation” to describe the increasing usage of AI programs in business management. This is part of the fast-growing Robotic Process Automation (RPA)

54

CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

industry where software robots are already performing many tasks previously undertaken by white-collar workers (Le Clair, 2017). According to a recent newspaper article “Hundreds of software robots (bots) work alongside human employees at companies such as Ernst Young (EY) and Walmart” (Castellanos, 2018, p. 34), where purportedly they are saving millions of hours of work-time. EY estimate that their 700 bots will save about 2.1 million hours of employee time in fiscal year 2017–2018 (Castellanos, 2018). While one impact may be improved performance it seems inevitable that another will be white-collar (graduate?) job losses. The defence provided by the adopters is that by undertaking the repetitive tasks, the RPA systems enable the humans to do more thoughtintensive work. But how many hours of additional thought-intensive work will be assigned in these organisations before lay-offs occur? Another RPA example, where an AI bot performs white-collar work, is GEP’s unified source-to-pay procurement platform (Ardent Partners & GEP, 2017). These types of bots are becoming available in many industry sectors and many are at or nearing being capable of fully automating the respective functions (e.g. of radiologists, legal search staff, etc.) (Real Time Innovations, Inc., 2018). Again, how many jobs will go and what work will be available for the displaced white-collar workers (university graduates)? USA market research company, Forrester Research, which provides advice on the existing and potential impact of technology, estimates that about four million jobs will be lost in the USA by 2022 as a result of RPA applications (Le Clair, 2017). Driverless/Autonomous Vehicles. The current status of the most advanced of the autonomous vehicles may surprise many. Despite the sceptics, wide deployment of hybrid and/or electric-powered self-driving vehicles is about to become the reality – starting before the end of 2018 (Bloomberg, 2018). For the next five years or more this deployment will mainly be in the following businesses: ride-hail (cf. Uber and Lyft); taxis; logistics, especially the last-mile of delivery to local businesses (cf. United Parcel Service and FedEx in the USA); and long-haul trucking (Haydan, 2017). Mainly for cost reasons (the technology currently costs far more than the cars) it may be up to 10 years before “most people ditch their driver’s licenses and rely on self-driving taxis” (Bloomberg, 2018, p. 2). However, in some countries (e.g. Singapore and China) that may occur much sooner as the potential benefits are massive: huge reductions in road accidents/injuries/deaths; in pollution (electric vehicles); in traffic congestion; and in costs across all these and many related areas (Schneider, 2018). Undoubtedly many workers, not only drivers, will be displaced. Hopefully the optimists will be right and many, yet unknown, new jobs will emerge. Keeping abreast of the rapid changes in the Autonomous Vehicle (AV) industry requires constant monitoring. There are at least 16 major players worldwide (most of the well-known car manufacturers and a few top tech companies) pouring billions of dollars into its research, development and testing. The level of autonomy of the vehicles is already at level 4 (verging on 5) for at least the top two companies and many others are predicting they will be before 2021 (Bloomberg, 2018). The level 55

EDGE ET AL.

of autonomy is differentiated by the amount of human intervention required and/or the time between interventions, rated from levels 0 to 5 (Hyatt & Paukert, 2018). In the race to be the first to have commercially operating driverless vehicles, Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. and “sibling” of Google, is the acknowledged leader, with General Motors probably its nearest rival (Randall & Bergen, 2018). Waymo has been testing a number of Chrysler Pacifica autonomous minivans (hybrids) on public roads in Arizona since mid-October 2017. Fiat Chrysler recently announced they would start delivering thousands of the minivans in late 2018 when Waymo plans to begin offering a ride-hailing service to the public in Phoenix (Carey, 2018). Many of their competitors (especially GM and Mercedes) have similar programs and objectives at a less advanced stage (Bloomberg, 2018). In Australia a number of state and local governments are closely following the developments overseas (e.g. Kanowski, 2018). By early 2018 some local governments had allowed trials by members of the public of a fully autonomous (no steering wheel or brake pedals) electric shuttle bus, the EZ10. It is already in use in 20 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. According to its French marketer, it has been designed “to cover short, pre-defined routes through embedded and localisation technologies” (Green, 2018, p. 70). So far, the impact of this relentless move towards a driverless future has been a positive one for graduate employment, adding new, well-paid technical jobs without eliminating existing ones. Examples include USA where the major players employ many thousands in their development programs (e.g. Bloomberg, 2018), and Canada (Cutean, 2017). However, as for the impact of automation generally, little evidence is available regarding jobs that will replace the tens-of-thousands that most certainly will be lost worldwide in the many industries to be affected by the shift to AVs. Predicting Future Work Outcomes The future being unknowable partly explains the existence of the widely divergent opinions between and amongst many labour-market economists and technologists regarding the impacts of automation on future work. Generally, it appears that labour-market economists are the more optimistic. This is concerning as it is reasonable to assume that the technologists are likely to be more up-to-date with the nature and pace of the changes occurring in the digital disruptor arena. This is a possible additional explanation for the widely divergent opinions reported earlier in this chapter. Currently most of the major international financial and labour bodies (e.g. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Economic Forum, International Labour Organization) and industry research entities (e.g. EY, IBM Insight, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, McKinsey) are not predicting a disastrous future for work (GCA bibliography, 2018). However many, whilst undertaking extensive modelling, present little real-world data to support this optimistic view. Instead, many seemingly rely mainly on a belief that the future will reflect the past – where major disruptions to specific areas of work were soon

56

CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

followed by more and better jobs. Admittedly, data to support predictions of job losses are more readily available/already observable. A recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) working paper with the disturbing title Should We Fear the Robot Revolution? (The Correct Answer is Yes) (Berg, Buffie, & Zanna, 2018) challenges the widely held optimistic view. It states that the current optimistic macroeconomic models “fail to capture the key features of the new technologies” (p. 5), and thus fail to consider the potential of the latest technologies to substitute for human labour even at the higher skill levels (Berg et al., 2018; The Economist, 2014). Paraphrasing the IMF report, a journalist wrote: “these are not your grandparents’ robots we’re talking about. These are robots that make use of AI in order to do work previously believed to be non-automatable precisely because it was seen as creative, flexible, or needing abstract reasoning” (Jericho, 2018, p. 1). Undoubtedly emerging and future-generation disruptors – especially AIsupported automation – will have an increasingly wider-ranging impact on future work, including graduate employment, by affecting many more industry sectors and higher-skill-level jobs. If the optimistic predictions are to be realised, massive change will be required in most areas, not least education. Interpreting Future Work Literature In the technological disruption field there is an ever-increasing volume of reports of varying value being published, especially online, much of which is largely opinionbased. Even when supporting evidence is provided, many of the supposedly authoritative reports reference the same few often-outdated sources. (Some of the information in this chapter will unfortunately be subject to the same fate by the time of publication.) With the rapid changes occurring in AI and related automation many of the papers/reports that are more than a year old are likely to already be out-of-date. For example, many of the reports on AI, driverless vehicles, etc., produced at the end of 2017 no longer reflect the current situation. Additionally, much of the future work literature relies too heavily on the assumption that the future will be a reflection of the past (especially in regard to the quantity of jobs that will be available/created). This highlights the importance for the educational leadership to have ongoing access to the latest releases especially by the leaders in key-disruptor fields. DEVELOPING FUTURE WORK SKILLS

Institutional Requirements for the Development of Future Work Skills As we emphasise above, future work is certain to involve not only the loss of many middle management and unskilled jobs but, increasingly, also higher-skill-level work previously considered beyond the capabilities of AI-supported automation. It is predicted that many of the jobs that exist in the future will require the management of complexity, good reasoning and judgement capacities, advanced problem-solving skills, emotional intelligence and social interaction skills (FYA, 2017b; OECD, 57

EDGE ET AL.

2017). It is also now certain that many of the jobs of the future will require scientific, technological, engineering and/or mathematical (STEM) expertise, will be executed on a digital platform and will involve collaboration across virtual teams (Chandy, 2016; Hajkowicz et al., 2016). In an employment context characterised by shortterm, freelance opportunities, many jobseekers of the future will need entrepreneurial skills. In what may be seen as a summary conceptualisation, the FYA (2015) identifies the need for workers of the future to possess “enterprise skills – FRQ¿GHQFH and agency, creativity and innovation, enthusiasm for ongoing learning, ability to critically assess information, working with others, communication, project management, financial literacy, digital literacy, global enthusiasm/citizenship” (p. 3). These skills, it is argued, can be transferred readily from one work context to another, enabling adaptation to an ever-changing world of work as well as effective performance in specific work roles. Broadly, within universities, skills enabling workplace performance have been characterised as employability skills. The precise set of skills deemed necessary has usually been achieved by compiling a list of skills from those prioritised by current employers, often identified through interviews with key employers or employer groups (e.g. Universities UK, 2015). Typically, the construct of “employability” in the university sphere exists essentially independent of the goals, capacities and interests of the individual. This construct of employability may be feasible in a world where employment opportunities are largely stable and predictable, but the demands of the future work context will require individuals not only to draw upon their unique strengths to find a place in a competitive job market, but also to engage in continuous learning in order to identify and transition frequently to new opportunities. This is not a context in which employers will be the primary determiners of “employability” over a lifetime of work. Despite the identifiable importance of subjects in the STEM arena, the educational approaches needed to develop the skills of integration, problem solving and ongoing learning required for future work employability must necessarily provide more for personal development and less for performance on discrete curricula elements. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the disruptive nature of technological change will inevitably lead to the disruption of both educational processes and outcomes. Educational processes must not only take advantage of digitally enabled learning opportunities but also educate for the sets of skills needed by the future worker. This gives rise to two separate issues: the internal configuration within universities needed to develop a set of relevant future work skills, and the external relationships needed to develop an individual capable of stepping into this brave new world. The Challenges of Internal Reconfiguration Universities have utilised problem-based learning as a strategy for engaging students in supported, real-world problem solving for over two decades (Boud & Feletti, 1997), but it has largely been used in the context of a single discipline such as engineering or mathematics. The current challenge for universities is to find an 58

CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

organising structure that makes, for academics, interdisciplinary collaboration both logical and inevitable in the teaching sphere. To this end, the work of the FYA (2017a) holds interest, for its focus is on students and skills rather than disciplines, and it implies the combination of knowledge rather than the separation of knowledge into disciplinary silos. On the basis of 2.7 million online job advertisements involving 1,000 occupations comprising 4,600 identified skills, the FYA (2017a) extracted seven different clusters of jobs (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Seven clusters of jobs (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2017a, p. 7, reprinted with permission).

As encapsulated by the dimensions of each cluster in the graphic above, the Informers, Carers and Technologists clusters are predicted to be those in which the greatest numbers of jobs will arise in the future, but all job clusters can be predicted to offer career opportunities for some students. While within each cluster predominant knowledge and related skill areas can be identified, most clusters share some knowledge and skill areas with others. For example, in future work, digital literacy and some level of technological capability is likely to underpin performance and job adaptability in each of the clusters, but so too is the capacity to communicate orally and in writing. Science and engineering skills are intrinsic to the Designers cluster but may also enhance job prospects in the Artisans cluster and will be necessary for some workers in the Carers cluster. Technologists who lack the skills 59

EDGE ET AL.

implicit in the Informers or Generators category are likely to build IT systems that function satisfactorily in technological terms but largely or completely fail to meet the needs of the business or consumers they were intended to serve. In structural terms within a university, this type of cluster focus on students and future work suggests the need for interdisciplinary interaction around the sets of skills required, as well as a problem-based approach to learning. Thus, those teaching into the Technologist cluster may be a mathematician, an IT specialist, a management academic, an accountant, a graphic designer, a teacher of English, and a lawyer. Those teaching into the Generators cluster may be a management and an advertising academic, a lawyer, an accountant, a teacher of English or creative writing or drama, and a graphic designer. Within each cluster there may be a stream (and associated problem-based learning tasks) that allows for accreditation within specific professional areas such as medicine, law, etc., but the emphasis would be on developing the range of skills and knowledge necessary to job adaptability within a specific cluster. Inevitably, apart from the challenge this poses by requiring academics to exit the disciplinary confines within which most of their research is conducted and by requiring universities to reward collaboration, the real challenge will be for both academics and professional bodies to examine and reduce the actual knowledge requirements within clusters and professions. This outcome will be possible only if students are helped to engage in ongoing independently learning. In this context, it should be noted that despite current assumptions about the need for students to graduate with the “body of knowledge” deemed essential for any given profession, many employers aver that what they are really looking for are job-ready skills and the capacity to learn (Universities UK, 2015). The Challenges of External Reconfiguration If students are to be confronted with interdisciplinarity and skills clusters at university, it makes sense to lay the groundwork for this early in students’ progression towards tertiary study. It can perhaps be argued that in Australia primary-level education already allows for some cross-fertilisation between subject areas; however, there is generally little focus on the building of “the whole person” such as reportedly occurs in Finland (Doyle, 2016). Far from a holistic, integrative approach to learning, in Australia individuals from the beginning of their schooling are matched and assessed against pre-determined curricula and “norms”. This failure to provide students with the opportunity to identify and develop their own strengths inevitably leaves behind many, especially those from troubled family backgrounds or with strengths not consistent with set curricula and norms. When students reach secondary-level schooling they enter an education structure that rewards those who best conform to set expectations in discrete academic areas. The use of integrative problem-solving activities that span a range of discipline areas (e.g. Most Likely to Succeed)2 is rare, probably because assessment of such activities does not easily fit into externally imposed assessment targets (and therefore parent expectations), and it also requires the time and cooperation of several teachers. 60

CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

At university or other tertiary-study contexts, students are further divided into narrow academic disciplines and rewarded for the depth rather than the breadth of their studies. In the few areas where students are encouraged to stray outside the narrow confines of their chosen degree – e.g. at one university, Science students majoring in Physics are required to take an Arts subject – the foray into the other academic area is treated as an add-on rather than integrated into the major area of study. It is not surprising that this situation persists, for those teaching at university level are rewarded for the narrowness of their academic focus – which makes it easier to produce a higher number of publications – and are thus implicitly discouraged from exploring a wide range of topic areas or engaging in multidisciplinary studies. If the learning needs of those who will be engaged in future work are to be addressed, and if a significant portion of the population is not to be left behind, at the very least students should be assisted at each level of study to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. This implies the need for assessment strategies which capture and encourage performance and growth in these areas. For individual capacity to be developed to meet the needs of future work it is vital to use integrative learning and assessment strategies, e.g. a semester-long, problem-solving task that draws on content from multiple subject areas and requires students to work in teams. It is equally important that organisational structures such as clustering are developed to facilitate this, and that senior management takes responsibility for identifying and facilitating necessary changes. This may require, for example, a small high-level, appropriately staffed section (e.g. future-oriented technologist, labour-market economist, academic changeagent) with close links to industry, led by a Deputy Vice-Chancellor Educational Innovation, charged with:  keeping abreast of the latest developments affecting future work (e.g. continuous monitoring of relevant publications including research outcomes, business directions, media reports, blogs, etc.)  ensuring the university’s procedures and educational programs are capable of delivering and do deliver appropriate graduate employability outcomes (as determined by the continuous monitoring). However, if each student is to be helped to develop to his/her potential, the educational system ultimately needs more than horizontal integration to enable staff and students within each institution to break out of and work across disciplinary silos. The goal must also be vertical integration, whereby primary, secondary and tertiary institutions communicate their processes and curricula to each other and take cumulative responsibility for the progress and development of each individual in their care. Already universities have links with schools and vocational education institutions, enabling students to progress more quickly through university, but this mode of interaction between institutions is underpinned by an attitude of educational aggregation rather than genuine collaboration and student development. The future may lie in education precincts that integrate and facilitate communication across all levels of education, not just university and vocational or primary and secondary, as exists in a few instances. If the education system as a whole is to produce individuals 61

EDGE ET AL.

who fulfil their potential and possess the combination of social, cognitive and technical skills that will enable them to adapt to future work, the education system itself must question the current effectiveness of its interactions within and between institutions. FUTURE IMPERATIVES

Despite many areas of contention, there is almost universal agreement that a range of mega trends (especially the technological disruptors) is already beginning to transform work and society and that the extent and pace of that change is increasing rapidly. To address this, it is critical that the top-level management of our universities commits to:  firstly, maintaining sufficient up-to-date understanding of the technological changes needed to lead the ongoing, timely educational changes that will be required  secondly, overseeing the reorganisation of teaching, research and institutional structures necessary to develop in students and staff the capacity to adapt to technological change. The writing is already on the wall: unless the senior management of our universities respond appropriately to “Fourth Industrial Revolution” employment requirements, a university degree will cease to be a path to employment. Unlike other industrial revolutions, this one may continue for decades, perhaps endlessly. If so, there will be no end-game – universities will need to be forever vigilant! NOTES 1 2

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/employability-rankings/2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhoWYZN2_Rg

REFERENCES Ardent Partners & GEP. (2017, June). Intelligent procurement: How artificial intelligence can expand value. Retrieved from https://www.smartbygep.com/insight/white-papers/artificial-intelligence-canexpand-value-in-procurement Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). (2017, December 4). Digital platforms inquiry. Retrieved from https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry Australian Government Department of Education and Training (DET). (2016). 2016 undergraduate commencements (Research Report). Retrieved from http://highereducationstatistics.education.gov.au/ Australian Government Department of Education and Training (DET). (2018). 2017 Graduate Outcomes Survey: National report. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gosreports/2017/2017_gos_national_report_final_accessiblea45d8791b1e86477b58fff00006709da.pdf? sfvrsn=ceb5e33c_4 Banker, S. (2016, January 11). Robots in the warehouse: It's not just Amazon. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2016/01/11/robots-in-the-warehouse-its-not-justamazon/#292c955440b8

62

CONCERNS IN GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY Berg, A., Buffie, E. F., & Zanna, L (2018). Should we fear the robot revolution? (The correct answer is yes) (International Monetary Fund working paper WP/18/116). Washington, DC: IMF. Bloomberg. (2018, May 31). Who’s winning the self-driving car race? Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2018/05/31/whos-winning-the-self-driving-car-race/ Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.). (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. London, England: Kogan Page. Carey, N. (2018, January 30). Fiat Chrysler, Waymo expand deal for self-driving public ride-hailing service. Reuters Business News. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fiat-chryslerwaymo/fiat-chrysler-waymo-expand-deal-for-self-driving-public-ride-hailing-serviceidUSKBN1FJ0GN Castellanos, S. (2018, March 24). Bots beat mundane-to-Friday blues. The Weekend Australian, p. 34. Chandy, L. (Ed.). (2016). The future of work in the developing world (Brookings Blum Roundtable 2016 Post-Conference Report). Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/global_20170131_future-of-work.pdf Cutean, A. (2017). Autonomous vehicles and the future of work in Canada. Ottawa, Canada. Author: Information and Communications Technology Council (ICTC). Dobbs, R., Manyika, J., & Woetzel, J. (2015). No ordinary disruption. New York, NY: Public Affairs. Doyle, W. (2016, March 26). This is why Finland has the best schools. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/this-is-why-finland-has-the-best-schools20160324-gnqv9l.html Gittins, R. (2017, December 13). Robots aren't stealing jobs: Truth behind claim scaring pants off our graduates. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/comment/robotsarent-stealing-jobs-truth-behind-claim-scaring-pants-off-our-graduates-20171211-h02y18.html Graduate Careers Australia (GCA). (2015). Graduate destinations 2015: A report on the work and study outcomes of recent higher education graduates (Research Report). Retrieved from http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Graduate-Destinations-Report-2015FINAL1.pdf Graduate Careers Australia (GCA) bibliography. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/ Green, B. (2018, April/May). Driving the future. The Road Ahead (RACQ), p. 70. Gumbel, P., & Woetzel, J. (2018, February). How will automation affect economies around the world? McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-ofwork/how-will-automation-affect-economies-around-the-world Hajkowicz, S. A., Reeson, A., Rudd, L., Bratanova, A., Hodgers, L., Mason, C., & Boughen, N. (2016). Tomorrow’s digitally enabled workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years. Brisbane, Australia: CSIRO. Haydan, R. (2017, November 10). Self-driving tech just took the wheel. Markman’s Pivotal Point. Retrieved from https://www.markmanspivotalpoint.com/investing-strategy/89465/?sc=PPE&campaignId=197689&templateId=283436 Hyatt, K., & Paukert, C. (2018, March 29). Self-driving cars: Level-by-level of autonomous vehicles. Road Show in CNET. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/self-driving-car-guideautonomous-explanation/ Jericho, G. (2018, May 27). Why the robot revolution risks an economic ‘death spiral’ for Australia. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/may/27/ theimfs-research-on-robots-hits-you-between-the-eyes-with-pessimism Kanowski, S. (2018, August 13). Autonomous vehicles. Queensland Department of Transport & Main Roads. Retrieved from https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Autonomous-Vehicles Le Clair, C. (2017, February 13). The RPA market will reach $2.9 billion by 2021. Forrester Report. Retrieved from https://www.forrester.com/report/The+RPA+Market+Will+Reach+29+Billion+By+2021/-/ERES137229

63

EDGE ET AL. Maudlin, J. (2017, October 31). The magnitude of job loss we will see in the next 20 years is staggering. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/31/the-magnitude-ofjob-loss-we-will-see-in-the-next-20-years-is-staggering/#442a8b4953df Mortensen, D. R. (2017, August 16). Automation may take our jobs – but it’ll restore our humanity. QUARTZ. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1054034/automation-may-take-our-jobs-but-itll-restoreour-humanity/ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). Future of work and skills. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/wcms_556984.pdf QS World University Rankings. (2018). 2017 QS Graduate Employability Rankings (Research Report). Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/employability-rankings/2018 Randall, T., & Bergen, M. (2018, August 1). Waymo's self-driving cars are near: Meet the teen who rides one every day. Bloomberg from Hyperdrive. Retrieved from https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/inside-the-life-of-waymo-s-driverless-test-family Real Time Innovations, Inc. (2018, October 24–25). Industrial IoT Connext Conference. Retrieved from https://www.rti.com/silicon-valley-connext-con?utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtzSAP. (2018). What is the Internet of Things? Retrieved from https://www.sap.com/australia/trends/internetof-things.html Schneider, S. (2018, June). The rise of the robot overlords: Clarifying the industrial IoT (ebook). Real Time Innovations, Inc. Retrieved from www.rti.com/resources/ebooks/clarifying-the-industrial-internet Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Slattery, C. (2017, April 5). Fairfax Media announces further job losses, slashes $30 million from editorial budget. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/fairfax-media-announcesfurther-job-losses-amid-$30m-budget-cut/8419584 Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D., & McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Wollongong, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6372506 The Economist. (2014, January 18). The future of jobs: The onrushing wave. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21594264-previous-technological-innovation-hasalways-delivered-more-long-run-employment-not-less The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2015). How are young people faring in the transition from school to work? (Research Report). Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/How-young-people-are-faring-report-card-2015-FINAL.pdf The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2017a). The New Work Mindset: 7 new job clusters to help young people navigate the New Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/thenew-work-mindset-report/ The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2017b). The New Work Smarts: Thriving in the New Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/the-new-work-smarts/ Universities UK. (2015). Supply and demand for higher level skills. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2015/supply-and-demandfor-higher-level-skills.pdf World Economic Forum. (2018). The Future of Jobs Report 2018 (Insight Report 2018). Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf

Noel Edge PhD Edmond Fitzgerald PhD Lesley Willcoxson PhD Graduate Careers Australia

64

PART 2 EDUCATION DIRECTIONS

JAMES CLOUTMAN AND JOY HIGGS

6. DEVELOPING PERSONAL AND POPULATION EMPLOYABILITY Understand, Pursue and Manage

Essentially, employability is both a state of being employ-able and an ability or potential for creating future iterations and evolutions of employ-ability in people and workforces. It is not the same as employment which is simply about being employed or not. Being employed has many (potential) benefits, problems, satisfactions or issues but it is clear that the possession of employability is different from the possession of a job (employment). (Higgs & Cloutman, 2019, p. 4) What can and should be done – whether by individuals or at a broader population level by governments – to develop and sustain employability? The world of work is changing, and the pace of change is gaining momentum. More and more is being asked of employees yet, in many respects, we continue to rely on educational and professional development strategies and structures that, in many instances, were designed for working styles and organisational goals from several decades ago (Brown, Lauder, & Ashton, 2011). Designing a new educational structure for developing employability both for work now and in future iterations of employability for people and workforces is of pressing concern. This chapter proposes a new developmental approach that is designed to continue to enhance employability. The chapter commences with a review of various factors that influence how the development of employability takes place and considers the differentiation between population-wide or organisation-wide employability and the employability of individuals. The chapter then considers the development of this critical capability and proposes a new Employability Development model based on a progression across three phases: understanding, then active pursuit and, ultimately, self-management. This model is intended to be operationalisable at different levels and for different audiences in ways that are context relevant rather than universal. FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYABILITY

There are many factors that influence the development of employability. These can range from influences at an individual or family level to society-wide factors. The context of groups and sub-sets of the population differs in many respects, including the socioeconomic status of families and communities, tertiary education history (e.g. first in family at university), location in metropolitan, rural and remote areas, closeness to employment opportunities, travel potential, Internet access, family responsibilities and so on (see, for instance, Guilbert et al., 2016). © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_006

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS

Starting at the level of the individual and his or her surroundings, employability can be influenced by something as immediate as the way that work and careers are viewed traditionally by a family, expectations of participation in university education and so on. Childhood education and the way that it was experienced by children also impact on attitudes and aspirations around different jobs. Factors such as the availability of labour market information, access to online information, the accessibility of career counselling services, responsibilities as a parent or caregiver, personal finances and the efficiency of local transportation systems may all shape career pathways and experiences (Green, 2016). Another major influence on employability relates to knowledge and mastery of what we might term, collectively, “soft” or “generic” attributes (Kearns, 2001). A scan through any of the major online job boards will illustrate how employers are increasingly stressing the importance of these types of attributes within job advertisements. These might include such topics as communication, team-work, proactivity, creativity, critical thinking, adaptability or many other more general capabilities not directly associated with the understanding of an occupation but which might be critical to daily working life. Not only do these lists appear to be growing (contrast such job ads with those from 30 or 40 years ago that simply focused on qualifications and experience), but some job ads seem to comprise lists of required generic skills, while de-emphasising the importance of formal qualifications (Lavy & Yadin, 2013). Moreover, given the strong emphasis on these qualities in the job adverts, we can assume that much weight will be given by management to their demonstration in any job interview and in the working environment in the hiring organisation. An important consideration in this regard is whether these generic skills are explicitly included in curricula or whether students are expected to acquire them by their own endeavours (see also Chapter 3 in this volume). Employability can also be influenced in the workplace by such factors as the attitudes of employers and senior managers within an organisation towards hiring and developing staff. For example, a steady trend in hiring patterns is evident towards contingency employment, typically through contract-based employment. Such employment is challenging and often has a corrosive influence on personal employability. Full-time work is trending slowly downwards while contingencylinked arrangements such as contract-based or casual employment are slowly increasing as a preferred hiring mechanism. These arrangements often equate to someone working 40 hours a week on site in a specific role for their organisation yet, in reality, being hired through a third-party labour hire supplier such as a recruitment company for a specific, and typically quite limited, time period. For an employee accustomed to working in a full-time capacity for an identifiable employer, becoming used to contract-based employment can be daunting (see Cappelli, 2001). The stability and security of a full-time job and the sense of working for a boss who might have your interests in mind are replaced in such job situations by a shortterm arrangement with no guarantees of continuity. These type of hiring patterns can also impact on commitments organisations might have historically had towards 68

EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT

training and developing staff. Whereas in the past senior management might have viewed employee development as a key feature of staff retention and quality, contingency hiring can equate to an organisational viewpoint whereby staff with readily available skills are hired, utilised for specific projects and then terminated with no commitment from the employer towards staff training or development. There are also broader, society-wide influences, that we could term metainfluences, which impact on employability at the individual level. These include economic, political or labour market forces influenced by government policy as well as social influences towards the style, methods or relative importance of work, which may vary between and across cultures and time periods. For example, the sudden emergence of new working arrangements in the “gig economy” – such as with Uber transportation – signifies a considerable shift in attitudes towards work and remuneration that does not rely on more traditional organisational structures (see Holtz-Eakin, Gitis, & Rinehart, 2017; Manyika et al., 2015). DEVELOPING EMPLOYABILITY

Employability is a multi-dimensional, multi-phase and diversely realised phenomenon at both personal and population levels. That is to say employability is not a one-off accomplishment, or a solo effort. Firstly, it takes time to build up work capabilities. Secondly, the requirements of particular jobs differ and, as people progress through their careers, they will need different employ-abilities. Thirdly, there’s a rapid evolution of jobs, of job demands, of system (e.g. communications) affordances to support different job changes. And finally, the whole idea of work and how it is done (including via artificial intelligence and virtually) is a rapidly changing reality. Thus individuals, working communities and populations will inevitably participate in multiple phases of work preparation and manifestation. There are many, not just one, ways of realising employability since it is complex, varied and ever-changing. Any plan for developing employability would logically carry the label “it depends”. Consider, for instance, the impact on employability demands and programs of location within the culture of Japan compared to Ethiopia, the geography of Brazil compared to Scotland, the population of India compared to New Zealand, and the resource and education potential of children in high versus low socioeconomic status families in different parts of the world. THE EMPLOYABILITY OF POPULATIONS OR WORKFORCES

Regarding employability development at a population level, it is useful to recognise that nations, systems and organisations need workforces that are employable in a way that suits the needs of that entity. This goes beyond having a collection of people with personal employability (as discussed in the next section) in order to arrive at a situation where the collective (e.g. nation) has a workforce that suits the collective’s needs. These needs might include, for example, contributing productively to gross national product or the state’s economic sustainability. With regard to organisations, employability might be equated, in the minds of the senior executives, with the range 69

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS

of talent, abilities and knowledge currency within the existing workforce that can aid in leading the organisation forward competitively and sustainably (Weinert et al., 2001). The impetus for such a perspective might come from external change dynamics or pressures. It might also emerge from internal factors such as succession planning and viability in the face of loss of key staff or significant changes in strategic priorities. Employability might be perceived, in such instances, as part of an overall plan to ensure organisational goals are achievable, cost-effective and wellanticipated in terms of staff and system development programs. Perspectives on employability from broader viewpoints such as population-wide or organisationwide priorities are different from employability seen as a personal phenomenon. PERSONAL EMPLOYABILITY

Personal employability refers to what it is like for an individual to deal with the demands of work, to prepare themselves to be employable in general and employable for their current work in particular, and over time, to manage their career trajectory with a focus on being employable in the present and future. In order to achieve employability in the current working world with all of its challenges and rapid transformations, a radical shift in thinking may be required to adroitly stay ahead of the challenges that building a career over time may engender. Workers are likely to need to develop a broad array of new capabilities over many years. They may well have multiple careers in a lifetime. As such, they will need to learn, on an ongoing basis, how to interact with the labour market and a variety of workplaces across a broad time spectrum – perhaps 50 years if the current trend towards longer working lives continues. They will also need to understand what it takes to succeed in the job market when that job market is changing and continually demanding new and increasingly more flexible orientations from employees. CURRENT LEARNING STRUCTURES FOR EMPLOYABILITY

How well do our current education systems prepare us for understanding the complexity of employability? What opportunities are there for understanding what employability means and gaining some degree of mastery of it? How can people already in the workforce proactively prepare themselves for such a rapidly altering world of work? What can they perhaps do differently that will build on what they have learned in school or tertiary education? Traditionally, education systems have been predictable, preparing us for occupations that were less volatile than at present. There was also a smaller range of occupations to consider. After entering the working world, earlier generations were more confident that their qualifications would be sufficiently relevant to keep them in employment through to retirement. If we think of people employed in the 1960s, 70s or 80s,1 many worked loyally for one or two employers across their entire working lives while relying largely on what they had studied in their younger years to sustain them throughout their careers. In recent times, however, the changing 70

EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT

nature of employment, demands from employers for an increasingly broad array of employee capabilities, the raising of the retirement age, longer life-spans and rapid technological developments are creating new expectations of employees. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the approach taken by previous generations. And, indeed, the traditional approach of learning about a specific occupation, discipline or profession is well catered for in our current education structures. However, what has traditionally been applicable for many people – reliance on secondary and initial tertiary education for the duration of career – is increasingly undependable as a strategy. Moreover, by relying solely on educational qualifications gained in their youth, people may enter the working arena, or later progress to a new employment context, relatively unaware of many of the insights, capabilities or dispositions that they need to succeed and prosper in new and dynamic work environments. Such workers, relying on early and one-off education compared to ongoing updating of qualifications and capabilities, may fail tests of employability, particularly in those industries or workplaces where the half-life of knowledge is small, the change rate of technological and generic capability expectations is very high, and where the imagination and creativity driving the industry is exponentially evolving. To cater to the new demands of workplaces some education institutions have begun to establish employability frameworks that are embedded within universities’ undergraduate curricula2 and emphasise the achievement of employment as a mark of university success. Generic skills and attributes have been incorporated into many tertiary education curricula over recent decades or offered through schemes such as co-curricular programs, e-portfolios and micro credentials (Knight & Yorke, 2002; Pool & Sewell, 2007). These have tended to focus on what could be called “generic workplace skills” like communication, problem solving and computer use. There has also been a long history, for instance, of work integrated learning programs in curricula (particularly professional education courses) with an emphasis on “doing the job” more than “getting or keeping the job” (Divan & McBurney, 2016; Knouse & Fontenot, 2008). However, in current learning systems, there is limited curriculum or extracurricular emphasis on employability abilities in the sense of the capacity to actually navigate and succeed in the employment market place, or learning to understand context and the situational nature of our abilities and of learning to understand the array of external factors that impact on our employability. Neither are the qualities (tenacity, resourcefulness, self-efficacy and adaptability, among others) that might be required to actually find, retain or re-direct our work incorporated into such programs. LinkedIn,3 for example, lists the five “soft” skills most required by employers as “creativity, persuasion, collaboration, adaptability and time management”. Nor are the type of more advanced characteristics of self-reflection or self-management included that might be required to foster and organise a successful career spanning decades. These are critical capabilities that need to be developed, yet they are largely absent from current educational frameworks. We might learn about such things through experience, for example, through internships, mentoring, specific in-company career development, coaching from 71

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS

internal or external coaching professionals or other formal, in-company professional development activities. We might undertake online studies via any one of dozens of sites offering such training and we could even learn about them from friends, coworkers or family. And we might be fortunate enough to have learnt them in a family environment and be flexible and astute enough to translate them into a corporate context. However, while there are certainly a wide variety of means available there are a number of drawbacks and shortfalls with such learning strategies. With regard to formal learning in a tertiary education environment, the types of attributes being discussed here are typically viewed as of secondary importance to learning about a subject or discipline in a traditional, academic format. Overburdened lecturers may simply not have the time – or the expertise – to teach or assess this type of subject. And it may prove difficult to find appropriate funding, in a funding-driven environment oriented to mainstream education, to properly resource such learning. Moreover, given the turbulence in global markets in recent years and the slow but continual transformation of full-time work to more contingent hiring arrangements, commitment by employers to providing workplace training in these topics is possible, but unlikely. The research literature points to a limited interest in providing comprehensive employability development for staff (Meyers, Billett, & Kelly, 2014). While employers might commit to staff training in a relevant skill that will aid in immediate gain for the organisation, only some among the largest and most financially well-resourced organisations appear to take a long-term interest in the overall career development and fostering of employability among their staff (Baruch & Peiperl, 2000; Tamkin & Hillage, 1999). AN EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT (“EmD”) MODEL

Given the distinct need for strategies for developing a broader spectrum of employability capabilities, a model for their development at both a personal and a broader, organisational or population-wide level is presented in this section. The model represents collaborative research conducted by Joy Higgs and James Cloutman. The former conducted a series of educational and scholarly projects in professional and practice-based education and employability; the latter4 is nearing completion of doctoral research examining the employability of mature age professionals working in tertiary industries. The model exists at meta, generic and propositional levels. That is, the propositions presented below are intended to provide a “big picture” view of what it takes to develop employability for individuals, groups and populations. Building on the following set of propositions and the core dimensions of the model we plan to develop frameworks for particular cohorts to apply these propositions in their contexts. The first will be pursued by James in his doctoral research and the second by both of us in initiatives around employability enhancement with particular target groups in the workforce. In each of these cases the goal is to progress from the generic to the particular and from the propositional to the real world, from the theoretical to the practical. Other people – employers, managers and educators – may 72

EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT

also use this high-level framework to generate target group action frameworks and strategic development plans. A) OVERVIEW OF THE EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT MODEL

The basic premise underpinning this framework is that any scheme that seeks to build employability must embed key employability capabilities in the implementation of the framework. This premise is an extension of the practice-based learning argument that the experience and understanding of practice must be embedded in curricula that aim to prepare graduates for practice. Secondly, it is necessary to recognise that practice-based learning and the development of employability should not be imagined or actioned as something that “is done to learners”, or something that is “delivered” to the novice. Rather it is something that is the ultimate responsibility of an emerging and continuing professionally oriented individual. The core components of this framework are: (to) understand, pursue and manage our employability (see Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1. A model for employability development: Understand, Pursue, Manage.

73

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS

B) PROPOSITIONS

UNDERSTAND 1.

If the ultimate goal of employability development (“EmD”) is to make our longer-term career trajectory more consistent, fulfilling and meaningful and more appropriate to labour market conditions as they exist at any particular point in time, a development framework should start with making the target goal of employability meaningful. That is, this phenomenon needs to be understood as a construct, goal and set of practices. If we don’t understand what it is that we are seeking to attain, how can we pursue and attain it? This initial understanding takes place when employability is seen as separate from employment. It is a capability to be developed as well as a mindset across the working life-course, including during periods of unemployment.

2.

There should be a willingness on the part of the worker to create a career identity, as part of employability, by recognising career-related interests and reflecting on personal values that might underlie these interests. Alignment of these interests with current and foreseeable labour market conditions and priorities is essential.

3.

Understanding employability is multi-faceted, and learning different elements of it may require not only prolonged commitment but also experience before a substantial degree of employability mastery is acquired. In other words, understanding employability requires experiential and embodied as well as cognitive understanding. A valuable perspective on development through experience is Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (1984). Kolb describes experience-based learning generated through four different and combined processes: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation.

4.

Deep understanding can come in the form of spiritual knowing and wisdom. Of particular value in work practices are the three forms of knowledge represented by Aristotle (349/2009): epistêmê (today known as epistemic or scientific knowledge), tékhnê (today known as technical knowledge) and phrónêsis (today known as practical and action-oriented knowledge).

PURSUE 5.

74

The pursuit of EmD, being a developmental intention and activity, is an iterative process. Novices and learners need to develop core understandings and foundational capabilities before advanced ones. Various strategies and frameworks exist to pursue this development such as Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development, working with mentors and learning in authentic workplaces through workplace learning and practice-based education (Higgs et al., 2012; Patton, Higgs, & Smith, 2019). At this stage of the development

EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT

process, the learner might wish to reach out to others for help and support. This could include career counsellors, executive coaches or training specialists – whether online or face-to-face. Building networks with others in the employability landscape through social media or work-related peak bodies would be optimal. 6.

Pursuing employability during working years (and beyond formal education) is vital if the goal is to retain employability in the second half of our career, not just the early years. This emphasises the difference between gaining employment, evolving and retaining employability.

7.

Workers should continue to develop both generic and professional skills and capabilities, relevant to their needs and working context. This could include development of professional or technical expertise and/or the development or maintenance of a range of generic skills such as time management, cultural awareness, information and communications technology (ICT) skills, communication skills or many other similar skills as demanded by workplace context and requirements.

8.

There should also be a readiness to review other work options – whether internally within a current workplace or externally in a new environment. This may require the development of job seeking and interview abilities. In planning such a program of EmD pursuit some key considerations are: purposefulness (whether the goal of any development program participated in is personal or more oriented towards organisational goals), particularity (matching with the people in the program), situatedness (suiting the context of the work and program), timeliness (suited to the timely need of the participant/s as well as the historical context of the work and its evolution), strategies (including suitability of EmD approaches to the workers/learners), resources (the technologies and education resources available for both the EmD and the work), readiness (of the learners to access and build the new learning into their existing capabilities) and mentoring (who is available to foster the EmD).

9.

Consideration should be given to the development of a range of capabilities designed to enhance agency. Adaptability forms an integral part of employability, as do self-efficacy and proactivity. Engagement in learning more about these attributes is likely to accelerate the agentic pursuit and enactment of employability behaviours. Adaptability may not just be psychological, it could include physical or social flexibility: the willingness, for example, to positively interact with colleagues from a variety of backgrounds or to relocate for work or accept different work arrangements such as contract or casual employment. Self-efficacy is essential to employability undertakings, particularly to the more challenging periods in a career journey such as underemployment or unemployment. Self-efficacy will be required to maintain a positive attitude during such periods and during job searching and interviewing for work. Proactivity is essential for seeing beyond the predictable in our industries and

75

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS

learning to plan for a career trajectory that steers towards possible and preferable futures beyond the obvious (Cork & Horsfall, 2019). 10. When we consider advanced pursuit of employability we also encompass the pursuit of what Aristotle describes as eudaimonia; this is typically referred to today as human flourishing. Such a goal is part of EmD where the individual seeks to work as part of personal and job fulfilment that goes well beyond income generation. (SELF) MANAGE 11. Over and above preparation for a job in a particular discipline and the acquisition of generic attributes is the need for the ability to self-manage our employability and career so as to navigate a successful employment journey across the life-course. A first step in self-management is internal reflection (towards the individual worker’s goals and aspirations). While employability involves acquiring a degree of competence in a range of skills, and generic and professional capabilities, it also implies a deep understanding of context: the comprehension that these skills and capabilities are relative to time, place and circumstances and that there may be an optimal fit for our skills and capabilities relative to working environments and activities within the wider labour market. 12. Reflection must also be outward-looking (to the organisation/system). There should be regular self-assessment of current knowledge and technical skills and capabilities in relation to both the demands and environment of our workplaces, to the needs of the wider labour market. These kinds of reflections ensure person–environment fit. When there are both high levels of person–role fit and person–environment fit relative to the context in which we are working, optimal personal employability is most likely being approached. Reflection – whether internal or external – is not necessarily something that people do inherently or willingly, and EmD participants may need training in these more advanced characteristics of an employability orientation. Regardless of their motivation and experience with self-management they are likely to benefit from mentoring in self-directed learning, self-appraisal and evaluation of their attributes such as emotional intelligence. They are also likely to benefit from mentors and intermediaries (like coaches, peer learners) who can play a vital role in identifying EmD needs and targets. 13. A key aspect of self-management is reflexivity, encompassing reflection, selfappraisal and development or remediation as indicated by this appraisal. Significantly, these actions must also be time-oriented. Skills, capabilities and knowledge are relative not only to context, but to time (Kirpal, 2013). Relevant knowledge today may be only partially relevant – or irrelevant – knowledge tomorrow. Some skills – particularly those in fast-paced industries such as ICT or media – may be generational, passing into disuse over a relatively short period of time, sometimes just a few years (McMullin, Duerden, & Jovic, 2007). Thus, 76

EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT

there needs to be self-monitoring and action to improve self-management of employability motivation and capabilities. At different career stages these motivations vary as do the self-management actions and power to improve employability. At the mid-point of the career, for instance, in our 40s and 50s, inertia and a desire for continuity-at-all-costs can set in (Maurer, 2001). Other priorities than work may have taken a commanding position in our outlook and we might need to reflect on our commitments to ongoing development and growth. 14. Lastly, there must be an over-arching, meta-cognitive awareness that allows us to manage each of the other component parts of this framework. Employability can be understood as a gestalt: a way of living in relation to work, employment and careers that is all about making the best possible choices while navigating a complex working arena that might seem relatively confusing at times. However, this environment can, with practice, not only be deciphered but successfully navigated as long as there is ongoing awareness of and suitable matching of our interests and work-related goals with the wider arena of the labour market in a dynamic way that demonstrates an inter-relationship with this environment. Self-awareness of our own thinking in relation to work and career is vital to this inter-relationship. C) STRATEGY GUIDELINES

This section provides some broad guidelines for different avenues of EmD. They are meant to serve as the starting point for people building EmD frameworks or programs to implement them.  Acquiring some of the characteristics and capabilities highlighted in this chapter requires, at present, relying on an array of possibly useful learning tools that we might only have access to on an inconsistent basis. This is far from optimal. EmD should, therefore, be mainstreamed across curricula as opposed to being included in a scattered and sometimes contradictory fashion.  EmD should be built on knowledge of current work and workforces, not out-ofdate practices and knowledge. If the nature of work and employment and the length and complexity of careers have changed so much in recent decades that our traditional approaches to education for employability are gradually becoming outmoded, educators need to offer programs designed to ameliorate the difficulties facing today’s employees in developing employability both now and into the future.  EmD should be taught and learned in such a way that younger learners (future workers) are learning to take responsibility for both their current and their future employability, not just their early career employment. Understanding that pursuit of employability is likely to be something required across the life-space and that many of us may have multiple careers in a lifetime should be instilled into young people so that, at the very least, they have an intellectual understanding that they 77

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS

may need to re-educate themselves or even pursue an entirely different career in their 40s or 50s.  EmD self-managed capability needs to be acquired in the workplace and the role of employers may be central to the success of any kind of employability development program. Interface with employers’ learning systems can allow realtime evaluation of existing capabilities, the deployment of a learning scaffold suited to individual circumstances, recognition of existing capabilities (e.g. via micro-credentialing), online accessibility for flexible learning options, opportunities for collaboration with peers and partners from other organisations or industries and, potentially, a platform for the fostering of more advanced employability characteristics such as self-efficacy and reflection.  Employers must be brought on the employability journey and see its development as an integral element as part of building efficient organisational cultures for learning and development. Industry or sector-wide deployment of such learning platforms would also provide an access point for governments to become involved in this dialogue. CONCLUSION

This chapter has argued that there is an important difference between employment and employability. It has also argued that there is a similar difference between development (via learning, experience, etc.) that results in preparation for professional practice and development that fosters employability. Therefore, we argue, learners and mentors or educators who are seeking to prepare themselves or others for work need to promote the capacity to pursue and maintain employability as well as develop practice readiness. Further, they need to promote both of these capabilities for the near and far future not only as understood by workers and employers but also by people contemplating the future of work and practice. Building employability that is sustainable over multiple jobs, desired professions and years involves, we argue, the understanding, pursuit and self-management of employability and we have created a model of employability development to facilitate this development. NOTES 1 2 3

4

The context of this argument is Western nations. See other chapters in this book. See https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/trends-and-research/2018/the-most-indemand-hard-and-soft-skills-of-2018 To be published as a PhD thesis through Charles Sturt University in 2019 and associated publications.

REFERENCES Aristotle. (2009). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford, England: Oxford World’s Classics. (Original work published 349 BC)

78

EMPLOYABILITY DEVELOPMENT Baruch, Y., & Peiperl, M. (2000). Career management practices: An empirical survey and implications. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 347-366. Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2011). The global auction: The broken promises of education, jobs and income. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cappelli, P. (2001). Why is it so hard to find information technology workers? Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 87-99. Cork, S., & Horsfall, D. (2019). Thinking the unthinkable: Challenges of imagining and engaging with unimaginable practice futures. In J. Higgs, S. Cork, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Challenging future practice possibilities (pp. 17-28). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Divan, A., & McBurney, S. (2016). Understanding how students manage their employability. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 11(1), n.p. Green, A. (2016). Implications of technological change and austerity for employability in urban labour markets. Urban Studies, 54(7), 1638-1654. Guilbert, L., Bernaud, J., Gouvernet, B., & Rossier, J. (2016). Employability: Review and research prospects. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 16(1), 69-89. Higgs, J., Barnett, R., Billett, S., Hutchings, M., & Trede, F. (Eds.). (2012). Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Higgs, J., & Cloutman, J. (2019). Employability interests and horizons: Public and personal realisations. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 3-16). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Holtz-Eakin, D., Gitis, B., & Rinehart, W. (2017). The gig economy: Research and policy implications of regional, economic and demographic trends. The Aspen Institute's ‘Future of work’ initiative and the American Action Forum. Retrieved from https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/the-gigeconomy-research-and-policy-implications/ Kearns, P. (2001). Generic skills for the new economy. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Kirpal, S. (2013). Labour-market flexibility and individual careers: A comparative study (Vol. 13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2002). Employability through the curriculum. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4), 261-276. Knouse, S., & Fontenot, G. (2008). Benefits of the business college internship: A research review. Journal of Employment Counseling, 45(2), 61. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lavy, I., & Yadin, A. (2013). Soft skills – an important key for employability in the ‘shift to a service driven economy’ era. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and eLearning, 3(5), 416-420. Manyika, J., Lund, S., Bughin, J., Robinson, K., Mischke, J., & Mahajan, D. (2015). Independent work: Choice, necessity and the gig economy. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/independent-work-choicenecessity-and-the-gig-economy Maurer, T. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for development. Journal of Management, 27(2), 123-140. McMullin, J., Duerden, T., & Jovic, E. (2007). Generational affinities and discourses of difference: A case study of highly skilled information technology workers. British Journal of Sociology, 58(2), 297316. Meyers, R., Billett, S., & Kelly, A. (2014). Mature-aged workers’ learning needs and motivations for participation in training programs. International Journal of Training Research, 8(2), 116-127. Patton, N., Higgs, J., & Smith, M. (Eds.). (2018). Developing practice capability: Transforming workplace learning. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: Developing a practical model of graduate employability. Education + Training, 49(4), 277-289.

79

CLOUTMAN AND HIGGS Tamkin, P., & Hillage, J. (1999). Employability and employers: The missing piece of the jigsaw. Brighton, England: Institute for Employment Studies. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weinert, P., Baukens, M., Bollerot, P., Pineschi-Gapenne, M., & Walwei, U. (Eds.). (2001). Employability: From theory to practice. London, England: Transaction Publishers.

James Cloutman MEd (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9907-5632) PhD Candidate, Charles Sturt University, Australia Joy Higgs AM, PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-1016) Emeritus Professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia Director, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia

80

WILL LETTS

7. PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY A Journey More Than a Destination

PRESENT TENSE, FUTURE FOCUSED

Employability has been broadly and variably conceptualised, but for the purpose of this chapter I’ll use as an indicative definition that employability is the preparation, capabilities and agency of a person to act positively in the creation, maintenance and pursuit of her/his ongoing employment options, situation and future directions (Higgs, 2016). Bennett (2018) frames employability developmentally as “the ability to find, create and sustain meaningful work across the career lifespan”, noting that it’s a way of thinking and doing, not just doing. Bridgstock (2019) conceptualises “Employability 2.0” as the “social network applications of particular relevance to university graduates … [including]: (i) innovation and enterprise; (ii) career development and employment generation; and (iii) lifelong professional learning” (p. 98). Higgs and Cloutman (2019) point out that employability is both a conceptual and an experiential construct that involves not just the student/learner/jobseeker, but also a constellation of educators, employers, practitioners and fellow students/ learners/jobseekers. Employability is a concept that imbues each individual with an employabilityready subjectivity that encompasses a sense of agency and also relies for its success on being apparent to students/learners. It is not just something that happens to them. Being employability-ready relies on agency and self-direction, reflexivity and selfknowledge – the knowledge, skills and attributes that make graduates employable and successful in their chosen profession(s). In this chapter I will present the case that employability is more fruitfully viewed as a journey rather than as it has been more traditionally conceptualised, as a destination. This is consistent with Smith et al. (2018), who conceptualise employability as a process rather than an outcome. As a journey I write about it in the present tense, a journey we’re always pursuing and forever undertaking. So while we might look to the future, the future into which our journey is taking us, it is in the here and now of our journey towards employability that we need to be most interested in. We need a future focus, or at least an awareness of the future, because we are educating students for the next generation of work which might not be totally apparent or clear to us, but where it seems likely that it will remain difficult to automate tacit knowledge and capabilities such as caring, advocacy, complex decision making, entrepreneurship skills, etc. Employability is defined as much, if not more, by mindset rather than skillset and our many educational and other employability efforts need to reflect this. In this way I envisage lifelong © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_007

LETTS

employability – a correlate to lifelong learning – preparing people for a portfolio of careers rather than a job-for-life. What’s the relationship between the journey and the destination? There’s an implied end point/destination when you talk about a journey, but is there really one in this case? They’re often conceptualised sequentially – the journey is seen to precede the destination. But when the journey is punctuated with several destinations, and none are your final stop, they co-occur as opposed to one following the other. In relation to employability this co-occurrence describes the iterative nature of the activities that both constitute and build employability. So where are we headed? I don’t take “the job” or “the first job” as the sole destination or achievement when thinking about employability, although I don’t discount the importance of attaining this. People do need a sense of where (they think) they’re going – as students, as recent graduates, as mid-career professionals and later into their working lives – because often they think they’re headed somewhere and their direction changes along the way. Their tertiary education may be preparing them to enter a specific discipline or field, but even this is open to change at any point in the journey, when they discover new fields or disciplines, new opportunities that are possible with the credential they are seeking, or as new possibilities for jobs, disciplines or fields emerge. So it’s more about the journey – about developing and bolstering knowledge, skills and dispositions and understanding how these might serve them in fields of practice as it is about getting their first, or subsequent, jobs. Simply stated, employability is not wholly captured or encapsulated by getting a job. In this chapter I’ll explore such issues as conceptualising employability spatially, travelling on the employability journey with an old map, how people know when they’ve arrived when there’s no particular destination, and what employability as a spectrum might look like and mean. PROXIMAL AND DISTAL EMPLOYABILITY

If achieving (and maintaining) employability is the intended destination, how will people get there? Drawing from the metaphor of the journey, I employ two spatial (and temporal) terms to describe what I see as an overlapping distinction between aspects of employability. As opposed to positing two completely distinct domains, I proffer the notions of “proximal” employability and “distal” employability to capture the aims and intentions of this journey. The spatial terminology of near and far is not meant to infer importance, greater value or sequence – but rather to signal spatially, conceptually and perhaps even temporally the relationship between certain practices and employability. Proximal, or “near”, employability is constituted from the fit-for-purpose awards/degrees, discernible pathways to careers, and curricular and co-curricular activities that are closely aligned with specific, identified jobs and careers. Students studying these degrees have a clear sense of where their award will take them (even if that sense is constrained, limited or limiting). This is very different from (only) seeking to become “job ready”, often a concept simplistically conflated with 82

PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY

employability. Job-readiness is the idea of hitting the ground running or envisioning employees already fully “trained up” and ready to tackle the complexities of the particular job or world of work. Instead, proximal employability is fostered when one’s area of tertiary or other study aligns closely with a discipline or field, and many times with an actual job (e.g. nurse, teacher, dentist, veterinarian or physiotherapist). Proximal employability is frequently associated with a range of professions whose study and training are self-evidently linked to the jobs that await graduates. But what determines if a particular educational practice, part of curriculum, cocurricular activity or work integrated learning (WIL) context is proximal or distal is not innate in the activity itself but rather the context the activity emerges in and the ends to which it is being put. That is, a professional degree that helps someone get a job in that profession may contribute to proximal employability, but for a classmate who mobilises those skills in a different profession to a different end it may contribute to their distal employability. So those terms are relational reflections of contexts as opposed to having a fixed or naturalised meaning. Thus, we might discern how we contribute to both proximal and distal employability in different ways by knowledge, skills and dispositions, and by fostering capabilities. Distal, or “far”, employability consists of a much broader preparation for a range of roles, careers, fields and/or jobs. It could entail perhaps more generic knowledge, skills and dispositions (e.g. “life skills” and “soft skills” that might constitute mindset, but also enculturation into the broader world of work if not a specific profession), as well as the habits of mind, norms of practice, emotions and a sense of one’s professional self, that amount to employability. In the university context graduate attributes, for instance, work towards distal employability. Often portrayed as broad learning outcomes in areas such as digital literacies, cultural competence, global citizenship and sustainabilities, these attributes manifest themselves in the broad-based and generalised service of a range of credentials. These aspirational and widely applicable sets of knowledge, skills and dispositions in their own ways speak to distal employability. To illustrate this let’s tease it out and be more explicit about how these awards prepare students for a range of roles beyond the generalised benefits of a broad degree, e.g. BArts, or how what seems like a proximal award, a teacher education degree for instance, is in fact an award that could prepare a graduate for many more contexts and roles than just that of classroom teacher – so credentials can pose as proximal awards when they are in fact not. I’m not trying to create a false or simplistic dichotomy, but rather a relational heuristic that offers us information about how near or far, in space and in time, our efforts at employability are to the attainment of employability itself, which then might inform how we best nurture and support our employability efforts. AN OLD MAP: I CAN’T FIND THE DESTINATION

This talk of journeys and the places we pass through and stop at along the way reminds me of Alastair Bonnett’s (2014) book Unruly Places: Lost Spaces, Secret Cities, and Other Inscrutable Geographies. For Bonnett, an unruly place is 83

LETTS

“somewhere that disrupts the usual and conventional stories we tell about place” (quoted in Meier, 2014, n.p.). Bonnett’s work illustrates that in a world where we might think we have discovered everything, “we learn there may be no limits” to what we actually don’t know (Pierson, 2014, n.p.). This in itself might be a useful aspect of employability, as well as having broader implications for employability. Employability is perhaps never fully knowable both because it is constantly evolving and changing as we do the same, and because as lifelong learners we are never really there. We pass through and perhaps stop off at many destinations along our journey, never to reach a final destination or end point. In this sense employability has “no limits” – we keep trying to attain it, or reach it, but there is always further education, multiplying experiences, more sharply honed skills and increasing capabilities that we can aspire to, so it is in some sense elusive. Thus, as Bonnett pointed out, there are many things that don’t appear on maps, especially old maps. In his case they were secret cities, floating islands made of coalescing tons of rubbish in the ocean, and ephemeral places. In relation to employability these include the changing nature of work, jobs not yet foreseen, education evolving to meet the yet-to-be-articulated needs of new work and the changing preferences for what and how students want to learn, and the proliferation of ways of working including independent work, freelancing, piece work and startups. As such issues emerge we draw them on to maps, but before they are even mapped they are there and we start encountering them, passing through these towns, whether we expect to or not. They appear as premonitions, as possibilities, in the realm of perhaps and maybe. Using the idea of a palimpsest,1 we over-write life maps as our working futures, and the education that is required to prepare us for that future becomes visible or evident. So is there such a notion as unruly employability? If employability is conceptualised as a static project of largely one-way information flow and enculturation by those who know a culture to those who are entering it, then probably not. But if instead, as I am advocating, there is utility in conceptualising an unruly employability – not chaotic or unknowable, just unruly – then there are spaces and opportunities to change professions, places of employment, work arrangements and education in light of the new world of work. Imagine what employability as an agent of change could even look like. Unruly (employability) “disrupts the usual and conventional stories we tell about …” (quoted in Meier, 2014) employment and employability would recognise the context-dependent nature of striving for the notyet-fully-known and the reciprocity inherent in such an educational journey and that results from a dialogic approach to preparing for unknown futures such as in the world of work. HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN WE’VE ARRIVED?

As I described earlier this is not the right question to ask as we’re never going to arrive – our journey of (unruly) employability will/should never come to an end. The idea of the journey coming to an end is the very “usual and conventional” story that unruly employability would seek to interrupt. Thus, pondering the final destination 84

PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY

is not as productive as planning to make it the most interesting and functional journey possible, upending the notion that one’s readiness for work is ever complete. Instead, people ponder the places they’ll pass through along the way – education, employment, learning on the job, perhaps losing a job, further education, re-training, upskilling, freelancing, etc. – and what each of these destinations has to teach them will be far more fruitful, satisfying and constructive. Is the journey to employability only a single journey? Not likely! Given the present and imagined future worlds of work and of higher education, this is more realistically framed as one long expedition comprised of a series of journeys throughout people’s lives to attain, maintain and sustain employability. For how do they aim for places that are on the map but “unfound” or aren’t even on the map yet? How do they prepare now for future fields, future careers or new configurations of work? Part of the answer involves the impossible task of future-proofing employability – what might employability look like for a set of jobs or for working conditions that don’t yet exist? How do we conceptualise that? Such a reality means that there are lots of unknowns in relation to proximal employability, but we still have a sense of what will be needed into the future in terms of distal employability knowledge, skills and capabilities. Not that I’m trying to instantiate a hard skills versus soft skills dichotomy. Instead, such an acknowledgement foregrounds that while we may not be able to discern what proximal employability activities look like in evolving and emerging professions, we do still have a good sense of what capabilities seem to defy automation and will inevitably require skilled and capable humans to continue to practise them. And in these changing conditions of work what seemed to be distal aspects of employability can quickly become proximal not only via events like just-in-time training and upskilling, but also as jobs and careers emerge that align and closely cohere with existing credentials, learning opportunities and learning futures. EMPLOYABILITY AS A SPECTRUM

We know what precedes and leads to employability, although our understandings and practices in this space – education – continue to shift and develop, but what’s beyond it? If we view employability not as a point or a pole on a spectrum, an end point on the spectrum that we strive to reach, but rather as the whole spectrum itself, then there is nothing beyond it. Even when we’re in a job we can be taking steps to ensure we stay employable and to boost our employability – simply having a job may not be enough to ensure we stay employable. If employability is the spectrum then there is no post-employability space on this spectrum. Instead of conceptualising it as only a baseline that we strive to and eventually meet, it is more like something constantly emerging because the threshold keeps shifting as we keep growing, changing and learning, and as the world of work continues to transform as well. So there may be a threshold of employability, but because the contexts keep changing so too does our sense of whether merely meeting the threshold is enough, or if it is necessary not only to become employable, but to stay employable? 85

LETTS

If this is what employability is, how do we educate for the journey rather than merely for the destination – how do we engage in education for employability? In part, we hope some answers can be found in this book and the preceding volume (Higgs, Crisp, & Letts, 2019) where authors have canvassed the central issues, agendas, initiatives and concerns around education for employability. While a detailed consideration of this topic is beyond the remit of this chapter, I finish with a few broad principles that might be useful. PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY

The journey towards employability is delimited by some broad guiding principles. Workers should begin the journey with the (broad but not prescribed) end in mind – students (and others) should start thinking of themselves as professionals from the very start of a credentialing program. A balance needs to be struck between having enough education to nurture what will emerge as interests and passions and being asked to articulate and pursue those passions – though for different individuals there will be different points in their educational journeys where this occurs. Thus it is not only in tertiary education where these decisions are made and where these interests emerge and flourish, even though we’ve largely structured our educational systems for a tertiary education to be the gateway to a career. So upon entry to these degrees learners are immediately recognised as student engineers, student teachers or student lawyers. Such a move, in order to be more than merely semantic or tokenistic, necessitates that from the start students build their skills in networking and connecting with others as they build their own sense of self-as-professional and sense of self-as-employable. Being prepared for the world of work starts from day one of the student’s tertiary education, if not much sooner. Tertiary education settings have understandably received quite a bit of attention as sites and contexts within which to build learners’ employability, but the journey really starts with the first days of school, if not even earlier. These initial distal employability experiences can set the foundation for what become much more proximal experiences in secondary school and higher education, and then on into their life and career portfolio. Learners should start thinking about what career, or at least broad field or discipline area, they are most interested in. Even if they can’t yet predict all of the jobs that will be available in the future, grounding themselves in a field or discipline area of deep interest can help inform them how to move forward to maximise their employability. And it will show them what it feels like and looks like to pursue and indulge their interests and passions – and this is often enough to sustain them throughout their working lives. Conversely, denying or ignoring their interests and passions can make for what might seem like an interminable and unfulfilling life of work. By discovering and declaring their interests they become known for what they believe in, which is a palpable, outward-facing and explicit expression of their passions, capabilities and values and a key component of employability. Embodying and living their values sends clear messages about who they are as people and

86

PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY

professionals, which in turn not only illustrates what they can gain and contribute but also offers information about where they might best fit and thrive. Students/learners/jobseekers should ask themselves “What does success look like to me?” Although this construct masquerades as self-evident and universal, in fact it is very personal, context-dependent and relative. Early on those seeking employability should articulate their personal definition of success even if they recalibrate it as their journey of employability progresses and unfolds. This can serve as a compass of sorts to chart future directions and help them to refine choices and make decisions that are impactful and productive. Learners should avail themselves of opportunities to learn in authentic and simulated real-world contexts of work though WIL. And where these opportunities are lacking or poorly conceptualised, learners should insist that high-quality, authentic workplace learning is an integral part of their formal education. For instance, “In a major project to deliver the nation’s first comprehensive snapshot of work integrated learning, Universities Australia has collected information about all types of work placements, internships, industry projects, fieldwork, and simulations offered by Australia’s 39 universities” (Universities Australia, 2019, p. 4). What this variety of experiences foregrounds, despite the immense diversity of the contexts, activities and intentions of the WIL experiences, is the seminal role that WIL experiences play not only in bolstering employability, but in the construction and maintenance of the future graduate’s sense of self-as-professional, and as being competent in the world of work. The “learning view” of employability, advocated throughout this chapter, has been shown to have more productive and collaborative effects than the “productivity and skills view” of employability (Smith et al., 2018). In terms of lifelong learning this is a never-ending journey, as I have argued in this chapter. There is still plenty for higher education providers (and the schools sector) to learn about bringing the hallmarks of a high-performing, employability-focused university to fruition (Smith et al., 2018). Such hallmarks must become more than targets or aspirations, they must be brought to reality in practice. Tertiary education, and the constellation of other related activities that contribute powerfully to employability, must have a sustainable employability focus (Watts, 2006), rather than a focus on immediate employment or immediate employability. If employability is a neverending journey then we must ensure that our educational systems and practices, our curricula pedagogies, our extra- and co-curricular activities, and our WIL and volunteer opportunities are all focused on the long-term efforts necessary to build and sustain employability not only for the attainment of the first job, but for fruitful and fulfilling engagement for the rest of one’s working life. And wouldn’t that make for one great trip! ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to Joy Higgs for her insightful comments on early drafts of this chapter and her collegiality.

87

LETTS

NOTE 1

A palimpsest is a page of a manuscript from which the text has been removed so that the page can be reused for another document.

REFERENCES Bennett, D. (2018). Embedding employABILITY thinking across higher education (Final Report). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Bonnett, A. (2014). Unruly places: Lost spaces, secret cities, and other inscrutable geographies. Toronto, Canada: Viking. Bridgstock, R. (2019). Graduate employability 2.0: Learning for life and work in a socially networked world. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 97-106). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Higgs, J. (2016). Employability: Definition: Retrieved from https://www.epen.edu.au/definition Higgs, J., & Cloutman, J. (2019). Employability interests and horizons: Public and personal realisations. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 3-16). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Higgs, J., Crisp, G., & Letts, W. (Eds.). (2019). Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Meier, A. (2014, July 21). Unruly places: Alastair Bonnett explores a feral world untamed by geography. Atlas Obscura. Retrieved from http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/unruly-places-alastair-bonnettexplores-a-feral-world-untamed-by-geography Pierson, M. H. (2014, August 15). ‘Unruly places’ finds our planet's clandestine, mismapped, abandoned, or repurposed places. Christian Science Monitor Book Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2014/0815/Unruly-Places-finds-our-planet-sclandestine-mismapped-abandoned-or-repurposed-places Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D., & McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Wollongong, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia. Universities Australia. (2019). Career ready graduates. Canberra, Australia: Author. Watts, A. G. (2006). Career development learning and employability (Learning and Employability Series 2). York, England: The Higher Education Academy.

Will Letts PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0266-5703) Faculty of Arts and Education Charles Sturt University, Australia

88

RUTH BRIDGSTOCK, MICHELLE GRANT-IRAMU, CHRISTINE BILSLAND, MATALENA TOFA, KATE LLOYD AND DENISE JACKSON

8. GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB” Graduates’ Narratives and Lived Experiences of Employability and Their Career Development

The most common definitions of graduate employability emphasise the possession of understandings, skills and attributes necessary to acquire graduate level work, perform adequately at work, and to build a career (Hillage & Pollard, 1998). University key performance indicators for graduate employability tend to focus on the proportion of graduates in full-time employment a few months after course completion (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2018). This chapter takes as its starting point that neither the dominant skills-based definition of graduate employability, nor the established key performance measures, are adequate, and that higher education institutions may be doing themselves and their learners a disservice by continuing to use them. We draw upon Business and Creative Industries graduates’ narratives about their career trajectories up to five years after course completion, exploring individual accounts of the value of professional relationships, and career experiences as they transition beyond university, to tease out a more nuanced conceptualisation of graduate employability. This emergent conceptualisation embraces longer timeframes for career launch, and evolving career identities. It confirms the importance of the subjective indicators of success advocated by Jackson and Bridgstock (2018), incorporating graduates’ own aims and goals, and recognising the different ways that they can add value. Finally, it acknowledges that employability is influenced by a wide range of factors beyond the graduate’s skills and knowledge. By sharing graduates’ narratives and lived experiences of their early career trajectories, this chapter starts to suggest how universities can better foster graduates’ capacities to make meaningful and productive contributions through work and life. GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY: DEFINITIONS AND MEASURES

Until fairly recently, higher education was primarily a vehicle for liberal and civic education for a small elite. Graduates were assured of professional employment at the end of their degrees if they sought it, particularly in the public service. However, over the last few decades, higher education has become much more tightly coupled to economic needs. Massification of degree enrolments, increasing economic emphasis on competition, efficiency and productivity, and human capital policy © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_008

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

arguments about education driving economic growth (Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2004) have changed the relationship between higher education and the labour market. The graduate employability agenda is a response to this evolving relationship that strengthens the vocational mission of higher education (Harvey, 2001). At the same time, for many students, a university degree has become a necessary but insufficient condition for graduate level employment. The dominant conceptualisations of graduate employability reflect the economic drivers behind the agenda, and the key role that higher education is seen as playing in preparing highly skilled workers for the knowledge economy, thus driving economic progress (Brown et al., 2004). These graduate employability definitions focus on the possession of skills, knowledge and other attributes acquired through university education that enable individuals to secure and maintain employment. However, as some have pointed out (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2018; Tomlinson, 2017), such definitions overlook an important additional range of individual influences on employability, such as social, cultural and psychological capital, and identity. They also discount entirely the impact of “demand side” factors, such as the labour market, society and the economy more broadly (McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005). It does not matter how skilled a teacher graduate of primary education may be – if they do not aspire to a career in teaching, if they have caring responsibilities and cannot commit to the designated teaching load, or if there are no graduate level teaching jobs available, they are unlikely to be employed as a teacher. The key performance indicator and proxy measure for employability used in higher education is full-time graduate employment (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2018). This is gauged using achieved salary and full-time job attainment via an initial national, cross-sectional survey between four- and six-months post-course completion. Jackson and Bridgstock observe that this use of short-term graduate employment, essentially gauging the success of higher education in preparation for work, is adopted in other developed countries yet criticised on several grounds. One is the fact that the strongest influences on full-time graduate employment relate to the local graduate labour market rather than educational factors (Karmel & Carroll, 2016). Another is that some industries, such as the creative arts, favour project-based ways of working, rather than full-time roles. Those graduates with “non-vocational” degrees may take more time to transition to the workforce and therefore may be inaccurately flagged as being less employable. Survey measures sometimes include an indicator of “graduate level” employment, yet do not measure the actual value (either level or type) that graduates add through their work. Commentators on the future world of work point out that self-employment and “portfolio” ways of working will become more common as structural labour market changes continue under the influence of the “gig economy”, digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and cloud computing, and globalisation (Bakhshi et al., 2017). Graduates can increasingly expect to hold multiple job roles, including on a self-employment basis, and recurrently seek or create work, as well as retrain and upskill (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). Graduate outcome measures seem to operate at odds with these future ways of working and learning. However, perhaps the most troubling aspects of current approaches to graduate employability 90

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB”

definition and measurement relate to the fact that they overlook graduates’ own aims and goals, and their work and life circumstances. Analyses of student motivations for university study shows that while full-time employment outcomes are important to some, others are motivated by the opportunity to “make a difference” and fulfil a purpose within or outside formal work situations. Others want to contribute to an area of knowledge or practice; some want or need to balance work and non-work activity; and a group of students enrol in university simply for the love of learning (Guiffrida et.al., 2013). These motivations change over the lifespan as the graduate’s circumstances change yet, for some, full-time employment may never be a possibility due to caring responsibilities, cultural requirements or disability/health considerations. It is important these diverse motivations and outcomes are recognised when measuring and benchmarking institutional success in what has become a highly performative higher education context. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVE

In this chapter, we join others in choosing to frame employability as encompassing a graduate’s ongoing capacity to live and work productively and meaningfully in an increasingly dynamic and complex society (see also Bridgstock & Tippett, 2019; Fullan, 1993). For us, employability is the capacity to “employ” one’s “abilities” in ways that are personally meaningful and appropriate and add value to the contexts with which the graduate is engaged. That is, graduate employability is the ability to harness one’s skills, knowledge and other attributes in order to add value across a range of different contexts across the life course, including family, community and civic engagement, as well as in work and career. We are interested in the graduate’s own aims and goals, and their life and work circumstances. By choosing this broad and subjective framing, we can explore how graduates are intentionally traversing and constructing life and work after course completion, and how they are making sense of their employability-related experiences. Literature that explores undergraduates’ perspectives on employability while at university indicates that in the early stages of study, students tend to regard employability as an important broader aim of university education, but one that is not yet personally relevant (Tymon, 2013). Towards the end of the degree and approaching the transition-to-work, students are increasingly likely to focus on how they can strengthen their employability through the acquisition of skills, credentials and experiences. Tomlinson (2008) interviewed final year undergraduates in the United Kingdom and found that they were conscious of intense competition for graduate roles, but continued to place strong importance on their qualifications, believing that their degree classification would be used by employers to differentiate between graduate applicants in a competitive labour market. These graduates also believed that they needed to differentiate themselves from their peers in the job market by acquiring additional credentials and distinctive relevant experiences. These studies suggest that, like higher education institutions, students can think of employability in terms of skills and “possessional” indicators 91

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

such as credentials. Holmes (2001) points out that this skills-based or “possessional” approach to employability is of limited usefulness in understanding the complexity of graduate career trajectories, and in preparing students for life and work beyond university. It assumes much of the process is “simply a matter of matching skills required and skills possessed” (p. 112), when the influences on graduate employability are far broader and more complex than the possession of skills and credentials suggest. While some studies suggest that undergraduate students’ conceptions of employability tend not to be particularly well-developed, often being about simply being able to get a job or increase their earnings because of their degree experiences (Tymon, 2013), others indicate that students gain an increasingly nuanced sense of what they want to achieve out of their careers over time and through experience. Maxwell and Broadbridge (2017) describe several dimensions of career aspirations among undergraduates, including enjoyment and satisfaction; career progression and opportunities to learn and develop; and opportunities to contribute through work. A number of theorists have pointed out the advantages of a “processual” approach (Holmes, 2001) to researching employability, and also to employability learning itself (Bridgstock, Grant-Iramu, & McAlpine, 2019, in press; Jackson, 2016; Tomlinson, 2017). By viewing employability as a process of sense-making, discovery and self-construction (Savickas, 2011), a wide range of internal and external influences including skill development can be explored in context, through a subjective lens. An important central construct in the processual approach to employability is identity (Holmes, 2013; Tomlinson, 2017). Following Ibarra (1999), career identity is constructed over time through experimentation with “provisional selves” that are constructed and progressively refined through experiences and social interactions. This is not always an easy process as individuals learn to reconcile their multiple identities, such as personal, social and work. Career identity provides both a frame through which students can interpret their capabilities and previous experiences, and a meaningful way to focus future activity. Over time, the student’s career identity starts to act as a cognitive compass (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004), supporting their learning and career choices, and helping them to make sense of learning experiences. Nicholas (2018) led one of very few empirical studies to take an explicitly processual approach to graduate employability, exploring employability narratives of 32 liberal arts undergraduates. She found evidence for three basic stages of employability narrative/career identity development, embedded into an ongoing process of identity development and revision: exploring, where the student is becoming more self- and career-aware, and is open to career possibilities; packaging, where the student assembles identities, capabilities, values and interests, and tries multiple options; and distinguishing, where the student has a well-developed career identity, and is focused on proactive career building. Studies of graduates’ transitions from their perspectives also emphasise the central role of identity to the journey, and the sometimes uneven path taken by the graduate in developing a sense of themselves and cohesion within a new identity and community. Holden and Hamblett (2007) interviewed five graduates four times over 92

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB”

a period of one year as they transitioned into the world of work. The authors document a need for what they call “learning about self” to a much greater extent while at university, in contrast to the current focus on which skills the student does or does not have; and argue for the power of reflective practice to support identity development. This is particularly important given the demise of the “job for life” and the increasing pressure on graduates to be able to navigate an often complex myriad of pathways, opportunities and challenges in the labour market. We are also interested in graduates’ experiences of their transitions to work and career, and their narratives around their experiences. Using a processual and identitydevelopment view to employability, we explore graduates’ perceptions of the value of university learning, and the roles of professional relationships and different career experiences in their initial journey through career and life post-graduation. METHODS

A total of 31 one-hour interviews were conducted with graduates from undergraduate Business and Creative Industries degree programs offered by three Australian universities. The specific major areas of study for Business graduates included accountancy, actuarial studies, finance, advertising, human resource management, and management. Creative Industries majors included film and television, fashion, entertainment industries, media and communications, digital and graphic design, acting and drama. Business and Creative Industries disciplines were chosen for career pattern contrast, with Creative Industries graduates being more likely to undertake multiple “portfolio” careers and be self-employed to some extent (Bridgstock & Cunningham, 2016) than Business graduates, who are more likely to hold a single full-time job role and work as an employee. Graduates had completed their degrees between one and five years previously. They were recruited through a combination of recruitment emails using email addresses drawn from institutional alumni databases, advertising on institutional alumni social media pages, and direct emailing eligible alumni contacts of teaching and careers staff known to the research team. Interviews were conducted face-toface or via Skype/Zoom between May and August 2018. Interview questions addressed: career aspirations; career roles; career movements and changes; career building strategies; the roles of people and tools such as social media in career development; and the value of various university learning experiences. Demographic and study characteristics of the interviewees are categorised in Table 8.1. At the time of interviewing, 18 graduates were employed in a single full-time role. Two were undertaking roles on a voluntary basis; three were self-employed either through freelance work or a start-up. The remaining eight graduates maintained portfolio career patterns, including a combination of full-time, part-time, casual, freelance and voluntary work. The most common portfolio career combination was full-time employment plus self-employment (three graduates). The audio-recorded interview data were transcribed and then coded and analysed using NVivo Version 12. For this study, we used a range of theoretically derived codes drawn from the

93

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

literature, including career identity development, social career influences, and learning experiences at university. Table 8.1. Demographic characteristics of the interviewees. Characteristics

Number of interviewees

International enrolment Domestic enrolment Enrolment not stated

7 23 1

Female Male

21 10

Business degree Creative Industries degree

18 13

Employed full-time only Portfolio career (multiple role types) Volunteering Self-employed only

18 8 2 3

Graduated 1–2 years ago Graduated 2–3 years ago Graduated 3–5 years ago

17 7 7 FINDINGS

Timelines and Trajectories The 31 graduate trajectories were analysed for the number and types of job roles that the graduates had undertaken since graduation, the length of time it had taken for them to become “established” in career roles, and to document other career-related activities and decision-making processes that they had undertaken during their first one to five years in the world of work. Particular attention was given to the period of time up to six months post-graduation, at which time the Graduate Outcomes Survey is administered across Australia. A proportion of Business graduates across the three universities transitioned directly from their degrees into full-time employment, through recruitment via internship experiences or graduate recruitment programs. For the many who did not graduate with a job, the first few months after course completion was typically spent applying for jobs and undertaking career building activities through the SEEK job advertisement site, recruitment agencies and LinkedIn, during which some graduates continued part-time or casual roles from university. By the second year after graduation, Business graduates had held an average of two to three “career” roles, with some movement when graduate programs 94

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB”

concluded, other opportunities opened up and graduates gained a progressively better understanding of what they wanted to do in their careers. A minority held multiple concurrent roles, including self-employment (start-up) alongside paid, contracted employment. At the six-month point after graduation, many but not all had moved into their first “career” role; by the 12-month mark nearly all were established into career paths. A much lower proportion of Creative Industries graduates moved straight into work after completing their degrees. On average, Creative Industries graduates had held six to seven job roles by the end of Year Two, often on a self-employed, parttime or casual basis, and which were likely to overlap with one another or be held concurrently in a portfolio career pattern. A proportion of graduates chose to enrol in further study, or to move to other locations to pursue work. Creative Industries graduates were also likely to have undertaken post-graduation volunteering and internships. At six months post-graduation, the majority of Creative Industries interviewees were working in at least one creative role, but many needed two or three years to become more established into a career trajectory. Some Business and Creative Industries graduates undertook overseas travel after graduation, typically for between three and six months. In some instances, the graduate incorporated this overseas experience into their subsequent career identities and trajectories. For others, while the interruption was a valuable life experience, it resulted in some challenges in rebuilding career development momentum once they returned. Identity Development and Career Patterns This study found broad support for three career identity categories, but these did not map well onto the exploring, packaging and distinguishing stages reported by Nicholas (2018). Instead, the interviews revealed that many graduates tended to engage in concurrent or overlapping cycles of exploring, packaging and distinguishing activities as they “tried on for size” successive iterations of career identities and roles. In our research, the most adaptive and functional career identities actually involved continuing to explore and being open to career opportunities and ongoing identity renewal, even when the graduate had achieved some career success. The identity categories identified in this research are focused, flexible and forming identities. Three broad patterns of career trajectory aligned with these three identity categories, showing that the ways graduates were choosing to navigate their careers were tied to their evolving identities. Career behaviour and identity development were also linked with opportunities in industries and career roles of interest, exposure to industry experiences and social influences such as mentoring. The three identities found in the graduates’ career narratives are outlined below. 1. Focused. Graduates in this category articulated a certain and specific career identity and had established specific career goals during their undergraduate studies. These graduates were more likely to be targeted in seeking out mentors, establishing networks and selecting industry experiences, both before graduation and afterwards. 95

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

I have known from quite an early age that I wanted to do HR and that remained the focus of my degree throughout. I love my role. I moved into it about 3 months ago. It's fantastic because I'm working on crossenterprise projects, and I'm surrounded by some experienced HR people. It's definitely lived up to my expectations of what I wanted to do. (U2 Business Graduate 1)1 Focused graduates’ career pathways were navigated in different ways depending on industry, roles, specific career goals and contextual factors, and were not necessarily linear; however, these graduates were all highly strategic in working towards a strongly defined career outcome. When I’ve been approached for a position in the past I usually assess it on 1: what it can do for me professionally in terms of building new knowledge, skills, and abilities, but also 2: what I can contribute to the role, and then on top of that, 3: the perception of having that role. I started to critically assess things as to what the benefit is both for them and for me. (U1 Business Graduate 2) Key challenges for some focused graduates related to implementing career building strategies in support of their goals. Given that focused graduates have specific and certain career aims, suitable opportunities may be quite limited. If the graduate also has a limited repertoire of career building strategies, they can find themselves frustrated and unable to obtain roles. There was so much pressure, and as we came out of the theatre a lot of them [agents] were leaving. It was very stressful. It’s almost as if the agents didn’t know how much we were counting on them talking to us. And if someone gets to an agent first you can’t interrupt them and be, ‘oh by the way, I am so and so’. It didn’t work out the way anyone imagined. We were all very disillusioned. (U1 Creative Industries Graduate 8) Some advantages to embarking on a career with developed and certain goals in mind were observed, particularly around being able to engage in targeted career building activities earlier and more consistently than other graduates. However, focused identity can be a disadvantage, as graduates can “foreclose” (Marcia, 1987) on opportunities and pathways that may be worthwhile for them to pursue. What I see in a lot of students now is they’re really specific and they get tunnel vision, they see themselves in one place and one place only, and they’re not willing to be open to new things, when really, there are so many other roles that you might not even know about. So, for example, I had no clue what global mobility was, but I said, ‘look, I’m going to take an experience, see whether I like it. It’s a six-month contract’. (U2 Business Graduate 5) 2. Flexible. While these graduates were drawn to the idea of a career aligned with their choice of undergraduate degree, their actual career identities were flexible, 96

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB”

and evolved in an ongoing way. Career identity development occurred through industry experiences (both undergraduate and after graduation), and from interactions with mentors and other connections established as part of their developing networks. At the time it seems so big and media is so competitive, and there are so many jobs you don’t even know exist. I feel like I probably would have found it comforting to see someone just kind of meander their way through which is what I have done. (U2 Creative Industries Graduate 4) Flexible identity graduates’ interests and values became cognitive and behavioural “anchors” for career development rather than identification with specific roles or industries. A commitment to pursuing interests and valuecongruence permitted them the cognitive and behavioural flexibility to be open to multiple career options. Honestly, the best thing to do is just put yourself out there, say yes to everything and you never know where you land. I did not see myself in Indonesia – 10 years ago I was a media student convinced that I would become either a journalist or a writer … but then I realised there were other aspects of my interests that I really wanted to pursue. I will continue with my writing projects, and that’s fine. I think my life has been a lot richer for it. (U2 Creative Industries Graduate 2) Flexible identity graduates discovered career opportunities through the process of career navigation, and began to consolidate their broad career identities as they gained a greater understanding of how they could apply their skills and interests within or across industries. One advantage of maintaining a flexible career identity is the ability to make the most of happenstance for career development. Planned happenstance career theory (Mitchell, Levin, & Krumboltz, 1999) argues that there can be too much planning in career development, and that we also need the ability to turn unplanned events into opportunities for learning and career development. Planned happenstance was a strong theme in the interview responses. I think that very few people end up where they think they want – where they see themselves in five, 10 years’ time. There’s this pressure to figure out your life as quickly as possible and then just be professional, but there’s very little opportunities for you to grow if you head down the straight path, I think. The most interesting experience has come from all the detours and digressions that I’ve taken. (U2 Creative Industries Graduate 2) 3. Forming. These graduates were able to articulate broad and emerging career aims, but the aims were less well developed than for either focused or flexible graduates. These graduates needed more time and experience to learn about their career interests and values, and how these and their capabilities might fit with career opportunities. Forming identity graduates might take on volunteering, 97

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

internships and part-time employment as a way of exploring the “fit” of different industries and roles. For many of the forming identity graduates, identity experiments were also ways to develop skills and confidence required to work towards career goals. I didn't go into my media/law degree going, ‘I know exactly what I want to do’. In fact, it took me ages to figure out what I wanted to do. But I think just having that practical experience – I thought the worst thing that’s going to come out of this is I get some experience in this area and decide that I don’t really like it and then move on. (U1 Creative Industries Graduate 3) For some graduates, their current forming career identity was the result of discovering that a career experience or pathway did not suit them after all. Identity revision can involve trialling new roles and industries, and also explicit strategies to develop capabilities and new social networks. I was working as a marketing coordinator. The job description included online marketing and offline marketing which is go out on the street and talk to people; so basically like hawking and that wasn’t a very pleasant job. I was really low paid … and no job security. I was in charge of supplier negotiation and whole solution integration. I cannot accept that kind of thing, so I decided to resign … I was depressed for about two months, really depressed. Then I applied for a job with a tutoring service. I was helping students to get through their marketing exams and assignments … I hung out with my friend and we came up with several business ideas, one was educational tourism. (U3 Business Graduate 1) Trajectory Narratives: Individual Cases of Focused, Flexible, Forming Identities In this section, brief case studies of graduates whose career identities correspond to each of the three categories are presented to show the different ways that they have engaged with career development post-graduation, how their career identities frame their career behaviour, and how their identities have evolved over time in response to experiences of work and interactions with others. Case Study 1: Focused. Case Study 1 graduated from a degree in acting with honours in 2013, and works as an actor and model on a contract basis. Her career identity as an actor can be described as focused, and she has developed specific strategies for pursuing contract work in the film and TV industry. As an undergraduate she had some exposure to industry, which helped to inform these strategies: “We didn’t have work experience exactly, we role played how to do an audition … we went to seminars where an [experienced actor] was speaking; we spoke with other actors and there was an agent that spoke with us”. Case Study 1 had difficulty finding work following graduation, and in response to limited opportunities, she moved to another city to restart her search for agents 98

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB”

and acting work: “[After] emailing all the agents in that city I landed a contract with two agencies … work was a lot of small bits on TV shows. I was doing auditions – maybe every fortnight”. She also took on work at a theatre company and as a receptionist: “I was financially very stressed, so I felt l like I needed to have other jobs, but when things picked up with acting, I had to leave that work to make myself available for opportunities and I am still in that mode now”. The work in the theatre company connected her with industry peers, but the work posed challenges as it was removed from her focused identity as an actor. I met a lot of people like me who were actors/performers, stand-up comedians, drag queens who thought this is the right place for them to work because it’s a creative environment at least … some nights I was working there I had no idea why I was there. I thought I was better than that. I had all these identity issues. Case Study 1 also signed with an overseas agent, sending audition tapes for potential overseas work. While none of these eventuated as acting contracts, her agent encouraged her to travel overseas for the pilot season: “She emailed me and said you should move here – there is a lot of work here for you … that was a rough year. I wondered if I was any good any more – if it was me or the environment”. In each new city, Case Study 1 used similar strategies to find work. I researched who are the acting agencies; collected a list of email addresses; made a pitch and included my show reel and links to work and I just copied and pasted that email to all of those agencies. I have done that so many times for so many cities. Each time feels like I am starting all over again. In 2018, Case Study 1 moved to another overseas capital city where she has engaged four agents and secured three contracts for commercials. She is still highly focused on a career in TV and screen acting, using defined strategies to seek out and engage agents. She finds the lack of opportunities are a challenge: “I am still trying my best to make this work because this is what I want to do. I don’t know if I can blame it on luck or circumstance, but it hasn’t worked out for me the way I thought it would”. Case Study 2: Flexible. Case Study 2 graduated from an industrial design degree one-and-a-half years ago, and is building a portfolio career that includes industrial design consultancy for architectural firms, 3D modelling for major films, personal design projects and university tutoring. His career identity is highly flexible, within the broad organising identity of “designer”. He describes his identity thus: “A lot of designers are interdisciplinary, you have a tool of design thinking which can be lots of different things. I guess I’m a generalist in terms of a designer; I do a lot of things”. This graduate’s career identity started to form during high school. “I always loved Photoshop and making things creatively, but did have a focused direction for those skills. I had a Tumblr blog that let me post stuff as I was learning”. Before commencing university, a suggestion from a family friend led to employment experience on a community renewal project with a local architectural firm, which led him to think that architecture could be the career path for him. However, he was not accepted into the architecture degree program for which he 99

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

applied, and so he enrolled in his second degree preference – an undergraduate degree in industrial design, which proved to be a good match for his interests and a focus for his creative abilities. The degree also provided him with a core design skill set that continues to underpin his practice across his different roles. While studying industrial design, the visibility of his design work on Tumblr, along with recommendations from university tutors, led to employment as a design assistant with a global architectural firm, and in projection graphics with a local visualisation firm. These opportunities increased his understanding of how his creative skills could be applied in an employment context. They also developed his professional capabilities and helped him to contextualise the skills he was developing as an undergraduate. I learned a lot in terms of … how things should operate, how design works, how business works, how meetings should run, how software can assist, and that built up while I was working and studying at university. It put a lot of my university projects into context. As an undergraduate, a university peer recommended him for work as a designer on a film project. The film’s director helped raise his awareness of 3D modelling design opportunities within the film industry. My interests have always been film making, story-telling; all these other things that I try and tie into my skill set … he put me in the right direction but it was obviously my work and my portfolio that got me onto the art team [of a major global film company]. So it was the intersection of being prepared and chance. This initial experience with film led to a number of employment contracts with major live action and animated films. A year and a half after graduating, Case Study 2 continues to use his professional networks and online design presence to secure contracts in 3D design for global entertainment companies, maintain contract work with the global architectural firm, and expand his career experiences through tutoring and research assistant work for the university’s Head of Design. An open mindset has been fundamental to his career development: “Saying yes to one thing, it might not [always] go well, but it will lead to the next thing which is a fantastic opportunity. It’s that mentality of always being open to stuff, and being known for it”. Case Study 3: Forming. Case Study 3 graduated with a Bachelor of Business in Marketing in 2016. At the point of graduation, he wanted to explore a career in marketing from an account executive or sales perspective. His career narrative to date continues on a forming trajectory, characterised by a series of explorations across different roles and industries. He currently divides his time between working in partnership in a friend’s overseas venture, working as a private tutor and continued involvement in his family’s franchise retail business. At university, Case Study 3 was a dedicated student, focusing on his marketing course and spending considerable time at the library. The relationships developed at university with some teachers and peers proved important in opening up opportunities for career exploration after graduation. 100

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB”

I met my business partner at the library, I helped him out with the management class, the economics class and he helped me out with statistics … so after he went back to China he started a travel agency. So he asked me to help him out with the tourism side type of things. I have a bit of experience in education, so we decided that our product would be a catalogue full of education tourism. In the last one-and-a-half years since graduation, Case Study 3 has tried a variety of marketing, sales-related, retail and education jobs and projects across Australia and overseas, including periods of unemployment and active job search. Looking back, while these experiences had been fragmented, he affirmed their broad value and derived learning from most of them. For example, a supplier integration role gave him insight into online marketing and use of Google apps, which he has used in subsequent roles. In the graduate’s words, “my whole life value is I’ve got to try different things before I realise what kind of things I need to do. I’ve been changing things throughout my life since I was seven”. However, he also describes himself as “a very long-term oriented person” and says that eventually he does want a home and family, and pragmatically that he will require greater income and location stability, potentially by taking over some of the family business. With this ultimate long-term orientation, his current career development strategies are based on forming selfawareness and resilience, and developing his capabilities. DISCUSSION

The graduate career trajectories and experiences presented in this chapter provide a strong counter-narrative to the conventional higher education employability discourse that emphasises short-term full-time employment as the key measure of success, and the possession of skills and capabilities as the way to get there. All of the graduates in this study were engaged in an ongoing journey of progressive sensemaking about who they were and how they were going to contribute to the world. At six months after course completion, when the Graduate Outcomes Survey is administered in Australia, the majority of graduates in this study were in the early stages of this process. For nearly half of the graduates interviewed, and for all three of the case studies, their journeys involved portfolio career patterns comprising multiple roles, sometimes across different industries. For the graduates in this study, possessing well-developed capabilities for the career opportunities they wanted to pursue was important. However, the interviews showed that the graduates were well aware that learning continues beyond university, and that they could continue to hone their skill sets either informally or through further study as required. For these Business and Creative Arts graduates, what seems to be more fundamental to the ability to build a productive and meaningful career seems to be developing a career identity that is grounded in the graduate’s interests and values and an awareness of current career opportunities, while staying open to further exploration, and being willing to keep learning and try different career building strategies. In considering disciplines beyond Business and 101

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL.

the Creative Arts, it might be suggested that a flexible career identity might only be of use for graduates of non-professionally specific degrees. However, examination of graduate destinations from professional programs suggests that graduates end up pursuing a wider variety of pathways than often considered by universities or the students themselves. For instance, up to 50% of Australian teachers leave the profession within five years (Gallant & Riley, 2014); a recent study of law graduates suggests that only two-thirds commence their careers in the law, with the rest employed across other professional employment (Melbourne Law School, 2017). Even when graduates stay in their professional fields, a flexible career identity can help them make the most of opportunities that may not be considered by others. The findings of this chapter have important implications for the practices of university teachers, leaders and policy makers. While a university curriculum based in disciplinary and transferable capabilities continues to be of value, students must also be afforded the opportunity to start to develop their career identities during their degree. This can be achieved by making room for learners to experience different career roles where they might apply their disciplinary learning. The experiences should include both anticipated roles such as traditional placements, and unanticipated “horizon building” activities, such as service learning, start-up entrepreneurial opportunities, international mobility learning and multidisciplinary consultancies. Learners should also be given the opportunity to interact with professionals to forge and “test” their emerging career identities, such as through informational interviewing processes, or career mentoring. Through the curriculum, the student then reflects on their successive experiences and interactions, in the light of an increasing understanding of their own values and interests. Over time, they learn to articulate a flexible identity narrative, which helps them make sense of learning in the degree, and drives their career building behaviour as they launch from university life into the multiplicity of possibilities that can happen afterwards. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was funded by Graduate Careers Australia through its Graduate Research Program. NOTE 1

Direct quotes from the participants are italicised.

REFERENCES Bakhshi, H., Downing, J. M., Osborne, M. A., & Schneider, P. (2017). The future of skills: Employment in 2030. London, England: NESTA & Pearson. Bridgstock, R., & Cunningham, S. (2016). Creative labour and graduate outcomes: Implications for higher education and cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22(1), 10-26.

102

GOING BEYOND “GETTING A JOB” Bridgstock, R., & Tippett, N. (Eds.). (2019). Higher education and the future of graduate employability: A connectedness learning approach. London, England: Edward Elgar. Bridgstock, R., Grant-Iramu, R., & McAlpine, A. (2019, in press). Integrating career development learning into the curriculum: Collaboration with the careers service for employability. Journal of Learning and Teaching for Graduate Employability. Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Williams, S. (2004). The mismanagement of talent: Employability and jobs in the knowledge economy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14-38. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 12-12. Gallant, A., & Riley, P. (2014). Early career teacher attrition: New thoughts on an intractable problem. Teacher Development, 18(4), 562-580. Guiffrida, D. A., Lynch, M. F., Wall, A. F., & Abel, D. S. (2013). Do reasons for attending college affect academic outcomes? A test of a motivational model from a self-determination theory perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 54(2), 121-139. Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and measuring employability. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 97-109. Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy analysis. London, England: Department for Education and Employment. Holden, R., & Hamblett, J. (2007). The transition from higher education into work: Tales of cohesion and fragmentation. Education + Training, 49(7), 516-585. Holmes, L. (2001). Reconsidering graduate employability: The 'graduate identity' approach. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 111-119. Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538-554. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764-791. Jackson, D. (2016). Re-conceptualising graduate employability: The importance of pre-professional identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 925-939. Jackson, D., & Bridgstock, R. (2018). Evidencing student success in the contemporary world-of-work: Renewing our thinking. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(5), 984-998. Karmel, T., & Carroll, D. (2016). Has the graduate job market been swamped? (NILS Working Paper Series No. 228/2016). Adelaide, Australia: National Institute for Labour Studies. Marcia, J. E. (1987). The identity status approach to the study of ego identity development. In T. Honess & K. Yardley (Eds.), Self and identity: Perspectives across the lifespan (pp. 161-171). New York, NY: Routledge. Maxwell, G. A., & Broadbridge, A. M. (2017). Generation Ys’ employment expectations: UK undergraduates’ opinions on enjoyment, opportunity and progression. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2267-228. McQuaid, R. W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42(2), 197-219. Melbourne Law School. (2017). Career outcomes. Retrieved from https://law.unimelb.edu.au/students/career-services/career-outcomes Mitchell, K. E., Levin, A. S., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance: Constructing unexpected career opportunities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(2), 115-124. Nicholas, J. M. (2018). Marketable selves: Making sense of employability as a liberal arts undergraduate. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 109(1), 1-13. Savickas, M. L. (2011). Constructing careers: Actor, agent, and author. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(4), 179-181. The Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The New Work Order: Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Tomlinson, M. (2008). ‘The degree is not enough’: Students’ perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1), 4961.

103

BRIDGSTOCK ET AL. .

Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education + Training, 59(4), 338-352. Tymon, A. (2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 841856.

Ruth Bridgstock PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0072-2815) Centre for Learning Futures Griffith University, Australia Michelle Grant-Iramu Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology, Australia Christine Bilsland PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8292-7453) Professional and Community Engagement Macquarie University, Australia Matalena Tofa PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4976-9673) Professional and Community Engagement Macquarie University, Australia Kate Lloyd PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9053-0050) Professional and Community Engagement Macquarie University, Australia Denise Jackson PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7821-3394) School of Business and Law Edith Cowan University, Australia

104

DAWN BENNETT, ELIZABETH KNIGHT, AYSHA DIVAN AND KENTON BELL

9. MARKETING GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY The Language of Employability in Higher Education

EMPLOYABILITY NARRATIVES

In this chapter, we report on a study that focused on a rarely acknowledged but important feature of massification: namely, the increasing pressure exerted on higher education institutions to market their courses to prospective students. Students invest considerable time and money in their higher education studies. Although most students select their program and major on the basis of interests and strengths, they expect their efforts to be rewarded with graduate-level paid work. Students’ expectations of this work are informed by their academic and personal self-efficacy, subjective norms, behavioural intentions and their engagement with multiple communities of practice. Students are also influenced by institutional messaging, including that contained on university websites. Together with rapid changes in the nature of work, the increase in graduate numbers (e.g. almost 300% in Australia since 1990 and in the United Kingdom almost double since 1992) means that graduates are far more likely to transition into non-traditional forms of work and to take longer to become established (Challice, 2018; Office for National Statistics, 2016). Despite this, little is known about how the process of employability development is foregrounded in the marketing materials of institutions or indeed, whether the employability narratives delivered to current and aspiring students are realised within the student experience. This dimension of future-capable graduates has also yet to be considered in relation to the rhetoric around access and participation. In the chapter, we investigate how employability discourse is communicated to external audiences, including prospective students, via institutional websites. We ask how this discourse compares with the narratives of the people tasked with employability development within those institutions. We build on Smith et al.’s 2018 Employability in a Global Context report by mining the data from qualitative interviews undertaken with academic and student support staff from eight institutions in the UK, Canada and Australia. We describe how the interviewees conceptualise employability within their institutions and in what ways they believe employability to impact the marketing narratives at their institutions. Using Holmes’ conceptions of employability as possessional, positional or processual, we then revisit Bennett et al.’s (2017) study of how employability is portrayed on university websites to consider the presentation of employability on the websites of the same eight institutions. Using these two sources, we expose tensions in the representation of employability to internal and external audiences. © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_009

BENNETT ET AL.

EMPLOYABILITY: PROCESS OR OUTCOME?

Graduate employability is a key focus of higher education institutions in many advanced western economies, driven largely by government-level policy approaches that align higher education with economic prosperity. The rationale for this alignment is that by delivering higher-level knowledge and skills, graduates can manage the highly skilled roles with which economies are driven forward. Following this line of thought, as more individuals participate in the higher education system, economic value is further enhanced. Thus, policies have focused on expanding higher education into a massified system. At the same time, the language of employability used by the government and by employers has tended to emphasise current skill deficits and the future skill requirements of industry, conflating employability with employment outcomes. Lindsay (2014) suggests that in this environment, students as learners are caught up in discourses of skill, employability, attributes and performance: a “new educational ‘body’ on which markets, institutions and regulatory machinery of higher education work is less the young person ‘in formation’, or the ‘citizen-specialist’ in training, than the burgeoning homo economicus” (p. 147). Thus, the discourse around graduate employability is dominated by a focus on the acquisition of cognitive human capital in the form of economically useful skills and technical knowledge. The economic perspective of employability is reductive, and it is heavily contested by some authors (see Bennett, 2019b; Cole & Hallett, 2019). Holmes (2013) puts forward an alternate view, arguing that graduates must possess a set of skills and also “act in ways that lead others to ascribe to them the identity of a person worthy of being employed” (p. 259). Holmes emphasises the process by which the graduate identity develops over time through engagements with opportunities and interactions with employers and work that affect students’ sense of self and their ability to position themselves in the labour market. That employability is a fluid and dynamic process requiring life-long learning and reflective development is highlighted by a number of authors including Yorke and Knight (2006), who suggest that “employability is not something static but something that a person can develop throughout their life-time” (p. 4), and by Bennett (2019a, in press), who characterises employability as a necessary, life-long critique of self and career to inform the skills, knowledge and attributes required for sustainable and meaningful work in a complex labour market. Holmes (2013) describes the iterative approach to employability development as processual and he differentiates this from possessional and positional approaches. In the possessional approach, for example, the focus is on graduates possessing the skills, abilities or characteristics required for work; this is the most common approach amongst universities. The possessional approach can align with university strategies in which students are provided with myriad employability curricular and/or co-curricular opportunities; these may lead to a formal credential such as a transcript, certificate or award. In contrast, the positional approach is often a “handsoff” strategy (Farenga & Quinlan, 2016) in which skills such as problem solving, communication and leadership are seen as being naturally developed through the 106

MARKETING GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

academic programs and students independently approach the careers service to fill specific gaps they identify. An analysis of the employability approaches at 107 research-intensive universities in four countries found that the near majority of universities aligned with the possessional approach (Bennett et al., 2017). However, not all graduates with the same skills, knowledge and practices will achieve the same graduate outcomes. This highlights the role of social and cultural capital in the graduate labour market. Norton and Carroll (2015) agree that graduates with social and cultural capital are advantaged in the graduate labour market, using their resources to access higher earnings. Employers further reinforce this selective advantage by recruiting from prestigious universities (Holmes, 2013; Tomlinson, 2012). Whilst building up personal capital through higher education study should enable graduates to better position themselves, attendance at the most prestigious institutions is still dominated by the most advantaged groups, thus leading to greater inequalities in the graduate labour market (Pitman et al., 2019; Tholen, 2015). In the competitive higher education environment, it is unsurprising that universities use their websites as both a means of information giving and as a tool to build up a distinctive image that makes them more attractive to prospective students and other stakeholders. In his review of advertising expenditure, Matthews (2013) observes that marketing discourse is also affected by institutional status, with “elite” universities spending far less than other institutions on institutional marketing. The impact of status can also be seen in Milian and Davidson’s (2018) comparative study of promotional materials produced by public universities and community colleges in Canada. The authors reveal that publicly funded universities emphasise faculty and institutional-level accomplishments such as research grants and rankings, whilst community colleges, which lack access to these symbolic resources, employ corporate-like strategies such as taglines and non-traditional logos. Currently absent from the scholarly discourse is the extent to which institutional marketing of employability and employability practices and perceptions intersect. APPROACH

This chapter extends the study conducted by Smith et al. (2018), who investigated how employability is termed, driven and communicated by universities internationally. That study commenced with a literature review from which the initial interview instrument was developed. Professional networks were used to identify potential participants, with invitations issued on the basis of ability to provide a representative view due to broad expertise or involvement in national and international associations. Target countries were those in which graduate employability is a concern for higher education and where employability development strategies involve both academics and careers services practitioners. In the current study, we re-analysed interview data obtained by Smith et al. (2018). The Smith et al. study combined data from 19 institutions in Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. We limited our analysis to the eight global institutions 107

BENNETT ET AL.

involved in the first round of interviews, in which websites were discussed. This resulted in a cohort of nine careers services practitioners and six academic leaders from the eight institutions. Each university representative was interviewed by, and conducted interviews with, one or more participants from another university in another country. This process enabled a three-country exchange of theory and practice. Particular attention was paid to each institution’s working definition of employability and the strategies through which this was realised. Where possible, each interview included a senior learning and teaching academic and a careers services leader from each of the institutions involved in that interview. We note that several careers practitioners had engaged in academic research and several academic participants had previous experience in careers services roles. Interview recordings were transcribed and the data independently coded by two researchers, enabling the systematic, replicable compression of text into fewer content categories (Weber, 1990) and inspection of the data for recurrent instances (Wilkinson, 2011). Next, interview data were coded and analysed for emergent themes with the assistance of NVivo analysis software. For this chapter, the project’s interview data were coded deductively using Holmes’s (2013) framework of possessional (possession of employability attributes), positional (focus on cultural and social capital) and processual (focus on the process of employability development) approaches to employability development. We then looked at the websites of the same eight institutions. We followed a protocol adapted from Hite and Railsback’s (2010) work on university websites, which we developed and applied in our earlier research (Bennett et al., 2017): 1. Searches were restricted to three (rather than two) clicks from the LGHQWL¿HGSDJHZLWKWKHXVHRIDVFUROOEDUSHUPLVVLEOHDQG 2. Searches were undertaken from the following pages: a. Home page; b. ‘About’ page on which the university was described; c. Pages for future students: for example, admissions, new/potential students, courses; d. Pages describing careers services/career development/student employment/workshops relating to employability; e. Pages describing the university mission and its vision statement; and f. Pages for current students: for example, student life, activities and/or organisations. (p. 55) In the final stage of analysis, we compared the alignment of the employability discourse communicated to internal and external audiences. The following sections provide an overview of these findings and then discuss their implications.

108

MARKETING GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

RESULTS

Illustrated in Table 9.1, the employability discourse communicated to external audiences via institutional websites was aligned with the narratives of the people tasked with employability development in only two of the eight institutions. The extent of this misalignment and the diversity of different institutional positions had not been predicted. Analysis of the interview transcripts indicated that four of the eight institutions constructed employability as a possessional approach, meaning that the focus was on graduates who possessed the skills, abilities or characteristics required for work. This was understood by the interviewees to be a collection of skills. At one institution, representatives constructed employability as positional, strongly linked with high institutional status. Three institutions constructed employability as processual, in which the graduate identity emerges over time through engagements that impact students’ sense of self and their ability to position themselves in the labour market. Unlike the interview discourse, the most frequent website construction was positional. Analysis of the website discourse revealed that only two institutions constructed employability as possessional and only two institutions communicated that identity formation for employability was a key aspect of student development (processual). Table 9.1. Alignment of external employability discourses with the narratives of those tasked with its development. Institution

Internal discourse (interviews)

External discourse (website)

Alignment

Australia 1

Processual

Positional

No

Australia 2

Possessional

Possessional

Yes

Australia 3

Processual

Positional

No

Canada 1

Possessional

Positional

No

Canada 2

Possessional

Positional

No

Canada 3

Processual

Processual

Yes

United Kingdom 1

Positional

Possessional

No

United Kingdom 2

Possessional

Processual

No

Interview data from all Round One institutional representatives who engaged in the original research (Smith et al., 2018) emphasise that external messaging is viewed as a crucial part of supporting employability. Several respondents, however, questioned whether it is useful for websites to include information about employability or the employment outcomes of a degree. They questioned whether prospective students visited institutional websites and cited a range of other 109

BENNETT ET AL.

marketing activities including school-based recruitment and university open days. In contrast, other respondents viewed institutional websites as a crucial point of information for prospective students: one respondent described prospective students as the “number one audience” for their website. Despite these differences, there was a consistent view that institutions must differentiate between the development of employability and the graduate employment outcomes and metrics, which are often used as a cipher for employability. The three-country dialogues often led to a discussion about how employability is understood internally and whether this is accurately reflected in an institution’s website. Participants agreed that internal organisational logic and understanding about employability might not always be considered when external marketing strategies are developed. This raised questions about how employability discourses are realised in different institutional and global contexts and how different organisations internalise employability as being in line with, or indeed in contrast with, the purpose of higher education. DISCUSSION

In this chapter, we investigate how employability discourse is communicated to prospective students via institutional websites and how these might compare with discussions taking place within an organisation. Our focus is the consistency between internal constructions of employability and their alignment with representations of employability communicated externally. We mined two datasets: interview data gathered from the people tasked with employability development within eight institutions globally (Smith et al., 2018); and an analysis of their institutional websites using the methodology developed by Bennett et al. (2017). We begin the discussion by considering internally and externally facing constructions of employability. We then consider the influence of employability in informing how students choose their institutions and programs. Finally, we discuss how and why external marketing should align with institutional language and approaches to employability development. INTERNAL VERSUS EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Six of the eight institutions had marketing narratives about employability which are inconsistent with the institutional practice reported by the professional and academic staff tasked with employability development. Further, we identified a tension between the understandings of employability within institutions. Employability was conceptualised at both a sophisticated level: for example, developing social, personal and academic capitals (Tomlinson, 2017), an academic identity (Holmes, 2015) or uniquely personal conceptions of self and employability (Bennett, 2016), and also at a functional level in terms of the skills and capabilities required to navigate the graduate labour market. Some of our interviewees were cognisant of these tensions. Through their explanations, we gleaned multiple reasons for employability constructions not being 110

MARKETING GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

aligned across an institution, the most common of which was lack of communication between different operations: for example, between marketing, the careers service and teaching and learning; and inconsistency in employability development across programs. Interviewees emphasised that these constructions must be aligned in order for employability development to be operationalised consistently for the benefit of all students. EMPLOYABILITY, EMPLOYMENT AND STUDENT CHOICE

The study reveals how employability is understood and enacted internally can differ considerably from its representation to external audiences. Does this misalignment really matter? Here, we turn to the need for the higher education sector to shape itself along market lines (Tomlinson, 2018) and the resulting demand for institutions to demonstrate their value to their two main stakeholders: students and employers. In the UK, the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2016) is intended to provide greater transparency in the “quality” of education provided by each institution. One of the core TEF metrics relates to graduate employment outcomes. The Destination of Leavers of Higher Education (DLHE) survey has recently been replaced with a Graduate Outcomes Survey that records the number of graduates in employment (crudely defined) 15 months after graduation. Similar measures of employment outcomes are used in other contexts including in Australia, which employs a Graduate Outcomes Survey four months after graduation, and in Italy (Cattani, Purcell, & Elias, 2014), where students are surveyed by their institution at the point of graduation. Data from the various graduate outcomes measures are known to inform the decision making of prospective students in terms of what and where to study. In the US, researchers including Moogan and Baron (2003) and Kinzie et al. (2004) identify academic reputation, location, programme of study, employment opportunities and career enhancements as the most important variables affecting higher education student choice. The results of more recent UK-based surveys are broadly similar (see Diamond et al., 2012). Concerning website use, a 2010 survey of 1,942 UK university students found that 88.4% of the students had used university prospectuses and websites when deciding what and where to study (Oakleigh Consulting & Staffordshire University, 2010). It follows that graduate employment data and institutional prestige feature heavily on university websites. The comments of our interviewees who questioned the relevance and use of institutional websites as a source of applicant information are clearly out of line with the behaviours of aspiring students. All interviewees were consistent in their views that institutions must differentiate between employability and employment outcomes. There is considerable criticism in the literature about the conflation of employment and employability, the timing of graduate surveys and the inability of survey instruments to capture the nuances of graduate work within a complex labour market (see Altonji, Kahn, & Speer, 2016; Clarke, 2018; Holmes, 2017). Questioning the absence of a strong, sector-wide counter-narrative to national league tables, Christie’s (2017) analysis of the UK 111

BENNETT ET AL.

DLHE measure and its subsequent use in higher education commentary and public media reveals an “essentialist tone” in the reporting which “belies that the employability measure is a very limited view of the career paths that graduates may have and how well-equipped they are to start them” (p. 415). As illustrated by Hoang and Rojas-Lizana (2015), website discourse is affected by social changes. Changing higher education funding structures and corresponding factors such as globalisation are challenging universities to develop strategies that nurture new relationships, and also to forge new identities which enable them to remain competitive. How this is played out in university marketing literature, specifically concerning employability, was recently studied by Knight (2017). Knight’s critical analysis of prospectuses from 1977–2013 at four UK universities showed that graduate employment discourse has remained a significant theme over this period and that it is not, in fact, a new trend. In contrast, employability discourse was absent in the early prospectuses and then consistently found during the period 1992–2013. In Knight’s study, references to employability were typically related to authentic work experience and the acquisition of transferable skills: issues also emphasised by our study participants. However, in recent years the references to employability concepts have waned, replaced instead by the need to prepare students for graduate employment. The return to employment rhetoric is not surprising given the push by governments to align the operations of higher education to provide graduates with the appropriate knowledge and skills required by industry, and yet the dominance of employment displaces the developmental process that is at the core of university education. A further consideration is the extent to which aspiring students understand the concept of employability. Studies which have examined employability from a student perspective reveal students’ diverse understandings and opinions. As Gedye and Beaumont (2018) write, students emphasise short-term graduate employability goals together with credentials such as degree, subject, institution and grade. They value extra-curricular experience and they understand that employability is competitive. Although students’ emphasis has similarities to other stakeholder groups, they are less likely to emphasise the longer-term aspects of employability such as sustaining employability over time. They are also less likely to identify more holistic interpretations of employability such as socioeconomic contributions and a desire for meaningful work. This brings us back to our question of whether it matters that institutional narratives relating to employability and graduate employment differ between external messaging and the lived experience of students. Giving an example from the discipline of law, Thornton and Shannon (2014) suggest that it matters considerably: The student who undertakes a law degree is promised employability, prestige and wealth; he or she is also assured of a glamorous and fun-filled career. As a result, the serious and difficult aspects associated with the study of law are sloughed off, as well as the centrality of justice and critique. (p. 158) 112

MARKETING GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

Thornton and Shannon’s point is an ethical one: that there is a balance between attracting prospective students and being honest about the demands and realities of both the program and career path. If, as Askehave (2007) attests, institutional branding has led institutions to “sell courses to our clients” rather than “teach courses to students” (Askehave’s emphasis, p. 725), then academic staff and careers professionals – the people tasked with developing employability – inherit the unenviable task of exposing students to the reality of their decisions. Smith et al.’s (2018) Employability in a Global Context report highlights the importance of communicating coherent and consistent messages around employability to both internal and external stakeholders. As they attest, a “learning view” of employability is far more likely than a productivity and skills view to facilitate a collaborative relationship between academics, career professionals, industry and alumni. A learning view could also inform realistic and ethical narratives for external stakeholders. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The study reported here utilised convenience sampling via an established cohort. Although the participants were selected for their ability to give a representative view of employability within both their institutions and their geographic regions, we do not seek to generalise the findings. We also acknowledge that our study looks at external institutional positioning using only the website and that other modes of communication might expand on this view. Differences across regional and institutional status might emerge with a larger sample and we encourage other researchers to build on the study. We also encourage research that incorporates the student voice to expose the crucial perspective of how employability development is experienced. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In this chapter, we investigated how employability discourse is communicated to prospective students via institutional websites and how these might compare with discussions taking place within the organisation. Interview data exposed a rich and varied practice within institutions, with employability understood as a broader concept than skills acquisition. This might highlight a process of employability development more along the lines of Bennett’s (2019b) metacognitive, strengthsbased view of employability thinking: students’ cognitive and social development as capable and informed individuals, professionals and social citizens. A processual view such as this one demands that a distinction is made between employability and employment. In contrast, we found that most institutions have employability marketing narratives that are limited primarily to positional and possessional approaches with a focus on prestige, skills development and employment outcomes. We argue that the inconsistency between institutional narrative and practice hinders the development of pedagogic practices that underpin students’ employability development, misinforms student choice, is out of alignment 113

BENNETT ET AL.

with student expectations, and places undue pressure on the people tasked with students’ employability development. As such, the inconsistency requires urgent attention. Some time ago, James (2002) emphasised that students need to develop “more complex and sophisticated expectations of university and of their own roles and responsibilities” (p. 81); this need remains. Realistic expectations of higher education studies and graduate employability are created for students through appropriate, sufficient and consistent information, and the material provided on many institutional websites falls short of these objectives. Regardless of the intended purposes and audiences of institutional websites, their developers must be cognisant that the website forms part of a multi-part conversation with stakeholders. Regular communication between different operations such as marketing, the careers service and teaching and learning leaders is essential if institutions are to develop meaningful and accurate perceptions of employment and employability. Through these conversations, institutions might harness and resolve employability tensions to create a consistent narrative. More broadly, we advocate for a sector-wide counternarrative as posited by Christie (2017) to challenge the conflation of employability and employment at every opportunity. The alignment between external and internal messaging matters to aspiring and current students, to educators, to careers services professionals and to institutional reputation. As such, internal tensions between the different understandings and uses of employability must be resolved. We believe that institutions and other commentators could alleviate the tensions by defining employability metacognitively, by emphasising that it is a career-wide challenge and by being consistent in their use of the term. REFERENCES Altonji, J. G., Kahn, L. B., & Speer, J. D. (2016). Cashier or consultant? Entry labor market conditions, field of study, and career success. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(S1), 361-401. Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genres – the international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 723-742. Bennett, D. (2016). Developing employability and professional identity through visual narratives. Australian Art Education, 37(2), 100-115. Bennett, D. (2019a, in press). Embedding employABILITY thinking across higher education (Final Report). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Submitted version available from https://altf.org/fellowships/from-theory-to-practice-equipping-andenabling-australias-educators-to-embed-employability-across-higher-education/ Bennett, D. (2019b). Meeting society’s expectations of graduates: Education for the public good. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): Learning for future possibilities (pp. 35-48). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Bennett, D., Knight, E., Divan, A., Kuchel, L., Horn, J., van Reyk, D., & da Silva, K. B. (2017). How do research-intensive universities portray employability strategies? A review of their websites. Australian Journal of Career Development, 26(2), 52-61. Cattani, L., Purcell, K., & Elias, P. (2014). SOC(HE)-Italy: A classification for graduate occupations. (Quaderni – Working Paper DSE No. 963). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2495283 Challice, G. (2018). 2018 Graduate Outcomes Survey – Longitudinal (GOS-L): Medium term graduate outcomes. Canberra, Australia: Social Research Centre, QILT. Retrieved from

114

MARKETING GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/2018-gos-l/2018-gos-l-national-reportfinal.pdf Christie, F. (2017). The reporting of university league table employability rankings: A critical review. Journal of Education and Work, 30(4), 403-418. Clarke, M. (2018). Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923-1937. Cole, D., & Hallett, R. (2019). The language of employability. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): Learning for future possibilities (pp. 119-130). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. London, England: Williams Lea Group. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-success-as-a-knowledgeeconomy-white-paper Diamond, A., Vorley, T., Roberts, J., & Jones, S. (2012). Behavioural approaches to understanding student choice. York, England: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/student_choice.pdf Farenga, S. A., & Quinlan, K. M. (2016). Classifying university employability strategies: Three case studies and implications for practice and research. Journal of Education and Work, 29, 1-21. Gedye, S., & Beaumont, E. (2018). ‘The ability to get a job’: Student understandings and definitions of employability. Education + Training, 60(5), 406-420. Hite, N. G., & Railsback, B. (2010). Analysis of the content and characteristics of university websites with implications for web designers and educators. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(1), 107-113. Hoang, T. V. Y., & Rojas-Lizana, I. (2015). Promotional discourse in the websites of two Australian universities: A discourse analytic approach. Cogent Education, 2(1). Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538-554. Holmes, L. (2015). Becoming a graduate: The warranting of an emergent identity. Education + Training, 57(2), 219-238. Holmes, L. (2017). Graduate employability: Future directions and debate. In M. Tomlinson & L. Holmes (Eds.), Graduate employability in context (pp. 359–369). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. James, R. (2002). Students’ changing expectations of higher education and the consequences of mismatches with reality. In P. Coaldrake & L. Stedman (Eds.), Responding to student expectations (pp. 71-83). Paris, France: OECD. Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S. A., & Cummings, H. (2004). Fifty years of college choice: Social, political and institutional influences on the decision-making process. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/publications/Hossler.pdf Knight, E. (2017). The impact of massification on the idea of a degree in the UK (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Lindsay, B. (2014). Markets, discipline, students: Governing student conduct and performance in the university. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a glass darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university (pp. 141–155). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press. Matthews, D. (2013, February 10). University student marketing spend up 22%. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=422601 Milian, R. P., & Davidson, C. (2018). Symbolic resources and marketing strategies in Ontario higher education: A comparative analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(2), 143-157. Moogan, Y. J., & Baron, S. (2003). An analysis of student characteristics within the student decision making process. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), 271-287. Norton, A., & Carroll, D. (2015, August 26). How does your choice of university affect your future? The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/how-does-your-choice-of-universityaffect-yourfuture-45699

115

BENNETT ET AL. Oakleigh Consulting & Staffordshire University. (2010). Understanding the information needs of users of public information about higher education. United Kingdom: HEFCE. Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1994/1/rd12_10b.pdf Office for National Statistics. (2016). How has the student population changed? Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/article s/howhasthestudentpopulationchanged/2016-09-20 Pitman, T., Roberts, L., Bennett, D., & Richardson, S. (2019). An Australian study of graduate outcomes for disadvantaged students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(1), 45-57. Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D., & McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Wollongong, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia. Tholen, G. (2015). What can research into graduate employability tell us about agency and structure? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(5), 766-784. Thornton, M., & Shannon, L. (2014). ‘Selling the dream’: Law school branding and the illusion of choice. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a glass darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university (pp. 157-177). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press. Tomlinson, M. (2012). Graduate employability: A review of conceptual and empirical themes. Higher Education Policy, 25(4), 407-431. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education + Training, 59(4), 338-352. Tomlinson, M. (2018). Conceptions of the value of higher education in a measured market. Higher Education, 75(4), 711-727. Yorke, M., & Knight, P. (2006). Embedding employability into the curriculum (Learning and Employability Series 1). York, England: The Higher Education Academy. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Wilkinson, S. (2011). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (pp. 168-184). London, England: SAGE.

Dawn Bennett PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-1623) Curtin University, Australia Elizabeth Knight PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6596-6525) Monash University, Australia Aysha Divan PhD Leeds University, United Kingdom Kenton Bell MA (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5536-4010) University of Wollongong, Australia

116

SHIRLEY ALEXANDER, JULIEANNE CUTRUPI AND BRETT SMOUT

10. TAKING A WHOLE OF UNIVERSITY APPROACH TO EMPLOYABILITY

THE CHALLENGE OF EMPLOYABILITY

Four years ago graduate employment in Australia was at its lowest level since 1979 with only 68% in full-time employment four months after graduation. This was a major concern and necessitated the development of a completely new approach to enhancing student employability. The notion of what exactly is meant by employability is a contested one, with some arguing for a focus on development of skills that are transferrable once a graduate is in the workplace, while others focus on development of the individual (Bennett, Richardson, & MacKinnon, 2016). The approach to employability described in this chapter relates to the development of skills as well as professional identity. Traditional approaches to improving employment outcomes focused almost solely on the view that graduate employment was the domain of a central Careers Service Unit whose activities were “bolted on” to the students’ formal award study. In recent years the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has shifted towards a whole of university approach to embedding employability into every aspect of the student experience through a focus on development of professional identity. This chapter describes the employability ecosystem that has evolved over this time. UTS CONTEXT

The University of Technology Sydney UTS is an innovative and dynamic inner-city university that is widely regarded for its engagement with industry and the professions. It is one of the largest universities in Australia with over 45,000 students, and an international student body that accounts for approximately 30% of total students. It is ranked Australia’s highest performing university under 50 years of age in the Times Higher Education WUR and QS Top 50 Under 50 (2016–2018).1 The university is situated at the heart of Ultimo’s Creative Industries and Innovation precinct. The precinct is home to Australia’s highest concentration of start-ups and is home to a rich and diverse range of creative industries. Within a onekilometre radius of UTS, 70% of industries are creative. Also within a one-kilometre radius of UTS are housed leading creative and cultural organisations including the national broadcaster (ABC) and the Powerhouse Museum.

‹.21,1./,-.(%5,//19/(,'(1_'2,: 9789004418707_010

ALEXANDER ET AL.

Graduate Employability at UTS Australian graduates experienced a decline in overall employment rates over the past 10 years, following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). This was the catalyst that led to significant change in thinking about employability at UTS and the commencement of the whole of university approach to improving graduate employment. This resulted in every single division and faculty having some level of involvement in the project – from the Council of UTS who have, for the past five years, received regular reports on the strategy and outcomes of the project, to legal, facilities management, financial services, governance support and others. The outcomes of the employability strategy described in this chapter are very clear. The most recent government report (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2019) showed 77% of UTS graduates to be in full-time employment four months after graduation compared to the national average of 72.9%. In the medium term (three years after graduation) UTS graduates had the third highest full-time employment rate (92.7%) in Australia (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2018). The recent Australian Financial Review Top 100 Graduate Employers awards saw UTS students rated as Australia’s “most employable graduates”.2 Shared with Monash University this was a very pleasing outcome after many years of significant and deliberate effort by many academic and professional staff at UTS. This journey is described below, beginning with the UTS approach to learning that underpins the student learning experience. Learning Design The distinctive UTS Model of Learning3 framework guides the design of curriculum and the student learning experiences. It has three distinctive features that are integral to students’ practice-oriented experience:  Integrated exposure to professional practice through dynamic and multifaceted modes of practice-oriented education  Professional practice in a global workplace – with a focus on international mobility and international and cultural engagements  Research-inspired and integrated learning – providing academic rigour with cutting-edge technology to equip graduates for lifelong learning. While this model guides “what” students learn, the UTS learning.futures strategy4 signposts “how” they learn as well as the ways in which students demonstrate their own understanding (assessment). This strategy focuses on what students need to do in order to learn, represented in Figure 10.1. This diagram acknowledges the following stages of the student learning journey:  Students enrol with prior experiences and hence expectations of learning and have particular goals for their university experience.

118

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY

 Students need to access the discipline content of learning and they may do this by reading books and journals, by using online resources such as databases, Open Education Resources (OER), eLearning materials, YouTube videos, etc. before they come on to campus.  Once on campus students engage in active and collaborative learning experiences (such as group projects, simulations, problem solving activities, etc.) to help them create meaning from the content they have accessed, and to learn and integrate what many call 21st century skills such as communication and team work.  Students put their ideas and understanding into practice through laboratory work, international projects, real world local or international group projects, and work integrated learning.  One of the most critical aspects of this learning cycle is the receipt of feedback on their actions above. Learners may have engaged in activities that provide automated and hence immediate feedback, they may receive feedback from peers, and/or from their teacher or tutor. Students are also encouraged to develop the capacity for self-review.  Finally, students need opportunities for reflection on their learning goals, action and feedback loops – their understanding of ideas and concepts is enhanced when they reflect on this and the implications for changing their world view.

Figure 10.1. The UTS learning.futures strategy (University of Technology Sydney, reprinted with permission).

What this means in practice is summarised in Table 10.1. At the same time these strategies were being developed, UTS was embarking on an ambitious $1.5B campus masterplan5 providing the perfect opportunity to rethink the kinds of learning spaces needed to support this strategy.

119

ALEXANDER ET AL.

Table 10.1. The student experience of learning at UTS. Learning at UTS

Traditional ways of learning

Learning.futures approaches

What is important?

What students know

What students can do with what they know

Learning experience

Primarily lectures with tutorials, labs or studios

Collaborative learning using the best of online and face-toface

On-campus experience

Lectures, tutorials, structured labs, individual studios

Collaborative learning activities, inquiry and research-based labs and studios, active learning

Off-campus experience

Assignments, studying for exams

Preparing for on-campus learning through online activities, pre-reading and viewing screencasts and online videos

Assessment

“What can I remember?” exams and assignments

Authentic activities designed to elicit “What can I do with what I’ve learned?”

Spaces for Learning Experiences The nature of the UTS Model of Learning and the learning.futures strategy pointed to the need for very different kinds of learning spaces (both formal and informal) than those that have typically been constructed to facilitate the broadcast model of education such as large tiered lecture theatres. As an inner-city university UTS has a total useable space of approximately 170,000 square metres, a relatively small footprint, necessitating thoughtful use of every single space. The UTS Model of Learning and the learning.futures strategy were two components that informed the development of the student learning experience. The third was a framework relating these models to the needs of students, learning technology and learning spaces as follows (see Figure 10.2). Students In this framework, the first consideration was given to who our students were. Student demographics were collated and several recent, relevant reports were reviewed to identify salient points. For example, the longitudinal First Year 120

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY

Experience in Australian Universities report (James, Krause, & Jennings, 2010) highlighted changing patterns of attendance at university such that the majority attendance at university had declined from five days per week to three. The reports on student finances (James & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 2007) and confirmed more recently (Arkoudis et al., 2018) show increasing levels of student poverty. Together, these reports created a picture of students who rarely had the luxury of being a full-time student without the need to engage in employment, the majority being full- or part-time students who were also juggling full- or part-time employment. There were surprising numbers of students in the full-time student, full-time work category.

Figure 10.2. The learning and teaching decision framework.

Curriculum Next, given the UTS Model of Learning, and these students, what does that mean for the curriculum and learning strategies? Using “integrated exposure to professional practice” as an example, a range of learning strategies were recommended ranging from work-based learning as the most “authentic” learning experiences followed by internships, simulations and role plays, problem-based or issues-based approaches, case studies and finally guest lectures by professionals as the least authentic. That group also identified the following learning contexts for developing practiceoriented attributes:  Active engagement of learners with what/why they are learning, including use of:  Inquiry-based learning  Experiential learning  Creative production  Problem posing and solving 121

ALEXANDER ET AL.

 Collaboration and peer learning  Reflection  Authentic environments – focus on a diversity of practice contexts and issues  Learning occurs in both formal and informal contexts, online and face-to-face. The same process occurred for the other aspects of the UTS Model. Technologies The next step was to consider which technologies would meet the needs of the curriculum and these students, whilst supporting the strategies described above. This led to recommendations about the importance of ePortfolios, blogs, wikis and podcasts, and resulted in the development of ReView (described below) and SparkPlus for anonymous online self and peer assessment of groupwork. Learning Spaces The final stage was to ask: given these students are learning using these strategies, supported by these technologies, what kinds of learning spaces are needed? The UTS curriculum and learning strategy focus were strong indicators of the need for the following kinds of spaces. For collaborative learning – comfortable group work spaces, both indoors and outdoors; layouts that support informal interaction; aspects that draw people to space and encourage conversation. Analysis of our student cohort highlighted the need for relaxation and transition spaces from work to study – quiet spaces, kitchen facilities, enclosure or screening; distance from others; ability to regulate the desired degree of social interaction by moving between spaces or by manipulating personal space. A variety of informal social spaces to encourage relationship development was also important. These spaces have been developed either as a refurbishment, or as part of the ambitious UTS Campus Masterplan. Unique to UTS is that a decision was made that there would be no standard lecture theatres in the new buildings – rather there are large collaborative classrooms, purpose designed to promote the collaborative, active authentic learning activities discussed above. Thus, the student experience of learning at UTS is vastly different to that which it once was. Graduate Learning Outcomes Course design and development begins with consideration of whole of course (or program) intended learning outcomes – what should graduates of this course be capable of doing, and what kinds of graduate attributes and professional dispositions should they have developed by the time they graduate? These are then used to inform the next level of subject design, again involving subject learning outcomes. Included in this design process is consideration of what many call the “graduate attributes” – what are they, how they will be taught and how they will be assessed. Here much more sophisticated methods are developed to determine authentic assessment tasks 122

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY

that integrate these two aspects as well the criteria that will be used to make judgements about student achievement. Rather than determine these attributes at university level, UTS has a graduate profile framework of broad domain attributes (personal, professional, intellectual) that faculties draw upon to create their course-specific graduate attributes. Personal attributes include managing one’s own work, working with others, cross-cultural understanding and communication skills, initiative, capacity for engagement and autonomy as a learner. Professional attributes include the capacity to apply disciplinary, professional and technical knowledge in varying practice contexts, understanding of how knowledge is generated in the profession and relevant disciplines, understanding the context of professional work and ethical understanding. Intellectual attributes include critical and independent thinking and capacity for judgement, capacity for informed inquiry, creativity and innovation, spoken and written communication; technological literacies; and information literacies. Much of this work happens in course teams, and the staff from the central Careers Service hold an important role in these. Embedding Employability and Professional Identity Embedding the development of employability skills and professional identity in students’ experience of courses is the most significant shift in practice, and signals an important shift away from the “bolted-on” nature of many traditional careers opportunities. In this way, all students experience the employability opportunities, not just those who choose to avail themselves of the (considerable) co-curricular opportunities. The initiatives that have been designed into courses include what is commonly termed work integrated learning (WIL), such as internships, work placements and cooperative education within courses. Design, development and delivery of both core and elective subjects focus on the particular industry and specific skills required for these, such as critical thinking and problem solving. There are also targeted subjects that build career management. One such example at UTS is the subject “Career Management for Scientists”. Science graduates from bachelor level courses have the lowest employment rates according to the Graduate Outcomes Survey so this subject is important in opening up the wide and varied employment opportunities available to those with a degree in science. The Vice-Chancellor has mandated that every undergraduate student should have an internship or an internship-like experience as part of their formal award experience. The benefits of such an experience are enormous and include the fact that real world experience of work provides a foundation for learning. Those with relevant (paid) employment gain full-time work 12 months faster than those without and those with employment in future focused clusters of employment, five months faster (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2018).

123

ALEXANDER ET AL.

There are of course a number of considerations in designing internship opportunities and these include:  Determining the exact nature of the experience and outcomes to be sought from the internship or placement – do they relate solely to the course intended learning outcomes, or are there other considerations?  Not all students are recent school leavers so should those with considerable work experience be required to participate?  How is the internship to be assessed and by whom?  For various reasons (illness, carer responsibilities, etc.) some students are unable to undertake a placement or internships – how should they be accommodated?  Many students are working to fund their studies and cannot afford (or will lose their job) to undertake a placement or internships – how might they be accommodated?  How and who will prepare students for the experience (setting expectations including dress codes, punctuality and other workplace practices)? Learning for the Future of Work Other subjects focus on development of professional identity that are not necessarily tied to a particular discipline area, but are critical for the future of all professions and work. The first example is about critical thinking with data. Technological advances such as the Internet of Things (IoT) mean that all professionals, from teachers to lawyers to fashion designers, will need to be able to interpret and analyse large and complex data sets. This capacity will be critical to their future. Almost every study on future capabilities lists data analysis as a top skill for the future of work. Yet many people eschew this area because of a fear of mathematics. UTS has developed a subject which focuses on the meaning rather than necessarily the mathematics involved in data analysis. For example, it is more important to understand what an average means, rather than how to calculate it (which is available anyway through even the most basic application). The subject “Arguments, Evidence and Intuition” does just this and is an elective subject open to all students at present, but with plans to mandate it as a core subject across all degrees. As noted in the handbook,6 students experience this subject: By examining the ways that quantitative data can be collected, used and abused, as evidence for supporting argument, participants have an opportunity to develop habits of mind and lifelong learning skills that can be applied to the questions that should be asked, as informed citizens, of arguments and the supporting data. Participants apply their skills to construct a narrative that uses graphical and numerical data to tell a story, or support an argument, based on the principles explored in the subject. (n.p.) UTS was one of the first universities in the world to establish a standalone Faculty of Transdisciplinary Innovation.7 This occurred in recognition of the changes needed to deal with increased complexity of society and the need to solve big issues of the 124

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY

future – the “wicked problems” – through the use of participatory practices between people across disciplinary boundaries. These collaborative practices create synergies and result in the generation of innovative and novel approaches to these issues and problems. Course design in this faculty is revolutionary. Gone are the boundaries between research and teaching. Instead, learners/researchers begin with a real industry problem or issue. The courses are designed so that students learn a range of problemsolving strategies and techniques from a range of disciplines to gain a deeper understanding of the problem. They integrate these with data analysis, different perspectives, as well as concepts and theories from diverse disciplines. In one example, students worked with Visa Card to tackle the challenge of imagining the future of financial transactions. Students had the opportunity to present their ideas (focused on wearable technologies) to executives from the company who flew in from the United States of America and Asia for the presentation.8 This is an outstanding example of what learning might look like in the future – integrated with research, and in partnership with industry. The sections below describe what might be called the student experience lifecycle in which students develop and assess both sought-after work skills and professional identity. THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE OF LEARNING

Orientation One of the challenges of implementing the innovative model of learning and the learning.futures strategy is that students who begin university immediately after high school often arrive with their high school student identity intact. This is also often accompanied by an expectation that university will be mostly the “broadcast model of learning” and consist of attending lectures and tutorials, and then sitting for formal examinations to reproduce what has been remembered from lectures. Those students are often shocked to find that they need to prepare for classes in which they will be active (flipped learning), are asked to work in teams, and instead of exams, find they will be engaged in authentic assessment tasks. The emphasis of these tasks is on demonstrating what they can do with what they know. A video9 on the UTS approach to learning and teaching was produced in a bid to ensure students could make an informed decision to undertake their studies at UTS prior to enrolment. Five years ago, as part of the implementation of the learning.futures strategy, orientation to the university (run through the Careers Service) was redesigned to assist commencing students to begin developing their professional identity. The idea for this shift arose from work by Taylor, Millwater, and Nash (2007) who describe the ways many school leavers arrive with a firm high school identity and maintain this throughout most of their study, only beginning to develop their professional identity towards the end of their degree. In other words, students are asked to “begin with the end in mind” and develop an understanding of what will be expected of them in the workforce: the ability to work in teams, good communication skills, problem solving and so on. They are also asked to begin to develop a professional 125

ALEXANDER ET AL.

identity. These real-world skills and development of dispositions are then related back to the kinds of learning experiences they will have at UTS. Some of the orientation sessions were developed completely from scratch, some shifted focus and others have modified the learning experiences. There has been an increased emphasis on delivering necessary messages in an entertaining manner. The elements that are workplace related include:  Flipped Learning Task (Pre-Orientation): students are asked to Google themselves to self-assess their online “brand”.  New students (who have been issued name badges in faculty colours) introduce themselves to others in their small faculty-based groups with what they consider to be their three main strengths, thereby gaining practice in developing the “elevator pitch” increasingly required in the workplace and in job interviews. As a group, they participate in a mock job interview video where an “employer” questions the audience as applicants.  The professional identity session makes use of motivational speakers, improvisers and comedians to encourage new students to start thinking about their future careers, to begin creating opportunities for themselves, and to make the most of UTS consultants, events and resources. Speakers introduce themselves by describing their career journeys, and reinforce the message that professional preparation starts now. Students are asked to perform a light-hearted networking task – identifying a personal hero and describing their personal “superpower” – a strength that others value about them. After they’ve shared that with their neighbours, the MC asks for volunteers to use the microphone and recommends bravery in stepping out from the comfort zone of anonymity – an important networking skill. Volunteers are immediately rewarded with highly valued technology gifts and students are reminded of the aphorism that “fortune favours the brave”. They are also taught the equally important networking skill of remembering the names of those they meet. A brief presentation on the future of work follows with an emphasis on change becoming the norm, requiring enthusiasm for change and continuing development of skill-sets and professional identity. The developing and maintaining a professional brand session begins by reminding students that employers will Google them when they apply for jobs. Students then discuss what they found when they Googled themselves. They then compare what they found when Googling two high profile individuals, and the commonality of responses illustrates the concept of a professional brand. For this concept to be useful, students must be able to clarify, communicate and capitalise on their professional brand, so this is scaffolded through subsequent activities. Clarification involves students recalling the qualities of their heroes, which of those they believe they have to some degree, and what others value about them. Students are asked to consider what their notion of success might be, understanding that this is different for everybody. Students write success notions in texta on preprepared speech bubble cards, take group selfies and Instagram them to #createthefutureyou – and these are shown on-screen to reinforce the visibility and 126

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY

longevity of online posts. At the end of this activity they each have a draft professional brand defined by three qualities. Communicating that brand follows – both online and in person. Presenters review repositories of online media such as personal websites, blogs, podcasts and portfolios, and convey the importance of using an online profile site such as LinkedIn. The elements of a well-structured LinkedIn site are demonstrated, and students are invited to use a LinkedIn Photo Booth (complete with business attire for their use) after the session. Professional comedians then illustrate the interpersonal skills of communication and teamwork, using highly engaging improvisations and audience participation. The troupe leader explains how the principles that make improvised theatre work for the audience also underpin innovation and teamwork in the classroom or the workplace: accepting and adding to ideas leads to innovation; collaboration involves flexibility and willingness to change. They demonstrate, to much hilarity, the contrasting outcomes – in teamwork and interview settings suggested by the audience – when one actor ignores, blocks or undermines ideas presented by others, and when those same ideas are accepted and built on. The MC informs students that group projects and internships will give them chances to experiment and learn. Student feedback on these sessions has been positive with 83% reporting feeling satisfied with orientation. This put orientation in the high performing category of student services as measured by the annual Student Satisfaction Survey. Comments included: Orientation day was open and inviting to all students, informative experience that made me excited for uni! UTS Orientation was extremely well done: 1) provided guidance on how the course will help with future employment prospects and 2) allowed prospective students to get to know academic staff and understand study program and course requirements. The Student Formal Learning Experience The formal experience of learning at UTS is a far cry from the traditional broadcast model of learning with students learning in purpose-built spaces that promote development of professional identity. The students’ experience of learning at UTS follows the learning.futures strategy as already described. Several case studies of the ways in which this works through an emphasis on elements that develop professional identity are described below. In undergraduate science, students studying pathophysiology use a case study approach combined with simulations10 to link theory and practice by witnessing firsthand changes to human blood pressure, heart rate, etc. as a result of changes to physiological parameters. Science students also have the opportunity to take the subject “Career Management for Scientists” as part of their degree.

127

ALEXANDER ET AL.

Students studying engineering must develop sophisticated professional communication skills, and classes that promote development of these are held in the large collaborative theatres.11 Students act as pre-professional engineers by working on projects which are part of the Engineers Without Borders initiative providing an opportunity to practice speaking and listening, and report writing, in an authentic project. They do this in pairs or small groups within the classroom. Another example of the student experience using the large collaborative theatres is in the large subject “Citizenship and Communication”.12 The learning strategies include panels, discussions, pre-learning videos, in-class simulations and role plays, case studies and group work. Invited guest speakers are public figures from a diverse range of industries who are well-known to university students. As mentioned earlier, the university strategy is that all students must have the opportunity to undertake an internship. Those who, for various reasons are unable to do so, undertake “internship-like” learning experiences. Opportunities such as those at the UTS Shopfront13 facilitate this. The above examples illustrate the significant change from the broadcast model of education to an approach that emphasises a more authentic approach to developing practice-oriented attributes. Technology Support for the Learning Experience As noted, extensive use is made of ePortfolios, blogs, wikis and podcasts as standard learning support tools. Less well known are the two products described below. Both were developed at UTS and both are now in use at many other institutions. ReView Students engage in a development approach to achievement of graduate attributes through use of an online tool, ReView,14 developed by UTS academic Darrall Thompson. Now commercialised and used by several other institutions, this software is used by both staff and students and is an example of assessment for learning. Students make judgements about their progress towards meeting the graduate attributes assessment criteria using sliders. Academics then make their assessment of the students’ progress also using the slider as well as providing comments. Research by Boud, Lawson, and Thompson (2013) showed that although at the beginning of their course, students’ perception of their achievements tended to be over-inflated compared to their academics’ view, after some time those two ratings converged, providing evidence that overall, students had developed a capacity for self-evaluation. This was not the case for every student however and the authors note that “weaker students showed little improvement”. One of the most important outcomes of use of this tool is students’ development of evaluative judgement, the importance of which has been emphasised by Tai et al. (2018).

128

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY

SparkPlus The UTS approach to learning and teaching relies heavily on group work. One of the constant issues with group work, however, can be the frustration of students when a member of that group does not perform their allocated tasks yet receives the same mark as others in the group (the “freeloaders”). This led to the development of SPARK (Self and Peer Assessment Kit) which later became SparkPlus.15 This online tool enables students to anonymously rate their own performance and that of other students in their group according to agreed criteria. Group assignment marks are then weighted according to individual ratings of contributions. Students also receive comments about their participation from other team members. Students’ Informal Learning Experiences Although the emphasis at UTS is on embedding learning for employability in the formal curriculum, there are opportunities for students to become involved in coand extra-curricular activities. These include an intentional focus on expanding their understanding and repertoire of skills in the areas of leadership, teamwork and communication in global contexts. Multiple stakeholders design and support the learning experiences:  Students in the Beyond UTS International Leadership Development (BUILD) program undertake short-term overseas programs to broaden their horizons between formal learning sessions, attending overseas volunteer programs, internships, academic programs and other overseas experiential opportunities coordinated with partners who agree to a range of safety and logistical requirements.  Students connect with internship support resources on an Interns website16 where they find a Manifesto for Internships,17 co-created by staff, students and employers, that sets expectations for mutually beneficial internships.  Students find opportunities through a centralised advertising platform with over 5,000 employers advertising thousands of jobs and internships, 70% of which are paid – and students rate the value of their experience to assist in monitoring quality of unpaid internships.  Students access over 500 careers-related events and workshops throughout the year, with a month-long Festival of the Future You,18 with a suite of industry engagement events, workshops and careers fairs, including discipline specific fairs (e.g. Nursing and Midwifery Fair, Engineering and Information Technology Fair) and an Internship and Volunteering Fair.  Students develop confidence through work readiness programs such as the Accomplish Award,19 (a year-long employability program with eight workshops, requiring 100 hours of work practice) and Accomplish Intensive20 (a condensed employability program for final semester students), with both culminating in networking events, practice job interviews and simulated Assessment Centre events – with recruiters in attendance. 129

ALEXANDER ET AL.

 Students engage in real life project work through Hackathons, inter-university competitions with industry projects and mentors, and compete in interview competitions judged by industry professionals.  Students access Flash Mentoring through a platform connecting a pool of mentees with a pool of mentors, with students posing questions or explaining challenges and gaining insights from alumni and industry professionals.  Students across all disciplines perform voluntary roles as club executives coordinating social, cultural, sporting and career-related clubs and societies (e.g. Women in Business, Law Students’ Society), undertaking training in governance and ethical matters and working through teamwork and logistical challenges.  Students studying communications produce high quality print material for the Vertigo student publication, and journalism students produce audio segments for 2SER campus radio.  Students in university accommodation “dress for success” at discipline-related dinners with industry speakers.  Students pitch ideas and gain access to entrepreneurship programs and incubators.  Graduating students registering for ceremonial conferral of their degrees declare their employment status and opt in to additional careers services.  Alumni attend events and careers fairs in Sydney and abroad for networking, industry updates, motivational talks and access to recruiters. The annual Student Satisfaction Survey reported a student satisfaction rate of 81% in relation to opportunities offered by the UTS Careers Service (e.g. networking events, forums, careers fairs). CONCLUSION

Students’ learning experiences at UTS have been designed to maximise the development of their practice-oriented skills and professional identity. This is a mature strategy involving the whole of the university and a whole of course approach. Indicators such as student and employer satisfaction, employment rates and skill assessments indicate that this has been a very effective strategy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to Professor Jo McKenzie for her helpful comments on early drafts of this chapter. NOTES 1 2

3

https://www.uts.edu.au/about/university/facts-figures-and-rankings/ratings-and-rankings http://newsroom.uts.edu.au/news/2019/02/uts-students-named-“most-employable”-future-leadersawards https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/learning-and-teaching/uts-model-learning/uts-modellearning

130

UNIVERSITY-WIDE EMPLOYABILITY STRATEGY 4

5 6 7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

15 16 17

18 19 20

https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/learning-and-teaching/learningfutures/whatlearningfutures https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/city-campus-master-plan/overview http://handbook.uts.edu.au/subjects/36200.html https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/transdisciplinary-innovation http://newsroom.uts.edu.au/news/2015/06/uts-students-help-visa-imagine-whats-next-wearabletechnology UTS New Learning Environments video (2015): https://t.co/zmsnYEQEH5 https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/learning-and-teaching/learningfutures/casestudies/stimulating-science https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/learning-and-teaching/learningfutures/casestudies/developing-professional https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/learning-and-teaching/learningfutures/casestudies/social-and-active-learning https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/social-justice-uts/uts-shopfrontcommunity-program https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/industry-partnerships/ip-and-commercialisation/utsip-portfolio/future-12 https://futures.uts.edu.au/blog/2017/06/23/group-work-enhances-student-experience/ https://interns.uts.edu.au/ https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wordpress.multisite.prod.uploads/wpcontent/uploads/sites/28/2017/09/11010432/UTS-Internships-Manifesto.pdf https://festivaloffutureyou.uts.edu.au/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJXoCWpQzNg https://www.uts.edu.au/current-students/opportunities/careers/work-ready-programs/accomplishintensive

REFERENCES Arkoudis, S., Marangell, S., Baik, C., Patrick, C., Bexley, E., & James, R. (2018). Student finances survey 2017. Sydney, Australia: Universities Australia. Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/submissions-and-reports/StudentsFinances-Survey-2017/Students-Finances-Survey-2017 Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2018). 2018 Graduate Outcomes Survey – Longitudinal (GOS-L): Medium-term graduate outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/2018-gos-l/2018-gos-l-national-reportfinal.pdf?sfvrsn=742e33c_2 Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2019). 2018 Graduate Outcomes Survey: National report. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gosreports/2018-gos/2018-gos-national-report-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=a729e33c_4 Bennett, D., Richardson. S., & MacKinnon, P. (2016). Enacting strategies for graduate employability: How universities can best support students to develop generic skills Part A. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 941-956. James, R., & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007). Australian university student finances 2006: Final report of a national survey of students in public universities. Canberra, Australia: Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-75981 James, R., Krause, K.-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from 1994–2009. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.

131

ALEXANDER ET AL. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467-481. Taylor, P., Millwater, J., & Nash, R. (2007). Talking about transitions: The value of a conceptual approach. In G. Crisp & M. Hicks (Eds.), Enhancing higher education, theory and scholarship: Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference (p. 547). Adelaide, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. The Foundation for Young Australians (2018). The New Work Reality. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/the-new-work-reality/

Shirley Alexander (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9396-8624) University of Technology Sydney, Australia Julieanne Cutrupi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1123-4964) Careers Service University of Technology Sydney, Australia Brett Smout (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4785-5079) Student Services Unit University of Technology Sydney, Australia

132

LEONI RUSSELL AND JUDIE KAY

11. BUILDING STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY FROM DAY ONE

Diverse factors are driving the increased focus on developing the employability skills of tertiary students and ultimately on student graduate employment outcomes. Pressure continues to mount on universities as the increased numbers of graduating students compete fiercely for a constricting number of jobs and the length of time extends between graduation and employment in a job related to their discipline. In the United Kingdom, the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which links employment outcomes and the capacity to increase student fees, and the potential introduction of performance-based funding in Australia has signalled the keen interest by government in the role of universities in preparing graduates for the workplace and their impact on the national economy. This trend is being fuelled by industry associations’ dissatisfaction with graduate skills and their focus on skills required for an increasingly automated and disrupted workplace without the traditional linear career paths and a future probably characterised by a portfolio of jobs across multiple industry sectors (Ai Group, 2016; The Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). Evidence of the importance placed on this trend is the partnership of all major industry groups in Australia, such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Australian Industry Group (AiG) and the Business Council of Australia (BCA), with Universities Australia (UA) and the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) to develop the National Work Integrated Learning (WIL) Strategy (Universities Australia et al., 2015) to provide a collaborative strategy to enhance WIL as a proven strategy to support students’ transition into the workplace. Industry groups are calling for greater collaboration between higher education and industry to meet the challenges these changes are presenting (Ai Group, 2018). An environment where a student’s degree is often no longer enough to ensure an employment outcome (Bennett, Richardson, & MacKinnon, 2016) has resulted in deep reflection and discussions by Australian universities around their role in developing student employability and enterprise skills in Australia. Strategies to effectively support students to transition to the workplace or enterprise creation are being introduced in both the curricula and co-curricular space. For some universities this drive is being coordinated through a strategic university-wide approach whereas for others it is a more discipline-based organic approach. A key challenge is building students’ awareness about the importance of building their employability from early in their university study and broadening their often shortterm, narrow focus to a broader lifelong pursuit. Building staff capacity, awareness and effective industry collaboration are also key challenges universities face in underpinning this effort. © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_011

RUSSELL AND KAY

EMPLOYABILITY FROM DAY ONE

It is now widely recognised that students need to be supported to develop their employability throughout the student lifecycle and in the context of their specific discipline (Gribble, 2017). The student journey starts well before they go to their first class, so information about careers services and employability focused activities in programs should be evident in all institutional media prior to enrolment. Interventions and awareness raising activities throughout the student journey include:  Orientation activities: Careers centres need to be visible and proactive during orientation and induction events.  Visible presence: Careers centres need to have a highly visible presence and be centrally located with pop-up presences where students congregate and leverage other institutional events by having a presence. Careers fairs, industry events, mentoring and volunteering activities all need to be promoted extensively.  Employability focus in programs: Educators have a key role to play in reaching students to build their awareness through targeted messages and learning activities throughout whole-of-program.  Social media presences: Students are commonly overloaded with information and overwhelmed when they commence studies. Careers and employability messages need to be highly engaging to appeal to students.  Mid and final program: Encourage students to attend graduate recruitment activities. Many careers centres offer final year students individual support with CV and interview preparation. RAISING STUDENT AWARENESS

Tertiary institutions utilise a range of strategies to build student awareness. The first challenge to overcome is penetrating the overload of communication received by students and gain their attention. Students have many competing demands and are often preoccupied by settling into university, successfully engaging in their course and navigating the university environment. Their future work life seems a long way off and many are still exploring what path they wish to pursue (Tymon, 2013). International students have additional issues to contend with as they settle into a new country, understand a new culture and attend to the basics of housing, transport and establishing friendship groups. With so much on their mind, many students leave it until their last semester at university and then turn up at the careers office to apply for jobs, putting themselves at a massive disadvantage in the job market so unprepared. In response to this, many university careers centres have developed strategies with mixed success to try and deliver simple and clear messages as early into student study as possible. These messages include:  building your employability is your responsibility  the world of work is changing and you need to understand these changes and be ready to adapt and manage your career 134

BUILDING STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY

 you need to be proactive about building 21st century skills to assist you in transitioning to the world of work. Universities are implementing and trialling a range of strategies to raise this awareness with students both inside and outside the classroom. These strategies are based on a range of frameworks, for example Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007), who developed the CareerEDGE Model which highlights the differing components that lead to employability and includes experience, discipline skills, generic skills and emotional intelligence. Models such as RMIT University’s Create Your Future Career attempts to provide a guide for students to develop employability skills through a range of co- and extra-curricular activities that help develop these skills which are valued by employers but often discounted by students. Snapshot: RMIT Create Your Future Career RMIT developed the framework Create Your Future Career to assist students in building their employability from day one. The framework consists of activities aligned broadly to the initial, middle and final years of a student's journey. In the first year the students are encouraged to Explore their future career through activities such as attending careers events and enrolling in the co-curricular award, in the middle years to gain Experience through placements and other WIL activities, volunteering or part-time work, and in final years start to Engage by getting a mentor and attending career fairs and industry workshops. The framework is known as the “3 E’s” and has been a valuable mechanism to guide students but also highlight to academic and professional staff what is required. Strategies to communicate these employability initiatives include the use of a range of social media channels, utilising peer-to-peer engagement with students employed as peer career assistants, development of job shops and outreach with pop-ups in high student traffic areas, and targeting disengaged or cohorts vulnerable to poor graduate outcomes through phone or email. Universities are increasingly utilising analytics to determine which cohorts of students are at most risk and focusing resources to support these students rather than over-service the cohorts with highly developed employability skills. It can be the cohorts most in need that are the hardest to engage. Students from a low socioeconomic background may be too busy working to fund their education to engage in cocurricular activities like mentoring or volunteering but are vulnerable due to their lack of social capital and networks in developing employability skills (Harvey et al., 2017; Stuart et al., 2011). International students face enormous pressure to achieve academically due to the financial commitment made by their families to their education. Suggestions to get involved in co-curricular activities such as paid work, placements or volunteering away from the university may be resisted by parents whose expectations is that the degree alone is the path to future success and employment (Gribble, 2015). However, the many barriers to employment for international students, particularly those seeking to remain in Australia, becomes

135

RUSSELL AND KAY

evident during their time in Australia resulting in an over-representation of international students in many careers service programs. CO- AND EXTRA-CURRICULAR EXPERIENCES

There is greater awareness and growth in the provision of co-curricular and extracurricular activities through universities to drive both the employability agenda and enhance student experience and engagement. Examples of the type of activities include: – career mentoring programs including specific programs for women, LBGTI or Indigenous students – volunteering on campus including peer-to-peer programs and student ambassadors or volunteering with community-based not-for-profits – leadership, emotional intelligence, decision-making programs – discipline-based competitions, events and “hackathons” – activities fostering enterprise or entrepreneurial skills. Many universities have implemented co-curricular awards such as Future Edge (RMIT Australia), Personal Edge (RMIT Vietnam) and the UQ Employability Award (University of Queensland). These awards offer a structured program providing university validation and acknowledgement of the experiences and skills obtained by students outside their studies. Such programs include experiences both on and off campus, some including part-time employment as well as a range of mentoring, volunteering, leadership or mobility experiences. Most award programs include a reflective component and an activity where students need to demonstrate through an interview, CV development, pitch or LinkedIn profile, the employability skills they have gained though these activities and practise articulating them to a potential employer. Some universities, such as Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) have restructured their programs away from an activity-based program to a skills-based program where students demonstrate the skills gained. The Future Skills Award at MMU requires students to identify three skills from a Future Skills Bank and provide evidence from their experience of developing those skills. Many universities are now including participation in these awards, co-curricular activities and micro credentials on students’ testamurs or Australian Higher Education Graduation Statements (AHEG), which provides to employers a validation of student involvement and assists in signalling to students the importance of these types of activities. Snapshot: UQ Employability Award Program The University of Queensland runs the UQ Employability Award program which encourages undergraduate and postgraduate coursework students to further develop their employability skills beyond the classroom with the aim of students becoming well-rounded, highly sought-after graduates. The award is structured into two parts, with the first part involving reflecting on participation in 100 hours each of work 136

BUILDING STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY

experience and volunteering as well as undertaking five supplementary activities from a diverse range of activities from leadership programs, research and competitions to study abroad. The second part involves writing an application for the award followed by an interview. During the award process students are encouraged to record and reflect on their experiences through a UQ system. Snapshot: RMIT Creds – Micro Credentials Aligned to RMIT’s Graduate Capabilities RMIT has developed a range of micro credentials aimed at enhancing students’ awareness and skills to underpin their employability. These industry informed and co-designed credentials (RMIT Creds) are offered as both co-curricular and in curricula online learning modules that award students online badges that they can add to their LinkedIn profiles and that appear on academic transcripts. Topics such as Becoming a Leader, Being a Good Mentee, Brand U, How to Freelance, and Information Literacy, all contribute to building students’ employability capabilities and showcase the importance of developing the skills that industry desires. Many of these credentials are being embedded in first year courses to raise students’ awareness of the need to actively engage in career building activities early in their programs. INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT

There has been increased focus on the inclusion of industry partners and alumni to co-design and support these co-curricular experiences which go some way to meeting student demand for authentic industry engaged experiences. Examples include career mentoring programs which have proved impactful in linking students to opportunities around WIL, employment, professional networks and job shadowing (Kay et al., 2016). This increased industry engagement is encouraged by industry groups (Ai Group, 2018) as they believe the sectors need to become even closer as the pace of change and the skills required in the Australian workforce continue to change. Alongside this is the increased entry of third-party providers into the market as brokers for the provision of such experiences, often for overseas experiences but also locally. Providers are across a broad spectrum from not-for-profits, industry groups or regional networks, to for-profit organisations based either in Australia or offshore. Many work through formal agreements with universities but some provide services directly to students for a fee without any engagement with universities. The rise of third-party providers presents challenges around risk management, value for money and the quality of the experiences provided to students. However, the growth of third-party providers points to both the demand by students, particularly international students, and the challenges for universities to adequately meet the demand.

137

RUSSELL AND KAY

EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CURRICULUM

There are various approaches in which employability skills can be embedded throughout curricula, including common core units offered in first year or an explicit focus on specific skills within units (Harvey et al., 2017). Models such as Dacre Pool and Sewell’s (2007) approach underpin the broader attempt to pull many sub-concepts together into a unified whole. This approach to employability has informed research, curriculum design and career focused co-curricular activities and highlights key areas such as discipline knowledge, experience, career development learning, personal attributes and generic skills, commonly covered by institutions’ Graduate Attributes. Career development learning (CDL) is becoming more prevalent in program design to support the ongoing process of managing learning, life and work. It involves developing students’ capabilities, knowledge, skills and understanding that enable planning and making informed decisions about training, education and career choices (Bennett et al., 2016). CDL activities such as industry networking, building entrepreneurial and enterprise skills, resume and interview preparation, leadership, teamwork and communication skills, commonly occur both in and out of curriculum and support students to recognise and develop employability skills that will support them to transition and adapt to dynamic working environments. Work integrated learning (WIL) activities that integrate theory with practice have been a key component of programs for many years. The evidence is clear that high quality WIL experiences benefit students’ employability and employers (Patrick et al., 2008). The range of innovative approaches to industry engaged learning continues to evolve and emerging models that address scalability, sustainability and dynamic industry ways of working are becoming more prevalent. WIL activities are continuously improving with greater focus on dimensions such as authenticity, preparation, supervision, integration of theory and practice aligned to learning outcomes and assessment, forming the basis of curriculum design (Smith, Ferns, & Russell, 2014). As Rowe and Zegwaard (2017) note, it is evident the experience of WIL alone does not guarantee employability outcomes for students and graduates. For this reason, it is imperative that all employability focused activities pre, during and post WIL are cohesively developed and scaffolded throughout the students’ journeys. The snapshots below showcase a few examples of industry engaged WIL activities that enhance student employability which move beyond the traditional placement model. Snapshot: RMIT Global, Online WIL RMIT’s global, online WIL projects provide students with the opportunity to coordinate an industry project across different cultures and time zones, mirroring the manner in which global business operates. Participation in these online WIL projects develops valuable cross-cultural communication skills, time management skills which are important when working across different time zones, and information technology skills from using various channels including web and 138

BUILDING STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY

videoconferencing. Teams of students from multiple countries collaborate with a selected industry partner to develop a genuine business project (e.g. developing an integrated communication marketing plan). Snapshot: QUT Innovation Project These projects are based on a real, complex and big problem experienced by the partner organisation. A brief is provided to the students, similar to that which is presented to members of internal innovation and R&D teams or external consultants. Students are challenged to interrogate the presented brief, research the sector and business, and present a business proposal. To achieve these outcomes students are supported through an innovation and ideation process with a number of workshops exploring key aspects of innovation and innovative thinking. Each industry partner provides mentors to work alongside and guide the activities of each group of students. The industry partners often use this WIL experience as a professional development opportunity for their staff working with managers to build their mentoring and coaching skills. WIL can no longer sit on its own and not be explicitly linked to employability skills development and CDL throughout a student’s learning journey. On their own and in separate courses, or as co-curricular activities, CDL and WIL go some way to contributing to enhancing students’ understanding of their professional self and the industry they hope to move into. The recommended approach of explicitly linking quality CDL and WIL activities as part of students’ formal study (Reddan & Rauchle, 2017) will have greater impact on enhancing students’ learning and understanding of the world of work, career goals, where they are situated in the industry, or potential enterprise formation activities. Today’s focus on whole-of-program efforts to enhance employability requires a targeted approach to ensure employability is underpinned by measuring impact. WIL and careers initiatives need to be aligned to discipline requirements, industry expectations and build in complexity and authenticity to support student learning. The Career Development and Employability Curriculum Framework (Griffith University Careers and Employment Service, 2015), combined with Lizzio’s (2011) student lifecycle framework of transition towards, transition in, transition through, and transition up, out and back provides a great example of an integrated approach to curricular and co-curricular employability focused activities. For many years most Australian tertiary institutions have extensively mapped their programs showing where employability focused activities occur. It is common to find WIL scaffolded across programs with CDL in other courses, careers activities sitting outside of curriculum and some in, and employability skills mapped and assessed. Beyond these extensive mapping exercises, the focus on lived and experienced curriculum with employability needs to be actualised across all programs and made obvious to students as they progress.

139

RUSSELL AND KAY

STAFF CAPABILITY BUILDING

The challenges and opportunities posed by this environment for Australian employers, students/graduates and universities are complex. It is imperative that capability building initiatives are supported to ensure staff are skilled and knowledgeable to embed quality learning experiences to enhance employability from day one in all programs. Designing a curriculum that scaffolds learning on employability capabilities challenges traditional learning, teaching and assessment (Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017), so building staff capability to do this comes with its own significant challenges. The employability agenda has been for too long left to designated staff and careers centres as co-curricular concerns, whereas it needs to be seen as a university-wide initiative and effort fully supported by senior leadership. Students would like educators to help develop their career awareness and to help them understand the relevance of their studies to future work and the core elements of employability development (Bennett et al., 2016). The importance of educators impacting on student employability cannot be underestimated but many do not have the resources, time and willingness to change crowded curricula, or the confidence or knowledge to make significant changes. There is a level of discomfort for some staff around supporting students’ employability, as it is not part of academics’ experience, their workplans or research efforts. It is imperative that strategies to resource professional development, support and recognition for educators seeking to develop employability among their students are actualised. The need for professional development for WIL staff has also been identified in the National WIL Strategy and notable in many institutions’ offerings of staff training and development. This ongoing need for professional development to assist staff in articulating graduate capabilities in the curriculum and designing appropriate assessment to determine student outcomes (Ferns, 2012) requires a whole-of-program approach. Institutions are increasingly broadening their approaches to professional development and recognition to support building staff capability. Local communities of practice, online modules, webinars, workshops and Google Communities across institutions are all contributing to enhancing staff capability. Examples of Staff Capability Building Activities  The Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) has established an online Community of Practice for WIL and Employability. This collaborative space allows staff from five universities to share research, student and staff resources, discuss key issues, engage in webinars and learn from each other.  Peak body initiatives nationally and internationally, e.g. the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN), the National Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (NAGCAS) and the World Association of Collaborative Education (WACE), all provide a variety of resources and professional development activities including webinars, research grants, 140

BUILDING STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY

conferences and global collaborations to support staff in building capability for employability skills development.  A recent suite of resources to support educators in enhancing students’ employability is the Developing EmployABILITY educators’ site.1 This initiative led by Professor Dawn Bennett at Curtin University involves over 20 higher education institutions and over 400 scholars internationally, and provides extensive employability focused learning and assessment resources that academics can embed in courses to support students. CONCLUSION

With increasing focus both by industry and governments alike, employability is increasingly a fundamental component of universities’ strategic focus. The foreshadowed link to performance funding in Australia is adding to this focus. Preparing students for a disruptive world, where the skills required are constantly evolving, a degree is no longer sufficient and a linear career path is increasingly not the norm, is very challenging. Increasing students’ awareness of the changing nature of the workplace and supporting them with curricula and co-curricular based strategies to develop the skills required, as well as the confidence to manage their careers, will require fundamental changes within universities. A university-wide coordinated approach will be required with strategic senior leadership support to focus the resources needed, build staff capability as well as improving and innovating collaboration with industry to meet the changing circumstances. Addressing the needs of all student cohorts, especially international students, low socioeconomic students and Indigenous students will need specific focus. What is clear is that building employability skills needs to be scaffolded across the student journey from day one and not left to later in their programs. NOTE 1

https://developingemployability.edu.au/

REFERENCES Ai Group. (2016). Workforce development needs survey report. Retrieved from http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2016/15396_skills_survey_report_mt_edits_2.pdf Ai Group. (2018). Developing the workforce for a digital future: Addressing critical issues and planning for action. Retrieved from https://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2018/Developing_the_workforce_for_a_digital_future.pdf Bennett, D., Richardson, S., & MacKinnon, P. (2016). Enacting strategies for graduate employability: How universities can best support students to develop generic skills. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from http://life.curtin.edu.au/careers/graduate-employability.htm Dacre Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: Developing a practical model of graduate employability. Education + Training, 49(4), 277-289. Ferns, S. (2012). Graduate employability: Teaching staff, employer and graduate perceptions. In M. Campbell (Ed.), Collaborative education: Investing in the future: Proceedings of the 2012 ACEN

141

RUSSELL AND KAY national conference (pp. 77-87). Springvale South, Australia: Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN). Gribble, C. (2015). Challenges to providing work integrated learning to international business students at Australian universities. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 5(4), 401-416. Gribble, C. (2017). IEAA international employability guide: Enhancing the employability of international graduates: A guide for Australian education providers. Melbourne, Australia: International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). Griffith University Careers and Employment Service. (2015). Career development and employability curriculum framework. Retrieved from https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/215171/Framework.pdf Harvey, A., Andrewartha, L., Edwards, D., Clarke, J., & Reyes, K. (2017). Student equity and employability in higher education (Report for the Australian Government Department of Education and Training). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research, La Trobe University. Kay, J., Feneley, K., Mallegrom, H., & Rowland, A. (2016). Bridging the gap between industry and university for international students through mentoring. In K. E. Zegwaard, M. Ford, & N. McRae (Eds.), Refereed proceedings of the 2nd international research symposium on cooperative and workintegrated education (pp. 85-90). Hamilton, New Zealand: WACE. Retrieved from http://www.waceinc.org/uvictoria2016/assets/WACE_IRS_2016_Refereed_Conference%20Proceed ings.pdf Lizzio, A. (2011). The student lifecycle: An integrative framework for guiding practice. Brisbane, Australia: Griffith University. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL (work integrated learning) report: A national scoping study. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/44065/ Reddan, G., & Rauchle, M. (2017). Combining WIL and career development learning using the SOAR model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education (Special Issue), 18(2), 129-139. Rowe, A., & Zegwaard, K. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87-99. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). Assessing the impact of work integrated learning on student work-readiness. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching. Stuart, M., Lido, C., Morgan J., Soloman, L., & May, S. (2011). The impact of engagement with extracurricular activities on the student experience and graduate outcomes for widening participation populations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 203-215. The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2017). The New Work Smarts: Thriving in the New Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/the-new-work-smarts/ Tymon, A. (2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 841-856. Universities Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, and Australian Collaborative Education Network. (2015). National strategy on work integrated learning in university education. Retrieved from cdn1.acen.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/National-WIL-Strategy-in-university-education-032015.pdf

Leoni Russell (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8070-1023) Careers & Employability – Education Portfolio, RMIT University, Australia Judie Kay Careers & Employability – Education Portfolio, RMIT University, Australia

142

SIMON BARRIE AND JENNY PIZZICA

12. REIMAGINING UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM FOR A DISRUPTED FUTURE OF WORK Partnership Pedagogy

Universities across the globe are increasingly challenged to demonstrate the relevance and value of the education they offer to prospective students and employers of their graduates. Work on enhancing the employability of graduates has coalesced over the last 30 years into a distinct and influential sub-genre of educational research and scholarship (Barrie et al., 2009; Yorke, 2006). Employability has gained a new prominence as a challenge for higher education in recent years in part due to the increasingly rapid pace of change in the nature of the world of work. This has seen an increasing emphasis on the development of transferable and generic skills intended to buffer graduates against shifts in their professional situations, allowing them to be more adaptable and agile in dealing with an unpredictable employment landscape. The changes in the world of work are driven by economic, industrial and social shifts, fuelled by the rapid development of technology. For Australian universities, this period has seen a growing level of competition, in what is increasingly seen as a “market”. This competition has been heightened by the emergence of a political discourse in Australia which seeks to reposition the relationship of universities and society as one of individual financial benefit rather than of social good. This competition is in tension with a high level of regulation resulting in a language of risk and uncertainty. Nowhere is this disruption in work and society more apparent than in the region of Australia’s largest city known as “Greater Western Sydney”. Greater Western Sydney is the fastest growing economy in Australia. It is already the third largest economy in the country. The construction of the new airport and aerotropolis will be Australia’s largest infrastructure project. A third of the population of Western Sydney are aged under 19 and the region will add another million people over the next 20 years. It has long been, and will continue to be, the epicentre of Australian migration. It houses a high percentage of migrants, refugees and humanitarian status residents. Currently 42% of the population speak a language other than English at home. There are over 170 ethnic communities represented. It is home to the largest urban population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It is also home to some of the most disadvantaged local government areas in Australia and the national 2016 census revealed significant concentrations of low-socioeconomic status families. The Greater Western Sydney region has unemployment rates above the state average and lower than average educational outcomes. The relationship between socioeconomic status and level of educational achievement is well established. For © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_012

BARRIE AND PIZZICA

Greater Western Sydney the role of its university is crucial to supporting the educational aspirations of the region, recognising that higher education transforms lives and society. This was acknowledged by the Australian Government in the 1970s and Western Sydney University was subsequently established in 1989. As Gough Whitlam noted in 1972: The next university in New South Wales, the next college of advanced education and the next teachers’ college must be built in the western suburbs, an area which has the largest population of college age of any area in Australia. (Western Sydney University, n.d.) Western Sydney University remains committed to being an anchor institution for the region in the current climate of disruption. The changes in our society and the world of work demand significant changes in Australia’s education systems – from preschool to university and beyond. It is likely that young people in Western Sydney preparing for entry to higher education today will emerge to a lifetime of work that will be far more varied than they were expecting. Today’s 15 year olds face a portfolio career, with an estimated 17 different jobs over five careers (The Foundation for Young Australians [FYA], 2017); with periods of underemployment, self-employment and parallel employment that will blur the lines between work and leisure. The pace of change will accelerate, placing a premium on learning, supported by resilience and adaptability, in technology-rich environments. It is noteworthy that the general capabilities necessary to forge a career in the current volatile work environment overlap and intertwine with the skills necessary to be a critically engaged and responsible citizen in the civic and social worlds which are changing equally rapidly (Dowling, Rose, & O'Shea, 2015; Star & Hammer, 2008). This means universities have an opportunity to extend and expand upon earlier education to further develop in students not only skills required by employers but also the skills necessary to navigate and negotiate a volatile work future in a critical and thoughtful fashion while contributing in a range of ways to the communities of which they are a part. The challenges for universities inherent in the emerging disruption to work are not new challenges. The last three decades have seen Australian universities, guided by government policy, engage directly with the challenge of orienting curriculum to develop the “graduate attributes” and qualities society and evolving knowledge work required (Barrie, 2006). The capabilities required for the future of work are exactly what many university educators see as the core purpose of higher education. In a digitally connected world, where content “knowledge” is accessible to all and continually displaced by new content, the days of content as the standard of higher education curriculum have long passed. With their extensive resources of critical multidisciplinary expertise, universities are ideally placed to foster the development of critical thinking and the ability to discern the “truth claims” of the vast array of information available to future knowledge workers. The unique concentration of deep disciplinary diversity universities possess as institutions means they are also potentially ideally placed to

144

REIMAGINING UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM

foster the ability to creatively and collaboratively transform and apply knowledge and skills across multiple disciplinary contexts. In terms of graduates creating meaningful work (Oliver, 2015), universities have clearly demonstrated the ability to harness their rich educational potential as incubators of entrepreneurship for the future of work. More than four in five Australian start-up founders are university graduates and there are already more than 100 Australian university entrepreneurship programs supporting students in converting ideas into successful Australian businesses (FYA, 2017). However, the challenge for education is clear: Young Australians will need to not only acquire foundation and technical skills but be able to use these in increasingly enterprising and creative ways and apply them in diverse environments. Traditional education and training institutions will be required to transform their approaches well before 2030 to become the smart learning partners of these lifelong learners. (FYA, 2017) The demand for post-secondary education amongst young people in Western Sydney will continue to grow, fuelled by the reality of the lifetime earnings benefits that will continue to accrue from tertiary education. Four industries account for 60% of new jobs in Australia:    

Care and social assistance Professional, scientific and technical services Education and training Accommodation and food services.

In these four top industries a majority of the employees have a bachelor’s degree or higher (Australian Government Department of Jobs and Small Business, 2017). However, those jobs will not necessarily be in Western Sydney and the challenge of the region’s current commuter exodus to graduate employment must be addressed as part of the university’s commitment to Greater Western Sydney. Demographically, Western Sydney has a young and well-educated population. Automation and the digital age present the region with an opportunity to attract businesses and create employment hubs that focus on the jobs that the next generation of the workforce will be seeking, creating more quality employment for Western Sydney residents, closer to their homes. (William Buck, 2017) While society’s appetite for educational qualifications as the key to employment and economic advantage will grow, it is also clear that the current monopoly universities hold on conveying elements of that educational advantage will be (and should be) challenged. Universities will face increasing competition as providers of educational qualifications in a new political and economic context. That competition will come from other universities, from an increasing array of for-profit providers and from “in-house” industry providers. This competition is fuelled by the continuing discourse from influential employers challenging the relevance of higher education qualifications, even as many of those same organisations seek to enter the lucrative education market either as consultants or providers. 145

BARRIE AND PIZZICA

THE VALUE OF PARTNERSHIPS

Looking forwards, the education solutions demanded by a complex future of work are unlikely to be provided by any single type of educational provider, not the least as a result of the varied nature of the knowledge, skill, attitudes and dispositions that contribute to the hybrid, multidisciplinary capabilities required to thrive in that future of work. Universities, like all other players in the education space, will need to collaborate and partner with industry, community and other providers, at all levels, to deliver the complex capabilities that will be required. Universities have a unique contribution to make to those collaborations and partnerships. This includes contesting some of the many assumptions about the future of work we face as a society. It is important to remember that there are many futures possible depending on the society we become (PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC], 2014). A significant challenge for universities is to not simply react to the changes emerging in the future of work, but to help shape that future for our society. Universities will also be challenged to consider their fundamental role in education as they continue to evolve and reinvent themselves in a new political, economic and technological environment. Increasingly they will need to consider what they can offer that is genuinely “higher” that other education providers cannot – and play to that strength. They will partner with other providers to deliver the range of skills the future of work demands. They will become more permeable. Firstly, to allow the inclusion and embedding of other education opportunities and outcomes as part of their students’ learning journeys. Secondly, because those learning journeys will no longer be linear or singular, learners will increasingly need to return to learning many times during their varied careers. Indeed, university learning might not precede a first career – it might follow it. Entry pathways to university will become more personalised – based on technologically enabled records of authentic personal learning and capability rather than generic test scores derived from formal education. The increasing recognition that “future of work” learning happens everywhere enhances the possibility of entering university and moving directly to capability-based assessment for a qualification on the basis of that learning. Looking to the future, work will be continually changing (European Political Strategy Centre, 2016). Today’s young people will need to spend more hours learning on the job than ever before. It has been estimated that by 2030 Australian workers will spend one third of their hours at work learning, a 30% increase from today (FYA, 2017). Continuous learning will be part of our everyday engagement in work. By incorporating partnerships with industry, government, community and students from the outset of curriculum development it becomes possible to create a dialogue with partners that goes beyond the reinforcement of current work practices and existing skillsets. It opens the door for all partners to reflect on possible futures for their disciplines, communities and industries and to envisage the capabilities needed to engage with the complexity of these possible futures. Attention to complex societal responsibilities necessitates equally complex learning experiences that no single institution or “provider” can deliver. In a global environment of escalating complexity, contradiction and new horizons of knowledge (UNESCO, 2015), partnerships engage universities in public and complex problem146

REIMAGINING UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM

solving through collaboration. Partnerships are essential to ensuring our students have access to different forms of expertise and different knowledges. A RANGE OF PARTNERSHIPS

Universities are replete with potential partnerships to harness for curriculum opportunities. Australian universities hold formal partnerships (mainly research and development partnerships) with 16,000 Australian businesses, contributing an annual $19 billion to Australia’s income and creating an estimated 30,000 full-time jobs nationally (Universities Australia, 2018). However, typically only a narrow set of these partners are mobilised for curriculum. In exploring the broader notion of curriculum partnerships in the context of Western Sydney University’s mission to provide both a relevant education and serve as an anchor institution for the region we sought to mobilise the full range of our partnerships. In doing so we have conceived of partnerships as covering several categories:  Local community and business association partners – with volunteers, community groups, Western Sydney Business Council, Aboriginal elders, alumni and schools to learn and grow with the region and maintain its value to regional stewardship.  University network partners – with Sydney School of Entrepreneurship, SemiPermanent, United Nations Regional Centres of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development to collaborate on high-impact, large-scale educational initiatives.  Industry and employer partners – with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sydney Water, Local Health Districts, St Vincent de Paul Society and local small and medium enterprises to encourage economic regeneration.  Commercial provider partners – with Adobe and Microsoft and other major commercial providers to ensure students have access to the latest resources including digital tools and online platforms, allowing them to develop work relevant skills.  Edu-venture partners – via Open Education Services and Sydney Institute of Business and Technology to enhance alternate education opportunities and entry pathways to higher education.  Research and innovation partners – with research groups, institutes and industry research linkages and our start-up incubator, Launchpad, to co-create opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship education.  Students – scaffolded engagement of enrolled students as partners in curriculum transformation initiatives and organisational governance, to develop graduates as informed, critical citizens strengthening the democratic purpose of the university. PRINCIPLES FOR PARTNERSHIP PEDAGOGY

Selecting appropriate and effective partnerships is key if these partnerships are to deliver educational value to students and the other partners. In ensuring this we have drawn on the published research on service learning, community engaged learning 147

BARRIE AND PIZZICA

and work integrated learning (WIL), as well as the notion of “design thinking”, to develop the concept of Partnership Pedagogy, and a set of key principles for establishing and maintaining partnerships to effectively support pedagogy. Partnership Pedagogy is one of the key concepts shaping curriculum transformation at Western Sydney University. We have defined it as a curriculum that is co-created with a range of internal and external partners – community, industry, our commercial providers, our Research Institutes and students. Partnership Pedagogy embraces four aspects of curriculum co-creation1: 1. Co-designing curriculum – where the overall conception of the curriculum is thought through. The goals and purpose of the course or curriculum elements are formulated via ongoing dialogue between partners, learning outcomes are identified, pedagogy selected, content devised, and learning activities and assessment strategies and tasks planned. 2. Co-developing curriculum resources – involves collaborating in the production of any of a range of tasks, resources and artefacts to be used in teaching and learning activities. This may include audio or video, apps or computer simulations, text or image-based resources. It may include re-purposing existing professional materials so as to provide students with access to contemporary tools and resources during their studies. 3. Co-delivering curriculum – when we talk about partners collaborating in delivering curriculum we tend to think of either workplace placements or guest lectures but there are many other ways partners can collaborate in the delivery of curriculum such as mentoring students, participating in simulations, acting as clients for student consulting teams, participating in student conferences or collaborating in cooperative research projects. 4. Co-credentialing and co-assessing – partners collaborate in designing assessment tasks and standards both on- and off-campus, setting questions, determining criteria, marking or supervising assessment activities. The co-credentialing aspect may also embed certification or accredited activities within the curriculum to enable students to attain external certification within a unit or course. In many Australian universities, curriculum partnerships are currently positioned in a relatively narrow framing of WIL. While a broader conception of WIL is possible it is most frequently enacted as placements (including internships, cadetships, practicums and service learning) or fieldwork. Data from a 2018 audit of the university’s WIL activity identified that 65% of WIL units (subjects) used a student placement or fieldwork experience as their WIL activity. A smaller proportion of units offered WIL as project work (20%) or simulations (10%). Descriptions of effective WIL environments often focus on properties of the environment such as immersion and authenticity. While these are useful properties, in shaping educationally effective partnerships it is more important to focus on the relationships that engender those properties rather than the properties themselves.

148

REIMAGINING UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM

Partnership Pedagogy directs our attention to how the partners interact to shape curriculum – how, when and why they collaborate and what they collaborate on. To effectively enact Partnership Pedagogy in curriculum development a number of principles need to be adhered to. Partnerships need to be sustainable and conducive to the advancement of mutual responsibility and equitable development (Jiménez de la Jara as cited in Appe et al., 2017). Key aspects of partnerships which support these intentions include:  Interdisciplinary – draws on the multiple perspectives, theories, resources or data from different disciplines; parties challenge existing ideas and practices, develop new ways of working and learning together and ease barriers for potential partners (Flint & Harrington, 2014).  Interdependence – welcomes the different experiences and knowledge that all parties bring; encourages multipoint collaboration, dialogue and shared leadership; advances transformation through reciprocity, common goals and shared benefits (Butcher, Bezzina, & Moran, 2011).  Integrity – encourages honest and innovative thinking for social responsibility (Keynan, 2014); fosters trust as parties are open about their contribution and rationale for investing in the partnership (Flint & Harrington, 2014); follows open and agreed methods of governance. Universities can support the development of quality employment through the way they partner with industry and the local community to provide the authentic educational opportunities for students that will develop future of work capabilities. This implies significantly more than universities “using” partners for placements and internships. Done differently, curriculum partnerships will grow the partner organisation as well as the student. Partnerships embrace a more diverse set of learning environments than placements and internships alone and are grounded in enduring and productive relationships rather than transactional agreements. One of the challenges for universities and the communities they serve is to grow more genuine curriculum partnerships that exemplify deep engagement and deliberate reciprocity (Cooper & Orrell, 2016). Partnership Pedagogy acknowledges dual ownership of the creation process; the university is not developing a curriculum in consultation with our partners but genuinely co-creating it with them. Co-creating curriculum offers a way to engage with contemporary public issues and address public dilemmas to “reframe and alleviate – if not resolve” them (Keynan, 2014, p. 198). Through this engagement, students are encouraged to reflect on social concerns, develop their contributions to democratic citizenship (Appe et al., 2017) and negotiate access to future work as graduates. It provides the opportunity to reinvigorate the university’s curriculum development practices and increases the connectedness between the university, the communities of which we are a part and those organisations who employ our graduates. At Western Sydney University this commitment to Partnership Pedagogy is a key feature of our 21st Century Curriculum Transformation (21C) initiative. One example of how this 21C initiative has enacted Partnership Pedagogy has been 149

BARRIE AND PIZZICA

through the development of Flagship Curriculum Projects. These projects are designed to develop new curriculum offerings which cultivate multidisciplinary, hybrid, future of work, capability sets to complement students’ core degrees. These 21st century curriculum elements all feature the co-design, co-development, codelivery or co-credentialing elements of Partnership Pedagogy. Flagship Curriculum Projects have been co-created with student, industry and community partners as integral members of the project development teams. This curriculum partnership momentum is supported by a network of scholars including student curriculum partners and curriculum innovators from inside and outside the university and a series of Future of Work and Curriculum Disruption forums to maintain a futurefocused engagement with work and society. An example of this is seen in the new co-badged specialisation in “Global Sustainability” which has leveraged the university’s established research and teaching partnerships with the United Nations University (UNU) Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE) on Education for Sustainable Development hosted by Western Sydney University. It was co-designed and co-developed by colleagues from the UNU RCE network, and academic and student partners across five different schools and research institutes of the university. It will be co-taught by this multidisciplinary team into 12 different undergraduate degree programs. It incorporates an embedded Sustainability Bootcamp as a co-curricular “learning pod” which is available to all students at the university. The Bootcamp and Specialisation will also be available to community members and to the partner organisations as an alternative credential in the future. For students, engaging in learning in complex authentic environments co-created with partners models the future complex systems and problems they are likely to experience as graduates. For Western Sydney University, this engagement with partners supports the reinvigoration of disciplinary knowledge, and the creation of new bodies of knowledge, fields of study, new research and new programs. For industry and community, Partnership Pedagogy invites a new relationship of reciprocity that builds the economic and social development of the region with the university. CONCLUSION

Addressing employability in tertiary education has for many years been an important part of universities’ response to the increasingly volatile nature of the world of work. Universities have primarily focused on fostering the development of generic and transferable skills through their curriculum development. This has been the case for nearly 30 years but with the accelerated pace of disruption the focus has become more pronounced. Properly established and maintained educational partnerships enable a university and its students to remain relevant and critically engaged with a rapidly changing work environment and emerging social challenges. These partnerships also provide an opportunity for the university to engage with its community and networks to critique current trends in employment and education and to collaborate in shaping 150

REIMAGINING UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM

the future of work. Universities might usefully look to partnerships to co-create curriculum that is responsive to the changes we are currently facing in the world of work, and which will be agile enough to change as that world changes. These partnerships should be nurtured with industry, the community sector, other educational institutions, government and the public service and most importantly with our own students. Partnership Pedagogy is a new concept that emerges from an integrated consideration of a development framework, principles of effective and responsible partnerships and aspects of collaborative curriculum development. This pedagogy is grounded in genuine co-creation of curriculum with partners, engaging them in codesigning the curriculum, co-developing the appropriate curriculum resources, codelivering the curriculum, and co-credentialing and co-assessing the outcomes of the curriculum. To make these collaborations equitable, sustainable and effective we draw on principles of reciprocity, interdisciplinarity, interdependence and integrity. By connecting to local, regional, national and international networks and communities, universities exchange knowledge and co-generate learning with these sector partners, networks and communities. Partnerships keep us connected to external changes. We become part of the disruption we are trying to navigate and can devise immediate adaptive responses to ongoing change. This provides an opportunity for the university to shape that future work context to create the jobs of the future. It also creates the opportunity for staff, students and our community to contribute in creative scholarly ways to the educational aspirations of the university. NOTE 1

These four elements of co-creation are not exclusive; there is often considerable overlap between aspects when working with partners, and partners often collaborate in more than one stage.

REFERENCES Appe, S., Rubaii, N., Líppez-De Castro, S., & Capobianco, S. (2017). The concept and context of the engaged university in the global south: Lessons from Latin America to guide a research agenda. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21(2), 7-36. Australian Government Department of Jobs and Small Business. (2017). Australian jobs – publication. Retrieved from https://docs.jobs.gov.au/collections/australian-jobs Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher education, 51(2), 215-241. Barrie, S. C, Andrews, J., Dean, L., & Heimanis, I. (2009). Employability: Realising the potential of a university education. In S. Denton & S. Brown (Eds.), A practical guide to university and college management: Beyond bureaucracy (pp. 283-302). London, England: Routledge. Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 29-40. Cooper, L., & Orrell, J. (2016). University and community engagement: Towards a partnership based on deliberate reciprocity. In F. Trede & C. McEwen (Eds.), Educating the deliberate professional: Preparing for future practices (pp. 107-126). Switzerland: Springer. Dowling, D., Rose, S., & O'Shea, É. (2015). Reconsidering humanities programmes in Australian universities – embedding a new approach to strengthen the employability of humanities graduates by empowering them as global citizens. Social Alternatives, 34(2), 52.

151

BARRIE AND PIZZICA European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC). (2016). The future of work: Skills and resilience for a world of change. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/files/strategic_note_issue_13.pdf Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Framework for partnership in learning and teaching in higher education. York, England: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/hea_framework_for_partnership_in_learning_a nd_teaching.pdf Keynan, I. (2014). Knowledge as responsibility: Universities and society. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(2), 179-206. Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56-65. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2014). The future of work: A journey to 2022. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com.au/pdf/future-of-work-report-v23.pdf Star, C., & Hammer, S. (2008). Teaching generic skills: Eroding the higher purpose of universities, or an opportunity for renewal? Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 237-251. The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2017). The New Work Smarts: Thriving in the New Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/the-new-work-smarts/ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf Universities Australia. (2018). Clever collaborations: The strong business case for partnering with universities. Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-andEvents/submissions-and-reports/Clever-Collaborations/Clever-Collaborations Western Sydney University. (n.d.). People. Retrieved from https://www.westernsydney. edu.au/uws25/25_year_history/people William Buck. (2017). Making Western Sydney greater (Edition 5 – H1 2017). Retrieved from https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1269847/WB_Making_Western_Sy dney_Greater_05_Digital_v1_1.pdf Yorke, M. (2006) Employability in higher education: What it is – what it is not (Learning and Employability Series 1). York, England: The Higher Education Academy.

Simon Barrie PhD Western Sydney University, Australia Jenny Pizzica PhD Western Sydney University, Australia

152

PART 3 TEACHING AND LEARNING EMPLOYABILITY

DEANNE GANNAWAY AND KAREN SHEPPARD

13. PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY THROUGH GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST DEGREE PROGRAMS Australian Perspectives

Once, merely completing a university degree provided assurance of finding work on graduation. Graduates could expect that their academic credentials would provide entrance into the labour market. Once in the workforce, they could expect their skills to be honed and further developed in this environment. Now, graduates find themselves in a highly competitive job market where there is an increasing expectation that students will be “work-ready” on graduation, prepared for the job at hand, and ready for action in a world changed by pervasive new technologies. As technology continues to disrupt, employers look for graduates who can adapt quickly to new ideas, and who can demonstrate logical thinking, clear communication, ethical behaviours and emotional intelligence to make value judgements based on evidence, rather than just technical skills. Jobseekers have to promote themselves in an increasingly saturated job market. To make themselves stand out from the crowd on graduation, students pursue employability; that is, they actively develop the “skills, understandings and personal attributes that makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy” (Yorke, 2006, p. 8). Higher education institutions, in turn, are increasingly required to produce “large numbers of job-ready graduates cheaply in minimum time to serve the needs of industry” (Thornton, 2014, p. 1), requiring transformation of curriculum, teaching and learning to address these needs. The transformation of the Australian higher education sector provides useful points of reference and many examples of changes in practices in response to the pressure to support employability. Such changes in practices afford both opportunities and limitations, impacting both specialist and generalist programs. THE PURSUIT OF EMPLOYABILITY

Since the mid-1980s, knowledge production has emerged as a primary economic driver (Siemens, 2006). Digital technologies have transformed many societies from industrial societies – which placed manufacturing as the central focus – into knowledge societies where routine and manual tasks have become automated, and occupations that rely on non-digital technologies obsolete. In the 21st century knowledge society, people add value by doing what computers cannot yet do. They make complex judgements, identify, manage and solve difficult problems and manage unpredictable situations (Voogt & Roblin, 2012). © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_013

GANNAWAY AND SHEPPARD

People also play a key role in innovation – they produce new knowledge by working together, drawing upon high level skills and knowledge in multiple disciplinary domains, and exploiting the affordances of new technologies (Davies, Fidler, & Gorbis, 2011). Consequently, information collection and analysis, and service to others have become central elements of contemporary work (Anderson, 2008). Changes in the rapidly evolving contemporary economy mean that it is not sufficient for graduates to be merely work-ready. The pressure is on. Recent modelling indicates that approximately 40% of the current Australian workforce will require retraining as their jobs are replaced by technology in a mere 15 years (CEDA, 2015). Graduates have to be future capable, prepared for a job market disrupted by digital technologies and business models. They must be able to successfully function in a 21st century economy where the focus is on knowledge production; a focus which requires new skill sets. The dynamic changes in the nature of work and workforce to meet the needs demanded by a knowledge society pose important challenges to education systems. In a knowledge economy, higher education “performs” by providing a workforce that is innovative, creative and entrepreneurial. Students currently enrolled in higher education need to be educated for jobs that do not yet exist, or at the very least will bear little resemblance to 20th century jobs of the same name. Graduates, therefore, have to be able translate skill sets and capabilities acquired during their studies into rapidly evolving workplaces, where existing jobs are transforming and new roles emerging. There is agreement that Australian universities need to move beyond the development of traditional disciplinary skills or the limitations associated with preparing for particular professions such as engineering or teaching; moving towards the development of “…graduate capabilities that go beyond technical or disciplinary expertise” (Probert, 2015, p. 2). Programs need to produce the skill sets, attributes and experiences that are increasingly valued by contemporary future employers: enterprise skills rather than those ascribed to particular jobs. Also called “generic”, “21st century”, “transferable” or “soft” skills, these capacities are seen to be those that can be used across multiple roles and occupations enabling an agile, adaptable workforce (CEDA, 2015; The Foundation for Young Australians, 2016). This shift in emphasis is further complicated by the challenge of addressing education on a large scale: the 21st century Academy is pressured to move towards providing a universal education that supports the “adaptation of the ‘whole population’ to rapid social and technological change” (Brennan, 2004, p. 22). It is not sufficient for universities to provide opportunities for the select few; it has to address these challenges en masse, providing opportunities for all members of a rapidly expanding student body. Furthermore, in Australia, university funding models are inextricably tied to the numbers of students enrolled (Marginson, 2004) and the assurance of value to government policy makers, responding in turn to corporate pressures to provide a quality workforce (Probert, 2015). The survival of university discipline areas are therefore dependent on meeting market needs and the capacity to attract student enrolments (Phipps, 2010; Turner & Brass, 2014). 156

GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST DEGREES

It is, therefore, in institutions’ best interests to actively pursue the provision of opportunities to develop employability for their students and for students to actively pursue those opportunities. Pursuing employability suggests a level of action on the part of curriculum designers and teachers to explicitly redevelop programs to enable this pursuit. However, it also implies a level of agency on behalf of students. Contemporary Australian universities have adopted different approaches to make employability more explicit to future students and future employers. Examples of how Australian generalist and specialist program curricula have been redeveloped to address these challenges emerged through national benchmarking studies conducted by the authors between 2008 and 2016 (Gannaway, 2015; Gannaway & Sheppard, 2013; Gannaway & Trent, 2008; Rice & Johnson, 2016). While these studies were primarily focused on generalist programs, the process of data collection also highlighted strategies adopted by specialist programs, providing an outline of the various methods adopted across Australian universities to support and encourage the pursuit of employability. PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY IN SPECIALIST DEGREES

To ensure their chances of getting a job on graduation, Australian students often engage with profession-based education during their undergraduate program. This type of education might appear obviously linked to specific jobs – a Bachelor of Dentistry, of Engineering, of Nursing, for example. However, a focused program with a clear line of sight to specific job outcomes potentially limits a graduate’s capacity to change careers, to move between jobs and to translate learning into new spaces. Jobs may not yet exist and the scope of roles in particular spaces may be evolving, making preparation for existing roles potentially limiting. The narrowing of capacity development for particular roles may also have the potential of limiting student ambitions and passions. How often do we hear students in their final year realising that this was not the career for them? At the same time, one of the most often cited reasons for student attrition from generalist programs such as the Bachelor of Science (BSc), Arts (BA), Commerce (BComm) and Health Sciences (BHS) is the absence of clarity of professional outcomes and a perception of limited job prospects on graduation. Employment data for the first year after graduation for generalist degrees generally shows lower employment outcomes than more vocational degrees,1 suggesting that this fear is somewhat founded. To address these challenges, contemporary Australian universities are increasingly redeveloping curriculum at a whole-of-program level to enable students to actively pursue employability. Such redevelopments make specialist degrees more generalisable. Others reframe generalist degrees as specialist programs. Yet other institutions are offering programs that effectively blend generalist and specialist programs.

157

GANNAWAY AND SHEPPARD

Making Specialist Degrees Generalisable Historically, Australian higher education has been modelled on the traditional threeyear UK undergraduate curriculum (Pascoe, 2003). Early programs focused on Eurocentric versions of “traditional” disciplines of mathematics, classics, philosophy, and the “new” disciplines of political and social thought, experimental sciences and languages. Professional training typically occurred on the job. While the early institutions borrowed heavily from the British models, they also experimented with research and technological interests and innovations typical of the German and US models. However, it was only after the Second World War that Australian universities expanded their offerings and specialist programs emerged: programs with clearer links to professional outcomes, curricula more closely aligned to particular professional knowledges and experiences, and often accredited by professional associations (Pascoe, 2003). Observations of the university landscape suggests that there has been an increasing vocationalisation of higher education (Carr, 2009; Orrell & Sanderson, 2015). Recently, however, universities have moved to include generalist skills within higher education curricula. This inclusion recognises the need to develop multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. These attributes address the need for contemporary professionals to be able to communicate and get along well with others while staying motivated through difficult tasks (Finch & Fafinski, 2014). The transformation of curriculum across all programs offered by the University of Melbourne is an example of how one university has transformed curriculum to provide a generalist, interdisciplinary experience. The notion of generalist undergraduate programs preceding postgraduate professions-based specialisations might be familiar to those following higher education in the US, however, it is an anomaly in Australian higher education. While there have been a few other universities which have or have considered adopting elements of the “Melbourne Model”, most Australian universities have retained the specialist program structure and have focused instead on embedding generalist skills into specialist programs, seeking opportunities for students to build phronesis, drawing on liberal arts virtues in combination with a vocational skills base (Dredge et al., 2012). Examples include: – enhancing critical thinking skills for Bachelor of Chemical Engineering through exposing students to situations, characters and plots from English literature – providing business communication skills for Bachelor of Biotechnology students – exposing nursing students to workplace innovation concepts in order to identify opportunities to improve services and practices. There is also increasing evidence of students engaging with project-based learning through interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams, for example: – Engineering, Business and Humanities students working on extra-curricular international development aid projects – cross-coded units of study that require Bio-medical Science and Humanities students to work together on research projects combining different perspectives 158

GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST DEGREES

to produce a public symposium on “big issue” topics such as “Surviving a Pandemic” – Journalism and Information Technology students developing skills in designbased thinking while working on a collaborative project that draws on social media. Making Generalist Programs Specialised Some Australian universities have opted to develop specialist programs stemming from their generalist programs. These programs typically evolved from pathways commonly selected by generalist programs students. They are re-packaged as a program focused on a particular discipline area. Also referred to as “named”, “badged” or “tagged” programs (Gannaway & Trent, 2008; Pascoe, 2003), they present as having a specialist focus and are presumed to be “better”. They generally target and attract students with higher school exit examination scores. Such badged programs offer limited options from a narrower field of disciplines. They are typically highly structured, requiring a larger amount of contact hours than traditionally expected in conventional generalist programs. They are usually highly intensive and generally require students to engage in particular learning experiences, many of which are designed to encourage the development of a sense of cohort. Some include extra-curricular activities such as camps and field trips. These badged programs are not uniform or consistent across the sector; for example, one university might offer a Bachelor of Archaeology; another a Bachelor of Arts (Archaeology); yet another, a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Archaeology (Gannaway & Sheppard, 2013). Such programs are often presented and marketed as quasi-professional. The use of titles such as “creative industries”, “social enterprise” and “justice studies” appears to promise professional outcomes. Marketing often alludes to the programs as aligned to professional bodies, or professional agencies, even if they are not formally accredited. Blending Generalist and Specialist Programs One of the most pervasive ways Australian universities are supporting students to pursue employability is to provide curriculum structures that allow students to combine degree programs, allowing them to study two different programs at the same time. This curriculum structure combines two programs to create one “dual” or “double” degree program, allowing students to engage with both a generalist, liberal arts type of education at the same time as a profession-based program. Examples include the combination of a Bachelor of Arts with an Engineering degree at the University of Queensland and the Bachelor of Science combined with a Bachelor of Laws at the University of New South Wales. These types of combined programs can also occur at the postgraduate level, for example, the postgraduate Juris Doctor/Master of Social Work at RMIT, or by combining a degree program with a diploma, most often a diploma of language, that allows students to study a language in addition to their main program. 159

GANNAWAY AND SHEPPARD

Combining programs in this manner allows students to complete two undergraduate degrees or an undergraduate degree and a diploma within a shortened time period, by enabling students to exchange or cross-credit elective units of study, usually in the generalist program for units in another degree. The compound degree allows students to graduate with two standalone degree programs. It also allows students increased choice, as it is generally possible for students to exit a double or dual degree program at any stage and still graduate from one degree, as they still operate independently. More recently, the Australian sector is seeing the emergence of “combined” programs. Often these programs provide expanded study. For example, the Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation offered by the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) is not offered as a separate degree but is completed only in combination with another professional degree program. Another example is the new Bachelor of Advanced Studies offered by the University of Sydney, which allows students to combine an additional year of study with another three-year liberal or specialist degree and graduate with the equivalent of two degrees, for example, Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Advanced Studies (Medical Science). This model expands the undergraduate program to a four-year degree, allowing for deeper study, space to engage with specialist project work, undergraduate research experience or international exchange, yet with the additional cachet of a double degree. Unlike the dual degree, these programs cannot be taken independently of the primary degree. In other words, one cannot graduate from UTS with a Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation without the other degree program. While the combination program has the market advantage of being able to graduate with both a professional and generalist program, this curriculum model maintains the separation of the generalist and specialist programs. There is limited evidence of attempts to truly integrate different disciplines to form an interdisciplinary perspective, or to integrate multiple disciplinary content knowledges, epistemologies and skill sets (Taylor, Sinn, & Lightfoot, 2012). PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY IN GENERALIST PROGRAMS: THE CASE OF THE BA

The ubiquitous generalist program in Australia is the Bachelor of Arts (BA). Since graduating the first student in 1856, the BA has been the most consistent, most pervasive of all generalist programs (Gannaway & Trent, 2008; Pascoe, 2003; Turner & Brass, 2014). Thirty-six of the 39 publicly funded universities in Australia currently offer a generalist BA program (Gannaway & Sheppard, 2013). Despite questions of relevance and value of the program to the contemporary economy (Hay, 2016), and periods where enrolment numbers have dropped (Gannaway & Trent, 2008), the Australian BA persists, graduating thousands of students each year. The longevity and pervasiveness of the program is due to the constant evolution of the BA (Gannaway, 2015). Yet, while the evolution of the Australian BA has provided explicit opportunities for students to develop employability capacity, the

160

GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST DEGREES

very nature of the generalist program that enables student agency to develop employability is possibly undervalued. Building Employability Opportunities The evolution of the Australian BA is largely in response to prospective employers’ and future students’ perceptions that a BA does not lead to employment outcomes. Consequently, much of the evolution has an employability focus, such as the inclusion of work integrated learning (WIL) opportunities. A national study conducted in 2016 investigated how BA curricula is incorporating WIL opportunities (Gannaway & Sheppard, 2016), highlighting the gradual transformation occurring across generalist programs. While the majority of learning activities that are work related are still embedded at the major or discipline level (Gannaway & Sheppard, 2017), the gaze is shifting from disciplinary silos towards an understanding of curricula and extra-curricular experiences across a program. The study provided evidence of the transformation of BA curricula on a whole-of-program basis, keeping with a view that employability should be supported at “programme, not study-unit” level (Knight & Yorke, 2003, p. 9). Examples of such approaches include the development of capstone WIL units at the University of Melbourne, which effectively enables students to consolidate their learnings across their whole program. These units include campus-based projects that are driven by industry needs. Small groups of students work together with industry partners on actual issues. The project work models “real” work, professionalising the notion of group work in a work situation. Student partners shape a project proposal and concept which is pitched to industry partners. Successful projects then move forward to completion, under the supervision of both industry and university staff. These projects provide a tangible and demonstrable experience when graduates are seeking later employment. A similar approach is taken by Swinburne University, where multidisciplinary teams of about five students work on “Grand Challenge” projects. Again, this is an on-campus activity, rather than located in the workplace; in this instance, students work with researchers from Swinburne Institute for Social Research to identify areas for examination. Topics considered are typically those complex, multifaceted issues that allow for multiple lenses and perspectives. Conducted across the whole year, each team works with a mentor to initially develop a research question, scope and brief. Each team then conducts the research, developing a series of solutions and insights into the problem, which is reported to the university community and external stakeholders. A similar project-based approach has also been adopted at Macquarie University as a useful approach to copying WIL at scale. Numbers of students participating in the Arts version of the Professional and Community Engagement (PACE) program have increased substantially over the years with over 2,500 participating in 2017. The PACE program is part of an institution-wide strategy to provide opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate employability. The Arts version sits outside of any one discipline area and allows students to develop the capability to translate 161

GANNAWAY AND SHEPPARD

the learning from their humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) experiences into multiple professional opportunities. This type of unit opens students up to new ways of thinking, and enables them to see that there were different ways to accomplish the same outcome. It also allows BA graduates to be more flexible and alert to possibilities when understanding the world of work. Current work in this space at Macquarie has seen the development of units of study that will be embedded at the first and second year levels, scaffolding abilities to the final year capstone PACE unit. For example, the introductory level unit focuses on supporting student selfawareness, identifying existing skill sets and gaps that need to be addressed as students progress through their degree program. A cautionary note about the limitations of such units is evident in the “Arts Edge” unit provided at James Cook University. The unit exemplifies the complex nature of attempting to provide a WIL experience in the BA. On one hand, it can meet the needs of the students in a useful and potentially transformative way; on the other hand, it can be met with rejection, particularly from mature-aged students who might already have workplace experience and who have not necessarily enrolled in a generalist degree for the purposes of work. A further limitation identified is student capacity to engage with compulsory units requiring students to give up paid work in order to complete an unpaid internship. This becomes more complex in regional institutions, where there is limited local work experience opportunities, combined with a high proportion of BA students studying at a distance and/or part time, often because of existing family or work responsibilities. Some universities, such as the Australian National University, provide funding for some of their internship opportunities, particularly international experiences, but these scholarships are typically limited to a few exceptional students. Navigating these complexities is a difficult and time-consuming exercise, one that requires careful acknowledgement of the different contexts of students and campuses, possibly accounting for why, of the 36 Australian universities with a BA, only 11 programs had a program-level unit or sequence of study that aimed to develop employability or to make the intrinsic employability value of the BA explicit to students. A Generalist HASS Degree Builds Capacities Intrinsic to Employability As outlined earlier in the chapter, a workforce suited for an innovative economy requires demonstration of clear logical thinking and argument, emotional intelligence and capacity to adapt to new ideas. The nature of Australian generalist programs in and of themselves provides the discerning and self-motivated student with the opportunity to pursue employability in a number of different ways. The disciplinary focus of the programs is a contributor to the development of the skill sets. In Australia, the concept of “innovation” is largely defined as a STEM construct (Bullen, Robb, & Kenway, 2004). Science and mathematics is often studied through a BSc program. The capacity to develop a scientific way of thinking, crucial to developing creative solutions to problems, has been found to be developed 162

GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST DEGREES

through more than university studies, particularly highlighting extra-curricular experiences as an opportunity to develop such research experiences as summer, internships and volunteer work where students could “engage with pure research for no academic credit” (Harris, 2012, p. 19). Despite previously ignoring HASS, China and Singapore, “… are now aggressively promoting them, because they have concluded that the cultivation of the imagination through the study of literature, film, and other arts is essential to fostering creativity and innovation” (Nussbaum, 2010, as cited in Hay, 2016, p. 8). The flexible structure and breadth of discipline areas inherent to the generalist programs affords a high degree of student agency. Students have the capacity to select from a range of discipline areas according to their interests. They also usually have the capacity to select from a range of units within the majors, meaning that students can tailor the program according to their interests and ambitions. The structure of Australian generalist programs, unlike the aforementioned specialist programs, typically highlights the flexibility of their curriculum. This flexibility is often the feature that is marketed as the drawcard for students enacting agency over their own education. The flexible curriculum provides space for students to include learning experiences that are personally identified as being useful, including internships, extra-curricular volunteer work, engagement with “students as partners”, overseas exchange programs and undergraduate research experiences. The curriculum of professions-based programs such as Dentistry or Medicine are often too crowded to allow for the inclusion of such learning opportunities. A key aspect of Australian generalist programs is the capacity for students to engage with a breadth of disciplinary study and a depth of study. That is, in most generalist programs, students are required to engage with at least two discipline areas, usually a major level, where a major constitutes one third of their total program. Majors are increasingly framed as a scaffolded learning pathway, usually with a certain number of units of study building an increasingly complex and advanced understanding of the knowledge base and skill sets pertaining to a discipline area. The requirement to engage with a breadth and depth of study develops multidisciplinary perspectives, dispositions often identified as optimal by prospective employers. An example of where such multidisciplinary perspectives are explicitly nurtured is provided in a minor sequence in the BA at Swinburne University. This sequence of study addresses the “grand challenges” of the modern world. It has a capstone experience that builds on previous units and explicitly requires students to bring together their disciplinary perspectives in a collaborative group-based project. The project aims to address a local problem, and students from multiple disciplinary backgrounds work together to identify, trial and solve issues. Some institutions are seeking to engage students with transdisciplinary perspectives, with curriculum designers developing new program structures and experiences for students to develop new insights and push the boundaries of existing knowledge. A recent project at the University of Queensland, for example, melded the experiences of classically trained music students with opportunities afforded by new technologies in the form of music apps on an iPad resulted in students 163

GANNAWAY AND SHEPPARD

developing a new repertoire, new methods of writing music and new approaches to conducting an iPad ensemble. CONCLUSION

Employability is a complex interrelationship, requiring a combination or integration of literacies (i.e. the development of competence in an area); skills (i.e. the ability to do something); intelligences (i.e. the ability to acquire and apply skills and literacies); the development of particular mindsets, attitudes or dispositions (i.e. establish a set of attitudes) and knowledges (i.e. develop theoretical and practical understandings in particular discipline-based areas). Pursuing employability suggests a level of agency, of action. It implies intervention and work on the part of curriculum designers, teachers and students that enables the development of capacity and capabilities that lead to employment outcomes. However, it also implies agency on the part of students to actively pursue employability as an outcome of university study. Generalist programs enable a degree of student agency. Their structure provides students the freedom and the power to exercise that agency, leading to transformation of understanding and employability capacity. In this sense, Freedom + Power + Agency = Transformation. While generalist programs suit particular people, specialist programs, on the other hand, offer scaffolded learning opportunities to develop employability in a more explicit manner. To support student aspirations and choice, universities need to offer multiple methods to develop employability, in turn attracting students and providing assurance of learning of employability to communicate to prospective employers. As Dr Alan Finkel, Australia’s current Chief Scientist, noted: It is time to recognise that it is not a failure to progress to a job that has no obvious link to one’s degree. In the mass education era, the capacity to pivot is probably the most reliable predictor of success … Universities have never turned out graduates who are “job ready” – robots ready to slot into the workplace. Their value proposition is to produce graduates who are “job capable” – experts in their disciplines with the foundations of workplace skills … It is time for the narrative to change, in fairness to our graduates and in anticipation of the national needs. Let’s abandon the historical expectation that degrees and careers should be tightly linked. Instead, let’s unchain our thinking and embrace the opportunities. (Finkel, 2016, p. 1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the many people whose assistance and support made the “WILing the BA” project possible, including financial support provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. 164

GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST DEGREES

NOTE 1

Data on graduate outcomes was collected and published by Graduate Careers Australia from 1972– 2015. Since 2016 graduate outcomes data has been published on the Australian Government Quality Indicators for Teaching and Learning (QILT) website: https://www.qilt.edu.au/

REFERENCES Anderson, R. E. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 5-22). The Netherlands: Springer. Brennan, J. (2004). The social role of the contemporary university: Contradictions, boundaries and change. In Center for Higher Education Research and Information (Ed.), Ten years on: Changing education in a changing world. (pp. 22-27). Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Bullen, E., Robb, S., & Kenway, J. (2004). ‘Creative destruction’: Knowledge economy policy and the future of the arts and humanities in the academy. Journal of Education Policy, 19(1), 3-22. Carr, D. (2009). Revisiting the liberal and vocational dimensions of university education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(1), 1-17. Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA). (2015). Australia's future workforce? Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ceda.com.au/Research-and-policy/AllCEDA-research/Research-catalogue/Australia-s-future-workforce Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Phoenix, AZ: Institute for the Future, University of Phoenix. Retrieved from http://www.iftf.org/futureworkskills/ Dredge, D., Benckendorff, P., Day, M., Gross, M. J., Walo, M., Weeks, P., & Whitelaw, P. (2012). The philosophic practitioner and the curriculum space. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2154-2176. Finch, E., & Fafinski, S. (2014). Employability skills for law students Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Finkel, A. (2016). Time to change our university graduate expectations by degrees. The Australian. Retrieved from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/time-to-change-our-university-graduateexpectations-by-degrees/news-story/8438b778cad5f7ab593697f3712acabf Gannaway, D. (2015). The Bachelor of Arts: Slipping into the twilight or facing a new dawn? Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), 298-310. Gannaway, D., & Sheppard, K. (2013). Benchmarking the Australian Bachelor of Arts: A summary of trends across the Australian Bachelor of Arts Programs. Canberra, Australia: Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH). Retrieved from http://dassh.edu.au/page/view/120 Gannaway, D., & Sheppard, K. (2016). WILing the BA: Work experience opportunities in the Australian Bachelor of Arts (Final Report). Canberra, Australia: Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH). Retrieved from http://dassh.edu.au/resources/uploads/publications/project_reports/FINAL_OLT_reportWILing_the_BA.pdf Gannaway, D., & Sheppard, K. (2017). WIL in liberal arts: New approaches. In T. Bowen & M. Drysdale (Eds.), Work-integrated Learning in the 21st century: Global perspectives on the future (pp. 51-66). Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing Group. Gannaway, D., & Trent, F. (2008). Nature and roles of arts degrees in contemporary society (Project Final Report). Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://dassh.edu.au/resources/uploads/publications/project_reports/2008_BASP_Final_Report.pdf Harris, K-L. (2012). A background in science: What science means to Australian society. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/30_ACDS_BackgroundInScience_Apr12.pdf Hay, I. (2016). Defending letters: A pragmatic response to assaults on the humanities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 1-15. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2016.1196933

165

GANNAWAY AND SHEPPARD Knight, P. T., & Yorke, M. (2003). Employability and good learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 3-16. Marginson, S. (2004). National and global competition in higher education. Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2), 1-28. Orrell, J., & Sanderson, G. (2015). Refocusing academia in the 21st century. In J. Higgs & F. Trede (Eds.), Professional practice discourse marginalia (pp. 93-100). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Pascoe, R. (2003). An Australian perspective on the humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2(1), 7-22. Phipps, A. (2010). Drawing breath: Creative elements and their exile from higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), 42-53. Probert, B. (2015). The quality of Australias higher education system: How it might be defined, improved and assured. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-quality-australias-higher-education-system Rice, J., & Johnson, L. (2016). WIL in science: Leadership for WIL. Canberra, Australia: Australian Council of Deans of Science. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2017/05/report-workintegrated-learning-in-science-leadership-for-wil/ Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/KnowingKnowledge Taylor, J. B., Sinn, J. W., & Lightfoot, W. S. (2012). Quality curriculum (Vol. 45, pp. 30). Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality Control, Inc. The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2016). The New Basics: Big data reveals the skills young people need for the New Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/The-New-Basics_Update_Web.pdf Thornton, M. (Ed.). (2014). Through a glass darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press. Turner, G., & Brass, K. (2014). Mapping the humanities and social sciences in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of the Humanities. Retrieved from https://www.humanities.org.au/issue-item/mapping-humanities-arts-social-sciences-australia/ Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is – what it is not (Learning and Employability Series 1). York, England: The Higher Education Academy.

Deanne Gannaway PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0513-3753) Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, University of Queensland, Australia Karen Sheppard (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2912-087X) Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, University of Queensland, Australia

166

DAVID BOUD AND ROLA AJJAWI

14. THE PLACE OF STUDENT ASSESSMENT IN PURSUING EMPLOYABILITY

Imagine final year students putting together various job applications. Some of these jobs require the specialist content of their degree and others do not. The students look back at the various kinds of assessment they have experienced and the documentation they received from the university and wonder: how does this equip me for what I want to do and how does it help me get there? They readily appreciate that they have learned a great deal, but is it what they need now and in the future? How can they identify and find a way of showing what they are able to do in ways that connect with those who may wish to employ them? These students are not going to be employed because their exam technique is good or their transcript makes a compelling case about all the things employers are looking for, or even if they possess a lot of technical knowledge. What else needs to be considered in this context? Assessment in an employability context has two aspects. Firstly, assessment which through its focus and the ways in which it is organised contributes to students’ employability. That is, it ensures that students develop and have met outcomes relevant to employability. Graduate employability requires that students “can discern, acquire, adapt and continually enhance the skills, understandings and personal attributes that make them more likely to find and create meaningful paid and unpaid work” (Oliver, 2015, p. 59). Therefore, assessment needs to do more by preparing students for longer-term learning beyond the immediate task. However, assessment can inhibit employability outcomes if structured inappropriately through creating a false impression of how learning occurs and is judged, and the role of the learner in it. For example, that learning is simply about acquiring and applying knowledge. Secondly, assessment portrays what students can do. That is, assessment outcomes are represented in such a fashion that they communicate effectively with those who employ or use or work with graduates. Different forms of representation might be needed for different purposes here. Assessment needs to address appropriate learning outcomes and show what a graduate can do. The chapter pursues these two themes. Firstly, the nature of assessment practices and how they foster or inhibit employability. Secondly, the ways in which assessment in the form of students’ achievements is communicated to others, including employers. This chapter explores these issues through a critique of common assessment practices and how achievements are documented and communicated. It identifies new ways assessment is being practised that promote employability, and how graduates and indeed universities can represent what they can do in productive ways. It suggests that assessment needs considerable reform if it is to become fit for purpose in preparing students for life after graduation. © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_014

BOUD AND AJJAWI

On the first theme, we explore what authentic assessment is and identify features of assessment that look forward. We argue that assessment is not about preparing students for immediate employment, but to equip them to respond effectively to whatever situations they find themselves in, both in work and in life. That is, how they can read the requirements of whatever it is that they are expected to do, respond effectively, monitor their own performance and plan the learning in which they need to engage. It focuses on the need for sustainable assessments and the development of students’ evaluative judgement. On the second theme, we examine assessment as portrayal and suggest that we need new forms of portrayal of student achievement that are more transparent and address the needs of the multiple audiences that consider them. The chapter explores representations of achievement that are more directly linked to the learning outcomes of a course than is often the case and which also involve students in a more active role in this portrayal. As an illustration of this it uses digital portfolios which can be validated and curated by students to present themselves for different purposes and to different groups, and the notion of validated digital micro-credentials that portray distinctiveness in student outcomes. It is important to note that a focus on assessment for employability does not imply that this is the main function of assessment. Employability is used here as a shorthand for preparation for a world beyond the realm of educational institutions. Assessment for employability describes how assessment in its many forms can equip students to operate effectively in a complex and ever-changing world in which new knowledge and skills will need continually to be acquired and developed in unpredictable contexts with a variety of other people. WHAT HAS ASSESSMENT CONVENTIONALLY PRODUCED THAT CONTRIBUTES TO EMPLOYABILITY?

It is impossible to consider assessment independently of the substantive learning outcomes it seeks to judge. In a typical course or course unit there are likely to be a number of assignments, tests and examinations that together represent what a student is being assessed on for the purposes of certification. Struyven, Dochy, and Janssens’ (2003) review of the assessment literature identified a typical view as: Many students perceived traditional assessment tasks as arbitrary and irrelevant. This did not make for effective learning because they only aimed to learn for the purposes of the particular assessment, with no intention of maintaining the knowledge for the long-term. (p. 206) Commonly, conventional assessment when done well can ensure that students have an understanding of the key concepts in the field, can address problems that embody these concepts and that they can do so at a sufficiently high level to warrant them being awarded a pass grade. In other words, assessment certifies that students have met disciplinary standards sufficient for them to be recognised as having completed what is required in that discipline. Yet, here the focus is shortterm and oriented towards whether students have met a requirement at a particular 168

ASSESSMENT FOR EMPLOYABILITY

point in time. Assessment in this view is retrospective and doesn’t seek to influence students subsequently. When marks are aggregated over time and over course units, then what is recorded is even more historical. Such a practice does not recognise that students can learn and better their achievements as they progress through the curriculum: they do not even show what they can do once they have completed their course. The assessment process has typically varied for courses which provide a pathway into the professions. In these there are designated course units, placements and accompanying assessments that focus on application of the concepts and ideas to professional work and the development of the professional practices needed for it. In other words, employability features have been incorporated into parts of professional courses because it is clear what kind of employment is being prepared for. It should be noted though that even in the professions that exhibit these features (e.g. teaching, medicine) it is not expected that graduates be fully workready, merely that they are sufficiently competent to start on a professional pathway. Today, there are many courses that could be identified as quasi-professional. That is, they lead to graduate-level types of employment, but they are not as fully prescribed with highly integrated placement elements as teaching or medicine are. Some are clearly related to practice, such as business; others are more exclusively academic, such as the sciences and the arts. Nevertheless, most graduates from these programs go into the workforce rather than further study. Either directly or indirectly, employability features are incorporated into such courses. This is manifest through university graduate attributes that emphasise communication, working with others, intercultural awareness and other attributes that are not intrinsic parts of a traditional academic course. Courses are expected to develop and assess in relation to these attributes in addition to their substantive disciplinary or professional content. AUTHENTIC TASKS AND AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT

Starting in professions relatively new to higher education, such as nursing, and moving rapidly across the disciplines, the uptake of learning tasks and assessment tasks which more fully reflect problems and issues confronted in practice has been notable. The argument in favour of authentic assessments has been that courses should reflect the world in which they operate and use examples and problems which are recognisable beyond the academy. This means that rather than undertake tasks which are abstractions designed to solely test students’ appreciation of the concepts and ideas of the discipline, tasks should have the character of real ones extracted from what practitioners do. This is a move beyond the mere use of authentic examples in lectures, but providing students with embodied, contextualised problems to address that can be seen to represent the kinds of tasks undertaken by professionals (Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, & Brown, 2014). Authentic assessment does not typically use the form of multiple-choice or shortanswer tests, but richer tasks which may involve several components embedded in 169

BOUD AND AJJAWI

a wider issue. Such tasks seek to explore whether knowledge from within a course can be applied in settings beyond the immediate context (Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2004). Authentic assessment encompasses a variety of features as practised in different contexts. However, it is commonly made up of three elements: realism, contextualisation and problematisation. Realism refers to the linking of knowledge to everyday life, contextualisation to characterising a situation where knowledge can be applied, and problematisation to how what has been learned can address a problem or need (Benner et al., 2009; Raymond et al., 2013). Such assessment tasks are more likely to promote higher-order thinking, motivate students and lead to greater commitment, and develop their capacity to regulate their own learning. It is easy to critique such approaches as authenticity is often in the eye of the beholder. What a student experiences as authentic may not fully correspond to what occurs in practice. It is also difficult to judge how authentic a task may be: what is the difference between a case study and an authentic case study? Authentic assessment has also been critiqued as being more time consuming than what it replaces. This may be true if a rich task replaces a multiple-choice test, but if it is one type of task replacing another similar one (say, a report to a potential client replacing an academic essay), that is not so clear. Notwithstanding these concerns, authentic assessments are commonplace in many higher education courses and are finding their way into schools (Gulikers et al., 2004). While there appear to have been substantial moves in the direction of more authentic assessment tasks in the context of wide-ranging learning outcomes, it is difficult to judge specifically how far this movement has gone. However, the use of authentic activities and authentic assessment tasks in itself may not be sufficient to enhance employability. If students remain subjected to unilateral assessment designed and judged by others, in which they have little role other than to complete the designated task, then they may not be equipped for situations in which they are required to be more proactive. ASSESSMENT THAT LOOKS FORWARD

Even if authentic assessment does what it claims, it is still embedded in a view of assessment that is retrospective and not prospective. It focuses on what a student has done and does not seek to contribute to what comes later. How then can we consider a different view of assessment that looks forward to what a student will do after the completion of their course? Assessment for certification purposes (summative assessment) necessarily records what has been achieved, but assessment for learning (formative assessment) aims to assist in what students need to learn. However, formative assessment has been focused almost exclusively on what a student has to learn within the confines of the current course. It gives students useful information so they can meet present learning outcomes to the required standard. This is not enough for our present purposes. For this reason, the notion of sustainable assessment was established (Boud, 2000). The purpose of sustainable assessment is to look beyond current tasks to contribute to students building the capacity to judge their own work. It does this by taking a fresh look at 170

ASSESSMENT FOR EMPLOYABILITY

assessment tasks and asking of them the following question: in what ways can the assessment task, and activities connected with it, be adjusted so as to enable students to make increasingly sophisticated judgements of their work? It goes beyond the notion of self-assessment to look at the elements needed for students to judge their own work and how students can be effectively scaffolded into it. Taking this idea further, beyond the immediate assessment task, is the notion of placing the development of students’ evaluative judgement as a central curriculum focus and outcome. That is, ensuring that “the capability to make decisions about the quality of work of oneself and others” (Tai et al., 2017, n.p.) is an aim to be pursued across the curriculum. The rationale for this is that having a welldeveloped capacity to make evaluative judgements is a key requirement both for learning and for operating effectively in life beyond the educational institution, and thus employability. To be seen to be competent in a workplace, the individual must be able to monitor their own work, identify appropriate standards to apply to what they are doing, involve other people as necessary and appraise the quality of the outcome. If they wait for someone in authority to pass judgement on what they do, they are putting at risk their own identity as a person capable of managing their own work and knowing what is required of them. Seeking feedback about the wrong things from one’s line manager can compromise a good working relationship (Hughes, 2004). It may be that one of the reasons that employers are critical of universities in relation to producing employable graduates is that they do not pay sufficient attention to developing the abilities of their students to work with others to identify and produce good work in a new context. There are a number of features of initiatives that help students develop their evaluative judgement. Boud et al. (2018) propose five components worth considering: discerning quality, judgement processes, managing biases, assessing the trustworthiness of sources and others, and seeking opportunities for practice. While some of these are not thought of as part of assessment per se, they are all a part of the learning, teaching and assessment nexus and need to be planned in association with assessment tasks designed for summative and formative purposes. Discerning Quality A prerequisite for students producing good quality work in any given context is an understanding on their part of what constitutes quality for the task at hand. Conventionally, students are provided with lists of standards and criteria, or rubrics which contain them. This is problematic for the wider employability agenda as outside educational contexts, learners have to decide for themselves, or in conjunction with work colleagues, what are the necessary features of the kinds of work they need to produce. Activities that involve students in identifying appropriate standards and criteria, and examining how they are manifest in examples of the kinds of work they need to produce, are a key element of discerning quality.

171

BOUD AND AJJAWI

Judgement Processes Students making judgements about their own work and that of others is the core of developing evaluative judgement. Of course, they need to be able to discern features of quality in the work, but they also need comparators as they do not possess the wide repertoire of exposure to work of different kinds that are possessed by teachers. These are not comparators which enable them to place themselves with respect to other students, but in relation to the specific qualities of work represented in exemplars of standards and the criteria used to judge these. Feedback from others is an important part of this process. However, this may not involve comments on the work itself, but on the judgements students make about it: to what are they attuned and to what are they blind? The focus is on the refinement of judgements and the strategies they can use for this. The provision of rubrics has a limited role to play, but the construction of rubrics so that students have to engage in naming and discerning criteria can be useful. Managing Biases All judgements involve biases, whether they are made by teachers or students or by workplace colleagues. The challenge is to learn how to identify and manage them. The most common bias in judging one’s own work is confirmatory bias – “I knew what I was trying to do in this task and therefore I have achieved it”. Biases can only be identified by resorting to the views of others. There is no one strategy, but the general approach is to learn to see one’s own work through the eyes of others. This may involve referring to exemplars, or input from peers or any other party that can enable people to gain a critical distance through which to view their own work. Assessing the Trustworthiness of Sources and Others A key attribute of any practitioner is knowing whose view to trust and where to go for opinions that are reliable. This is a process of judging the potential biases of others: for example, has this supervisor seen enough of my work to justify the harsh comments I am receiving or is she assuming I am incompetent by virtue of my lowly status? Can I trust my peer to offer me fair comments when he is being marked on how critical he is? Trust is built over time and by progressive sharing of judgements, so that confidence can be gained that when the judgement of the other is important, it can be trusted. Seeking Opportunities for Practice Evaluative judgement cannot be developed by single isolated opportunities for practice. Such activities can demonstrate the importance of the skill but not enable expertise to be attained. This implies that courses need to provide multiple opportunities for practice in exercising evaluative judgement over time. The obvious occasions on which practice can be considered are with respect to normal 172

ASSESSMENT FOR EMPLOYABILITY

assessment events included for summative or formative purposes. These are occasions in which judgements are already being made by others so additional resources are not usually needed. What is required is for the assessment event to be accompanied by activities which prompt students to make judgements and to receive feedback information about them. A common way for this to occur is to have students make and record judgements about their work, prior to having it assessed, and for comments to be provided by markers on the extent to which the student is able to discern the requisite qualities in their own work. These five components of developing evaluative judgement can be summarised by saying that students need to have an active engagement in assessment at all stages. This must not be misinterpreted as saying that they necessarily need to be involved in marking or generating grades. This is probably the least important aspect of the process, but also the aspect most likely to introduce biases. It is often inappropriate for students to be put in a position of generating grades that count formally as this provides a substantial distraction from them doing so validly. Evaluative judgement cannot be developed if students are given incentives for not doing it well: many uses of students grading themselves do just this. THE PORTRAYAL OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Employability develops over time through the accumulation of knowledge and skills from a wide range of academic experiences (including assessment) and experiences outside of academia (Jorre de St Jorre & Oliver, 2017). Assessment design for employability should enable students to practise how to conduct themselves as practitioners. This occurs through the design of the assessment task, the roles students have to take on to complete the task, how task performance is judged, and how students interpret all of these. When students engage in assessment tasks they attain knowledge about themselves and their progress. As they progress, they perform and produce higher quality work, and should become increasingly better at judging their own strengths. Hence, assessment practices should shape how learners come to think about their practice and how to continually improve it after graduation. In addition to this internal focus of assessment on the formation of the student, there is also an outward focus of assessment as a means of showing the world what a student has achieved and what they can do. When it comes to portrayal of learning achievements, the academic transcript is the traditional and most common way in which students’ achievements are communicated externally. The transcript is a validated representation of a student’s outcomes from having completed a course. In the transcript, achievement is reduced to a number and/or grade for each completed academic unit. This rather thin representation of what a student has attained does not portray students’ achievements for each of the stipulated competencies or graduate learning outcomes. Further, it doesn’t highlight particular areas of distinctiveness that the student can lay claim to. The fact that the student gained a particular grade for a particular course unit indicates little to an external audience. This may be changing however. In the Australian context, under the 173

BOUD AND AJJAWI

regime of the Higher Education Standards Framework, assessment in higher education is required to certify that students have achieved the standard for each of the course learning outcomes, heralding a shift from a focus on inputs to assuring learning (Boud, 2017). For example, under the previous system, which is mostly still in use, a student may be weak with respect to a particular learning outcome such as communication and team work, yet consistently pass each unit because they are strong in their performance on disciplinary knowledge. More seriously, conventional examinations can allow students to compensate for inadequacies on certain learning outcomes by superior performance in others. Further, because of the unit-based way grades are presented, students may not be able to form a clear picture of how they are tracking in relation to particular learning outcomes across a program of study. Assessment design is slowly being reformed to address the concerns raised around the use of grades and transcripts as the only portrayal of achievement. Assessment tasks are being developed that enable students to portray their achievements in more public ways that communicate with future employers more directly and that are controlled by the students. We see this, for example, in certain forms of portfolio assessment or validated digital micro-credentials. These new forms of portrayal encourage students to curate and articulate their learning achievements in relation to course or graduate learning outcomes (Jorre de St Jorre & Oliver, 2017). There are multiple drivers for these changes in assessment, one of which is the changing nature of work which is becoming less stable and more uncertain, requiring individuals to assume responsibility for their own career management and employability (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Jorre de St Jorre and Oliver (2017, p. 46) argue that “to be marketable, graduates must be able to adapt and repackage their skills and experiences to fit the changing workforce” (p. 46). Portfolio Assessment Portfolio-based assessment has been heralded in the assessment literature across higher education, and many examples of it can be found in practice (see e.g. Driessen, 2009; Watty & McKay, 2015). Portfolio assessment is not a single entity, but encompasses a range of different assessment practices. What they all share is the assembling of different artefacts which represent a diverse range of achievements over a course unit or an entire program. A distinction used to be made between paper-based portfolios and electronically recorded e-portfolios. This distinction is no longer relevant as portfolios are increasingly being kept in digital form for ease of use. There are many types of portfolios ranging in focus from simple repositories of learning artefacts to reflective personal journals to promotional accounts of professional achievement (Clarke & Boud, 2016). We focus here on a particular type of portfolio that promotes “systematic collection and presentation of artefacts and reflections that is curated and managed by the learner as evidence of their learning and accomplishments, as well as a representation of learners’ personal and professional identities” (Holt et al., 2016, p. 1). Features of this type of portfolio 174

ASSESSMENT FOR EMPLOYABILITY

are that they are owned and controlled by the student and they enable an outward and strategic representation of self as well as achievement. Students are able to curate digital evidence of learning from various aspects of their lives, e.g. assessment artefacts, work, volunteering (Jorre de St Jorre & Oliver, 2017). This focus on identity starts to challenge familiar notions of what makes for authentic assessment through integrating what students know and how they act with who they are becoming (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014). Through such a portfolio, students are positioned as portrayers of their learning who are able to align and communicate their interests with those of future employers. Students are able to test different personas and approaches in a safe space to differing audiences before making it public. They may link with different professional networks and digital/social media streams and begin to form important networks for future work. Students can use story (and multimedia) to stitch together different forms of evidence to portray their emerging graduate identity (Higgs, 2014). A portfolio assessment designed with employability in mind would have particular features. Clarke and Boud (2016) highlight three key features of portfolios for assessment suitable for this. These design features are oriented towards developing students’ evaluative judgement through engaging students in acts of judgements about quality, helping them to develop more nuanced understandings of quality criteria and encouraging them to seek and work with feedback comments to calibrate their judgements (Ajjawi et al., 2018). These features of portfolio assessment design are: 1. Self-judgements: encouraging students to formatively and qualitatively evaluate the process of curating the evidence as well as their judgements around their choices of evidence. 2. Peer feedback: encouraging feedback from peers (and/or external parties) through discussion boards, comments sections and social media threads. Students then learn how to incorporate and use others’ feedback. The summative component may focus on how well the students worked with feedback comments. 3. Tracking progress in relation to standards and competencies: formatively this helps students identify the gaps between the standards and their work. Ideally students should be involved in discussions and co-creation of quality criteria for their work alongside set course learning outcomes. Digital Credentials While portfolios allow portrayal of outcomes on a wide front, other approaches are more focused. Digital micro-credentials (also known as digital badges) allow evidence of achievement to be more detailed and to be shared more broadly than is possible through grades and transcripts (Miller et al., 2017). A digital badge is a clickable graphic that contains an online record of: 1) an achievement, 2) the work required for the achievement, 3) evidence of such work, and 4) information about 175

BOUD AND AJJAWI

the organisation, individual or entity that issued the badge (Oliver, 2016). Oliver (2016) proposes five distinct features of micro-credentials: that they are granular (offering more information than marks and grades); stackable (saved to digital repositories and readily mapped to qualifications frameworks); evidentiary (clearly point to student-created evidence); personalised (accurately represent students’ achievements); and machine readable (enabling rich analytics). Badges can be added to online student profiles in popular social networking sites such as LinkedIn and are therefore open to inspection by a broader audience. Such credentials promote a more authentic representation of what students can do within a particular context than can a grade or mark (Abramovich, 2016). While digital credentials can be offered by an educational institution alone, there can be a greater sense of authenticity and a more direct association with employability concerns when credentials are developed in collaboration with industry partners to ensure the award warrants achievement that is meaningful in the workplace. Deakin University’s Hallmark is an example of this type of credential that is non-award bearing, extra-curricular and provides students with an opportunity to evidence their outstanding contributions towards a particular graduate learning outcome such as teamwork (Oliver, 2016). Hallmarks present an opportunity for students to differentiate themselves, showcasing their distinctiveness to potential employers. It is their choice to seek a Hallmark and different students’ Hallmarks will represent achievements unique to themselves. Evidence can include curated outputs (e.g. web sites, photos and campaigns), endorsements (e.g. grades/feedback, peer review and letters of recommendation) and personal reflections. Preliminary research shows that students value the opportunity to evidence their employability and differentiate themselves to employers (Miller et al., 2017). Students described the process of reflection and self-assessment involved in creating and curating the badge as more valuable than the credential itself for highlighting personal development. Further, industry stakeholders reported valuing seeing aspects of the students’ professional identity and social engagement portrayed through the credential (Miller et al., 2017). Again, the design here affords particular features that help to develop students’ evaluative judgement, through engagement with standards and quality criteria, selfassessment and curation of artefacts, and reflections to evidence the learning process and its achievement. Students are actively engaged in enactments and judgements of industry-credible activities which are publicly presented and managed in more detail. The use of portfolios and digital credentials are two indications of the shift of assessment results away from being a technical representation of an opaque internal process to greater transparency in assessment as a whole. The aim of these developments is not only to enable students to have greater agency in assessment processes, but also to have forms of portrayal that communicate more effectively to external audiences than lists of marks and grades by course units. There are many challenges to be faced in this move; not least is ensuring that what students present to the world is underpinned by appropriate validation processes. Nevertheless, these changes are a large shift in assessment towards responding to the 176

ASSESSMENT FOR EMPLOYABILITY

employability agenda and meeting the needs of students in presenting themselves to the world. CONCLUSION

Assessment plays a critical role in career preparedness through ensuring that graduates meet the expectations of various stakeholders (including future employers) and in signposting to learners what is important for them to learn. A key aspect of assessment for employability is that graduates develop the capability to judge the quality of their own work during university and beyond. Assessment design should also enable students to portray their learning achievements in particular ways suited to themselves, the discipline (or profession) they seek to join and future employers. We suggest that notions of authenticity in assessment should be recast given a focus on employability that includes portrayal of the self and integration of self- and industry-collaboration around creation, curation and judgement of learning achievements. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to Joanna Tai for her helpful comments on an early draft of this chapter. REFERENCES Abramovich, S. (2016). Understanding digital badges in higher education through assessment. On the Horizon, 24(1), 126-131. Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2018). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (pp. 7-17). London, England: Routledge. Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., & Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 205-222. Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2009). Educating nurses: A call for radical transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. Boud, D. (2017). Standards-based assessment for an era of increasing transparency. In D. Carless, S. Bridges, C. Chan, & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 19-31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Boud, D., Dawson, P., Tai, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2018). Creating an agenda for developing students’ evaluative judgement. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (pp. 186-196). London, England: Routledge. Clarke, J. L., & Boud, D. (2016). Refocusing portfolio assessment: Curating for feedback and portrayal. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. doi10.1080/14703297.2016.1250664 Driessen, E. (2009). Portfolio critics: Do they have a point? Medical Teacher, 31(4), 279-281. Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-86. Higgs, J. (2014). Assessing the immeasurables of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 253-267.

177

BOUD AND AJJAWI Holt, D., McGuigan, N., Kavanagh, M., Leitch, S., Ngo, L., Salzman, S., Watty, K., & McKay, J. (2016). Academic leaders’ perspectives on adopting ePortfolios for developing and assessing professional capabilities in Australian business education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 1-18. Hughes, C. (2004). The supervisor's influence on workplace learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 275-287. Jorre de St Jorre, T., & Oliver, B. (2017). Want students to engage? Contextualise graduate learning outcomes and assess for employability. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 44-57. Miller, K. K., Jorre de St Jorre, T., West, J. M., & Johnson, L. D. (2017). The potential of digital credentials to engage students with capabilities of importance to scholars and citizens. Active Learning in Higher Education. doi:10.1177/1469787417742021 Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56-65. Oliver, B. (2016). Better 21C credentials: Evaluating the promise, perils and disruptive potential of digital credentials (Report to the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching). Retrieved from http://www.assuringgraduatecapabilities.com/uploads/4/5/0/5/45053363/better_21c_credentials.pdf Raymond, J. E., Homer, C. S., Smith R., & Grey, J. E. (2013). Learning through authentic assessment: An evaluation of a new development in the undergraduate midwifery curriculum. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(5), 471-476. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions about new modes of assessment in higher education: A review. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 171-223). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1542-1571. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2017). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3 Vu, T. T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7), 778-791. Watty, K., & McKay, J. (2015). Pedagogy and ePortfolios: Purpose aligned to design (or the why and how). International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(3), 194-207.

David Boud PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6883-2722) Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning Deakin University, Australia Rola Ajjawi PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-3870) Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning Deakin University, Australia

178

MARK YOUNG

15. CAREER SERVICES Roles beyond Job Seeking

Done well, career development flirts with the past and takes charge of what’s to come. This profession ventures out on the path not yet travelled with openness and curiosity to respond to the uncertainty of student careers and to assist students to change gears and navigate new economic and employability crosswinds. Similar to the evolution of all professions, career services must evolve activities aimed at new horizons, be at the edge of education and industry, and be innovative and take risks to position students at the centre of graduate employability. In recent times, the role of career services has shifted from assisting students to seek jobs to the emerging reality of jobs seeking students. The practice of career development that has characterised career services up to now will not sustain it for the next generation. As eloquently crafted by Pryor and Bright (2003), expect change, chance and complexity to foreshadow the non-linearity of careers. With a commitment to improve student experience and student employability, I will elaborate on the role of a career service beyond the over-simplified and partial idea of job seeking in the context of Australian higher education. ROLE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Relishing the opportunity provided by this chapter, I have reflected on the value that career services has on university business, its students and its community. My view is that career services are not particularly good at promoting their service portfolios or succinctly defining their value proposition. As the benefit of the service is usually highly personalised based on students’ career maturity, it’s challenging to measure in isolation from other factors that influence the value derived from career services. With a growing array of activities from career services, the value usually manifests itself as a partnering service to education – realising value intangibly and in the long run. In an era of unparalleled metrics and internal funding struggles for student support services in higher education, how do career services profess an impact to their stakeholders – students, community and the university – beyond job seeking? With ever-increasing higher education advertising campaigns around jobs, graduate employment promises and industry relevance, how can career services start to align with university business to leverage their value proposition in a competitive higher education sector? My view is that we need to get real about the economic realities facing graduates and tackle this in partnership with the rest of university. With underemployment peaking in 2014 at 31.9% (Graduate Careers Australia, 2014, 2015), career services, students and universities have a role in making student © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_015

YOUNG

employability everyone’s business. Career services should provoke awareness of this new reality by advocating for well-defined employability strategies and campaigning to align university resources that demonstrate the institution’s commitment to its students. Some activities at universities have a big impact for a relatively low amount of investment. Think for instance of that well-brewed coffee on campus, or that contagious atmosphere created during orientation weeks, market days or clubs and societies days. The resources allocated to these activities represent a miniscule proportion of full university budget expenditure and often generate exponential returns in relation to community and life on campus. These minor expenditure activities generate tremendous student benefit, which can be considered similar to investment in career services – especially in light of more commercial agreements and consultancy-based services. Consider a career service’s annual operational expenditure, funded to deliver what was done the previous year, with arguably no foresight to imagine potential commercial returns and increased marketability of the university with career services. Now consider for a minute the impact that sector leading career services has on articulating a competitive value proposition in a crowded market. The improvements that career services can have on increasing brand awareness, market reputation through the performance of its graduates, and compounding lifetime returns from alumni is only the tip of the iceberg. With an increasing lifetime value, expressed financially on students due to a higher rate of postgraduate study, why not invest in the re-recruitment of students through strong career services that generate value for students while they are currently enrolled? Prior to 2009 in Australia, and before demand driven funding (Bradley & Australian DEEWR, 2008), admissions and enrolment power resided with universities, due to the simple fact that there were less places than student demand. Despite some courses still being highly competitive, the consumer market has driven increases in the supply of places, particularly at its peak in 2009 when a 12% commencing student increase on 2008 figures was reported (Graduate Careers Australia, 2015). Fast forward to 2017 and there has been a noticeable re-focus on student experience in what can be described as an arms race in establishing customer experience programs and investing in student-centric practices for commercial benefit. This highlights a noticeable sector shift of “power” from institutions to students, evidenced in part by recent transparency of ATAR practices, sector league tables (Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching [QILT]) and university performance incentives for revenue. These new customer driven mechanisms are supporting the emerging trend of labelling students as customers in higher education. While my own institution has braved this new world of customers, caution should be placed on this terminology with reference to the role of career services and their relationship with students. In this chapter, I will use these terms deliberately to emphasise the obligations of universities to educate students; and customer will be used to highlight the increasing expectations of students. To further evidence a movement towards customer terminology in higher education, a recent report from the UK Office for Students (Universities UK, 2017) canvassed the opinions of currently enrolled undergraduate 180

ROLE OF CAREER SERVICES

students. The report highlighted the factors that impacted on the student experience, namely: 1) personalised educational relationships with the institution and faculty, 2) the trust that students place in their university, and 3) the expectation of a good service in exchange for student fees. Overwhelmingly, the startling figure was that 47% of the sample regarded themselves as customers of a university. In the foreground of this statistic are the choices that customers now have about where to study and the questions that follow this choice, i.e. what do I get for my money, what guarantee of a career/job do I have, what is the advantage of one university over another? These questions pose real tests on course value propositions and equally offer commercial opportunities for how career services might collaborate with their various stakeholders. ROLE WITH STUDENTS

As multinational enterprises such as Amazon and Apple raise their customer experience performance as a result of incredibly personalised, predictive and timely customer engagements, student expectations of the university experience heighten. The use of the term “customer” illustrates the growing demand by students and the expertise sought by universities to acquire customer experience specialists to shape student experiences that are more aligned with non-sector industries. These student expectations for academic expertise, timeliness and quality of feedback in assessment start to mirror non-educational sectors. With the emergence of online learning platforms (e.g. edX, Coursera, and Canvas), personalised one-to-one tutorial services (e.g. Studiosity and Smarthinking) and adaptive learning technology (e.g. Smart Sparrow), these student expectations are well grounded. External benchmarks such as the Student Experience Survey (QILT) provide a comparative institutional report for the higher education sector, which a discerning prospective customer (student) may analyse prior to making a decision about where to study. Investments in customer experience programs to improve these reported performances are needed to align the sector with customer expectations and guard against increasing competition and threats of new business models that potentially compromise the quality and standard of Australian higher education. With proposed increases to tuition fees and repayment terms, it may signal to students that better customer experiences should rightly be demanded. With mounting pressure for institutions to show tangible returns on student fees, such as high graduate salaries or graduate employment, more discerning students should appropriately expect institutions to proactively support critical services that go towards satisfying the motives of their enrolment. This increasing demand for a better return on students’ investments is important in understanding how career services need to operate for students, communities and universities. To this end, I am advocating an end to the “traditional” business models of career services that are stand-alone entities/auxiliary services, and a call to centralise these career services with a university’s strategic intent. As purported by Watts, as far back as 1977, career education is not a 50-minute appointment in the final year of study. However, it baffles me even in 2018 that some career services 181

YOUNG

can operate under this model of isolated service and ad hoc engagement with students. The favoured career service model is aligned with institutional intent that proactively supports and drives institutional capability, closely aligned with its mission and strategy. This more contemporary, sophisticated and multidisciplinary approach to careers goes beyond traditional approaches to career education and counselling and demands a new business model. This model should complement an institution’s position (or aspirational position) in the sector, better respond to its local and global economic opportunities, and deliver an optimal service to its students. It should include service functions such as business development, employer liaison, recruitment and talent management, marketing, strategy and research, career counselling and advice, internships/placements and alumni. While aiming not to replace existing institutional functions, it should rather leverage these key activities to provide a focus that complements existing work and constructs highly valued and connected career services. As customers continue to expect more from their institutions, the role of career services in university business becomes a mechanism in which to realise tangible returns on the invested student fees. As outlined by Dey and Cruzvergara (2014), the status of career services within universities should continue to be elevated by senior executives. This will serve to better leverage the activities of the career service, and in turn improve customer experiences, advocacy/loyalty and the financial return centred on student experiences. Designed well and supported at senior levels, the career service can leverage activity across the institution to derive value more broadly to local community, alumni and students. Similar to the 2010–2030 evolution described by Dey and Cruzvergara (2014), career services should be evolving to build (if they are not already) and create career communities for the advantage of currently enrolled students. The commercial prospect of generating these tangible returns also opens up opportunities for how universities go to market with recruitment efforts and how they attract prospective students. If we consider the influence that courses of study have on career services, we quickly connect these to traditional vocations. Despite much literature on the nonlinearity of careers (Mitchell, Levin, & Krumboltz, 1999; Pryor & Bright, 2011), many students still approach their future defined by pre-existing concepts and ideas of how to plan and navigate their own careers. While this is neither unexpected nor troublesome, it does have implications for how institutions attract students to their advertised courses and the role that career services play in shaping students’ employability prospects. While the day-to-day work of a careers counsellor will typically include working with students from vocational courses (this should continue), an element of openness, risk and assertive action will reduce the misplaced tendency for students to be narrowly focused on specific outcomes of their qualifications. This tunnel vision of a career pathway diminishes the potential returns of an independent qualification that provides unrealised potential elsewhere. For instance, think of family and friends that you know who are working outside previous areas of study, or the ones who started out on a path and due to serendipity have completely changed their location (and occupation), and/or those with careers not even imagined 10 years ago. The qualification recognises your learning, it 182

ROLE OF CAREER SERVICES

doesn’t define you. Students who remain open to career directions during study will be able to navigate opportunity in the journey between commencing and concluding study (and beyond). It gives an opportunity for minds to be moulded and passions to ignite, ensuring that the next steps are both deliberate and wise. Kinash et al. (2017) write that there are three pivotal stages: university entry, during university and early career – in which students and graduates evaluate what careers they want. In this context, the role of career services is not shaped by outcomes or destinations, but by working with students to reconceptualise their learning and evolve their career maturity to consider non-linear careers, different perspectives and imaginative couplings of skills with economic realities. Through these interventions, career services can raise the importance of their work in the eyes of students and universities, ensuring that the customer receives value regardless of the intended first choice of study or their initial imagined career. ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY

Considering the role of career services in the community and the alignment with university mission, I was recently posed the question – if there was equitable access to career counselling, would nations increase productivity, employee engagement/commitment and the mental health of their people? From my institutional lens in Australia, I accept that only 63% of students are aware of the existence of career services and only 11% engage with career services (La Trobe University, 2016). The implications of this research for careers in higher education are: 1) there is low awareness of career services, 2) students have limited knowledge of activities provided by career services, and 3) it appears that limited motivation exists to engage with career services. One of my favourite questions when presenting to students is how long did you spend planning your last holiday? Usually the holiday would take weeks of deciding, planning, budgeting, reading reviews and then re-planning and making new decisions. When I asked students about the time they spent career planning, it was so minor that it usually wasn’t able to be directly identified. Anecdotally through client consultations, most of us don’t give career planning the time it demands, especially considering we spend 90,000 hours or 35% of our waking hours at work (Naber, 2017). The traditional form of career counselling through consultation is unpopular – my hypothesis being that it is often challenging to seek help, especially when things are going well. At critical junctures and crossroads such as redundancy, people often seek help, and similarly in institutions when a course of study isn’t working out. So, how can career services be more proactive in promoting career interventions that proactively shape one’s career? Considering this challenge in combination with equitable access to career services, I considered the ways that institutions now partner with employers, how sponsorship arrangements are established and how third-party arrangements are serviced. While the quality of career counselling across institutions will be similar, the relationships institutions have with third parties provide unique opportunities that may be presented to enhance employability strategies. To illustrate, consider two 183

YOUNG

courses: the first has a paid internship in the second year of study – effectively extending the degree an extra year. The other has work placement – a non-income generating experience over a maximum of six weeks. Although there may be some debate, the best option for me would be the paid internship. This provides the opportunity to generate an income, learn on the job, expand professional networks, “show your wares”, and most importantly return to study the following year with workplace examples to enhance learning. The access to this opportunity across institutions is not equitable and neither should it be. The institutional foresight to invest in the careers and success of students is a competitive advantage and at a course level, it represents a highly tangible course value proposition. The additional benefit is realised when career assistance can be intertwined in the experience in a manner that is complementary to students’ most recent experience. By aligning career services with just-in-time curriculum interventions, students capitalise on proactive engagement in career planning and evaluations. I contend that our national productivity, employee engagement and mental health would be improved if everyone had access to career counselling, but the reality is that not all people have the desire to spend time considering their careers. The opportunity presented here is to weave the career development narrative into other activities such as internships, work integrated learning, and initiatives such as allocating each student with a career partner, mentor, peer coach or career counsellor. For non-higher education providers, a good example of increasing access is through the work studies national curriculum (ACARA, 2015) implemented in secondary schools. Despite the subject area being an optional component of the curriculum, it serves to increase the knowledge and understanding of work for students. Another opportunity to align career services is through programs such as the employee assistance programs that are available within most workplaces. Whiston, Goodrich Mitts, and Wright (2017) found that the involvement of career counsellors is critical to increasing individual career capability across career maturity, career decidedness, career decision making self-efficacy, perceived environmental support, perceived career barriers and outcome expectations. Taken further, the involvement of career assistance may indeed increase a person’s ability to contribute to the nation’s productivity. Similarly, the assistance that career counsellors can provide in addressing work-family issues may also support better overall health outcomes, such as wellbeing and engagement at work (Whiston & Cinamon, 2015). With so many benefits resulting from career assistance, surely career services receive star status? Well not entirely. The constant competition for a shrinking pool of internal funds constrains career services from making significant impacts to the strategic objectives of universities. What’s needed in my view is a well-articulated value proposition to prospective students, internal stakeholders and the community more broadly. The challenge is to find non-traditional ways that generate value, complementing the excellent high-quality career assistance available. These nontraditional services can be typically found in existing institutional partnerships or third-party service extensions with communities. Career services need to work in partnership with other areas of university business and operate where students are 184

ROLE OF CAREER SERVICES

active (virtually or physically), complement existing programs where value can be added, and work with faculty to consider the role of community relationships in course value propositions. ROLE IN THE UNIVERSITY MISSION

To what extent does a career service reflect its institution’s position and mission in the higher education sector, and how does it articulate this to prospective students? Within any mature market, limited growth in terms of student enrolment and revenue challenges organisations to consider what distinctive value they provide and how it’s positioned in the market/sector. It requires a close analysis of external markets, internal capability and customer (student) sentiment. If the institution differentiates its position in the market, would a career service further amplify its position? If the institution promoted the excellence of its career service, would it drive customer choice? With 85% of prospective students citing job-related considerations as the main reason for study (Norton & Cakitaki, 2016), the strategic role of the career service should be to capture these drivers of choice and design initiatives to support customer experience programs and future student recruitment activities, and to work more broadly alongside marketing to elevate student access and promote career prospects. As a handful of new methods begin to emerge that compare graduate performance, prospective students are given greater transparency to help inform their choice. With the increasing expectations of what higher education can tangibly deliver, I expect that similar information sources will multiply, bringing with them more institutional motivation to invest in career services that deliver on university brand reputation and graduate employment promises. Critical student selections and admissions practices in universities provide opportunities for career services (and faculty) to support a university’s mission by reconceptualising and challenging traditional views of student success. Potentially demonstrating this by ATAR, an institution could show how it advances the employability prospects and capability of its students. While it’s challenging to measure these more general non-cognitive skills as described by Schurer, Kassenboehmer, and Leung (2015), these skills should complement academic results and reflect a university’s mission. So, what does this mean for career services? It means that the performance of the career service could be measured (albeit indirectly) by the calibre of students it attracts and how these students transition through the course combining grades with non-cognitive skills for increased employability prospects. Designed well, this would have implications on the admissions practices/selection criteria, the ability to attract future students, and the potential for marketing to collaborate with career services to tailor recruitment tactics similar to those proposed by the Making Caring Common Project (Weissbourd & Thacker, 2016). This prospect reflects the idea of a resource-based view of competitive advantage (Bryson, Ackermann, & Eden, 2007) that will enable an institution to advance its differentiated position in the sector. Similarly, the value of career services, beyond simple job seeking, is largely realised through aligning an 185

YOUNG

institution’s mission, its position in the sector and how it collaborates with industry/community. In adapting the Hedgehog concept (Collins, 2001) to understand what a particular institution’s career service can be great at, here are some considerations: 1) what is the institution deeply passionate about? 2) what can it be the best in the world at? and 3) what drives the economic engine of the university? The competitive position is held at the intersection of these three answers. The challenge for Australian universities now is how to distinguish their career services from other institutions, paying attention to their unique student population, mission and the community in which they serve. ROLE WITH INDUSTRY

As universities face growing competition, disruption (Christensen & Eyring, 2011) and forces to remain relevant (Porter, 2008), challenges by employers (e.g. Ernst and Young) to recruit graduates without a degree (Havergal, 2015) appropriately highlight the employer view that students’ qualifications are only one element of their graduate recruitment. The ability to apply this learning, supported by general skills that align with professional competencies, should be elevated by career services and pursued by students for career enrichment. Industry practices of discounting formal qualifications in the hiring process of graduates signals to universities that non-cognitive skills are equally important and that a renewed focus should be on complementary career development services outside the classroom. More contemporary channels to learn (e.g. MOOCs) and micro credentialing (e.g. Degreed) pave the way for traditional qualifications to be decentred in the eyes of industry. Contentious, but possible views on education such as EPIC 2020 (EPIC 2020 Higher Education Reform, 2012) provoke some thought on what the higher education sector needs to do to guard itself against threats from substitutes and new business models. It also highlights the need for stronger alignment with industry, with the alternative being that new providers may be established by employers (e.g. Amazon) with a greater reliability of graduate employment – a key factor in choosing where and what to study. The crude reference to students as products is the view that students can be purchased (hired) by employers and these products are labelled with university branding. Think about the last time you purchased a motor vehicle. What warranty did it have, the features, brand reputation, assurance on its drive and safety, and performance on the road? Was it ready to drive out of the showroom or did it require a tune-up and tank of fuel? How satisfied were you about this experience? This crude analogy is the next competitive front in the race for human talent; particularly with a growing number of websites reviewing employees (e.g. Employer Satisfaction Survey [ESS], QILT) and employers (e.g. Glassdoor), there is greater transparency than ever before. It is unclear whether the roll-out of the ESS will have an impact on how employers make hiring decisions or partner with institutions. However, there is no denying that company human resource divisions will not consider the reputation (as defined by the ESS) of a university in the graduate market. I use this example to illustrate the point that universities must do more in partnership with career services 186

ROLE OF CAREER SERVICES

to meet industry expectations and close the gap between the promised and actual capabilities of graduates. With the implications being quite severe if universities don’t get this right, why not introduce a post-sales career service that assists graduates in their transition to the workforce and why not extend this to establish connected communities? As the competition for talent increases, universities must position themselves as providers of talent solutions – highly educated, wholly developed and performance orientated. Despite questions here about the purpose of education, it is the role of career services to assist students with their careers and to strengthen a university’s reputation in an increasingly competitive graduate employment market. CONCLUSION

With an overwhelming number of universities now moving quickly toward student centric strategies that enhance student experience, learning and improve employability, the time is right for career services to take on a leadership role within universities to drive student success. The challenge now for career services is to position themselves away from being an appendage of universities to being at the forefront of driving an integrated employability strategy. A strategy that is led from a student-oriented view, informed by industry and alumni, and developed to strengthen universities’ value proposition and in turn, generate value for students. The new direction for career services is to tackle internal university politics for strategic positioning and set a viable option to meet the future economic challenges. These solutions to economic challenges need to uniquely reflect university missions and expertise in research and areas in which universities operate. The goal should be to establish connected communities of educational partners that derive tangible value for prospective, current and past students. Through these connected communities, career services will offer students opportunity, industry knowledge and a web of trusted partners to navigate careers – and importantly non-linear careers that respond to changes in uncertain labour markets. The role of career services has never been more critical to university business and it is now time for these services to reimagine how they take a more active leadership in university strategy. REFERENCES Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2015). Work studies: Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10curriculum/work-studies/ Bradley, D., & Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2008). Review of Australian higher education (Final Report). Canberra, Australia: DEEWR. Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public Administration Review 67(4), 702717. Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap ... and others don't. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

187

YOUNG Dey, F., & Cruzvergara, C. Y. (2014). Evolution of career services in higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 148, 5-18. EPIC 2020 Higher Education Reform. (2012). Home page. Retrieved from https://epic2020.org/ Graduate Careers Australia. (2014). GradStats: Employment and salary outcomes of recent higher education graduates. Retrieved from http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/GCA_GradStats_2014.pdf Graduate Careers Australia. (2015). GradStats: Employment and salary outcomes of recent higher education graduates. Retrieved from http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/GCA_GradStats_2015_FINAL.pdf Havergal, C. (2015, August 3). Ernst and Young drops degree classification threshold for graduate recruitment. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ernst-and-young-drops-degree-classificationthreshold-graduate-recruitment Kinash, S., Crane, L., Capper, J., Young, M., & Stark, A. (2017). When do university students and graduates know what careers they want: A research-derived framework. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 8(1), 3-21. La Trobe University. (2016). La Trobe careers presentation: Q3 ’16. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Mitchell, K. E., Levin, A. S., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance: Constructing unexpected career opportunities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(2), 115-124. Naber, A. (2017). 1/3 of your life is spent at work. Retrieved from http://www.gettysburg. edu/news_events/press_release_detail.dot?id=79db7b34-630c-4f49-ad32-4ab9ea48e72b Norton, A., & Cakitaki, B. (2016). Mapping Australian higher education 2016. Melbourne, Australia: Grattan Institute. Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/875-MappingAustralian-Higher-Education-2016.pdf Porter, M. (2008). The 5 competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78-93. Pryor, R. G. L., & Bright, J. (2003). The chaos theory of careers. Australian Journal of Career Development, 12(3), 12-20. Pryor, R. G. L., & Bright, J. (2011). The chaos theory of careers: A new perspective on working in the twenty-first century. New York & London: Routledge. Schurer, S., Kassenboehmer, S. C., & Leung, F. (2015). Do universities shape their students non-cognitive skills? Retrieved from https://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/ Universities UK. (2017). Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: What students want from their university. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policyand-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/education-consumer-rights-maintaining-trust-web.pdf Watts, A. G. (1977). Careers education in higher education: Principles and practice. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 5(2), 167-184. Weissbourd, R., & Thacker, L. (2016). Turning the tide: Inspiring concern for others and the common good through college admissions. Retrieved from http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gsemcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_report_interactive.pdf?m=1453303517 Whiston, S. C., & Cinamon, R. G. (2015). The work-family interface: Integrating research and career counseling practice. Career Development Quarterly, 63(1), 44-56. Whiston, S. C., Li, Y., Goodrich Mitts, N., & Wright, L. (2017). Effectiveness of career choice interventions: A meta-analytic replication and extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100 (Supplement C), 175-184.

Mark Young (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3531-3480) La Trobe University, Australia

188

JOY HIGGS

16. EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES Employability Engagement Possibilities

Universities today face many challenges. They are expected to operate like successful businesses in a highly competitive market place with variable government fiscal and political support. They face many challenges from other institutions – some with better business acumen and others with better products for purchase by demanding students, and they expect students to thrive in a “buyer-beware” market and to know what they need to purchase education for a rapidly changing future. In this environment there are many stories of universities failing or struggling to address either the public or the private good with any confidence or success. Over the past few decades, America’s social compact for higher education as a public good has effectively lapsed as government support of higher education has diminished. Given the need for a highly educated workforce in today’s knowledge-based global economy, we propose a new compact for higher education that couples increased funding with increased institutional accountability. While the compact must retain academic freedom as an essential component of higher education, this autonomy must co-exist with rigorous accountability standards. … All systems should, ... inform the public and provide for institutional improvement. (Kallison & Cohen, 2009, p. 2) So where does this leave students in choosing and following their preferred educational path, and graduates facing an unknown and possibly daunting employment future where the only guarantee is change and a common burden is education debt? Much depends on the confidence and agency of the student and whether they have sufficient knowledge of where they want to go and how to get there. Often they don’t know what they don’t know – not just in a curriculum content/ course choice sense, but also in anticipating the type of graduate they want or need to become to meet their own needs and the expectations of future employers. And, many students don’t have a layered understanding of and preparation for selfdirected employability. For many students their best option is to put their trust in the universities – at least in their marketing departments and rhetoric – and follow this path. For others, another option in today’s world of much more open education possibilities is to be more in control of their own educational and career trajectories. This alternative can refer to post-secondary students and also mature age learners across the generations. This chapter explores issues and possibilities around educational innovations for students with needs beyond traditional university courses, a key one of which is employability and career self-management.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_016

HIGGS

EXAMINING THE CONTEXT

Four major agendas are currently facing higher education: a) the employability agenda, b) the educational challenges arising from rapidly changing practice futures, c) pressures on academia due to the accountability impost, and d) the higher education crisis of confidence and sustainability (perhaps in any form recognisable as a university) linked to questions facing value of higher education. Each of these four agendas are being rushed along in the torrent of the digital revolution and the many pressures of globalisation. These agendas have given impetus to the blend of traditional and innovative employability possibilities presented in this chapter. The Employability Agenda In Chapter 1 of this book the authors examined the Employability Agenda that is facing higher education internationally. A considerable volume of literature, including the chapters in this book and its companion volume on employability (Higgs, Crisp, & Letts, 2019b), are examining multiple aspects, directions, strategies and outcomes of moves to improve graduates’ employability and meet expectations of graduates, university marketing departments, future employers, government funders and others with interest in the calibre and employability of the graduate now and future workforce. The Practice Futures Challenge Linked to the question of employability and the challenges facing continued employability in a number of occupations is the immense volume of literature exploring practice futures (see Higgs, Cork, & Horsfall, 2019a). Chapter 2 examined key questions that are attracting the attention of many thinkers, practitioners, educators, planners and futurists across society about what the future of practice and work might hold – and therefore what higher education needs to consider in planning its future educational goals. We cannot rest with complacency in visions of targets for higher education grounded in today’s workplace, practices and knowledge interpretations. Neither can we become so absorbed with the arena of educational methods, digital drivers and wicked funding problems that we fail to look at the world (social, political, environmental and physical) for which we are claiming to educate our future generations of workers and thinkers. The Accountability Impost Accountability in higher education has been an increasingly significant national issue over the past decade or more, spurred by rising college costs, disappointing retention and graduation rates, employer concerns that graduates do not have the knowledge and abilities expected in the workplace, and questions about the learning and value that higher education provides to students. (Leveille, 2006, p. 5) 190

EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES

Linked to the other three agendas, is accountability. There has been an increasing demand in recent decades for public higher education institutions to demonstrate accountability to governments, society and consumers alike. This is a matter of control, trust and demonstrating the capacity of universities to produce graduates who can be considered worthy of similar recognition or appointment to professional jobs with capacity equivalence, along with monitoring of universities’ selfregulation and standard checking by registration regulatory authorities. Factors leading to these requirements have included globalisation and the establishment of global industries and companies seeking comparable employees, the information explosion and the digital revolution exploding people’s capacity to check and compare education inputs (e.g. courses) and outputs (graduates’ performance, attributes and graduate learning outcomes). I have labelled this agenda as an impost because despite the universities having an inherent obligation to provide quality products and realise quality, they are constantly being demanded to meet new standards often with the threat of loss of funding, failure to achieve external course accreditation and damage to their reputation and possible loss of graduates’ recognition, for instance in the form of registration or licensure to practise. At times courses may face three or four different sets of standards and extensive, and even costly, external accreditation systems. While quality demands are justifiable, the workload associated with accountability and quality achievements documentation and systems can become a large workload in itself, not infrequently conflicting with the work of delivering quality education. The Higher Education Crisis of Confidence In essence, providers, funders, governments, society, industry partners, workforce managers and consumers (because yes in multiple ways they do pay for it) of higher education are looking to see what they all get out of higher education, particularly in relation to the private and public good and value gained from their investments. Various expectations of higher education are expressed as follows. Faith in the universal power of higher learning is at the heart of modernity. From enhancing our basic humanity to preserving culture, economic and technological development to social equality and redressing ills from global warming to AIDS, there are very few needs for which more education has not been prescribed. (Kamenetz, 2010, p. vii) The view of higher education as an investment can be traced back to (Becker, 1964) … [whose idea of] Human Capital argues that individuals in a knowledge economy invest in education – and society invests on their behalf – to raise their future value in the labor market, just as if their minds were plots of land that they were cultivating. (Kamenetz, 2010, p. 25) Recently, students, universities, governments and society have been challenging both the purpose and success of higher education institutions. Bowen (2018), for instance, in a review of investment in higher education reflects: 191

HIGGS

Are our colleges and universities worth what they cost? For generations, the American people have thought so. The idea has been widely accepted that higher education produces benefits for individuals in the form of personal development, economic opportunity, rich satisfactions, and benefits for society in the form of political, economic, and cultural advancement. These benefits have seemed ample to justify the mounting costs, including substantial public and philanthropic subsidies. … Recently, however, the public has become more skeptical toward higher education … Many argue that the huge and costly enterprise of higher education is overextended, that the value of its outcomes does not justify the amount of resources employed, and that public subsidies should be curtailed. There are insistent calls for ‘accountability’… (Bowen, 2018, p. xxii) Of course, not every country has the same higher education systems or costs. And not all students find their tuition costs unreasonable in relation to their career and life gains. Some countries have virtually free tertiary tuition,1 2 such as: Norway (free public university education), Sweden (free research-based doctoral tuition), Germany (all public universities’ courses free), Slovenia (free English tuition in many courses), France (many free English tuition courses in public and private universities). Still there is much being written about the cost-benefit analysis of investing (by nations, institutions and students) in higher education, with many arguing that the benefit is not worth the cost and the real value of higher education does not justify its cost. Others argue strongly in favour of co-curricular education and alternative credentialing (Keen & Hall, 2009; Mischewski, 2017). Increasingly some people are arguing in favour of dropping out from or avoiding higher education and seeking alternative education to gain a job and an education. Technical tertiary education, in particular, has many adherents, as do non-award studies, co-curricular programs, self-directed learning, industry-led programs and open learning. Students are becoming vocal as they face increasing debt in some countries or crippling debt in others and are seriously questioning the value for money of their university and college transactions. On 22nd February, 2010, US student Dan Brown uploaded a six-minute ‘Open Letter to Educators’ to his YouTube channel. … [his] parting shot is ‘I dropped out of college because it was interfering with my education!. … the key point in his argument is not whether the particular college he attended failed him or not. Rather it’s the eloquent summation of the bind all tertiary education now finds itself in: the value of knowledge, in the brave new knowledge economy of the future, was supposed to go up not drop to virtually zero. So, given the high skills/low income future facing graduates looking for knowledge jobs why should an autodidact like Dan pay for college tuition, especially when the information he needs is freely available? (Price, 2013, p. 61) A number of key ideas and issues in this quote need to be examined. First, it is important to challenge the word “information” as a sufficient or even quality outcome of learning. There is a great debate to be noted about the difference between information and knowledge, particularly in this age of fake news. In 1989, Russell 192

EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES

Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organisational change, developed the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom hierarchy which classified the content of the human mind into five categories: 1. Data: symbols 2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to “who”, “what”, “where”, and “when” questions 3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers “how” questions 4. Understanding: appreciation of “why” 5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding. Using this classification, it is valuable to distinguish between a person’s capacity to access readily available data and information on the Internet, from knowledge and understanding gained from critical learning such as can occur through a good education. Wisdom, not always respected in the digital age and era of evidence-based practice, is a further gift that can arise from deep learning and reflective practice both inside and outside of formal education. For some learners the acts and strategies of learning, as distinct from information sourcing, operate at an advanced level; these people warrant the label “self-directed learner” or “autodidact”. Others are information searchers like research assistants, working under the decision making and higher-level knowledge management and interpretation of others like researchers and scholars. Others have limited learning abilities and their need of teaching or learning facilitation is much greater. While skilled agents of learning may well thrive in advanced learning pursuits, professional development typically requires support and guidance. Well before higher education became a business it provided educational programs to facilitate the transition of novices to capable professionals, from secondary into tertiary education graduates, and from returning (mature age) learners into more well-educated practitioners and graduates. Learning to learn, learning to evaluate one’s learning and learning to shape a program of professional development are important parts of such development journeys. Not all dissatisfied dropouts or conscientious avoiders of institutional higher education have the same capacity to be their own primary educator. The Crisis Tempered In this environment of challenge and dissatisfaction, many people are recognising the need for universities to evolve and are calling for this to happen. In his landmark book Being a University, Barnett (2011) says I want to indicate that the university has possibilities in front of it. It could be other than it is. Universities could be other than they are. (p. 1) Barnett supports the idea of the ecological university where ecology points to systems of relationships between organisms and their environment. He notes that the term ecology has also come to have positive value attached to it, in the wake of environmental degradation. Accordingly, the ecological university is one that takes

193

HIGGS

seriously its relationships with its total environment and it does what it can to further the wellbeing of that total environment. Christensen and Eyring (2011), in their book The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out, review the current higher education situation. Their goal was to use the lens of disruptive innovation and reveal the serious threats and great opportunities the traditional universities are facing. Even through the lens of disruptive innovation theory [they argue], universities are at a critical crossroad. They are both at great risk of competitive disruption and potentially poised for an innovation-fuelled renaissance. The current crisis in today’s universities is real, and much of it is of the universities’ own making. In the spirit of honoring tradition, universities hang on to past practices to the point of imperilling their futures. When reduced budgets force them to cut costs, they trim but rarely make hard trade offs. Nor do they readily reinvent their curricula to better prepare students for the increasing demands of the world of work. Paradoxically, they respond to economic downturn by raising prices. … to play its indispensable function in the new competitive environment, the typical university must change more quickly and more fundamentally than it has been doing. (p. xxii) Kamenetz (2010) celebrates the current climate by saying: The good news is that all over the world people are thinking big about how to change higher education. Brick, stone, and marble institutions with centuries of prestige behind them are increasingly being joined by upstarts, both nonprofit and for-profit, and even more loosely organized communities of educational practitioners and apprentices. (p. x) REIMAGINING HIGHER EDUCATION

A most insightful observation by Bass (2012) in his paper: Disrupting Ourselves: The Problem of Learning in Higher Education is that: Our understanding of learning has expanded at a rate that has far outpaced our conceptions of teaching. A growing appreciation for the porous boundaries between the classroom and life experience, along with the power of social learning, authentic audiences, and integrative contexts, has created not only promising changes in learning but also disruptive moments in teaching. (p. 1) Bass argues that formal curricula are being pressured from two sides. The first brings in evidence to support the value of experiential learning, particularly from the cocurriculum and the second is informal learning through the participatory culture of the Internet. He argues that these two sides of the evolutionary trend in learning are reframing the formal curriculum.

194

EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES

Open Learning A major renewal of higher education is arising in the form of open learning. This is occurring in tandem with opportunities provided by other open initiatives variously presented as open source (software, products or sources that are freely accessible to the public), creative commons (various licences whereby people share their copyrighted work for others to copy and extend), OER (Open Educational Resources, e.g. OLCOS Roadmap (Geser, 2012) and Web 2.0 (a second generation World Wide Web development focusing on collaboration and sharing of usergenerated content and social networking), also emphasising microcontent and social media (Alexander & Levine, 2008; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Much has been written about open and social learning ranging from social media (Sutton & Hughes, 2015), flexible enrolment through open universities and collectives, MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and online courses or subjects within degree programs (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Daniel, 2012; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Hiltz & Turoff 2005; Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013; Yuan & Powell, 2013). Powerful visions of learning opportunities in this arena are provided by Price and also Seely Brown and Adler: The opening of learning is transforming every aspect of our lives. It offers the promise of a more equal distribution of wealth, opportunity and power. … it accelerates the speed at which we solve intractable problems. … We’ve never freed up, shared and trusted ourselves with knowledge like this before, so we are still coming to terms with it. (Price, 2013, p. 23) The Brewing Perfect Storm of Opportunity Fortunately, various initiatives launched over the past few years have created a series of building blocks that could provide the means for transforming the ways in which we provide education and support learning. Much of this activity has been enabled and inspired by the growth and evolution of the Internet, which has created a global ‘platform’ that has vastly expanded access to all sorts of resources, including formal and informal educational materials. The Internet has also fostered a new culture of sharing, one in which content is freely contributed and distributed with few restrictions or costs. (Seely Brown & Adler, 2008, p. 2) Experiential Learning Learning grounded in practice experience is sometimes presented as an innovation of the digital age and the networked learning culture. However, it existed far earlier than formal curricula and has been enriching students’ learning for centuries. Nowadays the call for informal learning and participatory cultures of learning is a reframing of work-based learning with the addition of greater learner self-direction and re-imagined engagement with communities of practice learning options involving industry partners and co-travellers in practice, open learning, industrial/

195

HIGGS

commercial and social communities. Employability is grounded in experiential learning and serves the need of future practice experience. The ELT [Experiential Learning Theory] model portrays two dialectically related modes of grasping experience – Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC) – and two dialectically related modes of transforming experience – Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE). Experiential learning is a process of constructing knowledge that involves a creative tension among the four learning modes that is responsive to contextual demands. This process is portrayed as an idealized learning cycle or spiral where the learner ‘touches all the bases’ – experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting – in a recursive process that is responsive to the learning situation and what is being learned. Immediate or concrete experiences are the basis for observations and reflections. These reflections are assimilated and distilled into abstract concepts from which new implications for action can be drawn. These implications can be actively tested and serve as guides in creating new experiences. (Kolb & Kolb, 2009, p. 44) Edupunk The term “Edupunk” was first used in 2008 by Jim Groom.3 “What edupunk – DIY education, if you will – promises an evolution from expensive institutions to expansive networks; it aims to fulfil the promise of universal education, but only by leaving the university behind” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. 110). A similar label is “open participatory learning ecosystems”, introduced by educational futurist John Seely Brown and Richard P. Adler. Alex Couros, from the University of Saskatchewan, talks about a “personal learning network” comprising “news sources and contacts on Google Reader, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and e-mail”.4 While these labels refer to learning practices and strategies, I’ve introduced the image here to ask us to reflect on the possibility of some people acting as edupunks, taking on the attitude of the non-compliant rebel who could set out to be a trouble maker but could also become an agent of collaboration, leadership and revision of the status quo or traditional and accepted practices of education to partner with other innovators and entrepreneurs to share in reshaping higher education. While it could be argued that any proposal of working in association with higher education institutions fails the edupunk test of “leaving the university”, the ideas discussed below invite universities to rebel against unquestioned acceptance of the three marketisation education party leaders: commodification of education, rigid traditional pedagogies and “bottled online education” (i.e. programs that are packaged up and shipped out for the learners to make what they will of them). The first primarily seeks to keep the doors open “at all costs” (literally) and often for the purpose of using education fees to subsidise university research in the face of diminishing public research funds, the second chooses complacency and compliance 196

EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES

where funds permit and politics dictate, and the third is more concerned with course completions and market share with limited attention to authentic learning and the value of education. New Trends in Delivery in the Open World We will see students increasingly deciding what, when, where, why and with whom they will learn by doing. And, functions that have long held together, like research and teaching, learning and assessment, or content, skills, accreditation and socialisation, will become delivered separately (Kamenetz, 2010). Kamenetz (2010) outlines four trends that are transforming the open world of learning based on the opportunities provided by technology to upset traditional education approaches and put the student first. While there is likely to still be a demand for traditional collegiate experiences, the new approaches include:  The 80/20 Rule. 85% of students (in the USA) will attend institutions that are nonselective, including most public universities, college and for-profit colleges. “Some of the boldest thinking is happening in these ‘non-traditional’ institutions” (ibid, p. xi).  The Great Unbundling. Institutions will be compelled by the logic of digital technology to specialise and collaborate, avoid duplications and find economies of scale. Students could be enabled to enrol over multiple institutions. Specialisation could include assessment only.  Techno-hybridization. Blending techno-assisted and class instruction, enrolling on campus or off.  Personal Learning Networks and Paths. Focusing on self-directed learning with support from mentors, colleagues, media and knowledge networks. LIBERATING UNIVERSITY-EDUPUNK ENGAGEMENTS

This section of the chapter poses a challenge of creativity to universities and a challenge of collaboration rather than confrontation to higher education stakeholders. So, in this hypothetical situation, several role players enter a hypothetical university setting: an academic, an industry leader-employer and two edupunk students, one a school leaver and one mature age. All four were asked to take on the task of talking with me about designing a degree program that could address the criticisms and challenges that have been raised in this chapter. (Readers: please consider yourself in the room and interrupt the discussion when you have an important point to make.) The first step was setting out the scenario and explaining what we understood by the role each person was asked to take on. We created some initial ideas of what sort of educational journey the school leaver might want to pursue, building a case for independence as a learner, communicator and future worker with a desire to leave his future career decisions for at least two years. The mature age student was asked to play the role of an established and successful dancer who wanted to pursue an 197

HIGGS

entirely different career as a landscape geographer; her future work options were ones she wanted to create in her interpretation of possibilities, not a prescribed or expected occupation. The employer took on the role of someone who had for many years made workplace learning experiences and mentoring available both to university students and new workers through apprenticeship programs. He believed that he had messages to pass on to university educators about workers’ employability as well as people arriving to work at his company with a degree and bunch of competing ambitions. Finally, the educator had spent 20 years designing professional education programs and preparing them for university and professional accreditation; she felt conflicted by the current higher education pedagogy landscapes and the changes in the higher education market place which at times seemed more like her own university age children who constantly wanted to know the rules of their course success as well as thinking that they could often learn at home on the Internet. A) Bottom Line The group set as their essential goal that the framework of the degree program would allow students of many ages, generations and interests to engage in higher education and gain a credible qualification and preparation for a worthwhile future pathway of learning and employability. They recognised that this was not simply a task of imagination where all of the requirements of a professional degree could not be replaced by a range of open options and expect the graduate to be able to be registered or accredited. Instead the focus of this degree would be genuinely and openly on higher education. B) Choosing Their Course Goals and Ethos The group determined that the course would engage students as partners engaged in the shared purpose of constructing their degree (with higher education providers and industry colleagues). Students’ achievement of employability was set as a high priority. Other outcomes would include contributions to society, future services and national productivity, the common good as well as individual organisational, industry and discipline advancements. Those who share knowledge, information and products build future returns on these commodities into their fields. The ethos of the course would ideally be built on five distinctive pillars:  Freedom and structure as the blended framework for the degree program.  Liberating and respectful partnerships for goal setting, learning support and monitoring of learning outcomes.  Responsible agency whether acting collaboratively or independently.  Assurance of value/quality5 across learning goals, processes, outcomes, standards.  Learning and career (employability) development. The program is intended to assist the learner to pursue a desired development trajectory whether this is based 198

EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES

in the realisation of employability and professional development and/or development of graduateness commensurate with a university degree6 such as epistemic and ontological fluency (see, for instance, Goodyear & Ellis [2007], The Development of Epistemic Fluency: Learning to Think for a Living, and Nerland & Jensen [2014] … Cultures of Knowledge and Professional Learning). In each of these fields lie future collaborative and respectful practices, future employees and employers working together, novice learners becoming co-learners and self-directed lifelong learners, and different members of society – across many industries, professions and agencies – working together for the common good as well as achieving goals of organisations and social practice communities. C) Designing a Structure and Entity Consistent with the open learning and partnership foundations of the course, it would be built on open and experiential learning in learning and working environments. An open learning system involves an interdependent set of people/groups (units) interacting purposefully within a context (in this case a learning program) to achieve shared purposes (learning goals) through interaction with and influenced by each other and the external environment (hence an open system). The set of people comprise a whole (learner’s system). Open systems make exchanges of knowledge, information and products with the external environment. D) Course Structure and Units The group discussed how the course might operate in consideration of its structure and identified these preliminary components (see Figure 16.1). Existing units available Open uni units

Subjects in this uni*

MOOCs

Mixed nonaward units and continuing education courses

Private provider courses

Created units conducted through the degree Experiential learning e.g. learning projects, workplace learning**

Open learning e.g. learning projects, independent learning units**

Multi-faculty * Including non-award enrolment, electives, units from uncompleted courses. ** Including co-curricular style units with assessment requirements, group projects.

Figure 16.1. Existing and new units of study.

199

HIGGS

E) Course Requirements The group brainstormed about the principal decisions that would need to be made to determine if and how this degree would be able to run (see Table 16.1). Table 16.1. Major course decisions. Major decisions Credit points Credit for prior learning/coursework

Entry requirements Credit acquisition

Learning venues

Budget/course fees

Target cohorts

Infrastructure

Goal attainment evidence

University and external mentors

Technical/ learning support

Resources, e.g. learning networks, licences

What can we see in this hypothetical scenario? The notion of collaboration is worth considering and such deliberations should not be taken lightly. CONCLUSION

Education occurring in the present, near future and longer-term future is facing major challenges. On a positive note the tempering of these crises are providing the opportunity to reimagine higher education and the pursuit of employability. We are placed, say Seely Brown and Adler (2008), in the perfect storm of opportunity. How will we respond to this? How much will we respond to setting up partnerships rather than confrontations between higher education traditional providers and future edupreneurs and edupunks in a way that everyone can benefit in terms of employability? Further discussions are warranted about inviting self-directed learners to use the affordances of higher education and cutting-edge educational and communication technologies, to create their own learning pathways in collaboration with innovative universities. Students can benefit from learning pursuits that enhance their employability and they can benefit from participating in the design of their learning program, particularly learning that involves learning to shape their long-term evolving practice future and direction, not just their practice entry. A final observation is that innovative here does not mean changing the rate of change of the process of learning to drive the speed of learning into orbit. It also means reimagining education (curriculum and teaching) and education outcomes to produce higher education that is of value for all of its goals and purposes. It is important to ensure that future generations don’t miss out on the richness of learning through communities of practice learning and that neither higher education institutions or their graduates fail the employability challenges of collaboration and genuine work ready plus graduates (see Scott, 2019).7

200

EDUPUNKS AND UNIVERSITIES

NOTES 1

2 3 4 5 6

7

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080616/6-countries-virtually-free-collegetuition.asp https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/studying-abroad/where-can-you-study-abroad-free On his blog: https://bavatuesdays.com/the-glass-bees/ Cited in Kamenetz (2010, p. 110). I.e. the Australian Qualifications Framework or relevant national standards. This would relate to graduate attributes such as personal epistemology, which is about people’s way of knowing and how they build their knowledge base from prior experiences and through their capacities and ongoing negotiations. Such knowledge bases evoke readiness for practice and learning. Also, personal ontology refers to being in practice, and owning and embodying an ontological worldview and capability. http://flipcurric.edu.au/about-143/about

REFERENCES Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3-9. Alexander, B., & Levine, A. (2008). Web 2.0 storytelling: Emergence of a new genre. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(6), 40-56. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research on Distance and Open Learning, 12(3), 80-97. Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. New York, NY: Routledge. Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(2). Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with specific reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bowen, H. (2018). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. Taylor & Francis. Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3(Art 18). Retrieved from https://www-jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2012-18/ Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Geser, G. (2012). Open educational practices and resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg, Austria: Salzburg Research, EduMedia Group. Retrieved from http://www. olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). The development of epistemic fluency: Learning to think for a living. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press. Higgs, J., Cork, S., & Horsfall, D. (Eds.). (2019a). Challenging future practice possibilities. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Higgs, J., Crisp, G., & Letts, W. (Eds.). (2019b). Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59-64. Kallison, J. M. Jr., & Cohen, P. (2009). A new compact for higher education: Funding and autonomy for reform and accountability. Innovative Higher Education, 35(1), 37-49. Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

201

HIGGS Keen, C., & Hall, K. (2009). Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomes of co curricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 59-79. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42-68). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Leveille, D. E. (2006). Accountability in higher education: A public agenda for trust and cultural change. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 2002-227. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning – ASCILITE proceedings (pp. 664-675). Singapore: ASCILITE. Mischewski, B. (2017). Micro-credentials: A model for engineering education? (A Report for the Tertiary Education Commission). Wellington, New Zealand: Tertiary Education Commission. Nerland, M., & Jensen, K. (2014). Changing cultures of knowledge and professional learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practicebased learning (pp. 611-640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Price, D. (2013). Open: How well we’ll work, live and learn in the future. Great Britain, Crux. Scott, G. (2019). Preparing work ready plus graduates for an uncertain future. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts. (Eds.), Education for employability I: The employability agenda (pp. 107-118). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Seely Brown, J., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-32. Sutton, P., & Hughes, A. (2015). Social remediation: How the world’s most innovative schools are using social media to re-invent the face of education. Sibu, Malaysia: Kai Ming Press. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education (White Paper). Bolton, England: Centre for Educational Technology & Interoperability Standards, University of Bolton.

Joy Higgs AM, PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-1016) Emeritus Professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia Director, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia

202

NOEL MALONEY

17. UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

You just go on your nerve. (O’Hara, 1995, p. 498) What capabilities do arts graduates need in order to negotiate creative and economic risks as they grow and sustain their careers? What makes them employable? This chapter focuses on these questions by investigating the findings from a series of interviews undertaken with 10 Australian screenwriters who have been working professionally for at least five years, and who have developed international careers. It examines the creative risks they take to further their careers, the various economic and social contingencies they encounter, and it profiles the strategies they use to manage these. There is often an assumption that the planning that artists require to organise their practices needs to be systematic and rational. However, I argue that these writers are not entirely rational in their approach, and that intuition, relationship building and a craft ethos play an important role in the way they deal with creative and economic risk. In analyses of professional artists’ creative labour, it is now standard practice to differentiate between core creative work, work that is arts-related, and non-arts work (Throsby & Petetskaya, 2017). In what is termed “portfolio” work, artists might combine their core, creative practice with teaching relevant to their discipline, and unrelated work such as hospitality or administration. The portfolio career pattern comprises a continually evolving patchwork of grant-based (publicly subsidised) and/or commercial projects, jobs and educational experiences. A portfolio of arts work may be supplemented by additional concurrent work activities, such as the “day job” in order to meet the artist’s financial obligations (Bridgstock, 2012; Throsby & Petetskaya, 2017). For artists, designers, television creatives and new media workers, core creative work is temporary and intermittent; it requires long hours and high levels of mobility, results in fractured working patterns, challenges boundaries between work and play, and, in general, offers poor remuneration (Gill & Pratt, 2008). Typically, artists work on short-term contracts, or operate as small businesses in order to sell artefacts, or assign or lease copyright. As such, creative labour lacks the workplace protections found in more permanent jobs (Throsby & Petetskaya, 2017). While new forms of collectivisation are emerging (de Peuter & Cohen, 2015), cultural work is under unionised, resulting in labour deregulation and exploitation (Gill & Pratt, 2008). At the same time, the precarities that shape the creative industries also shape artists themselves. The insecurities of income, work and security impact heavily on health and wellbeing (Hennekam & Bennett, 2017), and can negatively affect relationships (Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2011). It has been argued that there is also little benefit for employers in financing apprenticeships or other training schemes for short-term © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_017

MALONEY

arts workers (Hennekam & Bennett, 2017). However, media companies will at times benefit from offering lowly paid or unpaid work experience schemes. Far from being put off by the comparatively low pay and difficult conditions for entry-level positions, workers at the bottom end of television labour markets are motivated by the acclaim, reward and recognition that characterise the top end (Ursell, 2000). A STUDY OF PRACTICE AND EMPLOYABILITY IN SCREENWRITING

The interviews with the 10 writers1 who participated in my study were semistructured: there were some standard questions, but the participants were also encouraged to offer additional spontaneous reflections. Participants were required to have at least five years’ professional screenwriting experience that included a history on projects outside of Australia, and to be currently working as freelance or in-house screenwriters for fictional screen media. A call to participate in the project was emailed to membership databases by the Australian Writers Guild,2 Screen Australia and Film Victoria.3 Priority was given to respondents who had the most international writing experience. The interviews, of around 45 minutes each, were done via Skype audio. They were recorded and then transcribed, and the transcriptions analysed for codes and themes. Four of the writers were female and six were male. Care was taken to de-identify these writers. Their workplaces and projects have not been specified, and they have been given fictitious names. Five of the writers live in Australia, one in the US and four in the UK. The 10 screenwriters profiled in this section mainly earn their incomes as contract writers on existing television shows in the UK, the US and Australia, but each writer also has television, feature or fiction proposals in various stages of development internationally that they have developed independently. The screenwriters profiled in this study tell us something very important about the capabilities needed to sustain and grow a creative practice. Firstly, they accept that creative risk taking and risk mitigation are essential aspects of the work they do. They constantly balance the development of their own projects and the desires associated with this, with securing short-term writing contracts on existing productions. They must take risks and be bold in their storytelling, but at the same time, they need to be aware of production requirements and deal effectively with stressful environments. They present themselves as talented, adventurous storytellers and savvy operators. To maintain this balance between creative risk taking and economic risk management, they marshal an impressive range of selfmanagement abilities, in particular, entrepreneurship and project management. What is also striking throughout the interviews is the importance the screenwriters give to intuition, felt experience, craft and relationship building in the way they think about, and respond to, risks. The writers interviewed exercise complex judgements about the aesthetic value of the work they and others do. Intuition plays a crucial role in their decision making. As well, they value a capacity to discern and respect cultural diversity in social and work practices, and they place positive emphasis on the felt experience that arises from fostering professional relationships.

204

EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

These capabilities enable screenwriters a degree of creative autonomy in the work they do, and the way they develop their practice. Typically, screenwriting is taught as a creative practice, in which industrial competence, poetics and self-management skills are all delivered as separate, discrete subjects. However, the interviews suggest that skills of industrial awareness, creativity and self-management are interwoven, along with more discrete, felt experiences. The screenwriters profiled in this study take a very realistic view of how susceptible their industry is to changing markets and production budgets, and because of this it is important for them to be able to manage contingencies in a rational, balanced manner. Entrepreneurship, including networking, project development and marketing, and work management are all seen as essential skills for sustaining and growing their practices. Secondly, their sense of self-efficacy is strong. They believe that success will largely be the result of individual, planned endeavour. “No one else is going to do this for me” is the sentiment that seems to govern much of their career planning. Thirdly, they acknowledge screenwriting as a talent but importantly also see it as a craft that can be learned and developed. For example, daily writing as a form of exercise is considered an essential practice. Yet, despite the screenwriters’ rational approach to self-management, intuition, feeling, a craft ethos and relationship building play a strong role in helping them manage creative and economic risks. These writers talk consistently about intuiting realities and feeling their way with decision making. The ability to make informed and considered aesthetic judgements about their own work and that of their peers is highly valued. In addition, they put great store in building professional relationships through trust, playfulness and imagining the needs of others. FINDINGS

Entrepreneurship The 10 interviewees demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of patterns in film and television production economies. One of the respondents, Tim, identified a growing market for mature television drama that Australian networks are yet to properly address, Nina provided a detailed assessment of the markets in Europe for strong serial writers, Anna identified key project development opportunities in Germany, and John spoke confidently about the growing market for globally produced television series. Each of the writers identified entrepreneurial activities that were highly specific to professional screenwriting, and shaped by the particular economic contingencies of film and television production. These writers promoted themselves in three specific ways: they developed screen projects for sale or as a promotional tool; they maintained and extended professional networks; and they consciously built their reputations.

205

MALONEY

Calling Cards Each of the writers had one or more projects in development, either in partnership with other writers or producers, or as sole copyright ventures. Aside from developing this work for sale, a polished project was also seen as a useful “calling card”. As Tim explained, calling cards can advertise one’s writing style as well as help to secure an agent. All 10 writers rated these calling cards as one of the most useful ways of marketing themselves and securing future work. For Angela, sharing a webisode project with an executive producer in the UK initiated a rewarding creative partnership. When recruiting screenwriters, John, who is now developing television projects in the US, preferred to see examples of new writers’ original work, rather than their attempts at writing scripts for existing shows. Social Networking When asked to describe their social networking, seven of the writers initially described their skills in general as very poor, with two citing introversion as the cause. Nonetheless, when asked to think in more detail about how they communicated professionally, they did identify specific forms of social networking they considered useful. These included networking at industry events, and attending training workshops where they were more likely to make meaningful contacts with other writers and producers. As well as maintaining contact with other writers they had met when working on television shows, the ability to make direct contact with a show’s script executive in order to secure an episode, or with a producer to pitch a potential project, were seen as particularly valued strategies used by these writers. By contrast, these writers rated social media network sites such as LinkedIn as ineffective and a waste of time. The forms of social contact favoured by these writers imply that effective networking is industry specific. It has been argued that creative arts education programs should provide graduates with a working knowledge of how to form and maintain professional relationships, and to understand how different relationships can contribute to various aspects of creative work (Bridgstock, 2014). Based on the findings from my study, it may be argued that such an approach would benefit from being contextualised within specific industry cultures. Reputation Building For these writers, reputation building was a core entrepreneurial activity. This can occur in two keys ways. Writers build a reputation for reliability by delivering powerful stories, on time, within production requirements. As well, they accumulate screenwriting credits. The need for writers to meet deadlines with quality content that is targeted to a show’s requirements is an economic credit. As Sam explained: The producers … are very dependent on their writers to actually produce on time and with good quality, because there's incredible deadlines going on and

206

EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

there's an incredible amount of money kicking around. If you get bad scripts … the whole thing falls over.4 However, a reputation in this regard is fragile. As Angela, one of the interviewees stated, “You're as good as the last show you did and as good as the last script you wrote”. These writers have taken a variety of approaches to reputation building and career planning. Andrew and Nina prided themselves on taking logical, planned steps to secure writing work in the UK. They leveraged early career experience on Neighbours and other serial television in Australia to secure in-house script editing jobs on shows such as EastEnders. As Andrew explained, “I started applying for all the script editor jobs advertised on the BBC website and I knew I wanted to work for the BBC. I was fortunate when I applied”. As many of the writers interviewed noted, building a reputation is a long process. Angela observed that “it took me over four years of slogging away in order to really properly get a foot in the door, because it's absolutely all about having people know you and trust you, and that doesn't happen overnight”. For her, a passion for television drama kept her going: “That never would have happened unless I was a fan and with the fervour of being a fan”. For Hamish, many of these challenges were cultural. When he first began attending job interviews in the UK, his potential employers were keen to narrow his skills and knowledge down to a specific job type. I was like, I’ve edited, I’ve done a bit of producing, I’ve written, and people would look at me like I was a freak. They’re like, but what are you? What is the one thing you are? In the UK, it really is quite rigid. People don’t often make the jump from editing to writing as happens so often in Australia. Reputations are also built on writing credits. Serial drama shows such as Neighbours, EastEnders and Holby have given nine out of the 10 writers early career breaks, and provided a basis for generating more work. However, some writers saw the security offered by serial writing as a potential trap. Stay too long on a serial, Tim advised, and you will find it difficult to migrate to more sophisticated television. While he conceded that serial television helped him developed storytelling craft, he was concerned that too much serial writing on his resume would pigeonhole him. Intuition Not all writers take such a deliberative approach to career planning and reputation building. For Sam, intuition has played a key role in his professional decision making. His first big break was on a successful Australian television drama series and when it ended, he decided to seek writing work in the UK. His decision was motivated in part by a sense that he was at an important “juncture” in his life. It did feel like, “if you’re ever going to do it, you should do it now”. Eventually he scored a job in the UK on a long-running British soap. However, after four successful years on the show, he began to feel “a bit stale”. On the basis of these feelings and observations, he decided to move on. As he explained, “Often as a working writer, you can feel that the power is starting to shift and you know that you need to move 207

MALONEY

on before you get bumped on”. His departure from the show motivated him to focus on producing original scripts, which have since turned into useful calling cards and have provided “great opportunities”. Keeping the Wheel Turning Significantly, six of the writers earned their living full time as writers or script readers, and four supplemented their earnings through teaching. None of the writers interviewed worked in fields un-associated with their core creative work. To source one’s income solely from core creative work is no mean feat. None of the interviewees were either able or willing to divulge annual incomes from their screenwriting work, but as Throsby and Petetskaya (2017) stated, in the 2014/2015 financial year, professional artists in Australia earned on average $18,800 from their creative work, $13,900 from arts-related activity, and $15,700 from non-arts work. It should be noted that the writers in this study were seasoned professionals who had worked their way up the screenwriting ladder and had developed strong reputations in the UK and the US, as well as in Australia. All but one writer had ongoing writing work on an existing series or serial. Such work is highly regarded for a number of reasons. While such work is not guaranteed to continue, being on a writers’ list for an existing show provides much needed income. Some writers earned income from development deals, but none relied solely on development work, since income from such activity is erratic and unsustainable. Drawing on interviews with UK screenwriters, Bridget Conor (2014) noted how important it is for screenwriters to find a balance between work on existing shows and the development of their own projects. This observation is echoed by the writers in this project. As Sam commented, “There’s no getting around it that when you’re doing originals, you really need something else to be chugging along. I won't lie; it does convince you of the virtues of having a continuing drama job”. Ensuring work flow is a perennial problem. Given the highly competitive nature of screenwriting work, it can be difficult to refuse assignments when they are offered. For these writers, as for freelance artists in general, saying no to a job is often seen as a luxury that they simply cannot afford. Therefore, time and project management skills are essential in ensuring a sustainable work flow, balancing a variety of contracts, and meeting deadlines. Approaches to work and time management varied. John’s career had developed in the US, UK and Australia, and he needed to take a strong business-like approach to his writing. He had multiple agents as well as a manager. For all his professional support, he still needed to look after his emotional health. As he explained, “You have to do it alone, pace yourself and manage your time well. It's really important that you have the ability to look after yourself”. For these reasons, he valued balancing his own work with writing for established shows: “Staffing is really enjoyable [if] you have a team around you who are like-minded. But when you're freelancing you don't have that so you do have to be kind to yourself”. For some of the writers, the whiteboard was an indispensable planning tool. Sam used it to distinguish between projects in development, such as “spec” scripts, and 208

EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

writing assignments that demand immediate attention: “I think you have to keep the wheel turning at all times, that's my philosophy. You can't allow it all to be dictated by that e-mail that may drop in your in box”. Andrew split his time between Australia and the UK, where he attended story conferences for an establishing TV drama. He used his time in the UK to follow up projects he had in the pipeline. Like Sam, the well-managed whiteboard was essential. By contrast, Angela’s method was less consciously organised and more about feelings. Because there are so many plates in the air and new ones coming all the time, and in terms of development projects suddenly disappearing, it's actually impossible to think beyond a few months' time. Which makes it really, really hard to plan trips home or anything like that. In terms of long-term planning … there’s no timetable. Relationship Building Trust and collaboration are commonly seen as essential components for developing creative enterprises (Banks et al., 2000). Collaboration is a commonly used term amongst screenwriters, and is typically associated with creativity, pleasure and productivity. However, as Conor (2014) noted in her interviews with UK screenwriters, collaboration is a two-edged sword. It is an appealing, creative and nurturing way of working, but may also disguise competitive work environments. When prompted in the interviews to rate collaboration, the writers placed it third out of 16 work-generating activities. Yet, only one of the screenwriters in this study voluntarily mentioned it as a component in their creative practice. For Jack, in his work as a scriptwriter on an Australia serial drama, he valued “direct collaboration” with the in-house writing team as a useful part of the process. Instead of collaboration, these writers focused on the need to build productive relationships, with effective listening, building trust, imagining the needs of others and providing mentorship as key components of this practice. Effective relationship building is often discussed implicitly, within the context of a broader ability to manage one’s career, and is often linked with other capabilities. For instance, Bridgstock (2012) noted the importance of relationship building for employability but linked this with social networking. My research participants clearly separated out relationship building as an important practice in its own right. As a script consultant, Nina had worked internationally on a range of television serials. Her consultancy typically involved short-term assignments with existing television dramas that needed external assistance in developing story and characters. Central to her practice was the need to build effective professional relationships with in-house writing staff. Nina invested time in building trust and reassuring writers that her role was to help them develop the stories they wanted to tell. That job to me is all about showing respect for the people that you're working with and working with them and listening to them … You actually have to be incredibly respectful and listen a lot and try and learn a lot.

209

MALONEY

Nina also noted the need for writers to take emotional risks in story meetings, and for this to happen effectively, a degree of trust needed to exist. I can remember in my first story-lining room the head writer used to just refer to it [trust] as well ‘this is the table of full disclosure’. You just have to [in this room] you have to be willing to say anything, any idea that comes into your head but also any personal experience that you've had that might apply for a character or a story. You also just have to let your imagination and your emotion take you to all sorts of possibilities even if they're really uncomfortable and think this will make a great story, whether it's something that's personally happened or just something you can imagine as possibly happening. Caldwell (2008) argued that while story rooms promote creativity, they can also sanction damaging behaviours. His research into story teams in US television painted a disturbing picture of intimidation and exploitation. Nina was acutely aware of the negative experiences creative teams can produce. She emphasised the importance of imagining the needs of others when working in team environments. There's got to be a lot of trust with the other writers I think and a lot of trust in the person that's running the team, so that people can make ideas – come up with ideas and throw things in without feeling like they're going to be ridiculed or laughed at, and that they're going to be really respected and taken seriously. Angela, who had recently moved from screenwriting into show running and producing, echoed Nina’s sentiments. She noted how challenging it could be for head writers and producers to run effective teams. She stressed the importance of being able to handle one’s sense of vulnerability when working in a high-pressure environment. Being mindful of others, ensuring one’s fragile ego doesn’t intrude, and providing effective feedback are all important skills in these environments. In addition, being able to seek out someone she trusted, with whom she could analyse problems occurring on a show on which she was working, was vital. As she put it, “Being able to mouth off to somebody that you trust and being able to analyse things and pull them over and talk about it”. Craft Ethos There is a strong tradition of craft within screenwriting, and as Conor (2014) argued, it is a way of screenwriters distancing themselves from more refined notions of the artistic or the literary. Overall, the writers I interviewed supported this way of conceiving their work, and spoke about their practice as one shaped by ideas of crafting, rather than by notions of art. Only one of the writers interviewed, Tim, referred to his profession as an art. The way in which these writers spoke about maintaining their writing practice mirrors these values. As Tim put it plainly, “The more you write the better you get, it’s as simple as that”. Jane echoed this sentiment:

210

EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

“You've just got to write and then start structuring it. I guess that would be another piece of advice to young writers: just write”. Anna exemplified such a deliberative and disciplined approach when she said, “Instead of just slapping something together, you really have to spend a lot of time thinking it through and getting a story that's really strong before you can hand anything over”. However, for all their emphasis on the deliberative practices craft requires, these writers also expressed a need to “feel” their way in their writing. Sam prided himself on the writing craft he learnt on his first Australian television series. However, he added, “I was by no means the finished article. I kind of feel like only in the last couple of years, with having written so much original material, that I've kind of seasoned myself”. Craft, in this way, has an unconscious dimension. The practice of writing seems to yield something unexpected, in a timeless way. As well, the language of craft enables these writers to develop complex aesthetic judgements about their own work, and that of others. Anna credited her US television experience for teaching her valuable lessons in handling exposition and enhancing story action. For her it “lifted my bar as a writer”. Tim praised the work of two prominent Australian screenwriters, with whom he was developing a television project, for helping him better understand story structure: “I just think working with great people, what it’s doing is helping me become a better storyteller”. Extensive experience in European and US television serial development strengthened Nina’s ability to “pitch” stories, develop characters and structure “story arcs”. It was noticeable how conversant these writers were with storytelling craft concepts, and how articulate they were with their application. As well, in the way these writers critiqued their peers’ work, such concepts were clearly part of a shared ethos. However, of the 10 writers interviewed only three had studied specialised screenwriting courses. One had completed a generalist arts degree and the other six had trained through entry-level industry jobs. This suggests that most of the writers had learnt craft concepts on the job, and that their various professional activities helped them habituate the use of their abilities. Concepts of “quality” and “craft”, along with a philosophical framing of creative labour as “lifelong learning”, have been critiqued as a way of disguising exploitation and promoting the fragmentation of labour (McRobbie, 2016). Several of the writers interviewed noted that, while a show might have contracted them to write a set number of drafts, the rewrites required often exceeded their fee. Nonetheless, all of those interviewed expressed a willingness to produce work of quality and praised the exacting standards their industry imposes. Overall, they spoke about craft standards in a positive way, and were fairly circumspect about their own negative experiences in industry. This may be in part because they each saw themselves as being fairly successful. Nonetheless, six of the interviewees did comment that screenwriters are afforded greater respect in the US and the UK than they are in Australia. The main problems they cited for Australian screenwriters were that:  screenwriters are considered dispensable  scripts are rewritten by script editors without appropriate consultation 211

MALONEY

 Australian television is still not fully recognising a desire for sophisticated dramatic storytelling  with only six networks, Australian television lacks competition and diversity  screenwriters lack effective on-the-job training opportunities. Overall, the writers critiqued the industry with a notable degree of objectivity and thoughtful analysis. Nina provided a balanced account of a difficult period in developing a US serial. She argued that poor communication between the head writer and the executive producers was the main problem, with the latter not understanding the production company’s interests. In spite of this, she emphasised the positive lessons she learnt about collaborative writing and development. Nina’s balanced account of competing interests was typical of the way the interviewees read the industry, and their work in it. Such emotional literacy is of value, especially for freelance workers who must effectively move in and out of new work environments on a regular basis. EMPLOYABILITY

Reducing employability to a list of tasks or attributes is problematic. Various studies have found it difficult to reduce the work employers require to a list of agreed skills (Yorke, 2006). As well, the tacit knowledge associated with a task may remain out of view (Polanyi, 1967). In addition, a strict focus on skills robs students of the ability to assess and critique the way knowledge is organised within their field (Wheelehan, 2015). The screenwriters certainly displayed a distinctive range of skills and knowledge they used to grow and sustain their careers. They were enterprising in the way they built their reputations, promoted their talents, developed social networks and balanced personal projects with writing contracts. However, they also valued more discrete modes of working, such as heeding intuition, fostering relationships and developing a sophisticated craft ethos. How might these detailed accounts of creative work assist a model of employability for creative artists more generally? Duening’s (2010) model of the entrepreneurial mindset maps well against these writers’ skills and knowledge. Duening (2010) conceived five cognitive domains: opportunity recognition, designing, risk management, resilience and effectuating. Not only do the interviewed writers discern useful patterns of work and production in their field, but they are also adept at identifying opportunities for their writing. Through membership of the Australian Writers’ Guild, attendance at industry events and by maintaining formal and informal relationships with colleagues, they keep up-to-date with production developments and they devote time to developing projects that will promote their talents. One of the key risks these writers identified in their industry was the potential for exploitation and abuse that high pressure creative environments produce. They pay close attention to building relationships and intuiting dynamics as a form of risk management. Their industry is typified by wild swings in production activity, and these writers are careful to remain resilient and deal with changes by ensuring a constant flow of work. Finally, they are keenly aware of the needs of the 212

EMPLOYABILITY IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

markets in which they work. They create work of value, but they also know how to deliver it in a timely and effective way. However, this entrepreneurial model fails to account for the way in which these writers integrate their creative work with their professional practice. Screenwriting, like many other creative pursuits, is not a simple product. It arises from a range of activities such as research, collaboration, story development, rewriting, consultation, pitching and presenting. It is both a social and a writing process (MacDonald, 2013). CONCLUSION

The existing literature on creative labour and employability does, in many ways, anticipate the experiences shared by these writers. They affirm the importance of effectively contextualised career management skills and entrepreneurship that is informed by market awareness. As well, the intermittent, competitive and fragile nature of the industry demands a high degree of planning for these screenwriters to maintain and develop their creative practice. The insights the screenwriters interviewed offer about the relational, “felt” and craft dimensions of their professional experience suggest fertile ground for further researching employability in the creative industries, and for developing curricula that better responds to the emotional and relational needs of artists. NOTES 1

2

3

4

This study was funded by the Victorian VET Development Centre, with the interviews undertaken in 2015 and 2016. All research participants’ names used in this chapter are pseudonyms. The Australian Writers’ Guild (AWG) is the professional association representing writers for stage, screen, radio and online. Film Victoria and Screen Australia provide strategic leadership and assistance to the film, television and digital media sectors at state and national levels. Direct quotes from the participants are italicised.

REFERENCES Banks, M., Lovatt, A., O’Connor, J., & Raffo, C. (2000). Risk and trust in the cultural industries. Geoforum, 31, 453-464. Bridgstock, R. (2012). Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and higher education. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2-3), 122-137. Bridgstock, R. (2014). Professional capabilities for twenty-first century creative careers: Lessons from outstandingly successful Australian artists and designers. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 32(2), 176-189. Caldwell, J. T. (2008). Industrial reflexivity and critical practice in film and television. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Conor, B. (2014). Screenwriting: Creative labor and professional practice. Abingdon, England: Routledge. de Peuter, G., & Cohen, N. (2015). Emerging labour politics in creative industries. In Oakley, K. & O’Connor, J. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the cultural industries (pp. 305-318). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Dempster, A. (2014). Risk and uncertainty in the art world. London, England: Bloomsbury.

213

MALONEY Duening, T. (2010). Five minds for the entrepreneurial future: Cognitive skills as the intellectual foundation for next generation entrepreneurship curricula. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 19(1), 1-22. Gill, R., & Pratt, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8), 1-30. Hennekam, S., & Bennett, D. (2017). Creative industries work across multiple contexts: Common themes and challenges. Personnel Review, 46(1), 68-85. Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2011). ‘A very complicated version of freedom’: Conditions and experiences of creative labour in three cultural industries. New York, NY: Routledge. MacDonald, I. (2013). Screenwriting poetics and the screen idea. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. McRobbie, A. (2016). Be creative: Making a living in the new cultural industries. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. O’Hara, F. (1995). Personism: A manifesto. In Allen, D. (Ed.), The collected poems of Frank O’Hara (pp. 498-499). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Throsby, D., & Petetskaya, K. (2017). Making art work: An economic study of professional artists in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/making-art-work/ Ursell, G. (2000). Television production: Issues of exploitation, commodification and subjectivity in UK television labour markets. Media, Culture & Society, 22, 805-825. Wheelehan, L. (2015). Not just skills: What a focus on knowledge means for vocational education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 750-762. Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is – what it is not (Learning and Employability Series 1). York, England: The Higher Education Academy.

Noel Maloney PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8862-6435) School of Humanities and Social Sciences La Trobe University, Australia

214

ANATOLI KOVALEV

18. LEARNING TO BE EMPLOYABLE The UNSW Hero Program

We live in a world where success is not determined by one’s level of education, but by how one critically adapts to the changing dynamics of the workforce. Creative thinking and devising solutions to challenges are key attributes needed to strive in today’s contemporary workplace, whether it be professionally, personally or academically. Hence, the UNSW Sydney Hero Program was established to assist the university in developing these notions along with the graduate capabilities of its students. The student learning takes place within the learning phases of the program’s framework described in this chapter and is based on Professor Beverley Oliver’s research on graduate capabilities for professional success (Oliver, 2015). A unique aspect of the program is the opportunity for students to conceptualise and build internal innovation projects aligned with UNSW’s 2025 strategy. The name of the program originates from students ideating projects and acting as “Heroes” driving positive changes within UNSW Sydney. These students are given the freedom to express their creativity, trial and build on their ideas, whilst learning from their experiences. Alongside this, the program has industry connections with corporate partners from a range of diverse industries including IBM, Amazon, Uber, Johnson & Johnson, Adobe, Lendlease and Lenovo, to name a few. Industry representatives from these companies conduct educational and practical workshops for the students. They speak about their career, experience and impart lessons they have learned along their journeys. Furthermore, these professionals speak on topics they are passionate about and act as mentors for the students. The collegial and welcoming nature of the program invites students across all degree disciplines including both international and domestic students. To date over 500 students have completed the program with 260 paid placement opportunities being facilitated. This chapter outlines the essential elements of the UNSW Hero Program and provides a description of the design, development and implementation of the program at UNSW Sydney. PRELUDE

In October 2015, we received a phone call from one of our Heroes who had just been interviewed by KPMG. He was so excited, he could not wait to tell us about the interview. “They asked me about teamwork and I spoke about working with a number of students from different faculties on a project and how communication, clear goals and defined roles are the key aspects of any successful team,” Hamza ‹.21,1./,-.(%5,//19/(,'(1_'2,: 9789004418707_018

KOVALEV

said. He explained how he addressed questions about innovation, communication, project management and teamwork by pulling examples from a portfolio of experiences he developed by being part of the UNSW Hero Program. An hour after his interview, the KPMG recruitment team called Hamza to let him know they were offering him the position. Hamza continues to be involved in our program, organising innovation workshops and sharing his experiences with the next generation of UNSW Heroes. He is one of several student success stories to have come out of the UNSW Hero Program. The phone call reminded my team and I of why we first started the UNSW Hero program. Through everything we do, we aim to work towards providing a framework of learning experiences and professional development opportunities in an authentic environment. These opportunities enable UNSW students to develop their graduate capabilities, professional skills and confidence so they can positively impact the lives of others. The UNSW Hero Program’s profound impact on student learning experiences was recognised by the university’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic (DVC(A)) Division which ran a proof of concept (POC) in Semester 2, 2016. The POC’s success has led to the UNSW Hero Program being recognised and funded as a UNSW 2025 strategic project within the DVC(A) Division in order to increase the number of students participating in the program. PROGRAM STRUCTURE

The program has a modular structure which incorporates a series of integrated phases. Each phase contributes to a unique approach towards developing student graduate capabilities. Phase 1. Students work in teams to identify opportunities for internal innovation at UNSW Sydney. This is done by utilising start-up approaches to create a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). The program acts as a platform where internal UNSW units provide students with projects and areas that require service improvement from an operational point of view. Such focus areas include strategic objectives promoting academic excellence; social inclusion; seamlessly integrating on-campus, digital education; and delivering a flexible and personalised education. Students are then invited to conceptualise Service Improvement Initiatives. During participation in these innovation projects, they develop creative and problem-solving skills. Phase 2. Work Integrated Learning: As part of the program, students volunteer their time to gain practical experience working with operational units within UNSW. Activities range from providing information technology (IT) support for new students to marketing assistance for UNSW events. During these learning experiences, students are given the opportunity to enhance their customer service and IT skills. Most importantly, these experiences allow UNSW Heroes to validate their Service Improvement Initiatives by surveying and consulting with university students. This emulates the real-world business process where primary data 216

LEARNING TO BE EMPLOYABLE

gathering is conducted to help with new product and service research. Occurring concurrently with Phase 3, Phase 2 facilities the constant iteration of Service Improvement Initiatives from Phase 1 to ensure they align with both the university’s strategy and student preferences. Phase 3. Industry Engagement: To further support the development of our Heroes skills, students attend seminars and site visits run by both internal and external industry partners such as the UNSW Learning Centre, UNSW Innovations, CISCO, CSIRO, IBM, Amazon Web Services, QBE, KPMG, Adobe, PwC, EY, McDonalds, Uber and Johnson & Johnson. These learning experiences enable students to build their personal brand and expand their professional network. Most importantly, students deepen their knowledge of highly innovative and traditional concepts such as the Internet of Things, Disruptive Innovation, Machine Learning, Agile Development, Project Management, Design Thinking, and Presentation Delivery. These experiences allow students to learn and receive feedback from individuals who are at the forefront of their respective industries. Learning ranges from insights on careers students might like to pursue, to guidance on processes and technologies that can be applied to the development of students’ internal innovation projects. Phase 4. Placements: As an extension of Phase 2, while completing their degrees students are given paid placement opportunities (as seen in Figure 18.6) to gain work experience and workplace acculturation in an Australian context with both internal and external partners. These placements allow students to engage in transformative change, building on their involvement in flagship UNSW projects. Placement opportunities are also made available through external partners such as CISCO, Student Services Australia, QBE Insurance and Amazon Web Services. Phase 5. Learning Community Events: The UNSW Service Improvement Conference provides participants with a platform to present their internal innovation ideas for new products and services to the wider UNSW community in a start-up pitch competition manner. This event has fostered innovations that have benefited students and UNSW as a whole. With senior external partner executives and UNSW stakeholders present, this phase aims to emulate a real business case pitch and therefore focuses on the development of public speaking and communication skills. Phase 6. Incubation Services: Following the UNSW Service Improvement Conference, the UNSW Hero Program connects students with both internal – PVC(Education), DVC(Academic), World Class Environments & Strategy Unit – and external partners to facilitate the opportunity for students to continue to build on their Service Improvement Initiatives from Phases 1 and 5.

217

KOVALEV

UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK

For UNSW students to be successful in the future, the program must facilitate a holistic approach adapted to the needs of students. These needs must widen students’ scope beyond traditional discipline norms and engage them with new modes of experiential learning. Keeping this in mind, the graduate outcomes for the UNSW Hero Program are based on Oliver’s (2015) research on graduate capabilities for professional success. These graduate capabilities define the skills and knowledge that graduates develop in the UNSW Hero Program (see Table 18.1). Table 18.1. Graduate capability matrix reference. Personal attributes

Interactional abilities

Critical & analytical thinking Problem solving Self-directed learning Using information technology Values & ethics Industry awareness

Effective communication Teamwork Intercultural understanding Social contexts Community engagement Building professional networks

STUDENT PARTICIPATION

The program is open to all students, including international, domestic, undergraduate, postgraduate and research, from all degree disciplines. The program has grown steadily as evidenced by the increase in student participation numbers (see Figure 18.1). The program received over 500 student applications for the Semester 1, 2018 intake and 85 students were selected. Furthermore, 514 students have been through the program with a growing alumni engagement as previous Heroes return as mentors for the next cohort of new participants. Applications for the program are advertised via social media networks, word of mouth and via the program representatives throughout the university. The program focuses on gender balance and attracts participants from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Between 2013 and 2016, international students have made up 56% of the student cohort. With the program increasing its student intake per semester in 2017, it has now achieved a near 1:1 balance between domestic and international students. The international student cohort comprises students from all the major continents with greater accommodation from the East and South-East Asian region, which accounts for the top 10 origins of international students who attend UNSW (UNSW Sydney, n.d.). Approximately 75% of domestic students were born in Australia with the remaining domestic students being born in over 20 different countries.

218

LEARNING TO BE EMPLOYABLE

The program also promotes gender equality and as of Semester 1, 2018 it has achieved a 50/50 average participation ratio for both males and females (see Figures 18.2 and 18.3).

Figure 18.1. Number of Hero Program participants each semester between 2013 and 2018.

Figure 18.2. Average ratio of local versus international program participants.

219

KOVALEV

Figure 18.3. Average ratio of male versus female program participants.

Alongside this, the UNSW Hero Program is designed to ensure that graduates can adapt to a constantly changing workforce. The learning communities’ component also brings together students from various cultural communities, thereby allowing students to gain a better understanding of different cultural and social contexts. Such discussion facilitates greater awareness of global economic, educational, health and wellbeing challenges among UNSW students and acts as a basis for the generation of the new Service Improvement Initiatives. This is validated by 87% of Semester 1, 2017’s cohort of students believing the program helped them better understand different social contexts and people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. THE VALUE STATEMENT

While various standalone initiatives promote work integrated learning and the development of graduate capabilities (Oliver, 2015), the UNSW Hero Program’s uniqueness originates from its ability to seamlessly weave the program’s six phases together. Higher engagement in learning improves multiple academic and professional outcomes (Buckley, 2014), including leadership skills and confidence (Zuo & Ratsoy, 1999). The program has been successfully completed by 514 students in total with a 2% dropout rate due to work and internship commitments during the semester break periods.

220

LEARNING TO BE EMPLOYABLE

To cultivate graduates with attributes needed for success in the 21st century, the program utilises a partnership approach, with the goal of learning through experiences to spark curiosity in the minds of participants. The opportunity to collaborate with professional staff allows participants to experience an increased sense of engagement and enthusiasm (Bovill, Cook-Sather, & Felten, 2011). The industry partnership approach of the program utilises a multifaceted method which is primarily focused on professional skill building, personal development and technological awareness. UNSW has been recognised for its focus on entrepreneurship and start-up culture (UNSW Sydney, 2016). The UNSW Hero Program recognises that despite not all students working towards start-up, it is necessary for graduates to be able to identify market opportunities and areas for development regardless of the organisation they join upon graduation. Hence, the program places a specific focus on “intrapreneurship”. TEACHING QUALITY

The UNSW Hero Program has been implemented in an environment in which the UNSW Scientia Educational Experience (UNSW Sydney, 2017c) aims to deliver a distinctive, innovative and globally relevant educational approach. In 2016, the program’s contribution to the Scientia Educational Experience was recognised with the UNSW Hero Program receiving a Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence. Staff were also commended with the 2016 UNSW Staff Excellence Award for Excellence in Innovation and Entrepreneurship based on the work undertaken to build the UNSW Hero Program as an innovative educational program (UNSW Sydney, 2017a). MENTORING

In 2017, leveraging the program’s internal partnerships with several service units and faculties at UNSW, the program introduced a distinctive new feature. A component of mentoring by professional staff was embedded into Phase 1 – the Internal Innovation Project. This enables students to consult and collaborate with UNSW staff members throughout the development phase of their internal innovation projects. Furthermore, several Hero alumni return each semester as group supervisors to share their best practice approach to the program and to assist teams with the idea creation process. The mentoring components (previously two and now three), provide students with a robust support network as they progress through each of the program’s phases. The assistance from dedicated mentors is proven to be very useful and is strongly advocated as a support network (Healey, Flint, & Harrington, 2014).

221

KOVALEV

IMPACT ON THE STUDENT BODY

A survey of program participants from 2013 to 2017 indicated that on average 91.5% of students had an overall positive experience and would recommend the program to their peers with this number rising to 99% in Semester 2, 2017’s survey (see Figure 18.4).

Figure 18.4. Growth in Hero Program participant satisfaction each semester.

Since the introduction of the UNSW Hero Program, 10 cohorts have graduated with approximately 500 students having completed the program in total. Based on student feedback, students who participated in the UNSW Hero Program believe that the program has assisted them in developing their graduate capabilities in teamwork, communication, critical thinking, problem solving and network development (see Figure 18.5). SUCCESS STORIES

The nature and framework of the program has given rise to hundreds of successful stories whilst simultaneously allowing students to thrive positively, professionally and personally. By improving their graduate capabilities and creating networking opportunities, the program has opened a plethora of new opportunities for students. Many alumni members have successfully utilised the UNSW Hero Program experience to draw examples from, when seeking graduate and internship positions. Program alumni are invited to engage with the next cohort of students as student mentors. The philosophy underpinning these mentoring relationships is creativity and learning, enabled through collaboration among a community of like-minded individuals and driven by the intrapreneurial spirit. 222

LEARNING TO BE EMPLOYABLE

Figure 18.5. Hero Program’s level of impact on student learning as evaluated by participants’ in 2017 – for each Graduate Capability Matrix area, on average 80% of students believed the program helped in their personal development quite a bit or better.

The success of the mentoring opportunities is evident in the fact that 87% of participants from Semester 1, 2017’s cohort expressed their interest in returning as mentors, with 55 alumni from previous cohorts having done so already. Thus, a collaborative venture that allows alumni to interact with new participants assists alumni with their own professional development. As can be seen in Figure 18.6, over 260 paid work placements offered to program participants suggests that staff and external partners see strong value in working with Heroes in this program. POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR UNSW

The UNSW Hero Program has been an advocate of the Students as Partners (SaP) concept which recognises the importance of positioning students as change agents who share the responsibility for learning together with teaching, professional staff and external and industry partners (Shaw et al., 2017).

223

KOVALEV

Figure 18.6. Number of paid work placements secured by participants through the program.

SaP also acts as a gateway to promote Customer Centric/Student Driven Innovation at UNSW. Thus far, numerous UNSW Heroes have gone beyond being a student voice and have been given the tools (such as Co-Design sessions) and the opportunity to become active collaborators and co-producers in UNSW projects. SaP and Customer Centric/Student Driven Innovation highlights UNSW values students both as learners and as individuals with knowledge to contribute to the enhancement of UNSW’s service offerings. Two prominent examples of student driven innovation through the UNSW Hero Program include the myIT Mobile App and the UNSW Graduate Register (UNSW Sydney, 2017b). In 2014, UNSW’s IT Service Centre utilised the myIT Mobile App conceptualised by UNSW Heroes. It is an app which facilitates real-time, locationbased IT support for staff and students, with UNSW being the first educational 224

LEARNING TO BE EMPLOYABLE

institution in Australia to pioneer such a crowdfunded IT initiative. Since its inception, the myIT Mobile App has had 7,507 downloads in the iOS App Store and 2,348 downloads in the Google PlayStore. The app has an average rating of 4.6 out of 5 stars, with a total of 3,020 IT support related tickets being resolved through myIT rather than the UNSW IT Service Centre. In 2017, UNSW Heroes conceptualised and built the prototype for the UNSW Graduate Register. The register acts as a platform for employers to verify graduate academic credentials prior to the commencement of employment. The secure service reduces up to 75% of the manual requests UNSW receives, as projected by the Student Administration team. POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR THE BROADER COMMUNITY

The program has extended its partnership with Amazon and UNSW Heroes participate in the Amazon Innovation Challenge. This includes a “boot camp” week where students work on current problems experienced by Amazon customers and focus on how Amazon can solve these issues in the most effective manner. The innovation challenge allows UNSW Heroes to utilise the skills they have learnt from the program and exhibit their creative ideas to Amazon who then opt to hire highperforming students. This partnership highlights the extended scope of the program to the wider business community, where our students act as catalysts for change in the Australian economy. Furthermore, the UNSW Hero Program believes the positive benefits of the program can be extended to a wider range of students, particularly to high school students. A partnership with Matraville Sports High School in Sydney primarily involves connecting high school students with final year technology major Heroes. These Heroes act as their mentors for a period of 10 weeks. Each mentor discusses with their mentee the goals they would like to achieve in the 10-week period. The student learning process is supplemented by the opportunity for high school students to interact with industry leading experts and cutting-edge technologies by attending the same seminars run for UNSW Hero Program participants. As a result, this facilitates the propagation of knowledge regarding creative thinking from UNSW Heroes to school students. FUTURE OUTCOMES

The UNSW Hero Program is designed to prepare graduates to thrive in a global economy, where the ability to continually adapt and remain relevant in the face of disruption and uncertainty will be key to future success. Going forward, the UNSW Hero Program will leverage its network of industry partners such as QBE Insurance, Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, EY and AWS, coupled with the existing workshops delivered by UNSW professional staff and academics, to ensure we are providing the necessary mentoring and real-time student support. Thereby, this will assist UNSW Sydney to establish itself as a leader in transforming our students and empowering them to become the best they can be. 225

KOVALEV

The UNSW Hero Program will ensure UNSW students obtain a holistic educational experience which they can then leverage to engage in “intrapreneurship” within their respective corporations to establish themselves as the next generation of professionals. This will ensure they are able to sufficiently adapt to the disruptive commercial world we live in today. REFERENCES Bovill, C., CookǦSather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as coǦcreators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133-145. Buckley, A. (2014). How radical is student engagement? (And what is it for?). Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 3(2), 1-23. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, England: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-partnershipstudents-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56-65. Shaw, N., Rueckert, C., Smith, J., Tredinnick, J., & Lee, M. (2017). Students as partners in the real world – a whole-institution approach. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 2-4. UNSW Sydney. (n.d.). The University of New South Wales at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/UNSWAtaGlance_Final.pdf UNSW Sydney. (2016). Student entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.innovations.unsw.edu.au/student-entrepreneurship/startup-general-help UNSW Sydney. (2017a). Awards for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/awards UNSW Sydney. (2017b). Hero Program past projects. Retrieved from https://student.unsw.edu.au/heroprojects UNSW Sydney. (2017c). Scientia Education Experience (SEE). Retrieved from https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/scientia-education-experience Zuo, B., & Ratsoy, E. W. (1999). Student participation in university governance. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 29(1), 1-26.

Anatoli Kovalev UNSW Hero Program University of New South Wales, Australia

226

LINA MARKAUSKAITE AND NARELLE PATTON

19. LEARNING FOR EMPLOYABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE Developing Graduate Work Capabilities

Across contemporary higher education programs, learning in the workplace is increasingly being used as a strategy to develop work ready graduates. Workplace learning (WPL) takes many forms including practicums, fieldwork, professional experience, clinical placements, internships, university clinics, farms or businesses, community and industry placements and projects. Learning in the workplace provides students with unique possibilities to develop a raft of professional skills through engagement in professional practice and experience of practice in real-life settings. However, the power of WPL to develop broader adaptive capabilities for future practice is diminished when viewed primarily as a possibility to gain concrete workplace experience in the development of discipline or occupational technical skills and knowledge. In this chapter, we specifically address the question of how learning in the workplace could be purposefully designed to enhance development of students’ capabilities for future employability and adaptability in diverse workplace settings. We consider two critical aspects of WPL: 1) development of students’ capabilities to construct various professional-practical knowledge artefacts that support development of transferrable kinds of knowledge; and 2) development of students’ agency that involves capabilities to drive their own current and future WPL and shape their social and physical workplace environments. We illustrate each aspect by using examples and argue that these two capabilities are central for preparing students for learning and work in dynamic and rapidly changing workplace environments. These capabilities enable students to work, learn and solve complex problems not only individually, but also together with other professionals and clients. We discuss some challenges and practical solutions to implementing these learning approaches during WPL. We conclude the chapter by discussing how technological development shapes these two aspects of learning in the workplace. We start the discussion by exploring three aspects of job preparedness: readiness, knowledgeability and capability. JOB READY, JOB KNOWLEDGEABLE AND JOB CAPABLE GRADUATES

Employers often expect that universities will prepare graduates for work. This expectation usually comes with a belief that “properly” prepared new graduates should not require much additional help or time to figure out how jobs get done in a specific organisation. Rather, they should have (most of) the knowledge and skills © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_019

MARKAUSKAITE AND PATTON

needed to perform tasks and innovate in the workplace right from the start. In short, they should be “job ready”. For many years, universities saw their role in preparing students for the workplace quite differently (Goodyear, 2006). Teaching of formal knowledge and generic thinking skills was seen as the university’s main job, while students were often left to themselves to work out how this knowledge and these skills should be applied in workplace settings. The shift towards critical modes of thinking in academia in the late 20th century partly changed this: now students’ capacity to contest assumptions that underpin (often taken for granted) formal knowledge or workplace practices have come to the fore. Nevertheless, the focus has stayed firmly on development of students’ critical understanding about formal knowledge and professional practices rather than their capability to use this knowledge and understanding for getting work done in workplaces. In short, knowledgeable graduates equipped with formal disciplinary or professional knowledge and critical-reflective ways of knowing have been the “gold standard” in higher education. “Job knowledgeable” graduates are not the same as “job ready” graduates: one may be very knowledgeable about driving – know all road signs, rules and parts of the car and even be able to critique driving techniques of more skilful drivers – yet not be able to drive. Task completion requires actionable knowledge; that is, knowledge that is needed for getting a job done (Argyris, 1996; Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017a). This distinction is well acknowledged in universities and workplaces that now often see workplace learning or work integrated learning (WIL) as a “silver bullet” for enhancing students’ preparation for employment. The criticality of WPL and/or WIL to development of job ready graduates is underpinned by universities’ inability to develop a range of capabilities that require extensive situated practice and that cannot be learnt outside authentic social and physical workplace settings. Thus, combining formal academic learning with experience in workplace environments provides a rational and well justified solution to the dilemma of meeting societal demands for job ready graduates. However, adding workplace experiences on top of academic knowledge does not necessarily result in the development of students’ capabilities to link professional knowledgeability with skilful embodied action to adapt easily to diverse workplaces. Extending the driving analogy, a capability to drive a car in Oslo may not be easily transferrable to London or Bangkok. Getting job ready, job knowledgeable and job capable are not the same: there is a significant difference between the situated knowledge and skill needed for successful immediate employment, formal knowledge and critical-reflective thinking that enable a person to be knowledgeable about practice, and adaptive capabilities that enable individuals to attune and act knowledgeably in diverse workplace situations (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Edwards, 2010; Reimann & Markauskaite, 2018). Capabilities that enable individuals to learn on the go, find innovative, well-informed solutions to unfamiliar problems and move flexibly across diverse situations are key for future employability (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017b).

228

LEARNING FOR EMPLOYABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Practicums and other similar forms of WPL or WIL provide a unique space and time that facilitates fusing formal knowledge with situated embodied practice and developing adaptive actionable knowledge and other capabilities for employability. Workplaces provide authentic context and grounded experiences, but what else is needed in order to go beyond situated experiences? What kind of pedagogical strategies could be employed for developing flexible capabilities that enable individuals to act knowledgeably in diverse situations now and in the future? We propose that active construction of actionable forms knowledge allows students to develop a valuable set of capacities for employability. In the rest of the chapter we discuss two broad strategies in detail: (a) learning through development of professional knowledge artefacts; and (b) proactive students’ driving their learning and shaping of work. DEVELOPING ADAPTIVE EXPERTISE THROUGH CREATING SHAREABLE KNOWLEDGE ARTEFACTS

Knowledge Artefacts in Professional Work Material artefacts that people produce – when they are solving encountered problems or sharing their knowledge – play diverse and critical roles in professional work (Knorr-Cetina, 2001; Miettinen & Virkkunen, 2005; Nicolini, Mengis, & Swan, 2012). Various professional inscriptions often act as extended “external memory” when practitioners solve complex professional problems (Kirsh, 2010). For example, many tasks in accounting – revenue tracking, account management, planning, etc. – would be impossible without extensive use of external representational devices and professional inscriptions: payrolls, balance sheets, budgets, etc. Artefacts also provide essential material grounding for problems yet to be solved (Knorr-Cetina, 1999). For example, an architect would hardly be able to design a house without numerous sketches and drawings that represent constraints, interim ideas and semi-solved problems and enable iterative refinement of the design (Kasali & Nersessian, 2015). Constructed representations of knowledge also make thinking visible and provide essential shared material grounding when people jointly solve practical problems encountered in the workplace. For example, various “rich pictures”, models and other inscriptions often play essential roles in making vaguely understood issues and different worldviews visible and in coming up jointly with an agreeable solution (Checkland & Poulter, 2006; Engeström & Sannino, 2010). They also make complex and abstract professional knowledge more tangible and help share it across professional boundaries. For example, in the construction industry and many other design professions, plans and physical and digital mockups play essential roles in communicating across professional boundaries as well as negotiating with clients (Kasali & Nersessian, 2015; Nicolini et al., 2012). Artefacts are also central in distributed ongoing work (Eraut, 2009; Star, 2005). For example, passing knowledge during a change of shifts from an off-going to the on-coming nurse would be unreliable without clinical handover sheets and other jointly maintained records. In short, many of today’s professions, similarly to 229

MARKAUSKAITE AND PATTON

scientific fields, would be impossible without their material “memory practices” that enable them to record, pass on and reconfigure knowledge (Bowker, 2008). Professional knowledge artefacts play different roles in different professions. For example, while they are central in architecture and other design professions where much work is done with various inscriptions, and quite common in teaching are lesson plans, worksheets, student performance records, and similar inscriptions are commonly weaved in daily practices, they are less so in nursing, where much of the knowledge-demanding work is embodied in ongoing decisions and actions. Nevertheless, learning to produce professional artefacts is a critical part of professional education in most professions (Eraut, 2009). Learning for Employability Through Constructing Professional Knowledge Artefacts Lina’s studies show that tasks during which students construct various usual and less conventional professional artefacts could productively enhance their WPL experiences (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017a, 2017b). However, different artefacts have different pedagogical features and support different learning practices and outcomes. Lina and Peter identified three broad kinds of professional artefacts: cultural artefacts, conceptual artefacts and epistemic artefacts. Cultural artefacts are various conventional professional artefacts that many practitioners use and produce during their daily professional work. The diverse roles of these cultural artefacts were discussed in the previous section. These artefacts embody professional knowledge and are essential for getting jobs done. Mastering skills to produce and use these artefacts skilfully, therefore, is critical for job readiness. These professional artefacts are also an integral part of professional cultures, and even if they are produced and used differently in specific workplace settings, they share many important common features. For example, teachers often construct and present their lesson plans in different ways, yet knowledge and skill needed to produce a lesson plan is at least partly transferrable. Learning to produce these cultural artefacts, therefore, is critical for employability. However, learning to use and construct cultural professional artefacts alone is unlikely to be sufficient for becoming a knowledgeable and capable professional. For example, nursing students often feel challenged understanding why certain procedures are different in different hospitals (and different from those that they learnt at university) – and not necessarily only one of them is correct. Pharmacy students similarly can find identification of differences between various medications for treating similar condition and making a decision about which one suits best challenging. New medications constantly become available, requiring student capability to learn and adapt on the job rather than come to the workplace being knowledgeable about everything. Learning to construct other kinds of professional artefacts could help with this challenging learning task. Conceptual artefacts are products of deliberative knowledge work aimed at constructing explicit articulated “know that” and “know how” knowledge for professional judgements and practice. For example, when some aspects of 230

LEARNING FOR EMPLOYABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE

professional practice are not easily visible or involve more extensive problem solving, trying to reconcile sometimes competing constraints and aims (e.g. what is the fundamental difference between two seemingly similar diseases or two available medications for the same medical condition?), construction of conceptual knowledge artefacts, such as comparisons and evaluations, tends to be helpful. Epistemic artefacts are artefacts that explicitly link the “know that” and “know how” of professional knowledge with “know why” and “know when”. For example, in our studies we found that nursing students were given a task to create guidelines for nursing procedures by simultaneously weaving descriptions of these procedures (“know that”) with illustrations of these procedures using photographs of their own performance (“know how”) and evidence about best practice (“know why”). Similarly, pre-service primary school teachers were creating “mini modules” for teaching various science topics through scientific inquiry composed of lesson plans, sets of teaching materials and descriptions of how these modules could be adapted for use in different classroom contexts. The main distinct feature of epistemic artefacts is that they create connections between conceptual knowledge and cultural situated professional knowledge: they help create situated professional knowledge that is needed for action in diverse professional settings. In short, epistemic artefacts act as a bridge between being job knowledgeable and job ready: they embody knowledge that is key for employability. Creating conceptual and epistemic artefacts that embody professional knowledge and ways of knowing and that contribute to professional community is a natural part of professional work and learning in some professions. For example, students in computer engineering often learn by participating in global professional networks, reusing computer code created by others and sharing their own code and solutions for encountered problems (Nerland, 2008). However, such learning practices are less natural in other professions. For example, in education, professionals often find it time consuming and hard to produce artefacts that enable them to share their professional knowledge with others, such as effective e-learning models (Falconer & Littlejohn, 2009). Such knowledge is often experiential and tacit, expressed in action and hard to capture in static inscriptions. However, video technologies and sharing tools provide increasingly more possibilities for inscribing and sharing these forms of knowledge (Goodyear & Steeples, 1998). WPL in this respect provides a unique opportunity to engage students in new knowledge creation and sharing cultures that can contribute to professional knowledge building (Bereiter, 2013; Markauskaite & Reimann, 2008). STUDENTS DRIVING WORKPLACE LEARNING FOR PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND PRACTICE COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION

Harnessing student agency during WPL opens up powerful ways of nimbly responding to ever-changing workplace and educational demands (Bauman, 2012). WPL curricula for the development of student agency requires deliberate positioning of the fostering of a range of student capabilities and qualities at the centre of WPL. This purposeful construction of WPL would replace current reliance on 231

MARKAUSKAITE AND PATTON

serendipitous workplace moments for achieving learning outcomes, with focused and purposeful WPL experiences that develop students’ agency and in so doing places students at the centre of their own learning. In this section, we specifically address the question of how WPL can be purposefully designed to enhance development of students’ agency and capabilities to drive their own current and future WPL in formal WPL and informal spaces and in so doing transform themselves and their practice communities for the better. Developing Students’ Capabilities for Joint Agentic Learning in the Workplace Work contexts dominate professional learning, both prior to graduation and during the early, formative years of graduate professional practice (Eraut, 1994). Workplaces are not benign entities; they are negotiated and constructed through interdependent processes of affordance and engagement (Billett, 2004). Meaningful participation in workplace activities is at the centre of workplace learning (Boud & Hager, 2012). Workplaces represent powerful sites of identity, practice and knowledge systems in which students’ desire for recognition, competence, participation and meaning are entwined (Fenwick & Sommerville, 2006). This contested and constructed nature of workplaces alongside the centrality of student acceptance and inclusion in workplace activities to their learning underscores the importance of explicating and preparing students for the relational nature of WPL. Organisational structures and power relationships within workplaces underpin students’ access to and participation in authentic workplace activities. In workplace hierarchies, students often occupy a position of least power and limited agency with a consequent vulnerability to assuming workplace values due to feeling a need to comply. In these circumstances students’ ability to drive their own learning and to transform workplace practices can be lost. In Narelle’s research, physiotherapy student and clinical supervisor participants clearly identified students’ low status in clinical workplaces with students describing themselves as “at the bottom of the heap”, “in the way”, a “burden” and “useless” (Patton, 2014). This sense of being a burden negatively affected students’ ability to engage with WPL opportunities. Further, due to this perceived low status, students considered that it “wasn’t their place” to disagree with staff and generally followed instructions without question. Thus, students’ perception of their low status within clinical workplace hierarchies could significantly affect their capacity to undertake patient treatments they wanted to implement and reduced their agency. Re-imagined university curricula that prepare both students and WPL supervisors to engage in constructive feedback and discussions could harness the potential of WPL to transform both student learning and contemporary professional practices. It is only in relational spaces grounded in trust and respect, where a variety of ideas are encouraged and all players are empowered to enter professional conversations, that meaningful personal, professional and practice community transformations can occur (Patton & Simpson, 2016). Academic curricula, including authentic practice case studies with example scripts and role play opportunities, could provide students with the necessary 232

LEARNING FOR EMPLOYABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE

language and confidence to respectfully question contemporary workplace practices and enable students to put their own views forward. When students are empowered to respectfully challenge current practices they can be repositioned as drivers of their own learning and opportunities to transform professional practices may be seized upon. Social dimensions of workplaces are an integral, yet often taken for granted, aspect of workplaces that have the potential to powerfully shape workplace practices, activities and consequently development of student agency. Narelle’s research revealed that relationships developed between physiotherapy students and a broad range of individuals in clinical workplaces including clinical supervisors, other medical staff, patients, administrative staff and other students were key to students’ clinical learning (Patton, 2014). As an example, student participants in Narelle’s research identified nursing staff as being significant to their clinical learning and identified a strong need to establish and maintain positive relationships with nurses. However, maintaining positive relationships was not always easy with students often requiring assistance from clinical supervisors to navigate the complex and often confusing territory of establishing and maintaining positive relationships with nursing staff. Despite this understanding of the significant influence of workplace relationships on student learning, university curricula rarely deliberately prepare students with the means to navigate and harness the potential of these social environments to enhance their WPL. The centrality of relational aspects of workplaces to student learning highlights a need to move the pedagogical focus from acts of teaching in WPL curricula, to student engagement and participation in authentic workplace activities and relationships. Discussion of and preparation for relational aspects of WPL during academic preparation sessions can facilitate students’ ability to engage with and harness the full potential of WPL. Constructing Informal Environments for Professional Learning While undertaking WPL, students drive their own experiences to varying degrees, both in response to workplace factors such as hierarchies and as a result of their own dispositions. For example, physiotherapy students are proactive in the construction of WPL activities and spaces that meet their individual needs (Patton, 2014). These were both physical and relational spaces that met a variety of student needs such as providing a relaxing break, debriefing and sharing placement experiences, preparation and reflection. Students utilised existing spaces and actively constructed new learning spaces to meet their individual needs both within and beyond clinical workplaces. For example, some students used the hospital cafeteria and staff lunch rooms as spaces to relax and recharge while other students valued conversations with family and friends. The students also valued being on placement with other students and purposefully created social spaces such as barbeques, pub visits and exercising together, where they could debrief and discuss their placement experiences outside of the workplace. Socialising in this manner allowed students to debrief and compare experiences with others who were experiencing the same thing. 233

MARKAUSKAITE AND PATTON

The student participants in Narelle’s research identified opportunities to “trade stories” with other students while on placement as a particularly valuable way to broaden their clinical knowledge. Storytelling can broaden students’ practice knowledge, enhance their reflective and critical thinking skills, nurture their wellbeing and assist in the development of their occupational identities (Patton, 2016). Students and WPL supervisors could be encouraged to share stories as a powerful way to broaden professional knowledge and to rejuvenate and enhance current practices through opening them up to critique. Opportunities for students to informally share WPL experiences with each other can present themselves during lunch breaks, car travel, while staying in shared accommodation and during social activities (Patton, 2017). During WPL preparation sessions, students could be assisted to identify opportunities for storytelling and be encouraged to harness these opportunities to enrich and strengthen their WPL and practice development. Once back on campus, academic curricula could be purposefully constructed to embed students’ sharing of practice experiences through structured sharing of practice stories to broaden and enrich all students’ practice knowledge. Opportunities for WPL supervisors to share their professional practice experiences with students can arise during unexpected breaks in work activities, work related car travel and during morning tea and lunch breaks. For this potential to be realised both students and WPL supervisors require well developed critical thinking capabilities, capability for mutually respectful dialogue and a disposition that welcomes diverse views. Therefore, the academic curriculum needs to embrace deliberate development of cognitive as well as interpersonal capabilities. Workplaces shape student learning to such an extent and in such different ways from academic environments that development of specific WPL pedagogies is warranted (Patton, 2014). The development of student agency to harness opportunities to transform themselves, their professions and communities for the better provides a solid platform on which to construct wise pedagogical practices that develop students’ capability for employability. CONCLUDING POINTS

WPL pedagogies commonly aim to prepare students for today’s workplaces, but they also need to prepare students for future work. Today’s graduates need to be job ready, job knowledgeable and job competent. Enhancing WPL with tasks that ask students to construct conceptual and epistemic professional artefacts positions students not only as creators of their personal professional knowledge and skilfulness, but also as creators of organisational and professional communities’ knowledge. Purposeful construction of WPL pedagogies and experiences that foster student agency can positively contribute to the development of graduates capable of thriving in current and future global workplaces.

234

LEARNING FOR EMPLOYABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Lina Markauskaite acknowledges Peter Goodyear’s contribution to their joint studies referred to in this chapter and the financial support of the Australian Research Council through Grant DP0988307. REFERENCES Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 390-406. Bauman, Z. (2012). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Bereiter, C. (2013). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 312-324. Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2012). Re-thinking continuing professional development through changing metaphors and location in professional practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(1), 17-30. Bowker, G. C. (2008). Memory practices in the sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioner, teachers, and students. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert practitioner: The relational turn to expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London, England: The Falmer Press. Eraut, M. (2009). Understanding complex performance through learning trajectories and mediating artefacts. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Learning to be professional through a higher education e-book (p. 17). Surrey: Surrey Centre for Excellence in Professional Training and Education (SCEPTrE). Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Representing models of practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennet, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects (pp. 20-40). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Fenwick, T., & Somerville, M. (2006). Work, subjectivity and learning: Prospects and issues. In S. Billett, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning: Understanding learning through working life (Vol. 6, pp. 247-265). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Goodyear, P. (2006). Technology and the articulation of vocational and academic interests: Reflections on time, space and e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 83-98. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1998). Creating shareable representations of practice. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 6(3), 16-23. Kasali, A., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Architects in interdisciplinary contexts: Representational practices in healthcare design. Design Studies, 41, 205-223. Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & Society, 25, 441-454. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175-188). London, England: Routledge. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017a). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

235

MARKAUSKAITE AND PATTON Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017b). Preparing students for the workplace through designing productive assessment tasks: An actionable knowledge perspective. In Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia conference. Sydney, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Markauskaite, L., & Reimann, P. (2008, June). Enabling teacher-led innovation and research: A conceptual design of an inquiry framework for ICT-enhanced teacher innovation. Paper presented at EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Vienna, Austria. Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3), 437-456. Nerland, M. (2008). Knowledge cultures and the shaping of work-based learning: The case of computer engineering. Vocations and Learning, 1, 49-69. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612-629. Patton, N. (2014). Clinical learning spaces: Crucibles for the development of professional practice capabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia. Patton, N. (2016). Students using story telling for learning to practice together. In A. Croker, J. Higgs, & F. Trede (Eds), Collaborating in healthcare (pp. 245-252). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Patton, N. (2017). Driving change: Students shaping and re-shaping work-integrated learning spaces. In T. Bowen & M. T. B. Drysdale (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the 21st century: Global perspectives on the future (pp. 163-176), Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing Limited. Patton, N., & Simpson, M. D. (2016). Co-writing discourse through practice and theory. In J. Higgs & F. Trede (Eds), Professional practice discourse marginalia (pp. 11-16). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Reimann, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2018). Expertise. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 54-63). New York, NY: Routledge. Star, S. (2005). Categories and cognition: Material and conceptual aspects of large scale category systems. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 167-186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lina Markauskaite PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-890X) Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation University of Sydney, Australia Narelle Patton PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3626-5564) Faculty of Science Charles Sturt University, Australia

236

RACHAEL FIELD

20. TEACHING RESILIENCE AND SELF-MANAGEMENT SKILLS Fostering Student Psychological Wellbeing for Future Employability

The employability agenda is now firmly entrenched in both higher education and the labour market, and tertiary education is increasingly linked globally to the needs of the economy and society. When considered in the light of the pressures of neoliberalism, employability is not only a major concern for academics and university administrators, it is also a key stressor for students. Students need to be psychologically well, and supported in building resilience and self-management skills, so that they can manage both the realities of the challenges they will face in seeking and finding employment, and in dealing with workplace and ethical dilemmas they will encounter when employed. This chapter argues that the employability agenda requires universities to be concerned with teaching students how to be self-regulating and resilient. Indeed, it posits that ethical and legal imperatives compel attention to such skills and attitudes. The chapter outlines particular strategies for effectively teaching resilience and self-management skills for employability and provides pedagogical suggestions for good teaching practice. RESILIENCE, SELF-MANAGEMENT AND STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY

As this book evidences, the employability of university graduates is becoming an increasingly significant issue internationally (Blackmore et al., 2016; Kinash et al., 2016). Surveys of university students indicate they feel concerned they are not developing the skills needed to be ready for the world of work. For example, in the Higher Education Academy’s UK Engagement Survey of 2017, 51% of students felt this way, as did 49% in the 2017 survey. Kinash, Crane, and Judd’s (2016) good practice report, Nurturing Graduate Employability in Higher Education, funded by the then Australian Government’s Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) in 2013, made four key recommendations: first, that universities must continue to strive for cohesive, whole-of-institution embedded approaches to employability; second, that strategic action must be taken towards implementing national discipline-based approaches to employability; third, that discipline-based tools and resources to enable academics to embed employability in the everyday curriculum and assessment must be developed, applied and workshopped; and, finally, that multiple outcome-based longitudinal indicators of graduate employability should be tracked, reported and evaluated.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_020

FIELD

In terms of what makes a graduate “employable”, employers cite the importance of professional and personal skill sets as “trumping” substantive academic knowledge. For example, the Australian Graduate Outlook Survey of 2015 reported that nearly three times as many employers nominate communication skills as more important to them than “academic qualifications” (Graduate Careers Australia [GCA], 2015). Further, the New Zealand government advises that the employability skills, qualities and attitudes that employers repeatedly identify as essential for the workplace include: a positive attitude, effective communication and teamwork skills, self-management and resilience skills, independent learning and a willingness to learn, as well as problem-solving and decision-making skills.1 In short, resilience and self-management skills are amongst a suite of critically important skills and attitudes contributing to university student employability (Coutu, 2002). This is because they indicate agility, adaptability, “copability” and grit (Beaton, 2017). The Graduate Outlook Survey conducted in 2015 (GCA, 2016) noted an employer comment that universities could better prepare students with “[g]reater resilience, emotional intelligence and communication skills” (p. 26). This comment is congruent with the recommendations of Kinash, Crane, and Judd’s (2016) good practice report mentioned above. As Norton (2017) has argued: It has never been easier to become a university student. But it has never been harder for university graduates to get work that uses their skills. The disjunction between these facts raises doubts about how well our higher education system adapts to changes in the labour market. (p. 91) At the National Summit on the Mental Health of Tertiary Students it was recommended that learning and teaching strategies to build students’ resilience skills should be embedded in curricular design (Norton & Brett, 2011). Universities must pay, and indeed are paying, “more attention to general graduate attributes that contribute to employability” (Norton, 2017, p. 91). This chapter contends that the teaching of resilience and self-management skills should be high on the graduate attribute priority list for intentional curriculum development. DEFINING STUDENT WELLBEING, RESILIENCE AND SELF-MANAGEMENT

Self-management and resilience are subsets of wellbeing. Wellbeing researchers generally concur that approximately 50% of a person’s happiness is genetically predetermined, 10% is based on external factors, and up to 40% is within a person’s own control; that is, it can be altered through intentional activities (Lykken, 2000; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 1984). The work of positive psychologists reveals that wellbeing is not only impacted by individual traits and subjective experience; institutions and communities also influence experiences of wellbeing (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Peterson & Barrett, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Fortunately, then, as institutions and communities of influence in the lives of students, universities are able to impact student wellbeing (and as a consequence student employability) via curricular and co-curricular strategies that promote 238

STUDENT WELLBEING AND EMPLOYABILITY

student wellbeing generally (Baik et al., 2017), and through the teaching of resilience and self-management skills specifically (McAllister & McKinnon, 2009; Newman, 2005). McAllister and Lowe (2011) assert that resilience skills can be learned and developed particularly effectively in the first year of higher education. This support for students through the management of the transition-in challenges they face at university (Stallman, 2011), assists in establishing them with solid foundations to progress successfully through their degree and out into the world of work. While resilience and self-management skills are not yet embedded elements of the curriculum across disciplines, the curricular design ideas and strategies outlined below indicate that it is not difficult to make significant advances relatively efficiently in this context, without too much disruption to the existing curriculum (Baik et al., 2017). In terms of understanding student wellbeing generally, the essential components of wellbeing, the “wellbeing essentials”, have been identified through empirical work associated with the positive psychology meta-theory: Self-Determination Theory (Baik et al., 2017). The wellbeing essentials include: a) autonomous motivation (“when we do things because we find the activities intrinsically interesting or satisfying, or when we believe our actions will facilitate valued goals”); b) belonging (“when we feel that we are accepted and valued by others within social groups and organisations”); c) relationships (“when we trust, rely on and care for others and experience others trusting, relying on or caring for us”); d) autonomy (“when our actions, tasks and goals are self-chosen and self-concordant [authentic], rather than imposed or controlled by others”); and e) competence (“when we are able to manage the interactions, tasks and challenges that we face”) (Baik et al., 2017, p. 8). Curriculum design that promotes student wellbeing generally can be connected to supporting the development of resilience and self-management skills. Employers seek graduates who are resilient and self-managing, but what does this mean? A person with resilience and self-management skills has personal resources and strategies that guard against the development of psychological disturbances and distress (Friborg et al., 2003). Resilience involves a “self-righting” capacity (Werner & Smith, 1992), an ability “to respond and endure, or develop and master in spite of life stressors and adversity” (Mandleco & Peery, 2000, p. 99), and an “ability to respond actively and positively … to bounce back” (Christiansen, Christiansen, & Howard, 1997, p. 87). The concept is two-dimensional, involving the experience of exposure to adversity and positive adjustment outcomes of that exposure (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). Ungar (2008) argues that resilient people can navigate a range of resources, including psychological, social, cultural and physical resources in order to sustain their wellbeing. Seligman (2004) links resilience, high motivation and job success with optimism; and a lack of resilience with pessimism, depression and learned helplessness (Satterfield, Monahan, & Seligman, 1997). Across almost all occupations, optimistic individuals perform better than their pessimistic counterparts. It makes sense then that employers corelate resilience with success (Coutu, 2002). In terms of internal traits and characteristics, resilient and self-managing people are socially competent (flexible and empathic with good communication skills and 239

FIELD

a sense of humour); have good problem-solving skills (an ability to think abstractly, reflectively and flexibly); are autonomous with a strong sense of independence and internal locus of control; have a positive sense of purpose and hope about the future (including a belief in a degree of control over one’s environment); and have personal characteristics such as creative problem solving, an ability to gain positive attention, optimism in the midst of adversity, and a sense of a meaningful life. In terms of external factors, resilient people tend to experience positive family conditions with shared family values, security and structure; and environmental support such as mentors and a sense of value in work and the community (Watson & Field, 2011). Clearly, then, the foundations are established for a convincing case for teaching tertiary students resilience and self-management skills in order to foster their psychological wellbeing for employability. There are, however, additional persuasive arguments that support this case, discussed briefly in the next section. PROMOTING STUDENT WELLBEING AND TEACHING RESILIENCE AND SELF-MANAGEMENT SKILLS

Stallman and other empirical researchers in Australia and beyond have raised concerns about the low levels of psychological wellbeing in tertiary students for at least a decade (Adlaf et al., 2001; Laidlaw, McLellan & Ozakinci, 2016; Larcombe, Finch, & Sore, 2015; Nerdrum, Rustøen, & Rønnestad, 2006; Stallman, 2008; Veness, 2016). Stallman (2010b) cites concerning statistics from across a number of studies indicating that significant numbers of students report elevated levels of distress. Psychological distress impacts performance in a negative way. This means that students who are psychologically distressed will experience challenges to their wellbeing across many of the “wellbeing essentials” and struggle to meet optimal learning outcomes. Further, they will probably have compromised resilience and self-management skills, identified above as essential to employability. Mental illness and psychological distress have long been considered private issues with individuals bearing the responsibility to respond to, and manage, them (Kelk et al., 2009). Tertiary students tend to see mental ill-health and the experience of depression or elevated levels of stress and anxiety as stigmatising and prejudicial to employment prospects, so they may be reluctant to seek help (Larcombe et al., 2016; Stallman, 2010b). For this reason, addressing the issue of the psychological ill-health of university students, and inculcating the development of resilience and selfmanagement skills, is not something that students should be left to manage in isolation. Of course, individuals bear an onus to take an active role in the pursuit of their own wellbeing. Nevertheless, the promotion of student mental health and wellbeing should be a concern for the tertiary community at large and part of the job description of 21st century academics (Schuwerk, 2003–2004). Further development of the case for pursuing intentional curriculum design as a strategy for supporting the employability of tertiary students by promoting student wellbeing generally, and teaching resilience and self-management skills specifically, involves three key arguments. First, wellbeing, resilience and self-management skills are critical assets for success in navigating the challenges of the contemporary 240

STUDENT WELLBEING AND EMPLOYABILITY

neoliberalist labour market; second, an ethical imperative exists for universities and academics to promote student psychological wellbeing, resilience and selfmanagement and to “do no harm” to our students; and third, legal obligations exist, in terms of the existence of a duty of care as well as fiduciary obligations, in relation to students who place their trust in us when they enrol in our subjects. First, the contemporary world of the neoliberal labour market offers up many challenges (Giroux, 2015, 2018). Neoliberalism is a “socio-economic theory that rejects governmental intervention in the domestic economy and promulgates materialism, consumerism, and the commodification of many public goods” (Saunders, 2007, p. 1). It is neither alarmist nor hyperbolic to suggest that neoliberalism is rapidly changing labour markets and workplaces globally (Beer et al., 2016). In the context of this new labour market, wellbeing, resilience and selfmanagement skills are not only important for individual university graduates to survive (and possibly even thrive), they are also critical for the future sustainability of diverse industries and professions, and for the resistance of the negative impacts of neoliberalism (Mumby et al., 2017). In this context, the support of wellbeing and the teaching of resilience and self-management skills take on a significance at macro professional and global, as well as personal, levels; at the very least the importance of such skills to tertiary graduate employability is highlighted. Second, as teachers and employees of universities we have ethical duties arising in relation to the care of our students (Palmer, 1997; Strike & Soltis; 2009). Parker (2004) defines ethics in terms of “what is the good or right thing to do in particular circumstances” (p. 51). Our ethics are the principles and values which regulate our moral behaviour and our choices as tertiary educators. Our ethical moral compass informs and guides how we “ought to” act; our ethics are the bedrock benchmark of what we see as right and fitting; foundational to what we do and who we are, fundamental to the efficacy of our personal and professional identities. The ethical question of what we should do, given what we now know about the psychological distress experienced by university students and the employability challenges they face, is, to use the vernacular, a “no-brainer”. That is, the consistent body of longitudinal evidence concerning the high levels of psychological distress that tertiary students experience, creates a clear ethical imperative. Ethical and morally, as tertiary educators what we “ought to do” is to actively manage the problem by teaching to promote student wellbeing, resilience and self-management. As academics not only do we have ethical duties in relation to the issue of the wellbeing of our students, we also have legal duties. The law of torts, and its subset the law of negligence, are relevant here. Legally, negligence can be established where a duty of care is owed and breached, and where the breach results in the causation of harm. The complexity of the possibility of a finding of academic negligence through a failure adequately to promote student wellbeing has been highlighted by Lloyd England (2018), but he nevertheless maintains that a legal claim is possible in Australia in the future.2 Further, in terms of legal obligations, the relationship that academic staff have with students is similar to a fiduciary relationship. Such a relationship holds the fiduciary (university and staff) to high levels of accountability in using the power 241

FIELD

they have (through curricular, co-curricular and pastoral care activities) responsibly and appropriately in relation to the person placing their trust in the fiduciary (the student).3 This means that proactive and preventative, as well as reactive, curricular, co-curricular and pastoral care measures are all important components of an intentional and integrated response to fulfilling a fiduciary duty to address student psychological ill-health and support student employability. In terms of good practice in contemporary tertiary curriculum design, Kift, Nelson, and Clarke (2010) advocate a “third generation” whole-of-institution transformative approach, using “curriculum” in its broadest sense to mean the “academic and social organizing device”, and the “glue that holds knowledge and the broader student experience together” (p. 4). Whole-of-university strategies that recognise the importance of curriculum design for promoting student wellbeing and teaching resilience and self-management skills, and for achieving positive flow-on effects for student employability, are important. However, moving institutions forward on this issue in a coordinated and coherent way is a long-term work-inprogress. For this reason, faculty, discipline and subject-based strategies can assist with meeting the curriculum reform challenge effectively and achievably at a more immediate level, without requiring a total renewal of institution-wide curricula. In the sections below, for clarity and convenience, and while respectful of the broad sense of curriculum encouraged by Kift et al. (2010), the term “curriculum” is used in a more limited sense to denote the formal taught program of study employing classroom, text and online-based pedagogies. The term “co-curricular” is used to refer to programs overtly linked with, but not part of, the formal curriculum, and “pastoral care” is used to indicate interventions and support that are not specifically connected to the formal curriculum. Curricular Strategies A recent curriculum design project entitled Enhancing Student Mental Wellbeing was conducted at the University of Melbourne in 2014–2015, competitively funded by the then OLT (Baik et al., 2017). This project specifically acknowledged the new and complex challenges and stressors students face in the 21st century (particularly mentioning the impact of the massification of higher education and the changing value and costs of university learning (ibid), as well as the “increasingly uncertain and challenging employment market” (p. 8). The project called on academics to use the curriculum to give structure and coherence to student life as “increasingly the curriculum is the one consistent element of the student experience” (ibid, p. 10). According to Baik et al. (2017), intentional pedagogy and curriculum design that supports the employability of students through enhancing their psychological wellbeing should be centred on five key principles. Importantly, enacting these principles “does not require academics to be or become psychologists, mental health experts or counsellors” (ibid, p. 11). The five principles are: fostering “students’ autonomous motivation, and a sense of meaning and purpose”, the promotion of “inclusion and belonging”, the promotion of relationships, enabling autonomy and scaffolding competence (ibid, p. 13). 242

STUDENT WELLBEING AND EMPLOYABILITY

Chapters 2 and 3 of the Enhancing Student Mental Wellbeing report are devoted to offering practical strategies and exemplars of effective educational practice. These exemplars show that the creation of learning environments for the teaching of student wellbeing, resilience and self-management does not require a complete redesign and overhaul of the current curriculum. Rather, there are many positive approaches that can be implemented through a range of simple, yet strategic, curricular reforms. For example, teaching strategies that are engaging, empowering, motivating and active include blended and flexible delivery models, reflective practice approaches and the implementation of a conversational framework (using iterative engaging dialogues) (Watson & Field, 2011). Further, the design of assessment as a teaching tool should ensure that expectations are made clear to students, enabling them with the secrets of success. Assessment tasks should also scaffold, integrate and make sense of the curriculum (Field & Kift, 2010). Co-curricular and Pastoral Care Strategies Co-curricular approaches that support curriculum strategies for the promotion of tertiary student wellbeing are already well established in many Australian universities. They include peer mentoring; peer-assisted learning programs; programs and activities offered by student organisations; targeted support groups; sporting, recreational and community activities; academic advice services and referrals; and free counselling (Watson & Field, 2011). Pastoral care, of course, in its broadest sense, is an inherent aspect of all academic praxis and a critical element of the successful promotion of the wellbeing of students, allowing them to thrive in learning the knowledge, skills and attitudes that support their employability. Pastoral care initiatives should involve a focus on the known risk factors for distress, the dissemination of information and raising of awareness, the preparation of students for normal expected stresses, the provision of adequate levels of support, and collaborations with relevant and interested groups such as student organisations (Watson & Field, 2011). Initiatives that address these imperatives include peer-led mentoring programs; optional non-credit courses that teach positive psychology strategies for dealing with stress, anxiety and setting realistic performance expectations; workshops to promote “signature strengths”, Values In Action (VIA) and “practising gratitude”; and seminars to promote awareness, remove the stigma of mental ill-health, promote self-care strategies, and inform students about support resources (Watson & Field, 2011). CONCLUSION

The support of tertiary student wellbeing for employability is a whole-of-institution, indeed, a whole-of-sector, responsibility. Resilience and self-management skills are important graduate attributes for all university students and they are critical to graduate employability. This chapter has emphasised the importance of enacting strategies, both within and outside the classroom, to teach students resilience and self-management skills, and it has noted that a significant body of literature offers 243

FIELD

useful insights to inform the design of responsive and preventative curricular and cocurricular interventions that are readily achievable and can be implemented effectively at local program and subject levels. In particular the recent work and insights of the Enhancing Student Mental Wellbeing project (Baik et al., 2017) were highlighted, as enabling curriculum reform to support the employability of tertiary students through the promotion of student wellbeing and the teaching of resilience and self-management skills. NOTES 1 2

3

https://www.careers.govt.nz/plan-your-career/not.../skills-employers-are-looking-for/ Compare Faiz Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 184 [QB]. See, generally, Hospital Products v United States Surgical Corp [1984] 156 CLR 41, 96.

REFERENCES Adlaf, E. M., Gliksman, L., Demers, A., & Newton-Taylor, B. (2001). The prevalence of elevated psychological distress among Canadian undergraduates: Findings from the 1998 Canadian Campus Survey. Journal of American College Health, 50(2), 67-72. Baik, C., Larcombe, W., Brooker, A., Wyn, J., Allen, L., Brett, M., Field, R., & James, R. (2017). Enhancing student mental wellbeing: A handbook for academic educators. Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne. Beaton, C. (2017, Jan 6). Top employers say millennials need these 4 skills in 2017. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinebeaton/2017/01/06/top-employers-saymillennials-need-these-4-skills-in-2017/#17b31dc17fe4 Beer, A., Bentley, R., Baker, E., Mason, K., Mallett, S., Kavanagh, A., & LaMontagne, T. (2016). Neoliberalism, economic restructuring and policy change: Precarious housing and precarious employment in Australia. Urban studies, 53(8), 1542-1558. Blackmore, P., Bulaitis, Z. H., Jackman, A. H., & Tan, E. (2016). Employability in higher education: A review of practice and strategies around the world. London, England: Pearson. Christiansen, J., Christiansen, J. L., & Howard, M. (1997). Using protective factors to enhance resilience and school success for at-risk students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 86. Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46-55. England, L. (2018, February). Buttercup sues her law school – tertiary legal education providers’ liability in the tort of negligence not to cause pure mental harm: Duty of care. Paper presented to the Wellness for Law Forum, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. Field, R., & Kift, S. (2010). Addressing the high levels of psychological distress in law students through intentional assessment and feedback design in the first-year law curriculum. Student Success, 1(1), 65. Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 65-76. Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103. Giroux, H. A. (2015). Against the terror of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of greed. New York, NY: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (2018). Terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democracy. New York, NY: Routledge. Graduate Careers Australia (GCA). (2016). Graduate Outlook 2015: The report of the 2015 Graduate Outlook Survey: Perspectives on graduate recruitment. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

244

STUDENT WELLBEING AND EMPLOYABILITY Kelk, N., Luscombe, G., Medlow, S., & Hickie, I. (2009). Courting the blues: Attitudes towards depression in Australian law students and lawyers. Sydney, Australia: Brain & Mind Research Institute. Kift, S. M., Nelson, K. J., & Clarke, J. A. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – a case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1-20. Kinash, S., Crane, L., & Judd, M-M. (2016). Good practice report: Nurturing graduate employability in higher education. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Kinash, S., Crane, L., Judd, M-M., & Knight, C. (2016). Discrepant stakeholder perspectives on graduate employability strategies. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(5), 951-967. Laidlaw, A., McLellan, J., & Ozakinci, G. (2016). Understanding undergraduate student perceptions of mental health, mental well-being and help-seeking behaviour. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2156-2168. Larcombe, W., Finch, S., & Sore, R. (2015). Who's distressed? Not only law students: Psychological distress levels in university students across diverse fields of study. Sydney Law Review, 37, 243-273. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and psychopathology, 12(4), 857-885. Lykken, D. (2000). Happiness: The nature and nurture of joy and contentment. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131. Mandleco, B. L., & Peery, J. C. (2000). An organizational framework for conceptualizing resilience in children. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 13, 99-111. McAllister, M., & Lowe, B. (2011). Preparing for practice: Becoming resilient. In M. McAllister & B. Lowe (Eds.), The resilient nurse (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: Springer. McAllister, M., & McKinnon, J. (2009). The importance of teaching and learning resilience in the health disciplines: A critical review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 29(4), 371-379. Mumby, D. K., Thomas, R., Martí, I., & Seidl, D. (2017). Resistance redux. Organization Studies, 38(9), 1157-1183. Nerdrum, P., Rustøen, T., & Rønnestad, M. H. (2006). Student psychological distress: A psychometric study of 1750 Norwegian 1stǦyear undergraduate students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 95-109. Newman, R. (2005). APA's resilience initiative. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 36(3), 227-229. Norton, A. (2017). Universities and the evolving graduate labour market. In R. James, S. French, & P Kelly (Eds.), Visions for Australian tertiary education (pp. 91-100). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Norton, J., & Brett, M. (2011, August). Healthy students, healthy institutions. Paper presented at the National Summit on the Mental Health of Tertiary Students, Melbourne, Australia. Palmer, P. J. (1997). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Parker, C. (2004). A critical morality for lawyers: Four approaches to lawyers’ ethics. Monash University Law Review, 30, 49-74. Peterson, C., & Barrett, L. C. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among university freshman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 603-607. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological review, 91(3), 347-374. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Satterfield, J. M., Monahan, J., & Seligman, M. E. (1997). Law school performance predicted by explanatory style. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15(1), 95-105.

245

FIELD Saunders, D. (2007). The impact of neoliberalism on college students. Journal of College and Character, 8(5), 1-9. Schuwerk R. P. (2003–2004). The law professor as fiduciary: What duties do we owe to our students. South Texas Law Review, 45(753), 789-804. Seligman, M. E. (2004). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Stallman, H. M. (2008). Prevalence of psychological distress in university students: Implications for service delivery. Australian Family Physician, 37(8), 673-677. Stallman, H. M. (2010a, November). A population approach to the promotion of mental health in tertiary students. Paper presented to the ICERI2010 Conference, Madrid, Spain. Stallman, H. M. (2010b). Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 249-257. Stallman, H. M. (2011). Embedding resilience within the tertiary curriculum: A feasibility study. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 121-133. Strike, K., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). The ethics of teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. The Higher Education Academy (HEA). (2017). UK Engagement Survey (UKES). York, England: Author. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/institutions/surveys/uk-engagement-survey Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. The British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218-235. Veness, B. G. (2016). The wicked problem of university student mental health (Report to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust). Sydney, Australia: The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia. Watson, P., & Field, R. (2011). Promoting student well-being and resilience at law school. In S. Kift, J. Cowley, M. Sanson, & P. Watson (Eds.), Excellence and innovation in legal education. Sydney, Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rachael Field PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3264-6933) Faculty of Law Bond University, Australia

246

PART 4 REFLECTIONS

NITA CHERRY, JANET GREGORY, ALISON HERRON AND HELEN MCKERNAN

21. REIMAGINING CAREERS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN LATER LIFE

An underpinning theme of previous chapters has been that employability requires a readiness and ability to manage one’s own career and development across an entire working life. This means negotiating multiple work roles, in a range of settings and industries, in a world where new sorts of jobs constantly appear, some disappear altogether, and many rapidly change. In these terms, employability is not only an issue at the beginning of a career, but continues to require confidence, energy and insight in navigating the longer journey. The changing demographics of developed economies mean that older women and men, of necessity, are re-negotiating the length and nature of their careers. Yet much of the academic and public commentary on them has focused on age discrimination in the workplace, and mounting intergenerational alarm over the economic impact of large numbers of both older women and men, who are being represented as an unproductive burden on the rest of society. There has been relatively little data around the world relating to the navigational skills required of older men and women for life and work. This is particularly true for women working later in life, perhaps understandably, since it is only in recent years that baby boomer women have been entering the space of working later in life. Yet for the first time, many women are engaging in continuous paid work for most of their adult lives and are now remaining in the workforce for longer. And retirement, as it has been known for the last 50 years, is no longer a clear transition from paid employment to reliance on pensions or superannuation. This chapter is based on research that explored the experience and perceptions of a group of professional women working later in life. We encountered their energetic engagement with professional practice, and their confidence about their ability to go on negotiating their professional contributions. We suggest that their ability to sustain successful professional identities across long periods of time, and sometimes interrupted career trajectories, is one of the major factors in creating this confidence. We also suggest how employability can be reconsidered to help older workers, both men and women, to be fulfilled and productive in their professional practice. CHANGES IN THE LIFE COURSE

Phillipson (2013), among others, has summarised the uncertainties and dilemmas associated with extended life expectancy in countries around the world. Concerns about the economic and social costs of longer life have triggered changes in public and institutional settings that have profound implications for individuals’ thinking © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_021

CHERRY ET AL.

about the role of work in their increasingly long lives. Notionally, people are encouraged to work longer than before and are expected to create enough wealth to support their requirements for life, health and care through a much longer period. But there is now considerable uncertainty about how to do this, given collective – and individual – experiences of economic volatility, social change and relentless knowledge creation. Older workers, whether considered in the micro context of individual lives, in the meso context of organisational practice, or the macro context of economics, politics, communities, cultures and media, are now problematised in a variety of ways, in a range of discourses. Some suggest that longer life poses a problem in a more fundamental, but less acknowledged way, because it threatens an implicit grand narrative that continual growth, consumption and productivity are central to modern life. If individuals are perceived not to contribute to the fulfilment of this narrative, and become more vulnerable and dependent, they might attract – even identify with – significant cultural and intergenerational anxiety associated with ageing. These anxieties stand in stark contrast to the notion of a golden “third age” of maturation, a comfortable and more leisurely period of personal development and activity (Gilleard & Higgs, 2005). This third age was envisaged as a period of life when people could take control of their lives, at least temporarily, ahead of the infirmities of advanced age. The so-called baby boomer generation in Australia seemed to have both the finances and the social and cultural ability to fulfil the potential of being older. The baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are a generation that is important because of its size and because it presents as a significant bulge in the overall age profile, given the preference of baby boomers to have fewer children than their parents. Baby boomers are distinctive in other ways. Although by no means an homogeneous group, they have been seen as a group that has broken with tradition and created new paths for themselves in many aspects of life and work. They have married later, had fewer children and had them later in life, had a higher divorce rate, and created family units in which both parents work. They have also created more single-parent families. Most definitively, the things that they do have in common are that they are a more highly educated group with a much longer life expectancy than previous age cohorts. “Sixty is the new fifty” is a phrase that not only challenges thoughts of ageing and infirmity, but opens up energising possibilities for the present. The members of this generation now range between 58 and 72 years of age. For some time, it has been speculated that the baby boomers would look for a greater balance between work and leisure in the years leading up to and past retirement and for greater self-fulfilment than the traditional model offered: “They no longer want to work full-time, but they are not prepared to be ‘put out to pasture’ either” (Winston & Barnes, 2007, p. 139). In seeking different or part-time work, they were said to be expressing drives that were just as much about social identity as about financial security. However, more recently, the combination of changing economic forces and greater life expectancy has raised the question of whether people even believe in the possibility of an extended life without work. A major challenge will be to make sense of the increasing complexity of the links between individual experiences of working 250

CAREERS IN LATER LIFE

for longer, on the one hand, and systemic and organisational dynamics, on the other. To do this, it is important to find out what people who are in the later part of their working lives are actually thinking about work and the significance of being employed. This is a truly emergent phenomenon, as a distinctive generation engages year to year with a world that itself is volatile and uncertain. By definition, received wisdom about this group – most especially in relation to women – is not available either to them or to those trying to assist them. In Australia, as an exemplar country, people aged 55 years and over made up 16 per cent of the total labour force in 2010. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the participation rate of Australians aged 55 and over has increased from 25 per cent to 34 per cent over the past 30 years (ABS, 2010). More than half of 60–64-year-olds participate in the labour force, increasing from one third in 1991. Participation has also increased for people aged 65 and over, from 7 per cent in 1991 to 12 per cent in 2011. Since 2001, growth in full and part-time employment among older women has accelerated, with the participation rate increasing from 11 per cent in 1991 to 27 per cent by 2010 (ABS, 2010). Between 2008 to 2009 there were 144,000 people, aged 55 and over who came out of retirement and returned to the workforce. Interestingly, 59 per cent of this group were women. They returned because they were bored (34 per cent), because an interesting opportunity came up (13 per cent) or for financial reasons (37 per cent). The Diversity Council Australia reported that “With life expectancy increasing to more than 84 years for women, and close to 70 per cent of older female workers rating their health as good or excellent, many older female workers are at their peak. For many this is translating into changing expectations about the trajectory of their working lives” (Tilly, O’Leary, & Russell, 2013, p. 6). The research which informed this chapter was motivated by the relative dearth of data relating to the particular experiences and perceptions of professional women working later in their lives. Relatively little is known of how they see the role of work in their lives, what they expect of it, and how they understand their own employability. Yet women of the baby boomer generation are the first to have been working long enough, and in sufficient numbers, for their current and emerging perceptions to be of great interest to researchers, educators and policy makers. This is a group that is distinctively different from their mothers’ generation. Not only are they better educated, but they have mostly juggled work and family commitments across several decades. They are more independent and actively involved in the management of family finances, as well as their own. Instead of facing “empty nests” they are more likely to be sharing homes with semi-adult children for longer or, in contrast, have been living alone for some time. And their long experience of paid work means that their feelings and ideas about working later in life are still emerging and evolving. All of this suggests both interesting opportunities and challenges. For example, one of Price’s (2000) early group of studies indicated that professional women with continuous work histories frequently entered into retirement with confidence. However, their actual experiences revealed difficulties associated with the loss of their professional role and identity, such as losing the social contacts and networks 251

CHERRY ET AL.

that were previously available; missing the challenges of professional engagement and problem solving; and being confronted with stereotypes about older people in ways they had not experienced previously. Compared with non-professional women, the retired professional women she interviewed saw their career as a meaningful part of their whole lives and experienced a loss of professional identity in multiple ways. In another study, Price (2003) concluded that the processes professional women said they used to adjust to retirement were largely influenced by their former professional roles. Price described these as attempts to “re-establish order” (ibid, p. 34). For example, they purposefully substituted alternative roles for professional ones that had the capacity to be both fulfilling and productive. Indeed, Price found that these women portrayed relative stability in their concepts of self and argued that this was the result of their participation in roles they believed to be highly valued and in which they were competent. The women also established routines, in which deliberate planning and time management continued to be significant elements. Taken together, Price’s studies certainly challenged earlier assumptions that women were less invested in their paid work than men, and would not miss their work when they retired. However, Borsch-Supan (2013) has suggested that much more detailed life course data are still needed before nuanced conclusions can be drawn about how different groups think about and prepare for extended working lives, and the policies and systems that will assist them: the more so given the instabilities of global and local economic cycles. The study in this chapter involved professional Australian women working in government administration, academia, finance and technology. Funded through a grant of the Australian Research Council, and involving two of the authors, it explored these women’s perceptions of work and work-life transitions. A major element of the study was a quantitative survey of 1,586 women over the age of 50 who were in either permanent professional jobs or fixed-term work contracts in professional roles. Undertaken between 2010 and 2012, it represented a new scale for study of female work-life transition in Australia. Public service workforces are ageing more rapidly than broader labour markets in most OECD countries, including Australia (Colley, 2014). The administrative and academic workforce in Australian universities has more older workers when compared to other similar professional occupations. The percentage of lecturers and tutors aged over 45 in 2010 was 54 per cent, while comparable professions stood at 40 per cent (Hugo, 2010). By contrast, in a study undertaken for the Australian Finances Council, the financial services and information and communications technology sectors have been identified as workplaces in Australia where “older workers are struggling to find work” (Kreab & Gavin Anderson Worldwide, 2014, p. 11). What we first present here is a snapshot of how the surveyed group responded to questions about the significance of working and the prospect of different lifestyles when retiring from work. More than half expected retirement to be a time of lower financial security, while only 17 per cent expected a financially secure retirement. There were two other areas in which the group overall was either negative or unsure. While one quarter of participants expected to continue to feel worthwhile in 252

CAREERS IN LATER LIFE

retirement, the same proportion were not expecting to feel as worthwhile and as many as two fifths were unsure. On several dimensions, however, the women were generally much more positive. Approximately two thirds expected greater variety in their life after retiring from paid work, almost half expected greater independence, and more than 70 per cent expected greater freedom. More than 80 per cent expected retirement to be a time to pursue new interests and hobbies, two thirds thought retirement would allow them to spend more time with family, and about the same proportion expected to learn new things. Almost 60 per cent thought retirement would be a time of rest, while more than half expected that retirement would lead to improved physical or psychological health. But in some other respects, the group was more divided. Equal proportions of women thought that retirement would or wouldn’t entail uncertainty about the future. While half did not expect to lack life goals in retirement, about 15 per cent did and about 20 per cent were unsure. Approximately one quarter thought they would not lose the feeling of a sense of purpose in retirement; an equal proportion did expect to lose a sense of purpose and almost two fifths of respondents were unsure. Similarly, while half the employed respondents did not expect to be bored in retirement, 20 per cent did and another 17 per cent were unsure. Questions about status and confidence produced similar spreads. Almost half did not expect a loss of status and confidence when they retired, compared to almost one quarter who did, while one fifth were unsure. More recently, motivated by Borsch-Supan’s (2013) call for more nuanced studies, a smaller qualitative study was undertaken between 2014 and 2016 by three of the authors, involving 30 Australian professional women workers, aged 55 or older. Half of these were women who had participated in the earlier quantitative survey. All 30 women were either working full time or part time in ongoing or contract positions. The women interviewed had all spent most of their adult lives in the workforce, though their patterns of engagement varied. For some, a life-long commitment to work has varied in its significance but is now figural. For others, work rapidly became a major source of identity, and has remained so. For another group, this enduring commitment has always been personally as well as professionally defining, and has powerfully shaped other commitments and relationships. For a fourth group, a life-long commitment to work has been matched by an equally strong commitment to parenting. The women were invited to talk about work, its significance to them, and how they imagined their professional working lives would transition into something else. However, their interest was clearly focused on their current experiences of working, and they returned to this major focus even when encouraged to discuss the idea of transitioning. And despite their varied experiences and pathways, their conversations were dominated by several key themes: their commitment to work and career; the significance of work to their perceptions of themselves; their confidence that they could successfully negotiate the contributions they wished to make; and their

253

CHERRY ET AL.

disinterest in retirement. When they began speaking, we were struck by the energy and excitement which was present for most of the women: It’s just been really, really exciting and wonderful to be part of.1 The dream job. It’s an incredible job. It’s pretty wonderful. I’ve been an enormously fortunate individual. You know, like being stimulated and getting stimulated into things. So … I just want to be in the change of the world. Some of this excitement was inspired by the contributions they felt they could make: We’ve proven that we can contribute. Now, as an older person, working, my job is very important to me. I’m really pleased that I’ve got a job that I enjoy, that I can do and where I can contribute. Being part of something and working with others was also a source of energy and pleasure: I don’t feel like it’s work … What I love about being in an environment like this every day is just having a whole raft of different people around me. That sort of thing happens frequently and it makes me a better person. Some were enjoying a sense of freedom: I was probably quite looking forward to retiring as I was thinking ‘since my kids are grown up, I’m out of here’ … but then I went on into leadership positions and as I got into the position where I was … making the decisions, I found it quite liberating. Some said how lucky they feel: There are enormous challenges … but there’s not a day that goes by where I don’t feel very lucky to be in the role. It’s such an incredible role. I’ve been so privileged to have done it. The importance of being able to use valuable skills and experience was highlighted by several: So you’ve got all of these amazing skills … being in your 60s, I feel better equipped to do almost anything than I ever have, and certainly more useful. If you do have these skills … it seems really silly to either not get reasonable pay for them or find organisations that value them. Many expressed their determination to remain working and to go on learning and being stimulated: [I will] stay in the job so long as my brain’s functioning and I’m finding joy in learning.

254

CAREERS IN LATER LIFE

The fact that I can come here and do things and be paid for it is extraordinary. I get enormous satisfaction through work. I’m still grappling with it and enjoying it, and I would miss that. I don’t want to stop. Without this where would I find meaning? For many, the joy and satisfaction to be found in work was in stark contrast to the prospect of not working: I don’t want to be a nobody. I struggle with that identity problem … I already know I will struggle with it. The hardest thing will actually be to leave the public space … the recognition … the buzz of doing media. I do worry about … where my brain will go. It’s scary. My personality could never survive at home. I’d probably die. I could never be at home just waiting for death. That’s how I sort of feel about it. For others, the idea of not working was less uncomfortable but nonetheless created uncertainty: What are you really doing in the last third of your life? I can’t imagine. You know all these things intellectually … but I can’t kind of believe it. My continuing dilemma is … I don’t see how I wind down in this environment. We’re in that ‘waiting to see what happens’ area. Half of me really wants to give up work. It’s pretty stressful sometimes … So yes, half, half of me thinks, yes, I can’t wait. And the other half goes, ‘But what will I be? What will I do? I don’t know…’ [laughs] So … it depends which day you ask me. I feel like I have control at work. It’s the other things where I don’t think I have total control. However, a number were actively considering the advantages of not working so much: Some people live and breathe in their work. But I think those people would find it incredibly difficult to retire or to make that move. I’ve never been someone like that.

255

CHERRY ET AL.

Starting to think that I’d like to reduce my work. I feel like I’m repeating things that I did 20 years ago. I’m getting to a stage where I’m thinking I’m not actually bothered anymore. I look at the situation … Can I influence it and if so how? If I can’t influence it, how do I get out of it as quickly as possible? I probably don’t want to be part of the story whereas in previous moments of change I fought tooth and nail. I’ve had so many responsibilities for a long time. I’d really like a time with fewer. And some were excited at the prospect, even if they were energised by their current working lives: I’m the biggest advocate for not knowing what you will be doing in five years because it might not have been invented. I don’t want to be someone who hangs on to something because it’s the only way they can think about themselves. I’d rather reinvent myself as somebody who did things differently, perhaps more flexibly. Because it’s not a negative thing for me. I’m ready to leave that identity … it’s an exciting challenge to think of developing a new one. I’m a risk-taker who actually likes to do new things. Those who were positive about the future also said it was important to plan for it: You have just got to make things happen, actually make things happen because if you don’t make them happen they won’t happen. First … I’ll start with the kind of meet-and-greet and networking and taking on these additional roles … then I’ll be much more deliberate in starting to scope some opportunities. There are things that I’m putting in place. You don’t want to wait till you retire through ill health or you know, you don’t want to retire and go from a hundred miles an hour to zero. Some thought that women were different from men in this respect: I find that the women are much more proactive and able to be involved and get engaged with the community and volunteer, and the men are less so. Women know that there’s something else besides work. Women know that they’ll survive, whereas men, work’s been all they’ve ever had whereas women have always had work, home and children. And there’ll still be work and children or grandchildren, or whatever left. For some, they felt that women who are working late are very busy in all areas of their lives:

256

CAREERS IN LATER LIFE

Women of my age are busier than they have ever been in their life … because most of us have got children, grandchildren and many of them have got spouses … the demands on our life are undebatable …. you’re doing stuff for them and then most of us are working. The multiple demands from parents, children, grandchildren and partners on top of a full-time job made one woman declare in exasperation “women of our age, we’re just all things to all people”. Look, I don’t even complain about it, particularly, but … I’ve never expected it to be so freaking busy. I don’t know what we expected, I don’t think we expected this. These demands aside, working, whether paid or not, was a prospect that most entertained: But I don’t see myself going to some other place where work is not part of my life. Whether it’s paid or unpaid, whether it’s kind of a whole day or a few hours of a day. I won’t stop contributing! So it’s about having an engaged mind. I think it’s about the ‘make a difference’ proposition. If you’ve worked full time all your life, and I have, I think it’s very hard to suddenly see your life as filled with courses and ... I think it’d be nice, but it feels like a holiday that would never end. And for some, the prospect of leaving work is simply not practical. Meaning has to be found in work or not at all: I have to be the bread winner and continue to be for a long time. I’ll have to find meaning in a paid position of some sort. Finally, quite a number of women volunteered how important some members of the previous generation had been for them as inspiring mentors: Others have paved the way for me. She’s doing the work I’m doing and she’s 78 … And she’s been a mentor to me … I come after her. One of my directors is over 70. I said goodbye to a colleague this year who was 92. WHAT THESE CONVERSATIONS SUGGESTED TO US

We all took from these conversations a profound sense of the energy and even excitement that most of these women associated with working. And we were struck by their confidence that they would negotiate and sustain long and worthwhile 257

CHERRY ET AL.

engagements with practice communities, one way or another. We suggest that one key factor in creating this confidence has been their actual experience in sustaining successful professional identities across long periods of time that have also included interruptions and discontinuities. Freixas, Luque, and Reina (2012) described women as having “crazy professional histories” (p. 55). Their working lives are “frayed” according to Bendien (2013, p. 717), not following an ideal or ascending career but being non-linear and what Bendien calls “a-rhythmical”. Even in our relatively small group of professional women, there were four distinct patterns of engagement with work. Nonetheless, across all four groups work has been a sustained life-long commitment, which still continues to take a central – for many life-defining – place in their lives. Most wanted to keep working indefinitely, because they actively enjoyed it, believed they were making useful contributions, and liked the self-esteem, recognition and financial benefits that work brought them. Most of our cohort were certainly still interested in further stimulation and development, and in some cases promotion. Our findings are similar to a quantitative study undertaken around the same time by Byles et al. (2013) which explored Australian women’s retirement plans. They surveyed over 700 women aged 55–60 years and found that many women still working in their 60s had no plans to retire in the near future. The idea of retirement as a leisurely lifestyle or long holiday has changed for the baby boomer generation and for women as well as men, working past a notional “retirement age” has gone from being a negative to a positive possibility. This is not simply a matter of financial necessity, even though the risks once carried by social institutions are increasingly the individual’s responsibility. As people live longer, later working life still suggests a period of new possibilities, where life can be more diverse and a time when people can shape their own contributions. Most of the women we spoke with were very determined to make sure they take charge of the role of work in their lives, both now and in the years to come. Our findings also have much in common with a qualitative study of 39 male engineers in later working life which was conducted in 2014 by one of the authors (Herron, 2017). They too felt a strong attachment to their professional lives and identity in careers that had involved many disruptions in times of economic upheaval. Their attachment to the challenge and interest of their work and the familiarity of that world meant that imagining life beyond work was a source of considerable disquiet. Like the women, the desire to contribute was strong. The key difference was that the men thought more in terms of legacy, what they would leave behind and the importance of knowledge transfer. According to Phillipson (2013) we appear to be engaging with new life course dynamics, one in which needs and abilities are no longer entirely subordinated to chronological boundaries and bureaucratic mechanisms. Older people – both men and women – have a diversity of experiences which, taken altogether, represent significant social capital: capital which can inform developments in the workplace and the community in very valuable ways. With their plans for consulting, opening small businesses and doing part-time or voluntary work, the women we spoke to were positively reckoning the value of the contribution they can make. But 258

CAREERS IN LATER LIFE

commentators are not particularly optimistic about how much the social and economic contributions of older Australian workers will actually be valued across the board. Nash’s (2012) study of Australian workplaces suggests that the social and economic capital of older workers in general is not highly appreciated, and that the employment and training needs of older workers are generally not supported, despite policies of government and the advocacy of peak groups. So it remains to be seen what the future will hold for them, and whether or not this particular group is successful in the ways they believe they can be. They are well educated women with considerable skill sets and decades of experience of influencing in organisational settings. At the very least, older professional women might be less inclined to re-enact gendered expectations of behaviour in later life. We already know that older women are increasingly reluctant to reengage in an unequal distribution of household labour and caring responsibilities. There is already evidence that professional women of all ages are less likely to trade off opportunities for promotion, further training and other workplace rewards, in order to be carers. Again, time will tell as to whether this is slowly changing across the board. Phillipson (2013) has made the interesting observation that “social class remains, in many respects a stronger predictor of lifestyle than age itself, and that older people are likely to have more in common with younger people of their own class than they will with older people from other social classes” (p. 66). For both younger and older professional women, this raises the interesting possibility that aspirations and experiences of agency, possibility and self-worth for both younger and older women could be significantly mediated by their interactions with each other. We were also struck by the stories some of the women told about being inspired by people much older than themselves, taking from these examples positive signs that productive – and creative – work can be done by men and women in their 70s, 80s and 90s. McDaniel’s (2004) work uses the concept of “generational gendering” (p. 27) as a lens through which to observe and analyse social change collectively as well as to understand individual identity development. She, too, notes the complexity of the story of generational relations. Significantly, and for the first time in Australia, there are now four generations working “side by side” in the public service. If practice development is seen as something that can continue to thrive across the last two or three decades of long lives and careers, a sense of agency, hope and purpose can challenge the sense of dread that a few of our women spoke of, and the despair that Erikson (1994) associated with the later stages of the life course. The idea of life-long learning as an educational goal has been around for some time. More recent is the notion that at all stages of career, people must be able to consider their aspirations, abilities and experience in a broader context, make insightful assessments of opportunities and pathways, and influence the dynamics of their practice situations in ways that add to their practical agency and confidence. Both older and younger workers find themselves in this situation, needing to continually enhance the way they relate to colleagues of all ages and cultures in virtual and remote teams. We suggest they need to do this together, not in silos. And they need to be able to share and extend the distinctive practice wisdoms of their generations. The implication for professional employability and development in 259

CHERRY ET AL.

current times is that effective intergenerational communication is a key capability. This considerably stretches current conceptualisations of communities of practice (Herron, 2017). IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINING EMPLOYABILITY AND PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT

As we have seen, most of the women referenced in this chapter were very keen to go on actively contributing and learning, and to reinvent themselves, rather than simply resting on their laurels, contemplating their legacy contributions or even just sharing their mature practice wisdom. They were also very confident that they could effectively negotiate to both create – and take advantage of – opportunities to take up the roles they desired for themselves. However, there is no doubt that the connections between work and life more generally are as much subject to change as any other aspect of human behaviour and experience. At all stages of the life course we are charting new territory, on many fronts. What are considered as careers, as work, as retirement and employment, are in a state of flux and continual negotiation. Many people are now doing jobs that were not even invented 10 years ago, and predictions are that jobs will be reinvented or replaced at an accelerating rate. Many of the ways we think about work, employability, practice wisdom and professional development are being challenged. For example, ideas about being a mentor or making legacy contributions, need to be re-thought. Professional identities, as both concepts and lived practice, need to be renegotiated. It is also very clear that not all parties are equal in this negotiation, even under positive labour market conditions. That said, the women in the study presented in this chapter are relatively well placed to undertake that negotiation and for the most part seem confident and keen to take it on under their own terms. We conclude that their ability to sustain successful professional identities across long periods of time, despite the “fraying” suggested by Bendien (2013), is one of the major factors in creating this confidence. In the literature, late career (both for women and men) is not currently recognised and valued as a stage with its own distinctive issues of employability and development. The possibility that practice continues to grow (rather than regress or plateau in later life) has also received little attention. But the issues associated with self-managing employability and development do not end for professional practitioners simply because they are older. Indeed, the whole idea of mature confidence, competence and practice is challenged in an age of constant knowledge generation. For example, it has been suggested that the knowledge of older workers should somehow be captured before they leave the workforce, and that older workers should be encouraged to mentor their younger colleagues. But when jobs, knowledge and practice are being rapidly and constantly reinvented, this advice needs to be seriously reconsidered. Any sense of legacy almost certainly implies more than simply storing and valuing old methods and know-how. The implications of relentless innovation are being felt in the 260

CAREERS IN LATER LIFE

practice of engineering, for example, where sophisticated technology eliminates the need for skill sets developed through years of work. The claim that engineering – among other professions – is being de-professionalised in large part rests on this. In this scenario, being an “elder” per se is not enough. But it is likely that the invention of new practice methods also creates new opportunities, challenges and dilemmas that mean professionals of all ages must learn together. Intergenerational learning is not simply about learning to get along, but learning together how to learn in an age of complexity. Arguably, then, true understanding of working – and being employable – in the early part of the 21st century challenges researchers to curate lived, individual, experiences, and to understand them as being constructed through a range of social, cultural and economic dynamics and relationships. Borsch-Supan (2013) is among those urging that more detailed life-course data is needed to obtain better evidence on the many subtleties of individual experience: evidence that is ultimately more important than debate which trades in myths and suppositions. NOTE 1

Direct quotes from the participants are italicised.

REFERENCES Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2010). Older people and the labour market: Australian social trends. Canberra, Australia: Author. Bendien, E. (2013). The last stitch in the quilt. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(6),709-719. Borsch-Supan, A. (2013). Myths, scientific evidence and economic policy in an aging world. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 1(2) 3-15. Byles, J., Tavener, M., Robinson, I., Parkinson, L., Warner Smith, P., Stevenson, D., Leigh, L., & Curryer, C. (2013). Transforming retirement: New definitions of life after work. Journal of Women & Aging, 25(1), 24-44. Colley, L. (2014), Ageing public services and the position of older women: An Australian case study. Journal of Women & Aging, 26(2), 160-181. Erikson, E. H. (1994). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Freixas, A., Luque, B., & Reina, A. (2012). Critical feminist gerontology: In the back room of research. Journal of Women and Aging, 24(1), 44-58. Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2005). Contexts of aging: Class, cohort and community. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Herron, A. (2017). Male engineers extending working life: Issues in ongoing professional practice development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Hugo, G. (2010). Investigating the ageing academic workforce: Stocktake. Adelaide, Australia: The National Centre for Social Applications of Geographic Information Systems, University of Adelaide. Kreab & Gavin Anderson Worldwide. (2014, April). How older workers are valued: Results of the National Survey on Attitudes to Older Workers (Combined Quantitative & Qualitative Research Report, Final Report). Canberra, Australia: Financial Services Council. McDaniel, S. (2004). Generationing gender: Justice and the division of welfare. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 27-44. Nash, K. (2012). The valuable shades of grey. Sydney, Australia: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia and New Zealand.

261

CHERRY ET AL. Phillipson, C. (2013). Ageing. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Price, C. (2000). Women and retirement: Relinquishing professional identity. Journal of Aging Studies, 14(1), 81-101. Price, C. (2003). Professional women’s retirement adjustment: The experience of re-establishing order. Journal of Aging Studies, 17(3), 341-355. Tilly, J., O’Leary, J., & Russell, Dr G. (2013). Older women matter: Harnessing the talents of Australia’s older female workforce (Project Partner – Australian Human Rights Commission). Sydney, Australia. Winston, N., & Barnes, J. (2007). Anticipation of retirement among baby boomers. Journal of Women & Aging, 19(3/4), 137-159.

Nita Cherry PhD Adjunct Professor, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Janet Gregory PhD Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Alison Herron PhD University of Melbourne, Australia Helen McKernan PhD Formerly Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

262

GEOFFREY CRISP, JOY HIGGS AND WILL LETTS

22. WHERE TO NEXT WITH THE EMPLOYABILITY AGENDA?

This book and its companion volume, Education for Employability (Volume 1), have explored numerous aspects of the employability agenda and many of the strategies that educational leaders across the country have adopted. The various authors have contributed their own aspirations and targets, along with the concerns and visions of a number of our academic practitioners and external stakeholders. What have we learned from all these authors and from all the recent reports and projects on employability in higher education? Do we have a clear blueprint of what is required to meet the needs of universities, governments, employers, professional organisations, current and future students and graduates? Have we solved the (perceived) problem of enhancing the employability prospects of university graduates? Have we clearly defined the role of the university in the modern economic and social context? This chapter will explore these questions in the context of the insights provided by the numerous authors of the previous chapters in both books in this series. In Australia, the proportion of graduates (from undergraduate programs) in fulltime employment four months after finishing their degrees has fallen from 85.2% in 2008 to 72.9% in 2018 (Singhal, 2019). The reasons for this reduction are complex and include factors such as the current world economic situation, structural features unique to the Australian economy and the changing nature of work in general. This annual survey of Australian university graduates reveals that the employment outcomes for recent graduates are also highly influenced by the particular degree students have completed. The highest full-time employment rates of 97.2% and 94.9% are found for pharmacy and medicine undergraduates respectively (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2019). The degrees with the lowest rates of full-time employment include creative arts at 52.2%, psychology with 60.3% and communications with 60.6%. A report prepared by Kinash et al. (2015) highlighted a positive relationship between 12 employability strategies adopted by universities and graduate employment outcomes. The 12 strategies included: capstone or final semester projects; careers advice and employment skill development; engaging in extracurricular activities; international exchanges; mentoring; attending networking or industry information events; part-time employment; developing graduate profiles, portfolios and records of achievement; professional association membership or engagement; using social media/networks; volunteering or community engagement; and work experience, internships or placements. This report emphasises the most persistent and powerful argument in this book: that getting a job, or being in a job, is not the same thing as being employable. The latter refers to having the capacity to © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 _'2,: 9789004418707_022

CRISP ET AL.

gain employment, to succeed and flourish in it and to take control of one’s own career. As a result of this distinction, many of our authors have also highlighted the importance of recognising that tertiary education needs not only to prepare graduates for work (for instance, their professional role and the generic attributes that employers expect their workers to demonstrate), but they also need to take responsibility for their own employABILITY (Bennett, 2018), which is variously described as a set of capabilities (like self-appraisal and professional development) and an attitude of mind involving metacognitive and emotionally intelligent capacities (like resilience). Interestingly, Kinash et al.’s (2015) report highlighted the disconnect between the relative order for the priorities that different stakeholders (students, academics and employers) placed on the 12 employability strategies and also pointed out that there are external impediments to graduate employment outcomes that are beyond the control of the university, including gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background of the graduate (see Table 22.1). Table 22.1. Comparing stakeholder perspectives of the 12 employability strategies (Kinash et al., 2015). Strategies

Students

Graduates

Higher Education

Employers

9%

15%

45%

13%

Careers Advice

59%

47%

64%

28%

Extra-curricular

48%

47%

65%

60%

International Exchange

16%

10%

30%

23%

Mentoring

28%

24%

48%

34%

Networking

49%

52%

51%

40%

Part-Time Work

53%

53%

36%

38%

Portfolios

40%

40%

41%

25%

Professional Associations

29%

37%

54%

34%

Social Media

33%

37%

40%

15%

Volunteering

47%

50%

48%

53%

Work Experience

74%

74%

40%

87%

Capstone

264

IMPLICATIONS

This particular point emphasises how vital it is that people (educators, learners and employers) who are setting out to improve graduates’ employability spend time understanding it. Not only that it is about capability but also that its development requires immersion in authentic workplace experiences, that the target-setters (employers) have taken the time to look at the changes facing work in their contexts, and that educators likewise take a serious step into where the work arena is going – not where it used to be. As universities strive to enhance the employability prospects of their graduates, they need to be cognisant of the complex variables that are at play here and appreciate that simple solutions will not necessarily work for all graduates. By combining renewed effort around the 12 employability strategies in combination with an understanding of the external factors influencing the employment environment, universities should be able to prepare their graduates with a more effective set of capabilities and attitudes that will support them on their career journeys. The most obvious difference we should see today in an “employabilityoriented” (not just “employment-oriented”) curriculum is that it would clearly help learners learn to assess and manage their own employability, not just do their professional or disciplinary job. WHAT SHOULD EMPLOYABILITY-FOCUSED UNIVERSITIES LOOK LIKE?

Most universities claim they are preparing their students for employability and employment. Indeed, participating in, and completing, a higher education qualification usually increases a person’s employability prospects. Can we define the key features common to universities that appear to be succeeding in delivering on the promise of employABILITY? In Australia, the Graduate Outcomes Survey is often used as a proxy measure of success by universities in promoting their ability to deliver employability outcomes to their students. According to Smith et al. (2018), building these employability capabilities rests upon a foundation of seven hallmarks that characterise a high-performing, employability-focused university: 1. Strategy and governance – senior executives provide a compelling rationale and comprehensive strategy for informing and engaging all institutional stakeholders. 2. Internal partnerships – senior executives lead and support respectful collaborations inside and outside the curriculum. 3. Learning and teaching practices and programs are innovative and diverse in that they connect with all student cohorts, are scaffolded, are informed by industry, recognise excellence in employability development or career development learning, embrace transformative curriculum models, and both map and benchmark graduate competencies and attributes. These are explicitly communicated to academics, students and industry. 4. The messaging and language between stakeholders is appropriately designed and consistent so that both internal and external stakeholders hear and understand the drivers of diverse views on employability development. As an example, the 265

CRISP ET AL.

“learning view” on employability can enable a more productive, collaborative and respectful relationship between academics, career professionals and industry, whilst the “productivity and skills view” can result in less positive and compliance-driven relationships. 5. External partnerships with industry and alumni are leveraged for mutual benefit. 6. Evidence, harnessed through data collection, evaluation, and client feedback loops is based around appropriately designed metrics, which measure the process of employability learning and not merely first-destination statistics. 7. Student partnerships are leveraged to engage all cohorts and are harnessed to drive program innovations and ongoing refinements. Bridgstock (2019) has described Graduate Employability 2.0 which emphasises the importance of connectedness in the modern social and work environment. This connectedness approach also applies to universities which should be seeking more opportunities to connect themselves seamlessly with industry, professional organisations and the wider community to model how graduates will need to access the digital pathways that will be crucial to their employment and career prospects. This connectedness moves beyond the simple task of creating a LinkedIn profile, hoping the world will read these entries and assuming opportunities will organically appear in the ethereal digital space. Connectedness requires effort and it must be engaged with on an ongoing basis to be effective and authentic. This new form of connectedness becomes a way of life for our students and graduates and universities have not traditionally been particularly good models of this new way of working. Some universities are now changing their own recruitment approaches to be more digital and using social media and professional profiles to source their potential staff and selecting applicants on the basis of their digital footprint rather than a traditional curriculum vitae. There is a literacy associated with employability and universities can assist students to develop their vocabulary and conceptual understanding for this area, just as they do for traditional disciplines they study as part of their degree. Self-efficacy and resilience are part of the language of employability and academics need to design learning activities for students that not only raise the students’ awareness of these concepts, but also allow students to enhance their ability to incorporate these concepts into their day-to-day lives so they are building their employability prospects as a core part of their studies. The work of Bennett (2018) has demonstrated the importance of self and identity in students as key enablers of employability. The Student Starter Kit and the employABILITY profile tool1 provide practical examples of how universities can incorporate the proposed six important literacies into the curriculum. As Scott (2019) posited, modern universities need to model what they teach and each institution should “consciously model in its own culture, structure, practices and learning programs what being work ready plus, resilient and adaptive looks like in practice” (p. 116.). If students do not experience the reality of their university 266

IMPLICATIONS

enacting the capabilities that are being promoted as enhancing employability, they will not adopt the behaviours and approaches that will assist them after graduation. The new university will give far more focus to transdisciplinary, action-focused learning and powerful assessment around the key challenges facing our country and the world over the following decades. Scott proposed the FLIPCurric model to focus attention on developing not just competent, work ready graduates for today but capable, work ready plus graduates for tomorrow. By inviting successful early career graduates to input into curriculum design, Scott has focused attention on the need to set assessment tasks that are “powerful” and fit-for-purpose, rather than convenient to administer and grade. Assessments such as capstone projects, dilemma-based assessment, workplace practicums, simulations and role play, entrepreneurship tasks, performance assessment, information and communications technology (ICT)enabled activities, wiki-based tasks, interview-based assessment, product analysis, reflective learning journals, problem-based assessment, learning contracts and viva voce are all examples of more effective tasks that can enhance employability capability development. WHAT SHOULD CREDENTIALS AND CURRICULA LOOK LIKE IN A MODERN UNIVERSITY?

Curricula and credentials need to be fit for purpose for current and future students. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are having a dramatic impact on employability and what a future career might look like. The rate of implementation of AI is accelerating, so universities need to rethink both the design and delivery of their core product – their courses and programs. If we keep teaching traditional content in traditional ways, we will be setting our students up for failure in the new economy. They will not be employable in the long term if the course content is based on material that can be devolved to AI and automation. Technology will take time to be able to replicate or automate the literacies required to work in teams or propose innovative solutions to wicked problems, or to understand the nuances of cultural and social interactions. These are the capabilities that can be fostered in courses if we wish to facilitate long-term career prospects for our graduates. Capabilities such as emotional intelligence, building on the ideas of others, appreciating cultural diversity, empathising and building consensus are unlikely to be replicated easily by AI in the medium term. Learning activities and assessment tasks should be designed with an increased weighting on these concepts and reducing the current heavy weighting on traditional discipline concepts. Modern credentials need to meet a multiplicity of stakeholder needs and Oliver (2016) has proposed that to be deemed excellent, modern credentials must meet or exceed five essential criteria: 1. Clearly communicate achievement of appropriate outcomes and standards with sufficient granularity to predict future performance 2. Be based on judgements of rich evidence created in response to authentic assessments in a range of complex, ill-defined tasks 267

CRISP ET AL.

3. Maximise assessment integrity, appropriately verifying the identity and the contribution of the learner 4. Balance time and money invested by the learner with benefits realised during and after conferral (credit or entry to a higher credential, enhanced status or career advantage) 5. Be sustainable, based on sound business models, crisp and consistent value propositions, and compliant with regulatory frameworks. Micro credentials (designated through the use of badges and e-portfolios, for instance, extra-curricular studies) could also be used effectively as a way of promoting employability development in students as this form of credentialing is more compatible with the needs of the gig economy (Milligan & Kennedy, 2017). Authenticating industry experience or extra-curricular activities through a formal process like micro credentials might be more effective than the current process of using the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement (AHEGS). The gig economy has already had significant impacts on young people entering the workforce. It’s estimated that 60% of current students are being trained in jobs that will be radically transformed over the next 10 to 15 years due to automation (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). This could have devastating impacts on unemployment and the economy more broadly if policy makers, industry and higher education institutions don’t come together to solve the challenges the gig economy presents. Students and young people need to be equipped with the skills to deal with an uncertain job market, and the capacity to adapt and retrain over their careers. More than half of Australian workers will need skills in digital literacy and building digital systems over the next two to three years (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). This transition will require students to learn a broad range of skills, such as digital literacy, regardless of their study discipline. Universities will be preparing students to solve problems of a future unknown workforce rather than the current one. This need for soft skill development and retraining over a lifetime places pressure on universities to rethink their education pedagogy to align with lifelong learning (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016). Australian graduates will need to have the capacity to adapt in a market where the jobs they’ll work in over their lifetime may not exist yet. Ensuring students have practical experience in problem solving real-world issues is one way to prepare students for their future careers. Industry experience is already an essential part of building the knowledge and networks crucial to gain employment after graduation (OECD, 2016). However, these opportunities are often through internships that are either unpaid or inflexible, which limits access to only very few students. While some internships and placements provide a level of honorarium, many still remain unpaid, making it impossible for a large cohort of students to access them. One of the most significant barriers to creating more work integrated learning (WIL) opportunities is the lack of resources (PhillipsKPA, 2014) that are shadowing alumni in their careers. 268

IMPLICATIONS

WHAT SHOULD THE ACADEMIC WORKFORCE LOOK LIKE FOR THE EMPLOYABILITY AGENDA?

Universities need to reconsider their recruitment, promotion and workload models if they are to redesign their courses and programs to promote the integration of employability capabilities and career development learning into their programs. The emphasis on taking a shared and partnership approach with students and external stakeholders for the employability agenda outcomes means a shift in emphasis in the capabilities required of academics, as well as students (Bennett, Richardson, & MacKinnon, 2016). Academics will need to be able to design learning activities and assessment tasks for wicked problems and many of the non-technical skills and personal attitudes that will foster more agentic and resilient graduates. If we are to see a significant improvement in the redesign of courses, universities will need to include this activity in the academic promotion criteria. WIL and career development learning needs to be incorporated into the responsibilities of each academic as well as the formal career centres. Governments can incentivise universities to create this more employability-friendly environment by requiring it in funding compacts. The government and industry emphasis on what they see as the main drivers of the employability agenda can be at odds with an academic’s understanding of their role in the university (Higdon, 2016). We have mentioned above the many structural and cultural issues impacting on the employment outcomes for some graduates. Although universities cannot change some of these external impact factors, they can better prepare graduates for the issues they may face in their work environments. THE ROLE OF STUDENTS IN THE EMPLOYABILITY AGENDA

Reports2 are appearing of graduates suing their universities for not better preparing them for employability. The frustration of graduates experiencing difficulties in securing the type of employment or career trajectory they desire is likely driving this behaviour, and universities do need to think about their marketing campaigns and the alignment of their courses and programs with the promises they have (implicitly) made to students about the outcomes to be derived from completing their degree. The question then arises as to the relative responsibilities of the university and the individual student in delivering on the employability agenda. Universities can be held accountable for providing an environment where employability capabilities can be developed but they cannot be held accountable for how (or if) an individual student will implement those opportunities. So what is the responsibility of the individual student in enhancing their own employability and career prospects? A university degree is a step along the path of gaining meaningful employment and a sustainable career. As we have commented throughout this series, there are many capabilities that need to be developed for graduates to be successful in the employment market place and many of those characteristics are beyond the experiences of traditional discipline content. We have highlighted the types of experiential learning opportunities universities should provide for their students in order to promote these additional employability literacies, but each student must determine how they will assimilate these into their own personas, how they will 269

CRISP ET AL.

incorporate them into their practice models and how they will leverage them in the pursuit of employability. Allowing students to be more engaged with decision making within the university and facilitating a partnership relationship between students and the university is beginning to influence how universities prioritise some of their activities (Johnston, 2019). Students as partners allows students to not only influence decision making but also develop leadership and problem-solving skills, positioning them as the creators rather than the recipients of employability. This is an area that could be more proactively promoted within universities and would foster a stronger sense of belonging in students as they see themselves as helping to build the university in addition to their own careers. As Johnston (ibid) notes: Students and graduates should be at the forefront of driving the future of education. It will be the responsibility of each institution to empower its students to lead the future. This requires a partnership between the universities and the students to deliver an educational experience that develops futureready students and graduates. (p. 209) A key argument we make as editors and authors of this volume is to not only agree with students (school leavers and mature age students alike) that they should share the responsibility for curriculum decision making. On the one hand, we don’t find it feasible that students can “know what they don’t know” and therefore take control of all aspects of the curriculum content, learning strategies, curriculum design, etc. On the other hand, they are responsible for setting goals and targets for their own learning, for assessing their progress towards learning outcomes, for ensuring that they achieve the expected attributes of university graduates and for pursuing their own progress towards employability. Without both this endeavour and responsibility the same levels of accountability and quality control of their own work, practice and ongoing learning and employability will not be achievable. In Chapter 6 in this volume, Cloutman and Higgs provide an employability development model that emphasises understanding, pursuing and self-managing employability. These lifelong endeavours are the means of sustaining employability. CONCLUSION

This chapter has reflected on important employability targets and arguments. We are well aware that those whose mind is focused on employability are likely to keep much of their mind focused on future work, much of it on the whole-of-curriculum, and much of it on new ways of teaching. We take this final word to remind us all to remember not to lose sight of the particular in the curriculum (including industry experiences), the particular in cohorts such as Indigenous students whose future employability lies at a population crossroad not just a course or institutional decision space, the potential and possible but also the unimaginable when considering what learners are seeking to prepare for and finally the careers that are still to be shaped,

270

IMPLICATIONS

not in terms of what workers will do but also how they will cope and redirect their future, futures. NOTES 1 2

https://developingemployability.edu.au https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/hapless-graduates-sue-their-former-universities-inshockingly-high-numbers/news-story/6f5a7be7093804775034301bacb07a23

REFERENCES Australian Government Department of Education and Training (DET). (2019). 2018 Graduate Outcomes Survey: National report. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gosreports/2018-gos/2018-gos-national-report-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=a729e33c_4 Bennett, D. (2018). Embedding employABILITY thinking across higher education (Final Report). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Bennett, D., Richardson. S., & MacKinnon, P. (2016). Enacting strategies for graduate employability: How universities can best support students to develop generic skills Part A. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SP13_3258_Bennett_Report_2016_0.pdf Bridgstock, R. (2019). Graduate employability 2.0: Learning for life and work in a socially networked world. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 97-106). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Higdon, R. D. (2016). Employability: The missing voice: How student and graduate views could be used to develop future higher education policy and inform curricula. Power and Education, 8(2) 176-195. Johnston, S. (2019). The future is ours: Students and graduates leading the future. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 201-210). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Kinash, S., Crane, L., Judd, M.-M., Mitchell, K., McLean, M., Knight, C., Dowling, D., & Schulz, M. (2015). Supporting graduate employability from generalist disciplines through employer and private institution collaboration (Final Report prepared for the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching). Retrieved from https://cdn.graduateemployability.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/23154726/SP13_3239_Kinash_Report_2015.pdf Milligan, S., & Kennedy, G. (2017). Visions for Australian tertiary education. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Oliver, B. (2016). Better 21C credentials: Evaluating the promise, perils and disruptive potential of digital credentials (Report to the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching). Retrieved from http://www.assuringgraduatecapabilities.com/21c-credentials-olt-project.html Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). Education at a glance 2016: OECD indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. PhillipsKPA. (2014). Engaging employers in work integrated learning: Current state and future priorities. Richmond, Australia: Author. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/engagingemployers-work-integrated-learning-current-state-and-future-priorities Scott, G. (2019). Preparing work ready plus graduates for an uncertain future. In J. Higgs, G. Crisp, & W. Letts (Eds.), Education for employability (Volume 1): The employability agenda (pp. 107-118). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Singhal, P. (2019, January 11). Full-time employment rate for university graduates plummets. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/education/full-time-employment-rate-foruniversity-graduates-plummets-20190110-p50qlf.html

271

CRISP ET AL. Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D., & McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Wollongong, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia. The Foundation for Young Australians (2017). The New Work Smarts: Thriving in the New Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/FYA_TheNewWorkSmarts_July2017.pdf

Geoffrey Crisp PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9994-8939) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Vice-President University of Canberra, Australia Joy Higgs AM, PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-1016) Emeritus Professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia Director, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia Will Letts PhD (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0266-5703) Associate Dean, Academic, Faculty of Arts and Education Charles Sturt University, Australia

272

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Note: ALTF refers to the Australian Learning and Teaching Fellows Network Rola Ajjawi PhD Associate Professor in Education Research Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning Deakin University, Australia Shirley Alexander Professor of Learning Technologies Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) University of Technology Sydney, Australia Simon Barrie PhD Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning Transformations Western Sydney University, Australia Kenton Bell MA School of Education University of Wollongong, Australia Dawn Bennett PhD, PFHEA, Member ALTF John Curtin Distinguished Professor of Higher Education School of Education Curtin University, Australia https://developingemployability.edu.au/ Christine Bilsland PhD Lecturer Professional and Community Engagement Faculty of Business and Economics Macquarie University, Australia David Boud PhD Director, Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia Emeritus Professor, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Professor, Work and Learning Research Centre, Middlesex University, United Kingdom Ruth Bridgstock PhD, PFHEA, Member ALTF Professor of Curriculum & Teaching Transformation Centre for Learning Futures Griffith University, Australia www.graduateemployability2-0.com 273

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Nita Cherry PhD, MAM Adjunct Professor Faculty of Business and Law Swinburne University of Technology, Australia James Cloutman MEd (SCU), PGCE, London Univ., BA (Hons.), King’s College PhD Candidate, Charles Sturt University, Australia Member, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia Jo Coldwell-Neilson PhD, FACS, Member ALTF Associate Dean Teaching and Learning Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment Deakin University, Australia Trudi Cooper PhD, Member ALTF Associate Professor Director of the Social Program Research and Evaluation group School of Arts and Humanities Edith Cowan University, Australia Geoffrey Crisp PhD, PFHEA, FHERDSA, Member ALTF Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Vice-President University of Canberra, Australia Julieanne Cutrupi Manager – Careers Service University of Technology Sydney, Australia Aysha Divan PhD Associate Professor and Director of Student Education Faculty of Biological Sciences University of Leeds, United Kingdom Noel Edge BCom, MInfoSys, PhD, FACS Executive Director, Graduate Careers Australia (Formerly Professor of Information Systems, Zayed University, UAE, and Director of Business Development, School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Australia) http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/ Rachael Field PhD, SFHEA, Member ALTF Professor of Law Co-Director, Bond Dispute Resolution Centre Bond University Faculty of Law, Australia

274

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Edmond Fitzgerald BA (Admin/IT), MBA, PhD Fellow, Graduate Careers Australia (Formerly University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia) Deanne Gannaway PhD, SFHEA Senior Lecturer in Higher Education Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation University of Queensland, Australia Michelle Grant-Iramu Research Associate Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology, Australia Janet Gregory PhD Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Alison Herron PhD University of Melbourne, Australia Joy Higgs AM, PhD, PFHEA, Member ALTF Emeritus Professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia Director, Education, Practice and Employability Network, Australia https://www.epen.edu.au/ Denise Jackson PhD Associate Professor and Director, Work-Integrated Learning School of Business and Law Edith Cowan University, Australia Judie Kay Director, Careers & Employability Education Portfolio RMIT University, Australia Elizabeth Knight PhD, PCDAA Research Fellow Faculty of Education Monash University, Australia Anatoli Kovalev Program Manager, Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor UNSW Sydney, Australia https://student.unsw.edu.au/hero-program 275

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Will Letts PhD, SFHEA Associate Dean, Academic Faculty of Arts and Education Charles Sturt University, Australia Kate Lloyd PhD Associate Professor and Director for Learning, Teaching and Research (PACE) Professional and Community Engagement Macquarie University, Australia Noel Maloney PhD Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences La Trobe University, Australia Lina Markauskaite PhD Associate Professor in Learning Sciences Co-Director, Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Sydney, Australia Helen McKernan PhD Formerly Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Narelle Patton PhD, SFHEA Sub Dean Workplace Learning and Accreditation Faculty of Science Charles Sturt University, Australia Jenny Pizzica PhD Senior Lecturer, Learning Transformations Western Sydney University, Australia Leoni Russell Senior Advisor Learning & Teaching Education Portfolio RMIT University, Australia Karen Sheppard MEd Learning Designer Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation University of Queensland, Australia Brett Smout PhD Director – Student Services Unit University of Technology Sydney, Australia 276

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Matalena Tofa PhD Lecturer (Learning, Teaching and Research) Professional and Community Engagement Macquarie University, Australia Lesley Willcoxson PhD Fellow, Graduate Careers Australia (Formerly Academic Staff Developer, Murdoch University and University of Sydney, Australia) Mark Young Senior Manager, Sales and Customer Experience Marketing and Recruitment La Trobe University, Australia

277