No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Managing boundaries between students’ work and study roles is crucial for success at university. Little research has examined the strategies used to manage these roles, the factors that relate to implementing them, and the outcomes associated with their use. Boundary management theory, an identity-based perspective, explains boundary management processes; yet, few studies have examined how identity affects the enactment of boundary strategies. We investigated the extent to which identity-based concepts (i.e., student role salience and future-self) were related to different types of boundary strategies (i.e., temporal and communicative), how these related to work-study balance, and, in turn, academic satisfaction. We tested our model on a sample of 266 working university students (MAge = 20.07 years, SD = 2.63; 74% women) and it accounted for 41% of the variance in academic satisfaction. Significant relationships were found among identity-based concepts, boundary strategies, work-study balance, and academic satisfaction, highlighting the importance of student identity and the use of temporal strategies in achieving greater work-study balance and academic satisfaction. Suggestions for how education providers can retain students who are struggling to manage work and study are discussed.

No abstract

To cope with demands of working while studying, students must structure the boundaries between these roles (e.g., integrate or segment them) to suit their preferences and circumstances. However, students differ on how well they do this, and we do not yet understand the factors that contribute to managing work and study well. We sought to determine if different student groups existed and if the groups reported different work, study, and wellbeing outcomes. Using latent profile analysis and assessing work-study boundary congruence and flexibility (N = 808; 76% female; MAge 19.6 years), we identified four groups of (a) “balanced” (65.4%; with moderate boundary congruence and flexibility); (b) “high work congruence and flexibility” (17.5%; working arrangements supportive of study role); (c) “low work congruence and flexibility” (9.7%; unsupportive workplace arrangements); and (d) “low study congruence” (7.3%; study arrangements unsupportive of work role). These groups reported different work/study demands, role conflict, study burnout, and perceived employability, with “balanced” and “high work congruence and flexibility” groups scoring more positively and “low work congruence and flexibility” and “low study congruence” groups scoring more negatively. Results supported that different student groups existed, and these will need different supports to manage their multiple role responsibilities.