Rationalities that underpin employability provision in higher education across eight countries

Abstract

This article explores the rationalities advanced by 18 higher education institutions, located across eight countries, for developing and delivering employability provision. The article uses Sultana’s Habermasian-derived framework to categorise rationalities as either technocratic, humanistic or emancipatory. Based on a series of semi-structured dialogic interviews, the article explores how key strategic and operational personnel within higher education institutions articulate their rationality for engaging with employability. It finds that the rationalities advanced to support employability within different institutions vary through a conversation between institutional culture and priorities and the demands of different stakeholders who the institution seeks to engage. The technocratic and humanistic rationalities dominate, with the emancipatory rationality weakly represented in the data. However, in many cases, the different rationalities are woven together, often for tactical reasons, to create bespoke institutional rationalities.

Perceived employability among master’s students in Hong Kong

“…The increasing tensions between higher education and the world of work suggest that graduate employability in terms of meeting a deficit model of capabilities and skills (Turner, 2014) should be reconceptualised, as the wish list of skills and experiences in the labour market is evolving and expanding (Jackson, 2013). The emphasis on employment per se has also made it difficult for academics to position themselves between focusing on student development and worrying about students' labour market outcomes (Hooley et al ., 2023). Similarly, Boden and Nedeva (2010) reminded us that pursuing an employability agenda by catering to industrial demands can undermine the authority of academics in determining the learning outcomes of their courses, with adverse impacts on curricula and pedagogies.…”

How intentional are the employability strategies of Higher Education Institutions?

“…More recently Hooley et al (2023) based on Sultana's (2018) typology of technocratic, humanistic, and emancipatory rationalities that inform career education to propose an alternative tripartite classification of the perspectives underling HEI employability strategies. Close to the possessional approach, technocratic rationalities focus on the supply side of the labour market and stress the need to adapt graduates' skills and attributes to employers' requirements.…”

“…Additionally, however, humanistic rationalities highlight the importance of encouraging the exploration and development of personal interests and abilities beyond the realm of work. The third rationality identified by Hooley et al (2023) takes a broader approach, emphasising the role of students and graduates as citizens, besides labour suppliers.…”

“…The empirical analysis by Hooley et al (2023) concerns HEI attitude towards employability rather than the design and deployment of actual strategies. However, based on repeated runs of interviews with careers service and academic staff in a sample of 18 HEIs from eight countries Hooley et al (2023) classified the emerging rationalities as either technocratic or humanistic. Only one HEI seemed closer to an emancipatory rationality.…”

“…In recent years the topic of HEI employment strategy has been explored by a growing number of contributions. Theoretical contributions have identified insightful approaches to classify the employability strategies available to HEIs (Holmes, 2013;Hooley et al, 2023), tested by empirical analyses that confirmed the diversification of the paths adopted to improve graduates' employability depending on an HEI overall strategy (Farenga and Quinlan, 2016;Bennet et al, 2017;Okay-Somerville and Scholarios, 2017;Hooley et al, 2023). However, more recent empirical analyses also suggest that tensions often exist between official employment strategies and their understanding by HEI academic and administrative staff (Divan et al, 2019;Sin et al, 2019).…”