The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Fulin Li, Ian Hardy
{"title":"The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia","authors":"Fulin Li, Ian Hardy","doi":"10.1057/s41307-024-00373-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund (NPILF) policy is an important national policy initiative designed to enhance Australian university graduates’ job readiness. Using Bacchi’s What’s the Problem Represented to be? (WPR) methodology, this study critically analyses the NPILF policy. We find that the ‘problem’ of inadequate employment preparation among graduates in the NPILF policy is characterized by a lack of connection between universities and industry, a significant gap between curriculum provision and workplaces, and an insufficient number of graduates with STEM skills. This represents a shift in discourse and reflects the widespread influence of neoliberalism and New Public Management on the university sector, where market logics become the dominant approach to address the issue of graduate underemployment, with subsequent effects on student identity. However, while efficient- and benefit-oriented allocation of funds may incentivize market participation, it can also hinder effective engagement of small- and medium-sized enterprises and their collaboration with universities, limit the opportunities for economically disadvantaged students to participate in work-integrated learning, and overlook the impact of holistic knowledge development on students’ employability. Reevaluating the relationship between the government, the market, and universities, and focusing on the transformation of knowledge production/development, can assist policymakers in seeking comprehensive labor market development plans.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"168 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00373-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund (NPILF) policy is an important national policy initiative designed to enhance Australian university graduates’ job readiness. Using Bacchi’s What’s the Problem Represented to be? (WPR) methodology, this study critically analyses the NPILF policy. We find that the ‘problem’ of inadequate employment preparation among graduates in the NPILF policy is characterized by a lack of connection between universities and industry, a significant gap between curriculum provision and workplaces, and an insufficient number of graduates with STEM skills. This represents a shift in discourse and reflects the widespread influence of neoliberalism and New Public Management on the university sector, where market logics become the dominant approach to address the issue of graduate underemployment, with subsequent effects on student identity. However, while efficient- and benefit-oriented allocation of funds may incentivize market participation, it can also hinder effective engagement of small- and medium-sized enterprises and their collaboration with universities, limit the opportunities for economically disadvantaged students to participate in work-integrated learning, and overlook the impact of holistic knowledge development on students’ employability. Reevaluating the relationship between the government, the market, and universities, and focusing on the transformation of knowledge production/development, can assist policymakers in seeking comprehensive labor market development plans.

大学与产业联系的 "问题":澳大利亚的启示
国家优先事项与产业联系基金(NPILF)政策是一项重要的国家政策措施,旨在提高澳大利亚大学毕业生的就业准备程度。本研究采用 Bacchi 的 "问题代表什么?(WPR) 方法,本研究对 NPILF 政策进行了批判性分析。我们发现,在 NPILF 政策中,毕业生就业准备不足这一 "问题 "的特点是大学与产业之间缺乏联系,课程设置与工作场所之间存在巨大差距,以及具备 STEM 技能的毕业生人数不足。这代表了话语的转变,反映了新自由主义和新公共管理对大学部门的广泛影响,市场逻辑成为解决毕业生就业不足问题的主导方法,并随之对学生身份产生影响。然而,以效率和效益为导向的资金分配固然可以激励市场参与,但也会阻碍中小企业的有效参与及其与大学的合作,限制经济困难学生参与工作一体化学习的机会,忽视全面知识发展对学生就业能力的影响。重新评估政府、市场和大学之间的关系,关注知识生产/发展的转型,有助于决策者寻求全面的劳动力市场发展计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy. The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome. Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信