{"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.
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.