Understanding Student Employability: Views from Key Stakeholders of Higher Education

• In Event: Student learning and employability in international higher education

Proposal

Introduction
It has become a common practice for higher education institutions (HEIs) to embed employability expectations and to enhance student learning outcomes especially at undergraduate level in the UK (Fallows & Steven 2000). Some scholars are weary of this new-found responsibility of HEIs in employability. Kalfa & Taksa (2015) warn against HEIs been elevated to a panacea in respect of meeting employers’ needs. Likewise, Frankham (2017) questions government’s imperatives concerning employability as that will make higher education a tool in the hands of market-based forces.
Furthermore, the term employability has become a ‘floating signifier’ reflecting its varied understandings across key stakeholders of higher education (Sin & Neave, 2016). There is a call for “an agreed definition of employability, to allow HEIs, employers and policy-makers to work towards similar goals and outcomes” (Small, Shacklock, & Marchant, 2018, p.16). This paper argues that if such a definition will ever be possible, the starting point is to review how different stakeholders understand the meaning of employability and their role in achieving that.

Methodology
This paper explores the meaning of employability through reviewing literatures on the understandings of employability held by four key stakeholders: higher education institutions (HEIs), student, Government and employer. It seeks to explore how each stakeholder understands the concept of employability, who is responsible for graduate employability, and how to achieve and enhance that.
There are two stages literature review. The first stage aims to build a conceptual understanding of employability from stakeholders’ perspectives. Literature searches are undertaken across bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, EBSCO, and Science Direct). The second round of review draws on documentary analysis of official statements, declarations, documents, reports, and position papers issued by key stakeholders in the UK, which are available online. It identifies key stakeholders’ interpretation of employability, and their perspectives of whose responsibility for employability.

Definitions of employability
Existing definitions of employability can be categorised into three main groups. The first group emphasises the capabilities of individuals (De Vos, De Hauw & Van der Heijden, 2011; Hillage & Pollard, 1998; Yorke, 2006). These definitions resonate with the idea that employability of an individual depends upon personal assets or characteristics that are internal to the graduate.
The second group definition draws attention to the relative dimensions of employability. For example, Sin & Amaral (2017, p.99) define employability as “a person’s ability to get a job, maintain a job or change jobs, an ability determined by individual characteristics and circumstances, as well as by broader external factors (social, institutional and economic)”.
The third group of definitions emphasise the need to understand both absolute and relative dimensions of employability. For example, Small, Shacklock & Marchant (2017, p.4) interpret employability as “capacity to be self-reliant in navigating the labour market, utilising knowledge, individual skills and attributes, and adapting them to the employment context, showcasing them to employers, while taking into account external and other constraints”.

Views from stakeholders
The analysis of institutional documents and strategies suggests that there are increasing number of UK institutions which develop or have employability strategies. However, their definitions of employability are either lacking or fuzzy, implicitly influenced by the line set by policy-makers. Take Kings College London as an example, its employability strategy is linked to aspects such as student recruitment, student satisfaction and employment outcomes, employer relations and community engagement.
Review of student unions’ documents suggest that there is a wide range of understandings of employability, with the emphasis on supporting students to develop capabilities and effectiveness in the labour market. There is also a view among students that HEIs are responsible for helping students enhance their employability, ignoring the influence of external factors on their employability.
A major difference between students’ view and that of the HEIs is that students perceive employability as not just gaining employment but also becoming effective in building a career. This suggests that students are aware that they are responsible for employability and that their career is dependent on their ability to gain the skills needed by their employer.
Literatures reveal that the UK Government’s definition places priority on skills development and the development and accreditation of knowledge and vocational skills. However, lots of research reveal that employer are interested in ‘softer’ skills and attitudes (Wharton & Horrocks, 2015). The different expectations for skills suggest a gap between what government aims to promote for employability and what employers need.
Although the UK Government acknowledges that responsibility belong to a broad spectrum of stakeholders including education providers, employers and professional bodies, it tends to emphasise the responsibility of the HEIs the most. This has raised concerns that government and employers are exempted from such responsibility.
According to Mason, Williams & Cranmer (2009), employers often see employability as work readiness. Employers tend to emphasise soft skills and capabilities beyond subject knowledge and qualifications (Hinchliffe & Jolly, 2011). This suggests a major area of disconnection among the stakeholders, as government, HEIs, and students appear as focusing on practical and vocational skills (Wharton & Horrocks, 2015).

Conclusion
This paper reveals that HEIs, student, government and employers hold different understandings of graduate employability and who is responsible for that. There is a big gap between what employers need and what is promoted by government for graduate employability.
There is silence on government’s responsibility for employability. The imposed responsibility on HEIs for employability suggests that the government wants to get rid of their political responsibility for student employability, so it shifts the blame for market failures to the consumers and producers of higher education.
However, the demand for employability increases consumerism culture and commodification of higher education. It shapes student expectation and value of university education in that economic return becomes the main drive. This will decrease student voice in what they want to achieve from university education, and will make them lose opportunities to explore their full potentials, as all they need is to perform to fulfil market needs.

Author

• Ming Cheng, Edge Hill University, UK