Graduate Employability in the Japanese Studies Curriculum: An Investigation of Departmental Responses in Europe

Introduction

Recent government initiatives to open up Japan for the purpose of attracting overseas talent have resulted in promising employability prospects for graduates from Japanese Studies departments (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2018; Hennings and Mintz 2015). Demand for skilled workers, particularly those with knowledge of Japanese language and culture, is now high, with growing labour shortages and a shrinking domestic graduate pool leading Japan’s government to relax visa policies and recruit talent globally (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2019a; Hof and Tseng 2020). A new recruitment trend has since emerged over the last decade of Japanese multinational companies hiring foreign university graduates onto permanent management-track roles in Japan, which is significant given the previously limited opportunities for progression and upward mobility (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2019b and 2022).

The stability associated with these lifelong employment positions has become increasingly appealing in Europe where youth unemployment—and underemployment—is high, with lack of upward career progression leaving many job seekers underpaid and overqualified (Dromey, McNeil, and Roberts 2017; Stiwne and Alves 2010). The insecurity and precarity of so-called mini jobs, or zero hours contracts (Mavromaras et al. 2010; Verhaest and Van der Velden 2013), therefore make Japan a more attractive destination to young Europeans. This new recruitment trend has direct implications for Japanese Studies graduates, and also raises questions over the extent to which Japanese Studies departments are providing dedicated career support to facilitate their transition from education into employment. While much is known about what happens at a university-wide level to develop graduate employability through generalised careers advice, such as CV writing and mock job interviews (Batistic and Tymon 2017; Kinash et al. 2016; Rae 2007), relatively little attention has been paid to the more specific guidance available at departmental level, particularly with regard to a dynamic employment setting as seen in Japan.

The purpose of this study was to take stock of graduate employability in Japanese Studies in Europe by investigating careers support strategies used to address graduate employability and identifying best practice examples. The paper is structured as follows: after defining the concept of graduate employability, context will then be provided on the need for more specific employability skills for Japanese Studies students who plan on entering the labour market in Japan before exploring the receptiveness of academics towards employability development. This is followed by some methodological remarks about our study before presenting a critical discussion of our key findings, including a number of good practice examples, along with an exploration of possible avenues for future research.

Defining and developing graduate employability

Graduate employability as a concept is both contested and difficult to define, as different stakeholders have different understandings and priorities over how it should be measured and what it actually means (Harvey 2005; Wickramasinghe and Perera 2010; Williams et al. 2016). Universities prefer a more holistic approach towards employability by conceptualising it as a lifelong sustainable process, as opposed to an immediate outcome. Broadly put, this involves ‘an individual’s ability to gain initial employment, maintain employment, move between roles within the same organisation, obtain new employment if required and (ideally) secure suitable and sufficiently fulfilling work’ (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005, 200). In other words, employability is not the same as simply being in employment (Watts 2006; Yorke and Knight 2006), with a long-term focus needed for graduates to future-proof their skills and handle the challenge of multiple career changes in a labour market where flexibility rather than stability is becoming the norm (Savickas et al. 2009; Smithson and Lewis 2000).

In Europe, employability is generally understood as a competence-based approach that emphasises skills, knowledge, attributes, and behaviours in achieving success in the workplace (Cole and Tibby 2013; Knight and Yorke 2004). Universities engage with employability through the skills development framework, communicated to students via learning objectives in the curriculum, which can then be demonstrated at interview to potential employers. This is achieved by enhancing transferable skills—also known as generic or soft skills—which can be applied from one context (higher education) to another (the labour market), and are varied enough to appeal to a wide range of employers (Bennett et al. 1999; Cox and King 2006; Fallows and Steven 2000; Yorke 2006). Such skills tend to include verbal and written communication, problem solving, digital literacy, teamwork and collaboration, enterprise and entrepreneurship, and time management (Hinchliffe and Jolly 2011; Holmes 2001).

The CareerEDGE (experience, degree subject knowledge, generic skills, and emotional intelligence) model by Pool and Sewell (2007) offers a useful structure for embedding employability into the curriculum through reflection and evaluation. They also identify a major challenge of transferable skills development—the need to make the link with employability explicit to students—because as Knight and ESECT Colleagues explain, ‘they are often not prepared to translate their experience of “doing a degree” into the language of achievements valued by employers’ (2003, 5). Lack of clarity makes it difficult for graduates to recognise and articulate the capabilities that they possess (Mourshed, Farrell and Barton 2012; Pegg et al. 2012), or in effectively demonstrating how skills developed in an academic environment can also be applicable to a workplace one (Crebert et al. 2004; Dmitrieva et al. 2014).

Moreover, if employability is not made explicit, then students will likely not perceive it as being relevant, interesting or offering any obvious benefit (Bridgstock 2009; Simatele 2015). Lack of student engagement with employability is a commonly cited problem in the literature, and highlights the main issue of adopting a stand-alone approach to transferable skills development (Greenbank 2014; Pennington, Mosley and Sinclair 2013; Tymon 2013). Students tend to be even less engaged when employability modules, workshops or seminars are non-compulsory and not for credit, which could explain their low impact level on the curriculum (Gracia 2009; Mason, Williams and Cranmer 2009). Implementing transferable skills by embedding them through an integrated approach is therefore considered to be a more effective way of delivering high impact activities (Chadha 2006; Cranmer 2006). Making skills visible, putting them into context, explicitly assessing them and having them be credit-bearing also increases their popularity with students (de La Harpe, Radloff, and Wyber 2000; Sarkar et al. 2020).

Students now recognise that a degree alone is no longer enough to make them employable, given the mass expansion of higher education—a move that aimed simultaneously to widen participation rates and increase the supply of skilled workers (Trow 1973)—and thus seek to distinguish themselves from the competition through added-value activities (Boden and Nedeva 2010; Bonnard 2020; Brooks and Everett 2009; Cole et al. 2007; Tomlinson 2008). Universities have responded to this by offering a number of strategies to enhance graduate employability, such as interview practice, CV writing advice, and the use of portfolios to document achievements as proof of professional skills (Kinash et al. 2016; Rae 2007). Opportunities for networking provide links with industry by enabling students to interact with alumni and employers through recruitment fairs or information events, with the aim of sharing and obtaining knowledge and establishing future work contacts (Batistic and Tymon 2017).

Work experience, meanwhile, is looked upon favourably by employers as a way of demonstrating evidence of previous work-related activity, and students are well aware that lacking this can be a barrier to gaining employment (Magnell and Kolmos 2017; Purcell et al. 2013; Sin, Tavares, and Amaral 2016). While the skills that meet employer specifications are generally gained through internships or placement years, work experience acquired through project-based learning, or case studies from industry, can also ease the transition between university and employment (Helyer and Lee 2014). These professional projects are beneficial for exposing humanities and social science students—disciplines that are not as visibly linked with industry as their vocational subject counterparts—to real world workplace scenarios through projects set by companies, which can help them adapt from one culture to another and better prepare them for joining the workforce (Bath Spa University 2016; Tran 2016).

Graduate employability and the Japanese Studies context

Employability development is particularly relevant for Japanese Studies graduates, as the main challenge they face when searching for work in Japan is limited knowledge of the highly standardised system of job search activities (shūshoku katsudō) that feeds new employees into a human resource management system. This is characterised by distinct features like seniority-oriented remuneration, implicit long-term employment promises for full-time career-track workers, frequent job rotations, generalist career paths, and an emphasis on soft skills such as the ability to cooperate and build networks (Aoki et al. 2014; Meyer-Ohle 2009; Rebick 2005).

Against the backdrop of labour shortages in the late 1960s, Japanese employers began to institutionalise a system of mass recruitment, which became increasingly standardised and synchronised across industries in the 1990s. In this system, Japanese university students typically start their job-hunting activities in the third year of a four-year bachelor’s degree programme by visiting job fairs and company information sessions. This is followed with the submission of resumes (rirekisho) and/or so-called entry sheets, which ask for basic personal and academic information and have space-limited sections to promote oneself (jikō piaru), explain one’s reason for applying (shibōdōki) and to give examples of hobbies or things that have recently made an impression. After screening these, companies then invite suitable candidates for a variety of tests, including aptitude, personality, mathematics and/or essays, followed by several rounds of interviews and possible assessment centres.

While many Japanese employers highlight that increased workforce diversity is not just an outcome but a desired effect of the increased hiring of young foreign graduates, few have made larger adjustments to their hiring and socialisation processes to accommodate this group (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2019a). Early information may be made available in English, but fluency in Japanese—typically to the highest JLPT (Japanese Language Proficiency Test) N2/N1 level—tends to be a requirement for most companies (Breaden 2014). The recruitment process is thus identical for nationals and non-nationals alike, which can be difficult for foreigners to navigate, particularly in relation to unfamiliar screening tools such as the Synthetic Personality Test (Liu-Farrer 2009), and knowing how to properly structure resumes or fill in entry-sheets (JASSO 2021).

Similarly, the interview format can be very different to what foreign graduates may expect, as Japanese companies, unlike western ones, base their questions around teamwork and cooperation rather than individual accomplishments (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2018). The importance of interview-relevant vocabulary also becomes apparent when candidates are asked for their reason for applying, to which many learners might not have previously been exposed during their studies. In summary, the specific nature of Japanese hiring practices presents opportunities to Japanese Studies departments both to familiarise their students with these processes and advise on how to navigate them.

Beyond the need to prepare Japanese Studies graduates for the specific hiring practices of Japanese companies, research has also highlighted challenges around Japan’s work-related customs for which foreign graduates should ideally be prepared (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2019a). Jackson’s employability framework (2015) offers useful preparation for developing interpersonal skills such as cultural and diversity awareness, the ability to work with people from different ways of life, and organisational awareness, or the ability to adapt one’s behaviour to different workplace environments. While such skills will unquestionably be helpful in the Japanese context, more specific challenges include an understanding of corporate etiquette such as how to display appropriate levels of deference when interacting with senior members of staff or the proper use of honorifics (Dunn 2011, 2013).

Furthermore, Japanese companies favour team-based efforts over individual efforts, which means that a lot of time and energy is spent on maintaining good employee relations, for example by participating in after work drinking sessions (nomikai) (Hof and Tseng 2020), even though the importance of such activities has waned over the years. Being able to ‘read the air’ (kūki o yomu) by understanding social expectations and displaying appropriate behaviour without explicit vocal or written cues, is another vital soft skill in the Japanese context. The lack of explicit feedback from supervisors, who often expect employees to figure things out for themselves, and the lack of job descriptions are more examples of challenges about which foreign workers frequently complain (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2019a).

Although it might be beyond the remit or the abilities of Japanese Studies departments to prepare their graduates for all of these challenges, much hinges on developing the understanding that many of these employment practices and customs follow internal logics and rationality. Teaching these logics should thus prevent graduates from framing their experiences negatively as something that is ‘strangely Japanese’, while also increasing their tolerance of and willingness to adapt to Japanese work practices and customs.

Perspectives on graduate employability

 

Whether academics accept responsibility for developing such logics is another issue, however, as while the interests of universities, students, and employers are broadly aligned, this stakeholder group is less receptive towards the employability agenda (Wickramasinghe and Perera 2010; Williams et al. 2016). Employers, for example, perceive a mismatch between what academia supplies and what industry demands (Cumming 2010; Divan and McBurney 2016; Holmes 2001; Mourshed, Farrell, and Barton 2012), and often attribute the so-called skills shortage to unqualified graduates, whom they consider lacking in the kind of commercial awareness required to contribute productively in a work environment (Pollard et al. 2015). The skills gap narrative consequently frames employability as a university’s responsibility better to prepare their students for the labour market (Burke et al. 2017; Tomlinson 2012), and for new recruits to possess the skills that suit employer specifications, thus reducing the need for training and investment (Fallows and Steven 2000; Harvey et al. 2002; Mason, Williams, and Cranmer 2009). 

Meanwhile, students have demonstrated an increasingly instrumental approach towards higher education over recent years (Bates and Kaye 2014; Molesworth, Nixon, and Scullion 2011; Naidoo and Jamieson 2005). With higher fees come higher expectations, at least in countries where learners shoulder the burden of tuition, as degrees became commoditised and students sought value for money (Finney and Finney 2010; Gibbs 2001; Pemberton et al. 2013). Even those who can access higher education at little or no cost appear to have internalised the framing of employability as a personal responsibility, and are now holding universities more accountable for aiding their transition to the workplace (Bridgstock 2009; Tomlinson 2017; Woodall, Hiller, and Resnick 2014).

Unlike the aforementioned groups, academics tend to resist the shift away from higher education’s traditional scholarly purpose to a more vocational one that emphasises skills and competencies over critical thought (Higdon 2016; Menendez Alvarez-Hevia, and Naylor 2019). As such, they oppose calls to become more responsive towards the needs of employers by making their teaching practices more labour market relevant (Hildreth 2011; Kettis et al. 2013; Wilton 2014) in favour of producing well-informed, culturally sensitive graduates (Biesta 2007; Boden and Epstein 2006; Giroux 2003; Speight et al. 2013), and do not generally perceive employability as their responsibility. This critical stance is largely context dependent, however, as although some academics may be vocal in prioritising intellectual values over employability attributes, others are more amenable to the idea of supporting their students into employment.

Institutional differences are one such factor in determining commitment levels towards employability, with academics at teaching-focused providers more likely to engage with employability development than their counterparts in research-intensive universities (Huang, Turner, and Chen 2014; Lovell et al. 2015). Geography adds another dimension to the debate, given how attitudes towards employability can vary from one country to another (Sin and Amaral 2017), and whether or not universities are made to compete against each other for funding and prestige (Frankham 2017; Harvey 2005). Academics employed by such institutions can be more constrained by targets and metrics that utilise graduate destinations and earnings as a measure of success, leaving many with little choice but to take responsibility for employability (Jameson et al. 2012), particularly when job security is limited and working conditions are precarious (Castellacci and Viñas-Bardolet 2020).

Methodology

 

Much of the existing literature has yielded various insights into the concepts, understandings, and measures surrounding graduate employability, yet there is little systematic understanding of how such issues are addressed at departmental-level, or in specific subject areas. To advance such an understanding for the field of Japanese Studies in Europe, we therefore set out to investigate the following research questions:

1. To what extent do academics in Japanese Studies departments across Europe accept graduate employability as their responsibility?

2. What strategies for graduate employability development are most prevalent in Japanese Studies departments?

 

3. Which of these strategies are considered to be most effective at developing graduate employability for students in Japanese Studies?

A comparative case study approach was used to explore patterns of contrast and similarity between what is being done to develop graduate employability by Japanese Studies departments in Continental Europe (Yin 2009). A cross-case analysis was considered effective for producing both a sensible-sized sample and future benchmarking activities for Japanese Studies departments to learn about what works and what does not through good practice examples (Esser and Vliegenthart 2017; Teichler 1996). Purposive sampling was chosen to target specific higher education institutions with undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in Japanese Studies (Marshall 1996). Fifteen of these were initially identified, and an email was sent to members of academic staff requesting their participation in the study. Thirteen academics (eight male, five female) from Japanese Studies departments across Europe in eleven universities located in six different countries opted to take part: Belgium (1), Czech Republic (1), Denmark (2), Germany (5), Italy (1), and Switzerland (1).

      

Given that the research was exploratory and qualitative in nature, semi-structured interviews were considered an appropriate method for generating open and informal discussion, with each of these lasting around 60 minutes in total (Kvale 2007; Mason 2002). Interviews were conducted in English, and while all participants displayed excellent levels of fluency, communication barriers still presented themselves at times, leaving them unable to speak as freely in English as they would in their native tongue (Marshall and White 1994). The flexibility of semi-structured interviews turned out to be a major strength in this instance by enabling questions to be clarified, reworded or elaborated on (Edwards and Holland 2013), with care being taken not to offer suggestions or guide participants into giving certain answers to maintain transparency and validity (Flick 2007).

      

Data collection took place between June 2017 and August 2017, with the first round of interviews conducted at participants’ universities, and the second round conducted at the 15th International Conference of the European Association for Japanese Studies in Lisbon, Portugal. Approval was obtained by the ethics committee at the university where all three researchers were based at the time of this study, and participants were anonymised to maintain their confidentiality (Litchman 2012). A number alias was given to each participant ranging from 1 to 13 and a letter from A to K was assigned to their institution. All participants were given an information document outlining the purpose of the study and the reasons why they had been chosen to participate along with a consent form to sign and date in the presence of the interviewees. Permission was received for interviews to be recorded and for excerpts and quotes to be used in the study for illustrative purposes (Lewis 2003). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed deductively to compare findings from each department and determine the extent to which these matched with recommendations from existing studies (Braun and Clarke 2006).

 

Findings and discussion

Acceptance of developing graduate employability: integrity and authenticity

Confirming the findings in the educational literature discussed above, many Japanese Studies academics were resistant to the idea of providing business with “employment-ready” graduates from an ideological perspective, and these were broadly split into two separate groups: those who rejected graduate employability as their responsibility and those who accepted it, albeit on a reluctant basis. Tenure and job security played a significant role in shaping attitudes for academics in the first group, and enabled them to prioritise a research agenda over an employability one without fear of facing repercussions over their resistance towards this.

 

“Nobody takes this item seriously. Our humanities faculty is said to be the most conservative around. That means professors are lucky they don’t have to care about these kinds of things.” (Academic 4, University C)

“You have a lot of security, so everyone who is tenured could basically do whatever you want.” (Academic 10, University H)

These participants were more concerned about upholding academic integrity, with tension arising as a result of the perceived shift from universities as a scholarly environment to a place for vocational training (Biesta 2007; Higdon 2016; Menendez Alvarez-Hevia and Naylor 2019). University F was somewhat unique in this regard, and although they too were ideologically opposed to the notion of sacrificing critical thinking skills for the sake of employability development, they were also willing to acknowledge the benefits of facilitating such skills after observing the positive outcomes it delivered for their graduates.

“I don’t feel that we have a responsibility. I understand that there’s a need for employability, and I do that, okay, but I still think my main task as being a professor is the academic part. That’s the main thing I inspire, I hope, in students.” (Academic 8, University F)

 

While concerns were raised over whether the push for employability would contribute towards a reduction in standards and academic rigour among those in the second group, they also recognised that the function of higher education had changed, and that their role would need to change too in order to survive (Jameson et al. 2012; Castellacci and Viñas-Bardolet 2020). It was easier for these academics to adapt to the employability agenda than to fight it, although some demonstrated more enthusiasm for this than others.

“We have some who are very much into resisting, but they can see… I mean, the consequences will be that our positions disappear, so they know that if we don’t do something, they cooperate, but reluctantly? I think most have now accepted that that’s the new reality. If we want to survive, we have to do something about it.” (Academic 12, University J)

Despite accepting responsibility for graduate employability, issues remained over lack of resources and time constraints impacting on their ability to develop this. Increased teaching workloads and research demands left many academics wondering how realistic or feasible it would be to balance these responsibilities with the additional obligation of providing dedicated careers advice. Participants also questioned how involved they ought to be with facilitating employability development and whether or not this was even desirable, suggesting the need for students to be more proactive in their search for work rather than expecting ever greater levels of guidance. This indicates the potential for tension to arise between what students may expect in terms of supporting them into employment and what academics may perceive as increased dependence or, more cynically, ‘spoon-feeding’ (Kember, 2016; Nixon et al., 2018).

Resistance at University E, alternatively, was of a more practical nature, and raised the issue of whether higher education was the most appropriate environment for teaching employability skills, or whether these would even be compatible with industry requirements. The reasoning here for a critical mindset towards graduate employability, then, was drawn not from a desire to protect academic integrity—although this did feature strongly in the participant’s interview responses—but emerged instead from a matter of authenticity.

“The question is, are university lecturers actually the best people to do that, because a lot of us only know the world of academia. We are mainly speculating, some with more or less success, depending on how much they’re watching what’s happening around them. I think that’s a big problem that’s not really recognised. I sort of feel if you’ve never had a kind of decent career, how can you advise others, you know? I can’t teach them the latest developments in the corporate world, or whatever.” (Academic 7, University E)

This view was consistent with findings in the literature, given that there is only so much higher education institutions can realistically achieve in their response to an changing labour market (Rae, 2007; Tymon, 2013). The disconnect between what universities supply and what industries actually want was also pointed out by this academic, referring to this as “a big problem that’s not really recognised” in that guidance offered by academics may not necessarily be relevant or applicable to workplace expectations, suggesting the need for greater collaboration between academia and industry.

Strategies for developing graduate employability: direct careers help and networking opportunities

 

While all participants acknowledged the availability of generic skills development at university-wide level via the careers service for CV writing and job application advice, few of these offered subject-specific skills at departmental level relevant to the Japanese Studies context. There was a general tendency among most departments to adapt existing curriculum content, such as when teaching about the Japanese employment system or how the Japanese labour market is structured as part of their lectures on contemporary Japanese society, but without explicitly aiming to enhance the employability of students.

We would typically speak about the work situation in Japanese media, Japanese theatre, Japanese whatever, but it’s not a specific working in Japan or working in Japanese Studies areas approach, so there is no seminar called ‘what you can do with your studies in your future’. (Academic 3, University B)

This aligns with concerns in regards to employability development raised by other scholars (Bridgstock 2009; Mason, Williams and Cranmer 2009), who note that students may not understand the relevance of such strategies or how they can be applied from an academic environment to a business one, thus questioning their effectiveness. In contrast, creating new course material that could be directly transferred from an academic environment to a workplace one for students interested in seeking out employment in Japan by making learning outcomes more evident appeared to be more effective at creating and sustaining engagement.

University H demonstrated good practice of this by developing a learning environment that was also representative of a real-world work-related scenario, where students were given experience of Japanese business competencies.  Their strongest students were also encouraged to take the Kanji Aptitude Test—a more specialised knowledge evaluation than the JLPT aimed at native speakers rather than foreigners—to improve their chances of obtaining work in Japan. All students were given a good grounding in business vocabulary and etiquette; however, both of which were covered as part of their exam assessment.

There are the courses I teach in advanced Japanese level 1 and 2, so the first year and the second year, and it’s made up of three kinds of lessons. We have one which develops writing skills, and they also write a CV in Japanese. We have one which develops registers, and that means mainly keigo [polite or respectful language]. In the exam, they have a mock job interview in Japanese. (Academic 10, University H)

Including direct careers help as part of the assessment process increases the relevance of such activities, making students more likely to engage, if not for employability enhancement, then at least for the contribution towards their final grades. Developing employability skills in context by demonstrating to students explicitly how they apply what they have learned in an academic environment to a workplace situation was also more positively received (Chadha 2006; Cranmer 2006; Simatele 2015). What made this approach successful for University H was having had work-related learning as a long-running part of their curriculum, which enabled them to address employability organically over time rather than responding to top-down measures for making changes, as was the case with other universities.

 

Networking initiatives were one of the more commonly used strategies for developing graduate employability, but lack of resources and logistical support prevented many departments from systematically tracking graduate employment destinations. Interest was widely expressed in building alumni links—and by extension, employability strategies for networking with industry—but it was also acknowledged that this would prove difficult without a standardised system of collecting graduate data. More than one academic raised the issue of data protection as a barrier to alumni engagement when attempting to build links between current and former students.

Data protection laws are quite strong, so we find it difficult to collect all the data from our students because the university actually hinders that. (Academic 11, University I)

As such, Universities A, G and J relied on maintaining contact with their graduates on a more informal basis through social media platforms to invite them back for talks about the transition from higher education to the world of work. University E overcame this obstacle by allowing alumni relations to be managed by their students independently of the department. This had the added benefit of enabling students to establish networks with companies and individuals relevant to their own interests, thus creating events specific to the Japanese Studies context rather than the generic university-wide talks offered to all academic disciplines. This method was not common across the different institutions, however, which makes the department particularly unique in regards to its network development approach.

Having regular opportunities to talk to people from other walks of life might well make a difference. I love it when students run things because, I mean, it is their career and their life. (Academic 7, University E)

University F was the sole exception in tracking graduate destinations, and utilised this information at open days for prospective students and their parents. This enabled them to feed back graduate experiences into shaping their programme by demonstrating where a degree in Japanese Studies could potentially lead applicants, based on how—and where—alumni had gained employment.

It’s actually the British example, where we invite alumni to tell us how far their studies have been useful for the job that they have, and maybe integrate it into our programme more and more. (Academic 8, University F)

While most academics had attempted to increase student exposure to industry at their universities through careers fairs and job-hunting skills workshops as a way of facilitating opportunities to network, some were more successful than others. Developing subject-specific links with industry by offering Japanese companies and head-hunters a platform for recruitment was more likely to result in higher levels of student engagement.

The Japanese companies are scouting. They come to our department and they do some introductory programmes for our students and want to encourage them to apply to Japan, so we invited them to give a talk. (Academic 1, University A)

Success rates also appeared dependent upon which stage students were at in their academic careers, with information events often being viewed by those still new to their degrees as an optional extra, which thus received little interest. Attendance of these was limited, despite the effort made by academics to hold recruitment fairs and talks with guest speakers, over which many expressed frustrations. This echoes other findings where students may not understand the importance of employability activities until the later stages of their degree, and stresses the need to highlight this sooner if such strategies are to have greater effect (Pennington Mosley and Sinclair 2013; Greenbank 2014; Tymon 2013).

Effectiveness of developing graduate employability: project-based learning and internships

 

One of the ways in which departments effectively addressed the lack of student enthusiasm for career development activities was through project-based learning—also known as case studies from industry—which typically involve ‘the provision of meaningful projects, set by external clients with a clear brief that are expecting practical results’ (Bath Spa University, 2016, 9). Exemplary projects were also reused for encouraging students to explore solutions from a different perspective. These are often found in vocationally focused degrees that are more clearly aligned with industry, such as STEM and healthcare (Knight and Yorke 2003), but are increasingly being used in the arts, humanities and social sciences for exposing students to real-world workplace scenarios (Tran 2016).

University F, for example, recently introduced a Japan-related media project which enabled students to gain practical skills in editing, translation, and subtitling. Teamwork and presentation skills were developed in tandem, providing students with additional experience of problem solving and delivering a project in time and on budget. This project was popular with students, which they viewed as a relevant activity that delivered a combination of practical and soft skills that could be applied from a learning environment to a workplace one, again increasing their engagement levels (Bridgstock 2009). It also had the benefit of removing potential barriers to employment by demonstrating evidence of previous work experience (Magnell and Kolmos 2017; Purcell et al. 2013; Sin, Tavares and Amaral 2016). Effort was again taken by the department to make clear to students how they could reflect on what they had learned, how they could transfer this to a work environment, and how they could articulate these skills at interview.

Project-based employability development was also noted at University J, where private sector company representatives were brought in to help students learn more about Japanese companies through case study product development. The authenticity of such activities, which combine both practical and soft skills that can be applied from a learning environment to the workplace, is both meaningful and relevant. These similarly increase the likelihood of student engagement (Tran 2016), while also aiming to integrate students into life in Japan.

Our students apply the knowledge they get at university to a real-life working situation. We invite these people from industry, they come with a work-related topic they want to have resolved with the knowledge our students have. (Academic 12, University J)

Students valued their exposure to practical workplace scenarios through simulated project-based learning, with this particular activity giving them a taste of how to develop professional projects and deliver results, as would be expected of them from clients in a real-world setting. Work experience gained through project-based learning was also perceived as helping to ease the transition between university and employment, given that students commonly worry about lacking preparation for life in the workplace (Helyer and Lee 2014; Tomlinson 2008).

 

Internships were the most popular way of developing employability, and the majority of departments were keen to create opportunities for gaining work experience for their students, either in their home countries or during the study abroad period in Japan. Some adopted a more hands-off approach, such as Universities E and K where students were expected to seek out their own internships, and while University G did have some connections between staff and companies for students to draw on at departmental level, the process was largely self-directed and unsupported.

We discussed it—should we do more or not—but we also thought, you know, people should look for themselves. It’s part of the internship to find your internship, so we help them to a point but not too much. (Academic 9, University G)

University C’s lack of involvement was attributed more to the unique nature of their internship programme than any desire to facilitate student independence, which was organised directly by a Japanese company rather than the department itself through a partnership that had been running for over twenty years. With a limited number of places on offer—six or seven at most—competition was understandably high, and meant that the department had to restrict access to only their strongest students.

They [the company] organise it for us, so we are in a very, very lucky situation. Have this one year at our partner university in Japan, and also have your company internship during summer. Do this, you have no problems with your employability. (Academic 4, University C)

Somewhat surprising was the department’s decision not to advertise these internships more widely—observed here as something that would significantly improve employability prospects—as a way of distinguishing themselves from other universities to attract prospective applicants. This was explained by the size of their intake, which was much smaller than other Japanese Studies departments, and a desire to avoid the risk of being oversubscribed by demand. University A experienced the opposite problem by having more internships available than students willing to take advantage of them, and struggled to facilitate take-up of these. The department had strong links with Japanese companies at home, in the form of subsidiaries, and abroad, both of which were keen to receive their students and actively promoted opportunities for work experience, but achieved little success in filling places.

What we do is to recommend applying for an internship at a Japanese company in our country, and they refuse. I would say most—70-80% of our students—don’t want to do this because... I don’t know why. They are too lazy, or too shy, or whatever. (Academic 1, University A)

Making internships compulsory is often recommended as a way of increasing student engagement (Chadha 2006; Cranmer 2006; de La Harpe, Radloff, and Wyber 2000; Sarkar et al. 2020), but attempts by the department to increase participation rates in this manner met significant resistance when students scored them low on later feedback surveys. These findings are more in line with those from Garcia-Aracil (2009), where the use of employability enhancement strategies with non-negotiable participation can be a cause for resentment, particularly among students already supplementing their studies with part-time work. This indicates the need for work-related activities to be offered as an optional extra that students can engage with according to their needs and individual circumstances.

In contrast, the internship system at University H was considerably more competitive, albeit still non-compulsory, with demand outstripping supply for places. Differing student engagement levels appeared to be driven largely by the desire to increase their prospects in a struggling domestic labour market with high rates of youth unemployment. The difference in demand for internships may also be explained by student numbers, as University A had a significantly lower intake than University H, thus leaving them with more opportunities available than students willing to take advantage of them. High rates of youth unemployment resulted in the competitiveness of University H’s internship programme, with demand for placements outstripping supply from students keen to develop job-specific skills and contacts, thus making them more attractive candidates for recruitment by demonstrating evidence of previous work experience (Magnell and Kolmos 2017; Purcell et al. 2013; Sin, Tavares and Amaral 2016). These opportunities for work experience were non-compulsory, and students with the highest language level skills were considered to be most in demand by Japanese firms.

It is very competitive. Students really try to get in there because I understand, you know, that is one possibility to end up with employment. And so that is our pathway for those students who do extremely well, and these will be the students who do Kanji Kentei [the Kanji Aptitude Test]. (Academic 10, University H)

University F also reported strong student engagement with their internships, which were likewise non-compulsory, although this was associated with its assessment system and the level of support involved rather than an unfavourable domestic labour market. Internships were credit-bearing, therefore making them a high impact activity by increasing levels of student engagement—a problem widely acknowledged by the literature and by academics in this sample (Mason, Williams and Cranmer 2009). Unlike other departments, University F supplied their students with a variety of placement partners from which to choose, with support being given to those intending to seek out alternative placements. This system was well established and well organised, and good practice was demonstrated by offering preparatory meetings about application guidance, duties during the internships, and the ways how internship experiences could be utilised after graduation. For the duration of their internship, students were placed under the supervision of a mentor who monitored their progress and development on behalf of the department, with relationships formed in this context also facilitating valuable networking skills with industry.

We kind of explain what an internship is, what they are supposed to do, what the legal guidelines are, what the framework is. We also have reports of other students that have been there, so students get an idea what they are supposed to do there. We have a mentor here that is following up the process very closely, but then you have a mentor in the company who is responsible and who is also supposed to write a report afterwards. (Academic 8, University F)

University I was the only other department that offered credit-bearing internships, and unlike University A, making these compulsory appeared to be the driving force behind this department’s high level of student engagement. Their students were given the choice between short-term work experience, to be awarded with 5 course credits from the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), or a longer 6-month placement in Japan, with the award of 30 ECTS. Both of these were discipline specific and offered good grounding for graduates aiming to find employment in relation to their Japanese Studies degrees. Employability development strategies were more advanced than other institutions and had been established for over a decade, as opposed to those who had only recently been placed under pressure to address the issue of graduate employment. This enabled the department to be more proactive than reactive, and placed them at the forefront of employability development. Establishing internships as a compulsory element of the degree programme made this a high impact activity, as recommended in the literature, and ensured high levels of student engagement (Bath Spa University 2016), with its integrated aspect more effective than the traditional stand-alone approach opted for by most universities (Gracia 2009).

Conclusion

While prior research has demonstrated what happens at a university-wide level through generalised employability development activities such as recruitment fairs and careers advice, little is known in comparison about departmental-level strategies. This article explored the case of Japanese Studies, a relatively small academic field, which has, since the 2010s, witnessed increasing job opportunities for foreign graduates in the Japanese employment market. It identifies a number of ways in which teaching curricula in Japanese Studies departments could facilitate graduate employability by determining which were considered the most effective examples of good practice. Findings revealed that there was a large degree of scepticism amongst Japanese Studies academics toward the idea that universities should engage in educating “employment-ready” graduates. Despite this overall critical attitute toward the employability agenda, mirroring findings from the general educational literature, many informants did engage to some degree in a variety of activities that can facilitate graduate employability.

Despite being the least commonly used strategy for developing graduate employability in the Japanese Studies context, direct careers support in the form of Japanese language interview practice and CV-writing was considered to be one of the most effective for increasing student engagement levels. This helped to demystify the application process, increase student confidence levels, and helped students gain the vocabulary and soft skills required for navigating both Japanese hiring practices (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2018) and Japanese corporate environments (Conrad and Meyer-Ohle 2019a; Dunn 2011, 2013; Hof and Tseng 2020). However, given the widely differing institutional frameworks observed in this study, it would perhaps be unrealistic to expect all Japanese Studies departments to adopt this approach. Some departments had a smaller intake than others, and were therefore better placed to offer more practical hands-on support.

The finding that networking opportunities were commonly used among most departments but considered less effective at developing graduate employability was unexpected. Lack of resources and logistical support prevented many departments from systematically tracking graduate employment destinations, thus making it difficult to invite alumni to share their experiences of finding work in Japan with current students. This demonstrates the need to develop more appropriate mechanisms for connecting these two stakeholder groups, as opposed to leaving students to facilitate information-sharing events on their own initiative and without support. Attempts to develop links with industry by creating a platform for Japanese companies and recruiters, meanwhile, resulted in limited student attendance. These findings support other studies that highlight the need to target such employability activities sooner if students are fully to understand their relevance and importance (Pennington, Mosley and Sinclair 2013; Greenbank 2014; Tymon 2013).

Project-based learning, on the other hand, was more successful at generating student interest by solving case studies from industry to learn about how Japanese companies operate. Findings indicate that the authenticity of this activity leads to improved student engagement levels (Tran 2016) and align with other studies that demonstrate how work experience developed through a learning environment can be used to support the transition from education to employment (Helyer and Lee 2014; Tomlinson 2008). Although it was positively received by both students and academics, few departments offered this activity, suggesting that more could be done to develop a more sustained relationship with partner links rather than relying on one-off information events.

Finally, while internships were the most commonly used strategy for developing graduate employability, approaches towards them were very different. Some departments preferred their students to be self-directed in seeking these out, while others were more supportive, not only by providing a list of potential placements but also by preparing students on what to expect during their internships and how to utilise the experience gained from these when applying to graduate level jobs. Findings also show that student engagement levels, like approaches, appeared to differ from one department to another. Some departments struggled to facilitate uptake due to low student interest levels, but while making internships compulsory and credit-bearing is widely agreed to increase student engagement in the literature (Bath Spa University 2016; Chadha 2006; Cranmer 2006; de La Harpe, Radloff, and Wyber 2000; Sarkar et al. 2020), our findings indicate that responses to these are often more nuanced. This approach can be successful but it can also cause resentment, as demonstrated by Garcia-Aracil (2009), given that not all students are willing or even able to take advantage of these. This suggests that consideration should be given to the timing and duration of internships if students are to fit such activities around any existing work or caring commitments.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Although this study identified the need for graduate employability in the Japanese Studies context, it does not address concerns over how feasible or realistic it would be for academics to balance their ever-increasing teaching workloads and research demands with the additional obligation of providing dedicated careers advice. It also raises the question of whether greater assistance in facilitating employability development is actually desirable, or whether students ought to be more proactive in their search for work, which can create tension between what students expect to receive and what academics are willing to provide (Kember 2016; Nixon et al. 2018). Issues of authenticity should likewise be considered over whether higher education is the most appropriate environment for teaching employability skills, or whether these would even be compatible with industry requirements. The guidance offered by Japanese Studies departments might not necessarily be relevant or applicable to workplace expectations (Cumming 2010; Divan and McBurney 2016; Mourshed, Farrell, and Barton 2012; Pollard et al. 2015), which indicates the need for greater collaboration between academia and industry as opposed to expecting individual academics to solve the problem.

While our findings confirmed a high degree of criticality towards a utilitarian teaching agenda among academics in Japanese Studies, future research might investigate how such attitudes might have changed since the time of our data collection and to what extent such changes might be country specific, as it has been shown that attitudes towards employability can vary from one country to another (Sin and Amaral 2017). Such research would also address a key limitiation of this study’s sample, which recruited largely from Western Europe with one country in particular—Germany—being over-represented. It would therefore be pertinent to compare Japanese Studies departments across Northern, Southern, Eastern and Central Europe to offer a more balanced representation of employability perceptions.

Job security and working conditions, meanwhile, can also dictate receptiveness towards employability among academics. Those on short-term contracts with limited opportunity for advancement may be less inclined to reject curriculum reforms (Castellacci and Viñas-Bardolet 2020), whereas academics who are more vocal in their resistance to the employability agenda tend to have safeguarded tenure positions, which allows them openly to push back without fear of retribution (Karran 2007). Each of these avenues present considerable opportunity for further work exploring understandings and acceptance of employability development within the Japanese Studies context.

Funding details

This work was supported by the University of Sheffield’s Global Learning Opportunities in the Social Sciences Research Associate Scheme.

References

Aoki, Katsuki, Rick Delbridge, and Takahiro Endo. 2014. “‘Japanese human resource management’ in post-bubble Japan.” The International Journal of Human Resources Management 25 (18): 2551-2572. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.722118.

Bath Spa University. 2016. Embedding Enterprise and Employability into the Curriculum: An introduction to the pedagogy for creating future-proof opportunity-ready graduates at Bath Spa University. Retrieved from https://www.etctoolkit.org.uk/media/28488/embedding-enterprise-employability.pdf.

Bates, Elizabeth A. and Linda K. Kaye. 2014. “I’d be expecting caviar in lectures”: the impact of the new fee regime on undergraduate students’ expectations of Higher Education. Higher Education 67, (95): 655-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9671-3.

Batistic, Sasa, and Alex Tymon. 2017. “Networking behaviour, graduate employability: A social capital perspective.” Education+ Training 59 (4): 374-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2016-0100.

Bennett, Neville, Elizabeth Dunne, and Clive Carré. 1999. “Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education.” Higher Education 37 (1): 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003451727126.

Biesta, Gert. 2007. “Towards the knowledge democracy? Knowledge production and the civic role of the university.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 26 (5): 467-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9056-0.

Boden, Rebecca, and Debbie Epstein. 2006. “Managing the Research Imagination? Globalisation and Research in Higher Education.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 4 (2): 223-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720600752619.

Boden, Rebecca, and Maria and Nedeva. 2010. “Employing discourse: universities and graduate ‘employability’.” Journal of Education Policy 25 (1): 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903349489.

Bonnard, Claire. 2020. “What employability for higher education students?.” Journal of Education and Work 33 5-6: 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2020.1842866.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria and Clarke. 2006. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Breaden, Jeremy. 2014. “Global attributes or local literacy? International students in Japan’s graduate employment system.” Japan Forum 26 (4): 417-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2013.865661.

Bridgstock, Ruth. 2009. “The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: enhancing graduate employability through career management skills.” Higher Education Research and Development 28 (1): 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360802444347.

Brooks, Rachel, and Glyn Everett. 2009. “Post graduation reflections on the value of a degree.” British Educational Research Journal 35 (3): 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044370.

Burke, Ciaran, Tracy Scurry John Blenkinsopp, and Katy Graley. 2017. Critical perspectives on graduate employability. In Graduate Employability in Context: Theory, Research and Debate, eds. Michael Tomlinson and Leonard Holmes, 87-107. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Castellacci, Fulvio, and Clara Viñas-Bardolet.  2020. “Permanent contracts and job satisfaction in academia: evidence from European countries.” Studies in Higher Education 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1711041.

Chadha, Deesha. 2006. “A curriculum model for transferable skills development.” Engineering Education 1 (1): 19-24. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2006.01010019.

Cole, Michael S., Robert S. Rubin, Hubert S. Field, and William F. Giles. 2007. “Recruiters’ perceptions and use of applicant résumé information: Screening the recent graduate.” Applied Psychology 56 (2): 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00288.

Cole, Doug, and Maureen and Tibby. 2013. Defining and Developing your Approach to

Employability: A Framework for Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/employability_framework.pdf.

Conrad, Harald, and Hendrik Meyer-Ohle. 2018. “Brokers and the organization of recruitment of ‘global talent’ by Japanese firms—a migration perspective.” Social Science Japan Journal 21 (1): 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ssjj/jyx032.

Conrad, Harald, and Hendrik Meyer‐Ohle. 2019a. “Transnationalization of a recruitment regime: Skilled migration to Japan.” International Migration 57 (3): 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12529.

Conrad, Harald, and Hendrik Meyer-Ohle. 2019b. “Overcoming the ethnocentric firm? Foreign fresh university graduate employment in Japan as a new international human resource development method.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2017, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1330275.

Conrad, Harald, and Hendrik Meyer-Ohle. 2022. “Training regimes and diversity: experiences of young foreign employees in Japanese headquarters.” Work, Employment and Society 36 (2): 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020966.

Cox, Sharon, and David King. 2006. “Skill sets: an approach to embed employability in course design.” Education and Training 48 (4): 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610671933.

Cranmer, Sue. 2006. “Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (2): 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572041.

Crebert, Gay, Merrelyn Bates, Barry Bell, Carol-Joy Patrick, and Vanda Cragnolini. 2004. “Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: graduates' perceptions.” Higher Education Research and Development 23 (2): 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206636.

Cumming, Jim. 2010. “Contextualised performance: Reframing the skills debate in research education.” Studies in Higher Education 35 (4): 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903082342.

De La Harpe, Barbara, Alex Radloff, and John Wyber. 2000. “Quality and generic (professional) skills.” Quality in Higher Education 6 (3): 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320020005972.

Divan, Aysha, and Stephanie McBurney. 2016. “Understanding how students manage their employability.” New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences 11 (1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i11.587.

Dmitrieva, N. V., Zaitseva, N. A., Kulyamina, O. S., Larionova, A. A., and Surova, S. A. 2014. “Scientific and theoretical aspects of the staff recruitment organization within the concept of ‘Talent Management’.” Asian Social Science 11 (3): 358-365. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n3p358.

Dromey, Joe, Clare McNeil, and Carys and Roberts. 2017. Another lost decade? Building a skills system for the economy of the 2030s. Retrieved from https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/skills-2030-another-lost-decade.

Dunn, Cynthia Dickel. 2011. “Formal forms or verbal strategies? Politeness theory and Japanese business etiquette training.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (15): 3643-3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.003.

———. 2013. “Speaking politely, kindly, and beautifully: Ideologies of politeness in Japanese business etiquette training.” Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 32 (2): 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2013-0011.

Edwards, Rosalind, and Janet Holland. 2013. What Is Qualitative Interviewing?. London: Bloomsbury.

Esser, Frank, and Rens Vliegenthart. 2017. “Comparative research methods.” The International Encyclopaedia of Communication Research Methods 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0035.

Fallows, Stephen, and Christine Steven. 2000. Integrating key skills in higher education: Employability, transferable skills and learning for life. London: Kogan Page.

Finney, Treena, and R. Zachary Finney. 2010. Are Students Their Universities’ Customers? An Exploratory Study. Education + Training 52 (4): 276-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011050954.

Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Garcia-Aracil, Adela. 2009. “European Graduates’ Level of Satisfaction with Higher Education.” Higher Education 57 (1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9121-9.

Gibbs, Paul. 2001. Higher education as a market: a problem or solution?. Studies in Higher Education 26 (1): 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030733.

Giroux, Henry A. 2003. “Selling out higher education.” Policy Futures in Education 1, (1): 179-200. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.

Gracia, Louise. 2009. “Employability and higher education: contextualising female students’ workplace experiences to enhance understanding of employability development.” Journal of Education and Work 22 (4): 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080903290454.

Greenbank, Pauk. 2014. “Competing in the graduate labour market: Student perspectives on (not) participating in extra-curricular activities.” Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability 5 (1): 63-79. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2014vol5no1art568.

Harvey, Lee, William Locke, and Alistair Morey. 2002. Enhancing Employability, Recognising Diversity: Making Links between Higher Education and the World of Work. Retrieved from https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/Harvey%20papers/Harvey,%20Locke%20and%20Morey%202002%20Enhancing%20employability.pdf.

Harvey, Lee. 2005. “Embedding and integrating employability.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2005 (128): 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.160.

Helyer, Ruth, and Dionne and Lee. 2014. “The role of work experience in the future employability of higher education graduates.” Higher Education Quarterly 68 (3): 348-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12055.

Hennings, Matthias and Scott Mintz. 2015. “Japan’s Measures to Attract International Students and the Impact of Student Mobility on the Labor Market.” Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies 7, 241-251. Retrieved from http://japan.tsukuba.ac.jp/research.

Higdon, Rachel Delta. D. 2016. “Employability: The missing voice: How student and graduate views could be used to develop future higher education policy and inform curricula.” Power and Education 8 (2): 176-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743816653151.

Hildreth, R. W. 2011. “What good is growth? Reconsidering Dewey on the ends of education.” Education and Culture 27 (2): 28-47. https://doi.org/10.1353/eac.2011.001.

Hinchliffe, Geoffrey William, and Adrienne Jolly. 2011. “Graduate identity and employability.” British Educational Research Journal 37 (4): 563-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0117196820984088.

Holmes, Len. 2001. “Reconsidering Graduate Employability: the 'graduate identity' approach.” Quality in Higher Education 7 (2): 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320120060006.

Huang, Rong, Rebecca Turner, and Qian Chen. 2014. “Chinese international students’ perspective and strategies in preparing for their future employability.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training 66 (2): 175-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2014.894933.

Jackson, Denise. 2015. “Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (2): 350-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221.

Jameson, Jill, Kate Strudwick, Sue Bond-Taylor, and Mandy Jones. 2012. “Academic principles versus employability pressures: a modern power struggle or a creative opportunity?.” Teaching in Higher Education 17 (1): 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590978

JASSO (Japan Student Services Organisation). 2021. Job Hunting Guide for International Students. Retrieved from https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/study_j/job/guide.html.

Karran, Terence. 2007. “Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis.” Higher Education Policy 20 (3): 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300159.

Kember, David. 2016. Understanding the Nature of Motivation and Motivating Students Through Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer.

Kettis, Åsa, Lena Ring, Maria Gustavsson, and Andy Wallman 2013. “Placements: an underused vehicle for quality enhancement in higher education?.” Quality in Higher Education 19 (1): 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2013.772697.

Kinash, Shelley, Linda Crane, Madelaine-Marie Judd, and Cecily Knight. 2016. “Discrepant stakeholder perspectives on graduate employability strategies.” Higher Education Research and Development 35 (5): 951-967. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1139555.

Knight, Peter, and ESECT Colleagues. 2003. Briefings on Employability 3: The contribution of learning, teaching, assessment and other curriculum projects to student employability. Retrieved from https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/esecttools/esectpubs/knightlearning3.pdf.

Knight, Peter, and Mantz Yorke. 2003. “Employability and good learning in higher education.” Teaching in Higher Education 8 (1): 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052294.

Kvale, Steinar. 2007. Doing Interviews. Los Angeles: Sage.

Lewis, Jane. 2003. “Design Issues.” In Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers  24-55. London: Sage.

Lichtman, Marilyn. 2012. Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. California: Sage.

Liu-Farrer, Gracia. 2009. “Educationally channeled international labor mobility: Contemporary student migration from China to Japan.” International Migration Review 43 (1): 178-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.01152.

Lovell, Caroline, Shelley Kinash, Madelaine-Marie Judd, Linda H. Crane, Cecily Knight, Matthew McLean, Kirsty Mitchell, David Dowling, and Rosalind Schwerd. 2015. Case studies to enhance graduate employability: Graduate attributes. Retrieved from https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SP13_3239_Kinash_Case%20Study%2010_2015.pdf.

McQuaid, Ronald W., and Colin Lindsay. 2005. “The concept of employability.” Urban Studies 42 (2): 197-219. https://doi.org/10.1080=0042098042000316100.

Magnell, Marie, and Annette Kolmos. 2017. “Employability and work-related learning activities in higher education: how strategies differ across academic environments.” Tertiary Education and Management 23 (2): 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1257649.

Marshall, Sara L., and Alison E. While. 1994. “Interviewing respondents who have English as a second language: challenges encountered and suggestions for other researchers.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 19 (3): 566-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01122.

Marshall, Martin N. 1996. “Sampling for Qualitative Research.” Family Practice 13 (6): 522-526. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.

Mason, Goeff, Gareth Williams, and Sue Cranmer. 2009. “Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes?.” Education Economics 17 (1): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802028315.

Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative Researching. (2nd ed.) London: Sage.

Mavromaras, Kostas, Seamus McGuinness, Nigel O'leary, Peter Sloane, and Yi King Fok. 2010. “The problem of overskilling in Australia and Britain.” The Manchester School 78 (3): 219-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2009.02136.

Menendez Alvarez-Hevia, David, and Steven Naylor. 2019. “Conceptualising routes to employability in higher education: the case of education studies.” Journal of Education and Work 32 (4): 407-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2019.1649376.

Meyer-Ohle, Hendrik. 2009. Japanese workplaces in transition: Employee perceptions. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Molesworth, Mike, Elizabeth Nixon, and Richard Scullion. 2009. Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching In Higher Education 14 (3): 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898841.

Mourshed, Mona, Diana Farrell, and Dominic Barton. 2012. Education to Employment: Designing a System That Works. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/education-to-employment/report.

Naidoo, Rajani, and Ian Jamieson. 2005. Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy 20 (3): 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108585.

Nixon, Elizabeth, Richard Scullion, and Robert Hearn. 2018. “Her majesty the student: marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis) satisfactions of the student-consumer.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (6): 927-943. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1196353.

Pegg, Ann, Jeff Waldock, Sonia Hendy-Isaac, and Ruth Lawton. 2012. Pedagogy for employability. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-employability-2012.

Pemberton, Jim, Sarah Jewell, Allesandra Faggian, and Zella King. 2012. Higher education as a portfolio investment: students’ choices about studying, term time employment, leisure, and loans. Oxford Economic Papers 65, no. 2: 268-292. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gps026.

Pennington, Martin, Emma Mosley, and Robbie Sinclair. 2013. Graduate Success Project: an investigation of graduate transitions, social mobility and the HEAR. Retrieved from: http://www.agcas.org.uk/agcas_resources/575-Graduate-Success-Project-Report-An-investigation-of-graduate-transitions-social-mobility-and-the-HEAR.

Pollard, Emma, Wendy Hirsh, Matthew Williams, Jonathan Buzzeo, Rosanna Alice Marvell, Arianna Tassinari, Christine Bertram, Luke Fletcher, Jane Artess, Jennifer Redman, and Charlie Ball. 2015. Understanding employers’ graduate recruitment and selection practices: main report. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/474251/BIS-15-464-employer-graduate-recruitment.pdf.

Pool, Lorraine Dacre, and Peter Sewell. 2007. “The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability.” Education+ Training 49 (4): 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710754435.

Purcell, Kate, Peter Elias, Gaby Atfield, Heike Behle, Ritva Ellison, and Daria Luchinskaya. 2013. Transitions into employment, further study and other outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/assets/documents/Futuretrack_Stage_4_Final_report_6th_Nov_2012.pdf.

Rae, David. 2007. “Connecting enterprise and graduate employability: challenges to the higher education culture and curriculum?. “Education + Training 49 (8/9): 605-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710834049.

Rebick, Marcus. 2005. The Japanese Employment System—Adapting to a New Economic Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sarkar, Mahbub, Tina Overton, Christopher D. Thompson, and Gerry Rayner. 2020. “Academics’ perspectives of the teaching and development of generic employability skills in science curricula.” Higher Education Research and Development 39 (2): 346-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1664998.

Savickas, Mark L., Laura Nota, Jerome Rossier, Jean-Pierre Dauwalder, Maria Eduarda Duarte, Jean Guichard, Salvatore Soresi, Raoul Van Esbroeck, and Annelies E. Van Vianen. 2009. “Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 75 (3): 239-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004.

Simatele, Munacinga. 2015. “Enhancing the portability of employability skills using e-portfolios.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 39 (6): 862-874. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.953461.

Sin, Cristina, Orlanada Tavares, and Alberto Amaral. 2016. “Who is responsible for employability? Student perceptions and practices.” Tertiary Education and Management 22 (1): 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2015.1134634.

Sin, Cristina, and Alberto Amaral. 2017. “Academics’ and employers’ perceptions about responsibilities for employability and their initiatives towards its development.” Higher Education 73 (1): 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0007-y.

Smithson, Janet, and Susan Lewis. 2000. “Is job insecurity changing the psychological contract?.” Personnel Review 29 (6): 680-702. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480010296465.

Speight, Saraha, Natasa Lackovic, and Lucy Cooker. 2013. “The contested curriculum: Academic learning and employability in higher education.” Tertiary Education and Management 19 (2): 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.756058.

Stiwne, Elinor Edvardson, and Mariana Gaio Alves. 2010. “Higher education and employability of graduates: will Bologna make a difference?.” European Educational Research Journal 9 (1): 32-44. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2010.9.1.32.

Teichler, Ulrich. 1996. “Comparative higher education: Potentials and limits.” Higher Education 32 (4): 431-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133257.

Tomlinson, Michael. 2008. “‘The degree is not enough’: students’ perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 (1): 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701737457.

———. 2012. “Graduate employability: A review of conceptual and empirical themes.” Higher Education Policy 25 (4): 407-431. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.26.

———. 2017. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38 (4): 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856.

Tran, Thi Thuyet. 2016. “Enhancing graduate employability and the need for university-enterprise collaboration.” Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability 7 (1): 58-71. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2016vol7no1art598.

Trow, Martin. 1973. Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Tymon, Alex. 2013. “The student perspective on employability.” Studies in Higher Education 38 (6): 841-856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.604408.

Verhaest, Dieter, and Rolf Van der Velden. 2012. “Cross-country differences in graduate overeducation.” European Sociological Review 29 (3): 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs044.

Watts, A. G. 2006. Career development learning and employability. Retrieved from https://aces.shu.ac.uk/support/staff/employability/resources/id592_career_development_learning_and_employability.pdf.

Wickramasinghe, Vathsala, and Lasantha Perera. 2010. “Graduates', university lecturers' and employers' perceptions towards employability skills.” Education and Training 52 (3): 226-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.648373.

Williams, Stella, Lorna J. Dodd, Catherine Steele, and Raymond Randall. 2016. “A systematic review of current understandings of employability.” Journal of Education and Work 29 (8): 877-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2015.1102210.

Wilton, Nick. 2014. “Employability is in the eye of the beholder Employer decision-making in the recruitment of work placement students.” Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 4 (3): 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-07-2014-0027.

Woodall, Tony, Alex Hiller, and Sheilagh Resnick. 2014. “Making Sense of Higher Education: Students as Consumers and the Value of the University Experience. Studies in Higher Education 39 (1): 48-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.648373.

Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (4th ed.) California: Sage.

Yorke, Mantz. 2006. Employability in higher education: what it is - what it is not. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/employability-higher-education-what-it-what-it-not.

Yorke, Mantz, and Peter Knight. 2006. Embedding employability into the curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/embedding-employability-curriculum.

Article copyright Lindsay Hirst, Harald Conrad, and Tim Herrick.

Back to top