PurposeEmployability is a key concept in higher education. Graduate employment rate is often used to assess the quality of university provision, despite that employability and employment are two different concepts. This paper will increase the understandings of graduate employability through interpreting its meaning and whose responsibility for graduate employability from the perspectives of four key stakeholders: higher education institutions, students, government and employers.Design/methodology/approachThere are two stages to this literature review which was undertaken across bibliographic databases. The first stage builds a conceptual understanding of employability, relating to definition and how employability can be achieved and enhanced from the perspective of stakeholders. A structured search employing Boolean searches was conducted using a range of terms associated with key stakeholders. The second round of review drew on documentary analysis of official statements, declarations, documents, reports and position papers issued by key stakeholders in the UK, available online.FindingsIt reveals that responsibility for employability has been transferred by the UK government to higher education institutions, despite clear evidence that it needs to be shared by all the key stakeholders to be effective. In addition, there is a gap between employers' expectation for employability and the government's employability agenda.Originality/valueThis article highlights that solely using employment rate statistics as a key indicator for employability will encourage the practice of putting employers' needs above knowledge creation and the development of academic disciplines, with the consequence that higher education will become increasingly vocation driven.

Purpose Regionalisation in education has gained increased interest and importance because of the increasing collaborations among neighbouring nations. Definitions of the term vary, and more so the regionalisation practices and initiatives of higher educational institutions. In the Philippines, the emphasis on regionalisation has become even more pronounced with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Integration Vision. This vision of the ASEAN is geared towards enhancing regional collaboration and the creation of an ASEAN identity and puts education at the forefront, considering it as a strategic objective to achieve the region’s development agenda of economic, social and cultural growth. It becomes of paramount importance then to examine how regionalisation in education is understood by university constituents, its manifestations in terms of institutional activities and especially, how the ASEAN Integration shapes these initiatives and constructions of regionalisation. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Using a multiple case study design that looked at three higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines, this study found that regionalisation is associated and interchanged with internationalisation in terms of purpose, goal and activities, but is differentiated in dimensions of geographical location and orientation. Findings Institutional initiatives pertaining to regionalisation were largely functional and mostly open and soft collaborations. The ASEAN Integration creates an ASEAN-centric consciousness, and functions as an opportunity for expanding partnerships, institutional niches and programmatic initiatives; and for legitimising regionalisation and internationalisation goals. Originality/value These definitions and approaches to regionalisation have significant policy implications as HEIs strive to respond to the challenges of the Integration.

The notion of academic citizenship has been largely associated with the service role which is a part of academic work seen as additional to teaching and research. The changing landscapes of higher education and the increasing diversity of academic work have prompted debates on what academic citizenship means. This paper challenges the conventional association of academic citizenship with the service role and presents a critical review of the key themes and issues explored in extant literature on the subject. Drawing upon the general view of citizenship as practice, itproposes that the different dimensions of academic work be seen integratively, with academic citizenship reframed beyond the service role. We argue that academic citizenship needs to be conceptualised as a practice of enactment, that is, by the values, processes and means by which it is enacted and asserted as academics draw on freedoms, autonomy and individual motivations.