PurposeThis series of papers aims to explore the transition from higher education into work. It reports on research undertaken over a period of two years and which sought to track a number of young graduates as they completed their studies and embarked upon career of choice.Design/methodology/approachThe approach adopted is defined and discussed as one of “common sense”. Alongside the notion of “common sense” the paper deploys two further concepts, “convention” and “faith” necessary to complete a rudimentary methodological framework. The narratives which are at the heart of the papers are built in such a way as to contain not only the most significant substantive issues raised by the graduates themselves but also the tone of voice specific to each.FindingsFive cases are presented; the stories of five of the graduates over the course of one year. Story lines that speak of learning about the job, learning about the organisation and learning about self are identified. An uneven journey into a workplace community is evident. “Fragmentation” and “cohesion” are the constructs developed to reflect the conflicting dynamics that formed the lived experience of the transitional journeys experienced by each graduate.Research limitations/implicationsWhilst the longitudinal perspective adopted overcomes some of the major difficulties inherent in studies which simply use “snap shot” data, the natural limits of the “common sense” approach restrict theoretical development. Practically speaking, however, the papers identify issues for reflection for those within higher education and the workplace concerned with developing practical interventions in the areas of graduate employability, reflective practice and initial/continuous professional development.Originality/valueThe series of papers offers an alternative to orthodox studies within the broader context of graduate skills and graduate employment. The papers set this debate in a more illuminating context.

The article explores the growth of EDAP‐style employee led development (ELD) schemes in the 1990s and critically appraises the arguments offered in their support. The dominant claims for ELD sit with equal comfort in the discourse of trade unionists promoting “bargaining for skills”, and managerialists promoting populist notions of the “learning company”. However, the article draws on recent research which suggests that ELD is better understood as a marginal addition to the effort‐reward bargain; a “fringe benefit”, a “way of giving something back” in a period characterised by an intensification of effort, upheaval and uncertainty. Its contribution, therefore, to the emergence of sustainable human resource development is minimal – at least in conventional terms. Through the exposition of two case studies a reformulated argument is offered which seeks to place ELD in a framework of theory and practice which is both more durable and liberating. The article concludes that the ability to make and act upon an informed and rational interpretation of one’s interests, as an individual, or as a member of a collective within the workplace, must surely be premised on the development of an ongoing educational process; a process toward which a reformulated notion of ELD may well contribute.

Recent official papers and reports credit employee development (initiatives which offer employees of an organisation opportunities to undertake non‐work related learning of their choice) as a vehicle for stimulating and promoting ideas of continuous education and lifelong learning. Commentaries such as these contribute to what is defined as an “orthodox” account of ED. In sum the orthodoxy promotes ED on the basis that by promoting learning and flexibility such initiatives contribute to organisational effectiveness and competitiveness. However, the orthodox account is inscribed with two fundamental flaws. The first is theoretical in kind, and concerns the under‐development of its central concepts. The second is of a more practical kind, and refers to the management of ED. The argument is illustrated with reference to both existing data and our own empirical work. The conclusion attempts to develop a more rational justification for ED, suggesting that support for such initiatives represents an ethical imperative. States that in a democratic society the workplace should be regulated in a democratic fashion. ED deserves to be sponsored in so far as it contributes towards this process of “democratisation”

The concepts of mutuality, learning and change are embedded in the ideas surrounding employee led development (ELD) schemes. This paper explores the extent to which these concepts are an accurate reflection of the way such schemes are organised in practice. The article is based on qualitative research carried out in two small to medium sized enterprises in the north of England. We will show that while ELD can be beneficial to employees, attempts to apply the concepts of mutuality, learning and change require caution.

No abstract