Business students and work-life: mind the gaps!

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to identify challenges in business school and business collaboration when implementing work-integrated learning (WIL) as a vehicle to enhance student work-life realities and possible employability opportunities.Design/methodology/approachThis paper adopts a five-step literature synthesis method. In-depth review and analysis of the existing literature of WIL challenges during the period 2009 to 2018 was conducted.FindingsThe literature review revealed five major gaps identified in WIL projects, resulting from a lack of institutional support, mentoring and assessment, student readiness, curriculum relevance and host motivation. These challenges were related to differences or gaps in the business school and business domains. Seven propositions are suggested as a starting point to manage the five gaps when initiating WIL as a successful learning project.Practical implicationsOur syntheses of challenges hampering WIL projects is highly relevant for deepening business school awareness and when planning to launch WIL projects. The paper presents a realistic view on school-business interaction involving WIL students.Originality/valueThe paper contributes by enabling WIL practitioners to gain a systematic overview of WIL challenges and pitfalls. Negative factors impacting on business school and business domains are highlighted in the model and paper propositions. Awareness, mindfulness and avoiding the pitfalls and gaps facing WIL students, schools and participating businesses ensure effective, efficient and successful WIL experiences and projects.

The relevance and impact of business schools: In search of a holistic view

“…Not only do they enhance our understanding of how the field has been synthesized, but they also help us to understand how the current review can contribute. The majority of the reviews focus on research, with three that consider both research and education (i.e., a more general view of business schools) (Pettigrew & Starkey, 2016; Anderson et al., 2020; Ungureanu & Bertolotti, 2020) and only two focused exclusively on education (Govender & Vaaland, 2022; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2013). Even though there are three previous reviews that encompass both research and education, similar to the current review, they each take a markedly different form.…”