A literature review on
employability with diagramming techniques
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer
Hong Kong, China
Abstract:
Literature review is an important exercise in
dissertation projects. Other than scholarly essay writing, using diagrams to conduct
literature review is also very useful for performing literature review. This
paper makes use of three diagramming techniques, namely, construction of a
system map, a mind map and a cognitive map, to complement scholarly writing for
a literature review on employability. The hands-on exercise of
diagramming-based literature review by the writer confirms the practical value
of doing so. In particular, a number of personal observations from such an
exercise by the writer contribute to our theoretical knowledge on the topics of
literature review and managerial intellectual learning. Readers interested in
the topic of employability should also find the literature review on
employability informative for research purpose.
Keywords:
diagramming, employability, literature review, managerial intellectual learning
Introduction
In
doing dissertation projects, literature review is an essential task, and one
which many tertiary education students have expressed to the writer, as part-time
teacher, tremendous difficulties to perform (Ho, 2015a). The writer has
previously attributed students’ difficulties to conduct literature review to
their managerial intellectual learning ineffectiveness (Ho, 2015a). In this
regard, one obvious way for students to overcome this problem is to learn how
to improve their managerial intellectual learning, on which there is an
established literature (see the Facebook page on Managerial Intellectual Learning). This paper makes another
contribution to the writer’s academic works on literature review and Managerial
Intellectual Learning by evaluating the practical value of diagramming
techniques for literature review. As a matter of fact, the relevance of the
diagramming techniques to literature review and Managerial Intellectual
Learning has been recognized in the Managerial Intellectual Learning topic,
notably for rendering images of knowledge structures. This paper is devoted to
this diagramming matter. Specifically, the writer presents a literature review
on employability and then makes use of diagramming techniques to render the
knowledge structure of employability. An evaluation of the experience of using
diagramming techniques for literature review is then carried out.
Basic ideas and study themes of
employability
The
topic of employability has been studied in quite a number of academic subjects,
such as business and management studies, human resource management, psychology,
educational science and career theory (Heijde and Heijden, 2006). At the same
time, different stakeholders hold different and evolving perceptions and
concerns on the employability topic. Consequently, there is an array of basic
ideas and study themes of employability, endorsing mildly different perspectives
and priorities of concerns. Based on the writer’s literature review on
employability, these ideas and study themes are reported in this section. They
are reviewed under the sub-titles of: (i) evolution of employability thinking,
(ii) definitions of employability, (iii) employability concerns and perceptions
of major stakeholders, and (iv) practices to improve employability.
Subtitle (i): evolution of
employability thinking: According to Cuyper,
Bernhard-Oettel and Bernston (2008), interest in employability appeared around
the 1950s, with major concern being employability interventions to promote
employment chiefly for the vulnerable groups, e.g., youngsters, the long-term
employed, or the disabled. In contrast, contemporary employability policy is
more comprehensive, essentially covering the whole working population (Cuyper,
Bernhard-Oettel and Bernston, 2008); such policy tends to stress enhanced
labour market flexibility, employee dynamic competence and entrepreneurship
(Haasler, 2013) in response to the prevailing trend of ever more flexible
employment arrangements and turbulent career environment (Fugate, Kinicki and
Ashforth, 2004). In this respect, employability in this postindustrial
knowledge society, dictates an individual’s familiarity with “the newest
technology” (Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel and Bernston, 2008) and competence in
career self-management (i.e., to cultivate individual employability). Another
major thinking on employability is to multi-perspective to comprehend employability
at the individual, human resource management, and national workforce levels
(Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel and Bernston, 2008). On the whole, there is no single universal
school of employability thinking as different countries promote somewhat
dissimilar employability policies and thinking.
Subtitle (ii): definitions of
employability: It has frequently been said that employability
is difficult to define (Sung et al.,
2013). Nevertheless, a number of definitions on employability, reflecting
diverse underlying perspectives, can be found in the literature. They include: (a)
“the individual’s
perception of his or her possibilities to achieve a new job” (Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel and Bernstson, 2008), (b) “a
set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes - that
make graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen
occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the
economy” (Marais and Perkins, 2012), and (c) “a form of work specific active adaptability that enables workers to
identify and realize career opportunities” (Fugate, Kinicki and
Ashforth, 2004). In short, some definitions are more subjective in perspective
than others.
Subtitle (iii): employability
concerns and perceptions of major stakeholders:
It is well recognized that unemployment is “detrimental for health and
well-being” (Green, 2011). On the other hand, improved employability implies
improved ability “to find and sustain employment” (Green, 2011) and is
associated with career success (Heijden, Lange, Demerouti and Heijde, 2009) on
an individual’s part. Besides, improved employees’ employability enables
organizations to “meet fluctuating demands for numerical and functional
flexibility” (Heijden, Lange, Demerouti and Heijde, 2009). Conceptually, an
individual’s employability can be related to an enterprise’s competence via the
competence lens (Heijden, Lange, Demerouti and Heijde, 2009). Thus, both
employees and employers care about employability. Paradoxically, there is an
employer’s concern that strengthened employability of employees could weaken
employees’ “affective organizational commitment and performance” (Cuyper and
Witte, 2011). Another stakeholder group, higher education institutions, is also
attentive to their students’ employability as well as the associated interest
to “contribute to the economic development …of nations through the fostering
of…. human capital formation” (Laughton, 2011). Nevertheless, it has been
suggested that university professors and employers “tend to disagree on which
competences will qualify students best for their professional career” (Busch,
2009). In particular, while “employers tend to expect universities to provide
normative, vocational courses”, universities “see their duty as enabling their
students to take a critical stance on a variety of subjects” (Busch, 2009).
Such university view is echoed by Conlon (2008) who raises the apprehension in
the context of engineering education that “a focus on employability will not
equip engineers to be socially responsible because it fails to problematise the
current structure of work and society”.
Subtitle (iv): practices to improve
employability: Practices to improve employability are
recognized to involve a range of actors, e.g., employers, employees, students,
higher education institutions and the government (Haasler, 2013). Typical examples
of employability promotion practices include training, career counselling and
personal networking (Vanhercke et al.,
2015). In general, employability practices endorse (a) lifelong learning
(Haasler, 2013), (b) proactive and person-centered career management (Fugate,
Kinicki and Ashforth, 2004), (c) mastery of transferable skills, e.g.
management skills and generic employability skills[1], (d)
usage of national qualification frameworks for employability promotion (Sung et al., 2013) and (e) collaboration
between employers and universities in the forms of guest speakers, work
placements and consultancy projects (O’Leary, 2013). For universities,
employability promoting practices include embedding employability skills in
higher education curriculum (Stoner and Milner, 2010) and employment of
students as student ambassadors (Glendinning et al., 2011). Even so, different countries do adopt different
employability practices. For example, Singapore’s employability policy treats
employability promotion as “up-skilling workers for improving job performance
and income mobility” (Sung et al.,
2013); both the UK and Australia favour attempts to “mass-produce employability
skills” (Sung et al., 2013); finally
Germany’s employability policy emphasizes entrepreneurship and self-employment.
The
employability ideas and practices examined in the academic literature are grouped
under the four subthemes (i.e., subtitles (i) to (iv).) above. It needs to be
point out that these ideas and practices are not totally compatible with each
other and they also evolve over time in mildly different directions in
different countries. In short, as an outcome of the essay-based literature
review by the writer, the four subthemes reveal a somewhat chaotic intellectual
landscape on employability (also see Facebook page on employability) with diverse voices. On the other hand, it is
exactly this messy intellectual landscape that offers cogent conceptual
stimulation to inform academic studies in this subject domain. This subject
domain includes scholar-practitioner (Ho, 2014a; 2015b), managerial
intellectual learning, Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research (Facebook
page on Multi-perspective, Systems-based
Research) and literature review (Facebook page on literature review), which have been researched on by the writer and
which explicitly consider employability as one of their research topics. (Exactly
how the employability literature reviewing findings is able to contribute to
the theoretical development on scholar-practitioner, managerial intellectual
learning and the MPSB Research is not examined in this paper.) The next task is
to make use of diagramming techniques to conduct the second stage of literature
review on employability.
Diagramming on employability as
literature review
Literature
review, to Bryman and Bell (2007), is “where you demonstrate that you are able
to engage in scholarly review based on your reading and understanding of the
work of others in the same field as you”. In the words of Saunders et al., (2012), it provides the
foundation on which a research is built. In
this paper, three types of diagrams are employed to conduct the diagramming-based
literature review on employability. They are (a) a systems map (Open
University, 2016), (b) a mind map (Buzan and Buzan, 1995) and (c) a cognitive map
(Eden et al., 1983). The topic of
using these diagrams to conduct literature review has been explored by Ho (2014b)
in Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research. Altogether, three diagrams are
produced here, representing the results of the writer’s diagramming-based
literature review. Figure 1 is a system map.
Figure 2 is a mind map and, finally, Figure 3 is a cognitive map on
employability. Briefly a system map shows “the structure of a system of
interest” (Open University, 2016). A mind map is a visual way to organize
information around a core concept, with associated representations of ideas
(Buzan and Buzan, 1995). As to a cognitive map, it connects variables with
arrows indicating directions of influence so as to capture the systemic nature
among the chosen set of variables (Eden et
al., 1983). The writings on these maps are quite substantial and their
application scope is beyond that on literature review; interested readers are
referred to the bibliography for
further information on them. The three maps on employability are now shown as
follows:
Referring
to Figure 1 (a system map on employability
study), there are four components within the system boundary of employability study. The four components
correspond to the four employability subtitles that have been examined in the
previous section. The arrows within the system map broadly describe the logical
dependence among the four components. Figure 1 also identifies three elements
outside the system boundary, namely, (i) Managerial intellectual learning, (ii)
Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research and (iii) Real-life impacts. Their
presence in Figure 1 makes explicit the underlying research interest of the
literature review by the writer on employability. In short, the system map (re:
Figure 1) reveals more vividly the four employability subthemes and their
interrelatedness to each other as well as other related but out-of-scope
research interests.
Regarding
Figure 2, a mind map of employability, the associated ideas of the four
employability subthemes are again shown. Different colours and arrows are
employed in the mind map to manifest the knowledge structure of employability
in a more engaging way. It makes the conceptual landscape of employability, as
described in the previous section, easier to grasp in one broad-brush picture,
especially in a group-based literature review session.
With
regard to Figure 3, a cognitive map of employability, a number of key variables
are chosen from the literature to form a set of interrelated variables. The
arrows in Figure 3 show the directions of influence among these variables. By
default, the arrows indicate positive correlations between the independent variables,
with outgoing arrows, (e.g., “understand transferable employability skills”)
and the dependent variables, with incoming arrows (e.g., “a better society”). [Note:
some variables have both incoming and outgoing arrows, e.g., “improved
employability” and “improved organizational performance”.] Some variables have
mutual causation with each other, which is indicated with a double arrow, e.g.
between “effective career self-management” and “effective life-long learning”. It
is also feasible to incorporate incompatible ideas in the same map, as there is
no requirement that all the variables need to reinforce each other to propel
the whole system toward one direction. In a nutshell, the cognitive map (re:
Figure 3) depicts the systemic (e.g., network-like) nature of the conceptual
landscape of employability in a comprehensible way.
An
overall assessment of the practical value of diagramming for literature review,
based on the writer’s hands-on experience here, is provided in the next section.
The practical value of diagramming
for literature review: some observations
Using
diagramming, e.g., subject trees and relevance trees (Saunders et al., 2012: chapter 3), for literature
review and intellectual learning is definitely not a novel idea. The hands-on
experience of using a system map, a mind map and a cognitive map by the writer
to conduct a literature review on employability, in this case, is a revisit to
this topic in the mainstream literature review subject. Nevertheless, due to
the writer’s specific research interest, its practical value for managerial
intellectual learning is explicitly stressed in this paper (re: Figure 1). More
specifically, the following five personal observations by the writer are made
on this diagramming exercise on employability:
Observation 1 – on resolution level:
The systems map offers a lower level of resolution on the employability subject
than the mind map and the cognitive map. Adding key words in the components of
the systems map is nevertheless also feasible.
Observation 2 – on perspective
expressiveness: The systems map projects a more
unitary (i.e., how-to) view on the employability subject than that of the mind
map and the cognitive map. On the other side, the mind map and the cognitive
map have higher ease to capture contrasting viewpoints in one map, thus more
expressive in pluralist and critical terms.
Observation 3 – on knowledge
structure forms: The systems map and the cognitive map
are more capable to express knowledge structures in various forms, e.g.,
network forms, while the mind map is good at expressing knowledge structures chiefly
in tree forms. In contrast, scholarly writing is less capable to stimulate
comprehension of intellectual ideas in a systemic way. Writing on a piece of
paper in essay form essentially encourages a linear form of reasoning.
Observation 4 – on stimulating and
engaging thinking: Diagramming techniques, e.g., systems
maps, mind maps and cognitive maps, are good complementary tools for essay-form
of literature review. They serve the purpose of clarifying, stimulating and
engaging thinking in literature review. On the other hand, scholarly writing
remains a critical endeavour in literature review, as it inevitably demands a
vigorous way to express line of reasoning with clear referencing.
Observation 5 – on group-based literature
review support: Very likely, the diagramming technique
is more relevant for group-based literature review, notably in the form of a
brainstorming or focus group session while scholarly writing is much less
engaging and stimulating for brainstorming and focus group-based literature
review.
As
a whole, the five personal observations on diagramming-based literature review
from the writer confirm the practical value of using diagramming techniques in
literature review. It also indicates good practical value of the diagramming
approach for promoting managerial intellectual learning, which necessarily
involves literature review efforts. Ultimately, the aim of doing both
essay-based and diagramming-based literature review together is, as Buzan and
Buzan (1995) put it, “to use… brain to its full potential”.
Concluding remarks
For
many of the writer’s students, literature review is conceived as a purely
academic exercise, only required to be performed during their academic study.
Otherwise, to them, literature review has no practical value to their workplace
practices. This writer argues against this constricted view. To this writer,
literature review is valuable to inform us on topics that we consider as
important in our daily life, such as employability. Via literature review, as
this paper demonstrates with one on employability, we are able to gain a deeper
and critical understanding of topics we care about. Because of that, literature
review is a critical skill for managerial intellectual learning; it enables us
to build up intellectual skills to address complex concerns that exist in the
real-world. One way or another, these concerns affect us. Literature review
unlocks, for its practitioners, the massive quality knowledge accumulated in
the scholarly works of the academic community. Moreover, the paper sheds light
on the practical value of diagramming-based literature review as complementary
exercises to the mainstream scholarly writing approach. Also, by clarifying
such practical value of diagramming for literature review and beyond, the paper
confirms the importance of diagramming-based literature review for managerial
intellectual learning, notably for knowledge structure construction in
diagrammatic forms. Exactly how the findings here can enhance managerial
intellectual learning theories should be examined in future research works.
Bibliography
Bryman, A. and E. Bell. 2007. Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press.
Busch, D. 2009. “What kind of intercultural competence will
contribute to students’ future employability” Intercultural Education 20(5) October, Routledge: 429-438.
Buzan, T. and B. Buzan, 1995. The mindmap book, BBC Books.
Conlon, E. 2008. “The new engineer: between employability and
social responsibility” European Journal
of Engineering Education 33 (2) May, Taylor & Francis: 151-159.
Cuyper, N.D., C. Bernhard-Oettel and E. Bernstson.
2008. “Employability and Employees’ Well-Being: Mediation by Job Insecurity” Applied Psychology 57(3): 488-509.
Cuyper, N.D. and H.A. Witte. 2011. “The
management paradox: Self-rated employability and organizational commitment and
performance” Personnel Review 40(2),
Emerald: 152-172.
Eden, C., S. Jones and D. Sims. 1983. Messing about in Problems: An informal
Structured Approach to their Identification and Management, Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
Facebook
page on Literature on literature review,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/timeline).
Facebook
page on Literature on employability,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-employability-880896718687768/).
Facebook
page on Managerial Intellectual Learning,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/timeline).
Facebook
page on Multi-perspective, Systems-based
Research, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/multiperspective.systemsbased.research/timeline).
Fugate,
M., A.J. Kinicki and B.E. Ashforth. 2004. “Employability: A psycho-social
construct, its dimensions, and applications” Journal of Vocational Behavior 65, Elsevier: 14-38.
Glendinning,
I., A. Domanska and S.M. Orim. 2011. “Employability Enhancement through Student
advocacy” Innovation in Teaching and
Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 10(2), Routledge: 16-22.
Green,
F. 2011. “Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability modifies the
impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental
health” Journal of Health Economics
30, Elsevier: 265-276.
Haasler,
S.R. 2013. “Employability skills and the notion of ‘self’” International Journal of Training and Development 17(3), Wiley:
233-243.
Heijde,
C.M.V.D. and B.I.J.M.V.D. Heijden. 2006. “A competence-based and
multidimensional operationalizaion and measurement of employability” Human Resource Management 45(3) Fall, Wiley:
449-476.
Heijden, B.I.J.M.d., A.H.d. Lange, E.
Demerouti and C.M.V.d. Heijde. 2009. “Age effects on the employability-career
success relationship” Journal of
Vocational Behavior 74, Elsevier: 156-164.
A
theoretical review on the professional development to be a scholar practitioner
in business management”
Ho, J.K.K. 2015a.
“Examining Literature Review Practices and Concerns Based on Managerial
Intellectual Learning Thinking” International
Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Science, Society and Culture 1(1):
5-19.
Ho, J.K.K. 2015b. “A survey study of perceptions on the scholar-practitioner notion:
the Hong Kong case” American Research
Thoughts 1(10) August: 2268-2284.
Laughton,
D.J. 2011. “CETL for employability: identifying and evaluating institutional
impact” Higher Education, Skills, and
Work-Based Learning 1(3), Emerald: 231-246.
Marais,
D. and J. Perkins. 2012. “Enhancing employability through self-assessment” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46,
Elsevier: 4356-4362.
O’Leary,
S. 2013. “Collaborations in Higher Education with Employers and Their Influence
on Graduate Employability: An Institutional Project” Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences 5(1) Taylor &
Francis: 37-50.
Open
University. 2016. “Systems Thinking and Practice: Diagramming” The Open
University, U.K. (url address: http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/T552/)
[visited at April 25, 2016].
Saunders,
M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill. 2012. Research
methods for business students, Pearson, Harlow, England.
Stoner, G. and M. Milner. 2010. “Embedding
Generic Employability Skills in an Accounting Degree: Development and
Impediments” Accounting Education: an
international journal 19(1-2) February-April, Routledge: 123-138.
Sung,
J., M.CM. Ng, F. Loke and C. Ramos. 2013. “The nature of employability skills:
empirical evidence from Singapore” International
Journal of Training and Development 17(3), Wiley: 176-193.
The
University of Nottingham and the University of Exeter. 2007. The Teaching, Learning and Assessment of
Generic Employability Skills February, the Centre for Developing and
Evaluating Lifelong Learning at the University of Nottingham and the South West
skills and Learning Intelligence Module at the University of Exeter, U.K. (url
address: http://www.marchmont.ac.uk/Documents/Projects/ges/ges-guide%5Boptimised%5D.pdf)
[visited at April 22, 2016].
Vanhercke, D., K. Kirves,
N.D. Cuyper, M. Verbruggen, A. Forrier and H.D. Witte. 2015. “Perceived
employability and psychological functioning framed by gain and loss cycles” Career Development International 20(2),
Emerald: 179-198.
[1] Generic
employability skills are “'transferable'
skills, independent of particular occupational sectors and organisations, which
contribute to an individual's overall employability by enhancing their capacity
to adapt, learn and work independently” (The University of Nottingham and the
University of Exeter, 2007).
No comments:
Post a Comment