Jockeying for position: university students’ employability constructions

ABSTRACT As governments and international organisations have pressured universities to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of tertiary education, universities have started to highlight graduate employability as a key driver and measure of university outcomes. This paper contributes to the underutilised processual employability studies by applying the framework of critical discursive psychology to analyse university students’ employability construction. Following this framework, employability is something students do rather than something they have. The empirical study was based on interviews of Finnish students of social science. Analysis of the interviews demonstrated notable variation in the ways in which university students talk about their employability. While some students constructed their employability by positioning themselves as traditional bureaucrats, others constructed their employability by positioning themselves as entrepreneurial agents. Nevertheless, the central point is that some students related ambiguously to both positions and tried to manage the ideological dilemma between stability and security of the bureaucrat position, and variability and risk of the entrepreneurial position. The study calls for better understanding of ways in which students and graduates deal with the dilemmatic nature and requirements of the labour market.


Introduction
The relationship between universities and the labour market has been a topic of debate since the late 1980s (Clarke 2018;Harvey 2000;Tomlinson 2012). Two major trajectories lie behind the debate. First, the number of people with an academic degree has been continuously increasing (OECD 2010). Second, the nature of work is reportedly changing, mainly due to globalisation, automation, and digitalisation. The transition from modern, industrial, Fordist work (old work) to post-modern, postindustrial or post-Fordist work (new work), is commonly characterised by incremental flexibility and atypical work relations such as part-time work, temporary work and self-employment (Harvey 2000;Julkunen 2008;Sennett 1998). As a result, graduates' transition from university to employment has become more difficult and protracted. Graduates face competition for graduate level jobs but also underemployment and unemployment (Jayasingam, Fujiwara, and Thurasamy 2018;Moreau and Leathwood 2006;Morrison 2014;Teichler 2000;Tomlinson 2007).
As universities do not control the labour market, they cannot guarantee employment for their graduates (Holmes 2013). As governments and international organisations have pressured universities to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of tertiary education, universities have started to empirical study. Fourth, I present the analysis and the results, which I further elaborate and discuss in the final fifth section.

Traditional bureaucrats and flexible opportunists
Previous studies have suggested that people have two main types of work orientation. Johnson et al. (2007) call these orientations entrepreneurial and bureaucratic. Referring to Halaby (2003), Johnson et al. (2007, 294) argue that people who have an entrepreneurial orientation towards work focus on autonomy, challenges and labour market competition for high-profile jobs, whereas people who have a bureaucratic orientation towards work rely on specialised training and focus on 'job security, stable benefits, and pleasant working conditions'. Tomlinson (2007) identifies similar orientations among students but calls them careerism and ritualism. He argues that students who adopt the careerist orientation approach work life as a vehicle for self-development and personal fulfilment. Although these students are highly aware of potential employment challenges, they express positive attitudes towards the labour market and play down structural barriers. They construct their employability by 'conforming to the changing demands of the labour market' (Tomlinson 2007, 295). Tomlinson (2007) also argues that students who adopt the ritualist orientation are more passive in their approach to employability management. Like careerists, they are also aware of the competition for graduate-level jobs. However, they construct their employability by aiming for traditional bureaucrat jobs in the public sector but feel apprehensive about the task of gaining a positional advantage in the competition over these jobs (Tomlinson 2007).
Previous studies have thus suggested that students and graduates are able to construct their employability in two different ways. They can either construct themselves as expert-bureaucrats who aim for traditional jobs in the public sector (i.e. ritualist, bureaucratic orientation), or they can adapt to the competitive labour market by constructing themselves as flexible generalists who are willing to become excited about any available work opportunity (i.e. careerist, entrepreneurial orientation). Similar distinctions to those presented by Johnson et al. (2007) and Tomlinson (2007) have also been made by, for example, Cohen, Duberley, and Mallon (2004) and Komulainen et al. (2019).
Previous studies have tended to presuppose that every student and graduate adopts one orientation towards work and constructs their employability accordingly (Komulainen et al. 2019;Tomlinson 2007Tomlinson , 2012. Work orientation is conceptualised as something dispositional that students have. Following this presumption, researchers have been interested in explaining why one orientation is adopted rather than another (Johnson et al. 2007;Morrison 2014;Tomlinson 2012). Vanttaja and Järvinen (2019) suggest that work orientation is generation specific. They argue that people born in the 1960s and 1970s most likely adopt the ritualist, bureaucratic orientation, whereas people born in the 1980s and 1990s most likely adopt the careerist, entrepreneurial orientation. Johnson et al. (2007) and Morrison (2014) in turn suggest that work orientation is not generation-but class-specific. People from privileged backgrounds most likely adopt the careerist, entrepreneurial orientation, and people from less privileged backgrounds most likely adopt the ritualist, bureaucratic orientation. Tomlinson (2012) further suggests that work orientation depends on neither generation nor class, but on the type of national capitalism. In coordinated capitalist countries such as Germany and Finland, students are able to adopt the ritualist, bureaucratic orientation and frame their employability in terms of special education and experience. However, in liberal economies such as in the UK and the USA, students are more likely to adopt the careerist, entrepreneurial orientation and frame their employability in terms of flexibility (Tomlinson 2012; see also Teichler 2000).
The study presented in this paper differs substantially from previous ones. First, following Holmes (2015), I understand work orientation and employability as something students do rather than something they have. The basis of this study is the view that students construct their employability situationally, in and through discourse. They can, at least in theory, construct themselves as traditional bureaucrats in one context and flexible opportunists in another. Both traditional bureaucrat and flexible opportunist are culturally understandable employability constructions whose usefulness depends on the context. Second, in accordance with this conceptualisation, the question is not which factors explain students' employability constructions but rather how students construct their employability with respect to the two competing, culturally available versions. While analysing how students account for their future employment and construct themselves as employable, it is important to study how cultural understandings of the labour market and employability structure students' subjective experiences of employment opportunities and their sense of 'who they can become' (see Edley 2001).

Critical discursive psychology and employability
Critical discursive psychology is a strand of discourse analysis that is interested in the action orientation of language use (Edley andWetherell 1997, 2001;Reynolds and Wetherell 2003;Reynolds, Wetherell, and Taylor 2007;Wetherell 1998). The term 'discourse' refers to all forms of talk and text. Instead of assuming that talk and text reflect or mirror objects and events in the world, the assumption is that talk and text construct versions of objects and events (Potter and Wetherell 1987). From the perspective of critical discursive psychology, words and deeds are not distinct; talking about employment and working as an intern for the government are both forms of discursive (i.e. communicative) practice. However, critical discursive psychology is especially interested in the linguistic aspects of discursive practices.
From the perspective of critical discursive psychology, employability is something constructed in and through discourse. Although people are active in the construction process, they are not free to construct themselves and the social world as they wish (Edley 2001). Firstly, some constructions are culturally dominant and thus more available than others. Previous studies suggest that employability is nowadays particularly constructed in line with either the careerist, entrepreneurial ideas or the ritualist, bureaucratic ideas. Secondly, construction processes do not take place in a vacuum but in relation to other people who need to find the constructions not only understandable but also credible. To be understood, people need to construct their employability by utilising culturally shared meanings of employability. To be credible, people need all kinds of resources, such as diplomas, letters of reference and applicable appearance, to support their employability constructions.
Although critical discursive psychology in many ways epitomises the processual approach described by Holmes (2013Holmes ( , 2015, there is an important difference. Holmes (2013Holmes ( , 2015 was interested in the temporal dimension of employability construction and the trajectories of becoming employable. He focused on narratives in which individuals explained the ways in which they had negotiated their personal employability with significant others over time (Holmes 2015). In line with Holmes, this paper focuses on discursive reproduction of employability. However, it focuses on situational employability construction. Instead of analysing narratives of learning processes (Holmes 2013(Holmes , 2015, I studied how students constructed and negotiated their employability in an interview situation. In line with critical discursive psychology, my premise was that culturally shared meanings guide and limit employability construction in a research interview situation the same way as they would in any other interaction situation, for example, a job interview situation. Research interview and job interview are naturally different in many ways, and these differences are further discussed in the last section. In the study, I made use of the key analytic concepts of critical discursive psychology: interpretative repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas (Edley 2001; see also Edley andWetherell 1997, 2001). Interpretative repertoires are recognisable routines of arguments, descriptions, and evaluations, which include familiar images, metaphors, or figures of speech (Potter and Wetherell 1987). They are ways of talking about things and events that construct a coherent version of these things and events (Edley 2001). Discussion on the knowledge economy and post-modern, post-industrial, or post-Fordist work highlights the emergence of a new interpretative repertoire regarding work. According to the 'old work repertoire', work is linear, stable, and tied to time and place. Graduate-level employment is fulltime and permanent whereas undergraduate-level employment may consist of part-time or temporary work like internships. According to the 'new work repertoire', work is segmented, flexible, and experimental. All employment relationships are temporary by nature and duration of the employment relationship does not distinguish graduate-level employment from undergraduate-level employment.
Subject positions are identities that interpretative repertoires make available, relevant and desirable (Edley 2001; see also Davies and Harré 1990). According to the old work repertoire, an employable person is, for example, an obedient individual (Olakivi 2012). Thus, in the light of the old work repertoire, the position of a bureaucrat described by Tomlinson (2007) and Johnson et al. (2007) is a relevant and desirable one. A graduate who adopts the old work repertoire and positions themselves as a future bureaucrat might see themselves working in a Ministry or a public research institute. According to the new work repertoire, an employable person is, for example, an innovative individual (Olakivi 2012). Thus, in the light of the new repertoire, the position of a bureaucrat would not be relevant or desirable, whereas position of an entrepreneurial agent (Johnson et al. 2007) would be. A graduate who adopts the new work repertoire and positions themselves as an entrepreneurial agent might see themselves working in a start-up or starting their own company.
According to critical discursive psychologists Reynolds, Wetherell, and Taylor (2007, 348), 'there is a continuing cultural imperative to present oneself as having some agency, power and control'. In any social interaction, individuals are expected to demonstrate at least some amount of employability or individual agency over their employment. It is thus reasonable to assume that in an interview situation, students try to portray themselves as at least somewhat employable. However, there are at least two cultural ways in which to construct one's employability -in line with the old work repertoire and in line with the new work repertoire. A further complication is that unlike roles and typologies, the concept of subject position highlights flexibility (Davies and Harré 1990). An actor can, at least in theory, use several interpretative repertoires and adopt several subject positions.
In practice, however, it is difficult to portray oneself a bureaucrat one day and an entrepreneur next day. Credible employability constructions need resources and some of them, like work experience, are not easily accessible. Although critical discursive psychology has been criticised for overlooking continuity and individual investments in subject positions (Hollway and Jefferson 2005; see also Scharff 2011), scholars who conduct critical discursive psychology understand how difficult it is to keep on changing constructions of oneself. For example, Edley (2001) argues that people usually avoid contradictions in their self-presentations because western culture values the idea of an authentic and consistent self. Although several interpretative repertoires and subject positions are available, certain types of self-constructions or employability constructions can also become automatic routines.
The idea that employability constructions are relatively fluid and adaptable to changing settings, nevertheless, brings us to the third and final analytic concept, ideological dilemma. Interpretative repertoires and the positions they enable are part of the common sense or lived ideology, which is dilemmatic by nature (Billig et al. 1988). Different ways of talking about things and events develop as opposing positions and create ideological dilemmas that people reflect on and try to manage (Edley 2001). While people reflect on and manage different versions of the social world, they also reflect on and manage their personal position in that world. There are obvious ideological dilemmas between the old and the new work repertoires and the positions of bureaucrats and entrepreneurial agents. One such ideological dilemma builds up between stability and variability. The old work repertoire highlights the importance of a stable job and a secured livelihood -but this rules out job variability. The new work repertoire highlights an opportunity to try different jobs and employers -but this rules out stability and a secured livelihood.
In the empirical study, I analysed university students' accounts of their employability from the perspective of critical discursive psychology and focused on the way in which they used work repertoires to construct themselves as employable by positioning themselves as either future bureaucrats or entrepreneurial agents. In the results section, I pay special attention to the accounts in which students did not adopt only one repertoire and construct their employability accordingly but drew from both competing repertoires and reflected on and managed the ideological dilemmas that followed. Before the analysis and results, I introduce the materials and methods of the study.

Materials and methods
Employability has mainly been studied in the UK context. Previous studies have demonstrated that most British students adopt the position of a flexible, entrepreneurial agent (Daniels and Brooker 2014;Donald, Baruch, and Ashleigh 2019;Morrison 2014;Tomlinson 2012;Tymon 2013). This study, however, originates in Finland. Previous studies have suggested that even though the 'new work repertoire' is actively disseminated in Finnish universities (e.g. Niska 2021), Finnish students take a more critical approach to the position of an entrepreneurial agent (Siivonen and Filander 2019;Ylöstalo 2014). Finland holds a strong tradition of equality politics and free tertiary education. In recent decades, the number of people with a tertiary education has been rapidly increasing: in 2013, 46% of Finnish employees had a tertiary-level education compared to a mere 10% in 1977 (Sutela and Lehto 2014, 17). After the economic slump of 2008, graduate unemployment increased. The situation was finally improving in 2016-2019, but then COVID-19 hit, and graduate unemployment proliferated (AKAVA 2020).
In order to study Finnish university students' employability construction, 13 interviews of students of social science were conducted in 2016-2017. Four of these students studied sociology, four studied social psychology, and five studied social policy. All the interviewees studied at the University of Helsinki, which is the largest university in Finland. In accordance with the gender distribution of Finnish students of social science (Keski-Petäjä and Witting 2018), the interviewees consisted of eleven women and two men. Although there is little research on the employability of social scientists (Byrne 2022), they make an interesting group for employability research. First, the degrees of these students are non-professional; their education does not prepare them for a specific profession (e.g. a doctor, teacher, or lawyer). Second, these students have traditionally found employment in the public sector, but during the last decades, public sector cuts have wiped out many of their traditional bureaucrat jobs (e.g. Morrison 2014).
In the interviews, we asked the students to comment on statements, or prompts (Speer 2002), regarding their future employment. Instead of encouraging simple answers, the prompts were designed to generate discussion about students' employability. In this paper, I analyse the data generated by the prompts 'I know what I want from my future employment' and 'I believe employment after graduation will be easy for me'. The average duration of an interview was an hour, and the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim in Finnish. The study did not meet the requirements specified by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (https:// www.tenk.fi/en/ethical-review-in-finland) that would have made a university-based ethical review necessary. Participation was voluntary and all interviewees gave their written consent to the study after having been informed about the aims and their rights to withdraw from the study. The excerpts presented in the results section were translated into English by the author. The names presented in the results section are pseudonyms.
There is no mechanical procedure for conducting critical discursive psychology, but analysis always starts with a close reading of the transcribed material (Potter and Wetherell 1987). The analysis focuses on nuances and contradictions, and the researcher searches for patterns of talk in terms of variability and consistency (Potter and Wetherell 1987). The analysis builds on the key concepts of critical discursive psychology: interpretative repertoires, subject positions, and ideological dilemmas (Edley 2001).
The first stage of the analysis focused on the ways in which the interviewees used interpretative repertoires of work to position themselves as employable individuals. The identification of interpretative repertoires from the data is a 'craft skill', which aims to find reoccurring patterns of talk, like images, metaphors, or figures of speech (Edley 2001). Subject positions, selves or identities 'made relevant by specific ways of talking' can be identified by focusing on the question of whom a particular interpretative repertoire implies (Edley 2001, 210). The identification of interpretative repertoires and subject positions is not a purely datadriven process; knowledge on the cultural history of the research topic is often highly useful. The second stage of the analysis focused on ideological dilemmas and the ways in which the interviewees tried to manage these dilemmas. As part of culture's common sense, interpretative repertoires develop as opposing positions in a historical and argumentative exchange (Edley 2001). Analysis of competing interpretative repertoires thus discloses the contradictions or dilemmas of common sense towards which the interviewees orient (Potter and Wetherell 1987).

Future bureaucrats and entrepreneurial agents
Some students, namely Helena, Hanna, Mia, Linda, and Sofia, described work life in terms of the old work repertoire and positioned themselves as future bureaucrats. For these students, work life equalled typical, permanent, fulltime employment, and they stated that they were aiming for expert positions in the public or third sector. Hanna, for example, stated that she wanted to work in foreign affairs and international relations and her dream employer was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Excerpt 1, ll. 3-4).
Excerpt 1 The students who used the old work repertoire and positioned themselves as future bureaucrats acknowledged potential employment difficulties. The main challenge they talked about was the economic situation in Finland and the fierce competition for permanent, graduate-level employment. These students, like Hanna in Excerpt 2, constructed their individual employability mainly on the discourse of experience (Tomlinson 2008 Hanna noted that she might have difficulties standing out from other candidates and finding employment because of her limited job experience (Excerpt 2, ll. 3-4). After a long pause (Excerpt 2, l. 6), Hanna explains that she has tried to improve her employability with an internship, a temporary undergraduate-level employment (Excerpt 2, ll. 6-8).
Other students, namely Fanny, Laura and Vilma, described work life in terms of the new work repertoire and positioned themselves as flexible, entrepreneurial agents. For them, it was self-evident that they would not have 'jobs for life'. Rather, these students talked about work life as a continuum of projects, fixed-term positions, and self-employment. Fanny, for example, stated that she wanted a job in which she would have responsibilities and use her expertise. She had no specific employer in mind, but she argued that she would probably have many employers in different sectors (Excerpt 3, l. 2). For Fanny, a 'job for life' would be an unsatisfying goal (Excerpt 3, ll. 6-8).
Excerpt 3 The students who used the new work repertoire also acknowledged that they might encounter employment difficulties. Nevertheless, they were positive and emphasised personal activeness and responsibility. Laura (Excerpt 4), for example, highlighted personal activeness and openness to different opportunities. Excerpt 4 Laura argues that employment is not definite (Excerpt 4, l. 7), but that one should not be too worried (Excerpt 4, l. 6). If no jobs are available, one can simply create work (Excerpt 4, ll. 8-9). Laura thus constructs her employability on her entrepreneurial agency. She has no business opportunity in mind (Excerpt 4, ll. 10-11) but to her, self-employment is better than a boring job (Excerpt 4,.

Ambiguous relation to repertoires and positions
Finally, some students (Katrina, Felix, Mika, Jenni and Mari) used both repertoires of work in their talk and related ambiguously to both positions: one as a future bureaucrat and the other as an entrepreneurial agent. The ideological dilemmas or contrary themes of contemporary common sense became especially exposed in these interviews. In Excerpt 5, Katrina ponders her future employment. Excerpt 5 starts with Katrina's statement that she would like to become a researcher and have the security that comes with a clear profession (Excerpt 5, ll. 1-2). However, since researcher positions are subject to strong competition, she tries to keep both doors open (Excerpt 5, ll. 2-3). By both doors, Katrina seems to be referring to academic jobs and jobs outside academia. In lines 3-10 Katrina adopts the position of a flexible entrepreneurial agent. In line with the new work repertoire, she highlights that she wants to do what feels good at the time and be ready to update her training when new job opportunities arise. The argument about the extensive opportunities her degree offers is made rhetorically effective through an extreme case formulation: 'with this degree, I can do anything' (Excerpt 5, ll. 9-10). However, in lines 10-12 Katrina admits that she finds the position of an entrepreneurial agent a stressful one. Katrina portrays herself as an individual who can handle insecurity but only up to a certain point (Excerpt 5,. In line with the old work repertoire, Katrina highlights the importance of economic stability and notes that ideally, she would like to be a future bureaucrat with a permanent job (Excerpt 5,. Nevertheless, although Katrina positively evaluates the position of a future bureaucrat, she clearly recognises the cultural idea that a bureaucrat position means being unpassionate and unambitious (Johnson et al. 2007;Tomlinson 2007). Katrina thus highlights that her preference over a bureaucrat position should not be viewed as a lack of workrelated passion (Excerpt 5, ll. 14-15) and ambitiousness (Excerpt 5, ll. 20-21).
Mari's account is in many ways similar to Katrina's. In Excerpt 6, Mari explains her future employment.
Excerpt 6 1 Mari: But nowadays it's not at all easy or self-evident that you'll find 2 employment ((laughter)). Like it demands a lot of personal activeness and 3 inventiveness so in a way. Like I've been thinking like I've followed other 4 people's career paths, and like I am sure that the first years, many years will 5 probably pass working in fixed-term and temporary posts and I've taken 6 the attitude that that's fine, and like quite OK because in every job you 7 learn something new that you can then put to use in the next position. 8 Of course I hope that I get lucky and a permanent job appears that would 9 be just for me ((laughter)) and that would be my economic stability guaranteed, 10 But I don't think that's something self-evident in any way or even very likely 11 to happen at least like straight away. be open to many things and I believe that will promote my job-seeking.
Elsewhere in the interview, Mari expressed her desire to work in a bureaucrat position with national security. Excerpt 6 starts with Mari's statement that finding (such) employment is difficult and requires personal activeness and inventiveness (Excerpt 6, ll. 1-3). Much like Katrina, Mari states that when looking for a job, she tries to keep all options open (Excerpt 6,. In lines 3-7, she anticipates that she will face a continuum of fixed-term jobs and evaluates the situation positively as a learning opportunity. However, in lines 8-9, Mari highlights the importance of economic stability and notes that ideally, she would be a future bureaucrat with a permanent position. Because Mari doubts her chances of finding a permanent bureaucrat position, she tries to increase her employability by adopting the position of an entrepreneurial agent who is willing to become excited about any available work opportunity.
The students who used both work repertoires described that, on the one hand, work life was full of wonderful opportunities, and that in order to find temporary work, one must simply be flexible and keep all doors open. On the other hand, they admitted that they found the idea of temporary work stressful and were aiming for secure, permanent, fulltime employment, which is nevertheless difficult to obtain and demands specific expertise and work experience. The students thus managed the ideological dilemma between the stability and security of old work and the variability and flexibility of new work. The old work repertoire and the position of a future bureaucrat equal economic stability and security but not a plethora of possible jobs and employers. The new work repertoire and the position of an entrepreneurial agent equal variability and a wide variety of jobs and employers but not economic stability and security. So how do the students deal with this dilemma?
Two important dilemma management strategies are visible in the accounts of Katrina and Mari. The first strategy is the theory/practice distinction (e.g. Wetherell, Stiven, and Potter 1988). Both Katrina and Mari argued that in theory, they would like to be future bureaucrats, but in practice, they must be entrepreneurial agents. Katrina would like to become a researcher with a permanent position and have financial stability, but because she knows these positions are, in practice, hard to obtain, she must keep all doors open and apply for fixed-term and project positions. Mari would, in theory, like to have a permanent position and economic stability, but after watching other people struggling to find employment, she is sure she must start with several fixed-term and temporary positions. In Mari's account, the theory/practice distinction solves the dilemma; the choice is out of her hands. She would happily take a permanent position if she was lucky enough to be offered one. In Katrina's account, the theory/practice distinction does not completely solve the dilemma. For her, a permanent job and a future bureaucrat position are also problematic in theory, because they might not fulfil her ambitious side.
The second dilemma management strategy is the temporal initially/subsequently distinction (e.g. Taylor 2006). Both Katrina and Mari mused that initially they would be flexible entrepreneurial agents and subsequently become expert-bureaucrats. Katrina notes that 'at the beginning there will be temporary jobs and such' but that a 'permanent job is at some point ideal' (Excerpt 5,(17)(18). Mari notes that 'the first many years will probably be fixed-term contracts' (Excerpt 6,. She also notes that a permanent position is not 'self-evident or even a very likely thing', at least not straight away (Excerpt 6, ll. 10-11). Mari thus suggests that a permanent position might be more plausible later in life. Temporality solves the ideological dilemma for both Katrina and Mari. Over time, they will be both entrepreneurial agents and future bureaucrats.

Discussion
This paper analysed university students' employability from a processual perspective (Holmes2013, 2015) of critical discursive psychology (Edley 2001;Edley andWetherell 1997, 2001;Wetherell 1998). Instead of trying to explain employability with multi-level factors such as internal attributes and the external labour market situation, the paper aimed to understand how university students construct their future employment and their individual employability. Critical discursive psychology offers a valuable contribution to the processual approach to employability. While processual studies tend to ask people, how they have constructed their employability, and thus analyse materials that are distanced from the 'real time' flow of employability construction, critical discursive psychology explores employability construction in situ (see Lester, O'reilly, and Steele 2022) and analyses how employability is situationally actualised, managed, and negotiated. While processual studies note that employability construction takes place in relation to significant others, like peers and employers, critical discursive psychology is sensitive to the shared cultural understandings of work and employment, which enable but also limit employability construction (see Edley 2001).
Analysis of the Finnish university students' interviews demonstrated notable variation in the ways in which the interviewees constructed their employability. In line with previous UK studies (e.g. Daniels and Brooker 2014;Donald, Baruch, and Ashleigh 2019;Tomlinson 2012), the analysis demonstrated that some Finnish university students construct their employability according to the ideas of the new work repertoire and position themselves as flexible entrepreneurial agents. In these students' imaginary futures, the route to employment is through personal proactivity and willingness to become excited about any available work opportunity. However, some interviewed students constructed their employability according to the ideas of the old work repertoire and positioned themselves as future bureaucrats. In these students' imaginary future, the route to employment was through specific work experience.
Nevertheless, many of the interviewed students drew from both repertoires of work and related ambiguously to the positions they enabled. Both ways of constructing employability were problematic in their own ways. As future bureaucrats, they need certain kind of work experience, which is usually hard to get, and competition for scarce expert-bureaucrat jobs can mean unemployment. As entrepreneurial agents, they are open to all job opportunities but at the same time accept the intermittent nature of work -even when they value stability and financial security. This result demonstrates that work orientation and understanding of working life is not necessarily fixed, static, and immutable but rather flexible, controversial, and mutable. Cultural understandings of work and employment provide students with flexible resource for everyday sense making but also create tensions that need to be dealt with (Edley 2001). The interviewed students who drew from both repertoires of work recognised and tried to manage the ideological dilemmas of current work life (Billig et al. 1988). Such ideological dilemmas clearly build up between stability and variability, and security and openness to change.
In the data, the students tried to manage the ideological dilemmas by using two strategies: the theory/practice distinction and the temporal initially/subsequently distinction. Firstly, they claimed that in theory, they would like to be expert-bureaucrats with permanent 'jobs for life', but in practice they had to be flexible, entrepreneurial agents who were willing to do anything for a certain period. Secondly and relatedly, they referred to temporality and claimed that initially they would be flexible, entrepreneurial opportunists but that later they wanted to become expert-bureaucrats with permanent positions.
The unemployment and underemployment of young people such as university graduates is traditionally viewed as frictional unemployment, which is considered normal and assumed to disappear in time (Pyöriä and Ojala 2016). Interestingly, some of the interviewed students anchored the ideas of new work to the old idea of frictional unemployment in work transitions. Although this rhetoric move helped the students solve the dilemma between the old work repertoire and the new work repertoire, it is a debatable move. According to the new work repertoire, atypical work relations are the future for everyone -not just for young people who are in the middle of university -work transitions. All in all, the study evokes the question of whether universities provide students and graduates with the resources to deal with the dilemmatic nature of the labour market and employability construction. In line with Lester, O'reilly, and Steele (2022) who highlight the value of critical discursive psychology in bridging the gap between science and practice, identification of problems and challenges in employability construction provide opportunities for agents like career counsellors to improve students' and graduates' effective and credible employability construction.
In line with Holmes (2013Holmes ( , 2015, the study presented in this paper could be called into question by asking, would it not be better to analyse the naturally occurring interaction between students and significant others, such as actual work interviews? Interviewees' employability constructions are not challenged in research interview settings in the same way in which they could be challenged in naturally occurring interaction. Compared to naturally occurring interaction, research interviews might not be optimal datasets, but they are more easily obtained. Besides, regardless of the nature of the interaction situation, employability constructions are always limited by cultural discursive resources like interpretative repertoires of work. Furthermore, limits to self-construction are not always imposed from the 'outside' (Edley 2001). Individuals can simply be out of practice or unfamiliar with ways in which they could portray their employability. With regards to critical discursive psychology, the interviews even offered some benefits. As the researcher was able to question a sample of people on the same issue -in this case future employment -the responses are comparable, which makes the initial stages of analysis simpler (Potter and Wetherell 1987).
Previous studies have assumed that every student adopts an orientation towards work and constructs their employability accordingly. But if orientation towards work is not approached as an inner disposition dictated, for example, by socio-economic status or time and place of birth but as a situational, interactional achievement, new questions emerge. How do students construct their employability in different types of interaction situations and with different interlocutors, like university staff, career counsellors and potential employers? How do these interlocutors receive and possibly challenge students' employability constructions? How do students make their employability constructions credible? How do students end up investing in one employability construction over the other?