Are we talking about the same thing? The case for stronger connections between graduate and worker employability research

Employability research: a promising but divided scholarly area

Research on employability has gained considerable momentum, most notably in career research (Akkermans and Kubash, 2017; Byington et al., 2019) and educational research (Healy et al., 2022; Tomlinson, 2012). Employability is typically defined as an individual's employment potential in the internal and external labor market (Forrier and Sels, 2003). Within this research area, there is a particular emphasis on graduates' immediate and long-term career outcomes in the higher education research field (Clarke, 2018; Donald et al., 2019), whereas career and psychology research primarily focuses on how employability can serve as a resource that facilitates career mobility and success (Forrier et al., 2018; Fugate et al., 2021).

Employability matters. Research on employability among workers – which we will refer to as worker employability in this article to compare it to the common term of graduate employability – has provided clear support for the relevance of studying employability. For example, in their review article, Fugate et al. (2021) concluded that employability has considerable benefits for employees, such as being a predictor of career success, serving as a resource to help deal with insecurity and challenges and enhancing work-related and general well-being. Despite the lack of a systematic overview of the findings of graduate employability research [1], research in this area also shows convincing evidence of its value for graduates, such as offering transferable and career management skills (Clarke, 2018; Tomlinson, 2012). Furthermore, research on school-to-work transitions – often separated from but closely related to (graduate) employability – has established that employability is a critical asset for successfully transitioning from education to work and laying the foundation for a sustainable career (De Vos et al., 2019, 2020).

Although employability research is timely, it is also criticized for being “fuzzy” (Van Harten et al., 2022). Definitions and conceptualizations of employability still tend to differ considerably across and within the streams of worker and graduate employability (Forrier et al., 2018). To illustrate, research on worker employability has long been divided across three strands (Van Harten et al., 2022): (1) personal strengths that increase employment potential (such as competence-based employability, see Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006), (2) perceived employability (see, e.g. Vanhercke et al., 2014) and (3) job transitions (see, e.g. De Vos et al., 2021). Although some empirical studies have tested the associations between these strands, such as Forrier et al.’ (2015) test of all three in a dynamic chain, the number is surprisingly low, and comparisons are difficult due to the large variety of measurement instruments used to assess employability (Van Harten et al., 2022). Similarly, graduate employability research has focused on different themes, such as individual capital and competencies and institutional policies and practices aimed at strengthening employability (Healy et al., 2022). Furthermore, Römgens et al. (2020) argued that the availability of so many different competency-based frameworks of graduate employability has hindered scholarly progress. In addition to these problems and disconnects within the worker and graduate employability discourses, the connections between them are even rarer, despite calls for more integration (e.g. Akkermans and Kubash, 2017; Clarke, 2018) as the concept of employability is, at its core, highly similar whether we talk about graduates or workers.

Some recent conceptual attempts have been made to connect the worker and graduate employability areas. For example, Healy et al. (2022) formulated several key pedagogical principles underlying a more integrative approach to how employability may be strengthened by reconciling ideas from the graduate and worker employability literature streams. He advocated using career development theories to increase our understanding and application of careers and employability learning. Similarly, Römgens et al. (2020) integrated the workplace learning and higher education literature streams to formulate several central dimensions of graduate employability learning that narrow down the wide range of available concepts across the worker and graduate employability literature. Furthermore, Donald et al. (2020) combined career ecosystem and psychological contract theory to design a model that helps understand how graduates may enter their professional careers successfully and sustainably. As a final example, Akkermans et al. (2023) presented a model of initial employability development, emphasizing the signaling and social exchange processes that evolve between graduates and employers and that could enhance (or undermine) employability development.

Although we acknowledge that we may be positively biased toward these initiatives as we have been involved in quite a few of them, we believe these recent attempts to connect the two disciplines are highly promising. As such, our main purpose in this article is to formulate opportunities for doing precisely that. To do so, we will first critically reflect on similarities and differences in (1) theorizing and (2) conceptualizing employability across the two literature streams. In each of those sections, we will briefly reflect on recent developments in each field, after which we will reconcile them and offer thoughts on progressing research in this specific area. Then, we will formulate a more extensive agenda for future research to connect them. In the final part of this article, we will also turn to our colleagues – as authors, reviewers and editors – to facilitate such connections in future research.

Theorizing employability

The worker employability literature has been criticized for being a-theoretical. Indeed, Forrier et al. (2018) observed that theories – if they are used at all – are primarily used as a post hoc means of explaining research findings instead of using theory systematically to formulate research hypotheses. Van Harten et al.’s (2022) literature review confirmed this, as they found that most relationships tested between employability strands were not-theory based. Despite the lack of systematic theorizing in worker employability research, we do observe several theories that have been proposed and used most often. First, although rarely tested to its full complexity (Forrier et al., 2018), social exchange theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) has been used in employability studies to explain how employers and employees may jointly contribute to employability development as a result of economic and socioemotional exchanges at work. For example, Fugate et al. (2021) proposed using a social exchange perspective with a strategic human resource management (HRM) framework to understand how employability may develop within employer–employee relationships.

A second dominant theoretical paradigm has been human capital theory (Becker, 1964), often as a foundation for the value of various personal strengths. The basic idea is that investments in one's employability will result in favorable work and career outcomes, such as career success (Forrier et al., 2018; Fugate et al., 2021). Third, studies have increasingly leveraged the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) to study worker employability. COR theory aligns with the notion that employability is a personal resource that individuals can protect and enhance to deal with adversity and increase their well-being (De Cuyper et al., 2012; Forrier et al., 2018; Jabeen et al., 2022). These theoretical paradigms have been criticized for being overly agentic (Forrier et al., 2018). Recently, theories considering the role and interplay of agency (individual action and capability to enact change) and structure (external factors such as labor market conditions) are gaining ground in the worker employability literature, such as Bourdieu's theory of practice (see, e.g. Delva et al., 2021). These theories highlight how worker employability is always contextually embedded.

The graduate employability literature has also been criticized for being a-theoretical (Healy, 2023), perhaps reflective of the applied nature of many of the higher education journals. Yet, various theoretical approaches are deployed, and several are highly prominent. First, human capital theory (Becker, 1964) is also a dominant theoretical paradigm in graduate employability studies. Recently, graduate employability researchers have extended and adapted human capital theory through the notion of employability capital (Clarke, 2018; Donald et al., 2019, 2023; Tomlinson, 2017). The employability capital approach retains the fundamental theoretical assumption of human capital theory, yet extends it by adopting a more holistic perspective of graduate employability to address concerns that human capital re-enforces pre-existing inequalities, cannot predict career success and fails to articulate how education augments productivity (Hooley and Sultana, 2019; Marginson, 2019).

Second, COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) also features strongly and, similarly to worker employability research, there is an emphasis on developing personal resources to better position oneself to effectively navigate the transition from school to work (Jackson and Wilton, 2017; Vanhercke et al., 2014) and to increase well-being (Donald and Jackson, 2022; Nimmi et al., 2021). Third, perspectives that consider the role and interplay of agency and structure also feature prominently in graduate employability literature. These perspectives adopt a more relational focus on how students' interpretation of and behaviors related to employability are inherently shaped by their personal background and dynamically negotiated with their macro context (Brown et al., 2004; Tholen, 2015). If a theory is leveraged in such articles, they usually mention Bourdieu's theory of practice or Giddens' theory of structuration (see Tholen, 2015).

Analyzing the two literature streams, we observe a remarkable overlap between the fields of graduate and worker employability research in how they theorize about employability. Indeed, both streams dominantly feature human capital theory and conservation of resources theory. Moreover, the theoretical arguments used are highly similar, as research in both streams supports the notion that employability is a form of capital or a resource that individuals can build to enhance their long-term work and career prospects. This significant overlap in theorizing about employability across the streams makes it all the more surprising – and problematic – that there is so little exchange of knowledge.

Despite the similarities, we also see opportunities for mutual learning. First, although both areas are criticized for not being sufficiently theoretical, we would argue that worker employability research tends to focus on applying and advancing theory more prominently, perhaps as a consequence of career and psychology journals focusing more strongly on this issue as compared to educational journals. As a result, the level of theoretical sophistication in the worker employability field could serve to stimulate more explicit theoretical advancement in graduate employability research. More importantly, though, both streams would benefit from more thorough theorizing, preferably using available knowledge from both of these streams. Second, although worker employability scholars have slowly started to incorporate contextual elements, we observe that the graduate employability field has made more significant developments in this area through its more prominent focus on labor market characteristics and the role of equity and inclusion. Hence, researchers in the worker employability domain could learn from these insights to more prominently feature such factors in their research ideas and designs.

Conceptualizing employability

As mentioned before, the worker employability literature is fragmented, with employability being interpreted along three conceptual strands: (1) personal strengths, (2) perceived employability and (3) job transitions (Van Harten et al., 2022). This fragmentation hinders knowledge accumulation leading to calls for a more integrative employability approach (see, e.g. Guilbert et al., 2018). Interestingly and perhaps problematically, although Van Harten et al.’s (2022) review shows that empirical research has still not converged on an integrative approach yet, conceptual models have been developed to achieve more integration and bring clarity. Indeed, in 2009, Forrier et al. (2009) presented the employability process model that develops the relationship between personal strengths, perceived employability and job transitions and also adds contextual factors (such as structures of risk and opportunities, disruptive events, or opportunities to enhance one's employability). In addition to this lack of integration between strands, the field of worker employability research is also characterized by fuzziness within strands (Van Harten et al., 2022). This is most particularly the case for research on personal strengths. Personal strengths come in many forms. They encompass dispositions (see, e.g. Fugate and Kinicki, 2008), attitudes (see, e.g. Van Dam, 2004) and competencies (see, e.g. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006) and are classified in numerous ways. The movement capital classification into four dimensions, proposed by Forrier et al. (2009), encompasses the dimensions of human capital, social capital, adaptability and self-awareness. This classification has been used the most prominently among the personal strength models (Van Harten et al., 2022) and exhibits the most robust correlation with perceived employability (Harari et al., 2021).

Besides these conceptual issues, what is also problematic is the plethora of measurement instruments used. In their systematic review, Van Harten et al. (2022) identified 51 different instruments to measure personal strengths, 38 of which were used only once. These instruments often use different labels to measure the same or vice versa. Clearly, this is a significant problem for conceptualizing worker employability consistently and accurately. In line with Schreurs et al.’s (2022) recommendations for publishing quantitative research, we urge employability scholars to strive for more consistency in their use of measurement instruments and, at the very least, to be explicit about which instrument they used and why (and, if applicable, which changes they made to established scales and why). After all, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to converge on a consolidated knowledge base (e.g. through meta-analysis) of employability if we continue to use so many different scales for the same concept.

The graduate employability literature also continued to face conceptual issues related to presenting a plethora of different capital and competency-based models. More specifically, Tomlinson (2017), Clarke (2018) and Donald et al. (2019) conceptualized three influential capital-based graduate employability models. First, Tomlinson's model featured human, social, cultural, identity and psychosocial capital (or, as he called it, resources). Second, Clarke distinguished six forms of employability capital: human capital, social capital, individual attributes, individual behaviors, perceived employability and labor market factors. Third, Donald and colleagues proposed human capital (as a composite of six forms of capital, including social, cultural, psychological, scholastic, market-value and skills), career guidance and career ownership as determinants of self-perceived employability. Although the similarities are apparent, these models have tended to develop and be empirically validated in parallel with limited integration of ideas (Römgens et al., 2020). One exception is the recent integrative employability capital growth model presented by Donald et al. (2023). Based on a review of the graduate employability literature between 2016 and 2022, their model offers nine forms of employability capital: social, cultural, psychological, personal identity, health, scholastic, market-value, career identity and economic capital. It also encompasses external factors (e.g. access to career counseling and recruitment process bias) that sit beyond an individual's agency and various personal outcomes (e.g. career progression, career satisfaction and well-being). Although the model has yet to be empirically tested since it was only just published at the time of writing this article, it encompasses the core dimensions of many of the capital models that have been empirically validated in the graduate employability literature. Consequently, we believe that it could offer a solid way forward to research the different types of capital valuable to graduate employability.

There is perhaps no more obvious evidence of the lack of interdisciplinary connectivity in our research domains than the existing work on employability-related capital. It is not difficult to see the similarities between concepts used in the worker and graduate employability literature streams. To illustrate, all of those models contain some form of social capital and human capital (although sometimes conceptualized in different ways and sometimes implicitly rather than explicitly using that exact terminology). Although specific nuances vary across conceptual approaches, the basic underlying idea of movement or employability capital as a critical resource for graduates' and workers' employability is the same. Of course, there are differences too. For example, the conceptual models in the graduate employability literature tend to incorporate the role of stakeholders and the external environment more explicitly. Conversely, research on competence-based employability and movement capital integrates dimensions around movement and flexibility more deeply. Such differences are likely due to the specific field of research. For example, inequality and unequal opportunities are prominent topics in educational research, which has likely led to a stronger focus on structural factors impacting employability. Similarly, as worker employability research is often part of career research, this stream tends to focus on (career) transitions across the lifespan, hence focusing more strongly on adaptability and flexibility as key factors of employability. Still, despite those different nuances, the similarities are far greater than the differences. Hence, we argue that there are clear opportunities for the two fields to learn from each other in terms of conceptualizing employability.

First, worker employability researchers could focus more strongly on the various stakeholders and contextual factors involved in employability development (see also Delva et al., 2021; Forrier et al., 2009, 2018). Second, graduate employability researchers could incorporate career-related factors related to movement and transitions (see also Donald et al., 2023; Healy, 2023; Healy et al., 2022). At the same time, we believe such research efforts should aim to consolidate and integrate the available knowledge instead of creating even more new conceptual frameworks that each include slightly different lists of elements or dimensions. Moreover, both streams – together – could start solving the conceptual “fuzziness” around concepts used in employability research. For example, it seems the term “capital” is not conceptualized consistently within and across streams. In particular, we observed that the worker employability research seems to have a narrower definition of (employability or movement) capital focusing on individual characteristics and personal strengths, whereas the graduate employability stream also considers contextual factors to be forms of capital. More consistency and clarity in defining and conceptualizing such critical terms would be an important step forward.

Overall, the past few years have seen a steep increase in employability research, resulting in many different frameworks and models across the worker and graduate employability literature streams (e.g. dispositional employability, competence-based employability, movement capital and employability capital). Given the increasing maturity of both fields, we argue that now is the time to start testing and consolidating that knowledge to critique and refine our understanding of employability among graduates and workers.

Future research agenda

In the previous sections on theorizing and conceptualizing employability, we have provided several suggestions for connecting worker and graduate employability scholarship. Here, we formulate additional ideas for doing so. But before doing so, we want to take a moment and reflect on one major conclusion we have drawn. After writing this article, we are even more surprised that our fields are still considered separate research streams despite the fact that we have similar research interests, leverage similar theories and also use and develop similar conceptual frameworks. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is the significant degree of overlap in conceptual models focused on employability-related capital, such as Forrier et al.'s (2009) movement capital concept and Donald et al.’s (2023) employability capital concept. And yet, we still do not collaborate much! This lack of exchange is likely due to the academic communities we are part of and the journals we read and publish in. Still, we hope that this article will show others, as it has taught us, that connections between our research fields must be developed more strongly.

A turn to our colleagues

In this final section of our article, we turn to our fellow authors, reviewers and editors who are active in the area of employability research. After all, building stronger connections between graduate and worker employability research starts with the people conducting and assessing the research. Therefore, we end this article by highlighting several observations and suggestions that we hope will lead to more fruitful collaborations and cross-over of knowledge.

First, we encourage you all – including us! – to look beyond our usual and comfortable research silos when conducting employability research. We realize there is a lot of new research emerging even within each stream, let alone across the two streams, making it difficult to keep track of the latest insights. Still, our article shows there is considerable overlap in how we theorize and conceptualize employability, thereby offering many opportunities for mutual learning. Therefore, we believe it would be helpful and enriching for our research if we would actively try to search for (new) employability research outside of the “usual suspect” journals that we may follow. For example, educational researchers could consult the Journal of Vocational Behavior or Career Development International, whereas career researchers could examine Studies in Higher Education. More broadly speaking, using varied keywords and being open to research from a domain that might be less familiar would be an important first step toward finding each other's work and being able to use it to advance our knowledge of employability. This argument also applies to reviewers and editors, who are likely used to a certain theoretical or conceptual perspective on employability. Yet, when you review or edit a manuscript leveraging insights from “the other” side of employability research, please be open to them and consider whether it might enrich the current understanding of employability in your specific area. Also, for editors specifically, it would be valuable to invite reviewers from both streams when manuscripts on employability are submitted, as it would enhance the odds of receiving balanced reviews that incorporate insights from both areas.

On a related note, we want to call attention to another issue that prevents the effective sharing of knowledge between the graduate and worker employability streams. When preparing and writing this article, we became increasingly aware of some differences in research approaches between the two fields. More specifically, it seems that there are different perceptions of “what good research is” and “how research should be done” between the educational (i.e. graduate employability) and career and psychology (i.e. worker employability) journals. These differences can be quite fundamental (e.g. the focus on theoretical versus practical implications) but also seemingly small (e.g. the choice of words and writing style). Hence, although we share an interest in a similar topic (with a somewhat different focus) and study it in similar ways (and experience the same issues – e.g. conceptual fuzziness), integration is and will remain difficult as long as the rules of the game are different. It is almost as if we play a similar game in a different league. Therefore, this is an open invitation to journal editors and reviewers to question their own rules of the game and be open to different “ways of doing”. Moreover, it is, once again, a call for more collaboration between researchers, as the best way of getting to know each other's rules of the game is by actively discussing them and working together on projects.

Conclusion

Before setting out to write this article, we felt that stronger connections were necessary between the graduate and worker employability streams. During the process, we became even more convinced of this. Indeed, through our conversations and writing process, we have learned much from each other. In that sense, this project embodies exactly what we hope will happen more broadly in research on employability: more conversations and collaborations between graduate and worker employability researchers. This could happen through joint research, special issues, conferences and many other ways. But they all start with the same thing: making connections. So let's connect!