Conference Agenda

Introduction

Internships (here used to describe a period of work-based learning integrated into a tertiary education curriculum) have become a well-entrenched feature of the tertiary education landscape in many developed economies. However, such experiences straddle the worlds of work and education, which begs the question: should they best be regulated as work, or learning, or do we need specific regulation for this “no man’s land” between the two?

This is not a merely theoretical debate. As internships become more prevalent, it affects practical and legal questions, such as the extent to which participants are/should be protected by labour laws and how to ensure that internship experiences are educational rather than exploitative?

A substantial research project on the regulation of workplace learning in Australia revealed gaps in labour protections extended to student interns. It also established that many Australian universities have relatively poor awareness of, and mechanisms to ensure compliance with, relevant educational and labour regulation. This paper builds on those findings, contributing qualitative empirical insights into how universities in Finland, France and Australia understand and manage work place learning pedagogies in the context of local labour laws and education regulation. This critical analysis aims to ensure accessible pathways for graduates to meaningful work as we transition from the COVID-19 pandemic to a global cost-of-living crisis.

Research question(s)

The paper considers three research questions in relation to Australia, Finland and France:

1. What regulation governs tertiary student internships?

2. What is the regulatory role being undertaken by universities?

3. What can that tell us about the efficacy of each regulatory regime?

Methodology

A doctrinal analysis identifies relevant laws affecting internships (RQ 1). Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with between two and four university employees in two universities in each jurisdiction. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and anonymized, and analysed using inductive and comparative techniques and adopting a mix of coding strategies (eclectic coding) using NVivo data analysis software (RQ 2 & 3).

Contribution to literature

This comparative project provides insight into various regulatory responses to workplace learning for tertiary students, how universities understand those regulations and the regulatory role they play, and facilitates evaluation of regulatory efficacy.

Findings

The three jurisdictions have diverse regulation regarding academic internships, significantly affecting the regulatory role of universities. In summary, in Finland internships are primarily understood as employment, in Australia as an educational experience, and in France as a unique regulatory category.

Human capital development, including both education and post-school training, has been a central part of the development strategies of most countries because it contributes to economic growth, both through raising productivity and facilitating the use of new technologies. In addition, training (firm-provided or at an institution), is often categorized as a type of transformative social protection allowing workers to raise their earnings via expanding their skills base leaving them better equipped, not least in the face of uncertain situations. Exiting literature focuses largely on training returns among formal workers yet given that in low- and middle-income countries most workers make a living in the informal sector, it is imperative to understand how training may benefit and protect informal workers who, as illustrated during COVID-19, are particularly vulnerable during a crisis. Based on unique survey data, this paper uses quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the returns to formal and non-formal training for workers operating in the sectors of construction, micro-trade and transport in urban areas of Kenya and Tanzania. The analysis shows that workers who have undertaken formal training (at a professional school or an association) have earnings that are between 15-20 pct. higher than workers with no training, and that the returns associated with on-the-job or other kinds of non-formal training are not as substantial as for formal training. Moreover, training gains differ by gender, location, sector, and worker-types pointing to the necessity to tailor training initiatives to the needs of specific workers. Finally, the paper illuminates the role of informal worker associations in terms of offering vocational training on top of other social protection measures, and shows how during COVID-19, many associations redirected their focus to provide or facilitate access to health and safety training as part of their coping strategies. Thus, in a crisis, it seems to be the more immediate training needs that take priority. In the longer term and of relevance to policy development, the results reveal the importance of encouraging more informal workers to undertake formal training whilst also strengthening formal training schemes to further decent work in informal settings. Through upgrading informal worker abilities training may play an important role in formalizing labour markets by enabling more skilled informal workers to find decent and productive employment in the formal sector.

The Covid-19 pandemic has recalibrated the definition of critical occupations and sectors. This is because the public needs throughout the crisis were largely fulfilled by service workers (e.g. staff in retail, logistics or care) whose jobs involve micro-level exchanges or social interactions with customers, patients or similar groups. In many countries, their work was recognized by daily public applause. This gesture, however, underlines the challenges coming along with interactive work, particularly difficult working conditions and lacking recognition. To deconstruct the reasons for these challenges, we integrate key findings from debates on service work and interactive work with a risk sociological perspective. As interactive workers work in close contact with other people, they were particularly exposed to various pandemic-related risks and in need of protection. The question how these risks have been managed is thus relevant.

Our analyses are based on a qualitative cross-sectoral comparative study (54 interviews and five days of observations in ten organisations) investigating the working conditions of interactive workers in four critical sectors (retail, elderly care, public employment service and the police) during the pandemic in Germany (2020-2022).

We identify three (interrelated) sources of disadvantage which contribute to generating (or exacerbating) risks, challenging working conditions, and lacking recognition. First, the intrinsic nature of the work leads to a high exposure to various health-and-safety risks (e.g. contagion, difficult customer behaviour, emotional exhaustion). The emerging risks have often not been properly assessed prior to the pandemic, causing lacking protection regarding particular occupational hazards. Second, the regulatory system does not cover all workers alike. Particularly in private services, collective bargaining and employee representation structures have been weakened, and flexible and low-paid forms of work are widespread. Furthermore, access to health-and-safety provisions tended to differ between sectors already prior to the pandemic, altogether leading to a patchwork of regulations. Third, the workforce in critical sectors is diverse, particularly comprising women and migrants often suffering from precarious working conditions. These socio-demographic characteristics may negatively affect (im)material forms of recognition.

To reduce the triple disadvantage faced by interactive workers, policy responses should address existing inequalities between workers - also regarding the exposure to risks – to enhance overall protection. This does not only entail strengthening employee representation and collective bargaining; the fact that the interactive nature of work comes along with risks should be recognised in job evaluations and risk assessments to offer a better protection for the health and safety of workers.