The Role of Universities in Workforce Development
Jennifer Peterson, Ph.D., RHIA, CTR
Department of Health Sciences • Illinois State University
Department of Health Sciences • Illinois State University
Jennifer Peterson is an assistant professor in the Department of Health Sciences at Illinois State University. Over her 25 years of teaching there, Dr. Peterson has taught a variety of courses within the Health Information Management Program. She has also worked extensively in oncology care, including as a cancer program coordinator and clinical research coordinator. Dr. Peterson currently teaches in the on-campus and online setting. Her research interests include program evaluation and assessment, online education, and cancer registry education. She is particularly interested in providing on-campus and online courses that provide quality education that fits the needs of all student populations.
The purpose of higher education in the United States has been an issue of much debate. Although higher education was originally developed as a method of producing upstanding young men for society, in recent years, many have argued that higher education should be preparing young adults for careers and jobs needed for a successful economy. Traditionally, workforce development education has been the in the realm of community colleges. However, as the price of education has increased, the demand for more highly educated workers has increased, and the value of higher education has been questioned, many feel that all levels of higher education should focus on workforce development. This article identifies four major themes from the literature in this area, discusses current mental models that prevent universities from entering the workforce development realm, and provides recommendations for needed investigation and change if universities are to play an active role in workforce development.
Keywords: higher education purpose, workforce development, career and technical education, applied degrees
The role of universities in workforce development
There is much ongoing debate about the purpose of higher education. This debate has waxed and waned throughout much of the last century. Although higher education was originally a way to provide ethics and morals for elite young men, in more recent times, many have pushed for higher education to solve societal and economic woes. Much of the recent debate has involved the role of higher education in workforce training or vocational education to help meet the employment needs of the United States. The role of higher education institutions in workforce development, however, is not clear. Traditionally, workforce development, or vocational education, has been allocated to community colleges. Many universities have felt that workforce development is not appropriate for a higher-level institution focusing on advanced degrees and research. The debate between the roles of universities in providing a broad-based liberal-arts degree versus preparing students for the job market has escalated in recent years, especially as the cost of higher education has increased.
Workforce development, often called career and technical education (CTE), differs from professional or pre-professional education provided by four-year universities. The National Assessment of Career and Technical Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) defined CTE as” undergraduate instruction that is designed to prepare students to enter specific occupations or careers” (p. 10). Some examples of this included, “business management, . . . computer and information sciences, . . . health sciences, . . . (and) protective services” (p. 11).
In teaching in a four-year university’s health information management (HIM) program in health sciences, I have become intimately involved in providing what many would consider to be career and technical education for our students. Recent changes in the HIM field have led to changes in the educational competencies required by our program. Based on the workforce need changes, the body that accredits our program enacted significantly changed education competencies with which we must comply. We spent many months implementing these changes through formal curriculum change processes, adding and dropping courses and topics, and deciding which prior competencies could be deleted so that others could be added, and students could still graduate on time. Since we must be accredited in order for our students to become credentialed, we do not have a choice but to make these changes to meet the societal HIM workforce needs. We must work within the constraints of the university system to enact these changes as required by our accrediting agency. However, from a more global perspective this process raised many questions regarding the role of universities in workforce development, the focus on liberal arts versus workforce development at the university level, and the ability of universities to keep up with the changing demands placed on them. This paper attempts to summarize the major conversations surrounding this issue, the mental models at play regarding this issue, potential for scholarly inquiry into this topic, and changes that are needed to help universities meet the current demands placed on higher education institutions.
Literature review
The debate about the university role in workforce development has deep historical roots and can be seen as far back as 1828 when the Academical Faculty at Yale College stated “we have heard the suggestion, that our colleges must be new-modelled; that they are not adapted to the spirit and wants of the age; that they will soon be deserted, unless they are better accommodated to the business character of the nation” (Howe, 1828, para. 9). Although higher education was originally focused on academic pursuits and encouraging good morals and ethics among young adults, the goals of higher education started changing in the late 1800’s. During this time, the bachelor’s degree was first established as a qualification for hiring for some jobs. In the early 1900’s the first community (or junior) college was established, Joliet Junior College, in Chicago. This was established to provide the lower levels of post-secondary education so the universities, especially University of Chicago, could focus on the higher levels. In the 1940s and 1950s mass higher education found its way into American society; higher education was no longer only for the elite. Vocational education started to increase in the 1960s with the War on Poverty and by 1968 there were close to 1000 community colleges, many of which focused on vocational education. However, in 1983, A Nation at Risk was published which reported that “American students were receiving inadequate academic instruction and the country was losing ground to foreign rivals” (Newman & Winston, 2016, p. 45). This report started a movement towards more rigor and more academic focused education both in secondary and post-secondary schools and vocational education programs decreased in response. In recent years, a number of federal acts have encouraged vocational programs to meet workforce needs: In 1990, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technical Act was passed which provided federal grants to aid in vocational and technical programs; in 1994, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act was passed which also encouraged vocational education; and in 2000 the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was passed which was designed to improve the workforce and enhance American productivity and competitiveness. Most recently, the recession in 2008-2009 resulted in President Obama calling for all young adults to get at least one year of post-secondary education in order to provide the needed workforce for job growth. This college for all model decreased vocational training in high schools and resulted in focusing on college preparatory academics for all students further complicating vocational training. At the current time many say that due to technology and other changes, the United States educational system is not producing the workforce needed for the current job market.
Current Issues
Higher education at all levels has been embroiled in much controversy for the last few years. The cost of tuition has increased dramatically, salaries and wages have not kept up, and students are graduating with enormous student loans, all of which has led many to question the value of higher education. Employers have stated that graduates are not prepared for the workforce and don’t have the needed skills, including communication skills, customer service skills, and critical thinking skills. Many feel that higher education is contributing to societal inequities based on socioeconomic, race, or gender factors. Wage gaps between those with a higher education degree and those without have widened.
The debate of the role of higher education in workforce development is centered in the midst of these issues. Many are calling for higher education to change, to prepare students for the job market, and to focus on employability, not academics. It has been stated that “academic programmes (sic) and knowledge are productive only to the extent that they pay off in the private sector marketplace, in… employment” (Tynjala, Valimaa, & Boulton-Lewis, 2006, p. 25). Vocational education has been stigmatized as being for lower level students and to this end, some community colleges have implemented four-year applied degrees to provide students with higher level applied skills that are not offered at traditional four-year universities. This, however, has raised concerns as to the divide between community colleges and universities as well as regarding the quality of such programs.
The debate becomes even more intense when one analyzes exactly what skills are needed for the workforce. Should students be trained only in job skills or are other skills needed? Although many have focused on job-specific skills, others state that more generic skills are needed for workers who can maintain flexibility and keep up with changes in the job market. Still others have pointed to the need for liberal arts and even music and arts education to aid in the development of skills needed for globalization as “the arts have always been a significant vehicle for understanding both the dominant tendencies and the internal tensions evident in any society” (Trani & Holsworth, 2010, p. 20). Such thoughts point to the need for workforce development at the university level, where liberal arts and fine arts are included in the curriculum for all students.
However, although workforce development or vocational education has long been a part of the community college arena, there is very little workforce development at the university level. Professional degrees, such as law and medicine exist at this level, yet the emphasis in universities has never been on workforce development per se. There is little research or consensus on the role of United States’ universities in U.S. workforce development. With the increased need for a highly trained workforce, what, then, is the role of universities in workforce development? If universities enter the workforce development realm what skills should they focus on, technical or generic employability? Based on existing models, how can university workforce development programs keep up with the changes in the labor market? This issue is not easily solved and will be an ongoing issue due to workforce needs changes as well as changes in the philosophies of higher education. However, this is an important issue to be considered in higher education today. With the demand for highly skilled workers and global competition, it is time for U.S. universities to determine their role in U.S. workforce development.
Predominant Themes in the Literature
In order to identify and evaluate current thought in this area, a comprehensive review of literature was completed. This review identified four key themes or schools of thought related to the role of universities in workforce development. These themes included advocacy for workforce development as a key higher education purpose, equity as a goal of attention to workforce development, curricular needs for workforce development, and the higher education market responsiveness to the demand for workforce development. Literature supporting these themes was reviewed and key pieces were selected as examples of the overriding themes. The following summarizes key literature related to each of the four themes.
Advocacy for workforce development as a key higher education purpose
One theme that was identified is the belief that a key purpose of higher education should be workforce development. Several authors can be seen as supporting this school of thought through books and articles that discuss various initiatives to increase the workforce development role of higher education. Horgan (2002) outlined an ongoing project in New Hampshire that has been put into place to meet the demand for a workforce in the state. The author noted that workforce development is now directly impacting higher education and although higher education is, in many cases, attempting to meet the demand for workforce development, it is difficult for institutions to meet the demand for workforce development education as well as to stay true to their core mission of general education. To further analyze the effect of such issues, a study in New Hampshire was completed and it was found that demand for an educated workforce in the state was greatly exceeding supply. Based on the results of this study, higher education in New Hampshire responded by offering new programs needed for workforce development, offering more distance education, and creating a mission for workforce development for the community technical college system. In addition, the Workforce Opportunity Council was developed with the goal to increase New Hampshire’s labor force through education and other means. The author stressed the importance of higher education working with business and industry to meet the workforce needs and secure “the state’s position as a high-tech employment center and as a quality location in which to live and work” (Horgan, 2002, p. 45). This initiative provided an excellent example of higher education institutions revising or modifying their goals in order to meet the workforce development needs of the state. In the academics versus workforce development controversy in New Hampshire, workforce development has obviously been winning.
Floyd, Felsher, and Falconetti (2012) edited an edition of New Directions for Community Colleges that focused on applied degrees, primarily on four-year degrees granted by community colleges. Specifically, this edition included discussions focusing on the role of applied and similar degrees in meeting workforce needs. This edition, a series of essays or research manuscripts, supported the view that higher education should fulfill workforce needs and degree programs should be designed in response to these workforce needs. Levin (as cited in Floyd, Felsher, & Falconetti, 2012) stated that “when a global economic rationale is employed, ‘markets, not citizens’ become the focus of institutions” (p. 88). Reference was also made to the knowledge explosion and the speed at which knowledge, skills, and technology are changing. The authors stated that in response to the knowledge explosion, higher education must change to remain relevant. Some components that should now be included in higher education are the use of professional and technical advisory boards and learning-by-doing or workplace learning. The chapter authors consistently pointed to the need for local professional and technical advisory boards to provide input and to ensure that students were learning the skills needed for the profession as well as to meet local workforce needs. The authors also stated the need for students to undergo workplace learning or participate in internships. As the degree areas focused on in this edition were applied, hands-on learning or learning-by-doing played an important role in student preparedness for the professions. The prevailing theme throughout this book was that higher education should be striving to meet workforce needs. This belief was further emphasized through the themes that new degrees should be developed, and community colleges should even be allowed to develop four-year degree programs if needed. The authors of this book strongly supported the argument that higher education’s purpose should be to provide workforce development and that new and innovative methods should be used to fulfill that purpose.
In his writing, Gallagher (2016), focused on the use of credentials, both degrees and others, to demonstrate preparedness for the workforce. He stated that although there was debate regarding the role of higher education, one of the historical roles was to produce credentials, which were, in turn, used for employment. Although many do not want higher education to change, he pointed to the fact that others felt that higher education was “broken,” and institutions must start using market-based and business thinking for higher education. In order to use this type of thinking in higher education institutions, the author recommended that an ecosystem be built that includes colleges and universities, employers, students, and the government and quality assurance agencies. Such an ecosystem would be integral to new higher education belief systems, such as it was “well accepted that one of the primary purposes of higher education is to prepare students for and connect them to jobs, in service of both the student and the broader economy” (Gallagher, 2016, p. 13). He went on to say that although there have been debates regarding the value of higher education it was seen that a bachelor’s degree was very often the entry level requirement for many jobs and that economic rewards were seen for bachelor’s degrees over high-school diplomas. He stated that employers valued degrees due to the skill set they demonstrated that included soft skills as well as technical skills. However, in order to further build our workforce, the author recommended that higher education focus on innovative credentialing that served employers, developed stronger relationships with businesses, developed more job-market aligned programs, sped up program development and approval, integrated professional standards into curricula, and continually reviewed program and labor market alignment.
Equity as a goal of attention to workforce development
A second major theme found in the literature was the use of workforce development in higher education to contribute to societal equity. There were several authors who contributed to the body of literature supporting the thought that higher education workforce development can aid in societal equity. Goldin and Katz (2008) authored a book focusing on the relationship between technology, education, and inequality. The authors provided a comprehensive review of these issues in the United States from 1905 to 2005. They used economic models to explain the changes during that time as well as what should be done for U.S. success in the future. Their premise was based on the concept that a greater level of education results in greater labor productivity and greater aggregate growth. Based on economic models they showed that labor supply was what creates inequality, not labor demand. If the supply is low, demand increases, wages increase for those jobs, and the inequality gap widens. Many have blamed inequality on technology advances and the authors stated that it is true that earnings of some may advance due to technology change. Workers who have flexible skills or access to developing educational infrastructure have met the demands of technology changes although others cannot. This led to a discussion of the fact that many inequalities were based on barriers to higher education such as inadequate preparedness and lack of financial resources. In order to make the U.S. successful in the future, policies must be put in place to provide greater access and higher quality education at the preschool and K-12 level so that students are prepared for higher education. Additional policies should be enacted that would provide greater financial aid so students could attend higher education institutions. In conclusion, the authors stated, “As technological change races forward, demands for skills – some new and some old – are altered. If the workforce can rapidly make the adjustment, then economic growth is enhanced without greatly exacerbating inequality of economic outcomes…. Those who can make the adjustments as well as those who gain the new skills are rewarded. Others are left behind” (Goldin & Katz, 2008, p. 352). The authors concluded that by focusing on workforce development, higher education would contribute to societal equity by providing the workforce with the needed skills and the ability to adjust as technology changes. Thus, by moving to goals based on workforce development, higher education could play an integral role in reducing societal inequities.
Holzer and Nightengale (2007) discussed societal changes that have resulted in labor market changes, such as skill level changes, technology changes, economy changes, and wage and employment gaps. The main focus of this book, however, was the need for education and skill development in order to solve equity and efficiency problems. Two chapters, in particular, touched on the role of higher education in this arena. The authors discussed the debate regarding the need for academic or vocational skills in higher education and stated that the “college for all” concept hurt vocational educational programs as the concept encouraged academic studies, not vocational studies. This was problematic both for students and society. The authors stated that this one-size-fits-all model did not work. Although more students were enrolling in 4-year programs, fewer were completing. In addition, this model did nothing to address the inequities that existed for low income students both in enrollment and completion. The authors stressed that the current workforce needs provide an opportunity to address these inequities and the workforce supply and demand issue. Public policies should be put into place to match students with educational institutions where they would be the most successful. When not focusing on a college-for-all model, students would be placed in programs that would best prepare them for success in the workforce. Students who were best suited for 4-year workforce development programs would be much more likely to not only enroll, but to complete the programs. In addition, financing should be used to support these efforts, which would, in turn, increase the quantity of skilled workers. The authors felt these initiatives could use higher education to foster skill development, reduce inequities, and satisfy the workforce needs.
Finally, in Reskilling America, Newman and Winston (2016) focused on disputing the theory of “college for all,” specifically the theory that a four-year academic-focused degree was required for all young adults to be successful in their future careers. The authors stated that this theory has failed and that, we, as a country needed to look to other models. They touched on concepts of status and prestige and the differences in these between white-collar jobs and middle-level or blue-collar jobs. They also touched on many issues regarding access and inequities in higher education as well as jobs and society. A review of the history of vocational education in higher education revealed that it has had its ups and downs. In going along with the arguments of the purpose of higher education, there were many times in which vocational education was downplayed with the higher education goal in mind of improving students’ intelligence and knowledge and even their moral character. The authors further discussed the fact that in the United States industry and school were relatively divided. They pointed to the need for closer relationships between employers and education; both in terms of financial support for higher education as well as networks and connections to aid in new graduate employment. The authors referred to the German system and their focus on apprenticeships, ties between the government, unions, and educational institutions, and collaboration to develop curricula that tie into the workplace. Much of the focus of this book was on the vocational role of community colleges and even high schools. The authors closed by encouraging closer working relationships between industry and education and a softening of the division between education and work. Although this book focused more on the vocational role of community colleges and high schools, the authors made a strong argument for the need to integrate workforce development into higher education in order to decrease inequities in the U.S.
Required curriculum for workforce development
The third theme identified was delineation of the curriculum needed in higher education for which workforce development was the goal. The authors supporting this theme provided varying viewpoints as to the value of various curricular foci in this setting. Although some felt that workforce development education should include only curricula focused on job skills, many argued that there was a role for liberal arts curricula as well. These individuals felt that such curricula could provide students with the “soft skills” needed to be successful in the workforce.
Cohen, Brawer, and Kisker (2014) focused primarily on community colleges in general, however, one chapter focused specifically on the role of community colleges in occupational education. The authors pointed out in this chapter that occupational education was traditionally one of the purposes of community colleges and the reason behind the establishment of many colleges. In an overview of the rise and fall of occupational education, the authors stated that in the 1960s there was an emphasis on professional education being taught by the universities, so community colleges focused on semi-professional education. The 1963 Vocational Education Act aided in the growth of occupational education in community colleges through federal financial support and financial aid. In the 1980s, there was also a dramatic increase in occupational education at the community college level as more jobs required only an associate degree during this time. Finally, in the early 2000’s occupational education again grew when President Obama encouraged the development of additional occupational educational programs based on the belief that higher education and job training would positively affect the economy. Throughout this time, the question remained, however, as to what skills were truly needed for workforce preparation. The debate between strict job training and more generic skills was ongoing. In recent years, many had supported the belief that the divide between academic and vocational education should be broken down; that students needed generic skills and traits as well as job-specific skills. The authors stated, for example, that occupational training was wasted if no job in that career area was available to the new graduate. However, adding liberal arts to that training provided the graduate more options. Others pointed to that fact that hiring criteria often required the candidate to be able to master a set of skills, not just be proficient in certain skills. The authors also pointed to the need to train a workforce that had the ability to sustain itself over time, again utilizing skills that may be gained from the liberal arts side of the curriculum. Finally, the authors reviewed the fact that more community college students planned to or decided to transfer to four-year universities, thereby further blurring the lines between occupational training and academic education. The authors closed in encouraging the integration of a “core curriculum” in occupational education.
Finegold, Gatta, Salzman, and Schurman (2010) indicated that workforce development in the United States had not kept up with the needs of current workers or students. The book centered around the worker competencies or skills that will be needed in the 21st century. The areas focused on included: analytic skills, interpersonal skills, ability to execute, information processing, and capacity for change/learning. The authors stated that in order to produce such skills, efforts in the U.S. needed to focus on higher education and work experience combined. The authors stated that in both the U.S. and U.K. the majority of job openings between 2008 and 2018 were in professional areas or areas that required a post-secondary degree. The most important concept discussed in this book, however, revolved around the need for workers in the knowledge economy. The authors pointed out that these needs were a total change from what was needed in the industrial economy of the past. Knowledge was now a commodity and workers needed more than just a set of competencies or skills. They proposed a “connect-the-dots” model that focused on solid liberal arts skills along with knowledge work. This model allowed for integration between various types of postsecondary institutions as well as work experience to provide firm/agency-specific knowledge, job/occupational knowledge, general knowledge, and industry/occupational knowledge. This model pointed to the need for both liberal arts and workplace learning. The authors closed by continuing with the same focus stating that the U.S. needed lifelong learning that would help workers maintain skills that would meet the changing needs of the workforce.
Trani and Holsworth (2010) shared ways in which higher education curricula should be tied to the communities in which they were located and society at large. The Forward, written by The Honorable Timothy M. Kaine, included a quote summarizing the theme of this book, “No longer can a college or university isolate itself from the outside world, nor should it” (Trani & Holsworth, 2010, p. x). The authors stated that businesses wanted partnerships with higher education institutions. Although the main themes of the book were the various methods that particular higher education institutions had used to integrate themselves into communities and societies, there were a number of pertinent underlying issues the authors addressed. The authors pointed out the fear that some had that higher education was selling out for financial gain and that liberal arts had been devalued in the name of occupational training. However, they pointed out that liberal arts skills were needed. It was known that employers were looking for the soft skills that liberal arts education might provide. Other areas in liberal arts or even fine arts might be integral in the preparation of students for the now-global economy and might help in the development of an understanding or acceptance of various cultures. The authors used these arguments to point to their belief that an education including traditional liberal arts and related classes was needed in addition to strict job training student preparation.
Finally, editors Voorhees and Harvey (2005) focused on the curriculum needed related to the concept of employability. The editors stated that although many felt that the role of higher education was to prepare students for work, institutions also had to look at what governments expected from higher education: “an educated and skilled citizenry that can contribute to economic growth in a progressively global economy” (Voorhees & Harvey, 2005, p. 1). The authors discussed in great depth the definition of employability and whether employability was tied to specific job skills or to general skills for life. Such skills could include the ability to inquire, to grow, to learn and adapt to new jobs or changes in jobs. Some authors pointed to their belief that 2-year degrees should be tied more to job-specific needs of employers and 4-year programs should be focused on broader employability skills. There was much in this book regarding assessment of programs that aimed to provide employability skills. Current student surveys, graduate surveys, employer surveys, and employment rates of graduates were all recommended for meaningful assessment. In addition, external advisory committees or counsels were highly recommended for external input into program assessment. Continuing close ties with business and industry was recommended for continual improvement of academic programs. Such close ties would result in ongoing feedback regarding industry workforce needs and changes in the industry, as well as development of mutually beneficial relationships. Student internships or professional practices were also highly recommended so that students could get practical work experience as well as so they could provide feedback to academic programs as to what skills they were called upon to use during their internship. The prevailing theme throughout this book was that relying on specific job functions for curriculum development “is not enough” (Voorhees & Harvey, 2005, p. 73). Looking at broader skills and general employability was necessary for workforce needs into the future.
Higher education market responsiveness to the demand for workforce development
The final theme that was identified in the review of literature was the need for the higher education market to be responsive to the demand for workforce development. Authors who supported this school of thought spoke to the concept of the commercialization of higher education and the effect this concept had on the purpose of higher education. Tynjala, Valimaa, and Boulton-Lewis (2006) focused on the effect higher education had on society, and what, in fact, constituted “society”. The editors stated that the role of higher education was changing from educating the elites to training for labor markets. However, they pointed to the fact that this had led to commercialization of higher education institutions and that societal needs were greatly influencing higher education. The authors stated that although ties to business and industry could be good for higher education and society, it could also lead to the loss of autonomy of academic institutions as well as a decrease in academic integrity. It was noted that there was a push for close ties between higher education and society, and many of the decisions in higher education were being driven by the market. However, the authors stated that there was push back against this in many institutions due to the following mental models: traditional methods of academic decision making were inadequate and too slow to keep up with the changes in the current environment, commitment to traditional professional structures and cultures continued to survive in academic institutions and many did not want these to change, national bodies that oversee and approve academic programs might discourage change, and strong partners were needed for all academic institutions for this model to work. The authors further discussed the potential future for academic institutions if they followed in this vein. Professors could become managerial professionals with no academic freedom, universities could become capitalistic enterprises, and higher education could become a commodity with no value if there was not a “payoff” (jobs at the end). The authors concluded that in such a case higher education’s service to society would be only to serve big business. They stated that this only served narrow, short-term economic needs but did nothing to address true “societal” issues.
In summary, there are a number of key themes regarding the role of universities in U.S. workforce development. Interestingly there are strong parallels between the authors’ and editors’ arguments in each of these key areas. This review of the key conversations regarding workforce development in higher education helps lead to an analysis of the mental models involved in this issue.
Discussion
Existing mental models
If, as seen in the above literature, the conversations surrounding this issue predominantly support universities’ involvement in workforce development education at one level or another, why is the university’s role in workforce development still so undefined? Why aren’t universities jumping on the workforce development bandwagon? There are many mental models that exist at the university level that stand in the way of true acceptance of universities embracing workforce development education. These mental models include the following: There is a strong assumption that universities are for higher-level knowledge, not vocational education. There is a belief that vocational education is the domain of community colleges. Also, the liberal arts focus of universities is highly ingrained in the university culture. Finally, universities are renowned for their slow bureaucratic processes and their resistance to change which results in their inability to respond quickly to changes in the workforce needs. These longstanding assumptions contribute to the uncertainties surrounding the university’s role in workforce development education.
As has been noted, vocational education has typically been the purview of community colleges, leaving the higher-level academics to universities. Based on this, many hold strong beliefs that universities should provide higher-level academic study and that vocational education has no place in universities. As discussed earlier, the original purpose of American universities was to “prepare moral, civic, and intellectual leaders, . . . to hone character and discipline the intellect” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 58). Many feel that the purpose of the university is still to provide intellectual and civic learning, not job training. “One familiar form of dissent has come from those who fear that vocationalism will undermine the public purposes of education, especially its civic roles” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 15). Another belief in this same vein is that a focus on workforce development will erode academic discipline and weaken schools and academic rigor. Still others voice concerns that “vocational purposes have overwhelmed traditional moral, civic, and intellectual goals, fragmenting the collegiate curriculum and corrupting the very idea of what is an educated person” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 57). Along these same lines, Tynjala, Valimaa, and Boulton-Lewis (2006) state that “the higher education to work model delimits the contribution of higher education to peoples’ lives, constraining it to a narrow sector and range of activities, and ignoring the academy’s contribution to enhancing lives, in and beyond the immediate paid workplace” (p. 25). Those who espouse these beliefs feel that universities have a broader purpose than workforce development education; that “narrow ‘trade training’” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 139), is not the purpose of a four-year university. “As a result of this dissent, vocationalism has remained incomplete” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 139) at the university level. To further demonstrate these values, one might consider current teaching methods. Most universities have maintained traditional teaching, including individual grading, competencies focused on academic skills, and emphasis on cognitive competencies. These all encourage the development of school skills, not workplace skills. It is clear that the current academic environment, and continuation of traditional values and methods, is a mental model standing in the way of progression to workforce development education at the university level.
Many academics feel that the university is not the appropriate venue for workforce development education and that such education should occur at the community college level. This is based, in part, on the long-standing stigma of vocational education and the belief that such education is appropriate only for students who are weaker academically and who would not be successful in the university setting. There are those who feel that vocationalism, or workforce education is “a second-class education for working-class students” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 17). The belief is that such education has no place at the university level. The argument regarding the standing of such education “isn’t new. It could be argued that the difference of opinion is based in perceptions about education that go back to the Greeks and the Romans, when the so-called ‘manual arts’ were separate – and less exalted – than the academic arts” (Floyd, Felsher, Falconetti, 2012, p. 13). One of the purposes of the development of community colleges was to provide workforce development education. As stated earlier, the first community college was developed so that the universities could focus on higher levels of education. Cohen, Brawer, and Kisker (2014) state that occupational education was “originally conceived as an essential component of terminal study – education for students who would not go on to further studies” (p. 27). Interestingly, the stigma surrounding vocational education even exists at the community college level as, “occupational/technical degrees were often considered lesser degrees than transfer degrees because they were terminal” (Floyd, Felsher, Falconetti, 2012, p. 13). With these strong beliefs regarding the status of such education, most of the workforce development education efforts have been focused at the community college level. This has even led to the development of four-year applied degrees at community colleges. Such degrees are needed, community colleges feel, based on the workforce demands for training that can’t be completed in a two year program. Many of these degrees focus on fulfilling those workforce development needs, filling a void left by the absence of four-year universities in the workforce development education arena. Interestingly enough, however, the development of these four-year degrees has raised many questions among academics regarding the community college role and mission and whether or not these are appropriate degrees for community colleges.
Another long-standing traditional purpose of universities stands in the way of movement toward workforce development education; that is the ingrained focus on the liberal arts. One of the biggest debates surrounding university involvement in workforce development is the issue of the need for liberal arts education versus only job skills training. There are many who express “complaints about the decline of liberal education” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, p. 69) in recent years. Although there have been many changes in traditional liberal arts education and a general movement towards more general education, many institutions and academics cling to the belief that the university’s role is to provide a liberal arts education. These deep-seated beliefs are based on the perceptions of the true purpose of four-year universities. Individuals with these beliefs feel that the university’s role is to produce civic minded and intellectual individuals. When A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, schools were blamed for the lack of American competitiveness and emphasis was again placed on ensuring education in the academic basics “English, math, science, and social studies” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004, p. 4). Proponents of liberal arts education focus on the role of higher education for “the knowledge and behavior necessary for a democracy. They include many academics and educators who argue that civic responsibility has declined” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004, p. 15). They further state that the emphasis on workforce development education encourages education for private benefit, not for public good. “These partisans have been the defenders of the academic tradition of the nineteenth century, of intellectual discipline as the aim of education, and of liberal and general education” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004, p. 15). Although it was noted earlier that there are many who believe that liberal arts education can play a role in workforce development, the debate between liberal arts and job training, and, in turn, the current purpose of universities, has definitely affected the university’s lack of movement towards workforce development education.
The final mental model affecting the adoption of workforce development education in universities is the long-standing existing bureaucracy of the university setting. Universities are notoriously slow to adapt to change and processes within the university systems are not set up for fast responses to needed change. Providing workforce development education and responding to workforce needs requires a nimble, flexible system that does not exist at the university level. Tynjala, Valimaa, and Boulton-Lewis (2006) point out “that traditional mechanisms of academic decision-making are inadequate in this new environment. Marketplace realities do not allow for the time involved in democratic processes in which discipline-based professors and academic considerations drive the key academic choices of universities” (p. 12). Traditional models of change are embedded in university systems and will not be easily changed. A curriculum change in one course can easily take a year in many academic settings. Adding or deleting courses can take even longer. Such time frames are not compatible with meeting changes in workforce needs. If universities start to move towards increasing workforce development education offerings, this slow bureaucratic change process may stand in their way of success.
With these mental models in place, what must be done to allow university movement into the workforce development education arena? Obviously, deep-seated beliefs and traditions would have to be changed. Many of these beliefs relate directly to the purpose of higher education, and specifically, universities. Although there are many who believe that universities should be institutions for higher academic learning, there are others who believe that higher education at all levels should serve society by providing for workforce needs. A movement toward providing workforce development education in universities would require a change in the assumption that the university’s purpose is to provide education for civic mindedness and intellectual pursuits. It would require a mindset that a university’s purpose should be to provide job or occupational skills in order to fulfill workforce needs and supply employability to its graduates.
The belief that workforce development education is only for community colleges would also have to change. By viewing workforce development education as a continuum, universities would discover their niche in this area. There are many occupational areas that now require more education than a two-year degree. At the current time, many of these workforce needs are being met by community college four-year degrees, a development that is somewhat controversial. By engaging in the workforce development education continuum, universities would fill this gap and provide this needed education, perhaps negating the need for community college four-year degree programs. Overcoming the stigma attached to workforce development education, or vocational education, is also needed. Academics would need to recognize the value of and the high level of skill needed for workforce development needs that require four-year degrees. Recognition that such education is not just “job training” for weaker students will result in a broader acceptance of workforce development education programs at the university level.
Along these same lines, academics and institutions must recognize the demands and expectations that today’s society places on higher education institutions and the need to meet those demands, both for individual students and society as a whole. Although many still focus on the university’s role in providing liberal arts education, there are many who wish to focus on meeting society’s needs for an educated workforce. As seen in the literature, many agree that university-level workforce development education requires both job skills and broader skills, even including liberal arts. As there is currently great debate regarding the value of a university degree, it would be the ideal opportunity for academics to work together to develop workforce development education that incorporates liberal arts, thus providing long-term flexible employability skills that today’s students need. By developing a long-term broader-based viewpoint, university academics can meet society’s needs as well as provide students with a broader-based liberal arts education that will prepare them to be employable as well as civic-minded individuals.
Finally, in order to successfully meet the goals of incorporating workforce development education into university settings, universities must make changes to their bureaucratic processes to become more adept at reacting to change. If the educational purpose of universities changes to include workforce development education, there must be a mechanism for more rapid change as needed to meet workforce needs. An emphasis on the university’s role in workforce education must be associated with an emphasis on the ability to rapidly change curricula and course requirements to meet needed changes in workforce skills and knowledge. An understanding of this need by university administrators will be required for success in the workforce development education arena.
In order for universities to successfully provide workforce development education, a number of existing mental models have to change. The prevailing thoughts that workforce or vocational education is not appropriate in universities due to their focus on higher-level academics must change. The belief that such education is appropriate only at the community college level must also be challenged. The strict adherence to the need for liberal arts education at the university level must be reviewed and mechanisms to tie workforce education in with liberal arts education must be considered. Finally, bureaucratic models of change that would make universities unsuccessful in meeting workforce need changes in a timely manner must be reviewed and alternative change pathways must be developed.
New mental models
Although it is fine and good to suggest changed mental models that would encourage workforce development education at the four-year university level, it is much more difficult to enact such change. Many of the existing mental models are deep-seated beliefs that speak to the very foundations upon which U.S. universities were established. As mentioned previously, change is not rapid at the university level. However, society may force change on academics and institutions. The recent debate regarding the value of a university education, statements that higher education is “broken”, calls for college-for-all, and the rapid pace at which technology is changing workforce needs all lead to the call for universities to evaluate their position in workforce development.
There are many who have been calling for changed mental models in the university setting and university involvement in workforce development education. These individuals provide a multitude of ideas and suggestions for changing mental models. Grubb and Lazerson (2004) speak to the need for change through their book, and proposed movement, The Education Gospel. This movement is based on “the notion that the Knowledge Revolution (or the information society) is changing the nature of work and enhancing the ‘higher-order’ skills learned in schools and universities” (p. viii). They believe that “formal schooling remains overly academic and has failed to respond to the needs of the twenty-first century” (p. 6). Grubb and Lazerson, as well as many others, promote the concept of universities changing their highly academic focus to a focus on meeting society’s workforce needs and graduate employability. Although there has been some movement in this direction in the past, there are still holdouts resisting full acceptance of providing such education at the university level. Grubb and Lazerson (2004) recommend that we start with “acknowledging the professional orientation of higher education (not to be confused with professional education) ... We must recognize the professional trends of the past century and -- ... integrate these not-so-new realities with the non-vocational ideals we still hold” (p. 79). Grubb and Lazerson as well as many others point to the need for additional workforce development education “through internships, cooperative education, service learning, and other forms of work-based experience that could provide an antidote to the excessively ‘academic’ elements of professional preparation” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004, p. 80). These are the first steps towards a movement to workforce development education at the university level. Utilizing these early steps provides the first foray into changing mental models regarding the belief that universities should not have a workforce development focus and, instead, maintain a purely academic focus. Taking these first steps allows those fighting against workforce development education at the university level to see first-hand how such education can benefit the university and the students.
Although many have argued that vocational education is the domain of community colleges, it is quite clear that there are workforce needs that require education beyond an associate degree. The development of four-year community college programs clearly demonstrates this point. Many occupations now require skills and knowledge beyond that gained in a two-year program. “Vocational . . . education have (sic) been driven by efforts to increase the status of occupations, as well as their earnings, by adding more years of required schooling” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004, p. 143). Thus, it is clear that four-year degrees are required in some areas of workforce development and that the university setting is appropriate for providing such education. By developing programs that are clearly beyond merely “vocational”, academics and others are more apt to understand and approve of the need for such education at the university level.
Although some may still argue that universities exist to provide liberal arts education and well-rounded civic-minded citizens, a review of the literature shows than many see a role for general and liberal arts education in workforce development education. General and liberal arts education provide a background for students that will increase their employability as well as their ability to be flexible and grow and learn with changes throughout their career. Most proponents of workforce development education at the university level include the need for liberal arts or general education in addition to workforce education. “A system that ties schooling too tightly to employment necessarily limits the moral, intellectual, and civic purposes that elevate education over mere job training” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004, p. 186). Academics and institutions must be encouraged to see the role that liberal arts and general education play in workforce development education. Such education is not intended to remove liberal arts education but to supplement it to the extent that societal workforce needs are met and graduates experience enhanced employability. It is quite clear that job training alone is not what is required for workforce development education. In order to supply graduates who can grow within their occupations and continue to be relevant throughout their careers, universities must offer job-specific training as well as broader education that can translate into the skill set needed by today’s employees as well as the skills needed to adapt to the workforce needs of tomorrow. Tynajala, Valimaa, and Boulton-Lewis (2006) state that “in addition to domain-specific knowledge, professionals must have many social skills, such as collaboration, communication and team work skills, they need to be able to critically analyse, conceptualise, and synthesise knowledge and to make conclusions on the basis of ambiguous information” (p. 76). The proponents of liberal arts education and of workforce development education must work together to develop quality workforce development educational programs that will provide education in both areas, thus, best serving today’s students and best preparing them for their future careers.
Perhaps the easiest mental model to change is the bureaucratic university change process. Although this may seem to be the most ingrained, this mental model involves processes instead of deep-seated beliefs. Process change is infinitely easier than belief change. It is recognized that change processes are extremely slow at the university level. Universities that are entering the workforce development education arena are all-to-well aware of the “need for universities to be more responsive and relevant to society” (Tynjala, Valinaa, & Boulton-Lewis, 2006, p. 12). Many authors and editors recommend the development of close ties between industry and educational institutions in order to maintain currency in workforce development education. In conjunction with this, institutions must develop flexibility in the curriculum development process. “Universities should be more flexible in response to changing needs of employers, individuals, and the labour market; the content of university should change to be more relevant to the needs of the economy” (Tynjala, Valinaa, & Boulton-Lewis, 2006, p. 159). Curricular change methodologies must be developed that are faster and responsive to needed change. The laborious process of having curricular changes approved at the department, college, and university level must be streamlined so that workforce education needs can be enacted quickly. Changes within set parameters and/or those recommended by industry partners should be approved within a short time frame in order to provide students with current skills and knowledge in a timely manner. By enacting such modifications to the change process, universities can be successful in workforce development education.
Changing mental models in the area of workforce development education in universities is a daunting task. Although societal and economic forces may place great pressure on universities to change, there will always be those individuals or institutions that will feel that this is contrary to the basic mission of universities. These individuals and institutions will make full adoption of workforce development education at the university level difficult, if not impossible. Efforts can be taken to demonstrate the higher-level education needed for select occupations, the need for four-year degrees for preparation for these occupations, and the ability to maintain a liberal art focus in conjunction with workforce development education. Processes can be put in place to speed up the bureaucratic change processes in order to maintain currency in meeting workforce needs. However, true change in mental models accepting the validity and appropriateness of workforce development education at the university level may well take years of effort. As additional workforce development demands are placed on universities and as successful workforce development educational programs are developed at the university level, widespread acceptance of such education will grow. Again, however, this will take time.
Although this may sound extremely discouraging, some institutions have been successful in integrating workforce development education for select professions into the university setting. How have these institutions succeeded in this area and, more importantly, are these programs accepted by all? Secondly, how do existing workforce development educational programs in the university setting maintain currency within the bureaucratic change structure of the university? Further study is required to answer these questions.
Conclusion
Workforce development educational programs at the university level are currently the focus of controversy among many. This topic quickly leads to debate as to the role of higher education, and especially four-year universities. Are universities meant to prepare students for jobs or to prepare them to serve society as civic-minded intellectuals? This is not a new debate as there have been various opinions on this issue for decades. However, in recent years, this debate has again come to the forefront among academics as well as the general public. Tuition, and therefore, student loans have dramatically increased, leading many to question the value of higher education. President Obama encouraged college-for-all, a model that many say failed. Changes in technology have increased workforce educational needs. All of these have contributed to the current debate. To take the issue of workforce development education one step further, questions arise as to the ability of universities to maintain currency with workforce education needs based on the slow bureaucratic processes in place within university systems.
A review of the literature identified four main conversations related to this issue. These conversations include advocacy for workforce development as a key higher education purpose, equity as a goal of attention to workforce development, the curriculum needed if workforce development is adopted, and institutional market responsiveness to the demand for workforce development.
A review of the literature surrounding these mental models provided some suggestions for enacting change to affect these tactic assumptions. However, it is recognized that changing such deeply held beliefs may be quite difficult. Additional study may be needed to evaluate these mental models and, perhaps, find more effective change mechanisms.
As society puts additional pressure on universities to meet the growing demand for an educated workforce, a deeper understanding of the mental models related to this area would be helpful in enacting needed changes to support widespread acceptance of workforce development education at the university level. The pressure to provide an educated workforce coupled with recent headlines of dire warnings that higher education enrollment is dropping, clearly point out that the time has come for universities to explore and determine their role in workforce development education. It is time to investigate what role universities will play today and into the future in the workforce development arena. At a recent health information management (HIM) educators’ conference, a main topic of discussion was how educational programs can best meet student and workforce needs. There was ample discussion regarding the need for four-year degrees for professionals in the field, however, it was noted that there were significant decreases in enrollment in such programs. Experts at the conference pointed out that while the skills and knowledge needed for HIM are among those most in demand, educational program enrollment is decreasing because programs are not currently meeting the workforce development needs of students and employers.
Systematic study of student learning and preparedness for their careers and society at large is needed to determine the university’s role in this arena. If universities are going to overturn the mental models previously discussed and delve into workforce development education, further information is needed. Do liberal arts and fine arts classes truly contribute to life-long learning and the “soft skills” in demand by employers? What skills are needed in graduates in these applied fields that a four-year university degree provides? How can “learning-by-doing” and hand’s-on learning best be integrated into university coursework? What are university program advisory boards recommending for academic programs in terms of preparing graduates with the needed professional skills? What is the role of certificates, credentialing, and laddering between, for example, two-year and four-year institutions? How have universities successfully overcome slow bureaucratic change processes? By studying these issues and student learning and preparedness for the workforce, universities and educators will gain information about how to best prepare students for their futures and how to enact these best practices. This deeper understanding will lead to more effective change, which, in turn, will lead to the ability for universities to whole-heartedly embrace workforce development education, thus better serving both students and society.
References
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college (6th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Finegold, D., Gatta, M., Salzman, H., & Schurman, S. J. (Eds.). (2010). Transforming the U.S. workforce development system: Lessons from research and practice. Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association.
Floyd, D. L., Garcia Falconetti, A. M., & Felsher, R. A. (2012). Applied and workforce baccalaureate models. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2012(158), 5–11.
Gallagher, S. R. (2016). The future of university credentials: New developments at the intersection of higher education and hiring. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2009). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (2007). The education gospel: The economic power of schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Holzer, H. J., & Nightingale, D. S. (Eds.). (2007). Reshaping the American workforce in a changing economy. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press.
Horgan, T. R. (2002). Leveraging higher education for workforce development. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(120), 37–46.
Howe, H. (1828). Reports on the course of instruction in Yale College by a Committee of the Corporation and the academical faculty. Retrieved from http://collegiateway.org/reading/yale-report-1828/
Newman, K. S., & Winston, H. (2016). Reskilling America: Learning to labor in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Trani, E. P., & Holsworth, R. D. (2010). The indispensable university: Higher education, economic development, and the knowledge economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Tynjala, P., Valimaa, J., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2006). Higher education and working life—Collaborations and challenges. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2014). National assessment of career and technical education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nacte/career-technical-education/final-report.pdf
Voorhees, R. A., & Harvey, L. (Eds.). (2005). New directions for institutional research: Workforce development and higher education: A strategic role for institutional research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Finegold, D., Gatta, M., Salzman, H., & Schurman, S. J. (Eds.). (2010). Transforming the U.S. workforce development system: Lessons from research and practice. Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association.
Floyd, D. L., Garcia Falconetti, A. M., & Felsher, R. A. (2012). Applied and workforce baccalaureate models. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2012(158), 5–11.
Gallagher, S. R. (2016). The future of university credentials: New developments at the intersection of higher education and hiring. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2009). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (2007). The education gospel: The economic power of schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Holzer, H. J., & Nightingale, D. S. (Eds.). (2007). Reshaping the American workforce in a changing economy. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press.
Horgan, T. R. (2002). Leveraging higher education for workforce development. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(120), 37–46.
Howe, H. (1828). Reports on the course of instruction in Yale College by a Committee of the Corporation and the academical faculty. Retrieved from http://collegiateway.org/reading/yale-report-1828/
Newman, K. S., & Winston, H. (2016). Reskilling America: Learning to labor in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Trani, E. P., & Holsworth, R. D. (2010). The indispensable university: Higher education, economic development, and the knowledge economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Tynjala, P., Valimaa, J., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2006). Higher education and working life—Collaborations and challenges. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2014). National assessment of career and technical education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nacte/career-technical-education/final-report.pdf
Voorhees, R. A., & Harvey, L. (Eds.). (2005). New directions for institutional research: Workforce development and higher education: A strategic role for institutional research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
© 2019 Illinois State University
