Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

Given the significant interest that the employability of graduates has generated amongst policy-makers and within the media, a field of research focusing on these issues has been developing in different countries. Within this field, analysing the professional trajectories of graduates has been the leading aim of research, predominantly considering employability as getting (or not getting) a job and evaluating the match (or mismatch) between job and education. Meanwhile, other issues such as the learning involved in the transition from higher education into the world of work have been given much less attention.

Therefore, the aim of the chapter is to outline an approach that enables a deeper understanding of professional learning by drawing both on theoretical and empirical contributions. The intention is to reveal dynamics, dimensions and challenges involved in the graduates’ professional learning, conceptualising it as a process that involves educational settings, work organisations, everyday learning and the interaction between them along (individual and collective) timelines. As such, this chapter intends to contribute to the debates around employability through an understanding of it as a professional learning process aimed at enabling graduates to cope with their professional activities.

The chapter is based on the assumption that becoming a professional is a process characterised by specific features in the so-called learning and knowledge societies in which we live today. Thus, researching professional learning in contemporary societies benefits (re)thinking about the organisation of educational practices within formal academic settings, as well as the ways in which those relate to the individuals’ learning dynamics in working contexts and in everyday life.

Initial Remarks: Setting the Scene

In the last decades, the employability of graduates has generated a significant interest amongst policy-makers, as well as within the media and society in general. Employability has become an important criterion for the evaluation of the educational system (including higher education) both in the formal processes of evaluating institutions and courses conducted by national or international bodies and within the current social judgements about the quality of education (Boden and Nedeva 2010; Storen and Aamodt 2010).

The political and public awareness about employability coexists with the development of a field of research in different countries that focuses on various issues, problems and questions (Marques and Alves 2010). Within this field, analysing the professional trajectories of graduates has been the main aim of research on transitions into the world of work. This has further considered unemployment experiences, work conditions, the adequacy of individuals’ educational credentials regarding their professional activities, and so on. This conveys the idea that research in this field has been centred mainly on employability, understood as getting (or not getting) a job, as well as on the match (or mismatch) between job and education. Meanwhile, other issues such as the learning involved in the transition from the educational system to the world of work have been given much less attention.

Recognising this context, this chapter’s aim is to outline an approach that enables a deeper understanding of the process of professional learning underpinning transitions between education and the world of work. In order to achieve that aim, it draws both on theoretical and empirical contributions, mobilising literature to stimulate the reflection about graduates’ learning across professional and educational settings. Therefore, the intention is to reveal dynamics, dimensions and challenges involved in the graduates’ professional learning, conceptualising it as a process that comprises educational settings, work organisations, everyday learning and the interaction between them along (individual and collective) timelines.

This chapter intends to contribute to the debate on employability through an understanding of it as a professional learning process aimed at enabling graduates to cope with their professional activities. Research exploring higher education’s impact on professional performance reveals that the characteristics of study programmes in higher education seem to have minor effects on the chances of obtaining a job, yet these same characteristics have significant effects on actually doing a certain job. The type of characteristics mentioned are, for instance, lectures, group assignments, participation in research projects, internships/work placements, project and/or problem-based learning, written assignments, oral presentations by students, among others (Storen and Aamodt 2010; Vaatstra and Vries 2007). This being so, professional learning can be addressed as a phenomenon that takes place in the educational system, but it also takes place in professional settings, and probably most importantly it has to be understood within the interaction between these two main contexts for professional learning.

The proposed approach aims to contribute to the development of both educational practice and empirical research in the future. Moreover, the chapter is based on the assumption that researching professional learning in contemporary societies benefits (re)thinking about the organisation of educational practices not only within formal academic settings, but also focusing the connections between those and the individuals’ learning dynamics in working contexts and in everyday life. This is of particular importance given the changing inter-relationship between higher education and work that frames employability nowadays (Boden and Nedeva 2010).

Professional Learning: Processes and Connotations Within Contemporary Societies

The process of professional learning in itself and the different understandings about it are deeply enclosed within particular social and economic contexts that are inextricably related to specific individuals’ options, values and strategies. According to Usher and Edwards (2007: 2) “learning is neither invariant nor unchanging because learning is a socio-culturally embedded set of practices” as it is recognisable that the characteristics of contemporary societies frame a certain perspective on professional learning, since the importance of lifelong learning in today’s societies encompass the need to clearly identify where, when, how, what, why and for what do we learn, namely to learn a profession (Usher and Edwards 2007; Popkewitz et al. 2006).

In fact, the recognition that learning takes place everywhere (whether in schools, in professional settings or in other contexts of our lives) and occurs at different stages of the lifecycle is not a novelty in itself, since it is quite obvious that learning has always occurred in different contexts and at every age. However, there is something new in the way in which learning is valued and has become a central feature both for the life of each individual in contemporary societies and for the definition of educational policies (Alves 2010). This trend is connected to the statement that we are now living in knowledge and learning societies (Popkewitz et al. 2006) in which each individual has the right and the duty to engage in lifelong learning (Biesta 2010). This also means that, potentially at least, our whole lives have become pedagogised, i.e., all sort of everyday practices might be viewed as learning activities, while simultaneously to learn becomes a permanent requirement (Usher and Edwards 2007).

Within this context, if it is true that professional learning is far from being a novelty, it is also true that it is a much more valued and organised process in our contemporary societies than in other historical moments and settings. This is in part because educational systems have been growing enormously, so that more people are studying for more years within educational systems, as well as more people returning to it at various ages (Bélanger 2011; Popkewitz et al. 2006). However, it is also because learning that occurs outside the educational system is increasingly being formally recognised and certificated. This frequently leads to new systems and new social practices that try to assess to what extent the knowledge that an individual has learned in his or her life can be considered equivalent to a certain educational qualification.

In the past, learning and education were considered to take place primarily during the earlier years of people’s lives, but the emergence of information and knowledge-based societies has challenged this model. Individuals in contemporary societies are expected to engage frequently in various types of learning across their lifecycles, swapping between education and work at different moments (Bélanger 2011). The trajectories of higher-education graduates within this context have become marked by a growing number of situations in which students work while studying, as well as by the increasing number of adults who engage in learning in its various forms while being employed or when unemployed.

Concerning the reasons that are currently presented to justify the engagement of individuals in learning after having graduated from higher education, it is frequently pointed out that this is a strategy to face either unemployment or the difficulties in finding a permanent job. Such situations are increasingly common within the uncertainties that surround professional trajectories in contemporary societies. However, in previous research (Alves et al. 2010, 2012) doubts were raised about these interpretations, since the reasons to return to higher education in the years following graduation could not linearly be associated with motivations related to unemployment or precarious employment, although they frequently characterise graduates’ professional careers.

Moreover, the analysis of higher education graduates’ trajectories in Portugal has shown that the demand for postgraduate training is significant for individuals who are unemployed or in situations of great professional insecurity and instability, but it is equally significant amongst those who hold more favourable professional situations (Alves 2013, 2016). Thus, the demand for postgraduate training appears to be a common practice and expectation across the graduates, in addition to being viewed as an employability strategy, since it is associated with diverse and even disparate situations of employability. In this sense, it can be understood as a frequent ingredient of their professional careers, and possibly a sign of wider dynamics of participation and involvement in various modalities of lifelong learning.

Therefore, the traditional model of life trajectories in which after graduation the individual would be involved exclusively in professional activities and tasks for the rest of his/her life (and would no longer participate in learning) must be abandoned, since it does not correspond to the majority of the trajectories lived by graduates in contemporary societies.

Additionally, transitions between education and work tend to be progressively less stable, as they assume various configurations and occur at different points in one’s life trajectory (Jarvis 2009).

Empirical research (Alves 2014) suggests that there is a certain consensus amongst higher education graduates about the idea that learning is an unfinished dynamic that is prolonged across the different ages of an adult. The permanent and unfinished nature of lifelong learning is understood by them not only as a demand arising from the current changing environment and ongoing challenges in the workplace, but also as the result of their personal will and motivation.

For graduates it is not only the return to higher education to attend post-graduation courses that is at stake, since it is fundamental to stress that understanding professional learning as a lifelong process encompasses the need to include informal and non-formal contexts of learning in the proposed approach. It should be remarked that informal learning results from daily life activities connected to work, family or leisure and it does not lead to certification; whereas non-formal learning is not provided by an education or training institution nor does it necessarily lead to certification, but it is structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) (Rogers 2014). Being so, professional learning does not occur only in school contexts; that is, it does not correspond strictly to a determined number of years or hours involved in planned learning designed to prepare professionals to perform in the world of work.

Recently, the growing interest for research centred on “experiential learning” (Jarvis 2009) and “workplace learning” (Fenwick 2010) gave visibility to non-school contexts of learning. Therefore, understandings inherited from the historical period of modern and industrial societies, when education was, above all, associated with dynamics and processes taking place inside schools, need to be complemented by making visible other contexts and processes of learning, namely those within work contexts and across professional trajectories (Canário 1999; Ileris 2011).

To summarise, contemporary societies are characterised by profound social and educational changes that imply (re)featuring professional learning-processes, namely considering the swap between education and work at different moments in the lifecycle. Therefore, the need to (re)think conceptual and analytical models to research professional learning is acknowledged and the proposed outlining of an approach is a possible answer to that need. The next section of the chapter elucidates the main theoretical and conceptual views underlying the outlined approach.

The Main Theoretical and Conceptual View Views Underpinning the Outlined Approach

In this chapter, professional learning is understood as comprising the learning processes of graduates that enable the competent development of their professional activities. This starting point indicates that we understand professional learning-processes as a phenomenon of “human learning” according to the views of Ileris (2011) and Jarvis (2009). To these authors, defining learning as “human” means rejecting the idea that this is a mere cognitive, psychological and individual process. Alternatively, learning is a process that involves interaction between the individual and his or her environment (Ileris 2011; Jarvis 2009), with which mind and body (Jarvis 2009) or rationality, competences, emotional and social dimensions (Ileris 2011) interact in complex ways. Such a view converges with the critical approach presented by Usher and Edwards (2007) that stresses that lifelong learning is not an exclusively mental and individual process, since it is more adequately characterised as a sociocultural phenomenon that always implies some sort of relationship between individuals.

Within the theoretical views of adult education (Bélanger 2011), this argument does not support the understanding of learning as producing behavioural change in a desired direction (behaviourism) or as merely developing internal mental processes (cognitivism). However, it does endorse a view strongly grounded in humanism (stressing the development of each individual’s potential), and socioconstructivism (highlighting the construction of meaning by the individual on the basis of lived experiences). Consequently, the individual’s learning processes are the centre of the analysis, as these processes are not considered outside the contexts and situations in which they occur, given that learning is simultaneously personal and social and encompasses cognition and emotions.

The option to stress the individual’s process, aims at enabling a deeper understanding of the interactions between learning inside and outside the education system. Accordingly, learning is understood as being much broader than education, in the sense that all education is learning but not all learning is education (Jarvis 2009; Rogers 2014), and to deepen research requires interlinking various contexts of learning. As Usher and Edwards (2007) point out, the major part of the research about learning has focused on institutional and organisational aspects of formal learning contexts, though these can only be fully explored when learning that takes place outside these contexts is taken into account.

Two other remarks are crucial to scaffold the outlining of the proposed approach. The first one reminds us that not all learning (whether in formal, non-formal or informal contexts) has an inherent positive value being always beneficial, as stated by Usher and Edwards (2007). Thus, the approach must include a reflection about the desirable aims of professional learning processes. The second remark highlights that even if it is possible to learn in whatever context, this possibility does not always become a reality. Jarvis (2009) points out that the rejection of learning opportunities may happen for different reasons, ranging from those linked to the absence of a disposition to learn, to the anticipation of the disruptive effects of learning regarding the attitudes and identity of the individual. Therefore, the approach must incorporate a reflection about the factors influencing the involvement of individuals in various learning opportunities across their lifetimes.

Given that the proposed approach does not focus on all learning processes, but is centred particularly on professional learning processes, it is fundamental to clarify assumptions regarding the connections between education and work. Modern and industrial societies’ have conceived the simultaneous linearity and the sequentiality of education and work, as well as emphasise the correspondence between jobs and educational credentials. Within this framework, the main concern is to adjust educational offers to the needs of professions in the labour market, identifying mismatches that should not exist.

To overcome this sort of conception, we argue that the proposed approach must alternatively be grounded in the assumption that its aim is to understand professional learning-processes enlightening connections between contexts, dynamics and circumstances affecting those processes. Thus, the first assumption clarifies that the choice is not to analyse the match (or mismatch) between what is learned and what needs to be learned in order to be a professional, but alternatively to focus on the learning occurring both in educational and work contexts and in the transitions from one to the other.

Within this framework, work shall not be understood as the field of application of education, but alternatively as a context that also contributes to education. Nevertheless, not all work experiences are transformed into learning: on the one hand, one might not always succeed in learning from one’s experiences, and on the other hand learning is not a simple accumulation of experiences that might transform the knowledge, competences and attitudes of the individual (Jarvis 2009).

Besides this first assumption, a second one arises from the recognition that within contemporary societies it is particularly relevant to remember that professional learning takes place in a variety of institutional contexts and at different phases of the lifecycle. This has significant implications on the type and nature of the learning processes, as well as on the competences developed. Therefore, the second assumption consists in accepting that both work and educational (inside and outside school) experiences frame professional learning, even if each contribution might be quite different.

As a consequence of the two interlinked previous assumptions, a third one concerns the understanding of professional learning as a matter of becoming, and not of having or being (Biesta 2010; Jarvis 2009). It is important to observe that we are not exploring concepts and dynamics such as the process of building professional identities, but we are examining ontological processes of becoming a professional. So, the objective is not to identify knowledge and competencies developed throughout the learning process, characterising which characteristics individuals have or how they are and act. Neither is the objective to sketch a pattern of knowledge and competencies suitable for being a professional after graduating from higher education. From a different perspective, a fundamental point within the proposed approach is to recognise that nowadays a professional is in a permanent process of becoming in endless challenging contexts and circumstances. Within that process of becoming, what seems to be crucial from an educationalist point of view is to ensure the possibilities of exposing learners to otherness and difference, allowing for their uniqueness to emerge (Biesta 2010; Fenwick 2010).

To sum up, it seems adequate to conceptualise professional learning processes as being permanent and always unfinished dynamics, not easily quantifiable in terms of products and results. Additionally, professional learning is featured as closely linked to a variety of learning contexts during adulthood, and as involving rationality but also emotions, beliefs, social and cultural engagements. Therefore, the proposed approach includes a set of five analytical dimensions that are described in the next section of the chapter.

The Five Analytical Dimensions of the Outlined Approach

The proposed approach to professional learning comprises five analytical dimensions, specifically: learning spaces, time and temporality, types of learning, knowledge and reasons to learn. These five dimensions hopefully contribute to the grasp of the nuances and complexities of employability, as they provide a deeper understanding of the professional learning process underpinning transitions between higher education and the world of work. In the following sections, the global aim is to sketch each dimension, accepting that all five are strongly interdependent.

Learning Spaces

The first dimension relates to learning spaces, and eventually also involves spaces free of learning. Within this dimension we intend to overcome the debates around the typology of formal, non-formal and informal learning, accepting not only that learning is situated (Lave 2009; Wenger 2009) but also that a certain space is part of the dynamics and outcomes of the learning that takes place therein.

The distinction between formal, non-formal and informal learning is typically founded on the criteria of organisation of the situation, as well as on the intention of both learners and learning providers (see for instance Rogers 2014). Non-formal and informal learning have been progressively gaining visibility within educational policies and practices, thus abandoning their marginal role as it is acknowledged that these learning dynamics are central in the life of individuals relating to their different contexts (work, training, family, community …). One can find estimations indicating that the amount of informally-learned abilities and knowledge corresponds to between 70% and 90% of all learning (Rogers 2014).

Within the proposed approach, we do not intend to measure each type of learning or to analyse each and every context of professional learning and categorise it as formal, non-formal and informal. Recognising the diversity and interdependence of professional learning contexts, we found it more useful to mobilise a typology defined by Ileris (2009: 139) that argues for the existence of five main types of general learning spaces. These five learning spaces include: ‘everyday learning’ that occurs in daily life even when we are not participating in any specifically defined activities; ‘school and educational learning’ referring to intentional learning taking place inside the educational system; ‘workplace learning’ seen as both learning that is inevitably part of working life and also as more formalised learning in the workplace; ‘interest-based learning’ related to a personal interest and occurring in different activities (associations, communities, etc.); and, finally, ‘net-based learning’, which can be practised independently and is quite flexible compared to school and workplace learning.

Exploiting this proposal by Ileris (2009) as a starting point, and also considering some results from previous research on higher education graduates’ transitions to work, it is possible to endorse the adoption of a typology of four different learning spaces: ‘educational system’, ‘workplace’, ‘everyday life’ and ‘interest-based’. In our view, ‘net-based learning’ is currently transversal to all the other four learning spaces and should not be considered a specific space.

Previous research (Alves 2014) reveals that graduates tend to value the contribution of the educational system (namely through university), even when recognising that not everything can be learned within school contexts. Nevertheless, a variety of professional and personal experiences, before, during and after attendance of higher education are considered quite relevant to the process of professional learning.

In fact, research suggests that graduates tend to value participation in training courses and post-graduate courses, but they seem even more enthusiastic about the informal learning that occurs across their professional trajectories (Knight and Yorke 2004). Elements such as their personal effort in observing, inquiring and reflecting, as well as interaction with colleagues in work organisations, are considered quite important tools for informal learning.

The adoption of a typology consisting of four learning spaces does not mean that these must be considered completely autonomous. In fact, these spaces are often coexistent and interdependent across the learning processes. In previous research, it was found that professional experience during academic attendance could influence employability after graduation (Alves 2007). Furthermore, different models of proximity between higher education and the world of work (Storen and Aamodt 2010), and various options in terms of the curricular and pedagogical strategies of the courses (Vaastra and Vries 2007) have effects on the knowledge, skills and careers of graduates.

Additionally, there are surveys indicating that among higher education students there are some who deliberately seek to accumulate experiences of various kinds (internships, part-time work, volunteering, associations, etc.) in order to enrich their curriculum vitae to be presented to the employer after graduation (Knight and Yorke 2004; Tomlinson 2008). In other words, it appears that the various learning spaces are interdependent, enabling a variety of experiments, and the ‘daily’ learning area is concomitant with all the others.

However, because we live in knowledge-driven societies many authors have pointed out that the emphasis on learning as a phenomenon that fills all the spaces of our lives must be carefully considered. Gerwitz (2008) emphasises the importance of contemplating the existence of ‘free learning spaces’ arguing that while it is true that all spaces contain learning opportunities, the insistence that every situation of our life is thought of according to the logic of effects and needs for learning can be counterproductive. Similarly, other authors (Fenwick 2010; Usher and Edwards 2007) sustain that when we expand the concept of learning to encompass all areas of our lives, we might risk some reductionism and somehow lose the base concept to characterise the specifics of a learning context. As stated by Jarvis (2009), it is the living and not the learning that takes precedence in every human being.

To sum up, a dimension containing four spaces of learning is proposed in order to analyse professional learning processes; having in mind the need to consider the overlapping among these spaces that frequently occurs. Graduates’ employability is framed by the learning occurring across these various spaces. Moreover, even if learning opportunities exist in different spaces, it might be important to consider the need to maintain learning-free spaces avoiding the prominence of learning over life, study and work.

Learning, Time and Temporality

The second dimension concerns the moment in the lifecycle in which learning occurs, as well as the fact that learning always occurs within time even if we may not always be aware of its passing. Regarding this, the general assumption accepted previously is that it is possible to learn at all ages within the lifecycle. Lifelong learning is frequently assumed as adult learning or as work-life learning, but it is important to stress that it is more adequately described as a lifelong process from childhood to older age involving a diversity of aims. The graduates themselves stress that the university role is, in part, to prepare them for a learning process that will take place across their lifecycle (Alves 2014).

Therefore, professional learning is part of a lifelong learning process and is certainly affected by the age of the learner. Jarvis (2009) indicates that younger learners have a much more instrumental view and attitude towards learning than later in life when learning becomes more transformative of the learner. However, in contemporary societies these kinds of generalisations must be applied with caution, since many transitions happen along the lifecycle and professional mobility might imply instrumental learning at different stages in life in order to respond to the need to perform a new professional activity.

If the end of the professional learning process is probably difficult to identify, its beginning is associated with the initial attendance of higher education, regardless of the more or less vocational orientation of the courses. Amongst individuals who have had professional experience before or during academic attendance, it can be observed that some of them attribute to it a merely instrumental benefit (to earn or occupy time during the holidays), while others consider these experiences as valuable contributions to their professional learning and to facilitate their access to the labour market after graduation (Alves 2014). For instance, professional experience is for some students a way to add value to their higher education credentials as they “perceive their academic qualifications as having a declining role in shaping their employment outcomes” (Tomlinson 2008: 49). Nevertheless, other studies (Knight and Yorke 2004) indicate that not all work situations experienced by students have an intrinsic value and involve learning potential, even if employers tend to value this kind of experience within the framework of graduate selection and recruitment processes.

Concerning time it must also be stressed that learning processes might be shorter or longer, depending on what, why and how we are learning, i.e., depending on the learning situation. Throughout these processes unlearning might also take place, in the sense that a part of learning requires forgetting what we knew and/or how we used to do things, in order to accommodate the contents of new learning.

To sum up, learning might happen at any age in life. Moreover, a learning process is not instantaneous but involves a certain period of time. Thus, graduates’ employability is developed over time, assuming various configurations in different moments in one’s trajectory. In this time, it could be that sometimes we have to unlearn what we had learned before and this is why it is important to deepen our understanding about types of learning.

Types of Learning

The third dimension within the outlined approach is centred on the types of learning. To address this dimension we mobilise once more Ileris’s (2009, 2011) contribution, since the author proposes a typology of four types of learning: ‘cumulative’; ‘assimilative’; ‘accommodative’; and ‘transformative’. The distinction between these four types of learning involves different understandings of knowledge, as well as diverse effects of learning in the learner.

‘Cumulative’ learning seems to be more frequent in early childhood as it “is characterised by being an isolated formation, something new that is not a part of anything else” (Ileris 2009: 141). Focusing on professional learning and graduates’ transitions to work, it is possible to argue that this type of learning is relevant to analyse newcomers into the world of work, because they need to develop ways of applying and mobilising knowledge and competencies in new conditions; that is, in professional settings.

‘Assimilative’ learning is defined as the most common form of learning and could also be called “learning by addition, meaning that the new element is linked as an addition to a scheme that is already established” (Ileris 2009: 141). Most assimilative learning happens spontaneously by integrating new contributions to an existing scheme, but sometimes is of a more focused nature when the contents are relevant to something we want or even have to learn. It can be envisaged that professional learning also comprises this type of learning, both for experienced professionals improving their knowledge and competencies and for newcomers in the world of work for whom professional learning started in the school and educational trajectory.

‘Accommodative’ learning arises when something that takes place is difficult to link immediately to an existing scheme and one cannot really understand it. In this sense, this type of learning “implies that one breaks down (parts of) an existing scheme and reconstructs it in a way that allows the new situation to be linked in” (Ileris 2009: 142). This is a more demanding type of learning for the individual than assimilative learning. Within professional learning it can be anticipated that this kind of learning is common in everyday routines, being more or less intense according to the nature of the situations and changes affecting the working contexts. Regarding new graduates, it is likely that what they usually describe as the shock with the world of work is a stage that requires precisely this type of learning.

Finally, ‘transformative’ learning is a very demanding and profound process that changes identity since it “implies what could be termed personality changes or changes in the organisation of the self” (Ileris 2009: 142). Transitions might be phases characterised by this kind of learning because they generally imply assuming a different social role (from student to worker, from one professional position to another, from worker to retired). In this way it can be expected to be an important dynamic of professional learning, though it does not occur frequently but only in special situations.

Previous research (Alves 2014) allows foreseeing that professional learning can assume these four different types depending on the subject itself, on the individual’s academic and prior learning and on the characteristics of the organisational and professional contexts. However, the empirical data available are insufficient to identify the presence of these four types of learning, as sometimes the same graduate refers to learning in modes that combine features of more than one of the four types identified when asked to describe his/her transition to work (Alves 2014).

To sum up, the four types of learning proposed by Ileris (2009) can be useful to analyse professional learning-processes, enabling the identification of a diversity of implications regarding the learner and the knowledge involved in these processes. Graduates’ employability simultaneously influences and is the result of those various possible types of learning. So, capturing the diversity of possible dynamics within professional learning is important, since each dynamic is characterised by specific features and impacts namely concerning the knowledge that it involves.

Learning and Knowledge

A central role is attributed to knowledge in contemporary society, even if some form of knowledge has always been fundamental in any historical period. Within this reflection, knowledge is not understood as simply formal educational credentials or as a set of data and information that can be strictly measured and acquired. In other words, understandings of knowledge as being exterior both to the life contexts and to the learners themselves are rejected (Canário 1999), as it is underlined that “knowledge is dependent upon the learners” (Jarvis 2009: 199).

The argument is that knowledge involved in professional learning-processes must be seen as inseparable from the subject himself/herself and from his/her experiences or the specificities of the context in which he/she lives (Jarvis 2009). Therefore, knowledge cannot be assumed to precede action, since it is permanently produced alongside professional action.

In this proposal, it is accepted that professional knowledge is created in all contexts of human life, and not only in professional ones. In fact, it is just in analytical terms that it is possible to isolate profession from the set of dimensions that constitute the uniqueness of each subject, given that professional learning is attached to the construction of the self (Canário 1999) as different graduates stress when questioned about this (Alves 2014).

Nevertheless, knowledge also includes other components. Guille (2008) suggests a holistic perspective comprising: a tacit dimension based on the contribution of authors such as Polanyi, Nonaki and Takeuchi who showed that knowledge is crucial within organisations in the contemporary world of work; and a theoretical dimension referring to science and technology, and considered essential by Bell and Castells. Recognising this diversity it should also be observed that all forms of knowledge are learned (Jarvis 2009).

Within the field of transitions, research has indicated that it is probable that graduates show a lack of tacit knowledge in professional action—and this makes them culturally naive within work organisations—since higher education tends to emphasise formal and decontextualised knowledge (Knight and Yorke 2004). In fact, several authors highlight that the main difficulties faced by higher education graduates when entering working life are those related to the ways in which they lack the knowledge to act as professionals in the world of work and to perform in their professional trajectories (Bennett et al. 2000; Alves 2007). Namely, they refer to knowledge about inter-personal relationships and about practical procedures, more than specific knowledge about their domain of academic studies.

A similar trend is identified when considering the results gathered from the employers of graduates, and when assessing their evaluation of graduates’ professional performance. Employers do not question the graduates’ knowledge of their own academic and disciplinary field, but they recognise the need for the development of capacities, knowledge and attitudes that allow the graduates to be fully integrated and competent in the world of work and in the organisation in which they are employed (Alves 2007).

Research has shown the difficulties experienced by graduates when asked to clarify the knowledge that they consider important in the performance of their professional activities, even if they have no doubts in stating that professional knowledge benefits from professional experience (before, during and after academic attendance), as well as from training courses or volunteering experiences (Alves 2007, 2014).

The type of knowledge identified by graduates includes technical and operative skills learned in university, as well as self-knowledge and interaction skills (with clients, colleagues and bosses) within work contexts (Alves 2007, 2014). Therefore, graduates stress the importance of knowledge involved in professional action, defining it as a set of contents and competences (Young 2010). According to the same author, this concern is of particular importance in the current context in which the academic curricula are frequently considered inadequate, for drawing too much on contents (defined as data and information to be acquired) or for focusing predominantly on competences’ development unconnected from contents (Young 2010).

To sum up, professional learning is defined in the proposal as a non-quantifiable process. Its development and outcomes cannot be clearly foreseen in advance, as the knowledge involved is not entirely defined a priori or detached from concrete subjects and their educational and work experiences. Within knowledge, different elements are included, namely technical and theoretical knowledge, as well as skills underlying professional action, and they all are part of a graduates’ employability.

Reasons for Learning

When examining the reasons that encourage individuals to engage in professional learning processes, it is necessary to consider two aspects. On the one hand, it has to be observed that an analysis of the reasons to be involved in learning cannot be dissociated from the characterisation of the various types of learning. In fact, a significant part of professional learning can be unintentional and unplanned (Ileris 2011), hence it makes no sense to reflect upon the reasons that led the individuals to be involved in it. On the other hand, in contemporary societies one can observe the high value attached to learning within the individuals’ practices and attitudes, resulting in frequent and intense involvement in various kinds of learning dynamics. Adult participation in education and training is not a marginal phenomenon nowadays but a significant trend (Bélanger 2011), that can even be considered a criterion for social inclusion (Popkewitz et al. 2006).

Nevertheless, besides the societal and individual appreciation of learning observable in contemporary societies, different factors such as recognition of the value of learning by peers and bosses or the work organisations’ characteristics might be more (or less) favourable to learning depending on the organisational culture. Graduates also suggest that the rules and demands of the work organisation might favour or constrain non-formal and informal professional learning (Alves 2014).

The professional learning that takes place through training courses or returning to higher education is as important as the work organisation in the motivation of individuals. Moreover, various factors such as work environment, employer characteristics, socio-economic status, living conditions, public policies and existing institutional learning-opportunities may also influence the participation of graduates in professional learning. In previous research, data indicated that work organisations tend not to incentivise graduates to make use of educational opportunities, for instance post-graduate courses in higher education (Alves et al. 2010). More recent research also suggests a lack of incentives on the part of employers regarding learning opportunities organised by higher education or other academic entities.

Therefore, it seems that lifelong learning is an individual responsibility and not a collective one for many people in contemporary societies. According to Biesta (2010), this position entails significant societal risks by promoting the values of competitiveness instead of those of citizenship and democracy.

Overall, work organisations, public policies, and opportunities for learning available in educational institutions, as well as individual motivations, might constitute incentives to involvement in lifelong learning. However, it is important to stress that other elements might also have a significant influence, such as socioeconomic status and the initial level of schooling (Alves 2016). Within a holistic approach, adults’ involvement in learning is the result of a complex set of factors related to institutional options and individual choices in contexts with particular characteristics and influenced by certain public policies.

Amongst higher education graduates, many individuals are likely to be involved in lifelong learning opportunities as willing participants. In fact, research shows that the probability of being involved in lifelong learning is higher for those who have completed higher degrees in the educational system, and for those in more qualified positions in the labour market who have more opportunities to access non-formal and informal learning (Bélanger 2011).

Additionally, previous research suggests that adults who have completed higher levels of schooling more easily and frequently recognise and value experiential learning (Alves et al. 2010). Correspondingly, statistical European data show that participation in lifelong learning (whether formal, non-formal or informal) is more common amongst younger adults and those professionally active and more qualified (Alves 2010).

Besides these general trends, it should be highlighted that involvement in learning might be initiated by critical events in one’s biography (Bélanger 2011). Within professional learning, critical events may correspond to any anomalies in the functioning of organisations or abrupt and profound changes of professional situations of individuals. This means that situational factors (arising from one’s situation at a given time) might promote involvement in learning and be complementary to institutional (including types and procedures of educational provision) and dispositional (centred on people’s attitudes and perceptions of themselves as learners) ones, as proposed by Bélanger (2011).

To sum up, participation in lifelong learning is common and valued in contemporary societies, both by individuals, organisations and political policies. Nevertheless, institutional, situational and dispositional factors might influence the involvement of individuals in learning. Simultaneously, certain characteristics of work organisations and educational institutions might help or constrain participation in lifelong learning. This set of factors influences professional learning, underpinning transitions between higher education and the world of work, framing nuances within graduates’ employability.

Concluding Remarks: The Aims of Professional Learning and Graduates’ Employability

The presentation of the outlined approach would not be complete without considering the intentionality present in every professional learning process and this consideration is inextricably linked to a certain conceptualisation of graduates’ employability. Nevertheless, the intentions underlying professional learning-processes might be perceived from the learners’ point of view, but also by adopting the views of the educational institutions or the employers.

In this proposal it is deemed necessary and important to promote the debate on intentions adopting an educationalist point of view, that is, defining objectives that are ‘educationally desirable’ (Biesta 2010). Besides considering the individuals or the educational institutions or the employers’ perspectives on the aims of professional learning, one can choose to highlight the purposes that enable the educational development of individuals. In fact, discussing intentionality of professional learning goes beyond articulating personal preferences of individuals, educational institutions or employers. Therefore, the challenge is the identification of intentions that promote human development processes sustaining professional learning, in order to accordingly (re)think the organisation of educational practices.

To promote that discussion it is relevant to note that in the knowledge societies in which we live today different discourses about learning goals in general are put together; namely Gewirtz (2008) indicates four of these discourses corresponding to personal fulfilment, citizenship, social inclusion or social justice and work-related learning. In our opinion, the underlying intentions for professional learning-processes can contain these four threads, in the sense that it is recommended that these processes cover the whole of the subject/individual and should not be thought of as a mere response to the needs identified in work contexts.

Aiming at grasping this set of mixed discourses, it is useful to adopt the proposal of three different (but) related functions (Biesta 2010) of learning, mentioned as qualification, socialisation and subjectification. For the author, this framework allows refocusing the debate that is dominated today by the existence of quantitative rankings and indicators within the framework of major international projects, which convey the idea that you can make decisions about education particularly drawing upon evidence and ignoring its normative dimension, i.e., the consideration of what can be considered ‘quality’ education or ‘good’ education (Biesta 2010).

The function of ‘qualification’ of the learners means: “providing them with the knowledge, skills and understandings and often also with the dispositions and forms of judgment that allow them to do something” (Biesta 2010: 19–20). In the specific case of professional learning, qualification can be understood as training for a particular profession. Based on the results of research on the employability of graduates, it is possible to conclude that qualification is important for this group, and is constructed not only through higher education and various learning experiences related to work, but also in personal life and in everyday life in general.

‘Socialisation’ is another function that “has to do with the many ways in which (…) we become part of particular social, cultural and political orders” (Biesta 2010: 20). Again considering the particular case of professional learning, this function can be rephrased as the insertion of individuals into social and cultural ways of doing and being in professional contexts. The results of research on employability reveal that lack of knowledge about the interrelationship rules and standards is often referenced by graduates when evaluating their initial entry into the labour market and justifies the feeling of shock associated with the transition into the world of work.

Lastly, ‘subjectification’ is about “ways of being in which the individual is not simply a specimen of a more encompassing order” (Biesta 2010: 21) or in other terms corresponds to the process of becoming a subject. This is no less important for professional learning since it is argued that, given the profound and never-ending changes that characterise the world of work nowadays, it is fundamental that each individual might not only perform, professionally speaking, but also think critically upon the implications and alternatives to his or her professional action. In the results of the research on employability there are indications that this unique character of the individual is not only recognised and emphasised by graduates, but also, in some cases, promoted as a strategy to enrich the curriculum vitae presented to employers.

In summary, it should be underlined that the outlined approach to professional learning encompasses five interdependent analytical dimensions, but also requires a consideration of the purposes explicitly and implicitly underlying each professional learning process. Regarding intentionality, it is possible to acknowledge a diversity of possible functions for professional learning, given that the three functions identified (qualification, socialisation and subjectification) always overlap making it relevant to consider its diverse intersections.

Within this framework, it is not possible to accept a traditional definition of graduates’ employability as simply gaining and retaining fulfilling work, nor understand it as an individual attribute (Boden and Nedeva 2010). Alternatively, the outlined approach emphasis the relevance of understanding the professional learning process underneath graduates’ employability trajectories, and highlights the importance of considering that these processes and trajectories are not depending merely on personal characteristics as they are both resulting and influencing work activities and employment conditions.

Finally, the proposed approach is envisaged as a contribution to the development of both educational practice and empirical research in the future. Regarding empirical research, the outlined approach would benefit from the collection of qualitative and biographical data in the future, in order to enable a deeper understanding about space, time, knowledge, reasons and types of learning across the graduates’ lifecycle. Such an understanding will be useful to enrich the continuous (re)thinking of the organisation about the formal contexts in which professional learning takes place, namely the models of proximity between higher education and the world of work, and various options in terms of curricular and pedagogical strategies. These elements might have a minor influence on the chance of obtaining a job, but seem to play a major role on the ways graduates do their jobs (Storen and Aamodt 2010). Nonetheless, decisions concerning educational practice should be framed by a view of what is educationally desirable for the learners, and this view should embrace qualification, socialisation and subjectification as aims of professional learning.