The impact of employability on Humanities,Arts and Social Sciences degrees in Australia

Abstract

In Australia, Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS) faculties are under pressure to demonstrate that their degrees result in employable graduates. Employability has become a key strategic goal of all universities and is driving federal government funding changes. We surveyed 17 Directors of Learning and Teaching in HASS across Australia’s 37 public universities to ascertain their views on how employability has affected HASS. Our thematic analysis of questionnaire results reveals a highly complex and, at times, contradictory picture of the relationship between HASS and employability.

Introduction

This paper investigates the impacts of employability on Humanities, Arts and Social Science (HASS) in Australia. Increasingly, universities must evidence the ‘value’ of education to students and the economy (Baron and McCormack, 2020). One way of demonstrating this is by promoting graduate employability. Accordingly, employability has become a key strategic goal of all universities (Baron and McCormack, 2020) and HASS faculties have been under pressure to ensure their degrees result in employable graduates. Recent Australian government policy has increased this pressure by seeking to engineer employability outcomes through funding. It has increased student cost of undertaking a HASS degree (with a few exceptions), while reducing the cost of degrees in ‘more employable’ areas, including STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines.

We surveyed HASS Directors of Learning and Teaching (DoLTs) across Australian universities. These senior faculty staff work at the intersection of HASS employability outcomes, curriculum changes, student satisfaction, academic staff opinion and university strategy. We undertook a thematic analysis of their responses to better understand the impact of employability pressures on HASS.

We begin by providing background to the relationship between HASS degrees and employability, then present the results of each survey question in turn before discussing overall trends. Before proceeding, we provide some definitions: HASS degrees, known as liberal arts degrees in the US, are provided by ‘academic disciplines that seek to understand and interpret the human experience …they are engaged in the discovery, preservation and communication of the past and present record to enable a deeper understanding of contemporary society’ (Terras et al., 2014). These degrees encompass a variety of academic disciplines, including philosophy, languages, literature studies, history and anthropology in humanities; economics, sociology, education, social policy, social work and demography in social sciences; and design, architecture and landscape architecture in the creative arts (Gould et al., 2018). We define employability in this study as the ability of an individual to find, gain and maintain employment (Green, 2011). However, we acknowledge that employability is a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon and its use is highly contextual (Harvey and Shahjahan, 2013).

Valuing (de-valuing and re-valuing) HASS degrees

HASS degrees have traditionally been at the heart of universities (O’Mahoney et al., 2019; Turner and Brass, 2014). Despite this, the value of HASS has been questioned over the last 40 years (O’Mahoney et al., 2019). In part, this concern is linked to controversy over HASS graduate employability.

In previous work, we noted the ways in which neoliberalism characterises ‘value’ as synonymous with economic return and accountability (Baron and McCormack, 2020). One way in which universities evidence ‘value’ is by demonstrating the employability of their graduates. In turn, ‘Students [learn] to evaluate their course schedule like a bond trader looking over their portfolio’, influenced by a culture that sings ‘the hymns of return on investment’ (Seal, 2018). A pervasive view (Belfiore, 2015) has been that HASS degrees do not provide sufficient return on investment (ROI) and, in particular, that graduates are not employable, or at least, not as employable as STEM or professional graduates.

This narrative has persisted despite evidence to the contrary (see, for example, Hurley, 2020). It has contributed to ‘…a growing epistemological crisis in the meaning and value’ of HASS (Doidge et al., 2020). HASS is seen to be in ‘significant decline’ (Tirosh-Samuelson, 2018; Costa, 2019), as evidenced by reduced resourcing of HASS departments and the elimination of courses and departments (Costa, 2019). The percentage of humanities graduates has fallen, as compared to other areas, and in some countries, absolute graduate numbers have declined (Costa, 2019). These developments reinforce a longer-term trend in which the perceived impact and relevance of the social sciences have arguably fallen behind that of STEM and health sciences (Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, 2021). A number of reports have thus pondered the uncertain future of HASS (Doidge et al., 2020).

In response, many have defended the merit of HASS degrees. Some argue for the deep values HASS programs inculcate: immersion, embeddedness, socialisation and reflectiveness (Tay et al., 2018). Defenders argue that HASS enriches life in non-monetary ways and is culturally essential (Dorfman, 2014). Others have provided evidence that HASS graduates are as likely to be employed as STEM graduates, that HASS brings economic benefits to the economy and to individual graduates (The British Academy, 2020; Hill et al., 2019) and that ‘humanities majors are a wise financial investment’ (Dorfman, 2014), citing practical benefits to businesses, governments, societies and students in terms of job and earning prospects, and the acquisition of technical and transferable skills (O’Mahoney et al., 2019) Further, HASS degrees intersect with other disciplines (such as science and law) that drive prosperity and productivity growth (Gould et al., 2018). Finally, some argue that HASS disciplines best prepare individuals to address the challenges facing the contemporary world, due to their focus on analysing and predicting social phenomena (Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, 2021; The British Academy, 2020), and promoting creativity, critical thinking, human interaction and design (Gould et al., 2018).

The Australian landscape

These competing discourses - devaluing and defending HASS degrees - have been evident in Australia. Employability has become the strategic focus of universities nationally (Baron and McCormack, 2020). Studies show that around 85% of Australian bachelor-degree students give a job-related consideration as their main reason for study (Norton and Cakitaki, 2016). Thus, the majority of Australian university students view their higher education credential as enhancing their position in the labour market (Tomlinson, 2017).

As with other countries (Belfiore, 2015), this focus upon employability has a concomitant narrative that HASS faculties do not provide sufficient ‘value’: ‘Changing frameworks for understanding social value and the expansion of tertiary education disciplines over time have affected perceptions of the importance of the Humanities’ (Deloitte, 2018). Universities have reduced funding for HASS faculties, renamed or restructured them, and closed courses and departments across the country. Recently, related student fee changes occurred. In Australia, the Commonwealth Government partly pays a student’s university fees and the student contributes the remainder, usually via a HECS-HELP (Higher Education Contribution Scheme-Higher Education Loan Program) government loan. The Australian government funding changes increase the cost to students of most HASS degrees along with a corresponding reduction in the cost of degrees where graduates are considered to be ‘more employable’, such as STEM. The aim is to incentivize students to make more ‘job ready’ choices (Horton, 2020), despite doubts that such social engineering is effective (Daly and Lewis, 2020).

Our project

Although concern has been expressed about HASS and student employability, there are gaps in the literature: firstly, there is little empirical work on the influence political and strategic employability decisions have had on HASS programs and faculties and whether these have affected the traditional purposes and values of HASS. Secondly, it is unclear how HASS academic staff are responding to these developments. This is important because academics play a critical role in the curriculum and furthering student employability skills (Cotronei-Baird, 2019). Some research considers the response of academic staff to employability (e.g., Sin et al., 2019) but not with specific reference to HASS in Australia. A study of Australian and UK academics (not limited to HASS) found that ‘…academics face a number of competing challenges, constraints, and demands …that impede the consistent and systematic integration of employability skills in the university curriculum’, and that there is a gap between rhetoric and practice in the teaching of employability skills (Cotronei-Baird, 2019).

Methodology

We attained ethics approval in 2021 to survey HASS DoLTs across Australian universities and identified these from university webpages. DoLTs are senior academics leading learning and teaching in their faculty. Generally one HASS DoLT is appointed per university. DoLTs work with senior management and academic staff in the implementation of their university’s learning and teaching priorities. They work across HASS disciplines and guide academic staff in implementing university strategic priorities. The role of DoLTs includes monitoring the effects of government and university policy changes on academic programs, staff/student engagement and satisfaction. We therefore sought to understand their sense of the relationship between HASS and employability.

Australia has 37 public, 4 private and 2 international private universities. We surveyed public universities of which 17 (45.9%) participated. Public universities are based across Australian cities (30 universities) and regional centres (7 universities) and largely funded through government grants and student fees supported by a Government-backed loan scheme. Revenue growth per university varies and is based largely on student intake and research income. Due to the ethics committee anonymity requirement, we cannot identify individual universities. However, most universities are members of 4 main university networks for mutual assistance and lobbying. When comparing the data between networks, only two showed discernible differences. The first is the Group of Eight (Go8), the 8 top-ranked Australian research-focused universities which are generally large, well-established and financially well-endowed. Three Go8 universities participated in this study. The second is the Regional Universities Network (RUN), comprising 7 universities that aim to play a transformative role in their regions. These, in comparison to Go8 universities, have fewer students enrolled, fewer assets and are disadvantaged by funding based on average costs (Norton, 2020). Four RUN universities participated in this study.

Our online QuestionPro survey consisted of 6 questions. Their design was based on the literature review, our earlier project findings and recent government funding changes:

• In your view, what is the central purpose (value or relevance) of HASS degrees?

• In what ways have employability outcomes reshaped HASS degrees?

• How has this enabled and/or detracted from the central purpose(s), value(s) or relevance of HASS degrees?

• How have academic staff responded to these changes?

• What impact have recent government funding changes to HECS-HELP for HASS had at your university?

• In light of COVID-19, in what ways do you consider the emerging HASS degrees prepare graduates for an increasingly uncertain and volatile world?

We included a last statement inviting wider-ranging responses:

• Further information helpful for this research topic.

The survey responses were uploaded into NVivo (2020 version) and thematically coded applying a systematic phrase or sentence coding procedure as outlined by Saldaña (2013). The survey questions were coded sequentially. Conceptually similar texts from each respondent were ascribed the same unique thematic code, the names of which were taken from the discourse data, enabling the same or similar data per respondent to be grouped under the same thematic code. In some cases, we assigned multiple thematic codes to a segment of text, depending on its richness and content.

The researchers coded collaboratively. Both have worked extensively in senior learning and teaching management roles in Australian universities and applied their knowledge when grouping the datum into thematic codes and verifying the coding accuracy. One member had the primary responsibility as coder and kept an analysis document. This included all of the coded themes and sub themes per survey question. Listed under each theme were the references/responses, their frequency and a summary of what was included or excluded under each thematic code. These data points described the attributes of each coded theme. The second researcher audited and quality-assured the coded data. We met weekly for dialogic exchange, interpretation and scrutiny of the thematic codes and sub-codes to ensure they were specific, observable and valid. Based on the evidence, we added new codes or sub-codes if the parent code was too broad or if deeper detail could be gained. We also broadened some coded themes if themes were very similar. Closing or widening of what was included or excluded under the coded themes were interpretative choices made by the researchers based on the evidence. Generally three coding cycles were applied to capture the overarching themes to determine a coherent narrative from the data. We generated our analysis from the themes, references/responses and their frequency counts.

We compared the Go8 and RUN responses to all questions. There were no significant differences to questions 1 and 6. However, questions two to five showed differences, as will be discussed.

Findings

Of the 40 survey-invitations distributed across the 37 universities, 20 (50%) invitees from 17 universities (45.9%) participated. Multiple responses from any single university were aggregated. We received responses from 17 universities for questions 1 and two; and from 16 universities for questions three to 6.

We selected examples of responses for insertion in the findings and discussion to highlight frequent responses made, validate claims and/or to showcase an insight to a specific theme. The overarching criterion for the response selection was whether it was the most appropriate in support of the claim(s) made. The respondents’ statements and quotes are referenced with their unique last three digits identification number as assigned by QuestionPro. For example, (337) and (834) are two unique respondents.

Question 1: The central purpose (value or relevance) of HASS degrees

All participants responded and identified four central purposes of HASS degrees. We assumed a certain degree of independence between these for analysis, though they overlapped and are deeply connected. Some respondents provided multiple comments.

Development of transferable skills

‘Transferable skills’ are often ill defined, but typically relate to skills such as critical thinking and problem solving that can be transferred to another context (see further Liao, 2016). All respondents identified this as a core purpose of HASS degrees. The most frequently mentioned were critical thinking, communication skills, thinking skills, creativity, problem solving and ethical awareness. Respondents observed that these skills do not date, are meaningful and can be applied in diverse professional and personal environments (337). Respondents noted that these skills added to technical abilities, promoting ‘intellectual agility and creative innovation that complement the more technical skills acquired through STEM’ (834). They ‘help students to develop into informed and active citizens’ (489) and develop students’ agency, enabling them to ‘effectively communicate our thoughts, our values and our choices as humans’ (173).

Development of humanistic values, contribution to the ‘public good’, civic and social responsibility and attributes that create informed and active citizens

16 respondents identified the central purpose of HASS degrees as fostering creative and critical thinking, intellectual agility and creative innovation. Three respondents viewed the value of HASS as core to the educational experience, for instance: ‘HASS degrees [are] the soul of education and learning. It is the discipline area that allows us as members of society to understand and perform as productive, critical and ethical contributors to the public good’ (173). ‘HASS degrees are invaluable in exposing students to fundamental human and humanistic values and world issues’ (834).

Development of employability skills for a wide range of potential careers

12 respondents noted that HASS employability skills are important now and for the future workforce. Respondents observed that HASS engages students ‘…to help make sense of the world, foster enlightened thoughtful and informed responses to issues’ (506). Some respondents stated that HASS degrees challenge thinking and help ‘to create graduates whose contribution to society is framed by the understanding that complements other disciplines’ (355).

Provision of disciplinary depth

Five respondents identified the importance of developing disciplinary depth and subject matter expertise, ‘…trans-disciplinary agility central to society’ (715) and ‘... knowledge of a wide range of topics, peoples, and contemporary issues central to society’ (323).

Question 2: Ways in which employability outcomes have reshaped HASS degrees

All participants responded. Some offered multiple responses. The 25 responses were grouped into four themes:

Clear communication plan and employability narrative

Ten participants observed that the value of HASS degrees is now communicated more clearly and overtly to stakeholders. ‘This communication happens before students enrol in a course, throughout the course and as students graduate’ (355). A clear employability narrative links what is taught in HASS to different job types for which graduates may apply. The employability narrative infuses the program outcomes and assessment tasks.

Major degree restructures and curriculum reviews

Ten respondents noted the restructuring of degrees such as the Bachelor of Arts (BA) to better align with employability drivers and which now provide Work Integrated Learning (WIL), internships and work-ready units: ‘WIL subjects/modules have become mandatory in HASS degrees and we have to report to the DVC-A [Deputy Vice-Chancellor - Academic] directly on what we are doing in that space and how we can improve’ (337). In addition, degree restructures occurred around the majors/minors offered and now include multidisciplinary degrees or combined degrees: ‘Students still complete one HASS major as part of their degree, but the increased options for a minor or second major are largely focused on increasing the perceived employment options for HASS graduates’ (616).

Senior executives exercise increased levels of scrutiny over HASS

Three respondents’ comments included: new reporting mechanism whereby HASS senior staff report to the DVC-A on the progress of HASS employability changes; implementation of an institution-wide action plan regarding employability and the requirement that employability is integrated into all course offerings; increased expectations that the university’s HASS degree offerings are benchmarked against those at other universities; and increased data collection requirements in relation to student and employer/industry expectations. Respondents commented on the development of new majors that align with industry skills and discontinuance of courses without such links; and active contribution of industry advisory boards to programs. One participant commented:

There is a preference from the Senior Executive to: 1) create very explicit majors that ‘speak to industry’; 2) suspend/discontinue study areas that do not have explicit links (and where explicit links cannot be articulated in the business case for the reaccreditation); 3) package study areas into strategic degrees with clearer paths to particular jobs. These approaches appear to make business sense, however problems can arise depending on how people define terms such as ‘employability’ and ‘job-readiness’ - these currently appear to be subjectively applied based on people's understanding (or lack of understanding) about areas of study (e.g. gender studies) (363).

Changes to funding has meant fewer enrolments

Two respondents noted that the recent Commonwealth Government funding changes resulted in fewer HASS enrolments. This issue is discussed in more detail in the section on Question 5.

When we compared responses from the Go8 and the RUN universities, it emerged that there is greater strategic focus, scrutiny and significant change in the four RUN universities to ensure employability is central to learning and teaching than in the Go8.

Question 3: Ways in which changes have enabled and/or detracted from the central purpose(s), value(s) or relevance of HASS degrees

All participants responded. Overall more than twice as many respondents (11) supported the assertion that employability contributes to, rather than detracts from (5), the central purpose of HASS degrees.

Ways employability has contributed to the central relevance of HASS degrees

Respondents from 11 universities noted that the restructure of degrees in HASS broadened students’ choice for gaining employment in a wider range of occupations:

The move to a broader range of majors to compliment the 6 core HASS majors in the Bachelor of Arts has emphasised the relevance of HASS degrees by demonstrating how the HASS disciplines can be paired with a broad range of disciplines to prepare students for employment in a wide range of occupations (616).

Respondents stated that integrating employability has not detracted from ‘the degree’s traditional academic focus and rigour’ (689); nor from translating students’ knowledge into different contexts such as ‘good citizenship’ (489).

Ways employability has detracted from the central relevance of HASS degrees

Respondents from five universities reported that employability detracted from the central relevance of HASS degrees. Four described the phasing out of some subjects to provide space for students to choose employability-related subjects, resulting in staff redundancies, a decline in student enrolments, and student attrition as students moved to universities with a greater choice of HASS subjects. One respondent was greatly concerned about the decline of HASS at their university:

We have lost staff positions which have not been replaced. Units, courses and discipline areas have been discontinued or rationalised so that the minimum viable range of study is delivered. We are down to the bottom line, and the only reason we are holding on to this is because of the accreditation requirements for other courses that prop up our taught load (777).

Two respondents reported that the introduction of cores (compulsory subjects) in degrees constrains subject choice and therefore restricts students’ foundational knowledge, exploration across topics and specialization, counter to the aims of a liberal education:

The university likes cores because they take a cookie-cutter approach to education and facilitate certain messages (employability included) being delivered to large cohorts. Of course a degree should have some cores, so it's certain CILOs [Course Intended Learning Outcomes] are met, etc. However, a degree entirely populated by cores limits specialisation, exploration and liberal thinking (337).

When we compared Go8 and RUN responses, we found RUN participants were more likely to identify negative impacts on their degrees than Go8 participants.

Question 4: How have academic staff responded to these changes?

All particiapants responded. We categorized their comments from ‘no resistance’ to ‘strong resistance’.

Three universities reported that there is no resistance: ‘Academic staff can generally see the value in prescribing more work integrated learning opportunities for students’ (254).

Three universities reported that initially resistant staff became supportive. Attitudes changed when staff felt their concerns were addressed. For instance, where academics were concerned that ‘employment’ should be driving curriculum and pedagogy, the term was changed to ‘employability’. This allayed concerns and the academics became active champions of WIL (715). In another example, when the BA degree was re-designed to integrate employability, ‘student numbers increased and reversed the degree’s enrolment decline without sacrificing academic rigor’ (689).

Two universities reported that staff attitudes were mixed. Both pointed to a generational shift. One indicated that ‘young enthusiastic staff understand the need to change and innovate. There are others [not defined] who cannot envisage the opportunities the change presents’ (355). The other noted that academics who commenced in the last 10 years are cognisant of the importance of employability.

Three universities reported staff were generally resistant. This was attributed to the reorganisation and phasing out of courses, causing staff redundancies; changes to course structures that required some staff to teach outside their area of expertise; and to less reliance on sessional staff. These factors resulted in loss of staff morale (506).

Five universities reported staff were strongly resistant and demoralised. This has generally resulted from poor work-relationships between senior managers and academic staff. One participant reported that, where academics pushed back on ideas considered detrimental to learning and teaching, their views were not considered at the senior level (337). A second respondent noted that academics are generally not involved in university-wide initiatives relating to employability. Without academic staff input, the initiatives and products produced are generic and less relevant to actual employment outcomes for HASS (337). A third respondent (323) stated that employability initiatives have largely been a negative experience for HASS academic staff and that these ‘…tend to further entrench beliefs that already existed, likely negative, about HASS degrees and employability. This outcome is usually a result of having a high-level or external stakeholders push to force HASS staff to engage and/or change in this respect’ (323). Another respondent reported that:

Academic staff are devastated, demoralised and exhausted by constantly having to advocate for HASS disciplines in a very hostile and often disrespectful context. Staff are requested to embed and prioritise employability which they do as best as they can but there is little support for placements and internships given that, as we are not accredited like other 'professions', these activities are considered 'optional' for our students (777).

When we compared Go8 and RUN responses, we found that, although Go8 universities reported some staff resistance, RUN universities reported greater resistance and that staff were teaching outside their area of expertise, subjects had been closed, staff redundancies had occurred and morale declined.

Question 5: The impact of recent government funding changes to HECS-HELP for HASS

All participants responded. Their responses were grouped into two thematic categories: those who stated it was too early to assess the impact (respondents from 10 universities); and those who believed impact was already evident (respondents from six universities). Six respondents from the first category commented that their enrolment numbers continue to remain stable. The evidence of impact reported by the six respondents of the second category is outlined below. Some respondents provided multiple comments.

Six respondents described initiatives implemented arising from the government funding changes, including: managing student expectations of the fee increase; and addressing the decline in student enrolments through curriculum renewal, restructuring and rationalising degrees.

Managing student expectations

Four respondents commented that public debates which followed the government’s communication, cast doubt on the value of HASS degrees and led students to seek clarification about fees paid and the return on their investment (ROI) (781). This factor influenced their enrolment decisions (323). One respondent stated:

This is why business and law, in the same fee band as for many HASS courses, are still doing well; the ROI is perceived to be strong. Students are certainly asking more questions about fees than before, when it was barely ever mentioned (781).

Decline in student enrolments

Four respondents observed that student enrolments have declined, particularly in Arts-related programs. This may not, however, be evident in overall HASS student enrolment numbers because in disciplines such as languages (which are in a lower student contribution band) enrolments have increased. Two respondents claim there is an incentive to over-enrol where the CSP [a Commonwealth Supported Place] contribution has dropped because the university retains more of the fees (777, 831).

Two respondents painted a bleaker picture. They indicated that enrolments decreased and HASS is struggling to remain viable:

There have been lower enrolments and the university is now talking about the financial future of Arts (472).

The only reason we are holding on to this is because of the accreditation requirements for other courses that prop up our taught load (777).

Curriculum renewal and restructuring and rationalising

Three respondents indicated that overarching monetary considerations are driving curriculum renewal and pedagogical decisions (355, 876, and 616). The BA in one institution was revised to include second major/minor options that are vocational and attract lower tuition fees (876). There is also consideration to incorporate majors from lower cost bands in response to the fee concerns (616). In turn, lower enrolments driven by fee increases impact on a course’s growth and breadth of subject offerings (124). At one university, faculty and executive staff are identifying the lack of strength in terms of enrolments in disciplines to rationalise programs (506).

When we compared responses from Go8 and RUN universities, we found Go8 universities considered it was too early to identify changes, while RUN universities identified declining student enrolments, moves to rationalize ‘non-viable degrees’ and incorporation into HASS of majors from lower cost bands.

Question 6: Ways in which the emerging HASS degrees prepare graduates for an increasingly uncertain and volatile world in light of COVID 19

All participants responded and described varied ways the emerging HASS degrees prepare graduates for an increasingly uncertain and volatile world. Their responses were grouped into four thematic categories: the development of transferable skills (24 responses); foundation for navigating an increasingly uncertain and volatile world (12 responses); providing the skills to undertake jobs of the future in the new economy (3 responses); and benefits to health in terms of mental resilience (1 response).

Transferable skills

Most comments (24) highlighted the range of transferable skills developed in HASS that prepare graduates for the post COVID-19 world. The most frequently mentioned skills were communication and research skills; agility, adaptability, inclusion and empathy; the ability to synthesise and/or ‘look at the bigger picture’; and critical thinking.

Foundation for navigating an increasingly uncertain and volatile world

12 respondents stated that HASS degrees promote a long-term view, which is important for balance and less resistant to volatility (781). The degrees provide students with the capacity to interrogate the world, make sense of it intellectually and enact change (834, 337). Two respondents reported:

HASS degrees prepare students by engaging them with some of the most pressing issues of the day (e.g. fake news, ethical questions surrounding the COVID pandemic). By teaching students about the contingent and changing basis of knowledge, HASS degrees prepare students to ask questions and propose solutions in rapidly changing circumstances (616).

…in HASS disciplines, there are rarely 'black and white, right and wrong' answers, we help students appreciate and thrive in complexity. We help them become better at dealing with uncertainty and not being paralysed by it (831).

HASS graduates have the skills to undertake jobs of the future

Three respondents observed that HASS skills are transferable to many workplaces. One respondent highlighted the value of humanist input to organisations (254). Two respondents identified adaptable and creative/critical thinking as key to the future workforce (173, 472).

Benefits to health, in terms of mental resilience

One observation described that the isolation imposed during COVID-19 lockdowns increased mental ill-health which is in keeping with the literature. HASS graduates build awareness of identity and students contextualise that awareness within the wider society. The degrees provide space for creative and critical thinking and flexibility and choice related to personal interest. HASS graduates build resilience and a strong sense of self to fall back on in these circumstances (876).

Discussion

The participants’ responses reveal a highly complex and, at times, contradictory picture of the relationship between HASS and employability. Participants’ views that HASS degrees provide students with transferable skills and attributes appear very consistent with the employability agenda. Whether as stand-alone attributes, or in tandem with other disciplines (such as STEM disciplines), these skills provide a sound basis for citizenship and leadership. There is tension, however, in the fact that (as participants acknowledge) these skills are not necessarily directed towards a particular vocation or career consistent with the narrower neoliberal agenda of preparing graduates for a ‘specific’ employability destination. Some participants suggested better communication of the value of HASS degrees is needed, but participants’ answers to the next question (that is, ‘in what ways have employability outcomes reshaped HASS degrees?’) suggests that such communication is already widespread, while responses to Question three suggest there is a strong counter message that HASS degrees have poorer employability outcomes than other degrees. This was particularly evident in participants’ responses to the recent HASS funding change, where government communications have continued to cast doubt on the ‘value’ of HASS degrees.

It is clear from participants’ responses that the employability agenda has reshaped, and is reshaping, HASS: its impact, in particular, can be seen in curriculum changes and increased pressure to communicate the employment benefits of HASS degrees. It is also evident that employability has firmed the neoliberal agenda. This is evident in participants’ reports of increased auditing of HASS faculties and degrees; increased scrutiny of the performance of HASS departments and staff; more centralised and managerial decision-making; and more industry input into the design and function of degrees. Whether one considers these developments positive or negative may depend on one’s view of neoliberalism, but what is significant to us is that, despite all this activity, many participants also report a continued decline in university funding and support for HASS. It is thus unclear where all this activity leads. As funding declines and departments and disciplines are closed, there is a downward spiral of HASS in some universities - a concern articulated by some participants.

This tension is also evident in the responses to Question 3. A majority felt that employability enhanced the core values of HASS degrees. They pointed to the development of new majors and the pairing of HASS degrees with other disciplines to further employability; new and more authentic forms of assessment; and a move away from an ‘elitist’ notion of learning for its own sake. However, a substantial minority asserted that employability had detracted from the core values of HASS. These participants saw the employability agenda as contributing to a phasing out of courses and subjects and a decline in student numbers. This occurred as students responded to the messaging that HASS degrees do not lead to employability outcomes; and as universities impose course architecture to further the employability agenda, limiting student subject choice and running counter to the aims of a liberal arts focus.

Tensions are also evident in participants’ responses to the question about HASS staff. Firstly, it is clear that the relationship between the employability agenda and the potential or actual decline of HASS faculties and degrees is creating much of the resistance of HASS staff to employability. Secondly, some participants report a generational shift with newer academics more supportive of employability. Thirdly, there is a negative perception amongst some HASS staff of senior management. It is particularly concerning that one participant reported staff to be ‘devastated, demoralised and exhausted by constantly having to advocate for HASS disciplines in a very hostile and often disrespectful context’. Other participants reported centralized senior management making decisions without HASS input, lack of support for the implementation of the HASS agenda, and poor communication of decision-making. There are significant lessons here for senior management seeking to further the employability agenda in HASS disciplines.

The ways in which this complex picture is affected by the new government funding arrangements in Australia are unclear. A majority of respondents said that it was too early to tell. But for others, the issue of communication was, again, prominent in their comments. They noted that the media debates about the new funding cast doubt on whether studying HASS degrees was ‘a good investment’. This returns to the central neoliberal concern for evidence of ‘value’, an idea increasingly taken up by student consumers. Some participants report a decline in student numbers due to the funding changes. But the irony of the funding changes is that participants also report that universities now want to attract more HASS students because more of the cost is borne by the student. Lastly, these funding changes are seen to be driving further curriculum renewal, including the incorporation of majors from more ‘vocational’ degrees, and department and degree closures.

Ironically, in light of this complexity and continued expressions of doubt as to the value of HASS degrees, participants were strongly of the view that HASS degrees prepared students to face an increasingly volatile and uncertain world. Participants pointed to the positive impact on graduates of the skills and attributes conferred by a HASS degree. Participants also reported HASS degrees contributed positively to students’ resilience and mental health.

Lastly, it is evident that the employability agenda is more keenly felt by RUN universities than Go8 universities. It is likely that the status and stronger asset base of the Go8 universities provide a buffer against declining enrolments and significant structural change within HASS degrees. RUN universities, in a more financially precarious position, are responding more rapidly to the employability agenda.

How then do we enjoy the benefits to HASS of employability discourse while addressing the devaluing of HASS and attendant issues of enrolment and funding decline, course closures and an often sceptical and unsympathetic senior managerial cohort? A first step might be to rethink critically the very concept of graduate employability in Australia. But this is no easy task. Certainly, there is a significant body of critical literature that seeks to do this (see, for example, Tomlinson, 2017; Bennett, 2018; Brown, 2016; Brown, 2013). Authors within this body of literature seek a broader and more holistic concept of employability that avoids the more deleterious consequences of the narrow neoliberal view so favoured by policy makers. A broader, more holistic view could well work in HASS’s favour. Alternatively, authors such as Biesta (2005) call for a rethink of the model of education itself to avoid the narrowing economic focus. Her work calls on us to once again value learning, the development of the individual, and the acceptance of risk - a model that may better prepare graduates for a complex and uncertain future and is in keeping with the core values of HASS.

The current policy environment, however, ignores the societal aspects of higher education in order to focus upon economic outcomes (Bennett, 2018: 33) and the current government policy settings in Australia focus squarely on raising graduate employability. As discussed previously, this policy setting has contributed in de-valuing HASS degrees and we noted that a recent component of this policy has been to raise student fees for most HASS courses and lowering fees for students undertaking STEM courses. As we have observed, this has cast doubt on the value of HASS degrees. Senior university management responded to this policy setting and applied increased levels of scrutiny on HASS faculties to ensure their courses aligned to the employability drivers. HASS staff applied their time and resources to restructure their degrees accordingly.

Despite this, the latest 2021 Quality Indication for Learning and Teaching (QILT) Employer Satisfaction Survey continue to show that employers believe graduates in the ‘Society and Culture’ disciplines exceed the national average in their preparedness for employment. Ninety-two point seven per cent of employers indicated graduates in those disciplines are prepared for their current employment by their education compared with an overall average of 92.1% (Coleborne, 2022).

This may give HASS a new path to pursue that is in keeping with the economic agenda. Employability may not be the most pressing issue for HASS graduate outcomes. In fact Brennan (2022) states that the productivity gains from ‘quantity of graduates are becoming exhausted’ and increasingly it will be ‘quality of student attainment’ that matters. Brennan adds that we will need ‘ongoing improvements in quality student attainment year on year to enhance productivity’, implying a greater focus on quality teaching and encouraging creativity and innovation in university courses. Therefore the significant changes made to HASS degrees recently in response to Government policy may not have addressed the implied purpose of universities, to contribute positively to raising a country’s economic productivity.

Conclusion

In our project, we undertook a survey of HASS DoLTs and a thematic analysis of their responses. In doing so, we sought to address two particular gaps in the literature: the impact on HASS programs and faculties of strategic and political decisions about employability in Australia; and the response of academic staff to the employability agenda. Our survey reveals a very complex and somewhat contradictory relationship between HASS degrees and employability, revealing both benefits and disbenefits to HASS from the employability agenda. Although not all DoLTs responded, the response rate was sufficient to draw tentative conclusions. On the one hand, participants reported that the employability agenda has positively impacted on curriculum, assessment and the self-presentation and promotion of HASS. On the other hand, many participants reported declines in enrolments, declines in funding, negative impacts on staff morale, increased scrutiny of HASS by senior management and course closures. Indeed, at the time of writing, the media reports that Federation University has decided to axe its BA altogether (Mayers, 2022).

Of course, changes wrought in universities by employability are not confined to HASS. There has been a fundamental shift in the expectation that universities will evidence their value by their graduates’ employability outcomes. That being said, it seems HASS degrees have been significantly impacted by this trend. It is hard to understand why this is the case. Data continues to show that HASS graduates are as employable (if not more employable) than disciplines such as maths and science in Australia, and their median salaries are higher than graduates of those disciplines (Hurley, 2020). But the recommendations that students should think hard about investing in a HASS degree are pervasive and the pessimism about HASS employability outcomes are weighing heavily on some faculties and academic staff, generating loss of programs, staffing and autonomy. To avoid these disbenefits, we have suggested that HASS may need to steer the employability agenda in new and more helpful directions. We hope to follow up this study with investigation into students’ expectations and experiences of HASS in light of these changes.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The impact of employability on Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences degrees in Australia

Supplemental Material for The impact of employability on Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences degrees in Australia by Silvia McCormack, Paula Baron in Arts and Humanities in Higher Education