ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON 08137701720
HUMAN, MATERIAL AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES FACTORS AS DETERMINANTS OF EMPLOYABILITY OF UNIVERSITY GRADUATES IN THE LABOUR MARKET IN SOUTH EASTERN NIGERIA
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Employability has over time become a popular among and in particular, it is believed that graduates do not have the competencies required by end users (de la Harpe, Radloff, and Wyber, 2000; Morley, 2001; Kivinen and Silvennoinen, 2002; Johnson and Burden, 2003; Egulu, 2004). This is also shown in the growing statistics of unemployment among graduates worldwide (ILO, 2010; Tan and French-Arnold, 2012). Among the pervasive factors is the curriculum that lacks new aspects that would empower graduates to acquire the capabilities required by employers or the capabilities required to be self-employed (Kolawole and Arikpo, 2008).
In this era therefore, training students for a career at University levels is not enough but rather students need to be prepared to work in the dynamic global environment (Evers, Rush and Berdrow, 1998; Billing, 2003; Sanz-Velasco and Saemundsson 2008). Graduates have been able to secure jobs, but globalization and the rapid improvement of technology have changed the nature of work, demanding more flexible workers,
this includes developing among students the capabilities and important qualities as needed by the labour market. These capabilities are important as they enable graduates to meet the demands of the new knowledge economy, which is characterized by flexible workers (Heath, Knez, and Camerer, 1993) who are the ones most desired by employers (Billing, 2003; Schmidt, 1999).
Fundamental studies on employability reveal that entrepreneurial education have a major influence on both forms of employment, business success and performance (Pfeffer, 1998; Harvey, 2000a; Florin, Lubatkin, and Schulze, 2003). Furthermore, graduates with a higher level of employability, capabilities and competencies are more likely to partake in entrepreneurial actions and meet employers’ demands in terms of productivity (Nauta, van Vianen, van der University institutionsjden, van Dam and Willemsen, 2009). According to Holmgren, From, Olofsson, Karlsson, Snyder, and Sundtröm (2004) entrepreneurial education, besides being evident in promoting business start-ups, has also a wider market potential for the people possessing it.
Obviously, entrepreneurial approach are not only required for an entrepreneurial career, but they are also highly needed in other employment relationships (Frank, Korunka, Lueger, and Mugler, 2007).
Efforts and attempts have been made by Universities to face graduate employability, ranging from integrating the needed capabilities and qualities in the curriculum during course design (Yorke and Knight, 2004) to using accurate teaching strategies and integrated learning (Huq and Gilbert, 2013). Career capabilities improvement actions covering such things as career management capabilities, voluntary actions and engagement in professional clubs have also been recognized as enhancing graduate employability (Bridgstock, 2009). Through these actions graduates acquire work experience that enhances university institution employability capabilities and employability expectation (Watts, 1999; Mason, Willian and Cranmer, 2009).
Career capabilities improvement actions are not explicitly stated in the curricula (Barrie, 2006), are not mandatory for all students (Kilasi, 2011) and are not assessed in some contexts, limiting university institutions appeal to students (Saunders and Zuzel, 2010). Furthermore, entrepreneurial education studies do not reach many, especially non-business students, making it hectic to acquire the expected results (Gerba, 2012, Kilasi, 2011).
The capabilities gap and the growing statistic of unemployment among graduates may indicate that the objectives of entrepreneurial studies are yet to be realized (Karadisi, 2012; Kilasi, 2011). There is also limited scientific information on the role of structured career capabilities improvement and related actions in terms of time and duration in enhancing employability (Astin, 1999).
Tertiary education is essential for economic and social improvement and meeting the needs of the knowledge economy (Phago & Thwala, 2015). Tertiary education can also offer an opportunity to those individuals excluded in the past to compete in the labour market (Chinyamurindi, 2012, 2016a, 2016b). There is thus a need for employability capabilities, argued to be valuable assets to enhance employability amongst graduates (Davies et al., 2012). Employers also have expectations that graduates will have these employability capabilities (Artess, Hooley & Mellors-Bourne, 2017; Tran, 2015).
In Nigeria, the government is awarding bursaries to previously disadvantaged individuals to further their studies (Nkosi, 2014). These are individuals who through no fault of their own were affected by apartheid policies (Chinyamurindi, 2012) and are at the centre of efforts to redress past imbalances (Chinyamurindi, 2016a). Subsequently, student enrolment in Nigerian universities has significantly increased (Reddy, Bhorat, Powell, Visser & Arends, 2016) to reflect this imperative of equity. Sadly, also on the increase is the unemployment rate, especially amongst university graduates (Edayi, 2015; Mncayi, 2016). This has resulted in an oversupply of graduates in the labour market compared to the job opportunities available (Artess et al., 2017; Van Broekhuizen, 2016).
According to Lourens (2016), tertiary education provides individuals with subjective contentment and financial benefits. Students cite employment expectation as the primary purpose of pursuing tertiary education (Wharton, Goodwin & Cameron, 2014). However, employment expectation of black students are significantly affected by the inadequate schooling system in Nigeria (Rogan & Reynolds, 2016). This often leads to challenges in the system, especially concerning a return on investment based on education inputs (Tholen, 2015).
The issue of employability has received much attention within the extant literature but is in need of further inquiry (Hooley, 2017). Despite disparities in the definition of ’employability’, mutual ground can be established (Wharton et al., 2014). ‘Employability’ refers to the competencies and abilities that graduates need to enhance employment opportunities in the labour market, as well as the economic and social improvement of the country (Jeswani, 2016; Phago & Thwala, 2015). Tertiary education is perceived by many people as a pathway to enhance employability (Adrian, 2017; Hooley, 2017). Employability, however, is not a guarantee to secure employment but only enhances employment chances (Lourens, 2016; Paterson, 2017).
An understanding of employability issues provides individuals with an opportunity to be aware of their potential, capabilities, approach and knowledge to become effective citizens and workers (Hooley, 2017). However, student awareness with regards to employability is often overlooked (Tymon, 2013), and this remains an unexplored yet essential perspective in Nigeria (Chiwara, Chinyamurindi & Mjoli, 2017). Calls have been made for studies that focus on understanding both extrinsic and intrinsic goals of students in obtaining employment (Greco, 2016). Further, calls have been made also to understand student perspectives on aspects of employability (Maharaj, 2015) and how this links with capabilities acquisition (Kaliika, 2011). It is essential to consider such calls and their focus on the student as a key stakeholder in knowledge generation, capabilities acquisition and utilisation uniquely within the knowledge economy.
Knight and Yorke (2004, pg.150) developed a four-stage model abbreviated (USEM), comprising Understanding (of accurate subject knowledge, apprehension and applicability); Capabilities (subject-specific and generic abilities); Efficacy beliefs (awareness and understanding of oneself and one’s abilities) and Meta-cognition (the ability to reflect on and regulate one’s own learning and behaviour). The model defines graduate employability as the possession of understanding, capabilities and the personal qualities needed to perform adequately at the graduate level. The thesis adopts the capabilities and qualities used in the USEM model to develop the study employability capabilities instrument (Knight and Yorke, 2004, pg. 27-28), with some modifications to reflect the Nigerian context.
Lorraine and Sewell (2007, pg. 280) developed a model that illustrates the essential components of employability as well as the direction of the interaction between the various elements in enhancing employability capabilities and qualities. According to them, employability consists of 3 higher-level components; self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem; and 5 lower-level components; Career improvement and learning, Experience (Work and Life), Degree subject knowledge, understanding and capabilities, Generic capabilities and Emotional intelligence. The model is abbreviated “Career EDGE” reflecting the bold characters. The model suggests that providing students with opportunities to access and develop everything on the lower tier and essentially reflecting on and evaluating these experiences will result in the improvement of higher-level components, which are the crucial link to employability. In relation to how the model is applied in this thesis, it focuses on the lower-level components, in particular work experience and engagement in career improvement learning, leading to the acquirement of the higher-level components.
A more comprehensive model of enhancing graduate employability is the one developed by Harvey and Morey (2002) that defines employability in relation to how individuals engage with opportunities, and reflect on and articulate university institution capabilities and experience. As shown in Figure 1.2, the model consists of three parts, employability improvement opportunities, the three processes involved in facilitating the actions and the parties involved. For the output to be realized, it is important to link all the factors together with the parties involved in the process. Employability improvement opportunities and actions consist of support offered centrally by the university including career management capabilities, guidance and experiences both practical and theoretical as mainstreamed in the curriculum. Career management capabilities refer to a range of competencies that enable a person to gather and organize self, educational and occupational information and thus manage effectively careers, life transitions and the related learnings (Watts, 1999). According to Harvey (2001) and McQuaid and Lindsay (2005) career management capabilities are essential to employability in that they facilitate in determining the accurate time as to when employability and discipline-specific capabilities are learned, articulated and used (for example during application and job search).
The three processes consist of a pedagogy that encourages the improvement of capabilities and qualities, as well as self-reflection by students. Reflections by students include the willingness to learn, to reflect on university institution learning and to articulate university institution experiences and abilities. A study by Moy (1999), for example, establishes that there is a positive relationship between the improvement of generic capabilities by learners and teaching pedagogies. In particular, teaching strategies such as the learner-centred approach (which enables for the integration between thinking and actions relevant and meaningful to learners to occur); adult learning principles (that encourage problem-based learning, learner reflection, evaluation and articulation of learning experiences) and the use of multiple roles by teachers (such as being a mentor, coach, facilitator and evaluator) positively enhances the improvement of generic capabilities. Obviously, good learning, teaching, assessment and curriculum practices foster achievements valued in the labour market (Knight and Yorke, 2004).
The main parties involved are Universities, students and employers. Universities provide employability improvement opportunities obtained through the core curricula and actions external to it such as career guidance and management capabilities. In this thesis, all these employability improvement opportunities and actions are grouped under Career capabilities improvement views also supported by Brown (2006). Employers can participate in curriculum design and offer work placements to facilitate the improvement of capabilities and qualities. For example, a study by the Tertiary education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2000) established that structured work experience and employers’ involvement in the design and delivery of degree studies has a positive effects on graduates’ ability to find graduate-level jobs within six months of graduation. Obviously, involvement of students in the employability improvement opportunities enhances university institution capabilities and thus enabling them to meet employers’ expectations during recruitment for formal employment and self-employment for those who prefer it as a career.
The model further shows that employability improvement opportunities, to some extent, are affected by the subject the graduate studied and that some degree programmes tend to be more active in promoting graduates’ employability than others. For the output to be realized, it is important to link all the factors together with the parties involved in the processes. Based on this model and in relation to this study, chapter four explores the role of field of study and study institutions in enhancing employability and graduates’ capabilities.
As new entrants enter labor market, large numbers of university graduates have been unemployed or underemployed for many years. This problem of unemployed university graduates has been exacerbated in Nigeria since the expansion of the tertiary education system in 1999. Most fresh graduates would like to pursue high wage jobs with a desirable working environment. This is critical for them to be successful further in their career improvement along the social ladder. There are many factors, such as college prestige, professional fields, and individual one or entire economic elements, which can influence job search, and students’ starting wages. This chapter divides the factors affecting the young Nigerian graduates into two separate categories. One category studies the effect of the reputation of college and the second category delves into two individual factors that are gender and the majors studied at college. This chapter aims to analyze the length of fresh graduates’ unemployment spell by a duration model including parametric survival approaches, semiparametric survival approaches, and nonparametric survival approaches. Meanwhile, factors’ marginal effects are denoted through the base variables that defined in the two categories. The marginal effect analysis shows that reputation of college and majors such as economics and management, and engineering have significant effects on job search except for some majors. Meanwhile, gender has no significant effects on job search. The further test reveals that these factors’ marginal effects are significantly different on university reputation and some majors.
Many factors affect how college graduates find jobs. First is the reputation of the college. Others include college’s geographic position, and the assistance offered by the college career center. The higher the reputation of the college the higher is the possibility of a graduate finding a job. The process for such graduates is both easier and speedier because, the employers regard them as employees with greater potentials.
The geographic position also plays an important role in the job search. The graduates from metropolitan areas have many more opportunities to participate in job fairs to network and develop connections. According to the theory of job search in labor economics, one of characteristics of labor market is information asymmetry, namely, the employers do not know about the potential employees and the job searchers do not know who is recruiting. The advantages of living in big cities are that graduates have more chances to search for jobs through job fairs. These advantages overcome the disadvantage of information asymmetry of the labor market. Moreover, big firms need many new recruits when they expand through subsidiaries in big cities. Therefore, the graduates may have more opportunities than their counterparts from the hinterland. The third and final factor is college’s career center. The career centers in the countryside may not be as efficient in helping students as the ones in big cities. Good career consulting includes résumé tips, interview tips, salary negotiation, internship, and so on. Such services are far more efficient in big urban centers.
The role of entrepreneurial education in enhancing employability and developing the capabilities and qualities of graduates is well established (Gibb, 2002; Huq and Gilbert, 2013). Literature on entrepreneurial education shows the emergence of entrepreneurial as a discipline (Chell, 2001; Steyaert and Hjorth, 2003; Welsch, 2004). Obviously and world wide, the number of introduced entrepreneurial education studies in different fields of study have increased significantly (see Hynes 1996, Katz, 2003, Kabongo and Okpara, 2010; Gerba, 2012 ) in realization of its impact on entrepreneurial capabilities, approach and intentions (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Matlay, 2008; Kolvereid and Moen 1997; Oosterbeek, van Praag and Ijsselstein 2010). The literature further shows that entrepreneurial values, approach, knowledge and capabilities enable students to cope with the current turbulent changes in the labour market as they provide an enriching educational experience that ensures graduates’ success in the labour market (Charney and Libecap 2000).
What is being debated in the field of entrepreneurial is how the term entrepreneurial should be defined. Two issues can be highlighted on this. First is the interdisciplinary nature of the field of entrepreneurial, whereby each discipline views entrepreneurial from its own perspective without understanding the approaches used in other disciplines (Henry et al. 2005). Second, the term entrepreneurial has different meanings in different settings, with the result that the issueion of entrepreneurial differs between individuals, sectors, countries and systems, which in turn influences the different learning trajectories of entrepreneurial education and training (Kirby, 2004). Entrepreneurial is about getting things done or changing how they are done. Robbins and Coulter (1999) define entrepreneurial as a process by which people through innovation, identify and realize new opportunities that meet university institution needs regardless of the resources they posessed at the moment. While some scholars equate entrepreneurial with business creation, Surlemont (2007) defines entrepreneurial as a set of approach, capabilities, capabilities and competencies that can be applied to any area of life and work and not just to business. The definition allows people from any discipline to engage in entrepreneurial actions in existing organizations (intrapreneurship), in business creation (business entrepreneurial) and in the society (social entrepreneurial).
Despite other definitions of entrepreneurial and entrepreneurial education such as those by EU (2011) and Linan and Chen (2009), this thesis is in line with the views of Fayolle and Klandt (2006) that entrepreneurial can be seen from three different angles; as a matter of culture or state of mind, as a matter of behaviour and as a matter of creating specific situations. Education focusing on entrepreneurial as a matter of culture or state of mind focuses on the values, beliefs and approach associated with entrepreneurial (like entrepreneurial mindset, spirit or identity). Education focusing on behaviour deals with specific capabilities in relation to entrepreneurial behaviour, like seizing opportunities, making decisions and developing social capabilities pg. 2. Education focusing on creating specific situations deals with the creation of new firms and entrepreneurial situations (like individual ventures and corporate venturing).
Research findings indicate that entrepreneurial can be taught to some extent. Evidence further shows that education programmes facilitate the improvement of entrepreneurial capabilities and the related impact both at the individual and societal levels (Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997). Psychological theories view entrepreneurial behaviour as a function of inborn qualities and that individuals with certain personality traits (great need to achieve, strong sense of independence, internal locus of control and moderate risk-taking propensity) could be more associated with entrepreneurial actions (McClelland, 1961). In this context entrepreneurs have distinct features, mindset and vision, which cannot be transferred from one individual to another. This line of thinking justifies the reasoning that entrepreneurial qualities are inborn and thus little can be achieved in teaching or training someone in entrepreneurial.
In contrary to this thinking, findings support the idea that psychological qualities associated with entrepreneurial such as the need for achievement, risk taking and locus of control can be developed through education (Vesper, 1990; Gorman et al. 1997). Sociological theories are therefore of the view that entrepreneurial approach, intentions and behaviour are socially generated and sustained through both formal and informal socializing agents such as family, school, community and work organizations (Gibb, 1993). While some individuals have a greater propensity to exhibit entrepreneurial behaviour and/or learn certain things faster than others (e.g. drawing, singing, maths), they are not born with these specific competencies, they only acquire what exists around them once they are born. Obviously, all behaviours and competencies can be developed and learned at varying levels, and this may differ from one individual to another (Olomi, 2009). Additionally and according to Gibb (1993) the socializing agents can facilitate or hinder the improvement of entrepreneurial qualities among individuals in different social contexts.
Another debate is the wisdom of teaching students to become entrepreneurs in the light of current teaching pedagogy (Adcroft et al. 2004; Fiet, 2001; Sexton and Upton, 1987; Hynes, 1996). While some advocate for creativity, inventiveness and innovation in the teaching process (Alvarenz and Busenitz 2001; Lee and Wong 2004; Binks and Mahons 2006) others are of the view that entrepreneurial cannot be taught, but rather is learned and facilitated by experiential and action-oriented learning approaches (Kolb, 1984; Birch 2004). For an entrepreneurial education programme to be successful, it is important to manage effectively the teachable capabilities and identify the best match between students’ learning needs and teaching techniques (Lee and Wong, 2007). To supplement the discussion, Anderson and Jack (2008, pg. 269) comment that teaching entrepreneurial needs a combination of the creative and artistic talents, applied technician knowledge and the professional knowhow. Obviously, entrepreneurial education programme taught by engaging the mental processes and the accurate pedagogical techniques can develop entrepreneurs qualities such as self-esteem and self-efficacy (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). This thesis is of the view that using accurate pedagogy, entrepreneurial knowledge and capabilities can be enhanced through education.
Empirical studies on employability and the related capabilities focus mostly on the gap between graduates’ capabilities and the demands of the labour market. Weligamage and Siengthai (2003) conducted a study to identify factors that affect Sri Lankan graduates’ job expectations and employers’ needs. The findings reveal that graduates lack knowledge about labour market realities, especially the key capabilities sought by employers. The study proposed that university institutions stakeholders should collaborate to face the capabilities gap. Another study by Shukran, Wok, Majid and Noor, (2004) indicates that university institutions students lack relevant Knowledge, Capabilities, Abilities and Other desirable work characteristics (KSAOs). The study proposed that strategies were needed to develop and enhance the soft capabilities and work-related competencies of university institutionsstudents, either by embedding them in university curricula, or introducing a special employment programme, a view shared by Shukran and Munir (2011).
1.2 Statement of the problem
Despite the major quantitative achievement in terms of enrolment of students in university institutions role in preparing graduates to meet the demands of the labour market is yet to be realized (Karadisi, 2012). Several factors come into play, ranging from imbalances in the world economy brought about by globalization and technological advancements to factors within Universities, such as university curricula, the role of academic staff in implementing university institutions roles and students’ engagement in career capabilities improvement, including extra-curricular actions. A study by Kyaruzi (2012) to assess the effects of increased enrolment on the provision of quality teacher education reveals that increased enrolment impacts negatively the quality of graduate outputs and in particular leads to huge classes, limiting the improvement of graduates’ employability capabilities due to the reduced number of seminar presentations. The study recommends that Universities should establish whether increased student enrolment is having a positive or a negative impact on an institution’s endeavors to carry out its prime responsibilities and the need to have a different orientation to face the employability situation of graduates.
1.3 Research Questions
1. Are entrepreneurial education and career capabilities improvement actions important for enhancing the employability of graduates.
1.4 Objectives of the study
1. To show that entrepreneurial education and career capabilities improvement actions are important for enhancing the employability of graduates.
2. To identify socio-demographic factors, in realization of the role of Universities in enhancing employability of University undergraduates
3. To develop a model for improvement of employability capabilities and qualities among graduates both within and outside the education system.
4. To identify ways to Application of the model by Universities to increase the number of employable graduates.
5. To recommend models that could be applied by Universities to facilitate the teaching of entrepreneurial education and hence facilitate the process of producing employable graduates.
2. What are socio-demographic factors, in realization of the role of Universities in enhancing employability of University undergraduates
3. What are models for improvement of employability capabilities and qualities among graduates both within and outside the education system.
4. What are the ways to Application of the model by Universities to increase the number of employable graduates.
5. What are models that could be applied by Universities to facilitate the teaching of entrepreneurial education and hence facilitate the process of producing employable graduates.
1.5 Hypotheses
H0: There is no significant influence of academic discipline on graduate employability
H1: There is no significant influence of academic discipline on graduate employability
H02: Academic achievement has no significant influence on graduate employability
H2: Academic achievement has no significant influence on graduate employability
1.6 Scope of the study
The research study was conducted among graduates and undergraduates from UNN(University of Nigeria Nsukka), UNIZIK, ABSU, MOUAU(Michael Okpara University) and IMSU
1.7 Significance of the study
This thesis provides more information for future researchers in this area of research regarding employability of university graduates
1.9 Operational definition of terms
Employability:
Employability is “a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy.”
Employment:
An occupation by which a person earns a living; work; business.
The total number of people gainfully employed or working.
An activity or the like that occupies a person’s time
Structural unemployment:
Structural unemployment is a longer-lasting form of unemployment caused by fundamental shifts in an economy and exacerbated by extraneous factors such as technology, competition, and government policy. Structural unemployment occurs because workers lack the requisite job skills or live too far from regions where jobs are available and cannot move closer. Jobs are available, but there is a serious mismatch between what companies need and what workers can offer.
Cyclical unemployment:
Cyclical unemployment is the component of overall unemployment that results directly from cycles of economic upturn and downturn. Unemployment typically rises during recessions and declines during economic expansions. Moderating cyclical unemployment during recessions is a major motivation behind the study of economics and the goal of the various policy tools that governments employ to stimulate the economy.
Inflation:
Inflation is the decline of purchasing power of a given currency over time. A quantitative estimate of the rate at which the decline in purchasing power occurs can be reflected in the increase of an average price level of a basket of selected goods and services in an economy over some period of time. The rise in the general level of prices, often expressed a a percentage means that a unit of currency effectively buys less than it did in prior periods.
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420