Search

While long part of vocational and professional training, forms of practice-based education like Work-integrated learning (WIL) are now spreading to academic disciplines like Political Science. The pedagogical entailed in WIL is that student learning requires the theoretical knowledge and practice of both the classroom and the workplace, and therefore pledges better employability for graduates. At the same time, this promise entails a potential threat to disciplines that may call into question the assumptions of market and state relations. The question thus emerges: is it possible to do critical WIL, and what would it look like? This paper makes a normative case that a critical WIL is both desirable and possible by turning to Hanna Arendt and Richard Turner to differentiate 'banal' from 'critical' education. It further argues that any 'critical' educational programme must be based on three principles. First, students must learn about how social systems work and how to be successful in them, but they must also learn to critically reflect on the systems themselves, and to do so in normative terms linked to ending domination. Second, are students required to develop both the dispositions and attributes required for working life, and those required for acting to end domination. Finally, there must be sufficient institutional independence of the programme from its partner institutions to protect the critical WIL agenda. These claims are illustrated through reference to a real-world attempt to institutionalise WIL in a Political Studies Masters programme in Sweden.

The article develops a model for how an academic discipline like Political Studies can embrace work-integrated learning (WIL) to the benefit of students, the discipline, and wider society by interpreting WIL in relation to discipline-specific forms of knowledge and knower. The model is of a new Master's in WIL in Political Studies (WIPS) at University West, Sweden, an institution that is experimenting with the idea of WIL as a discipline beyond the mainstream framing of WIL as pedagogy only. In this innovative context, three ideas are central to WIPS. First, the content of WIPS is about research knowledge, rather than Political Studies knowledge. Second, drawing on political philosophy, the important relationship between theory or science ("episteme") and practice ("techne") is framed in terms of an additional concept of practical knowledge ("phronesis") regarding the particulars of political action to equitable ends and wisdom ("sophia") in regard to the philosophical and ethical nature of those ends. Third, WIPS re-thinks student learning in ontological ways that focus on the capabilities of the political knower. In sum, WIPS frames WIL as "reflective practice on research-intensive political work", offering a novel and enriched theoretical model of higher education learning of interest to other academic disciplines looking to embrace WIL.

In this article we interrogate how University of Sweden (UoS), the leading Work-integrated learning (WIL) university in Sweden, represents WIL publicly, discussing this in relation to higher education's changing role within an increasingly knowledge-based capitalism, in which knowledge and research become subsumed under demands for market utility and student employability. Through analysis of WIL literature we distil a theory-practice 'gap' with spatial, institutional, epistemological and pedagogical dimensions that WIL as a field of educational practice tries to 'bridge'. We use this conception to deconstruct how (UoS) presents WIL to potential students, partners, employers, and society at large. We find that while the university at the central level presents WIL as a synergistic and multi-dimensional activity that bridges the theory/practice divide to produce 'advanced knowledge' and employable students, the actual educational programs articulate WIL in a manner which privileges practical usability and employability over theoretical knowledge, in line with an academic capitalist focus on utility. Further, there is a significant difference in how vocational and academic programmes implement WIL. Whereas WIL components seem relatively easily integrated into professional programs present, academic programs must undertake advanced discursive manoeuvres to incorporate WIL's principles into what would otherwise be quite theory-focused programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]