Conference Agenda

The focus of this study was to synthesise the research on how engineering HE, in collaboration with industry, supports student transitions to work life. Recent studies have emphasised the significance of collaborative efforts between HE and industry (Arcelay et al. Citation2021; Arthur-Mensah Citation2020; Husin et al. Citation2022; Romero-Gázquez, Cañavate-Cruzado, and Bueno-Delgado Citation2022), which can promote knowledge exchange, leading to advancements in innovative products, research and development (R&D) projects, and services (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa Citation2015; Bastos, Sengik, and Tello-Gamarra Citation2021; Zhang and Chen Citation2023). Other benefits include students’ practical work experiences, improved learning outcomes, study motivation, and preparedness for the transition to work life (Bennett, Knight, and Li Citation2023; García-Aracil, Monteiro, and Almeida Citation2018; Sabry, Gardner, and Hadgraft Citation2021; Thune and Støren Citation2015). Moreover, work life experience during studies may reduce dropout rates for students who struggle to see the relevance of their studies by helping them apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings, increasing their comprehension and interest (Hovdhaugen Citation2015).
The transition from HE to ever-evolving work life can pose challenges for graduates, as it is often marked by competition, mismatches, and instability (Alpaydin and Kültür Citation2022; De Schepper, Clycq, and Kyndt Citation2023; Figueiredo et al. Citation2017; Grosemans, Coertjens, and Kyndt Citation2017; Tomlinson Citation2023). Enhancing the transition phase and improving the employability of engineering graduates through stronger HE–industry collaboration can include internships, on-the-job training, capstone projects, and work-integrated learning opportunities (Brooks and Youngson Citation2016; Ford et al. Citation2019; Jackson and Bridgstock Citation2021; Winberg et al. Citation2020). The transition from HE to work life represents just the beginning of a graduate’s career path (Karaca-Atik et al. Citation2023). Moreover, transition processes vary among graduates; for example, in fields with high employee demand, there is a growing expectation for students to start working before finishing their degrees (Béduwé and Giret Citation2021; Hovdhaugen Citation2015). Thus, the aim was to explore various collaborative approaches that could help students transition into work life. To achieve this goal, the following three research questions (RQs) are addressed:
RQ1. What is the current state of research and scientific research networks on HE–industry collaboration in engineering education?

RQ2. In what ways is collaboration between HE and industry manifested?

RQ3. What are the benefits and hindering factors of collaboration for the stakeholders (students, HE institutions and staff, and industry)?

The civic mission of universities has been subject to ongoing debate, with growing calls for higher education institutions to strengthen their engagement with local communities. Despite this imperative, universities face significant challenges in developing genuinely community-centered initiatives amid competing institutional priorities (Hartley et al., 2010; Wegemer et al., 2020). Service-learning (SL) has gained prominence as one pedagogical response to this challenge, positioning itself as a mechanism to connect academic work with community needs (Santos Rego et al., 2023). However, a critical question remains unexamined: Do university SL projects foster authentic reciprocal partnerships with community organizations, or do they function primarily as experiential learning opportunities that benefit students while serving communities in more peripheral ways?

To examine this question from the community perspective, our research addresses:

• To what extent is SL integrated into entities' strategic planning and organizational vision?
• What degree of reciprocity characterizes university-entity relationships from the community perspective?
• What barriers prevent authentic reciprocal partnerships, and what improvements do entities propose?
• How do initial expectations align with actual outcomes experienced by community partners?

Specifically, this study aims to:

• Analyze the nature of university-entity relationships within Spanish SL projects from the community perspective.
• Examine the strategic integration of SL methodology within social entities' organizational frameworks.
• Assess the degree of perceived reciprocity in university-community partnerships.
• Identify gaps between entities' expectations and actual partnership outcomes.
• Synthesize community recommendations for strengthening university-entity collaboration.

Our analysis is grounded in Holland (2001) framework for evaluating SL from a community perspective, which emphasizes:

• Capacity to fulfill the entity's mission and introduce new activities or services.
• Economic impact through new funding streams.
• Perception of reciprocity, particularly whether entities propose objectives for the partnership or participate in setting goals for the university and students.
• Partnership sustainability, understood as mutual trust.
• Entity satisfaction, especially regarding intentions to continue collaboration.

Building on this foundation, we incorporate Gelmon et al. (2001) dual-focused framework that examines both tangible partnership outcomes and relational dynamics. The outcomes dimension addresses entities' capacity to fulfill their organizational missions alongside social and economic benefits realized through collaboration. The relational dimension explores partnership quality itself, encompassing interaction patterns between community and university, partner satisfaction -with particular emphasis on reciprocity- and the continuity of collaborative arrangements.

This theoretical framework allows us to move beyond student-centered evaluation, the predominant focus in SL research, to examine whether these partnerships genuinely serve community needs or function primarily as experiential learning opportunities for students. The literature suggests that authentic SL requires mutual benefit, co-creation, and sustained engagement, yet preliminary findings indicate a gap between this ideal and current practice (Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2023).

Adopting a community-first analytical lens, this study addresses a significant gap in Spanish and international SL research on partnership dynamics.

Work-integrated learning (WIL) has become an increasingly prominent feature of higher education policy and practice, both in Sweden and internationally (Areskoug Josefsson et al., 2025, 2025). Framed variously as educational content, pedagogical approach, or organizing logic, WIL operates simultaneously as both policy and practice within universities’ educational and research activities. As a research field, WIL has traditionally focused on learning in and through work and on the interaction between education and working life, drawing primarily on interdisciplinary social science traditions such as adult education and working life studies. In recent years, the field has expanded in terms of disciplinary traditions and analytical orientations, encompassing both normative approaches aimed at developing WIL practices and more critical perspectives that interrogate WIL as a policy idea.

Alongside its development as a research field, WIL and the parallel concept of Work-integrated education (WIE), has gained increasing prominence as a pedagogical approach in higher education in several national contexts (Billett, 2025).

In policy and practice, WIL and WIE are often presented as a means of integrating theory and practice and strengthening the relationship between higher education and the labour market (Jackson & Dean, 2023). However, the defining characteristics of WIL are rarely made explicit. As a result, WIL is interpreted and enacted in multiple, and sometimes divergent, ways (Areskoug et al., 2025). This conceptual ambiguity constitutes a central point of departure for the present study.

From a policy-sociological perspective, WIL can be understood as a form of governance through which higher education is mobilized to address politically constructed societal challenges, particularly those related to labour market needs and national competitiveness. Within this logic, higher education is positioned as a mechanism for the efficient provision of labour market-relevant knowledge and skills. In the Swedish context, work-integrated practices have developed over several decades through policy reforms emphasizing workplace-based learning, lifelong learning, and closer relations between higher education and professional life. More recently, WIL has been formalized as an explicit policy instrument, particularly within professional education and teacher education, through targeted funding and regulatory frameworks.

This study examines how WIL is interpreted, recontextualized, and shaped within a Swedish university with an explicit WIL profile. The university was established in the early 1990s in a context marked by political ambitions to strengthen collaboration between higher education and working life. From an early stage, work-integrated models such as cooperative education were developed, and WIL was strategically articulated as the university’s defining profile. Over time, WIL has been institutionalized through the formalization of a dedicated research environment, the establishment of doctoral education, and a range of pedagogical initiatives. One central example is the introduction of a comprehensive WIL certification process for all educational programmes (including both professional and theoretical programmes) between 2018 and 2024, aimed at aligning educational practices with the institution’s WIL profile.

Adopting a policy enactment perspective (Ball et al., 2012), the study focuses on the intersection between top-down policy discourses and bottom-up academic practices in both research and education. By analysing how WIL is enacted in the local institutional context, the study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of WIL as a policy-practicing approach and highlights its implications for knowledge production, professionalism, and the relationship between higher education and working life.