(How) Do work placements work? Scrutinizing the quantitative evidence for a theory-driven future research agenda

While supervised work placements are increasingly popular in higher education, evidence regarding their effects on career outcomes remain somewhat sparse and atheoretical. The aim of this systematic literature review is to evaluate the effectiveness of placements for career outcomes and to identify any underpinning core psychological processes and to offer a theoretically grounded framework for future research. Drawing on transition theory (Schlossberg, 1981) and career construction theory (Savickas, 1997), we argue that supervised work experiences are central transition experiences that enable social learning processes and trigger changes in a person's identity development as a professional, thereby increasing career resources and employability which in turn affect future career outcomes positively. We screened 2394 systematically selected abstracts across several databases and disciplines. Only quantitative studies that either offered a control-group or a longitudinal design were included, resulting in an in-depth review of 40 studies, applying a rigorous evaluation protocol. Placement participation elicits an overall positive (but small) effect on career outcomes: Graduates who completed a work placement found employment more quickly. Work placements also changed students' perceptions of self-efficacy, their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. We suggest that these changes could be seen as indicative of the proposed social learning processes and identity changes that positively affect career resources. Our review points to several gaps in the literature, and building on existing career theories, we develop a theoretical model and offer new avenues for future research to integrate the heterogenic field of placement research and inform career research in other areas

Satisfaction with one’s job and working at home in the Covid-19 pandemic: a two-wave study

As greater numbers of people have worked at home during the COVID-19 pandemic, workers, organisations and policy makers have begun considering the benefits of a sustained move towards homeworking, with workers' satisfaction with homeworking often cited as a key driver. But is satisfaction with homeworking that relevant to workers' overall job satisfaction? In this study, we examine whether job and homeworking satisfaction are predicted by different demands and resources, namely, those well established in the job design literature (workload, job autonomy and social support) for the former and those specific to the context of homeworking (loneliness, work–nonwork interference, work–nonwork interference and adequacy of homeworking environment) for the latter. We also explore whether homeworking satisfaction mediates the relationship between homeworking demands and resources and job satisfaction. Findings of a study of university workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 753 in Phase 1, 471 in Phase 2) support our expectations about the domain-specific nature of the predictors of job and homeworking satisfaction, autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction, while loneliness, nonwork-to-work interference and inadequate homeworking environment are negatively related to homeworking satisfaction. Results also support the argument that satisfaction with homeworking mediates the relationship between homeworking factors and job satisfaction, reinforcing the value of differentiating the two concepts. </p