Speaking the Same Language: Relevance for a Global Ontology of Work-Integrated Learning

This paper looks at differing perceptions of aspects of work-integrated learning (WIL) in the global context, and discusses the relevancy for establishing an ontology for not only a common ‘language’, but a common ‘culture ’ and ‘identity ’ in WIL as well. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) note that people mark their identity through language: This paper will demonstrate, as a linguistic case example, the use of ‘Ocker Strine ’ (Australian Colloquial English) in Australia and how specific cultural usage of terminology can co-exist with a standardized global format, with the issue of a WIL ‘identity ’ being emphasized. As a point of review, the findings of an audit of WIL practice within a single Australian university Faculty of business – the Griffith Business School – will be presented as a case example. Although higher education has become an industry and industry sector in its own right (Bennett, 2008), it has been posited that universities are going through a period of re-invention and should regard themselves as not exclusively as ‘institutions’, but as ‘communities of higher education ’ (Lee, 1999). Linking directly all stakeholders in this ‘community’, work-integrated learning (WIL) has emerged over the last two decades as an effective complementary teaching and learning methodology (Mintzberg, 2005; Orrell, 2005) and, has expanded beyond its historic academic areas of concentration to include, essentially, every field in higher education (Dewar, 2006). With this global increase in interest in WIL in higher education, so has increased inconsistency in definition and interpretation in practice, structure and especially typology (McGill, 2009). What is one institution’s ‘internship ’ can be another’s ‘co-op’, ‘practicum ’ or ‘field experience’, with practices, procedures, desired outcomes and perception of the experience differing from one part of the world to another, from one higher education institution to another and, even within individual institution