SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: precarity


by Leave a comment

From data to policy: building an evidence-based future for skills, work, and learning in Latin America

by Sabur Butt, Hector G. Ceballos, and Michael Fung

Latin America stands at a familiar crossroads. Once again, a technological revolution is reshaping how work gets done, what skills employers value, and how quickly the workforce must adapt. And once again, the region risks being a generation behind.

During the Third Industrial Revolution of the 1970s–1990s, East Asia invested decisively in microelectronics, computing, and technical education. Latin America, consumed by debt crises and macroeconomic instability, missed the wave. The cost was measured not only in lost output but in institutional habits of looking backward while others prepared to look forward. Today, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is unfolding faster than its predecessor, and the region’s central deficit is not money or talent. It is foresight leading to informed interventions.

A structural mismatch between work and learning

Industries now change in cycles of months. University curricula change in cycles of years. That gap is no longer a minor inefficiency; it is the bottleneck that determines whether a country prepares its workforce in time or trails behind it.

The numbers are sobering. Across the six largest Latin American economies, between 19% and 21% of workers face a high probability of automation-related displacement. Almost half work in informal jobs. University dropout rates exceed 50% in several countries, climbing as high as 76% in the Dominican Republic. Students perform consistently below OECD averages in foundational literacy and numeracy. By the time graduates from the educational system enter the labour market, there is already a structural gap between what they can do and what employers want.

What the region needs is not another labour-market report. It needs skills intelligence, a continuous, forward-looking system that informs policymakers what is rising, what is fading, and where the workforce can realistically move next.

Why traditional forecasting falls short

Most forecasting in the region still relies on expert panels, occupational surveys, and static taxonomies that take years to update. These tools were designed for a slower-paced world.

To illustrate the issue, consider how such static taxonomies treat “database management” as a single skill, when the real labour market is moving between MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis, Cassandra, and now vector databases, each with a different demand trajectory. Or consider the noise in a single automotive dataset, where the same assembly-line job appears as “ensamblador de carrocerías”, “operador de ensamble”, “ensamblador automotriz”, and “técnico en armado de vehículos”. Human annotators cannot keep up; even expert raters disagree on whether two skill descriptions refer to the same thing.

By the time a traditional taxonomy recognizes “prompt engineering” as a skill category, the labor market has already moved on to whatever comes next.

A data-driven alternative, already running

In our paper, we describe an operational deployment at the Institute for the Future of Education at Tecnológico de Monterrey. It is not a proposal; it is a working system (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. The framework links real-time labour market signals to an AI-assisted, expert-validated skills intelligence layer, which in turn informs curriculum design,reskilling pathways, workforce policy, and governance.

The approach combines large language models with retrieval-augmented generation to build dynamic, hierarchical skill taxonomies that update themselves as new job postings flow in. Each new skill is matched semantically against the existing taxonomy. Known skills are normalized to canonical terms. Genuinely new ones are flagged, classified, and added.

In Mexico’s automotive sector alone, the system has mapped more than 11,000 skill variations across 220 hypernym categories, identified 847 unique skills clustered into 12 occupational groups, and tracked the rise of electric-vehicle competencies in real time. Generative AI skills surfaced in the data months before they appeared in any official classification.

The infrastructure required is modest. A taxonomy covering 10,000 skills across major sectors can be maintained on standard cloud infrastructure for roughly $500–1,000 USD per month, within reach of education ministries in developing economies.

From data to policy

Technology alone does not change a system. The harder work is institutional. To shorten the lag between detecting a skill shift and updating a training program (currently 18 to 24 months) in most regions, curriculum committees must meet more often, must accept real-time data alongside surveys, and procurement procedures must allow timely equipment purchases according to the emerging skills.

Governance matters equally. Sustainable implementations bring together labour ministries, education ministries, economic development ministries, national statistics offices, industry associations, and universities. Each contributes something the others cannot: data access, curriculum authority, methodological rigor, domain expertise, and research capacity. No single actor owns skills or intelligence; the legitimacy of the system depends on shared ownership.

Localization also matters. Global taxonomies like ESCO and O*NET are useful starting points, but they need to incorporate regional terminology, indigenous skill categories, and sector-specific competencies. A skill system that does not speak the local language of work will not be trusted by the people meant to use it.

We also acknowledge real-world limitations. Many countries still hire through newspaper classifieds, physical noticeboards, and informal networks. Supplier tiers and small enterprises seldom advertise online. A system built solely on digital postings produces a geographically and structurally biased picture. Integrating offline data sources, replicating the approach across countries, and validating its predictions over time are the necessary next steps.

What success would look like

Executed well, skills intelligence reshapes reskilling itself. Instead of generic, fixed-duration programs, workers receive personalized pathways: a manufacturing technician’s quality-control experience mapped onto automated-systems monitoring; a mid-career professional alerted 12–24 months ahead of emerging demand; a young job-seeker pointed toward a stackable micro-credential that the market will actually reward.

For Latin America, this is more than a technical upgrade. It is a chance to break a historical pattern of arriving late to every industrial revolution and start arriving prepared. The region has the data, the talent, and increasingly the tools. What it has lacked is the institutional capacity to anticipate. That capacity is now within reach.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will not wait. But for the first time, neither does the evidence.

Reference: Butt, S, Ceballos, HG, and Fung, M (2026) ‘From Data to Policy: Building an Evidence-Based Future for Skills, Work, and Learning in Latin America’ Policy Reviews in Higher Education 

Sabur Butt is a research professor at the Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnológico de Monterrey. His work focuses on artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and dynamic skills taxonomies, with a particular interest in how AI-driven labour-market intelligence can inform education and workforce policy across Latin America.

Hector G Ceballos is Director of the Living Lab & Data Hub of the Institute for the Future of Education (IFE) at Tecnológico de Monterrey. His research spans data science, knowledge engineering, and educational analytics, with a focus on building evidence-based systems that connect higher education to evolving industry and labour-market needs.

Michael Fung is Executive Director of the Institute for the Future of Education at Tecnológico de Monterrey. He was formerly the Deputy Chief Executive at SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). He led the development of a comprehensive education and training ecosystem under the national SkillsFuture movement, which has become a global benchmark and reference for workforce skills development and lifelong learning across society.


by Leave a comment

Hearing the voices of care-experienced academics

by Neil Harrison and Simon Benham-Clarke

The face of higher education is changing, albeit slowly. Despite decades of initiatives to seed diversity, the academy – in the UK at least – continues to be dominated by voices from groups that have historically enjoyed educational privilege.

Over the last ten years, there has been increasing interest in understanding and supporting the participation of ‘care-experienced’ learners in higher education – that is, students who spent time in the care of the state during childhood, usually due to neglect or trauma within their birth family.  It includes, for example, those who spent time in foster care or children’s homes. It is a group of learners who have generally faced significant disruption and adversity in their lives, with the legacies known to persist into adulthood.

Definitive numbers do not yet exist, but it is estimated there are at least 5,000 care-experienced students in UK universities at any given time. It logically follows that a proportion of these will be in a position to seek entry into academic careers as they pass from undergraduate to postgraduate study and onwards. Indeed, there have long been care-experienced students in our universities – and it seems safe to assume that many have transformed their interests and successes into a career within the academy.

In reality, though, we don’t know.  While there is vibrant interest in, for example, the careers of working class or disabled academics, we don’t believe that care-experienced academics have been the explicit focus of research before. In conceiving the study that underpins this piece, we envisaged that it would be a group that had faced – and overcome – significant challenges to reach their position.  However, we wanted to understand more.

About our study

Our main objective was to seek out and foreground the voices of care-experienced academics. We wanted to understand the routes taken to their careers and these were impacted – if at all – by the legacies of their early lives. However, we were also cognisant that exploring groups who face particular challenges can often offer wider illumination about educational systems and their failings: what could the working lives of care-experienced academics tell us about the contemporary academy?

In our study, we spoke to 21 academics, spanning roles from research assistant to professor in universities across the UK. Most were women and aged between 30 and 44, with the majority based in social science departments. We were struck by the individualised nature of the career pathways represented, with around two-thirds having significant breaks in their educational journeys, especially between school and university.

Precarity and safety nets

An important consideration for our participants was the inherent precarity of academic careers. Several reported that they had benefited from ‘lucky’ relationships with doctoral supervisors or senior colleagues that had helped them to progress through short-term contracts or secure a permanent role.

While this is not itself an unusual experience, our participants generally had to navigate this without the family ‘safety nets’ on which other aspiring academics are generally able to draw. Several described anxieties, either presently or in the past, about insecurity of income or housing that reminded them of their early lives.  Conversely, an academic career could offer long-term stability – not quite ‘a job for life’, but highly-valued financial security and more work-life flexibility than many other options.

Nevertheless, we were left questioning whether there were others outside our study who had not had these supportive encounters or for whom the precarity had proved unnavigable. Indeed, one of our participants had recently left academia and another was thinking seriously about doing so. 

Imposter syndrome, rejection and belonging

Despite the satisfaction they experienced from their career, nearly all our participants described feeling a degree of ‘imposter syndrome’ within academia. They were conscious that they did not conform to the prevailing stereotypes of who an academic should be and many noted elements of their identity that emphasised this difference – clothing choices, hairstyles or body art.  Feelings of difference are not, of course, unique to care-experienced academics and it reminded us of previous research focused on gender, social class, ethnicity and disability.

Questions of belonging were brought into sharper focus by workplace microaggressions or experiences of academic rejection. For example, one participant described how they felt compelled to challenge derogatory comments made by a colleague about young people in care, while another talked about how the harshness of the publication process surfaced difficult childhood memories about judgement and acceptance. These accounts led us to reflect on how more kindness in academic life would support greater inclusivity.

Visible or hidden?

Being care-experienced is unlike many other sites of inequality as there no physical attributes that conclusively identify someone. One ramification of this is that the individual gets a degree of choice about whether (and how) to disclose their status to managers, colleagues and students. We noted how our participants had come to quite different decisions on this, based on how they viewed their workplace and their role within it.

Around one-third had purposively chosen public visibility, often as part of an advocacy role within academia and wider society.  This group tended to be teaching or researching around care issues and often used their profile to challenge negative stereotypes and expectations, as well as pressing for improvements in policy.  Several talked about how their visibility helped them to build rapport with – and empower – disadvantaged or marginalised students.

Others reflected carefully on the persistent societal stigma around care and opted to not to share. They voiced concerns about prevailing stereotypes, fearing that colleagues might make assumptions about their mental health or academic abilities. There were also worries that their care-experienced status might overshadow their academic achievements or that they would be expected to be ‘bid-candy’ to help colleagues win funding.

A third group had adopted a strategic approach of disclosing selectively to trusted colleagues or presenting a fictive account that avoided difficult conversations. Even this approach could be vexed by misunderstandings from colleagues and require considerable work to juggle competing identities.

Final thoughts

It is difficult to summarise wide-ranging findings in a short piece like this, but we hope this has offered a flavour. Firstly, we argue that the endemic precarities of contemporary academia disproportionately impact those with the flimsiest safety nets. Secondly, we suggest that ignorance and inconsiderate practices undermine belonging, especially for those already perceiving themselves as imposters. Thirdly, we recognise the additional social and emotional work required to negotiate authentic identities. All three points draw inspiration from our participants’ lived experience, but each has wider relevance for how we structure and occupy spaces in the academy.

Finally, we would like to thank our participants for their time, insight and willingness to share sensitive elements of their lives with researchers who are not care-experienced.  We are indebted to them and we hope that we have done justice to their stories.

This study was kindly funded through a British Academy and Leverhulme Trust Small Grant.  The first article from the study is now available and we have articles in preparation focusing on academic identity work and the salience of school experiences.

Neil Harrison is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Exeter and an academic trustee of the National Network for the Education of Care Leavers. 

Simon Benham-Clarke is a researcher in the School of Education at the University of Exeter.


by 1 Comment

New evidence on the challenges and consequences of precarious work for university students

by Claudio Morrison and Janroj Yilmaz Keles

Introduction

A paper for the Symposium on ‘Inequalities in HE during Covid-19’ (SRHE Conference, 6 December 2023, Birmingham) provides new evidence on the ‘social suffering’ that university students endure due to precarious employment. Based on findings from the project ‘Learning from Labour: Critical Pedagogy for Working Students’ carried out at Middlesex University in 2022-2023, the study explores the educational and employment challenges faced by working students in UK post-92 universities (MDX News, 2023). Researchers Janroj Keles, Claudio Morrison and Parisa Dashtipour surveyed students at their university to understand their work experiences, challenges, employment rights awareness, and workplace difficulties. The preliminary findings of the research are summarised in an extensive report (Morrison, Dashtipour, and Keles, 2023).

Headline news has reignited debates about how financial hardship and challenging labour market conditions are squeezing students’ study-life balance, and alarmingly raised claims that part-time jobs may disproportionally disadvantage less privileged students (BBC News 2023). This directly contradicts widely held beliefs that these jobs offer valuable benefits of labour market flexibility and resilience. The Middlesex study reveals how thousands of university students in the workplace may regularly face discrimination, unpaid hours, threats of dismissal and shifts changing at short notice. The study further reveals a concerning lack of awareness among students regarding their employment rights, including benefits like maternity leave.

Academic debates and research background

The issue of ‘incompatibility’ between work and studying is neither new nor it is unique to the UK. In the UK conditions shifted significantly after the 1990s reforms with the creation of post-92 universities, the replacement of grants with loans and tuition fees and a diversified student body. Early research by Moreau and Leathwood (2006) on post-92 students concluded that students from working class background were disproportionately impacted by the lack of state support, as the ‘benefits of flexible labour predominantly accrue to the employer’ (2006: 37). Since austerity, even ‘white, middle-class students of traditional age’ face a ‘double deficit’ of financial shortfall and increasing pressure to gain employability skills (Hordósy, Clark and Vickers, 2018: 361). Studies covering EU countries show that around 70% of university students are active in the labour market above the accepted ten-hour threshold (Lessky and Unger, 2022). This ‘time-consuming’ employment is particularly prevalent among business students with first-in-family background; this is explained by increasing participation of underrepresented groups, greater appreciation of work experience and higher costs of living and is associated with higher drop-out rates. Research on student-workers by employment scholars remains limited (Rydzik and Bal, 2023). Several researchers highlight the multiple vulnerabilities experienced by students as a peripheral casualised workforce (Alberti et al, 2018; Ioannou and Dukes, 2021, Rydzik and Kissoon, 2022). Mooney (2016), for example, criticizes the fact that hospitality management takes a ‘dispassionate’ attitude toward casually employed students, failing retention. UK research further highlights sexist and discriminatory attitudes in the industry (Ineson et al, 2013; Maxwell and Broadbridge, 2014). Recent research identifies multiple effects of insecurity induced by precarity arguing for ‘student-workers as a conceptually distinct category of workers impacted in particular ways by labour flexibilization’ (Rydzik and Bal, 2023). However, there is some disagreement regarding the idea that all jobs involving precarious labour have negative outcomes. Other studies have questioned slippages between ‘the concepts of precarious work and precarious workers’ (Campbell and Price, 2016: 314) and between precarity as ‘waged work exhibiting several dimensions of precariousness [and], precarity [as] the detrimental effect of labour-market insecurity on people’s lives’ (Antonucci, 2018: 888). Students may avoid the short-term effects of insecure, low-paid jobs by exercising choice (Antonucci 2018). According to Whittard et al (2022: 762) ‘students possess skills attractive to employers, they may receive training and, in some cases, employment opportunities after graduation’. Additionally, Grozev and Easterbrook (2022: 259) argue that ‘the experience of working alongside studying can help to reaffirm students’ commitment to their studies and make them resilient learners.’ In sum, research so far has highlighted the economic and motivational pressures pushing low-income students towards low-paid/low skills precarious jobs. A limited amount of research has detailed both the potential incompatibilities between these jobs and education and the long-term risks associated with precarity. However, student agency and their ability to strategize remain contested. The Middlesex study contributes to these debates by adding evidence on the structural constraints that student workers face in the ‘labour process’ which encompasses work organisation, workplace power structures and ensuing social relations. This ultimately sheds light on what it truly means to be a precarious worker in this specific context.

Method

The research aimed to adapt and adopt critical pedagogy to the post-92 HE to raise the quality of learning experienced by working students and their agentic power in the workplace (Neary et al, 2014). Following an engaged research approach, the research used multiple methods, including a survey, interviews, in-class discussions and reflective essays. Academics across the University employed student-centred, research-engaged learning strategies to stimulate critical reflection on students’ work experiences and socio-political backgrounds (Dashtipour and Vidaillet, 2020). Their accounts illustrate work experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, the problems encountered, coping strategies and their knowledge of employment rights.

Findings

The research presents a picture in line with existing data on students’ employment during the pandemic. Its findings, however, suggest that the social suffering of student-workers is underestimated and consequently there is a stronger connection between ‘bad’ jobs and poor educational outcomes than previously thought. The study sample included females (61%) students living at home (34%), international/overseas students (44%), British (32%) and EU-settled residents (18%). Among surveyed students, 90% reported ‘not having enough money to live on without working’. In particular, fifty per cent work part-time and a third work in zero hours, freelance or informal jobs. Further, findings reveal how 68% of respondents have their work schedule changed at short notice, 28% do not always or ever see a payslip, 22% complain about unpaid extra work, and 17% claim some of their wages are paid cash-in-hand to avoid taxation. There is widespread evidence of discrimination and harassment and poor working conditions: almost 30% claim experiencing discrimination at work (almost 10% do so frequently), and 24% reported bullying; 22% claim threats of dismissal and 12% of disciplinary action; 20% reported accidents and injuries at work. Lack of knowledge of employment rights is one of the main reasons for difficult relationships with employers and it appears to exacerbate precariousness in the workplace.

Labour process analysis identifies the structural constraints that make such workplaces toxic and exploitative environments. Poignant respondents’ accounts describe a disorganised but highly exploitative work regime which relies on employees’ precarious conditions for its reproduction. Management strategies include lengthening of working time, deskilling and effort intensification combined with functional flexibility. Due to their short-term commitment, lack of experience and rights awareness as well as their desire for flexible hours, students become dependable workers. However, student-workers are no mere victims of unscrupulous employers and exploitative work designs. Resistance to unfair conditions also materialises either by withdrawing labour (turnover) or as workplace small-scale individual (foot-dragging, work-to-rule) and collective (solidarity, grievances) resistance.

The authors are concerned that these workplace issues may have an impact on students’ performance. Morrison, the project’s Principal Investigator, argues that student jobs are psychologically and physically taxing, as such immediately interfering with their ability to benefit from learning. Such experiences also lower their labour market expectations. The causes appear to lie in their lack of control over the conditions of their work and their poor awareness of labour rights. Precarious employment and exploitative business models make such problems a structural feature of these jobs. Keles, a co-investigator, exposes the dark side of student work for overseas students:

“Overseas students are trapped in a cycle of exploitation and bear the brunt of exploitative work. They typically work under unfavourable conditions, such as long hours – up to 30 per week – low pay and usually unsocial hours. Moreover, a significant proportion of oversees students reported that they have experienced bullying and undervaluing at these toxic work environments. In addition to increasing students’ vulnerability and mental health issues, these precarious employment conditions also lead to a number of other problems during their studies like poor academic performance”.

Drawing on extensive teaching experience, the researchers are adamant that these conditions may significantly contribute to low attendance, missing deadlines, requesting extensions, and even failing to turn in their assessments on time at the university.

Implications

Overall, the study emphasises that it is not poor education that allegedly prevents students from succeeding in the labour market, but rather it is the latter, due to the social suffering it causes, that prevents students from making the most of their learning opportunities.  Post-92 universities should not be unfairly blamed for failing students’ employability. However, recognition of the significant challenges students face should lead universities as well as students and educators to turn these struggles into an opportunity for collective, social and pedagogic change. Therefore, while advocating changes in employing sectors and in university funding to reduce students’ reliance on low pay/low skills jobs, the authors urge universities, unions, and civil society to act towards improving student’s agency and bargaining power by raising their labour and employment rights knowledge and awareness of workplace collective conditions.

Universities constantly and rightly encourage students to gain work experience to increase their employability, they should also support working students by including employment rights as part of the taught curriculum, providing topical advice services and offering additional well-being support. Initiatives like Hospitality Now (Lincoln University, 2024) or the Hertfordshire Law Clinic (Hertfordshire, 2024) show this is both a timely and feasible approach.

Anyone interested in viewing the report and/or sharing experiences of supporting working students is welcome to contact the research team C.Morrison@mdx.ac.uk, J.Keles@mdx.ac.uk.

Claudio Morrison is a Senior Research Fellow in Employment Relations and HRM at Middlesex Business School. Over the last 20 years he has carried out ethnographic research in Post-Socialist Eastern Europe investigating the working lives and resistance practices of labour migrants and industrial workers. Current work includes the development of alternatives to mainstream ethics and the promotion of critical pedagogies and reflective learning in western academia.

Janroj Yilmaz Keles is an Associate Professor in the Department of Law and Social Sciences, Faculty of Business and Law at Middlesex University, researching on peace and conflict, gender, political violence, migration and (digital) social movements. He is one of the co-investigators of GCRF HUB – Gender, Justice and Security and  the Nuffield Foundation funded  the Afghan resettlement in England: outcomes and experiences project. He served as an editor for the British Sociological Association’s journal Work, Employment and Society from 2018 until 2022.His monograph Media, Conflict and Diaspora (I.B. Tauris, 2015), was well received by the academic community.