Abstract:
For over twenty years. academics in Australian tertiary educational institutions
have debated the terminology that should he used to describe courses or study
concerning aspects or the employment relationship. In the midst or battle between
the advocates or an Industrial Relations (IR) focus and those advocating the cause
or Human Resource Management (HRM) , there arose a 'Third Force' known as
Employment Relations. Few centers of Industrial Relations learning have survived
into the 21st Century.
Underpinning these changes have been often deeply held and conflicting views
about the role of tertiary education and the learning needs of students. This process
has been fuelled by the rising dominance or pro-capitalist views and ideas
associated with managerialism, efficiency and excellence. Reflecting changes in
society generally, demand for courses has shifted from Humanities and other areas
to Business Faculties, Learning for jobs has largely replaced a quest for knowledge
and understanding. The explosion in postgraduate business degree offerings and
full-fee paying students has further necessitated the offering or courses seen to
satisfy corporate needs. Students themselves are key stakeholders and their views
taken into account. The factors shaping their perceptions are also important for
understanding and for developing an appropriate response.
In this paper, the results of a survey 100 students concerning their views about
the meaning and usefulness to them of subjects in employment relations, human
resource management and industrial relations are discussed. The results are
analysed according to two cohorts: first, students possessing 'extensive work
experience' (WE) defined as five or more Fears or relevant work experience and
secondly, students possessing 'limited work experience' (LWE). The results indicate
that both WE and LWE identify courses in HRM as more relevant to their needs
than courses in IR or ER. They also indicate that students' understanding overall of
the meanings or HR, ER and IR are predominantlv consistent with definitions and
understandings expressed in the relevant literature. However, the results also
indicate a significant difference in the responses of WE and LWE groups regarding
several important aspects of teaching in the field, including a stronger perception
among WE students or the importance and usefulness ofstudy in the lR field.
