IR, HR or ER: student perceptions of meaning

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.