The development of work-integrated learning ecosystems:

An Australian example of cooperative education

LEE FERGUSSON1
LUKE VAN DER LAAN
SOPHIA IMRAN
GAIL ORMSBY
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

Cooperative education and principles associated with learning ecosystems appear throughout the literature.
However, the application of cooperative education and learning ecosystems to work-integrated learning has not
been fully examined. Furthermore, the applicability of learning ecosystems within work-integrated learning to
specific professional practice domains has similarly not previously been examined. The development of domain-
specific work-integrated learning ecosystems and an explanation of how they might apply to cooperative
education in higher education, the purpose of this paper, are explored from three sequentially related conceptual
levels: Level 1), a proto-theoretical model of cooperative education > Level 2), a functional model of a work-
integrated learning ecosystem > Level 3), an example of an applied model of a work-integrated learning ecosystem.
Specifically, the paper explores how policing, presented here as a working example of a socially important practice
domain, has been developed into a work-integrated learning ecosystem within the Australian higher education
context.

Keywords: Cooperative education, learning ecosystems, work-integrated learning, professional studies, policing

This research centers on cooperative education (co-op) and its intersection with two contemporary
educational concepts: learning ecosystems and work-integrated learning (WIL). Cooperative
education, as a valued pedagogical construct, has been known for more than 50 years (Casey &
Goodyear, 2015; Sovilla & Varty, 2011). Indeed, its applicability to higher education and work has been
the subject of particular and diverse interest. For example, Pennaforte and Pretti (2015) explored co-op
and organizational commitment in French undergraduates entering the workforce; Drewery et al.
(2016) examined its relation to the vocational self-concept of undergraduates; Andrade et al. (2018)
considered it in terms of entrepreneurship and job creation in Canada; and Raelin et al. (2014)
investigated whether participation in co-op increases the persistence of women and men in engineering
undergraduate studies in the United States. Studies on co-op have also extended into Australian
settings, with consideration given to the alignment of reflective practice and a co-op curriculum built
on a work-integrated learning pedagogy being one such example (Harvey et al., 2010; Lucas, 2017).

Jiang et al. (2015) took the challenge of documenting the impact of co-op even further. These authors
analyzed 19,093 job placements of engineering students with 4,709 employers in 1,817 cities and 76
countries, finding that students performed better at work and found placements with an increasing
emphasis on leadership in their senior years, and senior students specifically acquired non-engineering
skills that increased their abilities for more diversified placements. The study identified the ability to
learn and develop interpersonal and problem-solving skills as the most significant characteristics of co-
op students, attributes which suggest the so-called “soft skills” that might be overlooked in strictly
technical learning environments. These data and findings suggest co-op, while including learning
through work, is not only aimed at achieving job-preparedness and employability but results in the

1 Corresponding author: Lee Fergusson, lee.fergusson@usq.edu.au

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

development of transferable skills at a higher cognitive level when associated with higher education
programs. Ralls et al. (2018) extend this systemic creation of educational value by highlighting

an increasing acknowledgement that our education systems need to adapt and change in order
to respond to rapid global shifts in economic and technological development, moving from a
landscape of distinctly different and clearly boundaried education institutions towards the
creation of more flexible cross-sector ecosystems of teaching and learning. (para. 2)

In particular, co-op, as expressed through WIL, is concerned with what students do in both educational
and work environments and how the two are integrated in order to enrich both student learning and
organizational outcomes. These structures can be used repeatedly with almost any subject matter, thus
making for a transdisciplinary framework or, as argued in this paper, a ‘learning ecosystem’ in which
multidisciplinary practices can be accommodated within work-integrated research projects. As
disclosed by Ralls et al. (2018), learning ecosystems can form within the context of co-op. Learning
ecosystems (including their variations as ‘learning communities’ and ‘networks of practice’) are
characterized by the creation of what are called ‘learning hubs’ providing “connectors through which
knowledge passes and ultimately collaborative action takes place” and can be defined as
“interdependent combinations of different species of providers and organizations playing different
roles with learners in differing relationships to them over time and in varying mixes” (Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2015, p. 17). The aforementioned definitions of co-
op and learning ecosystems as provided by Ralls et al. and OECD are the ones subscribed to in this
research.

As noted above, co-op is affiliated with work because many aspects of cooperation in education have
commonly occurred as a result of industry partnerships (e.g., Borrell-Damian, 2009), actuated as either
partnerships of educational institutions and government agencies or educational institutions and the
private sector, or both, including in relation to research-practice partnerships (Coburn & Penuel, 2016;
Rampersad, 2015). However, despite the apparent synergy between higher education and the world of
work more generally, inquiry has yet to fully document the unique underpinning of the partnerships
created through work and learning ecosystems, although the work of Rook and McManus (2016) on
WIL in Australian universities and their ability to prepare students for the world of work, contributes
directly to this topic.

It is not within the scope of this paper to articulate the distinguishing features of all forms of learning
associated with work, nor is it within scope to describe their various incarnations as work-based
learning (Major, 2016), workplace learning (Gamrat et al., 2014), work-applied learning (Zuber-Skerritt,
& Abraham, 2017), service learning (Valencia-Forrester et al., 2019), or practice-based learning,
problem-based learning and the flipped classroom (Thai et al., 2017). This statement is especially true
if the various national contexts of each incarnation of learning associated with work are considered.
Certainly, each learning pedagogy associated with work has its own distinct characteristics and, in
some cases, these can be significantly different, but most differentiators are also somewhat nuanced
and subtle. What binds them is a fundamental concern for intentional learning through work and
action built on a foundation of experience and reflection, and these have been well documented (Illeris,
2018; Wain, 2017).

The focus of this paper is on the specific applicability of learning ecosystems to WIL, partly because
WIL is a pedagogy that has gained traction when associated with learning, work and their joint relation
to problems in practice, and partly because it is the pedagogy upon which the higher education setting

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 26

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

for the present study is based, and is thus the approach with which the authors are most familiar. Noted
is the emphasis WIL places on individualized learning shaped by reflection, the context, situation, sets
of activities and social relations, an individual’s prior learning and experience, and the social
dimensions in which each of these elements occur (Bruno & Dell’Aversana, 2018; Siebert et al., 2009).
According to van der Laan and Neary (2016), such an approach

recognizes that individuals’ careers are usually based on formal qualifications supplemented by
action learning gained while working…[and] is primarily concerned with learning not teaching.
While the delivery of [of this approach to learning] involves some teaching, learners are guided
rather than directed. The focus is not so much on what is being learned, although this remains
important, but on how we best learn. (p. 268)

This individualized process is reinforced by “cognitive resources” and, as a result, learning is said to
be enhanced by being re-situated in each new context, enriched by the integration of personal and re-
situated knowledge leading to the creation of insight and understanding (Eraut, 2000; Siebert et al.,
2009). Thus, WIL is a type of learning associated with work, which characterizes any learning whether
formal, informal or non-formal, occurring within the wider world of work. What differentiates WIL is
that learning is intentional and related to specific outcomes of the higher education framework within
which it is offered. The intersection between work and higher education, in the present example, is
called a work-integrated learning ecosystem.

Van der Laan and Neary (2016) have also pointed out learning related to work “recognizes that learning
is most effective and authentic through the engagement with others” (p. 269), whether it be in a place,
community of practice or amongst peers. This reflects Dewey’s notion of authentic learning being
facilitated through experiential and social learning, with the latter suggesting a cooperative approach.
Raelin (2011) goes further by proposing that such as approach is not simply about pedagogy but is “a
philosophical approach that characterizes how learners develop their knowledge to participate
effectively and democratically in a civil society. It is concerned with how to make learning arise from
our mutual experience with others, in particular, from our work together” (p. 17). To that end, Raelin
argues that theories associated with learning through work are

. . . expressly merged with practice, while knowledge is considered to be fluid and changeable.
Learning is centered on reflection on work practices. Hence, it offers practitioners faced with the
relentless pace of pervasive change an opportunity to overcome time pressures by reflecting
upon and learning from the artistry of their action. (p. 17)

More recent concerns have centered on work-related problems, particularly messy, co-produced and
wicked problems, and their solutions (e.g., Fergusson, 2019; Toledano-O’Farrill, 2017).

The site for the present research is the Professional Studies program at University of Southern
Queensland (Fergusson, Allred, & Dux, 2018; Fergusson, Allred, Dux, & Muianga, 2018; van der Laan
& Neary, 2016; van der Laan & Ostini, 2018). Within this program, which has been structured according
to foundational WIL principles, are the Master of Professional Studies (Research) (MPSR) and Doctor
of Professional Studies (DPRS) higher degrees by research (HDR) programs for mid- to senior-career
professionals. According to van der Laan and Ostini (2018), “driven by lifelong learning imperatives,
self-directed career development, and a credential-driven employment environment”, non-academic
mid- to senior-career professionals are “increasingly turning to higher education for (a) validation of
the knowledge gained informally and non-formally in their practice, and (b) non-traditional academic
offerings that contribute to their professional development” (p. 14).

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 27

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

These two Professional Studies qualifications are the product of parallel streams of work-integrated
inquiry, as shown in Figure 1: A) a work-integrated project; and B) a research project. Based on
personalized learning objectives and a topic of investigation, stream A) is carried out in a specific work
environment or can be identified as a demarcated site-specific, generic, industry-specific, or practice
domain project of relevance to any ‘type of work’. As such, the work-integrated project has a start-stop
point and timeline, an identifiable set of goals, objectives and milestones, a budget, a list of participants
and materials, and so on. The work-integrated project results in the production of an artefact, which
can include project or technical reports, a model or framework, or a policy white paper. Typically,
artefacts become part of the accumulated wisdom (i.e., the embedded intellectual capital) of the
employee, sole practitioner, work location, organization, and/or practice domain.

The second stream B) relates to the research project designed to measure, test, assess, evaluate, or
otherwise investigate the nature, scope, and outcomes of the work-integrated project A), and typically
uses a mixed methods research design to do so. Research designs for such inquiries may be exploratory,
explanatory, embedded, or concurrent and can lead to the types of non-generalizable, generalizable,
tentative, or predictive research findings typical of most scientifically guided research projects. It is the
implementation of these two streams of work-integrated learning and research, built upon a foundation
of personalized learning, which characterize the Professional Studies HDR program and together the
streams form the basis upon which a practitioner gains the MPSR or DPRS qualification, addresses a
work-related problem, and contributes original findings which enhance collective knowledge, as
expressed by C).

The relationship of the Professional Studies program to WIL practices such as providing access and
equity in higher education (van der Laan & Neary, 2016), being a source of innovation in higher
education (van der Laan et al., 2017), engaging in micro- and macro-cycles of reflective practice
(Fergusson, van der Lann, & Baker, 2019), advancing professional practice (Fergusson, Allred, Dux, &
Muianga, 2018), and its association with first principles of science (Fergusson, Shallies, & Meijer, 2019)
has been well documented. The program’s ethos and transformational characteristics have also been
examined (Fergusson, van der Lann, White, & Balfour, 2019). Moreover, the university and its learning
collaborators assess the outcomes from Professional Studies against a multi-disciplinary framework of
standards and levels (i.e., Australian Qualification Framework Level 9 for the master’s and Level 10 for
the doctorate degrees).

To complete the task of articulating a work-integrated learning ecosystem within the Professional
Studies program, the present study considers the topic from three sequentially related conceptual
levels: Level 1) a proto-theoretical model of co-op; Level 2) a functional model of a work-integrated
learning ecosystem; Level 3) an applied model of a work-integrated learning ecosystem.

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 28

FIGURE 1: Two parallel streams A) and B) of work-integrated learning in Professional Studies.

Note. (University of Southern Queensland, 2013).

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

LEVEL 1: PROTO-THEORETICAL MODEL OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

A fundamental premise of co-op, underpinned by Social Constructivism, is that learning is

transactional and a basic human right. This premise is informed by Dewey’s (1938) theory of
experiential and social learning. Pedagogical attitudes which embrace and foster such a ‘cooperative’
view of education include: knowledge is a social construction; everyone involved in co-op contributes
to the construction of knowledge; access to knowledge is the right of every person who wishes to learn;
a learner-centric focus within the learning and teaching process is required in education; and congruent
behavior is the most efficient in cooperative situations. These attitudes can be operationalized into
principles of co-op which encourage interdependence, professionally inclusive and parallel
interactions, equal access and participation, personal responsibility and accountability, open and
flexible structures, and competence and capability development.

To further these attitudes, this study has adopted at Level 1 a systems view of co-op showing the main
advocates of cooperation and how they interact within the cooperative framework. Level 1 also shows
the inputs (contributions) to and outputs (benefits) from the educational process (i.e., what Ralls et al.
call ‘connectors through which knowledge passes’) within a higher education context to produce the
proto-theoretical model shown in Figure 2. This diagram shows the association of co-op to higher
education, the communities within which higher education are embedded, and the broader societies in
which these communities exist, a philosophic commitment which Raelin (2011) has suggested develops
the type of knowledge required to participate effectively and democratically in a civil society.

FIGURE 2: Proto-theoretical model of co-op and its relation to higher education, communities
and society.

The model shows that co-op is the product of five advocates or, to paraphrase the OECD, different
species of providers or organizations coming together to contribute to and benefit from the exchange
of experience, knowledge, data, expertise, know-how, and so on. Each advocate plays a different role

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 30

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

and adopts different relationships over time and in varying mixes of input and output. The five
advocates to the model are: (A) the student; (B) the work environment; (C) the higher education
institution and educational context more generally; (D) industry support; and (E) government policies
and support.

The model assumes that each ‘species of provider’, while interacting with other advocates within the
boundaries of the ecosystem, contributes something of value to, and benefits in some practical way
from, participating in the co-op process, which ultimately has implications for higher education, the
communities in which it operates, and society more generally. For example, the student (A) contributes
energy, time and skills, and benefits by gaining knowledge and a qualification; the higher education
institution (C) contributes support services, such as a library, financial aid and counseling, and benefits
from the enrolment of the student, the knowledge they create and their payment of fees. Hence, (A)
contributes to and benefits from (C) and (C) contributes to and benefits from (A).

In these ways, co-op can be viewed as a form of dynamic biomatrix system (Dostal et al., 2012),
consisting of both activity systems (such as teaching and learning systems) and entity systems (such as
the ethos and governing systems of the institution) which combine to form what Dostal et al. (2012) call
“one interdependent whole” (p. 7). How this interdependent and cooperating whole is activated
through a functional model of a work-integrated learning ecosystem is illustrated in Level 2.

LEVEL 2: FUNCTIONAL MODEL OF A WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING ECOSYSTEM

Figure 3 takes the generic proto-theoretical model and, using the Professional Studies program as its
working example, ascribes a name to each of the five advocate types (A)-(E) to illustrate the real-world
elements of a functional work-integrated learning ecosystem. In keeping with WIL practice in higher
education, advocate (A) becomes a career professional; advocate (B) becomes the space or place in
which work is carried out, including organized workplaces and work spaces as well as communities of
practice (for example, settings in which self-derived rules, systems, and ways of working are carried
out, as in the case of a sole practitioner); advocate (C) becomes, in this case, the Professional Studies
HDR program; advocate (D) becomes the domain or discipline specialist who cooperates with and
contributes to the WIL ecosystem; and advocate (E) becomes the regulatory and funding authority (i.e.,
government agency or other authority).

Figure 3 also identifies the contributions and benefits of each advocate. For advocate (A), contributions
include the professional’s work experience, attitudes of altruism, activism and passion, and their work-
integrated research project; benefits include gaining a qualification, increased learning, knowledge
construction, research experience, a project artefact, and a publishable research paper (a specific output
of the Professional Studies program). For advocate (B), contributions include a real-world project site
in which (A) can engage in a work-integrated project while addressing a specific problem at work, an
endorsement from the work environment, and a source of primary and secondary data and research
project participants. Benefits gained by the work environment (B) include evidence-based solutions to
problems, the recognition that comes from on-site research, potential organizational and/or community
improvement, a more capable and qualified practitioner, as well as a project artefact which becomes
part of the organization’s or community’s memory and record.

For advocate (C), contributions to co-op include the provision of learning opportunities for (A) through
an online learning interface (i.e., the learning management system), workshops, conferences, writing
bootcamps, webinars, so-called ‘authentic assessment’ methods (Reynolds & Kearns, 2017), and other
means of blending the delivery of learning and teaching, access to knowledge associated with research
and publishing skills, a community of learners and other university support services, such as library
resources and counseling, and the granting to (A) of a qualification at the end of their HDR program.
Benefits to (C) include access to researching professionals (A) and industry collaborators and
partnerships (B) and the recognition that comes with it, a contribution to academic knowledge and

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 31

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

original research, and project artefacts in the form of published theses, and other documentation and
data.

For advocate (D), contributions include specialist technical and industry advice, increased program
credibility and recognition for (A) and (C) as well as overall program support; benefits to (D) include
linkages to the learning ecosystem and other communities of disciplinary and non-disciplinary practice,
and professional and personal recognition. In this example, advocate (E) contributes funding and the
regulatory and graduate attribute frameworks within which the program operates. Benefits to (E)
include a more capable and qualified Australian workforce, a range of evidence-based outcomes and
intellectual property across different industrial sectors, and well as the publication of practice-based
research outcomes and evidence with which to support them.

At this point it is necessary to differentiate between an organizational interaction with the ecosystem
and a community or similar entity’s interaction with the ecosystem. Not all WIL takes place within the
context of a specific organization, and as such the systemic interactions of advocates differ based on the
location of that learning. For the purposes of this paper, WIL as a pedagogy is situated within an
organizational setting, but other, less formal and traditional, work-related settings are possible.

To more fully activate the proto-theoretical model, Figure 3 also identifies inputs to the model by sub-
advocates who sit behind and support the main advocates. These are for advocate (A), a management
advocate or internal work champion within the organization (A1) who helps approve the research
project and provide managerial advice and organizational guidance on (B) to (A). The management
advocate (A1) can also help (A) develop practicable and valuable research questions, prepare
appropriately to conduct work-integrated research, identify sources of secondary data within the
organization and how to access them, and help (A) position themselves politically to be both a manager
or leader within the organization while also being an insider-researcher.

For advocate (B), project participants (B1) are peers who become potential interviewees, survey
respondents, or key informants in (A’s) stream A) research project, and the project site (B2), which
serves as the source of secondary data and is the location of the research phenomenon under
investigation; (B2) may also have its own research ethics approval process. Similarly, the Professional
Studies program (C) has three subordinate advocates: (C1) program supervisors who provide technical
and administrative advice, mentoring and thesis supervision to (A) as well as coordinate access to
domain specialists (D); (C2) HDR technical support, which provides statistical, financial, administrative
and library assistance to (A); and (C3) a human research ethics committee which advises (A) on ethical
considerations in research and approves their applications for conducting work-integrated research,
most typically in research involving human participants in semi-structured interviews, focus groups,
and/or surveys.

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 32

FIGURE 3: Functional model of a work-integrated learning ecosystem.
 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

Domain or discipline specialists (D) may also call upon subordinate advocates from their industry
networks (D1) to provide independent specialist advice and data, and sub-advocate (E1) is the source
of government scholarships and other resources, which can help (A) secure grants and tuition fee
offsets, waivers and research funding. (E1) also provides high-level institutional support in Australia
to (C) through such vehicles as The Higher Education Support Act 2003. How this functional model of
a WIL ecosystem can be activated and applied to the organizational context of higher degree research
is the subject of Level 3.

LEVEL 3: APPLIED MODEL OF A WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING ECOSYSTEM

From this perspective, a WIL ecosystem occurs when the intersection of WIL and a learning ecosystem
is operationalized in the context of a professional practice domain. A professional practice domain is
defined as a work-related practice or discipline in which stakeholder-participants have been formally
or informally organized into: A) recognizable and agreed structures of policy (e.g., pre-qualifications,
roles and governance); B) narrative (e.g., an accepted ethos and history); C) competency (i.e., a complex
construct which includes an individual’s skills and abilities, values, beliefs, motives, attitudes and
personal traits; D) capability (i.e., higher order thinking and behaving, which reflect both broader and
deeper expertise, sometimes referred to as “advanced practice” (Fergusson et al., 2020); and E)
interdependencies among advocates (i.e., process-oriented interactions, discussions, negotiations, and
speculations among advocates yielding knowledge and decisions, Black et al., 2006).

The present study is consistent with Queensland University of Technology (2014), which points out that
within a professional practice domain “congruencies and tensions [can be] identified, allowing for an
increased understanding of what may be shaping practice decisions and behavior” (p. 1) leading to a
“notion of ‘best fit’ between the practitioner and the practice context” (p. 4). Professional practice
domains within the Professional Studies program include: 1) nursing, midwifery, allied health and
clinical practice; 2) sports medicine and science; 3) policing, 4) fire and emergency services; 5)
environmental impact and sustainability science; 6) curriculum and assessment specializations; and 7)
private corporate and consulting practices. Sub-domains within practice domains, such as the five in
nursing proposed by Kring (2008), are also possible, but sub-domains like leader or expert practitioner
elements, do not form part of the present WIL ecosystem model.

For the purposes of this study, the professional practice domain of policing has been used to exemplify
and provide the concrete nomenclature and impact of what is meant by an applied WIL ecosystem.
This identification is relevant because elsewhere the synergy between investigative practices of police
detectives and social scientists, in which they both develop lines-of-inquiry and draw on multiple
sources of evidence to make inferences about people, trends and phenomena, has been more formally
argued (Fergusson, Harmes et al., 2019). That research examined the various direct and indirect lines-
of-inquiry and the main sources of primary and secondary evidence used in work-related research, a
topic which is also relevant here because a number of researchers in the Professional Studies program
are also detectives with the Queensland Police Service and other Australian police services.

Moreover, the cooperative aspects of learning and the public cooperative imperatives of community
policing, particularly for minority and at-risk groups within Australian society (Murphy & Cherney,
2011), are also synergistic. This next generation view of policing and police culture, a view based on
diversity and transparency (rather than paramilitarism, athleticism and camaraderie) historically called
”community policing” (Cunneen, 1992), is the subject of recent research by Campeau (2019) in Canada
and by Jackson et.al. (2018) in the United Kingdom. Of interest in the present context is the observation

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 34

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

that like the Professional Studies program, policing research uses mixed methods to examine social
problems and matters of policing importance (e.g., Kiedrowski et al., 2019).

The five advocates to the applied policing model in Figure 4 are: (A) a police officer with the rank of
Senior Sergeant or above (i.e., Inspector, Superintendent, etc.); (B) the work environment of community
policing; (C) the specific work-integrated learning and research project being conducted within the
Professional Studies program; (D) policing specialists, including intelligence analysts and
criminologists; and (E) the Department of Education and Training of the Australian Government, which
supports the Professional Studies program and University of Southern Queensland more broadly.
Figure 4 identifies the contributions to and benefits from the WIL ecosystem for each advocate.

For advocate (A), contributions include 10+ years of policing experience, an attitude of altruism,
activism, and passion for change in policing, and research projects in contemporary policing. Benefits
include the MPSR and DPRS qualification granted to (A) by (C), and research experience in and
publications on policing for (A). Recent work-integrated research project examples include: evaluation
of a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) training program for police recruits, an investigation
into ethical police standards and the implications associated with crossing professional boundaries, and
a case study analysis of whether earlier disclosure of evidence by Queensland police to the Office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions reduces the length of case disposition.

For advocate (B), contributions include real-world professional practice environments and challenges
in policing, and access to policing data and reports. Benefits to the police agency include greater
evidence-based policing (Telep & Somers, 2019) and thereby increased police legitimacy, social and
political recognition and community awareness of innovations in policing, and specific community
policing problems addressed and promoted, with a focus on prevention programs. For example, a
current work-integrated project concerns the investigation of viable ways to help Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders return to North Queensland after becoming homeless in Cairns as a result of long-
distance travel to attend regional court hearings (Kinchin at al., 2016). Such projects complement other
indigenous policing initiatives, such as Aboriginal Community Patrols aimed at intervention in
situations where Indigenous people are “at risk of enmeshment in the criminal justice system, or where
they face multiple hazards associated with community disorder, alcohol, drugs and violence” (Blagg &
Valuri, 2004, p. 313).

For advocate (C), contributions include providing (A) with learning opportunities, the development of
research and publishing skills, the advice and expertise of academic and other industry partners, a well-
developed learning community of scholars, university resources, and the granting of accredited
qualifications. Benefits to (C) include program and institutional recognition from, in this example, the
Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Government, the University Southern Queensland
academic community and broader society, an increase in the number of researching practitioners in
Australia, the contribution of original knowledge to both policing and WIL, increased industry
partnerships, and project artefacts in policing that increase public service effectiveness and capacity.

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 35

FIGURE 4: Applied model of work-integrated learning ecosystem using policing as the professional practice domain
 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

For advocate (D), contributions include project advice to (A) and (C) on policing, specialist technical
advice on policing, and support and recognition for, and credibility to, the Professional Studies
program. Benefits to (D) include industry recognition for policing specialists, participation in a policing
learning community, and professional linkages to other police officers and services. Advocate (E), in
addition to funding, contributes in this example the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and
Quality Indicators Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Benefits to (E) include a more
capable and qualified Queensland police force, increased evidence-based policing outcomes, and
published policing research in the Australian context, which is lacking in the academic literature. For
example, the contribution of a Professional Studies project, which examines whether restorative justice
(Joudo-Larsen, 2014) is a more viable approach to youth offending than the current model, qualifies as
both socially and governmentally important.

The Level 3 model also lists sub-advocates who contribute to the WIL ecosystem. These include: (A1)
police service senior managers; (B1) peers, prosecutors, coroners and the general public and (B2)
internal policing research sites and community sites, both of which directly participate in and draw
from the communities in which they serve, as shown in Figure 4 and consistent with the philosophical
underpinnings of co-op presented in Figure 3; (C1) policing content and research supervisors, (C2)
statisticians, specialist librarians and counsellors, and (C3) University of Southern Queensland’s
research ethics committee; (D1) forensic scientists, criminologists, and social justice advocates; and (E1)
the Research Training Program (RTP), which is the Australian Government’s initiative to fund HDR
programs and work-related research (C) and postgraduate student researchers (A).

Other important, but less-evident, features of the applied Level 3 policing model include: 1) seminars
held by the Deputy Commissioner of Queensland Police Service to share information, coordinate
problem solving, and update advocates (B) and (C) on the progress of research projects; 2) joint research
and publishing projects conducted by (C1s), which involve participation by (As); and 3) the
development of professional networks and initiatives which reach into other areas of professional
practice and governance, particularly those involving (B) and (C) cooperating with (E).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While the impact of this model on advocates and policing will be the topic of separate research, a
preliminary observation is relevant in this context. To paraphrase one recent Queensland Police Service
graduate from the MPSR program who investigated heavy earthmoving equipment theft in
Queensland, the work-integrated learning ecosystem effectively embedded academic research practice
and capacity within the Queensland Police Service, thereby supporting and furthering the collaborative
goals of what he called the ”Queensland Police Service Visiting Fellows Program”. He reported the
ecosystem model harnessed his curiosity and skills in identifying and addressing emergent and unique
crime issues, and thereby helped build his individual and organizational capacity, confidence and
expertise. In this way, the Professional Studies program fostered evidence-based policing, helping
transition the Queensland Police Service from, in his words, an implementer to an innovator. In this
way, he said, the program helped position the Queensland Police Service as a leading Australian law
enforcement agency, informed and strengthened its operational practice through research, and applied
academic rigor to the evaluation of police programs, strategies and outcomes.

According to this Senior Sergeant, the research he conducted under the auspices of the Professional
Studies program therefore: a) delivered pioneering analysis and assessment of a unique crime class; b)
made 16 recommendations to address crime reduction, data quality, and enhanced investigative

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 37

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

techniques; c) improved heavy equipment recovery and industry partnerships; and d) delivered the
Queensland Police Service strategic goal of “working in partnership with the community to stop crime”
In these and other ways it can be said the policing WIL ecosystem achieved its learner-centric goals
while fulfilling its mission of social responsibility and justice.

Such views are reflective in Australia of those expounded by Reinhard et al. (2016) who said

throughout the world, universities of cooperative education have had a major impact on their
countries and regional economies, by preparing graduates for the world of work, applying their
research skills to identifying the problems and needs of society and industry, and together
finding solutions to those problems. (p. 249)

Indeed, Van der Laan and Ostini (2018) have explored innovation in higher education, pointing out
that universities must “avoid becoming redundant in their mission to contribute to the advancement
of communities, work, innovation, the economy, and ultimately society”, and that HDR programs
related to work should be “socially useful and make significant workplace and professional
contributions rather than simply [resulting in] professional accreditation for working within
universities” (p. 11). Thus, programs such Professional Studies, which shift the “balance of power” by
promoting “an equal partnership between the academy and the workplace” (Wildy et al., 2015, p. 765),
should be “valued by universities and society for [their] role in developing provident futures” (van der
Laan & Ostini, 2018, p. 11).

Van der Laan and Ostini (2018) have identified and explained some of the key challenges faced by
higher education in achieving these so-called “provident futures”, among them: a) postgraduate
research programs which have been slow to adjust to social change by holding on to traditional
paradigms related to quality of scholarship rather than research impact; b) lack of agreement in the
higher education sector as to whether it is even the mission of a university to prepare people with
workforce skills; c) the need to design educational models which address a shift (from economies built
in the information age) to economies dependent on conceptual workers; and d) how to meet the
“dramatic increase in demand for ‘fit-for-future’ postgraduate programs that develop higher-order [i.e.,
work-related] capabilities” (p. 4). “If the mission of universities is to educate, conduct research, and
engage with their communities”, van der Laan and Ostini go on to argue, “it is increasingly difficult to
justify an attitude of detachment between universities and fit-for-work education especially as it relates
to cognitive abilities” (p. 11).

Built on the foundations of a WIL pedagogy, the Professional Studies program at University of
Southern Queensland has modeled a co-op approach, which embraces the potential of learning
ecosystems across a variety of professional practice domains. Research from these domains, both in an
organizational context and increasingly from a non-employment, non-workplace specific perspective,
is beginning to emerge in the published literature. Such development persuasively, albeit now only
partially, speaks to the type of innovation in higher education necessary for universities to engage with
communities and work environments, and reaches beyond the mere economic to engage society and
build individual and institutional agency through programs which have mostly replaced the standard
”one-size-fits-all” model by embracing a ”fit-for-future”, multidisciplinary approach to higher
education. The application of WIL ecosystems to professional practice domains (such as policing,
nursing, and so on) is one such example of this approach, but further research into ecosystems and their
broader implication for work-related contexts should prove fruitful.

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 38

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

REFERENCES

Andrade, A., Chopra, S., Nurlybayev, B., & Golab, L. (2018). Quantifying the impact of entrepreneurship on cooperative
education job creation. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(1), 51-68.
Black, J. B., Kapur, M., Kinzer, C. K., & Black, J. (2006). An emergentist account of collective cognition in collaborative problem
solving. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28), 858-863.
Blagg, H., & Valuri, G. (2004). Aboriginal community patrols in Australia: Self-policing, self-determination and security. Policing
& Society, 14(4), 313-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043946042000286047
Borrell-Damian, L. (2009). Collaborative doctoral education: University-industry partnerships for enhancing knowledge exchange.
European University Association.
Bruno, A., & Dell’Aversana, G. (2018). ‘What shall I pack in my suitcase?’: The role of work-integrated learning in sustaining
social work students’ professional identity. Social Work Education, 37(1), 34-48.
Campeau, H. (2019). Institutional myths and generational boundaries: Cultural inertia in the police organization. Policing and
Society, 29(1), 69-84, https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1371718
Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A
review of literature. Quest, 67(1), 56-72.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open
questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54.
Cunneen, C. (1992). Problems in the implementation of community policing strategies. In The police and the community:
Conference proceedings series 5 (pp. 161-172). Australian Institute of Criminology.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. MacMillan.
Dostal, E., Cloete, A., & Járos, G. (2012). Biomatrix: A systems theory in graphics. BiomatrixWeb.
Drewery, D., Nevison, C., & Pretti, T. J. (2016). The influence of cooperative education and reflection upon previous work
experiences on university graduates’ vocational self-concept. Education + Training, 58(2), 179-192.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2015-0042
Eraut, M. (2010). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1),
113-136.
Fergusson, L. (2019). The nature of work-related problems: Messy, co-produced and wicked. Journal of Work-Applied
Management, 11(2), 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-08-2019-0024
Fergusson, L., Allred, T., & Dux, T. (2018). Work-based learning and research for mid-career professionals: Professional studies
in Australia. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 14, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.28945/3930
Fergusson, L., Allred, T., Dux, T., & Muianga, H. (2018). Work-based learning and research for mid-career professionals: Two
project examples from Australia. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 14, 19-40.
https://doi.org/10.28945/3959
Fergusson, L., Brömdal, A., Gough, M., & Mears, S. (2020). Competency, capability and professional identity: The case for
advanced practice. Work-Based Learning e-Journal International, 9(1), 95-131.
Fergusson, L., Harmes, M., Hayes, F., & Rahmann, C. (2019). Lines of inquiry and sources of evidence in work-based research.
Work-based Learning e-Journal International, 8(2), 85-104.
Fergusson, L., Shallies, B., & Meijer, G. (2019). The scientific nature of work-based learning and research: An introduction to
first principles. Higher Education, Skills and Work-integrated Learning, 10(1), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-05-
2019-0060
Fergusson, L., van der Laan, L., & Baker, S. (2019). Reflective practice and work-based research: A description of micro- and
macro-reflective cycles. Reflective Practice, 20(2), 289-303.
Fergusson, L., van der Laan, L., White, C., & Balfour, J. (2019). The ethos and transformational nature of professional studies: A
study of student experience in Australia. Higher Education, Skills and Work-integrated Learning, 9(4), 695-711
https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-01-2019-0006
Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H. T., Dudek, J., & Peck, K. (2014). Personalized workplace learning: An exploratory study on digital
badging within a teacher professional development program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1136-1148.
Harvey, M., Coulson, D., Mackaway, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2010). Aligning reflection in the cooperative education
curriculum. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 11(3), 137-152.
Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2018). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. Routledge.
Jackson, J., Hough, M., Bradford, B., Hohl, K., & Kuha, J. (2012). Policing by consent: Understanding the dynamics of police power and
legitimacy. London School of Economic and Political Science.
Jiang, Y. H., Yin, S. W., & Golab, L. L. (2015). Analyzing student and employer satisfaction with cooperative education through
multiple data sources. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(4), 225-240.
Joudo-Larsen, J. (2014). Restorative justice in the Australian criminal justice system research and public policy series number 127.
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Kiedrowski, J., Ruddell, R., & Petrunik, M. (2019). Police civilisation in Canada: A mixed methods investigation. Policing and
Society, 29(2), 204-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1281925

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 39

 FERGUSSON, VAN DER LAAN, IMRAN, ORMSBY: Development of WIL learning ecosystems

Kinchin, I., Jacups, S., Hunter, G., & Rogerson, B. (2016). Economic evaluation of ‘Return to Country’: A remote Australian
initiative to address indigenous homelessness. Evaluation and Program Planning, 56, 69-75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.03.010
Kring, D. L. (2008). Clinical nurse specialist practice domains and evidence-based practice competencies. Clinical Nurse
Specialist, 2(4), 179-183.
Lucas, P. (2017). Positioning critical reflection within cooperative education: A transactional model. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Cooperative Education, 18(3), 2017-2257.
Major, D. (2016). Models of work-integrated learning, examples and reflections. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 8(1), 17-28.
Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2011). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to
procedural justice-based policing? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 235-257.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning
systems.
Pennaforte, A., & Pretti, T. J. (2015). Developing the conditions for co-op students’ organizational commitment through
cooperative education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(1), 39-51.
Raelin, J. A. (2011). Work-integrated learning: How it changes leadership. Development and Learning in Organizations: An
International Journal, 25(5), 17-20.
Raelin, J. A., Bailey, M. B., Hamann, J., Pendleton, L. K., Reisberg, R., & Whitman, D. L. (2014). The gendered effect of
cooperative education, contextual support, and self-efficacy on undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering
Education, 103(4), 599-624. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20060
Ralls, D., Bianchi, L., & Choudry, S. (2018). ‘Across the divide’: Developing professional learning ecosystems in STEM
education. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9789-5.
Rampersad, G. C. (2015). Developing university-business cooperation through work-integrated learning. International Journal of
Technology Management, 68(3/4), 203-227.
Reinhard, K., Pogrzeba, A., Townsend, R., & Pop, C. A. (2016). A comparative study of cooperative education and work-
integrated learning in Germany, South Africa, and Namibia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 249-263.
Reynolds, H. L., & Kearns, K. D. (2017). A planning tool for incorporating backward design, active learning, and authentic
assessment in the college classroom. College Teaching, 65(1), 17-27.
Rook, L. & McManus, L. (2016). Viewing WIL in business schools through a new lens: Moving to the edge of chaos with
complexity theory. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 18(2), 1-14.
Queensland University of Technology. (2014). The practice domain framework: An overview.
Siebert, S., Mills, V., & Tuff, C. (2009). Pedagogy of work-integrated learning: The role of the learning group. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 21(6), 443-454.
Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the US, past and present: Some lessons learnt.
In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International
perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3-15). Work Association for Cooperative Education.
Telep, C. W., & Somers, L. J. (2019). Examining police officer definitions of evidence-based policing: Are we speaking the same
language? Policing and Society, 29(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1373775
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher
education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107,
113-126.
Toledano-O’Farrill, R. (2017). Professional application projects: Work-integrated learning in the curriculum. Higher Education,
Skills and Work-integrated Learning, 7(1), 21-34.
University of Southern Queensland. (2013). Professional studies course resources.
Valencia-Forrester, F., Patrick, C-J., Webb, F., & Backhaus, B. (2019). Practical aspects of service learning make work-integrated
learning wise practice for inclusive education in Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 31-42.
van der Laan, L., & Neary, L. (2016). Equity and access as keys for opening open learning: The case for virtually facilitated
work-integrated learning. In S. Reushle, A. Antonio & M. Keppell (Eds.), Open learning and formal credentialing in higher
education: Curriculum models and institutional policies (pp. 263-290). IGI Global.
van der Laan, L., & Ostini, J. (2018). Enabling innovative postgraduate graduate research: Critical foresight and strategic
considerations for university leaders. In F. Padró, R. Erwee, M. Harmes, M. Harmes & P. Danaher (Eds.), Postgraduate
education in higher education (pp. 1-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0468-1_16-1
van der Laan, L., Ostini, J., Fergusson, L., & Allred, T. (2017, September 18-20). The innovative Australian university: The role of
third-generation postgraduate research programmes. [Paper presentation] International Science of Learning Conference:
Research to Reality, Brisbane, Australia.
Wain, A. (2017). Learning through reflection. British Journal of Midwifery, 25(10), 662-666.
Wildy, H., Peden, S., & Chan, K. (2015). The rise of professional doctorates: Case studies of the doctorate in education in China,
Iceland and Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 761-774.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Abraham, S. (2017). A conceptual framework for work-applied learning for developing managers as
practitioner researchers. Higher Education, Skills and Work-integrated Learning, 7(1), 35-50.

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(1), 25-40 40