Addressing placement inequities via participatory action research

Executive summary

Students undertaking compulsory placements as part of their university degrees encounter financial stress, known as placement poverty, and often other forms of exclusion as well, such as racism, discrimination, transphobia, and ableism. These inequities particularly affect equity-deserving students, and so this Fellowship aimed to generate actionable practices. In this project, we worked together with students and educators with lived expertise of placements to co-develop solutions to the interconnected issues of placement poverty and placement exclusion.

We conducted four online workshops with a total of 74 participants during the course of the project. These workshops were designed and co-facilitated by the project team of an educator and four students. Alongside the workshops, we reviewed the literature to find solutions to placement poverty enacted in countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); our findings are published in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.

Via the workshops and our reviews of the literature on placement poverty and placement inclusion, we identified 40 solutions and eight overarching themes. These solutions and themes are summarised in the recommendations in the next section, and include both small and large practical steps for educators, universities, placement sites, and federal and state governments.

Recommendations

We make the following recommendations:

1. That all stakeholders involved in placements take a partnership approach to address placement inequities. A partnership approach is essential for addressing placement inequities, bringing together students, educators, professional bodies, policymakers, employers, and politicians to develop shared understandings and solutions. Students, particularly those most affected by placement inequities, need to be included and compensated for their time. This project has demonstrated how partnerships build capacity, foster collaboration, and strengthen ownership of outcomes. Strong partnerships also enable flexible, creative approaches to work-integrated learning (WIL).
2. That universities, professional bodies, and industry question assumptions about, and critically examine, WIL. A more critical and evidence-based approach is needed to create fairer and less onerous WIL models. Universities, professional bodies, and industry must critically assess assumptions about WIL and examine systemic barriers to high-quality, inclusive placements. Students often perceive WIL as labour rather than learning, and placement hour requirements in some disciplines lack clear evidence. Restrictions on placements in students’ existing workplaces persist, despite models to address conflicts of interest. Additionally, the financial burden of training remains largely on universities and students, rather than being shared with industry. Universities also have a role in educating students about the history and context of WIL.
3. That federal and state governments, universities, and industry expand financial support for students on placement. Financial support from federal and state governments, universities, and industry is the most direct way to address placement poverty. While the Commonwealth Prac Payments are a positive step, many degrees with compulsory placements are excluded, and international students are ineligible. We recommend expanding government funding, increasing financial support from for-profit industries, and strengthening university support schemes. All funding initiatives should be accessible, with clear and simple application processes, to ensure students can easily find and apply for them.
4. That universities and placement sites provide flexible placement options. Universities and placement sites should offer flexible placement options, such as part-time schedules or shorter days. These arrangements help alleviate placement poverty by allowing students to maintain their part-time paid work while also supporting those with caring responsibilities, health conditions, and/or disabilities.
5. That universities, together with their placement partners, take a whole-of-degree approach to inclusive WIL. A whole-of-degree approach to inclusive WIL ensures that students are gradually prepared for placements throughout their studies. This includes embedding inclusive practices into the pedagogy of educators and practices of professional staff who manage placements and disability accommodations. A strengths-based approach should guide this process, helping students recognise, value, and develop their strengths, and learn how to apply them during placements and in their future careers. This approach should extend to placement sites and educators, supporting them to create inclusive environments—such as LGBTQIA+ friendly, neurodiverse-affirming, disability-accessible, and culturally safe spaces.
6. That federal and state governments, universities, and placement sites resource WIL to ensure inclusive, high-quality experiences. Federal and state governments, universities, and placement sites must adequately resource WIL, including recognising and valuing the relational work involved. This investment is crucial for fostering inclusive, high-quality WIL and encouraging innovative solutions. Staff involved in WIL should be appropriately compensated, with sufficient numbers to manage the workload effectively. Support mechanisms for staff—particularly to prevent burnout from relational work—should be strengthened. Additionally, increased support for student mental wellbeing, such as accessible counselling services, is essential.
7. That educators, students, and other stakeholders sustain their advocacy for placement inclusion. Educators, students, and other stakeholders should continue to build on their collective efforts towards placement inclusion. Advocacy, activism, and research have been crucial in raising awareness of placement poverty and pushing for effective solutions, particularly by highlighting the impact of placement poverty on students and translating research findings for a wider audience. We recommend that these advocacy efforts persist, with ongoing involvement from students, educators, professional bodies, unions, and politicians.

Continue reading by downloading the full report below.