All participating PhD students gave their informed written consent to participate in the study, first for the workshops and then for the writing and analysis process. The project did not need ethical approval according to the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. However, the Committee for Good Research Practices and Ethics at University West has approved the project (registration number F 2025/2).

Considering the often cited articles, there was no indication of a single core origin of WIL. Instead, WIL has been informed by two distinct concepts. Moving from left to right in Figure 1 shows “situated learning” (green) and “collaboration and partnership in learning for working life” (yellow). While there is evidence of linkages between these themes (see straight-line connections in Figure 1), these appear to be distinct concepts. The definitions of WIL appear to be influenced by situated learning, which emphasises the importance of authenticity; as well as collaboration and partnership in learning for working life, which emphasises coordination and co-operation. The more recent research (blue) presents intertwined themes of WIL.

In the green cluster (Situated learning), WIL can be described as an educational approach featuring a pedagogical curriculum designed to integrate discipline learning with practical workplace learning (Smith, 2012). Within this framework, students engage in designed structured activities, such as reflection journaling during professional work practice, to acquire skills and knowledge pertinent to their field. Integrative learning is a central part of WIL curricula. Smith (2012) states that WIL is distinct from just physical authentic work experience or work-based learning, which does not require students to integrate established disciplinary knowledge with workplace practice. This definition is consistent with the situated learning framework proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), which emphasises the context-dependent nature of learning processes. Another source linking back to learning theory publications such as Lave & Wenger (1991) and Kolb (1984) is a project report by Smith et al. (2009). This report described WIL as an educational portal for providing services and experiences contributing to career development learning.

In the yellow cluster (Collaboration and partnership for working life), Rampersad (2020) mention WIL alongside a list of kinship terms: experiential learning, cooperative education, industry-partnered active learning, and professional development programs and cite their previous work (2015). The argument is that WIL includes experiential learning to prepare students for ‘real-world problems’ and is guided toward competencies sought after in the future. The same linkage is used by Rampersad (2015) when describing WIL as consisting of five types of WIL: co-operative education, work-based learning, workplace learning programs, community service, and work placements. This description limits WIL to those specific types and presents WIL as an umbrella, encompassing those five types. It is a pragmatic angle on WIL where WIL is discussed in terms of what means enable us to achieve WIL and where perhaps the most pragmatic aspect of it is settled, which is to prepare students for the future in collaboration and partnership with working life.

An example connection between the clusters is Helyer and Lee (2014), who briefly mention WIL and refer to Billett (2011), but they also use other sources and discuss similar terms. They cite Eames and Bell (2005) when writing about learning in the workplace and they cite Cooper et al. (2010) for the statement that students need to be active in workplace experiences. In Helyer and Lee’s (2014) reference to Billett’s (2011) article, there is no definition of WIL, but a statement that experiential learning could include other terms, and then these are listed; “work-based learning, cooperative learning, work-integrated learning, internships and placements” (p. 365). Hence, Helyer and Lee (2014) exemplify how WIL is mentioned but not defined.

The findings of the collaborative analysis of extracted definitions from included articles was intended to explore definitions of WIL in often-cited WIL scientific articles. The findings from the sample are presented based on how WIL was described and from which sources, to understand further the experienced usefulness of potentially found definitions of WIL for future research. The usage of definitions was diverse, in some publications clear and related to commonly known WIL sources.

However, publications often mention WIL without providing a definition, instead referring to a definition, or describing what WIL is in the context of the publication. As the lack of WIL definitions was evident early in the analysis, the analysis also included exploring if the cited references regarding WIL provided definitions of WIL. In extracting WIL definitions from literature cited in WIL publications, four main findings occurred: Intertwining concepts, Intentions of WIL, Implementation of WIL and Diversity in defining WIL. The findings are presented with examples from explored sample.

Commonly, the definition of WIL in a publication is based on several diverse sources combined to form a comprehensive definition of WIL. As for example, Rampersad (2015) defines WIL by including several sources, where the used sources represent different key areas of WIL: structured integration of classroom studies and work experiences (Groenewald, 2004), triple partnership (student, educational organization and workplace) with their respective responsibilities (Abeysekera, 2006) and reflection on learning (Katula & Threnhauser, 1999). More specifically, Rampersad (2015) refers to Groenewald (2004) who defines WIL as “a structured strategy for integrated classroom learning through productive work experiences in a field related to a students’ academic or career goals” (p.17) without, however, including a clear definition in their publication. Further, Rampersad (2015) continues with appraising the qualities of WIL and connects this with work-based learning as a form of WIL to integrate learning between learning in the workplace and the curriculum. Rampersad (2015), through citing Katula and Threnhauser (1999), also links to Hernandez-March et al. (2009) which carries no specific definition of WIL but writes extensively of the benefits of WIL based on a definition by Calway and Murphy (2007). This definition narrows it down to “labor practices in companies carried out by students while at university which are the object of academic supervision and coordination” (p. 6). As it is formulated, WIL is devoid of the reflective qualities that are otherwise often present in other narrower definitions but are instead reduced to quite formulaic practice. Hernandez-March et al. (2009) also refer to Coll and Zegwaard (2006), who refer to Braunstein and Loken (2004) to position WIL as combining classroom periods with periods in authentic work settings where experiential learning takes place.

When different concepts are considered as intertwined, it is important also to know what the cores and limitations of each concept entail. Dhliwayo (2008) is rich in definitions, though somewhat conflicting. As an example, Dhliwayo refers to Groenewald (2003) which states WIL is defined as a “structured educational strategy that progressively integrates academic study with learning through productive work in a field related to the student’s academic or career goals, not as an add-on, but as an integral part of the educational process” (p. 330). To this definition another definition is added that states that WIL is “the component of learning that focuses on the application of theory in authentic work-based context. It addresses specific competencies identified for the acquisition of a qualification which relates to the development of skills that will make the student employable [...]” (p. 330). Though seemingly harmonised, there are some noteworthy differences in the details of the wordings, where the first could be said to focus on what to do to have a work-integrated practice, that is to go out and be present in the field, and the second one is about what constitutes WIL, it is the application of theory in practice.

Pang et al. (2018) use a definition of WIL that is broad and intertwined with other concepts: “Through strategic partnerships with industry, universities have instituted programmes to expose students to the workplace, thereby reducing the initial shock of reality quite different from academia. These experiences may be described as “practicum”, “gap-year”, “internship”, cooperative educational experience”, or “work-integrated learning” (Hascher et al., 2004; Knouse & Fontenot, 2008; Martin et al., 2012). The commonality between them is that students are immersed in a work environment, arranged or endorsed by their university, to experience the routines of employment.” This description focuses on the intention of minimising the reality shock of working and understanding work routines, but not on the integration between theoretical knowledge related to a certain theoretical competence and integrating this theory into practice. The origin of this definition of WIL goes back to Hascher et al. (2004) (educational focus) but also connects to business college internship (Knouse & Fontenot, 2008) and employability (Jackling & Natoli, 2015). There are linkages in Pang et al. (2018) that focus on graduate success from the perspectives of the employers, and references Jackling & Natoli (2015) who focus on the step before this; how internship can enhance employability.

Patrick et al. (2008) provide a generic definition of WIL, with the overall emphasis on the designed and purposeful integration of theory and practice. WIL is here a phenomenon that needs to be sculpted and arranged, as an opposite to something that is self-regulating and emergent. The definition does not provide any specific boundaries or contexts. This opens for the definition being used in a range of WIL activities, and one example is work placements (Ajjawi et al., 2020), but this is problematic if the understanding becomes that work placements are equivalent to WIL. It could be said that WIL is seen as a learning theory and what is particular about it is the integration of theory and practice. Patrick et al. (2008) is linked to several clusters of WIL researchers, and as such brings together publications as Clarke (2018), Bridgstock and Jackson (2019) and Ajjawi et al. (2020). This cross-linkage indicates that the definition by Patrick et al. (2008) is an important definition in WIL, as it has been cited across groups of linked authors.

The findings showed how WIL is used to present an intention of an educational action, such as increasing employability, and where WIL was seen as a tool to ensure this outcome. This is a different angle than exploring WIL from the perspective of how the integration of theory and practice takes place or can be enhanced during an educational intervention. This implies the different research focuses on WIL: the focus on the long-term outcome of using WIL and the focus on the learning situation within WIL.

Clarke (2018) does not provide any explicit WIL definition but uses WIL indirectly as a strategy to enhance graduate employability. To note is that internships are mentioned as a strategy on its own, which signals that WIL is not only an internship. A natural assumption would be that WIL is something more, but it is difficult to know since it is not shown in the citation. Clarke (2018) cites Freudenberg et al. (2011), a publication that is about students’ generic skills and that describes what WIL programs are with emphasis on combining ‘learning and its workplace application’. Both Clarke (2018) and Freudenberg et al. (2011) uphold the understanding of WIL being an instrument to achieve a certain level of skills in students where theory and practice are mentioned as self-explanatory aspects of students learning. It implies that achieving a fusion, presumably a balanced and efficient one, lies first and foremost within the responsibility of the educators. Or at least firstly within the responsibility of educators and later within the execution by students. Freudenberg et al. (2011) refer to Atchinson et al. (2002), which illustrates a quite stable line of thought about what WIL is over the years – it is an instrument to enhance students’ skills and turn them into the ready-made workers.

Dredge et al. (2012) focuses on that students rather reflect about practice experiences at the same time as they think about “the application and relevance of theoretical concepts and models” (p. 2158). Dredge et al. (2012) presents a definition based on Cooper et al. (2010), where WIL is defined as:

Jackson’s (2014) research could be understood as a practical example, perhaps even theory testing – as it provides a model to test skills and competences. WIL here equals “incorporation of work experience into undergraduate degree programmes” (Jackson, 2014, p. 4). The article builds on the concept of employability, students’ skills, and the needs of industry. In addition to this, Jackson (2017) also refers to Katz et al. (2011), Trede (2012), and Grace and Trede (2013). With reference to Katz et al. (2011), Jackson (2017) defines WIL as “represent[ing] the intersection of workplace and on-campus learning” (p. 838) and to be “fundamental to the construction of professional identity” (p. 838). What “the WIL experience” includes is also stated, namely:

However, it is less of a definition of WIL, rather a statement of what a WIL program may include. Jackson (2017) includes the concept of reflection, as important for the students’ affective development (refers to Clouder, 2005 for this specific term). Jackson (2017) also refers to Billett (2011) and Smith (2009). Clouder (2005) concerns professional development of healthcare students and does not have a definition of WIL, but it distinguishes WIL from extra-curricular work experience. WIL is enhanced through reflection. Jackson (2017) also covers what WIL does for the students, namely that it allows them to transition into professionals, with reference to Ashton (2011). On page 846 there is a reference to WIL as “the in-between space, the space where self and professional meet”, which is a direct quote from Trede (2012). While WIL in one formulation is a strategy, it is in a second a component of learning, which is a different thing. The former speaks of a more over-arching ambition to structure studies as a whole and bring them all in under the WIL umbrella, while the second speaks of a more isolated part, even though important. This difference is also mirrored in the ambitions of the definitions. The first is more process-oriented and brings forward the interplay between academia and the world of work by focusing on “integration”. There is neither a mention nor a specification of the locality of the learning process, which is an indication of understanding WIL as something that takes place both inside and outside the walls of the higher learning institution.

The progression that is mentioned is a progression of integration. Understanding WIL as “a component of learning” is more instrumental and does not carry the same focus on a progressive process of integration and back-and-forth movement between academia and the world of work. Instead, what is in focus here are applications of theory, specific competencies, acquisition of a qualification, and employability. Thus, in this definition, WIL is more a means towards a specific end. The process, as such, is not specified, and WIL is assumed to be something that takes place in settings outside the higher education institution when theory is applied.

Dhliwayo (2008) explicitly states that: “[n]o distinction is made in this article between the terms teaching and training or among the terms, experiential learning, cooperative education, service learning and work integrated learning [sic]” (p.229). Rather than explaining how the terms relate to each other and acknowledging their conventional distinctions in both form and content, they are presented as a single phenomenon with different names. Dhliwayo (2008) uses the term experimental learning as equal to WIL in entrepreneurship education and training but also refers to Groenewald (2003), a publication which focuses on integration of theory to authentic practice experiences. When a concept such as WIL is equalled to experimental learning, it is problematic, as experimental learning can be performed outside of an authentic practice setting, while the authentic practice setting is a prerequisite for WIL.

Another starting point is when WIL seems to be equalled to training as in Hernandez-March et al (2009). They refer to publications describing WIL in more detail and as an educational strategy encompassing an experimental learning experience in an authentic work situation and linking the concept to co-operative education.

There are also publications stating a more apparent intention of WIL. Rampersad (2020) presents the focus of “experimental learning” and the immersiveness of WIL compared to simply bringing in cases or presentations from practice to teaching situations, and the drive for innovation through this approach when describing WIL. Thus, the description of WIL here is both describing WIL (as experimental and immersive) and focusing on the value of WIL (innovation for the future).

Russel et al. (2008) discusses a WIL activity where they advocate for business plan competitions to be seen as WIL. This is a way of expanding how WIL can be used. Although the authors do not present an exact definition, they present the important learning components of WIL (theory and practice integration in an authentic practice experience) as a key for including business plan competitions as being WIL activities within the field of entrepreneurship and management. They refer to publications related to co-operative education, which probably is their starting point for their argument of expanding WIL in the direction they suggest.

In summary, the identified WIL definitions show a diversity in intentions and implementation of WIL, also showing that WIL research often insufficiently use definitions of WIL. This indicates that there is a need for a continued discussion of defining WIL while also highlighting the importance of using definitions in research and the importance of context when using a definition of WIL.

There are several examples of how often-cited sources of WIL research do not in themselves provide a clear WIL definition. For example, some researchers frequently cite Holmes (2013) to build their case of a WIL definition even though the publication does not clearly present a definition of WIL. This is not an uncommon pattern as there are also other publications being cited to define WIL, while not actually having a clear definition of WIL, for example, Eames & Bell (2005) and Groenewald (2011).

In the publication by Clarke (2018), the importance of WIL is implied, and there are several links to publications by Jackson. Jackson et al. (2017) refer to WIL definitions by Ferns et al. (2014) as not being a form of tokenistic engagement with the workplace, advocating for the use of intentional pedagogy to effectively blend theoretical content with practical workplace practices. Jackson (2017) offers a broader WIL definition, encompassing experiential learning, cooperative education, and work-based learning. This approach seamlessly combines practical work experience with classroom instruction, linking students to the industry and allowing them to apply their knowledge in a supportive work environment as part of their academic curriculum. Further, Jackson (2017) indicates that WIL should be perceived as a learning opportunity necessary for students to develop a pre-professional identity. The relevance of context related to WIL in research and practice suggests the need for defining WIL in a way that is adaptable to diverse contexts.

Fullagar and Wilson (2012) describe and understand WIL in relation to tourism and hospitality studies. After arguing that “in addition to work-integrated learning opportunities, tourism and hospitality studies can embrace critical pedagogies through the notions of ‘reflective praxis’” (p 4) the combination of WIL and critical pedagogies is then understood in the following way: “By bringing theories and praxis together in applied management and everyday contexts, these different forms of knowledge enable students consider how they make sense of and respond to the key issues of the times” (p.4). This represents a quite rare instance when WIL is connected to critical studies in the form of critical pedagogies. In this, “reflective praxis” (p. 4) plays a central part, and the perceived and sought-after outcome is not explicitly employability or certain specified work-skills, but the skill of sense-making of the world and being an active participant in contemporary society. This points to a specific quality in the process of WIL, not often spoken of in the rest of the data. They emphasise this through the argument that “[b]uilding on the renaissance of critical thinking within business education we see a real strength in many tourism and hospitality programs being “work-integrated learning” (p. 4). Again, this represents a different focus of WIL. In addition to WIL opportunities, the authors reflect that tourism and hospitality courses can incorporate critical pedagogies through the concept of reflexive 'praxis,' (Brookfield,1995). The authors state that this approach bridges theory and practice, allowing students to reflect critically on their understanding of contemporary work experiences. This is not a definition of WIL, but a statement regarding the value of WIL. As WIL in this article is written in brackets, it is likely to be believed that this is a novel concept in the context or for the authors. Fullagar and Wilson (2012) cite a complete conference proceeding book in their writing about WIL, but as several different conference papers mention WIL, it is unclear how they define WIL depending on this citation. The other used citation for explaining the concept of WIL is Lashley (1999), which does not use the term WIL in the text. This use of references indicates that Fullagar and Wilson (2012) have concluded what WIL is in their paper but not used a specific definition of WIL.

The definition of Smith (2012) builds on Ballantine and McCourt Larres (2007) who translates WIL into an explicit strategy of how to produce work ready graduates, a sort of ready-made of knowledge that is neatly packaged and supposedly easily accessible once the students are in the real work life. Smith (2012) conceptualises WIL as a benchmark against which the courses should be created and provides even stricter criteria for a real WIL course. The criteria consist of the key rules of how such a course should be carried out (hence, WIL here is equal to a pedagogical approach).

The findings are based on a sample of WIL research articles and are not to be considered a comprehensive picture of the research field. However, considering the homogeneity of the findings in the sample, it is evident that the use of clear definitions within WIL research can be improved. Understanding of the experienced usefulness of WIL definitions by WIL researchers needs to be explored in greater depth, preferably in qualitative studies, as this method did not provide sufficient depth to explore this issue entirely. Further studies related to how definitions of WIL are used in WIL research in specific contexts are recommended, as well as additional discussions of the usefulness of WIL definitions in diverse research settings and across disciplines. A key feature in the manuscript writing process was shared learning and an intention to ensure that the perspective of future WIL researchers was incorporated throughout the research process. This process was feasible, but a facilitator was required for the writing process and a facilitator for the Miroboard. The pragmatic choice of having a lead-author (facilitator) was to ease the collaborative academic writing process as this is a traditional way of collaborative academic writing that many researchers are familiar with (Ritchie & Rigano, 2007). The facilitators could respond to questions, share answers with the wider group, and collate novel traits of understanding the findings. The use of a data collection presentation facilitator may be less important in other types of collaborative research writing. Nevertheless, because interactive data presentation with Miroboards represented a new way of working for a majority of the research group, this was an asset in maintaining the timeliness of the research process during the writing phases.

The collaborative research process can be critiqued for not being participatory throughout the research process, as a core group was designing the project. However, this was a pragmatic choice, considering that the project was to be performed without funding and with respect to PhD students’ limited time to engage in projects outside their research project. There were also PhD students and senior researchers who found the research process demanding as it differed from the research processes that they were used to and due to the interdisciplinarity of the project. The writing and continuous analysis was designed to create a sense of peer pressure, while not requesting too much time investment, and keeping the mind on the project, and thus minimising start-up time when starting to write. Adding peer-pressure can be seen as a risky endeavour as there is perceived stress among academics (Massyn, 2023). The intention was to ensure the writing was prioritised, happened and instead supported the creation of daily feelings of accomplishment related to scientific writing. This can also be considered relevant aspects of WIL for working life in academia, as interdisciplinary collaborative work, strategies for handling diversity of work tasks, and academic writing are part of work in academia.

PhD students described the benefits of collaborative work, noting that it provides practical experience that is valuable for their academic careers. As WIL activities are often limited in PhD education, we also considered this project a WIL activity for the professions of researchers, where joint academic writing, interdisciplinary collaboration, and reflection are key skills. PhD students’ opportunities of WIL for a future career in academia are not sufficiently addressed (Bracewell et al., 2024; Massyn & Areskoug Josefsson 2024). Instead, assumptions may be that the PhD education provides sufficient knowledge of how to work in academia. However, collaborative research processes can support interdisciplinarity and, hopefully, quality culture through the interdisciplinary work and documented strategic process that has been part of this project.

A collaborative academic writing process includes several people reading, writing, and revising, which often includes a wider range of references and perspectives in the included references (Austin et al., 2021). Although each person wrote separately, the purpose was to communicate in a joint voice, as described by Ritchie and Rigano (2007). This is challenging, especially for writers less experienced in academic writing who work to find their own academic voice in writing. It can be argued that almost all academic writing is collaborative (Austin et al., 2021), but the collaborative intent and use of specific methodological processes used here are not as common. Consensus meetings could have increased feelings of ownership of the paper (Ritchie & Rigano, 2007) but also slowed down the process, thus risking that PhD students would have graduated and thus not have had the same time to partake throughout the projects’ final phase.