Search results

The current study intends to synthesise the prior studies on employability skills among work-ready professionals in higher education through bibliometric and network visualisation tools. This study also identifies the gaps in the existing literature that still need to be filled and maps the course for future investigation.

The current study examined research papers on employability skills among work-ready professionals in higher education to evaluate global patterns and the top authors, institutions, journals, and nations contributing to this field. The authors analysed eight hundred eighty-five papers from the Scopus database between 1982 and 2023 for the study. Open-source bibliometric tools like Biblioshiny were used in the study to examine the body of literature and to spot new directions for future research.

The study’s findings indicate that since 2008, researchers, academics, and policymakers have paid more attention to employability skills among work-ready professionals, and 2019 is the year seeing the highest no. of publications. Across the globe, 2077 authors contributed to the articles, papers, and journals published in the particular domain. Regarding location, the United Kingdom is the world’s most productive nation, with 342 articles produced. Similarly, Australia, India, and Malaysia are the leading nations that have contributed to the field. Both keywords significantly contribute to scientific knowledge.

The gaps in this study will serve as a reference point for researchers conducting future studies in this field. Additionally, the result of this analysis offers a roadmap for higher education to enhance graduate employability by embedding necessary skills into them.

There has not been a bibliometric analysis concerning employability skills among Work-ready professionals in the existing literature; hence, this article is innovative. This study is the first attempt at integrating the concept. The study also gives an overview of potential directions for future research in this discipline.

This study reviews the teaching of real estate in the USA for the first 100 years after the foundational curriculum was laid down in 1923 by three key institutions: the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities (The Institute) and the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Its line of investigative pursuit is the persistent lamentation by American real estate scholars that real estate is not getting the respect it deserves as an academic discipline compared to its peers in the school of business such as accounting, finance and marketing. The study addresses a fundamental question: What is the cause of this endless “search for a discipline”? This is motivated by the belief that identification of the root cause of this “search for a discipline” will lead to the requisite solution: the intellectual foundation of the real estate discipline.

The study used qualitative document analysis to review two primary documents published in 1959 as reports on business education in the USA: (1) Higher Education for Business, financed and sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and (2) The Education of American Businessmen – financed and sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The impacts of the publications on the teaching of real estate to date have been reviewed in the context of scholarly actions and literature that has been generated in relation to the two documents.

The two primary documents impacted negatively on the teaching of real estate. The committee members who produced the two reports had indicated that real estate did not fit into the business curriculum hence should not be taught in business school. This conclusion led to unintended negative outcomes for real estate education. The negative impact of the reports arose principally because the teachers of real estate misinterpreted the outcome to mean that they should tweak the real estate curriculum to fit in the pedagogical framework of the business school. This reaction is responsible for perpetuating the identity crisis that has plagued real estate as an academic discipline since its inception as a subject of study in 1923. Secondly, at the inception of the real estate education in 1923, while the AACSB accepted real estate as a discipline in the school of business, Richard T. Ely wrote the curriculum under land economics which has led to the persistent collegiate dilemma regarding the teaching of the discipline.

The study sheds light on the situation of business education in the USA and AACSB-accredited colleges internationally. It draws attention to the incoherent body of knowledge of business education and will help schools of business to redesign their curricula to include course contents that rightly reflects the business oriented academic disciplines.

The study is timely as it has been done 100 years since the development of the first standard collegiate real estate curriculum following the 1923 conference at Madison. The study has reviewed the first 100 years in terms of the persistent quest: “in search of a discipline”. In so doing, it has uncovered the root cause of this search during the first centennium; and to end the search, it proposes that real estate should not be taught as a business discipline.