Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify how different factors of antecedents and processes affect the outcomes of an internship, measured in terms of competency development.

The authors used an internship questionnaire designed for the University of Tartu in Estonia. Responses were obtained from 178 students across different disciplines – humanities and the arts, social sciences, natural sciences and medicine – who had recently taken an internship. Based on current academic literature, the authors create a three-level model: antecedents-processes-outcomes. The antecedents and processes were both differentiated into three factors and tested with a structural equation model.

The model demonstrates that there are different antecedents that have an effect on internship outcomes, but these only work through internship processes. For example, the objective of the internship and clarity of instructions will only have a positive effect if there is relevant support from the supervisor at the employing company and if the student can use the knowledge and skills gained at university.

The study is based on survey data filled in by students, i.e. based on self-perception. Based on the results of the study, the authors claim that an active role and initiative-taking by students in finding suitable internships should be further encouraged.

Whilst previous studies have used a two-level model of internship (or a three-level model for students satisfaction as an outcome) the authors create and test a three-level model measuring competency development as the outcome of an internship.

The purpose of this study is to analyse perceived physical and social isolation and how they are linked in various places of work.

A nationwide study was conducted involving 3,352 Estonian office workers in spring 2021. Physical isolation was measured in terms of what proportion of time a person works away from co-workers (0%, 1%–25%, 26%–50%, 51%–75%, more than 75%). Social isolation diverged into two factors: lack of contacts and lack of meaningful connections. The different places of work the authors considered in the study included working from home with and without a dedicated room and different types of offices (private office, shared-cell office, activity-based office and open-plan offices of various sizes).

The results show that the negative consequences of physical isolation in the form of perceiving social isolation start to show when a person works 51% of the time or more away from others. However, the authors revealed the dual nature of social isolation in that when a person experiences a lack of contacts, the connections they do have with their colleagues are actually more meaningful.

The originality of the study comes from the fact that the authors uncovered the paradoxical nature of social isolation. This reveals itself in various places of work depending on the conditions at home and the type of office. Therefore, the authors move away from the simplified distinction of home vs office and take into account the level of physical isolation (what amount of time a person actually works away from colleagues).

This paper aims to compare employee well-being, information flow and relationships with co-workers and supervisors for people working at home and working in different office types before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A nationwide study of 2,845 Estonian office workers in autumn 2019 and 2,972 in spring 2020 was carried out.

It was discovered that in normal circumstances, people at home had similar results to those in a cell office or activity-based office. Open-plan offices were found to be the worst in respect to the facets of work studied. However, in the context of the pandemic, the playing field became more level in some respects and worse in the case of activity-based offices.

When telework is well arranged both in terms of facilities and organising the necessary communication and information flow, then it is a viable alternative to working in an office. What is more, employers need to pay more attention to the physical and social work conditions in open-plan offices and also activity-based offices in the context of a pandemic.

Previous studies have only compared telework with working in an office in general. Comparing working at home with different kinds of offices gives valuable insights.