As indicated in the introduction, many factors may have an impact on the occurrence of work related training. This is taken into account, in the following when we examine:
• whether there is a difference between the Norwegian sample and the country samples in participating in work-related training after controlling for a large set of independent variables (such as field of study etc.)
• whether there is a positive effect of working in public sector after controlling for field of study, country etc.
• whether there is a positive effect of working in an organization that is in the
forefront when it comes to adopting innovations, after controlling for public sector, field of study etc.
• whether there is an effect of stable/unstable demand, after controlling for public sector, field of study etc.
We examine the questions above using logistic regression where the dependent variable is the probability of having participated in training the past 12 months (value 1), or not (value 0). (See Table C.1 in the Appendix).
The regression results in Table C.1 show that of the graduates in 13 European
countries, Norwegian graduates are those who most seldom participate in work-related training, also after controlling for a large set of independent variables. The results of logistic regression are often not intuitively comprehensible, and the results are
presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Those participating most frequently in training are the Czech, Spanish, British, Finnish, Belgian, and Austrian graduates. This means that the picture is more or less the same after controlling for all the independent variables (Table C.1) as seen in the bivariate distribution depicted in Table 3.1.
From Table C.1 we also see that there is a large positive effect of working in public sector and of working in an innovative organization. We also see a significant positive effect of working in an organization with stable demand. This effect is not large, however.
Other noteworthy results include the following.
There is no gender difference. Those educated as bachelors with no further education participate less frequent than other groups (“ceteris paribus”). Graduates in the fields of Health, Service, Agriculture and Veterinary science, and Education participate in work-related training more frequently than graduates in other fields of study. There is no significant difference between Social science (the reference group), Law, Business and management, Computing, and Engineering, all of which are in the median group when it comes to participating in work-related training. Those who participate most seldom are graduates in Humanities; the second most seldom are graduates in (natural) Science. This indicates that graduates in the classical university disciplines participate most seldom in work-related training.
Graduating from an academically prestigious study programme as well as from a vocationally oriented study programme also significantly increases the probability of having participated in work-related training, although the increases are modest. The same applies to those who had a position in an organization during study; those having work experience (relevant or otherwise) during study; having a useful social network (useful for obtaining a job); and those having completed further education (but not
40
PhD education). In addition, the longer the work experience, the higher the probability of having participated in work-related training.
These results overall point in one direction: participating in work-related training is not incidental; it tends to occur most often among graduates in Health (for instance nurses) and in Education (teachers), who might not be seen as privileged groups, but otherwise it is most prevalent among those who are privileged in one way or another.
In Appendix Table C.2 we have conducted a corresponding analysis on the Norwegian sample alone. The results of this regression are:
• The relationship between the extent to which the organization is innovative and participating in training is strong also in Norway. A difference might however be seen. It is the negative effect of ‘being a follower’ rather than the positive effect of being at the forefront, that is of importance in Norway.
• Unlike the results for the analysis of the total sample, the effect of working in public sector is not significant in the Norwegian sample.
• In the same way as for the total sample, graduates in Health and welfare are those who participate in work-related training most frequently. Also in accordance with the results for the total sample there is a positive indication of the effect of having graduated in Service, and in Agriculture and veterinary science, although because of few observations and (as a consequence) high standard errors, this is not significant.
• In the Norwegian sample we do not find a positive effect of having graduated in Education.
• The tendency that graduates in the classical university disciplines (Humanities, Science) are those who participate most seldom in work-related training, is even more clearly found in the Norwegian sample than in the total sample of 13 countries.
• Those who graduated from a study programme that was academically prestigious have increased probability of having participated in work-related training. This relationship is stronger in the Norwegian sample than in the total sample.
• The tendency that those whose study programme was vocationally oriented participate more often in work-related training is not significant in the Norwegian sample.
• The positive effect of useful social network is larger in the Norwegian sample than in the total sample.
• The positive effect of the duration of work experience is the same in the Norwegian sample and the total sample.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the importance of the extent to which the organization where one works is innovative for the probability of having participated in work-related training,
having controlled for other relevant characteristics. It also shows the difference
between Norway and one of the selected countries, the Netherlands, which has average score on the dependent variable (see Table 3.1). The country difference is larger than the difference by type of organization where the graduate works.
Figure 3.1 Participating in work-related training by the extent to which the organization is innovative. Estimated probabilities.a
0,520
0,364 0,462
0,312 0,406
0,265
0,000 0,100 0,200 0,300 0,400 0,500 0,600
The Netherlands Norway
Probabliity
At the forefront Middle Follower
a The reference for the estimates works in private sector, is a male graduated as a Master in social science, with average age and average amount of employment experience after graduation and has value 0 on the variables for work experience during study, academically prestigious study programme, vocationally oriented study programme, position in organization and social network. That which varies is the extent to which the organization is innovative, and country. The estimates are based on the results of Table C.1.
In Figure 3.2 below we have estimated the probability of participating in work-related training for persons who have all the characteristics which increase the probability of participating in such training, compared to those who lack these characteristics.
42
Figure 3.2 Participating in work-related training by positive/lack of positive characteristics, concerning the probability of participating in work-related training. Estimated probabilities.a
0,311
a The estimates are based on the results of Table C.1. Positive characteristics: at the forefront when it comes to innovations, public sector, stable demand, field of study=health, the study programme is vocationally oriented, the study programme is academically prestigious, held a position in organization, has a useful network, and both relevant and non-relevant work experience during study. Negative characteristics: mainly a follower when it comes to innovation, private sector, unstable demand, else=
value 0 on the variables mentioned. In addition, the reference person for the estimates has average age and average amount of employment experience following graduation.
Figure 3.2 clearly illustrates the sum of the effects that increase the probability of participating in work-related training. When lacking all these characteristics, the probability of participating in work-related training is rather small, especially in Norway. If all these favourable characteristics are possessed by the graduate, he/she is very likely to have participated in work-related training the past 12 months, also in Norway.
In Figures 3.1 and 3.2, the estimates are based on the analysis presented in Table C.1;
that is for the total sample. The effects of some of the independent variables when analysing the Norwegian sample (Table C.2) are somewhat different than the corresponding effects for the total sample. In additional estimations based on Table C.2 (the Norwegian sample alone) we find even larger differences than depicted in Figure 3.2 between those who have all the favourable characteristics and those who do not. Then the estimated probability among the Norwegians, if possessing all the positive characteristics, would be 80.6 per cent. For the “unfavourable” group, the
estimated probability of having participated in work-related training would be only 10.1 per cent. The reasons for this difference in results are (mainly) that the negative effect of having graduated in the humanities is larger in Norway than in the total sample, and that the positive effects of graduating from a study programme that was academically prestigious, and of social network, are greater for the Norwegian sample than for the total sample.