VOLUNTEER/UNPAID POSITIONS AND CO-OP STUDENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN CANADA: PROGRAM POLICIES AND PLACEMENTS

Recent research on cooperative education in the three Canadian Maritime provinces has shown that the number of co-op students not remunerated for their work terms has risen from zero in 1990-91 and 1991- 92 to four in 1992-93 and 18 in 1993-94. Further, the number of co-op students who started their own businesses (i.e., became entrepreneurs) during a co-operative education work term rose to 14 in 1993-94, up from two in 1992-93 and zero in 1990-91 and 1991-92 (Hilliard, King, Pearson, & Young, 1994).

King, Pearson, and Young (1997) suggested that the practice of volunteer/ unpaid work terms was counter to guiding principles of cooperative education as defined by the Canadian Association for Co-operative Education (CAFCE). Ricks, Van Gyn, Branton, Cut, Loken, and Ney (1990) specifically identified having students remunerated at market rates of pay as one of 11 "common practice variables" shared by CAFCE's accredited programs, though later noting that "while programs may do their best to honour the components, local conditions may demand certain compromises."

Further, entrepreneurial work terms, where students establish their own businesses and hire themselves, create the potential for conflict of interest in terms of supervision and evaluation. A survey of co-op coordinators at Canadian universities with co-op programs showed support for volunteer /unpaid work terms and positive attitudes towards entrepreneurial work terms among co-op coordinators (King, Pearson, & Young, 1997) The objectives of the present study are 1) to assess and critically analyze the current situation in Canada as a whole with respect to the numbers of co-op students currently within the volunteer/ unpaid and entrepreneurship classifications compared to the last term; and 2) to identify, describe, and critically analyze the official, institutional/ program policies (if any) with respect to those classifications.

Methodology

Based on CAFCE's 1995-96 National Co-operative Education Directory, program directors and/ or key contacts at undergraduate institutions, were mailed sufficient surveys for each program at the university. Directors and key contacts were asked to forward a copy of the survey to the appropriate individual who would complete and return it. In early July 1996, 218 surveys were sent to 60 directors/key contacts at 44 degreegranting co-operative education institutions. To improve the survey response rate, follow-up copies of the survey were sent in mid-August.

The survey, using open-ended and closed-ended questions, solicited data regarding the type of co-op program, province, date program was started, whether the program was accredited by CAFCE, and whether the program was mandatory or optional. In addition, information was collected regarding placement numbers and rates for the September-December, 1995, and January-April, 1996, terms. Respondents were asked if their respective programs had written, formal policies on co-op students being placed in volunteer/ unpaid and entrepreneurial work terms. If there were policies, brief descriptions of them were requested. Finally, respondents provided the numbers of students placed in volunteer /unpaid and entrepreneurial placements for the September-December, 1995, and January-April, 1996, terms.

Results

Of the 218 programs surveyed, 141 usable surveys from graduate and undergraduate degree-granting programs were returned for an effective response rate of 64%. Twenty-three surveys were returned but were unusable for a variety of reasons (e.g., programs had been terminated or were not degree granting).

Sixty-two (45%) of the respondents' programs were accredited by CAFCE and 77 (55%) were not. Thirty-one (22%) were mandatory and 108 (78%) were optional. Programs ranged from being brand new to 39 years old, and on average were 11.8 years old. Three (2%) respondents were from Newfoundland, 36 (26%) from Nova Scotia, 3 (3%) from New Brunswick, 27 (19%) from Quebec, 31 (22%) from Ontario, 2 (1%) from Manitoba, 5 (4%) from Saskatchewan, 8 (6%) from Alberta, and 26 (18%) were from British Columbia. T he numbers of respondents identified in the following tables vary because not all respondents answered all questions. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for numbers of co-op students placed and co-op placement rates for January to April, 1996, and September to December, 1995.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Numbers of Co-op Students Placed and Co-op Placement Rates for the January- April, 1996, and September - December, 1995 Work Terms

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for numbers of co-op students in volunteer and entrepreneurial work terms for the January to April, 1996, and the September to December, 1995, work terms. Further to the results presented in Table 2, the total number of students in volunteer/ unpaid work terms was five, enrolled in three different programs in the September to December, 1995, term. This number rose to 30 students enrolled in six different programs in the January to April, 1996, term. It is skewed to some extent by one mandatory program which had placed 22 students in volunteer/ unpaid work terms. The total number of students in entrepreneurial work terms was 14 enrolled in seven different programs in the September to December, 1995, term. This number rose to 17 students enrolled in eight different programs in the January to April, 1996, term.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Numbers of Co-op Students in Volunteer and Entrepreneurial Work Terms for the January-April, 1996 and September- December, 1995 Work Terms

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of numbers of placements in volunteer/unpaid and entrepreneurial work terms in accredited and non-accredited and mandatory and optional programs by work term. Furthermore, analyses of variance of the data presented in Table 3 indicated that the average number of placements in volunteer and entrepreneurial programs in both terms did not significantly differ by accreditation status. However, the average numbers of placements for mandatory programs were significantly higher than those for optional programs in volunteer placements for January to April, 1996 (F=4.20, df=l, p<.042), and for September to December, 1995 (F=5.17, df=l, p<.03). T he average numbers of entrepreneurial placements were significantly different for mandatory and optional programs (January to April, 1996, F=l6.26, df=l, p<.0001 and September to December, 1995, F=14.81, df=l, p<.0002).

Table 3
Numbers of Placements in Volunteer/Unpaid and Entrepreneurial Work Terms as Aa Function of Type of Program

Thirty three (23%) respondents indicated that their programs had a written, formal policy regarding volunteer/ unpaid work terms and 108 (77%) did not. Of the 33, seven did not provide a description of their formal policies. Of the 108, 23 briefly described their policies, although they tended not to be formalized. In total, 49 descriptions of policy were provided. Table 4 presents a frequency distribution of policy types for volunteer/unpaid placements. These policies can be categorized as restrictive or permissive. Restrictive policies do not allow volunteer/ w1paid work terms or at the least they insist on some form of remuneration such as a grant or room and board.

Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Policy Types for Volunteer/Unpaid Placements

The restrictive category included 11 institutions which disallow outright volunteer/ unpaid placements, 11 which have unwritten policies against permitting them and four which strictly adhere to the CAFCE guidelines requiring paid work terms.

Permissive policies ranged from those which merely discourage volunteer/ unpaid work terms, but do not forbid them, to those which simply allow them. Worthy of note, nine of the permissive category permit volunteer/unpaid work terms only under "exceptional circumstances", four have not had to "resort" to unpaid placements while two allow them although it is actually a "rare" occurrence.

Table 5 presents a frequency distribution of policy types for entrepreneurial placements. In terms of entrepreneurial work terms, 49 (37%) indicated their programs had formal policies. The remaining 82 (63%) respondents indicated that their programs had no formal policy; however, of these, 22 described informal entrepreneurial policies. In total, 71 respondents indicated an entrepreneurial policy which fell under one of seven types. All 71 policies indicated support for entrepreneurial work terms to a varying degree. A number of the policies addressed the issue mainly at the conceptual level, generally endorsing the idea of entrepreneurial work terms in principle. By contrast, other policies tended to be more well defined from the viewpoint of being practical and intended for actual application. W here such policies set out specifics, they might, for example, require a business plan or stipulate that the work term had to operate in conjunction with an entrepreneurship program already in place.

Table 5
Frequency Distribution of Policy Types for Volunteer/Unpaid Placements

Conclusions

The survey found only a modest number of actual placements in entrepreneurial and volunteer/ unpaid work terms given the total number of reported student placements. There was also a slight increase in the number of volunteer and entrepreneurial work terms over the two periods measured. (Such work terms are comparatively few, especially in light of the almost 32,000 Canadian co-op students currently emolled nation-wide in 48 universities.)

Nonetheless, the survey did identify insightful attitudes among directors (or key administrators) of co-operative education programs. These attitudes, as typified below in respondents' comments on their co-op policies, are seen as a formative influence for the long term direction of co-op. Collectively, they focus on an area where existing co-operative education policies may need to be revisited (and possibly reinforced) to bring about consistency between the articulated philosophies and actual practices of the program administrators.

The attitudes toward volunteer/ unpaid placements are somewhat polarized. Some administrators permit volunteer/ unpaid work terms as a "last resort" or "under exceptional circumstances." Several indicated they adhere to the current CAFCE definition which automatically precludes volunteer/ unpaid because students must be remunerated. However, at least one administrator responded that the remuneration criterion was widely interpreted to include grants, honoraria or even room and board. Still another administrator stated the nature of the work performed and the learning opportunity were more important than whether the student was paid. By contrast, one respondent negatively viewed unpaid work terms as "volunteer exploitation".

Mandatory programs are more likely to permit volunteer/ unpaid work terms than optional programs. This may be due in part to overall program pressures to achieve a 100% placement rate. In addition, students in mandatory co-op programs are required to secure co-op work terms according to a prescribed sequence which has very little flexibility. The repercussions of not securing work terms on schedule range from deferring the work term and taking an academic term instead or deferring the work term and taking a free semester. The student might even not fulfill the degree requirements. Whatever the outcome, the student and the program may be more inclined to accept a volunteer/ unpaid placement as a bona fide work term rather than postpone the student's graduation date, have a withdrawal, or experience a less-than-acceptable placement rate for the program.

Elsewhere, the study's second category of work term, the entrepreneurial placement, is undergoing dynamic developments. Respondents' comments underscore concerns of a practical and logistical nature, rather than a philosophical one; administrators universally endorse the concept but advocate safeguards and suitable built-in controls to maintain academic credibility. One university has a blanket policy permitting entrepreneurial work terms across programs. Several universities were either in favor of promoting entrepreneurial work terms, already taking advantage of federally- or provincially-funded entrepreneurial work terms, or contemplating the option.

Mandatory co-op programs are more likely to permit entrepreneurial work terms than optional programs. This may be due in part to overall program pressures to achieve a 100% placement rate. As well, students facing the consequence of not securing a traditional co-op work term may view entrepreneurial work terms as a viable alternative, given the above repercussions.

Discussion and Recommendations for Further Study

Having ascertained that there are already a number of unconventional work term placements, in that they are unpaid in the strictest sense, additional attitudinal research would be highly promising. One area which warrants further exploration is the rationale behind the unpaid/volunteer and entrepreneurial work terms. Identifying the motives of the participants (students, administrators and employers) would shed light on how non-paid placements are valued compared to those which are paid. For example, with unpaid/volunteer placements, does the participant's sense of commitment differ compared to a paid work term? Does the unpaid aspect change the student's and employer's approach to educational outcomes? And does it have any overall bearing on how the work term is supervised and evaluated, whether by the employer or by the university?

According to its founding conventions, co-op is designed to reflect the realities of the workplace environment, placing the student in the role of employee. If the student is not paid, this may fail to formally recognize the value of the student's contribution, thereby lessening the sense of accountability to the employer. On the employer side, remunerating the student arguably underscores the employer's obligation to provide a real work experience. The typical employer invests in the student and wants to see a return on that investment. In high probability, a paid student will be assigned productive meaningful work - not be relegated to merely observing and job shadowing.

Recent campus experience with the acceptance of entrepreneurial work terms (in practice as well as concept) could be mirroring what is already taking place in the workplace. The importance and growth of entrepreneurship has been well documented for Canada as a whole, and for Atlantic Canada in particular by a federal government regional development agency (The state of small business and entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada, 1996). In addition, there has been tremendous growth in entrepreneurship education with increased numbers of courses and programs offered by Canadian universities and colleges (Robinson & Long, 1992) . Some have suggested that more emphasis must be placed on entrepreneurship education through the increased numbers of courses and entrepreneurship programs. As well, the quality of entrepreneurship programs must be improved by developing current programs and personnel (Robinson & Long, 1992).

This raises the question of how the entrepreneurial content in the classroom could be integrated into an entrepreneurial work term. Entrepreneurial work terms are an excellent opportunity: they offer an efficient infrastructure for universities to effectively prepare students for workplace realities, endorsing entrepreneurial development in the process. A student undertaking an entrepreneurial work term is able to access faculty expertise for input and advice in operating the venture. The students' progress and development are also monitored through the built-in safeguards of the co-op process. Such work terms offer a vehicle to meet academic requirements while allowing some scope for the entrepreneurial approach; they focus on youth, the country's future entrepreneurs and employers. This is consistent with calls, such as that of the federal government, for a stronger emphasis on youth. For example,

Overall, while it is generally acknowledged that much has been done in recent years to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit in youth and to support their efforts to start businesses, the number and the proportion of young people interested in entrepreneurship and self-employment lags well behind the general population. (The state of small business and entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada, 1996, p.xv).

Part of the solution the report says, is to provide "innovative and collaborative programming" aimed at this target group (The state of small business and entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada, 1996, p.xvi) Entrepreneurial work terms provide universities the opportunity to redefine - or in some cases, emphasize - their historical linkage with the private sector. Still, such an approach is not without its concerns. Entrepreneurial work terms require more lead time and planning which may make them appropriate only for a senior co-op student. As well, they require more support from the co-op institution in terms of supervision, faculty advice and counseling. This may stretch co-op resources. Other implications surface regarding the operation of the venture. If it is successful, the time frame of the work term may limit its long-term viability. If the venture fails, the work term may be evaluated as unsuccessful, although it could be argued that the student may have learned more than if the venture succeeded.

Entrepreneurial work terms are a real opportunity for co-operative education programs, and appear to have a great deal of support. Yet, their potential is underutilized. Co-op coordinators and program administrators should be taking a more proactive and aggressive approach to entrepreneurship.

Whether one considers entrepreneurial work terms an opportunity, or volunteer/ unpaid work terms a threat for cooperative education, the timing is opportune to articulate some policies governing either volunteer/ unpaid or entrepreneurial work terms. For example, in the volunteer/unpaid sector, 108 (77%) of the respondents have no formalized, written policy. On the entrepreneurial side, 83 (63%) indicated they had no equivalent policy. Recent Canadian experience with administrators' comments demonstrates some changes in attitudes have taken place since CAFCE's founding criteria in 1973. Favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurial work terms appear to strike a harmonious note with the organization's mandate to foster "exciting and innovative employment opportunities" (Canadian Association for Co-operative Education, 1996, p.2).

References

Canadian Association for Cooperative Education (1996). 1996/97 Directory of Cooperative Education, Toronto: Canadian Association for Co-operative Education.

Hilliard, G., King, B., Pearson, S., & Young, J. (1994). Undergraduate co-operative education in Maritime Canada: Placements, placement sectors, and placement locations. Journal of Cooperative Education, XXX(3), 56-64.

King, B., Pearson, S., & Young, J. (1997) Canadian co-op coordinators' attitudes toward volunteer/ unpaid positions and co-op student entrepreneurship: A national survey. Journal of Cooperative Education, XXXII (3), 70-79.

Ricks, F., Van Gyn, G., Branton, G., Cut, J., Loken M. & Ney, T. (1990) Theory and research in cooperative education: Practice implications. Journal of Cooperative Education, XXVII (1), 7-19.

Robinson, P. & Long, W. (1992). Entrepreneurship education in Canadian universities. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 10 (1), 61-69.

The state of small business and entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada - 1996. (1996). Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: Moncton, NB.