Search results

Transitions to and within university studies can be associated with heightened distress in students. This study focusses on the less studied transition from a bachelor’s to a master’s degree. During a master’s degree, study requirements and autonomy increase compared to bachelor’s studies. The present study examines how students’ experiences of study-related burnout, their approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching and learning environment (TLE) change during this transition. Moreover, the study examines how approaches to learning and the TLE can affect study-related burnout.

Questionnaire data were collected from 335 university students across two timepoints (bachelor’s degree graduation and the second term of their master’s degree).

The results show that students’ overall experience of study-related burnout increases, as does their unreflective learning, characterised by struggling with a fragmented knowledge base. Interestingly, students’ experiences of the TLE seem to have an effect on study-related burnout in both master’s and bachelor’s degree programmes, irrespective of learning approaches. These effects are also dependent on the degree of context.

The study implies that students’ experiences of study-related burnout could be mitigated by developing TLE factors during both bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes. Practical implications are considered for degree programme development, higher education learning environments and student support.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of absorptive capacity (ACAP) and co-creation on innovation performance (INN).

The authors use survey data from Swedish and Norwegian companies (n=1,102) and establish a cross-national equivalence between Sweden and Norway.

The subsequent structural model revealed interesting differences. For Sweden, co-creation fully mediates the effect of ACAP on INN, whereas for Norway, ACAP has a direct effect on INN with no mediation. Subsequent regressions including control variables showed that the structural model is reasonably robust. The authors conclude that, despite the many common national features conducive to innovation between these two countries, sufficient differences remain to create substantial variation in the innovation processes.

The study presents a second-order model of ACAP that permits a unique test of cross-country differences.