A multi-institution study of the impacts of concurrent work and study among university students in Australia

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample size.

	n
Total observations	54,435
Less students not studying a full-time load	(6,781)
Less students with full-time employment	(2,859)
Less non-Australian students	(6,337)
Final sample size	38,458
Observations with demographic data	12,212

Table 2. Participant descriptive statistics.

	Sample n = 38,458	Demographic subset n = 12,212
Dependent variables
Perceived employability factors, Mean (SD)
Career exploration and awareness (0-9)	6.9 (1.4)	6.9 (1.4)
Study-career awareness (1-6)	4.9 (0.8)	5.0 (0.8)
Independent variables
Work status, n (%)
Part-time	9,367 (24.4)	2,840 (23.2)
Casual	14,034 (36.5)	4,833 (39.6)
Not working	15,057 (39.1)	4,539 (37.2)
Control variables
Study mode, n (%)
On campus	26,462 (68.8)	10,321 (84.5)
Online	4,807 (12.5)	894 (7.3)
Mixed mode	7,189 (18.7)	997 (8.2)
Gender, n (%)
Female	22,117 (57.5)	7,581 (62.1)
Male	16,015 (41.6)	4,578 (37.5)
LGBTQ+	326 (0.8)	53 (0.4)
Age, Mean (SD)	21.8 (5.4)	21.5 (5.2)
Year of entry, n (%)
2017	329 (0.9)	94 (0.8)
2018	4,117 (10.7)	875 (7.2)
2019	8,731 (22.7)	5,939 (48.6)
2020	12,525 (32.6)	4,384 (35.9)
2021	12,659 (32.9)	917 (7.5)
2022	97 (0.3)	3 (0.0)
Demographic control variables
Socioeconomic status (SES), n (%)
Low-SES		1,749 (14.3)
Not low-SES		8,548 (70.0)
Unknown		1,915 (15.7)
Disability status, n (%)
Disability		347 (2.8)
No disability		11,865 (97.2)
Indigenous status, n (%)
Indigenous		99 (0.8)
Not indigenous		10,289 (84.3)
Unknown		1,824 (14.9)
English as a second language (ESL), n (%)
No		9,476 (77.6)
Yes		2,390 (19.6)
Unknown		346 (2.8)
Location, n (%)
Urban		8,668 (71.0)
Regional		1,445 (11.8)
Remote		182 (1.5)
Unknown		1,917 (15.7)

Table 3. Keyword search results.

Employability skill	Keyword(s) search	Instances found	% (n = 36,668)
Communication	‘communicat’	1,131	3.1%
Interpersonal	‘interpersonal’, ‘people skills’	283	0.8%
Technological	‘technolog’	215	0.6%
Teamwork	‘teamwork’, ‘team work’	134	0.4%
Problem-solving	‘problem’	125	0.3%
Collaboration	‘collaborat’	25	0.1%
Critical thinking	‘critical’	23	0.1%

Table 4. Regression results.

Variable	Career exploration and awareness coefficient (p-value)	Study-career awareness coefficient (p-value)
Independent variable^a
Casual work status	−0.014 (.462)	0.019 (.071)
Not working	−0.227*** (<.001)	−0.078*** (<.001)
Gender^a
Male	−0.108 *** (<.001)	−0.164*** (<.001)
LGBTQ+	−0.102 (.189)	−0.297*** (<.001)
Control variables
Study mode	Yes	Yes
Age	Yes	Yes
Year of entry	Yes	Yes
Observations	38,369	38,369
R squared	.010	.017
F statistic	32.59	54.82
p-value for model	<.001	<.001

^a Part-time work status and female are the base measures.

Significance. codes: *** < .001, ** < .01, * < .05

Table 5. Regression results including demographic controls.

Variable	Career exploration and awareness coefficient (p-value)	Study-career awareness coefficient (p-value)
Independent variable^a
Casual work status	−0.010 (.756)	0.008 (.644)
Not working	−0.191*** (<.001)	−0.063*** (.001)
Gender^a
Male	−0.140*** (<.001)	−0.181*** (<.001)
LGBTQ+	−0.288 (.124)	−0.451*** (<.001)
Control variables
Study mode	Yes	Yes
Age	Yes	Yes
Year of entry	Yes	Yes
Demographic control variables
Socioeconomic status	Yes	Yes
Disability status	Yes	Yes
Indigenous status	Yes	Yes
English as a second language	Yes	Yes
Location	Yes	Yes
Observations	12,205	12,205
R squared	.018	.035
F statistic	10.15	20.01
p-value for model	<.001	<.001

^a Part-time work status and female are the base measures.

Significance. codes: *** < .001, ** < .01, * < .05.

Table 6. Regression results for full dataset.

Variable	Career exploration and awareness coefficient (p-value)	Study-career awareness coefficient (p-value)
Independent variable^a
Casual work status	−0.020 (.237)	0.011 (.257)
Full-time work status	0.125*** (<.001)	0.002 (.863)
Not working	−0.205*** (<.001)	−0.065*** (<.001)
Gender^a
Male	−0.098*** (<.001)	−0.164*** (<.001)
LGBTQ+	−0.108 (.113)	−0.306*** (<.001)
Control variables
Study mode	Yes	Yes
Age	Yes	Yes
Year of entry	Yes	Yes
Country	Yes	Yes
Observations	54,077	54,077
R squared	.012	.017
F statistic	39.83	58.13
p-value for model	<.001	<.001

^a Part-time work status and female are the base measures.

Significance codes: *** < .001, ** < .01, * < .05.

Table 7. Logistic regression results for work status and demographic variables

Variable	Current work status Estimate (p-value)	Odds ratio	Confidence interval (95%) [lower, upper]
Gender
Male	−0.188*** (<.001)	0.83	[0.76, 0.90]
LGBTQ+	−1.319*** (<.001)	0.27	[0.15, 0.48]
Socioeconomic status
Low	−0.168** (.003)	0.85	[0.76, 0.95]
Unknown	−1.124*** (<.001)	0.32	[0.19, 0.56]
Disability status: Yes	−0.582*** (<.001)	0.56	[0.45, 0.70]
Indigenous status
Yes	−0.365 (.083)	0.69	[0.46, 1.06]
Unknown	−0.188 ** (.003)	0.83	[0.73, 0.94]
English as a second language
Yes	−0.439*** (<.001)	0.64	[0.58, 0.72]
Unknown	−0.480** (.001)	0.62	[0.47, 0.82]
Location
Regional	−0.242*** (<.001)	0.79	[0.70, 0.89]
Remote	−0.564*** (<.001)	0.57	[0.42, 0.77]
Unknown	−0.424 (.129)	0.65	[0.38, 1.15]
Control variables
Age	Yes
Study mode	Yes
Year of entry	Yes
Observations	12,206
Log likelihood	−7348.75
AIC	14739.50

^a Base measures are not working (dichotomous work status variable), female (gender), not low (SES), no (disability), no (indigenous), no (ESL) and urban (location); Significance codes: *** < .001, ** < .01, * < .05.

Table 8. Key qualitative themes.

Keyword(s)	Instances found	% (n = 36,668)
‘work’	16,391	44.7%
‘volunteer’	4,266	11.6%
‘skill’	4,201	11.5%
‘network’, ‘connect’	4,146	11.3%
‘professional’	1,252	3.4%
‘nothing’	1,149	3.1%
‘time management’	287	0.8%
‘leader’ (leadership)	265	0.7%