Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environment and Social Psychology (2025) Volume 10 Issue 1
doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
1
ISSN: 2424-8975 (O)
2424-7979 (P)
Research Article
Exploring graduate programs’ curriculum review discussions in
partnership with industry players through social exchange
perspectives
Masnona S. Asiri*
Graduate School Department, Sulu State College, Jolo, Sulu, 7400, Philippines
*Corresponding author: Masnona S. Asiri, mlsasiri1971@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Industry-school partnerships allow schools to align their curricula with the current demands of the industry,
ensuring that students are equipped with relevant, practical knowledge that meets the needs of employers. Having
collaboration with industry professionals, schools gain access to resources and expertise that might otherwise be
unavailable, such as industry-standard equipment, specialized training, and real-world insights into job expectations.
This paper explored the graduate program curriculum review discussions with key industry players through the lenses
of social exchange perspectives. Curriculum designers (n=20) participated in one-on-one interview encouraging them to
share their experiences in review discussions with their key industry players. Narratives were analyzed to identify
recurring themes from participants’ experiences. Findings indicated that curriculum designers viewed their interactions
with industry partners positively, recognizing the mutual benefits reflected from sharing knowledge, expertise, and
resources. This positive exchange encourages collaboration, as both parties gain insights into industry trends and skill
requirements, leading to the integration of relevant feedback into the curriculum. Social exchange theory (SET)
underscored the reciprocity in these relationships, where the positive actions of curriculum designers—seeking advice
and collaboration—were likely to be reciprocated by industry partners, reinforcing long-term cooperation. The study
also revealed that negotiated exchanges, though more formal, were essential when aligning curriculum with industry
demands, especially in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Notably, ongoing engagement and
continuous feedback mechanisms help sustain these partnerships, creating an environment of trust, loyalty, and
commitment that benefits both the education system and the industries that rely on it. Finally, formalized partnerships
with long-term commitments, rather than one-off agreements, may be essential for aligning educational outcomes with
evolving industry standards.
Keywords: collaboration; curriculum designing; industry-school partnerships; social exchange
1. Introduction
In the contemporary education environment, there is an escalating demand for high-caliber, application-
oriented professionals, with a heightened focus on the quality of talent. The talent nurturing strategy of
industry-education integration and school-enterprise cooperation in universities may significantly improve
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 22 November 2024 | Accepted: 10 January 2025 | Available online: 19 January 2025
CITATION
Asiri MS. Exploring graduate programs’ curriculum review discussions in partnership with industry players through social exchange
perspectives. Environment and Social Psychology 2025; 10(1): 3260. doi:10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2025 by author(s). Environment and Social Psychology is published by Arts and Science Press Pte. Ltd. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), permitting
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is cited.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
2
the quality of talent development and promote the high-quality advancement of education[1]. Following the
increase in enrollment in education institutions, the graduates of these schools, while abundant in academic
knowledge, frequently lack practical skills and experiential competencies. This has resulted in companies
facing difficulties in locating the necessary talent, while a considerable percentage of graduates are unable to
obtain positions that meet their expectations[2,3].
The effective cultivation of generic skills among graduates has been a longstanding difficulty for higher
education institutions, prompting the implementation of various initiatives, including work-integrated
learning[4]. Relevant industry experience may provide individuals with the skills needed to manage a broad
clientele, along with industry-specific commercial acumen. For example, the ability to interact with clients
who have specific company requirements seems essential for career success, although it appears to be
lacking among many grads[4-6].
Industry-school partnerships are believed to be essential in the education system. For partnerships to be
effective, parties should ideally convert a common vision into mutually accepted objectives and establish
both formal and informal accountability mechanisms for inputs, decisions, and deliverables[4]. Plewa et al.[7]
emphasizes that industry collaboration helps align the curriculum with current professional needs, ensuring it
is relevant and effective in preparing students for the workforce. Meanwhile, Sjöö and Hellström[8] suggest
that such collaboration also encourages innovation through the exchange of knowledge and ideas, which can
lead to the development of new approaches, methodologies, or technologies within the curriculum.
Ejeka and Ebenezer-Nwokeji[9] further emphasize that such collaboration is a bilateral agreement, either
formal or informal, aimed at fostering a mutually beneficial relationship between education and industry.
Collaboration should help in addressing barriers between universities and industries, such as lack of trust and
fear of knowledge leakage[10], where industry-university partnerships, through industrial training and joint
curriculum development, can bridge skill gaps and enhance university goal achievement[11].
This paper was positioned to analyze how do social exchanges encourage collaboration in curriculum
review discussions with industry players. Although researchers concur that a community’s role is to actively
participate in structured collaborative discussions, critical reflection, and inquiry to enhance professional
growth, define practices, and make meaningful contributions to the field as a whole[12], there is still limited
understanding of how this occurs in an educational setting, particularly in the context of collaboration and
partnerships. Industry-school partnerships may also provide professional learning opportunities for teachers,
with much of the literature on industry-school links focusing on school-to-work readiness[12]
This paper explored the implications of effective curriculum discussions through the lens of Social
Exchange Theory (SET), which suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in interactions when
there is a reciprocal exchange of resources[13]. These interactions, particularly with external organizations,
are seen as key to enhancing intellectual capital, which is closely tied to social capital formed through
network interactions. Lawler and Thye[14] examine the emotional aspects of social exchanges, arguing that
emotions such as gratitude can signal future reciprocity, while Nahapiet and Ghoshal[15] emphasize the role
of social capital and embeddedness in maximizing knowledge exchange within networks. These studies
highlight how social exchange helps explain the dynamics of network-based knowledge sharing and its
importance in curriculum development.
2. Literature review
SET has long served as a key framework for understanding workplace behaviors, particularly by
elucidating how reciprocal exchanges between employees and organizations shape job attitudes and
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
3
performance outcomes[16] SET posits that individuals initiate exchanges, expecting reciprocity from their
counterparts, which encourages relationships that rely on mutual benefit and reinforcement[17]. The theory is
founded on principles extending back to early social science, involving anthropological, sociological, and
psychological insights[18-20]. Homans[18] pioneered the concept of social exchange, proposing that behavior is
motivated by expected returns, while Blau[19] highlighted the power dynamics inherent in exchanges, which
align with the economic and psychological roots of SET. As Blau[19] argued, exchanges often evolve from
transactional to more trust-based relationships, a shift especially relevant in organizational settings.
SET applications in organizational studies reflected its academic breadth, especially in understanding
the development of employee commitment, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors[21,22].
Within this context, the role of reciprocal exchanges becomes critical, particularly when employees receive
tangible or intangible resources, such as rewards, recognition, or developmental support[23]. The reciprocity
rule, a central aspect of SET, suggests that employees are likely to reciprocate positive treatment by aligning
their behaviors with organizational expectations, contributing to a self-sustaining cycle of exchange[16,24].
Reciprocity in SET, however, is not confined to overt exchanges; it also includes less visible “inactive”
exchanges, such as withholding negative behavior, which can be equally impactful[17].
In the workplace, SET frames various relationships, particularly between employees and supervisors, by
analyzing the exchanges of resources, such as socio-emotional support and developmental opportunities[25-27].
For example, developmental support from frontline managers can enhance job performance, engagement,
and affective commitment[28,29]. Conversely, perceived breaches of psychological contracts can degrade
performance and diminish employees’ willingness to reciprocate positively[30]. Newman et al.[31] found that
employees’ turnover intentions decrease when supervisors exhibit concern for their well-being, reinforcing
the idea that supportive exchanges foster stronger commitment and reduce turnover.
Reflecting from the applications of SET in workplaces, this paper explored how this can be used for
curriculum review discussions with industry partners. In Philippine education, extensive research has
concentrated on the curriculum’s direct influence on its actual implementation. The themes of curriculum
design and change are notably prominent in curriculum development. Barrot[32] study regarding the English
curriculum reform in the Philippines examined the structuring of the English curriculum to prepare Filipino
learners with abilities that align with global standards. Barrot poses significant inquiries: What is the origin
of these standards? and Are these standards suitable for contemporary Filipino and other Asian students? For
De Leon[33], addressing these inquiries necessitates a thorough evaluation of the foundation and coherence of
curriculum standards. This reflection enables administrators to ascertain if the curriculum is authentically
context-driven and designed to meet the needs and contemporary contexts. Following this direction, SET in
this paper was used to describe the approaches in curriculum design discussions, particularly essential in
understanding the role of industry players in curriculum development.
Cropanzano et al.[17] highlight SET as one of the most widely recognized theoretical frameworks in
management, also finding broad application in sociology, social psychology, and anthropology. Given this
cross-disciplinary acceptance, SET is often employed to analyze social phenomena at the individual level,
helping researchers understand personal decision-making in contexts like negotiation and social interaction.
Romani-Dias and Carneiro[34] applied SET to the internationalization activities of researchers, which entail a
series of exchanges and negotiations between researchers and various stakeholders essential to their
professional success. For instance, as researchers engage in international collaborations, they negotiate with
audiences such as foreign academic institutions, peers, and funding bodies, all of whom have roles in the
success of their international efforts, yielding internationalization of higher education systems.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
4
The educational sector faces the challenging task of adapting to rapid knowledge innovation and
evolving work practices, necessitating innovative solutions. Evidence from the business sector indicates that
partnerships, which promote trust and the integration of differing viewpoints, are essential in promoting
innovation[35-37]. For industry-school partnerships, this means that as they share resources and build trust,
they can collaboratively implement educational programs directly benefiting both students and industry[38,39].
These programs can offer schools access to industry-grade resources and expertise, far exceeding typical
school resources. This provides industry-standard equipment and access to skilled personnel, significantly
enhancing educational relevance and the practical skills of students. Through innovative, industry-based
curricula, industry-school partnerships not only contribute to knowledge transfer but also enhance students’
workplace readiness, better preparing them for future employment[40].
The establishment of efficient and industry-responsive schools is hindered by the conflicting missions of
stakeholders and their intrinsic norms of practice. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the varied perspectives of
the individual partners, there is merit in reconciling challenges for the common good[41]. In the Philippines,
some of the factors that deter industry players to participate in industry-school partnerships were unclear
goals,lack of awareness,trust and confidence issues, and inadequate emphasis on partnerships impact[42].In
adapting SET to curriculum discussions, this paper highlighted how positive relationships between schools
and industries can overcome existing challenges. Curriculum discussions with industry players involve
negotiations to align academic training with industry expectations, ultimately creating a responsive and
practically oriented educational environment. Understanding social exchanges in curriculum review
discussions involved examining how interactions and reciprocal relationships between educational
institutions and industry partners shape the curriculum to better serve both students and workforce needs.
3. Methods
3.1. Research design
This paper explored the experiences of school administrators in designing the curriculum for graduate
programs. Exploratory studies are useful in research fields where understanding is limited, topics are new, or
contexts are evolving[43-45]—like designing a curriculum for effective instructional practices. Characterized
by open-ended, flexible methodologies, these studies enable researchers to examine new phenomena without
the constraints of predefined hypotheses or variables, encouraging the emergence of perspectives that might
be obscured in more rigid research designs[46,47]. Scholars[45,48] argue that exploratory research, although often
seen as preliminary, follows systematic processes that improve its rigor, particularly in the social sciences.
With qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups, researchers gain rich contextual data,
facilitating the identification of initial themes, trends, and participant experiences[49]. Through this process,
exploratory studies move beyond simple observation to actively draw connections, setting the stage for more
formal research while maintaining adaptability to new data and insights[45,50]. Critics sometimes argue that
exploratory studies lack scientific rigor due to their open-ended nature; however, many scholars defend their
methodological soundness and practical value. Particularly, exploratory research often leads to the
generation of hypotheses based on observed patterns, which lays a structured foundation for subsequent,
hypothesis-driven studies[51,52]. As such, exploratory research is not only a prelude to more focused research
but also a standalone, insightful approach to understanding poorly understood phenomena, helping bridge
gaps in knowledge and paving the way for systematic analysis in later studies[53,54]. Having this study nature,
this study explored the context of curriculum review discussions within graduate programs, highlighting the
importance of industry partnerships in creating a career-aligned curriculum. This paper answered one critical
question: how do school administrators encourage curriculum review discussions with industry players?
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
5
3.2. Participants and sampling
In exploratory research, participant sampling often prioritizes depth over representativeness, which is
why small, purposefully selected samples are common[55,56]. Studies typically include between one and 20
participants to allow for a thorough examination of individual experiences and nuanced perspectives within a
specific group[56]. Small sample sizes are especially valuable in capturing the detailed contextual data needed
to understand complex interactions and variables unique to the group being studied[44,50,57]. Purposive
sampling, a non-probability method frequently employed in exploratory studies[53], is designed to select
participants who can provide information directly relevant to the research purpose[58]. This approach enriches
data quality and relevance by ensuring that participants possess characteristics essential to exploring specific
themes or variables[59,60]. Purposive sampling is also flexible, allowing researchers to redefine participant
criteria as new themes emerge, which is particularly valuable in studies involving evolving concepts[53]. This
flexibility supports the exploratory nature of research, facilitating the collection of in-depth data that lays a
foundation for hypothesis generation and future research[45]. In selecting the participants to be interviewed,
this paper imposed three guiding criterial for sampling: (1) Professional Role (currently hold a position in
graduate education), (2) Curriculum Development Experience (must have at least three years of experience in
curriculum development, curriculum review, or collaboration), and (3) Involvement with Industries (must
have a history of direct involvement with industry partners). Following these criteria, 20 curriculum
designers were interviewed in this study.
3.3. Research instrument
An interview guide was developed to gather the narratives from the participants. Semi-structured
interviews are often used in exploratory studies because they allow interviewers to probe participant
responses and explore emerging themes, adapting to unexpected perspectives while still maintaining focus
on key topics[61,62]. This flexibility is especially beneficial in qualitative research, where a pre-planned but
adaptable structure ensures that essential topics are covered while also permitting the interviewer to discuss
more on significant but unanticipated responses[63,64]. The development of a semi-structured interview guide
usually begins with defining the study’s goals and conducting a thorough literature review to frame questions
that align with the research objectives[63]. Researchers draft an initial set of open-ended questions to
encourage narrative responses, allowing participants to express their perspectives fully[65,66]. This initial
guide is then pilot-tested with a small group of participants, which helps to refine the questions for clarity,
relevance, and engagement, ensuring that they effectively capture meaningful data[67,68]. This process enables
adjustments based on participants’ feedback, improving the reliability and usability of the guide[63,64].
Conversely, a panel of experts in curriculum design, sourced from various academic institutions, was
consulted to review and validate the interview guide, ensuring that the questions were relevant, clear, and
aligned with the study's objectives. This expert panel provided valuable feedback to refine the guide’s
structure and content, helping to improve its reliability and validity in capturing meaningful responses from
participants[69,70]. Probing and follow-up questions were incorporated in the final interview guide, allowing
the interviewer to clarify and expand upon participants’ responses, contributing to the understanding of the
topic[65]. Finally, the guide used in this study (Table 1) was composed of two main types of questions:
primary thematic questions, which were systematically organized to draw out the contexts of participants’
responses, and follow-up questions, which helped to clarify initial answers and ensure alignment with the
research objectives.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
6
Table 1. Final interview guide question.
Objectives
Interview Questions
To determine the nature of the process
of discussions in reviewing curriculum
in collaboration with industry partners.
a. What is the current process your program follows in reviewing its curriculum in
partnership with industry players?
b. How do you select or engage industry partners during the curriculum review
process?
c. What challenges do you encounter in maintaining industry involvement
throughout the curriculum review?
To identify potential improvements in
the curriculum review process to
enhance engagement with industry
partners.
a. What kind of engagement, collaboration, or partnership is the industry willing to
contribute during the curriculum review process?
b. How has industry feedback influenced curriculum changes or improvements in
your program?
c. In your opinion, what improvements can be made to the curriculum review process
to create a better collaboration with industry partners?
3.4. Data gathering procedure
Semis-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted to gather the responses of the participants. In
conducting qualitative interviews, researchers need to create a structured, yet flexible approach that allows
participants to share in-depth narrative data, while also fostering a trusting environment[71,72]. This process
generally begins with establishing clear research objectives and selecting a purposeful sample of participants
who can meaningfully contribute to understanding the phenomenon under study[69]. Prior to each interview,
researchers should thoroughly discuss the study’s purpose, confidentiality measures, and data use with
participants, establishing a transparent foundation that builds participant trust and openness[66,73].
Transparency at this stage helps ensure that participants feel comfortable sharing their experiences without
reservation, which is essential for gathering rich, detailed data[74]. An effective interview should feel
conversational and natural, allowing for the flexibility to follow up on participants’ responses as new themes
emerge[75,76]. Using an interview guide (see Table 1), organized with thematic questions aligned to the
research goals, is crucial to guide the conversation without overly constraining it[63,77]. Such guides help keep
the conversation focused while allowing the interviewer to ask probing follow-up questions, which can
clarify participant responses and add depth to the data[65,78]. In qualitative interviews, Schensul, Schensul and
LeCompte[79] highlight the importance of maintaining a continuous narrative flow, developing a rapport, and
minimizing interviewer bias. Building a positive interviewer-participant relationship enhances the depth of
the conversation, encouraging participants to openly discuss their views and experiences[80]. Active listening
and empathy during the interview further enhance this rapport, promoting a comfortable atmosphere that
supports spontaneous, authentic responses[73,81]. Maintaining an open, neutral tone and showing interest in
the participants’ stories, rather than imposing preconceptions, is essential to avoid bias and ensure that
participants’ voices are represented and captured[82].
3.5. Data analysis
Narratives from one-on-one interviews were the primary data in this study. Narratives reflected the
experiences, perceptions, ideas, and suggestions of the participants regarding curriculum designing.
Thematic analysis, particularly, reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the narratives of the
participants. Reflexive thematic analysis is a structured, yet adaptable method used to identify and interpret
patterns within qualitative data, specifically effective for exploring participants’ subjective experiences[83,84].
This analysis method is often inductive, meaning that codes and themes are reflected directly from the data
rather than predefined frameworks, which allows researchers to prioritize meanings that represent
participants’ perspectives and experiences[85,86]. The process is grounded in six iterative phases (see Figure
1), which include: familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
7
themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report[85]. These stages encourage engagement
with the data, as researchers revisit and refine codes and themes to ensure a critical understanding that
resonates with the study’s context[87]. Reflexive thematic analysis is inherently reflexive, recognizing the
researcher’s role in shaping results interpretations. This reflexivity allows researchers to consider how their
own perspectives may influence analysis, ultimately contributing to a richer, more grounded representation
of the data[88,89]. The approach encourage flexibility, enabling themes to evolve as researchers’ understanding
deepens, which is particularly advantageous in exploratory research focused on complex social
phenomena[74,90]. Through an iterative coding process, patterns of meaning are carefully constructed,
ensuring that themes go beyond surface-level descriptions to uncover underlying shared meanings central to
participants’ experiences[87,91]. Thus, reflexive thematic analysis offers a methodologically rigorous yet
flexible framework for framing and interpreting the richness of qualitative data, balancing inductive analysis
with reflexive interpretation to stay closely aligned with participants’ narratives and personal experiences.
Figure 1. Six phases of reflexive thematic analysis
4. Results
Objective 1: To determine the nature of the discussions in reviewing curriculum in collaboration with
industry partners.
Curriculum discussions reflected the demand-driven approach to curriculum design, highlighting a
concerted effort to align educational content with industry requirements. This alignment was apparent as
designers continually assessed whether course offerings matched industry standards, particularly focusing on
skills in demand, such as critical thinking and adaptability. Further, industry representatives were considered
essential contributors due to their status as future employers, and their expertise influenced curriculum
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
8
integration and the design of realistic projects for students. Discussions included quality control measures,
as industry feedback was carefully evaluated before integration. Designers emphasized the importance of
rapport-building, using guiding questions that aligned industry feedback with curriculum goals to ensure
mutual understanding. The selection and engagement of partners aimed at establishing beneficial
relationships and a shared vision, setting clear expectations to achieve alignment and systematic
improvements in the curriculum based on industry insights.
Theme 1: Demands
Curriculum designers perceived the demands of industry partners as central to shaping the curriculum,
emphasizing the importance of alignment with current industry requirements and expectations. They
discussed the necessity of consistently evaluating whether the curriculum met the demands of the industry,
particularly by incorporating critical thinking skills and other competencies that were highly valued in the
workforce.
“It’s an industry partnership, right? So, we have to check whether what we are
teaching, what the curriculum includes, are those that meet the demands of the
industry.”
“Like, if the demands of the industry, like critical thinking skills, are the basis,
it will be part of the curriculum.”
“First, we identify our programs, such as food technology, and select industry
partners aligned with those fields. The key criterion is alignment with industry
needs.”
Their experiences also underscored a commitment to including practical, real-world elements in the
curriculum, as they believed guest lectures and real-world projects offered students a direct understanding of
industry applications and the challenges faced by professionals. Designers felt that these interactions with
industry professionals not only enriched students’ learning but also kept the curriculum grounded in real-
world relevance.
“Guest lectures and real-world projects help understand the practical
applications of what we're learning. It's great to hear from people who are working
in the field and learn about the challenges they face.”
“So, they look into the relevance. The relevance and the responsibility. That's
the basis.”
“On one basis, it’s relevant to what the industry needs.”
Furthermore, they discussed adopting a non-agile approach that allowed for rapid curriculum updates to
reflect evolving industry needs, particularly in fast-paced fields like hospitality management. This approach
ensured that as industry trends and demands shifted, the curriculum could be adjusted to stay aligned with
them. For example, with industry discussions, curriculum designers acknowledged the need to address
feedback regarding students’ attitudes and behaviors, suggesting that these aspects were considered essential
in developing graduates who were not only skilled but also professional and well-suited to industry
environments.
“A non-agile approach is adopted for quick updates based on evolving industry
needs, such as hospitality management, which is fast-paced with new trends and
demands.”
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
9
“Recently, we've received concerning feedback about students’ attitudes and
behaviors, which highlights the need to address these issues.”
Theme 2: Emphasis on Roles
Curriculum designers emphasized the importance of industry partners as vital contributors in curriculum
development, viewing them not only as stakeholders but as future employers and integral players who could
shape the direction of educational programs. Their discussions revealed a belief in the necessity of involving
the right people—those with a strong background in curriculum enhancement—to ensure that the curriculum
remained relevant and robust. Industry feedback was highly valued, with designers treating it as a significant
factor capable of influencing curriculum integration and guiding essential improvements before finalizing
programs.
“We consider industry partners as vital contributors for curriculum as they are
the future employers of graduates and may become the industry themselves.”
“It’s crucial to involve the right people in the curriculum review process,
specifically experts who have a strong track record in curriculum enhancement.”
The designers recognized the substantial role that industry partners played in sharing expertise on
current trends,emerging technologies, and the skill requirements that were in demand. By contributing
insights on best practices, industry partners helped bridge the gap between academic knowledge and
practical application, which designers felt was essential for preparing students for the real-world challenges
they would face post-graduation. Designers saw value in creating real-world projects with industry partners,
as these opportunities enabled students to engage with realistic scenarios and industry challenges.
“The educational aspect of curriculum development also undergoes screening,
with industry players’ feedback being treated with significance. If industry feedback
provides solid influence, it may influence curriculum integration or improvements,
making them important factors before finalizing a program or curriculum.”
“Technically, the industry partners contribute significantly to the process of
reviewing the curriculum. They would offer valuable expertise on current industry
trends, emerging technologies, skill requirements, and best practices in the
industry.”
“They also help develop real-world projects for students in which they can
apply their knowledge to very realistic scenarios often based on actual industry
challenges or case studies.”
Further, designers consistently defined and clarified industry partners' roles in the curriculum process,
especially in areas like guest lectures and mentoring. They believed that these roles provided students with
the chance to learn directly from those active in the field, helping them gain insights into the latest practices
and skills needed. Industry input was particularly influential in steering curriculum revisions, with a focus on
integrating soft and hard skills and ensuring alignment with emerging technologies.
“We clearly define industry partners’ roles in curriculum design, guest lectures,
and mentoring.”
“Industry feedback significantly influences curriculum reviews, particularly in
integrating emerging technologies. Focus should be on soft and hard skills.”
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
10
Theme 3: System
In examining the curriculum review system, curriculum designers described a structured process marked
by collaboration with industry partners and an organized approach to feedback collection. They highlighted
the importance of recognizing stakeholders and ensuring that all feedback mechanisms were in place to
capture relevant insights. Designers consistently prioritized assessing needs and evaluating skills gaps,
ensuring that industry perspectives were integral to curriculum adjustments. This systematic approach was
underpinned by quality control, where industry contributions underwent a screening process to confirm their
relevance and value before integration into the curriculum.
“The curriculum review process involves collaboration with industry partners,
including recognizing stakeholders for feedback, assessing needs, evaluating skills
gaps, and establishing a feedback mechanism.”
“The process of curriculum review involves quality control, with industry
players’ opinions and contributions going through a screening process.”
Curriculum designers also expressed the need for effective rapport-building before formal reviews,
which they saw as essential for creating a foundation of trust and openness. To achieve this, they engaged in
mindset conditioning and developed guiding questions tailored to the curriculum’s specific needs, which
served to steer industry feedback constructively. Once potential partners were identified, designers took
proactive steps to establish mutually beneficial relationships, ensuring that both sides maintained clear
expectations and a shared understanding of the partnership’s goals, which they believed was crucial for
successful collaboration.
“Before the formal review, we focus on engaging them through rapport-
building and mindset conditioning. To facilitate effective participation, we provide
guiding questions that align with the curriculum’s needs.”
“After identifying potential partners, we reach out proactively to establish
mutually beneficial relationships. It’s crucial that both sides have clear expectations
and a shared understanding of the goals of the partnership to ensure its
effectiveness.”
Further, curriculum designers structured feedback sessions where industry feedback could be presented
in direct response to specific curriculum elements, ensuring alignment with industry requirements.
“After selecting partners, we present the curriculum and gather their feedback
to ensure our activities and programs meet industry requirements.”
Objective 2: To identify potential improvements in the curriculum review process to enhance
engagement with industry partners.
Curriculum designers highlighted several aspects of industry discussions that needed to be addressed.
Curriculum designers emphasized the importance of enhancing engagement with industry partners by
focusing on sustaining active involvement,aligning objectives, and ensuring clear communication
throughout the curriculum review process. They discussed challenges in aligning goals between institutions
and industry, noting that sometimes differing objectives and compliance with regulatory mandates could
complicate collaboration. Designers expressed the importance of having high-quality representatives, such as
HR professionals who could offer insights based on their evaluations of alumni performance. They noted that
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
11
this engagement allowed industry partners to fulfill their social responsibility by actively contributing to the
development of future graduates, benefiting both students and the industry itself.
Theme 1: Engagement
Curriculum designers discussed sustaining engagement with industry partners as a central challenge in
curriculum review, particularly when aligning goals between educational institutions and the needs of the
industry. They noted that differing objectives between these two parties often complicated collaboration,
especially when regulatory frameworks, such as CMOs, sometimes did not align with industry needs. Despite
these tensions, they emphasized the importance of clear communication to ensure that industry partners
understood their roles in the review process. In some cases, while industry representatives were not as deeply
integrated into decision-making processes as in other countries, designers expressed their commitment to
making these partners feel comfortable and relevant in the process.
“Sustaining engagement is a key challenge, along with aligning goals between
educational institutions and industry, as differing objectives can complicate
collaboration. While we need industry feedback, we also have to follow certain
CMOs, which sometimes don’t match industry needs.”
“It’s essential to ensure industry partners feel comfortable and relevant in the
curriculum review process. In some countries, industry representatives are part of
the boardroom discussions regarding program decisions. While we may not be as
advanced in this practice, we prioritize clear communication, informing them of
their roles in the review process.”
Designers acknowledged that effective engagement had led to significant realignment within the
institution, with adjustments to programs,initiatives, and infrastructure to better align offerings with
industry demands. They highlighted that when certain programs or skills were no longer in demand, these
were adjusted or replaced to ensure continued relevance.
“Engaging stakeholders has led to significant realignment within the institution,
including programs, initiatives, and infrastructure procurement. This ensures that
our offerings match industry needs; if an item is no longer in demand, we adjust or
replace it accordingly.”
“Industry representatives are generally very generous in providing feedback,
particularly regarding the specific skill sets they expect from graduates.”
“They are willing to detail the qualities and characteristics they seek,
recognizing that students will enter their industries after graduation.”
Curriculum designers also emphasized that active engagement should not be limited to just industry
representatives but should also extend to local stakeholders, such as barangay leaders, to ensure a broader
scope of input. They stressed that engagement should be ongoing, advocating for biannual meetings to foster
continuous collaboration and ensure that feedback was consistently integrated into curriculum updates. This
commitment to long-term, sustained interaction reflected their understanding of the importance of regular,
structured communication to keep the curriculum in sync with both educational standards and industry
expectations.
“Active engagement of industry stakeholders is essential, and this should
extend beyond just industry representatives to include local officials and barangay
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
12
leaders. This engagement should be ongoing, not limited to a one-time
memorandum of agreement.”
“Ideally, stakeholders should meet at least biannually to foster collaboration
and ensure their input is consistently integrated into the curriculum.”
Theme 2: Response
Curriculum designers discussed the challenges of engaging industry professionals in the curriculum
review process, particularly due to their busy schedules, which made it difficult for them to dedicate
sufficient time for full participation. The designers expressed that it was often challenging to find high-
quality industry players, especially in regions like Mindanao, where scheduling conflicts frequently arose.
As a result, they noted that they sometimes had to settle for less-than-ideal representatives when time
constraints were pressing. This issue highlighted the difficulty in aligning academic priorities with industry
needs, which could sometimes create a disconnect between the two parties.
“Industry professionals often have busy schedules, making it difficult for them
to dedicate the time needed for full engagement in the curriculum review process.”
“It's difficult to find high-quality industry players, especially in Mindanao. We
send out numerous invitations, but scheduling conflicts often arise, leading us to
settle for less-than-ideal representatives when time is tight.”
“There’s sometimes a disconnect between academic priorities and industry
needs.”
To address this gap, the designers emphasized the importance of ongoing communication and
collaboration to ensure that both the educational institution and the industry were heard and understood.
They also focused on the necessity of involving industry players who met global standards, which would
allow the curriculum to remain competitive both locally and internationally. They believed that greater
participation from quality representatives would deepen the insights provided during curriculum reviews,
ultimately enriching the process. In cases where disagreements arose, the designers were confident in their
ability to moderate discussions, ensuring that the review process remained productive and focused.
“We strive to bridge this gap through ongoing communication and
collaboration, ensuring that both sides are heard and understood.”
“To improve the process, we aim to involve industry players who meet global
standards, ensuring we understand local conditions in comparison to global
competitiveness.”
“Greater participation from quality representatives will enhance the depth of
insights for our curriculum. If disagreements arise, we can effectively moderate
those discussions during the review process.”
The designers also stressed the need for clear channels of communication to ensure that all stakeholders
remained aligned and engaged throughout the process. They proposed increasing the visibility of the
curriculum review process to industry partners, emphasizing the importance of transparency and inclusivity.
To further enhance the curriculum development process, they suggested the establishment of advisory
boards, the integration of real-world projects, and the creation of a continuous feedback mechanism, all of
which would provide more consistent input and help improve the curriculum's relevance and effectiveness.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
13
“Establishing clear channels for sharing information, updates, and feedback can
help keep everyone aligned and engaged.”
“We also need to increase visibility of the curriculum review process to
industry partners.”
“To improve our curriculum development process, we should establish
advisory boards, integrate real-world projects, and maintain a continuous feedback
mechanism.”
5. Discussion
Philippine education system faces challenges regarding the development, designing, implementation,
and assessment of the curriculum. The current job market exhibits heightened instability and uncertainty,
especially impacting college graduates as they navigate their career decision-making processes[92]. The work
landscape in the Philippines is characterized by elevated levels of unemployment and underemployment,
leading to financial losses, social and psychological difficulties, and insufficient job security[93]. Employment
challenges may arise when an individual lacks the requisite educational qualifications for a position, with
certain jobs necessitating a high school diploma while others demand a far higher degree of education[94].
Ineffective curriculum can also be linked to employability gaps among students, striking program managers
to reconfigure their curriculum to develop new competencies for the education, training, and reskilling of
present and future employees[95].
Given the need for realigning the curriculum to students’ work career, this paper discussed the context
of curriculum design discussions in partnerships with industry players through social exchange perspectives.
Exchange theory offers a systematic framework for examining social interactions that lead to the transfer of
resources, services, or behaviors that hold mutual significance[96,97]. This analysis examines the ways in
which micro-level processes underpin the social structures they generate, as well as the pressures for social
change that frequently arise from existing power inequalities. Investigating the emergence, transformation,
and impact of these interactions on the groups and networks they inhabit constitutes a significant area of
study[98].
Expanding upon fundamental concepts of exchange, SET represents one of the most persistent and
extensively utilized theoretical frameworks[16]. Numerous significant themes in organizational behavior have,
at various times, been examined under the framework of social exchange theory. This conceptual model has
been effectively utilized to examine organizational commitment[99], citizenship behaviors[100], justice[101], as
well as supervisory and organizational support[102]. Further, studies on curriculum designing suggested
university-industry collaboration to address the needed competencies that will equip graduates to confront
future career challenges[103,104]. This paper, consequently, tapped on social exchanges as key driver of
collaboration efforts towards sustainable and effective curriculum.
The social exchange process occurs when an organizational actor, typically a supervisor or colleague,
interacts with a target individual in either a favorable or unfavorable manner[17,105,106]. Following the initial
action, the recipient, frequently a subordinate or colleague, may opt to respond with either positive or
negative behavior in return[107]. Social exchange theory posits that, in response to positive initiating actions,
individuals are likely to reciprocate with similar positive behaviors and/or reduce negative responses[17]. In
discussions about the curriculum, designers expressed positivity about their communication with industry
players regarding its development. For example, curriculum designers “…define industry partners’ roles in
curriculum design, guest lectures, and mentoring” where they as for “…valuable expertise on current
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
14
industry trends, emerging technologies, skill requirements, and best practices in the industry.” The
designers’ positive perception of their interactions with industry partners is an indication of a social
exchange dynamic in which both parties benefit from the exchange of knowledge and resources.
From an SET perspective, the positive behavior exhibited by the curriculum designers—such as seeking
advice and collaboration with industry players—suggests that these individuals are likely to reciprocate this
collaborative spirit. They may integrate the feedback and insights provided by industry players into the
curriculum, reinforcing the value of the exchange for both the designers and the industry stakeholders. At its
core, SET emphasizes the importance of mutual exchanges that generate obligations and commitments, often
leading to the development of relationships over time[108,109]. Notably, initiation of social exchange takes
place when a stimulus happens, like the need for feedback for or change in the curriculum. Apparently,
curriculum designers had that positive belief that industry players are “vital contributors for curriculum as
they are the future employers of graduates and may become the industry themselves.” This encourages the
curriculum designers to seek assistance from industry players, hence vitalizing the social exchange for
curriculum development.
Further, negotiated exchanges tend to be more explicit and formalized, often based on quid pro quo
arrangements. These types of exchanges are typically seen in economic or contractual settings, where parties
negotiate the terms of the exchange and are more likely to rely on formal sanctions[97]. Studies comparing
negotiated and reciprocal exchanges suggest that reciprocal exchanges, characterized by greater flexibility
and trust, generally foster more positive relational outcomes, such as increased commitment and
cooperation[110]. This context was evident in discussions about aligning curriculum systems with industry
demands. In their discussions, curriculum designers stressed that one of the consistent demands from
industry partners was the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Negotiation becomes essential in these discussions, particularly when industry feedback is direct and
specific. For instance, when industry partners provide detailed feedback on the types of skills or
competencies they expect from graduates, curriculum designers must weigh these requests against academic
goals and standards. This negotiation may involve adjusting course content, incorporating industry-driven
projects, or developing new training modules, all while maintaining academic integrity and meeting
accreditation requirements. Reciprocity is perhaps the most examined principle of SET, emphasizing the
bidirectional nature of exchanges. This notion is rooted in the expectation that individuals will repay others
for their actions, whether positive or negative[20,111]. Molm[112] further elucidated the role of reciprocity,
noting that mutual cooperation and the ability to reciprocate in kind are essential to the longevity and quality
of relationships. Importantly, the absence of explicit bargaining in reciprocal exchanges contrasts with
negotiated exchanges, where there are clear, explicit agreements[112,113].
One remarkable aspect of curriculum social exchange with industry players was the essence of long-
term engagements in curriculum designing. Scholars argued that engagement signifies a positive disposition
towards work, stemming from individuals advocating for their own well-being within the organization[114].
Similar mechanism for curriculum discussion review was observed in this study. For example, curriculum
designers “…strive to bridge this gap through ongoing communication and collaboration, ensuring that both
sides are heard and understood” wherein “this engagement should be ongoing, not limited to a one-time
memorandum of agreement.” The commitment to continuous engagement allows curriculum designers to
incorporate real-time industry feedback, helping to identify skill gaps and emerging competencies required
by industry players.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
15
Because the primary objective of social exchange theory as the development of a framework embracing
social structure and structural change as its essential variables[115,116], engagements encourage both parties
contribute to shaping the curriculum, they create a sustainable partnership where each exchange reinforces
the commitment to producing industry-ready graduates. Such engagement can be linked to the development
of commitment, loyalty, and trust, which emerge from building relationships over time[16]. Following this,
they suggested establishing clear channels for sharing information, increasing visibility of review process,
and maintaining continuous feedback mechanism. These engagement strategies were believed to encourage
engagement and strengthen commitment, trust, transparency, and sustainability of the discussions.
6. Conclusion
The findings reflected on the essence of social exchange dynamics in encouraging successful university-
industry partnerships for curriculum development. SET provides a perspective to understanding the
reciprocal and negotiated exchanges between curriculum designers and industry stakeholders, showing how
these interactions can lead to a aligned, relevant, and responsive curriculum. Curriculum designers perceived
industry players as essential contributors to curriculum design due to their insights on skill requirements and
industry trends, which are integrated into educational programs. The positive reciprocation between
curriculum designers and industry partners—evident in shared expertise, feedback, and resources—
suggested that sustained, mutual engagement can effectively bridge the gap between academic training and
market demands. This collaborative model holds potential for developing industry-ready graduates who are
better equipped to deal with an uncertain job market in the Philippines.
Consequently, establishing a framework for sustained, transparent, and reciprocal communication
between academic institutions and industry can enhance curriculum relevance and graduate employability.
By recognizing and actively seeking industry input, universities can ensure that their programs equip
students with current competencies. Further, embedding social exchange principles in curriculum
development policies could develop formalized partnerships, where mutual commitments are reinforced
through structured collaboration efforts such as regular reviews and joint curriculum planning sessions.
Adopting a responsive curriculum approach can serve as a model for other educational institutions,
potentially influencing policy-level changes that prioritize industry-academic partnerships across the
educational landscape.
However, limitations emerged in this study that needed to be addressed. Study limitations include the
scope of data, which was primarily based on the perceptions of curriculum designers and may not fully
capture the industry’s viewpoint on engagement challenges or expectations. The study relied on self-reported
data, which may introduce bias or overemphasis on positive aspects of these interactions. The focus on SET
also limits the analysis to exchange dynamics, potentially overlooking other factors such as institutional
constraints or economic pressures that may influence curriculum design. Future research could benefit from
analyzing different stakeholders, such as industry representatives and graduates, to provide a
comprehensiveness to the curriculum-employment gap and to examine other theoretical frameworks that
may shed light on additional dimensions of university-industry partnerships.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
16
References
1. Liu, L. (2023). Thoughts on the Application-oriented Private Universities' Implementation of Practical Teaching
through Industry-Education Integration. Journal of Human Resource Development, 5(4), 70-77.
2. Okolie, U. C., Igwe, P. A., Nwosu, H. E., Eneje, B. C., & Mlanga, S. (2020). Enhancing graduate employability:
Why do higher education institutions have problems with teaching generic skills?. Policy Futures in
Education, 18(2), 294-313.
3. Yong, B. P. P., & Ling, Y. L. (2023). Skills gap: The importance of soft skills in graduate employability as
perceived by employers and graduates. Online Journal for TVET Practitioners, 8(1), 25-42.
4. Crawford, V., Brimble, M., & Freudenberg, B. (2024). Can work integrated learning deliver employability?
International post‐graduate accounting students. Accounting & Finance, 64(1), 1061-1082.
5. Manevska, S., Baffour Danquah, K. A., Fiifi Afful, C., Smerdova, J., & Manev, N. (2018). Bridging the gap
between university curriculum and industrial needs: A case study of teaching interpersonal skills. International
Journal of Organizational Leadership, 7, 61-69.
6. Oroka, O. V., & Igberaharha, O. C. (2024). Entrepreneurship Education as A Predictor of Communication Skills,
Interpersonal Skills and Marketing Skills Acquisition among Business Education Students in Delta State,
Nigeria. St. Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(1), 88-107.
7. Plewa, C., Galán-Muros, V., & Davey, T. (2015). Engaging business in curriculum design and delivery: a higher
education institution perspective. Higher Education, 70, 35-53.
8. Sjöö, K., & Hellström, T. (2019). University–industry collaboration: A literature review and synthesis. Industry
and higher education, 33(4), 275-285.
9. Ejeka, C. A., & Ebenezer-Nwokeji, C. C. (2017). The Role of Institution Partnership in the Office Technology and
Management. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education Research, 3(3), 1-6.
10. O’Dwyer, M., Filieri, R., & O’Malley, L. (2023). Establishing successful university–industry collaborations:
barriers and enablers deconstructed. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(3), 900-931.
11. Eniola-Arigbe, Y., Arigbe, E. E., & Awodiji, O. A. (2022). Institution-Industry Collaboration as Correlates of
University Goal Achievement in Southwest, Nigeria. Journal of Economic, Social and Educational Issues, 2(2), 14-
23.
12. Maher, D., Schuck, S., & Perry, R. (2017). Investigating knowledge exchange amongst school teachers, university
teacher educators and industry partners. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online),42(3), 73-90.
13. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press, USA.
14. Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual review of
sociology, 25(1), 217-244.
15. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy
of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
16. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
management, 31(6), 874-900.
17. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review
with theoretical remedies. Academy of management annals, 11(1), 479-516.
18. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
19. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.
20. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.
21. Kundi, G. M., & Manipal, P. (2023). Organization Citizenship Behavior: Mediation towards Leadership Styles and
Employees Engagement at Workplace in healthcare through the Lens of Social Exchange Theory. Open Access
Public Health and Health Administration Review, 1(2), 57-67.
22. Udin, U., Chanthes, S., & Dananjoyo, R. (2024). Servant leadership, work engagement and affective commitment
in social exchange perspective: A mediation-moderation framework. Human Systems Management, (Preprint), 1-
11.
23. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In Social exchange:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 77-94). Boston, MA: Springer US.
24. Cross, C., & Dundon, T. (2019). Social exchange theory, employment relations and human resource management.
In Elgar introduction to theories of human resources and employment relations (pp. 264-279). Edward Elgar
Publishing.
25. Bannya, A. R., & Bainbridge, H. T. (2022). Frontline managers and human resource management: a social
exchange theory perspective. In Research Handbook on Line Managers (pp. 65-81). Edward Elgar Publishing.
26. Gilbert, C., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2011). The influence of line managers and HR department on employees'
affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1618-1637.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
17
27. Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio Jr, T. G., & Shuck, A. (2014). Human resource development practices and employee
engagement: Examining the connection with employee turnover intentions. Human resource development
quarterly, 25(2), 239-270.
28. Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Forrier, A. (2019). Developmental HRM, employee well‐being and performance:
The moderating role of developing leadership. European Management Review, 16(2), 317-331.
29. Fletcher, L. (2019). How can personal development lead to increased engagement? The roles of meaningfulness
and perceived line manager relations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(7), 1203-
1226.
30. Chen, S., Fan, Y., Zhang, G., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Collectivism-oriented human resource management on team
creativity: Effects of interpersonal harmony and human resource management strength. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 32(18), 3805-3832.
31. Newman, A., Thanacoody, R., & Hui, W. (2011). The impact of employee perceptions of training on
organizational commitment and turnover intentions: a study of multinationals in the Chinese service sector. The
international journal of human resource management, 22(8), 1765-1787.
32. Barrot, J. S. (2019). English curriculum reform in the Philippines: Issues and challenges from a 21st century
learning perspective. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18(3), 145-160.
33. De Leon, J. A. V. (2024). Sustainability and Curriculum Studies in the Philippines. In SDGs in the Asia and Pacific
Region (pp. 463-483). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
34. Romani-Dias, M., & Carneiro, J. (2020). Internationalization in higher education: faculty tradeoffs under the social
exchange theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(3), 461-476.
35. Billett, S., Clemans, A., & Seddon, T. (2005). Forming, developing and sustaining social partnerships. National
Centre for Vocational Education Research.
36. Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., & Seppänen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—balancing trust and
contracting. Technovation, 25(5), 497-504.
37. Fawcett, S. E., Jones, S. L., & Fawcett, A. M. (2012). Supply chain trust: The catalyst for collaborative
innovation. Business Horizons, 55(2), 163-178.
38. Ahmad, D., Mahir, I., & Prihantono, C. R. (2024). Innovative Models for SMK and Industry Partnerships Aligned
with the Merdeka Belajar Curriculum. Journal of Pedagogi, 1(3), 49-60.
39. Samson, A., & Oliveira, E. (2023). University learning partnerships: Enhancing learning, enabling innovation and
addressing challenges in schools. ASCILITE Publications, 531-535.
40. Watters, J. J., & Christensen, C. (2013, July). Vocationalism in science and technology education: Aligning school
curricula with workplace needs. In 44th Australasian Science Educators Research Association Conference (pp. 2-5).
41. Flynn, M. C., Pillay, H., & Watters, J. (2014). Industry School Partnerships: Boundary crossing to enable school to
work transitions across three targeted industries. In Education and Employers Taskforce Research Conference.
42. Vicente, M. (2023). Education Partnerships from the Lens of Private Sectors, Industry Partners, and Other
Stakeholders. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(7), 737-747.
43. Duhaylungsod, A. V., & Chavez, J. V. (2023). ChatGPT and other AI users: Innovative and creative utilitarian
value and mindset shift. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 33, 4367-4378.
44. Hunter, D., McCallum, J., & Howes, D. (2019). Defining exploratory-descriptive qualitative (EDQ) research and
considering its application to healthcare. Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 4(1).
45. Swedberg, R. (2020). Exploratory research. The production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social
science, 2(1), 17-41.
46. Chavez, J. (2022). Narratives of bilingual parents on the real-life use of English language: Materials for English
language teaching curriculum. Arab World English Journals, 13(3).
47. Singh, A. (2021). An introduction to experimental and exploratory research. Available at SSRN 3789360.
48. Stebbins, R. A. (2001). What is exploration. Exploratory research in the social sciences, 48, 2-17.
49. Chavez, J. V., & Del Prado, R. T. (2023). Discourse analysis on online gender-based humor: Markers of
normalization, tolerance, and lens of inequality. In Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 55-71.
50. Olawale, S. R., Chinagozi, O. G., & Joe, O. N. (2023). Exploratory research design in management science: A
review of literature on conduct and application. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social
Science, 7(4), 1384-1395.
51. Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2020). Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in
management studies. Journal of mixed methods research, 14(4), 473-495.
52. Szabelska, A., Pollet, T. V., Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., & IJzerman, H. (2021). A tutorial for exploratory research:
An eight-step approach.
53. Chavez, J. V., Lamorinas, D. D., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Message patterns of online gender-based humor
discriminatory practices biases stereotyping and disempowering tools through discourse analysis. In Forum for
Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 1535-1535.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
18
54. Bock, L. A., Noben, C. Y., Yaron, G., George, E. L., Masclee, A. A., Essers, B. A., & Van Mook, W. N. (2021).
Positive Health dialogue tool and value-based healthcare: a qualitative exploratory study during residents’
outpatient consultations. BMJ open, 11(11), e052688.
55. Asika, N. (2004). Research methodology: A process approach. Mukugamu & Brothers Enterprises, Lagos.
56. Subedi, K. R. (2021). Determining the Sample in Qualitative Research. Online Submission, 4, 1-13.
57. Rai, N., & Thapa, B. (2015). A study on purposive sampling method in research. Kathmandu: Kathmandu School
of Law, 5(1), 8-15.
58. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive
sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661.
59. Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman &
Littlefield.
60. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive
sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
61. Chavez, J. V., Anuddin, F. O., Mansul, H. H., Hawari, N. A., Irilis, F. B., Umaron, A. A., ... & Albani, S. E. (2024).
Analyzing impacts of campus journalism on student’s grammar consciousness and confidence in writing
engagements. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(7).
62. Mendoza, D. V., Vicente, M. B., & Chavez, J. V. (2023). Food Servicing Characteristics Of The Accommodation
Products As Deal-Breakers Of Consumer Purchasing Behaviors. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics
Culture, 33, 1695-1719.
63. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing
a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
64. Pope, C., & Mays, N. (Eds.). (2020). Qualitative research in health care (pp. 111-133). Oxford, UK:: Wiley-
Blackwell.
65. Naz, N., Gulab, F., & Aslam, M. (2022). Development of qualitative semi-structured interview guide for case study
research. Competitive Social Science Research Journal, 3(2), 42-52.
66. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
67. Hardon, A., Hodgkin, C., & Fresle, D. (2004). How to investigate the use of medicines by consumers. In How to
investigate the use of medicines by consumers (pp. 89-89).
68. Galletta, A., & Cross, W. E. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to
analysis and publication (Vol. 18). NYU press.
69. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
70. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Sage.
71. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
72. Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement
framework. Qualitative Report, 21(5).
73. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social
sciences. Teachers College.
74. Chavez, J. V., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious
and social belief systems. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(1).
75. Miller, L. M., & Carpenter, C. L. (2009). Altruistic leadership strategies in coaching: A case study of Jim Tressel
of the Ohio State University. Strategies, 22(4), 9-12.
76. Elhami, A., & Khoshnevisan, B. (2022). Conducting an Interview in Qualitative Research: The Modus
Operandi. Mextesol Journal, 46(1).
77. Luo, L., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Semistructured interviews. Applications of social research methods to
questions in information and library science, 232.
78. Barrett, D., & Twycross, A. (2018). Data collection in qualitative research. Evidence-based nursing, 21(3), 63-64.
79. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations,
interviews, and questionnaires (Vol. 2). Rowman Altamira.
80. Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative research in accounting &
management, 8(3), 238-264.
81. Bolderston, A. (2012). Conducting a research interview. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences, 43(1),
66-76.
82. De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2011). Introduction: Interviews vs.‘natural’contexts: A false dilemma. Language in
society, 40(1), 1-11.
83. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2),
77-101.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
19
84. Finlay, L. (2021). Thematic analysis: the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’. European Journal for Qualitative
Research in Psychotherapy, 11, 103-116.
85. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.
86. Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research in psychology, 2(17-37), 25.
87. Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2020). Reflexive thematic analysis. In Handbook of qualitative research in
education (pp. 430-441). Edward Elgar Publishing.
88. Shaw, R. (2010). Embedding reflexivity within experiential qualitative psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 7(3), 233-243.
89. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., Davey, L., & Jenkinson, E. (2023). Doing reflexive thematic analysis.
In Supporting research in counselling and psychotherapy: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
research (pp. 19-38). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
90. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology, 12(3), 297-298.
91. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive
thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and psychotherapy
research, 21(1), 37-47.
92. Bustos, R. (2024). Bridging the Gap: Aligning Higher Education Priorities with the Shifting Job Landscape in the
Philippines. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 12(1), 9-24.
93. Villareal, H., Vigonte, F., & Abante, M. V. (2024). Unraveling Economic Challenges: An in-depth Analysis of
Issues Facing the Philippine Economy. Available at SSRN 4728697.
94. Cullo, V. J. D., Chan, K. L. B., Solidanio, A. B., Aloot, A. K. B., Tayao, A. T. C., Quijano, E. D., & Estrella, P. J.
A. (2024). Experiences and Strategies: Supporting Livelihoods of Underemployed People in Barangay General
Paulino Santos. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(6), 1681-1693.
95. Mezhoudi, N., Alghamdi, R., Aljunaid, R., Krichna, G., & Düştegör, D. (2023). Employability prediction: a survey
of current approaches, research challenges and applications. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized
Computing, 14(3), 1489-1505.
96. Ahmad, R., Nawaz, M. R., Ishaq, M. I., Khan, M. M., & Ashraf, H. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic
review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1015921.
97. Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange
networks: Theory and experimental results. American journal of sociology, 89(2), 275-305.
98. Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1987). Social exchange theory. Newbury Park.
99. Liu, X., & Deng, J. (2011, August). Development of organizational commitment based on the social exchange
theory. In 2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
100. Elstad, E., Christophersen, K. A., & Turmo, A. (2011). Social exchange theory as an explanation of organizational
citizenship behaviour among teachers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(4), 405-421.
101. Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. (2015). Accounting for the influence of overall justice
on job performance: Integrating self‐determination and social exchange theories. Journal of Management
Studies, 52(2), 231-252.
102. Anggraeni, A. I. (2018). The effect of psychological contract, perceived organizational support, and value
congruence on organizational citizenship behavior: Social exchange theory perspectives. Calitatea, 19(162), 67-72.
103. Camacho, B., & Alexandre, R. (2019). Design Education. University-industry collaboration, a case study. The
Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1317-1332.
104. Tessema, B. S., & Abejehu, S. B. (2017). University-industry collaboration in curriculum development: Analysis
of banking and finance graduates’ attributes from educators and industries perspective. Education Journal, 6(2), 87-
93.
105. Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual
differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 787-799.
106. McLean Parks, J. 1997. The fourth arm of justice: The art and science of revenge. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies & B.
H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations, 6, 113–144. US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
107. Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 53(4), 743.
108. Bandi, R. K., Narasimhamurthy, R., & Kishore, R. (2014). The influence of labelling and social exchange on group
cohesion of IT-contract employees. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM conference on Computers and people
research (pp. 11-16).
109. Josephine, I. A., & Riantoputra, C. D. (2018). The Relationship between Managerial Monitoring Behavior and
Empowering Leadership Climate with Employees’ Felt Accountability. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (pp. 5-6).
110. Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological theory, 21(1), 1-17.
111. Gergen, K. J. 1969. The psychology of behavioral exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v10i1.3260
20
112. Molm, L. D. 2000. Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In G. Ritzer & B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook
of social theory: 260-272. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
113. Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American
sociological review, 721-739.
114. Simbula, S., Margheritti, S., & Avanzi, L. (2023). Building work engagement in organizations: A longitudinal
study combining social exchange and social identity theories. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 83.
115. Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. Sociol. Rev., 27, 31–41.
116. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social Exchange Theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol, 2, 335–362.
