This Special section of WORK focuses on occupational Health Service (OHS) support to ensure a sustainable work environment in health and welfare workplaces, which are workplaces facing several diverse and at times also conflicting occupational health issues. Workplaces in health and welfare have both internal challenges (such as digitalization, recruitment problems, sick-leave and staff-turnover) and external challenges (pandemics, financial crisis, armed conflicts and terror threats).1–4 In addition, staff at health and welfare services work with a human-centric and relational perspective, while also often having strict legislation to abide by, which adds to the complexity of their work environment, risk exposure and risk of ill-health related to their work. Previous research has shown that intervention strategies used in practical OHS support might be more important than the specific workplace intervention contributing to improved working conditions, health and well-being in hospital settings5 and in workplaces in general.6 These findings might be an important contribution to global healthcare if put into practice. The World Health Organization has defined good working conditions as a cornerstone of future worker retention and recruitment as well as employee performance in healthcare. [. . .]

Many PhD students desire a career in academia, despite this the focus on learning how to teach in higher education is often limited. This poses a problem, if the PhD student intends a career in higher education. Subsequent consequences are risk of PhD graduates having insufficient capacity to enhance learning experiences of future students. A potential way to improve this issue is through the approach of work-integrated learning (WIL). WIL can be described as an umbrella term covering education, collaboration, and research integrating knowledge and skills from academia and work life. WIL in PhD education is under-used, under-researched and can be considered complex, as PhD education can lead to careers both inside and outside of academia and in combination. However, WIL targeting a specific skill, in this case pedagogical understanding, is a more straightforward action. In a new PhD career planning course via WIL, the use of pedagogical tools was intended to be both a way to teach strategic career planning and to include learning activities with pedagogical tools to increase PhD students´ pedagogical understanding.

The objective of this paper is to present teachers’ reflections from including novel pedagogical tools in a hybrid PhD level course on strategic career planning. This includes reflections of how WIL can be included in course design, with a specific focus of including learning pedagogical tools and understanding pedagogical actions, while taking a PhD course in a non-pedagogical subject. Despite being a PhD course in career planning the course aimed through its interactive and creative course design to provide opportunities for enhancing PhD students' pedagogical skills through layers of learning. Pedagogical strategies to enhance layers of learning were interactivity, engagement, sharing of experiences and joint reflections in a hybrid PhD course. The pedagogical tools used in the course were Miro, Feedbackfruits, Feedforward and Liberating Structures.

A key reflection from teaching this course, was the joy of being part of the shared learning with the PhD students. This was due to several of the pedagogical tools being new also to the teachers. This innovative course design can be a way to support learning of pedagogical tools and pedagogical understanding for PhD students, and hopefully also increase the pedagogical interest of those aiming for a career in academia. We argue that research schools should design PhD courses to also include elements of learning pedagogical understanding useful for teaching in higher education. The layers of learning design can also give an increased understanding of skills needed to succeed as a teacher in higher education, regardless of discipline.

The need to uncover the bibliographic field of work-integrated learning (WIL) stems from the increased interest to include WIL in higher education and present positive outcomes of WIL. This bibliographic review of WIL aims to understand the connectedness and trajectory of WIL in scientific publications and to explore the most influential actors. The amount of WIL research is increasing rapidly and there is global interest in the research field, even if there are dominating countries, such as Australia. From both citations, co-citations, and bibliographic coupling it is evident that there are highly influential countries, sources, publications, and authors in WIL research, which shape the bibliographic landscape of WIL. As WIL is an emerging research field, additional bibliographic reviews in coming years can show future trends in WIL research and potential differences between countries and disciplines.

The number of PhD graduates is increasing globally. This highly educated subgroup is exposed to precarious work conditions and a rapidly changing labour market imposing novel careers across sectors throughout working life. There are age, gender, and ethnicity inequalities for PhD graduates’ transitions to and within the labour market demonstrating knowledge needs and skills matching. Higher education and especially PhD education needs to address those challenges, and one approach to do so is work-integrated learning (WIL).

WIL is an untapped resource for PhD graduates, as it is usually applied during undergraduate education. WIL in PhD education differs from WIL on bachelor and master level, due to the specificity of PhD projects and disciplines, as well as the expected responsibility and independence of PhD students compared to undergraduate students. Generic and specific skills are required in the labour market and PhD graduates must be ready to present and translate their skills to potential employers. WIL can provide improved networking skills with employers both inside and outside of academia, and better prepare PhD students for the transition to work after graduation.

We have developed a pilot course in Strategic career planning via work-integrated learning for PhD students. Based on preparatory workshops with PhD students and supervisors, the need for the course was evident. In the current interactive, hybrid course the participants come from different countries and disciplines and course is currently ongoing. Interactive pedagogical tools are applied in the course, such as Feedforward, Liberating Structures, Miro and FeedbackFruits.

As WIL in PhD education is novel, this presentation shows how WIL can be integrated in course design on PhD level, in a way that enhances PhD students´ career crafting, independence and skills matching for the labour market in various contexts. The intention of the course is also to ensure life to promote individuals´ lifelong ability to take responsibility for competence matching and transitions in working life, which is beneficial for their career, societal and industrial needs in a changing labour market.

When children have been separated from their families, interventions offered by child welfare services (CWS) to reunite the family arouse strong emotions in both the children and parents. Managing this reunification process and placing the child at the centre of this process place high demands on child welfare practitioners (CWPs). In trying to rebuild children’s relationships with their families, CWPs need to collaborate with the families and other professionals. Research, policy and concrete practical strategies are required to facilitate coordination of the efforts of the various municipalities as well as the other welfare services involved. Furthermore, researchers and policymakers are expected to inform their work and service improvement by drawing upon the experiences of children, families and professionals engaged in family reunification efforts, using a co-production approach. Co-production is proposed as a key strategy for accomplishing change and involving the child. There are several definitions of what constitutes co-production, and it is not without its challenges as there can be risks and negative consequences of co-production among participants. In this chapter, we explore co-production in the context of reunification strategies in CWS in Norway and Sweden. The focus on Norway and Sweden is based on the authors’ knowledge of the welfare systems in those two countries and provides a contextual framework to discuss possibilities and challenges in co-production in reunification services. The chapter is limited to children and their birth parents in Norway and Sweden; as such it does not cover unaccompanied children (refugees) with birth parents in other countries. We differentiate between involvement and co-production, as to be involved is to be consulted, whereas to co-produce is to be an equal partner and co-creator. Co-production requires management support and a clear strategy in addition to clear roles, mandates, and responsibilities, but also equal power and value of all participants’ knowledge in the co-production process. This can be especially true in vulnerable and complex situations, such as in reunification processes with child protective services. In this chapter, we discuss organisational possibilities in co-production in CWS, especially focusing on CWPs’ possibilities and challenges in co-production. Having CWPs as co-producers with families and children and young people alongside the requirements of co-production may be seen as impossible to achieve completely in CWS, but there are options to co-produce parts of the reunification process. The discussion is based on current research, policy, a and experience from practice.

Purpose – This paper explores theoretical perspectives on supervisors' pedagogical dilemmas when decidingwhether to terminate or continue problematic supervision relationships. This paper aims to unravel thecomplexities and challenges inherent in such decision-making processes while also discussing potentialsupport mechanisms for supervisors.

Design/methodology/approach – Adopting a reflective narrative approach, this paper presents a fictionalnarrative to illustrate the intricacies of doctoral supervision. The narrative is divided into three parts, eachfollowed by an analysis rooted in theoretical perspectives.

Findings – This article offers guidelines across individual, departmental and organisational levels to addresscritical moments in doctoral supervision. By incorporating various strategies and perspectives, it helps tounderstand the dilemmas that supervisors may encounter. A decision-making support guide is also provided tosuggest ways of handling these challenging situations.

Practical implications – Drawing from theoretical perspectives, this paper offers practical solutions. Asupervision support guide is developed to help establish support mechanisms at different levels, assistingsupervisors in managing critical moments in doctoral supervision.

Originality/value – Addressing a rarely discussed issue, this paper highlights the complexity of supervisors'decisions regarding the termination of PhD students. It not only sheds light on these difficult choices but alsooffers practical guidelines for supervisors navigating such scenarios.