From programs to profiles: a three-tier maturity model for work-integrated learning in Middle Eastern higher education

Purpose This article develops and applies a three-tier work-integrated learning (WIL) maturity model –basic, structured, embedded – across five capability dimensions (curriculum integration; employer engagement; quality assurance; inclusivity and equity; policy and governance) to profile program- and institution-level WIL in the Middle East. It explains discipline- and policy-contingent variation, identifies equity and governance as rate-limiting dimensions, and proposes a profile-based diagnostic that supports quality assurance and policy action without ecological fallacies. Design/methodology/approach A comparative multi-case document analysis was conducted on 62 undergraduate programs across six Middle Eastern countries (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Egypt) and five disciplinary fields (Engineering, Health Sciences, Business, ICT, Hospitality/Tourism). Documentary evidence was triangulated from handbooks, catalogues, institutional policies, accreditation standards and national strategies. A conservative rubric scored each program across five dimensions (1–3) to derive maturity indices and institutional profiles. Findings Maturity is multi-dimensional and uneven across and within institutions. Institutional profiles are frequently asymmetric, with programs in the same university occupying different tiers; the most common dips are in Inclusivity and Equity and Quality Assurance. Health and Engineering cluster higher where licensure or accreditation mandates structure, while ICT and Hospitality lag where governance and funding are fragmented. Progression toward Embedded practice occurs where reflective design and moderated assessment are institutionally standardized, partnerships are co-governed, and policy/funding are aligned; equity and governance typically act as rate-limiting constraints. Research limitations/implications Reliance on publicly available documents may overstate formal policy and understate implementation. The findings are not statistically generalizable; future research should validate a WIL maturity scale and link maturity profiles to learning and employment outcomes. Practical implications The model offers a diagnostic tool for agencies and institutions to identify dimension-specific gaps, embed WIL in QA and accreditation frameworks, fund stipends and SME incentives and standardize assessment through moderation and reflection. Social implications Equity mechanisms, such as stipends and placement guarantees, broaden access to WIL and mitigate advantage based on financial or social capital. Originality/value The article reframes WIL as an institutional learning capability, introducing a coherent, profile-based diagnostic validated through comparative MENA evidence to guide quality assurance, governance and policy reform.