Grantham University The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training Summary

User Generated

ubzrjbexpbafhgyvat

Writing

Grantham University

Description

Complete a one page summary on chapter 8 of the book that is attached

 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training The Wiley Handbooks in Education The Wiley Handbooks in Education offer a capacious and comprehensive ­overview of higher education in a global context. These state‐of‐the‐art volumes offer a magisterial overview of every sector, subfield, and facet of the discipline— from reform and foundations to K–12 learning and literacy. The Handbooks also engage with topics and themes dominating today’s educational agenda— mentoring, technology, adult and continuing education, college access, race, and educational attainment. Showcasing the very best scholarship that the discipline has to offer, The Wiley Handbooks in Education will set the intellectual agenda for scholars, students, and researchers for years to come. The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training by David Guile (Editor) and Lorna Unwin (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Early Childhood Care and Education by Christopher Brown (Editor), Mary Benson McMullen (Editor), and Nancy File (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning by Gene E. Hall (Editor), Donna M. Gollnick (Editor), and Linda F. Quinn (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions by Harvey Shapiro (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform by Kenneth J. Saltman (Editor) and Alexander Means (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education by Dennis Beach (Editor), Carl Bagley (Editor), and Sofia Marques da Silva (Editor) The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning by Scott Alan Metzger (Editor) and Lauren McArthur Harris (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Christianity and Education by William Jeynes (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Education by Marie Tejero Hughes (Editor) and Elizabeth Talbott (Editor) The Wiley International Handbook of Educational Leadership by Duncan Waite (Editor) and Ira Bogotch (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research by Meghan McGlinn Manfra (Editor) and Cheryl Mason Bolick (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of School Choice by Robert A. Fox (Editor) and Nina K. Buchanan (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Home Education by Milton Gaither (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Cognition and Assessment: Frameworks, Methodologies, and Applications by Andre A. Rupp (Editor) and Jacqueline P. Leighton (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology by Nick Rushby (Editor) and Dan Surry (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training Edited by David Guile and Lorna Unwin This edition first published 2019 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of David Guile and Lorna Unwin to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law. Registered Office(s) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA Editorial Office 101 Station Landing, Medford, MA 02155, USA For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data applied for [Hardback] 9781119098591 Cover image: © Hero Images/Getty Images Cover design by Wiley Set in 10/12pt Warnock by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India 10 9 ffirs.indd 4 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1/12/2019 9:54:11 AM v Contents Notes on Contributors ix Acknowledgments xvii 1 Introduction to the Handbook: Vocational Education and Training (VET) Theory, Practice, and Policy for a Complex Field of Inquiry 1 David Guile and Lorna Unwin Part I VET as an Evolving Concept 17 2 VET, Expertise, and Work: Situating the Challenge for the Twenty‐First Century 19 David Guile and Lorna Unwin 3 Vocational Education and the Individual 41 Stephen Billett 4 VET, HRD, and Workplace Learning: Where to From Here? 63 Paul Hager 5 Does Vocational Education Still Need the Concept of Occupation? 81 Alison Fuller 6 Knowledge, Competence, and Vocational Education 97 Leesa Wheelahan Part II The Political Economy of VET 113 7 Political Economy of Vocational Education and Training 115 Damian Oliver, Serena Yu, and John Buchanan 8 The Politics of Vocational Training: Theories, Typologies, and Public Policies 137 Marius R. Busemeyer and Christine Trampusch vi Contents 9 The Industrial Relations of Training and Development 165 Mark Stuart 10 Measuring Performance in Vocational Education and Training and the Employer’s Decision to Invest in Workplace Training 187 Samuel Muehlemann 11 Excluded Within the Inclusive Institution: The Case of Low‐Skilled, Low‐Wage Security Employees 207 Soon‐Joo Gog Part III Arrangements for VET 227 12 The Contested Evolution and Future of Vocational Education in the United States 229 Brian Durham and Debra D. Bragg 13 The Future of Vocational Education in Canadian Secondary Schools 251 Alison Taylor 14 The Interrelation of General Education and VET: Understandings, Functions, and Pedagogy 275 Vibe Aarkrog 15 The Sustainability of the Dual System Approach to VET 293 Thomas Deissinger 16 Duality and Learning Fields in Vocational Education and Training: Pedagogy, Curriculum, and Assessment 311 Matthias Pilz and Bärbel Fürstenau 17 VET Teachers and Trainers 329 Kevin Orr Part IV VET as a Developing Practice 349 18 The Learning Potential of Boundary Crossing in the Vocational Curriculum 351 Arthur Bakker and Sanne Akkerman 19 Designing Technology‐Enhanced Learning Environments in Vocational Education and Training 373 Carmela Aprea and Alberto A. P. Cattaneo Contents 20 VET as Lifelong Learning: Engagement With Distributed Knowledge in Software Engineering 395 Monika Nerland and Crina I. Damşa 21 Innovative Work‐Based Learning for Responsive Vocational Education and Training (VET): Lessons From Dutch Higher VET 415 Aimée Hoeve, Wietske Kuijer‐Siebelink, and Loek Nieuwenhuis 22 Capturing the Elusive: How Vocational Teachers Develop and Sustain Their Expertise 433 Janet H. Broad and Ann Lahiff Part V Challenges for VET 455 23 The Challenges VET Faces Through Its Intersection With Social Class, Gender, Ethnicity, and Race 457 Karen Evans 24 The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training in Skilling India 479 Tara Nayana and Sanath Kumar 25 Vocational Education and Training in Economic Transformation in China 495 Zhiqun Zhao and Yunbo Liu 26 Working with Historical, Cultural, and Economic Logics: The Case of Vocational Training in Argentina 513 Claudia Jacinto 27 The Evolution of Learning Regions: Lessons From Economic Geography for the Development of VET 531 Laura James Index 549 vii ix Notes on Contributors Vibe Aarkrog is Associate Professor in VET Pedagogy at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, in Aarhus, Denmark. Her research and ­publications concern the interrelation between the school‐based and workplace‐based parts of dual programs, transfer of training and learning, practice‐based t­eaching, ­simulation‐based learning, assessment of prior learning, and student dropout. Sanne Akkerman is Professor of Educational Science at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Her research interests include boundary crossing, ­dialogicality, identity, and interest development across contexts. In 2011, she published (with Arthur Bakker) a review study on boundary objects and boundary crossing in the Review of Educational Research, and guest‐edited a special issue on learning at the boundary in the International Journal of Educational Research. More recently, she expanded the boundary‐crossing framework to a multilevel conceptualization in an article with Ton Bruining in the Journal of the Learning Sciences. Carmela Aprea is Professor of Business and Economics Education at the University of Mannheim, Germany. Her research interests include c­ onnectivity and boundary‐crossing approaches in VET, learning and curriculum research in VET, technology‐enhanced learning in business and economics education, and resilience of VET teachers. She is the first editor of the International Handbook of Financial Literacy (Springer, 2016) and a member of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) International Network on Financial Education Research Committee. Arthur Bakker is Associate Professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, where he focuses on mathematics, statistics, and science education as well as vocational education. He worked with Sanne Akkerman on a project on boundary crossing between school and work, which led to a review study in the Review of Educational Research (2011). His research interests include boundary crossing, interest development, embodied design, design research, and learning theories. He is associate editor of Educational Studies in Mathematics. A book on design research in education for early‐career researchers is forthcoming. Stephen Billett is Professor of Adult and Vocational Education at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, and Australian Research Council Future Fellow. He has worked as a vocational educator, educational administrator, teacher x Notes on Contributors e­ ducator, professional development practitioner, and policy developer in the Australian vocational education system, and as a teacher and researcher at Griffith University. He is a Fulbright scholar, National Teaching Fellow, recipient of an honorary doctorate from Jyvaskala University in Finland, and elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences of Australia. Debra Bragg is director of Community College Research Initiatives at the University of Washington in Seattle, and founding director of the Office of Community College Research and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign in the United States. Her research focuses on youth and adult transitions. She has led many research projects on career and technical education and has received funding from the US Department of Labor and numerous philanthropic foundations. In 2015, she was named a Fellow of the American Educational Research Association. In November 2016, she received the Distinguished Career Award from the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Janet H. Broad is a Lecturer in Education and Professional Development at the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK. She is a teacher educator for the Further Education (FE) sector. Her research interests include the professional development of vocational teachers, both at the initial stages of their development and in their continuing professional development; the development of expertise; and the understanding of vocational knowledge. Her 2016 paper on vocational knowledge was awarded “Highly Commended” by the Journal of Vocational Education and Training. She is currently researching engineering pedagogy in project‐based collaborative learning at UCL with Dr. Ann Lahiff. John Buchanan is Chair of Discipline, Business Analytics, at the University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, Australia. He has had a long‐standing research interest in the evolution of the labor contract, working life transitions, and the dynamics of workforce development. His current role involves using data science to support the effective reform of vocational education in Australia. He is also helping to link Business School research and education activity with the transformation of health and well‐being in Western Sydney. He has produced many scholarly and policy research publications, the latest as editor (along with Chris Warhurst, Ken Mayhew, and David Finegold) of the Oxford Handbook of Skills and Training, published by Oxford University Press in 2017. Marius R. Busemeyer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. His research focuses on comparative political economy and welfare state research, education and social policy, public spending, theories of institutional change, and, more recently, public opinion on the welfare state. His recent publications include Skills and Inequality (Cambridge University Press – winner of the 2015 Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research), an edited volume (with Christine Trampusch) on The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (Oxford University Press), as well as a large number of journal articles in leadings outlets of the discipline. Notes on Contributors Alberto A. P. Cattaneo is Professor and Head of the Innovations in Vocational Education research field at the Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (SFIVET), Switzerland, where he also leads the Dual-T project. His main research interests are in the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in teaching‐and‐learning processes, reflective learning in VET, instructional design, multimedia learning (especially the use of hypervideos), teacher education, and teacher professional competence development. Crina Damşa is Associate Professor at the Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Her research focuses on student learning, design of learning environments, and use of digital‐material resources in higher education teaching and learning. Her work highlights learning through collaboration, inquiry‐ and research‐based activities, and connections of course design with pedagogical and disciplinary perspectives. Recent publications highlight ways of introducing students to the practices and knowledge of various domains (software engineering, teaching, and law) and how design for learning can foster student engagement and agentic conduct. Thomas Deissinger is Professor of Business and Economics Education at the University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. His research interests are in vocational training policy, comparative research, didactical issues such as modularization, and the history of VET. He has published papers on the VET systems in the UK, Australia, and Canada. He is currently researching VET teacher education in Ukraine. In May 2016, he received an honorary doctorate from Kiev National Economic University. Brian Durham is Deputy Director for Academic Affairs at the Illinois Community College Board in Springfield, Illinois, USA, which coordinates the 48 community colleges in Illinois, United States. Among other areas, he oversees program approval for the system, and he serves on the Illinois Workforce Innovation Board (IWIB), the IWIB Youth committee, and the IWIB Apprenticeship committee. He holds a BA and an MA in Political Science with an EdD from the University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, where he focused on Education Policy, Organization, and Leadership with a Higher Education concentration. His research interests include issues affecting community colleges, particularly as they pertain to closing equity gaps. Karen Evans is Emeritus Professor of Education at the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, and Honorary Professor in the Economic and Social Research Council Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES), London, UK. She is also Honorary Professor at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. She has conducted major studies of learning and working life in Britain and internationally. She coordinates an Asia‐Europe Research Network for Lifelong Learning. Her recent publications include the book How Non‐Permanent Workers Learn and Develop (Routledge), which she ­coauthored in 2018. xi xii Notes on Contributors Alison Fuller is Professor of Vocational Education and Work and Pro‐Director for Research and Development at the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK. She has been researching and publishing in the field of workplace learning, education (work transitions, apprenticeship, and vocational education), and training for over 25 years. She is a project leader in the ESRC Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES), London, UK, where she is researching employee‐driven innovation in the healthcare sector, and also undertaking comparative international research for Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) on adult apprentices. Bärbel Fürstenau is Chair of Business and Economics Education at TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. Her research interests focus on learning and teaching processes in initial vocational and technical education (both at schools and at the workplace), in further education, and in the field of personnel development. Specifically, she is concerned with developing and evaluating complex learning environments, such as case studies or management games. Furthermore, she analyzes how learning strategies such as concept mapping can support individuals in the development of complex knowledge. A very recent area of her research is financial literacy. Soon-Joo Gog is the Chief Futurist and Chief Research Officer at the Skills Future Singapore Agency, Singapore, and has held a number of posts in the Singapore government. She leads research and development projects in the areas of the future of work and future of learning. Her research interests include capitalism in the digital economy, new economy firms, skills ecosystems, and skills policies. Some of her more recent projects include the use of artificial intelligence (AI)‐enabled data to predict the impact of technological adoption on the organization of work and learning in workplaces, including in the gig economy. She was awarded her doctorate by the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK. David Guile is Professor of Education and Work at the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, where he is also Co‐Director of the Centre for Engineering Education and a project leader in the ESRC Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES). He is interested in the changing relationship between work, technology, and education and the implications for professional, vocational, and workplace learning. He is coeditor with Professor David Livingstone, University of Toronto, of the Sense Publishers series entitled Education and the Knowledge Economy. His book, The Learning Challenge of the Knowledge Economy, was published by Sense in 2010. Paul Hager is Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia. His major research focus has been the holistic seamless know‐ how that characterizes highly skilled performances of all kinds. This has generated research projects on topics such as informal workplace learning, professional practice (“professional” in its broadest sense), the nature of skills and competence, and group practice. In 2013, Educational Philosophy and Theory published a special issue celebrating Hager’s work. He is about to publish a book with David Beckett, provisionally titled The Emergence of Complexity: New Perspectives on Practice, Agency and Expertise. Notes on Contributors Aimée Hoeve is Senior Researcher at the Research Centre for Quality of Learning at the HAN University of Applied Sciences in Arnhem and Nijmegen in the Netherlands. Her research theme is designing learning environments and curricula at the school–work boundary in vocational and professional education, with a specific focus on workplace learning. Claudia Jacinto is a Principal Researcher at the National Council of Scientific Research at the Centro de Estudios Sociales, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is currently Coordinator of the Youth, Education and Employment Program (PREJET). Her research interests are in youth transitions from school to employment, technical and vocational education and training (TVET) and social justice, education and employment linkages, and the evaluation of skills development policies and programs. She has advised a number of international agencies, including IIEP‐ UNESCO (the International Institute for Educational Planning–United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the International Labor Organization (ILO), Save the Children, Norrag (Network for International Policies and Cooperation in Education and Training), and UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). Laura James is Associate Professor of Tourism Development and Regional Change at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. Her research interests include organizational learning and innovation, destination governance, regional policy, and tourism development. She has published in the fields of vocational education, regional studies, economic geography, human geography, and tourism and is currently working on projects about the development of food tourism in Scandinavia and about innovation in coastal tourism destinations in Northern Europe. Wietske Kuijer‐Siebelink is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Health and Social Studies and Senior Researcher at the Applied Research Centre for Public Affairs, HAN University of Applied Sciences, in Arnhem and Nijmegen in the Netherlands. She is currently working in the domain of interprofessional collaboration and education and the development of innovative work‐based learning in health and social studies in the Sparkcentres initiative. She graduated as a human movement scientist in 2002 and was awarded her PhD in Medical Sciences in 2005. Sanath Kumar was a Research Fellow at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India, from 1981 to 2013. His key areas of interest include elementary education and literacy, and vocational education and skill development. He specializes in large‐scale research studies and has been involved in consultancy projects for the World Bank and, in India, for the National Literacy Mission, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, and other state government agencies. Ann Lahiff is a Lecturer in Education at the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, and a member of the Centre for Engineering Education (CEE) at UCL. Working with vocational practitioners, Ann’s teaching and research have centered on the ways in which learning in and for the workplace can be understood xiii xiv Notes on Contributors and enhanced. She has focused specifically on the observation of vocational practice and the development of expertise. Current projects include Developing the Pedagogy of Project‐Based Collaborative Learning in Engineering Education and (with Lorna Unwin and Matthias Pilz) a comparative project on Apprenticeship in the Aircraft Industry in the UK and Germany. Yunbo Liu is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. She received her PhD from the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2012. She teaches and conducts research in the economics of vocational education and training and educational finance. She has been involved in many education policy developments and reform initiatives, including the Balanced Development for Provincial‐Level Coordination and Higher Vocational Education initiative. She has published more than 20 articles and book chapters in these areas. Samuel Muehlemann is a Professor of Human Resource Education and Development at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), Germany. Previously, he was the Deputy Head of the Centre for Research in Economics of Education and a lecturer at the Department of Economics at the University of Bern, Switzerland. In 2013–2014, he was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, USA; and in 2009, he was a visiting academic at King’s College London, UK. He is also a research fellow at IZA Bonn, Germany. Tara Nayana was a Professor at the Centre for Public Policy, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India, from 1986 to 2017. Her key areas of interest include elementary education and literacy, technical education, and vocational education and skill development. She held a Fulbright Post‑Doctoral Fellowship and was a Member of the Knowledge Commission of the Government of Karnataka. She has been a consultant to the World Bank and, in India, to the British High Commission and the National Literacy Mission, Ministry of Human Resources Development. Monika Nerland is Professor at the Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. She conducts research on professional learning in education and work, with a special focus on how ways of organizing knowledge and epistemic resources in expert communities provide distinct opportunities for learning and identity formation. She has conducted and led several research projects that investigated these themes comparatively across professions, including teaching, nursing, law, software engineering, and accountancy. She has coedited five books and published extensively in scientific journals on themes related to professional knowledge, expertise, and learning. Loek Nieuwenhuis is Professor of Professional Pedagogy at HAN University of Applied Sciences in Arnhem and Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and holds a chair at Welten‐institute, a research center for learning, teaching, and technology at the Dutch Open University, Heerlen, the Netherlands. His field of research and publication is vocational and professional education and lifelong learning. His main interests are workplace learning and learning for socioeconomic innovation. Notes on Contributors Damian Oliver is one of Australia’s leading labor market and VET researchers and a researcher in the Center for Business and Social Innovation at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia. He has a PhD in Industrial Relations from Griffith University, Australia, and degrees in Economics and Organizational Communication. He has delivered research projects and provided advice for many organizations, including the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), Eurofound, the Australian Departments of Employment and Education, and TAFE NSW (Technical and Further Education, New South Wales). His contribution to this Handbook is based mainly on research conducted while he was the leading Research Analyst and the Acting Director of the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney, Australia. Kevin Orr is Professor of Work and Learning at the University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK. He worked for 16 years in further education colleges, and that sector remains the focus of much of his research. He is currently leading a 3‐year project that is investigating subject‐specialist pedagogy in initial teacher education for teachers of vocational science, engineering, and technology in colleges. His most recent book, which he coedited with Maire Daley and Joel Petrie, is The Principal: Power and Professionalism in FE, published by Trentham Books in 2017. Matthias Pilz is Professor of Economics and Business Education at the University of Cologne and Director of the German Research Center for Comparative Vocational Education and Training, Cologne, Germany. Since 2010, he has also been Director of the Center for Modern Indian Studies at the University of Cologne. Prior to becoming an academic, he worked as a teacher at a Business College in Hannover, Germany, and was an advisor for European Union education projects in the district government of Hannover. His research interests are in international comparative research in VET, transitions from education to employment, and teaching and learning. Mark Stuart is the Montague Burton Professor of Human Resource Management and Employment Relations and Director of the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) at the University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. He has published widely on skills, restructuring, trade union–led learning, and the industrial relations of training. He is the past President of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) (2014–2016) and former Editor‐in‐ Chief of Work, Employment and Society. Alison Taylor is a Professor in Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Her research over the past decade has focused primarily on experiential learning and youth transitions from school to work. She recently completed a study of high school apprentices, documented in her 2016 book, Vocational Education in Canada (Oxford University Press). Her current research explores experiential learning in higher education and ­student work. Christine Trampusch holds the Chair of International Comparative Political Economy and Economic Sociology at the Cologne Center for Comparative Politics (CCCP), University of Cologne, Germany. She is a political scientist, and xv xvi Notes on Contributors her research covers studies on the social and political foundations of labor ­markets and financial markets in advanced capitalist democracies. Her findings have been published in various international peer‐reviewed journals. Her edited book, The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (with Marius Busemeyer), was published by Oxford University Press. Lorna Unwin is Professor Emerita (Vocational Education) at the UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, and Honorary Professor in the Economic and Social Research Council (LLAKES) Centre for Learning and Life Chances, London, UK. She is also Honorary Professorial Research Fellow, School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, and a Trustee of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). Her research interests include how people develop occupational expertise (both inside and outside the workplace), workplaces as learning environments, and the cultural, economic, and political history of vocational education and training in the United Kingdom. Leesa Wheelahan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, where she holds the William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership. She is interested in pathways within and between education and labor markets, tertiary education policy, vocational education and training, relations between colleges and universities, social justice and social inclusion, and the role of knowledge in curriculum in vocationally oriented qualifications. Serena Yu is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Australia. Prior to this, she was employed at the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney. Her research interests are public policy evaluation and applied microeconomics. Serena completed her PhD in 2015 at the University of Sydney, where she was awarded the Walter Noel Gillies Prize for Best PhD Thesis in Economics. Zhiqun Zhao is a Professor and the Head of the Institute of Vocational and Adult Education of the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. He received his doctorate from the University of Bremen, Germany. His research fields are qualification research and curriculum design in vocational education and training (VET), and implementation of professional competence assessment in vocational institutions. His latest international publication is Areas of Vocational Education Research, published by Springer. He has been involved in many research and exchange initiatives, including the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeships (INAP). xvii ­Acknowledgments Compiling a Handbook of this size and scope necessarily takes time and depends for its quality on the willingness of very busy scholars to accept the invitation to participate. We would like to express our thanks to all the contributors to this Handbook for their generosity and patience. We also want to thank our Project Editor at Wiley, Janani Govindankutty, for her encouragement and advice. 1 1 Introduction to the Handbook: Vocational Education and Training (VET) Theory, Practice, and Policy for a Complex Field of Inquiry David Guile1,2 and Lorna Unwin1,2 1 2 UCL Institute of Education Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) From creating and repairing the first artifacts for personal and communal use through to the Internet of Things, the capacity of human beings to transform the world around them, for better or worse, continues to be shaped by their partici‑ pation in social practices and learning, collectively and individually. Developing the expertise required to participate in work‐related activities engages people in diverse forms of learning in a wide range of spaces throughout their lives. These spaces include workplaces, workshops, classrooms, community and domestic spaces (including forms of transport), and the natural environment, and increas‑ ingly through interaction with digital technologies, including the Internet. For some people, the expertise they deploy for what they term work (whether paid or unpaid) may be very different from the expertise they deploy in their leisure time, whereas for others there may be a close connection. Regardless of what drives an individual or a group of people to develop exper‑ tise, they will at some point participate in vocational education and training (VET). This participation will range across a wide spectrum: from programs providing an initial introduction for school pupils, to what is sometimes naively referred to as “the world of work,” through to bespoke training organized by or for employers and self‐taught activity. In this way, VET embraces programs using work as their pretext, although treating it as a largely generic or abstract construct; programs that have a specific occupational focus and may lead to a license to practice; apprenticeships that combine education and training both in and away from the workplace; and work‐based learning of various types and duration triggered by changes and innovation in work processes. As a result, the relationship between VET and actual work practice varies considerably. VET is a complex and challenging field of inquiry precisely because it cannot be easily defined. By starting our introduction to this book with a deliberately unbounded ­perspective on VET, we want to signal the importance of viewing this field of The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training, First Edition. Edited by David Guile and Lorna Unwin. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2 David Guile and Lorna Unwin inquiry through a lens that is wide enough to capture both the “systems” approach and the theories, practices, and ideas that lie outside it. Indeed, the very acronym VET is problematic because it immediately suggests this Handbook is confined to analyses of different national systems for organizing formalized, regulated, and often government‐funded VET programs. Even more limiting, the acronym is often exclusively applied to education and training for young people as they make the transition from school to the labor market. In this way, VET becomes situated in a policy silo separated from, and sometimes deemed inferior to, so‐called academic education. Understanding the differences between the ways that countries have conceptualized VET over time and created the institutions, curricula, and pedagogies they regard as appropriate sheds valuable critical light on how VET is evolving (see, inter alia, Michelsen & Stenström, 2018). It can also identify effective practices and processes that can be shared across countries and occupational fields. In addition, as an instrument of government policy or an institution within a national system of education, VET becomes answerable to important questions about social justice (e.g., unequal patterns of access and outcomes according to gender, ethnicity, and social class). Heikkinen (2001) offers two compelling arguments for the continued importance of national case studies in VET research. First, they “may challenge the dominant a‐historical discourse in vocational education, which only advocates permanent change, its inevitability and progressivity”; and, second, historical, state‐based perspectives can paradoxically contribute a “progressive conservatism” in relation to defend‑ ing, respecting, and caring for longstanding practices (Heikkinen, 2001, p. 228). There is a balance to be struck so that VET is not solely regarded as an instru‑ ment of government policy and/or an institutional component of a country’s broader education system. Equal weight needs to be given to the conception of VET as a relational concept, which forms part of a dynamic interplay with the evolving organization and process of work, including the emergence of new occupations. The dominance of the systems‐based approach has meant that in much of the international research literature on education, VET has been ­separated from and positioned below “higher education” and “professional edu‑ cation,” despite their association with the development of expertise. This seg‑ mentation is perpetuated in policy documents issued by national governments and supranational agencies such as the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), World Bank, and European Commission. In recent years, a number of studies have acknowledged the related nature of a range of challenges, including the ethical and practical implications of climate change for continued industrialization and economic growth, the impact of ­digital technologies on employment, the work and health concerns of aging ­populations, the challenges facing young people entering and making progress in the labor market, and continuing inequality across the global economy (see, inter alia, King, 2017; Olsen, 2009; Piketty, 2013; Standing, 2011). Placing equal emphasis on both continuing and initial forms of VET is being advocated as a necessary strategy to ensure people can adapt and refresh their expertise at dif‑ ferent points in their lives in order to respond to changes in the labor market (see, inter alia, Bohlinger, Haake, Jorgensen, Toiviainen, & Wall, 2015; Field, Burke, & Cooper, 2013; Pilz, 2017). The predictions of the hourglass thesis that Introduction to the Handbook the growth in employment in advanced economies would increasingly occur at the top and bottom ends of the labor market have materialized to some extent in relation to Goos and Manning’s (2007) polarization of employment into “lovely” and “lousy” jobs, with a corresponding squeeze in what are classed as “intermediate” jobs. Yet there is also evidence that this thesis is problematic in relation to its classification of jobs according to (a) definitions of skill based on educational entry requirements, rather than on the actual range of skills required and used in the workplace; and (b) wage distributions. Lerman (2017) asks, “Are the skills required for a master carpenter in some sense lower than those required of elementary school teachers with BA degrees?” (p. 182; emphasis in original). In addition, he explains that the wage measure does not capture the wide ­distribution and overlapping of wages within occupations. On these grounds, the predicted decline in what are classified as intermediate‐level jobs and the ­homogeneity of the terms lovely jobs and lousy jobs become less reliable guides to the changing nature of work. In some occupational fields, including high‐status areas such as medicine and engineering, as well as in some service sectors, a more fluid division of labor is emerging. This has been stimulated partly by increasing project‐based and team‐ based forms of working and also by the realization in work‐intensive environ‑ ments that demarcations based on traditional hierarchies of who is “qualified” to perform certain tasks can and need to be challenged. This has resulted in some countries renaming VET, for example by (re)using the term technical education, and in the opening up of access for VET students to universities through the strengthening of VET qualifications and the creation of so‐called higher apprenticeships. There has also been a continuing debate about the concept and role of so‐called key competences in VET, and in education and training more broadly (alternative terms include generic, core, and transferable skills). Researchers have expressed mixed views as to whether they represent “an ineffective surrogate for general education and culture in vocational programmes” (Green, 1998, p. 23) or work in progress (Canning, 2007). The European Commission (2018) has declared that lifelong learning should impart eight key competences, which “can be applied in many different contexts and in a variety of combinations” deemed necessary for a “successful life” (p. 14). These competences cover literacy; languages; mathematics, science, technology, and engineering; digital competence; personal, social, and learning competence; civic competence; entrepreneurship competence; and cultural awareness and expression. The latter four categories of competence in this list are sometimes referred to as “soft” skills. Warhurst, Tilly, and Gatta (2017) argue their emer‑ gence reflects a longstanding shift toward a “social construction of skill” led by the rise of service sector employment. The OECD has enshrined the notion that work‐related cognitive and noncog‑ nitive competencies can be decontextualized and formally tested at an interna‑ tional level in its Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). PIAAC assesses the proficiency of 16–65‐year‐olds in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving, which the OECD (2016) argues are the “key information‐processing skills” that adults need to participate fully in all aspects of life in the twenty‐first century (p. 22). Scholars who have critiqued 3 4 David Guile and Lorna Unwin PIAAC and other international large‐scale assessments such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) raise a number of concerns about the ­universalizing tendency of the OECD’s interpretation of the concepts of ­competence and, more broadly, education (see, inter alia, Addey, Sellar, Steiner‐Khamsi, Lingard, & Verger, 2017; Avis, 2012; Hamilton, 2012; Lingard & Sellar, 2013; Takayama, 2013). Another problem is that the PIACC approach ­perpetuates the idea that learners automatically apply the skills they have developed in education in work contexts. This assumption overlooks processes through which skill is formed and developed contextually and, moreover, that when the organization of work changes, so do considerations about skill. Despite these concerns, the findings from the OECD’s assessment surveys and the subse‑ quent performance ranking of countries are exerting considerable influence on national governments. There has also been an attempt to develop an interna‑ tional assessment survey for VET (Achtenhagen & Winther, 2014). Developments such as the renaming of VET, the inclusion in VET curricula of key competencies, or attempts to align VET with higher education are often transitory for a range of conceptual, political, and context‐specific reasons. They are usually well intentioned, but often fail to engage in a sustainable way with the underlying challenge—how to support the development of expertise in ways that are both sustainable and flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances. Although there are significant continuities in the way work is organized and the way certain skills are developed, the division of labor is in a continual state of development in response to the forms of technological, economic, and cultural change associated with the rapid development of cognitive technologies and the digital linking of communication, resources, and logistics. As a result, the pro‑ cess of developing expertise in this new work context will create new patterns of and approaches to learning. There is a substantial international research literature covering the diverse and contested field of VET. This literature has emerged from different disciplinary fields and occupational contexts, and reflects a wide variety of conceptual and methodological approaches. As a result, it is scattered across journals and books, which attract their own readerships. Much of the literature reflects a westernized perspective, and so what counts as and is discussed in relation to vocational expertise, vocational learning, and occupational contexts is necessarily circum‑ scribed (Catts, Falk, & Wallace, 2011; Heikkinen & Lassnigg, 2015). However, it is striking that one of the most influential theoretical developments in the field of VET—situated learning within communities of practice—emerged from anthropological studies of craft apprenticeships in West Africa (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This contribution critiqued the dominant cognitivist conception of ­learning in which individuals were seen as passive receivers of (codified) knowl‑ edge from designated experts (teachers and trainers). Lave and Wenger (1991), however, introduced the idea that learning was a social process. They placed the apprentice as a learner at the center of a relational process that was shaped by participation in occupational practice and contributed to the reshaping of ­occupational contexts. In doing so, they opened the eyes of VET researchers (and researchers in fields, such as economic geography, human resource Introduction to the Handbook ­ evelopment [HRD], and organizational learning) to other theories of learning d or practice‐based theories that imply a social theory of learning. We return to this observation later. Situated learning theory has itself been critiqued, particu‑ larly for underplaying the in‐built conservatism of and power relations within communities, for the role of experts in challenging existing practice, and for val‑ orizing participation at the expense of questioning what is being learned (see, for detailed reviews, Fuller, Hodkinson, Hodkinson, & Unwin, 2005; Guile, 2010; Hughes, Jewson, & Unwin, 2007). This questioning of the nature of learning in the field of VET reflects the desire to conceptualize and gather empirical data identifying the dynamic nature of the ways in which expertise is developed, utilized, and reformed. Moreover, it demonstrates a fundamental dissatisfaction with attempts to align VET too closely with learning theories that continue to underpin the way (formal) general education is still organized in much of the world, or to reduce the complexity of learning associated with VET to rhetorical notions, such as “learning from ­experience” or “learning by doing” (Unwin et al., 2008). There are multiple demands on VET. These include meeting the skills needs of employers and nation states, addressing concerns about providing a safety net for young people at risk of unemployment, and offering a vehicle for remedial education for young people and adults. Winch (2000) argues that “a prime aim of vocational education is personal development and fulfillment through work for all citizens if they so wish it” (p. 36; see also Gonon, 2009; Tyson, 2016). The more VET is required to fulfill and sustain the role of general education beyond formal schooling, the further it drifts away from the very source that ensures it can remain vital in people’s lives and sustain the socioeconomic and cultural well‐being of society. VET and work form a symbiotic relationship. This means that VET can certainly provide the means for individuals to critique the nature of work at the same time as the means for individuals to shape work. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest and growth in ­multidisciplinary research, and this has encouraged scholars to cross intellectual boundaries in an attempt to develop more integrated analyses of the complex and dynamic field of VET. This research feeds into a number of different debates about the role of VET in the education systems of nation states and in relation to rapid changes (and often neglected continuities) in workplace technologies and work organization. These debates are multifaceted. Sometimes, they have a spec‑ ulative dimension with contributors arguing for fresh thinking about the concept of VET or subsidiary concepts that underpin VET (i.e., occupation). Sometimes, they have an avowedly critical stance vis‐à‐vis developments that contributors believe have a negative impact on VET, especially when those developments have been associated with what are regarded as flawed government initiatives to make VET ever more relevant to employers and learners. In contrast, there has been a longstanding debate about the political economy of VET. Traditionally, this debate (in fields such as political economy, labor ­process, and industrial sociology) focused on the variety of historical, economic, social, and political forces that have shaped the dominant human capital ­conception of VET in different countries. This debate has, however, branched 5 6 David Guile and Lorna Unwin out in new ways in recent years as contributors have drawn inspiration from developments in political economy, for example varieties of capitalism and skills ecosystems, or from extant literatures that offer alternatives to human capital theory (HCT), such as in the capabilities approach, to rethink how to support the economic needs of individuals, employers, and nation states. Both debates have different degrees of influence on the modifications or changes that have occurred in the different national arrangements for VET, for example revisions to “systems” in response to technological change and increased amounts of ­general education in relation to concerns about citizenship. The aim of this Handbook, therefore, is to provide a critical guide to the differ‑ ent ways in which VET has been and continues to be (re)conceptualized and (re) configured over time. To that end, we commissioned scholars working from ­different theoretical perspectives to write essays exploring a set of key themes that are central to debates about how the concept and practice of VET have developed over time and continue to develop in different ways both across and within countries. ­Structure of the Book We have structured the book around five broad themes: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● VET as an evolving concept The political economy of VET Arrangements for VET Developing practices in VET Challenges for VET. Using these themes provided us with a framework for assembling a Handbook with the necessary intellectual and empirical scope to consider the following questions: 1) Which theories and concepts can help us to understand the meaning of VET as a vehicle for the development of expertise, and how is that meaning e­ volving over time? 2) How have those theories and concepts contributed to the different ways in which VET is manifested around the world? 3) What is the relationship between VET and the political economy imperatives that drive policymaking in different countries, and what are the consequences for individuals, employers, and society at large? 4) How does VET develop expertise in an age of considerable change in work processes, work organization, and occupational identities; and how might it maintain a close relationship with work in general? 5) How might we characterize the different models of learning used in VET, and to what extent do they reflect VET’s troubled relationship with general education? 6) What characterizes VET pedagogy, curriculum design, and approaches to learning? 7) What are the continuing challenges for VET? Introduction to the Handbook These themes and questions necessarily overlap. Given our earlier plea for the need to take a more eclectic perspective when researching and discussing VET, it could be argued that we are contradicting ourselves by using a segmented approach. Our defense would be that the complexity of the VET landscape, both conceptually and internationally, means some clustering of the chapters is required. However, we are fully aware that other configurations may have been equally valid. VET as an Evolving Concept The five chapters in Part I explore some of the underlying theories and concepts that help to explain how VET continues to evolve in different ways both within and across national boundaries. As editors, we begin this process (Chapter 2) with a chapter that argues for a prospective expertise‐based approach to VET in contrast to the existing skills‐based retrospective approach, which has come to dominate VET research and policymaking. The chapter draws on sociocultural theories of learning and insights from communication studies. Through a dis‑ cussion of the impact of IT platforms, artificial intelligence, and the increasing economic importance of “intangible assets” on work processes and conceptions of expertise, we show how a close relationship to future work practice is vital to ensure VET can sustain its important role in the development of expertise. Drawing on the work of the American philosopher John Dewey (1916), Stephen Billett uses the distinction between the “social” and “personal” to discuss how the origins and purposes of VET emerged and changed across countries. His essay (Chapter 3) argues that although VET is always shaped by institutional factors, the individual learner has to be placed at the center of our deliberations in order to understand the efficacy and continuity of VET through the individual’s engage‑ ment with the “intended,” “enacted,” and “experienced” curriculum. He also fol‑ lows Dewey and argues that individuals first choose an “occupation,” which then becomes their “vocation,” but adds that it is an individual’s “personal bases” that act to sustain and transform their capacities across working life. Accepting that the concept of occupation is central to theoretical understand‑ ings of VET, the next two chapters focus on the way VET reflects the occupa‑ tional structures in societies. Paul Hager (Chapter 4) explores how, as a result of industrialization and the growth of specialist occupations as well as more nar‑ rowly conceived job roles, VET began to cater to occupational levels both above the traditional apprenticeship level and below it. Classroom‐based VET expanded, but the growth of HRD also meant that VET could contribute to the growth of short‐cycle training within workplaces. Hager argues that these shifts over time have raised profound questions about how occupational expertise is developed and supported. In doing so, he provides a critique of the concept of competence‐based training and increasing privatization of VET. His concern is to reconnect VET with more holistic understandings of competence that better reflect highly skilled occupational performance. Alison Fuller (Chapter 5) also sets her discussion in the context of occupational change. She argues that in the context of the shift to mass higher education in many countries, publicly funded VET (including apprenticeship) needs to generate hybrid benefits to ensure it 7 8 David Guile and Lorna Unwin can be an effective vehicle for the achievement of occupational expertise and educational progression. These chapters raise questions, therefore, about the conceptualization of the processes and outcomes of VET and how and whether they can be nurtured and sustained. As Hager discusses, over the past 30 or so years, a competence‐based approach has been introduced in some national VET systems and is being advo‑ cated by policymakers internationally, although the interpretation of the term competence is highly contested (see, inter alia, Brockmann, Clarke, & Winch, 2011; Mulder, 2017) in the research literature. Leesa Wheelahan (Chapter 6) continues Hager’s theme with a critical analysis of the concept of competence, based on the sociology of Basil Bernstein. Wheelahan argues that VET learners must be given access to the predetermined disciplinary knowledge they need to participate in debates and controversies in society and in their occupational field of practice. In doing so, she moves the discussion of the purpose of a (for‑ mal) VET curriculum away from its relationship with occupational formation and toward the type of knowledge she argues should be included in such a cur‑ riculum. This debate is further pursued in Part III of this Handbook, where authors explore the role of general education in VET programs for young peo‑ ple. Vocational knowledge is, however, a multifaceted, dynamic, and life‐wide concept. It is explored further in Chapters 18 and 20, and by Broad and Lahiff in Chapter 22. The Political Economy of VET As we noted earlier in this chapter, varying forms of and approaches to VET have evolved over time across the world. This variety reflects historical, economic, social, and political forces. Given VET’s close relationship with the economic needs of individuals, employers, and nation states, it is not surprising that it has become a subject of inquiry in the fields of political economy, labor process, and industrial sociology. In Part II, four chapters draw on a range of theoretical and conceptual tools to examine different aspects related to the political economy of VET. A fifth chapter provides a case study from Singapore of the impact on a specific group of low‐grade workers of that country’s attempt to introduce a national skills policy. Damian Oliver, Serena Yu, and John Buchanan (Chapter 7) begin Part II with a critical review of various political economy approaches, including HCT, in order to better understand the role of and challenges for VET in changing socioeconomic circumstances. They offer an alternative framework for understanding employer behavior and human development in relation to VET, drawing on (neo)institutional theories, in particular the skills ecosystem approach and the capabilities approach. Busemeyer and Trampusch (Chapter 8) then provide a critical review of the major concepts and findings from the com‑ parative political economy literature, including the Varieties of Capitalism approach; the politics of VET; and the development of different types of skill formation systems. They discuss the increasing and significant challenge of labor migration for policymaking. Their chapter reminds us of the central, but often overlooked, role of the political decision‐making processes in vocational training (VT) policies, including party politics and policy legacies. Introduction to the Handbook Mark Stuart (Chapter 9) continues the discussion about employer behavior and policymakers’ increasing attempts to improve productivity with a discussion focused on the connections between training and development and industrial relations. His chapter examines the conceptual underpinnings of the industrial relations of training, and argues that the struggle to achieve “mutual gains” for the social partners involved is becoming more and more challenging for all coun‑ tries. The impact of the international financial crisis of 2008, including high youth unemployment rates, continues to be felt within many countries. Many governments are seeking ways to encourage more employers to support work‐ based VET. As a consequence, greater attention is being paid to the measure‑ ment of VET performance in the economic literature. Samuel Muehlemann (Chapter 10) reviews, from a business perspective, the theoretical approaches to and types of datasets required for measuring the costs and benefits of investing in training and how they relate to employers’ decisions to engage in VET‐related activities. He argues that a more dynamic perspective is required to capture the long‐term effects of continuing VET as opposed to the current tendency to measure short‐term performance in employees’ current job roles. Soon‐Joo Gog (Chapter 11) concludes this part with a critique of Singapore’s concept of the “developmental state.” This highlights the considerable challenges all govern‑ ments face in making continuing VET accessible for adults through the life‑ course. She illustrates her argument with a case study of workers in the Singapore private security services industry. This challenges the supply‐side focus of Singapore’s national skills strategy and rhetoric of inclusiveness, which fail to tackle structural problems in the labor market and workplace. Arrangements for VET As we noted earlier in this chapter, VET is often associated with particular national systems of education and training, yet there are arrangements for VET that cut across those systems and, hence, give VET a universality that is often overlooked in the research literature. In Part III, six chapters approach this theme from a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Within all these chapters and across the Handbook more generally, readers will find references to specific arrangements regarding the design of VET curricula, approaches to ped‑ agogy and assessment, and the involvement of stakeholders in the architecture of national systems. Brian Durham and Debra Bragg (Chapter 12) begin Part III with an essay that places the evolution of VET in the United States in historical context to explain the shift to what is now known as career and technical educa‑ tion. They discuss the legislative struggles to establish VET within the public‐ funded education system and the continued demands from citizens for access to a form of learning that is now outperforming general education in relation to employment prospects and wage premia. Alison Taylor (Chapter 13) also deploys a historical framework to trace the development of vocational education in Canadian secondary schools from the late 1800s to the present. She discusses how concerns about meeting the needs of an industrializing economy gave rise to technical and vocational education programs at the start of the twentieth ­century that were recognized to be class‐specific and class‐defining. In contrast, 9 10 David Guile and Lorna Unwin the turn of the twenty‐first century, with its shift from a manufacturing‐based to a service‐based economy and associated focus on the needs of a so‐called ­knowledge economy, has led to a renewed focus on the potential of a unified cur‑ riculum to break down the division between academic and vocational learning. VET’s relationship to general education continues to be the subject of debate in research, policy, and practice in many countries. Vibe Aarkrog (Chapter 14) dis‑ cusses how this debate necessarily involves developing an understanding about the functions of general education (including, for example, to provide a platform for further progression in education and work and for citizenship) as well as the pedagogical principles that might support a better interrelation between VET and general education. She illustrates her essay with a review of the various reforms to VET in Denmark, and the implications for teacher training when the proportion of general education in VET is increased, as many teachers are required to develop practice‐based pedagogies. The dual‐system approach used in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria has long been internationally regarded as a highly effective model of VET, yet it too has been coming under pressure: (a) in terms of the reduction in the number of employers willing to recruit apprentices; and (b) in the light of demands for the further expansion of higher education. Thomas Deissinger (Chapter 15) examines how the dual system, with its combi‑ nation of part‐time vocational and general education and workplace learning, is responding to the challenge of a drift toward academization, even though the model is still valued as providing a highly effective transition pathway to the labor market for school leavers. Remaining in the context of the dual system, Matthias Pilz and Bärbel Fürstenau (Chapter 16) explore the concepts of duality and “learning fields” in relation to VET pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment. In doing so, they highlight the key challenges that are of relevance to not only Germany but also other countries. These include the relationship between theory and practice, the shift away from a subject‐led approach, the implications for curriculum development and teach‑ ing and learning processes of using different locations, and the use of technology in VET assessment. As this chapter shows, the demands on VET teachers and trainers are considerable, yet surprisingly, they have been overlooked in the research literature. Kevin Orr (Chapter 17) reviews the literature that does focus on teachers and trainers and is able to show that, although national VET systems vary greatly, common themes emerge, including the experiences of change in those systems and continued weak social status. He argues that the position and role of VET teachers and trainers are best understood regarding how they relate to society and the economy and how those relationships determine their ­professional autonomy. VET as a Developing Practice We noted in this chapter that Lave and Wenger’s (1991) argument that learning is a social process had exercised a direct and indirect influence on VET researchers: in the case of the former, leading researchers to draw explicitly on their theory or alternative social theories of learning, for example cultural‐historical activity the‑ ory (CHAT), to investigate different aspects of VET‐related learning; and, in the Introduction to the Handbook case of the latter, alerting them to the value of practice‐based theories or con‑ cepts, for example actor–network theory and epistemic objects, as resources for exploring learning in VET. The five chapters addressing different innovations in VET in Part IV exemplify that continuing influence in different ways. Arthur Bakker and Sanne Akkerman (Chapter 18) argue that what is distinc‑ tive about vocational curricula, and by extension vocational knowledge, is that it comprises a course of learning across different school‑ and work‐based prac‑ tices. Elaborating and extending work originally undertaken in CHAT (Tuomi‐ Gröhn & Engeström, 2003), they conceptualize the practice of moving between school‐based and workplace‐based forms of VET learning as a boundary‐­ crossing process. Bakker and Akkerman argue that the sociocultural differences inherent in these settings lead to discontinuity in action and interaction, which are portrayed in the literature and in policy documents as problematic. They challenge that view by showing how the use of boundary analyses might lead to a more fruitful means for addressing the much‐discussed theory–practice gap in VET and, thus, assist learners to begin to develop their vocational or practice‐ based knowledge. Carmela Aprea and Alberto Cattaneo (Chapter 19) continue the theme of boundary crossing with an analysis of how digital technologies can be used to effectively support learning and teaching processes in VET, including in the context of simulations, which play a significant role in VET programs in a range of occupational fields. They discuss the potential and affordances of tech‑ nologies as a means to connect different learning locations and provide a set of examples of prototypical uses of several technologies as boundary‐crossing tools. In doing so, Aprea and Cattaneo remind us that learning technologies are ­doubly embedded (a) in their context‐of‐use, and (b) in the assumptions that VET ­practitioners make about learning. As such, both influence the way technol‑ ogy is deployed to support the process and outcome of boundary crossing. Part IV then turns to two models of VET, which are derived from work practice and have a clear future‐oriented perspective. Monika Nerland and Crina Damşa (Chapter 20) conceptualize VET as a lifelong process that encompasses educa‑ tional and work‐related activities. They employ the concepts of epistemic objects and practices as analytical lenses to show how students and professional practi‑ tioners in the field of software engineering in Norway access knowledge resources, explore and construct knowledge, and pursue learning opportunities as part of problem‐solving and boundary‐crossing activities. They argue that models for professional development should be reconsidered in recognizing the role that self‐initiated learning plays for newcomers and professionals alike, especially since professional networks increasingly offer a rich array of resources to support the development of practice‐based knowledge. Aimée Hoeve, Wietske Kuijer‐Siebelink, and Loek Nieuwenhuis (Chapter 21) are concerned with the challenge of increasing the responsiveness of VET, which they define as its ability to interpret socioeconomic and technological developments in the context of curriculum design and pedagogy. They draw on case study research in the Netherlands in the context of work‐based learning in higher professional educa‑ tion (HPE), where the challenge is to enable HPE to build regional networks and participate in regional innovation. Thus, they implicitly echo, although with a different lexicon, Oliver, Yu, and Buchanan’s (Chapter 7) argument about the 11 12 David Guile and Lorna Unwin importance of developing regional skills ecosystems, and they anticipate some of the ideas contained by Laura James (Chapter 27) and discussed in the “Challenges for VET” section of this chapter. We end Part IV by returning to vocational teachers. In their chapter, Janet Hamilton Broad and Ann Lahiff (Chapter 22) explore how vocational teachers’ expertise is used, developed, and sustained (over time) in practice. They argue that this is a complex, diffuse, and largely hidden process, residing either within the individual as personal expertise and/or within networks as shared vocational knowledge. They employ two different but complementary research methodolo‑ gies (CHAT and actor–network theory) as analytical lenses to explore and make visible the phenomenon of vocational practice in action. Challenges for VET Part V of the Handbook provides four perspectives on the ways in which VET currently interacts with socioeconomic, cultural, and political continuities and change, and one perspective that adopts a prospective view of VET as an enabler of regional regeneration. As we noted earlier in this chapter, VET is often seen as the solution to both social and economic problems and judged accordingly. Karen Evans (Chapter 23) discusses how the social processes associated with gender, ethnicity, and social class are manifested in VET and how they are medi‑ ated by the structural, cultural, institutional, and labor market formations in which they are embedded. She argues that understanding how VET constitutes part of the problem as well as the potential solution should lead to a more realis‑ tic appraisal of the scope for VET to make a difference. Part V then continues with three chapters focusing on the role of VET in India, China, and Argentina. All three countries face acute challenges in relation to ensuring their large populations are equipped with the expertise necessary to achieve the social and economic goals they have set. Tara Nayana and Sanath Kumar (Chapter 24) examine these challenges in the context of India, where the aim is to create a vibrant interface between VET and the needs of industry in order to achieve a competitive advantage at the international level. Zhiqun Zhao and Yunbo Liu (Chapter 25) write from the context of China, which has entered a new stage of economic transformation and, as a result, has attached renewed importance to VET. The number of vocational education institutions and stu‑ dents is rising rapidly, creating major challenges in relation to the administration of VET, the allocation of funds, and teaching and learning. Claudia Jacinto (Chapter 26) analyzes developments in what is termed vocational training (VT) in Argentina. She argues that VT does not comprise a harmonious, integrated system, but a complex set of public and private actions responding to different demands and segments of the labor market. Part V finishes with an exploration of theories and concepts from the field of economic geography and their implications for VET. Laura James (Chapter 27) sets her discussion in the context of an emerging debate about the importance of linking policies for innovation and regional economic development to policies for VET. Her chapter therefore offers a complementary perspective to that of Hoeve, Kuijer‐Siebelink, and Nieuwenhuis (Chapter 21). James focuses on the Introduction to the Handbook key concept of learning regions. Using a practice‐based perspective, she shows how VET research might forge a fruitful relationship with disciplinary fields with common, but often unacknowledged, cognate interests. This could further encourage the necessary connections that need to be made between diverse the‑ ories, policies, and practices in ways to enable geographical regions to actively shape their futures. ­Toward a Prospective VET Research Agenda This Handbook cannot and does not claim to be comprehensive in its scope, but rather to present a collection of authoritative essays on VET by leading and emerging international scholars. The detailed nature of the essays means that readers are provided with a wealth of references to other significant research and policy literature that it has not been possible to include in this volume. The essays reveal the richness of VET as a contested and evolving field of intellectual inquiry and its continued importance across the world. They also reflect differ‑ ing ways to conceptualize, analyze, and evaluate the purposes, practices, and outcomes of VET. The five parts offer a mix of theoretical, policy, and practice‐ based insights into VET as an evolving concept; the political economy of VET; arrangements for and innovations in VET; as well as some of the challenges facing VET. We nevertheless acknowledge that it has not been possible given the scope of this volume to provide an internationally comprehensive collection. Key omissions include perspectives from African and Middle Eastern countries. This is partly in the case of the former because, as McGrath (2012) notes, “Whilst there have continued to be both policy and academic developments in VET in OECD countries; in the South there has been a paucity of VET research and little in the way of theoretical exploration” (p. 623). The Handbook is writ‑ ten in English, and most of the research cited in the chapters has been published in English. This necessarily begs the question as to how much valuable research remains untapped. We hope, however, that many of the arguments and proposals found in this Handbook will cross international boundaries and resonate with researchers, students, VET practitioners, employers, and policymakers. A key argument is that VET is multifaceted, multidimensional, and context‐specific. Successful ­features found in one context are not necessarily replicable nor should be ­conceived of as being replicable or scalable in another context. Another is that VET supports entry into and sustains people’s capacity for working in a diver‑ sity of “combinational” or “layered” economies, in other words, economies char‑ acterized by both continuity and change. These economies cover traditional and niche‐craft work, mass and diversified production and services, and co‐ and social production. In all, recent technological developments exist alongside ear‑ lier developments, and people cross boundaries in ways that are not captured by many of the classification systems used to describe and measure work practice. A further message is that policymakers need to be very cautious about ­positioning and then judging VET as the solution to social and/or economic problems. Doing so downplays the considerable contribution VET makes in 13 14 David Guile and Lorna Unwin many countries and further renders invisible the understanding that the devel‑ opment of expertise is developed through a relational and dynamic interplay of a range of factors. One of the goals of the Handbook has been to open up the field of VET research in three key ways. First, the Handbook explores the evolving and diverse charac‑ ter of VET within and across a range of contexts in an attempt to overcome the siloization we commented on earlier. Second, it encourages VET researchers to revisit and take a fresh look at the relationship between VET and work in the light of advances in digitization, new forms of work process, and the disruption of occupational boundaries. Third, it draws on the insights of scholars working in a range of disciplinary fields whose research tends to be published outside the mainstream VET journals. We hope that the collective insights provided throughout this Handbook will assist researchers, policymakers, and practition‑ ers to develop what we referred to earlier in this chapter as a “prospective” approach to VET (which we discuss in detail in Chapter 2). This is in line with Heikkinen’s (2001, p. 228) caution against the tendency in VET to either continu‑ ally reaffirm the validity of an ahistorical discourse, which advocates permanent change, or describe and defend state‐based perspectives. This shift in focus will hopefully lead to a new balance being struck where VET is understood, first, as a relational concept that forms part of a dynamic interplay with the evolving organization and process of work, including the emergence of new occupations; and, second, as an instrument of government policy and/or an institutional com‑ ponent of a country’s broader education system to support the above vision. The first step toward realizing this vision, as we argue in Chapter 2, may involve replacing the concept of “skill” with the concept of “expertise” in VET research, practice, and policy. ­References Achtenhagen, F., & Winther, E. (2014). Workplace‐based competence measurement: Developing innovative assessment systems for tomorrow’s VET programmes. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 66(3), 281–295. Addey, C., Sellar, S., Steiner‐Khamsi, G., Lingard, B., & Verger, A. (2017). The rise of international large‐scale assessments and rationales for participation. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(3), 434–452. Avis, J. (2012). Introduction: Globalised reconstructions of vocational education and training. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(1), 1–11. Bohlinger, S., Haake, U., Jorgensen, C. H., Toiviainen, H., & Wall, A. (Eds.) (2015). Working and learning in times of uncertainty. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Brockmann, M., Clarke, L., & Winch, C. (Eds.) (2011). Knowledge, skills and competence in the European labour market. London, UK: Routledge. Canning, R. (2007). Reconceptualising core skills. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 20(1), 17–26. Catts, R., Falk, I., & Wallace, R. (2011). Vocational learning: Innovative theory and practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Introduction to the Handbook Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. European Commission (2018). Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Field, J., Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.) (2013). The SAGE handbook of ageing, work and society. London, UK: Sage. Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–68. Gonon, P. (2009). The quest for modern vocational education. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Goos, M., & Manning, A. (2007). Lousy jobs and lovely jobs: The rising polarization of work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 118–133. Green, A. (1998). Core skills, key skills and general culture: In search of the common foundation in vocational education. Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(1), 23–43. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Hamilton, M. (2012). Literacy and the politics of representation. London, UK: Routledge. Heikkinen, A. (2001). The transforming peripheries of vocational education: Reflections from the case of Finland. Journal of Education and Work, 14(2), 227–250. Heikkinen, A., & Lassnigg, L. (Eds.) (2015). Myths and brands in vocational education. Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (Eds.) (2007). Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. King, S. D. (2017). Grave new world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lerman, R. I. (2017). Skills development in middle‐level occupations. In C. Warhurst, K. Mayhew, D. Finegold, & J. Buchanan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of skills and training (pp. 180–200). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). Globalisation and sociology of education policy: The case of PISA. In R. Brooks, M. McCormack, & K. Bhopal (Eds.), Contemporary debates in the sociology of education (pp. 19–38). London: Palgrave Macmillan. McGrath, S. (2012). Vocational education and training for development: A policy in need of a theory? International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 623–631. Michelsen, S., & Stenström, M. (Eds.) (2018). Vocational education in the Nordic countries: The historical evolution. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Mulder, M. (2017). Competence‐base vocational and professional education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Olsen, L. (2009). The employment effects of climate change and climate responses: A role for international labour standards? (GURN Discussion Paper No. 12). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office. Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) (2016). Skills matter: Further results from the survey of adult skills (OECD Skills Studies). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. 15 16 David Guile and Lorna Unwin Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty‐first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pilz, M. (2017). Vocational education and training in times of economic crisis. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Takayama, K. (2013). OECD, ‘key competencies’ and the new challenges of educational inequality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 67–80. Tuomi‐Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.) (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary‐crossing. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Pergamon. Tyson, R. (2016). The didactics of vocational Bildung: How stories matter in VET research. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 68(3), 359–377. Unwin, L., Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Jewson, N., Kakavelakis, K., Lee, T., & Butler, P. (2008). Worlds within worlds: The relationship between context and pedagogy in the workplace. In W. . J. Nijhof, & L. . F. . M. Nieuwenhuis (Eds.), The learning potential of the workplace (pp. 129–140). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Warhurst, C., Tilly, C., & Gatta, M. (2017). A new social construction of skill. In C. Warhurst, K. Mayhew, D. Finegold, & J. Buchanan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of skills and training (pp. 72–91). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Winch, C. (2000). Education, work and social capital: Towards a new conception of vocational education. London, UK: Routledge. 17 Part I VET as an Evolving Concept 19 2 VET, Expertise, and Work: Situating the Challenge for the Twenty‐First Century David Guile1,2 and Lorna Unwin1,2 1 2 UCL Institute of Education Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) ­Introduction Vocational education and training (VET) has become internationally synony‑ mous with the initial formation of intermediate‐level skills aligned to national economic priorities. Paradoxically, this has disconnected VET from its central role in the development of expertise in terms of people’s lives, their workplace activity, and society more generally. The development of models of learning to facilitate the development of expertise, whether in the context of paid or unpaid work or in relation to leisure pursuits, predates the introduction of nation states (Coy, 1989). There have, of course, been innumerable benefits from the introduction of national systems of education; however, VET has paid a price for becoming overly institutionalized within national education and training systems. The human capital consensus, shared by policymakers across the world since the 1960s, is that qualifications (whether academic or vocational) are proxy measures for the expertise (expressed as skills) employers are looking for when they recruit new workers (see Oliver et al., Chapter 7). The curriculum of VET programs has come to be expressed in the language of measurable skills and competences designed to lead to standardized accreditation. This has led both researchers and policymakers to focus much of their attention on topics such as the comparative study of national “stocks” of skills, participation and achieve‑ ment rates in VET programs, the alignment of qualification frameworks, and the development of hybrid models to bridge the academic‐vocational divide. Hence, the emphasis has been on the supply of skills, with much less attention being paid to the critical issue of skills utilization, which is the ways in which employers are willing and/or able to create the conditions in which people can deploy their expertise (see, inter alia, Felstead, Fuller, Jewson, & Unwin, 2009; Livingstone, 2018; OECD, 2017). Considerable attention is also paid to social justice issues in The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training, First Edition. Edited by David Guile and Lorna Unwin. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 20 David Guile and Lorna Unwin relation to access to occupations and the promotion of VET as a “pathway” for young people who underachieve in compulsory schooling or are regarded as vulnerable as they make the transition from school to the labor market ­ (see Evans, Chapter 23). Thus, VET has become primarily conceptualized, studied, and evaluated through an educational lens. As a consequence, work has become the servant of VET rather than its inspiration. Work and workplaces are still seen to be valuable for providing opportunities for VET students to practice or for teachers and trainers to update their own expertise, but these opportunities are framed within the requirements of VET programs and/or professional regulations. This inver‑ sion can also be seen in research studies based in disciplines such as labor eco‑ nomics, sociology of work, and political economy. Although the perspective is intended to be on changing patterns in workplaces and industrial sectors, we find the research agenda is often framed within a human capital paradigm in which skills are decontextualized, counted, and critiqued in relation to individual well‐ being (as in the deskilling thesis) or national economic performance. This gener‑ ates a path dependency approach to both the study and policy understanding of the relationship between skills, occupations, and industries. We are not disputing that the issues outlined here are worthy of research and policy attention. Our concern is that their dominance has meant that research and policymaking have become overly retrospective as opposed to prospective with regard to the relationship between VET, expertise, and work. What is ­missing is an engagement with debates occurring elsewhere about the following phenomena, which have major implications for VET whether in developed or developing countries: ●● ●● ●● First, the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to create the “Internet of Things” (IoT) (Rifkin, 2014) and substitute information technology (IT) platforms for previous organizational models (Srnicek, 2017) Second, the concept of “mission‐led” innovation based on “co‐constructed” partnerships between the state and the private sector (Mazzucato, 2018) Third, and arising out of the developments discussed here, the emergence of new forms of work, occupational fields, and expertise based on cross‐specialist collaboration (including with consumers) and the increasing interpolation of such collaboration and digital technologies. These three phenomena encompass both age‐old occupational fields and emerging ones. The desire to design, produce, and market goods and services is driven by individuals who have ideas and want to utilize their expertise, by con‑ sumer demand, and by the needs of societies more generally. At the same time as we are witnessing the growth of AI‐based products and services, there is also a rising demand for those that are handmade, bespoke, and authentic, the makers of which are also benefitting from using the new digital technologies to market and sell their products. This is in line with our initial point that models of learn‑ ing, which facilitate the development of expertise, predate formalized systems of education and training and emerge from the interaction of people and technolo‑ gies within work contexts. VET, Expertise, and Work: Situating the Challenge Cross‐cutting these phenomena is a socioeconomic conundrum about how we might conceive expertise in an age when the value of intangible assets (e.g., ideas, knowledge, brands, and networks) is outstripping that of tangible assets (e.g., irrigation, electricity, roads, and machinery). The former still rely on the latter, of course, but investment in “intangibles” has become part of the ­lifeblood of all workplaces. In their analysis of this new world of “capitalism without capital,” Haskel and Westlake (2018) argue that continuous (as opposed to only initial) vocational training has a particularly important role because it aligns the development of expertise with changes in work practices and, hence, avoids the trap of trying to second‐guess what types of expertise might be needed in an undefined future. In this chapter, we draw on a range of disciplinary perspectives to examine why: (a) VET researchers and policymakers adopt a retrospective rather than prospective view of the relationship between VET, expertise, and work; (b) there has always been continuity and change in work, and how the major changes that are on the horizon will have an impact on VET; and (c) the concept of skill needs to be replaced by a concept of expertise in discussions about the design and ­purpose of VET. It concludes with ideas for the development of a new conceptu‑ alization of the relationship between work, expertise, and VET, which we term prospective VET expertise. This is based on the development of expertise across a process‐based continuum: the initial process of formation; the continuous recontextualization, updating, and lateral branching process; and the reformula‑ tion process. We argue that the further VET drifts from concepts of and changes in work and expertise, the less effective and meaningful it becomes. We hope to contrib‑ ute to a renewed focus in VET research on the critical analysis of the nature and development of expertise in the context of contemporary forms of work and workplaces. ­ he Continuing Power of the Retrospective T Skills‐Based Approach to VET The retrospective skills‐based view of VET can be traced to the heavy shadow cast by Braverman’s (1974) seminal volume, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, over the definition and use of the term skill in Marxist scholarship, industrial sociology, labor process theory, and, by extension, some of the VET literature. Braverman argued that the shift from craft occupations to mass‐industrialized forms of production based on the rou‑ tinization of work in capitalist societies fundamentally changed the relationship between work and the development of skill. He makes this case by drawing on what Attewell (1987) refers to as the “cost” and “control” principles of economic activity. The term cost refers to a discernible tendency in capitalist economies in the first half of the twentieth century to divide complex craft tasks into simple routinized steps and to hire cheaper labor to perform those steps, the process known as Taylorization. The term control refers to management’s tendency to 21 22 David Guile and Lorna Unwin gain knowledge of production and reduce workers to executors of the work ­process (see Thompson & Smith, 2010). Braverman (1974) argued, In each craft, the worker was presumed to be the master of a body of ­traditional knowledge, and methods and procedures were left to his or her ­discretion … the craftsman, like the professional, was required to master a speciality and become the best judge of the manner of its application to specific ­production problems. (p. 109) He contrasted this with the reorganization of work in the period from the 1900s to the 1970s into low‐skill jobs lacking any conceptual content, which occurred as management appropriated the intellectual knowledge and skill once held by craft labor. This dissolution was accomplished through “the separation of conception and execution” (Braverman, 1974, p. 124). Braverman’s thesis has been questioned by some writers operating with an industrial sociology or labor process perspective. This includes his tendency to imply, first, that managers impose their will in the workplace without significant resistance from labor and to gloss over the countertendencies to deskilling that have manifested themselves in different industrial sectors (see Burawoy, 1979). Second, he uses a rather circumscribed notion of the term specialization to refer to work that can be learned quickly and does not require planning or abstract knowledge on behalf of the worker (Attewell, 1987, pp. 330–332). From this ­perspective, it is difficult to grasp that the form of specialization associated with, for example, the work of stonemasons, hairdressers, pharmacy technicians, radiographers, chefs, and electricians presupposes considerable expertise. We, however, adopt a different approach. We argue Braverman’s argument has led, albeit unintentionally, to a retrospective focus on skill in VET for two reasons. The first is his “romantizisation” (Attewell, 1987, p. 332) of a particular kind of craftwork, which he understood to require minimal formal education and a long apprenticeship. These examples of craftwork, including the mechani‑ cal engineering example he cites, can be described as “turn‐of‐the‐twentieth‐ century” work—in other words, forms of work that existed prior to the development of advanced science and IT. One consequence is that many of the above as well as other forms of work now require higher levels of domain knowl‑ edge. A more complex relationship has therefore existed between formal ­education and employment for many decades in industrial societies, compared with the early part of the twentieth century. Braverman’s attachment to forms of craftwork based on his belief that the unification of conception and execution constituted the definitive definition of skill precludes him, however, from accept‑ ing this development. Instead, he treats the higher‐level entry requirement as evidence of what has come to be known as “credential inflation” (Collins, 1979). This is problematic, from our perspective, for the following reason. If we fol‑ low Braverman and assume that qualification requirements reflect cultural rather than technological demands, then it is reasonable to question his ­description of the longevity of craft apprenticeships as being solely driven by the “knowledge to be assimilated, the dexterities to be gained, and the fact that the craftsman … was required to master a speciality” (Braverman, 1974, p. 109). VET, Expertise, and Work: Situating the Challenge Becoming a “master” certainly took time, but the length of apprenticeships (known as time‐serving) was a means by which the craft guilds sought to protect their “secrets” and keep apprentices under the control of their masters for as long as possible to prevent poaching (see, inter alia, Davids & Munck, 2014; Epstein & Prak, 2008; Ogilvie, 2014). From the late nineteenth century onward, trades unions maintained time‐serving as a way to protect older workers from being replaced by the much cheaper labor provided by apprentices. The quality of apprentice training has always been highly variable (Fuller & Unwin, 2012; Lane, 1996; Ogilvie, 2014). Because Braverman’s primary concern was the deni‑ gration of work, he was less concerned with whether the reasons for the previ‑ ous organization of work, especially apprenticeship, justified its time‐served character. The second reason is that Braverman’s definition of skill as the unity of concep‑ tion and execution glosses over the interconnected nature of forms of work, where it has been very difficult for many centuries for one person to conceive and execute the enti...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
One page
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: SUMMARY

1

Summary
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

SUMMARY

2

The chapter focuses on the political opinions of vocational training based on theories,
policies and public typologies. The current political system states that vocations depend on the
roles of skills and talents in the economy. Political skills are essential for an individual to
understand the vocation after training. Vocational training entails the des...

Related Tags