VETNET

Hi,

I'm Jeroen Tops, a Master Student at Utrecht University the Netherlands. Currently I'm doing my graduation research on the use of innovaiton networks in vocational education in the Netherlands.

In more detail: The Dutch Vocational Education (called ROC or bve), is undergoing change to allign with market demand. The need to innovate their process and are networking to do so. I'm investigating the current status of such an innovation network and how this can be improved especially focussed on the information exchange. I'm using social network analysis and media richness theory.

I'm looking for more articles linking these subjects. I found this website and am looking for the article "Vocational Education Institutions Creating Innovative Networks" full text and others.

Can anyone help me?

Greetings,

Jeroen Tops
Master Student Utrecht University the Netherlands
email: j.g.m.tops @ @ students.uu.nl

With seven reports that have been published on this site I have completed my work a conference blogger on the VETNET programme at ECER'06 in Geneva. I hope that these reports could sketch a picture on the event as a whole (inasmuch I could cover it) and provide insights into key themes, ongoing debates and into emerging initiatives. As I could only provide a personal overview, I would be happy if other participants could present complementary views or comments. The blog is an open arena.

As I have completed the reporting task I need to remind myself and others that the VETNET community agreed to take some homework regarding the monitoring of the progress with European Qualification Framework (EQF). For this purpose the hosts of the VETNET website have set up a separate blog "VETNET Forum: Discussion on the European Qualification Framework". As the initiator of the follow-up activity of the VETNET Forum I invite the readers of this message to have a look at the new blog. I hope that it can be used as a joint platform for informing the European VET researchers on current developments that are related to the next phase of preparing EQF. In particular I welcome inputs from projects that are linked to EQF or to the development of national and sectiral qualification frameworks.

On this occasion the hosts of the VETNET website have reviewed the set of blogs that is available on the VETNET website. In addition to the "ECER weblog" and the "VETNET Forum" blog a third blog has been made available for "VETNET community news". It will hopefully serve the purpose of exchanges news across the VETNET community. Hopefully the new VETNET board can make god use of this platform.

I end this message with a personal announcement. This conference blogging completes my mission as VETNET board member 2000-2006. The new board has started its work. From now on I will concentrate on the "VETNET Forum" activity and on the preparation of the "VETNET Memorandum".

Looking forward to seeing you at the VETNET Forum

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the previous postings I have presented insights into the VETNET programme of the ECER'06 conference and analysed the contributions. Now, with the last posting of this series it is time to consider how the VETNET community has developed with this programme. Also, it is appropriate to rause the question, what challenges the most recent conference experience provides for the future development of VETNET.

Firstly, I have often referred to VETNET as the umbrella community of European VET researchers. In a similar way I have characterised the VETNET programme at ECER as the central platform for sharing knowledge current VET research in Europe. This has not always been that evidently the case and this cannot be taken as granted. This has been an achievement of the earlier community-building processes and it requires further attention when preparing the future activities.

The reason for the popularity of the VETNET network has been the fact that it has been perceived as the "common European house" for all VET researchers. It has invited researchers with academic background in social and educational sciences as well as in vocational disciplines. It has invited researchers with thematic interests in VET policies, educational processes, learning behaviour and social consequences. Moreover, VETNET has been open for different methodological preferences and for cross-cultural cooperation.

However, given this diversity and given the proncipal acceptance of each other into the same working neighbourhood, there have been some tensions that have come up on different occasions. One point of consideration has been, whether to accept only 'end results' or whether to give room for contributions that present 'work in progress'. Another issue is whether to accept only 'primary results' or whether to accept sessions that focus on 'analysis of research' or 'learning within research projects'. These issues highlight the fact that different members of the VETNET community may have different quality criteria in their mind.

One aspect of importance for VETNET has been the possibility to accommodate symposia or round table that have been based on trans-national cooperation  projects.  In the best cases these sessions have contributed to cross-project dialogue and to knowledge enrichment across parallel initiatives. However, there has always been a risk that such sessions carry on the internal discussion that is relevant for the respective phase of the project. Therefore, there is a need to consider, what modes of work (round table, workshop or symposium) should be chosen and what is the contribution to the broader audience. (In this respect we have to learn to reconsider this question time and again.)

One of the key issues that has been addressed time and again whether VETNET should try to structure the programme into thematic strands that would give certain constant themes (like work-related learning) a specific continuity in the programme and reduce clashes between parallel sessions. On the one hand there has been a fear of compartmentalisation of the programme (and of the community). On the other hand there are views that working with such strands could be helpful for promoting joint publishing and networking after the conferences.

In the recent time there has been some discussion how to use the joint VETNET sessions (Opening Colloquium, VETNET Forum) as special platforms for discussing common concerns and addressing new challenges. In this respect some experiences have already been made with different sessions. Yet, these sessions are still looking at their proper role as stimuli for the whole programme and for the work after the conference.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the ECER'07 in Ghent can be considered as the 10-year milestone for VETNET programmes at ECER. In this respect there is a need to consoder how VETNET could learn from its own history. Yet, parallel to this, there is a challenge to present the readiness of the European VET research community for the new era of European cooperation and exchanges.

Pekka Kämäräinen

From its very early days onward the VETNET programme at ECER has become the central event for European VET researchers. In this respect the VETNET programme has become a platform for presenting individual research results (via individual papers) and for sharing knowledge across European cooperation projects and networks (via round tables, symposia and research workshops). Due to this development the VETNET programme has also provided a milestone for analysing the current phase of European research cooperation - the tendencies in community-building, the dynamics of networking and the role of web-based infrastuctures (for virtual communication and knowledge sharing).

Looking back, these activities that have tried to give the big picture of ongoing developments in European VET research have taken different forms. At the early stage (e.g. in Ljubljana 1998) all we had to do was to organise a room for a round table and to call it "meeting point of networks". And due to the fact that there were representatives of many active thematic networks, there was plenty of information to be shared - synergies and shared interest areas to be explored. Later on the emphasis shifted from mere sharing of information to initiatives to promote thematic knowledge development and to develop joint web-based platforms. These inititives were linked to the Cedefop-project "Cedefop Research Arena" (Cedra). However, these initiatives were soon replaced by the 'next generation' initiatives of the active projectrs to develop community portals (e.g. for Evaluation research, ICT-related research and for research on SMEs). These projects were also present at the ECER programme in the years 2002-2004. Parallel to this, Cedefop tried to link similar initiatives to each other via its 'virtual communities' area in the European Training Village.

Looking back, it appears that there have been high tides ans low tides regarding the role of European networks and community-based initiatives to promote knowledge sharing in European VET research. It is almost a commonplace, but I must remind myself that networks are launched for certain purposes and they continue aslong as their cooperation is meaningful. If they achieve their goals or if they get stuck with obstacles, they simply fade away. In many respects this appears to be the case - one way or the other - with many earlier networks. The research interests have moved on and the preconditions for developing trans-national cooperation have changed.

At ECER'05 in Dublin we organised a session with a heading "Communities, networking and virtual support". That session put into discussion researchers' involvement in community-based knowledge development in thematic contexts (Guidance research) and in regional contexts (Irish community development projects) as well as the related efforts to develop social software and kowledge management tools. Now, looking back, the ideas were perhaps ahead of their time (whereas the tools that were children of their time). Thus, there was no great spin-off effect from that discussion.

In general, there should be no need to be worried about the fact that older networks have become saturated and fallen into latency. If tat is the case, there should be room for creative reorientation, new groupings of key actors and new initiatives to stimulate the European debates. However, there is a case to consider how VETNET can stimulate such developments (even in a period of latency). To me, this is closely related to the question, how closely VET researchers are related to the key questions of developing VET and addressing the key concerns. In this respect it was symptomatic that the most stimulating discussions that I have been able to give account of have been related to learning in the work organisations (rather than in formal VET provisions).

Regarding the the role of VET researchers' role in  developmental activities we can put the question in the following way: Is the motto of researchers "Being there" or "Being at a safe distance"?

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the earlier phases of European cooperation VET researchers had to use quite a lot of time to present their own VET systems (and related cultural conventions) and to learn from each other. During the last ten years this need has been reduced because the active researchers have started to become familiar with the VET systems and cultures of their counterparts. Moreover, due to the globalisation of markets (and the related redistribution of employment opportunities) it has become clear that the VET researchers have take into account wider contexts than the emerging European Educational Area.

In this effort to widen their horizons the European VET researchers have got valuable help from the regular visitors from Australia and Canada (Quebec). This year, I could notice an effort to deepen the trans-continental dialogue between Europeans and Australians and to explore new frontiers of knowledge development. Below, I will present some rearks on two sessions that merit further attention:

1. The symposium "Looking at Europe and beyond: Synthesising European and Australian findings on workplace learning" (Session 8C) presented parallel empirical findings from Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In addition, Alan Brown presented a paper on which he had started to cluster the findings for further conceptualisation. This stimulated a discussion on the following questions:

• What kind of commomwealth of knowledge (on workplace learning) is being developed?
• What kind of countries ae involved (and which are not involved) in the said exercise?

The first question referred to the fact that exemplary cases highlighted the contrast between formal education and training provisions (in the prior learning histories) and the informal and 'open context' learning that characterised their current learning alongside working. In the light of the exemplary cases this was a matter to be analysed in the course of the transition from education/training to working life. However, it remained unspecific, how these findings could be related to the delopment of VET provisions.

The second question referred to the fact that countries involved were characterised by relatively clear demarcation lines between the realm of education/ training and the world of work. (In this respect  countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are clearly different from Germany and Switerland). Therefore, the whole gallery of countries represent VET cultures in which VET is perceived as preparation for working life rather than integration and enculturation into the world of work. This, obviously, is related to the assumptions how VET provisions are expected to take into account the contextual, organisational and communicative challenges that are related to modern working life.

2. The questions that I raisd above provided the starting point for the theoretical explorations of Len Cairns (Monash University, Australia) with the heading "The PAM model of adult learning: Being there". Looking back, the theoretical model of Cairns - based on the coordinates "Place", "Agency" and "Mindfulness"  is not only an essential  starting point for the adult learning histories and for developing adult education provisions (as Cairns proposed it). To me, these coordinates were also helpful for analysing wider social assumptions on learning at workplace and/or on vocational learning. However, when taking into picture other concepts from other lingual contexts it is essential to note what kind of changes of perspective are taking place in the respective analysis. This can be demonstrated with the following concentric circles:
a) individual/situated learning: Place - agency - mindfulness
b) workplace-based/organisational learning: Space for activity - Opportunity for participation - Scope for social shaping,
c) vocational-systemic/ socio-culturally specific learning: Connectivity (or Lack of connectivity) between the mode of acquiring competences, the entry to labour market and the general career models in woring life.

It is clear that the underlying assumptions on vocational/ work-related learning are not clarified by quick footnotes to conference papers. However, it is symptomatic that these questions are catalysed by dialogu between Europeans and Australians. In this context it is wirthwhile to note that Australian universities are more closely analysing and supporting the development of new VET structures in the Asian countries that are profiting from the redistribution of industrial workplaces on global markets.

These quick remarks provide an insight into the wider international dimensions that need to be considered in the future VETNET programmes. Howver, one thing is clear. The issue "Looking at Europe and beyond" was not exhausted with one symposium.

Pekka Kämäräinen

For several years the preparation of the VETNET programme for ECER has been accompanied by iniatives to encourge knowledge sharing across parallel (national and European) projects. During the earlier years (mid-90s)  it was easier to arrange such sessions and to see the added value of such dialogue. However, at that time the European VET researchers were only approaching a common awareness of what is happening in European cooperation projects and what could be the added value for VET-related research.

During the later years the picture has changed to some extent. The emphasis in European cooperation programmes has shifted from analyses of VET "as such" (as it stands in education and training policies) to "VET in context" (the contribution of VET provisions to certain policy processes and innovation goals). In fact, during the recent years there has been a paradoxical development:
a) On the one hand comparative and interpretative analyses have been considered as redundant for thematic knowledge development on specific innovation projects. The innovative ideas have been assumed to make their way through across cultutural barriers and boundaries.
b) On the other hand contributions of 'innovation research' have been focusing on interfaces between VET and working life (e.g. ICT and VET, support for workplace learning) without addressing very strongly the development of VET frameworks alongside such innovations. Thus, the contributions of such projects have pushed the Euripean knowledge development towards narrower thematic corridors. This, at least from my point of view, leaves the big picture of European VET development to periphery.

What about the VETNET programme 2006 in Geneva? Was it possible to identify any new developments in this respect? And if there were special highlights in particular sessions, could these inputs be linked to each other as contributions to VET-related innovation research?

To me the three examples that will be discussed below can serve as examples of progress in finding common grounds for European VET-related innovation research:

1. The symposium on "Knowledge utilisation and earning in small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs)" (see session 1C) started with the question what kind of knowledge management (KM) strategies SMEs have. The analysis of Eric Davoine (Univ. of Fribourg) made it clear that most SMEs do have various elements of KM strategies but these are not perceived as parts of a coherent KM strategy. Also, differen members of organisations have different views whether such strategies are needed. The analysis of Ludger Deitmer (ITB, Univ. of Bremen) ) provided more detailed insights into the relative importance (weighting) and the actual use (rating) of different tools and instruments. Here again, it appeared that  members of the same organisation could give different weigtings and ratings. However, the project did not  take these as final words but challenged the organisations to discuss the different views and to to come up with 'negotiated results'. This analysis was complemented by the presentation of Jörg Kluger (BFU Consulting) on the workshop concept that was used in the project. In this analysis it was interesting to see how the discussion on these findings was linked to the problems and challenges that the SMES were facing and what kind of improvements could be achoeved with more focused approach on knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge development. From the European perspective the project brought forward the social dimension of 'knowledge management' (as a whole) of the uses of KM tools (in case studies and organisational contexts) and the social dimension of learning (in this case in finding ways forward in the workshops).

2. The above presented symposium could have remained as a 'loose end' but the issues were taken up and elaborated in a later paper session (session 3A):

•  The paper of Thomas Lans, Hendrik Kupper and Arjen Wals (Univ. of Wageningen) presented a similar study from a Dutech context with a programmatic heading "From R&D to RED: Linking research, (vocational) education and development in a knowledge society". The empirical parts of the study highlighted the changes in regional and sectoral innovation promotion and the need of VET and CVT providers to step in more closely into the development of innovation concepts. In this respect the paper could be seen as a parallel example to the above presented symposium (but addressing the role of VET in more specific terms).
• The paper of Jasmina Hasanbegovic (SCIL, Univ. of St. Gallen) provided a specific case of accompanying research in which the study focused on "Designing learning culture for improvement and innovation in companies). In this case the designing and shaping aspects were critical both regarding the curriculum development for companies as well as for the target groups (ICT and telecommunication technicians). Moreover, the study drew attention to parallel social and professional developments in different companies. 
  

From my perspective the three contributions were not merely three parallel inputs to a similar thematic area (VET-related innovation research research). To me they could be seen as parallel efforts to push European knowledge development over certain conceptual and methdological hurdles. At the moment each of the presentations was reporting on 'work in progress'. Therefore, I saw a potential for fruitful cross-project dialogue.


Pekka Kämäräinen

For some time the VETNET network has emphasised that the contributions to the VETNET programme should have a "European dimension". Sometimes this concept  creates confusion and mixed feelings. Some people may link this concept only to the European Union and to transnational cooperation within EU programmes. Others may consider that 'European' refers merely to countries that are located in the European continent. Luckily enough, the VETNET community has found its way between the two extremen positions and has developed a broader and more dialogue-open approach.

For a long while there has been a working consensus that gives room for contributions that arise from national research activities as well as for contributions that are based on trans-national cooperation. It has become a social fact that a considerable part of the sessions is based on EU-funded projects. Yet, the programme and the discussions are open for broader European involvement. Moreover, the programme has provided opportunities for wider international dialogue (e.g. with colleagues from Australia, Canada and other global regions).

Below I will give some examples how I experienced "the European dimension" coming through in different sessions of the VETNET programme. In this context I would like to emphasise the importance of the interaction between presenters and active audiences:

1. The discussion on "Job orientation services in Spain" based on the study of two Spanish researchers (see session 2A) gave rise to discussion on different kinds of immigration to Spain ("European immigration" from Central and East Europe", "Hispanic immigragion from Spanish-speaking countries and "Gateway immigration" from African countries via Spain to the whole EU area). In this context the study analysed the efforts of Spanish employment services and other organisations to regularise the life situation, conditions of employment and career prospects with the support of appropriate training provisions. On the basis of this presentation the participants started a lively discussion. The participants compared their countries as receiving vs. sending countries and the kind of services (including training provisions that are available). In this discussion the "European dimension" was present as willingness to learn from each other and to give feedback for the ongoing research project. As a result of the discussion the presenters made contact with the European Guidance Research Forum.

2. The discussion on "Identification and validation of non-formal learning" was based on the European cooperation project Epanil coordinated by the Czech research institute NUOV in Prague (see session 10B). The presentation gave a picture of the efforts to develop common European principles for identification and validation of non-formal learning and to apply these principles in different occupational fields. The presentation also informed of the support materials for different experts (guides and assessors) who were involved in the piloting. Regarding the "European dimension" the main point of interest was not merely the internal development of the project but its impact on the preparation of new legislation in some participating countries (notably in the Czech republic but also in Poland and Slovakia). In this respect the project provided a basis for further policy monitoring at the European level.

3. The discussion on "National training markets in Europe" was based on critical re-examination of a Europe-wide survey by a trans-national project (see session 5C). The project (CVTS2rev) analysed the results of the survey (CVTS2) in seven countries and obtained additional evidence to interpret the results. In particular the project tried to provide a more context-sensitive picture on the functioning of the training markets. In this respect the presenters drew attention to the limits of the data collection in the original survey and to the changing patterns in training and organisational development. In the discussion it becae clear that the project was struggling with moving frontiers: On the one hand it tried to improve the data that presented the training markets as they have developed so far. On the other hand the project was becoming increasingly aware that training and learning activities are becoming more closely integrated with other developmental activities in working life. Therefore, the methodological improvements that are needed for the analysis if recent patterns may need reconsideration in the near future.

4. The discussion on "Workplace learning partnerships" was based on a European cooperation project (see session 9B). The project seeks to develop common support materials, analytical tools, multimedia resources and web-based services for promoters and facilitators of partnerships. In the presentations and in the discussion the main attention was given to different country-specific preconditions and to different partnership concepts that the project could bring forward. In particular the cross-border cooperation betwen Germany, Switzerland and France raised general interest. Another point  of interest was, how the joint multimedia resources and web services could support actual piloting in the field. In this context reference was made on the ongoing pilot activities in Italy (that have drawn upon the ideas of the project) and on the preparatory measures in Estonia (that explore the grounds in the light of the experiences that have been gained elsewhere). More information on this project can be obtained from the project website http://www.workplace-learning-partners.org.

These examples have brought into picture different contributions and differentsessions. To me they provided insights into the "European dimension" of the VETNET programme. The main point of interest  is that European problem-sensitiveness and Europe-wide openness for dialogue does not grow from one root. Instead, it needs encounters, exchanges, common knowledge structures and willingness to enrich the achieved knowledge bases. I was happy to sense that spirit in varrious sessions across the VETNET programme.

Pekka Kämäräinen

For several years the VETNET network has had a tradition to organise two joint plenary sessions that have a somewhat different character. Recently the Opening Colloquium has been profiled as a more conceptually oriented event (although with a clear relevance for European policies). The VETNET Forum has been developed towards an event that challenges the European VET researchers to consider their role (and possible contribution) to the development of European VET policies.

This year there was an interesting tension between the two sessions. On the one had the Opening Colloquium drew attention to the discussions on the reform of VET in Switzerland (which is not a member of the European Union or of the European Economic Area). On the other hand the VETNET Forum focused on the current phase in the preparation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) - a European policy process that concerns primarily the European Union and the European Economic Area. In this respect the two sessions could have landed into discussions that would have had very little in common. Yet, after the event it is possible to note that this was not the case.

The Opening Colloquium was based on the keynote lecture of prof.em. Rolf Dubs from the University of St. Gallen. In his lively way he managed to chase away stereotype pictures of Switzerland as a self-sufficient fortress that is happy with its own traditions and sceptical vis-à-vis foreign ideas. Instead he gave a picture of dynamic debates in the need to reform the Swiss system of apprenticeship and on the willingness to consider aternative options. In this context comparative analyses onthe developments in the neighbouring countries (e.g. Germany, France and Austria) and outside Europe have had a role to play. Equally, the presentation provided comparative insights into the performance of school-based VET and dual models of apprentice training in Switzerland. All these analyses gave rise to proposals for revitalising the dual system and into enriching into 'trial system' by introducing bridging learning arrangements between traditional full-time education and traditional workplace-based learning. In this respect the main question for Dubs and for his commentators was 'how to make vocational learning meaningful and perspective-opening both for the learners and for the receiving enterprises'. (We hope to get more material on the web page of the session 4 in the coming days).

This year the VETNET Forum was dedicatd to joint re-examination of the preparation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) in a policyprocess that was steered by the European Commission. On behalf of the VETNET network I presented the bakground of the EQF and gave the floor for the speakers who provided insights into the current phase. Dr Jörg Markowitsch provided a closer look at the most recent phase of the preparatory process. In the next speech prof. Georg Spöttl drew attention to different - and often mutually contradicting expectatons that have been raised during the preparation of the proposal. (We hope to get the contributions of the two speakers in the coming days; the main points of my introductory input have already been presented in an earlier blog entry).

The subsequent discussion was lively and constructive an it merits a more thorough re-examination than is possible at the moment. Of the many important points that were raised it is worthwhile to mention the following ones:
a) Since the European Commission has finalised its own position on EQF the debate has moved to a new phase. Yet, in the current phase all the unresolved contradictions will appear once again as concrete problems how to relate the national and sectoral frameworks to the EQF.
b) The final phase of the preparation has been characterised by some pragmatic compromses (e.g. disconnecting the EQF and the ECVET from each other). This (together with some tacit agreements on the concepts to be used) will make it more difficult to see what the actual role of EQF will be in the  next phase.
c) The hopes on the usability of a context-neutral European framework were related to the perspective of reaching common agreements on the levels of competences (and on different aspects of competences to be related to these levels).  Yet, in the light of the most recent discussions it appears that the interpretation of the levels is far more context-dependent and culturally specific than has been anticipated by promoters of 'European transparency'.

Yet, already in the open discussion strong points were made that the discussion is heading towards new frameworks and that European VET researchers cannot remain passive. In particular the new member states and the candidate countries consider it necessary that European experts participate in the process with constructive contributions. In this respect my proposal for the VETNET Forum was to start a process of policy motintoring and policy analysis that will be concluded via a specific document ("The VETNET Memorandum") at the ECER'07. This proposal was greeted and subsequently agreed in the VETNET General Assembly. In order to proceed in the work the speakers were requested to submit their contributions to support the further discussion. In the next few days some decisions will have to be taken how to organise the discussion.

Pekka Kämäräinen

ECER'06 was organised during three active conference days in Geneva. This year the conference was closed alrady on Friday and no programme-related sessions took place on Saturday. Therefore, the VETNET programme was tightly packed to the the three days and most of the time there were three sessios running parallel to each other (during some slots even four sessions).

Most of the VETNET sessions were based on individual papers. However, as has been the case for many years, a considerable number or symposia and round tables were organised as well. Furthermore, some 'workshops' were piloting with a mode of work that mobilised the participants into creative group work.

The main theme of the whole conference was "Transforming knowledge". One can raise the question whether such a universal idea can be incorporated into the specific contribution for VETNET sections. Yet, when analysing the work in some sessions it is possible to note some tranisional or transformative tenedencies. To some extent this is related to the way in which 'knowledge management' or 'knowledge proesses' were related to the potentials of vocational learning. To some extent this is related to the importance of European and international cooperation in promoting knowledge enrichment. (I will explore these aspects in my forthcoming blog entries.)

One of the concerns during th preparation was the role of "European dimension" in the contributions. The main problem was how to overcome the financial restrictions that threatened to minimize the participation of European cooperation projects. Thanks to the support of the Swiss government and to the flexibility of the participants this risk was avoided. In fact, issues with strong European relevance were raised and discussed in several sessions. Furthermore, some sessions tried to take further steps towards trans-continental dialogue between European researchers and their counterparts in other global regions. (I wll also explore these aspects in my forthcoming blog entries).

One of the general issues to be considered across these reports and messages is the role of VETNET as the umbrella network for European research in vocational education and training (VET). In this respect the earlier years have alredy provided ECER an VETNET a natural role as the annual meeting point and the central platform for European researchers. Also, during the most  active years of researchers' partcipation in European programmes the role of VETNET has been crucial for 'networking the networks' and for knowledge evelopment across projects and initiatives. From this point of view both VETNET and the researchers are ging through a transitional period. However, as the VETNET plenary sessions demonstrated, the European VET researcher are geing ready to discuss new initiatives and give VETNET a more proactive role. (I will also report more on these developments in my next blogs.)

The VETNET assembly in Geneva marked the 10th anniversary of the first VETNET meeting since the network was founded by the board of the European Educational Research Association (EERA). The next ECER will mark the 10th anniversary of the presence of a VETNET programme at ECER. I hope that these 'reports and messages' will carry some impressions and experiences from Geneva to the preparation of the way forward.

Pekka Kämäräinen

During the last few months the VETNET network has had some internal discussion how to approach the theme 'European Qualification Framework' (EQF). This discussion has been overshadowed by the following factors:
1) The European Commission has completed the public consultation phase and finalised its own proposal for EQF on the 5th of September. This proposal will be examined by the European Parliament and by the Council.
2) The European Cmmission has launched tendering processes to support the further development of EQF with a focus on national or sectoral qualification frameworks or systems and in accordance with a credit transfer system (ECVET). These tendering processes are moving to the selection phase.
3) The decision of the European Commission sets a time frame for the EU Member States to relate their national qualification frameworks (or qualification systems) to the EQF by 2009.

Given these measdures, it is clear that several things are moving in the relations between national, sectoral and European frameworks. In this respect it is unfortunate that the prior consultation phase did not lead to road participation of researchers in the discussion on future directions. Moreover, it is symptomatic that the EQF was discussed as a meta-framework that was not supposed to push forward harmonisation. Yet, it is not clear what kind of impact the adopted framework will have on national and sectoral policies.

In the light of the above the VETNET Forum tries to build a bridge from the issues that have been raised during the public consultation to possible working perspectives in the next phase. The first invited speaker, Dr. Jörg Markowitsch discusses the current phase in the making of the EQF and related methodological issues. The second invited speaker, Prof. Georg Spöttl, shifts the emphasis to sectoral and national policy contexts.

In addition the VETNET Forum will discuss a proposal to launch a joint process to monitor the further policy development and to draw conclusions on the implications for researchers. This proess would be organised by a specific working group of the VETNET network and it should be finalised as a "VETNET Memorandum" document at ECER'07 in Gent, Belgium.

In order to support the discussion I attach a working note that presents the proposal and the first ideas how the monitoring process could be organised. This completes the preparatory task that has been given by the VETNET board and hands the matter over to open discussion at the VETNET Forum session.

Pekka Kämäräinen

Last year the ECER'05 conference blog appeared as a surprise present just at the beginning of the ECER'05. The first entries were practical advice for the participants. Then, some pioneering users started with online blogging during the conference and with post-conference blogging. No one was giving guidelines or instructions. The service was free and available for those who were interested. However, only few had experience on blogging in general and on conference blogging.

This year the conference blog is available already before the ECER'06 starts. In the same way as before, the service is free and available for conference particpants as well for others who want to inform themselves on issues that are taken up at ECER'06. Please have a look at the conference programme and the abstracts that have been uploaded on the VETNET page. If you have questions or coments, the conference blog is available for bringing them into discussion.

Pekka Kämäräinen

The ECER '05 conference weblog was launched as a surprise resent for the VETNET community at the Opening Colloquium of the VETNET programme. During the conference Graham Attwell - as the primus motor of the piloting - made good use of the blog page with his real time news updates from the conference venue. Also, the Knownet team - from a distance - gave a remarkable support by making maps, photos and slides available for the participants during the conference.  The table was set for the party of blogging, reading and commenting to start.

However, it appears that - at least in the case of web-based tools for interactive research dialogue - such surprise presents are not welcomed with enthusiasm in the European VET research community. Time and again new platforms and instruments have been piloted. Time and again the utilisation has been limited.  My preliminary conclusions on this are the following:

1. So far the majority of European VET researchers (individually) has perceived the ECER and the VETNET programme as an opportunity to present there individual research papers (or the work of their projects) on a European platform. Therefore, the assumption is that the task of the VETNET network is to take care of the conference preparation.

2. So far the majority of European VET researchers has considered it as a matter for themselves (individually) to publish their own results and utilise thir conference experiences. Issues like 'content enrichment' (as reflective re-processing of the materials', 'cross-cultural dialogue- (between different research cultures and areas of expertise), or 'making VET research publicly present in the web' (as a research community that maintains and develops joint knowledge resource pools) have not become widely shared ideas.

3. Therefore, the majority of European VET researchers has bconsidered it problematic start using actively the website of VETNET and the opportunity to start blogging (either on individual blog pages or on the common VETNET blog page). This is related to the current communicate culture. European VET researchers consider it difficult to find meaningful uses for joint European web-based resources when they are pushed to produce (and be assessed) as individuals to traditional publication channels.

To me the situation is paradoxical:

a) The effort to create joint knowledge resources is left to few pioneers because it appears to be something otside the scope of normal research work. Yet, it is this extra effort that makes the European VET research visible as a community that merits attention at the European level.

b) If VET European VET researchers would only concentrate on publishing (individually) in books and in refereed journals, one could assume that individual researchers would get into better positions in academic competition. Yet, the counter side of this scenario is that the European VET research community would lose its touch on joint knowledge development and on contributing to European-level developments. Bringing bricks to construction site is not enough to make the house with brick walls.

Because of this paradox I have tried to do my bit to pilot with the conference blog. Already when I started I new that the momentum for active discussion afer the conference was no longer there. Therefore, I did not expect much discussion to emerge when some time had passed from the conference. Yet, I found it necessary to try to transform my conference experiences into a series of blog entries. I though that I could learn new regarding

i) my personal pattern to prepare conference reports on ECER conferences,

ii) the attempts of the VETNET board to develop the VETNET programme and related conference culture,

iii) the discussion on the future perspectives of European VET research and the role of virtual platforms in promoting of such debates.

Throughout the short history of the VETNET programme at ECER the issues of 'networking' and 'virtual support' have been taken up regularly in one way or the other. First these sessions were contact workshops for sharing information on various networks. Then, during some years they had the character of demonstration workshops for presenting the ongoing piloting with new virtual platforms to support research cooperation networks. Later on, there was a need to deepen the discussion with analyses on the emergence, high seasons and dissolution of networks (based on the developments in European VET research).

For the ECER '05 the choice of the intiators was to organise a research workshop that tries to analyse the dynamics between thematic networking,  community-building processes and the role of web-based support facilities. The aim was not only to present well-researched analyses on what has happened but to get insights into the changing relations between knowledge development, cross-cultural collaboration and co-participative tool development. In this respect, the worshop provided a learning arena and a challenge, how to take on board quite recent expriences that have not been well-documented and conceptualised.

My role as the initiator was to present the background analysis and to open the debate. Since my background paper and the related power poin presentation are available on the VETNET page, there is no need for long commentaries. In the first part of my paper I analysed the development of networks in European VET research. I brought into picture evolutionary tendencies that had led (after a more integrative period) towards a fragmented and sporadic network landscape with an encapsulated approach to research themes. After a critical situation assessment concerning the diversity of positions concerning the future of VET research I brought into picture some new possibilities to revitalise the research culture and the research & development dialogue in VET research. These new possibilities were to be explored more closely in the subsequent presentations.

The round table session on "Regional Development" was designed as a follow-up to the ECER'04 session on the potentials of 'action research' in linking VET-related research to new innovation agendas. It seemed appropriate to continue the methodological discussion with a closer look at the innovation landscapes that are available in different countries and the contexts work in which VET-related research is involved.

My task in the session was to prepare an introductory overview on different approaches tht were identified in European research & development programmes. I also tried to develop methodological clusters for the contextualisation of the national cases that were invited to the round table.

To me the contextual starting point was an emerging regional networking landscape for promoting competences, networking and sub-regional innovations in the area of Central Finland. The organisation for which I was working at that time (Jyväskylä Polytechnic - Jypoly) was exploring its possibilities to contribute as a catalyst and as a prtner for the emerging sub-regional projects. From this perspective there was an interest to get a European group picture of similar approaches and to learn from the experiences of similar approaches.

Part of that effort (and part of my presentation) was to draw conclusions from the bilateral exchanges between Jypoly and Institut Technik & BIldung. Based on these exchanges we had prepared a picture of a family of 'monitoring tools' that were linked to different innovation programmes, monitoring roles and interests of knowledge. Thus, the ITB-toolbox consisted of tools for macro-systemic programme evaluation (Landesprogramm Arbeit und Technik), meso-systemic programme monitoring (BLK-Programm Neue Lernkonzepte ...), exo-systemic self-monitoring of private-public partnerships (the European project COVOSECO) and micro-systemic monitoring of the development of knowledge management concepts in small end medium enterprises (the European project KM-plus).

Another part of the effort (and of my presentation) was to explore the emergence of newer project concepts that were not based on a 'monitoring' task or on focal 'monitoring tools'. In such project designs the role of researchers was to provide methodological support alongside the shaping of the developmental initiatives and as a response to the project dynamics. With the help of the conceptual map that was constructed of the 'monitoring tools' I presented a similar map on 'positioning tools' that help the 'learning communities' to position themselves and their projects into a broader innovation landscape.

In this respect I presented a preliminary analysis of the other national cases (based on written information on the web). I related the Irish "SPEAK" support environment for presenting strategic project environment to positioning at the macro-level discourses on innovation policies. Likewise, I related the Dutch "CLOP" project environment and the CLOP-scan instrument to the meso-systemic level of regional partnerships and capacity-building for such partnership cooperation. Then, I drew attention to the debates on 'personal learning landscapes' and 'virtual learning environments' as exo-systemic models for constructing 'regional learning landscapes' (based on virtual support servces and facilities). Finally, I drew attention to the current debates on 'developmental portfolios' as means to record and present non-formal learning and on the need to create awareness on the micro-systemic level of 'project-specific learning' in order to make the innovation concepts transferable.

With these preliminar mappings I tried to contribute to a dialogue across the two sets of 'toolboxes' or project clusters. At the same time I tried to make transparent the complementary relations within the toolboxes or project clusters.

In the recent times I have happened to read several blog entries that discuss the potential of blogs in supporting knowledge sharing in conferences (see in particular the blog of Wilfred Rubens on weblogs in conferences - a particular form of blended learning). It strikes me that the specialists in studying technology-enhanced learning appear to be working with rather traditional conference formats. However, it encourages me that the pioneers of blogging are bringing into picture more interactive modes of 'knowledge sharing'. If this discussion is going after a successful Dutch conference on the limits of virtual learning environments, it is not surprising that similar thoughts come forward after the experience of the sessions on "ICT and VET" in the VETNET programme of ECER.

As such the presentations on "ICT and VET" in the session that I attended were well thought and well prepared. The audience was informed of the adult learners' learning strategies during the training for European Computer Driving Licence. The audience was also well informed on a nation-wide programme of promoting e-learning and on related evaluation studies. Finally, the auience was informed of European studies on the uses ICT-based resources as support for working and learning in SMEs. After a quick discussion on each presentation it appeared that the presenters and the audience experienced a need to learn more on the big picture of ICT, earning and VET. At the same time it became clear that something more could be done with the help of blogs and social software before the conference events. Equally, it became clear that blogs and social software could support follow-up debates beyond the sessions.

To me it appears that the research area "ICT and VET" coukd be developed into more active (and actively interactive) "learning arena" in the VETNET programme of future ECER conferences. In a similar way this  area of research can serve as a pilot area for working towards a new research agenda (that is not merely a shopping list of wishful researchers but rather as a demostration how research can work with developmental challenges).

I guess this enough for the moment. I will come back with some further thoughts on other research themes and on experiences with related sessions.

Pekka Kämäräinen