Skip to content.

VETNET

Sections
Note: This site's content is accessible to all versions of every browser. However, this browser may not support basic Web standards, preventing the display of our site's design details. We support the mission of the Web Standards Project in the campaign encouraging users to upgrade their browsers.


Blog Entry [details and replies]

ECER weblog and discussion space :: This is a weblog for the ECER conferences, started for ECER Dublin 2005 and follow up discussion, now in use for ECER 2006 Weblog 29 entries 18-September-2008 5 authors
show or hide details for this item The rocky road from Dublin 5 - Remarks on Regional Development, Networking and the contribution of VET research Blog Entry 0 replies4 resources1.79 Kb 22-October-2005 Pekka Kämäräinen
Kind:
Blog Entry
Created:
22-October-2005 12:40:51
Last Updated:
Never Modified
Author:
Pekka Kämäräinen
Status:
visible
The blog entries with the heading "The rocky road from Dublin" present my second thoughts on the VETNET section at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER'05) organised in September 2005 in Dublin. This report focuses on the Rount Table session on "Regional Development, Action-Oriented Research and New Innovation Agendas". The aim of the round table was to explore how the contribution of Vocational Education and Training (VET) couuld be linked to broader innovation contexts. Pekka Kämäräinen

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.

Extended text for this entry:

As often happens in events like this, the maps you prepare on the basis of written matrial are behind the current stage of debate and the real life is already proceeding somewhere ahead of you. However, when listening to the German case presented by Ludger Deitmer, I did not think that Iwas far from the point with my clustering of the ITB-projects and their respective tools. I also believe that it was appropriate to use the same systemic levels to analyse the newer project cases from Ireland and the Netherlands. Yet, when listening to the presentations of Anneke Westerhuis and Brian Dillon it became clear to me that their projects cannot be related to merely one systemic level (and to respective 'tool'). Instead, both projects were characterised by a combinatory methodologies that link te grassroot networking at one level to strategic positioning at another level. In this respect, the methodological enrichment that I wished to support with my presentation was already an everday-life practice in their projects. Based on this experience, it seems to me that we only managed to present some opening statements that helped us to understand in what kind of starting positions we were to crreate a deeper mutual awareness and intercultural understanding. Furthermore, we were only approaching the arena of knowledge sharing on tools, instruments and on adjustment to regional contexts. In my view a more long-term collabortion at this level could be a promising way to proceed from the starting points in Dublin to a more advanced level of mutual learning at the next stage. In this respect it would be worthwhile to consider if such a 'learning arena' (e.g. in the discussion areas of the VETNET page) could be used as a basis for preparing further follow-up sessions in the context of ECER. Pekka Kämäräinen

Comments please

Please Log in

Username

Password

Title
Lead-in
Body Text ( HTML tags are allowed )
Preview your comment