ECER weblog and discussion space

The keynote lecture of James Wickham raised the question on the European dimension on the current policies on developing working life (on the one hand) and education and training (on the other hand). The European dimention was discussed in a broader global context and in the light of diverse European models.  As a background Wickham presented a general analysis of the European Social Model (in the light of different societal formations outside Europe) and with a focus on social cohesion vs. anomie and social inclusion vs. exclusion. The general picture provided a basis for discussing different national models (or different clusters of national models). This then lead to further analyes on training models, training regimes and learning entrprises. These explorations were followed by a discussion on social cohesion at the workplace and on the role of training in this context. Finally, the keynote lecture was concluded by the contrast between "the American mirage" and "the European dream".

Obviously, the aim of the keynote was to provoke further thoughts on the "European" characteristics of vocational education and training (VET) - both from the perspective of national and EU-level policies. In addition, the colloquium provided the participants a possibility to discuss its own contribution to European knowledge development on its own field. To me, the discussio did not quite reach the European dimension that was present in the opening input.

The debate was opened by the invited discussants, Gerald Heidegger (Germany) and Massimo Tomassini (Italy).  Heidegger  referred to the notion "European dream" and started to explore how the dream is to some extent reality in the German dual system. Tomassini referred to the relations between "learning enterprises" and the innovative quality of training and started to explore how a more integrative approach on VET and HRD could promote European innovations in this context.

No doubt, both approaches were valid and responded to the opening input from a certain perspective. Yet, it strikes me that somehow both speakers left into marginal the current policy-developments at the EU level. In particular i is worthwhile to note the framework processes after the Lisbon summit ("Education and Training 2010, the Bologna Process, the Copenhagen process) and their implications on the field of education and training. 

In this respect I brought into discussion the issue "common currence" as a leadng idea for policy development. My point was not to advocate the idea of "common currency" but to raise the question how to respond to the underlying policy concerns that push the European education and training policies to more cohesive frameworks.

Of course, it was not possible to enter an in-depth discussion on this particular issue. Yet, I find it insufficient to marginalise the pressure towards harmonisation and to limit the European dimension to "mutual learning between different VET cultures". No question, the idea of mutual learning and mutual enrichment have been very highly appreciated in the European VET research community. Yet, I think it is necessary to consider the following critical points:

1. Mutual learning between diverse VET cultures is not a strong point for European educational policise if the field of VET altogether is considered as a relatively weak part of the innovation systems (?).

2. Mutual learning between diverse VET cultures is not a strong theme for joining in in European innovation policies if the strategic innovations that are changing our views on lifelong and lifewide learning are being developed elsewhere than in the current VET contexts (?).

Surely, I have formulated these points with question marks and as challenges - not a final statements. However, in the light of the above it is possible to formulate a provocative question by modifying the heading of the keynote lecture:

"How European is the interpretation of the VETNET community on the future development of European VET cultures?"

I think this is enough as further thoughts on the opening colloquium. To me this question is closely related to the issue of developing a joint research agenda for the VETNET community - as has been proposed in the opening colloquium and in several other meetings.

To be contnued ...