ECER weblog and discussion space

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

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.

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 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.

I have spent some  time after the ECER'05 preparing a project proposal for the EU programme Leonardo da Vinci. As things stand now, this call of proposals was to be the last one. However, there are some major question marks that overshadow the transition from the current programme generation to the next one (which should be started in the year 2007).

At this point it is worthwhile to consider the relative importance of the European cooperation programmes of EU for the development of VETNET. This question immediately triggers the question, how the VETNET community could (or should) consider itself as a contributor  to European policy development in the field of VET. This latter question is related to a further question on the possible contribution of research to VET-related policy development at the European level.

These issues have been coming up in the joint VETNET events of the recent ECER-conferences. In particular at ECER'03 in Hamburg  there were several sessions to launch a debate and to support emerging initiatives (notably the panel dscussion in the VETNET Opening colloquium and the public debate in the VETNET Open meeting).

The joint VETNET programme for ECER´05 included two joint plenary sessions. The first one (the Opening Colloquium) was based on the keynote lecture of James Wickham and discussed the European dimension of education, training and the socio-economic environment at the level of megatrends and 'big pictures'. (See the respective blog entries by myself and by Graham Attwell below and the documentation of the session on the ECER 2005 sessions pages.)

The second joint session was named as the "VETNET Research Forum" and it had been given the heading "Setting the European VET research agenda". The session was focusing on the recent European study "Attainment of the Lisbon Goals: The contribution of VET". The study was funded by the European Commission. It provided the background material for preparing the policy documents for the Maastricht meeting of the European ministers responsible for VET at the end of the year 2004. The aim of the study(latterly known as the "Maastricht study") was to provide an interim assessment on the progress with the Lisbon goals (to transform Europe into the leading global innovation area  by 2010) in the field of VET. The study was carried out by a consortium that consisted of eight national agencies and of some affiliated research institutes.

The plenary session of VETNET research forum in Dublin was based on two inputs by members of the consortium and on a reflective commentary by an invited expert. At present it is not possible for me to give a detailed account on the contents of the three speeches. (I would prefer to have a closer look at the slides and at the written papers - which we hope to get to the VETNET page very soon). In general terms I would characterise the division of labour between the three speakers in the following way:

• The coordinator of the consortium, Tom Leney from the Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA), UK, put the study into a European policy context. He then analysed the given working space (and the possibilities to readdress the issues from the researchers' poin of view)  from this perspective.
• The other member of the consortium, Anneke Westerhuis, from the Dutch national agency Cinop analysed the preconditions for preparing the study on sufficently grounded materials and with a sufficient degree of commonality across different countries.
• The reflective commentary of professor Felix Rauner (ITB, University of Bremen) made critical contrasts between the issues that are being brought forward by current policy processes and the ones (more specific to VET) that tend to be left to the margins.

Concerning the participation of the audience - and concerning the possible conclusions to be drawn from the debate - there were some fundamental difficulties that remained unresolved:

1. To what extent was the discussion supposed to be a debate on the role of research and its role in the European policy development and to what extent on the policy development itself? The example of the Maastricht study shows that these issues are very closely related to each other?
2. To what extent could the exemplary case (the Maastricht study) provide new insights into researchers' involvement in policy monitoring? In this context it is worthwhile to note that it is not certain how the experiences with this study (undertaken 2004) will be taken into account when preparing the next one (to be undertaken in 2006).
3. To what extent can VETNET draw conclusions from this particular exemplary case for its own discussion on the future European VET research agendas? As things stand now, there are no specific VETNET activities that would bring the issues that are central for such studies to a broader discussion within the European VET research community. Furthermore, there are no clear models or arenas for a more effective VETNET particpation in such European-level debates that lead to the shaping and setting of European VET research agendas.

I stop my comment on the session to this point. I hope that I have raised an issue that has to be tackled in the near future - even if the rocky road from Dublin is no longer that strongly present in our minds. However, I personally do feel the need to refresh my memories on some thematic sessions of ECER'05. 

Pekka Kämäräinen