ECER weblog and discussion space

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

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

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

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.