ECER weblog and discussion space

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