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