ECER weblog and discussion space

The UCD organisers have helpfully included some maps of the campus and of Dublin in their website for ECER 2005, but I since the wonderful google-maps came out a few months back, I much prefer maps in that format as opposed to images. Google-maps are graphical, but they also expose geo-location data, which provides context and zoomability, and also opens them up to 3rd-party services and powerful user-actions. So I found the campus on google maps and include a link here: google-map of ECER 2005 location

To get a more precise picture of the campus, you'll have to refer to the jpg campus map image or the printer-friendly pdf campus map kindly provided by the organisers.

If anyone wants to annotate the google map - for instance to show the precise locations of the buildings/rooms, or of good eating places - please do so and then copy the new link and post it in a reply to this post, or in a new post.

By annotating precise locations and sharing the google-map link, you could also make it easier to arrange places to meet up for meals ( or possibly even drinks? :o)

The UCD organisers have helpfully included some maps of the campus and of Dublin in their website for ECER 2005, but I since the wonderful google-maps came out a few months back, I much prefer maps in that format as opposed to images. Google-maps are graphical, but they also expose geo-location data, which provides context and zoomability, and also opens them up to 3rd-party services and powerful user-actions. So I found the campus on google maps and include a link here: google-map of ECER 2005 location

To get a more precise picture of the campus, you'll have to refer to the jpg campus map image or the printer-friendly pdf campus map kindly provided by the organisers.

If anyone wants to annotate the google map - for instance to show the precise locations of the buildings/rooms, or of good eating places - please do so and then copy the new link and post it in a reply to this post, or in a new post.

By annotating precise locations and sharing the google-map link, you could also make it easier to arrange places to meet up for meals ( or possibly even drinks? :o)

The UCD organisers have helpfully included some maps of the campus and of Dublin in their website for ECER 2005, but I since the wonderful google-maps came out a few months back, I much prefer maps in that format as opposed to images. Google-maps are graphical, but they also expose geo-location data, which provides context and zoomability, and also opens them up to 3rd-party services and powerful user-actions. So I found the campus on google maps and include a link here: google-map of ECER 2005 location

To get a more precise picture of the campus, you'll have to refer to the jpg campus map image or the printer-friendly pdf campus map kindly provided by the organisers.

If anyone wants to annotate the google map - for instance to show the precise locations of the buildings/rooms, or of good eating places - please do so and then copy the new link and post it in a reply to this post, or in a new post.

By annotating precise locations and sharing the google-map link, you could also make it easier to arrange places to meet up for meals ( or possibly even drinks? :o)

We have posted several dozen photos photos from ECER 2005 on our new area in the Flickr photo-sharing service.

We have also placed the slides from James Wickham's keynote address in flickr as an online slidehsow.

Flickr is a free photo-sharing service of the "Web2.0" variety - ie lots of "RSS news feeds and an API which allows other sites and programs to interact with it (see my del.icio.us tag for examples and definitions). The 'API' gubbins means that there are loads of wonderful 3rd-party tools for managing, uploading, organising and viewing the photos on your flickr account.

We've posted photos there which were taken at the ECER 2005 conference in Dublin ( 42 photos so far ). If you have a Flickr account, please add the tag "ECER_2005" to any conference photos you upload to it. If you do not have a Flickr account, and want to upload some photos, you can post them directly into the weblogs here - but we also highly recommend getting your own flickr account, so you can share your photos just by uploading them to your own account and tagging them with our tags.

We have posted several dozen photos photos from ECER 2005 on our new area in the Flickr photo-sharing service.

We have also placed the slides from James Wickham's keynote address in flickr as an online slidehsow.

Flickr is a free photo-sharing service of the "Web2.0" variety - ie lots of "RSS news feeds and an API which allows other sites and programs to interact with it (see my del.icio.us tag for examples and definitions). The 'API' gubbins means that there are loads of wonderful 3rd-party tools for managing, uploading, organising and viewing the photos on your flickr account.

We've posted photos there which were taken at the ECER 2005 conference in Dublin ( 42 photos so far ). If you have a Flickr account, please add the tag "ECER_2005" to any conference photos you upload to it. If you do not have a Flickr account, and want to upload some photos, you can post them directly into the weblogs here - but we also highly recommend getting your own flickr account, so you can share your photos just by uploading them to your own account and tagging them with our tags.

We have posted several dozen photos photos from ECER 2005 on our new area in the Flickr photo-sharing service.

We have also placed the slides from James Wickham's keynote address in flickr as an online slidehsow.

Flickr is a free photo-sharing service of the "Web2.0" variety - ie lots of "RSS news feeds and an API which allows other sites and programs to interact with it (see my del.icio.us tag for examples and definitions). The 'API' gubbins means that there are loads of wonderful 3rd-party tools for managing, uploading, organising and viewing the photos on your flickr account.

We've posted photos there which were taken at the ECER 2005 conference in Dublin ( 42 photos so far ). If you have a Flickr account, please add the tag "ECER_2005" to any conference photos you upload to it. If you do not have a Flickr account, and want to upload some photos, you can post them directly into the weblogs here - but we also highly recommend getting your own flickr account, so you can share your photos just by uploading them to your own account and tagging them with our tags.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

During the last few months the VETNET network has had some internal discussion how to approach the theme 'European Qualification Framework' (EQF). This discussion has been overshadowed by the following factors:
1) The European Commission has completed the public consultation phase and finalised its own proposal for EQF on the 5th of September. This proposal will be examined by the European Parliament and by the Council.
2) The European Cmmission has launched tendering processes to support the further development of EQF with a focus on national or sectoral qualification frameworks or systems and in accordance with a credit transfer system (ECVET). These tendering processes are moving to the selection phase.
3) The decision of the European Commission sets a time frame for the EU Member States to relate their national qualification frameworks (or qualification systems) to the EQF by 2009.

Given these measdures, it is clear that several things are moving in the relations between national, sectoral and European frameworks. In this respect it is unfortunate that the prior consultation phase did not lead to road participation of researchers in the discussion on future directions. Moreover, it is symptomatic that the EQF was discussed as a meta-framework that was not supposed to push forward harmonisation. Yet, it is not clear what kind of impact the adopted framework will have on national and sectoral policies.

In the light of the above the VETNET Forum tries to build a bridge from the issues that have been raised during the public consultation to possible working perspectives in the next phase. The first invited speaker, Dr. Jörg Markowitsch discusses the current phase in the making of the EQF and related methodological issues. The second invited speaker, Prof. Georg Spöttl, shifts the emphasis to sectoral and national policy contexts.

In addition the VETNET Forum will discuss a proposal to launch a joint process to monitor the further policy development and to draw conclusions on the implications for researchers. This proess would be organised by a specific working group of the VETNET network and it should be finalised as a "VETNET Memorandum" document at ECER'07 in Gent, Belgium.

In order to support the discussion I attach a working note that presents the proposal and the first ideas how the monitoring process could be organised. This completes the preparatory task that has been given by the VETNET board and hands the matter over to open discussion at the VETNET Forum session.

Pekka Kämäräinen