10
This article was downloaded by: [Vancouver Island University] On: 19 October 2014, At: 17:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Research in Post-Compulsory Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20 Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice James Avis a a School of Education and Professional Development, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK Published online: 05 Mar 2014. To cite this article: James Avis (2014) Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 19:1, 45-53, DOI: 10.1080/13596748.2014.872920 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2014.872920 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

  • Upload
    james

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

This article was downloaded by: [Vancouver Island University]On: 19 October 2014, At: 17:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20

Workplace learning, VET and vocationalpedagogy: the transformation ofpracticeJames Avisa

a School of Education and Professional Development, University ofHuddersfield, Huddersfield, UKPublished online: 05 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: James Avis (2014) Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy:the transformation of practice, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 19:1, 45-53, DOI:10.1080/13596748.2014.872920

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2014.872920

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: thetransformation of practice

James Avis*

School of Education and Professional Development, University of Huddersfield,Huddersfield, UK

(Received 10 April 2012; accepted 8 November 2012)

The paper addresses workplace learning; vocational pedagogy, education andknowledge; and the transformation of practice. It draws upon discussions ofvocationalism, vocational pedagogies as well as the constitution of vocationalknowledge(s), debates which are set within particular historical and socioeco-nomic as well as national contexts. It points towards the limitations of analysesof workplace learning and in so doing draws upon conceptualisations of ‘reallyuseful knowledge’ and subject-based disciplinary knowledge. Workplace learningcan easily fold over into an instrumentalism concerned with enhancing variablelabour power. The paper argues for a recognition of the articulation between prac-tice-based and employer interest in vocational education and training, set againstwider disciplinary understandings and access to powerful and transformativeknowledges. It is suggested that disciplinary knowledge when allied to workplaceexperiences can be appropriated by oppressed and marginalised groups, therebybecoming ‘really useful knowledge’ to be marshalled in the struggle for socialjustice. This then is the pedagogic challenge – to open up possibilities that them-selves presage not only the transformation of practice but also social relations.

Keywords: workplace learning; vocational education and training; vocationalpedagogy

Education plays a key role in the perpetuation of the capital relation; this is the skele-ton in capitalist education’s dank basement. It is just one of the many reasons why, incontemporary capitalist society, education assumes a grotesque and perverted form. Itlinks the chains that bind our souls to capital. (Allman, McLaren, and Rikowski 2003,149–150)

Schools of the vocational type, i.e. those designed to satisfy immediate practical inter-ests, are beginning to predominate over the formative school, which is not immediately‘interested’. The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of schoolappears and is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely toperpetuate social differences but to crystallise them in Chinese complexities. (Gramsci1971, 40)

We educators need to reclaim our professional freedom of thought and action; tointroduce a curriculum that deals with the threats we face; and to renew both oureducational ‘system’ and our society through democratic values and practices. (Coffieldand Williamson 2011, 76)

*Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Further Education Research Association

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2014Vol. 19, No. 1, 45–53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2014.872920

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

This paper addresses a number of critical questions concerned with workplacelearning; vocational pedagogy, education and knowledge; and the transformation ofpractice. It draws upon discussions of vocationalism, vocational pedagogies as wellas the constitution of vocational knowledge(s), debates which are set within particu-lar historical and socioeconomic as well as national contexts. In the EuropeanUnion, initial vocational education and training (I-VET) as well as continuing voca-tional education and training (C-VET) is seen as having a significant role to play inthe development of social inclusion/cohesion (EU 2002, 2010; and see JVET 2011).However, it is important to acknowledge, as Sabates, Salter, and Obolenskaya(2012, 233) remind us, that I- and C-VET are not all of a piece in Europe and willbe accented differently on the basis of the particular context in which they arelocated. In a similar vein, Mulder (2012) has discussed the way in which the termsused to describe VET are accented differently across societies and that there is noconsistency in understandings of the terms. We need only think of the contrastbetween German and English responses to VET, with the former placing asignificantly higher value on it than the latter.

For some writers, the European Union (EU), other Western economies andindeed the global economy have been profoundly transformed over the last 30 yearsor so (Guile 2010). Some writers have described these shifts in terms of the movefrom Fordism to post-Fordism (see Avis 2013). This concern articulates with the sig-nificance accorded to the development of a knowledge or information society andthe need to develop knowledge workers. In the EU there is a commitment to the fur-therance of a knowledge-based economy (KBE) and for some member states, suchas the United Kingdom, an interest to rebalance the economy away from financialservices towards manufacturing.

This rests alongside the fiscal crises facing Western economies as well as that ofthe euro, which in turn sits with the increasing competitive and economic strengthof the BRIC nations, that is to say Brazil, Russia, India and China, as well as withthe crisis of the over-accumulation of capital (see Harvey 2010). There are a numberof ways in which the changes that have impacted upon Western economies in gen-eral and the EU in particular have been understood. Such understandings have influ-enced the way in which the relationship between work, knowledge and vocationalpedagogy has been conceptualised, as well as the forms of skill required in a KBE.

I want firstly to comment on workplace learning (WPL) and am going to conflateworkplace and work-based learning (WBL) in order to focus on learning at workregardless of whether it is credentialised. Notably, for some writers:

Work-based learning needs to be distinguished from workplace learning, that form oflearning that occurs on a day-to-day basis at work as employees acquire new skills ordevelop new approaches to solving problems. No formal educational recognition nor-mally accrues to such learning, whether or not it is organised systematically. The emer-gence of work-based learning acknowledges that work, even on a day-to-day basis, isimbued with learning opportunities (Garrick 1998), heretofore not recognized as edu-cationally significant or worthwhile. Work-based learning gives academic recognitionto these opportunities, when suitably planned and represented. (Boud and Symes2000, 14; my emphasis)

Work-based learning is workplace learning that is acknowledged and credentialisedwith the two terms effectively having the same object but with the latter beingrecognised and legitimated. After having examined WPL/WBL the paper then

46 J. Avis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

considers the notion of vocational pedagogy which ties into a discussion ofknowledge, with the transformation of practice being an implicit theme of the paper.Importantly, a current running through this paper is a concern with social justice andwhat Johnson has described as the development of ‘really useful knowledge’:

‘Really useful knowledge’ was a knowledge of everyday circumstances, including aknowledge of why you were poor, why you were politically oppressed and whythrough the force of social circumstance, you were the kind of person you were, yourcharacter misshapen by a cruel competitive world. (Education Group 1981, 37)

What ‘really useful knowledge’ adds to the discussion is a broader conceptualisationof knowledge than the ‘useful knowledge’ normally associated with the workplace.The former introduces a necessary political element into the discussion as it movesthe debate beyond restricted notions of social justice and equal opportunity. Therehas been a degree of slippage in discussions concerned with the relationshipbetween vocational pedagogy and work, particularly in the United Kingdom. Thisarises in relation to the manner in which the needs of capital and social justice areaddressed. The logic here is one that emphasises the development of competitive-ness, upskilling and implicitly the suggestion that if this strategy is followed anincreasing standard of living will arise from which all members of society will bene-fit. These ideas are embedded in the rhetoric of the current Conservative/LiberalDemocrat coalition government in the United Kingdom as well as previous NewLabour and Conservative administrations (see Avis 2011). However, the current dif-ficulties facing the EU serve to problematise these putative claims. For exampleBrown, Lauder, and Ashton (2011, 8) discuss the high skills–low wage nexus aswell as digital Taylorism in a somewhat bleak analysis. The suggestion here is thatpartly as a result of global competition and the development of knowledge workersin the BRIC nations, the spectre of high-skilled low-waged work hangs over theWest. In addition, as a consequence of the mobilisation of digital technology and thestandardisation of knowledge work there is a polarisation amongst knowledgeworkers of a highly paid transnational élite set against those knowledge workersinvolved in standardised processes. This is what Brown et al. have in mind bydigital Taylorism.

Workplace learning, work-based learning and social justice

It is important to recognise that the interest in workplace and work-based learning,knowledge, practice and transformation has a long history. Such learning is tremen-dously important for the ongoing advancement of capitalism as well as capital’sinterest in the development of variable labour power and value-added waged labour.Workplace learning is also important for workers in the development of survivalstrategies in oppressive workplaces, as well as resistance to exploitative conditionsof work, such practices frequently involving collective processes. However, the cur-rent interest in workplace learning derives from at least two currents. First, there isthe realisation that in societies such as Britain the majority of the workforce in 2020will have already left full-time education. Felstead et al. (2009) write:

The fact that 70 per cent of the UK workforce of 2020 are already in work hasincreased its [WBL] saliency still further, since most are beyond the reach of schoolsand may be out of reach of further and higher education. (2009, 3)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

Allied to this is a second current whereby the increasing speed of change means thata premium is placed upon WBL, which aligns with the rhetoric of the knowledgesociety. In other words we will all be enjoined to learn at the workplace, with suchchanges informing the ways in which workplace learning is conceived.

Frequently, analyses of workplace learning assume an overly optimistic hue.Writers such as Billett (2005) argue that the acknowledgement and credentialising ofworkplace learning serves the interests of social justice through its recognition ofworker skills and knowledge that are frequently overlooked and remain outside thequalification system (and see Boud and Symes 2000, 18). There is something of amoral imperative within Billett’s concern to value work/labour that others may con-strue as demeaning. He therefore tends not to address the negative aspects of work-place learning. However, for writers concerned with WBL these arguments sitalongside issues of equal opportunity and access to educational credentials. Billettlinks the idea of ‘just arrangements’ with the recognition of the skills ‘disadvantagedworkers’ have developed in the course of their working life. He writes:

Finding means to legitimately and authoritatively recognise skills acquired throughwork hold the prospect of providing just arrangements for these otherwise disadvan-taged workers as well as those requiring recognition throughout their working life.(Billett 2005, 944; my emphasis)

However, there does seem to be a difficulty with Billett’s position. At best he seeksto accord some dignity to those who labour in low-paid and undervalued jobs. How-ever, this does little to challenge the social relations of work, its neoliberal contextor indeed current conditions of austerity. This is not to deny the salience of work-place learning for capitalist enterprises, for without it such enterprises could barelyfunction. Nor is this to deny the very real skills ‘disadvantaged workers’ develop atthe workplace, acquiring ‘useful knowledge’.

Another putatively progressive current is found in theorisations of WPL thatstress the importance of socially situated practice. Here we encounter arguments thatemphasise the socially situated, collective and collaborative nature of WPL. Such astance emphasises the specificity of WBL/WPL and the context in which it is set. Ittherefore points towards the need for the recontextualisation of practice as partici-pants move from one workplace to another. This recontextualisation as workers entera new workplace will impact upon their identities as well as the nature of knowl-edge. Billett (2008), in a discussion of hairdressers, contrasts the identities andknowledge associated with a fashionable salon set against one serving an elderlyclientele. The important point to make is that both identity and knowledge are situa-tionally based and the notion of a straightforward transfer from one site to anothersimplifies what can be a messy process, and in some senses a transformative one.

Importantly, there is an affinity between the previous arguments and those thataddress occupational standards, competency-based education and training (CBET),and learning outcomes. This arises because the concern to recognise and credentia-lise workplace learning can readily lend itself to such conceptualisations in as muchas these are relatively easy to assess. There are at least three points to make aboutthese stances towards WPL that have been discussed in this section. First, they areconcerned with the development of variable labour power and the enhancement ofworkers’ productive capacities. Second, the progressive and social justice implica-tions of WPL/WBL can easily be exaggerated as a result of being closely tied to

48 J. Avis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

capitalist interests and often mobilising a truncated model of vocational education.Third, these processes will be uneven across societies and sectors and consequentlythe way in which these are played out in particular situationally based contextsbecomes an empirical question.

Vocational pedagogy/education

Here I comment on vocational pedagogies and draw out the links with WPL and thepreceding discussion. A straightforward understanding of vocational pedagogy/edu-cation refers to learning for work thereby developing the skills to labour effectively.However, this is a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon conceptualisation of vocational educationand pedagogy. Clarke and Winch (2007) have suggested vocational education isthought of quite differently in some social formations and this is reflected in therecent work of Sabates, Salter, and Obolenskaya (2012).

In the Anglo-Saxon world, vocational education is considered as a narrow prepa-ration for working life – a process that is rather technical and practical in nature.Whereas in other social formations the academic and vocational are brought togetherwith VET embracing civic education, which is as much about personal developmentas it is about addressing the needs of employers. Indeed it has also been linked toidentity formation as well as to nation-building (Green 1991). It is also important tothink about the socioeconomic contexts in which VET is situated as well as whatcould be described as the hegemony of the ‘neoliberal embrace’ in these austeretimes. Thus vocational pedagogy/education is marked by the history and culturalformation in which it is located, leading to broader or narrower understandings ofVET.

There are a number of models of vocational pedagogy/education; here I focus ontwo. First, competency-based VET (CBET) orientated towards learning outcomesand standards, which has been criticised for being overly restrictive and narrow witha tendency to reduce the complexity of practice. In this model, teaching and learningbecomes a matter of box ticking, and carries a restricted notion of pedagogy, tram-melled by standards. But as with I- and C-VET, CBET is not all of a piece, withBiemans et al. (2009) writing about Dutch comprehensive and multidimensionalapproaches to CBET. Second, there are those models that focus upon socially situ-ated workplace practices. These accounts start from the workplace, emphasising thesocially situated nature of workplace practices and their specificity. This calls for therecognition of learning that arises in the workplace and that in effect develops vari-able labour power. The danger is that this becomes a form of conservative practiceas it does not move beyond the local and specific.

Paradoxically, conceptualisations of the knowledge worker and the volatile andrapidly changing economic conditions sit uneasily with the VET and its competencyorientation and focus upon learning outcomes (and see Guile 2010). In the Britishcontext, competency-orientated vocational education and training (Jessup 1991) andconceptualisations of learning outcomes have been subject to critique for theirinstrumentalism, lack of flexibility and anti-educative consequences (see Avis 1991,2000; Clegg and Ashworth 2004; Hyland 1994; Wheelahan 2010). Yet these ele-ments have remained pervasive, reflected globally in the development of NationalQualification Frameworks, as well as regionally in the European QualificationFramework. Whilst these frameworks are not all of a piece they do nevertheless

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

reflect the impact of global conceptualisations rooted in neoliberalism, in that theyare wedded to markets and allied notions of transparency.

These frameworks seek to facilitate the comparison between different qualifica-tions as well as enabling the mobility of workers. However, as a result of their focuson learning outcomes and competency they tend to be retrospective in nature. Thatis to say, vocationally they are concerned with what learning outcomes or compe-tences employers deem to be relevant and therefore they tend to operate with a trun-cated and instrumental notion of knowledge. In this sense they are anti-educative,denying the ‘epistemic gains’ or ‘powerful knowledge’ that can derive from subject-based disciplines (Allais et al. 2009a, 2009b). The point to be made is that forms ofknowledge acquired in the workplace are situated, and more often than not are tiedto, and developmental of, processes of ‘production’. They are extremely importantfor without them workplaces could not operate, and on occasions they can lead toan understanding of the exploitations and oppressions surrounding the labour pro-cess. However, such knowledge is of a different order to disciplinary/subject-basedknowledge and provides access to rather different ‘epistemic gains’ operating for themost part on the terrain of the capitalist enterprise.

Powerful knowledge and distributive justice

There is another element to these arguments. Not only do they seek to validateworkplace learning, they also reflect what Green (2009) describes as the practiceturn, set against a particular understanding of academic disciplines that feature inAnglo-Saxon societies and particularly England. These are construed as sterile, lack-ing relevance and far from the concerns of learners and in particular the workingclass, often being seen as elitist and distanced from anything other than a superficialcommitment to social justice. Yet at the same time, arguments that seek to validateworkplace learning can easily fold over into an instrumentalism concerned withenhancing variable labour power, marked by a genericism that addresses employerneeds and is business facing.

Towards a social realist vocational education

Here I draw on the work of Leesa Wheelahan and Michael Young (Young 2006).This is set against the preceding understandings of VET, in particular its instrumen-talism and genericism, whereby educative processes become business/employerfacing, creating a new kind of knowledge structure. Beck and Young write thatgenericism is:

linked explicitly to the perceived demands of employers and to their assertion thatfuture employees would need to become more ‘flexible’; and they [generic modes]assumed that becoming more ‘flexible’ was a demand that was common to a widerange of occupations, tasks and jobs. (Beck and Young 2005, 190)

For Wheelahan and Young amongst others, academic disciplines provide access topowerful knowledge. For these writers such access constitutes a form of distributivejustice: in as much as this type of knowledge is distinctive, it can enable us tounderstand the world and provide a route for intervention. Although knowledge issocially produced by a disciplinary ‘community of practice’ that judges the validity

50 J. Avis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

of knowledge claims. This is nevertheless the best we can do, and for Young, is thebasis of the objectivity of knowledge. Importantly, whilst this reflects relations ofpower it nevertheless provides access to powerful knowledge. The claim is thatthese epistemic gains are not immediately accessible to other forms of knowledge.

For Wheelahan, VET learners need access to disciplinary knowledge, and not ina piecemeal manner, for only by doing so will learners be able to participate in‘society’s conversation’ about these disciplines. However, there is, as Biesta’s(2004) term suggests, the potential for ‘transcendental violence’ and therefore learn-ing. In this case learning can serve to disrupt our readily accepted conceptions, andfor Wheelahan, through an understanding of disciplines we are better placed toengage in society’s conversations and by implication the political and democraticstructures of our social formation. However, it is important to align such practiceswith the lived experience of those who engage in workplace processes.

Dialogic forms of curricular practice that enable learners to carry everydayknowledge into the classroom and set this against disciplinary/academic forms offerthe possibility for learners to interrogate these and develop understanding. However,there is nothing particularly radical about this argument and it aligns with whatmany teachers already do in the classroom. A more radical stance is introduced ifclassroom relations are set not only alongside wider structural relations but alsoagainst patterns of social antagonisms that exist within society. Such an understand-ing acknowledges the relationship between knowledge and social interest, albeit thatthe former is not overdetermined by the latter, retaining its own level of autonomy.A more radical stance would also recognise the articulation between practice-basedand employer interest in VET, wider disciplinary understandings and access to pow-erful and transformative knowledges. This means that disciplinary knowledge can beappropriated by oppressed and marginalised groups, becoming ‘really useful knowl-edge’ to be marshalled in the struggle for social justice. This then is the pedagogicchallenge – to open up possibilities that themselves presage not only the transforma-tion of practice but also social relations. It might be argued that the debate in thispaper is predominantly focused upon the United States, United Kingdom and thoseWestern societies wedded to neoliberalism. However, it does stand as a warning tothose erstwhile social democratic societies in continental Europe who in austeretimes may be inclined to embrace neoliberalism even more closely (Bosch andWeinkopf 2008; Henriksson 2012; Niemeyer 2010; Seddon, Henriksson, andNiemeyer 2010; Solow 2008).

Notes on contributorJames Avis is Director of Research and Professor of Post-Compulsory Education and Train-ing at the University of Huddersfield. His research interests lie in post-compulsory educationand lifelong learning. He has written extensively on the policy contextualisation of furthereducation and has a keen interest in the political economy of the sector.

ReferencesAllais, S., D. Raffe, and M. Young. 2009a. Researching NQFs: Some Conceptual Issues.

International Labour Office, Employment Sector, Skills and Employability Department,Employment working paper no. 44. Geneva: ILO.

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

Allais, S., D. Raffe, R. Strathdee, L. Wheelahan, and M. Young. 2009b. Learning from theFirst Qualifications Frameworks. International Labour Office, Employment Sector, Skillsand Employability Department, Employment working paper no. 45. Geneva: ILO.

Allman, P., P. McLaren, and G. Rikowski. 2003. “After the Box People.” In Yesterday’sDreams: International and Critical Perspectives on Education and Social Class, editedby J. Freeman-Moir and A. Scott, 149–179. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press.

Avis, J. 1991. “The Strange Fate of Progressive Education.” In Education Limited, edited byDepartment of Cultural Studies Education group II. London: Unwin Hyman.

Avis, J. 2000. “Policing the Subject: Learning Outcomes, Managerialism and Research inPCET.” British Journal of Educational Studies 48 (1): 38–57.

Avis, J. 2011. “More of the Same? New Labour, the Coalition and Education: Markets,Localism and Social Justice.” Educational Review 63 (4): 421–438.

Avis, J. 2013. “Post-Fordist Illusions: Knowledge-Based Economies and Transformation.”Power and Education 5 (1): 16–27.

Beck, J., and M. Young. 2005. “The Assault on the Professions and the Restructuring ofAcademic and Professional Identities: A Bernsteinian Analysis.” British Journal ofSociology of Education 26 (2): 183–197.

Biemans, H., R. Wesselink, J. Gulikers, S. Schaafsma, J. Verstegen, and M. Mulder. 2009.“Towards Competence‐Based VET: Dealing with the Pitfalls.” Journal of VocationalEducation & Training 61 (3): 267–286.

Biesta, G. J. J. 2004. “Against Learning. Reclaiming a Language for Education in an Age ofLearning.” Nordisk Pedagogik 23: 70–82.

Billett, S. 2005. “Recognition of Learning through Work.” In International Handbook ofEducational Policy, edited by N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K Leithwood, andD. Livingstone, 943–962. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Billett, S. 2008. “Subjectivity, Learning and Work: Sources and Legacies.” Vocations andLearning 1 (2): 149–171.

Bosch, G., and C. Weinkopf, eds. 2008. Low-Wage Work in Germany. New York: TheRussell Sage Foundation.

Boud, D., and C. Symes. 2000. “Learning for Real: Work-Based Education in Universi-ties.” In Working Knowledge: The New Vocationalism and Higher Education, editedby C. Symes and J. McIntyre, 14–29. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Brown, P., H. Lauder, and D. Ashton. 2011. The Global Auction: The Broken Promises ofEducation, Jobs, and Incomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, L., and C. Winch, eds. 2007. Vocational Education. London: Routledge.Clegg, S., and P. Ashworth. 2004. “Contested Practices: Learning Outcomes and Disciplinary

Understandings.” In Disciplining of Education; New Languages of Power andResistance, edited by J. Satterthwaite, E. Atkinson, and W. Martin, 53–68. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Coffield, F., and B. Williamson. 2011. From Exam Factories to Communities of Discovery:The Democratic Route. Bedford Way Papers. London: Institute of Education.

Education Group. 1981. Unpopular Education. London: Hyman.EU. 2002. The Copenhagen Declaration, Declaration of the European Ministers of Vocational

Education and Training and the European Commission, Convened in Copenhagen on 29and 30 November on Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education andTraining. Accessed January 1, 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc125_en.pdf

EU. 2010. The Bruges Communiqué on Enhanced European Cooperation in VocationalEducation and Training for the Period 2011–2020. Accessed January 1, 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/vocational/bruges_en.pdf

Felstead, A., A. Fuller, N. Jewson, and L. Unwin. 2009. Improving Working as Learning.London: Routledge.

Garrick, J. 1998. Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human ResourceDevelopment. London: Routledge.

Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Green, A. 1991. Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England,

France and the USA. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Green, B., ed. 2009. Understanding and Researching Professional Practice. Sense:

Rotterdam.

52 J. Avis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Workplace learning, VET and vocational pedagogy: the transformation of practice

Guile, D. 2010. The Learning Challenge of the Knowledge Economy. Rotterdam: Sense.Harvey, D. 2010. The Enigma of Capital. London: Profile.Henriksson, L. 2012. “Re-Regulating Finnish VET Teacher Qualifications – Boundaries

Reiforced, Boundaries Obscured.” Paper presented at International Symposium on theImpact of Policy on the Training and Professional Development of Trainers and Teachersin VET, Centre for Research in Post-Compulsory Education, The University of Hudders-field, Huddersfield, February 23.

Hyland, T. 1994. Competence, Education and NVQs: Dissenting Perspectives. London:Cassell.

Jessup, G. 1991. Outcomes: NVQs and the Emerging Model of Education and Training.London: Falmer.

JVET. 2011. “Special Issue: Apprenticeship as an Evolving Model of Learning.” Journal ofVocational Education and Training 63 (3): 261–504.

Mulder, M. 2012. “Vocational Education and Training in the European Union; PolicyDevelopments, Research and Research Agenda.” Paper presented at the EuropeanConference on Educational Research, University of Cadiz, September 18–20.

Niemeyer, B. 2010. “German School-to-Work Transition Programmes.” In Learning andWork and the Politics of Working Life, edited by T. Seddon, L. Henriksson, andB. Niemeyer, 107–124. London: Routledge.

Sabates, R., E. Salter, and P. Obolenskaya. 2012. “The Social Benefits of Initial VocationalEducation and Training for Individuals in Europe.” Journal of Vocational Education &Training 64 (3): 233–244.

Seddon, T., B. Henriksson, and B. Niemeyer, eds. 2010. Learning and Work and the Politicsof Working Life. London: Routledge.

Solow, R. 2008. “The German Story.” In Low-Wage Work in Germany, edited by G. Boschand C. Weinkopf, 1–14. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Wheelahan, L. 2010. Why Knowledge Matters in Curriculum: A Social Realist Argument.London: Routledge.

Young, M. 2006. “Conceptualising Vocational Knowledge: Some Theoretical Consider-ations.” In Knowledge, Curriculum and Qualifications for South African Further Educa-tion, edited by M. Young and J. Gamble, 104–124. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

16 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014