Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csce20
ISSN: 0158-037X (Print) 1470-126X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csce20
Demands-based and employer-driven curricula:
defining knowledge in higher vocational education
and training
Johanna Köpsén
To cite this article: Johanna Köpsén (2019): Demands-based and employer-driven curricula:
defining knowledge in higher vocational education and training, Studies in Continuing Education, DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661238
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661238
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 07 Sep 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 294
View related articles
Demands-based and employer-driven curricula: de
fining
knowledge in higher vocational education and training
Johanna KöpsénDepartment of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Access to, and participation in, higher education is expanding. Commonalities in the organisation of this expansion are distinctive vocational pathways, liberal marketisation and significant employer influence. However, whether this expanded access to higher education in vocational pathways is contributing to opportunities of social mobility for the students accessing higher education in this way is questioned. This article explores one way to investigate this by focusing on knowledge in VET curricula – specifically knowledge which students in higher VET get access to. Knowledge in VET curricula can both reproduce existing social divisions and inequalities or support social mobility, as knowledge may both include and exclude from social power. Thus, possible reproduction of stratification may be tracked in formation of curricula. In this article, the Swedish system of higher VET established in 2009 serves as the case for a policy analysis examining what knowledge policy defines for higher VET curricula. The analysis shows a dominant definition of legitimate knowledge as that generated in the production of goods and services and selected by locally involved employers. This is a definition of knowledge for higher VET in line with a global focus on differentiation in higher education rather than on equality of outcomes.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 1 April 2019 Accepted 25 August 2019
KEYWORDS
vocational education and training (VET); continuing VET; higher education; education policy; curriculum; social mobility
Introduction
New forms of continuing and higher vocational education and training (VET) are emerging in countries all across the world, and diversity in the formation and provision in institutional contexts is growing, as lifelong learning and issues of access to– and widening participation in– higher education are globally prominent themes in policy (Bathmaker2017; Boeren and James2017). The international development of vocational continuing and higher education is part of the global overall expansion of higher education (Marginson2016; Ryan et al.2017). Different examples of formations emerging are two-year ‘short-cycle’ higher education pro-visioned by universities, applied baccalaureates at community colleges, higher level and degree apprenticeships, or hybrid programmes combining vocational and academic edu-cation (Bathmaker 2017; Hippach-Schneider et al. 2017). This expansion is increasing
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
accessibility to higher education and may be providing opportunities for social mobility to disadvantaged groups historically excluded from higher education – opportunities for people to move from one socio-economic position to another (Avis2012).
However, research has raised the critical question of whether the expanded access to, and vocational pathways in, higher education are actually contributing to reducing inequalities (e.g. Bathmaker 2017; Marginson 2016; Webb, Bathmaker et al. 2017; Webb, Burke et al.2017). It has been suggested that there is a focus on promoting diversity and differentiation in higher education rather than on equality of opportunity and out-comes, and participation is not to be presumed to support processes forflattened social division (Webb, Burke et al.2017). The status and value of continuing and higher VET are differentiated, for example in relation to its formation and provision. VET in general has lower societal standing than academic or professional education (Billet
2014), and the positions of higher VET in tertiary systems are often low in the hierarchy, though this differs (Webb, Bathmaker et al.2017).
While there are great differences in contemporary higher VET systems, there are also commonalities: distinctive vocational pathways, liberal marketisation and governments shaping markets with a significant role for employers (Avis 2012; Bathmaker et al.
2018). This tendency of employer influence in vocational higher education is another
factor in that participation does not seem to be reducing inequalities and supporting social mobility. Employer influence and political desire for market relevance in VET insert the logics of a stratified labour market into education:
If VET is to address the‘needs’ of employers in its immediate environment it will reflect the classed structure of such regionally and locally based employment. (Avis2012, 5–6)
With local relationships to employers, VET thus runs the risk of reproducing the inequal-ities that come with the organisation of wage labour. This reproduction of stratification and inequalities in VET can be tracked in the formation of its curricula. Knowledge in cur-ricula can reproduce existing social divisions and inequalities or support social mobility, as knowledge may both include and exclude from social power (Bathmaker2013; Nylund and Rosvall2016; Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman2017; Wheelahan2015).
Herein lies the background and importance of enabling a discussion regarding the reproduction of social stratification and labour market power relations through systems of continuing VET and expanded higher education. It also emphasises the significance of this study into the knowledge within Sweden’s greatly employer-influenced vocational higher education. Specifically, the aim of this article is to investigate policy on knowledge in curricula for vocational higher education in the case of Swedish continuing VET. The analysis is led by the research question:‘How does policy define what knowledge should form curricula in vocational higher education?’
Knowledge in VET curricula and employer influence
Basic conditions for equality, and citizenship, may be described as the right to be included socially and culturally and to participate in processes where order is controlled (Bernstein
2000, xx–xxi). This is a right to civic practice and participation at the level of politics. One
key to this is education, or more precisely, knowledge which supports inclusion and par-ticipation. However, expanded access to higher education does not assume access to this
form of knowledge to all students (Marginson 2016). For the argument in this article, relating vocational higher education to stratified social power and social mobility, the question of knowledge in VET curricula is thus crucial.
Different approaches to knowledge in VET curricula
A‘skills-based’ model of VET formation is a strongly demand-driven system characterised by training for narrow skills, with minimal underpinning theoretical knowledge (Brock-mann, Clarke, and Winch 2008). At the other end of the scale are VET systems built on a‘knowledge-based’ model. In sharp contrast, these incorporate considerable theoreti-cal knowledge to give VET students the ability to reflect on situations and actions and to create innovative knowledge in their occupationalfield. Outcomes in these systems are negotiated between the state, employers, unions and teaching institutions, and have a hol-istic perspective promoting personal development and civic education. This form of VET also enjoys higher social status than VET in‘skills-based’ systems (Webb, Bathmaker et al.
2017). Whilst employability in these cases is not solely, or even primarily, based on the benefits of employers, the ‘skills-based’ formation of VET promotes an instrumentalist meaning of employability to meet the needs of employers and to strengthen national com-petitiveness (Avis2012). This instrumentalist perspective lacks a notion of citizenship and neglects personal development, and as such does not support occupational and social mobility (Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch2008). Denying VET students access to knowl-edge that enables autonomous reflection and influence in occupational and societal con-versations or controversies is one of the strongest criticisms of the‘skills-based’ formations of VET which define outcomes only as procedural knowledge (e.g. Avis2012; Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch 2008; Gamble 2014; Wheelahan 2009, 2007; Young 2013). On the other hand, systems which have another focus may be criticised in relation to the goal of VET to provide training relevant to the labour market.
Studies of initial VET in the national context examined in this article have found that knowledge in its curricula is segmented and strongly context-bound (Nylund and Rosvall
2016; Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman2017). In contrast to higher educational preparatory programmes at the same upper secondary level, where students are trained to‘think’ and ‘imagine possibilities’, the young VET students are trained to ‘do’ and to ‘adapt’. Most stu-dents in initial VET in Sweden have a working-class background and these curricula reproduce social divisions (Nylund and Rosvall 2016; Virolainen and Thunqvist2017). Its strong emphasis on context-bound knowledge and employability limit the social mobi-lity of students as these initial VET curricula hinder access to academic and professional higher education or progression in occupationalfields. The Swedish system of higher VET is however a way for these students, and for adults with vocational working life experience, to access higher education. This indicates the importance of looking into knowledge in this system of higher education, as it may both include and exclude these groups from social power, and support their social mobility or not.
Employer-driven curricula, problems and critique
Many VET systems bear resemblance to the one examined in this article, for instance, the Australian VET system of Technical and Further Education (TAFE), which is organised as
competency-based training (CBT). The similarities lay in the employers’ control over the definition of outcomes and the set-up of a market where providers compete to make VET strongly related, and also highly responsive, to the needs of industry (Pasura2014; Wheelahan 2007). Just as many other VET systems, TAFE is based on national pre-defined training packages, which have standardised industry-pre-defined outcomes (Wheela-han2007,2009). An analysis of the knowledge in the Australian industry-defined outcomes
reveals their inherent definition of knowledge as competency described as ‘knowledge and skill and the application of that knowledge and skill’ (The Training Package Development Handbook as cited in Wheelahan2007, 646). What may be described as theoretical knowl-edge is stated as a requirement in the training packages, but it is limited in regulation to knowledge that is‘actually applied at work’ (The Training Package Development Handbook as cited in Wheelahan2009, 231). This means that what is called theoretical knowledge is also knowledge bound to contexts of practice defined by industry. Based on a study of a diploma-awarding training in TAFE, at the equivalent qualification level as the Swedish higher VET system investigated further in this article, it has been argued that a change in the Australian curricula system of training packages is needed (European Commission
2016; Ryan et al.2017). This critique argues that going beyond CBT and including work-place practices that the broader sector values are needed in order to educate what are labelled as‘work-ready’ graduates with individual agency – graduates who have the ability to use critical thinking and who draw on existing knowledge and skills when faced with new tasks and for work in new contexts.
Another problem put forward in research regarding standards-based approaches in which employers define knowledge in curricula is that many employers are both reluctant to take on such a role and also often lack the expertise needed to formulate curricula (Young 2006). There were differences between sectors, but a UK experience showed
that the approach led to a largely ad hoc method to defining outcomes and to specifying what is called underpinning (theoretical) knowledge. These processes resulted in:
[…] lists of topics which either amount to little more than what anyone would know after a few weeks in a workplace […] or involve a combination of everyday workplace facts (what tools are needed or where tofind them) together with some scientific or highly technical topics with little idea as to what depth they should be studied at. (Young2006, 111)
Another criticism of curricula formed by employers is that others who could very well have contributed to qualitative curricula are set aside (Bathmaker2013). The focus on employers’
control of curricula hides the absence of other groups. The focus limits curricula from including new and evolving knowledge which researchers and specialists could contribute with, innovative occupational practices that worker representatives could bring to the table as well as the broader collective experiential perspective of trade union representatives.
However, the processes for the formation of curricula in Swedish higher VET differs from the ones referenced above as curricula are created by employers in local processes for each programme. Thus, the example studied in this article can contribute with insights from a different type of process where employers drive the formation of curricula.
Theoretical framework: knowledge as horizontal and vertical discourse
To understand what knowledge policy defines for the Swedish higher VET programmes, and to consider its implications, the conceptualisation of knowledge realised as either
horizontal or vertical discourse is deployed (Bernstein1999, 157–161). This particular theor-etical framework is used as it enables insights into how the structuring of knowledge in VET is a relay for power and how social power relations are mediated and reproduced through curricula, as shown in previous studies of VET curricula (e.g. Bathmaker2013; Gamble
2014; Nylund and Rosvall2016; Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman2017; Wheelahan2007). Knowledge realised in horizontal discourse is the mundane (Bernstein1996, 43). It is segmented and context-bound (Bernstein1999, 157–161). Horizontal discourse is often oral and tacit, and can be described as contextually specific sets of strategies or as a seg-mented repertoire of competencies for different contexts and their practices. The acqui-sition of horizontal discourse is to be understood as a development of the repertoire, the individual set of strategies, through the circulation of knowledge from the total sets of strategies possessed by all members of a community, the reservoir. This circulation is dependent on access to and partaking in practices and the contexts of their enactment. However, horizontal discourse may also be recontextualised for the purpose of educational communication. However, the segmented organisation of knowledge infers segmentally structured acquisition and thus segmented pedagogy (Bernstein1999, 160). As this peda-gogy mimics the everyday acquisition of knowledge in horizontal discourse, it is aimed at specific goals that are highly relevant to the student and preferably includes features of the original context and practice.
Vertical discourse, on the other hand, is characterised by its systemic organisation of coherent structures of symbolic meaning or by its specialised languages (Bernstein
1999, 157–161). It is the esoteric (Bernstein1996, 43), the discourse of science and disci-plines in which knowledge organised as meanings are hierarchically linked to one another (Bernstein1999, 157–161). The meanings are neither segmented nor context-dependent,
and this indirect relationship between meaning and the material base creates a (discursive) gap. This gap is what enables alternative relationships between immaterial and material, and it enables the potential of the unthinkable or the ‘yet to be thought’ (Bernstein
1996, 44). In contrast, the meanings of context-bound horizontal discourse are directly related to the material base and ‘have no reference outside that context’ (Bernstein
1996, 44). For the purpose of facilitating access to vertical discourse, segments of horizon-tal discourse may be inserted into vertical discourse as a means of creating relevance (Bernstein 1999, 169). However, this accessible contextualised vertical discourse is restricted to the procedural level of the inserted horizontal discourse. Vertical discourse is thus reduced to strategies meant to improve the horizontally segmented repertoire, and they lose the properties which offer the potential for transcending contexts and forming alternative relationships between immaterial and material.
Distributive rules control who gets access to the knowledge unbound by context and its potentials (Bernstein1990, 180–183;2000, 28–31). These rules regulate both the
circula-tion of knowledge from reservoir to repertoire and the acquisicircula-tion of recontextualised dis-course in education (Bernstein1999, 159–160). They regulate power and knowledge by
regulating relationships between social groups and consciousness, through giving or limit-ing access to the potential of the unthinkable or the‘yet to be thought’ (Bernstein1996, 44–45). Hence, the distributive rules differentiate and stratify groups and social power in the selection and transformation of knowledge for use in different educational contexts. Two types of fields where this transformation occurs may be distinguished (Bernstein
contexts of education practice and involve agents such as local school boards, school leaders and teachers. The other type offield is the official recontextualising field (ORF), which is shaped by legislation and policy as well as national agencies. In the case of VET, industry skills councils may also be agents in the ORF (Wheelahan2005). These fields may both be parallel, if actors in policy and education practice share positions on the selection and transformation of knowledge for use in the educational context, or in opposition if the positions differ. If in opposition the fields struggle for control over the knowledge recontextualised and thus power and control over the PRFs may be key in con-trolling access to knowledge (Bernstein2000, 33 and 115).
Method: analysis of policy and instructional documents
Fourteen Swedish public policy documents, published between 2006 and 2017, relating to continuing and higher VET and the formation of a new system for vocational higher edu-cation established in 2009 have been analysed in a qualitative study using theoretical the-matic analysis. The material is in Swedish and excerpts have been translated by the author. The selected dataset consists of two categories.
Thefirst category includes all legislative and national policy documents about Swedish continuing and higher VET published during the period. This includes two Government Official Reports and their preceding directions (Ministry of Education and Research
2006a,2008b, 2006b,2007), one ministerial report (Ministry of Education and Research
2015a), two bills (Ministry of Education and Research2008a,2015b) and two legislative documents (SFS2009:128;2009:130). The documents in this category form the basis for the investigation into what knowledge Swedish higher VET should include according to the definition in policy. The second category contains instructional documents from the National Agency for Higher Vocational Education directed towards education providers. These documents were included in the analysis since they offer insight into the communi-cation, interpretation and possible transformation of policy by the national agency. This category includes two versions of the annually revised formal outlines that education pro-viders must follow when applying for approval and funding to run programmes, one from the earlier years of the systems existence and the 2017 version (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education2010,2017a). This category also includes regulatory guide-lines regarding work-based learning, management boards and course syllabi (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education2011,2015a,2015b).
A premise for the analysis is that the definition in policy of what knowledge should form curricula is part of the recontextualisation process in the ORF, and that this process is a continuation of the distributive rules’ control over the distribution of knowl-edge (Bernstein1996, 42–48;1999, 159–160). The theoretical baseline for the findings is
that the definition in ORF conditions the local recontextualisation in PRFs and demarcates boundaries within which knowledge for curricula is meant to be selected. To identify what knowledge policy and instructional documents define for Swedish higher VET, the analy-sis sought to find expressions relating to subject matter and/or ideas of knowledge. The material was coded and collated into themes using codes demarcated by the separate classifications of knowledge as horizontal or vertical discourse. The findings of this analy-sis presented in the next section are based on these identified themes each portraying a position in policy on knowledge in higher VET (Braun and Clarke2006).
Defining knowledge for VET curricula: the case of Swedish higher vocational education
The case of continuing VET as a part of expanded higher education studied more closely in this article is the Swedish system called Higher Vocational Education (HVE). HVE is a market featuring both public and private provision and it is characterised by great employer influence in locally initiated and locally controlled VET programmes fashioned to meet the demands of employers.
HVE was established in 2009 as a new form of vocational higher education in the Swedish educational system. The HVE system, its credits and degrees are completely sep-arate from that of academic and professional higher education and its programmes are to build on initial VET at upper secondary level. Formerly, most continuing VET pro-grammes had been spread across several public and private funding systems. These were now assembled into this new publicly funded system which is overseen by a national agency also established at the same time. In HVE, programmes are to be initiated locally by employers in need of workforce (Ministry of Education and Research2008a). Once a year, the National Agency for Higher Vocational Education decides what programmes get to start and receive funding following a tendering-like process of applications from education providers portraying their programmes’ labour-market relevance as well as their close relationships with employers (Ministry of Education and Research2015a).
The providers of HVE programmes are primarily privately-owned education businesses, but programmes may also be provisioned by, for example, public adult edu-cation organisations, actors in popular eduedu-cation or universities (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education2018b). However, employer representatives are always the majority of the members of the so-called management boards of each HVE programme, following whose instructions the education providers run their programmes (SFS
2009:130).
In recent years, the number of students in HVE programmes has been stable at around 50,000 (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education 2017b, 2018c). This is the equivalent of approximately 10% of all students in Swedish academic or professional higher education (Swedish Higher Education Authority2017). In 2022, the number of stu-dents in HVE is intended to be 70,000, indicating a rapid expansion (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education2018a).
Findings from the analysis show that policy presents an original definition of what knowledge should form HVE curricula based on the two standpoints that knowledge in HVE programmes should be generated in the production of goods and services and that knowledge is considered legitimate if it is selected by employers. However, in 2016 this original definition of knowledge was coupled with knowledge as defined in a qualifi-cations framework for lifelong learning and mobility for EU workers and students. This is knowledge defined quite differently than that of the original definition.
Knowledge generated in the production of goods and services
By far the most common expressions in policy and instructional documents that define what knowledge should form curricula in Swedish HVE are expressions that position knowledge in HVE as something different to the knowledge of upper secondary VET
curricula and the disciplinary knowledge in academic and professional higher education. In relation to upper secondary initial VET tracks the knowledge of HVE programmes is described as more advanced and as both broader and more specific. In relation to higher education at the university level, the distinction is made by the different relation-ships to science and research. Whereas the knowledge in academic and professional higher education is described as based on academic disciplines and research, the knowledge in HVE is clearly demarcated as not coming from research, even though the wording of the legislation says that it is. The position articulated in policy in its entirety defines the knowledge for HVE programmes as coming from working life. This is the first of the two standpoints in policy underlying the original definition of what knowledge should form curricula in HVE. Specifically, it is defined as knowledge generated in the production of goods and services:
In all production of goods and services, in the production itself, knowledge is developed that is rarely documented and is thus often considered to be of low value. It is knowledge of rec-ognition and experience, which is of great importance to the production result… (Ministry of Education and Research2008a, 20)
This definition demarcates knowledge in HVE as knowledge that is useful in production, context-specific and procedural. This applied, tacit and procedural knowledge acquired from experience has the characteristics of the conceptualisation of knowledge realised as horizontal discourse.
In this original definition, the knowledge in HVE is portrayed as not having what is called a‘traditional scientific basis’:
There is often a lack of a traditional scientific basis for such knowledge. The knowledge has been developed in different production environments and it is probably best developed there. It is often a matter of knowledge that has once been gained through research and which has been further developed in practical application. (Ministry of Education and Research2008a, 31)
Instead, there is a focus on practical application. The knowledge which should form HVE is described as having been developed in working life and is valued for being useful for application in work practice. However, part of the knowledge defined for HVE curricula is what is labelled as‘theoretical anchoring’. ‘Theory’ is commonly related to academic or disciplinary knowledge, at least in the Swedish context of education where there is a per-petual idea of defining knowledge in curricula as either theory or practice (Niemi and Rosvall2013). Rather than the idea of‘theory’ as academic or disciplinary knowledge, it is here positioned as something that– just like ‘practice’ – is to be derived from the pro-duction of goods and services and working life:
The education provider must cooperate with working life so that the education provides a theoretical anchoring in the occupationalfield … (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education2017a, 43)
This‘theoretical anchoring’ is to be understood not as underpinning disciplinary knowl-edge but as context-bound knowlknowl-edge. There could have been a definition entailing ‘prac-tice’ coming directly from working life, acquired in both school-based and work-based learning, and of recontextualised disciplinary knowledge as the ‘theory’ in HVE. Instead, this‘theoretical anchoring’ positions the theoretical complement of ‘practice’ as
also coming directly from working life and not from disciplines of science and research. This formulation of knowledge‘anchoring’ the procedural knowledge in the occupational field implies no knowledge that can transcend contexts. It rather signifies the idea of ver-tical discourse (re)contextualised to the procedural level derived from the horizontal dis-course or‘practice’ (Bernstein1999, 169). The‘theory’ is thus (re)contextualised as sets of strategies to improve the segmented repertoire of the HVE students.
It is recognised that the knowledge defined for HVE is not the knowledge regularly found in curricula:
That this knowledge is rarely documented does not mean that it cannot be described and sys-tematised. (Ministry of Education and Research2008a, 20)
It is articulated that there is a need for the tacit knowledge coming directly from working life to be transformed for educational purposes. This transformation is expressed in the analysed documents as a process of describing and systematising the knowledge. The definition of what knowledge should form HVE curricula thus includes a problematisation that recognises that which is recontextualisation of procedural and tacit knowledge in horizontal discourse, which has little inherent systemic organising principles, for edu-cational communication (Bernstein1999, 157–161). Policy clearly charges the education
providers with recontextualising horizontal discourse of working practice in the making of curricula by pointing out the necessity for the transformation without taking responsi-bility for or controlling this process in the ORF at a national level.
The original definition of knowledge for HVE entails both segmented, context-depen-dent knowledge realised as horizontal discourse and the (re)contextualised vertical dis-course, which has lost the properties enabling the potential for transcending contexts. The knowledge defined for HVE is knowledge that develops the procedural repertoire of HVE students with strategies that are useful in production. This infers the use of seg-mented pedagogy aimed at specific goals that are highly relevant to the student, and that ideally includes features of the original context and practice (Bernstein1999, 160). What knowledge is defined for HVE thus demarcates not only the subject matter, the ‘what’ of HVE, but also its framing, the‘how’ in the provision of HVE programmes.
The second standpoint underpinning the original definition is that knowledge is legit-imate if selected by employers. As described previously, the education providers are charged with recontextualising knowledge directly from working life in the making of cur-ricula. That this process results in high-quality curricula are to be ensured through collab-oration with employers:
The education and training should be designed to achieve high quality and vocational rel-evance. Working life should therefore have a decisive influence over the content of HVE pro-grammes. (Ministry of Education and Research2008a, 28)
The vocational knowledge that HVE should provide must be defined in collaboration with working life. (Ministry of Education and Research2008a, 29)
Employers’ close involvement is meant to guarantee that HVE programmes are made up of the necessary knowledge and that curricula are of high quality. However, there is no discussion on why or whether employers actually select the tacit and procedural applied knowledge acquired from experience that is defined as the knowledge for HVE curricula.
In the studied material there is an implicit idea that employers select this knowledge as it is useful in production.
One expression of working life’s role as an authority in selecting knowledge is how instructional documents outline the relationship between the education provider and workplaces for work-based learning:
The educational provider and the workplace for work-based learning should continuously collaborate in order to evaluate and develop both the work-based learning course and the school-based part of the education, and to update these towards current and future needs in the workplace. (National Agency for Higher Vocational Education2015a, 1–2)
The relationship between the education provider and the workplace where a student carries out work-based learning is not only defined by the learning of the particular student in that placement. The relationship between these different actors is defined by the employer’s authority over what knowledge the HVE programme should entail as a whole. Supervisors for work-based learning are given the position of being able to define and describe not only the procedural knowledge circulated from reservoir to the HVE students’ repertoire in work-based learning, but also the recontextualised knowledge to be acquired in school-based learning, including the knowledge described as‘theoretical anchoring’.
Knowledge defined by a qualifications framework
In 2016, the original definition of what knowledge should form HVE programmes was coupled with a definition based on a qualifications framework for lifelong learning and mobility for EU workers and students, the Swedish National Qualifications Framework (SeQF). Once this Swedish adaptation of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) was completed, it was incorporated into the Regulation (2009:130) of Higher Voca-tional Education. SeQF is a framework containing a definition of knowledge that is quite different to that of the original definition.
Since 2016, the two degrees in HVE have been regulated by SeQF descriptors of levels five and six in the eight-level qualifications framework. This definition has a focus on giving the HVE students possibilities to critically analyse and independently formulate problems, assumptions and solutions, and to communicate these. Knowledge for HVE is defined as specialised in relation to science, and this definition also emphasises the sig-nificance of current research and development issues as well as methods for knowledge development in the specific field of work:
[…] can evaluate information and methods in the field of work or study with regard to rel-evant social, ethical and scientific aspects. (SFS 2009:130, ch 2 13–14§§)
The SeQF descriptors define knowledge that is hierarchically organised, and the possibi-lities to critically analyse and evaluate information are typically accredited to knowledge in vertical discourse, knowledge that enables creativity and new ways of thinking and doing, and the potential of the‘yet to be thought’.
The descriptors of levelsfive and six, as incorporated into the Regulation (2009:130) of Higher Vocational Education, do not primarily concern the application of knowledge in work. The articulations directly relating the definition of knowledge to work are limited to: ‘Plan, execute and identify resources for performing specialised tasks’, ‘can identify,
formulate, analyse, solve problems and perform complex tasks’ and ‘can apply specialised knowledge for development’ (SFS 2009:130, ch 2 13–14§§).
The incorporation of the qualifications framework descriptors introduced an inconsis-tency in policy. Viewed from the perspective facilitated by the conceptualisation of knowl-edge as realised in either horizontal or vertical discourse, the incorporation of the SeQF descriptors into regulation created two inconsistent definitions of knowledge in the ORF. The two definitions of what knowledge should form HVE curricula, both the original definition and that of the SeQF descriptors, aim to define all knowledge in HVE. Thus, they cannot be interpreted as complementary, they must be interpreted as two inconsistent definitions that co-exist in the same recontextualising field.
Discussion
This article portrays how policy defines knowledge for VET curricula in the case of a market-organised expansion of higher education in the form of continuing VET. The findings on how policy defines what knowledge should form curricula in Swedish HVE show that there are two inconsistent definitions. The two definitions are coherent within themselves yet inconsistent with each other. As of 2016, when the then completed Swedish adaptation of the EQF was incorporated into the HVE regulation, there are two definitions of knowledge for HVE that may be distinguished in the analysed material. One can be described as a‘skills-based’ definition, the original formulation from when HVE was established, and the other relates more clearly to theoretical disciplinary knowledge, discourses of lifelong learning, and entails a perspective of self-directed workers.
Notably, this difference is not in any way recognised or problematised in policy. The incorporation of the SeQF descriptors in 2016 is not presented as something new. They are introduced as a new way to describe the same knowledge as in the original definition – knowledge generated in the production of goods and services selected by employers. The incorporation of the descriptors, which also regulate knowledge in Swedish academic and professional higher education, is not presented as in any way conflicting with the definition of knowledge for HVE as applied, tacit and procedural knowledge from working life. This is despite the fact that knowledge in HVE is also strongly demarcated as something other than knowledge in academic and professional higher education. However, it is noteworthy that the original definition of knowledge for HVE as coming from working life is not lacking articulations of theoretical knowledge. Though, this is ‘theory’ which is different from the ‘theory’ in the long-lived Swedish idea of defining knowledge in curricula as either‘theory’ or ‘practice’. Knowledge in HVE curricula that possibly could be regarded and treated in teaching as theoretical and disciplinary knowl-edge is articulated as part of‘practice’. It is knowledge meant to improve the procedural knowledge of the HVE students, i.e. to make them better, or more productive, workers.
Weighing the two definitions against each other the original definition emerges as the dominant one. This is because the logic of demands-based and employer-driven curricula is consistent throughout the material, as well as over time. It is the employer stakeholders who are awarded the possibility, and all of the authority, to select knowledge for HVE cur-ricula. This does not change as the SeQF descriptors are incorporated into regulations. A change in regard to this aspect could have indicated a shift in focus from meeting the needs of employers to also supporting lifelong learning and EU mobility for students. For
instance, if regulations had been changed to include other actors such as worker and union representatives in the process of curricula formation, as is the case of initial Swedish VET and not uncommon internationally, this would have clearly indicated an awareness of the different definition of knowledge. However, employers are consistently articulated as the ones in the position to select knowledge for HVE curricula.
Besides relating strongly to Bernstein’s binary conceptualisation of knowledge as hori-zontal and vertical discourse the two definitions may also be characterised in relation to what and to whom they relate. In the case of the original definition, knowledge is related to the world of work and to the needs and wishes of local employers. Knowledge is valued for its usefulness in production. In the case of the other definition, the one based on the qualifications framework, the knowledge is instead related to the students and their possibilities. It is valued for its usefulness to students in their lifelong learning and to their opportunities in the EU labour market, rather than just for its usefulness in production. The implications of this system of vocational higher education on social power relations and students’ opportunities for social mobility can be described from two perspectives. Firstly, as the dominant definition of what knowledge should form HVE curricula is based on meeting employers’ needs for workforce suitable for production, the definition neglects knowledge that is necessary for full democratic inclusion and participation in civic practice, which is key to equality.
Secondly, as curricula are created in local processes, in which employers are positioned as the authority, it ties the programmes and their students to these employers through specifically adapted knowledge and outcomes in curricula. It locks the students into pre-defined positions in the local labour markets. It also inserts the logics of the stratified labour markets, and the general inequalities that come with the organisation of wage labour, into the HVE programmes. Thus, HVE reproduces existing social divisions and the students’ positions in the social hierarchy as wage labour workers. And as curricula are not based on knowledge forming autonomous workers with abilities to reflect on situ-ations and actions and to create innovative knowledge in their occupation it does not support social mobility through mobility within the occupational field. No matter how advanced the repertoires of the higher VET students may be, they are still based on seg-mented knowledge of practice tying the students to the contexts of that specific practice.
Conclusion
The case of HVE curricula being created locally by employers, based on their specific wishes and needs, serve as an example of one way that the global policy trends of market relevance and employer influence in higher VET may be realised. It is an example that diverges from the more common approaches to the creation of curricula or formation of outcomes where the stakeholders involved are more diverse or the pro-cesses are organised at national level with employers meant to represent not only their own enterprises. The focus in HVE on meeting demands formulated by employers in the direct vicinity of its programmes also creates relationships where the task of education providers is narrowed down to deliver on these demands. Implications of this limited role may be educators with little autonomy to make decisions of their own regarding their teaching, even further strengthening the one-sided power and control over the HVE pro-grammes established in policy by positioning employers as the sovereign part in curricula
making. Policymakers seem to take for granted that the many employers involved in creat-ing HVE curricula in local processes have the will and the ability to select knowledge for qualitative VET curricula. However, as experience shows it is problematic to assume this works well. This inevitably raises the question of what knowledge actually is formulated into curricula and course syllabi in the local contexts of HVE programmes.
The focus in HVE on meeting demands formulated by employers also enforces the dis-tinctive vocational pathway in Swedish higher education to which those with a back-ground in initial VET at the upper secondary level is very much confined if wanting to participate in higher education. If HVE, as well as other higher VET systems, is to support equality through inclusion and participation of these and other groups, the systems must offer students access to knowledge enabling social mobility and civic partici-pation. However it seems that the case of HVE might be an example of the focus on differ-entiation and distinctly vocational pathways in higher education rather than on equality of opportunity and outcomes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
Johanna Köpsén http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3150-4853
References
Avis, James.2012.“Global Reconstructions of Vocational Education and Training.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 10 (1): 1–11.doi:10.1080/14767724.2012.646876.
Bathmaker, Ann-Marie. 2013. “Defining ‘Knowledge’ in Vocational Education Qualifications in England: An Analysis of Key Stakeholders and Their Constructions of Knowledge, Purposes and Content.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 65 (1): 87–107. doi:10.1080/ 13636820.2012.755210.
Bathmaker, Ann-Marie. 2017. “Post-Secondary Education and Training, New Vocational and Hybrid Pathways and Questions of Equity, Inequality and Social Mobility: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 69 (1): 1–9.doi:10.1080/13636820. 2017.1304680.
Bathmaker, Ann-Marie, Lukas Graf, Kevin Orr, Justin Powell, Sue Webb, and Leesa Wheelahan.
2018.“Higher Level Vocational Education: The Route to High Skills and Productivity as Well as Greater Equity? An International Comparative Analysis.” In Trends in Vocational Education and Training Research. Proceedings of the European Conference on Educational Re-Search (Ecer), Vocational Education and Training Network, edited by Christof Nägele and Barabara E. Stalder, 53–60. Bern: VETNET.
Bernstein, Basil.1990. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Class, Codes and Control, Volume 4. London: Routledge.
Bernstein, Basil.1996. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. 1 ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Bernstein, Basil.1999.“Vertical and Horizontal Discourse: An Essay.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 20 (2): 157–173.doi:10.1080/01425699995380.
Bernstein, Basil.2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Billet, Stephen.2014.“The Standing of Vocational Education: Sources of Its Societal Esteem and Implications for Its Enactment.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 66 (1): 1–21.
doi:10.1080/13636820.2013.867525.
Boeren, Ellen, and Nalita James.2017.“Special Issue: Advancing Theory and Research in Widening Participation.” Studies in Continuing Education 39 (2): 117–119.doi:10.1080/0158037X.2017. 1318540.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke.2006.“Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brockmann, Michaela, Linda Clarke, and Christopher Winch. 2008. “Knowledge, Skills, Competence: European Divergences in Vocational Education and Training (VET): The English, German and Dutch Cases.” Oxford Review of Education 34 (5): 547–567.doi:10.1080/ 03054980701782098.
European Commission.2016.“Comparative Analysis of the Australian Qualifications Framework and the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning”: Joint Technical Report: European Commission.
Gamble, Jeanne. 2014. “‘Approaching the Sacred’: Directionality in the Relation Between Curriculum and Knowledge Structure.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 35 (1): 56– 72.doi:10.1080/01425692.2012.740802.
Hippach-Schneider, Ute, Verena Schneider, Boris Ménard, and Sabine Tritscher-Archan.2017. “The Underestimated Relevance and Value of Vocational Education in Tertiary Education – Making the Invisible Visible.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 69 (1): 28–46.
doi:10.1080/13636820.2017.1281342.
Marginson, Simon. 2016. “The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education: Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems.” Higher Education 72 (4): 413–434.
doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x.
Ministry of Education and Research.2006a. Eftergymnasiala yrkesutbildningar: Beskrivning, problem och möjligheter (SOU 2006:115) [Post-Secondary Vocational Education: Description, Problems and Opportunities (SOU 2006:115)], Swedish Government Official Reports. Stockholm: Fritze Ministry of Education and Research.2006b. Översyn av den eftergymnasiala yrkesutbildningen (Dir.
2006:33) [Review of Post-Secondary Vocational Education (Dir. 2006:33)]. Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Research.
Ministry of Education and Research. 2007. Utredning om införandet av en yrkeshögskola (Dir. 2007:50) [Study on the Introduction of a Higher Vocational Education (Dir. 2007:50)]. Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Research.
Ministry of Education and Research.2008a. Yrkeshögskolan (Prop. 2008/09:68) [Higher Vocational Education (Bill. 2008/09:68)]. Stockholm: Government Offices.
Ministry of Education and Research.2008b. Yrkeshögskolan: För yrkeskunnande i förändring (SOU 2008:29) [Higher Vocational Education; For Changing Vocational Skills (SOU 2008:29)], Swedish Government Official Reports. Stockholm: Fritze
Ministry of Education and Research. 2015a. En stärkt yrkeshögskola: ett lyft för kunskap (Ds: 2015:41) [A Strengthened Higher Vocational Education: A Raise for Knowledge (Ds: 2015: 41)]. Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Research.
Ministry of Education and Research. 2015b. En stärkt yrkeshögskola: ett lyft för kunskap (Prop. 2015/16:198) [A Strengthened Higher Vocational Education: A Raise for Knowledge (Bill. 2015/16:198)]. Stockholm: Government Offices.
National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.2010. Anvisningar för ansökan om att bedriva yrkeshögskoleutbildning 2010 [Instructions for the Application to Run Programmes in Higher Vocational Education 2010]. Västerås: National Agency for Higher Vocational Education. National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.2011. Myndighetens syn på ledningsgruppsarbete
[The Agency’s View on Management Boards]. Västerås: National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.
National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.2015a. Allmänna råd om Lärande i Arbete [General Guidlines Regarding Work Based Learning]. Västerås: National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.
National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.2015b. Myndighetens syn på utbildningsplan och kursplaner [The Agency’s View on Syllabi]. Västerås: National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.
National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.2017a. Anvisningar för ansökan om att bedriva yrkeshögskoleutbildning 2017 [Instructions for the Application to Run Programmes in Higher Vocational Education 2017]. Västerås: National Agency for Higher Vocational Education. National Agency for Higher Vocational Education. 2017b. “Yrkeshögskolan 2016 – Kortfattad
Statistik.” [Higher Vocational Education 2016 – Statistics]. National Agency for Higher Vocational Education, Accessed 2018-01-06. https://www.myh.se/Documents/Publikationer/ Informationsmaterial/kortfattad_yrkeshogskolan.pdf.
National Agency for Higher Vocational Education. 2018a. “Många nya platser inom yrkeshögskolan.” [Many New Studie Places in Higher Vocational Edducation], Accessed 2018-02-08.https://www.myh.se/Nyhetsrum/Nyheter/2018/Manga-nya-platser-i-yrkeshogskolan/. National Agency for Higher Vocational Education. 2018b. “Statistisk Årsrapport 2018” [Yearly
Statistical Report 2018]. Västerås: National Agency for Higher Vocational Education.
National Agency for Higher Vocational Education. 2018c. “Yrkeshögskolan 2017 – Kortfattad Statistik.” [Higher Vocational Education 2017 - Statistics]. National Agency for Higher Vocational Education, Accessed 2018-11-13.https://www.myh.se/Statistik/.
Niemi, Anna-Maija, and Per-Åke Rosvall. 2013. “Framing and Classifying the Theoretical and Practical Divide: How Young Men’s Positions in Vocational Education Are Produced and Reproduced.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 65 (4): 445–460. doi:10.1080/ 13636820.2013.838287.
Nylund, Mattias, and Per-Åke Rosvall. 2016. “A Curriculum Tailored for Workers? Knowledge Organization and Possible Transitions in Swedish Vet.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 48 (5): 692–710.doi:10.1080/00220272.2016.1138325.
Nylund, Mattias, Per-Åke Rosvall, and Kristina Ledman.2017.“The Vocational–Academic Divide in Neoliberal Upper Secondary Curricula: The Swedish Case.” Journal of Education Policy 32 (6): 788–808.doi:10.1080/02680939.2017.1318455.
Pasura, Rinos.2014.“Neoliberal Economic Markets in Vocational Education and Training: Shifts in Perceptions and Practices in Private Vocational Education and Training in Melbourne, Australia.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 12 (4): 564–582.doi:10.1080/14767724.2014. 906300.
Ryan, Mary, Karleen Gwinner, Kerry Mallan, and Cheryl Livock.2017.“Preparing Work-Ready Nurses: Reflexive Learning for Diverse Students in the Australian Vocational Education and Training Sector.” Studies in Continuing Education 39 (2): 268–285. doi:10.1080/0158037X. 2017.1279136.
SFS 2009:128 [Law of Higher Vocational Education]. Stockholm: The Swedish Riksdag. SFS 2009:130 [Regulation of Higher Vocational Education]. Stockholm: The Swedish Riksdag. Swedish Higher Education Authority. 2017. Higher Education in Sweden 2017 Status Report.
Stockholm: Swedish Higher Education Authority.
Virolainen, M., and Daniel Persson Thunqvist. 2017. “Varieties of Universalism: Post-1990s Developments in the Initial School-Based Model of Vet in Finland and Sweden and Implications for Transitions to the World of Work and Higher Education.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 69 (1): 47–63.doi:10.1080/13636820.2016.1238836.
Webb, Sue, Ann-Marie Bathmaker, Trevor Gale, Steven Hodge, Stephen Parker, and Shaun Rawolle. 2017. “Higher Vocational Education and Social Mobility: Educational Participation in Australia and England.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 69 (1): 147–167.
doi:10.1080/13636820.2016.1269359.
Webb, Sue, Penny Jane Burke, Susan Nichols, Steven Roberts, Garth Stahl, Steven Threadgold, and Jane Wilkinson.2017.“Thinking with and Beyond Bourdieu in Widening Higher Education Participation.” Studies in Continuing Education 39 (2): 138–160.doi:10.1080/0158037X.2017. 1302926.
Wheelahan, Leesa.2005.“The Pedagogic Device: The Relevance of Bernstein’s Analysis for Vet.” In Vocational Learning: Transitions, Interrelationships, Partnerships and Sustainable Futures
Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Post-Compulsory Education and Training, Gold Coast, Queensland, 5–7 December, 2005, edited by Jean Searle, Fred Beven, and Dick Roebuck, 543–550. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Wheelahan, Leesa. 2007. “How Competency-Based Training Locks the Working Class out of Powerful Knowledge: A Modified Bernsteinian Analysis.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (5): 637–651.doi:10.1080/01425690701505540.
Wheelahan, Leesa. 2009. “The Problem with CBT (and Why Constructivism Makes Things Worse).” Journal of Education and Work 22 (3): 227–242.doi:10.1080/13639080902957913. Wheelahan, Leesa. 2015. “Not Just Skills: What a Focus on Knowledge Means for Vocational
Education.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 47 (6): 750–762.doi:10.1080/00220272.2015.1089942. Young, Michael.2006.“Conceptualising Vocational Knowledge: Some Theoretical Considerations.” In Knowledge, Curriculum and Qualifications for South African Further Education, edited by Michael Young and Jeanne Gamble, 104–124. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Young, Michael. 2013. “Overcoming the Crisis in Curriculum Theory: A Knowledge-Based Approach.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 45 (2): 101–118.doi:10.1080/00220272.2013.764505.
