Theorising VET: European Differences, Commonalities and Contestation

Context: VET is faced with profound challenges in the post-COVID era: fundamental questions about the purposes of VET, its limitations and its theoretical justification, have acquired renewed importance. Across national boundaries in Europe, the theorisation of VET has been approached differently. One of the oldest theoretical rationales for VET was developed over a century ago in Germany under the name of Berufsbildungstheorie. The difference between this and other countries has been variously associated with different VET systems, academic traditions and relationships to broader socio-economic policies in each country, each with their own continuities and ruptures over time. In several European countries we can point to a shift from early philosophical writing about VET and education more generally to the use of techniques from the social sciences, and the profusion of post-foundational approaches has further undermined the claims of normative theory; yet, both in general education and increasingly in VET, an increased interest in the notion of Bildung as a more humanistic approach to education than the narrow calculations of human capital theory is also evident. Approach: In this paper we therefore ask whether these approaches retain relevance for contemporary VET, addressing this through three related perspectives that build in various ways on these theoretical traditions. The first compares the development of Berufsbildungstheorie by key architects of the German VET system to theorisation of VET in English-speaking countries, which has drawn on a wider range of social sciences, especially since the 1980s. This contrast is discussed here drawing on an extensive review of VET literature emanating from English-speaking countries. The significance and limitations of the Berufsbildungstheorie tradition is illustrated further in the second of these three sections, when the German vocational transition system is analysed using social systems theory. Finally, neo-institutionalism is used to demonstrate the process by which countries aspire to imitate visibly successful models of VET despite cultural, institutional and theoretical differences that make the transfer of policies from one jurisdiction to another a highly problematic exercise. Findings: These illustrative cases provide important insights into the continuing relevance of Berufsbildungstheorie or any normative theory of VET. The theorisation of VET in the English-speaking countries has taken place through a critique based mainly on the social sciences, which has drawn attention to VET’s positioning within the networks of neoliberal policy in these countries and its reproductive logic. The discussion of German VET as a transition system also illustrates the way that classic theories are perceived to have less explanatory value for contemporary systems. Finally, the paper on neo-institutionalism provides an explanation for aspirations to imitate the perceived successes of other jurisdictions in spite of the barriers to ‘policy borrowing’ across national contexts, suggesting once again that such approaches can have explanatory value in different contexts. Conclusion: Each of these accounts illustrates in its own way how the social sciences have come to dominate the theorisation of VET, even in German-speaking countries. Yet the importance of constructing and connecting normative, pedagogical and critical dimensions of VET can hardly be disregarded in an age where international policymaking so often advances a unifying, purely economistic imperative. Therefore the future of both theory and practice of VET is likely to depend not only on ‘rational’ analysis of VET and its context but on the development of criteria that enable us to judge the value, human potential and social justice of our ideas and actions. Therefore, the analytical power of social science theories could be enriched by a normative dimension, possibly retrieved from Bildung or Berufsbildung concepts. However, as concepts that were developed in Europe, they need to be renewed and revised with attention to contemporary issues and understandings, for example with attention to ideas that draw on and recognise fully the experience and contribution of the global South