Session Information
02 SES 02 A, Digitalization I: Chances & Risks
Paper Session
Contribution
The paper engages with a diverse and contradictory literature, employing an analytic stance rooted in policy scholarship. It discusses rhetorical constructions of Industrie 4.0 and its equivalent the 4th industrial Revolution (4th IR,). The paper locates these notions in understandings of the economy rooted in neo-liberalism which rest upon a capitalist terrain (Avis, 2018; Fuchs, 2018; Harvey, 2014). Whilst this discussion is focused on the global north it should not be forgotten that these debates have a significant impact upon the global south. The 4thIR is an ideological construct which reflects specific material interests, having particular implications for education and training throughout the life span (Jasanoff and Kim, 2015; Pfeiffer, 2017). The 4thIR’s association with digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI) is ambivalent. For some writers this leads to technological unemployment whilst for others, even though there is labour market disruption, there is no employment crisis that cannot be resolved (Anslow, 2016; Atkinson and Wu, 2017; Autor, 2015; Ford, 2016; Haldane, 2015). The strong connection between the 4thIR and labour market requirements are softened by those adopting a qualitative analysis of advanced manufacturing work. These writers suggest the relationship between technology and skill is rather more complex than the protagonists of technological unemployment suggest (Baxter et al, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2016). Neo-Marxist discussions of the elimination of labour from paid employment, together with the falling rate of profit, in some senses bypasses the former arguments (Blacker, 2013; Berardi, 2017). Harvey (2014) argues these processes are embedded in capital’s developmental logic. Such arguments raise questions that address important socio-economic issues concerned with the expulsion of labour from waged employment – the salience of surplus labour and the wider political as well as educational responses. In the case of the former a universal basic income is raised as a way of responding to a restricted labour market. In the case of the later we encounter well-rehearsed arguments that stress the salience of lifelong learning in relation to up- and re-skilling alongside those that emphasise the salience of soft skills (West, 2018). The paper draws out the implications for VET over the lifespan and considers what might be a progressive educational response (Dittrich, 2016; Hajkowicz et al, 2016; Peters, 2017)? Such a response would need to go beyond those rooted in social democratic sensibilities and should acknowledge the interpenetration and dialogic relationship between the socio-economic and political context and VET. The key question being whether or not we need to rethink VET in putative new conditions. West’s (2018) and many other writers concerns with lifelong learning and the requirement for continuous up- and re-skilling alongside the development of soft skills reflect discussions that have been frequently reiterated over the last 30 years – there is nothing really new here other than the urgency within which this argument is set along with a recognition of digital skills. However, is there something qualitatively different in the current conjuncture that necessitates a fundamental review of what constitutes VET and its relationship with wider society? The paper concludes by arguing that technology and AI are entwined with social relations, being sites of class struggle. How this is played out is an outcome of the balance of power, not only within the social formation but globally. How far the development of the forces of production are compatible with capitalist relations is a moot point, as well as being a site of struggle.
Method
The paper is rooted in policy scholarship with its methodology set within a critical engagement with a relevant literature. In this respect the paper adopts an approach derived from critical theory. The analysis that the paper develops is thus part of its methodology. Consequently, the validity of the argument can be judged on the basis of its credibility and plausibility, which in turn will be partly shaped by the manner in which readers position themselves in relation to the paper. Rather than engage in a systematic or definitive review and engagement with the literature based upon the protocols of the former, I seek to engage with the relevant debates. Systematic reviews rest upon a quasi-technicist and positivist approach to empirical research (Avis, 2003; Maclure, 2005). In this paper I seek to address the particular and often contradictory stances that have been taken towards the 4th IR and the resulting debates. Inevitably I am positioned as a participant in these discussions having selected the particular themes and debates to be examined. I have not limited my discussion to advanced manufacturing as to have done so would have restricted the argument and ignored the ideological ramifications of the 4th IR and its social imaginary. I have aimed to mobilise a range of arguments that can rest alongside and have an affinity with the 4th IR. The 4th IR encompasses far more than a narrow technical focus upon advanced manufacturing. Consequently, I engage, albeit briefly, with arguments that address post-work, Marxism as well as Italian Workerism as these provide something of a counter to more mainstream arguments that address the 4th IR. These analyses provide a rather different understanding of the ideological and socio-economic context in which the 4th IR is placed than do more conventional and empiricist engagements.
Expected Outcomes
The conclusion examines the 4th IR and the implications this has for VET over the lifespan as well as for the development of progressive educational responses (Dittrich, 2016; Hajkowicz et al, 2016; Peters, 2017). However, such a response would need to go beyond those rooted in social democratic sensibilities and should acknowledge the interpenetration and dialogic relationship between the socio-economic and political context and VET. The key question is whether we need to rethink VET in the putative new conditions presaged by the 4th IR. The concerns of many writers with lifelong learning and the requirement for continuous up- and re-skilling together with the development of soft skills reflect discussions that have been frequently reiterated over the last 30 years or so – there is nothing really new here other than the urgency within which this argument is set, along with a recognition of digital skills (Dittrich, 2016; Hajkowicz, et al, 2016; West, 2018). However, is there something qualitatively different in the current conjuncture that necessitates a fundamental review of what constitutes VET and its relationship with wider society? The paper concludes by arguing that technology and AI are entwined with social relations, being sites of class struggle. How this is played out is an outcome of the balance of power, not only within the social formation but globally. How far the development of the forces of production are compatible with capitalist relations is a moot point, as it is also a site of struggle. The point is that the progressive affordances offered by the 4th IR are constrained by the manner in which it is enmeshed within capitalist relations.
References
Anslow, L. 2016. Robots have been about to take all the jobs for more than 200 years: Is it really different this time? https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-take-all-the-jobs-for-more-than-200-years-5c9c08a2f41d Atkinson, R. Wu, J. 2017. False alarmism: technological disruption and the U.S. labor market, 1850–2015, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, http://www2.itif.org/2017-false-alarmism-technological-disruption.pdf?_ga=2.144641148.812496487.1496450124-341239608.1496450124 Autor, D. 2015. Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3) Avis, J. 2003. Work-based knowledge, Evidence informed practice and Education. British Journal of Education Studies, 51(4) Avis, J. 2018. Socio-technical imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution and its implication for vocational education and training: a literature review, Journal of Vocational Education and Training 70(3) Baxter, G. Rooksby, J. Wang. Y. Khajeh-Hosseini, A. 2012. The ironies of automation … still going strong at 30? Proceedings of ECCE 2012 Conference, 29th-31st August, Edinburgh, North Britain, Berardi, F. (2017) Futurability: Blacker, D. 2013. The falling rate of learning and the neoliberal endgame Dittrich, P. (2016) Reskilling for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Formulating a European Strategy. Jacques Delors Institut – Berlin. http://www.institutdelors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/digitalskill-jdib-nov2016.pdf?pdf=ok Ford, M. (2016) The rise of the robots Frey, C. Michael A. Osborne, M. (2013) The Future of Employment: how Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation? Published by the Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment, https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/view/1314 Fuchs, C. 2018. Industry 4.0: the digital German ideology, tripleC, 16(1) Hajkowicz, S. Reeson, A. Rudd, L. Bratanova, A. Hodgers, L. Mason, C. Boughen, N. 2016 Tomorrow’s Digitally Enabled Workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?pid=csiro:EP161054& Haldane, A. 2015 Labour’s Share Speech given by Chief Economist, Bank of England Harvey, D. 2014. Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism Jasanoff, S. Kim, S-H. Eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity, Chicago University Press, Peters, M. A. 2017. Technological unemployment: Educating for the fourth industrial revolution, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(1) MacLure, M. (2004) ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where’s the quality in systematic review? Paper presented to British Educational Research Association annual conference UMIST, September Pfeiffer, S. 2016. Robots, Industry 4.0 and Humans, or Why Assembly Work Is More than Routine Work, Societies, Societies Pfeiffer, S. 2017. The Vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the Making - a Case of Future Told, Tamed, and Traded, Nanoethics 11 West, D. (2018) The future of work
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.