Session Information
02 SES 04 B, Policy & Governance I: Systems
Paper Session
Contribution
The Learning Region concepts primarily consider universities as innovation partners (Lorenz and Lundvall, 2006); (Goddard and Chatterton, 1999), and ignore VET and secondary education in general. In this way, there is a contradiction between the advocacy of bottom-up initiatives in the concept and 'ignoring' vocational training and the 'non-inclusion' of a large group of people (Benke 2013). The broader range of training institutions - as potential partners - can be found in those approaches of learning region where the learning region is interpreted as a regional-based development coalition (Asheim and Gertler, 2005); (Lundvall, 2008). This coalition includes a wider range of organizations and institutions that influence and support learning and innovation in a given region (Asheim, 1996); (Morgan, 1997). While at the level of theoretical concepts of the learning regions, secondary education and training do not play a prominent role, there are examples of development projects where the importance of secondary education appears. In the OECD Learning Region project, five participating European regions considered “there and then” the development of secondary education as the key to development (Németh, 2014); (OECD, 2001). One of CEDEFOP's publications examined the impact of the learning region concept on local development through case studies, highlighting the role of VET and secondary education and training (Gustavsen - Nyhan - Ennals (eds.), 2007).
My research attempts to point to the role of VET institutions as potential innovation partners in local development processes. I explain the reasons which lead to the fact that secondary VET is mostly ignored in the learning regions concepts. I search the differences in the interpretation of innovation concepts how they handle VET (Asheim, 1996). The main research question is, what circumstances support and what block and reduce the chance to build strong partnership with the involvement of VET institutions. Since despite the fact that the definition of secondary vocational education and training is in the process of being transformed (see Cedefop, 2015 and the new three VET scenarios), in practice, there is still a strong tendency in many cases to use secondary VET as a means of responding quickly to the needs of the economy (particularly short-term). Becasue of this I try to find answer to the question if the higher pro-activity level and capability of VET gives a positive shift to become an innovation partner.
Research is in progress.
Method
The employed research methods are literature review, secondary processing of research results and expert interviews. The research is planning to focus mostly on international research outputs and on the very few national outputs.
Expected Outcomes
Australian researchers’ outcomes highlight some factors that reduce building partnership with VET institutions. There are contradictions between centralised VET policy and the regional view of local learning communities, and between the short term needs of VET market and the long term needs of trust which serves as a vital force for communities. There is significant tension between the centralised policy frameworks within which VET has come to operate and the focus on regional economic development and community building that is more often the focal point of learning communities. Any meaningful involvement in a community requires mutual trust. While the building of trust develops in the long-term, it has been damaged by the high level of uncertainty, change and instability experienced by many VET organisations in recent years... And, also Kimberley emphasizes the new challange VET meets in relation to the learning communities. ”VET can meet the postmodern challenge to satisfy the paradox of simultaneously working from the bottom up (learning community enterprise) and the top down (policy imperatives) (Kimberley, 2003). At the same time, prestige problems may arise with the management of secondary VET institutions as partners. On the basis of national experience, the question arises as to how the process of centralization of VET, the behavior of companies and the "survival strategies" of VET schools can contribute to the emergence of real, meaningful partner roles. Moreover, implementation of tasks arising from ad hoc market requirements leaves little room for schools to develop meaningful, genuine partner roles. (Benke, 2016). However, we assume that the knowledge comes from schools and workshop practices makes a meaningful contribution to schools’ incremental innovation capacity. Research is in progress.
References
ASHEIM, B. T. and GERTLER, M. S. (2005): The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems, in: FAGERBERG, J., MOWERY, D. AND NELSON, R. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 291-317. Oxford University Press, Oxford. BENKE, M. (2013): A tanuló régiók, a tanuló közösségek és a szakképzés. Szakképzési Szemle, 19(3): 5‒21. (The learning regions, learning communities and vocational education and training. Vocational Training Review. In print. Hungarian). BENKE, M. (2015): The spatial frame of lifelong learning: learning regions, learning cities, learning communities, Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 5(4): 79‒86. http://herj.lib.unideb.hu/megjelent/index/32 BENKE, M. (2016): A tanuló közösségek és a szakképzés. In: EDUCATIO, Szerk.: Kozma T., Márkus E.), 2016, 25. 2. sz. 184-197. (The learning communities and vocational education and training. in: EDUCATIO, Thematic issue: Learning cities, learning communities.) BENKE, M. et al. (2018): Learning Regions for Resilience in Hungary: Challenges and Opportunities. In: BAYCAN, T. AND PINTO, H. (Eds.): Resilience, Crisis and Innovation Dynamics. Edward Elgar Publishing. ENNALS, R. AND GUSTAVSEN, B. (eds) (1999): Work Organisation and Europe as a Development Coalition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GODDARD, J.B. and CHATTERTON, C. (1999) ‘Regional Development Agencies and the knowledge economy: harnessing the potential of universities’ in: Environment and Planning C. 17 (6), 685-699 KIMBERLEY, Helen (2003): Urban Disadvantage and Learning Communities: Integrating Report. OVAL Research Working Paper, 03-21, The Australian Centre for Org., Vocational and Adult Learning, Sydney, The Univ. of Technology. KOZMA, T. et al. (2015): Tanuló régiók Magyarországon. (Learning Regions in Hungary.) Debrecen: Centre for Higher Education R&D. LONGWORTH, N. (2012): The changing scope of learning cities and regions. LORENZ, E. and LUNDVALL, B. Å. (Eds) (2006) How Europe’s Economies Learn: Coordinating Competing Models. Oxford University Press, Oxford. MALLEY, J. (2002): The Role of VET in Building Learning Communities for Disadvantaged Urban Groups. Urban Disadvantage and Learning Communities: Oval Research Working Paper, 03-22, January 2002, Univ. of Technology, Sydney. MELVILLE, B. (2003): Involvement of VET in Learning Communities: Relevance for Urban Areas. Univ. of Technology, Sydney. MORGAN, K. (1997): The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. In Regional Studies, 31, 5, 491-503. NYHAN, Barry (2007): Building learning regions for innovation in Europe: a challenge for education and training. In: Gustavsen, B. – Nyhan, B. – Ennals, R. (eds): Learning together for local innovation: promoting learning regions. (Cedefop Ref. series: 68) 16-45. PUTNAM, R. 1993, ‘The prosperous community: Social capital and public life’, The American Prospect, 4 (13)
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.