The aim of this contribution is to explore methodological issues related to scenarios on vocational education and training (VET). In particular, we examine the extent to which VET scenarios depend or build on generalizable future expectations (“myths of the future”) or archetypes of the future (Boschetti et al., 2016). In addition the analysis builds on a review of recent methodological literature (Bradfield et al., 2016; Schoemaker, 2020; Spaniol & Rowland, 2018; van Notten et al., 2003) on scenario building applied to three international scenario studies on VET carried out by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), in which the authors were partly involved (Cedefop et al., 2003; Cedefop, 2010, 2020). We argue that neither scenarios on a particular issue (“issue-based”) nor on the future of a particular society (“area-based”) do justice to diverse VET systems but that scenarios in VET need to be "institution-based” (van Notten et al., 2003). Hence, both the relative independence of VET systems and their path dependency – especially in transnational projects – need to be taken into account. In this analysis we will also present some results from these scenarios and discuss commonalities and differences in terms of the methods applied, how the process of scenario construction was organized and different purposes of scenario construction. We can show that differences in methods and scenario processes will lead to considerably different results. We can also show that correspondingly differently constructed scenarios are useful for different purposes, between more analytic and participative approaches. In conclusion, we propose that the regular application of the scenario approach could be a useful complement to various other prospective approaches used to guide European employment and vocational training policies. We will also relate VET scenarios to current megatrends or challenges such as digitalization or the greening of the economy and their consequences for the future of Vocational Education.

Boschetti, F., Price, J., & Walker, I. (2016). Myths of the future and scenario archetypes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.009 Bradfield, R., Derbyshire, J., & Wright, G. (2016). The critical role of history in scenario thinking: Augmenting causal analysis within the intuitive logics scenario development methodology. Futures, 77, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.02.002 Cedefop. (2010). Changing Qualifications. A review of qualifications policies and practices. Reference series. Cedefop. (2020). Vocational education and training in Europe, 1995-2035. Scenarios for European vocational education and training in the 21st century. Cedefop. Cedefop, van Wieringen, F., Sellin, B., & Schmidt, G. (2003). Future education: learning the future: scenarios and strategies in Europe. Cedefop reference series 42 (No. 42). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 270 p. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2020). How historical analysis can enrich scenario planning, 2(3-4), e35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.35 Spaniol, M. J., & Rowland, N. J. (2018). The scenario planning paradox. Futures, 95, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.09.006 van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A., & Rothman, D. S. (2003). An updated scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00090-3