This contribution is based on reflections on the further development and the application of the framework presented by Symposium Paper I. Specific emphasis will be laid upon the role of “occupation” and “occupational practice” as a “tertium comparationis” for comparative VET research. In an analysis of concepts of curriculum and comparative research in VET we found that the literature that in many cases does not refer explicitly to the notion of occupation or vocation. It only does so in an implicit way. Sometimes approaches refer to theory and practice, however, given the close connection between the knowledge and the practice itself, which is a genuine feature of VET a simple theory-practice-divide is not useful (see also Dietzen 2017, 2020). Based on concepts and terms from the socio-cultural approach (Billett, 2017; Billett et al., 2018; Harteis, 2018) we examine if ‘occupational practice’ can serve as the major reference system for comparative VET. Concepts from this approach, such as situated knowledge, canonical occupational knowledge and vocational knowledge will be located within the framework for comparative VET. Situated knowledge is the knowledge that is required at certain workplaces or in specific organisations – the concept remains largely within the scope of the socio-economic perspective. Canonical occupational knowledge is the knowledge that is generally accepted as the knowledge required to practice a certain occupation and spans different perspectives from the framework. Situated and canonical occupational knowledge - can become ‘vocational knowledge’ by processes of learning, internalisation and identification located in the focus of the epistemological-pedagogical perspective. In the contribution the benefits and limitations of making “occupational practice” the major reference for comparative research in VET will be discussed based on examples from the prior contributions and with reference to other concepts from VET research that were analysed in producing the framework for comparative research mentioned in the first contribution.

Billett, Stephen (2017): Theorising occupational practice and its learning: Personal, institutional and brute factors. In: Peter Grootenboer, Christine Edwards-Groves und Sarojni Choy (Hg.): Practice theory perspectives of Education and Pedagogy. Dordrecct: Springer, S. 67–86. Billett, Stephen; Harteis, Christian; Gruber, Hans (2018): Developing occupational expertise through everyday work activities and interactions. In: The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge handbooks in psychology), S. 105–126. Dietzen, Agnes (2017): Knowledge Concepts in Competence-based VET Research Perspectives on Cognitivist and Social-Constructivist Approaches. In: Martin Mulder (Hg.): Competence-based vocational and professional education, Bd. 23. Cham: Springer (Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects), S. 719–737. Dietzen, Agnes (2020): Implizites Wissen, Arbeitsvermögen und berufliche Handlungskompetenz. In: Rico Hermkes, Georg Hans Neuweg und Tim Bonowski (Hg.): Implizites Wissen. Berufs- und wirtschaftspädagogische Annäherungen. 1. Auflage. Bielefeld: wbv Media (Wirtschaft - Beruf - Ethik, 38), S. 87–107.