Rosvall and Nylund (2022) summarise an apparent consensus among researchers that democracy learning might more easily be addressed in school settings than in workplaces, ‘since hierarchies that might be discussed or questioned are embedded in workplace settings. Thus, workplaces may be less safe spaces for learning democracy…’. Yet from a psychologistic perspective, Schnitzler (2017) showed that in German regulated company transmission in the dual system (DS), learners acquire political skills. This presentation follows Rosvall’s and Nylund’s reference to Basil Bernstein’s conceptual language to investigate the DS’s social-structural conditions that make the acquisition of political skills or learning for and through democratic participation possible.

Drawing on Bernstein’s (2000) notion of ‘pedagogic culture’, the presentation uses a theoretical framework developed by Hoadley and Galant (2017) (henceforth: H+G) to analyse the power (and control) relations within the DS with the company as primary transmission site. Hoadley and Galant explain that Bernstein conceived of pedagogic culture as a container. Besides two other dimensions, economy and bias, which are not considered here, the shape and stability of the container are relevant for what it contains, what is being transmitted. Stability, H+G point out, is about forms of control, which are analysable as Bernstein’s framing relations. Prior research (Höhns 2018, 2022) showed that in Germany’s DS, against expectations, learners (trainees/apprentices) can and do take control over the framing relations, including also the hierarchical relation to their trainers. These findings corroborate Schnitzler’s excavation of ‘political skills’: When learners choose whom to learn from and what to learn, they have to practise political skills, in order to do so in a contextually adequate way. Shape ‘refers to the social division of labour in the school (or other educational institution, such as the DS; addition GH), the academic identity of the institution and its learners, and the basis of authority’ (H+G, p. 1189). To explain the concept ‘division of labour’, H+G refer to Ingersoll (1995), who states that the division of labour is fundamentally about power and implies a hierarchical relationship. For the possibilities of democracy learning and the acquisition of political skills, the division of labour and the basis of authority of the transmitters in the company, the primary transmission site, are key. Therefore, this presentation approaches the question: How did DS graduates experience the shape of pedagogic culture in the DS, in particular the division of labour, and on what basis did they ascribe authority to their company trainers? 

The empirical basis for this presentation is an analysis of 30 problem-centred interviews with dual system graduates about their vocational training. They had acquired different Berufe (a particular Germanic conceptualisation of occupation) in differently sized and organized companies. Problem-centred interviews (Witzel and Reiter 2012) are open interviews with some guidance to keep the narration focussed on the theoretically perceived aspects of a social problem, such as vocational learning in the company and at other sites. The interview guide drew strongly on Basil Bernstein’s (e.g., 1990, 2000) conceptual language as sensitizing concepts, but also included other questions, for instance, about learning in the VET school. Following H+G (2017, p. 1192), who measure shape in terms of classifications (boundary strengths) between contexts and agents, this presentation investigates the boundaries between contexts and agents in the DS, as perceived by the respondents. More precisely, these boundaries concern experiences in different transmission contexts. To ensure generalisation at the level of DS, the presentation complements respondents’ narrations with references to macro-social provisions (mainly the Vocational Training Act). Concerning the basis of authority, the presentation summarises narrations about how respondents perceived the relationship to trainers and colleagues in the company. This exploration of classifications within the DS restricts itself to a description of empirical indicators. The development of a systematic analytical grid for the measurement of boundary strengths, as H+G did, must be left to future research, possibly with an improved data base that would include also the perspective of transmitters.

Notwithstanding the restricted data base, the findings are expected to reveal a complex division of labour within the DS between the training company and other sites which the respondents have to navigate, with experiences complementing or contradicting each other. Concerning the company transmitters’ ascribed authority, the findings presumably will show more variance than just the position as a basis. The respondents were able to give different reasons why they turned to whom with questions, and what they appreciated about their trainers and colleagues. For democracy learning, the expected findings will suggest that the complex division of labour in the DS challenges learners to take responsibility and, at times, to contest the transmitter’s authority. Trainees/apprentices have to make transmitters (company trainers) explain, check or practise what is not part of the usual day-to-day routine in the company, but what they need to know for the VET school and for the examination which is organised and carried out outside the training company. In other words, in relation to the construct ‘Beruf’, the authority of company transmitters may be limited. The division of labour in the DS is not hierarchical, but requires consensus, starting from the macro social level where the social partners develop, modify and change Berufe, in obligatory consensus, down to the transmission in the company, between transmitters and acquirers. Concurrently the findings cast light on the social aspects of the construct ‘Beruf’, which overarches the complex division of labour between transmission sites and which has more to it than a knowledge dimension. Bernstein's conceptual language, pedagogic culture and shape, together with stability, seem to be promising for further, more detailed analyses of the conditions for democracy learning also in (regulated) company transmission.

Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes and Control, Vol. IV - The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (Revised ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Hoadley, U., & Galant, J. (2016). Specialization and School Organization: Investigating Pedagogic Culture. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(8), 1187-1210. Höhns, G. (2018). Pedagogic practice in company learning: the relevance of discourse. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 70(2), 313-333. Höhns, G. M. (2018). Pedagogic practice in company learning: the relevance of discourse. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 70(2), 313-333. Höhns, G. (2022). The social construction of vocational education - possibilities for change towards status improvement Journal of Vocational Education & Training. Ingersoll, R. (1993). Loosely Coupled Organizations Revisited. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 11, 81-112. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/554 Rosvall, P.-Å., & Nylund, M. (2022). Civic education in VET: concepts for a professional language in VET teaching and VET teacher education. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2022.2075436 Schnitzler, A. (2017). Die Entwicklung von politischen Fertigkeiten in der beruflichen Erstausbildung [The development of political skills in vocational education and training] Dissertation. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Bonn. Vocational Training Act from 23.03.2005, 931 ff retrieved from http://www2.bgbl.de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl English version: http://www.bmbf.de/pub/BBiG_englisch_050805.pdf Witzel, A., & Reiter, H. (2012). The problem-centred interview. Sage.