Orienting vocational education and training (VET) towards lifelong learning and developing procedures for recognising already-acquired skills and competencies (so-called learning outcomes) in formal VET programmes are important objectives of the confederation and the cantons in Switzerland. In line with the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (Cedefop, EU Commission 2002), non-formally and informally acquired competencies, such as further training and work experience, should also be given greater consideration. Recognition of prior learning (RPL) should facilitate social and economic integration and enable individuals to get higher qualifications. At the same time, RPL should improve the education system and thus alleviate the shortage of skilled workers. It is generally assumed that recognising competencies should be easier to achieve in VET, with its practice-oriented training system, than in the general (higher) education sector. In Switzerland, RPL practices have so far only been established, documented, and researched in basic VET at the upper secondary level (Maurer 2019, SERI, 2018). At the level of higher professional education and training, which is aimed at people who already have professional experience, and in particular at Professional Education Institutions (PEI), the educational organisations have a great deal of room for manoeuvre, with little transparency regarding RPL practices. This article builds on the results of a national study commissioned by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation SERI, which found that already-acquired learning outcomes are not recognised in around half of the PEI programmes examined (Salzmann et al. 2022). This can be partly explained by the personal pedagogical convictions of so-called gatekeepers, who make RPL decisions and in the underlying didactic concepts of the programmes (Baumeler et al. 2023). This article sheds light on possible explanations at the level of educational organisations, which are not the responsibility of individual actors but have to do with the self-image of the organisations and their willingness to use existing leeway defined by external framework conditions. The study aims to understand better the different RPL practices and justifications of PEIs from the perspective of the organisations to better promote RPL in higher professional education and training. We ask how external framework conditions, such as national minimum requirements, framework curricula and regulations on accessing the occupations, hinder or promote RPL and how much leeway there is for PEIs within an occupational field to recognise students’ learning outcomes. We use a model based on the findings of Damm (2018). With the motif of “boundary work,” he analysed who (potential students) and what (learning outcomes) are allowed through the boundary and which lines of reasoning guide the actions. We analyse four cases of PEI programmes that contrast as much as possible in their framework conditions and RPL practices and show the lines of reasoning from the PEI perspective. We assumed that PEIs recognise learning outcomes only strictly when there is little room for manoeuvre and more generous when there is much leeway. However, there are also counterintuitive cases that deviate from this scheme. These PEIs do not recognise learning outcomes, even though there is room for manoeuvre. Other PEIs recognise learning outcomes, although the possibilities are limited by the framework conditions. This raises the follow-up question of what motivates PEIs to deviate from the scheme, i.e., not to utilise the scope or to maximise it.

We use a qualitative comparative case study to understand processes from the participants’ perspective through in-depth analysis (Harrison et al. 2017). We focus on a small and specifically selected sample (Patton 2015) with maximum variation to cover a broad range of perspectives. By contrasting the cases, we identify differences in RPL practices under similar framework conditions and analyse the associated lines of reasoning from the PEI perspective. First, we examined the external framework conditions, such as legal foundations, labour markets and occupational fields. We analysed RPL practices with semi-structured interviews with study programme directors and selected four different study programmes, which presented in as much contrast as possible the external framework conditions and the RPL practices at PEIs: • Advanced Federal Diploma of Higher Education as Pilot • Advanced Federal Diploma of Higher Education in Nursing • Advanced Federal Diploma of Higher Education in Business Administration • Advanced Federal Diploma of Higher Education in Social Work We consider the framework conditions weakly regulated if there are hardly any legal restrictions regarding admission to the study programme and the occupational fields or target labour markets. We consider them highly regulated if legal requirements restrict access to the occupation (e.g., in transport or health). RPL practice at PEIs is considered strict if learning outcomes are not or hardly recognised. It is considered open if PEIs enable RPL, for example by opening their study programmes to certain target groups or if students do not have to complete the full study programme due to their work experience or completed further training. We illustrate two cases which, under the same highly regulated framework conditions, use their room for manoeuvre in RPL practice differently. In the pilot programme, the possibilities for RPL are limited due to strict legal provisions and are not even considered. This contrasts with the nursing programme, which is also highly regulated. Here, however, the RPL practice is much more inclusive, and the study programme is open to extended target groups. Contrasting cases are the social worker and the business administration programmes. Under the same weakly regulated framework conditions, the PEI in the social sector pursues an inclusive RPL practice, and the business administration PEI delimits its programme, although there would be leeway for a generous RPL practice.

This study illustrates the RPL practice at PEIs whose programmes are explicitly aimed at a clientele with work experience that may be relevant for RPL in the sense of lifelong learning. The aim was to show which lines of reasoning PEIs follow in their RPL practices. From the organisations’ perspective, we show to what extent they differentiate themselves from other PEIs by not recognising learning outcomes and how open they are towards RPL, e.g. by opening up courses to new groups of students. We followed a model based on the findings of Damm (2018), which uses the motif of “boundary work” to analyse who (potential students) and what (learning outcomes) are recognised. To change the RPL practice in PEIs, it is important to understand the lines of reasoning according to which educational organisations “think, decide and act” (Schweiger and Kump 2018: 293). In summary, the framework conditions, such as regulation and demand for skilled workers and the labour market, do not determine the PEIs’ RPL practice. The PEIs can position and profile themselves differently within similar framework conditions and follow their respective organisational logic or lines of reasoning. Or to refer to Damm (2018): There is not one concept of RPL. Different RPL practices can be justified in terms of resources and education and training content. In this respect, RPL can take place, but it does not have to. However, this requires clarifying the self-image and the lines of reasoning in educational organisations. If lifelong learning is to be promoted through RPL, more transparency on the part of educational organisations would be desirable to clarify which further training and work experience can be recognised in which contexts and where the boundary is drawn.

Baumeler, C., Engelage, S., Hämmerli, C., & Salzmann, P. (2023). Recognition of Prior Learning in Professional Education from an Organisational Perspective. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 42(2), 208-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2023.2177759 Cedefop, European Commission (2020). 2018 European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning: final synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office. http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/76420 Damm, C. (2018). Anrechnung von außerhochschulischen Vorleistungen in der wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung. Ergebnisse einer zweiteiligen empirischen Studie. Magdeburg: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität, Magdeburg. https://doi.org/10.24352/UB.OVGU-2018-093 Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655 Maurer, M. (2019). The challenges of expanding recognition of prior learning (RPL) in a collectively organized skill formation system: the case of Switzerland. Journal of Education and Work, 32(8), 665-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2019.1694141 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage. Salzmann, P., Engelage, S., Hämmerli, C., Neumann, J., & Baumeler, C. (2022). Anrechnungspraxis von Bildungsleistungen an höheren Fachschulen. Schlussbericht. Zollikofen: Eidgenössische Hochschule für Berufsbildung EHB. SBFI (2018). Leitfaden: Anrechnung von Bildungsleistungen in der beruflichen Grundbildung. Bern: SBFI. Schweiger, C., & Kump, B. (2018). Lerne die Regeln, um sie zu verändern! Die Rolle der Organisationslogik in Veränderungsprozessen. Zeitschrift für angewandte Organisationspsychologie, 49, 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-018-0423-9