Since the peak of lifelong learning discourses in international education policy, the importance of continuing education and training (CET) has significantly increased due to the lifelong learning policies enacted by international and transnational actors (Kraus, 2002; Nicoll & Edwards, 2000).  Engagement in lifelong learning frequently serves as an educational and economic policy objective, with organisations such as the OECD progressively incorporating well-being considerations. The future of CET's educational practice is being shaped by current educational politics.  Efforts are often made to utilise research as a provider of scientific knowledge for the so-called evidence-based policy, thus modifying scientific knowledge and assigning research a legitimising and informative role in shaping the future of the education system (Steiner-Khamsi et al., 2020). However, it also serves as a domain for critical policy research with an alternative approach, involving a critical analysis of the stances of various actors in the field of CET policy.

In the course of the internationalization of education policy, this critical attempt is becoming increasingly essential. It allows us to understand country-specific contexts of the formation of CET and to include them in the interpretation and comparison of Marko data, such as those available with the currently published PIAAC data or regularly published in comparative publications such as "Education at a Glance" (Elfert & Ydesen, 2023). This requires instruments that offer heuristic models in sufficient abstraction and at the same time allow these to be located in the respective social, historical, societal, cultural and political conditions in specific countries (Kraus & Wenger, in preparation). In addition, the increasing importance of platforms and digital data infrastructures in the governance of continuing education has hardly been taken into account in continuing education governance research to date. It can be assumed that this datafication of education will have a similar impact on CET as is currently being discussed for schools (Hartong, 2021). However, in an international comparative view, CET has much more heterogeneous structures than the formal education system with schools and universities. Therefore, integrated heuristics of governance in CET are needed.

Against this background, the article presents results from a research project on the governance of CET in Switzerland (Kraus & Wenger, in preparation). This is the project "Governance: Cohesion and Context", in which on the one hand the appropriation of learning opportunities by employees was researched using a subject-oriented approach (Kraus et al., under Review) and on the other hand the perspective of different stakeholders on CET was investigated using an actor-centered approach. This article refers to the project section on stakeholders, i.e. classic governance actors.

This part of the project aimed to develop an integrated governance model for CET that can consider both the structural positioning of CET between education and the world of work, as well as the increasing use of digital platforms. These are made available to mediate between needs/requirements on the part of employees or companies and programms offered by various providers of CET. The data originates from the country context of Switzerland, i.e. a country that is counted among the corporative or collective skills-formation systems in vocational education and training (Pilz, 2016) and is characterized by a liberal understanding and a high degree of market conformity in CET (Geiss, 2020).

Based on the country-specific data, the different actor positions in this governance model are abstracted to determine functional equivalents (Schriewer, 2014). The result is a governance model that systematizes the available results and can be used as a tertium comparisonis in comparative research. It is a heuristic that can be used to obtain and systematize data on CET from a transnational perspective.

The empirical procedure is divided into two consecutive steps. The data collection and analysis of the first step form the basis of the second research step. In the first survey step, 10 expert interviews were conducted with representatives of industry and professional associations involved as intermediaries (Nicholson & Wilkins, 2024) in the field of employment-related CET on their perspectives on governance in CET. To this end, guiding questions were developed on the topics of different forms of governance in CET (market, state, network, community), comparison of CET with basic education, and coordination with other stakeholders and networks. The interviews were fully transcribed, and the results were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2023). These interim results were condensed into a governance map reflecting the associations' governance statements in employment-related CET. This governance map served as the basis for the subsequent second research step. The results from the first research step were validated and systematically expanded from multiple perspectives. The second step consisted of three different forms of data collection, which, in the sense of a mixed methods approach, contained both options for quantitative scaling and verbal explication. a) The interim results were validated in a workshop with the previously interviewed representatives of the industry and trade associations. To this end, the statements summarized in the governance map were validated using a rating conference (Keller et al., 2012) and open questions were discussed by the stakeholders in a group discussion format. b) Other stakeholders commented on and expanded on the interim results in interviews. They also evaluated statements on the governance map using closed scaling questions and provided explanations on their assessments and governance activities in the field of employment-related continuing education using open questions. c) Finally, the providers' perspective was included using a questionnaire based on the governance map with closed and open questions to obtain their view of governance in employment-related continuing education. During the analysis, the data were combined using the same category system and triangulated into an integrated, actor-related governance model through an analytical condensation of the content-structured data evaluation. The results thus obtained were again abstracted by replacing the concrete actors from the Swiss context with functional equivalents so that it can function as a heuristic model.

We can present a heuristic model that meets the above-mentioned requirements in comparative policy research in CET. The heuristic is based on the central relationship between demand and offers in continuing education. This relationship is differentiated in terms of actors, and thus in terms of interests and positions, because individuals, state actors and companies all act as demand in CET, but pursue different goals and interests (Kraus & Wenger, in preparation). This differentiated constellation is considered the core of governance in employment-related CET. In the model presented here, it is framed by three shells of governance (ibid.): Firstly, within a governance shell of CET policy in which various actors negotiate regulations according to the interests they represent. This regulations have a direct impact on the relationship between providers and the demand from different actors. For instance, this includes the national continuing education association for providers, professional and industry associations for the economy. In addition, overarching regulations at the national level or between the social partners influence the structure of supply and demand, such as regulations on taxes or the public financing of continuing education. Finally, digital platforms, which operate directly at the core of the offer-demand relationship in the sense of matching, play an important role. The main finding of the article is that these various governance aspects in a complex field such as CET must be integrated into a model and, at the same time, systematically differentiated in order to meet the above-mentioned requirements for heuristics in critical and comparative policy and governance research on CET. On the basis of the heuristics, actors and their interests can be identified from an international perspective, which influences the shaping of the field of CET in different country contexts in various ways.

Elfert, M., & Ydesen, C. (2023). Global governance of education: The historical and contemporary entanglements of UNESCO, the OECD and the World Bank. Springer. Geiss, M. (2020). In steady search for optimization: The role of public and private actors in Switzerland’s political economy of adult education. Zeitschrift Für Weiterbildungsforschung, 43(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40955-020-00157-0 Hartong, S. (2021). The Power of Relation-Making: Insights into the Production and Operation of Digital School Performance Platforms in the US. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1749861 Keller, H., Heinemann, E., & Kruse, M. (2012). Die Ratingkonferenz. Eine Kombination von Kurzfragebogen und Gruppeninterview. Zeitschrift Für Evaluationsforschung, 11(2), 287–298. Kraus, K. (2002). Lifelong learning between educational policy and pedagogy. An analysis of concepts about lifelonglLearning from european and international organisations. In K. Harney, A. Heikkinen, S. Rahn, & M. Schemmann (Eds.), Lifelong learning: One focus, different systems (pp. 33–43). Lang. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/209151/ Kraus, K., & Wenger, N. (in preparation). The “three-shell governance model” for continuing vocational education. Development of a heuristic model against the background of a collective skill formation system. Kraus, K., Wenger, N., & Moor, A. (under Review). Typische Nutzungssituationen. Zur situativ-biografischen Nutzung von Bildungsmöglichkeiten im Kontext der Lebens- und Erwerbssituation. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice and software (Second). SAGE Publications. Nicholson, P. M., & Wilkins, A. W. (2024). Intermediaries in local schooling landscapes: Policy enactment and partnership building during times of crisis. Journal of Education Policy, 40(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2024.2346140 Nicoll, K., & Edwards, R. (2000). Reading Policy Texts: Lifelong Leaning as Metaphor. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(5), 459–469. Pilz, M. (2016). Typologies in Comparative Vocational Education: Existing Models and a New Approach. Vocations and Learning, 9(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9154-7 Schriewer, J. (2014). Neither Orthodoxy nor Randomness: Differing Logics of Conducting Comparative and International Studies in Education. Comparative Education, 50(1), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2014.883745 Steiner-Khamsi, G., Karseth, B., & Baek, C. (2020). From science to politics: Commissioned reports and their political translation into White Papers. Journal of Education Policy, 35(1), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1656289