3. Anja Heikkinen assumes that research communities take for granted that their concepts are embedded in disciplinary-specific (theoretical) frameworks. Yet, researchers' conceptions tend to intertwine with common-sense, political, professional and disciplinary interpretations. (Narotzky, 2007). They have a critical role in constructing narratives and ’models’ of vocational education, providing identity-constituting myths and pitching brands for the competitive advantage of VET, a component of the organisation of economy/industry/work, politics, society and education. Claims about distinctive theoretical and methodological frameworks of VET seem to defend their disciplinary status and funding and justify dominant political and practical agendas. In the search for competitive ‘VET theory’, identifying countries and infrastructures that are attractive in global competition, they tend to favour institutionalist and economist comparisons of systems and ‘regimes’. (e.g. Esmond et al., 2023). The interest focuses typically on the German-speaking countries, where developing ‘VET theory’ has closely linked with (national) culture and its distinctive spirit (Geist). The dominance of the English language, adopted into political, practical and research discourses, further hides the diversity of conceptualisations. Yet, the worldviews and religious sentiments underlying their linguistic manifestations may not be uncovered without cross-cultural analyses. Despite the diversity of discourses on culture, the ‘cultural approach’ refers to the anthropological nature of evolving concepts, institutions, and practices of VET. To understand humans and culture in the work and vocational education requires exiting the narrow insider focus on humans and their culture and emphasising the nonhuman perspective. (Schendel, 2024; Rockström et al., 2024). This implies recognising how education contributes to capitalogenic social metabolism, disturbing the biophysical system of the Earth and exploiting humans and nonhumans during world history. (Moore, 2022; Alam et al., 2023; Frankopan, 2024). In drafting a ‘cultural approach’, analysing religious and normative human-centred interpretations is critical. While religions may have stabilised distinctive emotional and moral beliefs to work, occupations and education, more critical is the justification of human exceptionalism and ‘cultural evolution’ through technologisation that has enabled hierarchisation and colonial exploitation of humans and nonhumans. In the current ‘entrepreneurial and innovation culture’ and ‘quintuple helix’ policies, education and research are expected to provide human and intellectual capital for competitive innovation systems, spearheaded by comprehensive digital transformation. (Carayannis, 2012; ERRIN, 2025; EU, 2022). Understanding how power over social metabolism in diverse human-nonhuman assemblages is justified requires self-critical, historicising analyses of the links between education and culture and developing methodologies beyond human-, Global North- and Capitalocene-centred frameworks. (Schendel, 2024).

Alam, S., Heikkinen, A., Molzberger, G. (2023). Technologisation as the Planetary Solution for Environmental Care and Social Progress? Critical Questions to Vocational and Adult Education. In Heikkinen, A. & Nasrin, J. (Eds.). Environmental care and social progress – (im)possible connection. (pp. 75-100) Osder Publications. https://www.osderpublications.com/product_view/108/proImg11724425512.PNG Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Democracy of Climate and Climate for Democracy: the Evolution of Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2021) 12:2050–2082 ERRIN (2025). Connected regional innovation ecosystems – key for Europe’s competitiveness. https://errin.eu/system/files/2025-03/250311%20ERRIN%20Input%20Paper_Ecosystems_final_0.pdf EU Commission (2022). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A New European Innovation Agenda. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0332 Moore, J. (2022). Anthropocene, Capitalocene & the flight from world history: Dialectical universalism & the geographies of class power in the capitalist world-ecology, 1492–2022. Nordia Geographical Publications, 51(2), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.30671/nordia.116148 Narotzky, S. (2007). The Project in the Model. Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007. Rockström, J. et Al. (2024). The planetary commons: A new paradigm for safeguarding earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene. PNAS 2024, 121(5), Article e2301531121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301531121 Schendel, W. (2022). Non-Human Labour History? Three Short Questions. Notebooks: The Journal for Studies on Power 2 (2022) 189–199.