Session Information
Contribution
In this article we present ethnographic research from vocational educational institutes in Sweden and Finland who usually attracts boy´s with working class backgrounds. A common division in vocational settings is that between theoretical or intellectual work (usually core subjects) and practical or manual work (usually character subjects). In our analysis students and teachers argued differently for stronger or weaker classification of theoretical and practical tasks in the Swedish and Finnish contexts. In both countries in these settings, conceptions of a man as manual rather than mental and laddishness as a self-worth protection strategy had impact on what the students could influence in terms of challenging traditional divisions between what was considered theoretical and practical work. Here teachers’ classification of subjects and framing of lessons became important.
In both the Finnish and Swedish institutes the students researched said that they preferred practical rather than theoretical work. In the Swedish contexts though it was more common in students interviews that they expressed that they wanted to achieve better in subjects they considered theoretical. They also seemed to be more open to what can be called technification of the industry labour market, were Finnish students tended to be more negative. On the other hand, in the Finnish research it was more common that teachers pointed at the connection between practical and theoretical subjects, where classification and isolation between subjects in the Swedish contexts seemed to be stronger.
The aim of our paper is to highlight problems of the practical and theoretical divide in vocational education with the concepts of Bernstein (2000), namely horizontal and vertical knowledge structures. We also draw attention to how working class masculinities reproduce this division by that the boys sometimes questioned those who did what was considered theoretical work by questioning their sexuality. Framing of pedagogic practice in those settings led to different outcomes.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Beach, D. (2010). Identifying and comparing Scandinavian ethnography: Comparisons and influences. Ethnography and Education, 5(1), 49-63. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Gordon, T., Holland, J., & Lahelma, E. (2000). Making spaces: Citizenship and difference in schools. Houndmills: MacMillan Press LTD. Gordon, T., Holland, J., Lahelma, E., & Tolonen, T. (2005). Gazing with intent: Ethnographic practice in classrooms. Qualitative Research, 5(1), 113-131. Gordon, T., Hynninen, P., Lahelma, E., Metso, T., Palmu, T., & Tolonen, T. (2006). Collective ethnography, joint experience and individual pathways. Nordisk pedagogik, 26, 3-15. Jackson, C. (2002). Laddishness as a self-worth protection strategy. Gender and Education, 14(1), 37-51. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in sociology of education. London: Routledge.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.