>
PROCEEDINGS
AVETRA 1998 Conference
Proceedings
The following is the Introduction to the 1998
Conference Proceedings: "VET Research: Influencing policy
and practice". The proceedings can be purchased direct
from the secretariat by filling in an order form.
Introduction
John McIntyre
Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training
University of Technology Sydney
E-mail: john.mcintyre@uts.edu.au
Mary Barrett
Business Faculty
Sunshine Coast University
E-mail: mbarrett@usc.edu.au
In the introduction to a set of proceedings such
as these, it is usual for editors to reflect on the extent
to which the proceedings addressed the conference theme. It
is a timid pair of editors that will not venture some critical
remarks on what is and what is not said in the papers about
the theme, and what new insights they bring to it. So having
laboured over files foreign and familiar, we exercise our
prerogative to do so.
The conference theme was the influence of VET
research on policy and practice. What insights did papers
and presentations bring to these theme or, to put this more
sympathetically, how did this theme resonate with the current
interests of VET researchers as they are expressed in these
Proceedings?
We can begin to answer this question by looking
at the categories of papers. In the Proceedings we have retained
the categories used at the conference. The categories themselves
reflect the kind of interests operating in the field, including
the research agenda funded by the Australian National Training
Authority (ANTA) through the National Research and Evaluation
Committee (NREC) program. The following are a few observations
about the research interests represented in these papers:
- equity in participation .Who
gets access to vocational education and training (VET),
and what factors beyond individual control make completing
training more or less likely, seem set to be areas of ongoing
critical scrutiny.
- partnerships and stakeholders
This was not a strong area at the conference in terms of
the numbers of papers presented. Papers grouped under this
theme mostly presented successful case examples of close
relationships between VET institutions and industry.
- practice and practitioners .This
was the largest group of papers, reflecting the strong interest
at the conference in research aimed at improving what practitioners
do in the field.
- research and policy relationships
. This emerged as an important sub-theme of the conference,
with vigorous questioning of a number of assumptions underlying
VET research and its influence on policy. The most important
questioning centred on the assumed neutrality of political
agendas in determining VET policy, leading to the view that
the links between research and policy are not simple or
necessarily satisfactory.
- learning, work and organisations
. The complex links among these three elements and the ways
they constitute both the venue and the vehicle for VET also
emerged as a key area of interest and conceptual development
and critique in VET research.
- markets and the economy . This
area received surprising little attention given its currency
in general debate about VET policy. We might attribute this
to a certain tentativeness on the part of new researchers
about tackling such a broad topic, though a vigorous critique
of the role of markets and the economy in VET policy issues
emerged in several papers dealing with research and policy
relationships.
As a result of the controversies that emerged
from the conference theme of ‘the influence of research
on policy and practice’, questions were raised about
what role the new Australian Vocational Education and Training
Research Association (AVETRA) should take in VET research.
The final plenary session culminated in the expression of
the need for VET researchers to be critical of the ways in
which research is influenced by the demands of policy and
practice in VET. Leo Maglen made the point in his presidential
address:
[AVETRA] should ... be an association of independent
researchers, who are free to conduct their research without
undue influence from their employers, whether they be in
the public or private sector, in higher education or the
TAFE sector, in industry or wherever; from research funding
bodies or from government policy makers.
Of course, we all need to work within the terms
of our employment, to submit to the requirements of funding
bodies and to respond to requests of policy makers. However,
at all times we need to act with professionalism and integrity,
to pursue our research rigorously, objectively and ethically,
and to subject VET policy and practice to critical reasoned
analysis.
In our view there is evidence in these papers
for the vigour with which research interest in VET is being
pursued and for the analytical and critical nature of that
pursuit. But why should it be necessary to assert the need
for a critical approach to research? Part of the reason perhaps
is the way that the economic and policy imperatives (and the
funding regimes that have done much to stimulate and underwrite
research activity in the field) have demanded relevance and
usefulness from VET researchers. Chris Robinson referred to
the results of this funding effort in his review of the field:
The striking thing about the research reviews
examined in this paper is ... the sheer volume of VET research
that has been carried out in Australia over the 1990s, particularly
in the last two or three years. While not every study reviewed
was an Australian one, most were, and while some of the
studies were examined in more than one of the reviews of
research, in total the eleven research reviews referred
to in this paper looked at around 700 research papers and
reports in their reviews of VET research literature in the
1990s. Quantity of VET research is now not a major issue
in Australia. The next challenge is the quality of research
undertaken.
The keynote addresses obviously canvassed the
question of the influence and impact of the VET research that
has been conducted since the first round of research advisory
committee funding first began to have an impact on the field.
There is no doubt that among the peculiarities of the field
are its concern for research that is relevant to policy and
practice, encouraged by unambiguous state funding priorities.
Two of the keynote papers reported on a project funded to
assess such an impact. It is appropriate that policy relevance
should be a concern, and the papers reflect the research agendas
that have constructed the field of VET research, and their
critical engagement with those agendas.
Yet the keynote papers by McDonald and the Selby-Smiths
refuse any simple relationship of research, policy and practice
and also insist on the complexities of the things researched.
At the same time, they are not short on evidence that research
is indeed speaking to policy and practice. There is an appropriately
complex view of the field of VET, when it is acknowledged
that there are competing value sets and philosophies in play.
Rod McDonald concluded, in summing up the influence of research:
... the greatest difficulty arises from the
fact that ... policy decisions and changes in practice are
influenced by many factors. Research is sometimes one of
these. But, perhaps in VET more strongly than in some other
areas — due to a decision-making setting that is described
as complex, complicated, dynamic and contested —-
when it is, it is often because it shapes perceptions and
agendas, and those making decisions are often unaware of
the research on which it might be (indirectly) based.
The papers in this volume support the conclusion
that one of the strengths of the emerging field is its preoccupation
with empirical research. VET researchers also have a characteristic
practicality and application to task, which might be crudely
called the ‘heads down and bums up’ attitude.
This is a great strength in a research context where relevance
and impact are high priorities in allocating research funding.
There are many papers reporting work in progress or completed
projects. This is not surprising, given the pragmatic culture
of VET research and the hands-on culture of TAFE institutions.
However, the debit side of this empirical emphasis
is the relative lack of theoretical papers in the proceedings.
This is no doubt because the conference theme seemed to call
for a demonstration (or was it a celebration?) of the impact
of VET research on policy and practice. Where then are the
theoretical interests in the field?
Such observations together with the strong focus
on a critical role for the new Association lead to the conclusion
that the emerging VET research culture deserves more critical
attention from researchers than it has been getting before
now. VET research culture is itself a researchable topic,
not something outside the legitimate scope of research. Within
the collection of papers are some which call for more critical
analysis of the context in which research is being produced,
more reflection and debate about the agendas of VET research.
A laudable concern for results and applicability of research
need not deflect attention from questions about the culture
and context in which research is being produced.
The paper by John Stevenson points to the need
to take up those contemporary issues defining the context
of VET research and its research agendas and practices. He
argues the need to re-examine these influences on VET institutions:
... VET and its major provider, TAFE, constantly
change shape as different interests exert new pressure on
its overall shape. These changes in shape are not continuous
with old shapes, anchored in some unchanging philosophy
of what vocational education and training is, but in abruptly
changing ideas of the very essence of this education. The
latest interest is in what relationship should exist between
TAFE and universities; something on which I look with some
nostalgia, as when I addressed this same matter in 1987
(Stevenson 1987), my arguments for more continuity and convergence
across educational sectors were thought, by powerful people,
to be heresy.
The negative constructions of vocational education
and training and the continuous pressures for abrupt and discontinuous
changes in the essence of what constitutes vocational education
and training work against continuity, coherence and clarity.
My intention is to identify and characterise some contemporary
issues (most of which are ongoing), consider their origins,
suggest the goals that are implicit, and consider how they
might be made to converge.
Perhaps VET researchers haven’t yet much
examined who they are and what is shaping their identities
as researchers. Where is the research that is attempting to
model and critically examine the big picture issues transforming
the nature of vocational education institutions and practices?
Now that AVETRA has been successfully established, perhaps
it is time to begin to engage in more critical examination
of the emerging research culture, not only in terms of its
differences from education at large, but also in terms of
its linkages and commonalities.
A future conference could be one which focuses
on VET researchers and the context of VET research, looking
at how the rapid changes in VET and post-compulsory education
generally are shaping the research effort and research agendas.
Indeed, the next conference with its theme of quality and
diversity in VET research promises to provide opportunities
for this kind of exploration.
With this in view, we could as an Association
explore some of the tensions which emerged in the final plenary
discussion about what it means to publish the papers in a
formal set of proceedings. We hope that publication will mean
a number of good things: that the papers would be easily available
to others seeking to learn from the work of Australian VET
researchers, and that over time we will be able to track our
own progress on many fronts. We would in no sense want to
diminish the pragmatic traditions of VET research when many
of its strengths result from the different perspectives of
universities, TAFE institutes, consultants and other agencies.
There is plenty of common ground and considerable strength
to be developed from interaction and collaboration of different
institutions, all of whom are adapting to a range of forces
in the educational policy environment. We might ask: where
is the research agenda that is exploring these institutional
changes? A few papers in the collection are beginning to point
to this kind of research.
Finally, we need to say that in editing the papers
we have exercised the usual editorial discretion, hopefully
without too heavy a hand, in order to achieve some consistency
across the forty papers. Time has not permitted as thorough
or consistent an editorial job as we would have liked and
of course we have had to deal with the usual difficulties
academics have with following guidelines of any kind. We have
applied the guidelines originally issued, which called for
simplicity and economy in presentation, so that some papers
have been changed more than others because they conformed
less. Papers that were over-long have been shortened, multiple
headings have been reduced, and following NCVER style, capitalisation
and punctuation have been minimised. We have done our best
to regularise citation practices to conform to NCVER style,
though this could be a life’s work.
No doubt there are many places where we have
failed to follow our own strictures given the limited amount
of time available for the task, but we hope that too much
has not been sacrificed to the goal of achieving early publication
of the Proceedings.
|
