Contemporary and emergent methodological issues in VET research: Dynamic boundaries and diverse approaches

The questions of 'what methodologies should be used in vocational education research?' and 'what are the most effective methodologies to use in diverse and dynamic contexts?' continue to be a challenge for Vocational Education and Training (VET) researchers and research endusers. New technologies, new ethical standards and new forms of knowledge and epistemologies have arisen and present new scenarios for researchers. These include cyber and virtual research environments, trans-disciplinary projects and trans-national research, all of which create new boundaries and opportunities for researchers.Categorised as applied research, investigations typically address questions involving nationalised VET systems, local and global labour market affected occupations and industries, as well as the design and evaluation of vocational education curriculum, teaching and learning processes (Rauner & Maclean, 2008, p. 9). Such research is often claimed to be interdisciplinary because it uses theoretical and methodological approaches from older more established disciplines such as economics, sociology, cultural studies, psychology, and philosophy. Yet by its very nature, such interdisciplinarity defies simple categorisation because 'there is no 'one-size-fits-all approach to initiating, funding, managing and evaluating this type of research' (Bammer, 2012).This special issue of the International Journal of Training Research (IJTR) engages with this dilemma through its exploration of contemporary methodological issues impacting on VET research - an interdisciplinary field. They address: constraints and enablers in undertaking VET research in companies (Smith, 2012); ethical and moral issues in research; the use of critical incident technique in investigating decision making (Coetzer, Redmond and Sharafizard, 2012); evidence-based policy and practice (Lassnigg, 2012); political constructions of VET and VET research (Shore & , 2012)); development and issues in quantitative data analysis techniques (Gemici, Bednarz & Lim, 2012; Gemici, Rojewski & Lee, 2012). The final article in the collection presented as a contribution to a little used section of IJTR, namely the non-peer reviewed 'policy and practice' section, which is intended to extend thinking around a topical issue - the role of theory in VET research (Smith & Clayton, 2012).Smith's qualitative study interrogates challenges encountered when trying to overcome the first hurdle of researching in companies - getting in through the front door. Following a review of relevant literature, researchers' views on the issue of gaining access to willing participants are canvassed (her own and five others). Smith argues that the workplace is where VET research is 'at' and as such it behoves researchers to engage with this problematical phenomenon of access to interview participants: 'In the VET discipline it is essential to know what goes on in companies. Many assumptions are made in the literature about companies' behaviour, but these assumptions are rarely underpinned by empirical research'. Smith provides an 'in-your-face' account of the trials, tribulations and tips for success from experienced researchers to inform colleagues new to the field who may be embarking on similar projects.Coetzer, Redmond and Sharafizard have focused their paper on the critical incident technique (CIT) and utilising this to explore managerial decisions on employee training and development in SMEs. Prior research has shown the relatively low levels of employee participation in formal training and development and how this problem has usually been studied using surveys regarding the barriers to training. The authors note the lack of research on actual managers' decision making and provide a strong argument for the application of CIT to explore this problem. The authors share the four valuable lessons they learnt from this, making this article a valuable tool for those considering the employment of CIT in research. …

[1]  David F. Channell Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[2]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Universities and the global knowledge economy , 1997 .

[3]  The Evidence Agenda , 2007 .

[4]  John W. Meyer The Effects of Education as an Institution , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  A. Elzinga The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[6]  Niklas Luhmann,et al.  Problems of reflection in the system of education , 2000 .

[7]  D. Raffe,et al.  Researching NQFs : some conceptual issues , 2009 .

[8]  Robert F. Boruch,et al.  Standards of Evidence: Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination , 2005, Prevention Science.

[9]  E. Hanushek,et al.  The Economics of International Differences in Educational Achievement , 2010, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10]  R. Slavin Evidence-Based Reform in Education: What Will it Take? , 2008 .

[11]  K. Maton A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education policy , 2005 .

[12]  P. Cooke Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy , 2001 .

[13]  R. Vanderstraeten The Social Differentiation of the Educational System , 2004 .

[14]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[15]  Jens Bjornavold,et al.  Governing education and training; the case of qualifications frameworks , 2008 .

[16]  J. Bishop,et al.  Institutional Effects in a Simple Model of Educational Production , 2002, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[17]  J. Bishop Drinking from the Fountain of Knowledge: Student Incentive to Study and Learn-Externalities, Information Problems and Peer Pressure , 2006 .

[18]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .

[19]  Jan Fagerberg,et al.  National innovation systems : The emergence of a new approach , 2011 .

[20]  Lorenz Lassnigg ‘Evidence’ About ‘Outcome Orientation’: Austrian Experience with European Policies , 2013 .

[21]  B. Lingard,et al.  The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and researching education policy , 2008 .

[22]  Raf Vanderstraeten,et al.  LUHMANN ON SOCIALIZATION AND EDUCATION , 2000 .

[23]  H. Pitlik,et al.  Bildungsökonomie: Eine vernachlässigte Quelle erweiterten Steuerungswissens im österreichischen Bildungswesen , 2009 .

[24]  P. Cooke,et al.  Regional innovation systems : the role of governances in a globalized world , 1998 .

[25]  Felix Rauner,et al.  Handbook of Technical and Vocational Education and Training Research , 2009 .

[26]  F. Nerdinger,et al.  Angewandte Psychologie im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grundlagenforschung und Praxis - Plädoyer für mehr Pluralismus , 2007 .

[27]  Active Labor Market Policy Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[28]  Lars Qvortrup Society's Educational System - An introduction to Niklas Luhmann's pedagogical theory , 2005 .