Conference Agenda

Developing countries in Global South host 83% of the world’s refugee populations (UNHCR, 2022) and are struggling to create education, livelihoods, and social inclusion opportunities for these marginalised groups (Buscher, 2011; Jacobsen, 2006; Jacobsen & Fratzke, 2016). Skills development and vocational training are an intrinsic part of the education and livelihood strategies of the international actors and organisations in refugee crises (UNHCR 2019a; 2019b; 2014). UNESCO’s Global Monitory Report (2019) and UNHCR’s Global Strategies for Livelihoods (2014-2018) stress strengthening entrepreneurship skills for employment generations, empowerment, and decent work. These strategies are linked to SDG 4, particularly target 4.4, which addresses entrepreneurship through the expansion of technical and vocational skills.

The growing narrative of the ‘enterprising self’ in education (Brunila & Siivonen, 2016; Down, 2009) and the world of work (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2008) has been translated to enterprising refugees in migration contexts. The increased focus on entrepreneur skills for refugees is directed towards the self-reliance of these marginalised subjects (UNHCR, 2005). However, the idea of self-reliance has been critiqued for its grounding in neoliberal ideology and usage as an exit strategy by donor organisations (Easton-Calabria & Omata, 2018; Skran & Easton-Calabria, 2020). In line with the international organisations’ focus on entrepreneurship, the National Policy on Skills Development and Entrepreneurship (2015) in India aims to harness the potential of its demographic dividend through enterprising individuals. Despite being a non-signatory of global refugee conventions, India receives a large number of refugees from all around the globe. However, the complex legal-political landscape of India creates numerous challenges related to the success, sustainability, and utilisation of entrepreneurship skills for refugees in the country.

This paper examines the entrepreneurship discourse within the skills development agenda of international organisations and how that interacts with the multidimensional identities of refugees and their social, political, and economic needs and aspirations in their host country, India.

Theoretically, going beyond the orthodox approaches to VET (McGrath et al., 2020), the paper combines capabilities and intersectional lenses to examine the effects of race, gender, class, ethnic, and religious identities of refugees on the entrepreneurial skills development and utilisation. In particular, the paper employs the concept of the capability to aspire and conversion factor from the capabilities canon and converges it with the intersectional inequality perspective. By bridging these two frameworks, it strengthens the capabilities account of VET that considers the multidimensional identities of VET attendees along with their socio-political, economic and migration contexts.

Many young people with a migration background experience equal opportunities in Germany as insufficient (El-Mafaalani, 2018, pp. 102-103). Vocational education research has so far focused particularly on statistical discrimination, while there is a lack of empirical studies in the educational context with regard to subjective experiences of discrimination (Horr et al., 2020, p. 5). Subjective experiences do not necessarily coincide with objectively measurable inequalities, but can deviate greatly from them (Ette et al., 2021, p. 28; Straub et al., 2021, p. 143). For those affected, the experienced situation is usually more important than the actual discrimination (Ette et al., 2021, p. 28).

This study therefore asks how adolescents' perceptions of personal ethnic discrimination differ according to origin group membership. Several studies have already confirmed origin group differences in perceptions of ethnic discrimination (Diehl et al., 2021; Flores, 2015; Salentin, 2007; Steinmann & Strietholt, 2019). The distinctive feature of this work is that the focus is on the transition to vocational education and training (VET). Accordingly, the dependent variable is perceived ethnic discrimination in the search for an apprenticeship position.

Gender, along with migration status, is considered a relevant social category in research on transitions to VET (Enggruber, 2011). In order to investigate the interplay of group of origin with gender, an intersectional perspective is adopted. Particularly in the quantitative field, intersectional studies are lacking (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016; Strand, 2014, p. 133). While Skrobanek (2007, p. 32) shows that women perceive ethnic discrimination more than men, other studies conclude that women report less ethnic discrimination (e.g., Salentin, 2008, p. 521; Schaafsma, 2011, p. 789; Te Lindert et al., 2008; Venema & Grimm, 2002, p. 72) and expect ethnic discrimination in the labor market less likely than men (McWirther, 1997, pp. 133-135). Because of the contradictory results, the question arises as to how perceived ethnic discrimination differs by gender. In which group of origin is the difference between young men and women most pronounced?

Productivity theory assumptions (Beicht & Walden, 2017, p. 429; Ette et al., 2021, p. 27; Hunkler, 2016, p. 604) suggest that young people of Turkish origin perceive more discrimination than young people of other origin groups, since their names and/or phenotypic characteristics indicate a migration background more visibly. Regarding the interaction of origin group and gender, intersectional theories yield opposing expectations: The Subordinate Male Target Hypothesis suggests that migrant men perceive ethnic discrimination more strongly than migrant women (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008, p. 379; Veenstra, 2012, p. 684). The Additive Approach and the Intersectional-Inspired Approach, however, justify the assumption that female migrants perceive more personal ethnic discrimination than male migrants (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008, p. 377; Veenstra, 2012, pp. 647-648).

This theoretical paper seeks to problematise conceptualisations of VET and its relationship to social justice.

Four key issues are addressed:

1. The secular and ongoing reproduction of inequalities amongst disadvantaged groups in VET.

2. The limits and possibilities of conceptualisations of VET

3. Patterns of inequality surrounding VET

4. Conceptualisations of equity, equality and meritocracy

VET occupies a liminal space lying between post-secondary and higher education (Moodie, 2002). The paper explores debates that engage with understandings of equity, social justice, VET as well as the constituencies VET addresses. There is a current in discussions of work based learning that associate it with equal opportunity and access to VET credentials, aiming to dignify such labour. This applies particularly to occupational practices that are frequently low paid and filled by disadvantaged groups (Billett, 2005). How far can such a strategy take us? Is it compromised by VET’s construction? How does it sit with the social relations in which VET is placed and to what extent does it go beyond these? The paper explores the suggestions that despite a secular interest in VET and disadvantage those groups designated as such have remained largely the same over time (see ONS 2021; SMC 2020; 2022; 2023; Zoellner 2022). The paper seeks to identify some of the issues behind this status quo. This leads to an analysis of the manner in which VET is constructed and its relationship to waged labour. How broadly or expansively can we conceive VET? Wolf (2022) points to a paradox, arguing that in the university sector vocationalism has become increasingly important but that in the liminal space of VET it has become marginalised, engaged in by disadvantaged groups having little occupational purchase. VET incorporates what Esmond and Atkins (2022) refer to as courses orientated towards ‘welfare vocationalism’ and a ‘technical elite’, but also those qualification lying between these polarities. In the case of the technical elite following T-levels and apprenticeships this is very much a minority route. However, the paradox Wolf raises is well made. How within such a context can VET contribute to social justice? Rhetorically, ideologically and hegemonically VET can be conceptualised in a manner that emphasises its closeness to the needs of employers. If that association is undermined can we conceive of a reconceptualised VET that could make a contribution to societal, community and individual well-being, and thus social justice? Is such a conceptualisation feasible and yet remain VET? It is important to avoid reifying VET by failing to acknowledge it as a site of contestation that is nevertheless framed by employer interests. Can it be otherwise? It is also necessary to consider the contours of inequality within which VET is located, which place a limit on its radical potential and contribution to social justice? The objective here is to locate VET within a contextualisation that touches on the patterns of inequality present within the English social formation. The aim is to provide, a glimpse of patterns of inequality as applicable to VET. This discussion raises questions about the on-going re-composition of class relations and in particular the manner in which we conceive the insecure working/middle class. In addition, it talks back to the introduction of the paper which refers to iterative processes that define and re-define the disadvantaged groups that VET allegedly serves. This leads into an examination of conceptualisations of equity, equality and meritocracy.

The paper is set within an Anglophone context, implicitly considering the applicability of the paper’s argument to other social formations.