Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:46 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
02 SES 08 B: VET Systems
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Paper In Common, Different, Similar: Dual Systems of VET in Germany, Switzerland and Austria 1: Institute of Education, University of Zurich, Switzerland; 2: Lehrstuhl Wirtschaftspädagogik I, University of Konstanz, Germany Presenting Author:Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the so called "DACH"-countries, are the core places of dual apprenticeship on a global scale. These countries and their vocational education and training systems were seen for a long time as an effective setting for coping with youth unemployment and skills mismatch but also as pathways that integrate school-weary young people into the world of work. Even today, the dual system of VET has been chosen as a role model by the OECD and other international organisations and sometimes even is considered a gold standard of vocational education and training. In the following we discuss statements, which seem to characterize these VET systems at first glance, although they are not always clear regarding what is meant in the respective countries. The following aspects aim to depict the features of dual VET in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in a synoptical manner:
(1) Dual systems of VET consist of two learning sites (2) Social partners are important for running the dual system (3) Chambers play a crucial role in dual VET (4) Short-term programs in higher vocational education complement the dual system (5) Short-term apprenticeships are one instrument to include more young people in the dual system (6) VET reforms in dual apprenticeship countries (such as the vocational baccalaureate or the bachelor professional) ease the progression to further and higher education These features have undergone in one or the other country fundemental changes and reveal, that dual systems are also dynamic entities. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In this paper we show that duality of VET and the VET systems differ between the three countries. We will discuss, alongside pivotal aspects, their major differences and commonalities. The selection of the issues as well as the findings for each nation are based on comparative research, on cases studies, including historical accounts and recent research and expert knowledge. A content analysis of documents and studies based on key terms reveals the profile of dual systems. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Dual VET is under pressure, but has undergone reforms and facelifts in recent times. Reform activities, however, differ manifestly between the three countries. All three dual apprenticeship systems are facing decline in terms of numbers entering. On the other hand, dual VET still is seen as a success model since still a considerable proportion of school leavers take up training in the dual system. Also, firms still are committed to the dual system. Differences can be seen in its relative weight in the VET system, its general reputation (“standing”) and its links with higher education. References Deissinger, Th. (2010). Dual System, in: Peterson, P./Baker, E./McGaw, B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Edition, Vol. 8, Oxford (Elsevier), pp. 448-454. Deissinger, Th. (2022). The Standing of Dual Apprenticeships in Germany: Institutional Stability and Current Challenges, in: Billett, St. et al. (Eds.), The Standing of Vocational Education and the Occupations It Serves. Professional and Practice-based Learning, Vol 32, Cham (Springer), pp. 83-101. Deissinger, Th. (2010). Warum funktionieren berufliche Vollzeitschulen in Deutschland anders als in Österreich? – Kritische Anmerkungen im Zeichen nationaler und internationaler Problemlagen, in: Fortmüller, R./Greimel-Fuhrmann, B. (Hrsg.), Wirtschaftsdidaktik - Eine Tour d’Horizon von den theoretischen Grundlagen zur praktischen Anwendung. Festsschrift für Josef Aff, Wien (Manz), pp. 181-189. Dornmayr, H., Graf, L., Kroll, S., Markowitsch, J., Neff, D. & Neumann, J. (2024). Indikatoren zur dualen Berufsbildung 2024. Deutschland – Österreich – Schweiz. Forschungsbericht. Bonn-Wien-Zollikofen Gonon, Ph. (2014). What makes the Dual System to a Dual System? A new Attempt to Define VET through a Governance Approach. bwp@, 25. Online: www.bwpat.de/ausgabe25/gonon_bwpat25.pdf Gonon, Ph. & Maurer, M. (2012). Education Policy Actors as Stakeholders in the Development of the Collective Skill System: The Case of Switzerland. In Busemeyer, M. R. & Trampusch, Ch. (Eds.), The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (126-149). Oxford: University Press. Graf, L., Lassnigg, L. & Powell, J. (2012). Austrian Corporatism and Institutional Change in the Relationship between Apprenticeship Training and School-Based VET. In Busemeyer, M. R. & Trampusch, Ch. (Eds.), The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (150-178). Ox ford: University Press. Lassnigg, L. (2023). Sustaining Dual Apprenticeship Systems: Similarities and Differences in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In Ye, Jian-Hong and Jiang, Man, (eds.) Technical and Vocational Education and Training. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112561 Nikolai, R. & Ebner, Ch. (2012). The Link between Vocational Training and Higher Education in Switzerland, Austria and Germany. In Busemeyer, M. R. & Trampusch, Ch. (Eds.), The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (234-258). Oxford: University Press. Rothe, G. (2001). Die Systeme beruflicher Qualifizierung Deutschlands, Österreichs und der Schweiz im Vergleich. DBK 02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Paper The Conceptual Openness of VET Systems to the Perspectives of Apprentices and Their Participation Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB), Germany Presenting Author:The design of vocational education and training systems (VET) is largely shaped by institutionalised negotiation processes in which specific constellations of actors determine the strategic orientation and its implementation in practice. This usually takes place within the framework of established cooperation and governance structures and is practised over long periods of time (Mayntz/Scharpf 1995; Maag Merki/langer/Altrichter 2014). This article focuses on apprentices/IVET learners as a central but hitherto largely neglected group of actors. Based on an analysis of three national reform and strategy processes, it examines the extent to which the VET systems in Germany, Switzerland and Denmark already integrate the perspective of learners at the conceptual level and in the normative self-image of their institutional arrangements, and open up opportunities for participation. The countries were selected on the basis of their common feature of a strongly company- and labour market-focused form of initial vocational training. The following criteria were decisive in the selection of the processes. The processes took place in the. since 2015, they can be considered structurally formative for the respective vocational training system, and their scope encompasses both normative and institutional settings. The selected processes are examined with regard to two aspects or criteria. Firstly, the extent to which the apprentices' perspective played a role in the course of the process, i.e. the extent to which the apprentices/IVET learners were the direct recipients of the reform or strategy activities. Secondly, the form of participation of the learners in this context is analysed. For Germany, these are the reforms of the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) since 2015, for Switzerland the strategic initiative Agenda Berufsbildung 2030 (Vocational Training Agenda 2030) and for Denmark the reform of the vocational training system in 2015. These three processes meet the criterion of systemic relevance and their explicit objective of strategically realigning the respective VET system. All three processes mark significant political interventions in which issues of attractiveness, quality and governance of vocational education and training were addressed. For Germany, this involves two changes to the BBiG during this period. The Act on the Modernisation and Strengthening of Vocational Education and Training (BBiMoG) of 2020 brought about extensive structural and content-related changes to the BBiG. Some of these changes directly address apprentices; for example, the minimum training allowance (§ 17 BBiG) is the first time that an income-related protection interest for apprentices has been explicitly standardised by law. Furthermore, in August 2024, the Vocational Training Validation and Digitisation Act (BVaDiG) came into force, once again modifying the BBiG with new legal instruments for digitisation and recognition of skills (Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2024). In Switzerland, the federal government, the cantons and the organisations representing the world of work (Organisationen der Arbeitswelt, OdA) wanted to respond to social and labour market changes with the strategic initiative Vocational Training 2030 and make VET ‘fit for the future’, e.g. in terms of digitalisation, sustainability and permeability. The 2015 reform of the Danish VET system was primarily aimed at attracting more young people to vocational training, reducing drop-out rates and improving the quality of vocational education and training programmes. In terms of its theoretical foundation and positioning, this paper focuses on the role of apprentices/IVET learners and their opportunities for participation in the design of VET systems and can therefore be classified as educational governance research (Busemeyer/Goerres 2014; Busemeyer/Schlicht-Schmälzle 2014; Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012; Emmenegger/Graf/Strebel 2020). Based on the typology approach of skill formation systems, the article highlights why there are considerable conceptual differences within the group of so-called collective skill formation systems in terms of how learners are addressed and involved in key national design and strategy processes. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The analysis of reform and strategy processes is based on a systematic and intensive document analysis. This method makes it possible to reconstruct reform dynamics, objectives, lines of argumentation, and institutional and normative frameworks in a comparative manner. On the one hand, primary documents that were created directly in the course of the reform and strategy processes are taken into account, such as legal texts, strategy and programme papers, official reports, statements by relevant actors and accompanying evaluation documents (BOWEN 2008;ANGUS ET AL. 2013). Secondly, secondary sources are included, in particular existing scientific analyses, expert reports and synthesis reports that contextualise, evaluate or historically classify the respective reform processes (SCHREIER 2014). The documents are evaluated using a theoretically guided category system, which is both deduced from the state of research and the guiding questions and developed inductively in the course of the analysis (KUCKARTZ 2010; MAYRING 2022). The aim is to identify the central objectives and control logics of the reform processes and to make them systematically comparable. By combining internal reform documents and external analytical literature, the aim is to triangulate perspectives, taking into account both the intended goals and self-descriptions of the reform actors and their scientific classification and critical reflection. This approach helps to increase the comparability of the education systems under investigation and to empirically validate the analysis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings We argue that there are clear differences between the three countries regarding the conceptual anchoring and functional role of IVET learners within the governance of their initial training systems. In Germany, reforms increasingly emphasise individualisation and protection, but they do not amount to a comprehensive participatory reorientation of the BBiG. Rather than explicitly incorporating trainees as actors through legal measures, the focus lies on systemic framework conditions and structural modernisation, such as training duration, examination formats and training content. Although parliamentary debates addressed potential improvements for apprentices – including a minimum training allowance, strengthened rights for youth and apprentice representatives, and barrier-free complaint mechanisms – these were not incorporated into the core of the 2015 reform (DEUTSCHER BUNDESTAG 2024). In Switzerland, while IVET learners are not explicitly addressed in the mission statement of ‘Vocational Education and Training 2030’, their perspective is central to the strategic guidelines. The initiative promotes a paradigm shift from labour-market-driven training towards individual development opportunities, positioning learners as active designers of their educational pathways (SEUFERT 2018). Although governance remains dominated by institutional actors, particularly OdAs, learner-centredness is increasingly recognised as a legitimate and strategic approach. This is reinforced by institutionalised monitoring instruments that systematically capture learners’ experiences and feed them into political decision-making. Denmark provides the most explicit example of legally embedding the learner perspective. Improving learners’ well-being and satisfaction was established as a core objective of the reform, accompanied by legally mandated monitoring of learner satisfaction. The resulting data serves as a basis for policy measures aimed at improving training quality and reducing dropout rates (HIPPACH-SCHNEIDER/GROBE-RATH 2024). Overall, the analysis demonstrates substantial differences in how apprentices are addressed and perceived by dominant actors in VET policy-making, even across structurally similar vocational training systems. References Angus, L., Golding, B., Foley, A., & Lavender, P. (2013). Promoting ‘learner voice’ in VET: developing democratic, transformative possibilities or further entrenching the status quo? Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–15. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Gesetz zur Modernisierung und Stärkung der beruflichen Bildung (2020). Berufsbildungsvalidierungs- und -digitalisierungsgesetz (2024). Busemeyer, M. R., & Goerres, A. (2014). Varieties of Capitalism, Education and Inequalities in Political Participation. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication. Busemeyer, M. R., & Schlicht-Schmälzle, R. (2014). Partisan power, economic coordination and variations in vocational training systems in Europe. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 20 (2014), No 1, p. 55-71. Busemeyer, M. R., & Trampusch, C. (2012). The Comparative Politcial Economy of Collective Skill Formation. In M. R. Busemeyer & C. Trampusch (Eds.), The political economy of collective skill formation (pp. 3–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deutscher Bundestag (2024). Anhörung Bundesvalidierungs- und -digitalisierungsgesetz. Retrieved from https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw23-pa-bildung-berufsbildungsvalidierungsgesetz-1004006? Emmenegger, P., Graf, L., & Strebel, A. (2020). Social versus liberal collective skill formation systems? A comparative-historical analysis of the role of trade unions in German and Swiss VET. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(3), 263–278. Hippach-Schneider, U., & Grobe-Rath, J. (2023). The apprentice perspective: A blind spot in the governance of VET systems? A German-Danish-Swiss comparison. In V. Tūtlys, L. Vaitkutė, & C. Nägele (Chairs), 5th International VET Conference Crossing Boundaries. Symposium conducted at the meeting of VETNET, Kaunas. Hippach-Schneider, U., & Grobe-Rath, J. (2024). Die Perspektive der Auszubildenden in Monitorings der Berufsbildungspolitik: Eine vergleichende Analyse von Dänemark, Deutschland und der Schweiz. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft Und Praxis BWP, 2024(4), 48–51. Kuckartz, U. (2010). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten (3., aktualisierte Aufl.). Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss. Maag Merki, K., Langer, R., & Altrichter, H. (Eds.) (2014). Educational governance: Bd. 17. Educational Governance als Forschungsperspektive: Strategien, Methoden, Ansätze. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1995). Der Ansatz des akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus. In R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und Steuerung (pp. 39–72). Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Schreier, M. (2014). Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse: Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Begrifflichkeiten. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1). Seufert, S. (Mai 2018). Flexibilisierung der Berufsbildung im Kontext fortschreitender Digitalisierung: Bericht im Auftrag des Staatssekretariats für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation SBFI im Rahmen des Projekts «Berufsbildung 2030 – Vision und Strategische Leitlinien». 02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Paper The Emergence and Dominance of the ‘Skills-First’ Approach in Educational Policy 1: Department of Education, University of Oxford, United Kingdom,; 2: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada Presenting Author:This conceptual paper traces the emergence of the ‘skills-first’ approach, now dominant in international and domestic policy and in all sectors of education. It has two purposes: the first is to analyse policy documents from the European Commission, the OECD and UNESCO to trace the development of the skills discourse to culminate in ‘skills first’ policies. This analysis provides the context for the second purpose, which is to examine how the skills discourse has been most recently instantiated in England, through the UK Government’s Post-16 education and skills white paper (Department for Education et al., 2025). While the ontological and epistemological premise of our paper is critical realism in philosophy and social realism in the sociology of education (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2026), we nonetheless draw on discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008) to explain the ways in which international policy flows are constituted by policy actors in international government organisations, think tanks and other policy actors and how policies undergo processes of recontextualisation to reflect national specificities. We also draw on Bacchi’s (2012, 2026) ‘What’s the problem represented to be’ to problematise the concept of skills and the problems policies on skills seek to address. The skills discourse originated first in the vocational education sector and has progressively expanded within vocational education to encompass a wide range of attributes and character qualities not traditionally associated with skill (Payne, 2000). ‘Skills first’ now has colonised higher education, but also schools and early childhood education. ‘Skills first’ has two meanings: it was popularised by the World Economic Forum (2023) to exhort firms, enterprises, and government agencies to focus on specific skills and competencies that applicants have, rather than their educational qualifications, previous job titles, or job history. It has subsequently been adopted and developed by the European Commission (2024) and the OECD (2025), and operationalised by the European Commission (nd-a, nd-b) in its ‘Union of Skills’ and ‘Pact for Skills’ and UNESCO (2025) through tools such as its ‘Global Skills Tracker’. The second meaning of ‘skills first’ is that all education and all sectors of education must be pressed into the service of skills. For example, the OECD (2025) argues that better and more equitable access to early childhood education and care services is necessary because skills disparities develop early and only widen with time. Moreover, “Compulsory schooling systems must balance excellence, equity and labour market relevance” (OECD, 2025, p.20). The OECD continues: “…[school] curricula should ensure academic proficiency in core 21st-century skills, social and emotional skills, and career readiness” (p.20). The ‘Skills First’ policy framework is both underpinned by human capital theory but also demonstrates the failure of human capital theory (Milana et al., 2025). Human capital theory posits that more education leads to greater and better skills, and higher productivity (Becker, 1962), yet despite the massive expansion of all levels of education in the last 50 years, policy bodies and governments complain of skills gaps and mismatches. The problem is, according to the European Economic and Social Committee (2018, p.6), that there is too much education of the wrong sort and that “a larger part of the mismatch is due to over-skilling/education”. ‘Skills First’ policies are thus a tool for governments to discipline all levels of education to focus on skills needed for work as the priority. The English White Paper exemplifies the focus on skills as the solution to all economic and social problems that beset England and it will result in a tighter focus on learning for work. All education in all sectors is pressed into the service of skills, with citizen development excluded from consideration. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We draw on Schmidt’s (2008) discursive institutionalism to analyse policy flows and the way in which the discourse of skill is defined and legitimated, and Bacchi’s (2012, p.23) ‘what’s the problem represented to be’ to examine how the ‘problem’ of skill is constituted in policy, and to probe “the unexamined assumptions and deep-seated conceptual logics” in skills policies. However, contrary to Schmidt (2012) and Bacchi (2016; 2026) who disavow the use of critical realism to base their approach more solidly on constructivism, we use critical realism to examine non-discursive relations of power that promote the skills discourse. Critical realists posit a complex reality that includes the importance of discourse in structuring relations of power, particularly in the way ‘problems’ are ‘named’. Critical realists take discourse seriously but argue that discourse is related to non-discursive relations of power in complex and stratified social structures that also have a material basis. Discourses contribute to, but cannot fully explain, relations of power and social structures. Critical realists use ‘abduction’, a process of theoretical redescription, to draw from alternative paradigms to engage in conceptual abstraction, necessary for understanding the way in which problems are defined. This allows us to draw from both Schmidt and Bacchi in our analysis without conceding their ‘strong’ constructivist premises, as interpretation of meanings is fundamental to critical realist analyses (Sayer, 2010). In using discursive institutionalism, we examine the relationship between international and national policy flows, including the coordinative discourses that shape policies and, communicative discourses which mediate between policy actors and the public (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018). We draw on Bacchi’s six questions in her ‘what’s the problem represented to be’ to question the way in which skill is defined as both ‘problem’ and ‘solution’. Her six questions are: 1. “What's the ‘problem’…represented to be in a specific policy or policy proposal? 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underpin this representation of the ‘problem’? 3. How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about? 4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently? 5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? 6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been (or could it be) questioned, disrupted and replaced?” (Bacchi, 2012) Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings We found that as human capital theory increasingly came to dominate government policies on education over the last 50 years, policy has progressively narrowed the focus of education away from broader conceptions of citizenship formation, personal development, and occupational preparation to the production of skills. In the 1970s, human capital theory was descriptive, it was used to explain why individuals and enterprises invested in education. In the 1980s and 1990s, it became normative, education should be about jobs. In the 2000s, human capital theory has become prescriptive, education must be about jobs. The ‘problem’ of skills arises from human capital theory but also from neoliberal assumptions about society, competition and individuals. The transition to a ‘market society’ amplified human capital theory’s concerns with investment in knowledge and skills, in which the purpose of education is to supply the ‘skills’ needed by individuals and employers. The ‘problem’ is cast as a supply problem, in which educational institutions do not supply the ‘right’ skills needed by employers and labour markets. The structure of societies and labour markets, relations of class, gender, race and other dimensions of power and inequality, are recast as ‘technical’ problems which must be overcome to ensure adequate labour market supply. The consequences of this approach are examined through close examination of England’s skill policies. The definition of skill, its reduction to a problem of ‘mapping’ between supply and demand, and its rendering as a technocratic problem waiting to be solved, are explored. Attributes and character qualities are redefined as skill, colonising our inner worlds and helping to shape sensibilities of the ‘good’ worker. Skill policies produce aggregative and additive conceptions of skill, in which skills can be enumerated, counted, and aggregated in different ways, ignoring the social contexts in which skills are developed, deployed, extended, and evaluated. References Bacchi, C. (2012). Introducing the ‘What's the Problem Represented to be?’ approach. In B. Angelique & B. Chris (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic Interventions and Exchanges (pp. 21-24). University of Adelaide Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9780987171856.003 Bacchi, C. (2016). Problematizations in Health Policy: Questioning How “Problems” Are Constituted in Policies. Sage Open, 6(2), 2158244016653986. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016653986 Bacchi, C. (2026). What's the Problem Represented to Be? : A New Thinking Paradigm. Routledge. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9-49. http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/1829103 Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions, & Department for Science Innovation and Technology. (2025). Post-16 education and skills white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-16-education-and-skills-white-paper European Commission. (2024). The ‘Skills First’ Approach - Opportunities and Risks. https://pact-for-skills.ec.europa.eu/document/download/006e50d4-6383-4f1a-b2fc-75a5ac082f63_en European Commission. (nd-a). Pact for Skills. Retrieved 26 January 2026 from https://pact-for-skills.ec.europa.eu/index_en European Commission. (nd-b). Union of Skills. Retrieved 27 January 2026 from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/union-skills_en European Economic and Social Committee. (2018). Skills Mismatches–An Impediment to the Competitiveness of EU Businesses. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-02-18-922-en-n.pdf Milana, M., Ulrik, B., Steven, H., Tetyana, H.-K., & and Morris, T. H. (2025). Skills, skills, skills! The European Commission’s endorsement of a Skills-First approach and the future of adult education and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 44(2), 127-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2025.2472553 OECD. (2025). OECD Skills Outlook 2025: Building the Skills of the 21st Century for All (OECD Skills Outlook, Issue. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-skills-outlook-2025_26163cd3-en.html Payne, J. (2000). The unbearable lightness of skill: the changing meaning of skill in UK policy discourses andsome implications for education and training. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930050030473 Sayer, A. (2010). Method in social science : a realist approach (Rev. 2nd ed.). Routledge. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326. Schmidt, V. A. (2012). Discursive Institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics, and Philosophical Underpinnings. In H. Gottweis & F. Fischer (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn Revisited (pp. 85-113). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822395362-004 UNESCO. (2025). Global Skills Tracker User Manual. https://unevoc.unesco.org/up/gst-user-manual.pdf Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Discursive institutionalism: towards a framework for analysing the relation between policy and curriculum. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1344879 Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (Forthcoming, 2026). Beyond Skills: A Capability Conception of Vocational Education (Vol. 14). Brill. World Economic Forum. (2023). Putting skills first: a framework for action. https://www.weforum.org/publications/putting-skills-first-a-framework-for-action/ | ||