Conference Agenda

Recent studies on the distribution of men and women across different levels of vocational education and training (VET) in Spain reveal a high degree of gender segregation. These studies conclude that: (1) the training offer is predominantly male oriented; (2) women are mainly enrolled in a few professional branches and are concentrated in fields associated either with the sexual division of labour, particularly care related occupations, or with gender stereotypes such as personal image and fashion; and (3) there is a very limited presence of women in male dominated programmes and of men in female dominated ones (Aguado et al., 2020; Moreno Márquez, 2021; Quintana Murci et al., 2021; Salvà Mut et al., 2018).

Although gender segregation exists at all educational levels, it is more pronounced in VET due to its close connection with vocational identity and labour market outcomes (Imdorf et al., 2015; Niemeyer & Colley, 2015). Gender influence is stronger when pathways are differentiated at an early age. Adolescence is a period in which transgressing gender roles is difficult, as adaptation to peer expectations is prioritised (Birr, 2014). In Spain, these decisions are made at ages fourteen and fifteen in basic VET and at age sixteen when choosing between upper secondary education and intermediate VET.

According to Imdorf et al. (2015), this situation has a triple impact on women’s personal, educational, and labour trajectories. First, women’s underrepresentation in certain training options restricts their freedom of choice. Second, male dominated professional families offer better employment prospects, which channels women towards more precarious working conditions and reinforces occupational segregation. Finally, strong gender segregation in VET questions its integrative function, since it ultimately directs many young women towards more precarious professional activities.

At the same time, VET is a stage in which education in values, especially gender equality, remains limited, contributing to the reproduction of gender structures (Lahelma et al., 2014; Moreno Márquez, 2021; Mosteiro & Porto, 2017). Research has highlighted the role of VET organisation in transmitting gender stereotypes through curricular content and teaching practices. Although stereotypes originate in earlier educational stages, VET may reinforce them by preparing young women for the sexual division of labour (Heineger & Imdorf, 2018; Imdorf et al., 2015; Lamamra, 2017; Reisel et al., 2019). Lamamra et al. (2014) argue that VET institutions reproduce labour market inequalities, becoming spaces of gendered professional socialisation.

Studies analysing VET curricula indicate that gender perspectives are absent, superficial, or differentiated depending on whether the programme is male or female dominated (Lamamra, 2017; Simonsson, 2022). Ledman et al. (2018) show that male dominated programmes include knowledge linked to recognised disciplines, whereas female dominated programmes incorporate such content to a lesser extent and often exclude areas such as entrepreneurship or creativity. This imbalance reinforces gender inequality in employment.

Finally, teaching practices play a crucial role in shaping students’ choices and in perpetuating gender stereotypes. Although teachers increasingly express a commitment to gender equality, this discourse does not always translate into practice resulting in unequal treatment of students (Lahelma et al., 2014; Lamamra, 2017; Moreno Márquez, 2021; Reisel et al., 2019; Simonsson, 2022). Finally, research by Aguado et al. (2020) shows that teachers often justify segregation by referring to student preferences, obscuring its structural nature and limiting comprehensive coeducational strategies, thereby contributing to the persistence of gender inequalities.

The male-dominated interpretation of work, occupations and vocational education seem astonishingly persistent in the mainstream research, practice and policy discourses on vocational education. Yet, this may be one of the obstacles underlying the difficulties to tackle the current environmental, political and economic crisis in vocational education. Whether in historical or vocational education studies, male-dominance is typically challenged only by female researchers, attempting to make visible struggles on recognition of women’s work, occupations and education, and their institutionalised solutions. In those contexts, womanliness is commonly attributed to home and family, conceived from a rather middle or upper-class and contemporary perspective, with nationalist/nation-statist methodologies. (e.g. Heikkinen & Henriksson, 2001, 2002).

We understand womanliness, work and education as relational and controversial concepts, shaped at the intersection of individual and collective, local and planetary intentions and activities. Instead of analysing the history of “women’s vocational education” as such, we find it more fruitful to reflect on how women were embedded in the history of education, in relation to the organisation of the totality of human and nonhuman work across local and national contexts. This requires focusing on vertical and horizontal division of work and education, which is considered necessary for social production of livelihoods and certain ways of life.

Instead of gender, we speak about women and men in work and education. While this leaves aside the complexity of sexual orientations that would be important to analyse, this allows making visible the relational and controversial nature of women’s work and education. We understand education as internally diverse and controversial: it enables participation in bodies and creation of knowledge, in societally structured social relations, in occupationally organised work life and actualisation of unique personhood. (e.g., Heikkinen, 2011). In the context of this presentation, the focus is on the distinctiveness of vocational education as a promoter of occupational identity, work-process knowledge, success of work organisations and territorial economies. Yet, we recall the overlap with other forms of education. When narrowing the focus to women’s vocational education, we have identified three intertwined functions that are critical to its transformation, based on historical research in Finland from the late 18th century to the present day. (e.g. Ollila, 1993; Heikkinen, 1995; Henttinen et al, 1999; Heikkinen & Henriksson, 2001, 2002; Heikkinen et al, 1999; Korkiakangas, 2013; Kuusisto, 2004; Tiilikkala, 2004).

We name the three functions, operating individually and collectively as ideals and tensions through territorial transformations, as self-sufficiency, trade and family. Since they do not translate directly into English, it is necessary to show the change of the native linguistic expressions. Provisionally, self-sufficiency refers to the ability of the entity – individual, household, community, nation-state – to sustain itself productively and independently. Trade indicates that the entity relies on and prefers monetary exchange in its productive and reproductive maintenance. Family indicates concentration of the entity on caring across generations. Yet, their quality and transformation are linked to internal and external power constellations in the economy, politics and social relations. The importance, continuity and intertwinement of these functions manifests in the meanings of “vocation/occupation” (ammatti) in the native Finnish expression “means of livelihood” (elinkeino). It can refer to individual, collective or corporate economic activity and is still used as a synonym for industry. (e.g. Heikkinen, 1995, 2009; Heikkinen et al, 2001).

In this presentation I focus on vocational school students lay perceptions of inequality and social class. I examine their subjective sense of inequality (Bottero 2020) and how they see themselves positioned in a stratified society. The theoretical framework draws upon Merton's (1967) reference group theory, Bourdieu's (1984) theoretical class model, and empirical reflections on the subjective dimension of class and inequality (Bottero 2020; Irwin 2018; Skeggs 2004; Snee & Devine 2018). From previous research we know that class identities are fundamentally ambivalent. Further, young people tend to see themselves as agents capable of controlling their own lives, and they have been accused of being blind to the existence of structural constraints arising from gender, ethnic, or class divisions (‘epistemological fallacy’ by Furlong and Cartmel 2007). Instead of adopting a restricted focus on how young people fail to grasp inequalities, my presentation deals with both identifying and downplaying of differences. I pay special attention to the vocational education as a context for discussing social class and ask, how the educational track that can be argued to prepare young people for working class positions and careers allows them to reflect the fabric of society. What kind of a “view from a place” does that offer. The presentation contributes to the understanding on how both material and symbolic boundaries and hierarchies are articulated by young people and what consequencies these hierarchies are seen to have in their lives.