The purpose of this study was to learn about Finnish VET representatives’ perceptions of inclusion. Discussions and research on inclusion in education have mainly concentrated on the comprehensive school context, although vocational education and training (VET) students may have multiple, intersectional experiences of disadvantage. Our data included representatives (N=53) from five different Finnish VET sectors. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated their interpretations of inclusion. We applied an abductive approach in our analytical process that followed the principles of qualitative content analysis. Our findings indicated that the definition of inclusion is ambiguous. At the administration level, inclusion was related to ideology, whereas teachers spoke about special education practices. Work-life representatives connected inclusion to the principles of communality, and students appreciated this understanding and individual solutions in their studying and workplace learning. This study supports the view of earlier studies and addresses a need for shared understanding and values to engage with inclusion in practice. The VET sector would benefit from discussions and training in inclusion and inclusive principles, where the study works as an initiator.

Inclusion is understood in various ways in research, in documents guiding educational practices, and in stakeholders’ speeches. This study contributes to the European discussion on the ambiguity of inclusion by investigating the descriptions of Finnish vocational education and training (VET) administration personnel both at the national and vocational institution levels. It gives light on the interconnections between participants’ and Finnish and EU-level interpretations of inclusion in VET. We ask how the representatives of national educational administration and vocational institutions’ administration describe inclusion. The data was collected in the spring of 2021 by interviewing representatives (N=18) of national educational administration and vocational institution administration. We used Qvortrup and Qvortrup’s (2018) definition of inclusion as our theoretical lens. The participants’ descriptions of inclusion were constructed by portraying the significance of students’ equity, equality, participation, accessibility, special support and belonging in the VET community at the numeric level but they lack consideration of students’ activity in those communities and students’ own experiences. The participants did not address the relevance of different social arenas of inclusion or exclusion in their descriptions, but they described VET colleges as one social system. Moreover, the participants did not reflect on the degree of being included or excluded. Their perspectives were constructed through the Finnish VET context, and they created a strong promise of education, which would provide equal opportunities for all to study and acquire competence according to the qualification requirements in VET. Their approaches were based rather on the identification of special needs students and their needs than on considerations for social cohesion, active citizenship and lifelong learning. This fostered the invitation for the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and the National Board of Education to define inclusion more precisely in VET so that the education providers would have an explicit framework and goals to advance inclusion in practice.