Democratic Values and Purposes: the overlooked challenge of competence

From NVQs to ‘Policy Scholarship’: evolving a research agenda for post‐compulsory professional development

“…In the face of an overwhelmingly instrumental and technical discussions, it becomes hard to sustain assertions that people also want knowledge and understanding because they seek interest, inspiration, cultural breadth, critical analysis and reasoning, social insight and awareness, challenge and critique, or to create new knowledge. Although there have been a number of critiques which argue that NVQs offer a utilitarian view of professional practice and, indeed, of learning itself (see Hartley, 1991;Hyland, 1991;Ecclestone, 1994), we now celebrate the apparent re-emergence of 'underpinning' knowledge in GNVQs and NVQs. We no longer remember what knowledge is being excluded from learning programmes or what it encompassed -and permitted -in the past.…”

“…A number of critics argue that changes in the vocational curriculum symbolise the embedding of narrow vocational concerns at the expense of more liberal and radical ones, such as cultural and social awareness, and critical analysis (Hyland, 1991;Simenski, 1993). Concurrent changes to funding, the decline of adult and liberal education, and the erosion of a post-war commitment to a 'pluralism of purposes' for the education and training system (Ecclestone, 1994) signify a general redefining of 'academic', 'general' and 'vocational' educational, as well as of 'education' and 'training' themselves.…”

Empowerng or Ensnaring?: The Implications of Outcome‐based Assessment in Higher Education

“…Thus, in both their technical format and their positivist assumptions, assessment regimes based on prescriptive outcomes preclude genuine criticality and can produce uncritical conformity to external injunctions (Ecclestone 1994). Arguably, these traits reflect the lack of critical engagement in many professional workplaces, and increasingly, in universities and colleges too.…”

“…Meanwhile, there is already evidence -as yet anecdotal -that students on outcome-based programmes in higher education are becoming increasingly unwilling to take part in teaching and learning activities which do not cover the stated outcomes or which do not contribute towards summative assessment. Thus, in both their technical format and their positivist assumptions, assessment regimes based on prescriptive outcomes preclude genuine criticality and can produce uncritical conformity to external injunctions (Ecclestone 1994). Arguably, these traits reflect the lack of critical engagement in many professional workplaces, and increasingly, in universities and colleges too.…”

On the frontline or at the margins? finding a place in post-compulsory research

“…There is also a growing body of research about the effects of GNVQs on teaching and learning and curriculum development (Bloomer, 1997;Bloomer & Hodkinson 1997;Ecclestone, 1997;Garland, 1997). Other critiques have attempted to appeal from liberal or Marxist perspectives that NVQs and GNVQs are potentially 'undemocratic' because they close down possibilities for reflective and critical skills (Ecclestone, 1994(Ecclestone, , 1996(Ecclestone, , in press [1999; Avis et al, 1996;Hyland, 1994;Avis, 1998). As part of a deeper critique, some researchers have aimed to show fundamental flaws in underlying epistemology of NVQs (Hyland, 1994(Hyland, , 1996 and GNVQs (Halliday, 1996).…”