Vocational education and training: the terra incognita of innovation policy

Abstract

Is what is known from research on systemic innovation reflected in innovation policy, both as guiding principles and as actions? This paper highlights a major paradox in the translation of research on innovation into innovation policy in Australia. The innovation studies literature has established the central role of the vocational education and training (VET) system and VET-trained workers in technology generation, diffusion and incremental innovation. Research has also established that the pattern of innovation in Australia, compared with that in many other OECD countries, makes firms more reliant on VET skills to implement innovation. Despite this recognition in the innovation literature, this paper argues that the VET system is largely excluded from government innovation policy and programmes in Australia. Evidence for this exclusion is derived from a textual analysis of the principal Australian government policy statements and government-sponsored studies of the Australian innovation system, and from an analysis of the interest groups represented on government innovation advisory and policy structures. Tentative explanations are advanced for this exclusion and a number of important benefits are identified for the VET system and the wider innovation system arising from closer integration of VET into innovation policy

Apprenticeship training curriculum: examining its negotiated design and the ensuing effects on learner engagement

“…Furthermore, I was working within a contestable market of VET training provision and user choice (Australian National Training Authority [ANTA], 1998, Toner, 2018a.…”

“…Critics of the introduction of training packages identify their purpose as being more than just a vocational syllabus. Critics argue that their intentions are positioned within broader political, ideological, and economic objectives (Billett, 2011;Rushbrook, 2010;Toner, 2018a). For example, Billett argues that they were part of a political shift to gain control of the intended curriculum from vocational institutions and teachers through a subsequent transfer of control to industry (2011).…”

“…Since the policy's introduction, a surfeit of evidence has emerged which identifies the widespread abuse of public funding as thousands of new RTO institutions entered the market and capitalised on the attached government funding (Marginson, 1995;Schofield, 1999;Toner, 2018a…”

“…In these interview extracts the interviewees identify the Commonwealth VET policy shift away from the burden of a publicly funded system towards a more liberal and individualist economic framework, where the systems' customer, or the student, or the client' would make informed and rational choices of products from a marketplace of service providers. This policy shift by the government towards a competitive market of vocational education has attracted a great deal of research attention over the last decade, attracting discussion and analysis of this policy and paradigm shift by the government towards a new 'user pays' model (Darwin, 2007;Marginson, 2013;Toner, 2018a;2018b).…”

Higher Education Institutions in the Knowledge Triangle

“…Interactions between researchers and industry or the local community can help them relate their research and teaching to real-life problems. Vocational education colleges, in particular, may face the challenge of keep their programmes up-to-date with technology and innovation [Toner, Dalitz, 2012]. Thorn and Soo [Thorn, Soo, 2006] show how a "third-mission" orientation has had spillover effects on the advanced training activities of universities in Latin America (e.g., real-life problems in university courses and collaborative doctorate research projects).…”