Civic education in VET: concepts for a professional language in VET teaching and VET teacher education

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses how Bernsteinian concepts (‘pedagogic rights’, ‘discursive gaps’ and ‘pedagogic code’) from the field of sociology of education can be used as didactic tools to illuminate how different ways of organising teaching in VET has implications for citizenship preparation. The paper is based on results from a five-year research project investigating the extent and nature of learning processes that can be characterised as civic education in Swedish VET. Results from the project show how VET often contributes to social reproduction through provision of class-, gender-, and ethnicity-based access to knowledge with different powers to students. However, we also identified many variations in the VET-contexts studied. In the paper at hand, examples of when and how students got access to different types of knowledge through different ways of organising teaching, and how different ways of teaching prevented or promoted different types of questions with implications for the kind of citizenship preparation the students were offered, is discussed. Our hope is that these discussions contribute to a conversation on how to make a language accessible to VET-teachers that is helpful to problematise and plan their teaching to offer greater access to an active citizenship for students in vocational programmes.

KEYWORDS:

• Vocational education teachers
• citizenship education
• critical thinking
• educational development
• vocational subjects

Introduction: the project and its context

In both curricula and pedagogic practice, vocational education and training (VET) often strongly prioritises development of practical skills associated with the focal vocation, while democratic education is often associated with concepts and theory, as if there were two distinct orientations of knowledge (Wheelahan 2007; Durkheim 2001). This clearly indicates that democratic socialisation may be problematic in VET, despite a consensus in the research literature that the two orientations cannot be easily separated (Bernstein 2000; Wheelahan 2018; Young 2008). It is also noteworthy that integration and separation of knowledge forms in VET has developed differently in different countries, where for example Brockmann et al. (2008) noted that France had more integrated and England more separated approach to so called theoretical and practical knowledge.

As part of a project called Critical education in vocational subjects? (Crit-VET) we analysed Swedish upper secondary vocational education policy and followed students in six vocational classes in three programmes through their full three years of upper secondary schooling, from autumn 2016 to summer 2019. Various aspects of the project have been previously reported. However, our previous reports focused mainly on sociological strands, while this paper focuses implications for teaching and teacher education of our previous more sociological conclusions. Fostering reflective citizens and giving students opportunities to affect society are expressed in curricula of Sweden, and most other countries, as two major aims of teaching and education, but both the content and objectives of such civic education have varied over time, following international and national socio-political trends. For example, in Sweden in the 1970s the main focus was on weakening socioeconomic reproduction, i.e. attempting to reduce effects of structures that contributed to continuation of patterns such as industrial workers’ sons also becoming industrial workers (Broberg, Lindberg, and Wärvik 2021; *Lappalainen, Nylund, and Rosvall 2019). As part of this policy in the 1970s, upper-secondary school was ‘unified’, i.e. both vocational and academic programmes were integrated into the same educational structure with a common curriculum (Lgy70). Later, from the 1990s onwards, a curricular objective has been to break gender stereotypical patterns. Efforts have also been made to make education more democratic and for students to learn various forms of influence, and ways to exert it, through civic education. Thus, since 1970, from an international perspective, Sweden’s VET system has been relatively undifferentiated from more academic pathways (Brockmann et al., 2010; Protsch and Solga 2016). Characteristics have included strong central steering from the state, a weak tradition of apprenticeship education and relatively good access to higher education, mainly through continued inclusion of education in general subjects. Neo-liberal ideas have had strong effects on educational (and other policies) in Sweden in recent decades, including promotion of employer influence over the curriculum and incorporation of goals such as competition and employability (*Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman 2017). However, VET in Sweden is still primarily steered by democratically elected bodies and state agencies, rather than employers. In a nutshell, VET curriculum today is still formulated by the state, but informed through a number of ‘councils’ by employers’ interests, which are considered when implementing changes to the curriculum. The curriculum itself consists of steering documents that express a number of goals, as well as ‘central content’ for each programme and course that all teachers must incorporate into their teaching plans. However, it does not express how much space each type of goal and content should be given, so VET-teachers have a substantial degree of autonomy when planning their teaching.

Within this framework, vocational education and training (VET) can be seen as a means of communicating civic education and contributing to changing (reproductive patterns in) working life. However, civic education is often associated with more general subjects, such as social sciences and language, which follow what could be called a ‘logic of education’. At the same time, vocational teachers are recruited from professional environments that are often characterised by what could be called a ‘logic of production’, prioritising values such as profit and efficiency (cf. Köpsén and Andersson 2017). This paper problematises the consequent apparent need for vocational education and teachers to balance pressures to act as both educational agents (with responsibilities to change working life in accordance with civil norms and movements) and agents of working life with stronger focus on production and employability. In our view, the first does not exclude the other. However, as described in our previous reports (*Ledman et al. 2021; *Nylund et al. 2018; *Rosvall et al. 2018; *Nylund et al. 2020) and elsewhere, several patterns are recreated through (vocational) education despite intentions expressed in curricula to change reproducing patterns (Asplund and Pérez Prieto 2018; Avis 2016; Beicht and Walden 2017; Köpsén 2020; Åberg and Hedlin 2015; Tarabini and Jacovkis 2022). Thus, there are clear needs for further elucidation and theorisation of the actual and potential roles of vocational subjects in this context.

Vocational education and the social distribution of knowledge

As already stated, previous research conducted both in Sweden and internationally has strongly focused on the so-called ‘general subjects’ (language, social studies, etc.) when addressing how schools educate students to become democratic citizens. Vocational subjects and education are largely ignored in this discussion. A core argument in this paper is that vocational subjects are also important elements of VET students’ democratic education. However, for these subjects to play a progressive role in their development as citizens, a language is needed that enables systematic analysis and discussion of teaching. All professionals, including teachers, need concepts that enable systematic observations, abstractions from the particular to the general, and conscious action based on this systematic knowledge (cf. Pantić and Florian 2015; Young and Muller 2014). Since problems identified in the field of sociology of education (i.e. problems associated with class, gender, ethnicity and other power relations) are rarely treated as didactic problems (either in research or educational literature for teachers) there is a lack of such language. Thus, the aim of this paper is to contribute to discussion of a language that enables clear and systematic talk and thought about didactics and teaching in VET in the context of schools’ democratic mission.

Vocational programmes prepare students for a civic role that is closely intertwined with the role the programmes prepare them for as workers (Isopahkala-Bouret, Lappalainen, and Lahelma 2014). To learn something is also to become someone, and socialisation of students occurs in the teaching of vocational subjects just as socialisation occurs in the teaching of general subjects (Colley et al. 2003). This insight is important for two reasons. First, it illuminates the importance of vocational subjects in the context of schools’ democratic goals. Second, it suggests that vocational subjects’ contributions (current and potential) to educational objectives such as development of students’ ability to think critically and exert influence warrant more attention. In order to understand and enable progress towards schools’ democratic goals in the vocational programmes, it is essential to identify didactic dilemmas associated with the teaching and socialisation that occurs in vocational subjects and address them in relation to the schools’ civic education.

Previous studies (Avis 2016; Isopahkala-Bouret, Lappalainen, and Lahelma 2014; Wheelahan 2007; Tarabini and Jacovkis 2022), including our investigations in the Crit-VET project (*Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman 2017), have shown that curricula of higher education (HE)-preparatory and vocational programmes provide substantially different opportunities to foster understanding and self-confidence to exert influence in workplaces or society. Clear differences between these programmes have been identified, including in the access to the kinds of knowledge required for critical thinking and active citizenship. For example, their curricula offer very different access to conceptual knowledge and training in source criticism (*Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman 2017). Since vocational programmes usually attract students with working class backgrounds while HE-preparatory programmes attract students with parents who have longer academic backgrounds, the curricula may clearly reinforce class patterns. Inter alia, students on vocational programmes may be prepared more for adapting to ‘how it is’ than students on HE-preparatory programmes, who acquire more knowledge and ability to problematise ‘how it is’ and ‘how it could be’ (*Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman 2017). Thus, more could be done to prepare vocational students to participate actively in civic and demographic elements of working and community life. For example, vocational courses often include very little about possible ways to address situations in vocational environments and exert influence at workplaces (writing memos, mobilising support for organisational change etc.). We also believe that such knowledge will become increasingly important due to increasingly rapid changes in working life driven by trends such as technological development and globalisation.

Civic education in VET; more important than ever now?

Constant technological changes in the labour market (such as the transition from human-driven vehicles with internal combustion engines to autonomous vehicles with electric engines, increasing scope to work remotely in diverse sectors, and the ongoing switch to online shopping) will raise important questions for students on all programmes, including vocational programmes. If changes occur in my workplace, how can I influence them? What organisations will be involved and what do their representatives think about the changes? What will my profession be like in 15 years? Will it even still be here then? Will I need to retrain, and if so how and when? It is important to see democracy in society and professional life, together with socio-technological and organisational developments, as open questions, rather than phenomena that one must simply accept and adapt to. Other important issues include migratory waves of asylum seekers, ‘economic migrants’ and increasingly probably ‘climate refugees’. Responses to recent waves have included both strengthening of populist parties throughout Europe, including Sweden, and strong pressures to foster tolerance and enhance integration. These issues are unlikely to become less salient in the near future, so it is important for students to develop the ability to understand the associated socio-economic and political discourses, both generally and in workplaces. This may be particularly important in programmes or industrial sectors where manifestations of xenophobia and discrimination are most common, and interest in traditional democratic channels (e.g. voting in elections) is lower, notably several male-dominated vocational programmes (Simmons, Connelly, and Thompson 2020; *Arneback and Nylund 2017). Moreover, vocational programmes provide training for sectors that are traditionally highly gender segregated. Thus, all the classical sociological categories of class, gender and ethnicity are highly relevant to issues of democracy and citizenship associated with vocational programmes. Hence, it seems essential to consider education’s role in the preparation of active citizens to support democratic governance in increasingly complex societies facing increasingly complex challenges.

Project and methods that our discussion on implications for teaching are based upon

The Crit-VET project was a policy-ethnographic study, focused on parts of the Swedish national upper secondary curriculum concerning the organisation, instruction and assessment of knowledge in the 12 VET programmes provided in upper secondary schools of all types (run by local authorities or private enterprises) and regions, see Table 1. The project also included 147 days of field observations, 208 student interviews, interviews with teachers and heads, as well as analysis of teaching material and associated documents. The ethnographic data considered here were obtained during fieldwork in six Swedish VET classes (two Vehicle & Transport classes, two Restaurant Management classes and two Health & Social Care classes), followed during all three years of a cohort’s upper-secondary education from ages of about 16 to 19. The six classes were based in five schools, so all classes we observed except two were in different schools. Four researchers participated in data collection, each carrying out ethnographic fieldwork in one or two classes. We observed the classes and took field-notes on educational processes associated with vocational subjects during full or half schooldays. Since we observed vocational classes, the venue could be a traditional classroom, a vehicle hall, a restaurant/bakery or a method room for nursing activities. All interviews were conducted in school during school time and audio-recorded. Various aspects of the project have been reported, and it provided major foundations of a book intended to assist Swedish vocational teachers and inform development of the Swedish vocational programme published in 2020 (*Rosvall et al. 2020). Inspired by Beach et al. (2014) here we present a meta-analysis of our previous studies, which involved the following four-step process. First, we identified a relevant sample of texts: publications emanating from our original policy ethnographic studies. These included 11 peer-reviewed articles and a book (asterisked entries in the reference list). Second, we carefully read these texts to identify the main findings and key concepts that could be related to teaching and teacher education. Third, we checked the relevance of each concept to teaching and synthesised findings to obtain foundations for general claims regarding strategies and measures that may promote progress towards schools’ democratic goals in vocational programmes. This involved attempts to identify didactic dilemmas associated with the teaching and socialisation that occurs in vocational subjects then address them in relation to the schools’ civic education. Finally, we compared these claims with findings from international research on related issues to challenge and/or support them (cf. Beach et al. 2014, 162).

Table 1. Chronological description of the foci in data production during the Crit-VET project.

Project: Crit-VET
2016	2016–2019
Curriculum analysis	Observation and interview studies, 6 classes – 3 programmes
Comparison of HE-preparatory and vocational programmes	School year 1 Classroom observations in vocational subjects, interviews with students and teachers	School year 2 Observations of workplace learning supervision, school introductions and follow-ups of workplace learning.	School year 3 Interviews with students just before the end of their final year. Observations of their exam work and presentation.
Comparison of gender aspects in vocational programmes

A Bernsteinian approach

The analysis of how knowledge in vocational subjects was organised and implications for the learner in terms of socialisation in the Crit-VET project heavily relied on theories of the educational sociologist Basil Bernstein. Of course, various other theories could be used in such analysis (see e.g. Billett 2014; Bonvin 2019; Engeström and Sannino 2021). However, we applied Bernstein’s theories in this (and several previous) studies because we find Bernsteinian concepts particularly powerful for unpacking the complex practice of teaching in the context of democratic socialisation. Another related reason is that Bernstein’s theories today are important elements of a lively debate on the analysis of knowledge, curriculum and teaching in the context of democratic socialisation involving researchers with interests in the sociology of education and curriculum theory. In several papers, Young and colleagues (e.g. Young 2008; Young and Muller 2014) argue that it is highly important to include conceptual knowledge in a social justice context in curricula, and both he and other researchers have shown that this applies to VET curricula (Avis 2019; Gamble 2014; Wheelahan 2018). This theorising has also led to an important critique of contemporary curricular trends such as the promotion of ‘competence’ as a principle for organising knowledge, which is particularly prominent in the context of VET (see e.g. Hordern 2014; Wheelahan 2015; *Nylund and Virolainen 2019). In a similar vein, through concepts like ‘Legitimation Code theory’ and ‘autonomy tours’ Locke and Maton (2019) have developed theories concerning analysis of knowledge (and policy) practices with important implications for teaching, learning, and both teacher and learner identities in this context. These discourses highlight the importance of theorising access to knowledge to enhance VET programmes’ inclusiveness, development of students’ critical thinking, emancipative possibilities, and invitation for students to ‘think the unthinkable’ (Bernstein 2000), i.e. consider alternative possibilities for society and the way we live. Issues such as the Covid pandemic, global warming and the international refugee crisis provide stark examples of reasons why students must be able to participate in debates about society and its development.

Our ambition in this paper is to ‘recontextualise’ three key concepts (‘pedagogic rights’, ‘pedagogic code’, and ‘discursive gaps’) in the mentioned discourses. The goal is to enable their inclusion in a language that helps VET teachers to problematise, discuss and plan their teaching to strengthen the role of vocational subjects in preparing their students for active citizenship. Thus, the purpose is to apply them in a teaching rather than research context as they are not only useful tools for researchers, but also potentially useful didactic tools for VET teachers.

Pedagogic rights

In previous articles based on the Crit-VET project, we analysed and discussed the conditions that policy and pedagogic practice in vocational subjects establish in terms of vocational subject teaching’s role in civic education (see for example *Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman 2017; *Ledman, Rosvall, and Nylund 2018; *Nylund et al. 2020; *Rönnlund et al. 2019). In these articles, we primarily examined students’ access to knowledge that enables problematisation of prevailing conditions and participation in conversations, arenas and groups that create conditions and relations within society and the professions (political discourse, engagement with trade unions, membership of work teams etc.). This is knowledge that gives self-confidence, the ability to feel a sense of belonging and capacities to participate and engage in civic issues in professional life and society. What is usually referred to as theoretical and practical knowledge is thus considered integrated, as knowledge of and practical action to address civic issues in society are integrated into working life. In order to discuss in depth what the curriculum describes as active participation in and development of professional and social life, a theoretical framework based on the Bernsteinian notion pedagogical rights (Bernstein 2000), as illustrated in Table 2, can be used.

Table 2. Pedagogic rights (model originally presented in McLean, Abbas, and Ashwin 2012).

Right	Definition	Capability
Individual Enhancement	‘The right to the means of critical understanding and to new possibilities’(Bernstein 2000, xx)	Confidence
Social inclusion	‘The right to be included socially, intellectually, culturally and personally [including] the right [to be] autonomous’ (Bernstein 2000, xx)	Belonging (in groups)
Political participation	‘The right to participate in the construction, maintenance and transformation of social order’ (Bernstein 2000, xxi)	Civic discussion and action

In Sweden, as in most other countries, the curriculum expresses an ambition for education to strengthen democracy by fostering the development of reflective citizens capable of affecting society. However, these goals are often expressed in an abstract language that lacks the concepts of highlighted importance here that enable clear and systematic thought about teaching in this context. We have found the concept of ‘pedagogic rights’ to be an analytically strong way to ‘operationalize’ these vague democratic ambitions, i.e. it offers a language that enables clear and systematic talk and thought about didactics and teaching in the context of schools’ democratic mission.

The pedagogic rights shown in Table 2 are integrated and divided into three levels mainly to facilitate their separate analysis and consideration in different contexts. The more important elements of the first right, to individual enhancement, are opportunities for critical thinking that enables students to see new opportunities, i.e. that there is nothing inevitable about many aspects of their world, particularly social, political and economic relations. Moreover, critical thinking opens up different ways of understanding phenomena in different contexts and from different perspectives. For example, a hairdresser may see the process of dyeing hair as a simple, manual procedure or a craft requiring substantial training and proficiency (with accompanying differences in expectations regarding status and remuneration). The procedure may also be considered in the context of the dye’s environmental impact, customers’ requirements for products (price, endurance, environmental impact etc.) and impact on students’ own work environments (cf. *Nylund et al. 2020; *Rönnlund and Rosvall 2021; *Ledman et al. 2021).

In order to exchange individual knowledge and experiences, the second pedagogical right, some form of social inclusion is needed, in work teams, professional organisations or staff associations. Finally, the third pedagogical right (political participation) refers to an individual’s or group’s preparation or abilities in relation to opportunities to engage in civic issues. In professional contexts this may involve the knowledge required to join and exert influence through organisations such as trade unions, and knowledge of arguments that are recognised and valued in different contexts. We believe that important aspects for teachers to address are implications of different ways of organising their teaching for the students’ opportunities to access these pedagogical rights and meanings of these rights in different subjects and contexts. In the following text we give examples of concepts that could be helpful in a discussion of this question.

Discursive gaps

Several articles emanating from the project showed that different groups of students are offered different types of knowledge and socialisation through differences in organisation of the teaching content (*Ledman et al. 2021; *Nylund, Rosvall, and Ledman 2017; *Nylund et al. 2018). As also shown, this leads to inequalities, including a tendency for young people with a working-class background (who are strongly overrepresented in vocational programmes) to be offered less knowledge that enables questioning of prevailing conditions. Thus, through our meta-analytical steps we identified didactic dilemmas associated with the teaching and socialisation that occurs in vocational subjects and addressed them in relation to the schools’ civic education.

A key aspect for teachers to reflect upon with regard to this problem is contextualisation, i.e. the context in which they embed presented content (Locke and Maton 2019). This is particularly pertinent for vocational teachers, as there is constant tension in the content of vocational education between specific and more general goals and knowledge. The students should acquire both knowledge required for work in a specific profession after graduation and general knowledge that does not lose relevance too quickly. Thus, the contextualisation of knowledge is a constantly important issue in vocational education. A concept we have found useful here is ‘discursive gap’, which rests on two other concepts: ‘horizontal discourse’ and ‘vertical discourse’ (Bernstein 2000). Briefly, a horizontal knowledge discourse is based on knowledge that is organised to be useful or meaningful in a specific context and thus is powerful in specific contexts but only relevant in a few specific contexts. In contrast, a vertical knowledge discourse is based on knowledge organised with the aim to clarify ‘why you do as you do’, which is less powerful in a specific context, but more transferable between different contexts.

The contextualisation of knowledge is also highly pertinent to schools’ democratic mission. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps most importantly because ‘society’s conversation’ about itself (Bernstein 2000) – the conversation about what society is, has been and can become – is conducted to a large extent via concepts within vertical discourses (Young 2008). If students in a school are to be prepared to be active citizens, who can participate in these conversations, they must therefore have access to knowledge in vertical discourses. For example, students need access to knowledge (theories and concepts) about society and work to be able to discuss and problematise their own and other people’s social positions from different perspectives. If a student cannot imagine that the world (including workplaces) could be different, it will be difficult to engage in deeper conversation about how society and work can and should be designed.

Another important aspect of students’ access to vertical discourses is that if they are to understand why they do what they do, and not just ‘imitate’ what the teacher does, they need access to concepts that enable them to perceive core principles associated with relevant knowledge and skill. Students can only understand the principles, and why they do as they do, when they can see alternatives. Thus, access to vertical discourses is also essential to promote students’ autonomy (cf. Wheelahan 2018); students can only ask ‘why-questions’ when they have the freedom to think and act in a different way. Insights into the principles behind knowledge practices also provide students powerful insights regarding their field of knowledge – their profession – and its limits, power and limitations (both per se, and in comparison with other fields of knowledge or professions). Thus, vertical discourses are also important for students’ ability to participate in conversations about their own professions and associated conditions, opportunities and limitations (Wheelahan 2015). This is important knowledge in the long run as a professional in any field, partly because every profession is in a constant struggle for power, status and legitimacy.

The horizontal and vertical discourse concepts are also important in the context of schools’ democratic goals because different types of knowledge enable different perceptions. Knowledge in horizontal discourses is generally expressed in descriptive language, aiming to convey what is, or what is to be done, while knowledge in vertical discourses is more conceptual, and thus more abstract. This creates a discursive gap between knowledge of the world and the world as it appears. A concept such as ‘discursive gap’ can be used in many contexts, for example in discussion about how a task is structured. A task can be tied to varying degrees to a specific context. For example, assistant nurses working in a service home can have work schedules delivered via a phone app that tells users where they should go, what tasks to perform, and when. In a discussion of the task characterised by a narrow discursive gap, the conversation may be about how the cleaning should be performed or how the patient should be washed. In a discussion with a wider discursive gap, the conversation may be about issues such as the allocation of resources required to perform tasks and political aspects of the assistant nurses’ working conditions and work framed by the app. In the Crit-VET project we found it useful studying and discussing implications of different types of discursive gaps (e.g. reflection based on personal experiences, adopting other peoples’ perspectives, or recontextualizing a phenomenon by considering it in a wider, e.g. socio-political, context) in vocational subjects in relation to the pedagogic rights discussed above (*Rönnlund et al. 2019).

Here we assign somewhat less importance to the role of conceptual knowledge in the creation of discursive gaps than Bernstein and many other researchers using these concepts. We regard a discursive gap as a disconnection that may appear – in different ways and on different levels – when educational content is ‘perspectivized’, i.e. when a student is offered the chance to see the content through different perspectives (and thus not as ‘given’). Such ‘perspectivization’ does not necessarily involve use of a gap between context-dependent empirical cases and context-independent conceptual knowledge. We believe it raises interesting didactic problems and opportunities: what discursive gaps can be created in relation to different contents, how can they be created, and how can they be exploited to broaden students’ understanding and civic education?

In previous articles we have presented findings that curricula and teaching in Swedish vocational programmes are primarily based on an individual perspective, usually a patient’s, customer’s or guest’s perspective. The nature of the distributed knowledge also depends on whether the programmes are boy- or girl-dominated (see for example *Ledman et al. 2021; *Ledman, Rosvall, and Nylund 2018). The boy-dominated educational programmes are permeated by more horizontal discourses while girl-dominated programmes focused on pedagogy (Child & Recreation) and health/nursing (Health & Social Care) are permeated by more vertical discourses. With concepts such as horizontal and vertical discourses, one can perceive, problematise, and thus influence, these conditions. In addition, concepts such as ‘discursive gap’ can reveal differences in the power of alternative ways of contextualising teaching to promote critical thinking (*Rönnlund et al. 2019). Thus, the concepts can facilitate consideration of diverse aspects of teaching in different contexts. Moreover, vocational teachers should strive to ensure that their teaching offers students access to vertical discourses. Just as horizontal knowledge is more powerful in specific contexts, knowledge in vertical discourses is more powerful in broader contexts, and thus for enabling analysis and critical thinking (Young 2008). If important aims of education are to enable students to think critically, have informed views of themselves, their positions and their society, and be able to imagine that things can be different (and act accordingly), vertical discourses are essential.

In the Crit-VET project we found little indication that workplace practice was organised in a way that allowed the students to gain experience of different positions as well as different workplaces. In contrast, in a UK-based project Fuller and Unwin (2003) found that some companies providing apprenticeship training deliberately shifted apprentices’ positions so they could find out about the responsibilities of middle managers and other professionals in their organisations. Such arrangements could expand opportunities for students to discuss civic issues and the possibilities to exert influence and imagine what could be on return to their school-based education.

Pedagogic codes

All teachers must frequently consider at least two questions: What should I teach and how should I teach it? In the meta-analysis of publication emanating from the Crit-VET project we found the ‘pedagogic code’ concept a useful tool for addressing these questions and contextualising teaching (organised in various ways) in a pedagogic rights and citizenship framework. In Bernsteinian terms, a pedagogic code expresses the ‘classification and framing of educational knowledge’ and organisational elements of learning processes. Briefly, there is strong classification if there are clear, explicit boundaries between ‘categories’ (e.g. of agents, subjects and other discourses), and weak classification if the boundaries are blurred. In addition, there is strong framing when there are clear, explicit rules and principles governing classroom practices (and hence educational communication and learning processes), and weak framing when those rules and principles are vague. It expresses the relationships established within given classifications, particularly those between teachers and students, which strongly affect aspects such as the pace and order of learning and its evaluation. Thus, a pedagogic code expresses the principles governing the organisation of knowledge and learning.

Accordingly, through analysis of pedagogic practices in the VET programmes followed in the Crit-VET project (*Nylund et al. 2020) we detected variations in classification and framing (pedagogic code) that helped exploration of the teaching’s role in and implications for the students’ democratic socialisation. Weak classification of ‘health’, one of the core subjects in the Health & Social Care programme, for example, led to its contextualisation through various other subjects (medicine, psychology, social science, ethics, etc.). This gave the students a ‘wealth of perspectives’, thus contributing to the ‘individual enhancement’ right outlined above. Moreover, this enhancement was strengthened by the subjects’ conceptual nature, which helped the students to identify ‘discursive gaps’ (cf. Young 2008). Conversely, strong classification of ‘food’ (a focus of attention in the Restaurant Management programme) led to dominance of a ‘practical discourse’. For example, almost the sole objective of a lesson may have been for students to learn how to bake a cake, rather than other aspects of potential interest, such as the history of cake-making, or socio-economic implications of its ingredients’ production. Development of an intuitive ‘feel’ for doing tasks, rather than conceptual knowledge, was also promoted by the practical discourse, e.g. the ability to tell if dough was ready for baking by stroking it, rather than through objective measures. In summary, observations of the Restaurant Management classes indicated that practice was oriented towards learning about, and adaptation to, ‘how things should be done’, while questions about arrangements that could promote alternative or critical understanding received very little attention (see also Wheelahan 2018). In conclusion, classification may have been a major determinant of the ‘individual enhancement’ that the programmes offered, but framing was also apparently important. For example, in the Restaurant Management programme strong framing (e.g. a requirement to bake specified numbers of cakes in specified times following a strict ‘production logic’ or ‘working life code’) there was little opportunity for addressing ‘why-questions’ or discussions that could potentially foster understanding of alternatives to ‘how it is’ and new perceptions of ‘how things could be’. Intriguingly, weak framing (mainly manifested through paucity of instruction, discussion and presence of teachers) apparently led to similar problems in some cases, notably in the Vehicle & Transport programme.

Another important aspect of classification for the pedagogic code was between school and workplace. For example, a major apparent intention of much of the coding in Restaurant Management classes was to imitate working practices in the sector, including early starts, a strong emphasis on rapid work, and production of goods for sale in many lessons (highlighting the need to make products that attract customers). In stark contrast, in Health & Social Care classes the students rarely imitated things done in working life and spent most of their time doing ‘ordinary’ schoolwork in ordinary classrooms.

The second (social-level) right described above, ‘to be included socially, intellectually, culturally and personally’, is regarded here as the right to belong to groups with common interests and shared conditions, instead of being isolated and having to address situations and problems alone. Observations in the Crit-VET project suggested that it was fostered most strongly in the Restaurant Management programme, in which students acquired, through the pedagogical practice, a collective identity and feeling of ‘belonging’ to their groups. Our analysis indicated that this right was quite weakly developed in the other followed programmes, such as the Health & Social Care programme (*Nylund et al. 2020). Variations in framing seemed to be largely responsible for this difference, as Restaurant Management students generally worked in groups more organically than in the other programmes. However, the programme provided few concepts or contexts that could enable the students to acquire understanding or critical perspectives of this belonging’s potential. Thus, their education offered very little that could be regarded as developing the Bernsteinian political-level right ‘to participate in the construction, maintenance and transformation of social order’.

In contrast, the Health & Social Care students had some opportunity to develop critical understanding, but the right to ‘belong to groups’ was fostered quite weakly and framed in a manner that orientated solidarity and support towards care recipients almost exclusively rather than towards ‘care workers’ (the group the students aspired to join). Moreover, the programme promoted a collective identity that was not well connected to knowledge that the students were supposed to learn. Thus, there was little connection between the ‘individual enhancement’ and ‘social inclusion’ rights as there was little contextualisation of knowledge to raise important questions regarding issues such as hierarchies in their profession and their hierarchical positions. So, educational practice observed in the Health & Social Care classes did not clearly promote critical understanding either, at least not any kind of understanding that is clearly linked to ‘political participation’. The programme offered students access to some relevant concepts and some collective identity. However, the logic (focused on caring and treatment) permeating educational practice in all the vocational elements oriented the concepts and associated discussions almost entirely towards desirable or ‘correct’ behaviour in their interactions with care recipients. In conclusion, actualities (and thus potentials) for civic preparation offered by the programmes and associated codes differed, reasons for failure to actualise the potentials also differed, and more generally the opportunities for democratic socialisation offered by vocational programmes vary substantially. As previous studies have noted, much of the programmes’ content is dictated by their needs to prepare students for occupations in specific sectors, but our analysis of pedagogic codes shows that relations between schools and workplaces, as well as teachers and students, and subjects, vary substantially. Thus, there is clearly scope for changes in classification, framing and hence democratic socialisation. We have tried in preceding passages to illustrate how the concept of ‘pedagogic code’ is a potentially powerful didactic tool for providing language that enables clear and systematic discussion of teaching in the context of pedagogic rights. The concept helps distinction of core aspects of teaching in a democratic context, such as its civic implications and orientations, the types of questions that can be feasibly considered (or not), the kinds of identities and solidarities that are encouraged, and thus possible rights-promoting adjustments of pedagogic practice.

Discussion

Our research project, like several other studies (Avis 2016; Beicht and Walden 2017; Colley et al. 2003; Wheelahan 2007; Simmons, Connelly, and Thompson 2020; Tarabini and Jacovkis 2022), illustrates how structures such as class, gender and ethnicity permeate society, including vocational programmes, and limit education’s potential to reduce inequalities of power and influence, thereby enhancing democracy and transforming society. Another, equally important, conclusion is that there is space for agency – opportunities to act consciously – within these structures, which are recreated daily through various practices in society, but can be influenced. In diverse contexts as human beings we can help each other to see these practices from different perspectives and imagine alternatives. If democratic goals are embraced, there is a clear need to change the classification and framing of upper secondary education and vocational programmes in various ways, as discussed in this paper. Changes in persistent structures do not happen by themselves. On the contrary, active and conscious action is required to avoid social practices (e.g. education/teaching) merely recreating what is. Students must learn about debates and controversies both in society generally and in occupations they have either chosen or are obliged to enter. We hope that this paper can contribute to a conversation that offers examples and concepts that not only illuminate structures and obstacles, but also show opportunities for agency for teachers in vocational education. The key concepts discussed in this paper enable teachers to problematise, discuss and plan their teaching to offer vocational students greater access to ‘pedagogical rights’ such as critical thinking, group membership and active citizenship. The ‘discursive gap’ concept can help to tighten the focus of analyses and discussions on the kinds of knowledge and possibilities for critical thinking that different ways of teaching offer students. Similarly, the ‘pedagogic code’ concept can tighten the focus on types of contexts associated with (and isolated from) educational content, and implications of the association (and isolation) for the students’ knowledge and learning. There is also scope for curriculum developers and teachers of VET programmes to learn from those engaged in other VET programmes with pedagogic codes that have different strengths and weaknesses in terms, for example, of students’ access to pedagogic rights. In addition, both the ‘discursive gap’ and ‘pedagogic code’ concepts, like teaching in general, can be used in broader discussion regarding the kinds of pedagogical rights that different ways of teaching provide for students. Civic education dimensions of the VET teachers’ education curriculum may require strengthening to prepare them not only to teach workplace processes and methods, but also to imagine different possibilities for VET.

Another issue that is often discussed by researchers and politicians, and thus warrants attention from a democratic socialisation perspective, is whether VET should be provided in workplaces or school settings. Among researchers there seems to be a consensus that it might be easier to address democratic issues in school settings, since hierarchies that might be discussed or questioned are embedded in workplace settings. Thus, workplaces may be less safe spaces for learning democracy than school settings, especially for debates or challenges initiated by students (Bonvin and Laruffa 2018; de Bruijn and Leeman 2011). We have observed in Crit-VET and related projects that this is not necessarily the case as a few students have said (when reflecting on their workplace periods in interviews) that they have been invited to participate in discussions and debates on ways to improve workplace practices. For example, one had received such an invitation because s/he had gained experience of working at several stations during workplace practice, and thus could potentially discuss what worked and what required improvement at similar workplaces (*Rönnlund and Rosvall 2021). However, such examples were rare, and more students indicated that they had not had a voice or say. This corroborates the consensus that school settings may be safer spaces for discussions on democratic issues than workplace settings. Moreover, due to the organisation of work placements in Sweden, mentors in those settings cannot be compelled, and may have little motivation, to provide courses or arenas that would enable students to discuss democratic issues at the workplace in a meaningful way. Vocational teacher education and vocational teaching could be better organised to address such issues, for example to prepare for problematisation of democratic issues at workplaces by using the concepts we have suggested in this article.

In the introduction of this article, we argued that vocational education teachers must balance pressures to act as educational agents with responsibility to change working life in accordance with civil norms and movements, and as agents of working life with stronger focus on production and employability. We hope that our problematisation of concepts in relation to teaching practice here has shown that the associated (educational and production) logics are not necessarily incompatible. Instead, a logic of civic/democratic education can (and, we argue, should) be integrated with a logic of production. Civic and democratic issues are inevitably intertwined in work and working life, and the concepts explored here may help efforts to identify possible ways to integrate the logics and enhance students’ democratic socialisation. We believe that civic education has always been an important part of VET and conclude from the Crit-VET project that civic education should be emphasised more, especially in boy-dominated contexts (*Ledman et al. 2021). Moreover, as also mentioned in the Introduction, civic education may be more important than ever now due (inter alia) to increasingly rapid changes driven by processes such as technification and globalisation. For example, in Sweden employers in the male-dominated construction and vehicle sectors have problems finding trained workers, and unions have started efforts to make them more ‘women-friendly’, and thus double the recruitment base. Thus, we have clear examples of the importance of integrating issues of work, vocational identity and democracy to enhance workplaces’ attractiveness. As shown in this paper, those issues can be addressed through teaching on some levels, but a systematic conceptual language is needed to address them in a deep and meaningful manner, treating ‘sociological’ problems as didactical dilemmas. We believe that the ongoing debate among Bernsteinian researchers (e.g. Avis 2019; Gamble 2014; Hordern 2014; Locke and Maton 2019; Wheelahan 2015, 2018; Young 2008; Young and Muller 2014) could play an important role in developing such language, and we hope that this paper contributes to its development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Vetenskapsrådet [2015-02002].