Some Sociological Alternatives to Human Capital Theory and their Implications for Research on Post‐compulsory Education and Training [1]

[1] This article arises from work funded by ESRC grant no. L123251041. We are grateful to all those who have commented on various versions of this article but especially to John Furlong, Hugh Lauder, Francis Green, Phil Hodkinson, Phil Brown and Andy Green. Any errors occurring in this article are of course the responsibility of the authors

Abstract

In contrast to human capital theory, a sociological theory of participation in education and training (ET) tries to take into account all of the factors which influence the dispositions of various groups towards ET. Ideal types of orientations towards ET can be generated within this theory and we offer some examples of such ideal types derived from studies of participation in post‐compulsory ET. In one ideal type, based on research in South Wales, individuals do not recognise utility in ET prior to employment and prefer to avoid it. This leaves the onus for the development of skills and knowledge on employers who will insist on very little but firm‐specific training. This ideal type may also be useful in an investigation of the social and cultural influences on patterns of ET elsewhere in the UK. We describe further ideal types and suggest that the ET that most closely resembles investment in human capital actually depends upon behaviour which is quite unlike the rational egoism envisaged by human capital theory. Conversely, behaviour which looks more like the behaviour of rational egoists is unlikely to produce what is generally meant when ET is described as investment in human capital. Further (historical) research in South Wales suggests that it is possible for cultural change to bring about change in the prevalent orientations to ET in a relatively short space of time, but policies designed to increase our investment in human capital without the benefit of the insights derived from a sociological theory are unlikely to achieve their stated objectives.

[1] This article arises from work funded by ESRC grant no. L123251041. We are grateful to all those who have commented on various versions of this article but especially to John Furlong, Hugh Lauder, Francis Green, Phil Hodkinson, Phil Brown and Andy Green. Any errors occurring in this article are of course the responsibility of the authors

Notes

[1] This article arises from work funded by ESRC grant no. L123251041. We are grateful to all those who have commented on various versions of this article but especially to John Furlong, Hugh Lauder, Francis Green, Phil Hodkinson, Phil Brown and Andy Green. Any errors occurring in this article are of course the responsibility of the authors