Dana Goedbloed, EDD
Within the field of vocational education in post-secondary institutions there has been considerable discourse related to skill and apprenticeship. During my tenure as an instructor and program developer, and then as an academic administrator in vocational education I was actively involved in developing and implementing policy related to skill development. Often there was confusion about the policies and their (dis)ability to address a need for skilled workers. In order to understand the contexts of the policies developed over time in relation to skill and apprenticeship between 1980 and 2010 I believed it was necessary to explore the many political, economic and ideological debates related to the concept of skill in terms of producing a ‘skilled’ workforce.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to engage in a thematic and critical examination of the discourse of skills policy in apprenticeship, identifying and analysing the significant, emerging and contributing themes in Canada and British Columbia over the period from1980-2010. The findings contributed significantly to scholarly debate in other social policy fields by recording and describing various shifts in the discourse of skills policy in apprenticeship.
In addition to the major research question “What do they mean by ‘skilled’? I addressed three supporting questions:
1) What are the contexts of the policies developed over time in relation to skill and apprenticeship? To address this question I examined federal and provincial policies and contributing texts from 1980-2010 to determine how changing political ideologies affect how they were developed.
2) What forces – political, economic and ideological – have, and are driving the policy development at federal and provincial levels in defining skills for apprentices? In addressing this question I conducted a critical discourse analysis to determine the dominant and contributing discourses from a power perspective of skills policies for apprenticeship.
3) What role had policy assigned to the post-secondary education system in relation to the development of a ‘skilled’ workforce, at the implementation stages? I addressed this question by analysing the policies and contributing texts to determine how the implementation of the policies has affected apprenticeship training in post-secondary education.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK – DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The conceptual framework upon which this study is based centers upon the discourse in policies affecting apprenticeship training and skills within the context of a skilled workforce. Discourse is central to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which is irrevocably linked to ideology and power. Fairclough notes “Ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which contribute to enhancing and maintaining relations of power, domination and exploitation” (2003, p. 218). My conceptual framework took into account the ideologies of both government and industry have dominated apprenticeship policy discourse to the extent that skills development has been suppressed, rather than developed. “Hegemony is about constructing alliances, and integrating rather than simply dominating subordinate classes, through concessions or through ideological means, to win their consent” (Fairclough N. , 1992, p. 92). The concept of hegemony, according to Gramsci, (1971)provides an explanation as to how the dominant class controls the working class through consent, with ideologies that supports ruling class interests being positioned as universal and inevitable. I maintain that the powerful relationship amongst the various participants has created alliances that negatively impact skills training in apprenticeship.
As Gee (2011) points out there is an assumption that there is a shared understanding of words and phrases based on previous knowledge and experience. However, I argue that the specific policy contexts have not always been clear because the situated meanings have been affected by political ideologies as well as neoliberalism and human capital theory and been limited by previous knowledge and experience of the concept of skill in apprenticeship. I have therefore created a conceptual framework that links the shortage of skilled workers in apprenticeship policy discourse with the notions of politics, ideology, policy context, economics, and hegemony and power, to what I refer to as the discursive apprenticeship policy network. The network includes the hegemonic and ideological perspectives of the various individuals and groups involved in the production and implementation of policy. The power perspectives of government, apprentices, employers, unions, trainers and educators, directors of the provincial apprenticeship bodies, educators, and other vested individuals and groups play an important role in the development of skilled workforce. The participants do not necessarily share a common vision or definition of skill.
The contexts of the word ‘skill’ and the phrases ‘skilled labour’ and ‘shortage of skilled workers/labour’, as the individuals and groups applied their specific ideologies over the period 1980-2010, were integral to this study. “Discourse must not be referred to the distant presence of the origin but treated as and when it occurs” (Foucault, 2005, p. 28). In reviewing, describing, examining, and analysing the texts I was able to identify the ideologies as well as the central, recurring and contributing discourses that have and continue to impact skills policy in apprenticeship.
Fairclough (1992) argues that the order of discourse is an open system that affects the particular social structuring and legitimizes interpretation and understanding, thereby legitimizing something as common sense, sustaining relations of domination. As the discourse of skill in apprenticeship became more accepted as common sense, it became naturalized and largely removed from connection to any particular ideology, while remaining largely ideological from a neoliberal perspective. How the various participants have approached the concept of skill, who has participated in the discourse, what their particular perspectives are, and how they gain or retain power were important elements in the analysis.
Gale maintains that policy analysis must contain three elements – the why, how and what of policy texts. The why specifically looks at neoliberal ideology and human capital theory, while the how is explained by understanding policy discourse and the what involves understanding of textual meaning, particularly values, and the ideals those promote. I was, in part, motivated to complete this study by the neoliberal ideology that federal and provincial legislation of apprenticeship training in Canada may create an economic and educational disadvantage for apprentices as workers/learners. Neoliberal ideology may have created an unquestioned assumption that apprenticeship policy be seen as a social structure that means only to benefit not individuals but industry and employers, based largely on human capital theory that emphasizes a return on investment from a skilled workforce.
The primary discursive constructions within my framework support: institutions through policy context, ideologies, power relations, naturalization of language, and distribution of social goods within the dominant discourse of skilled workforce. Contributing discourses emerge and support, or contend, the primary discursive constructions causing tension to the dominant discourse. The situated meaning and the range of meanings in the context of policy impacts individuals and groups who are referenced in them is represented in power as well as ideology.
Foucault states “we must grasp the statement in the exact specificity of its occurrence; determine its condition of existence, fix at least its limits, establish its correlations with other statements that may be connected with it, and show what other forms of statement it excludes” (2005, p. 31). It should be noted, though, that there is usually an unequal power relationships between the individuals involved in the development of skills policy “on the one hand that power is exercised and enacted in discourse, and on the other hand that there are relations of power behind discourse … in both cases power is won, held and lost in social struggles” (Fairclough N. , 1989, pp. 73,74). My framework took into account the context of the policies texts as they are developed over time and the contributing, or absent, voices.
In my conceptual framework I added the notion of the intentional discourse of the multiple participants who use the word ‘skilled’ in the term ‘skilled workforce’. As the concept of ‘skilled’ becomes naturalized, therefore common sense in addressing workplace shortages, fewer questions are asked as to the intent of a skilled workforce. “Vocabulary thus plays a key role in government, not only establishing the powers of rulers, but also in ‘making up’ government fields, rendering them thinkable and manageable” (Miller, 1990, p. 168). I maintain that the various participants, including politicians from various parties and ideologies, have adopted a common understanding, or truth, that they continue to rely on as making sense to skills policy production. The powerful intentional discourse shared amongst the participants, over the period of time covered in this study, had enabled the continuing policy development and implementation to be maintained without purposeful examination. The many participants operate as a powerful system that operates the discourses of the discursive apprenticeship policy network. It is important to recognise the multiple discourses and how they link together to structure the power/knowledge relations and act as realities.
RESEARCH AND PRAXIS – OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
As Wildavsky (1979) suggests, “it is more important to practice policy analysis than define it” (p.410). When I first began this study, I was deeply immersed in the day-to-day
administration of publicly funded apprenticeship training. I was deeply aware of the dysfunctions and disjunctures between the development and implementation of policy related to apprenticeship training. As a practitioner, I had virtually no time to conduct research or tocritically examine the discursive relationships of the various institutions.
At the outset, I sensed that I would find a plethora of areas that would provide me with the opportunity for further research and I was not proven wrong. I would strongly urge those who have an interest in apprenticeship, training, vocational education, gender studies, skills policy, social inclusion, economics, labour – to name just a few – to take up the cause.
While there is some scholarly research and debate in these areas, much can be done to contribute to apprenticeship skills policy. It is clear that much of the discourse has focused primarily onmeeting skilled labour shortages, and how training can/should be used to develop a skilled workforce.
Specific actions need to occur to respond to the ongoing lack of widespread support for apprenticeship generated by many years of policy-‐making, which has elicited a response to its intended purpose. I recommend that specific research be conducted into three critical areas – preparation of students for apprenticeship, mediatisation of apprenticeship, and international
apprenticeship models and policies in relation to those in Canada. I make these recommendations not only to educators and scholars, but also to all participants in the policy-making process.
Following I list the areas of priority.
The first priority is preparation of apprentices as students and learners. As I indicated throughout this study that there is a deep and disturbing disconnect between the entry-level skills and knowledge requirements for apprenticeship and the ability successfully to complete programs. Many factors contribute to the low completion rates of apprentices, and it has been my observation, by completing this study and others, that far too many apprentices are ill prepared for the rigour of their programs. Statistics and data need to be accessed to determine where gaps occur. A more realistic situation must be proposed to address where and how interventions can be created. The allocation of resources, including funding, should be examined in relation to the expectations of apprentices as learners.
At the beginning of the study, I indicated that there is a barrage of media around apprenticeship skills policy. I place this as the second priority that emerged from this study, as research needs to take place to determine to how the language of the policies regulates normalization and acceptance without deeper examination of intention. The policy texts are often used as public relations tools to create positive spin, which the media in Canada has been negligent in not questioning. There needs to be critical analysis of media reports, especiallythose linking to policy documents. As I have indicated there are numerous press releases that provide the public with a perspective of apprenticeship, how those are received would provide an interesting and indispensable study for both those who write them and those who read them.
Finally, I encourage researchers to study international apprenticeship policy and models in order to influence Canadian policy and models. Apprenticeship is widespread in many forms and traditions throughout the world. While not all models and policies will integrate into Canada, including British Columbia, there needs to be more concerted attempts. This is particularly important as we continue to rely on immigrant workers, trained in other countries, to fill our skilled worker gaps. Issues examined should include funding, standards, training, and employer participation. Some of the findings of this study, such as employer participation, return on investment and the contexts identified will contribute to further research ofsuccessful models. The research areas that I have recommended here should not be viewed as limited.
It is my intention, with this study and its suggestions that we attend to the discourse of skills policy in apprenticeship in Canada and British Columbia in a more critical way. A dearth of research perpetuates the policies and practices of skills policy in apprenticeship. Solid, reliable research needs to be done that critically examines the ongoing policies in relation to apprenticeship and training. While there are active scholarly debates about skill, they do not tend to focus on apprenticeship.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Education practitioners need to take an active role in providing input and feedback to the policy process; they could gain much in both development and implementation. As Bowe, Ball, and Gold (1992) outlined in their policy process cycle, there is an uneasy relationshipbetween the context of influence and the context of policy text production. While public policies are the result of discourses; they may narrowly articulate the interests and dogmaticideologies of those who dominate. Practitioners need to be aware of the time in which policy text is created and where they were produced, and how they are articulated.
Education practitioners need to speak beyond the “accountabilities” imposed by governments to address the consequences of implementation. I very much appreciate how the daily grind of dealing with a myriad of issues related to the institutional needs of both institutions of post-secondary education and apprenticeship limit the abilities of administrators, faculty, staff, and students. With both federal and provincial governments having a stronginfluence on the implementation of skills policy in apprenticeship, it is difficult to attend to research. However, educators have the ability to speak publicly and have an obligation to represent their students. They have a vested interest, like other groups who are represented in apprenticeship policy. They should be prepared to voice their interests, conflicts, and objections. This can be done by advocating for a place at the policy table that respects and recognizes the challenges and benefits of public training in the post-secondary system.
Representative groups at national and provincial levels can lobby for changes at both the development and implementation phases. The Council of Deans of Trades and
Apprenticeship Canada (CDTAC), with the support of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC), has the capacity to become a powerful national voice. The B.C. Association of Trades and Technology Administrators (BCATTA) has taken great strides in presenting themselves as viable partners in apprenticeship training; however, it needs a stronger presence during high-level policy decision making.
At the regional and local levels, educators need to “come out of the institution” to meet with industry and prospective apprentices. Post-secondary institutions need to make more of an attempt to understand the language of apprentices and employers to be able effectively tocommunicate and identify where gaps occur between policy development and implementation.
Speaking to the value of human capital and human resource development is critical.
Encouraging industry to better to understand the language of education and training is vital.
Partners in industry must be heard; again, language can be an invitation or an inhibition to participation. The gaps between use and understanding of language by educators and
employers must not continue to be a barrier to a better apprenticeship system.
The nature of post-secondary institutions tends to be very insular, with process and policies that often place emphasis on research-based or traditional teaching-based programs.
Apprenticeship administrators must develop a strong support system within their own institutions to ensure that there is clarity concerning the challenges and complexity of
apprenticeship training, while also noting how federal and provincial policies may supplant the institutions.
Many post-secondary institutions are working with secondary schools to encourage youth participation. More attention needs to be placed on how differences in policies between apprenticeship and educational institutions impede participation and completion.
Apprenticeship is concerned with “adult” training, while secondary students are recognized as involving a “youth” market. It is not simply a matter of transplanting students from one learning environment to another but attending to the difference in the learner’s age and status as well.
All educators, inclusive of secondary and post-secondary levels, must tackle math and literacy preparation of apprentices. There is widespread recognition of the serious issues
related to the continuing perception that students who are academically challenged should be encouraged to go into apprenticeship. The realities of poor preparation are evident in low
completion rates. Establishing appropriate entry levels, similar to those of other post-secondary programs, needs to be done. This means working within educational institutions and with industry to ensure that math and literacy levels assist in apprentice success, particularly in establishing required resources.
Apprentice voices need to be heard, as learners and workers. Encouraging apprentices to participate in the development of policies for training is problematic given the short periods over which they attend post-secondary institutions. Educators should encourage apprenticesto take an active role in local industry organizations better to understand their position in the policy process.
As I have pointed out, economic and social policies also affect apprenticeship.
Educators need to make more effort to attend events outside the realm of education to expand their understanding of how they affect apprenticeship. Much can be gained by attending tointertextuality and multiple discourses. Looking at EI policies, economic action plans, job plans, and industry strategies provides insight into the policy planning process and its resulting impact on implementation.