IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/ijrvet/237094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dilemmas of flexibilisation of vocational education and training: A case study of the piano makers

Author

Listed:
  • Baumeler, Carmen
  • Engelage, Sonja
  • Strebel, Alexandra

Abstract

Context: Dual VET systems are often praised for their labour market proximity because of economic stakeholders' involvement. However, when labour market requirements change rapidly, a lack of flexibility is attributed to them. This occurs in times of fast socio-technological change like the current digital transformation. A repeatedly proposed measure to increase system flexibility is to reduce the number of occupations and create broader occupational profiles, for example, by combining similar occupations into so-called occupational fields. However, little is known about actually establishing occupational fields. Approach: Against this backdrop, we address the following research question: How was an occupational field created? As Switzerland attempted to merge occupations over a decade ago, we selected an information-rich and illuminative case concerning the research question: The piano makers' occupation as one of the first occupations required to merge into an occupational field called musical instrument makers together with organ builders and wind instrument makers. Based on a qualitative case study, we reconstruct the process of occupational field construction by combining expert interviews with comprehensive document analysis and present its narrative. Findings: Based on this case study, we contribute to the understanding of VET flexibilisation by detailing occupational field creation and identifying opportunities and challenges. Here, we pay special attention to the institutional work of the affected occupational association and identify the importance of preserving its collective occupational identity. Although regulatory changes disrupted the piano makers' occupation, the occupational association reinstitutionalised it as part of the musical instrument makers' occupational field. Over a decade later, the piano makers reintroduced their former occupational title, which is deeply connected to their occupational identity. Conclusion: The results indicate that VET reforms that promote flexibilisation by creating occupational fields encounter serious limitations in collectively governed dual VET systems. In the Swiss system, occupational associations are core collective actors that rely on their members' voluntary work. To maintain these economic stakeholders' necessary commitment to VET, their collective occupational identity, symbolized by their long-standing occupational title, needs to be preserved.

Suggested Citation

  • Baumeler, Carmen & Engelage, Sonja & Strebel, Alexandra, 2021. "The dilemmas of flexibilisation of vocational education and training: A case study of the piano makers," International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), European Research Network in Vocational Education and Training (VETNET), European Educational Research Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-135.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ijrvet:237094
    DOI: 10.13152/IJRVET.8.1.6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/237094/1/1766779824.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.13152/IJRVET.8.1.6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beth A. Bechky, 2011. "Making Organizational Theory Work: Institutions, Occupations, and Negotiated Orders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1157-1167, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Masashi Goto, 2020. "Theorization of Institutional Change in the Rise of Artificial Intelligence," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-12, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    2. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    3. Kathryn L. Heinze & Klaus Weber, 2016. "Toward Organizational Pluralism: Institutional Intrapreneurship in Integrative Medicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 157-172, February.
    4. Liberati, Elisa Giulia & Gorli, Mara & Moja, Lorenzo & Galuppo, Laura & Ripamonti, Silvio & Scaratti, Giuseppe, 2015. "Exploring the practice of patient centered care: The role of ethnography and reflexivity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 45-52.
    5. Allard-Poesi, Florence, 2015. "Dancing in the dark: Making sense of managerial roles during strategic conversations," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 338-350.
    6. Thompson, Jamie & Taheri, Babak, 2020. "Capital deployment and exchange in volunteer tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    7. Chatterjee, Ira & Shepherd, Dean A. & Wincent, Joakim, 2022. "Women's entrepreneurship and well-being at the base of the pyramid," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4).
    8. Joep P. Cornelissen & Rodolphe Durand & Peer Fiss & John C. Lammers & Eero Vaara, 2015. "Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis," Post-Print hal-02276731, HAL.
    9. Anita Williams Woolley & Erica Fuchs, 2011. "PERSPECTIVE---Collective Intelligence in the Organization of Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1359-1367, October.
    10. Dusya Vera & Mary Crossan & Claus Rerup & Steve Werner, 2014. "‘Thinking Before Acting’ or ‘Acting Before Thinking’: Antecedents of Individual Action Propensity in Work Situations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 603-633, June.
    11. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    12. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    13. Blake E. Ashforth & Kristie M. Rogers & Kevin G. Corley, 2011. "Identity in Organizations: Exploring Cross-Level Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1144-1156, October.
    14. Jones, Lorelei & Fulop, Naomi, 2021. "The role of professional elites in healthcare governance: Exploring the work of the medical director," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    15. Krystal Laryea & Christof Brandtner, 2024. "Organizations as Drivers of Social and Systemic Integration : Contradiction and Reconciliation Through Loose Demographic Coupling and Community Anchoring," Post-Print hal-04717623, HAL.
    16. Emilio J. Castilla & Aruna Ranganathan, 2020. "The Production of Merit: How Managers Understand and Apply Merit in the Workplace," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 909-935, July.
    17. Florence Allard-Poesi, 2015. "Dancing in the Dark: Making Sense of Managerial Roles during Strategic Conversations," Working Papers hal-01145772, HAL.
    18. Florence Allard-Poesi, 2015. "Dancing in the dark: Making sense of managerial roles during strategic conversations," Post-Print hal-01490734, HAL.
    19. Hae-Jung Hong & Dana Minbaeva, 2022. "Multiculturals as strategic human capital resources in multinational enterprises," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(1), pages 95-125, February.
    20. Slade Shantz, Angelique & Kistruck, Geoffrey & Zietsma, Charlene, 2018. "The opportunity not taken: The occupational identity of entrepreneurs in contexts of poverty," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 416-437.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ijrvet:237094. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://vetnetsite.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.