Journal Information
- Open calls for papers for Special Issues of the Journal of Vocational Education and Training (JVET)
- Open calls for papers for Special Issues of the Journal of Vocational Education and Training (JVET)
International perspectives on academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education: Between problem-solving, imitation and/or unintended consequences
Guest Editors: Junmin Li, TU Dortmund University; Germany Johannes K. Schmees, University of Derby, United Kingdom Ann-Marie Bathmaker, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Cooperative universities in Germany, higher and degree apprenticeships in the United Kingdom, Associate Degrees in the Netherlands and vocational universities in China. These developments manifest a significant trend of academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education and, in consequence, reshape traditional boundaries between vocational and higher education.
Since the last JVET special issue on these phenomena (see Bathmaker, 2017), the topic has been picked up across the globe in academic discussions which include in-depth analyses of developments in different regions (see Gonon, Heikkinen & Kaiser, 2025; Lavender et al., 2024). In this upcoming special issue, we propose to take an international perspective on these shifts, changes and transformations. By taking an international perspective, we aim to identify common and divergent challenges and patterns, uncover drivers and influencers beyond the nation state as well as examine implications for learners, institutions, employers and policymakers across countries.
This proposed special issue will offer a comprehensive critical examination of the evolving landscape of academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education. Building on Criblez (2010), we define the tertiarisation of vocational education as a process whereby vocational qualifications are developed at tertiary level without acquiring academic status. Tertiarisation aims to elevate the status of vocational education, enhance the attractiveness of vocational pathways, and increase the social and economic benefits associated with them (Deißinger & Ott, 2016). We note here that tertiarisation may also be used to refer to moves to create a single system of post-school education and training, that includes universities, colleges and other providers, rather than separately defined and managed sectors.
Academisation on the other hand involves what has previously been termed ‘academic drift’ (Pratt, 1997), whereby vocational education moves away from a strong practice orientation and becomes more closely aligned with academic provision. Following this process, vocational education programmes incorporate more theoretical content, are delivered at higher education institutions, and qualify for academic degrees (Criblez, 2010).
Hybridisation refers to the emergence of hybrid qualifications and programmes that blend vocational and academic elements alongside the development of hybrid systems and institutions (Bathmaker, 2017), sometimes constituting a third educational sub-system between vocational and higher education (Schmees, 2024).
From a theoretical point of view, there are a number of ways that these developments can be addressed. Here we identify three, but they are not intended to exclude other ways of approaching these issues. (1) Forms of academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation are often referred to as a necessity in modern and globalised societies due to demands of industry (Industry 4.0 or Industry 5.0, see Knight et al., 2022) as well as an answer to ever increasing education demands of young adults. They are often the result of policy learning and policy borrowing between countries and regions, rather than isolated reforms. (2) Forms of academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation can, however, also be explained by the discursive creation of ‘best practices’ that are then circulated around the globe by international organisations and other actors as driver of these reforms (e.g., Steiner-Khamsi, 2013). In this case, these reforms could be dysfunctional in their nature (see Jakobi 2009, 174) but are implemented so as to create forms of legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Gonon, 1998), income through project funding (Heller, Grunau, & Duscha, 2015) and/or forms of educational diplomacy (McGill Peterson, 2014). (3) It is particularly these dysfunctional outcomes or unintended consequences that are the analytical focus of the third proposed perspective (see Bathmaker, 2016). From this angle, issues arise such as continued divisions rather than permeability, increasingly stratified vocational educational systems that intensify the divide between vocational and higher education (Esmond & Atkins, 2022) and/or a lack of demand in labour markets for higher technical skills. Underlying all these ways of viewing recent developments are questions of equity, inequality and social mobility. While we suggest that these perspectives can help to understand developments in academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education globally, we also welcome papers from authors using different theoretical perspectives.
We invite contributions that explore how academisation, tertiarisation, and hybridisation manifest differently or similarly across various contexts, to reflect on the international dimensions of these developments, and to consider the implications for learners and students. International dimensions include (1) observations on a global level, e.g. by analysing a shift in the global educational discourse of international organisations or new global institutions that are the basis for an evolving reform agenda; (2) regional developments or discourses proposed by regional policy actors like the European Union; (3) comparative studies where the development in two or more countries is investigated (Entenmann et al., 2023; Frommberger, 2019; Li et al., 2024) or (4) country studies that provide a clear link to developments and implications beyond the nation state. We welcome empirical studies as well as theoretical and policy analyses.
Submissions may address but are not limited to the following topics from an international perspective:
‘Upgrading’ vocational education institutions to academic and/or tertiary status
Vocationalisation of universities, e.g., developing applied or vocational qualifications at universities (of applied sciences) or newly created institutions
Exploring ‘sub-bachelor’ academic qualifications
Establishing hybrid systems, institutions and qualifications
Permeability between vocational and higher education sectors, ongoing barriers and evolving opportunities
Relationship between changing labour markets and the academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education
Discourses of global ‘best practices’ for permeability, higher technical skills etc.
Policy learning as well as policy borrowing and lending regarding academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education.
Prospective contributors are invited to submit an expression of interest together with an extended abstract of up to 500 words by 29 May 2026. The guest editors will contact all contributors and inform them of the outcome of their submission in w/c 29 June 2026 at the latest. A selection of authors will be invited to submit a full paper with a deadline for submission of 4 December 2026. An invitation to submit a full paper does not guarantee publication as all papers will be subject to the Journal’s peer review process.
References
Bathmaker, A.M. (2016) Higher education in further education: the challenges of providing a distinctive contribution that contributes to widening participation, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 21:1-2, 20-32, DOI: 10.1080/13596748.2015.1125667
Bathmaker, A.-M. 2017. “Post-secondary education and training, new vocational and hybrid pathways and questions of equity, inequality and social mobility: Introduction to the special issue.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 69 (1): 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1304680
Criblez, L. (2010). “Die Reform der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung in der Schweiz seit 1990: Reformprozess, Erste Bilanz und Desiderata [The Reform of Teacher Education in Switzerland since 1990: Reform Process, Initial Assessment and Desiderata].” In H. Ambühl & W. Stadelmann, Tertiarisierung der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung [Tertiarisation of teacher , 22–58. Ediprim.
Deißinger, T., and Ott, M. (2016). “Tertiarisation of Vocational Education and Training and its implications – problems and issues in Germany and France.” In Education Policy: mapping the landscape and scope edited by S. Bohlinger, T. K. A. Dang, and M. Glatt, 267–296. Peter Lang.
Entenmann, S., Euler, D., Frommberger, D., Li, J. & Schmees, J. K. 2023. Linking Technical and Vocational Education and Training with Higher Education, and Possible Consequences for Development Cooperation. In C. Nägele, N. Kersh & B. E. Stalder, Trends in vocational education and training research, Vol. VI. Proceedings of the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), 88–95, Vocational Education and Training Network (VETNET). VETNET. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8208378
Esmond, B. & Atkins, L. 2022. Education, Skills and Social Justice in a Polarising World: Between Technical Elites and Welfare Vocationalism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003049524
Esmond, B. 2019. “‘Bridging’ the gap between VET and higher education: Permeability or perpetuation?.” European Conference on Educational Research (ECER). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3457492
Frommberger, D. 2019. Wege zwischen beruflicher und hochschulischer Bildung. Ein internationaler Vergleich [Ways between vocational and higher education. An international comparison]. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/wege-zwischen-beruflicher-und-hochschulischer-bildung (13.02.2025)
Gonon, Ph. (1998). Das internationale Argument in der Bildungsreform. Peter Lang.
Gonon, P., Heikkinen, A., & Kaiser, F. (2025). Editorial: Academisation and academic drift of vocational education and training. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 15(1), iii–vi. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.25151iii
Heller, P., Grunau, J. & Duscha, K. (2015): Das Konzept ‘Beruf’ ins Ausland transferieren? Eine kritische Perspektive auf den deutschen Berufsbildungsexport. bwp@ Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik – online, (29), 1–17. http://www.bwpat.de/ausgabe29/heller_etal_bwpat29.pdf
Hippach-Schneider, U., Schneider, S., Ménard, P., and Tritscher-Archan, S. 2017. “The underestimated relevance and value of vocational education in tertiary education – making the invisible visible.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 69(1), 28–46. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1281342
Jakobi, A. P. (2009). Internationalisierung lebenslangen Lernens. In S. Koch (ed.), Neo-Institutionalismus in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Grundlegende Texte und empirische Studien (pp. 172–189). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Knight, E., Bathmaker, A. M., Moodie, G., Orr, K., Webb, S., & Wheelahan, L. (Eds.). 2022. Equity and access to high skills through higher vocational education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lavender, K., Knight, E., Hurley, P., & Nguyen, H. (2024). The future of tertiary education: Australia and beyond. International Journal of Training Research, 22(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2024.2375149
Li, J., Schmees, J. K., Tang, H., and Frommberger, D. (2024). “Tertiarization and academization of vocational education and training in China and Germany.” International Journal of Training Research, 22(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2024.2330459
McGill Peterson, P. (2014). Diplomacy and Education: A Changing Global Landscape. International Higher Education, (75), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2014.75.5410
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Pratt, J. (1997) The Polytechnic Experiment 1965-1992. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Schmees, J. K. (2024). Hybrid qualifications in the United Kingdom and continental Europe – a step towards more permeability in education systems? In N. Reiven (ed.), Co-constructing Education for All (pp. 142–150). Forum for Access and Continuing Education.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2013). What is Wrong with the ‘What-Went-Right’ Approach in Educational Policy? European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.20
International perspectives on academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education: Between problem-solving, imitation and/or unintended consequences
Information for submission
29 May 2026 Close of call for abstracts
w/c 29 June 2026 Invitation to submit full papers
4 December 2026 Deadline for full papers
w/c 26 March 2027 Papers returned to authors after first round of review
2 July 2027 Resubmission of papers
w/c 27 September 2027 Papers returned to authors after second round of review
26 November 2027 Final submission of papers
March 2028 Publication of special issue (Issue 1 2028)
Submitted papers must follow the Journal’s guidelines for presentation, and be submitted through the publisher’s Scholarone system
International perspectives on academisation, tertiarisation and hybridisation of vocational education: Between problem-solving, imitation and/or unintended consequences
Guest editors: Leesa Wheelahan, University of Oxford, UK and University of Toronto, Canada Stephanie Allais, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa Chris Winch, Kings College London, UK Paul Newton, Ofqual, University of Oxford, UK Catherine Large, Ofqual, University of Oxford, UK Rose Veitch, Kings College London, UK
Debating outcomes-based qualifications
Outcomes-based qualifications in vocational education are a ‘global phenomenon’ (CEDEFOP, 2024). While outcomes-based qualifications have their origins in Anglophone countries (Hodge, 2007; Newton, Curcin, Clarke, & Brylka, 2024a), they are now ubiquitous in countries in the global North and South, although the processes of policy diffusion differ in each case (Allais, 2014). They are part of the vocational education global ‘toolkit’ (Allais, 2025; McGrath, 2012) which policy-makers have used to for a range of purposes, underpinned by assumptions that may or may not be correct. Policy makers have seen them as tools to align the purposes and outcomes of vocational education with requirements of the labour market. Some believe that learning outcomes “influence the links and the collaboration between different stakeholders” such as employers, unions, government, and educational institutions (CEDEFOP, 2024, p.7). Further, some believe that learning outcomes increase the ‘transparency’ of qualifications’ purposes and outcomes; enable alignment between curriculum, processes of learning and assessment of learning; underpin systemic governance and quality assurance processes; and provide a framework for lifelong learning and learning pathways. The premise of the learning outcomes model of qualifications is that learning outcomes are the link between system governance, system design, qualification design, and micro-processes of pedagogy and assessment (Lassnigg, 2012). While ‘tight’ models of outcomes-based education tied to work-place requirements are most associated with vocational education, outcomes-based models of curriculum and qualifications are increasingly influential in schools and higher education, although in many cases the adherence to a learning outcome approach is little more than nominal.
The scope of outcomes-based education includes competency-based training models of curriculum which are explicitly tied to work-place tasks, roles and requirements, but outcomes-based education can encompass qualifications designed to serve other purposes (Newton, Curcin, Clarke, & Brylka, 2024c). In a body of work undertaken for Ofqual, the regulatory authority for qualifications in the schools and further education sectors in England, researchers define outcomes-based qualifications as those in which “teaching, learning, and assessment plans are based on the same explicit statement of intended learning outcomes (related to the qualifications intended purposes), in order to achieve educational goals that rely heavily on the kind of transparency that this provides” (Newton, 2025). Outcomes-based qualifications are comprised by aggregating individual learning outcomes from the ground-up. “In other words, the qualification standard ultimately resides at the level of the individual learning outcome” (Newton et al., 2024a, p.20).
Yet, despite their ubiquity, outcomes-based qualifications remain controversial and debates are polarised between those who support them and those who do not (Hodge, 2016; Newton, Curcin, Clarke, & Brylka, 2024b; Wheelahan, 2015). Winch (2023, p.21) explains that the “language of learning outcomes and associated terminology such as ‘competence’, ‘output’ and ‘assessment criterion’ is becoming a global phenomenon…More than three decades after its adoption, its fortunes still seem to be increasing, despite a dubious record of achievement and some hard-hitting but relatively ineffectual criticism”. One major line of argument is that the underlying design assumptions are flawed, and thus that the goals stated for learning outcomes cannot be achieved.
This special issue seeks to explore the reasons why outcomes-based qualifications remain both so widely supported and so controversial. We welcome conceptual articles, but we particularly welcome empirical articles that provide evidence about whether the learning outcomes model achieves its objectives, and if so, the extent to which it achieves these objectives. Two types of submissions will be accepted, and both will be subjected to the normal processes of peer review:
Submission process and timelines
Submission is a two-stage process.
First, an initial 500-word abstract must be submitted for both the 2000- and 8000-word articles by the date specified below. The editors will invite selected participants to submit a full article by the due date (specified below). Invitation to submit an article does not imply that the final article will be accepted.
8000-word scholarly papers, following traditional conventions for journal articles. The articles can be in the form of a scholarly theorised argument or based on empirical theorised research.
2000-word pieces which will be published in a ‘Forum’ section of the special issue. We have included this type of submission, which is different from the usual JVET article format, as an experiment. We note that debates on this topic often seem to miss each other, and we are hoping that this new format might help to address that, by encouraging dialogue and engagement. We still expect pieces in the Forum section to be strongly argued and to focus on one or more of the themes listed below, with any claims clearly warranted via empirical evidence, theoretical concepts, and/or arguments from the scholarly or grey literature. So, the new format is not intended to solicit contributions that are less rigorous or less well grounded (such as a small-scale descriptive piece, for instance). Instead, the format is intended to encourage non-standard, creative contributions, with the potential to improve dialogue and engagement on key contentious issues related to the topic.
We invite submissions that address these themes:
What are outcomes-based qualifications? Can we establish a coherent conceptual framework and terminology for discussing and evaluating them, and if so, how can we do so, so that there is an agreed way of exploring the problems related to outcomes-based qualification design? Here submissions may consider how terminology and understandings of learning outcomes differ across international contexts, or different parts of education and training systems.
What are the ‘problems’ that outcomes-based education is seeking to solve? What ‘theories of change’ are implicit in debates about outcomes-based education? Is there empirical evidence of them solving these problems? ‘Problems’ include, but are not limited to:
Aligning vocational education qualifications more closely to the ‘requirements’ of the labour market
How to implement ‘demand driven’ systems in contrast to putative ‘producer driven’ systems
Facilitating pathways, credit accumulation (as with micro-credentials), credit transfer, recognition of prior learning and/or accreditation of prior experiential learning
Bringing greater uniformity and intelligibility to a nation’s suite to qualifications
Are outcomes-based qualifications possible in their own terms? Are qualifications the sum of their parts (through aggregating individual learning outcomes) or should the premise be holistic, in which the ‘parts’ are derived from the whole? This is the ontological question. What kinds of knowledge are accessible through learning outcomes? Can knowledge be tied to individual outcomes, or should the starting point be disciplinary systems of meaning? This is the epistemological question. If there is a problem with outcomes-based qualifications, is the ‘problem’ intrinsic to their design, or is the problem one of implementation?
To what extent are outcomes-based qualifications a ‘technical’ issue of qualification design and can outcomes-based qualifications be separated from the social, political, economic, and policy context in which they are enacted? What is the ‘social settlement’ that underpins outcomes-based qualifications? What are the stakeholder interests in outcomes-based qualifications and whose interests tend to dominate? (e.g. employers, trade unions, governments, qualifications regulator bodies etc.)?
Are outcomes-based qualifications ‘fit for purpose’? What are the purposes they are meant to serve? How is their definition related to different conceptions of occupational competence? Can they provide the framework for expansive concepts of occupational competence? Can they provide the framework for ‘just-in-time’ and ‘just-for-now’ skills development such as micro-credentials?
Is it possible to envisage ‘hybrid’ qualifications that incorporate elements of outcomes-based education with a ‘classical’ focus on inputs? Or, are stated learning outcomes in fact inputs, stated in a different way? What are the key ‘decision-points’ that would need to be made in developing hybrid qualifications?
Is it possible to envisage an ‘ecology’ of qualifications within national systems where different design types serve similar purposes, or does there need to be more rationalisation so that purposes are more tightly associated with particular design approaches?
What are the challenges for governance, quality assurance, and funding for outcomes-based qualifications? To what extent do subsystems such as quality assurance and accountability have a bearing on the way in which OBQs are taught and assessed?
What are the challenges for teacher preparation in understanding OBQs, in teaching them and in ensuring that design purposes are realised?
References
Allais, S. (2014). Selling Out Education: National Qualifications Frameworks and the Neglect of Knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Allais, S. (2025). How the global VET toolkit weakened local colleges in South Africa. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1-20. doi:10.1080/13636820.2024.2411509
CEDEFOP. (2024). Learning outcomes going global: a multifaceted phenomenon.. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Hodge, S. (2007). The origins of competency-based training. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(2), 179-209.
Hodge, S. (2016). After competency-based training: deepening critique, imagining alternatives. International Journal of Training Research, 14(3), 171-179. doi:10.1080/14480220.2016.1261432
Lassnigg, L. (2012). ‘Lost in translation’: learning outcomes and the governance of education. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 299-330.
McGrath, S. (2012). Vocational education and training for development: A policy in need of a theory? International Journal of Educational Development, 32(5), 623-631. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.12.001
Newton, P. E. (2025). Before NVQs: The origins of outcome-based qualification design in England. Paper presented at the What is the future of Outcome-Based Qualification Design, King’s College London.
Newton, P. E., Curcin, M., Clarke, L., & Brylka, A. (2024a). The CASLO Approach. Retrieved from London: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-caslo-approach
Newton, P. E., Curcin, M., Clarke, L., & Brylka, A. (2024b). The CASLO Research Programme. Retrieved from London: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-caslo-research-programme
Newton, P. E., Curcin, M., Clarke, L., & Brylka, A. (2024c). Understanding Qualification Design. Retrieved from London: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ofquals-caslo-research-programme
Wheelahan, L. (2015). The future of Australian vocational education qualifications depends on a new social settlement. Journal of Education and Work, 28(2), 126-146.
Winch, C. (2023). Learning outcomes: The long goodbye: Vocational qualifications in the 21st century. European educational research journal EERJ, 22(1), 20-38. doi:10.1177/14749041211043669
Debating outcomes-based qualifications
Information for submission
2 February 2026: Deadline for 500 word abstracts.
6 April 2026: The guest editors will contact all contributors and inform them of the outcome of their submission
An invitation to submit a full paper does not guarantee publication as all papers will be subject to the Journal’s peer review process.
5 October 2026: Deadline for submission of full papers (see above for details on the types of submissions that will be accepted)
7 December 2026: Articles returned to authors after first round of review
7 February 2027: Resubmitted articles due
7 April 2027: Articles returned to authors after second round of review
7 June 2027: Due date for final submission of articles for publication
Articles will be published in JVET online as soon as they are accepted, and the Special Issue will be published in the second half of 2027.
Submitted papers must follow the Journal’s guidelines for presentation, and be submitted through the publisher’s Scholarone system.
Debating outcomes-based qualifications
Eight step guide on how to get published in JVET
JVET receives around 300 submissions every year, of which we will publish around 40. The vast majority of the remainder are rejected before the peer review process – either as they do not fall within the scope of the journal or because they are insufficiently rigorous to meet our standards of scholarship.
We’ve now published a guide to provide potential authors with some insight into the editors’ initial evaluation of the submissions we receive to help you to assess whether this is the right journal for you and to improve the chance of your paper being accepted. It is structured around eight questions that the editors tend to ask themselves when a new submission arrives. Read more
Exploring possibilities and expectations of future research in VET
Former JVET editor Professor Alison Fuller, whose work on apprenticeship and learning at work has been hugely influential over the last 20 years, talks about research in Vocational Education and Training. Her insights cover the themes that have come to dominate VET research, the role of journals in shaping and reflecting these, and the possibilities and expectations of future research, with invaluable advice for aspiring researchers. View the Bill Esmond interview with Alison Fuller here.