Between promise and possibility : but will it really work?

Abstract

Liv Mjelde is well known in the field of vocational education for her defence of applied pedagogies such as apprenticeship and other workshop learning modes. In a number of important articles (Mjelde 1984, 1987, 1994) and in a fulllength book (Mjelde, 1993) she has contested the pervasiveness and hegemonic quality of what she refers to as the 'academic pedagogic tradition' which became entrenched in Western educational systems with the introduction of comprehensive schooling. Mjelde has argued - and has consistently built on empirical bases, often with reference to the Norwegian and Scandinavian contexts - that that form of learning which involves moving from the practical to the abstract holds great promise as a pedagogic alternative to other, more common, forms of representation of knowledge. Accepting the Marxian critique regarding the destructive nature of the division of labour, Mjelde has argued for a 'polytechnic' education where the three elements of workshop learning, vocational/technical trainil1g and general education come together in order to facilitate the development of an all-rounded, fully developed human being. \;Ve can distinguish various elements in this discourse of hope that Mjelde weaves. In the first instance, workshop learning, or learning by doing, resonates with the cognitive and cultural needs and styles of that group of students who are most often disillusioned bv traditional schoolino J 0' namely the working class. While the academic learning tradition excludes these pupils and proceeds to label them as 'unmotivated' or 'nonachieving', the learning by doing approach builds on the interests and experiences of the same students and succeeds in reigniting curiosity and the will to learn. This, in turn, holds out other promises which Mjelde articulates with reference to a variety of educational discourses. We can distinguish the discourse of utilitarianism or economic efficiency, since the presumed ability of workshop learning to reintegrate potential drop-outs into the education and training enterprise has important consequences for the development of a country's human resources. But there is another strand of educational discourse which emerges even more powerfully in Mjelde's writing, one linked much more closely to the emancipatory dynamic in leftwing, progressive social thought. For Mjelde believes that a true education does not distinguish between hand and mind, and her conception of vocational education as an alternative pedagogic mode strives to bridge the gap that is so endemic, and so functional, to the division of labour in capitalist economies. One could point out that Mjelde's position is not particularly novel. Indeed, various governments, from the right and the left political spectrum, have, from the nineteenth century onwards, looked towards vocational forms of education in order to meet the challenges identified by Mjelde and, therefore, to satisfy economic, e(~uc8.tional and ideological goals. Mjelde herself conjures up the ghosts of Krupskaya, Dewey, Freinet and Kerschensteiner in order to draw connections between her project and theirs. But I would argue that what Mjelde is making a case for has increasing relevance in a world where there is widespread consensus that general education is the best form of vocational education (see Sultana, 1992), and where there is, therefore, a tendency for the academic pedagogic tradition to prevail. Mjelde's position also serves to resurrect normative issues - such as those dealing with equity and social justice - in a sphere of educational discourse which has often been constructed in 'purely' technocratic terms. Her work therefore has the virtue of connecting with current European and worldwide preoccupations regarding vocational training and retraining, while at the same time reconstructing the agenda in more than economistic terms. In other words, Mjelde's work carries that most enticing promise of making morality pragmatic. Even the industrial agenda, so often opposed to the democratic imperative by educational writers ranging from Dewey (1915) to Carnoy and Levin (1985), is reconciled with progressive thought given the requirements of a post-Fordist economy for an educated, skilled and flexible workforce where the many faceted human being has an opportunity to develop to the full. Indeed, a post-Fordist economy represents a challenge to traditional pedagogies and, according to Mjelde, is a justification for her strongest claim: that the workshop model becomes the foundation for all learning. Mjelde is here in tune with other educational theorists, such as Brown and Lauder (1991) and Young (1993), who see post-Fordism as an economic context whose implications for educational systems include the transcendence of the traditional dichotomy between education and work, between academic and vocational pedagogic traditions. Her distinctive position lies in the fact that she locates this resolution of opposing traditions in the camp of vocational education.