Trade-based skills versus occupational capacity: the example of bricklaying in Europe

Abstract

This article shows why qualifications built on occupational capacity rather than on trade-based skills have more potential to accommodate the aims of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and changes in the labour process, going together with the development of occupational labour markets. The article challenges the distinct Anglo-Saxon notion of ‘skill’ attached to a trade-based system of vocational education and training (VET), where qualifications have weak labour market currency. This distinctiveness has implications for EQF implementation, built on common understanding of knowledge, skills and competences and intended to establish equivalence between different occupational qualifications. The article focuses on the example of bricklaying in England and Germany, an occupation archetypal of construction and skilled manual work. Clear differences are identified between bricklaying founded on developing occupational capacity through negotiation and regulation by stakeholders, recognized through qualifications, and bricklaying as a demarcated trade, defined by output and with ‘skills’ distinct from other trades.

Keywords

apprenticeship bricklaying construction labour process occupation qualifications trade vocational education

Introduction

In his book A Theory of Employment Systems, published in 1999, David Marsden distinguished between what he termed a ‘production’ approach, where skills are work-based and firm-specific with training dependent to a large extent on the individual employer and on the job learning, and a ‘training’ approach, defined as institutionally regulated, related to a person’s ability and certified qualifications and usually collectively and industrially organized. This ‘training’ approach underpins ‘occupational labour markets’ and is generally of greater value to employees than a ‘production’ approach, being long-term and equipping them over a working life to operate in a particular occupation and sector. As Marsden explains:

a well-stocked occupational market means that employers can expand their workforces readily to meet increased demand, and there are no long lead times that would be required if they had to train their labour from scratch. (1999: 216)

Critical to the operation of such a market is the recognized qualification held by the persons concerned, sanctioned by a certificate or diploma and/or by the judgment of the peer group (Eyraud et al., 1990). A ‘training’ approach is geared to developing personal capabilities and labour capacity, or what Biernacki (1995) – in his seminal comparison of labour in Germany and Britain, The Fabrication of Labour – terms ‘labour power’, associated with the system in Germany. In contrast, the ‘skills’ acquired under a ‘production’ approach enable labour to perform recognized activities in the work process under conditions of limited autonomy linked to a specific output, representing what Biernacki (1995) terms ‘embodied labour’, and associated with the British system.

This article builds on and, at the same time, extends these two sets of distinctions, between ‘training’ and ‘production’ approaches and between ‘labour power’ and ‘embodied labour’, in showing just how qualitatively different are systems based on developing ‘occupational capacity’, as found in many continental countries including Germany, from those focused on ‘trade-based skills’, as still found in the Anglo-Saxon world. The differences between the vocational education and training (VET) and qualifications associated with ‘traditional trades’ and those of ‘qualified occupations’ exist both in practice and conceptually, extending to the definition of key terms. This in turn has important implications for the implementation of the competence-based European Qualifications Framework (EQF), built on common understanding of its three elements – knowledge, skills and competences – and intended to establish equivalence between different occupational qualifications.

As the construction occupation par excellence in both Germany and England, bricklaying is an ideal example to assess the problems likely to be encountered in implementing the EQF. The article identifies clear differences between bricklaying as: a Beruf, the distinct German notion of an occupation, founded on the principle of developing occupational capacity through negotiation and regulation by a range of stakeholders, including the social partners (the trade unions and employers representatives) and educationalists; and a trade, defined by skills attached to output and performance in the workplace. The scope of activities, know-how, knowledge and competences encompassed and the value of the associated qualifications in each case vary considerably, as do the respective industrial relations systems and labour markets.

The article draws on research for the Nuffield Foundation on the cross-national equivalence of skills and qualifications in Europe and for the European Commission (EC) on bricklaying qualifications in different countries (Brockmann et al., 2010a, 2010b). The concern in both projects was to investigate and compare the ways in which those bricklaying qualifications constituting typical entry routes into the occupation of bricklaying are produced, understood and valued and how far they qualify labour to work as bricklayers, so representing a dialogue between the labour market and the VET system. Indeed, a clear distinction is drawn between qualifications – awarded on the basis of particular knowledge or know-how and referring to the VET system – and occupations associated with a particular division of labour. While the studies involved a wide range of European countries, the focus here is on the English bricklaying trade and the German Maurer Beruf or bricklaying occupation as representing the starkest examples of contrasting systems. The article concludes that vocational know-how in the English case needs to be reconceptualized in order to take account of dimensions ‘beyond skill’ (Bryson, 2010), including project management, that are necessary for ensuring the future of high-quality VET with a substantial work-based component, for accommodating to change and innovation in the labour market and for successful EQF implementation.

Changing concepts of occupational skill

In recent decades debate on the nature and deployment of skills has extended, while broadly assuming that the word ‘skill’ is acceptable as a generic term for workplace know-how, even though it is acknowledged that much that counts as ‘skill’ does not really fit that admittedly protean concept. As Payne (2000) has shown, the ‘skills universe’ has become so diffuse that it encompasses not only a range of personal characteristics, behaviours and attitudes, but a ‘veritable galaxy’ of ‘soft’, ‘generic’, ‘transferable’, ‘social’ and ‘interactional’ skills (2000: 354). ‘Soft’ skills, in particular, including communication, problem-solving and team-working, have, in contrast to a previous emphasis on ‘technical’ skills, become an important focus of study (Grugulis and Vincent, 2009). The debate has culminated in Beyond Skill, where Bryson (2010: 4–6) emphasizes the broader capabilities needed in assessing the worthwhileness of work, including the ability to determine the course of one’s life, sometimes known as ‘autonomy’ (Winch, 2005). However, this sense of moving ‘beyond skill’ does not sufficiently advance understanding of the complex and interrelated forms of know-how deployed in the workplace.

One major theme has been the social and ideological construction of ‘skill’. Thus Green and Ashton (1992: 296) point to the tendency of some employers to use the term to denote personality and behavioural traits – the ‘good bloke syndrome’, as well as technical abilities, while Cutler (1992) draws attention to its continuing importance in trades organized around relatively narrow sets of technical skills and defined in terms of manipulative and tool-using abilities. Steiger (1993), in a study of the US construction industry, provides a rich account of the ideological construction of skill by workers and employers in terms of the possession of craft tools, unique know-how and, to some extent, personal character traits. Skill continues to be conceptualized, however, as an individual attribute of workers rather than in terms of formal learning or qualifications, although trades losing the use of specialized tools, such as plumbers, are keener to emphasize the formal aspects of skill acquisition. Steiger’s account, while based on research in the USA, also represents key aspects of the trade conception of skill in Britain.

Thompson et al. (1995), in their study of lorry building plants, draw attention to the shifting boundaries between specialist craft technical skills, the capability to perform a variety of tasks (‘multiskilling’), collective or team-based skills and character attributes like ‘mental flexibility’. Some plants recognize that, although work may be classed as ‘unskilled’ because traditional craft skills (involving manual operations requiring dexterity and tool use) are not deployed, it may nevertheless require second order abilities such as co-ordination and problem solving. Both Thompson et al. (1995) and Steiger (1993) emphasize the difficulties that craft-based workers have in accepting new boundaries to task repertoires and in recognizing that there is a possible role for them in organizing anything other than their own immediate work in larger scale project configurations. Gallie et al. (2004) in turn use qualification as a proxy for ‘skill’, just as does the influential but now outdated Leitch Review of Skills (2006) and as does Steedman (1993) in her assessment of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs). However, Keep and Mayhew (2010) reject this identification of skill with qualification, arguing that a workforce may have qualifications largely superfluous for the know-how required for the job.

One of the problems with such discussions is the fluid nature of the terminology employed and the different levels of social abstraction to which this applies, each implying different ‘know-how’ in the sense of ability based on some permutation of dexterity, practical knowledge, theoretical knowledge and social ability. The term task, for instance, refers to specific activities that someone may undertake in the work process, such as screeding or mixing mortar. Job, on the other hand, refers to the individual employment contract to work in the production process for a particular firm, such as a trades foreman or ganger, covering a range of tasks. And occupation or trade refers to the category of labour that carries out such work; a trades foreman, for instance, may also belong to the occupation/trade of bricklayer, that is someone with the ability to fulfil all the activities negotiated or regulated for that particular labour process. ‘Occupational know-how’ goes beyond mastery of a technique related to task performance and extends to a grasp of the requirements of the occupation as a whole, including the carrying out of extended projects and specification of the broader context into which individual tasks are integrated. A bricklayer, therefore, could be employed in a series of different jobs, as trades foreman, drainlayer and concretor, each involving an array of tasks, for instance, setting out, the actual laying of bricks or blocks, mixing mortar, erecting walls, corners and arches and snagging work.

This hierarchy of complexity of know-how is important because, if the term ‘skill’ is to be applied at any level, it is in relation to the performance of particular tasks in the workplace. The more the concern with ability formation in the occupational sense, the more there is to learn that is non-task specific and independent of the workplace context of the particular task or even of the particular job for which one is employed – and the less appropriate becomes the use of the term ‘skill’. Though research has addressed changing occupational structures, there has been far less debate concerning the notion of ‘occupation’ than about ‘skill’, while the notions of ‘task’, ‘job’ and even ‘trade’ remain relatively unambiguous (Anderson, 2009; Damarin, 2006). VET formation is likely to be a very different process according to whether one is concerned with task, job, trade or occupation. Any form of VET that is undertaken partly outside the workplace and has as an outcome a socially recognized qualification is inevitably concerned with a changing context broader than that of the individual task or job. In this respect, how can ‘know-how’ be tied to particular tool use or even to the possession of particular techniques? How can second order abilities like communication and planning be assimilated to ‘skill’ and the term ‘skill’ used to denote character and behavioural traits? Is it not really time to move beyond the notion of ‘skill’ and to envision societies, as Bryson suggests, that ‘enhance human capability’ (2010: 7)?

Methodology

The purpose of both the Nuffield Foundation and EC research projects was to understand how key concepts related to VET are applied within different national contexts. The first project, conducted between 2006 and 2009, was based on case studies of occupations drawn from different sectors, including construction. The second, conducted between 2008 and 2011, was confined to bricklaying qualifications and was technically co-ordinated by the construction social partners at European level, who were involved throughout and organized the final dissemination conference. A critical focus of both projects was to assess the value and difficulties of applying the EQF by: describing the significance of different terminology; developing and applying transnational categories; examining, comparing and contrasting differences in knowledge, ‘skills’ and competences imparted through the VET system, encompassed in qualifications and deployed in workplace practice; identifying problems such differences pose to integration within an EU framework; exploring difficulties in assessing abilities and qualifications in cross-national contexts and the means to overcome these; and proposing criteria for cross-national evaluation. The bricklaying project, in particular, sought to further the recognition of bricklaying qualifications by enhancing their transparency and comparability, thereby improving the mobility and quality of bricklayers across Europe.

The methodology of the projects was similar and distinctive in being planned and carried out as an empirical investigation involving a linguistic and conceptual examination of variations in the usage and salience of particular terminology in a variety of policy-relevant contexts – European, national, firm and workplace. The framework of the bricklaying project in particular was developed through discussion with social partners and with project leaders and experts from different countries and was comprehensive enough to examine issues associated with EQF implementation in detail. It consisted of seven dimensions through which the institutional and conceptual basis of the VET and labour market systems related to the bricklaying qualification were explored, including: the regulatory framework; the structure and content of provision; the nature of qualifications; the understanding of underpinning knowledge; prevalent notions of competence; the deployment of labour; and labour market currency. A macro-level inquiry was first conducted of representatives from bodies responsible for VET at European and national levels, together with training providers, employers’ organizations and trade unions, to ascertain how key concepts are understood and operationalized. In the bricklaying project, the subsequent micro-level empirical phase had to be sufficiently in-depth to understand how concepts are applied in practice, whether in firms or colleges, and was therefore based on case studies. It principally involved in-depth interviews using a questionnaire structured around the seven dimensions in approximately six firms and sites of different sizes and types employing bricklayers in each country and six colleges and training organizations, including the study of a particular region. Focus groups were also held in each country, attended by 12–15 participants, to discuss the national bricklaying reports produced (Brockmann et al., 2010a; Paul and Seidel, 2010). An important feature of the final phase of analysing, evaluating and interpreting the data in both projects was constant iteration of the findings with the research partners, the construction social partners and steering groups, in order to understand concepts in use in the labour process and to map the conceptual territory covered. Detailed mapping carried out was based on: the results of the interviews and focus groups; documentary data concerning the range of activities associated with the occupation in each country; and detailed specifications of the qualifications.

Given the concern to establish cross-national equivalence and identify difficulties in EQF implementation, the research went further than simply a comparison of similarities and differences by seeking to develop transnational categories applicable across the countries and to assess the possibilities of establishing ‘zones of mutual trust’ based on a common understanding of the nature and currency of qualifications in the relevant VET and labour market contexts. This is suggested by the original architects of the EQF (Coles and Oates, 2004). Proposals for the mutual recognition of qualifications were also developed, intended for discussion by the European construction social partners with their national members (Brockmann et al., 2010a). The focus here is on England¹ and Germany² because each represents a contrasting approach to VET and because differences between their respective bricklaying qualifications reveal the difficulties entailed in establishing a common European qualifications framework. The English system is characterized by: its employer domination; state intervention to increase the number of qualified workers, rather than employer demand; an outcomes-based approach to qualifications; and the central organizing concept of skill. In contrast, Germany represents a strong social partnership model, the Dual system, embodying the principle of education as employee and citizen, with a high degree of planning of both the qualification and VET systems and the central organizing concept of Beruf. The construction sector and, within this, the bricklaying occupation were selected as associated with labour migration across national boundaries and configured in widely differing ways within the two countries.

‘Skill’ and the EQF

Despite recognition of the overuse of the term ‘skill’, there has been little questioning of whether ‘skill’ is an appropriate umbrella term for work-related know-how. In the context of the EQF, the distinctiveness of the term – its ambiguous, ill-defined and multivarious interpretation and attachment to a particular labour market context – becomes decidedly problematic. Adopted by the European Parliament in 2008, the EQF is described as a ‘meta-framework’, designed to promote a common terminology and reference point for the comparison of qualifications of EU member states by instituting a process of transforming or creating National Qualification Frameworks (NQFs) based on learning outcomes (Raffe, 2010). If qualifications can be specified in a NQF as learning outcomes, then it should be possible to lay two or more alongside each other on the EQF grid to determine their degree of equivalence. The term ‘learning outcome’ is however open to interpretation, being often understood in England as synonymous with a performance outcome, while in Germany it serves as a ‘standard’, that is a set of criteria marking progress through a curriculum and providing the basis for the design of assessment instruments (Allais et al., 2009; Brockmann et al., 2008).

The EQF is designed around eight vertical qualification levels, transcending the boundaries between vocational and general education, each with ‘knowledge’, ‘skill’ and ‘competence’ descriptors. As a comprehensive, ‘competence’-based framework, it is intended to achieve ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ comparability of qualification levels between countries as a preliminary to ECVET, the EU credit transfer scheme for European VET. The EQF is available in each EU language, posing problems of translation and interpretation and the danger that important conceptual differences are not properly appreciated. For instance, for knowledge, English does not distinguish explicitly between systematic and non-systematic knowledge in the way that, for example, German does (‘Wissen’ and ‘Kenntnis’). Nor does the English term skill, rooted in the performance of a task, encompass any idea of breadth or occupational capacity as German does through the specification of ‘berufliche Handlungsfähigkeit’ or ‘occupational reflective action capacity’ as the aim of the initial VET system (Hanf, 2011). The subtleties of classification of ‘know-how’ – as a more apt term than ‘skill’ - are thus lost in the translations offered within the EQF, an issue particularly important for bricklaying as the abilities predicted for construction workers in Europe are precisely those which are manifested not in the carrying out of any one particular kind of task (‘skills’), but rather in a variety of different kinds of activity associated with bringing a project to fruition (Fähigkeiten) (DTI, 2008: 23). The German term Fähigkeiten, usually translated as ‘transversal abilities’, captures the distinction between ‘skills’ (Fertigkeiten) and abilities such as planning and communication that cannot be pinned down to the performance of highly specific tasks. English does not have such a ready-to-hand term for these important abilities. Competence is the descriptor that embodies the most complexity and potential for confusion, as the idea of autonomous workers who can plan, control, co-ordinate and evaluate their own work is very different from position within a managerial hierarchy. The English term ‘competence’ tends to refer to attainment of a ‘skill’ or bundle of ‘skills’ at a threshold level and does not embrace personal independence or the bringing to bear of judgment informed by systematic knowledge as, for example, in the German ‘Kompetenz’ (Brockmann et al., 2008, 2009, 2011).

English VET and the bricklaying trade

VET in Britain has occupied a relatively marginal role in economic and educational developments (e.g. Lloyd and Payne, 2009; Marks and Baldry, 2009; OECD, 2011; Steedman, 1998). In a report examining apprenticeships in eight countries, the English system stood out for low participation rates, lack of employer engagement, the low importance afforded to off the job learning and theoretical knowledge and the generally lower level of qualifications (Steedman, 2010). While the impoverishment of English VET has deep historical roots, fragmentation of the labour process into discrete work processes in which the intellectual functions of labour (planning, co-ordinating, controlling, evaluating) have often been sharply separated from the executive (manual function) has been especially accentuated through the deregulation of the labour market. The English obsession with ‘skill’ too, as the organizing principle for VET on which qualifications are built, is symptomatic of a qualitatively different underlying approach from many continental European countries, with far-reaching ramifications for EQF implementation.

Historically the ‘skill’ of a trade such as, for instance, the bricklayer was associated with the attributes of those bound to a single employer who had undertaken the traditional trade apprenticeship. Trades were thereby defined in relation to a range of tasks in the workplace and hence in relation to manual ‘skills’, accepted as such by employers and trade unions and subject to limited formal codification. Today, however, the scope of a trade such as bricklaying is seemingly ad hoc, being defined by employers unlike in the past when trade demarcation disputes were the hallmark of trade unions seeking to codify the boundaries of each trade through industrial action (Lee, 1979). Considerable areas of sectoral activity also lie outside the trades – including, in the case of the construction sector, concreting and groundworks - and thereby beyond the reach of formally recognized training schemes or apprenticeships and the skilled grades of the collective agreement, the National Working Rule Agreement for the Building Industry (CIJC, 2011).

In England, labour market fragmentation, and with it the demarcation between construction trades and trade characteristics, has intensified. Bricklayers are now generally employed by bricklaying firms or by labour-only subcontractors rather than general builders or contractors, and have a self-employed status (ONS, 2011). There were an estimated 62,000 bricklayers in Britain in 2010/2011, 7 per cent of the total of 884,770 in skilled manual construction occupations, with first year entrant bricklaying trainees numbering 5712 and representing 21 per cent of all construction trainees (ConstructionSkills, 2011). This illustrates both the over-concentration on traditional trades within VET provision and the low level of this provision. As revealed in the interviews, there is little direct cooperation, interaction or overlap with the activities of other trades. There is a degree of specialization, mirrored also in VET provision. Bricklayers are expected to provide their own tools, the scope of their work is largely confined to laying bricks and there is typically a separation between manual and intellectual functions on sites, with activities such as setting out, reading drawings, planning, monitoring and delivering the work perhaps carried out by site managers, site engineers or supervisors (Clarke and Wall, 1996). The bricklayer’s scope of activity has thereby become restricted, with reduced possibility to move from the trade to site management and beyond, as graduates are increasingly recruited to perform the more clearly intellectual functions. The research has shown the limitations of too narrowly specialized trades, with weak underpinning knowledge and limited autonomy, in providing for transferability from one job to another and for permeability to higher skill levels (Brockmann et al., 2011).

In the English construction sector, skill levels set out within collective agreements may only loosely relate to qualifications, contributing to widespread disregard of the Working Rule Agreement and to the weak labour market currency of qualifications. The main way in which the qualifications of workers are acknowledged is through the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) card, increasingly a requirement for working on a construction site. Rather than being rewarded for their personal competences or occupational qualifications per se, let alone their project management abilities, construction workers are, as with Biernacki’s (1995) ‘embodied labour’, rewarded for their performance output, which may be classed as ‘craft’ or ‘skilled’ and attached to particular tasks. An important reason for the weakness of the collective agreement and its lack of recognition of qualification levels is the fragmented nature of the trade unions and employers associations. Different construction trade unions co-exist and compete against each other for membership so that there is no united interest to define construction occupations according to different qualification levels. Similarly, employers, representing an estimated 194,000 private contracting companies, over 87 per cent of which have fewer than eight employees, are divided between at least six associations (ONS, 2011). Added to this are trade associations or industry trade groups, funded by businesses operating in and seeking to defend a specific trade area.

The comprehensive mapping of occupations in the construction sector has hardly occurred in Britain, though attempts have been made (e.g. CITB, 1969) by the Sector Skills Council, ConstructionSkills (the former Construction Industry Training Board – CITB), which plays a major role in formulating and regulating bricklaying qualifications in England, in response to lobbying by trade associations, as well as in maintaining National Occupational Standards. Unusually for England, but in line with the German construction industry, ConstructionSkills is funded through a levy-grant system, plus state support, though it is no longer based on social partnership but employer-led, with very limited trade union involvement. From its inception in 1964, the CITB’s efforts tended to concentrate on the traditional trades though, as their content and hence scope and boundaries have not been constantly and systematically renegotiated by the social partners with each change in the labour process, these have become narrower, including for the purposes of VET.

The narrowing of trade boundaries and existence of important, yet relatively undefined, training ‘no-go areas’ outside these have further held back the development of a more educationally oriented VET system for construction in England. At the same time the apprenticeship system has rapidly declined, with apprentices representing only 2 per cent of construction employment by 1996 and then further reducing, especially under the Modern Apprenticeship system of the 1990s when qualification standards for bricklaying apprentices declined from NVQ Level 3 to 2 (normally achieved through less than two years VET, compared with the previous three years plus) (DoE, 1997; Gospel and Fuller, 1998). Almost half of all bricklaying trainees are now to be found on full-time FE (Further Education) college courses, often experiencing, as described by the interviewees from FE colleges, considerable difficulties in obtaining work experience and subsequent employment. The Level 3 qualification is itself high in managerial content at the expense of a broader scope of activities and enhanced capacity for self-management, reflecting the trajectory of the English ‘trade’ towards a restricted form of highly managed task performance in a narrow behavioural sense.

A formal bricklaying apprenticeship in England consists of separate components: the NVQ work-based element, not linked to a curriculum and increasingly focused on the performance of particular sets of tasks; a ‘technical’ college-based theoretical element, providing relatively minimal underpinning knowledge and leading to the award of a Diploma; and functional skills, involving basic numeracy, literacy and ICT, plus Employment Rights and Responsibilities – aimed at preparing young people for labour market entry. This may mean no more than a maximum two-year (low skill) work experience scheme (Ryan et al., 2006). As evident from Table 1, core practical know-how for the English bricklaying trainee is restricted to laying bricks and blocks and there is also a lack of general or civic education and social or personal competences, while those that have been developed are at a low level (Fuller and Unwin, 2010; Steedman, 1992).

Table 1.

Scope of activities in bricklaying qualifications and VET.

Country			England*		Germany
Main element	Main type of activity	Particular activities	Core	Minor	Core	Minor
Practical skills/ Know-how	Brickwork & masonry	Laying bricks & blocks	√		√
		specialist masonry			√
	Concrete	Concreting		√	√
		Formwork			√
		Rendering			√
	Scaffolding					√
	Flooring, tiling					√
	Facades	Cladding		√	√
	Plastering			√	√
		Rendering		√	√
	Roofing			√
	Carpentry					√
	Insulation			√	√
	Jointing					√
	Piping & drains					√
	Surveying				√
	Renovation			√	√
Non-manual competences	Planning work				√
		Reading drawings	√		√
		Setting out	√		√
		Assessing materials	√		√
	Measuring				√
	Applying health & safety measures		√		√
	Quality control				√
	Communicating			√	√
	Dealing with waste			√	√
	Consulting third parties				√
	Reporting to management				√
	Preservation/ cleaning				√
Knowledge	General education	Language	√		√
		Foreign language				√
		Sciences				√
		Maths	√		√
		ICT	√			√
		Technical drawing			√
		Citizenship			√
	Industrial	Labour law				√
		Materials			√
		Building technology	√		√
		Health & safety	√		√
		Environment protection			√
		Innovation-entrepreneur and self-employment				√

NVQ Level 2 (this also includes the units ‘move and handle resources’, ‘conform to efficient work practices’, and ‘personal learning and thinking skills’)

The relative weakness of the English bricklaying qualification accords with its low labour market currency (Brockmann et al., 2010b). As confirmed in the interviews with firms and on sites, many bricklayers have no qualifications, neither having served an apprenticeship nor undertaken formal training, and rely instead on informal, on the job learning. This is similar to Marsden’s (1999) ‘production’ approach, though they may acquire a NVQ to obtain a CSCS card through a process of on-site assessment of existing skills. Many are also migrants, often from Eastern Europe, not bound to traditional trade boundaries and hence perhaps preferred by employers (Chan et al., 2012). Under the more regulated CITB Standard Scheme of Training introduced in the 1970s, apprenticeship-based skills needed in many firms were transferable and in this respect bricklayers operated in an occupational labour market. With the narrowing down of the trade of bricklaying into ever fewer task-based skills, however, the labour market conforms more closely to the ‘secondary labour markets’ of Piore and Sabel (1984), where ‘skills’ are depleted, institutional regulation and VET weak and employment unstable. Bricklaying is thus a trade under pressure, evident in the low currency of VET, including apprenticeships, the relatively low level and narrow scope of the associated qualification and poorly developed social partnership.

The German Beruf Maurer

The German Beruf, such as the Maurer, is a well developed and historically rooted occupation incorporating a clear understanding of the labour and business (Geschäftsprozess) process involved. This is within the context of a national division of labour through sectoral institutions, a discernible continued union of intellectual and manual elements of labour (albeit within a context of specialization), a firm rooting of occupational induction and formation in the education system and a close relationship between occupational and social status (Hanf, 2011). Nor is it static. Each Beruf is situated within a sectoral framework and subject to close monitoring and modification through tripartite (employers, trade unions and educationalists) sectoral committees under the auspices of the BIBB (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung – Federal Institute for VET) in line – within the constraints of the institutional framework – with changes in the labour process. A German bricklayer apprentice covers a wide range of ‘learning fields’ (Lernfelder), integrating intellectual and manual aspects and requiring contingent and systematic knowledge (Table 2). The highly valued VET system, Berufsbildung, is, as in Marsden’s (1999) ‘training’ approach, geared to the development of the individual within a particular occupational status, defined through curricula and related to the attainment of standards at different levels agreed collectively between employers and trade unions. A Beruf represents a systematized combination of formal knowledge, know-how and experience, not geared to any single workplace and is bound up with a particular system of wage relations (Greinert, 2007; Hanf, 2007).

Table 2

Overview of learning fields at vocational schools for bricklayers in Germany.

Year	Learning fields (‘Lernfelder’) at vocational schools
	No.	Designation
1st year	Basic or general training for all construction trades
	1	Establishing/commencement of work on a construction site
	2	Foundation works for a building
	3	Build a single-leaf masonry element
	4	Build a wooden construction
	5	Build a reinforced concrete construction element
	6	Coating and sheeting of a construction element
2nd year	Specialized VET in building construction – focus bricklaying
	7	Build a single-leaf wall
	8	Build a double-leaf wall
	9	Build a solid/massive ceiling
	10	Wall plastering
	11	Build a wall using a dry system technique
	12	Floor screeding
3rd year	Specialized VET in bricklaying
	13	Build a straight staircase
	14	Cover an opening with an arch
	15	Build a natural stone wall
	16	Build special masonry elements
	17	Restore and rehabilitate construction elements

Source: KMK – Kultusministerkonferenz 1999, cited in Paul and Seidel (2010: 15).

The occupation is closely bound up with the qualification, which it is necessary to obtain in order to be classed as a bricklayer (Facharbeiter). The qualification is awarded on completion of a comprehensive and nationally recognized VET programme of work-based training complemented by significant college and workshop elements. Institutionally, VET is based on corporate governance where decision-making involves all key sectoral stakeholders, including representatives of both social partners, through a range of bodies and committees in consensus-oriented though time consuming cooperation (Deissinger, 2008; Stender, 2006). Thus, while minimum standards are statutory, the precise content of programmes is subject to negotiation. Handwerk or craft organizations are also important, particularly through the local employer bodies or Innungen, where those who have qualified as Meister (master) play a key role.

This perhaps over-rigid institutional context was given a firm footing after the war with the division of trade unions and employers associations into different industries, each encompassing a restricted range of Berufe covering almost all the activities associated with the sector. Berufe are demarcated through collective agreements between the social partners and embedded in the comprehensive programme of VET provision that covers the whole sector with occupational boundaries. With the introduction of the Dual system, dividing responsibility for the trainee between the vocational school and the workplace through the Vocational Training Act of 1969, the system was firmly anchored (Streeck and Hilbert, 1991). The division between labourers and craftsmen largely ceased to exist as the collective agreement was graded into different wage levels linked to qualifications, many labouring activities were mechanized or subsumed within Berufe and labourers themselves aspired to be qualified workers.

In construction this meant the division of the sector into 14 specialized Berufe and six wage groups. As with VET for other construction Berufe, the apprentice moves from: sectoral knowledge in year one, providing a common basic training covering all construction training areas; to branch knowledge in year two, divided into building, finishing and civil engineering; towards occupational competence in year three, involving specialization into a specific Beruf – a system introduced in 1974 and known as Stufenausbildung für Bauberufe (see Table 2). Bricklaying VET is thus very comprehensive, embracing a broad range of activities and in three locations: the college (Berufsschule); the training centre or workshop under regional employer associations and chambers of commerce; and the workplace (Paul and Seidel, 2010). It encompasses knowledge of the range of activities involved in the occupation and related occupations within the sector, the different ways in which these may be organized in different firms and how the occupation may alter as a result of social, economic and technological developments. Thus, as shown in Table 1 and evident from training centre visits, in addition to laying bricks, the trainee covers different aspects of concreting, plastering, insulation, surveying and renovation, as well as technical drawing and citizenship.

Reflecting an increasing concern with practical relevance, particularly in the context of a changing organization of work, Handlungskompetenz or ‘competence of reflective action-taking’ has been the organizing principle of VET since the late 1980s and is critical to developing occupational identity (Rauner, 2004). It is a multi-dimensional concept, concerned with developing the individual’s competences, connected with the idea of project conception and execution so central to Kerschensteiner’s (1968 [1906]) notion of produktive Arbeit. In the workplace, Handlungskompetenz refers to the ability to plan, carry out and evaluate tasks, promoting autonomous and reflective working and dealing with complex and increasingly unpredictable situations (Erpenbeck, 2005). As revealed in interviews conducted in training centres, the distinct dimensions of occupational, social and personal competence encompassed are neither detailed nor individually taught and assessed, serving rather as overarching principles (Hanf, 2011).

VET in Germany is concerned with developing socially responsible individuals, able to reflect on their own actions and actively co-create their social environments in the workplace and in society (Halfpap, 2000). It is, in other words, concerned with the development of ‘labour power’ as opposed to ‘embodied labour’ (Biernacki, 1995). Although learners may be employees, they continue their general education while being inducted into the technical and operational aspects of an occupation. The research in firms and on sites showed how bricklayers are expected to: work autonomously and in cooperation with others; set up construction sites; process contracts, from initial planning to handing over the completed work; undertake building work in a variety of contexts (new build, restoration, industrial); and work with a variety of materials (including bricks, stone and concrete). As a result, they represent the main occupation within the construction sector, one key to further progression to site foreperson and beyond (Clarke and Wall, 1996; Paul and Seidel, 2010).

Key differences: trade versus occupation

In its capacity and broadness, bricklaying in Germany can be described as a qualified occupation rather than a trade in the English sense. It operates in an occupational labour market underpinned by the VET system, defined through negotiation between different interests. A qualified occupation such as bricklaying represents a definite division of labour, referring to labour potential over a working life, including as a possible site or contracts manager and founded on holistic and multi-dimensional abilities rather than on narrow trade skills (Keep and Mayhew, 2010). The focus is on developing occupational capacity, not just producing a given output, and the worker is expected to adapt to the changing needs of the sector (Brockmann et al., 2008), to work independently and without supervision through planning, controlling, co-ordinating and evaluating what is involved, necessitating in turn the ability to read and interpret drawings and set out work. As shown in Table 1 and confirmed by the interviewees, the company part of the VET curriculum lists a broad range of know-how, competence and knowledge required in the workplace, while assessment consists of a practical and a written examination, involving the solving of exemplary tasks rather than the confinement of the English system to tightly prescribed tasks. The ability both to apply theoretical propositions in practical situations, to manage a project and to transfer between different jobs is acquired, as with Marsden’s (1999) training approach, rather than the English reliance on generalization on the basis of practical experience.

The VET associated with a traditional English trade apprenticeship is geared to particular employer needs, composed of bundles of ‘skills’ and focused on the ability to produce predefined outputs, rather than on developing broadly defined occupational capacity, though there is a growing recognition of the need for theoretical and educational elements (Wolf, 2011), including, as the research investigations showed, from employers themselves. Ironically, given its employer basis, qualifications such as those for bricklaying have only weak labour market currency, attributable to the limited range of skills, capacity for autonomy and theoretical underpinning that they cover. The German Facharbeiter (‘skilled’ worker) qualification, in contrast, agreed on by the social partners and educationalists as part of a regulated framework, covering a broad and complex range of construction activities, with defined performance standards and knowledge base acquired through a recognized system of VET, has high labour market currency and is critical to labour market entry. For example, bricklaying trainees in Germany constitute an estimated 15 per cent of bricklayers, compared to less than 5 per cent in Britain (Brockmann et al., 2010a; ConstructionSkills, 2011). Taken by about half of all German 15–21 year olds, VET is above both the English Apprenticeship (NVQ Level 2) and many of the Advanced Apprenticeship (Level 3) programmes in terms of know-how, theoretical knowledge and personal attributes. The high value accorded to the German VET system, in contrast to the English, is also evident from the decision to place the Meister qualification at the same level as a bachelor degree.

There is, however, no necessarily sharp divide between a trade and a qualified occupation. They represent rather ideal types, the former dependent predominantly on the labour market for ‘skills’ acquired and the latter on the VET system for the acquisition of knowledge, though the work process and simulation remain critical. The changing nature of construction due to social and economic conditions and continuous technological innovation brings dangers of deskilling and loss of occupational capacity unless there is this substantial educational component. However, despite the tendency for construction VET in England in general to be more college-based, it is still strongly wedded to the traditional apprenticeship, with its weak knowledge component, mimicking labour market demands in an ever-reducing downward spiral.

Conclusions

Can such a contrast in the nature and purpose of a qualification be accommodated within the EQF, especially given the qualitatively different labour markets concerned, one deregulated and casual, the other more regulated and formal? A critical omission from the EQF is occupational scope, which means that, though qualifications nominally covering the same occupation may embrace a very different range of activities, this horizontal dimension is not incorporated into the design. Thus, while in England the bricklaying qualification is focused largely on laying bricks, in Germany it covers a great many more (Table 1) construction activities (Fertigkeiten) as well as a much wider range of second order activities, such as communicating, co-ordinating and quality control, all essential for successful project management. In addition, the knowledge element of the curriculum is much stronger in Germany, including a foreign language and a range of general and industrial knowledge not covered in England. Since such variations in scope between countries are not taken into account except in terms of different qualification levels, the EQF provides only an incomplete outline of the occupational terrain.

It is hard to see how the EQF can be implemented in a meaningful way outside occupational labour markets, which have declined in industrial sectors in Britain due to the collapse of the training system and hardly exist for English bricklaying (Marsden, 2007). The Apprenticeship Standards, constituting part of the statutory framework for Apprenticeships, though making reference to knowledge of the role of the occupation and the industry as elements of the apprenticeship, imply only limited possibilities for the development of an occupational conception, particularly given that the competence element is assessed in situ and not directly related either to relevant technical knowledge or to project planning and execution (CITB, 2006). Such an occupational conception, however, requires theoretical and technical elements of knowledge, together with civic knowledge and awareness, to be integrated with broad practical occupational knowledge (Clarke and Winch, 2004; DIUS, 2009).

An alternative approach is suggested by German VET, resting on the duality between education and the labour market, between classroom-based and work/workshop-based learning, as well as on social partnership, while giving due weight to underpinning knowledge and project and self-management abilities. This system succeeds in building occupational labour markets because it is more directed to the long term development of the individual, protecting occupational capacity and potential to ensure the continuous evolution of the sector. It relies on a broader and changing definition of an occupation, negotiated by the social partners and necessitating significant educational (in college) and training (simulated workshop activity) elements, combining and integrating knowledge and practical components. Bricklayers, for instance, though still bound within a tight sectoral institutional structure, are thereby better placed than in England to cope with changes in business and labour processes, while at the same time having some understanding of their driving forces. The implication is perhaps a differentiation between a lower-level bricklayer confined largely to laying bricks on the one hand and an independent, occupationally oriented bricklayer on the other.

This contrast between VET systems based on occupational capacity and trade-based skills implies the need to understand, first, conceptual differences in the use of key terms such as ‘skills’ and competence in different countries (languages) and, second, differences in the scope of activity, self and project management ability (planning, co-ordinating, etc.) and systematic knowledge associated with particular qualifications. It implies going ‘beyond skill’ and indeed beyond ‘trade’ if the weaknesses of the qualification system in England are to be overcome, as so starkly revealed in the example of bricklaying. The increasing need to apply theoretical knowledge and acquire non-manual competences, including project management, rather than just practical know-how, implies a VET and qualification system that is based less directly on the labour market and employers’ immediate and short term requirements and more on the system of education, albeit one attuned to changes in the labour process.

This article has shown how the notion of ‘skill’ is very much restricted to an Anglo-Saxon context, attributable perhaps to the lack of regulation at occupational level and to a general emphasis, including within payment systems, on task performance in the workplace – on ‘embodied labour’. If the EQF is to be applied across Europe, the term ‘know-how’ (e.g. savoir-faire) is more universally applicable. Such conceptual distinctions express sharp differences in reality, in the labour market and within the system of VET, as well as in the qualification systems mediating these. Until occupational capacity – or ‘labour power’ – becomes the organizing principle of VET in England and indeed of the labour market, occupational labour markets cannot be established and the system will remain outside the zone of mutual trust to which the German and similar continental systems belong with respect to EQF implementation.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors are grateful to the European Commission (Bricklaying, 142225-LLP) and the Nuffield Foundation (Cross-national equivalence of vocational skills and qualifications – EDU/3265) for funding this research.

Notes

Linda Clarke is Professor of European Industrial Relations at the Westminster Business School, University of Westminster, where she undertakes research on training, skills, wage and labour relations in Europe, particularly in the construction sector. Her book publications include Vocational Education: International Approaches, Developments and Systems, with Christopher Winch (Routledge, 2007) and Knowledge, Skills and Competence in the European Labour Market: What’s in a Vocational Qualification, with Michaela Brockmann and Christopher Winch (Routledge, 2011).

Christopher Winch is Professor of Educational Philosophy and Policy at King’s College London. He carries out research on different aspects of vocational education, including the relationship between practical and theoretical knowledge in professional and vocational contexts. His publications include the books jointly authored with Linda Clarke (above) as well as Dimensions of Expertise (Continuum, 2010) and numerous articles.

Michaela Brockmann is a lecturer at the Southampton Education School, University of Southampton. She has been working on major studies on vocational education and training across Europe. Her research interests include biographical approaches to youth transitions and learning and identity. Her recent publications include Learner Biographies and Learning Cultures: Identity and Apprenticeship in England and Germany (Tufnell Press, 2012).

References

Allais

Raffe

Young

MFD

(2009) Researching NQFs: Some Conceptual Issues. Geneva: ILO.

Anderson

(2009) Intermediate occupations and the conceptual and empirical limitations of the hourglass economy thesis. Work, Employment and Society 23(1): 169–80.

Biernacki

(1995) The Fabrication of Labour: Germany and Britain 1640–1914. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Brockmann

Clarke

Winch

(2008) Knowledge, skills, competence: European divergences in vocational education and training: the English, German and Dutch cases. Oxford Review of Education 34(5): 547–67.

Brockmann

Clarke

Winch

(2009) Competence and competency in the EQF and in competence-based VET systems: different conceptions and realities in England, France, the Netherlands and Germany. Journal of European Industrial Training 33(8/9): 787–99.

Brockmann

Clarke

Winch

(eds) (2010a) Bricklaying Is More than Flemish Bond: Bricklaying Qualifications in Europe. Brussels: CLR.

Brockmann

Clarke

Winch

(2010b) Bricklaying Context Report England. National report submitted to the European Commission for the project ‘Bricklaying qualifications, work and VET in Europe’. Brussels: European Federation of Building and Woodworkers.

Brockmann

Clarke

Hanf

Méhaut

Westerhuis

Winch

(2011) Knowledge, Skills, Competence in the European Labour Market: What’s in a Qualification? Oxford: Routledge.

Bryson

(ed.) (2010) Beyond Skill: Institutions, Organisations and Human Capability, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Chan

Clarke

Dainty

(2012) The dynamics of migrant employment in construction: can supply of skilled labour ever match demand? In: Ruhs

Anderson

(eds) Who Needs Migrant Workers? Labour Shortages, Immigration and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 225–58.

11.

CIJC (Construction Industry Joint Council) (2011) Working Rule Agreement for the Construction Industry. London: Construction Industry Joint Council.

12.

CITB (Construction Industry Training Board) (1969) A Plan of Training for Operatives Skills in the Construction Industry. Bircham Newton: CITB.

13.

CITB (Construction Industry Training Board) (2006) National Occupational Standards and Recommended Qualification Structures for Trowel Occupations (Construction). Bircham Newton: CITB.

14.

Clarke

Wall

(1996) Skills and the Construction Process: A Comparative Study of Vocational Training and Quality in Social Housebuilding. Bristol: Policy Press in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

15.

Clarke

Winch

(2004) Apprenticeship and applied theoretical knowledge. Educational Philosophy and Theory 36(5): 509–21.

16.

Coles

Oates

(2004) European Reference Levels for Education and Training: An Important Parameter for Promoting Credit Transfer and Mutual Trust. Final Report, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London.

17.

ConstructionSkills (2011) Training and the Built Environment Report. Bircham Newton: ConstructionSkills.

18.

Cutler

(1992) Vocational training and British economic performance: a further instalment of the ‘British labour problem’? Work, Employment and Society 6(2): 161–83.

19.

Damarin

(2006) Rethinking occupational structure: the case of web site production work. Work and Occupations 33(4): 429–63.

20.

Deissinger

(2008) Cultural patterns underlying apprenticeship: Germany and the UK. In: Aarkrog

Jorgensen

(eds) Divergence and Convergence in Education and Work. Bern: Peter Lang, 34–55.

21.

DIUS (Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills) (2009) Consultation on the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England. London: DIUS.

22.

DOE (Department of the Environment) (1997) Housing and Construction Statistics 1985–1995. London: The Stationery Office.

23.

DTI (Danish Technological Institute) (2008) Future Qualifications and Skills Needs in the Construction Sector. Taastrup: Danish Technological Institute.

24.

Erpenbeck

(2005) Positionspapier für BIBB Workshop zum 1. EQF Entwurf vom 16.11.2005. Unpublished paper, Bonn.

25.

Eyraud

Marsden

Silvestre

J-J

(1990) Occupational and internal labour markets in Britain and France. International Labour Review 129(4): 501–17.

26.

Fuller

Unwin

(2010) Putting Apprenticeship at the Heart of Economic Growth. London: LLAKES.

27.

Gallie

Felstead

Green

(2004) Changing patterns of task discretion in Britain. Work, Employment and Society 18(2): 243–66.

28.

Gospel

Fuller

(1998) The modern apprenticeship: new wine in old bottles? Human Resource Management Journal 8(1): 5–22.

29.

Green

Ashton

(1992) Skill shortage and skill deficiency: a critique. Work, Employment and Society 6(2): 287–301.

30.

Greinert

W-D

(2007) The German philosophy of vocational education. In: Clarke

Winch

(eds) (2007) Vocational Education: International Approaches, Developments and Systems. Abingdon: Routledge, 49–60.

31.

Grugulis

Vincent

(2009) Whose skill is it anyway? ‘Soft’ skills and polarization. Work, Employment and Society 23(4): 597–615.

32.

Halfpap

(2000) Curriculumentwicklung im Rahmen der dualen Berufsausbildung in Deutschland. Berufsbildung 21: 37–44.

33.

Hanf

(2007) Under American influence? The making of modern German training in large Berlin enterprises at the beginning of the twentieth century. In: Clarke

Winch

(eds) Vocational Education: International Approaches, Developments and Systems. Abingdon: Routledge, 92–104.

34.

Hanf

(2011) The changing relevance of the Beruf. In: Brockmann

Clarke

Hanf

Méhaut

Westerhuis

Winch

(2011) Knowledge, Skills, Competence in the European Labour Market: What’s in a Qualification? Abingdon: Routledge, 50–67.

35.

Keep

Mayhew

(2010) Moving beyond skills as a social and economic panacea. Work, Employment and Society 24(3): 565–77.

36.

Kerschensteiner

(1968 [1906]) Produktiver Arbeit und ihr Erziehungswert. In: Kerschensteiner

Ausgewählte Pädagogische Texte, Band 2. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 5–25.

37.

Lee

(1979) Craft unions and the force of tradition: the case of apprenticeship. British Journal of Industrial Relations 17(1): 34–49.

38.

Leitch Review of Skills (2006) Prosperity for All in the Global Economy: World Class Skills. Final Report, December. London: HM Treasury.

39.

Lloyd

Payne

(2009) ‘Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’: interrogating new skill concepts in service work – the view from two UK call centres. Work, Employment and Society 23(4): 617–34.

40.

Marks

Baldry

(2009) Stuck in the middle with who? The class identity of knowledge workers. Work, Employment and Society 23(1): 49–65.

41.

Marsden

(1999) A Theory of Employment Systems: Microfoundations of Societal Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

42.

Marsden

(2007) Labour market segmentation in Britain: the decline of occupational labour markets and the spread of ‘entry tournaments’. Economies et Sociétés 28(6): 965–98.

43.

OECD (2011) Reviews of Vocational Education and Training: Learning for Jobs. Paris: OECD.

44.

ONS (Office of National Statistics) (2011) Construction Statistics Annual 2011. London: ONS.

45.

Paul

Seidel

(2010) Country Report Germany, Micro Level Study WP 4, Leonardo da Vinci Bricklaying Qualifications Project. Submitted to the European Commission for the project Bricklaying Qualifications, Work and VET in Europe. European Federation of Building and Woodworkers. Available (consulted 3 April 2010) at: http://www.bricklayer-llp.eu/Objects/5/Files/National%20Report%20Germany%20D.pdf

46.

Payne

(2000) The unbearable lightness of skill: the changing meaning of skill in UK policy discourses and some implications for education and training. Journal of Education Policy 15(3): 353–69.

47.

Piore

Sabel

(1984) The Second Industrial Divide. New York, NY: Basic Books.

48.

Raffe

(2010) The role of learning outcomes in national qualification frameworks. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

49.

Rauner

(2004) Vocational education and training: a European perspective. In: Brown

. (eds) Identities at Work. Dordrecht: Springer, 115–44.

50.

Ryan

Gospel

Lewis

(2006) Educational and contractual attributes of the apprenticeship programmes of large employers in Britain. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 58(3): 359–83.

51.

Steedman

(1992) Mathematics in Vocational Youth Training for the Building Trades in Britain, France and Germany, NIESR Discussion Paper 9, London, UK.

52.

Steedman

(1993) Do workforce skills matter? British Journal of Industrial Relations 31(2): 285–92.

53.

Steedman

(1998) A decade of skill formation in Britain and Germany. Journal of Education and Work 11(1): 77–94.

54.

Steedman

2010. The State of Apprenticeship in 2010. International Comparisons. A Report for the Apprenticeship Ambassadors Network. London: Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

55.

Steiger

(1993) Construction skill and skill construction. Work, Employment and Society 7(4): 535–60.

56.

Stender

(2006) Berufsbildung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Teil 1: Strukturprobleme und Ordnungsprinzipien des dualen Systems. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag.

57.

Streeck

Hilbert

(1991) Organised interests and vocational training in the West German construction industry. In: Rainbird

Syben

(eds) Restructuring a Traditional Industry. Oxford: Berg, 241–60.

58.

Thompson

Wallace

Flecker

Ahlstrand

(1995) ‘It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it’: production, organization and skill in commercial vehicles. Work, Employment and Society 9(4): 719–42.

59.

Wolf

(2011) The Wolf Report. London: Department for Education.

60.

Winch

(2005) Education, Autonomy and Critical Thinking. Abingdon: Routledge.