Linking knowledge, education and work: Mapping occupations to qualifications

• In Event: Building back or building forward better? Redefining TVET in times of crises: international agendas, policy assumptions and policies in action (Part2)

Proposal

Skills development policy requires the ability to analyze relationships between the education system and labour markets, and to understand the dynamics of skills supply and demand. One aspect of this process is the development of frameworks to classify educational qualifications in terms of the skills they develop; and to classify particular occupations in terms of the skills they require. In such classification processes, hierarchies are established, from low- to high-skills in both the education system and the classification of occupations. However, it is not always clear how successfully these hierarchies function in their respective domains, nor how the two sets of hierarchical systems articulate with each other.

This paper reports on a research project which aims to map occupations to qualifications. The paper is divided into two parts. The first provides a conceptual interrogation of five key concepts which matter in the question of preparation for work: occupation; work; knowledge and skill; labour market; and qualifications. We chose to engage with the five concepts because we want to understand their distinct contribution to the idea of occupational classification. The second part looks at the classification of 10 priority occupations in the public sector (local government) with particular attention to two very different groups in the division of labour – management and professionals. The research aims to explain why only 44% of the total occupations (171 out of 386) in the local government, are classified as having a strong link to Organizing Framework of Occupation (OFO) and the National Qualification Framework (NQF). The research compared data on the occupations from five mapping tools, plans for occupational supports (developed by Public Sector Education and Training Authority) and analyzed interview data from interviews with stakeholders in local government. These three sets of data garnish us with evidence on how the notion of occupation, its relation to knowledge and qualification, and to labour market factors is understood by policy and by key stake holders, and the implication this has for how occupations are conceptualized.

Some of the findings suggest that occupational classification systems are not context sensitive, i.e., while they may provide macro-level data, they cannot provide significant levels of detail or nuance that represents what is happening on the ground. Whilst classification systems intended to create streamlining, simplicity and consistency, division of labour in organizations intend to achieve specificity of roles. The task specification on regulatory tools do not provide useful information for employers in this regard. Second, there is a confusion between specialisation and roles which can be shown best in the weak link between occupations and qualifications of job titles included in the management group. Third, it is important to distinguish between hierarchy and verticality. Verticality is constructed by relating between roles through an epistemic logic, by ordering knowledge specialisms. The higher the role is in the division of labour, the specialisation will also include other forms of knowledge, weaker and difficult to map but useful, such as knowledge of management and other transversal skills.

Authors

• Yael Shalem, REAL Centre at the Faculty of Education, University of the Witwatersrand

• presha Ramsarup, University of Witwatersrand

• Carmel Marock, University of the Witwatersrand

• Stephanie Allais, Centre for Researching Education and Labour, Wits University