Lost in translation: How the understanding of risk changes from supra-national to state level educational policy frameworks in Europe

The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) was launched on the policy scene in 2008 with the aim to support European cooperation in education and training (EU 2008). Having been tested in different nations over years (e.g.... [ view full abstract ]

The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) was launched on the policy scene in 2008 with the aim to support European cooperation in education and training (EU 2008). Having been tested in different nations over years (e.g. Carlsten et al 2006), the EQF was developed to be a translation tool aiding communication and comparison between national measures of learning outcomes.

One of the learning outcomes descriptors for candidates in the supra-national policy framework EQF is risk preparedness, in the sense of being able to “…manage complex technical or professional activities or projects, taking responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts…” (EU 2008). In the EQF-instrument, risk may not only be understood as an element of modernity nor as a preoccupation with physical hazards, but rather as a productive element of innovation and productivity integral to complexity and uncertainty in all educational processes (cf. Biesta 2014, Torgersen & Sæverot 2015).

The understanding of risk in the European Qualifications Framework has been downplayed in comparisons of the supra-national and state level educational policy frameworks (Carlsten & Torgersen 2015). How does the understanding of risk in EQF differ or coincide with national translations?

By comparing 10 national qualifications frameworks we illustrate how the descriptors of risk-related learning outcomes vary between countries’ interpretations and adaptations of the EQF. The eight reference levels of the EQF allow for any national qualifications systems, national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) and qualifications in Europe to relate to the EQF levels. Learners, graduates, providers and employers use these levels to understand and compare qualifications awarded in different countries and by different education and training systems. In some countries the framework is all-encompassing in terms of levels of education and training, from elementary education to intelligence service training to informal learning in the workplace. While aiming for consistency, we find that the conditions for understanding risk changes across national adaptations of the EQF. In some cases, it is even absent from the national frameworks for education and training.

Discussing the variety of risk-related translations, we argue that the introduction of the EQF is less an instrument achieving greater consistency across different member states when it comes to being defined as a part of a risk society than as a knowledge society. Leaving the work of risk preparedness up to the individual teacher or student to define and implement may rather lead to increased differences both within and across member countries.