Here is the general story reproduced repeatedly in the KBE discourse concerning education and labour market skills requirements:
KBE --> Jobs --> Labour skills required --> skills used in the job
The story begins with the KBE. First, it assumes that we are in one, an assumption that continues to be debated (even though much policy starts with the claim that it is now universally accepted). It is presented that the KBE changes the nature of jobs; the KBE is the reason for and the architect of jobs as they are today. Policy says things like, "In the KBE, jobs will require...." So, the KBE is supposed to define the jobs and the nature of these jobs define the skills that are required in the labour force.
That's the theory.
Theory needs empirical support, so researchers start at the other end of the "story" and investigate the skills that are being used in jobs, as a surrogate measure of the theoretical skills that are needed for work in the KBE. Once we look at the skills that are being used (and assume them to be representative of the skills that the KBE needs) we can then compare those skills to those that are being developed through our education system and skills workers are getting through Lifelong learning to determine if the educational systems and practices are meeting the needs of the KBE.
I find this a circuitous logic which errs by ignoring an important relationship between education and job skill utilization. But first, let's look at some of the data that has been collected with this story as a foundation.
Much research has been done, but I'm going to focus on a Canadian compilation from Lavoie and Roy (1998). Although it is a little dated, it covers a period of 25 yrs, starting in 1971: a period which is relevant if one want to look at the impacts of a developing KBE. Lavoie and Roy were among the few (first?) to look in great detail not at industry level trends, but in specific job trends. This seems rather appropriate to me since policy discourse seems aimed at improving education so that individuals can get the jobs in the new economy. They adapted an approach by Wolff and Baumol (1989) and categoried jobs into 5 main categories: Knowledge, Management, Data, Services, and Goods. I will be brief in describing the categories. Knowledge work (involving the production of knowledge) is divided into subcategories of pure science, engineering, applied science, computer (analysts/programmers) and Social sciences (economists, accountants, lawyers, artists). Data work involves the manipulation and transmission of data (technicians and clerks). Management is subdivided into management within fields of science and technology and other fields to allow for different sub-analyses. Services include police, barbers, tour-guides. Goods work includes farming, packing, machine operators and general production labour. By dividing jobs this way, we can look specifically at trends related to "knowledge."
Lavoie and Roy's analysis of trends in the 1971 - 1996 period are used to support the notion that we are in a knowledge based society. It is posited that if we are in or entering a KBE, Knowledge and Management positions would be on the rise, and the other jobs would be dropping relative to the knowledge and managerial jobs. Indeed, management grew as a category faster than any other at 7.6% increase in the number of jobs. The number of jobs in the Knowledge category increased by 4.1%, driven largely by the sub-category of "computer" which grew at 8.3%. In comparison, the categories of Data, Services, and Goods only grew by 2.6%, 0./6% and 2.1% respectively.
Category | Average annual growth (%) |
Knowledge | 4.1 |
Management | 7.6 |
Data | 2.2 |
Services | 2.6 |
Goods | 0.6 |
The conclusion that is tempting to draw is that indeed, we are in a knowledge-based economy; that jobs which involve the creation of knowledge and the management of people and processes and the related decision making, are growing more rapidly than those jobs which do not create or use knowledge in creative ways, but rather either transmit and manipulate it, or produce goods and knowledge-light services. This is where the story introduces education. It calls on education to meet the advancing knowledge and skills needs of an advancing KBE.
The first issue with this conclusion is that although knowledge jobs and management jobs are growing faster than other jobs, they still represent a VERY small proportion of overall employment. Only 8% of jobs are Knowledge-jobs. About 10% are management jobs. Interestingly, many equate and conflate "knowledge-jobs" and the KBE with high-tech and computer careers. Computer jobs account for only just over 1% of total employment....Those in social sciences such as accounting and law account for almost 5X that amount! Over 80% of jobs in Canada were still not knowledge-rich. It's difficult for me to say then that the economy is BASED on knowledge in any significantly different way than it has been in the past.
In a previous blog, I discussed a matter of confusion with regard to the call for educational reform to meet the needs of the KBE
  | |
The KBE discourse tends to call for "more highly skilled workers." I have asked the question: What does this mean? Does it mean that we want all workers to have more skills.....which would shift the entire curve to the right but maintain its shape? Or does it mean that we need a shape-shift in which a larger portion of workers have high-skills......which would move the "hump" of the curve to the right or otherwise change the shape so that the level on the right is relatively higher.
If such a small proportion of workers are involved involved in jobs in knowledge and management, it doesn't seem that shifting the entire graph to the right and maintaining its shape is the appropriate response. (Of course, I am not arguing that there would not be benefits to increasing the knowledge/skills/education of an entire population. I am simply saying that it is not a logical response to a small proportion of workers involved in more knowledge-intensive work).
Perhaps a shape-shift is a more appropriate response. However, the small numbers still make that response questionable. What really matters (keeping in the original story line) is this question:
Beyond the small number of people involved in knowledge-intense jobs, Livingstone (1999, 2000, 2004) has extensively detailed the eduction-jobs gap in that same Canadian market. His conclusions are that the skills/knowledge/education of Canadians far exceeds the skills/knowledge/education requirements of the jobs that they have. Without delving into the differences between over-education and under-employment and such, Livingstone's data and arguments are compelling in suggesting that Canadians do not suffer a deficit of skills/knowledge/education which will fuel the KBE. In my terminology, neither a shape-maintaining shift, nor a shape-altering shift is necessary to ensure that Canadians have the skills/knowledge/education they require to hold jobs in this "Knowledge" based economy.
Now, what i really want to discuss is the story itself that I began this blog with. What I have called "bass-ackward" assumption that the KBE creates jobs with certain essentialist characteristics that education is to provide so that people will use those skills in the job market. I propose that an important aspect of job creation is being ignored.
A few analogies first: why was paper made of rice in ancient China? Why were the pyramids built by slave labour? Why does Greek food use a lot of olive oil and yogurt? Why were Indigenous canoes built of cedar trees? Why do our cars run primarily on gasoline and electricity and not coal or bio-fuel? We use the resources that we have a large supply of. Economists will be the first to say that humans (and their skills/knowledge) , in the economy, are resources. We build our processes and products to capitalize on the resources that we have available to us.
I believe the discourse ignores this fact when it positions jobs as the products of the needs of the KBE. I'm going to forgo the entire debate as to whether or not this IS a KBE for now, and just talk about the present economy. The discourse speaks about jobs as though they emerge as an automatic result of the needs of the economy: more specifically, that the specific characteristics of the jobs and the skills required for the job are market created outside of human control. They have forgotten that jobs, and the skills required to do them are human constructs. For each job created, someone decides what the job tasks will be and how those tasks will be distributed. Those decisions are based on the availability of skills in the labour market.
An example: in the 1980s, clerical "jobs" were designed with a specific skill set. You would hire a clerk who could type and file and schedule and whatnot because that was the skill set that was out there. You may decide to not include stenography or calligraphy or short-hand because these skills were not in abundance. If you DID have need for calligraphy, you might adapt your processes so that you didn't need it, or you might hire out. You might not include writing of documents in your clerk's job because literacy levels weren't consistently high in the population from which you are drawing candidates.
In the present, you know that there is a wider skill set out there in the population that might consider your clerical job. You know a large proportion of the population can word process and work with spread-sheets. Many understand how to search the web or use online ordering systems. In certain parts of the country, you know that a large proportion of the population can speak in French. So, not only might you design the job to include writing of documents that the availability of high literacy supports, but you might also include translation of English documents into French for your French customers. You design your job to capitalize on the abundance of skills/knowledge that is readily available to you.
KBE discourse considers only the demand side of skills as contributing to the skills in use in the labour market, and ignores the supply that FEEDS the demand. Canada is among the many many countries that have almost universal secondary education. More and more people are getting more and more education. More than 50% of Canadians now have Post Secondary credentials (may still be highest in the world! woo hoo! GOOOO Canada! *grin*) People are now more literate, more multi-lingual, more diversely skilled, more highly educated, more politically informed... Of COURSE, jobs will adjust to take advantage of that fact! If we only talk about the KBE influencing the skills level of jobs, we are only seeing half the picture. It isn't only that the economy is requiring certain skills but....
As the skill levels of the labour market increase, jobs will evolve to capitalize on that skill level.
Whereas the "official" story in the discourse is:
The increasing and diversified education and learning (so much of our skills come from places other than formal education) is creating a pool of skills from which industry can draw when it designs jobs and hires workers. If jobs require more skills now, it isn't only because the economy demands it but rather because people have those new skills. We can discuss "credential inflation" at this point, but even beyond that, jobs can be designed to use more skills now, not because the KBE demands it, but because there is a ready supply of it.
I didn't add : " --> KBE" to the end of the depiction above, although you could argue that high knowledge and high skills in use in jobs contribute to an advancing and successful knowledge economy. I wanted the effect of education on the skill level used at work to stand on its own first. However, it can be said that there is a reciprocal relationship between increasing skills requirements and the KBE.
I remain unconvinced that the market itself (rather, changes in the market that people are associating with a KBE) is driving a demand for higher skilled labour. KBE supporters will point to the increase in the skills used at work and the relatively higher growth in Knowledge and management jobs and say that these are evidence of a KBE that requires higher skills. Well, I believe that if we consider the fact that the higher education and skills of the labour market contribute to the design of jobs, we can't site the KBE as the cause of increased skill use in the workplace. Some might argue that the increase in education/skills of the labour force is a result of individuals appreciation that they live in a KBE and that they need more education and training. I argue that this may be a contributing factor, and that it may be an increasingly contributing factor as (if) the KBE picks up momentum. However, it is not the only, and not even necessarily the greatest factor behind mass education and increasingly mass higher education.
If such a small proportion of workers are involved involved in jobs in knowledge and management, it doesn't seem that shifting the entire graph to the right and maintaining its shape is the appropriate response. (Of course, I am not arguing that there would not be benefits to increasing the knowledge/skills/education of an entire population. I am simply saying that it is not a logical response to a small proportion of workers involved in more knowledge-intensive work).
Perhaps a shape-shift is a more appropriate response. However, the small numbers still make that response questionable. What really matters (keeping in the original story line) is this question:
Do the current systems and practices of education (and lifelong learning) meet the needs for jobs in the economy?
Beyond the small number of people involved in knowledge-intense jobs, Livingstone (1999, 2000, 2004) has extensively detailed the eduction-jobs gap in that same Canadian market. His conclusions are that the skills/knowledge/education of Canadians far exceeds the skills/knowledge/education requirements of the jobs that they have. Without delving into the differences between over-education and under-employment and such, Livingstone's data and arguments are compelling in suggesting that Canadians do not suffer a deficit of skills/knowledge/education which will fuel the KBE. In my terminology, neither a shape-maintaining shift, nor a shape-altering shift is necessary to ensure that Canadians have the skills/knowledge/education they require to hold jobs in this "Knowledge" based economy.
Now, what i really want to discuss is the story itself that I began this blog with. What I have called "bass-ackward" assumption that the KBE creates jobs with certain essentialist characteristics that education is to provide so that people will use those skills in the job market. I propose that an important aspect of job creation is being ignored.
A few analogies first: why was paper made of rice in ancient China? Why were the pyramids built by slave labour? Why does Greek food use a lot of olive oil and yogurt? Why were Indigenous canoes built of cedar trees? Why do our cars run primarily on gasoline and electricity and not coal or bio-fuel? We use the resources that we have a large supply of. Economists will be the first to say that humans (and their skills/knowledge) , in the economy, are resources. We build our processes and products to capitalize on the resources that we have available to us.
I believe the discourse ignores this fact when it positions jobs as the products of the needs of the KBE. I'm going to forgo the entire debate as to whether or not this IS a KBE for now, and just talk about the present economy. The discourse speaks about jobs as though they emerge as an automatic result of the needs of the economy: more specifically, that the specific characteristics of the jobs and the skills required for the job are market created outside of human control. They have forgotten that jobs, and the skills required to do them are human constructs. For each job created, someone decides what the job tasks will be and how those tasks will be distributed. Those decisions are based on the availability of skills in the labour market.
An example: in the 1980s, clerical "jobs" were designed with a specific skill set. You would hire a clerk who could type and file and schedule and whatnot because that was the skill set that was out there. You may decide to not include stenography or calligraphy or short-hand because these skills were not in abundance. If you DID have need for calligraphy, you might adapt your processes so that you didn't need it, or you might hire out. You might not include writing of documents in your clerk's job because literacy levels weren't consistently high in the population from which you are drawing candidates.
In the present, you know that there is a wider skill set out there in the population that might consider your clerical job. You know a large proportion of the population can word process and work with spread-sheets. Many understand how to search the web or use online ordering systems. In certain parts of the country, you know that a large proportion of the population can speak in French. So, not only might you design the job to include writing of documents that the availability of high literacy supports, but you might also include translation of English documents into French for your French customers. You design your job to capitalize on the abundance of skills/knowledge that is readily available to you.
KBE discourse considers only the demand side of skills as contributing to the skills in use in the labour market, and ignores the supply that FEEDS the demand. Canada is among the many many countries that have almost universal secondary education. More and more people are getting more and more education. More than 50% of Canadians now have Post Secondary credentials (may still be highest in the world! woo hoo! GOOOO Canada! *grin*) People are now more literate, more multi-lingual, more diversely skilled, more highly educated, more politically informed... Of COURSE, jobs will adjust to take advantage of that fact! If we only talk about the KBE influencing the skills level of jobs, we are only seeing half the picture. It isn't only that the economy is requiring certain skills but....
As the skill levels of the labour market increase, jobs will evolve to capitalize on that skill level.
Whereas the "official" story in the discourse is:
KBE --> Jobs --> Labour skills required --> skills used in the job
I want to remind us to consider another dimension:
Education --> skills available --> skills required
The increasing and diversified education and learning (so much of our skills come from places other than formal education) is creating a pool of skills from which industry can draw when it designs jobs and hires workers. If jobs require more skills now, it isn't only because the economy demands it but rather because people have those new skills. We can discuss "credential inflation" at this point, but even beyond that, jobs can be designed to use more skills now, not because the KBE demands it, but because there is a ready supply of it.
I didn't add : " --> KBE" to the end of the depiction above, although you could argue that high knowledge and high skills in use in jobs contribute to an advancing and successful knowledge economy. I wanted the effect of education on the skill level used at work to stand on its own first. However, it can be said that there is a reciprocal relationship between increasing skills requirements and the KBE.
I remain unconvinced that the market itself (rather, changes in the market that people are associating with a KBE) is driving a demand for higher skilled labour. KBE supporters will point to the increase in the skills used at work and the relatively higher growth in Knowledge and management jobs and say that these are evidence of a KBE that requires higher skills. Well, I believe that if we consider the fact that the higher education and skills of the labour market contribute to the design of jobs, we can't site the KBE as the cause of increased skill use in the workplace. Some might argue that the increase in education/skills of the labour force is a result of individuals appreciation that they live in a KBE and that they need more education and training. I argue that this may be a contributing factor, and that it may be an increasingly contributing factor as (if) the KBE picks up momentum. However, it is not the only, and not even necessarily the greatest factor behind mass education and increasingly mass higher education.
No comments:
Post a Comment