主观技术风险与教育偏好:职业技术教育是避风港还是死胡同?

IF 3.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Matthias Haslberger, Scherwin M. Bajka
{"title":"主观技术风险与教育偏好:职业技术教育是避风港还是死胡同?","authors":"Matthias Haslberger, Scherwin M. Bajka","doi":"10.1111/rego.70067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Education equips individuals with valuable skills to protect them against employment risks associated with the digital transition. As scholars debate whether vocational education and training (VET) or general education better insures against technology‐induced employment risk, we ask how this type of risk, as perceived by individuals, shapes their education preferences. Our analyses, based on a survey of over 11,500 respondents across seven European countries, show that VET is regarded as a safe haven by those perceiving heightened risk. This relationship remains robust when controlling for various alternative explanations and is consistent across countries. Subgroup interactions indicate that men, high‐income earners, respondents with tertiary education, and those politically on the right more strongly favor VET in response to subjective technology risk. Hence, our study suggests that VET's practical, job‐oriented focus is perceived as better protection against the growing uncertainty over skill demands in the twin transition than general education.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subjective Technology Risk and Education Preferences: VET as a Safe Haven or Dead End?\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Haslberger, Scherwin M. Bajka\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rego.70067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Education equips individuals with valuable skills to protect them against employment risks associated with the digital transition. As scholars debate whether vocational education and training (VET) or general education better insures against technology‐induced employment risk, we ask how this type of risk, as perceived by individuals, shapes their education preferences. Our analyses, based on a survey of over 11,500 respondents across seven European countries, show that VET is regarded as a safe haven by those perceiving heightened risk. This relationship remains robust when controlling for various alternative explanations and is consistent across countries. Subgroup interactions indicate that men, high‐income earners, respondents with tertiary education, and those politically on the right more strongly favor VET in response to subjective technology risk. Hence, our study suggests that VET's practical, job‐oriented focus is perceived as better protection against the growing uncertainty over skill demands in the twin transition than general education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70067\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70067","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教育为个人提供宝贵的技能,以保护他们免受与数字化转型相关的就业风险。当学者们争论职业教育和培训(VET)或普通教育是否能更好地防范技术引发的就业风险时,我们想知道,个人认为的这种类型的风险是如何影响他们的教育偏好的。我们的分析基于对七个欧洲国家的11,500多名受访者的调查,结果表明,那些认为风险较高的人将职业教育培训视为避风港。在控制各种替代解释的情况下,这种关系仍然稳固,并且在各国之间是一致的。亚组互动表明,男性、高收入者、受过高等教育的受访者以及政治上偏右派的受访者在应对主观技术风险时更倾向于职业教育培训。因此,我们的研究表明,与普通教育相比,职业教育的实践性、以工作为导向的重点被认为是更好的保护措施,以应对双胞胎过渡中技能需求日益增长的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Subjective Technology Risk and Education Preferences: VET as a Safe Haven or Dead End?
Education equips individuals with valuable skills to protect them against employment risks associated with the digital transition. As scholars debate whether vocational education and training (VET) or general education better insures against technology‐induced employment risk, we ask how this type of risk, as perceived by individuals, shapes their education preferences. Our analyses, based on a survey of over 11,500 respondents across seven European countries, show that VET is regarded as a safe haven by those perceiving heightened risk. This relationship remains robust when controlling for various alternative explanations and is consistent across countries. Subgroup interactions indicate that men, high‐income earners, respondents with tertiary education, and those politically on the right more strongly favor VET in response to subjective technology risk. Hence, our study suggests that VET's practical, job‐oriented focus is perceived as better protection against the growing uncertainty over skill demands in the twin transition than general education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信