The Status Relationship Between Academic and Vocational Education in Urban Norway: Pupils’ Deferential Attitudes to Condescending Opinions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the paper on a very important and interesting topic.

In my opinion, the paper in its current version has some weaknesses. This applies in particular to the empirical analysis, the methodological reflection and the complete absence of a conceptual approach.

 

However, if the authors can take enough time to address these points in depth, i.e. to (a) go into their data again and analyse the empirical evidence in greater depth, (b) reflect on how and why they analyse the data in the way they do, (c) reflect what their own position is in data and knowledge production, and (d) to which debates they want to/can contribute based on their data, a significantly improved version of the article could be re-reviewed. Here are my points in more concrete terms:

 

1. Introduction

It begins with a very general statement about the status of VET. It would make sense to address some national differences here.

After that, it quickly moves on to the case study of Norway. What I find lacking here is: What is the greater relevance of the article? To which debates does it aim to contribute, and why?

In my view, the authors should commit to a clear focus here and show why it is relevant beyond the case study. It seems to me that this only comes up in chapter 7, where clear topics are presented. If these are indeed the focus of the paper, this should be noted here briefly and clearly.

 

2. Vocational education and academic tracks in Norway: Two converging paths?

The last section (The current Norwegian intake system….) should be at the beginning of that chapter. The read would like to know how it is today. Next, the authors can talk about the reforms that have taken place in recent years. This would make it easier to read for people who are not familiar with the Norwegian education system.

 

I would like to know more about the system in Norway. Is there a selection at the transition to upper secondary education (grades, tests, and so on?), are there different academic tracks, if students attend academic track, can they choose the school they want to attend? And how is the vocational track structured? Does this training take place exclusively in schools or also in companies (company-based VET?)? Do you have to apply for these tracks and/or training places? Or can you simply choose, without any conditions or selection process?

Some of this information can be found in chapter 4. However, all of this should be included in chapter 2, and preferably in a more differentiated manner. This information is highly relevant (a) for readers not familiar with the Norwegian system, and (2) to be able to discuss the results in the context of research from other countries with their own specific education systems.

 

How is the situation within Norway? Are there any spatial, socio-spatial differences? For instance, do more young people in urban areas choose the academic track than in rural areas? Or not? Do the socio-economic composition of students differ between the academic and VET tracks? And so on…..

 

In chapter 3. The authors write:

“It is already well established that the pupils in these two pathways are quite different in terms of socioeconomic status. Pupils in academic tracks on average come from a higher social background than their vocational peers (Hovedhaugen et al., 2021; Lorentzen, 2025), and the two groups also differ in interests and career aspirations (Diseth et al., 2020; Rolfsman, 2020). A comparative study can therefore provide new knowledge about the complex relation between them.”

• It remains unclear what national context is being referred to here.

 

3. Previous research

The chapter on previous research is superficial and quite general. This chapter should also be thoroughly revised to give the entire paper some depth. The research papers of Christian Imdorf could be a good starting point for this. Parts from chapter 7 could be integrated in chapter 3.

For this chapter, it would also be beneficial if it would integrate research that addresses the perspective of young people. How do they view the academic track/vocational track? It may be true that there is little research that looks at both tracks simultaneously. However, there is already research available for each individual track, whether from the perspective of young people themselves or research about them. And there is also literature on school choice….

 

4. Data and methods

The authors write: “The empirical material itself has “decided” which parts of the previous research were most important for the interpretation of the findings. In other words, this article takes a loosely defined starting point in existing theory and research.”

• I find this sentence highly problematic. It is always the researchers who make the analytical decisions—in consultation with the material (and their existing knowledge, theories, own positioning, etc.).

 

I would like to know more about data analysis.

 

I miss a reflection, what it means to do the group discussions with two specific vocational tracks (health care and electrical engineering). What is their reputation in society? What is their status within the VET tracks? How are students selected for this? Strong, weak, no selection?.....

 

5. Analysis

Overall:

At the end of the quotes from the group discussions at vocational track, please also indicate whether it is health or engineering.

Chapters 5 and 6 are both analysis chapters, so chapter 5 needs a meaningful title.

 

214-223:

I am somewhat surprised that the authors reflect their empirical findings in the context of Kahn's research. Kahn focuses on private elite boarding schools, whereas the authors write about schools that are attended by 50% of a school year. In my view, these cannot be easily compared.

 

Section 5.1. seems somewhat thin to me, both empirically and analytically.

 

6. The relation between academic and vocational tracks and the experienced status differences between them

Chapter 6 is analytically better than Chapter 5. The empirical data offers more, but the analysis could gain some depth by making references to the literature. The entire paper lacks a theoretical approach. This is particularly evident in the analysis of the results. What argument is to be made with the empirical data? To which concepts or debates does the paper contribute?

 

7. Concluding discussion

What exactly does the article mean by ‘school environments’? At best, this article may serve as inspiration for the authors: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718525000193

 

The authors write:

“This engagement generates a sense of reaping the rewards of hard work: These pupils demonstrate a strong belief in meritocracy in line with Reay’s (2020) discussion above, and experience what they describe as mastery through theoretical effort.”

• This is an exciting topic (children's belief in meritocracy in education, and derived from this, their legitimacy as ‘better’) and is also discussed in the literature (see e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctvdmwx5g, or: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104219).

However, I see very little evidence of this in the empirical section of the paper. If this is an important point in the paper, then it should be elaborated on – both empirically and through theoretical debate.

 

I read Chapter 7 with great interest and found it very exciting. However, I would have expected much of what is written here to already be included in the ‘previous research’ section. The entire debate about meritocracy, but also about the pressure exerted by grades and society's evaluation of educational paths, are relevant points. However, I find these points insufficiently developed in the empirical section; this could definitely be improved and would really strengthen the paper. Therefore, the ideas in Chapter 7 are only partially relevant to the paper in its current version.

I recommend fundamentally revising the paper. However, I then see potential for this paper to actually make an exciting contribution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you sincerely for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The time and effort you devoted to the review process is greatly appreciated. Your comments have been addressed in detail and have resulted in a substantially revised and strengthened version of the manuscript. Below, it is outlined how each comment has been incorporated into the new manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1

1. Introduction

Firstly I must apologise for lack of clarity on my theoretical approach in this paper. My qualitative research is done in a tradition where a fixed overarching theoretical framework, e.g. relying on the conceptual building blocks of a specific theoretician, would not be helpful. This tradition, as demonstrated in the writings of Glaser and Strauss (1967), Herbert Blumer (1954), and David Silverman (2016) among others, is an accepted approach in qualitative sociology. The main reason for using concepts in this way rather than adopting comprehensive theoretical arguments wholesale, is to give space to concepts that occur from the analysis of the empirical material and combine these with insights and concepts from previous research.

I apologise for not having made this clear enough in the first version of this paper and hope it has now been clarified in different ways throughout, in the methods section as well as in the discussions.

The introduction has been revised to provide a clearer focus, stronger coherence and to highlight the paper’s contribution and thus its relevance by emphasizing the national and international debates about VET in comparison with academic fields. This also contributes to discussions about meritocratic ideals. As the empirical case of the article is Norway, this context has been retained as a central point of reference. To improve clarity, the second paragraph has been moved earlier in the introduction.

Additionally, a sentence highlighting the distinctive features of the Norwegian educational context in comparison to other countries has been included. The article’s contribution to the literature addressing current status-related challenges within vocational education and training (VET) as ‘inferior’ to academic upper secondary is now made explicit in the concluding part of the introduction, together with a clarification of the broader relevance of the findings beyond the Norwegian case.

To the question about what school environment means. This term is used by the pupils themselves and is also used in everyday Norwegian language.

 

2. Vocational education and academic tracks in Norway: Two converging paths?
   The section describing the current Norwegian intake system has been moved to the beginning of this section, followed by the historical overview, in order to improve readability. Further details on the intake system have been added, as suggested. In addition, relevant reflections on the Norwegian intake process previously located in the methods section have been relocated to this section. A footnote addressing socio-spatial differences has also been included. While track choice may have different implications in rural areas, these are beyond the scope of the present article, which focuses on an urban context. Overall, these revisions have contributed to a more readable section.
3. Previous research
   You asked for clarification regarding the context referred to in the paragraph beginning “It is already well established that the pupils in these two pathways…”. As this discussion refers specifically to Norway, the term “Norwegian” has now been added to this sentence.
   The previous research section has been substantially revised, as the earlier version appeared overly general. The revised section now places greater emphasis on studies examining pupil’s perspectives, including Landholt and Reh (2025), Thun et al. (2021), Ferm et al. (2017), and Reegård (2015), among others.
4. Data and methods
   The sentence stating that the empirical material itself “decided” which parts of previous research were most important has now been removed, in line with your comment that analytical decisions are always made by researchers. This section now includes additional clarification regarding the absence of an overarching theoretical framework. Given the grounded and sensitising approach adopted throughout the article, the study follows a relation to theories based on concepts that are relevant at an empirical level.

Your comment regarding the lack of reflection on status differences between health tracks  and electrical engineering has also been addressed. While the data allows for a comparison between these vocational tracks, this is not the main line of comparisons in the current paper. Status differences between vocational and academic tracks are the main focus and given the word limits for articles comparisons between different VET tracks, important as they are,  cannot be given justice here. ,

In response to your request for more detail on the analytical process, additional sentences have been added outlining the use of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach.

 

5. Analysis
   All focus group quotations now specify whether they originate from electrical engineering or health tracks. Chapter 5 has been given a more descriptive title, now reading “Frame of analysis: Academic versus practical ambitiousness”. An introductory sentence has been added to clarify that the first two analytical categories, practical and academic ambitiousness, must be understood in relation to the third category concerning status differences.

The reference to Khan has been removed from the chapter on academic ambitiousness. However, the reference has been retained in the discussion section, where some of Khan’s findings remain analytically useful despite the markedly different empirical context. This limitation is now explicitly acknowledged in the text.

Sections 5.1 and 5.2 may appear empirically thinner than Chapter 6, their inclusion is nevertheless important, as they serve to highlight the status dynamics that are central to the article’s central contribution. Additional references have been incorporated across all analysis sections, including Chapter 6, to provide greater analytical depth.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well researched and written paper. The authors could consider the following points for further refinement:

1. 5, line 182 - Did the study find out students’ understandings about the occupations that VET prepares for? That is, did students clearly understood the occupations and what they entail in terms of knowledge, skills and careers associated with those occupations?
2. 6 line 211 - How do such views arise? What are the basis for such views? Is it reflected in societal or teachers’ views or family backgrounds?
3. 6 line 236 - Have they made decisions about the occupations they want to pursue and the grades they need to achieve in order to complete studies for that?

p.9 line 386 - Is this a reflection of the status of the occupation?

1. 10 line 414 - This calls for lessons in inclusivity and equality and respect for all.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you sincerely for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The time and effort you devoted to the review process is greatly appreciated. Your comments have been addressed in detail and have resulted in a substantially revised and strengthened version of the manuscript. Below, it is outlined how each comment has been incorporated into the new manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2

Data and methods
On the question about whether pupils discussed their future occupations, it has  now been clarified: Future plans were reflected on in the focus groups, although this topic does not form part of the research question in the present article. Pupils in vocational tracks generally expressed clearer views of their future occupations than their academic peers, a finding that is explored in greater detail in a separate paper derived from the same project.

 

On the question about the basis for the views described in Section 5.1 on academic ambitiousness, a sentence has now been added noting the relevance of social background, particularly meritocratic frames of understanding, for interpreting these attitudes.

 

The question regarding whether pupils in academic tracks have clear views of future studies, occupations, or required grades, a sentence has been added noting that the majority do not yet have a clear understanding of these issues.

 

Regarding line 386, it is now clarified that this finding reflects the status of the electrical engineering track within a combined school (a school where both academic and vocational tracks are offered), rather than the status of an occupation.

 

Finally, the observation that the finding on line 414 “calls for lessons in inclusivity and equality and respect for all.” is very much appreciated. This formulation has now been incorporated, as it succinctly captures the broader significance of the finding.

 

Once again, thanks to both reviewers for insightful and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript which I hope can merit publication in this journal