The paper will outline an analysis of 100 interviews with educators and 160 interviews with 18-to-29- year- old learners participating in VET and adult education programmes. It is an initial output of a Horizon Europe project that examines the interactive construction of learning outcomes enacted by educators and learners in sixteen cities and regions in eight EU member states (https://clear-horizon.eu).

In general, interlinked layers of recontextualization and evaluation rules pattern the expectations of both the educators involved in teaching within and outside schools and the learners who participate in a variety of education and training programmes (Bernstein & Solomon, 1999). This theoretical framework is instrumental in articulating three research questions about the European Skills Agenda and the European Education Area. These EU initiatives have established new ideal norms according to which individual trajectories are expected to smoothly navigate through school performance, qualification frameworks, recognition of prior learning, higher education bachelor's and master’s degrees, the youth guarantee, upskilling and reskilling (Sultana, 2012).

Firstly, by distinguishing between recontextualization and evaluation rules, the paper will explore how these policies shape institutional trajectories and subjective experiences. Crucial to the analysis is that the social norms prescribing standard, linear lives that run through youth, adult and old age are no longer acceptable to most people (Walther et al, 2015). In this vein, the increasing role of education and training in the functioning of the welfare state raises new questions about managerialism, paternalism, non-take-up and the discretion of front-line educators (Bonvin et al, 2018).

Secondly, in order to make sense of the main evaluation rules, it is indispensable to explore the experiences of the youth who engage in education and training after school leaving age. The large groups of young people who are exposed to various sources of social vulnerability are particularly at stake (Furlong, 2009). Sociological theories of intersections between class, gender and ethnic inequalities shed light on this phenomenon (Mayer, 2009).

Thirdly, space also matters insofar as the opportunities for learning and employment differ in big cities, towns and rural areas. This question has to do with the distribution of innovation hubs and economic centres across European regions. But this is not the whole story. Collective visions of a locality are also likely to fashion the common understanding of learning at this geographical scale (Löw, 2016).

In a nutshell, the paper will investigate how policies recontextualise what people are expected to learn in the transitions between educational sectors (school, VET, adult education) as well as between education and training and the labour market. At the same time, it will analyse intersectional inequalities and spatial process that impinge on how young people learn amid vulnerable circumstances and how different types of educators evaluate their learning.

This paper develops a research perspective to studying epistemic governance in higher education policymaking Finland in the context of the EU. The empirical framing focuses on two institutional contexts: the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) and its ‘EU30’ sub-committee on education and the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). The first one is a non-public preparatory body, a working group on education-related EU affairs, which assemblies behind closed doors, in camera, whereas the latter one is a public policymaking arena, and its meetings are streamed online. The analytical focus of this paper is on understanding the epistemic work of CULT and EU30, examining how these two policy hubs contribute to epistemic governance: How does the EU30 engage with European policy and European references and, on the other hand, how CULT engages with national responses and policy objectives? Drawing on Alasuutari and Qadir (2014), this paper understands epistemic work as containing knowledge claims and rhetoric as tools of governance and as part of routine decision-making, indicating the strategies and techniques policymakers use to influence actors’ perceptions of the world, mobilise policy and do the everyday politics.

The paper draws on empirical enquiry by adopting an ethnographic approach (Atkinson et al. 2007), inspired by government ethnography (e.g. Bevir & Rhodes 2006; Rhodes 2011) which emphasises social protocols, situations and environment in which policymaking takes place. It draws on observations and interviews conducted as part of a research project ‘Transnational knowledge networks in higher education’ (at Tampere university), which combines social network analysis (SNA), interviews and observations of higher education policy actors connecting the Finnish and EU contexts. The observations were conducted in meetings of both the CULT and the EU30 sub-committee over the course of two years (2021–2023), coupled with interviews with key members of these policy hubs encompassing policymakers, policy advisers, civil servants, and stakeholders.

This paper contributes to the panel’s research aims by illustrating the dynamics between European and national contexts and by exploring whether transnational governance becomes a salient part of national policymaking through the processes and practices of epistemic work. Moreover, the paper seeks to identify the ways in which knowledge connects to policy and the practices employed in the work of these two committees, providing insight on the production of policy knowledge through the case study. The preliminary conclusions on data attempt to show some indication of the epistemic nature of the EU30 and CULT committees and how epistemic work is constituted in these two committees. National EU policy coordination systems tend not to be supportive of public debate in which citizens can participate and obtain up-to-date knowledge of EU affairs (Raunio 2021), and this is largely the case in Finland where the current coordination system of EU affairs does not foster public participation. Therefore, this paper considers the implications for democratic representation and social justice in generic terms and specifically in Finland by examining decision-making that is often conducted behind closed doors.

The analysis of the educational and migration policies of the European Union presents certain methodological challenges. In the field of education, where the principle of subsidiarity applies, we have witnessed the adoption of common measurement instruments and a variety of community acts (recommendations, decisions, resolutions, etc.) over the past few decades. These acts, although lacking legally binding force, exert direct or indirect influence on the educational affairs of the member states (Nóvoa, 1998; Croché, 2010; Delvaux, 2015). Indeed, since the Bologna Process (a declaration signed in 1999 by the ministers responsible for higher education in 29 European countries), European education systems have been influenced from "above." This influence has pushed them toward similar developments in terms of institutional configurations and organizational modalities. This has, in turn, led to strategies for promoting mobility, ranging from higher education down to compulsory education. The Council's conclusions on European teachers and trainers, adopted in May 2020, as well as the establishment of Erasmus+ Teacher Academies, illustrate this "descent" of higher education postures to primary and secondary education and underscore the role of education as a cornerstone of the European education space. The creation of the European Union and the process of "globalization" have significant implications for educational and migratory issues. They raise questions about the relevance of the nation-state as a decision-making space for education and migration, given the proliferation of decision-making levels and powers between the local (decentralization policies) and the global. In the European context, this communication will focus on the project of economic and political integration and its influence on migration and educational issues. We will provide a historical analysis demonstrating that European public educational policies have primarily centered on the mobility of graduates, making it desirable. We align with studies on the Europeanization of public policies (Barbier, 2014; 2011; Conter, 2012) by analyzing discourses and the use of statistics that lead to a convergence of discourses among member states (Salais, 2010; Bruno, 2010). In doing so, we will attempt to answer the following question: How have European educational policies changed the migratory landscape in Europe and institutionalized "chosen" migration in Europe? We will draw on history and the study of public policies that trace institutional changes, while not ignoring the moral and intellectual justifications produced in discourses, transcribed in texts, which are essential for reformative action in democratic regimes. Although the values and ideas that underpin the purposes of education systems and guide their operation extend over the long term (Durkheim, 1938; Isambert-Jamati, 1970), the approach followed here will be that of the sociologist with a more modest goal than the historian: to reconstruct some key stages in the construction of European educational policy and to understand the role of public actions and international bodies in the production and dissemination of a rationality that serves to "relocate" (from the national to the European level) educational actions using performative devices, notably Erasmus+, in a historical project, that of the European Union.