Bringing every voice into VET research

In education and training research, ‘engagement’ is often seen as one stage in the process.

Vocational education and training (VET) research projects at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) seek to ensure engagement isn’t just part of the process – it shapes the process, and ultimately determines the quality and relevance of the evidence we produce.

Over many years, our VET research team has led a series of national research projects that have required us to rethink how we consult with diverse groups of learners, providers and employers. In each case, we’ve had to adapt our methods to reflect the realities and needs of those we are seeking to engage.

This article shares what we’ve learned about designing consultation strategies that are inclusive, ethical and genuinely responsive, and explores what strategies we use to get the right input, not just the easiest input.

I presented these insights at the National Centre for Vocational Research's  34th National Vocational Education and Training (VET) Research Conference ‘No Frills’, co-hosted by TAFE Queensland. This year’s theme –  Diverse voices in VET – underscores the importance of inclusive, authentic engagement in shaping effective VET policy and practice.

Why engagement matters

In large, complex systems like vocational education and training, those most affected by policy decisions are often the least heard.

Learners with multiple barriers, small RTOs, culturally diverse communities, frontline trainers – these voices can get drowned out by more prominent stakeholders or lost entirely through one-size-fits-all consultation approaches.

The risk isn’t just theoretical. When engagement is limited or tokenistic, it leads to:

• Incomplete and non-representative data,
• Skewed perspectives that miss the full picture,
• Poorer decisions that lack application and relevance in practice.

Conversely, when engagement is meaningful and intentional, it does more than inform research –  it builds trust, surfaces unexpected insights, and improves the likelihood of recommendations for change being accepted and acted upon.

The real-world challenges

Of course, effective engagement is easier said than done. We encounter consistent challenges across projects:

• Time constraints: Deadlines are often tight, which limits the depth and breadth of consultation.
• Diverse and dispersed stakeholders: People come from different backgrounds, locations, and digital literacy levels. One method won’t work for all.
• Access barriers: Language, literacy, trust, and prior experience can all shape whether people engage.
• Digital divide: Not everyone has the tools or comfort to participate online – especially when sharing their personal journeys and experiences.
• Consultation fatigue: Over-surveyed groups can feel sceptical unless the process and outcomes are clearly explained.

Being clear and transparent about these barriers is the first step to addressing them.

ACER’s approach to inclusive consultation

To respond to these realities, we’ve developed a principle-based approach at ACER:

• Co-design with clients and communities: We tailor our engagement strategies from the outset; there is no standard template.
• A strong authorising environment: Participants need to know who is asking, why, and how their input will be used.
• Ethics-first: ACER’s NHMRC-registered Human Research Ethics Committee includes First Nations and external members, ensuring rigour and cultural safety.
• Responsive, mixed methods: We use a blend of tools – surveys, interviews, focus groups, workshops, and stimulus materials – to suit different contexts.
• Trusted partnerships: Collaborating with peak bodies, community groups, and professional associations is often the key to reaching the people who matter most.

Engaging with First Nations learners

In partnership with Ninti One,  we co-designed a multi-level engagement framework that focused on system, provider and learner perspectives. This wasn’t just about research with Indigenous VET learners, it was about relationships, trust and cultural safety.

We used Long-form conversations led by the participant in place of structured interviews, flexible delivery that respected cultural obligations and COVID disruptions and plain-language materials and a commitment to cultural safety throughout the process.

In this study, one learner shared:

I was just another number in the system - and our cultural obligations weren’t considered by the teachers. We were teaching them [the lecturer] on Aboriginal cultures.

This comment reminds us that when engagement fails, systems can feel alienating. But when done well, it fosters authenticity and accountability.

Engaging with VET learners 

In a national survey of over 3,000 enrolled and 300 prospective VET students, we wanted to move beyond satisfaction metrics and understand learner motivations, aspirations and barriers.

We used:

• Administrative data to re-contact former students,
• A multi-modal approach (online and  phone),
• Stratified sampling to oversample under-represented groups,
• Co-designed questions with our government client.

In this study, an enrolled VET students shared:

Having a family and a mortgage … there’s not a lot of money to get all the education needed … I still think I probably need more education … I gotta start somewhere first.

This insight – simple but powerful – reinforces that effective engagement means creating the space for people to speak from lived experience, not just tick boxes.

Engaging with international students 

This qualitative study focused on international graduates from Engineering, Accounting and Nursing programs trying to enter Australia’s skilled workforce.

We engaged:

• Graduates,
• Employers,
• Educators,
• Industry bodies.

We reached participants through alumni networks and professional associations, using plain-language materials and in-depth interviews. More than a research exercise, it became a space for reflection - and for some, a rare moment of feeling heard and understood.

Engaging with VET practitioners

In a project evaluating professional learning using the Kirkpatrick model of training program evaluation, we listened to trainers and assessors through online surveys, interviews and reflective storytelling.

We tackled key engagement barriers like time constraints and relevance by showing how the findings would inform practice - not just research. As one trainer reflected on their experiences with the professional learning program:

"I realised feeling ‘off track’ is something a student in a vocational class might experience."

This kind of empathy-building insight is one of the unexpected but invaluable outcomes of deeper engagement.

Towards better practice

So, what defines 'best practice' in engagement? For us, it boils down to three key questions:

• Who are you engaging? Are you reaching those with essential - not just easily accessible and convenient – perspectives and experiences?
• How are you engaging? Do your methods match the context and capacity of your participants?
• How are you supporting them? Is the process respectful, inclusive and designed for mutual benefit?

In research, engagement shouldn’t be a checkbox – it’s a commitment to gathering inclusive and diverse voices. It’s about listening differently, designing thoughtfully, and approaching people not just as data sources but as experts in their own experience.