Structuring the Complexity of Drop-Out from VET: A Theoretical Framework Guiding Empirical Research Perspectives

After more than 50 years of research on drop-out from Vocational Education and Training (VET), databases provide vast amounts of drop-out studies from around the globe that entail hundreds of potential drop-out factors. However, many scholars tend to explore the topic without detailed and theoretically grounded foundation. Several diverging research foci exist within the research field of drop-out from VET: Studies differ with regard to the analysed phase of drop-out (development, decision-making, paths after dropping out), the applied sample perspective (learners, educators, further stakeholders), and the overall research perspective that is applied based on a specific theoretical approach. Given the range of drop-out factors, stakeholders, and possible theoretical approaches within studies, this article aims at organising the research on the multi-facetted phenomenon for future endeavours by presenting a framework model that comprises a three-step recommendation: First, the model illustrates different phases (Development-, Decision-, Adjustment-Phase) of drop-out research that should be differentiated. Second, it is argued that the chosen sample perspective is highly relevant for drop-out research and must be chosen carefully. Third, the overarching disciplinary research perspectives on drop-out from VET, which scholars may adopt within their research, entail particular relevant variables and focal points and should therefore be discussed. Four examples of research perspectives (economical, psychological, sociological, pedagogical) are briefly presented, structured on a micro-, meso- and macro-level, to exemplify different theoretical accesses to drop-out research. Throughout the article, the novel organisation framework is explained and exemplified by illustrating relevant aspects of each research area and exemplary literature. The presented framework will help organising the research field and enable scholars to delimit their work more precisely, leading to a more traceable structure of further research efforts and more significant contributions to the state of knowledge.