Thanks everyone for an excellent start to yesterday’s workshop. Not only were the presentations excellent, but the discussion session brought up a diverse array of big questions about skill development, some of which I wanted to record here. This is by no means an exhaustive list, so I would encourage you to post below other ‘big questions’ that Day 1 opened up. Arnaud Kaba asked the provocative question: what is the ideological function of the policy push towards skill development in the global South? This brought up a host of other questions and hypotheses. Does skill development ‘responsibilise’ workers, blaming them for their own unemployment? Does the way that ‘skill development’ is discursively framed place all responsibility for poor economic outcomes on trainees, trainers, and training providers, and shift responsibility away from employers and the state (as Simon McGrath suggested)? Does it lead us to expect too much from skills – with expectations that it is the panacea for problems of unemployment, non-inclusive growth, and poverty? As the presentations by Nambiar and Upadhya/RoyChowdhury demonstrated, skill development programs often try to inflate young people’s aspirations – often building up expectations for jobs that the economy is just not providing. This led Grace Carswell to ask, is the skills system misleading people? Do formal skill development programs in the global South tend to prioritise technical know-how above fostering ethical dispositions and the formation of professional/craft-based identities (as is very important in the context of informal apprenticeships)? Can these programs foster communities of practice? Does the push towards online learning (evident in TVET systems in Indonesia, as Naafs research shows) risk of undermining communities of practice? Aditya Ray and Arnaud Kaba both asked (in different ways): do theories of communities of practice have enough room for thinking about inequalities? How are we to think about “communities of practice” that are divided not just along the lines of competence and mastery, but along lines of caste, class, gender, ethnicity, etc.? How do we conceptualise the differences between theoretical and practical pedagogies? As Banu Senay queried, might the difference be that practical pedagogies involve an openness to contingency that theoretical pedagogies lack? Or is the distinction more blurred? What meaning does this dichotomy of ‘theory vs practical’ have at the ground level? Apologies if I have misunderstood the substance of any of your questions - feel free to correct me!