EDU-LAB Glossary

WP2 flags a recurring unintended effect: short-term activation can push young people into precarious pathways and favour job-ready unemployed NEETs over inactive or hard-to-reach youth.

Defined in the project's Ethics Issues Management Plan (D7.1) with reference to the GDPR; in EDU-LAB, collected data are pseudonymised for processing and anonymised for analysis and outputs.

Rated on a five-point Likert scale with a 'cannot judge' option; the gap between how desirable and how likely a trend is read as a normative signal.

WP1 uses the charts as the source of legally allowed transitions (LATETs) and as a basis for comparing the structure of national systems.

Used as a fixed phrase across the project; WP4 examines the intersecting factors that hinder or enable them, while WP1 and WP3A model and measure them.

The aim of the WP4 Participatory Workshops; young people are treated as co-creators of knowledge, not as subjects, so a solution is co-designed rather than proposed for them.

The project separates statistical comparability (harmonised indicators) from conceptual comparability (whether a category means the same thing across systems); ensuring comparable data across the seven WP4 countries and twelve locations was a core concern.

WP3B tracks how agreement shifts between waves; the second wave yields a convergence typology describing where and how positions moved.

The method of WP2 (D2.1); it identifies not only what is known but the data and information gaps, including why some policy effects are not achieved.

The organising frame of the first-year analytical deliverables (D1.1, D2.1, D3.1): each maps what its evidence base can and cannot yet show.

Produced in WP3A after variable mapping; it shows where a determinant is measured, only partly measured, or absent, and so guides which research questions are answerable.

Project deliverable D7.2, updated across the project (D7.3); compliance is monitored by the Ethics Issues Group.

The first WP3A step (D3.1), also undertaken in WP1; each dataset is classified by coverage, time frame, regularity and the determinants it can measure.

The core of WP3B; run as a two-wave OSES with feedback between waves, combining quantitative consensus measurement with qualitative interpretation.

WP1 groups determinants into access, general selection, participation, and progression-and-completion; the term is used both conceptually (a factor in the model) and operationally (a measurable variable), and the synthesis keeps the two aligned.

Read intersectionally in the project — overlapping disadvantages that compound rather than simply add; WP2 warns that policies can widen the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged youth.

Dissemination spreads findings; exploitation turns them into usable results (see Key Exploitable Result); outreach builds engagement with stakeholder clusters through defined channels and messages.

A status (stock) measure, not a single event; reducing early school leaving is one of the project's stated policy targets.

Initially conceived as a monograph and developed as an edited volume; D5.1A sets out its annotated outline and the allocation of chapters across work packages.

WP2 treats them together and separately measures each; it attends to the gap between policy intention and outcome, including unintended effects.

A stated focus across the project rather than a single indicator; WP4 advances it methodologically by treating young people as co-producers of knowledge.

Reviews data-collection tools and procedures case by case and, where needed, consults national data-protection authorities.

In the project's usage EEA means the European Education Area — not the European Economic Area.

The first empirical step of WP3B; the interviews are translated into the statements that experts later rate in the Delphi waves.

A WP4 instrument (8–10 groups of 6–8 participants per case-study location); the entry point for participants who may then join the Participatory Workshops.

The GE/PVET distinction structures much of the project's analysis of pathways, transitions and permeability; delivery modes range from mainly school-based to mainly employer-based.

Participation is voluntary and withdrawable at any time without consequence; for the vulnerable group of minors aged 15–17 the project applies additional protective measures.

A central WP2 concern: the review looks not only at whether intended effects occur but at unintended ones and at why some intended effects are not achieved.

The project holds the compounding sense (disadvantages that multiply, not merely add); WP1 identifies the determinants and WP3A tests how far datasets can measure them.

The comparability backbone of the analysis; where national qualifications map imperfectly onto ISCED, the project flags it.

A WP6 planning concept; identifying KERs shapes the exploitation and outreach strategy.

WP1 distinguishes generic LATETs (common across systems) from non-generic ones (system-specific), and complements them with transitions to and from the labour market that the charts do not cover.

WP4's guard against tokenistic participation: lived expertise is integrated with academic and expert evidence in the synthesis rather than used as illustration.

Quantitative (WP3A), expert (WP3B) and qualitative (WP4) strands are integrated in WP5; the Delphi itself is a sequential mixed-methods design.

Reported with the age band stated (15–24 or 15–29) and unpacked into components, since a single rate combines very different situations; WP2 cautions against focusing only on job-ready NEETs.

Combines quantitative consensus measurement with qualitative interpretation; its output feeds EU- and country-level policy formats such as policy briefs and toolkits.

A key WP3A step: the same concept may be operationalised differently across datasets, which affects whether findings are truly comparable.

Underpins the WP4 case studies; it moves beyond top-down, adult-centric perspectives and gives weight to young people's priorities and agency.

A WP4 instrument (6–8 chains of four per location, 5–7 participants each), spaced to allow preliminary analysis to feed the next session.

Defined in D7.1 following the GDPR; the project's data minimisation principle means only data adequate, relevant and strictly necessary are collected.

WP2 deliberately defines each, because conflating a policy, its programme and its funding obscures where effectiveness or efficiency actually breaks down.

Produced from Year One (D5.1B) alongside discussion notes and good-practice examples, and disseminated through WP6 channels.

The task of WP5; it integrates theoretical considerations, empirical findings and youth perspectives, and feeds the edited volume and policy materials.

The framing of the WP4 case studies (after Coburn & Penuel); it commits partners to shared problem-definition and to impact beyond the project's immediate scope.

The quantitative backbone of WP1 and WP3A; it is paired with newly collected qualitative (WP4) and expert (WP3B) data in the project's mixed-methods design.

A WP4 instrument; its data become participant descriptors in the qualitative analysis, supporting comparison within and across case studies.

Stakeholders are both a source of evidence (the OSES expert panel) and an audience for results (the WP6 outreach clusters); the project maps them into defined groups.

A WP4 instrument used during (SD1) and between (SD2) the Participatory Workshops to capture first-person data as it unfolds. (Note: in WP3B reporting, 'SD' denotes standard deviation.)

Treated as a matter of intensity rather than a yes/no; expanding WBL opportunities is one of the project's stated aims, and it recurs across the WP1 transition types.

WP2 notes the term is used loosely in the literature and pins down its meaning for the project; an interrupted route is not read as a failed one.