It is argued that developing digital abilities is key for today's knowledge society. They facilitate engaging with pervasive information communication technologies and manipulating information. Governments have invested vastly in formal education aimed at developing digital abilities. Policies and directives driving this venture need to be examined. Otherwise, their potential risks being thwarted. Grounded in concepts derived from Laclau and Mouffe, five public policy documents central to Chile's Secondary Vocational Education and Traning (S-TVET) system underwent a synchronic heuristic discourse analysis as understood under relational-ontology. Findings indicate that all analysed documents are articulated with a myth of an information society. Additionally, two prominent discourses were identified: an instrumentalization discourse and an empowerment discourse. When referencing S-TVET, however, the most salient discourse is that of instrumentalization. Instrumentalization discourses render digital abilities under a narrow corporate fixed set of decontextualised skills, and risk thwarting their potential.

There is a sedimented understanding that developing digital abilities is key for today’s knowledge society. Accordingly, governments have invested vastly in formal education aimed at developing them. Policies and directives driving this venture need to be examined. Otherwise, their potential risks being thwarted. By means of a post-foundational discourse analysis, six moments central to the political enablement of Chile’s State Technical Formation Centres underwent a synchronic heuristic discourse analysis as understood under relational-ontology. These Centres are part of Chile’s tertiary Technical and Vocational Education and Training system and were created as a means for the State to regain presence within such a system. Findings show unquestioned facts which lead to the articulation of two prominent myths. Added, two salient discourses are articulated to the myth: education is either articulated with statements that would frame education as a right or with development statements. Furthermore, despite these documents articulating today’s world as being driven by information and technological developments, there is no mention, definition or even acknowledgement of digital abilities. Accordingly, the development of these rhetorically articulated indispensable abilities, within these Centres, is left to chance. Findings shed light on how mythification of discourses can lead to hindering consequences.

Research material from ethnographic studies of vocational upper secondary educational programmes in Finland and Sweden presented here indicates that the discourse of schoolwork as being either theoretical or practical is firmly fixed. However, the students on the researched programmes were aware of recent changes in the labour market that raise a need for generalisation, or at least knowledge of both practical and theoretical aspects of their programme-specific subjects. They referred to the changes with notions suggesting that a practical and theoretical divide was neither meaningful nor helpful for their education. We discuss how a stereotyped idea of what was thought of as ‘man’s work’ made it difficult for students who wanted to accomplish tasks considered as theoretical and how the teachers’ framing of pedagogic practice intensified or ameliorated this difficulty. We also address the dichotomy between theoretical and practical by contemplating students’ positions within different pedagogical practices. We suggest that some kinds of practices might diminish the dichotomy and could improve the students’ possibilities for fully engaging in their studies.