This part special issue of JACE is published as supplementary activity of the international conference, ‘Lifelong Learning Policies and Adult Education Professionals. Contextual and Cross-Contextual Comparisons between Europe and Asia’. This conference took place from 16-17 February 2018 at University of Würzburg in Germany and was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Project Number EG352/2-1). Five of the papers focus on this topic, and are followed by three more general papers.
International policies for lifelong learning and education, for instance of the European Union and UNESCO have focused the issue of professionalisation in adult education during the last twenty years with a particular emphasis on the question of quality in lifelong learning and education (Commission of the European Communities 2000, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2016; UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2009). Whilst EU policies have linked quality enhancement mainly within the development of innovative teaching methods over the last 20 years, during the last decade the question of the required competencies of adult education professionals has been in focus. UNESCO policies have through its monitoring approach in the GRALE (Global Report in Adult and Lifelong Learning) also addressed the question of entry requirements for professionals in the field of adult education. Through this approach, different levels of professionalisation in adult education have been highlighted: individual competences, adult education providers as organisations, and the role of states and international organisations with regard to politics and policies. However, the question as to how these levels interrelate to each other (e.g. what policies support which competence development?; which organisational framework is necessary for individual professionalisation of people working in adult education?) has been analysed to a lesser degree.
Research in adult and continuing education also frequently focuses these different levels from a single perspective (e.g. only competencies, only policy analysis) rather than focussing on the interdependencies between these levels. This special issue seeks to take into account the interrelation of different levels of policies, politics, further contexts, educational providers, professionals and adult learners. It focuses on these interrelations from the perspective of different regions of the world, and different levels. The first three papers of this special issue component of this edition focus on the interrelation of policies with professionalisation, whilst the next two other papers look more broadly at the interrelation of phenomena of adult learning with its (policy) context.
The paper of Egetenmeyer, Breitschwerdt and Lechner provides a theoretical framework for research on the interdependencies of professionalisation in adult education between different levels. It does this by using the discourse of sociology of professions and adapts this towards the need to research professionalisation in adult and continuing education. The multi-level perspective as well as the interdependencies of levels is a central argument. The model is used to research professionalisation structures of professional continuing education providers in Germany.
Mikulec’s paper considers the interdependencies of European and Slovenian policies towards professionalisation in adult education. The analysis shows the gap between a broad European perspective and the concrete situation of professionalisation in Slovenia. The paper can be understood as a sign that adult education policies of the European Union are not to be understood as simply a top-down approach; they can rather be understood as point of reference, which is further developed by the needs of concrete situations.
Our third paper by Toiviainen, Kersh and Hyytiä looks at the roles of adult educators in realizing European educational policies for vulnerable groups. It refers to European educational policies, focussing on supporting active citizenship through adult learning. Based on data from Finland and England drawn from a major Horizon2020 project funded by the European Commission, the paper identifies the role of adult educators as indirect mediators for “facilitating the socio-economic and political dimensions of active citizenship in interaction with students.”
The paper from Kassim, Buang and Halim is one that is researching participation in lifelong learning by industrial workers in Malaysia. They identify a huge interest and satisfaction from taking part in lifelong learning programmes at work. From these findings the authors argue for a change of Malaysian policies, so that companies can better fulfil the continuing education needs of their workers.
Curran et al. look at adult learners’ perceptions of self-directed learning as they use digital technology in the context of continuing professional education in the field of health and social work. From their interview-based study, the authors have developed a conceptual model, which focusses on the interrelation between the learner (person), the learning process and the context. This model stresses the influence of context (e.g. organisational policy, digital connectivity) and supports the multilevel-perspective of adult education.
The more general papers of the issue begin with that of Taylor and Bicak’s work, which derives from questioning a sample of 813 adult learners in the US about the jargon of student financial aid. They identify that adult learners know about the financial aid possibilities, but that they are unfamiliar with the jargon. This can be understood as indicator that the links between such programmes and their use by adult learners should be further developed. It also can be understood as indicator that the effective interrelation between different levels are essential for adult education.
Remenick’s work on non-traditional learners in higher education also derives from a review undertaken in the US. This article is a useful overview that will have resonance in other parts of the work, and which covers four distinct periods and three means by which such students have been supported. She provides a number of recommendations based on her analysis that are relevant now since the barriers for such students have not gone away.
Finally, Schattman et al. focus on a key curriculum issue pertaining to climate change, invoking one of the core historical foci of adult education in the US and elsewhere, that of agricultural extension. Their review looks at curricula concerning climate change, and to analyse how these could be applied to programmes designed for agricultural advisers and farmers, with whom advisers do not always feel at ease when discussing this topic. They make, based on their analysis of 12 existing programmes, four issues that curriculum developers might consider.
In conclusion overall this set of the papers demonstrate a range of the inter-relationships at different levels of policy and practice, especially in the development of lifelong learning policies. The papers also indicate, that these should be recognized as complex interactions. They are not understandably as only top-down or bottom-up process – rather they are intertwined with each other. The papers give several indications about the context that has to be developed to support the learning of adults. They also indicate, that a solely individualized perspective concerning adult education professionals and their ‘performance’ is too narrow to cope with the complexity of professionalisation in adult education. Moreover, it is essential to respect also the context conditions of adult learning professionals.
