Could Transformative Learning be Appreciated in Europe?

Abstract

This article attempts to examine the views of European adult educators toward transformative learning (TL) theory. First, I explore the relevant attitudes of my colleagues in Greece, which appear to be quite positive. Then, through a literature review, I assume that the scholars in other European countries have a limited interest and a quite critical disposition regarding TL. I develop interpretative hypotheses, by correlating these findings to the way in which TL theory has been formulated and has evolved, particularly after 2010, when it seems to have entered a critical standpoint. Finally, I put forward a series of suggestions and refer to new trends that could contribute to the development of a renewed and expanded TL theoretical framework.

Keywords

transformation theory alternative views unified theory emancipatory learning.

Introduction

This article builds on my previous chapter “Transformative Learning in Europe: An Overview of the Theoretical Perspectives,” which was written in 2010 and published in Taylor and Cranton’s Handbook (Kokkos, 2012). That chapter, which drew largely from the relevant literature, claimed that the theory of transformative learning (TL) does not have deep roots in the conceptual formation of most of the European writers who deal with learning in terms of perspective transformation. A community of Greek adult educators might be considered as an exception, given that we have found strong links between Mezirow’s seminal work and our orientation toward Freire’s ideas of conscientization as well as Frankfurt School’s critical theory.

In this article, I attempt to go beyond the stated chapter and explore more thoroughly a number of issues: First, I further investigate the reasons why the Greek community has been inspired by Mezirow’s transformation theory. Second, I discuss the reasons why the majority of the emancipatory adult educators in other European countries do not seem to orientate their approaches around the deep fundamental of TL theory. Third, I explore—under the light of what has been written during the last 4 years—several dysfunctions that have a growing appearance in the field of TL, such as fragmentation, ill-defined teaching methods, and lack of in-depth theoretical analysis, and I consider the relevant reactions of the European and, more specifically, the Greek adult educators who adopt TL goals. Finally, I highlight a number of recent suggestions addressed by North American and European scholars aiming to overcome this sensitive situation.

Greek Adult Education Meets Transformation Theory

My fundamental argument is that the intensity in which adult educators in one country could appreciate a theory that has been formulated “abroad” is dependent on three parameters: (a) the extent to which an “exterior” theory is relevant to the conceptual formation and the specific traditions of the “indigenous” educators; (b) the extent to which this theory is considered by the indigenous educators to have the potential to offer them new approaches and enrich their scholarship; (c) the extent to which the “new” theory is open to dialogue and can incorporate various theoretical views and research outcomes that may contribute to its organic enrichment. In the present section, I will use these criteria in order to approach the view of the Greek adult educators toward TL.

In Greece, until the beginning of the 1980s, activities that could be linked to adult education were scarce. However, in the years 1981–1986, in the context of the radical sociopolitical ideas that were floating all over after the fall of the dictatorship, a massive popular education movement was developed which had emancipatory goals and was inspired by the ideas of Freire and the School of Frankfurt.

At the end of the 1980s, this movement began to wither away due to the spread of conservatism in Greek society. However, those adult educators who were genuinely interested in emancipatory learning continued to be active in this particular area. Soon, our discussion was developed within the framework of “transformation theory,” as it was developed by Mezirow. We welcomed his work because we considered that it was congruent to the theoretical paradigms of Freire and critical theory. Moreover, we discovered in Mezirow’s first two books (Mezirow & Associates, 1990; Mezirow, 1991) a large spectrum of references to European scholars, such as Bateson, Baudrillard, Brookfield, Derida, Dominicé, Foucault, Gramsci, Griffin, Heron, Jarvis, Lyotard, Piaget, and Wittgenstein, whose works were—more or less—familiar to us and yielded significant components of our mode of reflecting on adult education. Thus, in the mid-1990s, the emancipatory adult educators in Greece found that we could use transformation theory as our primary theoretical framework.

During the next few years, until the mid/end of the 2000s, within the international field of TL, Mezirow’s work was considered as the primary resource of the theory’s overall development (see Taylor, 2007). However, at the same time, his ideas received persistent critiques. He defied the justification of some of them. On the other hand, he creatively accepted many arguments stated in several criticisms of his perception. During the relevant dialogue, he suggested a wide range of arguments that made his ideas more explicit. In the next paragraphs, I will present a series of fundamental critiques of Mezirow’s view, his responses to them, and the initial contributions of other theorists to his work. This review will be quite detailed, in order to explain why through that dialogue the interest of the Greek adult educators toward TL theory was constantly renewed.

The discussion on social action

One point of criticism to Mezirow’s work is that it does not regard collective social action as the essential objective of adult education (e.g., Collard & Law, 1989; Hart, 1990).

Indeed, Mezirow did not cast an emphasis on social action. Nevertheless, he did not deny its significance. As a case in point, he self-reflectively elaborated on the way in which he was influenced by Freire’s view concerning the importance of conscientization as a process through which adults develop their capacity to act upon the status quo:

The critical dimension missing from my work has been my lack of awareness both of the centrality of conscientization in the learning process (Freire,1970, p. 27 defines conscientization as the process by which adults “achieve a deepening awareness of both the sociocultural reality which shapes their lives and…their capacity to transform that reality through action upon it”) and of the importance of entrenched power in the community development process I had attempted to foster (Mezirow, 1991, pp. xvi–xvii.)

Moreover, in various publications, Mezirow exhaustively expressed his own view that consists of three dimensions. First, he claimed that social action is crucial, but it is a contingent goal of adult education:

Significant learning, involving personal transformations, is a social process with significant implications for social action. (Mezirow, 1991, p. 208)

When learners come to identify with others who have been similarly oppressed, collective social action may develop and it is desirable and appropriate that it do so. (Mezirow, 1989, p. 172)

Second, elaborating the Freireian view, he argued that collective social action may not be a direct step following critical reflection. It may be impeded or delayed by emotional, situational, or informational factors:

The learner may decide not to take any action at this time or place to implement a meaning transformation. Taking action indicated by critical reflection may be impeded by lack of information, situational constraints, psychological hang-ups or absence of required skills. (Mezirow, 1989, p. 172)

Finally, the American scholar claimed that educators may not indoctrinate the learners by setting them out, in any way, to effect a specific political action: “The educator can be a partisan but a partisan only in a commitment to fostering critical reflection and action; the what, when and how of the action is a decision of the learner” (1989, p. 172). And he added that “Freire is careful to make this distinction” (1989, p. 172). Indeed, Freire (1970) was very sensitive concerning the anti-dialogical conception of action, where the leaders or the educators invade the world perception of learners. And he did not hesitate to state that sometimes learners may need to oppose trade unions, if their leaders are sectarian (Freire, 1998, fourth letter).

The discussion on social context

Another critique posed on Mezirow (e.g., Clark & Wilson, 1991) is that he neglects the meaning of the socioeconomic context in the formation of our orienting perspectives. However, Mezirow (e.g., 1991, pp. 186–187, 194, 211) had underlined that personal experience is to be recognized as organized by structures located outside the individual experience. It was perhaps for this reason that when, a few years later, Inglis (1997) criticized him again for considering that social being does not determine consciousness, he denied this allegation in an unequivocal way: “This is totally off the wall. I have never written about consciousness per se nor have I ever been so blind as to imply that it is not determined by social being” (Mezirow, 1998, p. 70).

The discussion on political power

Brookfield (2000); “charged” Mezirow of not always delineating the role of political power and, especially, of the dominant ideology at the center of critical reflection. Indeed, although Mezirow (1991) recognized the significance of political power in the learning process, he argued (1994) that he does not consider that every perspective transformation should involve an emphasis on this dimension. He also claimed (1998) that such a focus suits the forms of TL whose object is the critical evaluation of economic, political, and cultural systems. But there are other frameworks of learning (e.g., learning in the organizations and interpersonal relations), where political power might not constitute the overarching domain of critical reflection.

Mezirow meets the critiques

However, Mezirow’s responses toward the scholars who criticized his ideas were not always rejective. In several occasions, he engaged in a creative dialogue with the alternative views and, over time, he integrated several of them in his own theorizing. For example, he recognized, probably taking into consideration Taylor’s (1998), Belenky and Stanton’s (2000), and others’ relevant views, that emotions and intuition, together with reasoning, play a crucial role within the transformational process. He wrote:

Cognition has strong affective and conative dimensions; all the sensitivity and responsiveness of the person participates in the invention, discovery, interpretation, and transformation of meaning (Mezirow, 2000, p. 6) […] Reflecting involves reasoning and/or intuition. Both are significantly influenced by conditioned emotional responses. (Mezirow, 2000, p. 21)

Furthermore, in his latest works (2009a, 2009b), Mezirow accepted as justified the critique regarding the fact that he underestimated the impact of other ways of knowing in perspective transformation.

One more example where Mezirow met the critiques concerns the role of the unconscious dimensions of learning. Even from the end of the 1980s, several scholars (e.g., Boyd & Myers, 1988; Dirkx, 1997), drawing from the work of Jung, have argued that the way in which we perceive reality is deeply affected by processes taking place in the unconscious. Thus, the main route to transform the image we have for ourselves and the world is not the rational assessment of assumptions—as Mezirow had claimed—but the revelation and exploration of the psychic sides. Mezirow’s synthetic response was reflected in his dialogue with Dirkx (Mezirow, Dirkx, & Cranton, 2006).

There, he recognizes that most of the process of learning occurs outside of awareness; hence, TL theory should include this dimension and explore it in concert to the critical assessment of assumptions.

Contributions to Mezirow’s inceptive view

Mezirow intended to achieve a correlation of his conceptions to those of other scholars who expressed complementary or alternative views. Therefore, at the first—crucial—National Conference on Transformative Learning in 1998, a number of theorists engaged in a systematic dialogue with his perspective and made important contributions. In Mezirow and Associates’ book (2000), which derived from this process, Kegan suggested that a series of distinct features of Mezirow’s theory should become more explicit through the use of constructive—developmental perspective. K. Taylor explored dimensions of convergence in the previous work of Kegan and Mezirow. Kasl and Elias expanded Mezirow’s definition of TL also including the process of accessing and receiving the contents of the unconscious. Cranton suggested the integration of Jung’s theory of psychological type in Mezirow’s work. Belenky and Stanton suggested the replacement of the term rational discourse by connected knowing which looks for strengths, not weakness, in another’s argument. Finally, Marsick and Yorks explored the concept of collective transformation in organizational settings. Hence, an integrated theoretical framework seemed to start developing, which was evident in Mezirow’s Preface in that book and also by its subtitle: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. This trend became explicit in Belenky and Stanton’s comments on the first National Conference on Transformative Learning:

Even if his theory does not articulate elements we believe are central to the form, our experience of Mezirow’s practice—attending the conference that gave birth to this volume (Mezirow & Associates, 2000)—convinces us that he is a gifted midwife-teacher and leader who has helped give birth to a vibrant community of learners. Major emphasis was placed on participating, processing, and discussing the presentations. All conference attendees were welcomed around the table on an equal basis; all were encouraged to build on speakers’ ideas. The collegial and collaborative nature of the discussions was different from anything we had experienced previously in conferences held in university settings. The evening event, a moving and emotional tribute to Paulo Freire, further illustrated how this learning community has broken through such dualisms as thought and action, theory and practice, thinking and emotion. (Belenky & Stanton, 2000, pp. 99–100)

Moreover, since the end of the 1990s and until the mid-/end 2000s, there was a rapid contribution of a number of scholars to Mezirow’s seminal work. As Gunnlaugson stated (2008), they attempted to expand the initial conception of TL and include dimensions of learning that were missing from Mezirow’s work, aiming to yield an integrated, holistic, integral theoretical framework. Gunnlaugson has termed these contributions “second-wave theories of TL” and stated indicatively the works of Cranton and Roy (2003); Dirkx (1998); Illeris (2004); and Taylor (1998, 2007).

Remarks

My understanding concerning the development of the TL theoretical framework until the mid-/end 2000s is that it constituted a perspective that had significantly powerful elements, even if it contained some ambiguous or not adequately highlighted dimensions. It was based on a wide and coherent theoretical background of pedagogical, sociological, and philosophical research. Additionally, it placed a new critical insight on a broad range of issues of emancipatory learning, such as the way of achieving fundamental transformation of the problematic meaning perspectives, the relationship of these processes with social action, and the role and attitudes of adult educators. However, the most encouraging feature was that Mezirow’s work, which was dominant within this framework, had a self-reflecting dimension and was open to dialogue. Its validity could be reassessed and renewed through its juxtaposition with alternative views. Even if someone would not adopt some of its dimensions and even if there was a deficient development of some of its components (e.g., the affective ways of knowing), it would be difficult to deny that it was infused by self-assessment, as well as an avoidance to espouse unsupported generalizations and taken-for-granted assumptions. Thus, there were indications that TL theory could become unified. This could be done by bringing together the cognitive, emotional, and imaginative dimensions of learning and through the exploration of the relationship between the mental and unconscious processes as well as the interaction between the individual and the social context.

Having all these in mind, the Greek community continued considering that it should be appropriate to frame its activities around the TL theory. We organized seminars, conferences, and special issues in the Adult Education journal that aimed at disseminating the theory. In January 2007, Mezirow visited Athens.

The European Scholars’ Attitude

The presence of scholars from European countries besides Greece in the area of TL has been very limited. As a case in point, two literature reviews (Kokkos & Koulaouzides, 2011; Kokkos, 2012) that included 14 adult education international journals as well as the proceedings of the International Conferences on TL and those of the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults for the period 1991–2010 revealed that there have been only 24 papers by European authors, omitting those written by Greeks. Another indication is that only 5 of the 44 writers in Taylor and Cranton’s Handbook of Transformative Learning (2012) are from Europe.

Moreover, the European scholars who are activated in the field of TL theory do not seem to be as influenced by it as the Greeks are. The two aforementioned literature reviews showed that, with regard to the attitudes of European authors toward this theory, 17 of the 24 do not situate their approaches in the core of its framework. They are rather based on other theoretical backgrounds and they use TL theory as an additional resource for a more integrated investigation of issues on which they work.

With regard to references to TL theorists’ views, most of the European texts (22 of 24) connect their explorations mainly with Mezirow’s work. Nevertheless, many articles (13 of 24) are rather critical of his view, adopting the critiques—justified or not—that have been cast against him, namely that he underestimates the collective social action (five articles) and that he neglects other ways of knowing (four articles), unconscious modalities (one article), the impact of relational processes (one article), and of spirituality (one article).

On the other hand, most of the European authors do not seem to have a comprehensive coverage of Mezirow’s ideas. For instance, although 22 of the 24 articles have been published after 2000, only 2 of them refer to his texts that were published after this year, and only 6 contain more than 2 references to his entire work.

The references to other North American scholars of TL theory are limited. The most frequently cited are E. Taylor (eight articles), Cranton (five articles), Kegan (four articles), Marscick (two articles), Dirkx (two articles), and Boyd and Myers (one article). These findings verify that the Europeans are not too involved in the ongoing discussion on TL.

Finally, the majority of the European colleagues combine their approaches to TL theory with the exploration of the work of Freire (cited in 14 of the 24 papers) together with a wide range of important European theorists, like Bourdieu, Brookfield, Foucault, Illeris, Giroux, Morin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Held, Outhwaite, Engeström, Dominicé, Gagné, hooks, Apps, Heron, Thompson, Jarvis, Kanpol, Bakhtin, Mayo, McLaren, and others.

An Interpretative Attempt

I will make some hypotheses, attempting to explain why TL theory is not coherently related to the conceptual formation of European adult educators.

The European and the North American traditions of adult education are quite divergent

The European tradition of adult education is a product of Modernity and has its roots in the ideas of the Enlightenment. During the 19th and until almost the end of the 20th century, a great part of the field was inspired by the ideological representations of liberal humanism, socialism, and critical social tradition (Jarvis & Griffin, 2003). Adult education was supposed to offer more rights and equality to those who were poorly educated and socially excluded. These ideas led to educational–social movements, such as community education, workers’ education, and women’s studies.

This element of collective action for social change is weak in the North American tradition of adult education, including TL theory and practice. It is indicative that, leaving aside Mezirow’s works, none of the 33 most cited North American scholars’ articles published in Adult Education Quarterly and Journal of Transformative Education during the 1991–2007 period deals with this dimension (Kokkos & Koulaouzides, 2011). For these reasons, Old Continent’s scholars may not recognize their traditions, perspectives, and intellectual heritage in the theoretical framework of TL, the greater part of which is composed by North Americans.

The Europeans are not fully aware of TL theory

As stated earlier, much of TL research remains unknown to European adult educators. Hence, they are able to capture only one part of the picture, which is probably less attractive than the whole. This dimension may also explain why they prefer to draw from the European and Freireian theoretical sources regarding emancipatory learning.

Organizational issues

One more possible explanation of the limited interest of Europeans toward TL is that they find it difficult to follow the developments in the field for practical reasons, given that all international conferences, apart from the ninth, were held in North American countries.

The language issue

One further reason might be that a number of European scholars are not quite familiarized with the English language that is used in the international conferences and the Journal of Transformative Education. It is indicative that many of the participants of the Ninth International Conference for TL expressed their wish for some workshops to be held in French or Spanish.

Remarks

There is a risk of the TL area being established as one almost exclusively containing ideas and practices of North American origin. We have seen that various reasons hinder European adult educators from fully appreciating TL theory. (I do hope that research and international dialogue will reveal the relevant dispositions of colleagues from other continents.) Nevertheless, I believe that the collaboration of all sides could result in the broadening of TL’s theoretical base and expand its potential. But it seems that this is not an easy task, mainly due to the era of crisis that TL has experienced in the past few years, as we will see in the next section.

The Era of Crisis

Around the mid-2000s, a crucial shift regarding the development of TL theory began. Gradually, Mezirow’s view was no longer considered as the connecting tissue. Various alternative theoretical approaches gained an increasing presence, providing the theory with new conceptualizations. This triggered the elaboration of multiple issues, such as affective ways of knowing, authentic relationships, expressive ways of learning, soul work, identity development, positionality, connected learning, embodied learning, spirituality, and so on, which offered new insights to the theory. Furthermore, there has been a remarkable increase in the number of publications. Ed Taylor, in his introductory speech at a conference in Freiburg in 2013, titled “Transformative Learning meets Bildung,” stated that over the last 15 years, articles on TL have been doubling every 5 years. This situation has led to the rise of multiple dominant perspectives within the TL theoretical framework which are described by Taylor and Cranton (2012) in a variety of ways, such as cognitive and rational, imaginative and intuitive, spiritual, related to individuality, relational, related to social change, to name just a few of the most common perspectives (p. 7). It is obvious that the “second-wave” approaches that aimed at the development of a unified TL theory did not actually gain much space.

This new situation brought about a crisis in the field, which took the form of various dysfunctions. The consequence of the growth of multiple alternative perspectives was that TL theory gradually became a rather loose conceptual construct that could embody theoretical views of distinct orientation. Taylor and Cranton (2012) describe this situation as follows: “there are growing pains in the form of varied understandings of what transformative learning is and is not” (p. 10). Newman (2012), in turn, claims that TL theory has been so much generalized that it “may not exist as an identifiable phenomenon” (p. 36).

Therefore, nowadays, in the growing literature of TL, despite the common purpose of the researchers (the fundamental change in learners’ frame of reference), there is ambiguity and even some confusion concerning the identity and the components of the theory. This uncertain situation, combined with the ever-increasing volume of ideas and texts, causes interrelated problems, as acknowledged by Taylor and Cranton (2012) as well as by Taylor and Snyder (2011). First, much of the research is not grounded in the primary sources. Second, the critiques on others’ views are often quite superficial, with little awareness of how the latter had been actually conceptualized. Third, research becomes increasingly fragmented into numerous conceptions. Fourth, many authors adopt a dualistic approach: They deny other views and overemphasize their own (e.g., the goal of TL is relevant to individual growth vs. social change; attention to the affective dimension of learning vs. the cognitive one). In general, much of the research does not engage in in-depth theoretical analysis and does not thoroughly explore the issues at hand.

Two Examples of Deficiency

The asymptote between North American and European literature

A first example of the deficiency of the contemporary TL theoretical framework is that there are few reciprocal connections between the relevant North American and the European literature—I don’t have enough information on this issue in the other continents. Regarding the North American literature, it would be interesting to consider what emerged from the aforementioned literature review (Kokkos & Koulaouzides, 2011) of the 33 most cited North American scholars’ articles between 1991 and 2007: Only 14 articles make reference to the works of European scholars. More specifically, six refer to the work of Jarvis, five to Habermas, four to Jung, three to Heideger, three to Foucault and only one to Bourdieu. Reciprocally, as stated earlier, the references of European scholars in the relative North American literature are also very limited, with the exception of the references to Mezirow’s work.

The lack of boundaries between psychotherapy and educational work

Another example of insufficient theoretical exploration and ill-defined teaching methods regards the tension between adult education and psychotherapy. On one hand, I would recognize that the dialogue between the unconscious and ego consciousness is very important in the learning process (e.g., Cranton, 2006; Dirkx, 1997). Adult educators should have a psychological sensitivity and awareness that would allow them to understand the various unconscious processes that interfere with learning, for instance, the mechanisms of transference and countertransference between the learners and the educator, the psychic qualities of relationships between educator and participants, the uncomfortable feelings that learners may encounter when they deal with ethical issues and disorienting dilemmas, learners’ resistance toward new ideas that may derive from their past experiences, and so on (Bainbridge & West, 2012; Kokkos & Tsimboukli, 2011). However, I argue that we should be cautious with regard to the use of psychotherapeutic techniques within educational settings. Although some scholars of TL, such as Illeris (2014), Kegan (2000), Mezirow (1991), have claimed that TL might not be understood as a kind of therapy dealing with psychic traumas, an increasing number of colleagues seem to take this warning lightly. They argue that the educational procedure might be engaged with the interpretation of the unconscious voices through working on dreams and fantasies even if the facilitator has not a psychology background. A typical example is Kaya’s work (2009): She explains, first, how she worked on her own on her dreams and fantasies, claiming that she “intuitively understood their meaning” (p. 212). Then, she urges adult educators to help learners access and engage with their inner self. But, I have to note here, even senior psychotherapists have stated that this is an extremely complex and demanding task (e.g., see Freud, 1900/1997; Mindell, 1989; Yalom, 2008).

Moreover, in the TL literature, there is a lack of critical and in-depth examination of the relationship between adult education and dealing with psyche. Consequently, there is a number of unanswered questions, such as what are the boundaries between emotional-advancing oriented adult education and psychotherapy? What if the initial learning contract does not include the dimension of examining the unconscious attitudes and traumas? How could an educator explore the psychic structures of a learner in front of a temporarily assembled group of 15–20 participants? Given that the time needed for the exploration of a person’s psyche is not time limited, what happens if such a procedure cannot be completed within the time schedule of a learning program? In what ways could the exploration of the unconscious powers be linked with the meaning-making process? Finally, what kind of education and qualities are needed in order for adult educators to be able to deal with learners’ inner world?

As a consequence, I claim that dealing with the unconscious without an in-depth knowledge of the relevant theoretical and psychotherapeutic background, as well as without a profound reflection on adult educators’ role and their professional code, carries high risks for the learners, the educators themselves, and also for the credibility of the TL theory and practice.

Remarks

The growing uncertainty about TL definition, purpose, and teaching methods, as well as the stagnation of the relevant research, the disconnected strategies, and the discrepancies among the various theoretical trends have as a consequence that the field risks losing its potential. This vulnerable situation influences the European (including the Greek) scholars’ attitude toward TL’s theoretical and educational framework, as we will see in the next section.

The Reactions in Europe

In his last book, Illeris (2014) offers a valuable perspective of how a European who is highly interested in TL—and who is at the same time one of the leading thinkers on the way people learn—reacts toward the current situation in the field:

These new tendencies extend the grounds of transformative learning, not only including emotional, social and societal dimensions, but, in a rather proliferating and sometimes confusing way, also understanding and accepting anything that is changed or done or experienced in new ways as something that can be labeled as transformative learning. (Illeris, 2014, p. 15)

It is possible that this doubtful attitude expressed by Illeris has to do with the fact that in the last International Conference on TL in San Francisco (October 2012), only nine Europeans participated, apart from the Greeks, a number that is significantly smaller than that at the International Conference in Bermuda 3 years earlier.

The perspective of the Greek community

Within our community of emancipatory adult educators, we worry about the delicate current situation of TL field. Furthermore, a large number of the 205 Greek colleagues who participated in the Ninth International Conference held in Athens in 2011 were quite perplexed to realize that a good deal of the presentations were far from –or, sometimes, contrary toMezirow or second-wave approaches without even debating with them. Nevertheless, it seems that our conception toward TL has a solid background and our interest remains high. We continue to draw inspiration mainly from Mezirow’s perspective and connect it to the views of Freire, certain second-wave approaches, as well as to the ideas of the European theorists who deal with critical thinking and emancipatory adult education.

With an intent to ascertain the reliability of these thoughts, I addressed a questionnaire to Greek scholars, whose articles on TL are published in international journals or proceedings of international conferences. The questionnaire, which was answered by almost all of them—14 persons—contained questions based on the 1–5 Likert-type scale (1 = none at all, 5 = very much) as well as open ones. The main question was “To what extent does the theoretical framework of Transformative Learning including Mezirow’s view as well as alternative views (e.g., psychoanalytic, developmental, social-emancipatory, etc.) influence or/and inspire your ideas concerning adult learning?—Please explain.” The median was high (4), and the explanations made apparent that the participants make their meaning on TL mainly through the ideas of Mezirow. Example:

I agree with Mezirow that adult education programs should always include a transformative dimension. Since transformation is always connected with critical thinking, I am trying to invent learning opportunities that could assist learners to critically examine their experiences (I call them biographical incidents) and reflect on them to achieve a broader frame of reference.

The responses to one of the complementary questions (“Which other theoretical approaches (or scholars) mainly influence and/or inspire your ideas concerning adult learning?”) showed that, apart from the established major Mezirow’s influence, the Greek scholars deal with adult education through the perspective of Freire as well as other European theorists, such as Jarvis, Brookfield, Piaget, Vygotsky, Demunter, Bourdieu, and Illeris. On the other hand, only two North American scholars (Kegan and Bandura) were mentioned, something which verified the aforementioned gap between the study of the North American literature by the Europeans and vice versa.

Suggestions and New Trends

Obviously, if TL research could overcome its present situation of stagnation and fragmentation, the consequences would be beneficial for the whole field, including the dispositions of the Europeans toward it. In order to achieve this task, Taylor and Cranton (2012) claim that it is necessary that the various perspectives are brought together “under one theoretical umbrella […] while maintaining the diversity of approaches” (p. 3). I share their thoughts and support their practical recommendations: return to the primary sources of the theory, build on them, and interpret them anew; search for congruency among scholars about the purpose, components, and practices of TL; pay attention to the clarity and consistency of terminology.

Some further actions might be added to this catalogue. Organizing forums for exchanging ideas of different perspectives (a good relevant practice was the workshop Transformative Learning meets Bildung in Freiburg, 2013); Scientific Committees of international conferences on TL could give motives, so that approved articles make explicit links to previous theoretical works; use more thorough and up-to-date bibliographical resources; from time to time, international conferences could be held in all the continents; international collaboration and research on TL could be reinforced (the European American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness is a creative case in point).

Finally, I would like to refer to a new initiative taken by a number of European colleagues who are intensively interested in TL. A Network named “Interrogating Transformative Processes in Learning: An International Dialogue” was developed in 2013 under the auspices of European Society for Research on the Education of Adults (ESREA). The aim of the Network is

to create space for enhancing international dialogue and research on transformative processes in learning, including notions on Transformative Learning, and what this means and how it might be best facilitated. There is an anxiety about the widespread use of the term ‘transformative’ and the danger being emptied of meaning, reduced, perhaps, to little more than a marketing slogan. (From the Flyer of the Network)

The first action of the Network was to plan and hold an international conference in Athens in June 2014, titled “What’s the point of transformative learning?” The rationale of the conference is that it will not be just another scientific activity aiming to explore concerns that are restricted to issues related to Mezirow’s inceptive work and/or alternative views that deal with dimensions that are absent from his perspective. Rather, the goal of the conference is to broaden this scope and deal with a larger number of views regarding emancipatory adult education from as back as the 19th century:

Transformation theory began to be elaborated by Jack Mezirow thirty years ago and soon attracted the intense interest of theorists and scholars of adult education. Many of them, located mainly in North America, adopted the core purpose of this learning theory—the fundamental change in learners’ dysfunctional frames of reference—and developed their own ideas within this theoretical frame […]Other scholars, located in Europe, for instance, but also in other continents, may share the purpose of TL but offer alternative understandings of perspective transformation, using different conceptual frameworks, whether derived from critical theory, Bildung, Marxism, psychosocial studies etc. Nevertheless, there may be shared understanding in that all such views might contribute to better understandings of shifts in learners’ perspective of him/herself, in various ways, individually and collectively, cognitively, socially, emotionally, relationally, artistically, biographically and/or intuitively.

Our 1st Conference is addressed to all researchers and adult educators from Europe and around the world that share emancipatory educational goals, and wish to interrogate transformative processes in learning and education, their meaning, problematics and facilitation. Our title builds on some skepticism about the very term ‘Transformative Learning’ among particular scholars in Europe—‘too North American, too individualistic etc’.—and we wish to create a space where we can play (in a Winnicottian sense) with TL and related concepts in a critical, but also constructive spirit. (From the Call for Papers of the 1st Conference of the Network)

Linking these ideas to the attitudes of European scholars toward the theoretical framework of TL stated previously (a rather critical disposition toward Mezirow’s view, limited interest regarding the alternative views suggested by North American scholars, uncertainty about the present situation of the TL field, familiarization with a large spectrum of European theorists who deal with emancipatory adult education), it is my contention that between the lines of the Call lies the idea that the view of TL might be fully appreciated in the Old Continent not only as an enrichment of Mezirow’s perspective or as an adoption of alternative approaches to his work. The idea is to reframe our view regarding the field and capture the whole theoretical range of what learning which aims to radical change can address, including what is understood as TL.

The omens are positive for the time being: 74 articles have been accepted for the conference (63 written by European authors, 7 by North Americans, and 4 by colleagues from other continents), while two of the leading scholars in TL field, John Dirkx and Ed Taylor, have systematically supported the creation of the Network.

I do hope that this initiative may contribute through dialogue to the construction of a broad, expanded, and renewed transformative learning framework including theory, research, and educational practice.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

This article has been presented at ESREA’s: 7th European Research Conference “Changing configurations of adult education in transitional times”, Berlin, September 4–7, 2013.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bainbridge

West

(Eds.). (2012). Psychoanalysis and education. London, England: Karnac.

Belenky

M. F.

Stanton

(2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 71–102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyd

R. D.

Myers

J. G.

(1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7, 261–284.

Brookfield

. (2000). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 125–148). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clark

M. C.

Wilson

(1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow’s theory of transformational theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 75–91.

Collard

Law

(1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39, 99–107.

Cranton

(2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton

Roy

(2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 86–98.

Dirkx

(1997). Nurturing soul in adult education. In Cranton

(Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp.79–88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Dirkx

(1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1–14.

11.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.

12.

Freire

(1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

13.

Freud

(1997). Interpretation of dreams. London, England: Wordsworth (Original work published 1900).

14.

Gunnlaugson

(2008). Metatheoretical prospects for the field of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 6, 124–35.

15.

Hart

(1990). Critical theory and beyond: Further perspectives on emancipatory education. Adult Education Quarterly, 40, 125–138.

16.

Illeris

(2004). Transformative learning in a comprehensive learning theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 2, 79–89.

17.

Illeris

(2012). Transformative learning and identity. Presentation at the 10th International Conference on Transformative Learning. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved April, 30, 2014, from http://meridianuniversity.edu/images/tlc_proceedings.pdf

18.

Illeris

(2014). Transformative learning and identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Inglis

(1997). Empowerment and emancipation. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 3–14.

20.

Jarvis

Griffin

(Eds.). (2003). Adult and continuing education: Major themes in education. London, England: Routledge.

21.

Kaya

(2009). A transformational dance: The power of emotions, imagination, and critical reflection in transformative learning experience. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from http://www.transformativelearning.org

22.

Kegan

(2000). What form transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Kokkos

Koulaouzides

(2011). Divergence and Convergence in Transformative Learning: Insights from the ‘Old Continent’ and the ‘New World’. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://transformativelearning.org

24.

Kokkos

Tsiboukli

(2011). The role of emotions in transformative learning: Challenges and boundaries for adult educators. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://transformativelearning.org

25.

Kokkos

(2012). Transformative Learning in Europe: An Overview of the Theoretical Perspectives. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The Handbook of Transformative Learning (pp. 289–303). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Mezirow

(1989). Transformative theory and social action: A response to collard and law. Adult Education Quarterly, 39, 169–175.

27.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Mezirow

(1994). Response to Mark Tennant and Michael Newman. Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 243–244.

29.

Mezirow

(1998). Transformative learning and social action: A response to Inglis. Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 70–72.

30.

Mezirow

(2000). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Mezirow

, & Associates. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Mezirow

, & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Mezirow

(2009a). Transformative learning theory. In Mezirow

Taylor

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice (pp. 18–31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

34.

Mezirow

(2009b). An overview of transformative learning. In Illeris

(Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 90–105). London/New York: Routledge.

35.

Mezirow

Dirkx

Cranton

(2006). Musings and reflections in the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4, 123–139.

36.

Mindell

(1989). Working with the dreaming body. London, England: Penguin-Arkana.

37.

Newman

(2012). Calling transformative learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts. Adult Education Quarterly, 62, 36–55.

38.

Taylor

(1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review. Columbus, OH: ERIC.

39.

Taylor

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173–191.

40.

Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.). (2012). The handbook of transformative learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Taylor

Snyder

(2011). Transformative learning theory: Review of research 2006–2011. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from http://transformativelearning.org

42.

Yalom

(2008). Staring at the sun. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.