I Am Not Alone: Expanding the Epistemological Framework for Supporting Marginalized Women’s Transformative Learning

Abstract

Marginalized adults have limited access to learning experiences that prioritize reflection and discourse, both considered preconditions in the Mezirow-informed field of transformative learning (TL). Using narrative analysis of a staff focus group and participant interviews over a 1-year learning journey, this study shows how a literacy program in a women’s homeless shelter created conditions that supported TL for two marginalized women of color. Results show how program learning goals were attuned to issues of positionality for women marginalized by race, class, and gender and were consistent with Africentric womanist epistemological and axiological assumptions. Conditions that fostered connectedness among women in troubling contexts and contributed to qualitative change in ways of knowing included purposeful spaces dedicated to reflection, dialogue, and student-centered pedagogy. The findings have important implications for the theoretical grounding of policy and practice in support of marginalized women’s TL.

Keywords

marginalized adults women of color transformative learning

The promise of transformative learning (TL) theory for broadening meaning perspectives toward “full development of the human potential” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 16) is grounded in democratic values where meaning perspective “…selectively shapes and delimit perception, cognition, feelings, and disposition by predisposing our intentions, expectations, and purposes” (p. 16). Ideally, meaning perspective may be broadened to imagine possibilities for realizing one’s full human potential. It is particularly troubling when an individual’s perspective is limited by systemic inequalities. However, learners are believed to be “significantly affected by their backgrounds and the context in which the learning occurs” (Johnson-Bailey, 2012, p. 263). In the United States, systematic structural inequalities of racism, poverty, and gender often limit the potential of marginalized Adult Basic Education (ABE) and General Educational Development (GED) learners seeking alternative routes to a high school diploma.

Traditionally, ABE has championed learner empowerment goals including disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged individuals who are disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and women. Mezirow’s (1978) TL theory has origins in data from women’s reentry programs who were geographically, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse. Despite these origins, with the exception of Belenky et al.’s (1997) widely acclaimed work as a lens for understanding women’s ways of knowing, English and Irving (2012) characterized the absence of a gendered TL analysis as a “virtual disappearance from adult education literature” (p. 246). Some questioned the assumptions of learning theories largely derived from the perspective of highly educated and economically advantaged women (Flannery & Hayes, 2000). Scholars have encouraged a race-centric perspective that considers learners’ positionality (Hooks, 1989; Johnson-Bailey & Alfred, 2006). Few studies have focused on TL and women of color (WOC) leaving important epistemological perspectives like self-definition and self-agency understudied (Alinia, 2015; Collins, 2009).

In the current work, I define TL as how adults experience change in the way they make sense of the world by…“focusing on how we learn to negotiate and act on our own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others to gain greater control over our lives as socially responsible, clear thinking decision makers” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 8). The original theory formation positioned TL as a 10-step process initiated by a disorienting dilemma facilitated through critical reflection and discourse. Mezirow (2000) specified ideal preconditions required free and full participation in critical reflection and discourse including “…a reasonable minimum of personal security, health, and education” (p. 20).

It is important for ABE educators to better understand how to support all learners’ TL capacities particularly those experiencing disruptive and displacing events. Johnson-Bailey (2012) recommended adaptation of the theory for use with learners in varied settings “…regardless of and perhaps because of their disenfranchised positions” (p. 269). Accordingly, this study focuses on marginalized women experiencing homelessness to address the dearth in literature theorizing conditions supporting TL for women and marginalized WOC.

Over a decade ago, I examined epistemological perspectives of six Black women for 1 year (from 2004 to 2005) in a homeless shelter–based ABE literacy program. I sought better understanding of ways of knowing as it pertains to how disenfranchised groups who experience life differently may construct meaning differently. Six women described aspects of their learning experiences that are consistent with types of transformation (Bridwell, 2013). The current study builds on that work focusing beyond what we know or types of change to a deeper understanding of how we know (Kegan, 2000) for learners whose lived experiences are not typically the primary focus. Of the six women in the initial study, two demonstrated a qualitative change in ways of knowing. This study seeks greater depth into understanding the extent of transformative phenomenon for which research is lacking (Hoggan, 2016). I pose two questions:

How is TL supported for marginalized WOC in a homeless shelter–based literacy program?

How do marginalized WOC, having demonstrated a qualitative change in ways of knowing, describe experiences of TL?

Africentric Womanist Theory

In Africentric womanist theory, Black women’s unique positionality necessitates centering self-definition in the TL process. It encourages alternative ways of producing and validating knowledge. Sheared (2006) contended self-definition is accomplished, in part, through an Africentric feminist epistemology: “An Africentric feminist analysis acknowledges voice in the contextual framework of social class, historical and political hegemony, and its relationship with gender and racial oppression” (p. 274).

Africentric epistemology is recognized as a method that scholars can use to uncover and describe knowledge, and adult educators can use it as a process for engaging the voices of marginalized students. It is grounded in two epistemological and two axiological assumptions for guiding and promoting processes for engaging the voices of WOC (Sheared, 2006). The first epistemological assumption is that concrete experience is used as a criterion of meaning, which acknowledges there is more than one way of making meaning. The second is that dialogue is the basis for assessing knowledge claims, which posits connectedness as essential to knowledge validation. Taken together, these assumptions help reveal how “Knowledge is grounded in the individual’s [concrete experiences of] race, gender and class…and Knowledge consists of one’s everyday lived experiences and understandings of that reality in terms of dominance and authority” (p. 274). Likewise, dialogue promotes exploration of alternative worldviews; the use of dialogue for African American women, in particular, might be a way of proceeding from a position of silence and subordination to “share[ing] equal voice or connectedness, in decisions and choices they make” (Collins, 1990, p. 317).

Axiological assumptions are based on an ethic of caring and a focus on the significance of dialogue. Sheared (2006) delineated the first as an ethic of caring [that] emphasizes the uniqueness of individuals, elicits appropriate emotion from the dialogue, and recognizes empathetic understanding. The second is an ethic of personal accountability [that] guides both teaching and learning where knowledge claims are developed through dialogue (pp. 274–276).

Womanist theory prioritizes the lived experiences of disenfranchised populations. Ntiri (2014) described it as “…a conceptual framework for visualizing how race, class, and gender are linked and how they link with other systems of power and inequality” (p. 127). It acknowledges how positionality impacts the way people learn and how they respond to knowledge. Like Freire’s (1973) empowerment education or “popular education” model, it prioritizes engagement in dialogue between learners and teachers. This pedagogy acknowledges multiple ways people interpret and understand the world and, in the tradition of womanist theory, directly links curriculum content to people’s lived experiences. Similarly, Johnson-Bailey (2012) contends reflection drives TL processes and is fostered in contexts where learners engage in discourse.

Literature Review

Belenky and Stanton (2000) stressed the importance of understanding that Mezirow’s theory may not represent realities of some students’ lived experiences including women’s more humanistic and connected ways of knowing. For example, Mezirow (2000) asserted rational cognitive processes of critical reflection and discourse were necessary preconditions for achieving TL goals aimed at full human development. He asserted:

Finding one’s voice for free full participation in discourse include elements of maturity, education, safety, health, economic security, and emotional intelligence. Hungry, homeless, desperate, threatened, sick, or frightened adults are less able to participate effectively in discourse to help us better understand the meaning of our experiences. (p. 15)

It is helpful to understand that adults make meaning of their experiences at various levels of complexity. For example, Kegan and Lahey (2009) reported two large-scale meta-analyses studies that found 58% of respondents were not at the self-authoring level of mental complexity at which individuals are oriented to internal authority (self-authoring). They speculate that since both studies were skewed toward middle-class, college-educated professionals, the percentage of adults in the general population not at the self-authoring level is likely even higher. Therefore, it is important that program designs are informed by knowledge of the diversity in ways adults make meaning.

Fostering TL

Much of the adult education literature on women’s learning tends to presuppose rather than indicate direct linkage to transformative theory. English and Irving (2012) pointed out that much of the writing on TL and women is derived from women in oppressive conditions; however, “Implicit in these articles is that tragedy, violence, or other social factors can be instigators of a disorienting dilemma; yet this is not developed well, and its links to transformative learning theory are not specifically named” and call for a more robust body of work where the linkage is not done “in a very superficial way” (p. 248).

Epistemological elements confirmed as fostering TL include critical reflection, dialogue, a holistic orientation, an awareness of context, authentic relationships, and learner-centered teaching (English & Irving, 2012; Taylor, 2009). Noncognitive strategies include storytelling, dialogue or discourse, social interaction, and prioritizing space for engagement (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Some have been documented as supporting marginalized women’s TL in troubling contexts. For example, Sandoval et al. (2016) found incarcerated women in a gender-responsive jail program experienced transformation through interpersonal and intrapersonal engagement. Similarly, Alderson and Twist (2003) examined the impact of literacy activities on the lives of women working as sex trade workers in Vancouver that sought to provide “…safety, acceptance, challenge and opportunities for increased self-esteem within the context of chaos, grinding poverty, violence and substance abuse” (p. 8).

Rivera (2003, 2008) studied the impact of popular education on 50 homeless women in a Boston family literacy program. She noted “a spirit of advocacy, collaboration, and resistance…[thereby presenting] the ideal context for transformative learning, women’s empowerment, and positive social change” (p. 50). Bridwell’s (2013) findings were consistent with Rivera’s in confirming the types of transformation participants experienced they “…[had] increased self-esteem, [were] inspired to help other low-income women, had new perspectives [of themselves] as role models for their children, and became better advocates for their own rights” (p. 141).

Method

Narrative inquiry supports the study of human experiences through stories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Shared stories is a valued method for fostering and conceptualizing women’s learning in relation to TL and development (Flannery & Hayes, 2000). Narratives permit foregrounding marginalized women’s voices. This approach replicates Kegan et al.’s (2001), which was validated with less privileged ABE learners.

Site Selection

At the time of data collection, the Shelter (pseudonym) was a comprehensive service facility located in one of Boston’s most economically depressed neighborhoods. Consultation with adult educators, program directors, and adult development researchers informed criteria for best practices of a “holding environment” that supports an individual’s existing developmental position while providing experiences that encourage transformational growth (Kegan, 2000). The curriculum included Loves Herself Regardless (LHR), a class that focused on self-esteem, self-awareness, self-care, and leadership skills.

Participant Selection

I used purposeful sampling to identify subjects who could provide rich information. Selection criteria specified American-born, English-speaking African American women. The focal participants for this study are Margaret and Toni who had demonstrated qualitative change in ways of knowing (Bridwell, 2013). Margaret was 40, divorced, and had two children. Toni was 20, single, and had an infant son. Toni lived at the Shelter and Margaret lived in nearby subsidized housing. Margaret had 11 years of experience as a student and Toni had 12.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection and analysis proceeded concurrently to add depth and maintain focus (Drago-Severson, 2004b). Data collection took place over a decade ago from September 2004 through July 2005. This study builds on those findings of how two of the women in the earlier work demonstrated a qualitative change in ways of knowing. It adds insights into the extent and orientation of their change. Substantive content and protocols are not compromised. I conducted a staff focus group that included the program director, counselor, and four teachers and three rounds of 2-hr individual participant interviews over the year using two developmental interview protocols. The Adult Development Project Experience of Learning Interview is a qualitative interview focusing on experiences of teaching and learning and on changes in ways of knowing (Drago-Severson, 2004b; Kegan et al., 2001). It facilitates understanding participants’ goals and motives and how these are supported. Learners’ theories about learning and teaching are explored in questions like “What do you think makes a person a really good learner (or student)?” (Drago-Severson, 2004b, p. 11). I assessed responses by monitoring and comparing individual responses to generate emergent theme categories.

The Subject-Object Interview (SOI) “…looks at the growth or transformation of how we construct meaning” (Kegan, 1994, p. 198). It permits the assessment of change over time (Lahey et al., 1988). “It discriminates developmental movement between, and within, the levels of mental complexity with high degrees of interrater reliability” (Kegan & Lahey, 2009, p. 21). I focused on the three prevalent ways of knowing in adulthood that vary in orientation and ways of constructing meaning: For instrumental knowers (Stage 2), these include self-interest, purpose, wants, and concrete needs; for socializing knowers (Stage 3), they include affiliation and valuing others’ expectations and opinions (external authority); and for self-authoring knowers (Stage 4), they include valuing the self and internal authority (Drago-Severson, 2004a). Orientation from which meaning is constructed is assessed from one-word prompts for a story involving a recent experience and the feeling evoked by the prompt. Analysis provides insights beyond categorizing a particular type of change to indicating the extent and orientation of change in gradual progression along a continuum of ways in which individuals make meaning of their experiences.

Reliability and trustworthiness of findings were guarded in several ways. I observed prescribed protocols for administering and assessing stories from SOI interviews (Lahey et al., 1988) using fine-grained coding of individual stories for evidence of orientation in ways of knowing (i.e., instrumental, socializing, self-authoring). I achieved 80% interrater reliability. Internal validity was further strengthened by 1 year in the field, triangulation of two validated interview instruments, and cross-checking staff and participant interview responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I consulted with members of the Harvard Adult Development Research Team for replicating the scaled research design, data collection, and analysis and maintained a credible audio and transcript audit trail.

Findings

Staff Focus Group

“Taking them beyond the GED.”

In the United States, the General Educational Development (GED) test certifies high school–level academic skills equivalency. Asked to reflect on the most desired student learning outcomes, the staff spoke of “taking them beyond the GED” and “creating a climate conducive to ‘lifelong learning’ beyond basic literacy instruction.”

[The Shelter] instills a love of learning and fosters a sense of lifelong learning…It is about taking them beyond their GED because that’s such a primary goal coming into the program, but we want so much more for all of them than that. That’s a beginning step. So, I agree definitely the self-empowerment, a sense of who they are, a sense of community and then lifelong learning. (Teacher)

There was unanimous agreement on an overarching self-empowerment learning goal. Discussion of learning contexts primarily focused on program-wide empowerment learning goals and LHR class.

Program learning goals

In addition to ABE literacy skills classes, the staff spoke of “our foundation classes,” stressing a program-wide emphasis on building self-esteem, self-awareness, self-care, and leadership skills that “carry over…we can always tie them together as kind of like the booster for everything else.” These learning goals, representing a holistic approach to learning, were described as “intangibles.”

The women come to us not just with their minds so we’re not just educating them intellectually, but they’re bringing their spirits with them, they’re bringing their emotions, they’re bringing their physical bodies. So we want to help facilitate the development of all of those aspects of the women…everything that we do, in all of our planning and everything, all stems from that (Teacher).

The ability to “speak up” was a prominent goal associated with self-empowerment. The intent was summarized as “…instilling a sense of who they are, a sense of community and lifelong learning.”

LHR class

This program component was discussed most frequently as the designated space for addressing self-esteem, self-awareness, self-care, and leadership skills referred to as “intangibles” and “speaking out.” The LHR class convened every Monday morning in a classroom adorned with candles, pictures, and inspirational quotes. The teacher described the objective as follows: “It begins with love, the ability to express empathy, gain trust and to relate to the women…. It’s based on relating to the whole person, respect and caring.”

Experiences of TL

“I see a big change in me.”

In the past, I always had problems talking my feelings out directly…they [had] given me strength…the only time you could be heard is you got to speak out, so I have learned to be able to put that fear away that kept me—not being able to talk about feelings or something that bothers me. I have learned…the only time you can be heard is you must speak. (Margaret, Interview 3)

Type of change

Emergent themes of types of change in perspective over the year included motivation, expectations of teachers’ roles, self-confidence, and learning support. Table 1 depicts descriptive snapshots in these TL experiences as they became more complex over the year. At program entry, both women stated their primary motivation was “getting the GED.” They later described more complex perspectives. For example, Toni expressed a more holistic set of motivators beyond the GED, and Margaret relayed the example of personal growth in expressing her feelings. Both described passive expectations of teachers’ roles, initially viewing them as the source of information for the concrete goal of achieving the GED. Later, Toni presented a more complex perception, discussing how a teacher needed to demonstrate patience to accommodate a range of learner abilities. Margaret’s later expectation of teachers’ roles described how they assisted her learning. Both women initially expressed a lack of self-confidence. Toni described experiencing fear that “nobody would hear” her, and Margaret expressed fear of “being made fun of.” Toni’s self-confidence as a learner appeared to grow with her contribution to the group’s endeavors, and Margaret spoke of “opening up and allowing for growth” as she began to express greater self-confidence. Finally, both described learning support in the context of how they perceived associations with others when they entered the program. Toni, for example, spoke of “sitting by myself,” and Margaret referred to a period of “getting closer.” Toni later described her learning experience in more complex terms, referencing the value of different perspectives. Margaret spoke at length about support in the process of “bonding” and the significance of “talking about ourselves.”

Table 1.

Toni and Margaret’s Changes in Types of Transformed Learning Expectations.

	First Interview	Third Interview
Motivation
Toni	“Getting my GED and just leave”	“It’s not all about the GED. It’s about yourself, your health, everything,”
Margaret	“Getting all I need to know to get on to the GED testing.”	“…my behavior, my attitude, the way I express my feelings, and the way I talk.”
Teacher role expectations
Toni	“That they [teachers] explain everything to you…and see what you just told them and that’s about all.”	“A teacher has to have patience because people learn fast and some learn slow…so everybody can understand.”
Margaret	“I like to have it right in front of me and it has to be explained to me.”	“I want you [teacher] to be honest with me…I can take it from there.”
Self-confidence
Toni	“I was scared. Nobody’s going to listen to me, nobody’s going to hear me.”	“[now] sometimes I help them and sometimes I ask them for help.”
Margaret	“…people would make fun of me. I just felt very uncomfortable…”	“I learned to put that aside and believe in myself and have self-confidence…I open up and allow growth.”
Learning support
Toni	“Me sitting by myself.”	“It give[s] me a different opinion…experiences the other person had were put together…and I will understand it.”
Margaret	“The more we talked about ourselves…we got closer.”	“…good to be around other females here for what I’m here for…it has brought a bond between us.”

GED = General Educational Development.

Experiences of Learning Narratives

“Everything we talk about is like ourselves.”

Student-centered pedagogy focusing on lived experiences was a recurring theme in the women’s stories of enhanced self-esteem. Both women exhibited enhanced confidence as learners whose lived experiences were confirmed as valuable. Like the staff focus group, Margaret and Toni spoke about the LHR class most frequently as the space where sharing occurred. Toni conveyed value in opportunities to “talk about ourselves,” enthusiastically sharing discoveries about self-care and stress management:

…. Everything we talk about is like ourselves, how to take care of ourselves, our kids, and that really helps. Some of the things they said, I never heard about it before…. Like, you take care of yourself, you take a bath, a bubble bath, to relax or release stress. (Interview 2)

At our second interview, Margaret seemed to enjoy self-discovery in the student-centered instructional format. She had become student council president and spoke about her enhanced confidence:

…this program has brought me a long way. I’ve made a lot of progress since I’ve been here, and I’m more appreciative [of] who I am today…I’m finding myself able to do things that I didn’t think that I could do. I’ve accomplished a lot during the time I’ve been here and I’m just proud of myself.” (Interview 2)

Her growing confidence was apparent in describing what was surprising about herself as a learner: “I always say to myself I can’t do something, but now it’s the opposite. I don’t doubt myself any more” (Interview 2).

Both Margaret and Toni shared stories of new perspectives on themselves as role models. Margaret spoke of how being in the program was improving her parental role:

I’ll tell you one incident with my son. He’s seeing me do my homework every single day. He questioned me…“Mom, do you miss one day of doing homework?” [Laughter] And I say, “No, and you shouldn’t…if you see your mother doing her homework, you should do your homework every day’ so now we sit at the table and do our homework together. (Interview 2)

Toni conveyed enhanced confidence as a role model interacting with a friend outside the program:

It’s not about education…but love herself…you have to love yourself regardless…Everybody’s equal. I was just telling everybody that after I came here I changed my mind…I’ll go be proud. I love myself, that’s what I was telling her about…. (Interview 3)

Focusing on their student-centered learning experiences yielded new discoveries about managing stress. Similar to Toni’s discovery of a bubble bath as a source of stress relief, Margaret noticed a change:

OK. I’m more calm with myself, more at peace with myself. I like talking about my problems. As long as I get them off my chest, even though this person whoever I’m talking to like don’t really want to hear, they’re going to hear it. [Laughter] As long as it’s off my chest and I’m at peace with myself….

Asked what being “at peace” meant, she explained

Stress free, I would say. Just having that belief in yourself that you can let things go, even though you may not forget certain things, but it’s OK. You just don’t sit there with—I say—somebody else’s luggage. You just got to keep moving on. (Interview 2).

“We bring ideas to the table.”

Group learning as a context for collaboration and sharing everyday experiences was another recurring theme in stories of enhanced self-confidence. Toni was initially concerned about being the youngest in her cohort: “I thought they were going to be bossy to me or something.” However, commitment to the group’s success seemed to displace this concern as she began to recognize and value her classmates’ opinions in creating knowledge collaboratively:

The group work[s] and if I don’t understand, either I ask my teacher or I ask the person next to me…. Because we bring ideas to the table and if we don’t like it—someone will say, “I don’t like it,”—and even the good idea we just write it down and present it to the teacher. (Toni, Interview 2)

To her surprise, Toni began to describe group learning as the best way for her to learn. “…because it [give] me a different opinion about what we talked about a topic, of what we were reading about. The experience they had and the experience the other person had were put together and I will understand it” (Interview 3). She seemed to take pride in having her experiences perceived as having value

“…some of the things I was learning when I was in Africa came up and it’s like I was the only one that knows about it and that was great and my teacher was like, ‘Oh!’ That was really cool that I know it.” (Toni, Interview 2)

Margaret described how learning in a group was valuable beyond the classroom context:

I could tell you numerous [stories]…. We share a lot of our everyday life and I just have one particular incident that happened and I got so much feedback, so much support. I was able to walk away from it and not felt to blame about the situation.

The story she proceeded to tell was about choosing to be nonconfrontational in an outside dispute:

Because I see a big change in me. I’d say that if this happened months ago, I probably wouldn’t have handled it as I did. I felt growth in me and change. That right there let me know that I am making some changes. (Interview 2).

Margaret expressed growing admiration and commitment to mutual success:

…I just see my classmates growing in a lot of ways. They came a long way and I see it. Well, they talk about it, they don’t see it, but I see it. I guess I feel the same way….” (Interview 3)

She concluded

I just feel they…not letting this program be like a waste. They here and they’re putting all the effort they can to get what they need. I applaud that. I see so much potential in a lot of classmates and it makes me keep coming. (Interview 3)

“She’s showing more than a teacher.”

A strong relational bond existed among not only the women and their peers but also with their teachers. Stories of enhanced self-confidence were frequently rooted in themes of empowerment and a sense of connectedness in group learning with women who shared common lived experiences. Equally valued were teachers who incorporated egalitarian relationships in their practices. Margaret described this dynamic in our second interview:

…[n]ot just only one particular teacher, it goes for the staff that works with us, the director, it goes for other teachers also—they do and say some things that would surprise you and you’re like, “I know this is a teacher, but she’s showing more than a teacher.” She’s showing that she cares and there’s hope, there’s a future, there’s everything. You can keep your mind focus[ed] and continue. (Margaret, Interview 2).

Toni described the benefits of this relational dynamic with her teachers as the most surprising aspect of the program. Relationships were experienced as genuine caring beyond the classroom:

They really teach. If I don’t understand something, I call them and they explain to me. They come to me and explain to me…. Whenever I’m not here or miss anything or late to class, she [math teacher] always called me. Maybe after school…maybe during [break] time and tell me…maybe you talk too much in class…. And sometimes if I miss class, she put my homework or anything else I have to do in my mailbox…. Almost every teacher does that.” (Interview 2)

Margaret recounted a story about “a little conflict” between herself and a teacher which offers an example of how she experienced the relational dynamic with an egalitarian spirit and as mutual growth:

I was able to go to her and we talked it out and she had some similar feelings so…we helped each other grow in certain ways…she asked me if we could talk about our situation [in LHR] and we got a lot of positive feedback on it. Like I mentioned, it helped me grow and helped that person [the teacher] grow. (Interview 3)

Extent and orientation of change

The SOI permitted insights beyond types of change to how we know or the extent and orientation of complexity in ways knowing. Table 2 shows both women’s SOI scores were along the instrumental to socializing way of knowing continuum: 2(3)→2/3→3/2→3(2)→3.

Table 2.

Subject-Object Interview Overall Qualitative Change in Ways of Knowing Orientations.^a

Toni	Δ 2 → 2(3) → 2/3 → 3/2 → 3(2) → 3
Margaret	Δ 2 → 2(3) → 2/3 → 3/2 → 3(2) → 3
Instrumental	2 → 2(3) → 2/3 → 3/2 → 3(2) → 3		Socializing ^b
Instrumental orientations: self-interests, purposes, wants, and concrete needs; dependence on rules; decisions based on what the self will acquire		Socializing orientations: external authority and others for acceptance and belonging, feels empathy, comprehends abstractions and vantages of others

Δ = change in ways of knowing over time.

^a This continuum shows range in ways of knowing from Stage 2 instrumental to Stage 3 socializing and associated orientations.

^b Source. Lahey et al. (1988).

Orientations of the instrumental way of knowing (Stage 2) include self-interests, purposes, wants and concrete needs, dependence on rules, and decisions based on what the self will acquire. Socializing orientations in ways of knowing (Stage 3) tend toward external authority and “valued others” expectations, opinions, acceptance, and affiliation. At the beginning of the year, Toni demonstrated a clearly dominant instrumental way of knowing (2). Her SOI score showed change at the end of the year from 2 to 2(3) indicating evidence of an emerging socializing way of knowing 2(3). Margaret began the year demonstrating an instrumental way of knowing but with evidence of an emerging socializing way of knowing 2(3). By the end of the year, her dominant instrumental way of knowing had given way to a more prominent, though not fully formed, socializing way of knowing 3/2–3(2). Both showed growth in capacity for more complex perspectives in ways of making meaning as transitioning instrumental/socializing knowers.

Discussion

The findings suggest that the Shelter’s empowerment goals successfully supported TL for marginalized WOC who demonstrated qualitative change in ways of knowing. The TL goals reflected Africentric epistemological and axiological assumptions. Student-centered pedagogy acknowledged learner positionality, and opportunities to engage in dialogue linking curriculum content to learners’ lived experiences supported relational bonds.

The findings are consistent with those confirming adults construct knowledge and the meaning of education in qualitatively different ways that are consistent with their system of making meaning (Drago-Severson, 2004a). They confirm a good learning context or “holding environment” that supports TL “…recognizes and confirms who the person is and how the person is currently making meaning…” (Drago-Severson, 2004a, p. 35). They suggest how adults make meaning (ways of knowing) and capacity to view reality from increasingly complex perspectives (Kegan, 2000).

Descriptions of motivation, expectations of teacher’s roles, self-confidence, and support for learning emerged as types of change. The analysis supported insights beyond types of change to better understanding the extent and orientation of more profound perspective change. Specifically, both women experienced growth in complexity in ways of knowing that was consistent with change from concrete self-interests associated with instrumental orientations (Stage 2) toward greater capacity for abstractness, affiliation, and acceptance associated with socializing orientations in ways of knowing (Stage 3). Both felt supported as they experienced enhanced self-confidence and validation as contributors in student-centered and group learning contexts. Expressions of mutual regard, connectedness, and empowerment goals associated with TL processes were consistent with women’s ways of knowing (Belenky et al., 1997) and with Africentric epistemological assumptions (Sheared, 2006). Authentic relationships between peers and teachers inspired learners’ sense of validation and capacity for collaborative knowledge construction.

Like the majority of the adult population, none of the women in the original study (Bridwell, 2013), including subjects in the current study, were shown to make meaning at the self-authoring level (Stage 4). It is important to note that Kegan (1982) emphasized developmental growth, how we make meaning, is a gradual process measurable over years or decades if at all (Kegan et al., 2001). He concluded without a supportive environment we would not expect to see measurable qualitative development in complexity of ways of knowing in 1 year. That qualitative shifts in ways of knowing could occur over the short period of 1 year is considered “quite noteworthy” (Drago-Severson, 2004a). Margaret and Toni demonstrated such a noteworthy shift.

The staff focus group findings were consistent with studies concluding noncognitive strategies including dialogue, storytelling, social interaction, and space for engagement (Merriam & Bierema, 2014) fostered TL. They confirmed the significance of safe environments and opportunities for dialogue as conducive to acceptance and enhanced self-esteem for marginalized women in troubling contexts (Alderson & Twist, 2003; Sandoval et al., 2016). The Shelter’s “intangible” program goals confirmed Rivera’s (2003) assessment as supporting an ideal TL context for advancing empowerment learning goals.

Student-centered pedagogy and group learning supported relational bonds and connectedness. Findings suggested these structures were consistent with Africentric womanist strategies prioritizing self-definition, acknowledging alternative ways of producing and validating knowledge. They facilitated dialogue grounded in shared lived experiences and unique positionality. For example, “speaking out” is an empowerment goal advocated in Black feminist scholarship (Hooks, 1989). It was encouraged as a learning goal by staff and referenced by subjects as evidence of enhanced confidence. Africentric empowerment goals were evident in LHR objectives the teacher described as “…ability to express empathy, gain trust and to relate to the women…. It’s based on relating to the whole person, respect and caring.” These objectives are directly reflective of Africentric womanist epistemological assumptions in which engaging dialogue around shared common experiences validates one’s criterion of meaning. Axiological assumptions based in the ethic of caring were reflected in dialogue which elicited empathetic understanding and strengthened relational bonds. Enhanced relational bonds between cohort members and teachers that stood out as types of change appeared to evolve in ways that were consistent with evidence of change from instrumental concrete orientations to socializing orientations toward valued others.

The Shelter’s TL context seemed affirmed as a safe space where people feeling seen, understood, and accepted are emphasized. Undergirded by dialogue and quality relationships, these processes emerge as legitimate to transformation. They appear to prioritize learner positionality as foregrounding TL processes acknowledged as impacting the way people learn and respond to knowledge. The findings support Johnson-Bailey’s (2012) contention that reflection drives TL processes and is fostered in contexts where learners engage in discourse that supports self-definition. As represented in the literature and consistent with the staff’s empowerment objective of “speaking out,” the findings conceivably reveal a relational womanist dynamic that was pivotal to the Shelter’s supportive TL context. This dynamic was apparent in examples of connectedness as advocated in women’s ways of knowing and in recognition of Black women’s unique positionality and enhanced self-definition as advocated in Africentric epistemology.

Mezirow (2000) contended dialogue and self-reflection were preconditions and posited critical consciousness raising as foregrounding TL processes. Similarly, Freire (1973) encouraged conscientization in empowerment education or “popular education” for engaging dialogue between disenfranchised learners and teachers. The Shelter’s context appears to have successfully engaged pedagogy that respectfully acknowledges multiple ways people interpret and understand the world as advocated in women’s ways of knowing. In the tradition of Africentric womanist theory, it directly linked curriculum content to people’s lived experiences. The findings support evidence that foregrounding relational TL processes may lie at the core of more profound change as experienced by the subjects in this study.

Conclusions

Learners who experience transformational change may grow to demonstrate new and more complex ways of knowing and capacity for perspective change toward realizing their full human potential. The Shelter’s program supports Johnson-Bailey’s (2012) advocacy for adaptation of TL theory for learners in varied settings “regardless and perhaps because of their disenfranchised positions” (p. 269). The program design prioritizes positionality as impacting the way people learn and respond to knowledge. It uniquely incorporates humanistic and empowerment goals consistent with Africentric epistemology acknowledging the unique positionality of women who are marginalized by the reality of structural inequalities associated with race, class, and gender. The Shelter’s program design offers important lessons for scholars, practitioners, and policy makers.

Scholars may add new insights from research-identified programming and gender-responsive curriculum for engaging learners in discourse and self-reflection as TL processes. They may expand the knowledge base around these processes grounded in Mezirow’s (1991) early assertion “personal meaning that we attribute to our experiences are acquired and validated through human interaction and communication” (p. xiv) and as more recently asserted by Formenti and West’s (2018) contention that transformative processes “…must be deeply rooted in real life experience and an engagement with many perspectives” (p. 1). Practitioners may draw from the Shelter’s example of the Africentric womanist emphasis on the ethic of caring and empathetic understanding as expressed in Johnson-Bailey and Alfred’s (2006) relational perspective on teaching and learning exemplified in the LHR empowerment objectives. Taken together, these TL processes may hold great promise in a relational womanist theory of learning.

Finally, as adult education offers fewer safe spaces in which TL processes and emancipatory principles are the primary focus for supporting perspective change, policy makers and funders may find value in an observation Formenti and West (2018) share:

…people are rarely able to see any bigger picture, or act, when they are on their own: but when they come together they are more likely to understand that their situations are not individual eccentricities or failures, but rooted in asymmetrical power relations, inequalities and constraining discourse (p. 186).

This study contributes a gendered analysis privileging the voices of marginalized WOC in the United States. It suggests a relational womanist dynamic that reaffirms the importance of developing both cognitive and relational capacities in contexts where peoples’ stories are listened to with great care, particularly for marginalized learners (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). Hopefully, it will inform the design of safe nurturing spaces where a relational womanist theory of learning gains in acceptance as legitimate transformation processes.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Sandra D. Bridwell

References

Alderson

Twiss

(2003). Literacy for women on the street: The British Columbia adult literacy cost-shared program. Capilano College.

Alinia

(2015). On Black feminist thought: Thinking oppression and resistance through intersectional paradigm. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(13), 2334–2340.

Belenky

Clinchy

Goldberger

Tarule

(1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind (Rev. ed.). Basic Books.

Belenky

Stanton

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

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

Bridwell

(2013). A constructive-developmental perspective on the transformative learning of adults marginalized by race, class and gender. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(2) 103–126.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). The social construction of Black feminist thought. In Malsocollins

Mudimbe-Boyd

O’Barr

Wyer

(Eds.), Black women in America: Social science perspective. University of Chicago Press.

Collins

P. H.

(2009). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Drago-Severson

(2004a). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective development. Teachers College Press.

Drago-Severson

(2004b). Research methods for studying ABE/ESOL populations. Harvard University Graduate School of Education.

10.

English

Irving

(2012). Women and transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 245–259). Jossey-Bass.

11.

Flannery

Hayes

(2000). Women’s learning: A kaleidoscope. In Hayes

Flannery

Brooks

Tisdell

Hugo

(Eds.), Women as learners: The significance of gender in adult learning (pp. 1–22). Jossey-Bass.

12.

Formenti

West

(2018). Transforming perspectives in lifelong learning and adult education: A dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Freire

(1973). Education for critical consciousness. Seabury Press.

14.

Hoggan

(2016). A typology of transformation: Reviewing the transformative learning literature. Studies in the Education of Adults, 48(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2016.1155849

15.

Hooks

(1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking Black. South End Press.

16.

Johnson-Bailey

(2012). Positionality and transformative learning: A tale of inclusion and exclusion. In Taylor

Cratnton

, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning (pp. 260–273). Jossey-Bass.

17.

Johnson-Bailey

Alfred

(2006). Transformational teaching and the practices of Black adult educators. In Taylor

(Ed.), Teaching for change: Fostering transformative learning in the classroom (pp. 49–58). Jossey-Bass.

18.

Kegan

(1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University.

19.

Kegan

(1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University.

20.

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. 35–69). Jossey-Bass.

21.

Kegan

Broderick

Drago-Severson

Helsing

Popp

Portnow

(Eds.). (2001). Toward a “new pluralism” in the ABE/ESOL classroom: Teaching to multiple “cultures of mind.” World Education.

22.

Kegan

Lahey

(2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.

23.

Lahey

Souvaine

Kegan

Goodman

Felix

(1988). A guide to the subject-object interview: Its administration and analysis. The Subject-Object Research Group, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

24.

Merriam

Bierema

(2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. Jossey-Bass.

25.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

26.

Mezirow

(1978). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. Teacher’s College Columbia University.

27.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

28.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Mezirow

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

29.

Ntiri

D. W.

(2014). Adult literacy reform through a womanist lens: Unpacking the radical pedagogy of civil rights era educator, Bernice V. Robinson. Journal of Black Studies, 45(2), 125–142.

30.

Rivera

(2003). Changing women: An ethnographic study of homeless mothers and popular education. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 30(2), 31–51.

31.

Rivera

(2008). Laboring to learn: Women’s literacy and poverty in the post-welfare era. University of Illinois Press.

32.

Sandoval

Baumgartner

Clark

(2016). Paving paths toward transformation with incarcerated women. Journal of Transformative Education, 14(1), 34–52.

33.

Sheared

(2006). Giving voice: An inclusive model of instruction—A womanist perspective. In Phillips

(Ed.), The womanist reader (pp. 269–279). Routledge.

34.

Taylor

E. W.

(2009). Fostering transformative learning. In Mezirow

Taylor

, & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 3–17). Jossey-Bass.