This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]

On: 11 November 2014, At: 11:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of
Lifelong Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
[Link]

Participation in adult and

community education: a
discourse of diminishing
returns
Jim Crowther
Published online: 11 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Jim Crowther (2000) Participation in adult and community
education: a discourse of diminishing returns, International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 19:6, 479-492, DOI: 10.1080/02601370050209023

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
 and use can be found at [Link]
conditions
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014
 INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, VOL. 19, NO. 6 (NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2000) , 479–492

Participation in adult and community education:

a discourse of diminishing returns

JIM CROWTHER
University of Edinburgh, UK

The terms in which the dominant discourse of participation is framed systematically re-
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

inforces one particular view about the relationship between life and learning. It is one in which
participation in learning is professionally and institutionally controlled and, consequently,
deŽ ned largely in vocational, instrumental and individual terms. A signiŽ cant absence in the
dominant discourse is an understanding of participation which draws on the experience of the
radical tradition in adult education. In a context where there is potential for greater participation
in social and civic politics, as evidenced by the growth of social movements, reconnecting with
radical ideas about participation in education can lead to rethinking the ‘ problem of
participation ’ and its implications. We need to understand not only how the discourse of
participation has generated knowledge but also excludes and limits what is known. A thorough
critique is necessary and overdue and one that is critical of the ‘ regime of truth’ which has been
seeded, cultivated and harvested through the dominant professional discourse.

… in a society in which learning is unequal certain distinctive kinds of ignorance

accumulate in the very heartland of learning. This heartland deŽ nes itself; it
deŽ nes what learning is ; it deems what is a subject and what is not. (Williams in
McIlroy and Westwood 1993 : 259)

Perhaps the most ploughed furrow in adult education research is that of participation.
The survey literature on the subject is weighty, formidable and characterized by
unexceptionally similar Ž ndings. Local, national and international studies of par-
ticipation (for example, Lowden 1985, McGivney 1990 ; Sargent et al. 1997, OECD
1979) have been strikingly consistent in informing us about who does and does not
participate : not surprisingly it is ‘ higher ’ social classes, the young, men and those
seeking vocational education who are already well educated who participate more.
Within working class groups the same features which characterize inequalities between
classes are mirrored (Hedoux, cited in McGivney 1990). Again, it is the materially
better o¶ , the more educated and the more socially active who participate. On the other
side of the ‘learning divide’, the non-participant s are typically working class, with a
minimum of education, ethnic minority groups, the aged, some groups of women
(housebound mothers, women from lower socioeconomic groups), unemployed young
adults and so on. A pattern of provision that has been remarkably consistent over a long
period of time – study after study has welded an ‘ iron law ’ of participation.

Jim Crowther is currently a lecturer in community education at Moray House Institute of Education,
University of Edinburgh. He has been actively involved in research in adult and community education for the
past ten years.

International Journal of Lifelong Education ISSN 0260-137 0 print}ISSN 1464-519 X online # 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http :}}[Link] }journals
 480 jim crowther

Despite our understanding of participation have we also, in Williams’ terms,

accumulated a distinctive kind of ignorance too ? And, if so, can further research
enlighten the heartland of learning ? Or does it make it more diµ cult for us to see where
our own ignorance lies ? Has a law of diminishing returns set in which needs to be
broken ? Do we need a fresh way to look at participation ? If we think the answer to these
questions is yes, then what it requires is a systematic interrogation of the assumptions
made about participation. Something more than a review of the literature, or a
reconceptualization of it, is necessary. Such approache s stay within the dominant
discourse and may simply reaµ rm participation as a problem which better informed
adult educators and policy makers can do something about (see Blair et al. 1995). This
is not to demean the integrity of such e¶ orts, but to recognize the limitations of the
discourse in which they are framed. Instead, the approach taken in this paper seeks to
deconstruct the rules of the dominant discourse in order to make clear what is left out
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

by it.

Deconstructin g the discourse

Discourses are essential for constructing what we know and, more importantly, the
limits of what is knowable about the world. They constitute the language, assumptions,
ways of thinking, problems and practises which are regarded as appropriate and
legitimate. Discourses on adult returners, in this perspective, are not simply ‘ true ’ or
‘ false ’ statements about why adults participate, why they do not and what can be done
about it. They work on another level as practises for constructing our understanding of
what counts as participation and what does not.
The more powerful the discourse the more deeply embedded in our common sense
are its problems, its deŽ nitions of learning, its understanding of participation and the
range of appropriate ‘ solutions ’. Discourses generate a ‘way of knowing ’ which frame
our knowledge and understanding and, at the same time, they also exclude other ways
in which we can know a subject. They are not neutral and constitute, in Foucault’s
(1991) terms, knowledge}power formations ; knowledge is constructed out of relations
of power and, in turn, is part of the process of reconstituting power. People are also
positioned in the discourse in unequal ways. For example, in relation to participation
the discourse is largely a professional one ‘ internal’ to adult educators and policy
makers, rather than being constructed ‘ externally ’, by students. The voice of the latter
group appear as objects of research mediated by the wisdom of the more powerfully
placed ‘experts ’. Consequently, the professional knowledge}power formation on
participation embodies professional interests and concerns in constructing what
participation means, how it occurs and the ways it can be furthered.
It would be wrong to assume that the dominant discourse is static or monolithic.
Discourses are systems of possibility which create knowledge. For example, the current
preoccupation of adult educators with ‘lifelong learning ’ and ‘ self-directed ’ learning
(as distinct from adult education) involves broadening the professional wisdom about
participation. As Tight (1998) points out, di¶ erent deŽ nitions of learning in research
can lead to very di¶ erent results. For example, the broad one adopted by Beinart and
Smith’s National Adult Learning Survey (1997) takes into account ‘ taught ’ as well as ‘self-
taught ’ learning e¶ orts and highlights a divide between di¶ erent types of learning, i.e.
more people engage in ‘ self-taught ’ learning than in ‘ taught ’ learning. In comparison,
the deŽ nition of learning as a ‘ taught ’ activity used by Sargant et al. (1997) can lead to
 participation in adult and community education 481

a picture of a ‘learning divide ’ between those who have more and receive more, and
those who have had little and receive less. In the former, the role of the educator is linked
with the facilitation of individually deŽ ned learning projects. In the latter, with
widening and deepening access for excluded groups. Either way, the discourse displaces
debate about the key issue of why we assume participation is important, i.e. what
purposes does education serve.
It is worth highlighting what is not being said. Deconstructing the dominant
discourse does not mean questioning the ‘truth ’ value of the knowledge it generates.
Neither is it being argued that improved access into educational provision is irrelevant.
Instead, its purpose is to make visible the limits of the dominant discourse in order to
know its rules for inclusion and exclusion. Whose interests are served by the way
participation is constructed ? Who loses ? What is absent from the dominant discourse ?
What don’t we see ? What are the implications of seeing participation di¶ erently ?
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

Deconstructing the dominant discourse is a necessary step in reconstructing the problem

of participation in a di¶ erent way. Participation has been framed, it is argued, so as to
separate o¶ adult education from a more radical tradition. If the dominant discourse
can be opened up perhaps new possibilities for thinking about participation, what
purposes it serves and how we as adult educators relate to it, may emerge.
‘ Ways of knowing ’ in discourses are constructed through ‘ rules ’, however, these are
not consciously followed. Instead, they provide the preconditions for formulating
knowledge. In Gramscian terms they constitute a ‘common sense ’ that is taken for
granted rather than justiŽ ed. Their status as rules re ect that they operate ‘ behind the
backs ’ of speakers within a discourse. What is more, they serve to position people so that
‘ authors ’ and ‘ audiences ’ – those with a voice and those without – are di¶ erentiated in
the discourse (Philp 1985). Later, in the paper, the rules of the professional discourse on
participation are identiŽ ed as rule one, rule two, etc, however, this is not meant to
suggest they are hierarchically ordered or in practise distinct. It is merely a formula for
presenting and critiquing the hidden agenda of the dominant discourse.

Rehearsin g the argument

The argument made here is that we need to start rethinking the relationship between
education and peoples’ lives and how the two may interconnect. The terms in which the
dominant discourse of participation is framed systematically reinforces one particular
view about the relationship between life and learning. It is one in which participation
in learning is professionally and institutionally controlled and, consequently, deŽ ned
largely in vocational , instrumental and individual terms. It is this which needs opening
up. As Benn argues
if learning is seen as a function of social relationships rather than as an essentially
individual activity, then the concept of lifelong learning is extended beyond solely
the acquisition by individuals of formal qualiŽ cations. Learning then ties in with
a set of other relationships within organisations , families, communities and the
economic sector. (1997 : 31)
Education as a function of social relationships breaks with narrow, instrumental and
vocational understandings of education. It widens our perception about where learning
occurs and what might count as ‘ participation ’. Also, it locates the ‘ learner ’ in a social
context rather than as a isolated individual. This involves a shift of register from the
individual to the collective. Educational purposes are linked with the nature of social
 482 jim crowther

relationships rather than being deŽ ned in individual terms. Moreover, social relation-
ships are embedded and constituted in a range of discourses – for example, of social
class, of ‘ race’, of gender and so on – in which knowledge}power come together in
distinctive ways and beneŽ t particular interests. Discourses do more than simply frame
ways of talking. As knowledge}power formations they help pattern and sustain social
relationships in society, how they are structured, who beneŽ ts from them and who loses
by privileging particular understandings over others. We too are implicated in
discourses which are knowledge}power formations. We cannot stand ‘ outside’ of them.
As educators, therefore, it is imperative to engage in both political and moral analysis
about the discourses we are implicated in and the interests they serve.
Adult education, as a distinctively moral, political and educational discourse, has
had a long history in social purpose and radical traditions in adult education. In the
former, organizations like the Workers’ Educational Association were concerned with
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

adult education for progressive reform and social change. In the radical tradition,
popular struggles for equality, social justice and socialism where linked with the growth
of the labour movement and other social movements. It was the aims of these
movements that generated the purposes of education and it was through their activities
that people educated themselves (Armstrong 1988).
A signiŽ cant absence in the dominant discourse is an understanding of participation
which draws on the experience of the social purpose and radical tradition. In a context
where there is potential for greater participation in social and civic politics, as evidenced
by the growth of social movements, reconnecting with radical ideas about participation
in education can lead to rethinking the ‘problem of participation ’ and its implications.
We need to understand not only how the discourse of participation has generated
knowledge but also excludes and limits what is known. A thorough critique is necessary
and overdue and one that is critical of the ‘ regime of truth ’ which has been seeded,
cultivated and harvested through the dominant professional discourse.

Rule one : participation is a ‘good thing ’

Adult education has often re ected a social conscience approach (see Williams in McIlroy
and Westwood 1993) in which the adult educator has a missionary purpose to remedy
the supposed deŽ ciencies of people. This rescue motive unquestioningly assumes
education to be a ‘ good thing ’ in that it not only equips people with skills but builds
character too. Not surprisingly, therefore, studies of participation also start from the
view that education is a ‘good thing ’ which research and policy can further. Much
research is, therefore, concerned with almost endlessly identifying and explaining
signiŽ cant di¶ erences in rates between di¶ erent social groups of adult returners (Munn
and McDonald 1988, Blair et al. 1995) and how participation can be furthered
(Gooderham 1993).
If participation is a ‘good thing ’ why do so few people recognize it as such ? Bown
addressing the issue of motivating adult learners, noted that involving more adults
would require transforming the unwilling into the willing, adding the important caveat :
That of course requires us to be convinced that what we have to o¶ er is really of
some value to the currently unwilling, but I leave that uncomfortabl e thought for
another day. (Bown 1989 : 5)
This is an insightful and telling point. The boundaries of the dominant discourse are met
but not crossed in this statement. Instead of questioning the professional wisdom about
 participation in adult and community education 483

what we o¶ er as educators attention is directed towards how we can motivate more

learners to participate in what is currently available. What has to be changed is the
motivation of learners rather than the professional wisdom. Similarly, recent policy
initiatives aimed at widening participation and creating a learning society (Kennedy
1997) start from the assumption that participation is a ‘ good thing ’. The persective
taken here, however, is that we have to situate this claim in relation to educational and
political purposes.
As Williams (in McIlroy and Westwood 1993) points out, adult educators have also
been about developing social consciousness, rather than simply being motivated by a social
conscience. In the former, adult education aims to help people to analyse the society they
live in and how to change it. From this perspective, adult education’s main role is to
contribute to the process of social change. The purpose adult education serves, and who
beneŽ ts from it, are key questions to ask before a ‘ premature ultimate ’ commitment to
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

education as a universal good is made. The distinction between education for social
consciousness and education as social conscience helps to clarify the underlying purposes and
values of the two positions and the ways in which they construct ‘participation ’. In the
former, it is linked with the wider activities of collectivities, of movements in society, in
the latter, largely with individual recruitment into the education provided by
institutions.
The ubiquity of the assumption that education is a ‘ good thing ’ may simply re ect
the hegemony of a particular type of education and closure of debate about its purpose.
We need to remind ourselves, or to restate, that education is an ‘essentially contested
concept ’ with legitimate alternative points of view about it (Gaillie, cited in Hartnet
and Naish 1976). In other words, there are competing and con icting ideologies about
the purposes of adult education (Elsey 1986). Or, to put it another way, social conscience
and social consciousness traditions in adult education may have claimed education to be
a ‘ good thing ’ but without necessarily agreement about what is meant.
The second justiŽ cation for taking the moral high ground concerns human agency
and the type of choices we make. For adults, returning to learning implies a large degree
of volition in the process i.e. because individuals decide to participate in their free time
such choices are worthy of further encouragement and assistance. However, this issue
may be more complex than it seems. A counter view is that we make choices but not
always evenly ; choices are constrained by the conditions under which they are made.
Moreover, these conditions are never uniform or equal for di¶ erent groups : course fees,
dependent others, travel costs, children to look after, work demands and domestic
pressures are all unevenly distributed and bear upon the real choices people have to
make (Sargant et al. 1997).
In addition, the issue of choice raises considerations of power and authority. The
assumption that participation in adult education is entirely voluntary may be to some
extent mythical (Stalker 1993). There are adults who view their participation as being
‘ self determined ’ i.e. that it is a matter of their own will and e¶ ort. There are some who
view it as ‘other determined ’ i.e. dependent on the decisions made by more powerful
individuals or groups. Yet Stalker also found in her research that people’s capacity for
‘ self determination ’ often depended on the extent to which they could in uence
powerful others into facilitating some choices over others. The gap between learning
opportunities which were ‘ self determined ’ and ‘ other determined ’ was often closer
than it might seem. The issue of choice, or lack of it, were not as clear cut as it may seem
and how people perceived it also di¶ ered. On the one hand, enabling learning
opportunities could be seen as a privilege, as a favour bestowed by those in authority ;
 484 jim crowther

on the other, as an ‘inescapable activity ’ undertaken because more powerful individuals

or groups expect it to happen.
Associating participation with the moral high ground does, however, have more
negative implications for how non-participant s are viewed. Implicitly or explicitly, they
are often denigrated in the literature as holding ‘ negative attitudes to learning ’ and
therefore in need of rescue. And negative attitudes to learning are, by implication,
negative attitudes to what is morally a better way to spend one’s time. At best, non-
participants may see learning in purely instrumental terms ; at worst, they ‘possess
attitudes which cluster around money, basic needs gratiŽ cations, sheer habits, stimulus
binding, neurotic needs, convention and … inertia and … doing what other people
expect and demand ’ (Boshier, quoted in Ziegahn 1992 : 31). The reality, however, is
that the choices people have to make are never even in their consequences. If so, the
implicit moral high ground assumed by the preference for education, over some other
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

activity, is less self-evident.

Rule two : institutionalize d monopoly–participation equals

formal learning

In many studies the meaning of participation is framed in terms of taking part in a

course of study or a speciŽ c organized learning activity. More often than not these are
accredited, certiŽ cated and provided according to market determined criteria. The
‘ problem of participation ’ is then posed in terms of ‘solutions ’ which facilitate greater
access to the learning opportunities available. However, there is more going on here
than simply enhancing access. The way the problem and solution are deŽ ned reinforces
a particular monopoly about what learning is, how it occurs and what purposes it serves.
Despite recognition of a large variety of informal and invisible learning (see Tough
1983, Sargant 1991, Beinart and Smith 1997, Tight 1998) which people engage in
outwith institutions and without the assistance of recognized educators, the overall
emphasis of the dominant discourse is on participation in institutionalized provision. By
this is meant the learning organized by explicitly educational institutions as opposed to
the informal learning e.g. learning arising from involvement in clubs, activities,
movements etc.
In the institutionalized vision, it is easy to assume that low levels of participation
re ect low levels of learning, or low levels of motivation for learning. It is participation
in the courses of study, subjects and forms of knowledge deemed legitimate by these
institutions which is, after all, regarded as signiŽ cant education. What we know from
the dominant discourse is that participation in its deŽ nition of learning is highly uneven.
Yet, as Tight (1998) remarks about his study, which took a broad view of learning, it
became very diµ cult to Ž nd someone who had not been actively learning ! His claim
highlights not only how the dominant discourse constructs participation but that it does
so whilst reinforcing an institutionally controlled politics of knowledge. ‘Real learning ’
is constructed in terms of a controlled space (e.g. buildings), time (e.g. timetables) and
learning opportunities (e.g. curriculum) which are regulated by educational insti-
tutions. What people return to is a particular form of institutionalized education and the
role of a professional class of educators who service it. As Foley (1994) comments, so
intent have we been on constructing ‘ education ’ that we often fail to see learning.
Education, as Williams (1961) notes, involves a selective tradition which is partial
and Ž lters knowledge. This active process of selection systematically excludes the
 participation in adult and community education 485

meanings of a large section of the population from wider circulation as valid and
worthy. The common culture of ordinary people is delegitimated by an educational
system which denies access to the full range of meanings available in society. Of course,
all curricula are inevitably socially constructed but the question is one about the basis
of this selection and whose interests, concerns and values are legitimated or excluded in
the process – it is in this process that a monopoly of relevant knowledges are constructed.
And this is a ‘ political’ rather than technical process. Invariably, as Thompson (1997)
remarks, this privileges a ‘highly particular (i.e. dead, white, male, middle class and
European) selection of knowledge and culture ’. It refracts, if not re ects, their interests.
Historically, education has always been ‘ so saturated with class responses that it
demanded an active rejection and despisal of the language, customs, and traditions of
received popular culture ’ (Thompson 1968). Consequently, for many working-class
people adult education is no di¶ erent from their earlier experiences of schooling
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

(Westwood 1980). The power of educational institutions to di¶ erentiate ‘useful’ from
‘ really useful knowledge’ (Johnson 1988) divorces learning from social action and thus
critical knowledge about acting to change society are delegitimated. The discourse of
participation is, therefore, not only about access into educationally controlled spaces it
also reaµ rms a sanitized view about the purposes education serves.
However, it might be argued that the tendency to institutional monopoly is
contradicted by developments in experiential learning, the growth of new educational
technologies, distance learning and procedures such as the accreditation of prior
learning. Are these not examples of a more democratic, pluralistic, learning process
which both facilitates access and disperses control over the curriculum ?
The growth in distance learning and new technologies (e.g. e-mail, video
conferencing etc) which breakdown the requirement of traditional modes of study (e.g.
attendance in a class) have to be seen in a market context of educational institutions
reaching new ‘ customers ’. Whilst these trends have opened up a form of participation
in educational provision (‘ self-study ’ and ‘ independent learning ’ replacing modes of
interactive and collective learning) the logic of their development has more to do with
reaµ rming, rather than undermining, the dominant assumptions about control over
deŽ nitions of educationally relevant knowledge. Some of these pedagogies, such as
distance learning, can mean that the learning process is less open to the in uence of
more autonomous teachers or the collective body of students. A similar point has been
made by Westwood (1980) about the Open University, a development which she claims
illustrates the process of knowledge being commodiŽ ed and the centripetal impact of
such changes on teaching and the process of learning. Whilst facilitating access, these
trends do not fundamentally alter the epistemological politics of educational institutions.
It could also be claimed they have a downside by permitting such institutions to
impregnate their values and expectations into new private domains. By implication the
educative potential of ‘ other ’ spaces in public and private life are devalued or obscured.
The logic of this process is that institutional borders are being redrawn rather than
withdrawn.
On the surface, an interest in learning from experience seems to open up greater
recognition of a diversity of learning that results from life activities. However, the reality
is less clear cut. The mushrooming of interest in accrediting learning from prior
experience has been a double-edged sword. It is important to make the distinction
between the accreditation of prior learning (APL) derived from previously assessed and
codiŽ ed activities and those gained by accrediting prior experience of learning (APEL).
The Ž rst can be highly reductive because it deals with learning already recognized by
 486 jim crowther

institutions or competencies demanded by industries or professions. APEL is more open

in that it recognizes the potential for transferable learning from abroad range of life
activities to other contexts. Yet, as Fraser (1995) points out, identifying a range of
transferable skills is not the same as a learning process which entails a critical analysis
of ‘ who and why we are’ and the constraints that helped to create us. The system of
APEL still rigidly controls what experience is to be selected, valued and what is not. In
other words, the logic of the process of accrediting prior experience tends to exclude
education for critical intelligence. Also, as Edwards (1994) argues, the growth of interest
in experiential learning during the ascendancy of the new right in the 1980s was part of
a project aimed at undermining the professional autonom y of more ‘progressive ’
education }training professionals by centrally controlling the outcomes of learning.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

Rule three : learners are ‘abstract ’ not ‘ socialized ’ individuals

By focusing on adults returning to learning situations, the professional discourse of

participation reproduces and reinforces particular assumptions and understandings
about learners. They are seen as individuals abstracted from their membership of
di¶ erent groups rather than located as part of a wider body. Moreover, this
individualizing of the learner is re ected in, and reinforced by, a process of education
that is largely about selecting, categorizing and di¶ erentiating people according to their
alleged merits. In contrast the learner as a ‘ socialized individual ’ (Miliband 1994) in
which expressions of individuality are tempered by concerns for the common good or,
indeed, where individuality is both a function and outcome of social interaction is
ignored.
The taken for granted view that adult education is about the individual ignores the
contested nature of what this means. Miliband’s depiction of socialized individualism
involves a person with a wider conscience prepared to act to achieve common goals
beyond his or her own immediate interests, which points towards a view of the individual
actively involved in the sphere of civil society, practising obligations and asserting
rights along with others. In this view, individual fulŽ lment is combined with the
larger demands of solidarity and concern for the public good. ‘ Socialized indi-
vidualism ’, therefore, involves engagement in forms of learning and action through
participation in civic associations and organizations and the role of education is to
foster this. Historically, the concern for democracy and citizenship was the ‘lodestone ’
for adult education practice (MerriŽ eld 1997).
The dominant tradition in adult education is largely concerned with the individual
abstracted from their wider context. The hidden curriculum of adult education
reinforces a well intentioned but pragmatic and unproblematical common sense. This,
of course, has political and ideological implications. As Keddie (1980) points out, adult
education stresses individuality and personal development, rather than collective
values, and thereby reinforces a middle-class value system. Adult education is also
socially mediated, i.e. it can be seen by middle class groups as an appropriate way to
spend leisure time and though the appeal to women is greater, the choices made often
reaµ rm their role in the domestic sphere rather than in public life. Whilst professing a
student-centred curriculum, which might then be expected to produce diversity, the
outcome is often very uniform and supportive of middle-class, rather than working-class,
lifestyles. This itself may prove to be a suµ cient deterrent to working class people. In
 participation in adult and community education 487

short, claims to student-centrednes s may express an alternative mode of control which

is related to the expectations of learners held by tutors.
Adult education ‘theory ’ is also being constructed out of a similar set of ‘ hidden ’
ideological assumptions which are consequently reinforcing the professional ideology of
adult education. In andragogical theory (Knowles 1983) the importance of self-directed
learning is asserted in that it seemingly captures the sense in which adults ‘ participate ’
in learning projects on their own initiative. The role of the educator in this perspective
is more that of a facilitator rather than teacher. The learner as sovereign individual is
augmented in andragogical theory. What it evades, however, is an analysis of the
unequal relations between the needs individual learners subscribe to and those of more
powerful educational institutions. It is only by assuming that no con ict of interest will
emerge that the Ž ction of the individual as self-directing can be maintained. The
technology of self-direction has little to say about the hegemonic forces which shape
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

consciousness and the conditions in which ‘ self-direction ’ is possible. Neither has it

anything to say about the importance of structural inequalities arising from class, race
or gender and the role adult education may have in relation to the collective interests
of such groups. For example, as Fraser (1995) notes, the learner in the andragogical
model is highly gendered by being premised on a masculine model of self actualization.
Self-direction for women then is doubly diµ cult : not only do they have to confront a
patriarchal order but also one built into the model of what self-actualization means.
When adult education targets working class groups it often does so by pathologizing
the learner as deŽ cient or ‘ disadvantage d ’ individuals in need of remedial work, e.g.
literacy. ‘They ’ are the needy and are di¶ erentiated from ‘ we ’ the needs meeters, as
Kirkwood (1990) points out. Thus, the working class is constructed as not fully
sovereign individuals but in need of an injection of adult education to achieve parity.
This de ects attention away from wider structures of inequality and reinforces the
assumption that ‘third-rate ’ curricula are necessary (Thompson 1997). Participating in
learning is hidden behind a softly, friendly, happy experience to avoid diµ culty and
intellectual challenge. A process which can end up selling people short in terms of
understanding the powerful forces that shape their lives.
Furthermore, it has been argued this process of constructing the individual in
cultural and ideological ways is part of a political project of fragmenting potential sites
of collective opposition to structural inequalities. Edwards (1991) suggests that
‘ autonomy within inequality ’ is reproduced through an emphasis on the individual
provided with a quasi market of choice and  exibility of provision. The apotheosis of this
system is the ‘bespoke ’ learning programme and the educational supermarket. But
markets are not neutral. The cultural and ideological power of this construction is
furthered by the particular identity which the learner is assumed to possess – white,
middle class identities which reinforce and draw from a wider cultural stock of
meanings.
The dominant way of framing the learner cuts them o¶ from the wider context of
societal participation – who participates (and who is excluded), in what and to what
e¶ ect. In this process adult education is divorced from the everyday life of people, how
power shapes their experiences and their concerns. Is it any wonder that for many
powerless groups adult education seems irrelevant ? Participation in public policy has
been a contentious issue and the debate about it has highlighted its role in incorporating
dissenters rather than simply in redistributing power (Craig and Mayo 1995). In
contrast, in the radical tradition of adult education, participation is treated prob-
lematically. From this perspective, the ‘ problem of participation ’ is one of mobilizing
 488 jim crowther

resistance to dominant structures and values and adult education has played a small,
but signiŽ cant role, in this process. It is this tradition in which ‘ socialized individualism ’
has been resourced and supported, in particular, which has been eclipsed by the
dominant discourse. The emergence of new social and urban movements since the
1960s has grown, nevertheless, in opposition to the ‘ old ’ movement of labour and the
‘ politricks ’ of institutionalized processes (Gilroy 1987). Such movements have relied
more on popular protest and direct action of a ‘ personal and political ’ kind in order
to create social change. For example, the womens’ movement, the peace movement,
the environmental movement, to name a few of the more important ones, have had a
signiŽ cant educative impact in the public sphere as well as in the private life of many
individuals (for example, Barr 1999, Scandrett 1999). We need to learn from these
movements. However, adult education is often outside of them and fails to connect with
the potential they o¶ er for a collective and critical pedagogy of learning.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

Participation in adult education reaµ rms learning as a form of ‘abstract

individualism ’ rather than a collective project in which ‘ social individuals ’ learn and
act together. It focuses on individual motives, concerns and needs in terms which are
institutionally recognized as educationally valid. The possibility that adults as
(potential) learners may have collective interests is not part of the dominant discourse.

Rule four : there are barriers to participation , not resistance

Perhaps rather than set out to attract the non-participant we should engage with
the non-participant. Perhaps we, the educators, are the non-participant s in the
worlds of many of our fellow country men and women. (Patrick 1989 : 15)
There are competing accounts of why some groups participate and other do not. The
dominant, ‘ motivation-barrier s ’ approach has highlighted hurdles which are
situational (e.g. child care), institutional (e.g. enrolment procedures) or dispositional
(e.g. attitudes and expectations). The latter may amount to a ‘blaming-the-victim ’ in
terms of perceived hostility to education : non-participant s are identiŽ ed as ‘ lacking
motivation or are indi¶ erent to learning ’; ‘ question the relevance of educational
opportunities ’ ; hold ‘ negative perceptions of education ’ and have ‘individual, family
or home problems ’, and so on (for example, Valentine and Darkenwald 1990). In
contrast, the argument explored here is that it may be more useful to think of non-
participation as part of an implicit ‘culture of resistance ’ to mainstream educational
values.
The dominant discourse has diµ culty in conceptualising non-participatio n as a
form of resistance. If education is a good thing, why should it be resisted ? What does it
imply about the non-participant ? Are they mad, bad or both ? What is ruled out is the
idea of non-participation as an active, informed process. If non-participants ’ experiences
of education have not been particularly good – which the evidence would imply – then
why should they think it will be di¶ erent second time round ? Might not their refusal to
participate be an active choice, informed by their previous experience ? As Giroux
points out :
Resistance … redeŽ nes the causes and meanings of oppositional behaviour by
arguing that it has little to do with deviance and learned helplessness, but a great
deal to do with moral and political indignation. (cited in Quigley 1992)
People resist for good reasons. Opening up the issue of power and culture raises the
 participation in adult and community education 489

possibility that non-participatio n could be theorised as a form of resistance. Resistance

to power raises the question about what is being resisted and what form it takes. Clegg
(1989) distinguishes two forms of resistance, one that attempts to create a new base of
power and, two, resistance which involves a struggle to escape from power. This latter
form of resistance is ‘ frictional’ and may not necessarily involve overt, intended or direct
con ict with power. It may be in these terms that we can locate non-participatio n in
adult education. If so, the work on ‘ cultures of resistance ’ in secondary schooling by
Willis (1977) and Hargreaves (1982), for example, which point to the very rational,
even if ultimately unsuccessful, response of school pupils to the ‘ hidden curriculum ’,
boredom and indignities of schooling may have a parallel in adult education.
There is a strong case for arguing that in its essential characteristics adult education
is similar to other aspects of the educational system. Typically for working-class students
the system constructs a sense of their inadequacy and failure ; the middle-class bias of
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

adult education reinforces the hegemony of the current order (Westwood 1980). This
line of argument is developed in Quigley’s (1992) account of non-participation as a form
of resistance to the practice of adult literacy. He draws the distinction between the
‘ habitat of objectiŽ ed lessons and the habitus of values and culture ’ in which education
is provided. Whereas the ‘ habitat ’ of objectiŽ ed learning may be acceptable to the
resister if perceived as relevant, the ‘ habitus ’ of education – the culture and values it
embodies – are rejected. In other words resistance is a matter of choice made by the
learner. What this also points towards is the importance of an approach which builds its
curriculum from the lived experience of the learners – from their habitus.
The claim of a parallel to cultures of resistance in schooling may be objected to on
at least two accounts. First, adult educators might claim that the experience o¶ ered
adults is very di¶ erent from schooling. That is, participation in adult education is
voluntary whereas schooling is not. Power, therefore, in this educational encounter is
being freely entered into. However, as I have already argued, this issue is not as clear cut
as is sometimes claimed in that di¶ erent conditions, power and authority all have a
bearing on the choices made. Second, pedagogically (or andragogically) , it is claimed
that the process of learning in adult education is distinctive in that adult learning
requires a very di¶ erent process, one that is fundamentally shaped by the need for adults
to be self-directing. However, this claim is deeply problematic. As Collins points out :

self directed learning has emerged in the profession of adult education as an aspect
of a constraining or disciplinary technology which forges, in the words of Michel
Foucault, a ‘ docile body, that may be subjected, used, transformed and
improved ’. Learning experiences shaped by self directed learning methods are
individualized in a way that ensures learners become wrapped up in their own
contracted learning project and the mediated relationship moulded by the
facilitator. (Collins 1991 : 27)

Even if Collins is overstating the case, it is nevertheless diµ cult to support the contention
that power relationships in adult education encounters are somehow transparent and
therefore negligible.
It seems reasonable to surmise that many people Ž nd adult education unattractive
and irrelevant to their daily lives. Despite many well intentioned e¶ orts to attract
people the sense of frustration felt by their failure to respond to what is o¶ ered is often
evident. It is easy thereafter to assume people are ‘apathetic ’ and have limited horizons.
RedeŽ ning non-participatio n as a form of resistance may, however, open up the
 490 jim crowther

possibility of rethinking what adult education is for and where it occurs. Perhaps we
need to move towards the ‘ habitat and habitus ’ – in Quigley’s terms – where people
come together and create their own structures, deŽ ne their own interests and pursue
what is valuable to them. If we started to think about participation in these terms then
the problem of participation could be faced the right way round – that is, that adult
education is part of the problem rather than simply the solution. Understanding
participation in this way turns things on their head. This is the purpose of this paper, to
substantiate the need for a di¶ erent hypothesis about the relation between participation
and adult education.

Conclusion : the collective learning iceberg hypothesis

Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

The discourse of participation has become one of professional self-justiŽ cation and
consequently a self-fulŽ lling propercy in which the problem of participation is always
located in ‘ the other ’. In this sense, it pathologizes the ‘ victims ’ or the ‘ problems ’ of the
system. Questions of why people should participate are substituted by technical
considerations of how it can be furthered. Yet, participation is an ambivalent and
ambiguous idea which can be used to incorporate and manage dissenters rather than
being a means of challenging power and inequality. Before assuming it to be a universal
good we need to contextualize it: participation for what ? Whose interests does it serve ?
Who beneŽ ts ? What are the consequences ? We need to locate participation in
historically and contextually speciŽ c ways. Yet it is precisely this type of analysis that the
discourse of participation rules out.
The dominant discourse has sanitised participation ‘as if ’ it could be divorced from
a more contentious analysis of ‘the politics of participation ’ (e.g. Croft and Beresford
1992). By depoliticizing participation alternative ways of thinking about and developing
education through collectivities in struggle is overlooked. What this reveals, however, is
the extent to which more fundamental questions about the contribution adult education
can make to the lives of people has been closed. Yet, as Courtney (1981) rightly points
out, ‘the notion of participation then is not to be conŽ ned to the area of education but
must be seen against a broader, and more signiŽ cant, matrix which we might call
‘‘ societal participation ’’’. However, few studies seem to have taken this advice.
Deconstructing the discourse of participation in adult education can open this debate
up.
Having said that, the dominant discourse has also provided some illuminating work
about the type of learning people engage in voluntarily (Tough 1983). The hidden
‘ learning iceberg ’ refers to learning projects people systematically engage in outside
educational institutions or recognized learning programmes. They are often invisible
and occur without the involvement of professional educators. Whilst Tough’s research
broke new ground it also stayed Ž rmly within the dominant discourse by focusing on the
individual nature of peoples’ learning projects. The hypothesis of this study involves
extending his insight to collective learning arising from experiences gained in social,
cultural and political activities. In this perspective, participation is located in the
struggles people engage in to transform, modify or in uence the conditions in which
they live.
By shifting our attention to a more politicized experience of participation the
relationship between it and the radical tradition of adult education becomes visible. A
tradition in which the educative experience of groups in struggle creates a context and
 participation in adult and community education 491

pedagogy for sustained and critical learning e¶ orts – the hypothesis of this account. As
Benn (1997) notes, what has been missing from the debate is the ‘ under researched issue
of the relationship between education and social activity ’. In this view, the educative
nature of social activity generates its own ‘curriculum ’ which may be systematized if we
Ž nd ways, as adult educators, to participate in it.
The professional discourse of participation has been narrowly conceived. It is cut o¶
from the rich history of social purpose adult education and the educative role of
collectivities in struggle which characterized the radical tradition. This weakens our
current understanding of the possibilities for educational practise. Instead, we continue
to plough the same old furroughs which, increasingly, sheds little more light on the
subject of participation. A discourse of diminishing returns has been the result.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

References

Armstrong, P. (1988) The long search for the working class : socialism and the education of adults,
1850–1930. In T. Lovett (ed.) Radical Approaches to Adult Education : A Reader (London : Routledge), pp.
35–58.
Barr, J. (1999) Women, adult education and really useful knowledge. In J. Crowther, I. Martin and M.
Shaw (eds) Popular Education and Social Movements in Scotland Today (Leicester: NIACE), pp. 70–82.
Beinart, S. and Smith, P. (1997) National Adult Learning Survey 1997 (London : Department of Education and
Employment).
Benn, R. (1997) Participation in adult education : breaking boundaries or deepening inequalities? In P.
Armstrong, N. Miller and M. Zukas (eds) Crossing Borders: Breaking Boundaries, SCUTREA 27th
Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 31–34.
Blair, A., McPake, J. and Munn, P. (1995) A new conceptualisation of adult participation in education.
British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 629–644.
Bown, L. (1989) Motivating adult learners. Scottish Education Review, 21(1), 4–13.
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power (London : Sage).
Courtney, S. (1981) The factors a¶ ecting participation in adult education : an analysis of some literature ’.
Studies in the Education of Adults, 13(2), 98–111.
Collins, M. (1991) Adult Education as Vocation (London : Routledge).
Craig, G. and Mayo, M. (eds) (1995) Community Empowerment : A Reader in Participation and Development
(London : Zed Books).
Croft, S. and Beresford, P. (1992) The politics of participation. Critical Social Policy, 35, 20–44.
Edwards, R. (1991) The politics of meeting learner needs : power, subject, subjugation. Studies in the Education
of Adults, 23(1), 85–97.
Edwards, R. (1994) Are you experienced ? : postmodernity and experiential learning. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 13(6), 423–439.
Elsey, B. (1986) Social Theory Perspectives on Adult Education (Nottingham : Department of Adult Education,
University of Nottingham).
Foley, G. (1994) Adult education and capitalist reorganisation. Studies in the Education of Adults, 26(2),
121–143.
Foucault, M. (1991) Discipline and Punish (London : Penguin).
Fraser, W. (1995) Learning From Experience (Leicester : NIACE).
Gilroy, P. (1987) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack (London : Hutchison).
Gooderham, P. (1993) A conceptual framework of sociological perspectives on the pursuit of adult access to
higher education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 12(1), 27–39.
Hargreaves, D. (1982) The Challenge of the Comprehensive School : Culture, Curriculum and Community (London :
Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Hartnet, R. and Naish, M. (1976) Theory and Practice of Education, vol 1 (London : Heinemann).
Johnson, R. (1988) Really useful knowledge 1790–1850 : memories for education in the 1980s. In T. Lovett
(ed.) Radical Adult Education (London : Routledge), pp. 3–34.
Kennedy, H. (1997) Learning Works (Coventry : FEFC).
Keddie, N. (1980) Adult education : an ideology of individualism. In J. Thompson (ed.) Adult Education For
a Change (London : Hutchinson), pp. 44–64.
Kirkwood, C. (1990) Vulgar Eloquence (Edinburgh : Polygon Press).
Knowles, M. (1983) Andragogy : an emerging technology for adult learning. In M. Tight (ed.) Adult Learning
and Education (London : Open University), pp. 53–70.
 492 jim crowther

Lowden, K. (1985) Non-Participation in Adult Education in Wester Hailes (Edinburgh : Scottish Council for
Research in Education).
McGivney, V. (1990) Educations for Other People : Access to Education for Non-Participant Adults (Leicester:
NIACE).
McIlroy, J. and Westwood, S. (1993) (eds) Border Country : Raymond Williams in Adult Education (Leicester:
NIACE).
Merrifield, J. (1997) Finding our lodestone again : democracy, the civil society and adult education. In P.
Armstrong, N. Miller and M. Zukas (eds) Crossing Borders Breaking Boundaries, Proceedings of the 27th
Annual SCUTREA Conference, Birkbeck College, University of London, pp. 321–325.
Miliband, R. (1994) Socialism for a Sceptical Age (Cambridge : Policy Press).
Munn, P. and McDonald, C. (1988) Adult Participation in Education and Training (Edinburgh: Scottish Council
for Research in Education).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1979) Learning Opportunities for
Adults: The Non-Participant Issue (Brussells : OECD).
Patrick, F. (1989) Attracting the non-participant. Scottish Journal of Adult Education, 9(2), 12–15.
Philp, M. (1985) Michael Foucault. In Q. Skinner (ed.) The Return of Grand Theory (Cambridge : Canto), pp.
65–82.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 11:01 11 November 2014

Sargant, N. (1991) Learning and ‘Leisure ’: a Study of Adult Participation in Learning and its Policy Implications
(Leicester : NIACE).
Sargant, N., Field, J., Francis, H., Schuller, T. and Tuckett, A. (1997) The Learning Divide (Leicester:
NIACE).
Scandrett, E. (1999) Cultivating knowledge : education, the environment and con ict. In J. Crowther, I.
Martin and M. Shaw (eds) Popular Education and Social Movements in Scotland Today (Leicester: NIACE),
pp. 240–252.
Stalker, J. (1993) Voluntary participation : deconstructing the myth, Adult Education Quarterly, 43(2), 63–75.
Quigley, B. (1992) Opposing views : an analysis of resistance to adult literacy and basic education.
International Journal of Lifelong Education 11(1), 41–49.
Tight, M. (1998) Bridging the ‘ learning divide ’ : the nature and politics of participation. Studies in the
Education of Adults, 30(2), 110–119.
Tough, A. (1983) Self-planned learning and major personal change. In M. Tight (ed.) Adult Learning and
Education (London : Croom Helm and Open University), pp. 141–152.
Thompson, E. P. (1968) Education and Experience (Leeds: Leeds University Press).
Thompson, J. (1997) Words in Edgeways (Leicester: NIACE).
Valentine, T. and Darkenwald, G. (1990) Deterrents to participation in adult education : proŽ les of
potential learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(1), 29–42.
Westwood, S. (1980) Adult education and the sociology of education : an exploration. In J. Thompson (ed.)
Adult Education For a Change (London : Hutchinson), pp. 31–44.
Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labour : How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs (Farnborough : Saxon
House).
Williams, R. (1961) The Long Revolution (Middlesex : Harmondsworth).
Ziegahn, L. (1992) Learning, literacy and participation : sorting out priorities. Adult Education Quarterly,
43(1), 30–50.