The aim of this paper is to present the second in an annual series of selected papers from the 2012 Conference of the Universities Association for Lifelong Learning (UALL). The Conference, at Clare College, Cambridge, took as its theme Higher education for the social good? The place of lifelong learning.
This paper is an editorial.
The editorial explores the conference theme and introduces the papers in this issue.
The five papers are indicative of the theme of the conference and, more generally of all those involved in lifelong learning.
This special issue of Higher Education, Skills and Work‐Based Learning is comprised of selected papers from the 2012 conference of the Universities Association for Lifelong Learning (UALL). The conference, at Clare College, Cambridge, took as its theme Higher education for the social good? The place of lifelong learning.
This theme encapsulates the mission and ethos of UALL. The association had its origins in the early days of university outreach to communities, which was for many years from the early 1920s a statutory obligation on universities to be “Responsible Bodies” – a now‐quaint title for provision of higher‐level part‐time learning to their regional communities. Dedicated university departments were established to provide programmes of what was then called extra‐mural studies. UALL's origins can be traced to the first conference of university extra mural directors in 1923, which became the Universities Extra‐Mural Consultative Committee in 1926.
Since then, under various names, the association has had a central role in the UK as the professional consultancy body for the university continuing education/lifelong‐learning community, and for its advocacy with government and other bodies. Throughout this long history UALL has maintained its stance of defending the right of communities to access to learning at their local university, and the duty of universities to fulfill their obligations to public engagement.
The periodic variation in names for the association echoes the multi‐faceted development of the university education of adults as it evolved to meet changing need and demand over many years. As always, names reveal more than simple taxonomic terms. The original extra‐mural studies, a term borrowed from academic Latin, focused on the debate about the permeability of walls, or barriers, between the academy and those outside, at the same time implicitly undermining perceptions of universities as “ivory towers” (readers will recall that the hero of Hardy's Jude the Obscure [1895], a stonemason with ambitions for higher education (HE), chisels away on the walls of the colleges in a symbolic act of attempted access). Many research papers have used the handy metaphor of the wall in discussing barriers to access to, and outreach from, the academy.
Extra‐mural studies was replaced in the 1960s by the plain‐speaking title adult education encapsulating egalitarian values intended to subvert social and academic hierarchies. This term co‐existed with continuing education, which at first was used for the then new curriculum areas of science and professional development, augmenting more traditional disciplines based on the liberal arts. But as anyone in the profession knows, real adult students don’t fit neatly into categories, and the two streams merged in what became adult continuing education so that for a while many universities had a Department of Adult Continuing Education.
The 1970s saw international recognition at the highest levels of the importance of lifelong learning, with organisations such as OECD and the Council of Europe coining the terms recurrent education, education permanente and lifelong learning, which latter has outlived alternatives and remains the current favourite. It has great advantages: it reflects properly the shift in emphasis from tutor‐centred teaching to student‐centred learning, and it recognises and celebrates learning as a continuum which maps nicely on to our concepts of progression through the stages of life. It is pretty free of unhelpful associations – such as the Latin presumptuousness of extra mural – and has an international application. It puts – as the policy rhetoric always reminds us – the learner at the heart of the thinking.
But lifelong learning is a problematic term too. First, although its rapid and wide adoption through the 1990s was welcomed by adult educators as proper recognition of what had always seemed to universities to be (literally and metaphorically) a tangential activity, its meaning was fuzzy and undefined: sometimes too loose as a vague philosophical concept and often very narrow where it was used for university‐level vocational training. It has the attributes of any statement of a general good in that it is impossible to object to it and therefore it gets used as a safe container for all kinds of activities, some of which do not merit the description. It may be in every provider's mission statement, but the practice is likely to fall short of the vision. Being a vague term it is susceptible to hijacking for political motives. Policymakers and funding bodies all too often define it narrowly and instrumentally, with a relentless concentration on training young, full‐time students for employability in support of a national economic agenda. Even the praiseworthy government policy of social inclusion in HE is severely weakened by the policy assumption of students as 18‐year‐olds and full time. “Lifelong” is frequently misinterpreted to refer only to those either in the workforce or with the potential to join them.
Second, there is a semantic trap within the phrase itself. The replacement of adult education by lifelong learning reflects the shift of focus from “teaching” to the facilitating of “learning” – a semantic reflection of changes in pedagogical approach and as such to be applauded. But approving familiarity with this language must not dull sensitivity to its political significance – if the emphasis is on the learner, then there is a danger of developing a concomitant fallacy, that responsibility for learning lies with the recipient, not the provider, of education. Failure to gain, for example, employment, becomes the failure of the individual, not state policy or social conditions.
This discussion of nomenclature exemplifies the issues upon which UALL uses its voice in advocacy, research and negotiation with policymakers and funding bodies. UALL focuses on practice, policy and research in lifelong learning. All three aims shape, and are shaped by, various events through the year, of which the annual conference is the presiding occasion. In common with other academic conferences the lifeblood is the programme of papers presented by member delegates of which some are presented here. Each of these focuses on one or more aspects of the conference theme, ranging from reflections through case studies on innovative practice to wider national or transnational research‐based discussions on lifelong education for adults.
The strength of UALL's negotiations with government departments and funding bodies for improving provision of – or limiting damage to – part‐time lifelong learning depends on the association's awareness of and role in stimulating excellent research to support its advocacy in the field. UALL has in the past published conference proceedings and an extensive list of research papers. These contribute to an important UALL aim: not only to initiate and disseminate more widely the work of established researchers, but also to encourage and support those in the early stages of academic research careers in the field.
Both aims are based on the recognition in UALL that there is a strong need for quality research into the education of adults. Advocacy, however eloquent, will only have effect if supported by evidence; pedagogic practice must be informed by evidence which goes beyond the anecdotal. In these days of limited resources lifelong‐learning research must stand comparisons in a peer‐reviewed competitive funding regime. The abandonment of the UK government Aimhigher programme to increase and diversify participation in HE was due to an alleged lack of sufficient evidence to convince government that the programme had been successful, despite abundant local indications to the contrary.
Lifelong learning is essentially part time, but characteristic of part‐time HE is the sheer difficulty of definition, encompassing a huge range of modes, pace and structures of learning, and awards. It is commonly said that there is no such things as a typical part‐time student – and this difficulty adds to the equally commonly expressed regret that there are insufficient data on part‐time study. There are relatively sparse data on part time collected by government and funding bodies, and the admissions service UCAS does not include part‐time applications. This inadequacy of information is exacerbated by misconceptions: for example about the number of part‐time students whose fees are sponsored by third parties such as employers. Part‐time students often find themselves in a sometimes uncomfortable relationship with on the one hand the university or college and on the other their employer. The need for lifelong‐learning research therefore must include rigorous data collection as supporting evidence.
Yet over the history of the university education of adults there have been many examples of research publications of a very high order – indeed publications which, deeply informed by adult education practice, have overstepped their local discipline boundaries to become milestones in social and cultural history. The work of Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart admirably demonstrate this point – but there are many others who have advanced their disciplines through their long experience of teaching adults, including E.P. Thompson and W.G. Hoskins.
In recent years structures of finance and staffing in university lifelong learning have too often led institutions to discourage a research culture among practitioners involved in extending public engagement and university outreach, isolating researchers of lifelong learning in other departments of the institution. Such self‐inflicted problems of communication and academic culture can be exacerbated by the priorities of the research assessment exercises which favour theory over practice. The papers in this volume demonstrate the importance of at least mutual support, and at most full integration, of research and practice to ensure the effectiveness of lifelong learning in HE.
The sheer range of lifelong learning provision today is highly complex, and this adds urgency to the need for relevant research. Student profiles are increasingly diverse in age, social and cultural background, and in educational experience; student objectives in entering into a university‐level course can be professional, vocational, focused on personal development; or a combination of all three; the teaching modes may be classroom, distance or online learning. Part‐time students do not follow a predictable path after initial education, they have other major demands on their time (work, family) and are more likely to come from sections of the population who can be categorised as “non‐traditional”. In other ways part‐time students have common aims with traditional undergraduates in terms of career, or “graduateness”. Each category of learner and provision has specific characteristics and needs which must be informed by research. The high fees now associated with all HE add to this need for research to support quality and fitness for purpose for a widening range of learners.
As an association which encompasses and connects practice and research within and beyond the academy, UALL strives to bridge the gaps between them and to provide through the annual conference a significant opportunity in a supportive and rigorous context for the communication of new ideas, methods and good practice in lifelong learning. As editors we hope this selection from the 2012 conference demonstrates this aim.
This issue
The papers in this special issue reflect the range of interests of those who attended the 2012 conference and thematically are consistent with the aims of the association. The main themes coalesce around; community engagement, increased participation and the personal liberating role that educational engagement can have on human existence. The two papers that broadly emphasise community are Yvonne Hillier's stimulating study on “Working together: community and university partnerships” and Robert's “Creating a model for work‐based learning in a post industrial region”. In the first, the author examines how government policy has encouraged universities and their community group partnerships to work together. She does this through the relationship between the University of Brighton and members of community groups in Hastings who are researching recent educational regeneration in the town. The relationship between the university and its partners is exemplified through an example of a pilot project examining use of a children's centre in Hastings. This research draws upon work by Turning Point, a charity engaged primarily with social care which engages users within the community to become involved in research into the needs of their peers. Turning Point's successful approach was subsequently adopted in the pilot project examining how parents of pre‐school children engage with a children's community centre in a deprived area of Hastings. The pilot project involved two experienced parent researchers supporting six parent volunteers in their interviews with local parents of young children who engage to varying degrees with the local children's centre.
The essence of collaboration, although in a different form, is evident in the paper by Kelly Edwards, Kirsten Merrill‐Glover, Robert Payne and Danny Saunders. They discuss a regeneration project, the authors describing a successful strategy for HE collaboration with business. Beneficiaries derive from private sector organisations and social enterprises, involving micro‐businesses, small and medium enterprises and larger companies. Success for the project has been based on partners’ existing frameworks, allowing accredited outcomes at CQFW levels 4 and 5 which provide a curriculum offer tailored to sector priorities and provides progression opportunities within the broader HE framework. Distinctive features of the project are twofold. The paper concludes with successful conclusions drawn and lessons learnt which could act as a guide to anyone considering HE‐employer working in the delivery of accredited learning.
The second theme is led by a paper that could hardly be more topical following the recent call by the Director of Fair Access to HE to lower the age of engagement with HE for potential students so as to expand predispositions to participation. Indeed it might be argued that the Director's thoughts mirror the successful project discussed in the paper offered by Mark Richardson and Jayne Hunt entitled “Widening access to HE‐family centred summer schools”. Based in The Centre for Community and Lifelong Learning (CCLL) at the University of Wales, Newport, a Community to Campus summer school is described which recognises that most UK summer school activity aimed at widening participation seems to target either young people (usually years nine to 12) or adults. The CCLL approach offers a movement away from this single target group and delivers instead a project that addresses widening participation from a family perspective. By family learning we mean families, both parent/carer and young person/people, brought together and engaged in a combined series of activities on a university campus.
Programmes such as this not only prepare those who are considered socio‐economically disadvantaged – for university life – they also, potentially, offer defined progression routes through to further university study. While there are various other good examples of summer school activity across the UK this paper shows that the focus of such activity often remains tied to specific, individual target groups which rarely addresses issues such as intergenerational or family learning. Moreover, it is rare that these interventions are fully evaluated and measured locating post‐summer school tracking and activity such as changing perceptions of HE; increased access to HE from lower socioeconomic groups; increases in young person engagement in education; and the long‐term benefits to learning of family engagement in summer school incentives. This paper does just that but point to a need for further work.
Switching from a UK based to a foreign study Nosheen Rachel Naseem's paper “Peer mentoring: enhancing social cohesion in Pakistani universities” consider support for students in Pakistan. Making the contextual point that university education in developing countries is often restricted to students from privileged backgrounds yet, in Pakistan, access to HE, while competitive, is more broadly based. State universities in particular recruit students from diverse backgrounds.
This paper presents a research project which explores the impact of students’ peer mentoring on the culture of learning within HE institutions in Pakistan. The principal objective was to examine the value of peer mentoring as a mechanism for promoting educational attainment and enhancing student experience. In addition, it discusses the way in which such processes may contribute to developing learning communities in universities and other education provision in a developing country, particularly amongst “non‐traditional” entrants to HE. Peer mentoring has been shown to be highly effective in studies in the UK, USA and other parts of the developed world in helping students, particularly those benefitting from widened participation in HE, with their learning and experience as a student, with significant benefits in retention and attainment. The results of this pilot project would suggest that mentoring could not only help in Pakistan to lead to greater social cohesion and help students develop into more responsible and tolerant citizens, but also that her approach may help in many developing countries.
The final paper in this special issue concerns the role central to all process of teaching and learning – edification which is revealed in emancipation and liberation. These existential changes in what might be realised through people's own recognition of their own potentiality is illustrated by Hazel Wright in her paper “From individual choice to social good”. She describes how a group of adult women students from a range of social and educational backgrounds pursued personal goals aimed at integrating their lives around the three core foci of family, work and education and how their actions unintentionally contributed to the social good in their community. It uses detail from individual narratives to illuminate the broader social benefits that arise from people choosing their own lifestyles, in a reversal of the normative top‐down processes associated with policy making. The confluence of family, work and study interests creates networks of reciprocal relationships that bind together parent, workplace and student roles, and commits the participants to serving their local community. This fosters social capital development at a local level, for it creates the social networks essential to the social. Thus, in pursuing their own ends the individual childcare students make a significant contribution to the social good of their community, and collectively, to society in general.
The five papers are indicative of the theme of the conference and, more generally of all those involved in lifelong learning. Above all they show the inter‐relatedness of personal agency, capabilities and the contexts able to provide opportunities for these capabilities to function. They are, for the most part, about practical solutions to pressing problems in our higher educational systems and in how the institutions that provide such education can contribute to their communities and their peoples. They evoke a sense of praxis, of blending knowledge and practices, to providing a better end for those who engage with the authors and their institutions. They shine a light of good practice and on the social good that institutions that provide HE can contribute. We commend them to you.
