: A contribution to understanding informal education. Foley, Griff. (1999). London and New York: Zed Books.
Introduction (pp. 1-13)
Foley argued that the most powerful learning occurs when people struggle again oppression and understand the circumstances they encounter; this learning often occurs informally and "incidentally" such that people does not recognizing it as learning. In addition, against cultural approach to radical adult education, Foley stresses material analyses of learning, contending that capitalism must lie at the heart of emancipatory adult education theory and practice. Finally, Foley noted that incidental learning in the process of emancipatory struggle is also ambiguous, complex and even contradictory, which is one of the foci he drew attention to.
Ideology, Discourse and Learning (pp. 14-26)
"The unlearning of dominant, oppressive ideologies and discourses and the learning of insurgent, emancipatory ones are central to processes of emancipatory change. But these processes of emancipatory learning and action are not straightforward; they are complex, ambiguous, contradictory." (p. 16)
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Art as Experience
Dewey, John. (1980). New York: Perigee Books.
Chapter 4. Act of Expression (p. 60-84)
For Dewey, art is an act of expression, in which past experience that would otherwise be stale or inert obtain fresh meanings through media. Expression is "the clarification of turbid emotion" (p. 80). Unlike a discharge of emotion, it requires clarification, which makes art a purposeful action more than inspiration. Dewey put it:
The inspiration, however, is initial. In itself, at the outset, it is still inchoate. Inflamed inner material must find objective fuel upon which to feed. Through the interaction of the fuel with material already afire the refined and formed product comes into existence. The act of expression is not something which supervenes upon an inspiration already complete. It is the carrying forward to completion of an inspiration by means of the objective materials of perception and imagery ( 68-69)
Dewey implies that to express emotion, one needs a medium, a tool for expressing it and clarifying it. In addition, although Dewey did not articulate, there should be something that develop the faculty of expressing the emotion, not just discharging it.
Chapter 4. Act of Expression (p. 60-84)
For Dewey, art is an act of expression, in which past experience that would otherwise be stale or inert obtain fresh meanings through media. Expression is "the clarification of turbid emotion" (p. 80). Unlike a discharge of emotion, it requires clarification, which makes art a purposeful action more than inspiration. Dewey put it:
The inspiration, however, is initial. In itself, at the outset, it is still inchoate. Inflamed inner material must find objective fuel upon which to feed. Through the interaction of the fuel with material already afire the refined and formed product comes into existence. The act of expression is not something which supervenes upon an inspiration already complete. It is the carrying forward to completion of an inspiration by means of the objective materials of perception and imagery ( 68-69)
Dewey implies that to express emotion, one needs a medium, a tool for expressing it and clarifying it. In addition, although Dewey did not articulate, there should be something that develop the faculty of expressing the emotion, not just discharging it.
The Artistic-Aesthetic Curriculum
Greene, Maxine. (2007). In Randall Curren (Ed.), Philosophy of Education: an anthology. pp. 561-566. Blackwell Publishing.
Greene quotes John Dewey's approach to art as experience: art clarifies and concentrates the meanings of things ordinarily dumb and inchoate; works of art can keep alive "the power to experience the common world in its fullness"
In this light, Green argued: "This would not happen, I am sure, if it were not for the ability to pull aside the curtains of habit, automatism, banality, so that alternative possibilities can be perceived." (p. 562).
For Greene, art education contributes to developing the sense of agency when it takes participatory approaches or the "reader response" approach. She put it:
"How, on the various levels at which you teach, can you create the kinds of situations where involvement with the arts not only enables you and your students to combat boredom and banality, but develops among all of you the sense of agency that is most apparent (or so it seems to me) in encounters with the arts? This takes me back, of course, to the participatory approach or to the "reader response" approach. I have in mind the notion that works of art can never be realized by a merely passive attention. There has to be an active, energetic reading out." (p. 564)
Greene quotes John Dewey's approach to art as experience: art clarifies and concentrates the meanings of things ordinarily dumb and inchoate; works of art can keep alive "the power to experience the common world in its fullness"
In this light, Green argued: "This would not happen, I am sure, if it were not for the ability to pull aside the curtains of habit, automatism, banality, so that alternative possibilities can be perceived." (p. 562).
For Greene, art education contributes to developing the sense of agency when it takes participatory approaches or the "reader response" approach. She put it:
"How, on the various levels at which you teach, can you create the kinds of situations where involvement with the arts not only enables you and your students to combat boredom and banality, but develops among all of you the sense of agency that is most apparent (or so it seems to me) in encounters with the arts? This takes me back, of course, to the participatory approach or to the "reader response" approach. I have in mind the notion that works of art can never be realized by a merely passive attention. There has to be an active, energetic reading out." (p. 564)
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Knowledge Shared: Participatory Evaluation in Development Cooperation
Jackson, Edward T., & Kassam, Yusuf. (1998). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
The authors define participatory evaluation as a strategic too for development projects. They stated that the essence of participatory evaluation lies in shared knowledge between local community and specialists (or professionals). Through shared knowledge, they argued that (1) participatory evaluation better serves the interests of both the local beneficiaries and development agencies; (2) it democratizes and enriches the assessment of development; (3) it enhances the benefits for the stakeholders.
Historically examining various participatory evaluation projects, the authors proposed the definition of participatory evaluation:
"Participatory evaluation is a process of self-assessment, collective knowledge production, and cooperative action in which the stakeholders in a development intervention participate substantively in the identification of the evaluation issues, the design of the evaluation, the collection and analysis of data, and the action taken as a result of the evaluation findings. . . . This approach evaluation employs a wide range of data collection and analysis techniques, both qualitative and quantitative, involving fieldwork, workshops, and movement building. " (p. 3)
With respect to fourth generation evaluation that Guba and Lincoln proposed, the authors argued that this approach replaced the concept of participation with that of stakeholder interaction; it separates the participation from the rhetoric concern of "empowerment" in the 1970s and 1980s, thus making the participatory evaluation methodologically more achievable. Yet, the authors argued that in participatory evaluation, all the stakeholders are not equal and thus, there should be a bias in favor of the least powerful in the process of participatory evaluation. This perspective makes the authors argument distinct from other collaborative forms of assessment. [Here, participatory evaluation is written in the context of macro development projects, namely to criticize co-opted participatory evaluation as a tool kit, thus the direct comparison with fourth generation evaluation does not sound feasible.]
Among the issues related to participatory evaluation, the authors empathized the importance of facilitation skills to make a safe space in which every stakeholder can freely speak.
The authors define participatory evaluation as a strategic too for development projects. They stated that the essence of participatory evaluation lies in shared knowledge between local community and specialists (or professionals). Through shared knowledge, they argued that (1) participatory evaluation better serves the interests of both the local beneficiaries and development agencies; (2) it democratizes and enriches the assessment of development; (3) it enhances the benefits for the stakeholders.
Historically examining various participatory evaluation projects, the authors proposed the definition of participatory evaluation:
"Participatory evaluation is a process of self-assessment, collective knowledge production, and cooperative action in which the stakeholders in a development intervention participate substantively in the identification of the evaluation issues, the design of the evaluation, the collection and analysis of data, and the action taken as a result of the evaluation findings. . . . This approach evaluation employs a wide range of data collection and analysis techniques, both qualitative and quantitative, involving fieldwork, workshops, and movement building. " (p. 3)
With respect to fourth generation evaluation that Guba and Lincoln proposed, the authors argued that this approach replaced the concept of participation with that of stakeholder interaction; it separates the participation from the rhetoric concern of "empowerment" in the 1970s and 1980s, thus making the participatory evaluation methodologically more achievable. Yet, the authors argued that in participatory evaluation, all the stakeholders are not equal and thus, there should be a bias in favor of the least powerful in the process of participatory evaluation. This perspective makes the authors argument distinct from other collaborative forms of assessment. [Here, participatory evaluation is written in the context of macro development projects, namely to criticize co-opted participatory evaluation as a tool kit, thus the direct comparison with fourth generation evaluation does not sound feasible.]
Among the issues related to participatory evaluation, the authors empathized the importance of facilitation skills to make a safe space in which every stakeholder can freely speak.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Fourth generation evaluation
Egon Guba & Yvona Lincoln. (1989). Newbury Park, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
Forward (7-19)
The authors criticized that pervasively positivistic approaches to evaluation treat evaluation as a scientific process that misses its social, political, value-oriented nature. Instead, they called for a constructivist approach, arguing that evaluation outcomes "represent meaningful constructions that individual actors or groups of actors form to 'make sense' of the situations in which they find themselves" (p. 8). Evaluation, therefore, is a process of negotiation. They called this evaluation paradigm fourth generation evaluation, empathizing the nature of construction and negotiation among stakeholders. In this light, they noted that such evaluation should be action-oriented. Here, the role of evaluator is defined as the orchestrator of the negotiation process:
"If there is to be a course of action with which most stakeholders can agree, it can only be arrived at through negotiation [sic] . . . If that goal is to be achieved, the evaluator must play a larger role by far than simply that of technician-gathering-information; instead he or she must be the orchestrator of the negotiation process, which in the final analysis is the guts of the evaluation." (p. 10)
The authors also pointed out that the ethics involved in research should go beyond informed consent, harm, and confidentiality. To make research more ethical, they argued that it should allow full participative involvement among its stakeholders and others in the evaluation process such that they partake in the research as equal partners in the aspects of design, implementation, interpretation, and evaluation. [Here, the authors are arguing for participatory research and empathized that they should participate in the evaluation process.]
Besides constructivist methodology, they discuss "responsive focusing" as one of the two elements of fourth generation evaluation. Developing the concept of responsive evaluation by Robert Stake, they argued that the participants of the evaluation, stakeholders, "have the right to place their claims, concerns, and issues on the table for consideration (response), irrespective of the value system to which they adhere" (p. 12). With these claims, concerns, and issues, responsive focusing is progressed to resolve them.
The Coming of Age of Evaluation (21-49)
Looking back the history of evaluation for more than a century, the authors defined the first generation evaluation as measurement; the second as description; the third as judgment. Here the evaluator assumes the role of judge while retaining the technical and descriptive functions as well. One of the authors criticisms on the first three generations is "overcommitment to the scientific paradigm of inquiry"(p. 35). Against this background, the authors develop their evaluation generation based on the concept of responsive evaluation, first proposed by Stake (1975, Evaluating the arts of education, Columbus, OH: Merrill): It "determines parameters and boundaries through an interactive, negotiated process that involves stakeholders and that consumes a considerable portion of the time and resources available." Thus, constructivism is a natural methodology for them to pursue this new emerging paradigm of evaluation.
Similar to the research methodology that the authors argued for, they proposed the following criteria for judging the adequacy of fourth generation evaluation:
A. Trustworthiness
(in lieu of validity, reliability and objectivity that stem from the positivist paradigm). Instead, they put forward credibility, dependability, and confirmability.
1) Credibility focuses on "establishing the match between the constructed realities of respondents (of stakeholders) and those realities as represented by the evaluator and attributed to various stakeholders" (p. 237). Here, the objective neutral reality is refuted. Some of the techniques to enhance credibility are prolonged engagement, persistent observation, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, progressive subjectivity ("monitoring the evaluator's own privilege, for instance, by recording his or her developing construction. In other words, watching out what the evaluator discovers more than what they were looking for. Here the authors write, "If the inquirer 'finds' only what he or she expected to find, initially, or seems to become 'stuck' or 'frozen' on some intermediate construction, credibility suffers.), and member checking.
2) Dependability (in lieu of reliability)
The authors assert that reliability is concerned with the stability of the data over time, but argued that methodological changes and shifts in construction inevitably result in different research products, thus important is not to bring about stable data but to make such changes and shifts trackable ("publicly inspectable" -p. 242). This enables an inquiry audit. The authors assert that this audit should be accompanied by the concern of confirmability.
3) Confirmability (in lieu of objectivity)
Whereas objectivity in the conventional paradigm is rooted in method, confirmability is rooted in the data themselves, argued the authors: "This means that data (constructions, assertaions, facts, and so on) can be tracked to their sources, and that the logic used to assemble the interpretations into structurally coherent and corroborating wholes is both explicit and implicit in the narrative of a case study" (p. 243)
B. The hermeneutic process of its own quality control
The authors empathized the hermeneutic and dialectic process for quality control. A simple way of doing is to analyze any type of feedback immediately on receipt and incorporate into the emerging joint as the process continues. In so doing, the authors argued that the possibility of the evaluator's prejudice can shape the evaluation results is virtually zero as long as their own construction is "laid on the table along with all the others and made to withstand the same barrage of challenge, criticism, and counterexample as any others..."(p. 244).
C. The authenticity criteria
1) Ontological authenticity: Through the provision of various experience, the authors argued, the evaluation process should enable the respondents to improve their consciousness of the world.
2) Educative authenticity: It represents " the extent to which individual respondents' understanding of and appreciation for the constructions of others [sic] outside their stakeholding group are enhanced" (p. 248)
3) Catalytic authenticity: It is related to the purpose of evaluation. It asks whether the evaluation triggers some forms of action or decision making. The authors argued that evaluation should take into consideration the call for "getting theory into action" (p. 249). This process has to do with the ownership of the participants. They put it:
"When action is jointed negotiated, it should follow that action is "owned" by participants and, therefore, as the research has shown, more willingly carried out." (p. 250)
4) Tactical authenticity: This concept compensates certain conditions that prohibit such actions. It refers to "the degree to which stakeholders and participants are empowered to act" in the process of evaluation (p. 250) How can it be demonstrated? The authors suggested soliciting testimony, following up and rendering judgment. They suggested asking the following questions: "Was it participatory? [Here fourth genetaion evaluation is the very same concept with participatory evaluation] Have all stakeholders felt that they or their representatives have had a siginificant role in the process? Are all participants more skilled than previously in understanding and utilizing power and negotiation techniques? If the answers to those questions are uniformed yes, then tactical authenticity has probably been achieved" (p. 250)
Forward (7-19)
The authors criticized that pervasively positivistic approaches to evaluation treat evaluation as a scientific process that misses its social, political, value-oriented nature. Instead, they called for a constructivist approach, arguing that evaluation outcomes "represent meaningful constructions that individual actors or groups of actors form to 'make sense' of the situations in which they find themselves" (p. 8). Evaluation, therefore, is a process of negotiation. They called this evaluation paradigm fourth generation evaluation, empathizing the nature of construction and negotiation among stakeholders. In this light, they noted that such evaluation should be action-oriented. Here, the role of evaluator is defined as the orchestrator of the negotiation process:
"If there is to be a course of action with which most stakeholders can agree, it can only be arrived at through negotiation [sic] . . . If that goal is to be achieved, the evaluator must play a larger role by far than simply that of technician-gathering-information; instead he or she must be the orchestrator of the negotiation process, which in the final analysis is the guts of the evaluation." (p. 10)
The authors also pointed out that the ethics involved in research should go beyond informed consent, harm, and confidentiality. To make research more ethical, they argued that it should allow full participative involvement among its stakeholders and others in the evaluation process such that they partake in the research as equal partners in the aspects of design, implementation, interpretation, and evaluation. [Here, the authors are arguing for participatory research and empathized that they should participate in the evaluation process.]
Besides constructivist methodology, they discuss "responsive focusing" as one of the two elements of fourth generation evaluation. Developing the concept of responsive evaluation by Robert Stake, they argued that the participants of the evaluation, stakeholders, "have the right to place their claims, concerns, and issues on the table for consideration (response), irrespective of the value system to which they adhere" (p. 12). With these claims, concerns, and issues, responsive focusing is progressed to resolve them.
The Coming of Age of Evaluation (21-49)
Looking back the history of evaluation for more than a century, the authors defined the first generation evaluation as measurement; the second as description; the third as judgment. Here the evaluator assumes the role of judge while retaining the technical and descriptive functions as well. One of the authors criticisms on the first three generations is "overcommitment to the scientific paradigm of inquiry"(p. 35). Against this background, the authors develop their evaluation generation based on the concept of responsive evaluation, first proposed by Stake (1975, Evaluating the arts of education, Columbus, OH: Merrill): It "determines parameters and boundaries through an interactive, negotiated process that involves stakeholders and that consumes a considerable portion of the time and resources available." Thus, constructivism is a natural methodology for them to pursue this new emerging paradigm of evaluation.
Similar to the research methodology that the authors argued for, they proposed the following criteria for judging the adequacy of fourth generation evaluation:
A. Trustworthiness
(in lieu of validity, reliability and objectivity that stem from the positivist paradigm). Instead, they put forward credibility, dependability, and confirmability.
1) Credibility focuses on "establishing the match between the constructed realities of respondents (of stakeholders) and those realities as represented by the evaluator and attributed to various stakeholders" (p. 237). Here, the objective neutral reality is refuted. Some of the techniques to enhance credibility are prolonged engagement, persistent observation, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, progressive subjectivity ("monitoring the evaluator's own privilege, for instance, by recording his or her developing construction. In other words, watching out what the evaluator discovers more than what they were looking for. Here the authors write, "If the inquirer 'finds' only what he or she expected to find, initially, or seems to become 'stuck' or 'frozen' on some intermediate construction, credibility suffers.), and member checking.
2) Dependability (in lieu of reliability)
The authors assert that reliability is concerned with the stability of the data over time, but argued that methodological changes and shifts in construction inevitably result in different research products, thus important is not to bring about stable data but to make such changes and shifts trackable ("publicly inspectable" -p. 242). This enables an inquiry audit. The authors assert that this audit should be accompanied by the concern of confirmability.
3) Confirmability (in lieu of objectivity)
Whereas objectivity in the conventional paradigm is rooted in method, confirmability is rooted in the data themselves, argued the authors: "This means that data (constructions, assertaions, facts, and so on) can be tracked to their sources, and that the logic used to assemble the interpretations into structurally coherent and corroborating wholes is both explicit and implicit in the narrative of a case study" (p. 243)
B. The hermeneutic process of its own quality control
The authors empathized the hermeneutic and dialectic process for quality control. A simple way of doing is to analyze any type of feedback immediately on receipt and incorporate into the emerging joint as the process continues. In so doing, the authors argued that the possibility of the evaluator's prejudice can shape the evaluation results is virtually zero as long as their own construction is "laid on the table along with all the others and made to withstand the same barrage of challenge, criticism, and counterexample as any others..."(p. 244).
C. The authenticity criteria
1) Ontological authenticity: Through the provision of various experience, the authors argued, the evaluation process should enable the respondents to improve their consciousness of the world.
2) Educative authenticity: It represents " the extent to which individual respondents' understanding of and appreciation for the constructions of others [sic] outside their stakeholding group are enhanced" (p. 248)
3) Catalytic authenticity: It is related to the purpose of evaluation. It asks whether the evaluation triggers some forms of action or decision making. The authors argued that evaluation should take into consideration the call for "getting theory into action" (p. 249). This process has to do with the ownership of the participants. They put it:
"When action is jointed negotiated, it should follow that action is "owned" by participants and, therefore, as the research has shown, more willingly carried out." (p. 250)
4) Tactical authenticity: This concept compensates certain conditions that prohibit such actions. It refers to "the degree to which stakeholders and participants are empowered to act" in the process of evaluation (p. 250) How can it be demonstrated? The authors suggested soliciting testimony, following up and rendering judgment. They suggested asking the following questions: "Was it participatory? [Here fourth genetaion evaluation is the very same concept with participatory evaluation] Have all stakeholders felt that they or their representatives have had a siginificant role in the process? Are all participants more skilled than previously in understanding and utilizing power and negotiation techniques? If the answers to those questions are uniformed yes, then tactical authenticity has probably been achieved" (p. 250)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Radical adult education and learning
Griff Foley. (2001). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20 (1/2), 71-88.
"Radical adult educators are those who work for emancipatory social change and whose work engages with the learning dimension of social life." (p. 72)
Foley acknowledged the democratic imperatives of Carl Rogers's approach to humanistic education, in which meaningful experiential learning was emphasized; yet, Rogers, unlike critical and radical educators, ignored social analysis and political commitment. More, Foley finds the root of the confusion in defining power in Rogers's approach to non-directive teaching. In Foley's definition, empowerment in education takes place when educators use their power to create educational situation in which learners can exercise power. For him, it is neither something that educators can do for the learners nor something that can be obtained by abandoning the educator's power. Foley suggests the educator's active role in empowering the learners. In this regard, he put it:
This will involve educators in recognizing the invasiveness of their work and struggling with learners to build a different sort of relationship, one that is based on a notion of solidarity rather than on a patronizing notion of service. (p. 75)
In an triumphal capitalism, Foley argued, radical adult education needs to be more strategic. One of the strategies is the action research method. He said that it is "ordinary yet radical... because it uncovers, and acts on, what is generally hidden and untouched. (pp. 82-83)
"We learn as we act, and our learning is both tacit and explicit" (p. 86). Foley emphasizes the understanding of the complex learning process that takes place in places where we work and live. [How is this statement related to the participatory research?]
"Radical adult educators are those who work for emancipatory social change and whose work engages with the learning dimension of social life." (p. 72)
Foley acknowledged the democratic imperatives of Carl Rogers's approach to humanistic education, in which meaningful experiential learning was emphasized; yet, Rogers, unlike critical and radical educators, ignored social analysis and political commitment. More, Foley finds the root of the confusion in defining power in Rogers's approach to non-directive teaching. In Foley's definition, empowerment in education takes place when educators use their power to create educational situation in which learners can exercise power. For him, it is neither something that educators can do for the learners nor something that can be obtained by abandoning the educator's power. Foley suggests the educator's active role in empowering the learners. In this regard, he put it:
This will involve educators in recognizing the invasiveness of their work and struggling with learners to build a different sort of relationship, one that is based on a notion of solidarity rather than on a patronizing notion of service. (p. 75)
In an triumphal capitalism, Foley argued, radical adult education needs to be more strategic. One of the strategies is the action research method. He said that it is "ordinary yet radical... because it uncovers, and acts on, what is generally hidden and untouched. (pp. 82-83)
"We learn as we act, and our learning is both tacit and explicit" (p. 86). Foley emphasizes the understanding of the complex learning process that takes place in places where we work and live. [How is this statement related to the participatory research?]
Power in practice
: adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power in society. Ronald Cervero & Arther Wilson (Eds.). (2001). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Preface (xv-xxi)
The authors pointed out that the literature of adult education lacked an examination of power relations manifested in adult education, although adults became more engaged in learning activity and the issues of knowledge and power are pervasive. Within this context, they ask, "who benefits from and who should benefit from the programs, practices, and policies of adult education?" (p. xv)
The authors empathized that adult education is concerned not only about knowledge distribution but also social, cultural, and economic power, which they called 'material effects' (p. 2). Holding this position, they reviewed three different conceptions of the political in adult education practice:
1) "The political is personal" (articulated by Freire's partner, Knowles's andragogue, Mezirow's emancipatory educator, Daloz's mentor, Belenky's mid-wife, and Brookfield's skillful teacher): the authors critiqued this learner-centered view romanticizes learners. In this view, they argued, "the highest professional and moral principle for adult educators, then, to involve learners in identifying their needs" (p. 5). They further described:
"Key metaphors are those of building on the experience of these potential adult learners; hearing their "voice", which has often been silenced; or giving them access to learning opportunities that historically have been denied" (p. 5)
The authors argued that lack of social structural reference in this view only addressed universal purposes and failed to approach the political in the context of adult education.
2) "The political is practical": This view is concerned primarily about getting things done from the perspective of educators. Thu, the authors argued, this perspective "lacks an analysis of adult education's relationship to the wider systems of power in society, this view of politics does not usually have an explicit social vision of whose interests should be served by adult education" (pp. 7-8).
3) "The political is structural": This view is not concerned about generic adult learners but learners who are oppressed by socially structured power. As a pitfall of this approach, the authors pointed out that it failed to provide concrete direction for micro practice. There exists a structural framework, but it lacks "applied, middle-range work" (Apple, 1988, p, 200, "Teachers and text", as cited p. 10). [My research, by probing this approach at work through participatory research practice, will contribute to suggesting such applied knowledge to address power relations in the context of adult education.]
Within these strands of the political, the authors finally proposed three propositions:
1) There is a reciprocal relationship between power and adult education: They argued, "power relationships both provide the grounds for action in adult education and are also always acted on by adult education" (p. 11). In other words, the power relations structuring our lives are played out in adult education; at the same time, adult education contributes to redistributing the power.
2) Adult education is a site of struggle for knowledge and power:
[Foley (1993, The neighborhood house: site of struggle, site of learning, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(1), 21-37, p. 20) wrote, "A major problem, though, with much supposedly critical adult education theory is that it is often very abstract; it has generally failed to develop analyses of adult learning in particular social contexts" (p. 20).]
[A thought: my research allows looking at adult learning at a micro level.]
The authors empathized that the struggle for knowledge and power define the politics of adult education and stated that this standpoint recognizes multiple interests at stake in adult education activity and requires negotiations of these conflicts, which leads to the question,"who benefit?"
3) All adult educators are social activists in practice (regardless of his or her particular perspective on society). In this light, the authors refuted adult educators as neutral knowledge facilitator, but knowledge-power brokers, who constantly question who (should) benefit from this education.
/// epilogue
The authors took the stance that adult education is a critical site for the struggle of knowledge and power, yet noted the limit of the current research after compiling the empirical studies:
"We share, however, a continuing concern that our actual practices in distributing knowledge, reshaping structures, and changing who benefits remain idiosyncratic and undeveloped" (pp. 268-69)
[Can this limitation overcome through participatory research as a form of adult education?]
Preface (xv-xxi)
The authors pointed out that the literature of adult education lacked an examination of power relations manifested in adult education, although adults became more engaged in learning activity and the issues of knowledge and power are pervasive. Within this context, they ask, "who benefits from and who should benefit from the programs, practices, and policies of adult education?" (p. xv)
The authors empathized that adult education is concerned not only about knowledge distribution but also social, cultural, and economic power, which they called 'material effects' (p. 2). Holding this position, they reviewed three different conceptions of the political in adult education practice:
1) "The political is personal" (articulated by Freire's partner, Knowles's andragogue, Mezirow's emancipatory educator, Daloz's mentor, Belenky's mid-wife, and Brookfield's skillful teacher): the authors critiqued this learner-centered view romanticizes learners. In this view, they argued, "the highest professional and moral principle for adult educators, then, to involve learners in identifying their needs" (p. 5). They further described:
"Key metaphors are those of building on the experience of these potential adult learners; hearing their "voice", which has often been silenced; or giving them access to learning opportunities that historically have been denied" (p. 5)
The authors argued that lack of social structural reference in this view only addressed universal purposes and failed to approach the political in the context of adult education.
2) "The political is practical": This view is concerned primarily about getting things done from the perspective of educators. Thu, the authors argued, this perspective "lacks an analysis of adult education's relationship to the wider systems of power in society, this view of politics does not usually have an explicit social vision of whose interests should be served by adult education" (pp. 7-8).
3) "The political is structural": This view is not concerned about generic adult learners but learners who are oppressed by socially structured power. As a pitfall of this approach, the authors pointed out that it failed to provide concrete direction for micro practice. There exists a structural framework, but it lacks "applied, middle-range work" (Apple, 1988, p, 200, "Teachers and text", as cited p. 10). [My research, by probing this approach at work through participatory research practice, will contribute to suggesting such applied knowledge to address power relations in the context of adult education.]
Within these strands of the political, the authors finally proposed three propositions:
1) There is a reciprocal relationship between power and adult education: They argued, "power relationships both provide the grounds for action in adult education and are also always acted on by adult education" (p. 11). In other words, the power relations structuring our lives are played out in adult education; at the same time, adult education contributes to redistributing the power.
2) Adult education is a site of struggle for knowledge and power:
[Foley (1993, The neighborhood house: site of struggle, site of learning, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(1), 21-37, p. 20) wrote, "A major problem, though, with much supposedly critical adult education theory is that it is often very abstract; it has generally failed to develop analyses of adult learning in particular social contexts" (p. 20).]
[A thought: my research allows looking at adult learning at a micro level.]
The authors empathized that the struggle for knowledge and power define the politics of adult education and stated that this standpoint recognizes multiple interests at stake in adult education activity and requires negotiations of these conflicts, which leads to the question,"who benefit?"
3) All adult educators are social activists in practice (regardless of his or her particular perspective on society). In this light, the authors refuted adult educators as neutral knowledge facilitator, but knowledge-power brokers, who constantly question who (should) benefit from this education.
/// epilogue
The authors took the stance that adult education is a critical site for the struggle of knowledge and power, yet noted the limit of the current research after compiling the empirical studies:
"We share, however, a continuing concern that our actual practices in distributing knowledge, reshaping structures, and changing who benefits remain idiosyncratic and undeveloped" (pp. 268-69)
[Can this limitation overcome through participatory research as a form of adult education?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
