|
|
Reproduced from Studies in the Education of Adults, vol. 16, pp. 70-77 and 1984 Conference Proceedings
8409
Adult education, research and SCUTREA
Teddy Thomas, University of Nottingham
Abstract
As this was the last year of office for Professor Thomas as Chairman, this seemed a good opportunity to review the academic state of adult education in the university sector.
The paper tries to achieve a number of objectives. Firsts to describe the origins of SCUTREA and its present role in research. There is discussion of the impediments to the achievement of the original aims, and the successes - for example, the work of the interest groups. The second object is to analyse some of the barriers to the development of collaborative, coherent, research initiative; in particular the tradition of isolationism of the extra-mural lecturer. Thirdly, an attempt is made to measure the intellectual 'health' of adult education by describing the current state of journals, books and student activity.
The conclusion is optimistic; in particular, emphasis is made on the contribution which SCUTREA makes.
This paper is published in Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 16, 1984; pp. 70-77
Adult education, research and SCUTREA
Twice in the last year there has been an appeal for research into what in this paper will be called, for convenience, the education of adults. The first of these is in the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education Report, Continuing education: from policies to practice:
The study of adult learning stands in need of academic legitimation. More needs to be known about, to, instance, its psychology, sociology and management; and there is an almost complete gap in our knowledge of its economics.1
It should be said at once that whilst there is truth in this, especially in respect of a need for more work on economics, that observation overstates the defects of the academic state of adult educational theory, and in doing so does a disservice, since it gives the less informed, or politically hostile reader, both a wrong impression and a weapon. The truth is that there has accumulated a good deal of scholarly work, notably in history, psychology and sociology, and credit should have been given, and must now be given, to those who have worked to produce it.
The second exhortation is contained in a report on continuing education which could have the greatest significance for university work in this country, and for extramural departments, since it comes from the University Grants Committee which is, increasingly, shaping university provision:
Decision making in continuing education must be firmly based on good information whether it be about the skills needed in teaching adults or about the economic and employment benefits of continuing education or about the social and cultural returns from greater investment in education. The creation in 1969 of the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults and of the ACACE between 1977 and 1982 have done much to help. In the universities recent research has included projects on the relevance of video packages, on the success of continuing education courses as revealed by surveys among former students and on local and national needs in relation to national policy. More research needs to be done in order, for example, to identify the requirements of employers and students, to assess the academic and financial resources needed to satisfy those requirements and to evaluate the benefits of continuing education. We recommend that universities and funding agencies should recognise and support research in continuing education on a par with discipline-based research in academic departments.2
Actually this is more positive than the earlier comment, since it does give credit, and is rather more prescriptive. Both imply, correctly, that there is plenty of scope for research. In this paper I would like to try to initiate a discussion about the state of research. 1 want to do this by considering some obstacles to a coherent research strategy, especially where it involves team work; by looking at the commitment of extramural departments to academic, adult educational activity; and by reviewing the work of SCUTREA. And I would like to do this against the changing adult educational environment since SCUTREA was founded fourteen years ago.
In extramural departments, as in any university department, the integral core is the lecturer. But his historic role presents a major difficulty when research in adult education is advanced as an important goal. The major problem is the historic diversity, academic and often geographical, of extramural staffs with a concomitant deeply ingrained tradition of autonomy. If one had to identify a major problem in the attempt to develop an intelligible research strategy of the 'collective' or 'team' kind which the founders of SCUTREA advocated, this might well be it.
The lecturer in a British extramural department is, in every sense, a university teacher. The extramural lecturer, like his internal counterpart, is recruited to teach a special subject and he may, in addition, have some responsibility for organising an area. This academic and geographical diversity has been the cornerstone of the fabric of the extramural department. It follows that the extramural lecturer has a remarkable degree of autonomy and is nurtured in a tradition of individual preference which is, for the most part, unlikely to conflict with the needs of the department. The central organisation of the latter may be thought of as a federal government in its dealings with states which are barely dependent, except, of course, in financial terms. It is vital to recognise this because a major research initiative, which is likely to demand collaboration, threatens this historic arrangement.
Another form of resistance, if it is sufficiently conscious to have such an active noun bestowed upon it, springs from another well established feature of the organisation. This is subject specialism. Specialisation is central to the academic culture, but one of its less happy by-products is the lack of correlation between teaching an academic subject at a high level to adults, and an interest in the theory of adult education. Extramural staff are, naturally, aware that teaching adults is itself a specialised task, and are proud of their particular occupational skill, But it is only exceptionally that an extramural lecturer might be discovered reading a new book on the effects of ageing, or learning skills, or a progress report of an experiment in community development. To do so betokens a broad view of the discipline of adult education which is unusual amongst British extramural lecturers. But, it should be emphasised, this is not to suspect their commitment to their work.
These features of the classical organisational style, at present at least, make the achievement of research aims difficult. Probably all members of staff in a university extramural department were attracted to that kind of department as against, say, an internal department, because of certain distinctive characteristics of extramural work, such as working with mature and experienced students and the extraordinary, and quite luxurious, autonomy which might be enjoyed. Faced therefore with an exhortation to become involved in some kind of a team approach, some are likely to resist because of the implicit danger of an erosion of their autonomy.
A coherent team approach means that the lecturer may find himself involved in a research project, where the thrust is decided by someone else, where he is called upon to collaborate with other people, and where he is made accountable to a steering committee which is going to take a close and insistent interest in his progress.
Furthermore, he is likely to be constrained by something which is especially anathematical to university staff - a time limit. Add to this the fact that his real academic interest may be in medieval history, and the exhortation to become involved in adult education research might appear somewhat unattractive.
It is worth pointing out incidentally that the 'subject' tutor is increasingly under attack from critics in the university and in knowledgeable institutions outside. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the establishment of narrowly specialist extramural teaching posts, because they are an expensive investment for a return which could be achieved by the judicious appointment of part timers. The satisfying certainty that this historic arrangement is inviolate is likely to be destroyed, unless it can be demonstrated that extramural expertise goes beyond the boundaries of a traditional academic field and includes an adult educational dimension. It is no longer enough to say vaguely that some arcane expertise is immanent in the teaching of adults by full-time staff. There must be a commitment to the academic discipline of adult education evidenced by involvement in research and a contribution to a body of knowledge. Self-congratulation is not likely to be an effective answer to the current UGC recommendation that 'interested parties should review the present 'responsible body' arrangements'. 3
These then are some of the deeply ingrained, structural hindrances to the development of a coherent academic body of knowledge. Related to them is the attitude of individual departments to research and teaching in adult education. Put simply, a commitment and interest by a director and staff can be developed, and if they are, then the status, standard and breadth of research work rises correspondingly. At present this commitment is variable, to put it mildly, and there is some evidence to support this assertion. Indeed criticism of university adult education goes beyond pointing out its insufficient interest in research. A new group in the United States has been formed to redress what are claimed to be some very serious deficiencies:
Although in recent years the field of Adult and Continuing Education has grown significantly, there has been a decline in the social commitment and intellectual leadership that were once the heart of our profession.4
I want to turn now to the commitment of universities to adult education and to the commitment of extramural departments to the development of an academic stock. I suppose that I am appealing here for all of us, as university adult educators, to examine the strength of our commitment to, and interest in, research. For if you look at just a few indicators, it is possible to argue that universities, despite their prestige, are not setting the lead they should at a time when the education of adults has become, arguably, the major educational topic.
The first indicator is that of journals. These are increasing in range and the market is buoyant. Two years ago a new journal was launched, the International Journal of Lifelong Education, and soon Studies in the Education of Adults will be published twice a year, instead of once. Overseas the New Zealand journal has been reorganised and upgrade. But there are a number of rather curious facts surrounding these encouraging developments. The first is that very few university departments of adult education subscribe. Some do not even subscribe to Studies which, for most of its life, has actually been under the sponsorship of the Universities Council for Adult and Continuing Education.
The next curiosity is that the lists of subscribers in this country reveal that more copies are bought by polytechnics, colleges of higher education, and so on, than by universities, or extramural departments. Because the former are more interested? The last phenomenon is that although there are attractive publication outlets, editors have great difficulty eliciting contributions of an acceptable standard. Moreover, good material is increasingly likely to come from non-university sources. This may be because of an even stranger curiosity; that some of our colleagues, when they have completed research, do not go to the effort of reporting it.
The second indicator is the reduction in size of traditional departments and, linked with it, doubts about replacing directors, and the reshaping of departments so that adult education and extramural sections are split, with dire results for the latter. Against this must be set the establishment of new, very different departments of continuing education, and their role, if any, in the kind of research being discussed.
The third indicator is the fact that, although there is expansion in adult education, especially professional training and development, the numbers of staff involved in teaching and research in adult education, whether in
the traditional department or in the newly formed adult education departments, have remained static, generally one or two per institution.The overall picture then, one is forced to conclude, is of a diminishing commitment to organised self awareness in adult and continuing education, with a concomitant diminution of research activity on the part of university extramural departments. This in a situation where even the UGC is turning its attention to the work at which we are supposedly expert, where demands for education and qualifications in our field are greater than ever, and where, paradoxically, traditional work is under the most serious threat in its history.
It was a feeling that traditional extramural departments and staff were not paying enough attention to research which led a number of interested people to establish SCUTREA. They believed that it could act as a focus for research, and for the creation of a systematic base for adult education. In the light of my earlier comments, it appears that their intentions, based upon professional concern, need restating even more forcibly at present. I would like now to review SCUTREA, its evolution and present activity. This is also an opportunity to put on record, for the first time, a note about its origins.
In the late 1960s, George Wedell (then of Manchester) and John Lowe (then of Edinburgh) decided to set up some kind of society or conference:
which could provide both a regular forum for the exchange of ideas and information about research in progress and a means of identifying problems and issues calling for investigation. 'Rigour' has since become a hackneyed concept when applied to research but for us it was a critical concern. Too much of what passed for research so it seemed to us was not research at all, but subjective description and anecdote.
5SCUTREA were 'conscious of the lack of any systematic and rigorous research in the UK into the field of adult education.'6
Clearly, not every university extramural department had a commitment to teaching and research in adult education, which topics were to be the concern of the proposed group. Membership would inevitably be exclusive, and this led to some resentment which unfortunately was institutionalised in hostility from the UCAE towards SCUTREA - largely because the management of UCAE for years was in the hands of departments which had no interest in research and teaching. Happily this is now gone.
At that time, those who were interested met, first at Holly Royde, Manchester, and then at an official inaugural conference at Middleton Hall, near Dalkeith. It was there, in 1970, that SCUTREA was established with Wedell as first Chairman, and Michael Stephens, then of Liverpool, now of Nottingham, as first Secretary. It will come as no surprise that one source recalls 'that it took a long time to formulate the aim, design the constitution and agree on the title of the new organisation'.7
What, as a minimum, has SCUTREA achieved? Firstly, and at least, it has provided, at the annual conference, a focus for those who are interested in teaching and research. The fourteen conferences have produced some outstanding pipers, the publication of which has added to the status of our discipline. It has also provided an opportunity for people who are very often isolated, to exchange ideas and information with others who have a primary interest in adult education.
Secondly, SCUTREA provides a modest service. It publishes a list of all the courses in adult education available in Britain and Ireland (no one else does) which is widely distributed and in great demand. SCUTREA also produces a register of professional interests, the object of which is to put scholars in touch with each other. Finally, there is to be set up the publication co-operative. This is likely to be a major aid to the diffusion of work published by extramural departments, which is not only useful commercially, but is an important means of making these publications more widely available. Perhaps SCUTREA, despite its slender resources, ought to be producing more initiatives to make everyone aware of the academic work which has been, and is being, undertaken.
Perhaps the most productive aspect of SCUTREA s work is the interest group. The point has been made that SCUTREA provides a forum for a sub group within extramural departments, and the interest group refines this further, putting people together who have a very specific shared interest. The aims of the interest groups are:
At the moment the history, psychology, comparative studies, and sociology groups are active, while the other two which have Conference sanction, training and women's, seem to be either moribund, latent, or potential. The high productivity of the interest groups can be gauged from the work in psychology, history and comparative studies.
The psychology group has prepared nine papers on a variety of topics concerned with the application of their subject to adult education. The Nottingham Publications Unit published these at the request of the group, at cost; they are amongst the most popular of its publications and some have had to be reprinted. The history group has prepared, and published, a rather different work. Theirs is a package of materials about the history of mechanics' institutes. This carefully composed, scholarly, and unusual production has also been extremely popular, and not only amongst adult educators. The history group is currently preparing a second package of materials in the area of nineteenth century learning and leisure. The comparative adult education group's work is rather different. They have produced three issues of a newsletter which gives brief descriptive notes of publications from abroad. They have also published a register of professional and research interests of British academics for distribution abroad principally by the Commission of Professors in the United States,and a register of UK periodicals which are willing to accept articles from the United States. The group is also one of the architects of the British and North American Network for Adult Education. Finally, the group intends to produce a publication on the methodology of comparative adult education which, while it would be a valuable addition to an increasingly important field, is proving difficult to put together.
It may be fairly claimed, even after such a brief recital of SCUTREA's activities, that it has been productive, as well as providing channels of communication especially for more junior staff. It may also be claimed that it reminds those who are becoming interested in adult and continuing education for the first time that university adult educators are trying to develop a body of theory without which practice is likely to be disjointed, capricious, and trivial.
Much of what has been said so far has centred around obstacles to research, ingrained tradition, persisting lack of interest in many universities and so on. in conclusion I will review some of the more positive aspects of research and outline some topics for discussion. The first thing to stress is that there has been a fair amount of serious research work in recent years, notably by the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education, by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and by some departments. The contribution of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education will be missed, and it is to be hoped that NIACE will be able to make some attempt to fill the space.
Research means, however, something more than arithmetical surveys, what C. Wright Mills called 'relentless empiricism'. Because adult education has been taken seriously, in part as a result of the stimulus afforded by SCUTREA university adult educators have written books which, while not the outcome of 'research' in the sense in which the statisticians would understand it, are nevertheless important because they intellectualise about adult education and give the subject depth. There are many examples, but I will mention one: Adult Education for a Change, edited by Jane Thompson. This book was taken up by the Times Higher Education Supplement, which is not notably enthusiastic about publications in adult education, and it was reviewed there by the Director General of the Arts Council who, unfortunately, chose to restate the narrow traditional view of university adult education rather than take the opportunity to initiate new discussion. This book also illustrates another important result of intellectual publishing, and that is its considerable impact on the students of adult education. In many ways they are the most important audiences for books and, as an examiner in five universities in the last five years, I am impressed by the influence and impact of the literature on the student population. This 'feedback' reinforces my opinion that there can be no doubt that the standard and range of publication has improved enormously in the last ten years.
Mention of courses in adult education and of the students who support them prompts me to remark that much excellent research and writing is done by students. The pity is that so few of them can find university posts, and I would like to take this chance (thus illustrating one of the uses of SCUTREA) to urge that we should try to ensure at least that the best of this work is published. So important is this degree and diploma work that its health is an accurate measure of the state of academic adult education. Not only is that so, but without the provocation which such work provides, and its successful infusion, a university extramural programme is likely to become stale and pragmatic in the worst sense.
Members of SCUTREA can then work through the interest groups and can, through discussion with colleagues there and at this conference, consider topics which might be researched and even embark on joint ventures. They can also funnel the best of the huge volume of work done by students so that it becomes publicly available. What I believe is probably impossible to achieve is what the founders of SCUTREA wanted: a co-ordinated effort at research. I am not convinced that we could overcome the historic autonomy, or varying degrees of departmental commitment, to use SCUTREA to develop an overall research strategy and plan. Such an ambition runs up against the university and extramural traditions and SCUTREA simply does not have the necessary structure. Such co-ordination needs structure and it needs the subordination of individual will to a collective will which would work through that structure.
I have said that SCUTREA has contributed, directly and indirectly, to the development of research and theory. It has done this, notably, by concentrating on teaching and research and by providing platforms for people who wish to discuss these at a critical and analytical level. Perhaps alone amongst the professional conferences its task has been to try to encourage scholarship and to resist the clichés with which university adult education has often been so grievously afflicted. Looking at the history of SCUTREA, and acknowledging its shortcomings, I think this has been worthwhile. But the business of this conference is to take stock, not to reminisce. The urgent need remains to identify ways of improving the theory of our work and by so doing to improve its practice.
Endnotes