Analytical policy models of adult learning and education:

Finger, Jansen, and Wildemeersch (1998) developed a debate within which adult education as a field of research, theory-building, and practice is seen as reflecting historical developments with regard to changes in a societal context – and with particular regard to changes in Europe, North America, and third-world countries. The discussion focuses on historical origins. Therefore, these authors refer to emancipation and re-education in European AE; to utilitarian, liberal, and radical tendencies in North American AE; and to AE between modernisation and radical decolonisation in third-world countries. They also stress challenges that trap countries between modernisation and radical decolo-nisation. In addition to exploring AE history, the authors also analyse the intel-lectual origins of the field. They debate liberal-progressive philosophies and declarations, personal growth approaches, and the radical counter-critique.

However, owing to the post-modern condition, globalisation, and the erosion of the state, ‘the entire project of adult and continuing education seems to have lost much of its historical legitimation, and is surrounded by a serious doubt about the direction that should or could be taken’ (Finger et al., 1998, p. 14).

In this very specific context, where AE – as mentioned earlier – is at a crossroads (cf. Finger & Asún, 2001) and characterised by contradictory op-tions and trends, Finger et al. (1998) argue that there is a need for critical re-flection on current changes by using complex analytical models.

More recently, Olesen (2010) has tried to reflect critically on ‘the multi-ple societal nature and functions of adult learning’ (p. 1). Like the previous authors, Olesen distinguishes three main types of AE (defined by their main content) that have allowed for the development of different educational tradi-tions: basic literacy education with respect to cultural integration in the na-tion state; community and popular educana-tion; and educana-tion for work, such as continuing education and training. The author argues that the complexity of today’s world means that ‘much of the recent discussion in adult education is a clash between educational cultures’. In fact,

on the one hand, there is a humanistic focus on personal and political self-articulation, which seems to be inherited from the traditional functions of community learning and lib-eral adult education. On the other hand, there is the instrumental perspective of lifelong learning for work, theoretically underpinned by human capital theory and similar frame-works of understanding. (Olesen, 2010, p.1)

In the context of modernisation, economic, social, and cultural changes have taken place due to the development of capitalist economies that have led to modernisation in which schooling, especially formal education, has had a relevant role to play. In these complex circumstances, ideological struggles have occurred, mainly related to intersections in historical experiences and societal functions of adult learning. As a result, ‘discovering the multiple and infinite nature of the modernisation process’ has become central to the study of adult education and lifelong learning policies (Olesen, 2010, p. 2). The search for a combined, complex way of understanding recent developments is crucial, and it is now extremely important to build policies that can involve the societal and individual dimensions of adult education and learning, expe-riential knowledge and abstract disciplinary knowledge, as well as the formal, non-formal, and informal settings in which education and learning occur.

This book identifies three models to analyse the social policies of ALE, along the line of reflection similar to that proposed by both Finger et al. and Olesen: the democratic-emancipatory model, in which democratic participa-tion and critical educaparticipa-tion are very important in relaparticipa-tion to AE acparticipa-tions, in particular popular and community education; the modernisation and state control model, based on public provision, the intervention of the welfare state, and generally dominated by educational guidelines; and the human re-sources management model, in search of economic modernisation and the production of skilled labour, led by vocationalist guidelines focusing on the production of human capital. These are models which, through their inclu-siveness, seek to embrace a wide range of public policies adopted in countries and regions which themselves differ widely, as we shall now show.

Although the ALE public policy models differ from one another, it is im-portant to note that they have been built up in a continuum. Despite being se-parate, these models are not exclusive and can coexist. So cross-fertilisation or hybridisation is possible: rather than presenting rigid artificial possibilities of analysis, it is expected that these models can be considered as heuristic de-vices for understanding public policies of ALE. The discussion on the devel-opments in AE based on policy documents and public policies implemented by various countries therefore shows that, at a given time, one or two models had a higher profile than the others, or vice versa. But the dominant character of any one model at a particular time, at the expense of the previous ones,

does not mean that the subordinate models simply vanish from the scene:

they tend towards a marginal survival, sometimes offering active resistance, and at other times persisting in a restricted, implicit, or modest form. In fact, though many countries favour policies based on upskilling and managing human resources, and on appeals to the market and civil society, other mod-els are also used: some are linked to strong state intervention in the develop-ment of adult education and training systems, or to engaging civil society in the promotion of various public services. Since there may be some crossovers in the models, the reality may be marked by a considerable hybridism of ori-entations, which should be examined in light of the models proposed.

Furthermore, in this book we uphold the idea that overall integrated poli-cies are possible (and even desirable). These polipoli-cies would include intersec-tions, creative tensions, and social experiment, and they would express the combination of different models. On the one hand, this combination would be compatible with the heterogeneity and plurality found in the sphere of adult education, in which we find respect for the diversity and wealth of forms, methods, devices, and audiences that characterise it. On the other hand, it would allow for the adoption of policies that envisage consistent measures.

The responsibility of the state in these measures and the constitutional orien-tations with respect to the democratisation of education, aimed at everyone, but especially at those sectors of the adult population on the fringes of enjoy-ing basic social rights, should be clearly defined and benefit from effective realisation (Lima, 2008, pp. 32ff.).

The characterisation of public policy models for AE involves different categories. Among them are the political-administrative orientations, the po-litical priorities, the organisational and administrative dimensions, and the conceptual elements inherent to such policies.

Political-administrative orientations

These orientations relate to the laws, rules, and norms that allow a public pol-icy to be adopted. They consist of the legislative apparatus that provides the means for a policy to be implemented and include the establishment of condi-tions for accessing ALE initiatives and the involvement of the people attend-ing them. They further include the financattend-ing, controllattend-ing, and assessment of the actions proposed, and the organisation and management related to the de-velopment of these activities.

Political priorities

The political priorities concern the ends targeted by ALE, and the domains that a public policy focuses on, the relevant target-groups, and the amount of public funds allocated.

Organisational and administrative dimensions

These relate to the organisation, administration, and management involved in adopting a public policy, including centralised and decentralised structures, the procedures and technical processes involved in carrying out ALE activi-ties, quality assurance, evaluation, and accountability procedures.

Conceptual elements

These are concerned with the theoretical references underlying the ends, me-thods, and processes inherent to implementing a public policy (e.g. ALE con-ceptions, pedagogical models, forms of participation and assessment, etc.).