Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research

The Captive Triangle

Robin Usher, Ian Bryant

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781136628283
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The authors argue that the aim of research should be to improve practice through a process of critical reflection. Focusing clearly on the everyday concerns and problems of practitioners, they emphasize the importance of practical knowledge. Their definition of 'practice' is wide, and includes the generation of theory and the doing of research as well as front-line teaching. They show how notions of 'adult learning' and 'the adult learner' have been constituted mainly through theory and research in psychology and sociology, and examine action research as a mode of understanding. They conclude by looking at the curriculum implications for the teaching of adult education as reflective practice.

Chapter One
Exploring the Triangle

Concerns and Content

The overall purpose of this book is to examine the relationship between theory, practice, and research in adult education. The authors are themselves practitioners within, and theorists and researchers of, adult education. Our underlying assumptions are that there is a unity between theory, practice, and research, and that the need to constantly improve and enhance practice is best fulfilled by recognizing that unity and being aware of the consequences. The book is therefore concerned with these themes.

We take the view that improving and enhancing practice is a matter of its enrichment through critical reflection. This, however, inevitably involves an examination of both 'theory' and the place of research within practice. Research has been a recent growth phenomenon in adult and continuing education, and one of the problems is that we are trapped in inappropriate models and assumptions about the nature and purposes of research, the place of theory, and the relationship between these and practice. Our task, therefore, is to subject the models, assumptions, and conventional paradigms to critical scrutiny, and to suggest a more appropriate and helpful alternative.

In broad terms, our thesis is that adult education as a field of study (in which we include theorizing and researching) should be appropriately located in adult education as a field of practice. The latter, however, is notoriously difficult to write about because, in the main, it is something which we simply just go and 'do'. It is literally there and the practising adult educator invariably takes it as a given. Consequently, we see our task as one of examining the nature of practice, both in general terms and, more specifically, in terms of adult education. We have concentrated on two main themes. First, the 'situatedness' of practice and, second, the nature of the knowledge contained in practice. These themes are connected, since practical knowledge is always situational.

The context within which we write is that of adult education as an expanding field of practice which. nevertheless, urgently needs to understand its own situatedness or grounding. We would argue that adult education has its own integrity but that this is rarely understood reflexively. We therefore believe that without this understanding it will become increasingly difficult to defend and maintain the integrity of the field.

The most obvious characteristic of the expansion is its diversity. Adult education as a field of practice now manifests an almost bewildering variety of forms - staff development, professional updating, continuing vocational education, counselling, personal 'growth', adult basic education, in-house training, and community education. Potentially, the list is endless. Each of these areas is evolving its own particular practices, theories, and research procedures. Our concern, however, is to examine the relationship of practice, theory, and research against this background of growth and diversity in the field. Furthermore, we want to make the point that by examining the relationship we may be able to improve adult education as a field of study. In our view this is sorely needed.

Since the field of practice is extensive, it embraces many different types of practitioner. Although we do not intend to produce a practice or practitioner typology, one way of distinguishing between the latter is in terms of the consciousness of having an educational role in working with adults. At one end of the spectrum is the full-time 'professional' educator of adults, and at the other the individual whose vocational and non-vocational activities have repercussions for adult learning.

Our general conception of the situatedness of practice as such acknowledges that there are differences between practitioners' roles and, consequently, the specific 'meanings' of their practice as understood by themselves and others. These are matters for empirical investigation that are not considered here. However, we do anticipate that our arguments concerning the relationships between the theory and practice of adult education will provide different kinds of practitioner (and, hopefully, those who do not naturally see themselves as 'adult educators') with an opportunity to re-examine their own roles.

Given our concern for maintaining the integrity of adult education in all its diversity, we would not want this to be construed as a defence of the 'uniqueness' of adult education. Rather, we would stress that adult education is very much part of the world of education generally. In many significant respects, adult education is, of course, different from schooling although, with the increasing institutionalization of adult education and the growth of forms of state-led and state-controlled provision, perhaps the differences are not as great as they were. None the less, a recognition of differences does not imply an acceptance of 'uniqueness'.

We would argue that the emphasis on uniqueness has not served adult education well. On the contrary, one could say that an essentialist defence of adult education has, in fact, contributed to its marginalization. This position is now changing, although whether the increased centrality of adult education is in an entirely benevolent direction is another matter. Perhaps because of this it is even more important for adult education to both see itself and be seen as part of the world of education. Accordingly, in our analysis of practice, theory, and research, we refer to education generically; only referring specifically to adult education on those occasions when a significant difference needs a distinctive emphasis.

There is, however, another aspect of 'uniqueness' which is perhaps less obvious but equally in need of critical analysis. In adult education as a field of study there has been an emphasis on the 'uniqueness' of the adult, particularly in relation to learning. It is maintained that the adult as learner has unique characteristics and that these should therefore be the basis upon which the field of study is constructed. In effect, and we examine this point in some detail during the course of the book, adult education is conflated to the psychology of learning and the sociology of the learner.

We recognize that psychology and sociology have a necessary place within the field of study. There is also a place, and an equal place, for other kinds of formal knowledge. It is important to recognize, however, that the appropriate place for any kind of formal knowledge is itself problematic. We would argue that such a problernatization reveals that it is highly questionable to base adult education as a field of study on so-called 'foundation' disciplines.

Accordingly, our approach is not based on any particular discipline. Our analysis is not psychological or sociological. We are certainly not concerned to establish any psychological or sociological 'truths', although we are concerned to locate these and the practice of the disciplines within their enabling paradigms. If there is an approach, it is essentially 'philosophical' (although we would want to emphasize that we are not assuming philosophy to be a foundation discipline). Furthermore, although our approach is philosophical, the conceptual or linguistic analysis beloved of the Anglo-American empirical-analytical tradition will not be found here. Instead, the approach is essentially pragmatic and 'practical' in its concern for furthering critical reflection by exemplifying it.

An important theme in the book is the implication of practice with understanding and interpretation; the texts which have helped us most and to which we make extensive reference have therefore been those which have concerned themselves with these matters. We emphasize this not only to provide the reader with a background for our own understanding, but to explain why the 'standard' texts on adult education theory are not our reference point.

The 'Captive Triangle'

The sub-title of the book is intended to suggest an exploratory metaphor for understanding the relationship between practice, theory, and research. The metaphor is offered in order to depict the way in which each of these three elements of the triangle are conventionally represented in relation to each other and to (adult) education. One of the things we are trying to say is that we are 'captured' within a conventional and restricted understanding of the triangular relationship.

The idea of the 'triangle' represents what we wish to subject to critical and demystifying scrutiny, namely that theory and research are a foundation or base, with practice as superstructure or apex. This foundationalism implies that the relationship of theory and research to practice is always one where the former are applied to the latter. We are, therefore, 'captive' to application and ultimately foundationalism and we can only free ourselves from this if we first recognize the nature of our captivity.

Our rationale for the book as a whole is that we want readers to be able to use it as a vehicle for re-thinking and hopefully improving their practice, whether it be theorizing, researching, teaching, or any other form of practice. Our purpose, therefore, is to promote a new way of thinking about the three elements of the 'triangle' that does not privilege any one at the expense of the other(s). The idea is to help release the practitioner from the 'captivity' of the triangle. The metaphor also suggests that there is a 'captivation' about our conventional understandings, in so far as they offer a misleading and inappropriate promise that 'good' practice can be guaranteed by getting the theory 'right' or doing the 'right' kind of research.

Essentially, we are making certain kinds of general claims about the triangular relationship between practice, theory, and research; claims which, we believe, have implications for interpreting and thus 'opening-up' the varieties of practice. To do this it is necessary to 'open up' the triangle although this does not mean that we can ever dispense with it entirely. The elements of practice, theory, and research will always be there, and will always be in some relationship to one another. The important thing is not to privilege any one element by treating it as foundational. This also suggests a further consideration that, since the elements are always situated, we can never entirely escape from being 'captive'. This does not necessarily mean, however, that we can never improve our practice or increase our understanding; or, indeed, that we are stuck in a relativistic trap, triangular or otherwise! It simply means that we have to recognize our situatedness, and be prepared to engage in dialogue with our situation (with ourselves, and others) and with knowledge (in its variety of forms).

The title of the book refers to adult education as theory, practice, and research. The implication is that adult education as a field of study is constituted by (and therefore in) theory, practice, and research. Consequently, we have seen our task as one of deconstructing these three components for an enhanced understanding of the 'practical' in adult education. We have tried to 'open up' and recast the relationship because we believe that this is educational in itself. It is designed to bring about a 'better' understanding, in a pragmatic sense, of what adult education practice could be and very often is. The hope is, therefore, that the 'opening-up' on behalf of adult education will help serve the idea and 'ideal' of reflective, critical practice.

There are two particular aspects of this which we would stress. The first is that, given our emphasis on reflective, critical practice, we would wish to encourage a 'comingtogether' of practitioner and researcher, and of research and practice. Equally, this book helps to sensitize the would-be practitioner/researcher to what is actually involved in undertaking such an activity. Second, we hope that any practitioner involved in teaching adults will, through the 'opening-up', undertake reflective research on their own practice and thus be better able to evaluate critically the nature of their own and fellow practitioners' knowledge claims.

Structure of the Book

The following is a brief summary of each chapter, offered as a guide to what the reader can expect. We would emphasize that the book can be read as a continuous narrative or as a series of discrete chapters. The book has been consciously written this way to provide the reader with maximum flexibility. Each chapter has a distinctive theme which can 'stand alone' but which has links to other chapters and to the overall theme of the book.

Chapter 2 is a critical examination of traditional models of research. In particular, we focus on the 'natural science' model which takes research as a linear and applicative process where the findings of research become part of an accumulating stock of formal knowledge. We show how contemporary critiques have undermined this model and introduce the notion of research as a social practice guided by paradigms. This is a key interpretive concept which we use throughout the book. The critique of the 'natural science' model suggests an alternative interpretive model which places practice, theory, and research in social contexts and stresses the importance of hermeneutic understanding.

Chapter 3 looks at two disciplines, psychology and sociology, which feature prominently in adult education as 'foundation' disciplines. In the case of psychology we undertake an exercise in 'deconstruction' designed to show that, given the nature of the formal knowledge of 'scientific' psychology, there is an incompatibility with all forms of educational practice. This means, therefore, that it is inappropriate to see psychology as a 'foundation' or 'base' to be applied to education. Within this general theme we argue that sociology cannot be specifically applied to adult education, and we highlight the way in which the discourse of sociologists and practitioners may appear to have the same reference points but, in reality, do not. This then leads on to a critique of foundations in general and a questioning of whether foundations are required in any case.

Chapter 4 is concerned with the long-standing problem of the nature of the relationship between theory and practice. We attempt to 're-present' the relationship in a way compatible with the nature of adult education. This involves a problematization of both 'theory' and practice, leading to the introduction of the idea of 'informal' practitioner-based theory and the claim that, because of the existence of this form of theory, practice should not be seen merely as a routine, 'mindless' activity.

Chapter 5 considers the claim commonly made that research as an activity provides the link between theory and practice. This chapter is concerned with examining some key pieces of adult education research. First, an example of formal survey research is analysed to show how the foundational and institutional language of research constitutes the objects it purports to discover. An example of research using a grounded theory approach is then considered, to show how this mode of inquiry actually does identify an important dimension to adult learning, one which is neglected by other approaches. These issues are finally considered in relation to the formal and informal dimensions of knowledge production through both research and practice.

Chapter 6 looks at 'action research' as a preferred mode of inquiry in adult education and the reasons for this. An examination of some of the justifications offered by its proponents are found wanting because they do not necessarily lead to the development of reflective practice by practitioners. The problem of 'distorted communication' in relation to dialogue is considered and the potential contribution of 'critical theory' to an educational understanding and justification of action research is discussed. Some of the real problems in conducting action research are exemplified through setting out the requirements for adult education as a reflective practice.

Chapter 7 considers the 'self' in the research process as conventionally understood from an interactionist perspective. This has helped in appreciating the totality of research as a practice in terms of the management of (potential) role conflict. The 'self' is considered as a sensemaking, interpreting participant and knowledge-claimant within the research process. It is argued that a recognition ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• 1. Exploring the Triangle
• 2. Critique of Traditional Models of Research
• 3. The Problem of 'Foundation' Disciplines
• 4. Reconceptualizing Theory and Practice
• 5. The Practice of Adult Education Research in Context
• 6. The Logic and Problems of Action Research
• 7. The Self in Research and Reflective Practice
• 8. Learning about Research: Curriculum Implications
• Bibliography
• Index