Ambivalent Identities: The Role of Risk and Contingency in Adults’ Descriptions of Participation in Education and Training

Much of the dominant literature on adult learning assumes that participation is generally positive and voluntary, and presents these features as unproblematic. This paper questions both assumptions. It starts by identifying a deep-rooted and influential dominant paradigm of research, and asks whether the discourse of continual lifelong learning for all conceals a degree of authoritarianism, as suggested by critics. It then considers evidence from recent field based research suggesting that learners may: • switch between discourses of compulsion and those of self-realisation; • combine participation in learning with an active embrace of non-participant identities. The paper illustrates these issues through a detailed analysis of the experience of two learners who were amongst 70 people interviewed during 1998/99 as part of a research project funded by the Scottish Executive's Department of Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, entitled Education for All?, and from data drawn from focus groups and interviews undertaken in Northern Ireland in 1997/98 as part of a study of relationships between initial and continuing education, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its Learning Society Programme. Here are two stories, from adult travellers through the world of lifelong learning1. Jane is a self-confessed adult education addict, Davie thinks he is too old for that sort of thing. Jane, a white woman in her late 20s, has two children and is married. Davie is white, in his early 50s and married with two daughters, and is physically unable to work. Both are working class urban Scots. At time of interview Jane had been studying part time for six years in the same community learning centre and had just gained an HNC qualification in computing. Davie wasn't studying anything, nor did he want to. Here are two contrasting stories, or so it might appear. Yet enthusiastic Jane keeps using words that suggest she was not really a free agent. You have to keep your brain active, she says, adding: I really forced myself to do the arithmetic and English, and later on, You just have to these days don't you. Hard-nosed Davie got half way through the interview before mentioning a SCOTVEC he achieved through his local credit union. I was conned into it, he told us, then confessed to another course, on food hygiene: It was just getting a bit of paper with your name on it. What is going on here? What can this mean? Lifelong learning is supposed to foster autonomy, self-realisation, empowerment. Here, though, are two learners who are busily denying their own agency and decision making. One presents himself as non-participant, is self-deprecatory about the choices he has made, and disparages his qualifications. One describes herself as making choices under constraint, becoming a learner by submitting to forces more powerful than her own will. Both are participants by standard external definitions, but one almost seems apologetic for having so much fun, and one almost seems ashamed of doing it at all. Much of the dominant literature on adult learning assumes that participation is generally positive and voluntary, and presents these features as unproblematic. This paper questions both assumptions. It starts by identifying a deep-rooted and influential dominant paradigm of research, and asks whether the discourse of continual lifelong learning for all conceals a degree of authoritarianism, as suggested by critics. It then considers evidence from recent field based research suggesting that learners may: • switch between discourses of compulsion and those of self-realisation; • combine participation in learning with an active embrace of non-participant identities. These seemingly contradictory narratives are considered in the context of the social milieus that may be inhabited by differing social groups. The paper concludes by identifying possible implications for practice.