Sharan B. Merriam - Learning in Adulthood

Identifying and understanding barriers to participation in adult education remains an important area of investigation. Using Cross’s (1981) three categories of barriers, Roosmaa and Saar (2017) conducted a cross-national study of perceived barriers to participation in 19 European countries. They found that “institutional barriers are perceived most often in the Baltic countries, situational barriers occur most frequently in liberal and continental countries, whereas dispositional barriers are most frequent in all post-socialist countries as well as in Southern Europe” (abstract, p. 254). They note that their findings confirm “the significance of including structural and institutional factors in addition to individual characteristics in explaining barriers to adult learning” (abstract, p. 254). In another comparative study of participation between Portugal, Italy, Hungary, and India, Ricardo et al. (2016) found educational level of the population, parental education level, and employer support enabled participation. Nonparticipation was higher among older age groups, less qualified, low-skilled parents, and those with “non-existent or irregular reading habits” (p. 153).

Several studies have examined barriers to participation with particular groups of adults. For example, Biedenweg et al. (2014) investigated older adults' motivations and barriers to participating in exercise programs. They found several personal motivators such as enjoying being with others along with barriers such as not being motivated or having poor health. Chuang (2015) found four barriers to women's participation in continuing professional development—family and time constraints, cost and work constraints, lack of support systems, and lack of career advice and resources. Finally, Kasworm (2012) examined participation of adults in higher education in the United States. She reported that three barriers “continue to detract and deter adult learners in adult higher education … 1) time and access issues, 2) financial aid supports issues, and 3) concerns for institutional supports and services” (abstract, p.1).

Viewing participation from the perspective of barriers lends another dimension to the field's attempt to understand why some adults participate in adult education and others do not. But this perspective tells only part of the story. The bulk of research in North America on nonparticipation has been from the perspective of the individual's motivation, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, position in the life cycle, and so on. This has not always been the case, however, as Courtney (1992) points out in his historical analysis of participation research. Prior to the 1960s, a popular topic among researchers was social participation. General social participation refers to the extent to which a person is an active participant in family and community life; participating in adult education activities was considered just one component of social participation. Benn (1997) revisited this notion of social participation in a survey study of 259 adults in a range of educational programs. She concludes that the extent of one's general social activity affects learning activity, a finding that has implications for marketing and recruitment: “Rather than blanket publicity, a more effective approach might be to advertise through social groups and organizations. Adult education does not choose its students, they choose (or do not choose) adult education” (p. 34).

For some, a combination of psychological and social factors acts as a barrier to participation. Rubenson (2011) points out that “we have to consider broader structural conditions and targeted policy measures and analyze the interaction between these and the individual's conceptual apparatus” (p. 219). These “structural conditions … limit the possible alternatives to choose from, and therefore they bound individual agency” (p. 220). Hall and Donaldson's (1997) study of why women without a high school diploma chose not to participate provides examples of how the social and the psychological interact. Preadult factors such as parents' education, early pregnancies, and economic status formed part of the picture. Lack of a support system was a second factor. Conventional barriers such as lack of time, information, and child care were also operative. The fourth dynamic Hall and Donaldson termed lack of voice: “At the heart of nonparticipation lies a ‘deterrent’ so deeply embedded in some women that no theory can fully capture its meaning. The way a woman feels about herself, her self-esteem and self-confidence, and the way she can express herself are significant elements in her decision about whether to participate in adult education” (p. 98).

Since the early 1990s the field of adult education has become much more conscious of the impact of sociocultural factors on shaping participation in adult education. Rubenson (1998, p. 261) characterizes this approach to participation as consisting of two dimensions—“the long arm of the family as reflected in the relationship between social background, educational attainment and participation … and the long arm of the job: the increased importance of adult education and training as investment.” Using data collected in the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) from 10 countries, Boudard and Rubenson (2003) predicted that literacy skills would determine participation in adult education and training. Instead, they found educational attainment to be “the most important single factor predicting participation in adult education and training” (p. 279). Further analyses revealed that “readiness to learn is formed early in life and further developed through educational and work experiences … the long arm of the family and the long arm of the job” (p. 279). Rubenson (2011) cites a study of participation across 15 European Union states that found “family-related obstacles like ‘my family commitments take up too much energy’ were mentioned somewhat more frequently than job-related hinderances” (p. 217).

Another analysis of participation in the United Kingdom by Gorard and Selwyn (2005) found that participation could be predicted from variables “we could have known when each person was born”; in particular, “the influence of parental background is key” (p. 79). The authors point out that “where individuals create, for themselves and through their early experiences, a ‘learner identity’ inimical to further study, then the prospect of learning can become a burden rather than an investment for them” (p. 71).

Race, class, gender, ethnic group, and so on can also act as barriers to participation. Sissel's (1997) study of parent involvement in Head Start programs found that “power relations were expressed in the withholding or allocation of programmatic resources, and functioned to either impede or promote participation” (p. 123). She recommends that more research be conducted on “specific structural factors” (such as race and gender) that “enhance or impede participation” (p. 135). Davis-Harrison (1996) also found race and class to be important variables in investigating the nonparticipation of blue-collar male workers.

Working from this same critical perspective, Jarvis (2012) makes the case for a class analysis in that the middle-class bias found in all studies of participation can be explained by the idea that adult education is organized by the middle class, and the presentation of knowledge is middle class in both language and content. Furthermore, previous school experiences determine who will be labeled as successful, and those who are labeled successful are pretty much predetermined by one's class, age, sex, and educational background. Jarvis would concur with McClenaghan (2000) that one's “social capital”—how one is positioned in society in terms of “the totality of actual and potential resources individuals can mobilise through membership in organisations and social networks” (p. 568)—can help explain differing levels of participation in both formal and informal adult education. A social capital framework also informed Field's (2008) study of learning transitions and participation. In his case studies of adult learners, social networks were important for coping with learning transitions. However, he also found social capital to be just “part of the story” (p. 49). Institutional structures, class, and gender were also significant influences. And in an interesting study of adult learners' online participation in a blended learning program in Belgium, Diep, Cocquyt, Zhu, and Vanwig (2016) found that “two dimensions of social capital, namely sense of belonging and norms of reciprocity, significantly predicted online participation” (abstract).