Background & Objectives

AuthorEuropean Union Publications Office, 2006
Pages13-19

Page 13

1 Rationale

In policy terms, the starting point for the ETGACE project lay in two parallel trends:

* The growing emphasis, in the policy perspectives of the European Union and its member states, on the centrality of 'learning' to the success of the European project. Developing through the 1990s, this emphasis was to be found in key policy texts (e.g., cec 1994; cec 1995; Lundvall & Borras 1999), and has continued.

* The growing concern with 'governance', emerging strongly during the later 1990s in policy circles within the EU and its member states. Key political institutions, increasingly distant from citizens, were losing legitimacy, contributing to a 'democratic deficit'. The supposed solution - labelled 'governance' - involves a range of mechanisms to make rulers more responsive to citizens. Again, this trend can be located in key policy texts (e.g., Lebessis & Paterson 1997; cec 2001).

These parallel developments presented two paradoxes. First, the two trends appeared to occupy rather distinct policy worlds. Such concepts as 'lifelong learning', the 'learning society', and the 'learning economy' tended to stress, at least relatively, the role of informal learning, but focussed on the world of work, economy and employment. At the same time, those concerned about governance sought solutions through creating new structures for participation, but by and large ignored the possibility that how people participate may have an effect on how they (informally) learn.

Second, since the 1980s there had been a growing emphasis on the role of 'informal and incidental' learning for vocational capability (e.g., Marsick & Watkins 1990), but little attention had been paid to informal and incidental learning of attitudes, values and skills relevant to citizenship, governance and forms of social regulation. Accomplishing Europe through Education and Training, for example, argued that education's 'important role in the promotion of active citizenship' took place not only in formal educational institutions, but 'equally in primary and peer groups, in the community, and through the mass media' (CEC 1997, p. 54); but in practice its emphasis was on developments in curricula, pedagogies, and management at the school level (cec 1997, pp. 56-62; see alsoBirzea 1996).

In seeking to make sense of these trends and paradoxes, the etgace project started from the premise that the attitudes, skills and behavioural patterns which equip adults to participate actively as citizens, and to conduct tasks of governance andPage 14 social and economic regulation, are not learned simply - nor even primarily - through formal or targeted educational provision. They are constructed - learned incidentally - in socio-institutional and cultural processes. (etgace 1999a, p. 4)

We based this view on a range of theoretical perspectives and literatures. Beck (1992; Beck, Giddens & Lash 1994) had stressed the risky character of contemporary social transformations. Sennett (1998) had seen work organisation under contemporary capitalist conditions itself reducing levels of social participation and active citizenship. We drew also on social theorists who stressed work (Senge 1990) and civil society (Walzer 1983) as domains of life-experience. Other authors had explored links between forms of political participation and the personal, private domain (cf Giddens 1991 on 'life politics'; Beck 1997 on the 'reinvention of politics'). We knew that learning theorists had emphasised 'situational' or 'contextual' influences on learning (cf Jarvis 1987, Biggs & Moore 1993, Lave & Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998). Educational strategies had tended to assume agency in citizenship and governance was derived chiefly from primary ideological affiliations (socialism, Christianity, etc.), yet more recent scholarship had emphasised diverse, subjective or pragmatic affiliations - gender, ethnicity, migration, pollution, etc. (Lyotard 1984; Bauman 1993; Benhabib 1992).

We felt such social changes, and the new environments they created, should be examined as new sites not only of citizenship, but of informal and incidental learning. As we wrote in the project proposal: 'New learning contexts are created; other learning contexts are radically reshaped. Old learning contexts are interpreted in new lights.' (etgace 1999a, p. 9) We therefore planned to examine learning contexts which were new, or being radically reshaped by social change.

This raised a final possibility. The transformation of European society since about 1970 had been widely characterised as a transition from 'modern' to 'late-modern' or 'post-modern' conditions. Ingelhart (1977, 1990) had seen an 'intergenerational value change' from 'materialist' to 'post-materialist' values, greater 'cognitive mobilisation' and a 'growing potential for élite-directing political behaviour'. New social movements, for example, offered 'a different kind of political participation' -less élite-directed, and more shaped by individuals' values and political skills (1990, pp. 369-70, 392). Perhaps new social movements were more likely to be organised democratically rather than hierarchically. The assumption that political agency had radically shifted was implicit in the increasingly extensive new social movements literature, (cf Castells 1997, Eyerman & Jamison 1991, Holford 1995, Klandermans 1997, Melucci 1996, Rochon 1998, Schehr 1997, Waterman 1998).

What we therefore sought to do was examine, in a series of contexts, how notions of citizenship and governance are learned by adults. We sought to cover a range of national and regional location, and social, economic and political domain. We believed this would provide a good basis for understanding how citizenship and governance were learned across Europe. To conduct our examination, we proposed a theoretical framework. This analysed learning of citizenship in terms of:

Page 15

* four domains (work, state, civil society and the private domain), derived from major traditions in social theory (cf Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport 1996, p. 538);

* three dimensions of agency: effectivity, responsibility and identity, derived from principal themes in learning theory and social theory (cf Bloom 1956; Crittenden 1978; Giddens 1984); and

* three modes of educational intervention: formal, non-formal and informal (cf Coombs 1985).

Page 16

2 Original and Revised Objectives

Using this framework, which is explained in more detail in Chapter 3 below, the etgace project aimed 'to develop and support education and training of adults for tolerant, inclusive and accountable approaches to governance and active citizenship at European, national and local levels'.

2. 1 Project Aims

These overall aims were subdivided as follows:

In order to achieve these overall aims, the project will identify, elaborate and analyse the significancefor the EU and for a cross-section of European countries of:

* how and where adults have learned attitudes, values and behaviour relating to governance and citizenship;

* the comparative processes of learning of citizenship and governance by females and males;

* the comparative processes of learning by two age cohorts, selected to permit exploration of the impact of transition from 'modern' to 'late-modern' or 'post-modern' social conditions on constructions of citizenship and governance;

* pressures towards integration and diversification;

* the potential and limitations of current practice in citizenship and governance education;

* intervention strategies for citizenship and governance education which most effectively harness processes of learning. (etgace 1999b, p. 3.)

2. 2 Project Objectives

Eight specific research questions were posed. During the conduct of the research, some of these were slightly reoriented. In this section, the original research questions are set out, and any reorientation explained.

(a) First Research Question

Our first research question was originally stated as:

'How are practices and concepts of "active citizenship" and "governance" being reshaped under current conditions of social transformation, such as "Europeanisation" and globalisation?'

Reorientation. In the conduct of the research, we reframed this question slightly, in two ways. The first, rather minor, amendment saw the phrase 'under current conditions' replaced with 'in the current context'. This aligned the terminology with a development of our theoretical framework explained in Chapter 3. Second, as we reviewed the literature, and during our empirical 'life history' research, it becamePage 17 clear that the contemporary social transformations must be conceived not only in terms of'Europeanisation' and globalisation, but also of individualisation (cf Beck 2002, Field 2000, Giddens 1991, Hake 1998). In view of these considerations, the research question as operationalised was:

* How are practices and concepts of "active citizenship" and "governance" being reshaped in the current context of social transformation, such as "Europeanisation", globalisation and individualisation?

(b) Second Research Question

Our second research question was originally stated as:

'What connections exist between "active citizenship" and dysfunctional citizenship in the political ("state") domain, and related notions of active and non-participation in regulation in other domains (work and civil society)?'

Reorientation. This question was reconfigured in several ways. First, we found the normative connotations inherent in describing some forms of citizenship as 'dysfunctional' unhelpful. In particular, we believed it might hinder our analysis of social exclusion. Although an important feature of both the original proposal (ETGACE 1999a) and the Technical Annex (ETGACE 1999b), this had not been fully articulated in the original research questions. We specifically wished to address the possibility that new forms of governance might exclude, as well as include. We therefore replaced this term with the more neutral 'non-active'. Second, we replaced the term 'non-participation' with 'non-active participation': we were concerned lest the former lead us to ignore forms of participation which were important but not in traditional terms 'active'. Third, we discarded the term 'in regulation': we felt this implied an over-narrow focus on 'top-down' motives for participation. In view of these considerations, the research question as operationalised was:

* What connections exist between 'active citizenship' and non-active citizenship in the political ('state') domain, and related notions of active and non-active participation in other domains ('work' and 'civil society')?

(c) Third Research Question

The third research question was originally stated as:

* What is the mutual articulation of 'effectivity', 'responsibility' and 'identity' in the formation of citizens with a real capacity as agents of change?

On reflection, the phrase 'citizens with a real capacity as agents of change' seemed to us to be merely an alternative elaboration of the term 'active citizens', and for the elimination of doubt we therefore operationalised the question as:

* What is the mutual articulation of 'effectivity', 'responsibility' and 'identity' in the formation of active citizens?

Page 18

As will be explained in Chapter 3 below, the concepts 'effectivity', 'responsibility' and 'identity' were developed into related concepts: 'capacity', 'challenge' and 'connection' respectively.

(d) Fourth Research Question

The fourth research question was used in its original form:

* How do processes of learning for citizenship and governance vary between men and women, and between selected age-cohorts?

(e) Fifth Research Question

The fifth research question was originally stated as:

* To what extent does adult learning in formal, non-formal and informal education contribute to the development of new balances between economic development and civic involvement?

Reorientation. On reflection, and particularly as we engaged with the evidence from our interviews and focus groups, it became clear that the original formulation was on the one hand overly restrictive, and on the other unanswerable from our data. We felt the chief need here was to uncover evidence about how adult learning contributes to various forms of active participation or citizenship in and beyond the workplace; evidence on the 'balance between economic development and civic involvement' could only be incidental. The reformulated question therefore became:

* To what extent does adult learning in formal, non-formal and informal education contribute to the development of new forms of active citizenship in the work, state and civil society domains?

(f) Sixth Research Question

The sixth research question was used in its original form:

* What approaches to education for active citizenship and governance have been advocated in literature at various levels of governance? What have been the prime modes of intervention (formal, non-formal, informal), and what have been their effect on different individuals and sectors in society? How far have these addressed citizenship and governance as gendered notions?

The term 'prime modes of intervention' was interpreted to mean 'traditional' or 'established' modes of intervention.

(g) Seventh Research Question

The seventh research question was used in its original form:

* What new approaches to educational intervention for active citizenship and governance are currently being developed given current changes in societal contexts? Which approaches should be fostered in view of the challenges with which Europe is confronted?

Page 19

(h) Eighth Research Question

The eighth research question was used in its original form:

* What modes of educational intervention have proved most effective for learning citizenship and governance? What modes are likely to prove most effective in the future?

2. 3 A Note on Gender, Exclusion & the Private Sphere

A key component of the original proposal was the investigation of learning active citizenship and governance in four areas of social life: work, the state, civil society and private domains (ETGACE 1999a; cf Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport 1996). The investigation of the private domain was regarded, inter alia, as key to understanding aspects of gender and social exclusion. For budgetary reasons (it reduced significantly the number of interviews we needed to conduct, and in a methodologically defensible way), and in the light of feedback on the original proposal from the Commission's reviewers (which had tended to downplay the significance of the private sphere for learning citizenship), we decided to remove formal investigation of the private domain. We attempted nevertheless to locate some evidence about the private domain from our interviews and focus groups across other domains. This proved possible to some degree, and to this extent where three domains (work, state and civil society) are mentioned in the research questions above, the private domain may also be taken to be addressed.

2. 4 Other Objectives

In order to ensure that the project's findings were made accessible to policy-makers and practitioners, the project also aimed to:

* develop background and guidance documents to support the development of policy;

* contribute to scientific and professional knowledge and debates;

* develop innovative learning manuals and exemplar materials (including operational frameworks for pedagogical analysis and planning) for use by professionals and organisations to foster good practice in citizenship education.

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT