Search results

This chapter outlines key areas of literature and policy that have influenced or affected our research on the comparative study of adult education. Policy influences include the growth of lifelong learning within a neoliberal framing since the 1990s and the rise of ‘evidence-based’ approaches with a narrow reliance on quantitative data. Much of our work has been inspired by the need to critique these trends, adopt broader approaches to lifelong learning and defend the more democratic traditions of adult education. Important areas of theoretical inspiration, many of which interrogate these policy developments, are also outlined. The critical reinterpretation of historical adult education practices is another important area of work and inspiration. In relation to sustainability, we have been influenced particularly by the capabilities approach.

At the doorsteps of the fourth wave of the industrial revolution, it is compulsory to develop a new understanding regarding the future of human labor based on “Industry 4.0” for German manufacturers, and two American concepts: “The Industrial Internet” and “The Internet of Things.” How will the nature of human work be in the digital economy of the forthcoming future? The problem of unemployment and the composition of the labor market, in terms of professional skills, are yet to be waiting for answers. Scientific management is also transforming to answer the emerging requirements of this new era, as “Digital Taylorism” to re-organize work in a techno-centric manner. Accordingly, the aim of this chapter is to examine the nature and the possible opportunities and threats of the digital age and try to develop a digital Taylorism understanding to minimize the negative impacts of digitalism on both individual workers and society in a way that all parts including the manufacturers can fully take the benefit of potential advantages of this new era.

An approach to social responsibility in higher education will be proposed in this chapter and informed by a canon of literature and theorizing on critical pedagogy (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009; Freire, 1971; Giroux, 2011). Rooted in the work of education theorist Paulo Freire (1971, 1993) critical pedagogy embodies a set of critical dispositions about community, politics and education. Freire (1971, 1993) posited the nature of hope through transformative action in communities in which community empowerment arises from emerging critical consciousness and informed action. In common with the ideals of university–community partnerships critical pedagogy connects both to a community development mission and to an educational mission. However, though these principle philosophies of critical pedagogy may be inferred in the literature on civic universities, on higher education and public engagement and on wider aspects of social responsibility in higher education (Goddard & Kempton, 2016; UPP, 2019; Webster & Dyball, 2010), the chapter will explore how they may be more centrally located in analysis and in practice development.

In this short piece, written from the authors’ particular perspective as co-chairs of the Globalization & Education Special Interest Group (SIG) of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), they argue that the field of comparative and international education is fraught with contradictions. This chapter reflects on the implications for the field of three interrelated aspects in particular: the shift in the primary responsibility for education from the nation-state to non-state actors in our globalized world, the unsettled ontological assumptions of the field, and the lack of theory that informs some of its actors.

This chapter conceptualises inclusion and neoliberalism and theorises the relationship between these two phenomena in order to contextualise the debates presented in the rest of the chapters in this book. Additionally, this chapter investigates the evolution of the meaning of ‘inclusion’ in the key international Bologna Process (BP) policy documents. This chapter is informed by a thematic analysis of 26 documents, issued between 1998 and 2020. The chapter demonstrates that understanding ‘inclusion’ only with regard to lifelong learning, student-centred education and the social dimension has pitfalls – there are overlaps between these action lines and, consequently, the relationships among them are unclear. A better way of understanding inclusion in Bologna may be through considering a tight relationship between the inclusion and neoliberal discourses in the support of marginalised groups in higher education (HE). The relationship has been evolving in relevant policy documents since 1998 which is the year that marks the preparatory Sorbonne meeting that gave life to Bologna in 1999. The inclusion discourse grew in strengths, while the neoliberal rhetoric firmly stood its ground since the beginning of the BP, while undergoing some transformations. In spite of such seemingly positive dynamic in the development of inclusion in the BP, its definition remained vague in the policy documents until 2020 as it was unclear which exact underprivileged groups were meant to be supported in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The 2020 conference outcome documents made a significant step towards closing the gaps in our understanding of whom inclusion targets in Bologna and how to implement these inclusion ideas. The chapter highlights this achievement and also prepares the reader to problematise its reach in national contexts later in the book.