Given that participation is undertheorised in HE, it is also fruitful to look beyond HE to works on adult learning, as these works on more informal contexts may have a different approach to understanding participation. The theory of andragogy (Knowles et al., 2015) is perhaps the best known example of this, positing that adults learn in a different way from children because their learning is self-directed. Under this theory, participation in adult learning is characterised by a need to connect learning to both real world situations and learners’ own experiences, and an intrinsic motivation that is not dependent upon the approval of educators or parents but on self-improvement and skill development. This is
particularly relevant for the students I worked with. Many of them have not followed the ‘traditional’ trajectory of HE students, often reengaging with education having spent time in the workplace. Others are in a transitional state between being childhood and adulthood. They are used to the strictures of conventional pedagogy and may expect different incentives to participate.
Having said this, it can be argued that many of the characteristics of andragogy that Knowles identifies are actually characteristics of good pedagogy too, and that if these were applied in schools then participation would be enhanced. Many of the characteristics of childhood education identified by Knowles are not necessarily dictated by the nature of children, but rather the school system as an institution. University is just as much of an institution. The educational techniques used are still described as ‘pedagogy’ even when dealing with adult learners. Ultimately Knowles’ contribution is to challenge the use of terms like this, and to consider that learners (both children and adults) might participate differently depending on the activities in which they are involved.
Looking beyond adult learning theory, participation in HE can also be understood more obliquely through the lens of situated learning theory (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), which will form a substantial part of the conceptual model I develop in the next chapter. For the purposes of exploring participation, it is notable that one of the central concepts in the theory is ‘legitimate peripheral participation’. This places participation at the centre of a theory which relates persons, activities, context and meaning to the learning process. Lave and Wenger’s argument is that learning occurs through a complex process, by which individuals become members of communities of practice by gradually increasing their involvement in practice. They describe the ‘ambiguous potentialities’ (p. 36) of this process, which can empower or disempower individuals, transform the context of participation, and demonstrate the multiple potential ‘centres’ of participation (i.e. no real ‘ideal’ toward which participants are aiming). Lave
and Wenger deliberately steer clear of formal education settings in their analyses, instead examining the way in which adults learn in formal and informal groups in and out of the workplace. This approach depends upon a deep understanding of the context in which participation occurs, and an openness to examine what might not ‘count’ as learning in more formal contexts.
Lave and Wenger do not call legitimate peripheral participation an educational model, and it has been argued that their concepts have, like many other theories, been co- opted by HE institutions to the extent that ‘the original qualities of the concept have been lost’ (Lea, 2005: 194). In raising this theory, I hope to illuminate their central idea that participation/non-participation is not a binary state. There are many different ways of participating in education, and what might seem like non-participation can have just as much of an impact on the meaning-making and community-forming practices that take place within a context as participation does.
A more critical approach to participation in adult education also leads to critical pedagogy, most notably outlined by Freire (1996). Freire’s approach, which was initially developed through work in informal adult literacy education before its principles were extended by others, is predicated upon rejecting a ‘banking’ model of education in favour of one in which learners are co-creators of their learning and empowered to use education as a transformational process through which they challenge existing power structures. This model is effectively social constructivism taken to its logical conclusion, but with the significant addition of a moral aspect which foregrounds the idea that education forms a small but significant part of a much wider process of active political participation. Critical pedagogy could be (and has been) used merely as a justification for teaching in a more interactive, student-centred way. However, at its heart is a genuine moral imperative to transform lives by developing critical democratic values through participatory education. Like legitimate peripheral participation, I will return to the concept of critical pedagogy in
my methodology as this idea has major implications for the design of teaching and research. For now, it is enough to note that critical pedagogy makes a link between educational participation and political participation that goes further than the widening participation agenda’s social justice aim, which tends to be understood in economic terms, and begins to transform the idea of participation. This depends upon questioning the logic of the sort of problems and solutions that HE offers to people.