Content uploaded by Borut Mikulec
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Borut Mikulec on Mar 20, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The debate on intergovernmental organisations and adult learning and
education policies: intersections between the political and scientific
fields
Licínio C. Limaa, Paula Guimarãesb* and Borut Mikulecc
aUniversity of Minho, Institute of Education, Braga, Portugal; bInstituto de Educação,
Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; cDepartment of Educational Sciences, Faculty of
Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Postprint
Acknowledgement: The Version of record of this manuscript has been published and is
available in International Journal of lifelong Learning.
To cite this article: Lima, L. C., Guimarães, P., & Mikulec, B. (2022). The debate on
intergovernmental organisations and adult learning and education policies: intersections
between the political and scientific fields. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
41(6), 572–596.
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2022.2110619
This article discusses the scientific debate that has been held in the International
Journal of Lifelong Education (IJLE) over the past four decades concerning
intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) and adult learning and education (ALE)
policies. Drawing upon a field-analytical perspective comprising the political and
scientific fields, this discussion is based on a systematic literature review of
published articles in the IJLE and qualitative content analysis. The main findings
stress the relative autonomy of the scientific subfield of ALE; however, the need
to strengthen critical reflection to avoid interpretative perspectives imposed by
IGOs’ policy discourses and concepts is also emphasised.
Keywords: intergovernmental organisations, adult learning and education,
political field, academic field, Bourdieu
Introduction
The International Journal of Lifelong Education (IJLE) is one of the leading
international journals in the field of adult learning and education1 (ALE; Fejes &
Nylander, 2019, p. 106). For this reason, an analysis of the continuities and
discontinuities of the discussions presented by published articles in the IJLE can
represent an important step in understanding what have been considered to be important
topics, theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches in ALE. This analysis
can show how the debate on specific topics has been held by the research community in
ALE and how knowledge in this field has changed over the years. With the four-decade
commemoration of the IJLE (cf. Holford et al., 2021), it is important to reflect upon
these continuities and discontinuities, namely those regarding the intergovernmental
organisations (IGOs) within ALE that have been of significant relevance in policy,
1Following UNESCO’s (2015) definition, in the current article, we will use the concept adult learning and
education to identify what has also been referred to by several authors as adult learning or adult
education. This decision is made because UNESCO’s definition of adult learning and education includes
a wide range of policies, practices and research approaches that can be found in the articles analysed for
the present article.
particularly after World War II. The IGOs we are referring to are the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU) and the
Council of Europe (CoE). In previous studies, in an effort to comprehend their
relevance in global ALE policies, as well as the influence of such discourses on national
policies, the authors of the current article have debated IGOs’ discourses (among others,
Lima, 2007, 2012; Lima & Guimarães, 2011; Guimarães & Mikulec, 2021; Mikulec,
2021). The authors showed and emphasised the following: (a) ALE policy has become
internationalised and a product of IGOs that strives to promote precisely defined
discourses and policies in the ALE field (although their formal mandate is generally
limited); (b) ALE policy is increasingly integrated into complex relationships between
the supranational and national levels, specifically as an exchange of policies between
global networks of agents, ideas and practices; (c) IGOs are promoting policy transfer
towards evidence-based educational practices, a measurement of the effectiveness of
education and the goals relating to competitiveness and employability in the twenty-first
century; and (d) IGOs promote new instruments and practices of governance based on
knowledge and data generation, peer learning, benchmarks, indicators, monitoring,
evaluation and funding, with these being directed at output governance models and
linked to the new public management discourse and its concepts of accountability,
performativity, efficiency and other managerialist dimensions.
Following these previous debates, the current article examines two main
research questions: (a) how research in ALE has evolved since 1982, which is when the
IJLE was first published, up until 2020, specifically in how that research concerns
policy discourses and concepts referring to IGOs, and (b) the impact of IGOs as part of
the political field of power—with IGOs’ policy agendas, social problems and solutions
—on the research agendas of ALE, here as expressed in the examined corpus of papers.
These questions must be framed by the understanding that the research on ALE
policies produced in academic articles published in the IJLE necessarily implies a
relationship between the two fields, as defined by Bourdieu in broader terms (1994,
1997): the political field, comprising important IGOs, and the academic field, which is
specifically the intellectual and scientific subfield of ALE2, of which the selected
articles of the IJLE are a single expression.
The current article is structured as follows: Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘field’ and
‘relative autonomy’ are approached to theoretically guide the present research and
support the interpretation of data; methods and sources of the research conducted are
then addressed; the results are presented and data interpreted; and, finally, some
conclusions are presented.
Political and Scientific Fields in ALE
Bourdieu’s field theory assumes that the social world comprises different and relatively
autonomous microcosms: the religious field, the economic field, the political field, the
scientific field and so forth. However, the definition of field is complex, and its use is
dispersed throughout the different texts of Bourdieu’s extensive work (among others,
Bourdieu, 1994, 1997). This is why, from the fundamental elements that constitute a
social field, and according to the excellent synthesis presented by Lahire (2017, pp. 64–
66), we highlight a few key elements.
2 Although the debate about ALE as an academic discipline or field of practice throughout the twentieth
century is well known, we share the view of Bron and Jarvis that see ALE as a ‘young scientific
discipline’, usually a ‘sub-discipline of education/pedagogy’, where the ‘learning of adults in formal, non-
formal and informal settings constitutes a specific field of research’ (2008, p. 38).
Each field, like a microcosm, is included in the social macrocosm and has
specific rules and social interests that are also specific and not reducible to economic
interests. Each field is a structured social space in which the practices and strategies of
the agents who occupy positions within that system take place. Each field is necessarily
different from the others, though not homogeneous; instead, each field is a space of the
struggles and competitions between different agents and their different positions and
hierarchies in view of their appropriation of the specific capital of that field (social
capital, cultural capital, economic capital, symbolic capital, etc.; Bourdieu, 1994, 1997).
Because both the political and scientific fields have relative autonomy, they are
arenas of struggle. There are often close relationships between their respective agents,
namely through interchangeable positions and cross-influences. Therefore, bearing in
mind Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, ALE may be defined as a social microcosm of
research and, eventually, as a scientific subfield. In any case, how does the political and
power fields of IGOs influence the scientific agendas of the selected articles under
study? Are there signs of the overdetermination of political issues on academic
agendas? The research problems assumed in the analysed articles may be affected by
social problems because the latter are defined by the political field of ALE and by the
actions of the respective IGOs. Do the political discourses, key concepts, social
problems and solutions proposed or implied in the texts produced by IGOs tend to be
reproduced in the analysed articles, or are they instead taken as the objects of analysis
and questioning from scientific references?
The political and social problems as defined by IGOs tend to be accepted,
legitimised and reproduced through the scientific practices of authors. However,
scientific productions can also reveal what Bourdieu (1994, p. 61) called a ‘translation
effect’ or ‘coefficient of refraction’, preventing the direct and immediate expression of
the political world in the world of science. Furthermore, despite the relevance of texts
produced by the political field and other discursive productions originating from
institutional powers, texts are not necessarily the beginning and end of social research.
It is also important to consider the study of the contexts of production and reception of
these texts, legislation, recommendations, management injunctions, decisions, strategies
and other actions. According to Bourdieu (1997), the intermediation between texts and
contexts is what makes it possible, here through the analytical emergence of a social
universe he designated as a social field, to overcome a dichotomous perspective. It is
then important to reflect on the following: between the extremes of a science in a ‘pure’
state and a science totally subordinated to political and economic requirements, or when
just reflecting on other structural changes, do the scientific productions published in a
specific journal show some capacity to refract external pressures, thus confirming a
certain relative autonomy? What different degrees of autonomy/heteronomy (Bourdieu,
1994) are assumed by scientific agents in the articles undergoing analysis through the
use of theoretical, conceptual and methodological resources?
The analysis of scientific productions can also allow for the identification of
strategies of resistance on the part of researchers in relation to the dominant political
discourses and actions regarding ALE, as well as resistance to the political definitions of
ALE problems and priorities that are considered legitimate at a given historical moment.
However, if the analysis considers the low scientific capital (e.g., in terms of
recognition, status and appreciation) that can be held by academic agents of ALE
compared with other scientific subfields and compared with political agents, a greater
centrality of IGOs may occur, which can result in a sort of imposition of an interpretive
perspective. This can be observed after analysing a specific corpus of articles, namely
through the centrality attributed to political agendas, to the language used, to the
concepts summoned, to the rationale and to the arguments that justify certain measures
and political programmes and to fashionable statements and other topoi in the literature.
In this case, there would be fewer arguments to consider regarding how ALE may
constitute a scientific subfield and more reasons to talk about heteronomy instead of
relative autonomy in that specific microcosm.
Within one given scientific journal, articles that address IGOs and ALE have
been analysed. One may find the scientific discourse that characterises the homo
academicus (Bourdieu, 1984) if this discourse is absent or if it presents high hybridity
because of the influence of other social fields. This is certainly a relevant result.
Methods and Sources
For the purpose of the current research, we conducted a systematic literature review,
which can be defined as the analysis, critical evaluation and synthesis of existing
knowledge to be considered for a research problem, here based on different texts,
concepts, theories, arguments and interpretations relevant to the development of a
particular theoretical frame of reference and/or use of a specific methodology (Hart,
2018, pp. 3–4). In line with this, we searched in international online databases for IJLE
articles published since 1982—CrossRef, ProQuest, Taylor and Francis and Google
Scholar—to address our main research problem, that is, the influence of the political
field of the IGOs on the scientific agendas of the selected ALE articles and the capacity
of the scientific production of the published articles in the IJLE to refract IGOs’
pressures and show a certain degree of relative autonomy of the scientific subfield of
ALE. We examined titles, keywords and abstracts used combinations of several key
terms related to the following five search categories: (a) UNESCO, (b) OECD, (c) EU,
(d) CoE and (e) international organisations (IOs). Based on our previous research
(Mikulec, 2021, p. 41), in which we identified the key concepts (key terms) used by
these IGOs, our search was conducted using the following keywords: ‘permanent
education’ (éducation permanente), ‘lifelong education’, ‘learning throughout life’,
‘lifelong learning’ (LLL), ‘recurrent education’, ‘skill development’ (or ‘formation’),
‘adult education’, ‘adult learning’, ‘learning society’, ‘sustainable development’,
‘upskilling pathways’, ‘adult education policy’, ‘adult learning policy’ and ‘LLL
policy’. Moreover, in the case of UNESCO, when conducting a search with the given
keywords, we also included publications in which direct references were made in the
published abstracts to the ‘Faure’ and/or ‘Delors’ reports and to the ‘origins’ of LLL,
while in the case of the EU, we did the same when direct references were made to
‘Europe’, ‘European’ and/or ‘European Commission’. In this way, we were able to
cover a wider range of potentially relevant articles for further analysis. In the articles
published in the IJLE before 1991, which were mostly without abstracts, we analysed
the ‘first page preview’, which served as an ‘abstract’ screening.
The initial search yielded 62 publications. To be included in the review, a
publication needed to meet the following criteria: (a) must have been published in the
IJLE, (b) be an article, (c) published between 1982 and 2020 and (d) have a title,
keywords and/or abstract revealing that the article covered at least one combination of
the selected search category (IGO) and keyword. From the first round of screening, 31
of the 62 publications were identified as highly relevant to our research topic. These 31
studies were then read and screened based on two screening questions: (1) Does this
study discuss the ALE (and/or lifelong education) policies of the selected IGOs? (2)
Does this study analyse IGOs’ policies through theoretical and methodological
frameworks? In total, 19 articles were selected and included in the document corpus.
These are shown in Table 1, which are presented in chronological order regarding the
information presented: article’s publication year; author(s); article’s title; research
questions and objectives; theoretical orientation; research methodology; IGOs’ concepts
addressed; and IGOs’ policies discussed.
A qualitative research approach was used. The research involved a content
analysis (Drisco & Maschi, 2015) of the selected articles. The categories of analysis
were developed a priori, drawing on Bourdieu’s (1984, 1994, 1997) theoretical
understanding of a scientific field and its connections with the political field, here
considering a previous application of his work in the subfield of ALE (Rubenson &
Elfert, 2015). These categories included the following: (1) articles’ research questions
and articles’ objectives (IGOs addressed); (2) theoretical orientation; and (3) research
methodology. Most studies that were published before 1999 do not include explicit
references to the theoretical framework used; however, the authors of this article could
extract the theoretical orientation(s) of the author(s) based on the scholar(s) discussed in
the studies and the theoretical mapping done in previous researches (e.g., Bélanger,
2011; English & Mayo, 2021; Hake, 2021). Similarly, because the research
methodology most of the studies published before 2001 was not explicitly described, the
authors of this article did their own categorisation in line with different kinds of
qualitative research (Hatch, 2002, pp. 20–33). Other categories emerged from the data
during the analysis and were developed a posteriori after reading and rereading the
collected articles: (4) IGO concepts addressed and (5) IGO policies discussed in relation
to problems and solutions proposed by IGOs. Therefore, both deductive and inductive
(Drisco & Maschi, 2015) approaches were used in the qualitative content analysis.
[Table 1]
Results
Research questions and article objectives (IGOs addressed)
Since 1982 in the IJLE, the data collection showed a continuous interest in the
discussion of IGOs and ALE. The articles under analysis have raised research questions
that aim at critically discussing and interpreting/comprehending the concepts used in
policy documents, (historical) trends, and influences/impacts of IGO policies in national
contexts of ALE. In some articles, the authors focused on a diachronic perspective by
studying the evolution of IGO policy guidelines; other articles focused on a synchronic
debate on topics selected, stressing issues and shifts related to changes outside both
academia and the public policy realm, reflecting structural transformations occurring
beyond the scope of the research being debated. These changes concerned policy
transformations in what relates to the (increasing) role of IGOs in ALE, but also in what
refers to advanced capitalist economies shifts within, for instance, the world of work
and/or of labour markets. Additionally, it is possible to observe that the focus of the
articles on IGOs and their policies changed over the course of the four decades: for
example, in the articles from the 1980s, UNESCO, OECD and CoE policies received
more significant stress, and the concepts of lifelong education, recurrent education and
éducation permanente were important topics (Duke, 1982; Lawson, 1982); in the 1990s,
UNESCO, OECD and EUs policies were debated regarding concepts such as lifelong
education and LLL, and recurrent education and the learning society were still of
primary importance (Wain, 1993; Griffin, 1999a, 1999b); in the first decade of the
millennium, from a historical perspective, Field (2001) discussed the changes in
UNESCO’s, OECD’s, CoE’s and the EU’s concepts of lifelong education, recurrent
education, éducation permanente to LLL and the learning society; while in the second
decade of the millennium, IGO policies were debated to a greater extent and included
all the mentioned concepts from the first three decades but with greater visibility given
to LLL, the EU and its policies and to new concepts, such as adult learning policy and
upskilling, as well as sustainable development (from UNESCO; Centeno, 2011; Lee &
Friedrich, 2011; Bonnafous, 2014; Cavaco et al., 2014; Szakos, 2014; Casey &
Asamoah, 2016; Clain, 2016; Field & Schemmann, 2017; Regmi, 2017; Cort et al.,
2018; Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Some articles were closer to the historical momentum in which the specific
policy proposals were produced and released. This circumstance could indicate that
there was a temporal relationship between policy production and academic research, the
latter being overdetermined by the time of political action and its specific rhythms (such
as can be observed in Duke, 1982; Cavaco et al., 2014; Szakos, 2014; Clain, 2016; Cort
et al., 2018; Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b). Moreover, the introduction of new
research problems and certain concepts was directly influenced by the historical
momentum of IGOs’ policy production, by its discourses and by political proposals for
ALE, which is the case with Bonnafous’ (2014) article on the LEONARDO project;
Cavaco et al.’s (2014) article, where the authors linked LLL with the European agenda
of the validation of nonformal and informal learning; Casey and Asamoah’s (2016)
article, where the authors connected LLL with UNESCO’s concept of sustainable
development; and Clain’s (2016) article, in which the author related LLL and the
evaluation of LLL Programme 2007–2013. Following a similar path, Cort et al. (2018)
debated LLL within the EU’s upskilling concept, and Tuparevska et al. (2020a, 2020b)
linked LLL to the concept of the social exclusion/inclusion of vulnerable adults. In
parallel, other articles (Griffin, 1999a, 1999b; Field, 2001; Centeno, 2011; Lee &
Friedrich, 2011; Casey & Asamoah, 2016; Field & Schemmann, 2017; Regmi, 2017)
were more distanced from this historical momentum, discussing IGO policies as being
detached from policy production.
Theoretical orientation
When it comes to theoretical orientation, diversity was found in the analysed articles.
Three main theoretical strains were identified: (a) theories of ALE based on different
philosophies of adult education (cf. Bagnall & Hodge, 2018; Elias & Merriam, 2005), of
a normative kind (because they focus on what is humanly important) and which deal
with issues of values, the purposes of ALE, the role of the teacher and learner and
didactics; (b) social theory, which has an interdisciplinary nature and strives to explain
social behaviour, focusing on themes such as the nature of social life, the possibility of
social transformation, gender, race and class and so forth and that tends to deepen the
discussion around researched educational phenomena that are in danger of being
oversimplified (cf. Murphy, 2013); and (c) IGOs’ policy discourses, which are related to
the problem-solving approach to ALE policy/‘research for policy’ or to ‘research of
policy’ (cf. Desjardins & Rubenson, 2009).
Of the 19 analysed articles, seven articles used theories of ALE (Lawson, 1982;
Duke, 1982; Wain, 1985, 1993; Szakos, 2014; Casey & Asamoah, 2016; Clain, 2016),
two articles used IGO policy discourses (Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b), and two used
social theory (Bonnafous, 2014; Cort et al., 2018), while eight articles used a
combination of social theory and theories of ALE (Griffin, 1999a, 1999b; Field, 2001;
Centeno, 2011; Lee & Friedrich, 2011; Cavaco et al., 2014; Field & Schemmann, 2017;
Regmi, 2017). The articles using social theory showed that IGO (EU, OECD) policies
strived towards harmonisation and standardisation, focusing predominantly on
employability and competence development (Bonnafous, 2014) and fostering aims that
are directed at ‘showing solutions’ to member states (Clain, 2016). Some articles raised
critical concerns about the shift of focus from structural social problems (‘structural
conditions’) towards the individual responsibility (‘socio-psychological conditions’) of
adult workers (Cort et al., 2018), citizens and/or learners (Field & Schemman, 2017).
Similarly, those articles referring to theories of ALE emphasised the ‘emancipatory and
transformational potential of ALE’ and learning as a ‘transformation or change’,
drawing attention to the shift from the holistic understandings of ALE and LLL found in
different theories of ALE towards its economic and instrumental conceptualisation, as
promoted by IGO (EU, OECD) policies (Regmi, 2017). Furthermore, a predominant
focus on employability and the individualisation of social problems was also stressed as
problematic in the IGOs’ (mainly EU) policy discourses (Cort et al., 2018). Finally, it
was also clear from the analysis of theoretical orientations that several articles,
especially the Delors et al. (1996) and Faure et al. (1972) reports, saw UNESCO
policies as the ‘gold standard’ for humanistic ALE and/or lifelong education, while the
policies of the EU and OECD were seen as focusing on employability and an
economistic perspective on ALE and/or LLL and had instrumental value (Szakos,
2014).
Research methodology
The authors of the analysed articles generally used qualitative research methodologies
when discussing and interpreting the policy discourses and concepts of IGOs. This is
not surprising because ALE scholars, as previous research has shown, have relied
predominantly on qualitative methodologies (cf. Rubenson & Elfert, 2015, p. 132). If
the articles of the first period were more hermeneutic but comprehensive in nature
(Willamo et al., 2018), documentary analysis of relevant policy documents from IGOs
was the methodological approach found most often and centred on content analysis or
discourse analysis, especially in the articles of the last period. In a few articles
(Bonnafous, 2014; Cort et al., 2018; Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b), other
methodological approaches were preferred, including interviews with those relevant
agents involved in policy development and observations of practices/activities within
specific policy programmes (Casey & Asamoah, 2016).
IGO concepts addressed
IGO concepts addressed in the selected articles included LLL—the expression most
often included in articles’ titles (11 times), for instance—while lifelong education (4),
adult education (2) and recurrent education (1) were found less often. When these
concepts were indicated frequently in the title, a significant number of articles discussed
the meanings of LLL/lifelong education/recurrent education (Griffin, 1999a, 1999b;
Centeno, 2011; Lee & Friedrich, 2011; Bonnafous, 2014; Szakos, 2014; Clain, 2016;
Regmi, 2017; Cort et al., 2018; Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b). Several articles
discussed the meaning of LLL/lifelong education/recurrent education in reference to
political dimensions (policy planning or development and evaluation, depending on the
policy cycle approach), here following theoretical debates held by other scholars and
while referring to the educational paradigms in which the concepts can be located.
Therefore, the discussion was not centred on policy documents or educational policy
debates; rather, it focussed on those contributions made by several authors, here
following philosophical and epistemological arguments. This path for analysing the
meaning of the different concepts was visible in the research questions and objectives
(even if not always clearly stated) of the articles. For instance, arguing about the
meanings proposed by different authors, such as Cropley (1979), concerning the
establishment of a difference between the maximalist and minimalist understanding of
lifelong education, Wain (1993) set the following aim for his study: ‘[T]o clarify some
confusions with the concept of lifelong education by examining two different
interpretations or views of lifelong education, the “maximalist” and the “minimalist”’
(p. 85).
Other articles favoured a historical approach, debating the changes of the
meanings of the referred concepts, from lifelong education (and recurrent education) to
LLL. These changes were linked to the development of wider policies, namely the
‘shift’ from social democratic policies to neoliberal ones (Griffin, 1999a, 1999b). These
changes were also related to a ‘U-turn’ from a theoretical discussion on the paradigms
of LLL to an educational policy-centred discussion, as Centeno (2011) stated; the aims
of her article were ‘to debate how education across the lifespan was initially an
educational approach/paradigm mainly conceived and adopted for the purpose of ALE;
to interpret how the concept was appropriated and formalised by the IGOs and
converted into educational policy’ (p. 134).
Recent articles, such as those published after 2014, have debated the meaning of
LLL mainly from an educational policy perspective. This discussion was accomplished
using mostly policy, sociological or philosophical concepts or theoretical approaches
(including authors such as Durkheim, Habermas or Dale; Field & Schemmann, 2017;
Regmi, 2017), and/or following (adult) education authors (such as Mezirow, Freire,
Jarvis and Kolb; Szakos, 2014; Casey & Asamoah, 2016; Clain, 2016; Regmi, 2017). In
these articles, the discussion referring to LLL/lifelong education no longer centred on a
(wide) understanding of the concept but included other related concepts present in the
guidelines, policies and programmes of IGOs. An example of such an option can be
found in Field and Schemman (2017), as the aim of the article included, ‘to investigate
how four key intergovernmental organisations—the European Commission, the United
Nations, the World Bank and the OECD—conceptualise citizenship in their thinking on
lifelong learning’ (p. 164). Also, Tuparevska et al. (2020a, 2020b), here relating to
social exclusion/inclusion, stated the following aim: to examine ‘how EU lifelong
learning policies are trying to reach the vulnerable by looking at what measures against
social exclusion they offer and how equitable these measures are’ (p. 5).
If the referred articles discussed LLL mainly as ideology, policies, guidelines or
programmes of IGOs, ‘adult education’ was most often referred to when the debate was
centred on national policies (Cavaco et al., 2014; Casey & Asamoah, 2016). Therefore,
in contrast with most articles under analysis, a few debated the influence/impact of
IGOs’ ideologies, policies and programmes on national policies from, for instance,
Belgium, Germany, France and Sweden (Bonnafous, 2014), France and Portugal
(Cavaco et al., 2014) and also Ghana (Casey & Asamoah, 2016).
IGO policies discussed (policy problems and solutions)
The IGOs have been recognised as important global agents addressing political
problems on a global level and creating global public policies that map out a range of
appropriate solutions to national governments. However, when researching educational
policy, two different approaches can be identified: (a) ‘research for policy’, or a
problem-solving approach, in which the problem is taken as a given and only when the
solution is of relevance, and (b) ‘research of policy’, or a critical approach, in which
both the problem and solution are problematised (Desjardins & Rubenson, 2009).
Both approaches were present in the analysed articles. However, the
policy/critical approach research dominated. Of the 19 articles, 17 used a critical
approach (Lawson, 1982; Duke, 1982; Wain, 1985, 1993; Griffin, 1999a, 1999b; Field,
2001; Centeno, 2011; Lee & Friedrich, 2011; Cavaco et al., 2014; Szakos, 2014;
Bonnafous, 2014; Field & Schemmann, 2017; Regmi, 2017; Cort et al., 2018;
Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b), one combined a critical approach with a problem-
solving approach (Casey & Asamoah, 2016), and one stressed a problem-solving
approach (Clain, 2016). The articles using a critical approach identified and
problematised problems set in IGOs’ policies, such as economic competitiveness, the
supply of skills and social problems, here in the case of the EU, or sustaining
democracy, peace and human rights, here in the case of UNESCO. These studies
criticised those IGO (EU, OECD) policy solutions that ignored the ‘demand’ side—
such as the demand for low-skilled workers for low-skilled jobs—and saw ALE and
LLL as ‘essential tools’ to promote economic development and overcome
unemployment and social exclusion (EU, OECD). However, those UNESCO policy
solutions that consider ALE and LLL as tools to reach ‘peaceful, democratic, inclusive,
tolerant and sustainable societies’ (Casey & Asamoah, 2016, p. 595) were not the
subjects of much critique. Furthermore, other articles using a critical approach also drew
attention to the Matthew effect, meaning that instead of reducing inequalities, ALE was
actually increasing them: ‘[A]dult education and lifelong learning policies are failing to
target those who are most in need of learning opportunities, reaching instead those who
already are well educated and who have higher socioeconomic status’ (Tuparevska et
al., 2020a, p. 5).
Discussion
The analysed articles referred to different intersections between the political and
scientific fields (Bourdieu, 1994, 1997). For those articles published between 1982 and
1993, although the articles tended not to be explicit about their theoretical frameworks
and methodological options—not always following the classical ‘paper’ format—there
was a concentration of effort in terms of philosophical and anthropological debates and
of educational theories and concepts (such as Duke, 1982). Looking for theoretical
foundations and conceptual clarifications seemed a crucial démarche for strengthening
ALE’s scientific subfield. IGO policies and policy documents were interpreted and
discussed as objects of study, less as theoretical and conceptual sources, thus escaping a
scientific agenda overdetermined by the political field, albeit being generically
influenced by it in terms of the agendas, problems and solutions produced by IGOs
(such as Wain, 1985).
The relative autonomy of the scientific subfield of ALE—in terms of the
research agendas, concepts and problems—tended to be present in articles published
later as well. Some overdetermination of political agendas, as well as a certain temporal
proximity between policy documents and academic papers, became apparent. In those
articles published between 1999 and 2011, there was a concentration on conceptual
changes and meanings, from lifelong education to LLL, here in terms of policy
developments, educational perspectives, social policies, the role of the state and the
emerging role of the market (such as Field, 2001). Furthermore, in more recent articles
published between 2014 and 2020, political, sociological and philosophical analysis of
the institutional conceptualisations produced by IGOs, the construction of educational
policy approaches and a discussion of certain social impacts in some EU member states
gained prominence (such as Cavaco et al., 2014). Over the past two decades of
academic production on IGOs in the IJLE, the concept of LLL became dominant, even
when most of these articles criticised and interpreted the political and institutional
meanings of this change, certainly not merely in terms of terminology. The relative
overdetermination of political agendas over academic agendas was, however, more
apparent than real in the context of an academic journal with a high status in the
scientific subfield of ALE. There were clear indicators of a certain ‘coefficient of
refraction’ (Bourdieu, 1994, p. 61) in relation to political discourses and political
concepts when appropriated by the scientific field. For example, articles with a
‘research for policy’ and ‘problem-solving’ nature (Desjardins & Rubenson, 2009) are
almost absent, even when combined with articles with an analytical and hermeneutical
vocation. This results in greater academic autonomy in the scientific production of
IGOs’ policies in this journal. Publications more pluralistic and open to scientific
dispute resulted in articles from different positions and with diverse authorial
motivations; these adopted a more critical and comprehensive internal logic, as opposed
to a purposeful and prescriptive one, and although they shared certain rules of
production, they contained both alternative and conflicting interpretations. Despite the
heterogeneity of scientific agendas and theoretical references expressed in the selected
articles, as well as the different origins, the positions and relative hierarchies of
scientific agents involved in this academic production, the impacts of IGOs were more
evident as objects of study and less influential as theoretical and conceptual sources. In
most cases, academic agendas were influenced by political agendas and their founding
texts, but most articles chose academic theories to analyse and make sense of the policy
documents. The normative texts of the various IGOs analysed, along with their
respective policy concepts, key ideas and rationales for education and learning, assumed
a leading role as objects of study, especially in more recent articles published between
2014 and 2020. This centrality was, however, the object of theoretical and critical
interpretations based on social theories and was sometimes combined with educational
theories. Disciplinary intersections were more frequent, especially in cases where the
articles did not limit ALE to a simple object of study on the part of social theories, state
theories and social policy approaches, and when assuming that education has
historically constituted a field of practices and educational theories that also include an
analytical vocation. The resulting potential hybridity tended to combine analytical
purposes and certain normative guidelines, though not prescriptive, rejecting a value-
neutral social and educational theory, as was the case, among others, of
radical/emancipatory pedagogical approaches and of critical and poststructuralist social
theories (such as Field & Schemman, 2017).
The transition from politics as texts produced by central political agents to their
translation into political orientations and contextual and organisational practices, here
through localised receptions and various processes of recontextualisation, appropriation
and interpretation was an analytical process infrequent in the analysed corpus. Despite
the global influence of IGOs, ALE policies in action always imply specific social,
economic and cultural contexts—from the state to education organisations and to groups
and subgroups of learners—including those social dynamics influenced not only by
global or transnational texts, but also by interpretations and alterations produced by
local political and educational agents (such as Cort et al., 2018). These complex
articulations, eventually originating from different social fields and referring to the
tensions and struggles between them, were also less studied. Texts still have tended to
predominate over contexts. The mega- and macro-analytical levels seemed to be more
consensual and shared within the scientific subfield of ALE, as did certain positions that
tended to receive less criticism and, therefore, in relation to UNESCO’s political
guidelines, greater acceptance by scientific agents. This includes a fairly generalised,
less critical and relatively idealised (Hake, 2021) reception of the reports by, for
example, Faure et al. (1972) and Delors et al. (1996). On the one hand, this fact can be
understood by considering the axiological dimensions of an advocacy agenda that are
typical of the political field and that continue to maintain a visible presence within the
scientific discourse of ALE. The academic investigation of social problems, even when
it reveals itself capable of translating these social problems into sociological or social
theory problems, is confronted with the normativity characteristic of political ideas and
with the power relations from which problems and solutions are socially constructed.
On the other hand, appearing less often and less influential than the OECD and, in
recent years, than the EU, UNESCO seems to enjoy a certain status as symbolic capital
(such as Casey & Asamoah, 2016) that still reveals itself capable of exerting a certain
force of attraction within the scientific subfield of ALE. This is something that deserves
in-depth study as an element capable of characterising the current scientific subfield of
ALE, as expressed in the academic articles of a scientific journal.
In any case, the relative autonomy of the scientific subfield of ALE recognised
in the current study did not prevent the recognition of the centrality of the policies and
discourses of some IGOs, the protagonism of their texts as legitimate sources and
priority objects of study (such as Tuparevska et al., 2020a, 2020b). For this reason, less
attention has been paid to other instances and agents of production, as well as to distinct
or alternative political and educational ideals and texts. Thus, the current moment is
marked by the hegemony of a constellation of policy concepts that occupy a central
place in the scientific discourse. These concepts may have an origin that is not always
clear or understood because some are already the result of political resignifications of
previous academic ones, while others emerge from the political field, the economic field
or even from governance and management theories.
Conclusion
The current article has addressed two main research questions: (1) How has research in
ALE evolved in terms of policy discourses and concepts referring to IGOs, and (2) what
is the impact of IGOs as part of the political field of power on the research agendas of
ALE, as shown in the corpus of the selected scientific articles published in the IJLE
over the past four decades. Based on qualitative content analysis, the present article has
discussed the intersections between the political and scientific fields, here based on
research on IGO discourses and ALE published in the IJLE since its inception until
2020.
By addressing the first research question, we elaborated on two categories—the
research questions and objectives of IGOs addressed and the concepts of IGO addressed
—and emphasised that over the last four decades, IGOs used different concepts (as
these changed over time), as well as the identified conceptual changes that occurred in
policy discourses of IGOs, policy transformations related to the increased role of IGOs
in ALE and the temporal relationship between policy production and academic research.
Furthermore, we also showed topics favoured by authors over the last four decades in
the selected articles’ corpus, namely the major trend of discussing and interpreting
IGOs’ policy documents. If this trend is a strong presence in the data collected, it is
important to stress some absences. Among these, rarely have articles considered IGOs
as the study objects in terms of the process of conception and production of ALE
policies, here involving experts and other stakeholders, as well as those approaching the
role of researchers (some of the authors who published in the IJLE over the years) in
IGOs’ policy conception and in the production of ALE policies. Similarly, not many
articles discussed the instruments IGOs use that go beyond discursive dissemination—
such as standard setting, financial means, coordinative functions and technical
assistance (cf. Mikulec, 2021)—that enable policy transfer and provide tools for
managing, monitoring and benchmarking ALE practices.
By addressing the second research question and relying on Bourdieu’s field
theory and the idea that the political and scientific fields are the arenas of struggle, we
elaborated on three categories—theoretical orientation, research methodology and
IGO’s policies discussed—emphasising the influence of IGOs in ALE academic
publishing. However, in the selected article corpus, these included the authors’ critical
reflections and did not simply accept or reproduce (without problematising) the
discourses and concepts of the referred organisations. Therefore, the relative autonomy
of the subfield of ALE was emphasised, though this stronger emphasis was more
apparent in studies published before 2014. It is important to stress that any uncritical
incorporation of the values, discourses and concepts within the scientific subfield of
ALE will represent a loss of its relative autonomy, an absence of the refraction effect of
influences originating in other fields and a decrease in the capacity to resist hegemonic
political discourses that come to exert a direct influence on science and represent a
higher degree of internal consensus within the scientific field. This could result in its
crisis, in the loss of collective control and in the heteronomy of agents. The context of
the scientific production of a highly prestigious journal in its academic area seems to
represent a privileged locus for the expression of relative autonomy and diversity and
the conflicts and creativity essential to the strengthening of a scientific field. Theoretical
elaboration and analytical vocation are crucial in counteracting the uncritical
naturalisation and widespread acceptance of political discourses and concepts that are
associated with the educational ideologies produced by powerful IGOs. Without this
theoretical capital, it would certainly be more difficult to intellectually resist the
functional subordination of academic research to IGOs and also its co-optation by the
‘research for policy’ and ‘problem-solving’ approach, here under the more generalised
formal rationality and instrumental character currently assigned to ALE.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by CIEd – Research Centre on Education, Institute of Education,
University of Minho, projects UIDB/01661/2020 and UIDP/01661/2020, through national funds
of FCT/MCTES-PT; by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia within the scope of the
Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação, Universidade de Lisboa
(UID/CED/ 04107/2016); and by the Slovenian Research Agency under Grant P5-0174.
ORCID
Licínio C. Lima https://orcid.org/ 0000-0003-0899-7987
Paula Guimarães https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2197-1004
Borut Mikulec http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-3091
References
Bagnall, R. G., & Hodge, S. (2018). Contemporary Adult and Lifelong Education and
Learning: An Epistemological Analysis. In M. Milana, S. Webb, J. Holford, R.
Waller, P. Jarvis (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook on adult and
lifelong education and learning (pp. 13–34). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bélanger, P. (2011). Theories in adult learning and education. Frankfurt: Barbara
Budrich Publishers.
Bonnafous, L. (2014). Trans-nationalization of educational policy making: from
European innovation projects in adult education to an emerging European space
for lifelong learning: what model for the European vocational education and
training policy?. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(3), 393–410.
doi: 10.1080/02601370.2014.891888
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Les Éditions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action. Éditions du Seuil.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du
champ scientifique. INRA.
Bron, A., & Jarvis, P. (2008). Identities of Adult Educators: Changes in Professionality.
In E. Nuissl, & S. Lattke (Eds.), Qualifying adult learning professionals in
Europe (pp. 33–44). W. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH & Co.
Casey, C., & Asamoah, L. (2016). Education and sustainability: reinvigorating adult
education’s role in transformation, justice and development. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 35(6), 590–606. doi:
10.1080/02601370.2016.1217281
Cavaco, C., Lafont, P., & Pariat, M. (2014). Policies of adult education in Portugal and
France: the European Agenda of validation of non-formal and informal learning.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(3), 343–361. doi:
10.1080/02601370.2014.896086
Centeno, V. (2011). Lifelong learning: a policy concept with a long past but a short
history. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30(2), 133–150. doi:
10.1080/02601370.2010.547616
Cort, P., Mariager-Anderson, K., & Thomsen, R. (2018). Busting the myth of low-
skilled workers – destabilizing EU LLL policies through the life stories of Danes
in low-skilled jobs. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(2), 199–
215. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2017.1404501
Desjardins, R., & Rubenson, K. (Eds.) (2009). Research of vs research for education
policy: in an era of transnational policy-making. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Drisco, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.
Elias, J. L, & Merriam, S. B. (2005). Philosophical foundations of adult education.
Krieger.
English, L. M, & Mayo, P. (2021). Lifelong learning, global social justice, and
sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fejes, A., & Nylander, E. (2015). How pluralistic is the research field on adult
education? Dominating bibliometrical trends, 2005-2012. European Journal for
Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 6(2), 103–123.
Fejes, A., & Nylander, E. (Eds.) (2019). Mapping out the research field of adult
education and learning. Springer.
Field, J. (2001). Lifelong education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(1-
2), 3–15. doi: 10.1080/09638280010008291
Field, J., & Schemmann, M. (2017). International organisations and the construction of
the learning active citizen: An analysis of adult learning policy documents from
a Durkheimian perspective. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(1-
2), 164–179. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2017.1287920
Griffin, C. (1999a). Lifelong learning and social democracy. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 18(5), 329–342. doi: 10.1080/026013799293586
Griffin, C. (1999b). Lifelong learning and welfare reform. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 18(6), 431–452.
Guimarães, P., & Mikulec, B. (2021). The paradox of utilitarian recognition of prior
learning: the cases of Portugal and Slovenia. European Journal for Research on
the Education and Learning of Adults, 12(1), 109–122. doi: 10.3384/rela.2000-
7426.ojsl1479
Hake, B. J. (2021). Mapping our way out? Critical reflections on historical research and
the 1972 Faure report. European Journal for Research on the Education and
Learning of Adults. doi: 10.3384/rela.2000-7426.3584
Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: release the research imagination. (2nd ed.).
Sage.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University
of New York Press.
Holford, J., Hodge, S., Milana, M., Waller, R., & Webb, S. (2021). Lifelong education
international: forwards and/or backwards?. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 40(1), 1–4. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2021.1904610
Lahire, B. (2017). Campo. In A. Catani et al. (Eds.), Vocabulário Bourdieu (pp. 64-66).
Autêntica.
Lawson, K. (1982). Lifelong Education: Concept or Policy?. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 1(2), 97–108. doi: 10.1080/0260137820010202
Lee, M., & Friedrich, T. (2011). Continuously reaffirmed, subtly accommodated,
obviously missing and fallaciously critiqued: ideologies in UNESCO's lifelong
learning policy. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30(2), 151–169.
doi: 10.1080/02601370.2010.547619
Lima, L. C. (2007). Educação ao longo da vida: entre a mão direita e a mão esquerda
de Miró. Cortez Editora.
Lima, L. C. (2012). Aprender para ganhar, conhecer para competir. Sobre a
subordinação da educação. Cortez Editora.
Lima, L. C., & Guimarães, P. (2011). European strategies of lifelong learning: a
critical introduction. Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Mikulec, B. (2021). The influence of international intergovernmental organisations on
Slovenian adult education policies. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
40(1), 37–52. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2021.1871674
Murphy, M. (Ed.) (2013). Social theory and education research: understanding
Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu and Derrida. Routledge.
Regmi, K. V. (2017). Habermas, lifeworld and rationality: towards a comprehensive
model of lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(6),
679–695. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2017.1377776
Rubenson, K., & Elfert, M. (2015). Adult education research: exploring an increasingly
fragmented map. European Journal for Research on the Education and
Learning of Adults, 6(2), 125–138. doi: 10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9066
Szakos, E. F. (2014). Learning as renewal: contribution to the present theoretical
background of the lifelong learning policy of the European Union. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 504–522. doi:
10.1080/02601370.2013.876559
Tuparevska, E., Santibáñez, R., & Solabarrieta, J. (2020a). Equity and social exclusion
measures in EU lifelong learning policies. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 39(1), 5–17. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2019.1689435
Tuparevska, E., Santibáñez, R., & Solabarrieta, J. (2020b) Social exclusion in EU
lifelong learning policies: prevalence and definitions. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 39(2), 179–190. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2020.1728404
UNESCO (2015). Recommendation on adult learning and education. UIL.
Wain, K. (1993). Lifelong education and adult education — the state of the theory.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 12(2), 85–99. doi:
10.1080/0260137930120202
Wain, K. A. (1985). Lifelong education and philosophy of education. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 4(2), 107–117. doi: 10.1080/0260137850040202
Willamo, R. et al. (2018). Learning how to understand complexity and deal with
sustainability challenges – A framework for a comprehensive approach and its
application in university education. Ecological Modelling, 370, 1–13. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.12.011
Table 1. Overview of 19 studies published in IJLE (1982-2020)
Publication
year
Author(s) Article’s title Research questions and objectives
(IGOs addressed)
Theoretical
orientation
Research
methodology
options
IGOs’ concepts
addressed
IGOs’ policies discussed (policy problems and
solutions)
1982 Lawson Lifelong
education:
concept or
policy?
What is the meaning of lifelong
education according to UNESCO?
To discuss critically lifelong education
from UNESCO
(UNESCO)
Marxist-humanism
(Suchodolski),
Marxist-
existentialism
(Lengrand),
humanism (White,
Cropley)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis),
comprehensive
approach
Lifelong
education
An Introduction to Lifelong Learning (Lengrand, 1970)
1982 Duke Evolution of
the recurrent
education
concept
What is the meaning of recurrent
education?
To discuss the history and aims behind
the concept of recurrent education
(OECD)
Critical
pedagogy/radical
education (Freire,
Foley)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis), historical
and comprehensive
approach
Recurrent
education
Recurrent Education: A Strategy for Lifelong Learning
(OECD, 1973)
Recurrent Education: Trends and Issues (OECD, 1975)
Educational Policies and Trends in the Context of
Social and Economic Development Perspectives
(OECD, 1977)
1985 Wain Lifelong
education and
philosophy of
education
What are the theoretical foundations of
lifelong education?
To discuss theoretical foundations of
lifelong education
(UNESCO)
Marxist-
existentialism
(Lengrand), radical
education (Gelpi,
Illich), humanism
(White, Cropley)
Qualitative,
comprehensive
approach
Lifelong
education
Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
An Introduction to Lifelong Education (Lengrand,
1975)
1993 Wain Lifelong
education and
adult education
– the state of
the theory
How can the concept of lifelong
education be interpreted following the
literature, considering a maximalist and
a minimalist view?
!"#!
$%&
#'()*+,&
Marxist-humanism
(Suchodolski),
Marxist-
existentialism
(Lengrand), radical
education (Gelpi,
Illich), humanism
(White, Dave,
Cropley)
Qualitative,
comprehensive
approach
Lifelong
education
Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
1999a Griffin Lifelong
learning and
social
democracy
How was LLL understood in the social
democracy political approach?
---
#'()*+,,)+.)'&
/
0"
#!123&
Welfare state
regimes,
Postmodernism
(Beck, Bauman,
Usher, Edwards),
globalisation
(Giddens,
Robertson)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis),
comprehensive
approach,
educational
criticism
LLL, lifelong
education
Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
Recurrent Education: A Strategy for Lifelong Learning
(OECD, 1973)
Lifelong Learning for All (OECD, 1996)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1996)
1999b Griffin Lifelong 4--- Welfare state Qualitative LLL, lifelong Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
Publication
year
Author(s) Article’s title Research questions and objectives
(IGOs addressed)
Theoretical
orientation
Research
methodology
options
IGOs’ concepts
addressed
IGOs’ policies discussed (policy problems and
solutions)
learning and
welfare reform
56
5"
#!718&
#'()*+,,)+.)'&
regimes discussion
and postmodernism
(Beck, Bauman,
Usher, Edwards),
globalisation
(Giddens,
Robertson)
(documentary
analysis),
comprehensive
approach,
educational
criticism
education, Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
Recurrent Education: A Strategy for Lifelong Learning
(OECD, 1973)
Lifelong Learning for All (OECD, 1996)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1996)
2001 Field Lifelong
education
How did the debate on the concept of
lifelong education evolve, from the
1960s to the present, within IGOs?
To discuss the changes in the meanings
of the concept of lifelong education
since the 1960s in IGOs until the ‘re-
emergence’ of the concept as LLL in
the 2000s.
(UNESCO, PECD, CoE, EU)
Comparative
education,
Marxist-
existentialism
(Lengrand),
humanism (Dave),
radical education
(Gelpi)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis), historical
approach,
comprehensive
approach,
educational
criticism
LLL, lifelong
education,
éducation
permanente,
learning society
Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
The Agenda for the Future (UNESCO, 1998)
Recurrent
education
Lifelong Learning for All (OECD, 1996)
Combatting Social Exclusion through Adult Learning
(OECD, 1998)
Permanent
education
LLL Competitiveness, Employment, Growth (EU, 1994)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1995)
2011 Centeno Lifelong
learning: a
policy concept
with a long past
but a short
history
What are the continuities and
discontinuities in the international
‘problematisation of education across
the lifespan as an education policy,
conceptualised as lifelong learning’? (p.
133)
"
#)9-&":
;
9-):
<=,
#!817&!
#'()*+,,)+.)'+)&
Postructuralism
(Foucault),
comparative
education
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis), historical
approach,
comprehensive
approach,
educational
criticism
Éducation
permanente,
lifelong
education, LLL,
Learning to be (Faure et al., 1972)
Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
1945 UNESCO: 50 years for Education (UNESCO,
1997)
Recurrent
education
Recurrent Education: A strategy for Lifelong Learning
(OECD, 1973)
Recurrent Education: Trends and Issues (OECD, 1975)
Recurrent Education Revisited (OECD, 1986)
LLL Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (EU, 2000)
Permanent
education
Permanent Education: A Compendium of Studies
(CoE1970)
Permanent Education: The Basis and Essentials (CoE,
1973)
Permanente Education. A Framework for Recurrent
Education (CoE, 1975)
Publication
year
Author(s) Article’s title Research questions and objectives
(IGOs addressed)
Theoretical
orientation
Research
methodology
options
IGOs’ concepts
addressed
IGOs’ policies discussed (policy problems and
solutions)
2011 Lee &
Friedrich
Continuously
reaffirmed,
subtly
accommodated,
obviously
missing and
fallaciously
critiqued:
ideologies in
UNESCO’s
lifelong
learning policy
4
>
'()*+,"
833?
2???"6#!8%8&
'()*+,"
"#!8%2&
#'()*+,&
Ideology critique:
classical liberalism
(Hobbes, Locke,
Smith), social
democratic
liberalism
(Hobhouse,
Hobson),
neoliberalism
(Friedman), and
(neo)Marxism
(Marx, Althusser,
Frankfurt school,
critical pedagogy)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis), historical
and comprehensive
approach,
educational
criticism
Éducation
permanente, LLL,
lifelong education
Report of the Director-General on the Activities of the
Organisation (UNESCO, 1968)
Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
50 Years for Education (UNESCO, 1997)
Interagency Strategy Meeting on Lifelong Learning:
2nd draft Report (UNESCO, 2002)
UIE Annual Report (UNESCO, 2003)
2014 Bonnafous Trans-
nationalization
of education
policy making:
from European
innovation
projects in
adult education
to an emerging
European space
for lifelong
learning: what
model for the
European
vocational
education and
training policy?
How the LEONARDO project can be
understood as an innovation design
project within the vocational education
and training for national public policies
of the EU considering the European
space of education construction?
)
5
)@)
#@)&A
)'
-*"#!
131&
#)'&
Comparative
education,
Discourse analysis
(Foucault),
public
policy/sociological
analysis, social
innovation,
European space
(Dale)
Qualitative
(interviews,
documentary
analysis,
observation),
comparative study
of Belgium,
Germany, France
and Sweden
Adult education
policy,
LLL
Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (EU, 1993)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1995)
Making a European Area for Lifelong Learning a
Reality (EU, 2001)
2014 Cavaco,
Lafont, &
Pariat
Policies of
adult education
in Portugal and
France: the
European
agenda of
validation of
non-formal and
informal
learning
4>)
'"
0
)'
B*C
A6"#!171&
>)'"
Comparative
education (Nóvoa,
Dale), educational
and policy
discussion (Barroso,
Canário, Pineau,
Jobert)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis), case
studies of Portugal
and France
Adult education
policy,
LLL, validation
of non-formal and
informal learning
White Paper on Education and Training (EU, 1995)
Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (EU, 2000)
Council Resolution on a Renewed European Agenda
for Adult Learning (EU, 2011)
Council Recommendation on the Validation of Non-
formal and Informal Learning (EU, 2012)
European Agenda for Adult Learning and Recent
Policy Developments (EU, 2013)
Publication
year
Author(s) Article’s title Research questions and objectives
(IGOs addressed)
Theoretical
orientation
Research
methodology
options
IGOs’ concepts
addressed
IGOs’ policies discussed (policy problems and
solutions)
0
#CA&
#)'&
2014 Szakos Learning as
renewal:
contribution to
the present
theoretical
background of
lifelong
learning policy
of the European
Union
<
;D
6<
E6<
6.
#
&
;
6"#!%?%&
)'
"#!%?7&
#)'&
Transformation as
learning/transformati
ve learning (Dewey,
Kolb, Mezirow,
Jarvis, Dewey),
constructivism,
biographical
learning (Siebert),
Action-learning
(O’Neil & Marsick)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis)
LLL Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (EU, 2000)
Strategic framework for European Cooperation in
Education and Training (EU, 2009)
Action Plan on Adult Learning: Achievements and
Results 2008–2010 (EU, 2011)
2016 Casey &
Asamoah
Education and
sustainability:
reinvigorating
adult
education’s
role in
transformation,
justice and
development
F
---'()*+,"92?1?
G9-)=6
To discuss the UNESCO understanding
of LLL, considering the space devoted
to ALE, from a humanistic approach of
the 1970s and an instrumental approach
of the 2010s, considering here the
sustainable development approach of
UNESCO
(UNESCO)
Humanism,
transformative
education (Jarvis,
Freire, Welton),
(adult) educational
and policy
discussion
(Rubenson, Elfert,
Field, Zarifis &
Gravani)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis,
observation,
interviews within
field study), case
study of Ghana
LLL, sustainable
development
Learning to Be (Faure et al.,1972)
Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
Belém Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2010)
Education Strategy 2014–2021 (UNESCO, 2014)
Agenda 2030 (UN, 2015)
Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common
Good? UNESCO, 2015)
2016 Clain Challenges in
evaluating the
EU’s lifelong
learning
policies
What evaluation model can be proposed
to evaluate the complexity of EU LLL
policies?
‘[T]o explore the challenges which arise
when evaluating the EU’s lifelong
learning policies and programmes in
general, and the Lifelong Learning
Programme 2007–2013 in particular, as
well as to propose several new
directions for overcoming these
Concept of LLL
(Jarvis, Aspin et al.,
Sharples, Hager,
Bagnall), ideologies
of LLL (Bagnall)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis),
educational
criticism
LLL Growth, Competitiveness, Employment (EU, 1993)
Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a
Reality (2001)
Council Resolution on a Renewed European Agenda
for Adult Learning (EU, 2011)
Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning
Programme (2007–2013) (EU, 2011)
Publication
year
Author(s) Article’s title Research questions and objectives
(IGOs addressed)
Theoretical
orientation
Research
methodology
options
IGOs’ concepts
addressed
IGOs’ policies discussed (policy problems and
solutions)
challenges’ (p. 18)
(EU)
2017 Field &
Schemman
n
International
organisations
and the
construction of
the learning
active citizen:
an analysis of
adult learning
policy
documents
from a
Durkheimian
perspective
FE
G
"#!8H7&
G
I
)+'
(4JG4J
,)+0
.#,)+.&I
E
G"#!8H7&
#'()*+,,)+.)'4J&
Durkheim’s theory
of politics and the
state, globalisation
(Jarvis)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis)
LLL, adult
learning policy
Summary Report of the International Conference on
Adult Education (UNESCO, 1994)
Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework
for Action (UNESCO, 2015)
Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development (UN, 2015)
LLL, adult
learning policy
Education Today 2013. The OECD Perspective
(OECD, 2012)
Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms
Happen (OECD, 2015)
LLL, adult
learning policy
Growth, Competitiveness, Employment (EU, 1993)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1995)
Education and Active Citizenship in the European
Union (EU, 1998)
Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000)
A New Skills Agenda for Europe (EU, 2016)
Education Sector Strategy (WB, 2011)
Lifelong Learning for All: Investing in People’s
Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development (WB,
2011)
2017 Regmi Habermas,
lifeworld and
rationality:
towards a
comprehensive
model of
lifelong
learning
FF
64
69
6"#!H$8&
F
---
#'()*+,,)+.)'&
Critical theory
(Habermas),
transformative
learning (Mezirow)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis),
educational
criticism
LLL Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972)
Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al., 1996)
LLL Lifelong Learning for All (OECD, 1996)
LLL Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (EU, 2000)
2018 Cort,
Mariager-
Anderson,
&
Thomsen
J
0
GG
IE
4
G)'
0GG6
40
Governmentality
(Foucault)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis,
interviews/narrative
inquiry of adult
LLL, upskilling Council Resolution on a Renewed European Agenda
for Adult Learning (EU, 2011)
Tackling Low Skills: The Skills Guarantee (EU, 2016)
Publication
year
Author(s) Article’s title Research questions and objectives
(IGOs addressed)
Theoretical
orientation
Research
methodology
options
IGOs’ concepts
addressed
IGOs’ policies discussed (policy problems and
solutions)
)'---
.
0G
5
GG"
6
0GG)'
#)'&
learners)
2020a Tuparevsk
a,
Santibáñez,
&
Solabarriet
a
Equity and
social
exclusion
measures in
European
Union lifelong
learning
policies
CJ*#83$7&
K
KLM
6M#!$&
To examine ‘how EU lifelong learning
policies are trying to reach the
vulnerable by looking at what measures
against social exclusion they offer and
how equitable these measures are’ (p. 5)
(EU)
Equity (Berne &
Stiefel, Levin)
Qualitative
(documentary
analysis, experts’
interviews)
LLL Growth, Competitiveness, Employment (EU, 1993)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1995)
Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (EU, 2000)
The Concrete Future Objectives of Education and
Training Systems (EU, 2001)
Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a Strategic
Framework for European Cooperation in Education
and Training (EU, 2009)
Council Resolution on a Renewed European Agenda
for Adult Learning (EU, 2011)
Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on
Upskilling Pathways (EU, 2016)
2020b Tuparevsk
a,
Santibáñez,
&
Solabarriet
a
Social
exclusion in
European
Union lifelong
learning
policies:
prevalence and
definitions
‘[H]ow the concept has evolved from
the 1990s in terms of meaning,
definitions and closely connected
concepts, what are the implications of
this evolution, and whether there is
coherence between the conceptual
evolution and lifelong learning policy’
(p. 179)
‘[T]o analyse the concept of social
exclusion in EU lifelong learning
policies’ (p. 179)
(EU)
Social exclusion
(Mathieson)
Qualitative
(document analysis,
experts’ interviews)
LLL Growth, Competitiveness, Employment (EU, 1993)
Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society
(EU, 1995)
Resolution of the Council of Ministers for Social
Affairs on Combating Social Exclusion (EU, 1989)
Council Conclusions of 20 December 1996 on a
Strategy for Lifelong Learning (EU, 1997)
Joint Report on Social Inclusion (EU, 2004).
Council Resolution on a Renewed European Agenda
for Adult Learning (EU, 2011)