Since the early 1990s the field of adult education has become much more conscious of the impact of sociocultural factors on shaping participation in adult education. Rubenson (1998, p. 261) characterizes this approach to participation as consisting of two dimensions—“the long arm of the family as reflected in the relationship between social background, educational attainment and participation … and the long arm of the job: the increased importance of adult education and training as investment.” Using data collected in the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) from 10 countries, Boudard and Rubenson (2003) predicted that literacy skills would determine participation in adult education and training. Instead, they found educational attainment to be “the most important single factor predicting participation in adult education and training” (p. 279). Further analyses revealed that “readiness to learn is formed early in life and further developed through educational and work experiences … the long arm of the family and the long arm of the job” (p. 279). Rubenson (2011) cites a study of participation across 15 European Union states that found “family-related obstacles like ‘my family commitments take up too much energy’ were mentioned somewhat more frequently than job-related hinderances” (p. 217).
Another analysis of participation in the United Kingdom by Gorard and Selwyn (2005) found that participation could be predicted from variables “we could have known when each person was born”; in particular, “the influence of parental background is key” (p. 79). The authors point out that “where individuals create, for themselves and through their early experiences, a ‘learner identity’ inimical to further study, then the prospect of learning can become a burden rather than an investment for them” (p. 71).
Race, class, gender, ethnic group, and so on can also act as barriers to participation. Sissel's (1997) study of parent involvement in Head Start programs found that “power relations were expressed in the withholding or allocation of programmatic resources, and functioned to either impede or promote participation” (p. 123). She recommends that more research be conducted on “specific structural factors” (such as race and gender) that “enhance or impede participation” (p. 135). Davis-Harrison (1996) also found race and class to be important variables in investigating the nonparticipation of blue-collar male workers.
Working from this same critical perspective, Jarvis (2012) makes the case for a class analysis in that the middle-class bias found in all studies of participation can be explained by the idea that adult education is organized by the middle class, and the presentation of knowledge is middle class in both language and content. Furthermore, previous school experiences determine who will be labeled as successful, and those who are labeled successful are pretty much predetermined by one's class, age, sex, and educational background. Jarvis would concur with McClenaghan (2000) that one's “social capital”—how one is positioned in society in terms of “the totality of actual and potential resources individuals can mobilise through membership in organisations and social networks” (p. 568)—can help explain differing levels of participation in both formal and informal adult education. A social capital framework also informed Field's (2008) study of learning transitions and participation. In his case studies of adult learners, social networks were important for coping with learning transitions. However, he also found social capital to be just “part of the story” (p. 49). Institutional structures, class, and gender were also significant influences. And in an interesting study of adult learners' online participation in a blended learning program in Belgium, Diep, Cocquyt, Zhu, and Vanwig (2016) found that “two dimensions of social capital, namely sense of belonging and norms of reciprocity, significantly predicted online participation” (abstract).
Two studies examined how the social structure determines participation. Nordhaug (1990) examined participation in Norwegian adult education not from the individual participant's perspective but from macrolevel variables over which individuals have no control, such as material resources and population density related to the structure of municipalities. He found that the amount of educational resources (as measured by the community's level of educational attainment) was “the most efficient predictor of adult education activity … on a regional level” (p. 205). In a U.S. study, Jung and Cervero (2002) used national data sets on postsecondary education to determine which contextual variables in each of the 50 U.S. states would best predict the rate of participation of adults in higher education. Out of 11 variables, the two best predictors of adult participation in a state's higher education system were availability of undergraduate education (number of seats available, public and private) and educational attainment of the state's adult population (percentage of adults with high school or higher).
The most recent work on participation accounts for both the individual and the social structure in which the individual is embedded. Desjardin's (2017) book-length theoretical analysis of participation situates individual participation within the larger political and economic system. Karalis (2017) investigated the same connection by examining participation in Greece during a period of economic crisis. How participation intersects with policy issues that surround the provision, governance, and financing of adult education in Korea, Norway, and Vietnam was explored by Desjardins, Melo, and Lee (2016). Ward and Taylor (2014) focused on adult education and the working class, or as the subtitle of their book suggests, “the missing millions.” Head, Van Hoeck, and Garson (2015) reviewed 185 research articles on participation published between 2008 and 2015 and identified four areas of research suggesting interest in both individual and systemic factors: (a) organizational climate, (b) learner characteristics and attitudes, (c) market, social policy, and regulatory forces, and (d) underserved populations. They also noted research interest in the challenges of globalization and aging populations, the Internet's impact, and equity issues pertaining to access and availability of training and learning. These are just a few examples of how participation studies are now accounting for not only the individual learner's motivation but also the social, cultural, and political context of adult learning.
Boeren (2011, 2017; Boeren & Holford, 2016; Boeren, Nicaise, & Baert, 2010) has written extensively on adult lifelong learning participation including reviewing many of the models presented in this chapter—models with a decidedly psychological focus. She makes a strong case for including not just the individual learner but also the availability of education and training providers and the role of countries' policies in understanding participation. She writes, “it would be too easy to conclude that every example of non-participation is the result of a lack of motivation or because the person did not come from a strong socio-economic background” (2017; p. 165). “In fact,” she points out, “participation can only take place if both the individual and a suitable education or training offer successfully match” (p. 165). Further, the fact that “participation rates widely vary across countries” (p. 166) suggests that the macro-level of system characteristics “cannot be ignored … even in research concentrating on one single country” (p. 167). As can be seen in Figure 4.1, there are three cogs representing the individual, the learning providers, and the countries' policies and labor market conditions. As she explains, “all cogs need to be turning around. If one cog blocks, participation will be much more difficult to achieve” (p. 168).
Boeren also has recommendations for future research on adult learning participation including attending to the providers as well as the individual learners, attending to geographical issues, especially how rural adults can be served, and conducting more research in developing countries as “a wider range of countries and contexts would increase the chances of finding out more about the underlying hard-to-measure cultural