Running head: ADULT EDUCATION

Adult Education: A Question of Discipline

Laura Gogia

EDUS 703

Summer 2013

ADULT EDUCATION

2

Introduction

Foucault (1980) writes that an academic discipline consists of two parts; it is both a

systematic body of knowledge and the regime of social control over that body of knowledge.

Designated individuals shape the content, uses, and interpretations of disciplinary knowledge by

deciding what will be published in journals, what should be emphasized at conferences, or who

should be asked to join other forums of scholarly communication (Usher, Bryant, & Johnston,

1997). How designees attain their regulatory power within a discipline is a complex study in

itself, but at minimum they have usually completed a degree-bearing program in the discipline

(Knox & Fleming, 2010). Among other things, these degree-bearing programs provide an easily-

regulated gateway to disciplinary membership. If we accept Foucault’s framework, a discipline

is a well-defined and controlled structure and, as such, has both inclusionary and exclusionary

consequences for knowledge and people (Usher et al., 1997).

Using this understanding of an academic discipline, adult education is such an entity. A

core group of individuals identify as adult educators and work within a cohesive framework of

shared history, verbalized goals, epistemological assumptions, and theoretical models (Hayes &

Wilson, 2000). But some scholars feel the field is at in crisis, at risk of irreparable fragmentation

from a threat they identify as the “postmodern challenge” (Usher et al., 1997). These scholars

suggest that the array of conflicting epistemologies, theories, and research agendas that are

arising within the adult education field threaten to dissolve the discipline with their demands for

equal recognition and inclusion (Kasworm, Rose, & Ross-Gordon, 2010; Taylor & Cranton,

2012a; Usher et al., 1997). In this paper I will review the history, epistemological assumptions,

and foundational theoretical frameworks that have defined and for now continue to define adult

education as an academic discipline. Then I will show how the “postmodern challenge” has

ADULT EDUCATION

3

weakened the structural integrity of the field, calling assumptional frameworks into question and

disrupting processes of social control over disciplinary knowledge. I will then use the fastest

growing area of adult education research, transformative learning, to describe trends in research

with attention to how interdisciplinary practitioners, part of the “postmodern challenge,” are

affecting research integrity. Finally, I will describe my own anticipated interdisciplinary

contributions to the field and offer my own thoughts on the “postmodern challenge.”

Adult Education as an Academic Community

A Shared History

Disciplinary origins. Although adult education has existed in some form throughout

time, the modern conception of adult education developed as a result of the progressive

movement, a wave of widespread social reforms triggered by the rapid urbanization and

industrialization of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Mills, 1999). Progressive

reformers, predominantly social workers and evangelists, called for education—particularly adult

education—to help poor and immigrant populations cope with the rapidly changing social

climate (Mills, 1999). Many of these reformers felt they were preparing the nation for a “higher

civilization,” cultivating a workforce capable of performing the specialized tasks required in the

industrialized world while also indoctrinating traditionally unruly populations with a stabilizing,

rational worldview (Lindeman, 1926/1989, p. xx).

Not all progressive reformers saw education as a means for domestication, however;

some, typically social workers, trade unionists, and other laborer advocates, promoted adult

education as a tool of democratization and personal growth (Lindeman, 1926/1989). In 1926,

Eduard Lindeman, a social worker with a working-class background and a personal history of

self-directed learning, wrote what many consider the first seminal work in adult education, The

ADULT EDUCATION

4

Meaning of Adult Education. Lindeman drew upon his own life experience as well as the

philosophies of William James and James Dewey to emphasize the importance of experience,

problem solving, and intrinsic motivation in the education of adults. Over his lifetime Lindeman

authored hundreds of monographs, articles, books, and book chapters on adult learning, each

emphasizing active learning, or “participation.” He is considered by most to be the father of

modern adult education, laying the epistemological and theoretical groundwork that the field

professes to follow today (Lindeman, 1926/1989).

Disciplinary organization. By the 1930s, the first university-based programs were

created for the purposes of training adult educators. Their presence was in part a response to

government pressure; New Deal officials believed workforce educators lacked the training

required to produce the skilled workforce that American industry urgently required (Cervero,

1992). The presence of these adult education programs in teacher’s colleges and schools of

education marked the beginning of a disciplinary transition; university-based education

specialists and psychologists began to dominate a field once dominated by practicing social

workers and trade unionists (Merriam & Beckett, 1997). National-level professional

organizations reflect further attempts to organize adult education into a discipline. The Adult

Education Association of the U.S.A. (AEA) was created in 1951 and through a series of mergers

became the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, the primary body of

disciplinary control in existence today (AAACE; “American Education Association/American

Association for Adult and Continuing Education Records,” n.d., para. 2).

Early disciplinary professionalization. By the late twentieth century the AAACE was

attempting to advance adult education as a profession. Specifically they tried to provide

compelling evidence that the adult educators they represented: (1) offered a recognizably distinct

ADULT EDUCATION

5

service, (2) possessed a specialized and standardized knowledge base necessary to produce the

service, and (3) controlled the market for that service under the auspices of AAACE organization

and leadership (Larson, 1977). To that end, the AAACE endorsed a list of goals for the adult

education discipline, published in the 1989 Handbook of Adult Education and Continuing

Education. These goals were to: (1) facilitate change in a dynamic society, (2) support social

order and democracy, (3) promote workforce productivity, and (4) encourage personal growth

(Beder, 1994). Although the goals were accepted within the field, other attempts to

professionalize the field including universal adult educator certification and benchmarking for

adult education programs fell short (Sonstrom, 2012).

Disciplinary professionalization thwarted. Of all the barriers to standardization in the

adult education field, the diversity and decentralized working conditions of adult educators may

be the most important (Cervero, 1992; Knox & Fleming, 2010; Merriam & Brockett, 2007).

Historically, “adult educator” has never been widely used as a professional label; instead, an

adult educator is a:

“…literary teacher, continuing education instructor, continuing professional educator,

labor educator, nonprofit staff, instructional designer, human resource developer, K-12

educator, corporate trainer, higher education administrator, extension agent, prison

educator, organization development consultant, college professor, career development

counselor, community activist, health educator, public official, or something else.”

(Bierema, 2010, p. 135)

While the discipline of adult education contributes some to the individual’s theoretical

framework and skillsets, a different vocational entity altogether dominates the content and

cultural framework of the individual’s work (Moore, 2005). In this respect adult education can be

considered a “second-order discipline,” a phenomenon that occurs when disciplinary knowledge

ADULT EDUCATION

6

is almost universally used as supplementary information by practitioners in other fields

(Kopelman, 2009).

Recent trends in higher education are only exacerbating the “second order approach” to

adult education (Kasworm, 2011). Higher education is evolving into a market-driven culture and

as such is packaging knowledge into degree programs that are directly applicable to specific

professions (Natale & Doran, 2012). A recent examination of the branding and organization

practices of adult education programs suggest that programs present adult education less as a

distinct discipline and more as a set of theories and practices already adapted for other

professional sectors (Gogia, 2013). The interdisciplinary practitioners who graduate from these

programs are contributing proportionately more to the adult education research than they once

did and, in doing so, have changed the landscape of the adult education literature by forcing it to

be more inclusive of other disciplinary cultures and research agendas (Taylor & Snyder, 2012).

While the effect of interdisciplinarity on adult education research will be discussed later, the

growing second-order approach to adult education limits the field’s ability to progress towards

professionalization and generally threatens its claim to being a well-defined academic discipline

in its own right (Usher et al., 1997).

The Epistemological Assumptions

Regardless of their primary disciplines, adult educators and researchers have traditionally

worked from humanist, constructivist, critical, or, to a lesser extent, postpositivist perspectives

(Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 1997). The first three orientations overlap significantly;

in fact humanism can be considered an ontological framework which covers constructivism (an

epistemology), and critical theory (an epistemological subdivision of constructivism; Paul,

2005). In this paper I use them as they are frequently seen in the adult education literature,

ADULT EDUCATION

7

connecting humanism to educational philosophy and constructivism with research philosophy

(Merriam et al., 1997). Postpositivism is different from the others, and has enjoyed success

predominantly in the human resource development (HRD) sector of adult education.

Humanism and constructivism. Humanists believe that individuals control their own

destinies rather than being controlled by their subconscious or their environment (Merriam et al.,

1997). When humanists discuss learning they emphasize the importance of individual life

experience and internal motivation in the construction of knowledge (Rogers & Freiberg,

1969/1994). Humanist psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow have been particularly

influential in the adult education field. Maslow’s (1970) identification of self-actualization as the

ultimate goal of learning is directly linked to most adult education theoretical frameworks which

emphasize personal growth as their endpoint (Merriam et al., 1997). Carl Rogers provided

concrete applications of promoting self-actualization in an educational context (Rogers &

Freidberg, 1969/1994). He believed students should initiate and evaluate their own learning and

introduced the phrase “student-centered learning” in his seminal educational work, Freedom to

Learn (1969/1994). Student-centered or learner-centered education has become a mainstay in

the adult learning world, one that has only recently been challenged by postmodernists and only

in a marginalized way (Merriam & Ntseane, 2008).

But humanist-based epistemologies underlie research paradigms as well. In 1961, Cyril

Houle published The Inquiring Mind, a study that focused on the internal motivations of the adult

learners themselves rather than the characteristics of the adult education programs that served

them. This novel perspective initiated a paradigm shift for an entire discipline, allowing

constructivism to replace positivism as the dominating epistemological paradigm by the 1970s in

most sectors of adult education research (Houle, 1961/1988). As part of that transformation,

ADULT EDUCATION

8

investigators began to assume that learners create their own knowledge based on their perception

of life experiences rather than absorb pre-formed conceptions of knowledge from the

environment (Merriam & Koo, 2012).

Critical Theory. Critical theorists are constructivists who focus on power relationships,

arguing that a person’s societal position dominates their life experience (Brookfield, 2009). The

aim of critical research is emancipatory action, and wide scale social change can only occur

when “people learn to identify and then oppose the ideological forces and social processes that

oppress them” (Brookfield, 2012, p. 135). Critical theory has impacted the field of adult

education mostly through its promotion of critical reflection, the practice of uncovering and

examining the underlying assumptional frameworks that individuals use to make decisions in

their daily lives (Brookfield, 2009). The practice challenges learners to investigate and then

change the hegemonic assumptions that put them or others at an unfair disadvantage, and it is

found in many of the adult education frameworks currently in use (Merriam et al., 1997).

Postpositivism. Since the beginning of modern adult education, there has been an

undercurrent of tension in the field between the social justice advocates who promote political

empowerment and self-actualization and the human resource development (HRD) specialists

who desire a productive and arguably docile workforce (Merriam & Brocket, 2007). While the

former almost invariably work from a critical theory orientation, the latter are traditionally

postpositivists with a focus on behaviorism, external motivation, and fixed forms of knowledge

(Merriam et al., 1997). The theoretical models commonly used in HRD relate to performance

improvement and competency-based instruction, evidence of its focus on using environmental

factors to manipulate human behavior (Merriam et al., 1997). Recently other pockets of

postpositivism have emerged, a result of interdisciplinary researcher-practitioners (particularly

ADULT EDUCATION

9

those situated in healthcare) who bring strong postpositivist orientations to adult education from

their primary discipline (Taylor & Snyder, 2012). This will be discussed in more detail later in

this paper.

The Postmodern Epistemological Challenge

Some contemporary critical and postmodern theorists argue that the epistemological

assumptions outlined above are unduly affected by the homogenously white, masculine, Anglo-

American backgrounds of the adult education theorists who created them. Merriam (2004) asks:

“Is a Western (male?) model of cognitive development with its pinnacle of independent,

autonomous, critically reflective thought the only place to situate transformational learning?

What about ‘connected knowing’ and ‘interdependence’ being the goal of mature thought?” (p.

66). Postmodern critics of adult learning theory offer epistemologies that downplay the concept

of individual personal growth, question the value of critical reflection, and offer other forms of

education that do not involve cognitive processes. These include context-specific

epistemologies, like Africentricism-feminism, and epistemologies which center learning in the

spiritual, emotional, or creative spheres, like extrarationalism (Dirkx, 2001; Merriam & Ntseane,

2008; Tisdell, 2012). In response, disciplinary leaders have called for a complete reevaluation

and revision of the field, starting with the epistemological assumptions and theoretical

frameworks upon which the field is based, in the hopes that differences can somehow be

rectified, more inclusive language used, and the integrity of the field maintained (Kasworm et al.,

2010).

The Theoretical Models

Although a postmodern revision of the field’s theoretical frameworks is currently

underway, a majority of adult educators operate and perform research within four general

ADULT EDUCATION

10

theoretical models: andragogy, transformative learning, self-directed learning, and experiential

learning (Merriam et al., 1997). The first two enjoy widespread and interdisciplinary use, with

transformative learning taking the place of andragogy as the primary focus of research in the

field (Taylor & Cranton, 2012a). The second two are used predominantly in business and

organizational settings and will be discussed in that context (Merriam et al., 1997).

Andragogy. Although contemporary adult educators consider andragogy a theoretical

framework and therefore not synonymous with the discipline of adult education, it is easy to

understand why others outside the field often confuse the two. Indeed, when Knowles published

his theory of andragogy in 1970, it was named such so that it could be directly contrasted with

pedagogy (Merriam et al., 1997). Andragogy, which promotes self-directed, personal growth

situated in problem-based, need-to-know contexts, immediately became the set of standards used

by adult educators to differentiate their work from that of pedagogists (Knowles, 1970). In that

respect it aided in the early professionalization of the discipline (Merriam et al, 1997). Over the

years there have been many challenges to andragogy as the “only” framework for adult

education, beyond the postmodern critique previously mentioned (Merriam et al., 1997; Taylor

& Cranton, 2012a). Perhaps most importantly, critics complain that andragogy is a framework

for teaching rather than a framework for learning; thus other theoretical frameworks were

required to explain how and why adult learners learn the way they do (Taylor & Cranton, 2012).

Transformative learning. In an effort to shift the focus from teaching strategies to the

process of learning, Jack Mezirow published the first version of transformative learning theory in

1978 (Kitchenham, 2008). Transformative learning is a form of adult education that aims to help

adults become more “open, permeable, and better justified” in their life perspectives so that they

are better equipped to cope with an ever-changing world (Taylor & Cranton, 2012a, p. 3).

ADULT EDUCATION

11

According to transformative learning theory, provocative events called “disorienting dilemmas”

change an individual’s worldview for the better by initiating a stepwise process of reflection and

action (Mezirow, 1985). The goal of transformative education is to trigger these disorienting

dilemmas and then support the individual as they progress through the transformative process.

Dubbed “the new andragogy” by some adult educators, the transformative learning construct

fulfills the desire of researchers to focus on how and why adults learn, and it is considered the

fastest growing area of adult education research today (Taylor & Cranton, 2012a).

Self-directed and experiential learning. At first glance, the theoretical framework of

self-directed learning appears to be a combination of andragogy and transformative learning.

Originally derived from the work of Allen Tough (1971), the goals of self-directed learning

include: (1) cultivating the skills needed to practice self-directed learning (2) fostering any

transformative change required for self-direction and (3) promoting emancipatory learning and

social justice (Merriam et al., 1997). Nevertheless, self-directed learning is considered its own

framework because it has spawned numerous practice and assessment models, mostly created in

a postpositivist, behaviorist tradition, most commonly applied in the world of human resource

development (Merriam et al., 1997). Self-directed learning theories can be broken down in those

that promote self-directed learning as a process, including instructional models describing

curriculum designs, and those that assess self-direction as a personal attribute (Merriam et al.,

1997).

Not all adult learning models used in human resource development are based in the

postpositivist tradition. While life experience plays an important role in every facet of adult

education, a group of theoretical models known specifically as experiential learning models

enjoy widespread application, particularly in the business world (Merriam et al., 1997). Kolb

ADULT EDUCATION

12

(1984) built on the work of Dewey, Piaget and Lewin to develop a constructivist-based

experiential learning cycle, through which learners examine their strengths and weaknesses for

different stages within the cycle with the hope that this reflection would allow for self-awareness

and the potential for personal growth. Other models have since been developed which take into

account situational context and power relationships, but the Kolb Learning Style Inventory

remains one of the most popular models in use (Merriam et al., 1997).

The Research

The focus of inquiry. While each theoretical framework has supported robust research

in its own right, transformative learning is currently the dominant area of research (Sands &

Tennant, 2010; Taylor & Cranton, 2012a). Although different epistemological lenses affect the

nature of the research questions and the methodologies used, most researchers focus on how to

foster transformative learning within a variety of contexts (Taylor & Snyder, 2012). There has

been an emphasis on cross-cultural research as researchers seek to describe how individuals in

places as different as Botswana and Finland experience transformation (Isopahkala-Bouret,

2008; Merriam & Ntseane, 2008). Some use a social constructivist lens to look at the importance

of social relationships in the successful implementation of transformative education (Cranton &

Wright, 2008; Sands & Tennant, 2010). Critical theorists, meanwhile, try to measure the effects

of perspective transformation on social change (McDonald, Cervero, & Courtenay, 1999).

Postmodernists attempt to describe how different theoretical frameworks of transformation,

traditional and nontraditional, can be juxtaposed to create a richer description of what

transformation is and how it affects our lives (Kilgore & Bloom, 2002). Finally, a postpositivist

camp has emerged in what has traditionally been a constructivist sector of adult education. They

are attempting to assess the effectiveness of transformative learning programming and predict

ADULT EDUCATION

13

transformative learning in the presence of specific variables. These researchers believe that

transformative learning can be quantified and predicted through surveys and questionnaires in

ways similar to quantitative self-directed learning instruments developed by human research

development officers (for an example, see Mallory & Allen, 2006; for analysis of the effects of

postpositivism on the literature, see Taylor & Snyder, 2012). This new development may

possibly be related to the growing pressure to apply and then assess transformative learning

theory in a variety of educational contexts (Merriam & Koo, 2012). It may also be related to the

primary disciplinary fields of the individuals performing the research; much of this work comes

from healthcare sector which traditionally values postpositivist paradigms, empirically-based

research, and quantitative research methodology (Mallory & Allen, 2006).

Research methodologies. Postpositivists notwithstanding, most transformative

educational researchers are constructivists seeking to make meaning of individual experiences.

Thus transformative education researchers generally depend on qualitative research

methodologies. In the past decade, methodologies have become more elegant and

comprehensive, with longitudinal, mixed, and experimental designs supplementing the basic

interview (Taylor & Snyder, 2012). Narrative analysis now includes collecting data in the form

of e-portfolios, case studies, autoethnographies, and stimulated-recall interviewing (Merriam &

Koo, 2012). Arts-based educational research (ABER) has also become more popular particularly

amongst the extrarationalists, as it is “particularly appropriate in understanding the affective,

intuitive, relational, and often irrational ways of knowing beyond the limited cognitive

perspective” (p. 64). Critical theorists also find ABER useful for empowering marginalized

populations through action research. One example includes providing cameras for the homeless

to document their lives then facilitating art exhibitions for the resultant work (Clover, 2006).

ADULT EDUCATION

14

The Interdisciplinary Challenge

Historically, adult education research has focused on the development of or elaboration

on theoretical frameworks, neglecting the practical applications of educational techniques

(Merriam et al., 1997). Transformative learning scholars, for example, freely admit that little has

been done to help practitioners translate theory into practice (Cranton & Kasl, 2010; Taylor &

Cranton, 2012a). Best practices in the assessment of transformative learning are even more

ambiguous or undefined (Taylor & Snyder, 2012). But as the accountability movement has

swept through the educational culture as a whole, the field of adult education research has

focused more attention on pragmatic, practice-based research and evaluation (Eisenhart &

Towne, 2003; Taylor & Cranton, 2012b). In transformative learning research, for example,

practitioner-researchers are contributing a majority of the research published in the

transformative education literature (Taylor & Snyder, 2012). The latest Journal of

Transformative Education, for example, featured articles about applications of transformative

learning theory in law (Babacan & Babacan, 2012), social justice (Mthethwa-Sommers, 2012),

healthcare (James, Collins, & Samoylaova, 2012), and teacher education (Tanaka, Nicholson, &

Farish, 2012).

As evidenced by the latest issue of Journal of Transformative Education, the practitioner-

researchers contributing to the literature have interdisciplinary backgrounds. They are using

adult education as a “second order” discipline, applying adult learning theory within the context

of another professional field. They do not limit themselves to publishing in adult education

journals but also submit work to journals that serve their primary disciplines like medicine

(Greenhill & Poncelet, 2013) or law (Aiken, 2012). The preponderance of interdisciplinary

researcher-practitioners has several implications. Just when the postmodern-modern crisis has

ADULT EDUCATION

15

initiated the call for a retooling of epistemological and theoretical frameworks, the scholars who

monitor the integrity of the educational research literature have noticed a loss of accuracy and

integrity in the application of theoretical frameworks in the adult education literature (Taylor &

Snyder, 2012). The interdisciplinary researcher-practitioners are employing literature reviews

rather than primary sources, offering contradictory theoretical frameworks without addressing

the conflict, and choosing frameworks that clearly conflict with the study’s experimental design

(Taylor & Snyder, 2012). Adult education scholars suggest that a lack of interest or expertise is

causing this phenomenon, since most of the authors implicated are practitioners, not theorists,

and are experts in fields other than adult education (Taylor & Cranton, 2012a; Taylor & Snyder,

2012). Moreover, these interdisciplinary practitioner-researchers are bringing epistemological

assumptions, theoretical frameworks, and practices into the adult education field from their

primary disciplines. Cultural drift between discipline sectors like HRD, adult literacy, and public

health, is growing as each group develops sector-specific language and research culture

(Merriam & Brocket, 2007). While this is not necessarily bad, it makes it even more difficult for

adult education specialists to cultivate an inclusive but cohesive disciplinary foundation (Taylor

& Cranton, 2012b).

Adult Education as (Part) of my Vocational Identity

Given the negativity with which I have discussed interdisciplinary research-practitioners

and their effects on adult education, it is with some trepidation that I admit that I plan to become

one, specifically a medical education specialist. Historically, most medical education is designed

and taught by subject matter experts who have little interest in and understanding of adult

education beyond the concept of experiential learning (Haidet & Stein, 2006). That being said,

the failure of medical schools to produce physicians who meet the expectations of our society

ADULT EDUCATION

16

has triggered some critical self-reflection within the field, and medical education administrators

are becoming more responsive to the advice of educational experts (Haidet & Stein, 2006;

McKenna, 2012). Because curriculum revision and faculty training are being driven by

regulatory bodies that demand evidence of compliance with their regulations, the ability to

evaluate and then report on reforms is also essential. An interdisciplinary specialist, someone

familiar with medical content, educational theory, and instructional design, research, and

evaluation methodologies is fairly unique and desirable in this changing culture.

At first glance, the terms “interdisciplinary” and “specialist” as defined in this paper seem

contradictory. I have spent much time describing the second-order disciplinarian, an expert who

seeks out theoretical frameworks from a second discipline to adapt for another area of expertise.

In this scenario, the person remains an expert in one area but does not necessarily achieve

expertise in the “second order” discipline. The evidence for this lies in Taylor & Snyder’s

(2012) analysis in how interdisciplinary researcher-practitioners use the theoretical frameworks

of transformative learning. The researcher-practitioners either do not have interest in or the

expertise to engage in the philosophical debate required in this era of the “postmodern

challenge.” In this respect, these practitioners who seek to apply adult education theory in other

disciplines may be harming the field of adult education as a whole.

I believe that second order researcher-practitioners should attempt to operate as

interdisciplinary specialists or dual specialists; in other words, they should try to maintain a level

of expertise in both, reconciling the epistemological, theoretical, and practice frameworks of

both disciplines rather than favoring one over the other. There are several ways to approach dual

expertise. The first is to literally maintain expert-level proficiency in both disciplines, a task that

might take unreasonable level of dedication and intelligence. A more reasonable solution is to

ADULT EDUCATION

17

work as part of an interdisciplinary team with an understanding that the other members of the

team bring essential expertise to a project. Merriam & Ntseane (2008) offers one example of

successful interdisciplinary, international collaboration between theory-based and practice-based

researchers in adult education. In my case, something as difficult as international collaboration

would be unnecessary. If I am able to work in the medical education community of my choice, I

will have access to adult education experts who are actively seeking to collaborate with

individuals with medical experience.

My research agenda lies distinctly in the area of applying adult learning theory to medical

education. I am interested in how to foster perspective transformation and facilitate change in

the historically closed, conservative medical culture (for a more detailed description of the

“hidden curriculum” and medical culture, see Hafferty, 1998). An interdisciplinary dilemma has

also evolved in medical circles, in that the existence of interdisciplinary medical teams are

encouraged but they seldom work effectively due to insurmountable power inequalities and a

lack of understanding of group work (Hafferty, 1998). My personal goal is to gain a good

understanding of communication and power relationships in the medical community and then

explore ways to improve them. At this point I anticipate drawing from frameworks of

appreciative inquiry and transformative learning as well as other sociological frameworks.

Conclusion

I have presented the argument that adult education is an academic discipline with strong

historical and theoretical foundations that is currently straining under pressure from postmodern

critics who are demanding a reconfiguration of the discipline at every level. Some aspects of

adult education make it particularly susceptible to this sort of attack. First, critical theory and

subsequently critical reflection are strong, foundational components of the field. If one of the

ADULT EDUCATION

18

epistemological assumptions of the discipline is that adults must be critical thinkers open to

perspective transformation, it follows that the discipline should struggle with its own

assumptional frameworks and undergo restructuring occasionally. Second, the lack of

centralized vocational identity remains unavoidable but problematic. With a majority of adult

educators using adult education as a supplemental body of knowledge rather than as their

primary source of vocational language and culture, there are few scholars with the time or

knowledge required to nurture the theoretical frameworks of the discipline (Taylor & Cranton,

2012b). Those that consider adult education their primary vocation are trying to revise the

foundations of adult education, making it a more flexible, inclusive construct and are calling on

others to help them (see Kaswork et al., 2010 and Taylor & Cranton, 2012b for examples).

I fear the tone of this paper conveys a pessimistic view of the future of adult education as

a discipline, particularly since I offer no solutions to the problems of disciplinary dilution beyond

more collaboration in research. Therefore, I should emphasize here that I think adult education

is at an exciting crossroads. In the language of transformative learning, every perspective

transformation requires a disorienting dilemma; the “postmodern challenge” has brought about

meaningful discussion regarding the power inequalities that exist between practitioners and

researchers, theory and practice, and Western and nonwestern beliefs within the context of the

traditional academic discipline. For example, Usher et al. (1997) wrote: “To argue for theory as

a foundation for practice is to privilege a notion of scientifically derived knowledge as not only

different from but better than knowledge arising from practice.” While it is doubtful we will

ever get away completely from the trappings of modernity, including categorization, cognitive-

orientation, and a tendency towards generalization, I find it useful to consider its implications

and take emancipatory action on behalf of the disadvantaged whenever possible. Ultimately it is

ADULT EDUCATION

19

difficult to say what influence postmodern introspection and interdisciplinarity will have on the

field of adult education; I suspect it will become clearer over time. Meanwhile, I will do what I

feel is right, which is to do my best to break down disciplinary silos. I think adult learning theory

has much to offer medical education but, like all educational theory, it needs to be adapted to the

context. I can only hope that this position will not make me a detriment to adult education as a

field.

ADULT EDUCATION

20

References

American Education Association (AEA-USA)/American Association for Adult and Continuing

Education (AAACE) Records: An inventory of its records at Syracuse University. (n.d.).

In Syracuse University library finding aids. Retrieved from

http://library.syr.edu/digital/guides/a/aaace.htm

Aiken, J. (2012). The clinical mission of justice readiness. Boston College Journal of Law and

Social Justice, 32(2), 231-246.

Babacan, A. & Babacan, H. (2012). The transformative potential of an internationalized human

rights law curriculum. Journal of Transformative Education, 10(4), 199-218. doi:

10.1177/1541344613478470

Beder, H. (1989). Purposes and philosophies of adult education. In S. Merriam and P.

Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult education and continuing education (pp. 37-50).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bierema, L. (2010). Professional identity. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.),

Handbook of adult and continuing education, 2010 edition (pp. 135-146). Los Angeles,

CA: SAGE.

Brookfield, S. (2000). Transformative Learning as Ideology Critique. In J. Mezirow &

Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in

progress (pp. 125-150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European

Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 293-304. doi: 10.1080/13691450902945215

Brookfield, S. (2012). Critical theory and transformative learning. In E. Taylor & P. Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice

(pp.131-146). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cervero, R. (1992). Adult and continuing education should strive for professionalization. In M.

Galbraith & B. Sisco (Eds.), Confronting controversies in challenging times. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 54. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clover, D. (2006). Out of the dark room: Participatory photography as a critical, imaginative,

and public aesthetic practice of transformative education. Journal of Transformative

Education, 4, 275-290. doi:10.1177/1541344606287782

ADULT EDUCATION

21

Cranton, P. & Kasl, E (2012). A response to Michael Newman’s “Calling Transformative

Learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts.” Adult Education Quarterly, 62(4)

393-398.

Cranton, P. & Wright B. (2008). Transformative educators as learning companion. Journal of

Transformative Education, 6, 33-47. doi: 10.1177/1541344608316961

Dirkx, J. (2001). The power of feelings: Emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning

in adult learning. In S. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, pp. 63-72). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Eisenhart, M. & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically

based” education research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31-38.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Brighton, UK:

Harvester Press.

Gogia, L (2013). The consequences of going corporate: Branding and professionalization in

U.S. Adult Education Master’s Programs. Unpublished manuscript.

Greenhill, J. & Poncelet, A. (2013). Transformative learning through longitudinal integrated

clerkships. Medical Education, 47(4), 336-9. doi: 10.1111/medu.12139

Hafferty, F. W. (1998). Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum.

Academic Medicine, 73(4), 403-407.

Haidet, P. & Stein, H. F. (2006). The role of the student-teacher relationship in the formation of

physicians: The hidden curriculum as process. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21,

S16-S20. doi: 10.111/j.1525-1497.2006.00304.x

Hayes, E. & Wilson, A. (2000). Reflections on the field. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.),

Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 660-675). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Isopahkala-Bouret, U. (2008). Transformative learning in managerial role transitions. Studies in

Continuing Education, 30(1), 69-84.

James, D., Collins, L., & Samoylova, E. (2012). A moment of transformative learning: creating

a disorienting dilemma for a health care student using video feedback. Journal of

Transformative Education, 10(4), 236-256. doi: 10.1177/1541344613480562

Kasworm, C. (2011). The influence of the knowledge society: Trends in adult higher education.

Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 104-107. doi:

10.1080/07377363.2011.568830

ADULT EDUCATION

22

Kasworm, C., Rose, A., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2010). Conclusion: Looking back, looking

forward. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and

continuing education, 2010 edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Kilgore, D. & Bloom, L. (2002). “When I’m down, it takes me a while:” Rethinking

transformative education through narratives of women in crisis. Adult Basic Education,

12(3), 123-133.

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning theory.

Journal of Transformative Education, 6 (2), 104-123.

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy.

New York, NY: Associated Press.

Knox, A. & Fleming, J. (2010). Professionalization of the field of adult and continuing

education. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and

continuing education, 2010 edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kopelman, L. (2009). Bioethics as a public discourse and a second order discipline. Journal of

Medicine and Philosophy, 34, 261-273. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhp019

Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Lindeman, E. (1989). The meaning of adult education. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Research

Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education. (Originally published in 1926)

Mallory, J. & Allen, C. (2006). Care of the dying: A positive nursing student experience.

MEDSURG Nursing, 15(4), 217-222.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

McDonald, B., Cervero, R., & Courtenay, B. (1999). An ecological perspective of power in

transformational learning: A case study of ethical vegans. Adult Education Quarterly,

50(1), 5-23.

McKenna, B. (published online, 8/23/2012). The clash of medical civilizations: Experiencing

“Primary Care” in a neoliberal culture. Journal of Medical Humanities, doi:

10.1007/s10912-9184-6

Merriam, S. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s Transformational Learning

Theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1) 60-68.

ADULT EDUCATION

23

Merriam, S. & Brockett, R. (2007). The profession and practice of adult education: An

introduction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S. & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A

comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. & Koo, S.J. (2012). Studying transformative learning. In E. Taylor & P. Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 56-

72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. & Ntseane, G. (2008). Transformational learning in Botswana: How culture shapes

the process. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(3), 183-197.

Mezirow, J. (1985). A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Self-

directed learning: From theory to practice (New Directions for Continuing Education,

25, pp.17-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, J.A. (1999). Control: A history of behavioral psychology. New York: New York

University Press.

Moore, J. (2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored on

the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 76-91. doi:

10.1177/1541344604270862

Mthethwa-Sommers, S. (2012). Pedagogical possibilities: Lessons from social justice educators.

Journal of Transformative Education, 10(4), 219-235. doi: 10.1177/1541344612474955

Natale, S. & Doran, C. (2012). Marketization of Education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of

Business Ethics, 105, 187-196. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0958-y

Paul, J. (2005). Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and the

social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Rogers, C. & Freiberg, H. (1994) Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

(Originally published in 1969)

Sands, D. & Tennant, M. (2010). Transformative learning in the context of suicide bereavement.

Adult Education Quarterly, 60, 99-188. doi:10.1177/0741713609349932

Sonstrom, W. (2011). The adult education doctorate in North America: The programs,

curricula, websites, and the Commission of Professors of Adult Education Standards.

Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (ED529444)

Tanaka, M., Nicholson, D., & Farish, M. (2012). Committed to transformative inquiry: Three

teacher educators’ entry points in to the mentoring role. Journal of Transformative

Education, 10(4), 257-274. doi: 10.1177/1541344612472396

ADULT EDUCATION

24

Taylor, E. & Cranton, P. (2012a). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified

theory. In E. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning:

Theory, research, and practice (pp.3-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, E. & Cranton, P. (2012b). Reflecting back and looking forward. In E. Taylor & P.

Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice

(pp.555-574). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, E. & Snyder, M. (2012). A critical review of research on transformative learning theory,

2006-2010. In E. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning:

Theory, research, and practice (pp.37-55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tisdell, E. (2012). Themes and variations of transformational learning. In E. Taylor & P.

Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice

(pp.21-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tough, A. (1971). Adults’ learning projects: A resh approach to theory and practice in adult

education. Ontario, CA: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern challenge:

Learning beyond the limits. London, UK: Routledge Press.