Adults who do not want to participate in learning: a cross-national European analysis of their perceived barriers

Abstract

This article explores cross-national differences in the intensity of perceived barriers to adult learning in Europe focusing on the barriers recognised by those not participating and having no intention to do so. This relatively large subgroup has received scant scholarly attention, yet exploring their participation barriers is critical for policies aimed at encouraging learning activity. The authors propose a country typology of adult learning based on earlier typologies of welfare state regimes, varieties of capitalism and models of lifelong learning. Multilevel analysis of 19 European countries reveals individual and contextual effects on barriers to adult learning. The results indicate substantial country differences in all types of barriers perceived. In general, in the Nordic countries adults not participating and not intending to participate in learning are the least impeded. For this group of adults, institutional barriers are perceived most often in the Baltic countries, situational barriers occur most frequently in liberal and continental countries, whereas dispositional barriers are most frequent in all post-socialist countries as well as in Southern Europe. This confirms the significance of including structural and institutional factors in addition to individual characteristics in explaining barriers to adult learning.

Keywords:

• Adult learning
• barriers to learning
• country typologies
• Europe

Notes

1. The issue concerns whether or not those who have not expressed interest to participate should be asked about barriers to participation. One view is that questions about barriers should be asked only from those who have indicated interest in participation. The logic is that barriers come into existence only when there is expressed wish to participate. According to another view these questions would be addressed also to these adults who have no intention to participate because the participation is not always a voluntary act (about dilemmas raised by these two approaches see Rubenson, 2011).

2. This study does not cover informal learning – third significant part of lifelong learning (i.e. self-learning using books, computers, learning centres of educational broadcasting, etc.).

3. Our hypotheses refer to adults who did not participate in formal or non-formal learning and who have no intention to do so.

4. Country sample sizes vary from 2287 in Latvia to 27,848 in Italy with an average of 7662.

5. Cronbach’s α for institutional barriers index is .5–.7 depending on the country grouping; .5 for situational; and .3 for dispositional barriers. Cronbach’s α for indices is moderate to low, but based on both statistical and theoretical considerations following analysis is conducted using three barriers index-variables with a descriptive analysis giving an overview of all perceived barriers in detail (Table A1).

6. International Standard Classification of Education.

7. International Standard Classification of Occupations.

8. Spain is not included into the Southern European typology because the overall level of perceived barriers (especially institutional and dispositional) is considerably lower compared to other Southern European and also most of Nordic countries. For the same reason Belgium is excluded from the ‘continental’ and the Czech Republic from the ‘embedded neoliberal’ types (in the former all and in the latter most of the barriers are seldom marked by respondents who did not participate and are not willing to participate in adult learning. France did not include questions on barriers to their questionnaire. The main aim is to have a representation of core-countries in each of the typologies based on varieties of capitalism and welfare state regimes.

9. The AES survey was not conducted in Ireland.

10. In this study, focus is on barriers mentioned by those who have not participated and have no intention to participate in adult learning. This group forms for example in Hungary 82% of all respondents, but only 19% in Sweden and 26% in the UK. For brevity, we do not mention this throughout the text.