A year of COVID-19 pandemic: exposing the fragility of education and digital in/equalities

March 2021 marked one  year since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic.

Previous editorials reflected on social inequality, a longstanding problem in lifelong education, in light of the pandemic (Waller et al., 2020), and on the role of learning cities and regions to make education systems resilient to the pandemic (Webb et al., 2020). Writing when a third wave of COVID-19 is being experienced in several countries, it is worth reflecting on possible lessons to be learned from the exposed fragility of education and digital in/equalities witnessed since March 2020.

The pandemic has created social and living conditions for individuals, regardless of who they are, and where they live, that are unprecedented and previously unthinkable in contemporary societies.

For instance, the health, economic and social crises brought about by the pandemic have reconfigured social relations through the imposition or the assumption of behaviours that significantly differ from those experienced by humanity in the last century. Most of us now live under new regimes of social distancing, which determine what is allowed or forbidden in terms of people’s movements, accessibility to common public spaces (e.g. streets, parks) and services (e.g. hospitals, schools), and to most sites of professional, educational, cultural, sportive and recreational activities. Social distancing, no doubt, has created a ‘disjuncture’ in many people’s lives (Bjursell, 2020). For Jarvis (2012) a ‘disjuncture’ is a conflict experienced at personal level that can stimulate adults to learn to do things differently, but when experienced in a context of fear, as Bjursell (2020, p. 673) argues, even disjuncture may have a rather different effect on people, including ‘a narrowing of mindsets and a rejection of collective efforts and solidarity between generations.’

Moreover, there are now more unemployed, poor, socially isolated and excluded people (see among others: Sumner et al., 2020), and more people are facing psychological difficulties (see among others: Davico et al., 2021; Serafini et al., 2020).

Indisputably the pandemic has exposed the fragility of contemporary societies at macro, meso and micro levels. At a macrolevel fragility is a condition that characterises a social context, and has negative repercussions on education, particularly on formal education (Stewart and Brown, 2010). This kind of fragility calls into question the inability of social structures (and the state above all) to reduce economic and educational poverty and to guarantee, at the same time, respect for human rights and the safety of citizens (Paulson & Shields, 2015). It is from this perspective that international organisations like the World Bank or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) think it possible, with due attention and an adequate use of resources, to identify, address and resolve the fragility of a social context (e.g. a country rather than a differently defined territorial space), characterised by uncertainties – political, economic, or otherwise (Bengtsson, 2011). At a meso level fragility is a condition in which an organisation is unable to tackle concrete problems. This kind of fragility casts doubts upon a constellation of practices by educational institutions to manage risks – human, ethical, or otherwise – which are elicited by governance strategies, structures and systems. Finally, at a microlevel fragility can be seen as a human condition of discomfort that characterises the human being in the social world. This kind of fragility disputes the need for education professionals to show leadership through promoting pedagogies of care that can support and enable learners to navigate change (see among others: Mehrotra, 2021; Motta & Bennett, 2018).

As the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted, the macro, meso and micro levels of fragility are combined in contemporary societies and their lifelong learning systems. Pre-existing inequalities between (and within) families, in terms of economic availability, spaces for sharing family life, access to internet, availability and ability to use technology, etc., have been elements of individual, group and systemic fragility of lifelong learning systems around the world. Available research highlights, for instance, how middle-class families have been better able to secure higher standards of education quality for their kids, when compared to socially disadvantaged families (Bonal & González, 2020). Further elements of individual, group and systemic fragility of lifelong learning systems have proved to be linked to pre-existing inequalities in the characteristics of educational institutions and professionals. In fact, the closure of schools, universities, adult education centres, and other educational institutions, and the subsequent shift to online learning – where learners ‘are separated by distance’ from the educational providers that have planned and provided pedagogical material and experience (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2016), ‘has highlighted and compounded existing inequalities in education’ (Stanistreet et al., 2020, p. 628) at all levels. Before the closures, many educational institutions had inadequate technology and internet connectivity, and many of their professionals were not, or not sufficiently, prepared to plan and conduct distance learning. At the same time, many learners, particularly already disadvantaged and marginalised ones, were often ill-equipped with technology, internet and digital skills – the ability to use digital tools to find, evaluate and compose information through multiple digital platforms, or some combination of these.

In Italy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a lively debate around ‘the problem of how to do school without the school’ (Farné, 2020, p. I), including how to educate adults no longer allowed into the physical space of adult education centres. The mandatory action, by educational institutions and professionals, to replace face-to-face with distance learning, during the most acute health emergency, has met both enthusiasm and criticism. Enthusiasm valued the continuity of the relations (albeit at a distance) between teachers, educators and learners that guarantee uninterrupted learning opportunities, despite the pandemic’s sharing much of the concerns of education in emergencies. Criticism stressed how the same processes have in fact neglected equally important aspects for education in emergencies, particularly the assumption that every learner could continue being engaged in quality learning, regardless of who they are, where they live, or what happens around them.

One aspect that both enthusiasm and criticism have brought to attention, well beyond national debates, is the multi-faceted nature of digital in/equalities. The pandemic has unleashed new opportunities to detect, and reflect on, existing inequalities but also ways of doing things differently to address them, and to see opportunities in lieu of threats in the use of digital devices and online resources for learning and knowledge exchange.

First, digital inequalities have been found in the possession of and/or access to different technological equipment and the internet. In this respect governments, non-for-profit, philanthropic organisations, as well as educational institutions themselves, have become more sensitive towards the required economic investments to better support educators and learners to acquire or lend and borrow technological equipment, and to gain permanent or temporary access to the internet. But much of this has proved advantageous for digital businesses, whose profits are often not taxed in the countries in which the business is generated. This has strengthened the power of capital at the expense of social equality (William, 2020). Increasing access to technology and the internet in support of people’s learning, and for the benefit of both the individual and the broader society, cannot be left to the initiative of the market. This is certainly an aspect that requires future attention by educational institutions as much as by governments.

Second, digital inequalities have been found also in the capacity and level of comfort in using technological equipment and different online resources for learning. So, for instance, some learners, especially those from disadvantaged groups, and including migrants from low-income countries and unaccompanied minors, though comfortable using mobile phones in pre-COVID-19 times, were less confident in the use of tablets or computers (see among others: Kaiper-Marquez et al., 2020). Informal and inter-generational learning, for instance, within families, together with the support provided by educational institutions, has proved helpful for people to navigate different technologies, and to use such knowledge for further learning. All kinds of digital support for learners merit further attention by adult education researchers, by educational institutions, and by educators in general.

Interestingly, we have encountered educational providers, teachers and educators reporting rather positive feedback from learners about the shift to distance learning. This is particularly among learners with physical or mental disabilities, those with low self-esteem and confidence, those with complex domestic management and/or professional lives, and those living in remote places. Distance learning opportunities, for many of these learners, have also helped overcome other problems such as exposing the self in face-to-face interactions, and the time and cost of transport to and from educational sites. The potential of using digital devices in support of more inclusive teaching-learning transactions is therefore also worth further attention.

Finally, besides distance learning, limits to people’s mobility have also challenged the traditional form of doing conferences on-site, prompting a slow move towards virtual or hybrid conference formats, stimulating discussions about sustainability, climate change and social justice. Shifting from on-site to virtual or hybrid conferences has indeed shrunken opportunities for networking and informal learning that, in on-site conferences, occur in the interstices of the official programme. At the same time, virtual or hybrid conferences reduce energy consumption and emissions of CO₂ and pollutants into the atmosphere, as well as the costs for conference attendance, so they can be more inclusive, especially for early career researchers and people from low-income countries. Large on-site conferences that require extensive and costly academic mobility, such as the annual conferences of the US-based Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), have been especially challenged by the pandemic. Overcoming such challenges, through the implementation of a virtual conference in 2020, stimulated reflections on the part of the organisers on how to make knowledge exchange through conferencing both more environmentally friendly and equally accessible in the future (Goebel et al., 2020). By contrast, the Adult Education Global Conference promoted by the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE), in partnership with several adult education organisations from around the world, planned as on–site conference in 2020, has been rescheduled as a virtual conference on 4–6 June 2021. We would encourage the organisers to take the chance to reflect on this experience: this would bring a further contribution to the ongoing debate on the future of conferencing from both environmental and de-colonial political stances.

As people’s encounters remain crucial for both learning and knowledge exchange, however, further research is needed on the multi-sided nature of digital in/equalities, and we would welcome more reflection on the how more just and environmental-conscious forms of learning and knowledge exchange can be secured – while preserving the quality of people’s encounters– not only during this prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, but far beyond.