8628
Report of the Kellogg Fellows (1986) to the international and comparative adult education forum at the University of Hull, England, July 1986
Athalinda J. McIntosh, University of Surrey
This report was presented by the six 1986 Kellogg Fellows, supported by two Fellows from 1985 who were attending the Forum as follows:
1986 Fellows
Barry Bright (Hull), Nod Miller (Manchester), Clare Jones (Bristol), Ian Haffenden (Surrey), Clive Pemberton (Nottingham), Athalinda McIntosh (Surrey)
1985 Fellows
Miriam Zukas (Leeds), Paul Armstrong (Hull)
Context
The group had already reported back to the International Interest Group at the Annual Conference of SCUTREA which had preceded this Forum. At that meeting several requests were made that a broader experiential view of the American visit by the Kellogg Fellows be conveyed to the Forum. To that end the session on the programme had been given the title ‘The Magnificent Eight’ or ‘Syracuse by Starlight, Moonlight and Electric Light’.
Method
After a great deal of discussion as to the best way to present the enormous amount of experiential material in a meaningful way, the group decided to use a descriptive ecological research presentation as advocated by Merriam and Simpson[1]. According to Barker[2], ecological research methods are used as a heuristic strategy in discovering knowledge, rather than as tools to verify knowledge.
As Wiseman and Aron[3] state, this approach grew from the interests of anthropologists using the phenomenological form in which the central focus of the method is a reconstruction of the participants’ perspective on their situations.
The particular technique for this session was the detailed narrative of specific actions of participants including how they behaved, treated others and were treated by others during their interactions in America[4]. The whole emphasis was on presenting some research which might induce a ‘verstehen’ or understanding of the experience of the Fellows to the group to which it was presented.
In order to classify the information, the data was summarised on flip-charts to be displayed in the conference room, as a basis for a discussion of conference members. The data was grouped under the following headings. Two examples from each chart are given to illustrate the content of the material. In fact, what we gained went on to several sheets.
HeadingExample
What we gainedMotivation for academic pursuit
More insight into the diverse possibilities of conferences as a learning experience
What we lostStereotypes of Americans as a race
The belief that all American bathrooms are immaculate
Terms we learned‘Visiting with’ (American) means ‘speak to’ (English)
‘Restroom’ (American) means ‘Toilet’ (English)
Things we missed(Of England) The Cup Final
(Of America) The American lecturer/teacher relationship which seems to be less formal than here
Results and discussion
The ensuing discussion showed the difficulty in establishing the reliability and validity of experiential research, in that the phenomenological experiences of some group members were not congruent with those as presented by the Kellogg Fellows.
No attempt (because of limit of time) was made to analyse these differences, except in relation to cultural and sub-cultural differences in interpretation.
Heritage[5] suggests that resistance to perceived conflicting material may arise from the assumption of the existence of an objective and unitary world in the eye of the beholder, in which others are expected to perceive and recognise the same world as they do. It could be that some members of the conference group had formulated more precise views of an American experience in light of individual extended exposure of it. The Kellogg Presentation was an amalgam of individuals experiences and in itself did, therefore, present inconsistencies.
The Kellogg group had not attempted to reconcile individual differences, but it seemed from the discussion that this issue of inter-subjectivity is paramount to the presentation of ecological research - that is, a formal acknowledgement of the difficulties inherent in the presentation of material which may conflict in content and process from expectations of the recipient group. This is especially important when ‘institutional’ issues are also being considered. In this case the justification for the allocation of resources for overseas visits was one which was identified.
Heritage draws from Pollner in putting forward means of dealing with such conflicts in the face of what he refers to as ‘maintaining institutional realities’. One means is in reporting an event that is recognisable and accountable within the relevant institutional framework of accounts[6]. This account is an attempt to do that.
Conclusion
The session highlighted the need for continued and sustained international research and development, particularly in ecological terms. A major reason was to establish the need for tolerance and understanding of differences in perception.
Another major reason was to examine how these differences influence adult education and learning. Both of these were among the primary rationale for obtaining a Kellogg award.
A third reason which emerged from the session was the one which considers the role of the individual within an established ‘institutional’ framework when new areas of research and presentation are being considered.
The session in fact became a microcosm of some major problems in addressing international and comparative issues in adult education, in particular, a prevailing need to integrate material from different perspectives into a coherent basis for research and discussion. Experiential material has a special place in this process to expand cognitive awareness, to avoid the trap of reductionism and to examine generally the relevance and potency of inter-subjectivity in order to evaluate and re-evaluate existing hegemonic normative frameworks of account and practice.
[1] Merriam, Sharan B. and Simpson, Edwin L. A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults, Malabar, Florida,