'Welcome to our house of adult education'. We will take you on a trip through the rooms of discourses and the garden of practice. This house hasn't been built in one day. It is on the contrary the result of the intensive but exciting adventure-tour we have made during the past three months. It is a unique mixture of Finnish and Belgian experiences and thinking in the broad field of adult education. Sometimes, it might look like a chaotic or confusing construction, but isn't that a characteristic of many learning-activities? Also for us it was often a hard confrontation between different ways of looking at theories and practice. However, we really appreciated the groupwork in which we could benefit from each others' findings and experiences. As a result there is this paper that never would have been this rich when we had to write it alone.

We will first say something about our paper-writing method. Next we will shortly reflect upon our intercultural group.

In the first place we want to stress that we see the different papers as a result of an intensive groupprocess. We choose to have one responsible for each module. Based on personal backgrounds, experiences and interests, we divided the different modules among the four of us. The responsible person was the one who wrote, and rewrote (after feedback-sessions) the paper of a particular module. We did it this way because we believe it is easier to write a text on your own. Afterwards the other groupmembers read the text and reflected, commented on it.

P. Thomas

There is a great deal of expectations loaded on the shoulders of technology. It is clear that information and communication technology is making many dreams come true. In the field of education, technology is opening the doors of learning and knowledge for students who might otherwise be excluded due to geographical distance, economic disparity, differences in linguistic and cultural backgrounds¹. People are less limited by time and space, people can learn on their own, new ways of teaching and learning are produced. Technology is rapidly changing people’s lives and their environment.

However, there occur many curves in this pathway of development and there are lot of questions to pose. What kind of changes are expected? What are the challenges in the late modern societies? Which are the new challenges, that technology brings along especially into the field of adult education? These were the main questions that we were considered about in our group.

Although the members of our intercultural group come from countries that both represent advanced western societies with a high level of technology, we noticed that our personal experiences and outlooks of new technologies influenced the groupwork more than our cultural backgrounds. We decided to approach the subject by reviewing the opportunities that new technologies are offering and, on the other hand, the demands it creates, especially for the individual. To state it in another way, the subject may be viewed as a tension between freedom and responsibility. This means that while technology is giving individuals more opportunities and freedom, they become more and more responsible for their decisions and action. This raises questions like: Can a person lead his or her life? Is it possible to learn to be self-directed? Does this mean that people are left on their own. Do we see this growing freedom as an opportunity or as a threat?

On February the 17^th, we visited the training centre of France Telecom in Montpellier. There are three kind of trainers in FT: 3000 part-time trainers, 600 full-time trainers, and everyone who has some management-experience also works as a trainer. We were told that the idea is that all the workers can learn together inside the company. In France Telecom, potentially everybody can be a trainer.

France Telecom has a private net and database that is called intranet. It works as a database for all the workers. Every manager from every department can create new websites or add new information on the intranet.

Intranet seems to be an impressive tool to transfer data and information inside the organisation. This database makes information available for all workers. But the real issue here is how the data and the information are turning into knowledge in the organisation? Furthermore, does a fast transfer of data mean that the organisation is learning? The availability of information surely offers opportunities for learning, but it doesn't necessarily mean that someone is learning.

There can also be some other problems involved with intranet that we did not talk about during the field visit. For example, are the workers willing to share their knowledge with others? When is the worker supposed to use the intranet? Is it really accessible for all the workers? And what about the tacit knowledge inside people's head; personal judgements, experience, values and feelings? This kind of knowledge is very difficult to put on any website.

We came to the conclusion that the concept of the learning organisation can not be build up only with high technology, it demands also social construction and change in organisational culture.

Our group wants to raise a warning finger to point out some of the dangers that follow from the new technology. It is clear that there occur many fears towards technology that are not based on reality and that are easy to handle, but then again, there are real dangers that we should be aware of. For example, we should consider what kind of influences the internet, personal computers and virtual schools make on the social aspect of learning.

We are concerned about the people that only learn through the computer. Is it possible to have a real dialogue with a computer or with a learning program? Today this is still not possible, even when there is another person linked to your computer. Discussing through a computer is not so lively and rich as it is in human interaction in the natural environment. There is a danger in the virtual world that we loose something that is characteristic for a human being.

For example in Finland² there are lots of young school-aged people whose only friend is a computer and the people they can contact through their PC. They spend all their free time sitting in front of their computer. This can lead to some serious problems. When there are no real social contacts, it is impossible to practice social skills and human interaction. This can lead to alienation of social world in its natural meaning. That’s why we need to be connected to physical reality and not just to imaginary virtual reality ³.

We also have to be worried about the social exclusion and the inequality of people. Although information and technology have become more and more available for all people, technological services are heavily focused in the advanced industrialised nations. And furthermore – the skills that are needed to use this technology are heavily focused on highly educated persons.

The most obvious skills that are needed in the information society are purely technical, but in the late modern information society, the emphasis upon personal management skills is growing. The awareness of what to want and why, makes it possible to lead your own learning and understand your own action. Self-oriented learning is based on meta-cognitive skills. But still, even if you are able to decide what you want, when and how you want to learn, it is necessary to find the relevant and reliable information and to know how to use it. Internet seems to be a very promising tool for searching information, but like we have experienced, it is very difficult to find the right information from the internet, because the searching engines are still too poor and the amount of data is too high. Neither can the machine evaluate what is important or what is the quality of the information.

We don’t believe that people are self-directed automatically. It seems that people on an average are not so much aware of their own decisions and actions. There appears to be a lack of meta-cognitive skills. What can we do to improve this situation? Maybe teachers and educators should focus more on helping people to practice their meta-cognitive thinking skills. As it is a task of the science of technology to generate better engines, the science of education should develop methods to help adults to become more self-regulated.

To answer the question of how to help people to learn by themselves and lead their own learning processes, we have to understand better the nature of self-regulation. We believe that it is not a permanent or stable human feature. Sometimes a person wants to be directed, even if in some other situation he or she is more self-directed. More likely, self-directed learning seems to be something that you can choose more or less freely.

It is important to notice that being self-directed does not mean that you are not allowed to get guidance. If you are aware of your goals and why you want to achieve them, you can decide to get proper guidance. It is not always reasonable to try to learn alone. You need others to share your experiences, to get feedback and so on.

To work independently demands responsibility, but we know that even adults are often not ready to take the given responsibility. Maybe that is because of the lack of experience or the lack of meta-cognitive skills. The increase of independence and responsibility should be connected to the availability of skills. Perhaps the best way to develop independent learning is to start practising it with familiar. Later on, the learner can step by step become more self-directed also with more unfamiliar themes.

The matter of self-directed learning is also related to the way we see the human being. Are human beings able and willing to take the responsibility that is given? Are they willing to lead their own learning and their own life? Is it characteristic for human being to desire the freedom of choice or do they like to be supervised?

Nowadays, adult education is mostly based on the belief that the individual wants to gain control over his or her life. If we want to develop a learning society, we have to trust on the capabilities of the individual, that are, at least potentially, in each one of us.

The learning-potential of the individual is not the only difficult issue. Maybe even more difficult is the question how we see the human being as a user of these skills. What happens when advantaged and talented people get the freedom to choose to do what they want? Is a man a homo economicus, that is only trying to maximise his own profit or is a man wise enough to see also what is good for society? When the field of freedom is growing, one choice of the individual should be that he also takes responsibility of other people. But this can never be quaranteed.

One of the most important questions in educational planning has traditionally been, how to set goals for the learners and what is the most powerful way to motivate them. In the perspective of self-directive learning, there might be some reason to ask why we think that it is so important to design these goals.

One question is: "Who is entitled to set the goals of learning?" In the old model of education it was the teacher who told the learners what they were supposed to learn and how they were going to do it. In this model the learner is very passive in the teaching-learning process.

In the new model⁵ of education, the teacher evaluates the needs of the learners before defining the objectives of education. The teacher is also helping the learner to choose a relevant learning strategy and style that suits him/her best. Now the learner can ask himself: how do I want to learn? The freedom of choice has increased and that makes self-directed learning more possible, and maybe more motivating for a learner. But in both models the teacher is strongly involved in the goal setting of the learning situation. The teacher is still trying to influence the learners to behave in some way, and so it is very important to think how to motivate learners.

Is there enough room for the learner to make a real choice for what he wants to learn? This is a matter of respect for the individual thinking. Motivation is an important activity in adult education, but if we truly respect the individual thinking, there is a danger, that motivation, as a powerful tool of education, is used in a manipulative way to influence the learner’s behaviour. Adult learners should have a real opportunity to make their own decisions and to plan their own learning. The teacher can only offer some possible ways of thinking or operating, but he can not set the learning goals for the self-directed learner.

The methods of motivating learners should be critically evaluated; are they using power in the manipulative way or are they supporting the freedom and giving opportunity to the learner to search and decide what is significant for him. In the self-directed learning process, motivation is more seen as encouraging the learner to achieve his own goals.

So, in our opinion, the teacher’s role is to support the adult learner to take over his own life. It is not a trainer's task to design needs, but to help the learner to evaluate his needs. In this case the learner becomes self-motivated and it is not so relevant anymore to think what is the most powerful way to influence or motivate the learner. For example when the educator is designing educational websites for the people who have needs before going on the internet, it is not so relevant to design fancy websites. More important is that the information that one is looking for, is easy to find. But then again we can always come back to the question if people are capable to be self-directed. It can also be seen as an abuse of power if we don’t motivate those who are not capable to be self-regulated.

Traditionally, teachers have planned the goals in order to use them to evaluate the learning process of their students. In this situation, the most important criteria for good goals are that the goal has to be realistic, because the learners are being evaluated, whether they have achieved the goals.

Now, if an adult learner wants and is able to be, self-directed, he/she is going to set own goals. Therefore, he/she is motivated by him-/herself before starting studies or joining a course. When the self-directed adult learner is motivated in advanced, the only question is: can he set good goals?

What are good goals? Maybe it is something that has to be realistic and desirable. But who can say for sure what is desirable? And do we always have to be so realistic and objective? For example, I could be very motivated to study hard by thinking that I am going to be a professor some day, although in an objective way it would be more realistic to point out that it is very difficult to become a professor and the chances are not so good as I think. So, is it the teacher’s job to tell me the hard facts about how few of us end up to be a professor? Is it the adult educator’s duty to point out what is realistic? One could say that I will get disappointed, if I don’t end up to be a professor. But in the continuous learning process, it is not so important to arrive somewhere. More important is to enjoy making the travel and to choose the right direction. I can be aware of that I might not succeed to achieve my goal. But I don’t have to get disappointed, because I can always change my course later. In some cases these ‘not-so-realistic’ goals can be like dreams that are motivating to work harder and to make it easier to maintain the direction that I have chosen.

Of course we have to make a distinction between long term and short term goals, and ask: what is the reason why we set goals? Isn’t it because we want to choose a direction for our own action? If it is so, it is probably more important to set goals that are motivating rather than realistic. But then again, there is no need to be so ambitious to reach for the moon.

Although we think that there are problems and threats to solve, we see the new technology as a promising tool to enhance the equal access to learning opportunities. Maybe in the future we could for example arrange the Adult Education in Europe –program with assistance of multimedia education, so that every one could take part in it. So students in different countries would not be excluded out of the program because of geographical distance or lack of money.

However, the question that still remains, is: how can we guarantee that skills to use new technologies are available for every one? Luckily we can at least notice that engineers are trying to design as user-friendly machines as possible. But in the end it is a responsibility of basic education to ensure that skills to use new technologies are taught to all people.

The most evident implication of the new technologies is the growing responsibility of individuals. This is a very important matter that adult education should take into account. Even if one wants to be self-directed, it is not so easy to know what to want. Meta-cognitive thinking is often very demanding and energy taking. Very often it would be easier to just follow the flow, especially in unfamiliar situations. It is often more tempting to do what others say, than to critically reflect one’s own action. So, on the one hand, it is a matter of skills, but on the other hand, it is the responsibility that is often too much.

The question is about personal life management and searching for control of life or peace of mind. The skills that are needed are for example self-evaluation, self-reflection and ability to sort meanings of different things. Is it possible to learn the art of life? Maybe the individual of today should start practising philosophy. Maybe the post-modern man should again practice life philosophy like they did in ancient Greece when young free men had time to practise their thinking skills in dialogue with each other.

References

Cronberg, T. (1998) In Our World of Bytes Communication Skills still far more Important. Lifelong Learning in Europe 4/1998.

Linturi, R. (1998) From Sceince Fiction Dream to reality – for Whom ? Lifelong learning in Europe vol III, issue 4/1999.

Sinko, M. (1998) Learning Technology - One Foundation for the Future School in Finland. Lifelong Learning in Europe vol III, issue 4/1998.

Tarjanne, P. (1998) When Online Takes the Distance Out of Learning. Lifelong Learning in europe vol III, issue 4/1998.

R. van der Veen
O.Schäffter
J.Spinthourakis

The concept 'culture' is nowadays in and out the season used as an easy explanation for differences between people. We understand the concept in a much broader sense, namely as a feature of each of us. Anyhow, we will make an application of the concept to migration, because it will make our point of view clearer.

We built up this paper going out from four successive questions:

1. What is strangeness?
2. Is it possible to learn from strangeness?
3. How can you learn from strangeness?
4. Can you force people to learn / to take in strangeness?

It is important to notice that the first two questions are perceived in a general way, while the third and the fourth question are more focused on immigrants/minorities.

Finland and Belgium have very different migrant-populations and also very different experiences in dealing with minority-groups. For instance Finland has a rather limited amount of immigrants. They are mainly coming from Russia, Asia and Somalia. The number of refugees accepted each year is limited to 500, family-reunion not involved. In Belgium, on the contrary, about 10% of the population is from a strange origin (mainly from South-Europe and North-Africa) and a lot of (East-European) refugees try to get in.

It is important to stress that strangeness (‘Fremdheit’) and multiculturalism are not only about immigrants or exotic things, but that they are everyday-experiences. This became obviously clear in the examples of experiences of strangeness that were given during the sessions. For instance music or a birthday can be sources of confusion. For that matter, also this Erasmus-Socrates programme on Adult Education, and the language-problems that it implies, is a very good example of a multicultural, strange experience. Besides, Finland and Belgium are both very multicultural through the living together of different (language-) communities in one nation. In Finland there is next to the Finnish-speaking people also a Swedish-speaking group. In Belgium there are three language-groups: the Dutch, the French and the German.

In fact our whole life can be seen as a journey through strangeness. Everything and everyone is unique in the meaning of having an individual history, present and future. That’s why it is impossible to know, to understand everything and everyone. Strangeness will never disappear. Probably we can’t even imagine how much strangeness surrounds us and how much of it we have in our ‘self’. In these times of globalisation, multimedia and ever-widening communication, people are more than ever confronted with strange influences from all over the world. The world seems to be a huge network of smaller, interconnected networks. As a result of this, numerous complex ‘universes of meaning’ appear that are more visible than ever before. People can’t impossibly deny the strangeness.

There are different reactions possible on the confrontation with strangeness. These are what Schäffter calls ‘the four modes of experiencing strangeness’. These four modes are all represented in each one of us, although, according to the situation, one mode will be dominant. Yet, we think that everybody is -more or less- focused on him- or herself. We even think that it is the only way to do it. If we look at the world, it is impossible to step out of your own point of view (Wittgenstein). Or as Kolb says: "You can never really be objective since you understand everything through your own brain. You're always involved, whether you like it or not".

People need to strengthen their own self, to build some kind of ‘safety-wall’ around them. If they don’t do this, the danger becomes real that they will fall into alienation, which is one of the major problems of our present society. By ‘alienation’ we mean the fact of not being able to climb over the safety-wall and being completely thrown back to their self in fear.

2. Is it possible to learn from strangeness?

This question can be reformulated as: ‘Is it possible to learn?’ Intercultural learning can be understood as a paradigm for (adult) education. By this we mean that everything is strange until you know, learn about it, or in other words: learning is always about strangeness, critical incidents. Or like Kolb says: "Diversity is essential for learning … If everything is the same, then how do you discover anything new?"

We believe that it is possible to learn (about strangeness), at least to a certain degree: it will never be possible to understand or to be aware of everything. You can’t even be sure about your own self, about your own boundaries. There will always be strangeness around us. Still, this is an optimistic way of looking at learning. We could as well say that learning is always impossible, because you can never be sure that what you learn is right or true.

As mentioned in the paragraph above, it is inevitable that people approach strangeness, unknown matters, from their own point of view. Basic trust in the self (a surface of sensibility) is required to be able to learn new things from the outside. On the other hand, the outside – if handled in the right way - contributes to this self-safety. In other words: the strangeness is a tool for the self-constitution, the self is developed in relationship with the other.

Seeing it this way (figure 2.1.), learning can be conceived as a continuing process of exchange between the selfhood and the strangeness. But it always goes back to the self, not necessarily in an egocentric way, but in the way of taking care of yourself, in order to contribute to a safe selfhood.

Now we can ask the question if irritation is a necessary condition, a ‘basic assumption’, for learning? We were not sure about the meaning of the word ‘irritation’. If understood in the sense of ‘annoying’, we think that irritation is not at all a ‘necessary’, but at most a ‘sufficient’, condition for learning. For instance: working on a computer is for some people very frustrating, annoying. Instead of learning from their mistakes, they will -in all probability- rather give up then trying over and over again, and getting more and more frustrated. In this case irritation doesn't lead to learning at all.

Otherwise, if you interpret the word in the sense of ‘stimulating’, then it might be a necessary starting-point for a learning process. Some kind of astonishment for the unknown is at least desirable -if not necessary- for learning. This kind of irritation is usually unexpected, you can’t plan it. That’s why open awareness to it is very difficult You have to open your borders for strangeness, which can be intimidating. However we think that it is possible to learn it.

If it is indeed possible to learn, it is important to reflect upon a way how adult education can try to improve this learning in society. There are two ways of looking at this issue, namely from the minority (immigrants)- and from the majority- perspective.

* The minority-perspective

It is unrealistic to believe that integration is a measured thing. It is not through one formal course, offered for all, that immigrants will learn about society! It is extremely important that the offer of the organisations who are engaged in integration-work is very broad and diverse. ‘Society’ is something that you have to experience and we think that this is a process situated on the personal level, more than on the group-level. This is also the reason why integration-problems may not be generalised to social groups or (sub)cultures. Most prejudices have already proved to be false.

It is a fact that the learning of special groups like for instance adults or migrants, is still too much seen as positive discrimination. We don’t want to say that this idea has to be rejected completely, but we want to strive for a broadening of the target groups. For instance: instead of offering vocational courses for migrants only (based on cultural characteristics), it would be better to invite ‘people’ (not only immigrants) according to their personal characteristics and needs. Native people can have the same needs as migrants! This is also the reason why we think that the social sector (youthwork, community work, …) and education should try to adjust more to each other instead of seeing each other as rivals and competitors. There is really a great need for a good transfer and communication between the different sectors. They have to strive for more wholeness and a broader approach of the problems. For instance in Finland and Germany this is rarely the case.

The basis for the planning of adult education-programmes for minorities, immigrants should be the needs that these people face while integrating into a strange society. That’s why the idea of ‘personal learning plans’ and life management should take an important role in working with immigrants. A personal learning plan can be seen as a plan for the future. See figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Personal learning plans

Migrants have dreams and goals that they want to achieve when they come into a strange country. This personal goal-setting should always be one necessary starting-point for the planning of integration, education. Support in this goal-setting is needed, because immigrants can not be sure about the realisation of their dreams in a strange society. Another starting point in developing these personal learning plans are the ‘life experiences to date’ of the migrant-learner. This are his/her skills, educational and life-experiences, attitudes, and so on. It is important to start from the strong points of the person, the prerequisites, the own cultural knowledge, … which can be useful for life management in strange societies.

After finding out the personal goals and the life experiences to date, adult education can start to work on the contents, the programme to work towards the realisation of the dreams, which can be seen as a stair that has to be climbed. For an immigrant who doesn’t know the rules of a society, who doesn’t understand the cultural structure, … it is not always obvious which steps have to be taken to achieve the final goals. Some skills are really needed to climb the stairs, for instance: they need to know -to a certain degree- the language and the bureaucracy of the country, … But all this is not as self-evident for the migrants as it is for an educator, as a member of society. Therefore it is important that the educator helps the immigrant in making the link between the dreams and the steps, skills that are needed to reach these dreams. By this, the learner will achieve inner-motivation to go through this necessary transition phase.

The organisation ‘IFAD, Peuple et culture’ in La Paillade is also based on these principles: they go out from personal learning plans: the dreams of the learners on the one hand and the life experiences to date. After the constitution of the (mixed) groups they also design group learning plans which are linked to the personal plans. In this system migrants get support from each other.

We were also thinking about an adapted form of the mentoring-system. This system already proved its value in the United States where white women mentored black women during the process of equalisation. In Europe this system has applications in the field of career-planning, which is of course a completely different context: these coming managers are already close to the top, while underprivileged people often have to start from zero, without a bride future in perspective. There is , however, also a link with the system of ‘support families’ (for instance in Belgium), where (middleclass) families support underprivileged people on a voluntary basis.

* Majority perspective

How can you learn majorities about strangeness, about other cultures? Multicultural education is necessary to take away the fears that many people have towards other cultures. The majority should be learned to cope with a multicultural society. Tolerance is a necessary condition for the integration of minorities. It is important to point out that strangeness is not so strange as it looks like, and that each one of us is strange him/herself.

When working with mixed groups, especially groups that represent both minorities and the majority, the idea of ‘pluralistic’ education can be very useful. Not in the way of offering everything to everyone, because where does this end? Does it make sense to offer Chinese cooking courses when there are no Chinese students in the class? A reduced, more realistic form of this pluralism is to integrate daily life situations from different cultures in class. For instance: besides celebrating Christmas or other Christian feasts, you can also celebrate and discuss about the Islamitic Sugarfeast or the Chinese New Year. It is important that the experts themselves (the people who celebrate these feasts, who live in that culture) get the chance to give explanations and to answer questions.

In other words: can you demand, claim from immigrants that they adapt to our society (=strangeness for them). Here we touch a matter of power and control, a matter of dominance of universes of meaning.

The keyword in this huge debate is –according to us- acceptance. Only if you give the immigrants the chance to maintain their own identity, only if you allow them to construct some kind of personal safety-boundaries, you can demand some integration, adaptation from them.

A good example of this is, is a research done in Belgium. A list of 30 statements concerning all kinds of policy matters (civil rights, environment, religion, etc.) was presented to different immigrant populations (different ages, sexes, generations, ...). People were asked to point out on that list the 10 most important statements for them and to give them a score from 1 to 10 according to their importance. One of the most striking results appeared in a group of young (15-16 years old) Moroccan girls. They were all dressed very fashionable, they were wearing make-up, and so on. Despite their very western appearance, almost everyone of them pointed out that the acceptance of women who are wearing a scarf, which is a big source of discussions in Belgium, was the most important policy-matter. The meaning of all this is that they want a (formal) recognition of their religion. In exchange for this recognition, they are willing to make concessions as well.

This is also a good example of mutual exchange between different cultures. If people want to, they can learn a lot from each other. Instead of fighting for dominance, they should more try to benefit from each other’s knowledge and experiences.

The most important thing for the organisation of (intercultural ) adult education is: not going out from the ‘supposed’ equality on the cultural level (prejudices), but going out from the ‘real’ similarities between people on the personal level. And also, instead of taking the weaknesses, the problems as a starting point, it might be better to go out from the strong points, the skills that the learners already master.

So, besides a needs-analysis, it’s at least as important to make an analysis of the knowledge, abilities and skills of the learners. This kind of curriculum development can be seen as a mixture of top down and bottom up-models. The input of the learner is as important as the input of the instructor. By this, the learners will gain more strength, more trust in themselves and that is a necessary condition for cultural encounter. This cultural encounter should be an opportunity for both minorities and majorities to learn from each other.

References

Kolb, D. (1998). Experiental learning: from discourse model to conversation. Lline. Lifelong learning in Europe, 3.

Vanduffel, K. & Provinciaal Integratiecentrum Hasselt (1998). Unpublished research.

We will start this chapter with a reflection on the trends in the current society, the actual situation. Then we will think about what we want society to be, what kind of ‘new’ society we want. We reflect upon how we can guarantee that there’s a balance between individualization and social responsibility. Can laws guarantee this? And what is the role of education in this? Answering that last question, we will give some global ideas about education in a broad sense. Finally, we will make our ideas more concrete by discussing the possible role of an educator in the case study of Riverside District.

We will start this chapter with a reflection on the trends in the current society, the actual situation. Then we will think about what we want society to be, what kind of ‘new’ society we want. We reflect upon how we can guarantee that there’s a balance between individualization and social responsibility. Can laws guarantee this? And what is the role of education in this? Answering that last question, we will give some global ideas about education in a broad sense. Finally, we will make our ideas more concrete by discussing the possible role of an educator in the case study of Riverside District.

In today's so-called ‘risk society’, a growing individualization process is going on. This means that individuals become more 'self-responsible' for the planning and organization of their lives. They have to 'develop' their own values, because the great narratives are disappearing. Biographies become more 'self-reflexive'.

We want to illustrate this process by some personal examples. A first example concerns the motivation of Red Cross-volunteers. In the past, people who engaged themselves in this organization, mostly did this because they wanted to do something for society, because they wanted to help others. Helping others, the fact that the others felt better, made these volunteers feel well. Nowadays, a lot of these volunteers have other motivations. They believe for example that as a volunteer, they can learn new things, and they can become a 'more qualified' person. They join the Red Cross because they find the volunteer work interesting. People are more interested in their self-actualization, in what is good for them as a person, than in what is good for the community, society.

A second illustration concerns Finland 's school system. In secondary school, there's a discussion going on about the 'class-free systems'. According to these systems, children/youngsters have some compulsory courses but they can choose how to do them. They can for instance choose to learn their courses at home, on the computer. Consequently, these children/youngsters are no longer a class, a community. The fact that they develop themselves in the best way is seen as more important than the fact of being a group. But, as we discussed in module 1, the social aspect of learning is also important.

It seems that there is a tension between the individualization process and the process of social integration, participation. No side of this tension is 'good' or 'bad' in itself. Nowadays, the balance is more going to individualization. But this is not necessarily 'better' or 'worse' than when the balance would have gone more to the side of communality. The individualization process has both negative and positive sides. Taylor describes this process as the tension between 'egoism' and 'authenticity'. 'Egoism' is the negative side: the only worry of people is to develop themselves and they don't care if this process of self-actualization hurts other people. 'Authenticity' is the positive side. It means that people remain true to, stand by their own (inner) values. A strong selfhood, some basic trust in yourself, is - as we saw in module two - required to be able to learn new things from the outside. The 'inner' values of an authentic person can concern social responsibility, taking care for others. However, we don't believe that everyone chooses 'automatically', spontaneously for these values.

As mentioned above, we can't say that the individualization process is a 'bad' process. But neither can we ignore that there is a possible danger in this process. People still need communities, society. They have for example an emotional need to be connected with others. Learning in dialogue is very valuable. Therefore, there should be a balance between the individualization and the social responsibility. By using the strong points of the individualization trend and by taking care of society, we believe a 'new society' can be built.

But, what do we need to build up this ‘new’ kind of society for individuals? How can we make sure, how can we guarantee that there is a balance between taking care of oneself and taking care of others?

We can ask the question if we can do this by laws? On the one hand, laws can increase social responsibility. For example, the social security system can be seen as a law that forces people to stand together. In the past, there was no social security system but in today's society it has become a necessary law. Thanks to the social security system, people are financially protected against social risks (e.g. unemployment, illness, etc.) in exchange of a regular contribution. When they don't pay their taxes, they are punished. However, some people still manage to escape from this system.

On the other hand, such laws only increase responsibility in a formal way. It doesn't make people active persons in their responsibility. By this, we don't mean that social service systems make people completely passive. Today, there is a discussion going on to activate the welfare system. But when people become more active in the welfare system, it is still because they have to, because the law forces them.

What we want to stress, is that laws can't force people to have the feeling of social responsibility. Laws guarantee something, but they don't guarantee that the values of the people will change. Laws can never guarantee morality. For example, in Finland there used to be a strong welfare system, people had to pay quite high taxes. Consequently, a begging person received rarely money from the people in the street because they thought that if he/she needed help, he/she could get it from the social security system. Thus, the system didn't really increase social responsibility. Today, there are some cuttings in Finland's social security system. This might explain the increasing number of volunteer work, the growing social responsibility.

Briefly, laws are maybe a necessary but certainly not a sufficient answer to the need for social responsibility. So, how can we guarantee in a more sufficient way that people do not only care about their self-actualization, but also have values like social responsibility? Can we guarantee this? We believe that education can/might be a guarantee. For example, you might influence the feeling of social responsibility by learning people the meaning of the social security system. Education can stress that in today's risk society risks can happen to everyone, that it is in favor of everyone if we pay taxes. Although, you can never 'control' people's feelings: maybe this education leads to the fact that peoples pay taxes because it is in their benefit.

But, what do we need to build up this ‘new’ kind of society for individuals? How can we make sure, how can we guarantee that there is a balance between taking care of oneself and taking care of others?

We can ask the question if we can do this by laws? On the one hand, laws can increase social responsibility. For example, the social security system can be seen as a law that forces people to stand together. In the past, there was no social security system but in today's society it has become a necessary law. Thanks to the social security system, people are financially protected against social risks (e.g. unemployment, illness, etc.) in exchange of a regular contribution. When they don't pay their taxes, they are punished. However, some people still manage to escape from this system.

On the other hand, such laws only increase responsibility in a formal way. It doesn't make people active persons in their responsibility. By this, we don't mean that social service systems make people completely passive. Today, there is a discussion going on to activate the welfare system. But when people become more active in the welfare system, it is still because they have to, because the law forces them.

What we want to stress, is that laws can't force people to have the feeling of social responsibility. Laws guarantee something, but they don't guarantee that the values of the people will change. Laws can never guarantee morality. For example, in Finland there used to be a strong welfare system, people had to pay quite high taxes. Consequently, a begging person received rarely money from the people in the street because they thought that if he/she needed help, he/she could get it from the social security system. Thus, the system didn't really increase social responsibility. Today, there are some cuttings in Finland's social security system. This might explain the increasing number of volunteer work, the growing social responsibility.

Briefly, laws are maybe a necessary but certainly not a sufficient answer to the need for social responsibility. So, how can we guarantee in a more sufficient way that people do not only care about their self-actualization, but also have values like social responsibility? Can we guarantee this? We believe that education can/might be a guarantee. For example, you might influence the feeling of social responsibility by learning people the meaning of the social security system. Education can stress that in today's risk society risks can happen to everyone, that it is in favor of everyone if we pay taxes. Although, you can never 'control' people's feelings: maybe this education leads to the fact that peoples pay taxes because it is in their benefit.

As mentioned above, we can't say that the individualization process is a 'bad' process. But neither can we ignore that there is a possible danger in this process. People still need communities, society. They have for example an emotional need to be connected with others. Learning in dialogue is very valuable. Therefore, there should be a balance between the individualization and the social responsibility. By using the strong points of the individualization trend and by taking care of society, we believe a 'new society' can be built.

But, what do we need to build up this ‘new’ kind of society for individuals? How can we make sure, how can we guarantee that there is a balance between taking care of oneself and taking care of others?

We can ask the question if we can do this by laws? On the one hand, laws can increase social responsibility. For example, the social security system can be seen as a law that forces people to stand together. In the past, there was no social security system but in today's society it has become a necessary law. Thanks to the social security system, people are financially protected against social risks (e.g. unemployment, illness, etc.) in exchange of a regular contribution. When they don't pay their taxes, they are punished. However, some people still manage to escape from this system.

On the other hand, such laws only increase responsibility in a formal way. It doesn't make people active persons in their responsibility. By this, we don't mean that social service systems make people completely passive. Today, there is a discussion going on to activate the welfare system. But when people become more active in the welfare system, it is still because they have to, because the law forces them.

What we want to stress, is that laws can't force people to have the feeling of social responsibility. Laws guarantee something, but they don't guarantee that the values of the people will change. Laws can never guarantee morality. For example, in Finland there used to be a strong welfare system, people had to pay quite high taxes. Consequently, a begging person received rarely money from the people in the street because they thought that if he/she needed help, he/she could get it from the social security system. Thus, the system didn't really increase social responsibility. Today, there are some cuttings in Finland's social security system. This might explain the increasing number of volunteer work, the growing social responsibility.

Briefly, laws are maybe a necessary but certainly not a sufficient answer to the need for social responsibility. So, how can we guarantee in a more sufficient way that people do not only care about their self-actualization, but also have values like social responsibility? Can we guarantee this? We believe that education can/might be a guarantee. For example, you might influence the feeling of social responsibility by learning people the meaning of the social security system. Education can stress that in today's risk society risks can happen to everyone, that it is in favor of everyone if we pay taxes. Although, you can never 'control' people's feelings: maybe this education leads to the fact that peoples pay taxes because it is in their benefit.

By 'education', we mean education in a broad sense. We make a distinction between, more global, general education and more local, specific education. By global education, we mean education that in principle reaches everyone: schools, media, social movements, … . By local education, we mean education in a community, education at a local level. In the next paragraph, we will describe our ideas concerning education in a community - more specific in Riverside District. In this paragraph, we will focus on ‘global’ education.

We believe that it is possible to learn people social responsibility in schools (primary, secondary). A class can be seen as a community where children/youngsters learn to take care for each other. When we are young, we need to be bound to communities because the base of our values is 'made' at that time. Schools should not only give children/youngster the possibility to learn mathematics, languages, etc. but should also give them the possibility to learn social skills, to learn to communicate, etc. We stressed this also in our first paper: people should not only learn behind the computer, they should also learn from each other. Besides social skills, they should also learn social attitudes: they should learn how to handle with different kind of people.

Social movements are also educators that can teach people to feel responsible for society. Social movements are important in themselves - independent of their content - because they can make people aware that they can influence public life. They also teach people to think about their own values.

Media is also an educator: they transfer values anyway, they influence us anyway. Nowadays, the media is entangled with the market: media often care most about those headlines that sell most easily, that are the most attractive. There's a competition between the different media. This can make it difficult for people to find out what is important, 'true', … . On the one hand, media should be aware of the influence they have on people. They should have such an influence that our social responsibility grows. On the other hand, people should be critical towards the flow of information. New technologies, Internet might be an opportunity for people to be more critical. On Internet, people can search for 'new' information, so that they don't only have to follow the main media. But they need skills to be able to work with these new technologies.

Until now, we have focused on more 'global' education. The mentioned systems can be a guarantee for restoring the balance. The systems can be linked to the sectors that distribute 'social opportunities'. The social security system is linked to 'the government', social movements and schools are linked to 'associations', and the media are linked to 'the market'. Education plays a role in each of these sectors.

Now, we will specify the role educators might have in increasing the social responsibility. We'll do this by going to the more local level of a community. Which role can educators play in local communities, how can educators increase social responsibility in a local community?

We believe that it is possible to learn people social responsibility in schools (primary, secondary). A class can be seen as a community where children/youngsters learn to take care for each other. When we are young, we need to be bound to communities because the base of our values is 'made' at that time. Schools should not only give children/youngster the possibility to learn mathematics, languages, etc. but should also give them the possibility to learn social skills, to learn to communicate, etc. We stressed this also in our first paper: people should not only learn behind the computer, they should also learn from each other. Besides social skills, they should also learn social attitudes: they should learn how to handle with different kind of people.

Social movements are also educators that can teach people to feel responsible for society. Social movements are important in themselves - independent of their content - because they can make people aware that they can influence public life. They also teach people to think about their own values.

Media is also an educator: they transfer values anyway, they influence us anyway. Nowadays, the media is entangled with the market: media often care most about those headlines that sell most easily, that are the most attractive. There's a competition between the different media. This can make it difficult for people to find out what is important, 'true', … . On the one hand, media should be aware of the influence they have on people. They should have such an influence that our social responsibility grows. On the other hand, people should be critical towards the flow of information. New technologies, Internet might be an opportunity for people to be more critical. On Internet, people can search for 'new' information, so that they don't only have to follow the main media. But they need skills to be able to work with these new technologies.

Until now, we have focused on more 'global' education. The mentioned systems can be a guarantee for restoring the balance. The systems can be linked to the sectors that distribute 'social opportunities'. The social security system is linked to 'the government', social movements and schools are linked to 'associations', and the media are linked to 'the market'. Education plays a role in each of these sectors.

Now, we will specify the role educators might have in increasing the social responsibility. We'll do this by going to the more local level of a community. Which role can educators play in local communities, how can educators increase social responsibility in a local community?

By 'education', we mean education in a broad sense. We make a distinction between, more global, general education and more local, specific education. By global education, we mean education that in principle reaches everyone: schools, media, social movements, … . By local education, we mean education in a community, education at a local level. In the next paragraph, we will describe our ideas concerning education in a community - more specific in Riverside District. In this paragraph, we will focus on ‘global’ education.

We believe that it is possible to learn people social responsibility in schools (primary, secondary). A class can be seen as a community where children/youngsters learn to take care for each other. When we are young, we need to be bound to communities because the base of our values is 'made' at that time. Schools should not only give children/youngster the possibility to learn mathematics, languages, etc. but should also give them the possibility to learn social skills, to learn to communicate, etc. We stressed this also in our first paper: people should not only learn behind the computer, they should also learn from each other. Besides social skills, they should also learn social attitudes: they should learn how to handle with different kind of people.

Social movements are also educators that can teach people to feel responsible for society. Social movements are important in themselves - independent of their content - because they can make people aware that they can influence public life. They also teach people to think about their own values.

Media is also an educator: they transfer values anyway, they influence us anyway. Nowadays, the media is entangled with the market: media often care most about those headlines that sell most easily, that are the most attractive. There's a competition between the different media. This can make it difficult for people to find out what is important, 'true', … . On the one hand, media should be aware of the influence they have on people. They should have such an influence that our social responsibility grows. On the other hand, people should be critical towards the flow of information. New technologies, Internet might be an opportunity for people to be more critical. On Internet, people can search for 'new' information, so that they don't only have to follow the main media. But they need skills to be able to work with these new technologies.

Until now, we have focused on more 'global' education. The mentioned systems can be a guarantee for restoring the balance. The systems can be linked to the sectors that distribute 'social opportunities'. The social security system is linked to 'the government', social movements and schools are linked to 'associations', and the media are linked to 'the market'. Education plays a role in each of these sectors.

Now, we will specify the role educators might have in increasing the social responsibility. We'll do this by going to the more local level of a community. Which role can educators play in local communities, how can educators increase social responsibility in a local community?

To make our ideas more concrete, we will take the case study 'The Riverside District Princeton' as a starting point. In this district, the feeling of social responsibility, of being a community might be diminished because of the problems, the anxiety about the future of the district, etc.

One possible proposal to restore the social responsibility in this community is to build a network between the different generations, cultures, … of this district. Networks can help people to see the positive aspects of taking care of each other. They can function as a civil society on a local level. The main goal of network-building is communication between the different people, groups,… . People, organizations in a network have a dual relationship, with mutual interests. Networks are not only places where people do things together, they are also open fora for discussions. Which role can adult educators play in this proposal?

A possible role for educators is starting, or at least facilitating, the building of these networks. The first thing an educator can do, is motivating people for network building. Educators can start by outreach work, by going out of his/her institution to the local actors. The educator can go to the people and make an analysis of their needs. For example, some unemployed inhabitants of the River-district might tell, independently from each other, to the educator about their hope to find a job in the new industrial area. The educator can then make these single persons aware that there are other persons in the community who have the same needs. By doing this, the people might feel connected to each other.

Another starting point that can motivate the inhabitants to build a network, is organizing informal activities. An activity center can be a good starting point. This activity center can for example be located in the empty school building. Having a meeting place, doing nice things together,… can create a feeling of community. This activity center is not only useful in the beginning of the network building, but is also interesting during the networking itself. In that way, people have a meeting place where they can always come back.

Another role for educators is making sure that everyone is able to participate, to take the floor (in this network). People need skills, competencies to participate in the discussions. The educator can train them on these skills before the network starts. But people also learn these competencies by participating. The educator should continuously pay attention to these skills.

In the beginning of the network, goalsetting is very important. Different groups can have different goals. They should formulate their goals and discuss them with the others. Educators can facilitate this goalsetting and can make sure that the starting point is what the people can, their capacities. We mentioned something similar in our first paper where we mentioned that it is important that there is a ‘contract’ between the educator and the learners so that it is clear for both sides what the goals are.

Another role of the educator, is to make sure that during the discussions, people don’t stuck in talking about there own values, experiences,… . The educator should make sure that there are also theoretical inputs in the discussion in the network. This theoretical background can for example be some sociological background about today’s society, about the risk society and the tension between individualization and social solidarity. When these theories are explained intelligibly, this can help the local inhabitants to see their own local experiences in a more global context, to make them more comprehensible. Consequently, this might help them to understand their own experiences better and to become aware of the need of social responsibility. This theoretical background is also important because not only people's own values and experiences should be discussed, but the global, self-referential systems also need to be questioned.

Besides the network that consists of the inhabitants of the quarter, we think that professional networks might also be useful in the Riverside District. For example, organizations that work with unemployed people could work together with organizations concerning housing problems. We mentioned this idea of professional networks already in module two, when we mentioned that there should be more cooperation between the social sector and education. In such networks people are seen as a whole. The educators in the professional network might know the inhabitants very well, they might know which are their capacities and weaknesses. Their knowledge can be useful for the educator who wants to start a network with the people themselves. The professional network can be a condition for the network mentioned here.

We can link the mentioned ideas about the network to the bottom-up and top-down approaches. The outreaching work at the beginning is a bottom-up approach to find the needs of the people. Further, a top-down approach can be useful. For example, it can be helpful for the inhabitants of River District if they know that Princeton is also interested in their community. The city can for example involve them in the celebration of the 600years- anniversary. Princeton could also give money to the network. The inhabitants might see this as a valorization of their network. Another idea is that once there are networks, someone of the city council might be involved in it. As a result of the networking, there can arise a public debate. The educator could then again be the one who encourages the inhabitants, who makes sure that their voice is heard.

We realize that our ideas might sometimes sound too idealistic. In a certain way, it is rather easy for us to give suggestions about the role educators should take in a community or in society. Having ideas about it differs from being an educator in real practice.

But we believe that in an individualized world, people still need social integration. Education can contribute to the balance between individualization and responsibility for society. Education in a broad sense might help people to have a feeling of social responsibility. Schools, media, social movements,… focus on all people.

But education should sometimes make interventions toward special target groups, towards specific local communities (e.g. the Riverside District) and help them to learn social skills, to take care for each other and this world. Building up and facilitating networks is one thing community-educators can do. Education/educators can help people to see themselves in a context. Networks help people to have influence, to participate in society. Networks can increase the social responsibility. Referring to the three positions that are important for participation, we think that networks focus especially on the citizen as a responsible partner. Networks can make people active, can make them do things for a common interest. Networks can also help people to take their own part of the social opportunities of the community. Networks might have an influence on both the individual and the social dimension of participation.

Baert, H. & Jansen, Th. (1997). Community education in the perspective of social integration and participation. LlinE, vol. 2, no. 4.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der (1992). Reflexive modernity, self-reflexive biographies; adult education in the light of risk society, Int. Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 11, no. 4.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der. (1995). De vormingsfunctie van het sociaal-cultureel werk. Vorming, vol. 11, no. 1.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der (1997). Individualization, the new political spectrum and functions of adult education. Int. J. Lifelong Education, vol. 16, no. 4.

Wildemeersch, D. (1995). Een verantwoorde uitweg leren. Over sociaal-agogisch handelen in de risicomaatschappij. Nijmegen : K.U.

But we believe that in an individualized world, people still need social integration. Education can contribute to the balance between individualization and responsibility for society. Education in a broad sense might help people to have a feeling of social responsibility. Schools, media, social movements,… focus on all people.

But education should sometimes make interventions toward special target groups, towards specific local communities (e.g. the Riverside District) and help them to learn social skills, to take care for each other and this world. Building up and facilitating networks is one thing community-educators can do. Education/educators can help people to see themselves in a context. Networks help people to have influence, to participate in society. Networks can increase the social responsibility. Referring to the three positions that are important for participation, we think that networks focus especially on the citizen as a responsible partner. Networks can make people active, can make them do things for a common interest. Networks can also help people to take their own part of the social opportunities of the community. Networks might have an influence on both the individual and the social dimension of participation.

Baert, H. & Jansen, Th. (1997). Community education in the perspective of social integration and participation. LlinE, vol. 2, no. 4.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der (1992). Reflexive modernity, self-reflexive biographies; adult education in the light of risk society, Int. Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 11, no. 4.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der. (1995). De vormingsfunctie van het sociaal-cultureel werk. Vorming, vol. 11, no. 1.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der (1997). Individualization, the new political spectrum and functions of adult education. Int. J. Lifelong Education, vol. 16, no. 4.

Wildemeersch, D. (1995). Een verantwoorde uitweg leren. Over sociaal-agogisch handelen in de risicomaatschappij. Nijmegen : K.U.

But we believe that in an individualized world, people still need social integration. Education can contribute to the balance between individualization and responsibility for society. Education in a broad sense might help people to have a feeling of social responsibility. Schools, media, social movements,… focus on all people.

But education should sometimes make interventions toward special target groups, towards specific local communities (e.g. the Riverside District) and help them to learn social skills, to take care for each other and this world. Building up and facilitating networks is one thing community-educators can do. Education/educators can help people to see themselves in a context. Networks help people to have influence, to participate in society. Networks can increase the social responsibility. Referring to the three positions that are important for participation, we think that networks focus especially on the citizen as a responsible partner. Networks can make people active, can make them do things for a common interest. Networks can also help people to take their own part of the social opportunities of the community. Networks might have an influence on both the individual and the social dimension of participation.

Baert, H. & Jansen, Th. (1997). Community education in the perspective of social integration and participation. LlinE, vol. 2, no. 4.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der (1992). Reflexive modernity, self-reflexive biographies; adult education in the light of risk society, Int. Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 11, no. 4.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der. (1995). De vormingsfunctie van het sociaal-cultureel werk. Vorming, vol. 11, no. 1.

Jansen, Th. & Veen, R. van der (1997). Individualization, the new political spectrum and functions of adult education. Int. J. Lifelong Education, vol. 16, no. 4.

Wildemeersch, D. (1995). Een verantwoorde uitweg leren. Over sociaal-agogisch handelen in de risicomaatschappij. Nijmegen : K.U.

R. Bouwen

Introduction

Our task in writing the paper of this module was to review organizational change and learning through a case study. We decided to take the University of Helsinki as our case study for two reasons. The main one was because being a member of university is a mutual experience for each one of us. The second one is that one of us has some experience of developmental work in the University of Helsinki. Jxxxxx has worked with the "Study and Teaching Developmental Unit" in order to improve the tutoring-system in the university. He has also taken part in developing the curriculum of adult education in the Department of Education. Furthermore, we gathered information from various resources.¹ However, this case study is heavily based upon the experience of only one member of our group and it can’t be as reliable as we want it to be. Anyhow, we feel that this case study is a nice practice to discuss about organisational change on the concrete level.

In this chapter we reflect upon what kind of organization the University of Helsinki is, what the current tendencies of changes in the organisation are and what kind of forces influence most on this change. We are interested in the organizational learning in the University of Helsinki and in how it can be improved.

The University of Helsinki is among the oldest universities in the world. It was founded in 1640 in the town of Turku, and transferred to Helsinki in 1828. The University of Helsinki is an organization of over 40,000 people, counting all the researchers, teachers, non-academic staff and students. There are over 30,000 students, of whom 60% are women. Even though the university community is as big as a middle-sized Finnish town, there is still a feeling of unity among the university people. A special feature of the University of Helsinki is its bilingualism. There are about 100 teaching posts for which the language of instruction is Swedish; 27 of these are professorships.

The University of Helsinki enjoys legal autonomy and has the freedom to decide on its research and teaching policies. The highest decision-making organ at the University of Helsinki is the Senate, comprised of the Rector, the first Vice Rector, one professor from each faculty, three other teachers and researchers and seven student representatives, one of whom must be a post-graduate student.

A university the size of the university of Helsinki naturally has many areas of emphasis. The university has reached the top level of international research in many fields. The strongest areas of research at the University of Helsinki have been determined by national and international assessment. There is a general self-assessment committee in the University of Helsinki, but also the faculties have estimated the most important areas of emphasis in their ongoing research.

The university occupies dozens of different addresses in the city. In the future the various departments of the University will be concentrated in four major campuses: the city center, Kumpula, Viikki and Meilahti. The largest continuing education centre of the University of Helsinki is The Lahti Research and Training Centre. The Centre’s strength lies in the application of new teaching methods: multiform education, Tele-teaching, distance education, the Open University and the Senior Citizens’ University.

There are about ten other institutions of higher education in Helsinki, specialised in technical sciences, economics and various performing arts. Co-operation between the universities and other institutions in both research and teaching is increasing. Students at the University of Helsinki can incorporate studies from other institutions of higher education in their degrees.

In recent years the University of Helsinki has grown increasingly international. The international relations of the university are based on contacts between scientists and scholars, and on agreements between departments, faculties, universities and governments. In order to promote new contacts and to support existing co-operation the university has concluded exchange agreements on research projects and on researcher/student exchange with 50 universities and other institutions of higher education from all over the world. Out of the 200 doctoral dissertations published every year about 75% are written in English, and an increasing number of courses is taught in English.

There is a wide range of student clubs and a lively student life in the University of Helsinki. The Student Union of the University of Helsinki, established in 1868, is a large and wealthy student organization steeped in tradition. The Union is independent towards the university. The Student Union provides its members with dining services, student housing, health services and cultural activities. Also every faculty has its own student organization.

Figure 4.1. Cultural layers in the University of Helsinki

The core value of the academic culture has always been scientific quality in order to achieve reliable knowledge and the truth. Achieving this goal demands a lot of independency, but also a lot of common norms on how to make good research. The unique culture of the university has also created a lot of academic rituals, and - one could say - even an own language.

Although the University of Helsinki has been safeguarded from market principles, there has been another kind of battle going on. Researchers and professors have always been ambitious and tough competitors.

Figure 4.2. System of Forces in the University of Helsinki

a) The Professional form

In the professional model the most valuable element is proficiency. Workers in this kind of organization are experts in their fields. This form fits best to the university of Helsinki. Traditionally researchers have chosen the topics of their research by their personal interests and scientific justification (see also Figure 4.1.). However, there is increasing attention to the relevance of university research for the business sector. Interaction between universities and companies has increased dramatically. But the emphasis still is – and has to be - on the high quality of the research.

b) The Machine form

When the most important thing for the organization is efficiency, it is usually run by the machine form. This is becoming more and more actual in the University of Helsinki, where management by result³ is forcing faculties to show productiveness to get funding. The performance-related funding plays a key role when Faculty Councils plan their activities. The shift is more and more from the professional form to machine form. This is an essential tension in the today’s university.

A huge ethical problem is, that if the university starts assessing its research too much by what produces money, there is an outstanding danger that the university doesn’t pay attention to the things that can not be measured by numbers.

c) The Diversified form

The diversified model means concentration and division of performance. Usually it is the market that forces the organization to produce distinct products, or to specialize to serve a specific target group. We can also see some elements of this model in the University of Helsinki, where each faculty and department is highly specialized in one area of science. These division units have relative high autonomy to improve their own performance. The Faculty Council is responsible for developing research and instruction in the faculty. In addition, proposals for the budget and activities plan as well as the decisions for the overall lines of resource allocation are carried out at the Faculty Council.

Further more, there is a growing demand for a single researcher to choose only one specific topic to specialize in. It is very difficult to follow the developments because the fields of science are all the tome expanding and becoming more complex. To achieve a top level in quality, one has to focus on a narrow topic at an ever greater depth.

d) The Adhocracy for

The adhocracy model arises when there is demand for innovation. If the organization is operating in a dynamic environment like science and high technology, it needs to be flexible towards the continuous changing process. In this complex and dynamic environment it is important to keep on talking.

If you compare the University of Technology in Helsinki and the University of Helsinki you can notice that in the field of engineering sciences they are always inventing something new. But for example social sciences have traditionally focused more on describing and explaining the social behaviour rather than making action. There is a great demand to increase the creativity also in the social sciences.

e) The Entrepreneurial form

Mintzberg links the entrepreneurial form with simple but dynamic environments. Organizations that are driven by this form are usually young and small. We don’t think that this description fits with the University of Helsinki.

Rene Bouwen introduced us the characteristics of learning potential⁴. We discussed in our group how some of these characteristics occur in our case study. On the other hand, we reflected upon how change and learning can be facilitated in the University of Helsinki by supporting the strengths of the learning potentials.

a) Open communication

There is a great diversity of people working in the university. Communication within and between all these groups is vital. We thought that there are four types of communication that are essential for organizational learning in the University:

1. communication between students and teachers
2. communication among teachers, researchers and professors
3. communication between different departments
4. communication with outside world

The communication between students and professors varies of course very much, but it has improved a lot in the near past. One could say that it is one of the most valuable strengths of the University of Helsinki. Even though the old traditional academic culture found the voice of the student much less important than the voice of the professors, nowadays you can find students represented in every level of planning and decision making in the university. The voice of students is highly respected. Mutual respect makes two-sided communication possible. However, the relationship between the students and the professors generally remains quite official and hierarchical.

The University of Helsinki is a very large organization. The number of different departments is very high. At least at this moment, they are located in various places all over the city. To have an open communication in such a big and widespread organization is, on the one hand, a matter of good communication technology, but on the other hand, also a matter of the willingness of co-operation between different departments. This is very difficult because the departments are also competing with each other for the same funding. And further more, in academic world researchers work is traditionally characterised by competition and suspicion towards each other.

The competition is tightening, but, paradoxally, it is the competition that generates the co-operation. In order to survive in competition one has to co-operate. Researchers have to be committed to the joint work, if a department wants to gain the performance-related funding. And moreover, departments have to co-operate, if the University of Helsinki wants to survive in the international competition. The co-operation is possible only when everyone in the organization has a feeling of being a team. At the end it is the competition with other universities that creates co-operation inside the university of Helsinki.

There is a continual tension between competition and co-operation. To be competitive the University of Helsinki has to be open also towards the outside world. This means for example co-operation with other organisations. How is co-operation possible? The answer leads us to the next characteristic of learning potential; shared goals.

Co-operation demands shared goals. Of course the two main tasks of the University of Helsinki are to improve the quality of research and to improve the quality of teaching (see Figure 4.1.). There has to be an agreement about concrete means, but how can this be done on the concrete level? The most obvious problem concerns the role-clarification. In order to solve this problem the university has to identify better what the skills of different working units are and how they can be combined. But when co-operating, one has to trust that all the partners are doing their best and are committed to the goals. How to create mutual trust? Maybe it demands emotional involvement.

It is very difficult to say how many professors and researchers feel engaged in the development of the university, but we can say something about the commitment of the students. One outstanding feature of studies at the University of Helsinki is the emphasis on the student's own initiative and individual work. This leads to the situation were students have on the one hand a lot of freedom and on the other hand a lot of responsibility. It demands a great commitment to be a student in the University of Helsinki.

There is a rich and active student life in the University of Helsinki. For example, one of the main purposes of the Student Union is to improve the studies in the university. A lot of students are eager to take part in developing the university community. There are also lots of students that belong to the student organizations of their own faculty.

All the workers in the organization should have proper feedback possibilities. Students need it for their studies, teachers for their lecturing, researchers for their researchs, libraries for their services and so on. There is much work to do in order to improve the feedback possibilities in the University of Helsinki.

Because of the legal autonomy that the University of Helsinki enjoys it can rather freely decide its research and teaching policies. That's one reason why it is also very important to get feedback from outside of the organization. To improve learning of the university it is essential to combine knowledge from within and from outside.

Maybe the biggest handwrestling has to do with evaluating the results of the different faculties. Results are much easier to evaluate in natural sciences than in humanistic sciences. Nowadays, evaluation is highly based upon economical measures. Money is perhaps too much influencing the evaluation of results. Some results are visible like for instance the number of degrees, the number of articles published in scientific magazines and so on. But we wonder if these results are so significant for the society? In the end, the main task of the university is to serve the society. In many cases it is very difficult to see the results of the basic research that is done by the universities.

Although the University of Helsinki has to be open for changes and it has to take into account the economic life, it should maintain its core value of seeking the truth. The emphasis has to be on the high quality of the research.

The also continual tension is between competition and co-operation. Co-operation demands concrete goals and commitment to them. The academic world is characterised by competition and suspicion towards each other. Is it possible to create mutual trust in the university ? It is very difficult for us to answer that question, but we believe it is possible at least among the students. University of Helsinki should not forget to support its lively student life.

Higher Education Policy in Finland. Ministry of Education, (1998);

Welcome to the University of Helsinki. University of Helsinki, (1994).

You know what's wrong with our company (organization)?

MODULE 4b: Labour and Organization

The aim of this module was two-sided. On the one hand we tried to get an overview of the field of In-Company Training in order to analyze the implications it involves. On the other hand we reflected upon how training can be a part of the strategy and mission (=ideology) of a company.

The approach of this paper is to describe and reflect on the possible conflicts that can arise between different actors with different ideologies within an organization. Linked to this we will also make some reflections about the learning organization, which is a very 'hot' item nowadays. We will use Sanofi, which is a major company in medical industry, as an example to illustrate our ideas.

In the beginning of the module we discussed about two definitions of In-Company Training. These definitions are:

"Training is the systematic process through which an individual is helped to master defined tasks or areas of skill and knowledge to pre-determined standards."(Harrison, 1989, p.6)

"In-Company training can be defined as the process focused on eliminating the differences between the competencies one employee can offer and the competencies required for his job." (Edwards, 1983, p.103)

We think that these definitions stress too much the point of view of the organization, and too less that of the individuals involved the organization. They give the impression that individuals only have to meet, to fulfill the needs of the organization. Besides this, we think that it should be possible for individuals to question the mission and the needs of the organization. Individuals can have their own educational needs and these needs do not necessarily fit with the needs of the organization.

We see the basic structure of an organization as a 'composition' of different actors(Figure 4.3.)

Figure 4.3. Structure of an organization

Looking at organizations in this way, we think that it is necessary to find a balance between the needs of all the different actors in the organization.

Nowadays, we can see that adult education is becoming more and more instrumental. There is more stress on vocational training. Trainers giving vocational training in a company and people working at the bottom should always be aware that the main aim of the organization is "business", making money. Probably it has always been this way. This just can’t be ignored. However, this doesn’t mean that the individual in the organization should be ignored. We believe that 'business' can be more or less humanistic. The question is all about how to combine equality and efficiency. Education can work on both these levels.

The different actors in an organization (educators, workers and management) can have very different ideologies. The ideal situation should be when educators and workers could choose the company that shares the same ideology, or if the companies' goals are such that they want to support its development. However, it will probably be the ideology of the management that is leading, without much choice left for the workers and the trainers.

With this in mind, we can ask the question if educators and workers can work for a company as 'instruments' of an ideology?

For instance: if a trainer has a strong humanistic ideology, is it possible for him/her to work in a company that is mostly competition-orientated? Maybe yes, if the company allows different voices to be heard. But what if the management conceives training and working only to support the values and the goals that they have created, and not to question the goals of the company?

We found different reasonable ways how trainers can react on this situation.

a) Refusal

The educator can choose not to work in the company and try to find another job. Anyhow, this is no an evident alternative in these times of unemployment. Having 'a' job, with the economical and social aspects it involves, can be more important than having a job that fits with the personal ideology. So, the educator as an individual might also deal with the conflict between humanistic ideas and economy. Maybe he or she really needs a job or the money to survive, to integrate in society, to gain self-confidence, … which is more important than to become engaged in an ideology.

b) Enterprise with a new ideology

This might be a logical continuation on a refusal (a). If the educator can't find a proper company to work with, and if he/she has strong innovative ideas about how training should be organized, he/she can found a new school or set up an educational institute based on his/her own ideology. One can even try to change the course of education, like for instance Maria Montessori did for infant schools..

Anyhow, after all we don't believe that this is the right solution. Because, what if everyone who wants to, starts his own company?

c) Influence

Educators can try to influence the ideology of the company in different ways.

One way is through a subtle, hidden way, for instance, through their training-plan. However, the educator has no right to influence the company's ideology in a manipulative way. Or to state it in another way: one can’t say that the trainer’s point of view is any better than the company's point of view. Another, more desired, way is influencing through an open dialogue. Educators can create in a sensitive and open way critical discussion with the management and the workers about the values of the company.

We realize that both ways include some dangers, as well for the company as for the trainer. For the company, critical awareness and discussion can lead to chaos. For the trainer there is threat to be fired, at least when he's working in a hidden way. Anyhow, we believe that the open dialogue and discussion are the most promising ways, that can lead to results that are satisfying both for the management as for the trainers.

Until now, we have been talking about the educator in the organization. After all this, we should return to the workers, the people at the bottom of the organization. What about their opinions? Can they start their own company if they disagree? Is it also possible for them to influence the point of view of the organization they're working for? It will be clear that the workers find themselves in a much less powerful position than the trainers do. We will work this out in the next paragraph.

A possible definition of a learning organization is:

"An organization that follows a conscious policy to optimize her learning potential, continuously and at all level, with the aim to become more effective." (translated from G.B.J.Bomers)

An essential quality in a learning organization is the learning potential from both the organization and the people involved in it. The ideal is an organization with two-sided communication, where the distance between the different actors is not too big and w