Montpellier, 1999

- The art of adult education -

- Adult education in Europe -

Introduction

Chapter 1 : Communication and new technology

Introduction
Information technologies and the new model of learning
Media analysed
The learning organisation
The learning society
Conclusion

Chapter 2 : Learning in a multicultural society

Introduction
A framework of actors
The role of the educational organisation and the educators in a multicultural society.
The theory about selfhood and experiencing strangeness
Promoting the dialogue
Promoting the ‘pluralogue’
Forcing migrants to learn ?
Conclusions

Chapter 3 : Community development and community education

Conclusion
Appendix

Chapter 4: Change, fusion or confusion

Case: Vredeseilanden-Coopibo
Some important dynamics in Vredeseilanden-Coopibo
The fusion
Volunteers
The role of the animators
A framework for the changes
A structural theory
A cultural point of view
Some suggestions for the future

Chapter 5 : labour organisations in change

Aspects of change in organisations
The role of education
Conclusion

Chapter 6 : Adult education and social policy, an international perspective

Description of two models
Actual developments
Actual contradictions and paradoxes
Perspectives for the future

Chapter 7 : Foundations of adult education

Introduction
Mira Van Olmen from Belgium:
Anna Palva from Finland:
Melissa Verkley from the Netherlands:
Bart Ketelslegers from Belgium:
Conclusion

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Our papers are presented in the same order as the modules. The module of labour, organisation and management was separated, so we also made two papers. We didn’t just only want to summarise what was said by the professors, so we selected some elements, problems or challenges that seemed to be relevant and interesting for us.

Our goal was to have a good balance of theory and practice. We tried to apply some theory to practice, for example in the case studies, or to search a theoretical framework for things we had seen and experienced in practice. Another goal, or maybe you could better say ‘expectation’, was to have a rich view on adult education at the end of our groupwork, so that we had learned to see it from different perspectives and we also thought we could learn from each other, in discussions and by giving feedback.

Trying to be ‘innovative’ and ‘creative’, we used some theories that were not mentioned in the program, we read some newspapers to see if there were relevant articles and we used our own experience. Not only on the content, but also on the way we present our papers, we do not really have a fixed style. We have rather reflective papers, case studies, a combination of narrative elements and a case study, but also a paper on our personal opinions.

During these weeks we worked more or less in the same way. After each module we had a ‘meeting’ to discuss the elements which each of us found important. We made a structure and divided the work, so for almost each paper everyone wrote a piece. After having written our pieces, we came together again to read them, to give each other feedback and to write an introduction and a conclusion. Each module two persons were responsible for integrating the pieces into one paper and to make some final corrections and changes.

During the last week we all read the papers very critically and we came together to discuss our corrections and our suggestions to change certain parts. We made the changes and red the papers again, discussed about the introduction and conclusion and wrote them together.

We also had a reflection on our groupwork. Each of us contributed to almost every paper, but we all had some modules we found more important or interesting, you could say we had our own ‘specialisation’.

We recognised different roles in our group. Mira was often the one who took notes and structured what was said in our discussions. Bart had a critical view and asked us many questions. Melissa wanted things to be more clear, more concrete, by using examples. Anna was our ‘plumber’, when were stuck in our discussion and had no idea what to do, Anna came up with some good ideas, new things or a new structure.

When we look back upon our collaboration, we see that we could easily work together and that we had a really nice group!

Chapter 1 : Communication and new technology

In this paper we want to start from what we have seen and experienced about the use of new technologies for education. We will try to put our experiences and our ideas about it in a broader context. First we will talk about information technologies as applied to the learning organisation, but we think it is important to see that the phenomena and the technologies we have seen also fit in a general development of a learning society. Life long learning is becoming very important in many aspects of our society. Now we want to try to find out if new technologies are necessary, or maybe the only alternative today to build up an effective learning program from the learner’s point of view.

Information technologies and the new model of learning

To explain that the «new model» is not the same as «new technology» we have some definitions. The new model is a learning environment. The objective is to make the learner interact with the knowledge. The learner has the possibility to choose his own learning program. The "teacher’s" role is to help the student to find his/her own way to learn.

In the old model the teacher's role is to give information to students, and students are listening passively. The curriculum is already made.

Information technologies or, if you want: new technologies are tools and techniques, which help people to plan and develop their information processing. Equipment, software, databases and client-servers are examples of information technology. Information technologies are tools to process and transfer data automatically. People also need to have skills to use information technologies before it can be helpful. So, information technologies are not the same as the new model.

The new model gives many new possibilities to use information technology with effective learning, but it has also disadvantages. New technologies provide sometimes too much data and it’s difficult to select the important data. If learners don’t get enough support to use and select information, they will not learn effective/well. Counselling is a very important part when using new technologies (not only do people need encouragement when using new equipment, they also need skills to select information).

So, information technologies are just a tool that can be used in the new model, but are not inherent to it. The new model is broader than a technique and it includes a whole range of strategies to organise the learning process.

Media analysed

We think that the right question is not: "What multimedia or information technology can be used for teaching a certain content", but: "What media (in general) shall we use for teaching this content ". Multimedia and information technology can have enormous advantages over the more traditional media such as books, blackboards, …Sometimes, however, a book is much more useful than a computer. Books are linear while the newest information technology is based on hypertext (non-linear). Hypertexts have got a lot of advantages, but it is difficult to get a good overview on the content of such web-sites just because of its non-linearity. Another advantage of books is that people can learn how to structure texts by marking, subtitling,… . When you work with for example text on the Internet, everything is already pre-structured.

Multimedia and new information technologies certainly fit in the idea that the starting point must be the learner, but also more conventional media and teaching methods can fit into this idea. So, classical and presentational courses can also be arranged in such a way that they fit into the new model. The British university system for example is based on much more distance learning, paper writing, … . The Finish university system works differently, but there is also a lot of academic freedom in choosing subject matters, an idea that is also close to the new model. However in none of these systems new information technologies are inherent.

Another example of this new model without the necessary use of these technologies is the Belgian university system, where the students work in projects.

On the other hand, multimedia and new technologies can also be used in an ‘old’ way. For example the quiz to practice English grammar and vocabulary we found on the Internet (www.eslcafe.com) is, in our opinion such an example, for there is no feedback (no explanation) when you have chosen the wrong answer. At least you can say that information technology here is not used in all its capacities, because the same things could be done on a sheet of paper.

So, because of what we have seen on the Internet, on the applications of some multimedia, we think there is no necessary link between the new model and the information technologies, although they can of course often be used to fit in the new model as some applications in France Telecom showed us.

Thus, what media you use depends on the purpose, the target group, the content, the preferences and of course the availability of certain media, and not the other way around. But even when you think of having chosen the right media, you should also use it to the capacities it’s designed for, otherwise it makes no sense using new technologies

The learning organisation

Very linked to the new model is the term : «the learning organisation», in fact, it may be seen as a translation of it in organisational terms. When workers co-operate in small groups they will be more effective, at least this is the idea behind it. It helps organisations to learn all the time. Information technology gives more possibilities to organisations to work with this new model. Distance learning for instance makes it possible to work all over the country and people have more freedom. Workers can have contact with each other and they also can ask for help from experts, when they need it. New technologies seem to fit quite well into the concept of the learning organisation.

This week we visited France Telecom, which is an example of a learning organisation. Workers are able to work at distance and in their team there can be experts from other departments. This way the whole organisation is able to react quickly on the market, because of the strong interrelationship between the departments. An efficient stream of information also makes it possible to change organisational strategies if necessary. However, In France Telecom, we just heard one side of the story about the learning organisation. So it is not sure if it really works that well, because we did not have the possibility to meet any workers. So, maybe there still can be quite some problems in this kind of learning organisation and the technologies used on it. For example with work and spare time/family there could be many conflicts, which we did not hear about.

The learning society

In post-modern times, the term of life long learning has gained significant importance as a part of the so-called learning society. Finishing university, or any other form of higher education just is not enough anymore to be sufficiently skilled for the labour market. Permanent schooling has become a prerequisite for functioning in our society. However, life long learning is very often conceived as the narrower "permanent vocational training". Due to the neo-liberal system, companies have to provide permanent training for their employees in order not to lose the competition with other companies in a world where "change" is the only certainty. To help companies face this challenge, information technologies are often very useful. So, for example (on-line) distance learning facilitates the learning process and makes self-learning easier. If we look at the concepts we just mentioned (life long learning, distance learning and self-learning), we can see that nowadays their philosophy is to take the learner as a starting point. Information technology should be adapted to the learner, the learner must be able to work at his own pace, and last but not least, the learner should be self-motivated… .

The whole idea of self learning as a part of life long learning can be seen as a positive evolution, but maybe the question is rather: "Are learners always self-motivated?" In many cases employees can be put under high pressure to always learn more and more, even at nights and on the weekends, if they do not want to fall out of the labour market. Before, competition used to be between products of different companies, while nowadays competition is more and more taking place between human capital within the same company and between different companies. Lifelong learning, self learning and distance learning, as well as the information technology linked to them, conceived in this way may not only serve the learner’s needs but rather serve an other purpose, that is to win competition. This critic looks very obvious, but what we want to express is that information technology may adapt itself to the learner’s needs in a technical sense, but on a more fundamental level we want to question if it’s the information technology which adapts itself to the learner or the other way around. To put the problem in another way, we can look at the next paragraph.

New technology is used a lot in Finland. It has given many possibilities to learn/work at distance. Also people in the countryside can take part of many courses, thanks to this. But it has also brought some problems. In Finland there was an economical depression (1990-1996) and many people lost their jobs. Many new open learning centres were built for people to re-educate them... but learners have to be more self-directed than before and they also need to have skills to use the new technologies. However this situation is not without danger. It is creating a dual society: those who are highly educated will be able to learn more and more and others are going to be outsiders, because they don’t have the necessary skills to update themselves. Also in the finish labour market there will be a lack of experts and at the same time there will be lowly educated people without work.

So, do new technologies rather serve the learner’s needs or do they serve the system’s needs?

Maybe this should remain an open question, as it is not the technology itself that decides what to serve. Information technologies certainly can be applied in a way to serve a system of competition between organisations as well as between individuals, but it can also be applied in a very positive way, like there are also lots of applications for disabled people which make it possible for them to learn new things and to express themselves better.

It is not our intention here to repeat what has been said already, rather we would like to conclude with a cultural aspect of new technologies (this also to show the relativity of the stances taken in our own paper). In Finland young people are even more open and enthusiastic for the possibilities new technology can offer than people from other countries. This may be due to the fact that people in Finland live scattered and new technology offers them a whole new possibility to communicate with each other. In countries where this is not the case communication media may still be very important, but not so important as in Finland.

Chapter 2 : Learning in a multicultural society

Preface

"je n' en comprends rien. Et en plus, je m' en fous!"

Introduction

The problem of learning in a multicultural society is very broad and includes enormously many aspects. We experience this in our daily life and also during these two weeks.

The purpose of our paper is not to discuss all possible topics or the whole problem in all its aspects. We want to select some topics that seem interesting and relevant for concrete situations and discussions in our own countries (the topics are not always strongly related). We want to stress the links between the different levels of identity, because we are convinced that they all interact in a specific way and play a particular role in solving (or causing) problems in our multicultural society. We will link regularly some social developments with the role education can or must play.

In a first topic we present a scheme in which we place some actors in the different levels of society (macro, meso, micro). And explain why they seem so important to us for the 'multicultural' discussion. Then, we look at the educational organisations and educators in our multicultural society and try to find out, based on some theoretical notions, what their roles can be, we want to search for an answer via the theory of O. Schäffter about selfhood and experiencing strangeness. To show that this is not only a theoretical question, we want to apply it on what we have seen and have heard in IFAD. In the third part, we will look at challenges and possibilities for education on the meso-level based on the theory of Wildemeersch about processes of social learning. Finally we look at the meaning of forums for discussion in our society.

After that, we want to discuss the 'dialogue' and 'pluralogue' and finally we discuss if the government can force migrants to learn the dominant language. It's about general questions on different levels.

A framework of actors

Dr. Ruud van der Veen (University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands & Columbia University, USA) stressed the economical factors in multicultural relations. Dr. Ortfried Schäffter (Humboldt University, Germany) stressed more cultural aspects, on the individual itself and its relation with strangeness. Both perspectives are important to know, when we want to plan education in our own country.

In the next picture we try to describe the environment where we live in. We all have our own experiences and ways to see the world. Also organisations and their members differ from each other. They have their own way to perceive and interpret things (organisational culture) as well as to solve their problems. But also society and rules have an effect on organisations and individual´s behaviour. So all circles are in interaction with each other.

In the peripheral circle the economical situation and the society, which set borders for organisations (education planning) but also for individuals in the inside circle, is described.

Cultural problems are often very deep and not just about culture alone. They often have to do with economic competition. To understand the whole system by planning for example education for migrants, we have to take into consideration the relation between cultural and structural perspectives.

When planning education it is important to be aware of the economical situation. Is there really a need for the profession in which we want to train the new workers, unemployed people or migrants? Or should we better try to find something new (innovations) or counsel people to find their own interests and motives?

Ruud Van der Veen told us that economical aspects are more important, have more influence than cultural aspects in solving multicultural problems like discrimination and racism. Does this mean that we only have to organise vocational training for migrants? Will discrimination disappear if all economical problems are solved and there is work for everyone? We think vocational training is important, but it's not everything. Maybe it can be a basis for a broader program.

During our field visit in IFAD (Institut Formation Animation de Developpement) for example we saw that the main content of the courses is to learn certain skills, but there is a broader context of cultural exchange, expression, social group work,...

In the second circle we place the organisations and social movements. They have a kind of a bridge function between macro-systems and the individuals. They form a place where people come together to discuss, to act, to think, to socialise,... There always is a tension between the goals and needs of the organisation or participative system and the goals and needs of the individuals. Individuals want to be both a part of the group and apart from the group.

Educational organisations can be situated on the meso-level, between the state who makes the rules and the global policy on the one hand, and the group of learners or the individual learners on the other. The educators themselves can be seen as a part of these organisations or as actors who have a direct relationship on the micro-level with the learners.

We behave and react to the world as we perceive it. (Perception is perhaps the one which sets social science apart from natural science. Individuals see, attach meanings, interpretations, values and aims to our actions). What we do in the world depends on how we understand our place in it, how we perceive ourselves and our social and physical environment, and how we perceive our circumstances. We all live in our own perceptual world. We pick up information from the world around us. The incoming data are processed and interpreted in the light of our past experiences, in terms of our current needs and interests, in term of our knowledge, expectations, beliefs and motives. Our experiences also make us able to select useful information. Successful interpersonal communication depends on some overlap between our perceptual worlds (we have some common perceptions). Although we think successful communication can also mean to respect differences. Still the term successful can be interpreted in different ways.

The picture is our general framework from which we start to discuss some important items on the different levels.

The role of the educational organisation and the educators in a multicultural society.

The theory about selfhood and experiencing strangeness

We want to look at the role of educators in multicultural situations. How can they in concrete contexts, together with the (migrant) people themselves solve problems, find a way out and react on challenges migrants have to deal with in their daily life?

When we look at the theory of Schäffter, we think we can distinguish three main tasks for educators, namely:

· recognising and being able to deal in a flexible way with the different levels of identity of learners;

· helping learners to build up a strong, clear borderline which permits openness to strangeness;

· confronting learners with their unknown strangeness and giving them skills to make such contacts.

This seems to be quite abstract, but we think IFAD gives in some aspects a concrete filling in of these tasks.

Considering the first task, people of IFAD told us that they take for example a lot of time for orientational conversations, to find out, together with the person who wants to follow a certain course, what his needs are, his skills, his interests, and so on. Another illustration of the first task is the fact that in IFAD they have chosen for a global approach, which means that in their courses they include vocational training, cultural, social, personal development,... which refers, in our opinion, to the different levels of identity. A third example of the same task is that IFAD really builds up its courses with the experiences of the individual learners. The concrete experiences of the learners form the starting point of every course. A last aspect we want to stress on is the fact that IFAD always asks the learners to define some personal goals as well as some group goals.

A main objective of IFAD is to make people more autonomous, to learn them to define what they want to do with their own lives. A mean to reach this is giving those people full responsibility for their learning processes. We think this is a good illustration of the second task we distinguished, namely to help learners to build up a strong, clear borderline.

Considering the third task, we saw that IFAD brings people in contact with new skills, new knowledge and new attitudes. The basic reason why people come to IFAD is to learn, what means, to come in contact with strangeness. We think the task of facilitating contact between a learner and some unknown strangeness, is very important, because the unknown strangeness is a part of the world for a specific learner that is hard to reach but can be very instructive to get a good image of his own identity.

Another aspect of the same task is the fact that IFAD tries to work as much as possible with mixed groups: men and women, different nationalities, cultures, and so on. Intercultural exchange, trips to foreign countries,... are very important strategies of IFAD.

Promoting the dialogue

We now want to look at intercultural learning from another perspective, more on a meso level. We want to look to the ghetto problem and a concrete example of an educational alternative for trying to solve the problems that occur in these ghettos.

The situation of the black people in the USA shows that it will take several generations to adapt and still a so-called 'underclass' will resist adapting to white man's culture. In fact, in spite of all measures taken by the government - ranging from the 'New Deal' to positive discrimination and workfare programs - have not only 'helped' a large number of blacks to adjust themselves, but also (and as a consequence) made the separation between classes increase, and as the black middle class moved towards other parts of the cities, ghettos have become more and more violent. The ghetto problem is not only an overseas phenomenon, it also exists in many European cities. Some policy makers have even encouraged immigrants to live in ghettos, as is the case in Belgium with immigrant colemine workers. However, this kind of separation between people has often proved to be counterproductive for intercultural dialogue and anti-racism. Nowadays, big cities have several problematic neighbourhoods where this kind of intercultural learning is still a dream rather than reality. The gap in understanding between ‘autochthonous’ (native) and ‘allochthonous’ (foreign) people seems to be wider than ever.

The question then raises: what can educational organisations and educators do to find a way out, together with the people themselves in concrete situations, in concrete neighbourhoods?

We think inspiration can be found in a research on the debate of environment, nature and agriculture in 2 Flemish (Belgian) municipalities (Vandenabeele and Wildemeersch, 1997) (Afterwards we will explain the link between the following example and intercultural learning). In recent years, in Flanders as well as in the Netherlands quite some debate is going on about the relation between agriculture, environment and nature. While before the debate on agriculture used to be an internal affair between the sector and the government, nowadays, the debate is also open to other groups in the society. The government tries to direct this new evolution by the foundation of several environmental councils on a municipality and regional level. This creates forums where through dialogue and co-operation, local actors can work on concrete actions for sustainable development of their region. However, the two selected Flemish municipalities involved in the research, differed a lot in how the learning opportunities in these councils were used.

In the first municipality, there were many misunderstandings, there was a lot of distrust and a high incidence of the use of power. In spite of the long tradition in the debate between environmentalists and agriculturists of this region, both groups still have very opposite interests, which they try to defend using the tool of communication. Communication was never used to question the own point of view, and except for some compromises, there was no real solution found, nor planned projects for sustainable development of the region.

In the second municipality, a much more constructive debate was going on. Since about three years, an environmental organisation is active, trying to improve the ecological quality of the open spaces. Within this framework, they handled it to work out a common project of sustainable agriculture, between agriculturists and environmentalists. The result was a concrete proposition to subsidise the maintenance of willows and natural pools where animals can drink.

The authors consider this concrete co-operation as a process of social learning. Social learning is the learning of groups or communities to function in circumstances which are new, unexpected, uncertain and difficult to predict as for example social problems. It is aimed at the solution of unforeseen context problems. It is characterised by an optimal use (based on experiences, co-operative communication, critical reflection and interdisciplinarity) of the potential for problem solving which is present in the group.

This perspective could be very important for intercultural learning, because the learning which took place in the second municipality is not so very different from a learning which potentially takes place when people of two different cultures meet. In fact, agriculturists and environmentalists are representing two very different cultures.

When taking a closer look to what characterises the difference of problem solving in both regions, we probably can find some important cues for the educator who wants to promote intercultural learning in general.

In the second region, the chairman of the council used to be very good in maintaining the dialogue (in a co-operative form) without falling back upon a form of decision making where majority wins from minority. This was not the case in the first region where the role of the chairman was defined as to find a compromise.

A second character of the process in the second region was the critical reflection on the own perspectives. In fact, a few persons were combining the membership of an environmental organisation and the strong relations (via family, …) with the agricultural business. This made it easier for them to change between well-known and new perspectives and in fact they assumed the role of mediator in the meetings. In the first region, mediators were assuming their role in a less public and less permanent way.

A third necessary aspect –which is also very clearly linked to the former- for social learning is the presence of interdisciplinarity. This promotes a very rich learning environment (an environment full of potential strangeness experiences) because of the very different perspectives it gives. However, as happened in the first region, one perspective can overwhelm another. There should be enough openness for all perspectives which is not always possible. In fact, too many perspectives can also impede a constructive collaboration.

A last aspect is the directness towards experience and action. In the second region this resulted in a concrete project. The collaboration for such action can be seen as an important stimulus for social learning. Participation of the different interest groups should however not begin in the phase of implementation, but already in the phase of planning.

If we go back to the example of the ghettos, this perspective of social learning could be very useful. In troublesome neighbourhoods, the use of this kind of concrete problem-centred projects could give lots of (intercultural and multicultural) learning possibilities, at least if circumstances allow it (when there is at least a minimum of willingness to collaborate amongst the people of different cultures, when there are mediators, …).

It is also a plea for a debate between 2 cultures which is free from power influences, and which does not take the adaptation of one culture to another as a starting point.

The role of the educator in this case will be the promotion of such concrete projects, but also of the exchange of meanings and perspectives. It does not assume the role of an expert here, but rather he is a facilitator who guides the process and when possible withdraws himself from the process to give people full responsibility for the learning process.

Promoting the ‘pluralogue’

Problems on a neighbourhood or ghetto level are very important and can threaten the quality of an individual’s or group’s life. That is what makes it so urgent to solve problems on this level. However, it can not be seen apart from another, more abstract level: the level of the imagery. This is also the level of ideas, political meanings, prejudices,… . It is the macro- and meso-level where communication media such as newspapers, radio and TV have a lot of influence upon. These media very often are highly penetrated by sensation, as this is what people like to see, to read, to hear…So, from an economical point of view it should not surprise us that those media are just responding to a demand. So, information gets biased this way. It is much more interesting to relate about problems, riots, … than to mention more positive things on migrants. Another example related to this is the difference that exists in Belgium on the imagery of Italians and Spanish on the one hand, and of people from Maghreb countries and Turkey on the other hand. The former came to Belgium with the first wave of migration. There have been many problems between them and Belgian people, though now they seem to be quite well integrated. It might however also have something to do with the European community that their image is much more positive than the one of people from Maghreb countries and Turkey. The latter seem less integrated. This may be right in a certain point of view, however if we look at the general knowledge of autochthonous (French/Dutch) languages, the Italian and Spanish score less than people from Maghreb countries in using them.

This tendency is in fact not without danger and it helps extremists to defend their point of view. This in turn also has its influence on community work at neighbourhood- or ghetto-level. In Antwerp (Belgium’s second largest city) an extremist political party has quite some weight, and all actions undertaken by community workers to help people live together are undermined by activists of the extremist party. This way, the imagery level and the neighbourhood level are pretty interrelated, and only working on the latter could be quite a marginal approach towards the whole problem.

If we consider the way things generally work, the way of transmitting the imagery is quite passive: the media tell us that… For more active ways there is very little space. Indeed, in universities, in symposiums, on TV,… there are debates about the problem, but the only people that have a voice are the experts. There may thus be a (educational) need for forums (local as well as regional and national) where people of all kinds of social backgrounds can come to discuss multicultural problems, where strangeness experiences can be treated and where communication with people from other cultures can be experimented in a safe and harmless way (conditions should be shaped for guaranteeing this safety). It is important to hear many points of view, many voices, a ‘pluralogue’ between cultures. A good example of a forum for discussion and decision-making we have found in a Belgian newspaper (De Morgen, 26/2/1999) is about a council for Moslem people that is set up some weeks ago. They are allowed to give advice to the Belgian government about the Moslem issues. This forum is not only oriented towards reflection and imagery, but also towards real actions. The Moslem council can influence to a certain extent the daily policy.

Forcing migrants to learn ?

We really think that the forums we talked about in the last chapter, is a good solution. But are also questions on a more political level that are important. Our question is : can the government force migrants to learn something about the culture and the language of the country they are now living in ? This question itself causes a lot of other questions.

Migrants are in a totally different culture in a totally different country. But somehow they have to survive there. So it is necessary for them to learn about the language and habits . If you know the language you can integrate more easily and you might be more accepted by the people who are living in the country for a long time. Migrants need basic skills in daily life, for example to go to the supermarket or to get money, but also for being able to participate in discussions.

But there are some problems with forcing people :

• There are migrants with psychological problems because of their experiences in their country (for instance when they come from a country in war)
• In some cultures women are not allowed to go to school or to learn in another place.
• Other migrants are just for a few years in the country
• Etc.

So migrants have different objectives when they are coming and some of them may even have no objectives at all. They are just there to feel safe. But maybe integration just helps them to feel safe? Can you force migrants to go to school or to learn in another way? Is it even possible to adapt to another culture? We think culture is like a second nature, not just a lifestyle.

And if you offer migrants an educational program to help them to get a full place on the labour market, there are maybe people who call it positive discrimination. But then again, how difficult is it to adapt to a new labour situation? Can you easily learn and unlearn habits? And if it is possible, can you offer them a job?

We think there should be a little pressure, otherwise not every migrant is coming to learn and it gets more difficult to integrate. To feel at home, to feel happy, we think it is necessary to know at least some aspects of the culture. It is not easy to change so deeply your identity and you should respect other habits. But we can try to understand each other.

It is easy to say that all migrants should learn at least the basic skills in the new language. But there have to be some facilities. If the government wants to force migrants to learn, they have to offer good education programs. But what kind of programs? To learn a language, a few hours a week is not enough. There should be social workers to talk to the people with psychological problems. And should there also be somebody to help migrants with other problems? If they are aware of who they are, where they come from and how they communicate, they may be more able to learn other cultures.

Women are not allowed to learn in their own country should become aware that they have the right to learn, that they can come to learn about the culture and the language. We should empower them and help them to understand their situation and to solve problems, learn them skills to make decisions, not send them to a course in a classroom and teach them grammar, but through social topics try to learn them to find their way in society.

In multicultural education the focus should be on the participation. What do they want to learn? What do migrants need to survive in our society? They need to learn the language. But there are people who have already an educational background and people who are illiterate. Can they be in the same group to learn? Maybe it is better to ask the migrants themselves?

When you try to reach migrants you have communication between two cultures, intercultural communication. Program makers should be aware of that communication. It is about what we see, what we say and hear and there is a non-verbal process. In each culture there are other gestures and symbols. It sometimes can lead to irritations. But this could also form a basis for learning (O. Schäffter). For example when we met the other students on the first day of the program we were not aware of the different habits we have. The Spanish people give two kisses when they meet someone, Dutch people just shake hands,... At the first moment, the Spanish people found it a little bit strange and even impolite, but after talking for a while, we understood each other, because at least we all speak some English.

Conclusions

Multicultural learning is not as evident as it seems to be. Our preface might be a good example of how feelings of strangeness can go together with irritations.

We started with a general framework in which we situated some actors of the multicultural issue, we discussed the role of the educator in multicultural education, both on the individual level and on the group level, and we ended up in what we have called a 'pluralogue'. Finally we discussed if it is necessary or useful to force people to learn about the dominant culture.

When we reread our paper we have discovered a negative undertone: the migration problem, some migrants are not able to learn, migrants must be forced to learn,... It sounds as if migrants only cause problems. But should it not come from both sides? Who says we have to impose our own culture upon migrants? Maybe we can also learn from them.

We do believe in the power of forums with members of different cultures. We think we don't need to see it only as a problem, but more as a challenge or a rich chance.

Chapter 3 : Community development and community education

Once upon a time, in a country very far away (but still in Europe), there was a city called Princeton. It was a very nice and prosperous city where people lived happily together. However in one of the town's districts, called River District (for a detailed description: see appendix), there were a lot of problems, at least, that is what the municipality thought about the district. Within two years, Princeton would have its 600-year's celebration, which for the community council was very important. They wanted to reinforce the image of Princeton as a dynamic and proud city, but River District didn't fit into this image, so things had to be changed over there. Therefor they hired James B., a young, inexperienced but very motivated community worker. James accepted immediately, but as he didn't have enough experience, he took his private jet and flew all the way to Ecuador, South America, because there he had a real good friend, called Paul F. who was just participating in a project of community work in a region called Molleturo. Paul was glad to receive him, and he explained him the whole project as follows:

"Molleturo is a vast rural area (about 1000 square kilometres) situated in Ecuador’s southern Andes, and composed of several little villages (hamlets). The centre of the area is located at 1.5 hours of distance in car from the nearest bigger city (Cuenca). In fact, this distance is very little compared to ten years ago when there was no road for cars and it took people 3 days of mule riding to get to Cuenca. In spite of the advantages, the road had also very negative impacts on the ecological system, which is still very important for people's daily survival. To deal with these problems, people began to organise themselves into a second level organisation, the UNOCAM (union of peasant’s organisations of Molleturo). In recent years, UNOCAM has grown a lot as an organisation, and it has the desire to work at the development of the whole region. However, this growing power of UNOCAM was not so very appreciated by local political authorities. To work both on the development of the region and to avoid conflicts with political authorities, a big meeting was organised (both by UNOCAM and people of some NGOs) to make a diagnosis of the weaknesses, opportunities, strengths and threats of the region, and also to elaborate a strategic plan for development. About 80 persons were presented at the main meeting, representing as well local internal base-level organisations, as the Church, as political authorities as external organisations: NGOs, the University of Cuenca, the local division of the Ministry of Agriculture,…

They began with a brainstorming of problems existing in the region, varying from very general economical problems to more specific problems such as the too early pregnancies of the girls. It is important to mention here that also about the strengths and the opportunities of the region was talked. They would be very important when later on was thought about the solutions.

From this list of problems, the most important ones were chosen, and the others were, if possible, grouped around them. The 7 biggest problems were: socio-organisational weakness, poor agricultural productivity, lack of infrastructure (materials, community houses,…were lacking), decline in natural resources, non existing health services, problems related to education (of children and youngsters) and last but not least: the problem of economical resources. However, the last problem was seen as an effect of the former problems and thus working on the first 6 problems would also reduce the last one.

After analysing existing problems, an analysis was made of the possible actors for solving the problems mentioned here. By "actor", every organisation participating in the planning for the strategic plan was meant, thus as well internal organisations as external organisations. There were two parts in this analysis: 1. An analysis of the suitability of the actor for each problem, and 2. An inter-actor analysis of readiness and willingness for co-operation with other actors. For the first of both analyses, criteria such as experience of the actor in handling the problem, experience of the actor in the region of Molleturo, and motivation of the actor for working at the problem were taken into account. For the analysis of readiness for co-operation, a matrix was made to compare each actor with all the others to see if in the past they had established good relations for co-operating, neutral relations (not good nor bad or just no relation at all) or negative relations.

Based on this analysis, the actors were divided per problem, in such a way that for each problem there were as well intern as extern actors, which all together formed a commission (for example the health commission). Taking into account the opportunities, the threats and the strengths, each commission reformulated their problems into an action plan. The commissions are fully responsible for the execution of the action plan they represent. However the six commissions are also co-ordinated by people of UNOCAM and two extern co-ordinators".

James was really impressed by what Paul told him about Molleturo, and while flying back he was really glad because he thought he wouldn't have a lot of work to do and he could just copy the Ecuadorian example. However, after talking with Anthony, another friend of him, he realised that the(industrialised) European context is very different from a (rural) Latin American one.

"In Europe", Anthony told, "we speak about the learning society, because the society has changed very fast during the last years. People constantly have to learn new things in order to keep up with every innovation and demand. In a learning society we have to respond to changing socio-economical and technological conditions.

We have come into a new situation of history where «simple industrial modernisation» has transformed itself to «reflexive modernisation». This means that the conditions that in the beginning facilitated the development of the industrial society have now become problematic in themselves. The result is called a risk society (Ulrich Beck). One reason for global life insecurity is the loss of the central political steering capabilities. All effects are embraced from globalised economy and revolutionary scientific and technological innovations. The traditional political institutions lack power to plan or control effectively the social consequences of these economical and techno-scientifical developments. The question is not only about ecological risks, it is also a question about political legitimisation, social cohesion and moral values.

A main feature of the risk society is the process of individualisation. Individualisation has given people more freedom of choice for the organisation of their own life history. Individual biographies have also become more self-decided and self-organised (self-reflexive). But on the other hand, individuals also have more responsibility for decision making, which represents and reinforces strong ambivalences. Do we all have the same abilities and tools to make choices, and to take up the responsibilities for them? Who will take care of those people, who are not able to keep abreast of the new innovations and demands?

Individualisation in a risk society changes the character of the social question. The question is not only about unequal production and distribution of social wealth ( as it was in a mere industrialised society), but it is also a question about vulnerability of individuals on the labour market and in the social life in general. The mission of adult education is to make people more reflective and critical in everyday life. Theo Jansen and Ruud van der Veen (International journal of lifelong education, vol 16, no.4) give some key elements of a:

1. Support of new fora for political debate on issues.

2. Support of new forms of self-organisation in order to reopen the debate with regard to the bureaucratisation of the delivery reflective strategy of social services in civil society.

3. Support of a society based on a plurality of values and norms by fostering intercultural and intergenerational debates.

4. Support of cultural movements that unmask culturally imposed identities.

5. Support of new arrangements to combine work, education and leisure time.

James needed some time to think about the difference between both parts of the world, its consequences and also about which elements he could still use from Ecuador.

«In Molleturo» ,he thought, »you can not really speak of a reflexive modernity, let alone a risk society. In fact , not even what was referred to as ‘simple modernisation’ can be applied to it, because in fact, Molleturo is still very much a rural society. This makes it possible for them to still have a real community feeling where -in spite of the vast surface- almost everyone knows each other. This is quite different from an individualised society as the European one, or at least a big part of it, may be called. Molleturo also consists of a lot of (quite well) structured base-level organisations, which can not really be said about River District. This also explains why people could organise themselves into a second-level-organisation (UNOCAM) to solve their problems. And also why they could organise a meeting to make a diagnosis of their region and to make a strategic plan for the development of the region.

Of course, also in a European context it could be useful to activate people to organise themselves rather than to trying to find solutions in a political or bureaucratic level. When people can plan and analyse the process themselves, they will be more interested to deal with their problems. Reflective and critical thinking will be the most important skills when planning and analysing the whole process.»

The woman tried to explain to James why River District is not really a community… While she applied it to River District, James tried to make a link with what he had seen in Ecuador.

«A community is not given but socially constructed. You can look to communities from many different perspectives (D. Clark):

1.Community as a human collective

You can see it as ‘the people of a district’. The people of River District have a history together, but you can not really say that they have a characteristic in common or that they common problems.

In Molleturo, it is clearer, almost all the people are farmers, which is a characteristic in common, and which also makes them have more or less the same problems.

2. Community as territory

From this perspective River District is a community, because the territory has a name and a clear place between the two industrialised areas.

In Molleturo there are many little villages, but they also have a common name for the region, a central market place (very important for these peasants), common problems, …

3. Community as shared activities

There is a male and female workers association, but they lost their vitality. There are decentralised activities organised by the cultural community centre , but only women are participating in it. So, from this perspective River District is not really a community.

In Molleturo they have their so-called ‘mingas’, which means that all the people are harvesting together, building houses together,… .

4. Community as close-knit relationships

In River District there are many different groups; elderly, migrants, working class etc. Of course they can have a network of relationships, however, if you don’t ask the people, you cannot really know exactly what kind of relations they have.

In Molleturo, there are many different associations, many families, everybody knows each other. There is not really a gap between generations, because young people are living in the same reality as their parents, or if you want, a peasant's son will be peasant too when being adult . However, there is a growing migration of young people towards the cities. This might be a problem in the future.

5.Community as sentiment

Is there a sense of solidarity, a sense of significance? Most of the people have anxiety about the future; the new traffic plans, care for the elderly, youngsters at risk, etc. In fact, they may be seen as common sentiments, however, very few initiatives are taken by the people of River District themselves to change this situation. So, we can doubt about this aspect, but again, you should ask it the people themselves.

In Molleturo there is a sense of solidarity, as there are many sometimes spontaneously organised shared activities (mingas) and most of the people are farmers. However there are also problems. For instance between the UNOCAM and the local authorities».

1. The various component parts of the community should be able to collaborate effectively in identifying the problems and needs of the community.

Can for instance, the unemployed work together with the employed? Can you get people together to talk about their problems and needs?

In Molleturo they had a big meeting, which was not that difficult to organise as there are a lot of well-structured organisations. In River District the situation is more complicated for many people do not belong to any organisation at all

2. The different components of the community should be able to achieve a working consensus on goals and priorities.

This could be really hard, because maybe there are many different interests. The unemployed might think that new jobs are important and the youngsters maybe want to have a sport centre. It might be hard to reach some consensus and especially to define what are the priorities. Everyone might think that his problem is the most important. In Molleturo the interests were more or less the same as people all have problems in common. So it was less difficult to reach consensus, although even there, divergent meanings existed

3. The different components of the community should agree on ways and means to implement the agreed-upon goals.

If there is a consensus on priorities, the ways and means to implement might be less difficult to agree on. But still people might have different views on how to implement the things. Some people maybe want to do something themselves, while others don’t agree with that approach. In Molleturo, gradually they reached these kinds of consensus, and in fact, it sometimes took a long time to negotiate on how to implement certain decisions. Still, the fact that they did an actor-analysis in advance, facilitated the implementations, as tasks were already divided.

4. The different components of the community should collaborate effectively in the required actions.

This again could be a really difficult part. Even in Molleturo it was difficult, because when you have everyone together and when there is consensus and finally everyone agrees, there still is the question: ‘who’s going to participate in the real action?' They all want a nice community, but do they also want to work on it? Do they want to participate? And can they really collaborate? This seems to be hard to achieve in many projects.

«Maybe it is good to see if there are already competencies in River District. There is a male and female workers association which could use some new energy. Rather than setting up new associations, I could concentrate on this.

It is also possible to let the groups work together. An idea could be that the elderly set up a day-care for children, so the parents can go to work.

Once you have strong groups, you can do as in Molleturo. There, 80 persons were presented at a meeting, representing several organisations and authorities.

So, maybe it is a good idea to work in River District on the different groups also, and later make the strategic plan with their representatives. Of course, this approach might also have its dangers. There can be conflicts between particular neighbourhood groups,… .

You should also first ask what the people think. You might have plans to change and make a competent community, but first the people have to believe in it. Otherwise there could be a lot of resistance to change. People maybe don’t want to change, they just want to take care of their own problems…

The responsibility James had to face these days really began to weigh on him, and after thinking on the group-approach, and how to deal with it, he thought about how exactly he would analyse the situation in River District in order to be able to work on the strategic plan, presupposing he could already reach some of the groups. But after a while he fell asleep. In his sleep, he dreamt of one the teachers he used to have at university, namely mister Will D. In fact, this teacher was applying his theories to River District:

"One of the first things the community worker in the River District will do when he starts his job in the neighbourhood, is to make an analysis of the situation. He will try to define what problems there are, how the relations are between people or groups of people, what influences from outside are important, and so on. A broad analysis of the situation is a necessary basis for further work. But the community worker is not the only one who makes such an analysis. People of the River District themselves also sometimes make, and maybe more spontaneously and less systematically, an analysis of their situation. They also define what their problems are, how relations between them and other people can be seen. And so do other instances like the government, NGO's,...

It seems important to bring together all these different analyses for some reasons:

A first important reason for bringing together the different analyses is to give the community worker a broader and more realistic view on the situation. Maybe a community worker defines problems while the people of the neighbourhood don't see that situation as a problem. Or maybe the situation is only a problem for certain people. Maybe the community worker forgot some aspects.

Another reason to bring together the different analyses is one of respect. You can only work together with people of a neighbourhood and together build up a stronger community if you respect them. This means concretely that you respect their points of view, their definitions of the situation.

Because people of River District, the community worker, certain instances,... have some common interests, participation of all these partners is very important. And we think that this participation should not end with giving all these parties just a vote, but to see and to stimulate them as responsible and capable partners.

There can be learned a lot from the Ecuadorian example. When they made an analysis of the situation, UNOCAM invited a lot of individuals and groups from different instances to help with the analysis of the situation in Molleturo.

Another strength we see in their analysis is the fact that they didn't stress exclusively on the problems. They also made a diagnosis of the strengths, the opportunities they got from outside and the threats of the region. This gave them a more positive, but still realistic overview of the situation. We think this method is a good example to use in communities in Western Europe, like for example in the River District. To stress not only on problems but also on possibilities and strengths can give more trust and positive energy to people.

If we take in consideration this example we think that the traditional relationship between the community worker and the people of the community as an expert versus non-experts relationship can no longer be valid. But what does that mean? Does it mean that there are no experts at all? Does it mean that experts have no function or that everyone can be seen as an expert? We think we can find inspiration for a good filling in of this relationship in what J. Vandenabeele (unpublished document) writes about it.

Traditionally, experts are seen as people who think rationally and linearly. They define a problem, pose a goal and undertake certain steps to solve the problem. And then it's finished. They use a technical model of producing knowledge and solving problems. Non-experts often need a translation of the knowledge of experts to make it useful for their concrete problems.

Vandenabeele says that this technical, rational way of thinking and acting should be replaced by a more participative model. She develops four theses about a new relationship between experts and non-experts.

A first thesis is that educators, experts should organise communication between the different actors. Experts become more facilitators than educators do.

Secondly, she stresses that in the relation between experts and non-experts, not only the validity of scientific knowledge is involved, but also the reciprocal image building of the two parties. The question is not only: 'which definition is the right one', but also 'who's definition is the right one'. This image- and identity building is an important aspect of the relation between experts and non-experts. If non-experts, or people of a community are (maybe implicitly) defined by the community worker as dumb and not understanding what's really going on, their analyses of reality will never be taken in account and non-experts will never believe in their own capacities.

In a third thesis Vandenabeele says that the most important influence of an expert is no longer his capacity to predict and to control reality, but his capacity and willingness to help in the process of construction of reality. A concrete, real situation of a certain community is not a given, but a social construction. This is not an objective reality with a predictable linear process, but a dynamic construction of men.

Finally knowledge can only be constructed by communicating with all people who are involved in a concrete situation. This presupposes recognition of all people as competent actors. In fact all actors, all non-experts, all people on the street can be seen as experts in their own situation. They know and feel the problems they have to deal with, they feel strong or weak relationships, they experience what pressure from outside really means...

Taking this into consideration, what can be the role of the expert, of the community worker in particular? If everyone has expert knowledge based on his own experiences, what can be the surplus value of a scientific expert?

An answer can be found in the description of experiential learning of Kolb.

Kolb describes experiential learning as a cyclic process of concrete experience, observation and reflection, generalisation and abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. This active experimentation forms again a concrete experience,...

We think the role of the expert can be to help with the generalisation and abstract conceptualisation. Experts can help people to place their concrete experiences in a broader, more global perspective. They can help people to find links between experiences, to define more underlying, unseen factors and to integrate their concrete experiences in a meaningful frame of more global themes. A community worker is in an ideal position to help people to find links and to construct, in a close relationship with the people of the community a broader overview of concrete daily problems and challenges".

Suddenly, James woke up, and he thought about what he just dreamt… The abstract conceptualisation… But, he wondered how to do this in a neutral way, without influencing the people…? However, James was still so tired that he immediately fell asleep again. He dreamt about a Fairy, who told him that he can not remain neutral at all :

"To make people make a strategic plan is quite a top-down approach: the educator arrives at River District and he wants a strategic plan for development. This of course is not neutral, for two reasons: on the one hand he wants the things to be changed ( maybe asked so by the local government), that is, he believes there are problems in River District. On the other hand, by the way the educator invites people for the strategic plan, by the way he calls it ( he must not exactly use the name « strategic plan for River District») and by the way he proposes the project not only to the inhabitants, but also to the outside world, he will implicitly or explicitly give hints about the way he sees the things, about his ideas, about whether he sees River District as a problem or as a dynamic society/community (problem- or culture-approach). In fact, he will even give hints about whether he sees River District as a community at all. So, even if he really wants to listen to the ideas of the people, even if he really starts from the participatory idea that people have to decide about their own future, he will never completely be able to prevent his definition of the situation form being hinted ( you can compare it to a hidden curriculum of the community education). So, in fact, it is no weakness at all that the community worker is not neutral, however, he should prevent his ideas from being hidden. To do so, he should make a clear choice between for example a problem-approach or a culture-approach. We can redefine this dilemma as a choice between prevention of disembedding or stimulation of reembedding, or if you want ,a choice between a rather conservative and a rather progressive approach (note that both terms are here used in a neutral, value-free way). Of course, both approaches can be combined, but still a certain choice about the hierarchy should be made. In Ecuador the choice that was made was not really clear: first of all you can not really speak of disembedding and reembedding processes as the terms are used in a rapidly changing western society, because in this kind of rural society, things are more static. However, when we use other terms (in Molleturo we spoke of weaknesses, threats, opportunities and strengths), we can speak of a certain kind of choice. In fact, Molleturo chose for a rather problem-oriented approach (plans were made with the problems as a starting point), although they tried to incorporate not only threats but also strengths and opportunities into the plan. It can be compared to some kind of culture-approach within a larger problem-approach. Development was thus seen as working at the problems, but at least partly using the strengths of the region and its people.

Returning to River District , the question can be asked whether the same kind of approach for development can be fruitful or not. In fact, a problem-approach can have the disadvantage of labelling and stigmatising the District or some (or all) of his inhabitants, depending on how problems are formulated. In fact this is the creation of a new problem (another hidden agenda). That is, only the mere fact of living in River District, gives the association of problems, and to a certain (maybe extreme) extent, even finding a new job can be hindered in this way. Who wants employees from a neighbourhood full of troubles? They might just bring some of these problems to the workfloor… . And… who wants to live in such a neighbourhood except from people who have no choice… .

In Ecuador this stigmatisation problem was not of such a big importance. First of all, almost the whole country has got lots of problems, and secondly the interaction –through which stigmatisation takes place- between this kind of a remote rural area and other regions is very little. In fact, the fact that people work on their development in Molleturo, gives them a rather positive label if there is any labelling at all.

Back to River District, an approach which focuses more on culture, and which promotes reembedding will at least prevent stigmatisation. It will even promote River District and show it to be a very vivid community. An example that fits here is the graffiti-project of the Point Ecout (field visit) in one of the "problematic" neighbourhoods of Montpellier. The youngsters were appreciated for their art, and stimulated to go on with it, which also had a positive effect on their feeling part of the neighbourhood. However, this approach also has its backdraws, because the real problems may be forgotten in this way. It can really be important to stress the positive things, but the negative ones (for example the unemployment) should not be forgotten anyway

Whatever the approach is the educator chooses (he might also choose for a combination), he should be very aware of its consequences, as they determine the development of River District".

James woke up again. He felt much better, and mentally very much stronger. So he got up, took a shower, and went to work. He wouldn't make the same mistakes again...

After looking at an example of making a strategic plan for community building in Ecuador and comparing the Ecuadorian society with our Western risk society, we wanted to pay more attention to concrete community building projects in Western Europe. Therefore we started from the situation in River District and asked the same question as the people of UNOCAM did in Molleturo, namely: 'How to make the people of River District make a strategic developmental plan for their own community?'

We chose for a narrative form to increase the readability of the content and also to make the content more concrete. The comparison with Ecuador was done because if we want to know and understand our own European reality, we thought it could be useful to first take a look at a complete different reality (in a former module we would have spoken about a strangeness experience, necessary to get to know yourself).

In his approach James certainly had very good elements like reflecting upon what he saw in Ecuador, trying to see the differences and similarities with Europe, trying to understand why his first meeting had failed (the definitions of a community) and his thinking about the group approach. In his dreams some other good elements were added.

Nevertheless, he still had the intention to make a strategic plan, an intention which was not based on ideas coming from the community of River district itself. Faced with the situation as it was in River District when he arrived, it might have been not a good choice to immediately adopt something he had seen in Ecuador to River District. He should have adopted a more careful, patient strategy to get to know the people of the neighbourhood much better, before really undertaking anything. A strategic plan might be a good idea to elaborate on a longer term, under the condition that the community itself also asks for it.

We didn’t have the intention to really prescribe how community work should be done in a community like River District. Rather did we - through this narrative - try to explain some dilemmas that can occur when doing community work.

In the River-District the Primary School is loosing children; hall of the building is no longer used. There are indications of an abuse and vandalism is noticed several times. Unemployed inhabitants and workers in the old industrial area hope to find a (new) job in the new industrial area. The boaRiver District and the workers of the Community Social Service want to reduce the high number of dependant persons; providing them benefits doesn´t help them in their socio-cultural and/or professional integration/insertion. Only women are participating in so-called «decentralised cultural activities» organised by cultural community centre. The climate in the River-district is dominated by anxiety about the future of the district: the new traffic plans, the care for the elderly, jobs in the new industrial area, youngster at risk…

Chapter 4: Change, fusion or confusion

In this paper we want to start from a particular case, namely Vredeseilanden-Coopibo, as an organisation in change. In a first part we describe the organisation and its situation. Secondly we take a look at some recent changes and dynamics in Vredeseilanden-Coopibo: the fusion of the two organisations, the divergent groups of volunteers and the changing role of the animators are some important challenges they have to deal with. After that, we place these dynamics in a structural and a cultural framework. Based on this analysis, we try to make some suggestions for change.

Case: Vredeseilanden-Coopibo

Vredeseilanden-Coopibo is a Belgian non-governmental-organisation for development.

Before 1998 Vredeseilanden and Coopibo were separate organisations, but because of political decisions and because of strong similarities in their way of working on development, they fused into one organisation.

Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has activities both in the South and in the North. In the South they work on structural developmental co-operation by supporting local partners in 11 countries in Africa and Latin-America. They really made the conscious choice not to set up projects by themselves, but to support initiatives of local groups or organisations.

In Flanders Vredeseilanden-Coopibo tries to inform and to sensitise people for Third-World themes. Besides that, they also work on durable agriculture in Flanders.

The organisation, which forms a kind of a co-ordinating secretariat, is divided in three main teams. Between the teams there are some links to prevent that the teams would work too separately from the others.

There are two leaders, one of each former organisation (ex-Vredeseilanden and ex-Coopibo) who do not at all have the role of the highest persons in a hierarchy, but who are rather charismatic, inspiring persons. Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has a horizontal structure with lateral communication. This means that decisions are not made by one or two persons, but by the teams.

The North-Team, which consists of some professionals who work on the national level and six animators who work on a provincial level, has to take care of the information and sensitisation of people in Flanders. They have to try to create feelings of solidarity with the South to be able to work on a just, multicultural society.

Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has a large group of volunteers, which supports the organisation. They form the basis, the strength and the legitimisation of Vredeseilanden-Coopibo. It is the task of the North-Team to inform these volunteers and to propose a clear vision and clear goals, so that volunteers can identify themselves with the organisation and that they know what they are working for. The animators form a very important link between the national organisation and the volunteers at the basis of the organisation.

The North-Team also has to offer possibilities for action to the volunteers so that they can express their solidarity and help the organisation in their own way. Volunteers for example can set up certain actions to earn money for the campaign, they can lead workshops for mondial education, and they can make educational trips to the countries in the South to visit the projects, they can help with practical problems, they might help to work out new ideas,...

Vredeseilanden-Coopibo offers these volunteers for example a monthly magazine, information about evolutions in the projects, they organise meetings for volunteers and training days for people who want to lead workshops for mondial education in schools. Animators give more informal education to volunteers,...

The South-Team consists of desk officers who take care of the accompaniment of the projects in the different countries in the South. There are also some members of the South-Team who are not responsible for the communication and support of the projects, but who work around certain themes like gender, culture, food safety, exchange between the South and the North,...Vredeseilanden-Coopibo sometimes works out innovative ideas on development that can be seen as an example for other NGO's.

A third team in Vredeseilanden-Coopibo is the Agricultural-Team-Flanders, which has set up 'Voedselteams' (food teams). These are groups of about 15 families who live in the same neighbourhood and who have a direct contract with farmers to buy ecologically produced vegetables, meat and dairy-products at a fair price. Vredeseilanden-Coopibo supports and co-ordinates the Voedstelteams and helps to start up new teams in new regions.

These three teams are supported by the financial service, the secretary and the personnel service.

Some important dynamics in Vredeseilanden-Coopibo

Vredeseilanden-Coopibo is not a stable non-changing organisation. They have to deal with changes in society, new perspectives, decisions of the government, opinions of people, new problems, and so on. People working in Vredeseilanden-Coopibo have to construct their own way of acting and dealing with new challenges.

Starting from the vision of the organisation and the personal vision of all the professionals they have to take decisions and to define their own direction. But they do not live on an island. Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has to take into account actual changes and they have to legitimate themselves towards the broader society and the large group of volunteers. Their decisions have consequences, not only for the professionals, but also for the volunteers in Flanders, the partner organisations in Africa and Latin-America, other NGO's and so on.

We will now look at some recent challenges Vredeseilanden-Coopibo (and especially the North-team) has to deal with. Afterwards we will try to connect them with the theory of Mintzberg and we will try to find out what kind of culture there exists in the organisation.

The fusion

Because of the fusion in 1998, Vredeseilanden-Coopibo now is confronted with some new problems and difficulties. For example:

• the organisation is larger and needs more structure and formal ways of acting;
• volunteers do not know all the professionals anymore, what makes it more difficult for them to contact professionals;
• people of the two organisations have to learn to know each other, each other's way of acting, thinking,...
• they have to define new, common goals instead of just taking over the goals of the two organisations;
• because of the new identity of the organisation, Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has to explain explicitly who they are, what has changed and what they are standing for;
• ...

Some problems can be seen as 'starter problems' that will be solved almost automatically after a while, but other problems really need much attention. For example the defining and carrying out of clear, well described goals for the organisation is still a problem and tends to become more and more important, certainly if the organisation will not take care of it in the near future. But the professionals of Vredeseilanden-Coopibo are aware of this problem and try to work on it.

Volunteers

The volunteers of Vredeseilanden-Coopibo form a very diverse group who takes up very diverse tasks in many ways. Some of them only do practical work, others help to think on innovations. Some teams of volunteers organise the fund raising during the campaign-weekend, other teams organise activities in their village during the whole year. Some people lead workshops in schools or make a trip to a Southern country to visit the projects. An organisation prints all the magazines of Vredeseilanden-Coopibo for free, etc.

These differences form at the same time the strengths and the weaknesses of the organisation. In this way, Vredeseilanden-Coopibo can count on a large group of people with a lot of different skills. But on the other hand, it's hard to manage such a divergent group. All these people also have different expectations towards Vredeseilanden-Coopibo: some of them want information about the projects in the South, some of them want more information about certain teams, some are interested in the internal decisions of the organisation and want to have a voice in these decisions, some teams of volunteers would like to have direct contact with people in the South,... This development clearly asks for more goods and services made to measure, a big and difficult challenge for the organisation.

Another problem with the group of volunteers, and more specific with the teams of volunteers who are responsible for the organisation of the campaign in their own village, is the lack of co-operation and exchange between the teams. More and more there comes a demand of the teams themselves to organise meetings to exchange ideas or to start co-operation between teams of volunteers. It's up to Vredeseilanden-Coopibo, and more specific to the animators, to take up this challenge.

The role of the animators

A last rising problem we want to discuss is the role of these animators. Animators now have the function to support the volunteers with education, information, sensitisation, moral support or practical things, to sensitise new people and to form a bridge between the volunteers and the professionals. But that ' bridge function', that mediation often is problematic: they are not only a bridge but also a filter of information. They often have their own interpretation of facts and decisions and tell this interpretation to the volunteers instead of the original information. Of course this is a human mistake - everyone constructs his own interpretations of information - but we think, sometimes there also can be recognised a lack of good communication between the professionals who work on the national level and the animators. If an organisation wants to work in a professional way, differences in opinion have to be discussed inside and not outside the organisation.

Another problem is the fact that the tasks of the animators are not filled in in an efficient way. For example: they sometimes spend a lot of time to sensitise the pupils of a certain school by going from class to class to tell their story about the projects in the South. Or they spend a lot of time by distributing and counting the products that will be sold during the campaign. For Vredeseilanden-Coopibo, we think it is important to rethink this job of the animators.

A framework for the changes

A structural theory

Now we want to place these dynamics in the frame developed by Mintzberg. Starting from that frame, we can recognise some dimensions and find directions for the future of the organisation.

(Mintzberg)

When the two organisations were still separate, they both had a strong ideology. Coopibo was a strong professional organisation, which supported projects in the South only when they were quite sure of the success of it. In Coopibo there worked a lot of agricultural engineers who had the right skills and knowledge to support the agricultural projects. When we look at the configurations of Mintzberg, we can clearly recognise the operating core of Coopibo as the key part of the organisation. We also see much horizontal specialisation, everybody works in his own domain, there is no hierarchy between these domains and at the same time, there also is a lot of co-operation between the professionals.

Vredeseilanden was more a missionary adhocracy with a strong ideology. They had a clear vision, a clear mission to tell to the Flemish people. The support of a broad basis of people was very important for them. Because they worked (and still work) with a lot of volunteers, Vredeseilanden could on the one hand count on their help, but on the other hand they also had to make the best out of what volunteers wanted to do.

Because of reasons of efficiency, the state decided that NGO's had to work on a larger scale. This was the main reason for the two organisations to merge.

Now as a new organisation, Vredeseilanden-Coopibo moves more into the direction of professionalisation and innovation. They are aware that they really have to use all the potentials and competencies that are present in the organisation to make good programs both in the South and in the North. As we earlier mentioned, Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has to deal with new problems and new challenges which need an innovative approach to build up a strong way of working.

Finally, we think Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has to take in account the concentration aspect. They will have to define clearly their target groups, so that they can adapt their offers to these people. Do they want to work with students or teachers? With children of a youth group or with their leaders? With social organisations or labour organisations?...

A cultural point of view

An organisational culture (values, belief, opinion, attitude and norms) is developed over a long time. It will be perceived in the way of behaving or acting. It includes also unwritten rules and values. They are very clear for the employees in an organisation, but when two organisations come together, there might be some confusion. In Vredeseilanden-Coopibo, the new merged organisation, had to find new common values, norms, attitudes,... Therefore it was necessary to become aware of their own former culture.

When we filled in the 'organisational climate index for profit organisations' we discovered that Vredeseilanden-Coopibo has a quite equal score for goal orientation, support and respect for rules (± 8). Only for innovation they had a higher score (± 15,5). This means that innovative processes are already important now and we think their importance will grow in the future. Because of the fusion and the new identity of the organisation, we think they should focus more on goal orientation. They have to define clearly their strategy, goals and direction. If everyone walks in the same direction and if everyone knows where they are walking to, it also becomes easier to support and orient volunteers.

Some suggestions for the future

We don't pretend to give the right answer to these challenges. We don't think there even exists one right answer. But we want to do some suggestions, based on our experiences and on the theoretical frameworks mentioned above. Maybe they can be a support for Vredeseilanden-Coopibo to find a certain direction.

A first suggestion we want to do is that a good path for change in the case of Vredeseilanden-Coopibo might be the learning-confrontational model. Because of the high level of professionalisation in the organisation, and because of the horizontal structure, we think it is possible for them to learn from each other and to discuss on an equal level. These discussions should be based on co-operation instead of on competition. This can only be done under the condition that people are open to change and that they are aware of the new challenges and problems. By working together and exchanging experiences, they can construct their own way of working and their own goals.

When making a diagnosis of the situation, we think it's important to focus on the positive aspects, the things in common and the strengths, rather than on the problems and the differences. This diagnosis can form a good basis for defining clear goals, for finding energy to remain innovative and to use all the capacities of professionals and volunteers. In this way there can probably be given a new and clear content to the merged organisation.

We think the challenge to manage the group of volunteers and the problems with the role of the animators are linked to each other.

If the organisation really wants to make use of all the capacities of the volunteers, which might be very efficient, the animators have to know their volunteers and have to appreciate them for their work. Volunteers also ask for more services made to measure and if the animators want to offer it to them, they will have to redefine their tasks. Maybe they can spend more time supporting and co-ordinating the teams of volunteers, the teachers in schools, … instead of spending much time by informing and sensitising large groups of people. They should define explicitly their target groups, so that they can adapt their working towards them.

Chapter 5 : labour organisations in change

In the paper of the previous module, we discussed the merger between Vredeseilanden and Coopibo. Now we want to look at this theme in a more general way. In the case of a merger current arrangements, systems, procedures, rules and other aspects of the organisational structure and process might be no longer appropriate or effective.

We also want to stress on the role of management in changing situations.

Aspects of change in organisations

Often the decision to merge comes from the management and workers just have to adapt to this new situation, which can lead to resistance.

Maybe people are scared, have some kind of fear. They don't know what is going to happen, if they will lose their jobs, what the meaning of the merger is, what the new company will be like, who their colleagues are,...

People are also used to a certain way of working. It is easier and safer to keep the things the way they are than to introduce change. It could be difficult to change, especially when you talk about attitudes.

Another point is that some companies are obliged to merge, maybe the company as a whole then already has some kind of resistance in advance. In the case of Vredeseilanden and Coopibo they had to merge because of decisions made by the state, but at least they could choose their own partner.

Companies have their own culture, their own ’atmosphere’. But what if they go together?

An example on a smaller level could be that two of the intercultural groups of the program would have to ’merge’. We, as an intercultural group, have already our own way of working. We also have our own ’culture’. We have some kind of organising, some kind of structure to write the paper of each module. If we have to merge with the others, we have to let go some things of our strategy and they also, because otherwise we will not be able to work together in a efficient and pleasant way. We can find some points we have in common and work on them. We can think of the good points in each group and try to use them to make a ’new’ strategy and maybe a ’new’ culture.

There is also the problem of structure. For example, if one company is organised in a hierarchical way and the other has a more horizontal structure, it could cause many problems. Workers who are used to someone being around who tells them what to do might have problems when that person disappears. But also the other way around, for example if you are not used to a direct boss and suddenly you have one.

Vredeseilanden and Coopibo were both horizontally structured, which made it easier for them to find a new common structure for the new organisation. But imagine when one company has a horizontal structure and the other is very hierarchical.

We think education can play an important role in working on solutions for these cultural and structural changes that cause resistance.

The role of education

We can recognise two different aspects of education in changing organisations. One aspect is to get people to communicate with each other. After that it can be important to train new skills and knowledge. We think that if you start with the first aspect, you can focus on the real problems. Sometimes it happens that people complain about practical problems in their new changed job, but these complaints might be only symptoms of more underlying problems.

To make a clear distinction between these two aspects, we will use the term 'education' for the first aspect, and 'training' for the second.

A first function of education (in a new merged organisation) could be to find together the identity of their organisation. If two organisations go together and want to find a common identity, it is important that the staff of both organisations is aware of the own identity and the identity of the partner. This clarification of identities is a first important proactive step of education.

More concrete, this means for example that workers get to know why new colleagues might react in a certain way. Also values and unwritten rules might be more understandable if people get to know each other a little bit better,...

Another function of education, linked to that clarification of identities, could be to stimulate the dialogue. It’s important to bring both companies closer to each other and to create an open attitude towards each other. Therefore an open atmosphere for communication about aspects of the fusion but also about other aspects could help to understand each other and it might be a first step of co-operation.

Through this open communication in educational settings people can learn to know their strengths and weaknesses and those of the other organisation. Based on that they may find some common characteristics and ways of working. This could also be a starting point for finding common goals and strategies.

Besides these educational aspects, workers also might need training to function effectively in the new merged organisation. For example if workers get new tasks in the merged company, they might need new specific skills or knowledge. But not only specific tasks, also the whole function of workers can change. Training can help those people to manage this situation so that they know what they have to do, what their responsibilities are and what the organisation expects from these workers.

Conclusion

Education can be a tool to prepare workers for the change. This is a proactive way of working. Also good information between the management and the workers will help in mergers and other changing situations (to reduce resistance). Education can also react on changes and also in that case it is important that the whole organisation takes part in it. The management should take seriously the point of education, because without their support, it will not be useful at all. Education can not change the worker’s behaviour, if the management will not change its own behaviour also.

So, reflecting is important for everybody in the organisation, when they want to construct a new organisational culture, but also when they want to work effectively, go to the same direction and aim common goals.

If we look at the role of education and training we mentioned before, we think we can recognise some cultures of education as described by Leirman (Leirman ,1993). The most dominant culture seems to be the communicator-culture. We stressed that through open communication merging organisations can clarify their old and new identity, they can get to know each other, they can try to find out together what their needs are and formulate through dialogue some common goals and values.

Besides that, we also used some elements of the engineer-culture, for example the practical training for new skills or training to learn to work in a new function profile.

Finally, we mentioned that new expertise, new specialised knowledge might be needed in merged organisations. If the staff of an organisation in change needs new (theoretical) knowledge, an expert-culture seems to be the best way to reach this.

Chapter 6 : Adult education and social policy, an international perspective

Description of two models

When we look at two main policy models, the social-democratic and the neo-liberal model, we see some important differences between them. We will not stress all the possible differences between them, but select some aspects that seem really important to us.

First, we think the two models can be situated in a different socio-economic period. The social-democratic model was more dominant in the modern society, while the neo-liberal model comes up now in the post-modern society. Of course this does not mean that in a modern society there were no neo-liberal elements or vice versa.

The two models also have a different content, a different way of constructing and structuring society.

The social-democrats define the state as an redistributing instance that distributes and provides goods, education, social care,…The state is an institution that offers a lot of things to the citizens to reach more equality in society. This is a good aspect of the social democratic approach. But on the other hand, this model often is linked with bureaucratic practices, because the state as a large, global actor intervenes in and controls a lot of domains of society which leads towards a complicated administrative apparatus.

The neo-liberals stress that the state should play a minimal role and give as much freedom as possible to private initiatives of the citizens. This also is applicable to education and training. The citizens are free to choose what kind of education they want to have, when they want to follow courses, how much, and so on. The state does not provide this education, but has an open attitude towards private initiatives. In this way, they do not really take care of equal chances for everyone to participate in these private educational offers, but they stress more on equity. Because most decisions are taken on a decentralised, local level, organisations can act more flexible than in a social-democratic state.

Actual developments

If we are to consider recent developments in educational policies, it might be necessary to first take a look at policies in general. Liberalisation of the market and competition are of course not just developments of the last decades, for they were already part of public policies -at least- since world war II (for example with the GATT agreements). However, what is new nowadays is that these processes are increasing and globalising to such an extent that measures taken in the past (the social-democratic welfare state) to protect people from possible negative effects are no longer affordable. These processes can both be looked at on a practical level (for example the delocalisation of multinationals as clearly can be seen in the automobile industry) as on the level of discourse (for example the use of terms as ‘competitiveness’, ‘privatisation’, … but also –although not yet official- the MAI-plans

Back to education (or should we say ‘learning’?), this neo-liberal discourse is also recognised for recently there is a strong emphasis on learning as an instrument for economical competitiveness based on individual freedom and responsibility for learning,…

In practice on the one hand more and more private organisations provide education in language, word-processing, … mostly for other enterprises. Sometimes governments even reinforce them by for example using a voucher- system.

Secondly, in many countries, governments are not so active anymore in determining educational policies for schools. Whereas before, they used to give money for each specific function of a school, determining how to use the money, nowadays for example in the Netherlands, it is very common to give a global budget and let the school decide what to do with it (this kind of decentralisation is of course not per se neo-liberal). Also municipalities are rather talking about buying education than to organise it themselves.

Education however sometimes is reduced in its meaning. At least if we look at the importance of education as expressed by the money educational programs receive, there certainly is a trend to spend more and more money on practical, useful vocational training, and maybe less and less on other forms of education….

Another very fashionable development is the growing co-operation between educational systems and the labour market (enterprises, companies,…). Sometimes, states even set up completely new educational systems to support local companies. So, for instance in many European countries there is the PLATO-network.

However, state-supported educational systems for vocational and professional training certainly don’t always fit into a neo-liberal discourse. Rather, some initiatives for specific target groups can be seen as a social democratic correction in a neo-liberal market. However, this is a difficult topic, for in many countries unemployed people are obliged to vocational training, not just to help them, but to prevent the social security to be overloaded by too many unemployed people.

But after all, still there do exist a lot of social-democratic practices in education, as for example Erasmus-exchanges, grants for studying, initiatives for community education (they are nowadays increasingly encouraged by some governments as for example in The Netherlands), …

This is of course not surprising, because there is still –in spite of a growing neo-liberal discourse- a very important social-democratic discourse. Just the fact that the majority of the European countries nowadays have a socialist government shows enough here.

Still, an important question can raise here: neo-liberal policies and practices are certainly increasing, but are they also replacing social-democratic initiatives or are both initiatives complementary at the moment? Probably they are (generally spoken) complementary at the moment, but whether the neo-liberal policies will completely replace social-democratic policies or not, the future will decide.

Actual contradictions and paradoxes

During the courses of this week we discussed a lot of contradictions and paradoxes. Here in this paper, we want to stress one particular paradox that, in our opinion, might form an underlying basis for other contradictions.

We want to look more at the relation between freedom and equality. Both are important values in a democratic society, and are explicitly formulated during the French Revolution as two main values to build society upon. But it seems as if they exclude each other. If you take freedom as a basis to build up society, if all people are free to do what they want to, without intervention or limits of the state or governmental instances, you create or strengthen inequality, because not everyone has in fact the same opportunities. Differences in income, skills, social background,... lead to inequality if there is no intervention of the state but a big freedom of all individuals.

On the other hand, if equality of everyone is a basic principle of society, if everyone is treated in the same way, there doesn't exist much freedom of choice anymore. If the state, for example, organises all education, people can only choose between what the state offers them. This is no real freedom anymore.

But what does this paradox mean? Do we have, does the state have to make a choice between them? Does the state have to decide to diminish freedom in favour of equality? Or s