Session Information
23 SES 03 A, Lifelong Learning
Paper Session
Contribution
For more than ten years, lifelong learning (LLL) has been high on the European agenda as a way to make EU more competitive at the global market. A huge number of green and white papers as well as strategies and recommendations have been published and national governments have been urged to implement the lifelong learning policy put forward by the EU (e.g. Commission of the European Communities, 2001; Council of the European Communities, 2004; Council of the European Communities, 2009). The aim of this paper is to analyse the implementation of the European LLL policy into national legislation. Focus of the study is on the Danish case, but lines will be drawn to other European (especially Nordic) countries. How does the LLL policy survive the way through to national legislation – not least in the light of a financial crisis that put a strain on national budgets? The research question, thus, is: “How is the European policy on lifelong learning being implemented into Danish legislation, and what factors are influencing the implementation?” In order to answer this question, the paper first analyses the European and Danish lifelong learning policy with a focus on adult education, before going on the study the actual implementation in form of relevant legislation and other kinds of regulations in the Danish case.
The theoretical framework for the analysis is found in policy and implementation theories with a focus on the last. Lifelong learning is often described as the solution to problems related to employment, social cohesion and global economic competition. In this study, however, problems are not seen as an objective reality but as socially constructed. Problems are what are defined as problems (Kingdon, 1984; Zahariadis, 2003) Further, problems are not necessarily exogenous to the political process (Bacchi, 2009). Inspired by Zahariadis (2003), the first part of the analysis aims to identify what is defined as the problems and by whom (participants), as well as the recommendations (solutions) put forward in relation to a lifelong learning policy? In relation to the second part of the analysis – the national implementation of the European lifelong learning policy, the analysis will trace the European through national policy to national legislation. Though the study in line with a top-down perspective (e.g. Sabatier, 1986) looks at a central policy and how it is being implemented, the aim of the study is not to come up with a solution on how to ease implementation, but to get a better understanding of the process and the factors influencing national implementation of European education policy. According to Pedersen (2006), the Danish system can be described as a negotiated economy where “… decisions are reached on the basis of interaction between independent agents, and the relevant public authorities is just one of several participants” (Pedersen, 2006, p. 246). The analysis of the national implementation will therefore, among other aspects, look closer into the influence of the social and other partners in the process.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What´s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Australia. Commission of the European Communities (2001. Communication from the commission. Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. Brussels: Author Council of the European Union (2004)."Education and training 2010". The success of the Lisbon strategy hinges on urgent reforms. Joint interim report of the council and the commission on the implementation of the detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe . Brussels: Author Council of the European Communities (2009). Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’). Brussels: Author Ehlers, S., Larson, A., Thång, P.-O., & Wärvik, G.-B. (unpublished). Effektive strategier for livslang læring. Copenhagen: National Research Centre of Competence Development. Fairclough, N. (2002). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 121-138). London: Sage. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Pedersen, O. K. (2006). Corporatism and beyond: The Negotiated Economy. In J. L. Campbell, J. A. Hall & O. K. Pedersen (Eds.), National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism. The Danish Experience (pp. 245-270). Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.