In Europe, organized adult and continuing education is often planned and realized collaboratively: two educational stakeholders have to cooperate in order to provide learning opportunities for adult learners in the continuing education sector. On the one hand, there are adult educators frequently working on a permanent basis in adult education institutions. They – among other things – establish, organize and evaluate educational programs. On the other hand, there are course instructors, trainers, coaches etc.; they usually work for several institutions on a freelance basis teaching diverse groups in their field of knowledge. As these teachers are not employed permanently by one institution, but recruited for specific adult education courses, they are not stable members of the organization. The cooperation of these two educational stakeholders can be described as “loosely coupled” (Weick, 1976). Although only loosely connected, both stakeholders are interested in building a long-lasting, effective partnership. So, the research focuses the recruiting situation: Which processes determine whether educational partnerships (do not) come into existence, and why?

Forming these partnerships is a consequential and important task. Both professionals prove “the other side” whether they could probably work together in the future: recruiting situations are a very ambiguous task, because all parties involved have to handle a process full of uncertainty and challenges. Recruiting processes place high demands on the recruiter’s competency to select appropriate criteria and to assess potential future teaching personnel. That is, because in Germany as in many countries worldwide – in contrast to the school system – becoming a teacher in the adult education sector does not depend on any specific minimum standard, qualification or degree. In fact, the initial education of the people deciding to become adult education teachers is particularly heterogeneous: their previous training does not necessarily include any educational aspects (Research voor Beleid, 2008). Under these circumstances it is understandably difficult to decide on generally applicable criteria for recruiting these teachers (to be) in adult education.

Another argument shows the importance of forming a new partnership well, i.e. choosing “the right” course instructor or trainer: There is a strong common agreement among scientists of various educational sectors, including adult education researchers, and practitioners: The quality of teachers’ performance is regarded as a key factor for the quality of (adult) education as a whole (e.g. Hattie, 2009; Research voor Beleid, 2008).

Although forming new partnerships in adult education is ambiguous, consequential, important, and it determines new collaborations, yet little is known about the relevant competencies given or needed by the recruiters to do this task. The same holds true for the process of recruiting teaching staff and for the process of searching, selecting, and assessing characteristics of the applicant. How exactly does this recruiting process work in practice? Who is (not) going to be chosen as a course instructor, trainer or coach in a further education institution, thus, is granted transition into a new partnership –and why?

Previous research on the adult education system (Schrader, 2010) as well as research on social judgment processes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) suggest factors influencing the recruiting and selecting process on at least two levels: on an individual and on an organizational level. On an individual level, the recruiting adult educator’s competency to assess potential future personnel is relevant as well as his or her strategies and procedures. How do recruiters notice, determine, and judge occupational aptitude for the teaching profession? What is the basis of their decisions? Which factors might influence their competency in this regard? Second, on an organizational level, differences can be considered due to institution-specific characteristics. Which factors might influence the selection process on this basis?

Abelson, R. P., & Levi, A. (1985). Decision making and decision theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Theory and method: Vol. 1. Handbook of social psychology (pp. 231–309). New York: Random House. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173. [31.01.2015]. Merton, R.K., & Kendall, P.L. (1946). The focused interview. The American Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 541–557. Research voor Beleid/Plato (2008). ALPINE – Adult learning professions in Europe: A study of the current situation, trends and issues. Final report. Zoetermeer. Retrieved from http://www.ginconet.eu/sites/default/files/library/ALPINE.pdf. [31.01.2015]. Schmidt-Lauff, S. (1999). Kooperationsstrategien in der betrieblichen Weiterbildung. Unternehmen und Bildungsanbieter als Partner? München und Mering: Hampp. Schrader, J. (2010). Governance in adult and further education. Unified Germany as a case study. European Education, 41(4), 41–66. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://vahabonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ohnso__wd85c4fwa28v15.pdf. [31.01.2015]. Witzel, A. (2000). The problem-centered interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 22. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0001228. [31.01.2015].