Participation in Adult Education and Gender: Analyzing Individual Barriers across Different Welfare State Regimes

Author(s):

Natascha Massing(presenting / submitting)Britta Gauly(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

28. Sociologies of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

28 SES 12, Education Mismatch, Adult Education And Neurobiology

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-26

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-B101

Chair:

Gyöngyvér Pataki

Contribution

Lifelong learning is becoming increasingly important in today’s societies. Individuals have to maintain and develop their skills in order to cope with changing demands, such as new technologies. Our research compares participants of adult education with non-participants across countries with different institutional frameworks and welfare state regimes. When focusing on non-participants, we analyze perceived barriers to adult education, considering gender differences and family structure.

Although the participation in lifelong learning has positive effects on individuals and their life chances, not all individuals want or can take part in adult education. Cross (1981) distinguishes between situational, institutional and dispositional barriers in participation to adult education. Rubenson and Desjardins (2009) resort to the Bounded Agency Model in explaining how barriers are produced and how an interaction between different kinds of barriers can arise. They put forward that each welfare state regime affects barriers to participation through the policies in place. In addition to a direct effect on institutions through policies, welfare states can also have an impact on individual perceptions and with it on dispositional barriers. Welfare policies do not treat all individuals in the same way. According to Esping-Andersen the citizens of welfare states are workers and individuals are not taken into account if they are not on the labor market. Many welfare states are based on the assumption of a male breadwinner and unpaid work is not valued. One of the main points of criticism in the classic typology of welfare states is their gender blindness (Lewis, 1992). Welfare policies thus affect men and women in the reconciliation between employment and family responsibilities differently. Coordination of work and family has been seen as a specific female problem for a long time, however, this issue is now on the agenda in many European countries.

The employment rate of women compared to men is traditionally lower. This also affects the participation in adult education as most of it takes place in a work context (Desjardins, 2015). If employed, women are more likely to hold a part-time or temporary job than men, employers might interpret this as less commitment to the work place and have even fewer incentives to invest in female workers (OECD, 2011). Furthermore, most of the unpaid work in terms of childcare and family work is carried out by women. All of these aspects allow women even less opportunities and less time for further education, thus creating gender inequality. However, differences in the gender employment gap and the share of unpaid work between countries, especially between Western and Southern European countries, exist.

We analyze countries that belong to the three “classical” types of welfare states, according to Esping-Andersen (1990), and in addition extend it by the “Southern type” (Leibfried, 1993). These types differ in the role of family, market and state (Abrahamson & Wehner, 2006). We contribute to ongoing research on barriers to lifelong learning with the following research questions: 1. Are there gender differences in participation in adult education and do they persist when controlling for family structure and employment status? 2. What are the main barriers to participation in adult education and how are they related to having young children? 3. Do perceived barriers differ across countries with different welfare state regimes?

Method

Recent data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) offer the opportunity to analyze participation in adult education across countries. We use data for twelve countries from Europe and the United States, belonging to the four different welfare state regimes mentioned above. The data was collected employing complex survey sampling design to ensure the representativeness of the population in each country (OECD, 2013). As an international requirement, at least 4,500 respondents had to be interviewed. As part of an elaborate questionnaire, various background variables, such as age, gender, educational attainment, work history and family composition were assessed. Furthermore, several questions were asked about the participation in adult education twelve months preceding the survey as well as its form, length and context. Respondents who had not taken part in adult education were asked about the barriers that deterred them from participating. In order to be able to compare different models and to overcome limitations due to small sample sizes, we imputed the data for missing values from variables used in the analysis. We present two types of analysis: bivariate analysis of cross tabulations and multivariate logistic regressions. Our dependent variable in the regression indicates participation in adult education and is equal to one if an adult has participated in further education twelve months preceding the survey and zero if not. Regression results are reported as odds ratios. The analysis shows how equitably adult learning opportunities are distributed between women and men. To be more precise, we estimate the likelihood to participate for women in comparison to men. We extend this estimation by introducing control variables such as age, education, employment status and family structure, focusing on individuals with children below age 13. This adjustment allows for comparisons of inequalities when controlling for other factors that might play a role. In order to investigate the model fit, we report the pseudo-R² and information criteria. Our analyses are based on respondents aged 25 and above because in many countries, respondents are still in education around this age.

Expected Outcomes

First descriptive results indicate that only in countries with a Scandinavian welfare state system women are more likely to participate in adult education then men. Multivariate regression analysis shows that part of this gender imbalance is significantly related to other factors, such as employment status and family structure. When controlling for these, women are more likely to participate in adult education across different welfare state regimes. Regarding non-participation, the most important barriers reported by both men and women are financial reasons, being too busy at work, and having family responsibilities. Having children seems to have a different effect on women and men, as in particular women with young children report family responsibilities as a barrier. However, in Scandinavian countries the gender differences seem to be less distinct. Summing up, our results indicate that the likelihood to participate in adult education for men and women, as well as for individuals with or without family responsibilities varies across countries. The reconciliation between work and family depends on institutional frameworks. It seems likely that welfare policies have an impact on the extent adults take part in further education and training. Our research provides insights into better understanding why adults are deterred from engaging in further education and which policies might reduce some of the barriers, therefore increasing the opportunity to participate for both women and men.

References

Abrahamson, P., & Wehner, C. (2006). Family and/or Work in Europe? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37(2), 153–171. Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Desjardins, R. (2015). Participation in Adult Education Opportunities: Evidence from PIAAC and policy trends in selected countries, background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. New York: Polity Press. Leibfried, S. (1993). Towards a European Welfare State? On Integrating Poverty Regimes in the European Commission. In C. Jones (Ed.), New Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe (p.120-143). London and New York: Routledge. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159-173. OECD (2013). Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/surveyofadultskills.htm Rubenson, K., & Desjardins, R. (2009). The Impact of Welfare State Regimes on Barriers to Participation in Adult Education: A Bounded Agency Model. Adult Education Quarterly, 59 (3), 187-207.

Author Information

Natascha Massing (presenting / submitting)

GESIS-Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften

Mannheim

Britta Gauly (presenting)

GESIS-Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Germany

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.