International research on continuing higher education (CHE) provided by universities often refers to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Goal 4.3 addresses adult continuing education (ACE) (including university education for adults/mature students) and requests countries and their higher education (HE) and ACE systems to promote inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all (e.g. Webb et al., 2019). At the same time country studies show that CHE - understood as a specific part of ACE provided by universities resp. higher education institutions (HEIs) - its national policies, conceptualisations, target groups and provider structures vary in national contexts (e.g. Desjardins & Ioannidou, 2020; Dollhausen et. al., 2013; Hanft & Knust, 2009). Even though, universities play an important role by providing CHE in Europe, it remains difficult to describe and compare its institutional embedding, involved actors and provider structures between countries comprehensively (Hanft & Knust, 2009). Therefore, focusing on CHE, this research investigates comparatively for three European countries relations between national regulations of CHE (macro-level) and the provision of CHE (meso-level) and by this addresses questions of CHE governance.

Conceptualizations of ACE (including CHE) as a multi-level system with interdependencies of the levels argue that regulations on the macro-level for ACE (e.g. legal foundations or funding mechanisms) shape characteristics on the meso-level (provision). Together these influence the micro-level, namely participation and educational processes (Schrader, 2010). Not least due to the complexity of the subject and missing (comparable) data, interrelations between the levels and understanding governance structures of adult education remains a central research desideratum (e.g. Rees, 2013). Similarly, little is known about certain cross-national institutional features of ACE and its subdomain CHE (Desjardins & Ioannidou, 2020; Schemmann, 2014). The educational governance perspective can be linked to the multi-level approach and provides a useful analytical framework, as it is primarily concerned with actor constellations and their coordination of action in multi-layered education systems (Maag Merki & Altrichter, 2014). Since in many countries logics of CHE action coordination are strongly influenced by HE regulations, HE governance models are additionally referred to. This helps to characterise diverging country specific governance structures of CHE in the broader context of ACE and also within marketized, state-centered and academic self-ruled HE governance systems (Dobbins & Knill, 2016). A compilation of the theoretical approaches enables to compare common and contrastive country features.

England, Spain and Sweden represent the analytical cases for this comparative study. The countries differ in governance features (e.g. economical-, welfare state- and labour market regulations, and characteristics of the education system) as well as in ACE participation patterns (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990; Hall & Soskice 2001; Saar, Taht & Roosalu, 2014). At the same time, all countries are western industrialized nations, OECD members and share common European policies (e.g. “Bologna reform”).

Relying on the state of research and the theoretical framework, this contribution focuses on actors and their specific action coordination in relation to legal and funding regulation of CHE (macro-level) and its provision (meso-level) in the three countries. The leading research questions are: Which actors (national and regional bodies, interest groups) are involved in the regulation of CHE provision? Which central coordination mechanisms are implied by the legal requirements and funding logics and how do they influence CHE provision (types of providers, concepts, target groups)? Do the results on CHE governance correspond with institutional arrangements and regulations of ACE or HE systems? To what extent is it possible to compare the country-specific results of the CHE governance modes across European countries on the basis of uniform theoretical categories?

The aim of this research is to identify forms of action coordination implied by the legal and financial regulations within the field of CHE governance and their influence on provision structures of CHE in England, Spain, and Sweden. Therefore, a qualitative contrastive case study design serves as the overarching methodological design. Across a multi-level perspective, case studies help to observe simultaneously (vertical axis) similarities and differences within policy contexts (horizontal axis) and how these policies develop in specific locations and historical contexts (transversal axis) (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Juxtaposing the country specific institutional characteristics and provision structures of CHE allows to identify common and contrastive governance features between the cases, even though, accounting for the vertical and horizontal axis only. A country-specific document analysis of legislative texts and key papers on CHE financing mechanisms was used to capture central actors and actor constellations involved in regulating, financing and providing CHE. Based on this, expert interviews with central actors on both institutional levels (macro- and meso-level) are conducted; experts are defined as persons who have special and exclusive knowledge due to their professional position. Results of the expert interviews represent the focus of this contribution. Following the multi-level approach, we chose national and regional bodies of the political decision-making system, of funding and research organisations, charities as well as representatives of providers of CHE. Questions for the interview guideline are derived from the multi-level approach, the educational governance perspective, from the state of research and the results of the document analysis. 17 expert interviews were conducted in England and will be supplemented in this scale in Spain and Sweden until the second season of 2021. For the structured content analysis a deductive-inductive category system guides the systematic analysis of the collected data (Schreier, 2012). Results for the countries will be contextualised with regard to the educational governance perspective and HE governance models. Based on uniform theoretical categories the analysis clarifies regulations, related actor constellations and provider structures in the multi-level system of CHE in the countries. This allows to juxtapose different CHE governance characteristics and a comparison of common and contrastive CHE system features in England, Spain and Sweden. By this, the questions regarding the interactions of institutional settings at the macro-level and the provision of CHE at the meso-level are answered and allows theoretical indications for international comparisons of CHE systems.

At this stage of the research process, results must remain preliminary as data collection is still ongoing. Document analysis for England and Spain shows that CHE in both countries is primarily regulated within HE, but with overlaps to ACE, whereas strong differences exist regarding involved authorities and their competencies. In England, CHE is characterized by degree-related provision structures and located primarily in the field of HE, but certain offers are also embedded in the ACE sector. Currently, universities are encouraged by the government to focus on widening participation strategies to provide accessible flexible learning programmes for mature students/adult learners. The analysis for Spain shows that CHE is less degreed-related and strongly placed within the field of HE. Generally, CHE provision by public and private universities in Spain is linked to labour market needs, whereas ACE is primarily provided by ACE providers focusing on basic ACE. By contrast, Sweden represents a strongly integrated education system with a long tradition of including the principle of lifelong learning into all educational sectors (Ministry of Education and Research, 2007). Presumably, provision and offerings of CHE are designed to enable transition between educational sectors, including the transition between ACE and HE. However, assumptions on interrelations between governance related regulations and the provision of CHE by universities and HEIs in Sweden will be amended by further inquiry of expert interviews. Overall, the application of theory-based categories enables the systematization and comparison of common and contrastive action coordination of actors and their interdependencies in the three countries. By this, findings could inform education policy on how to systematically compare CHE systems, as a first step towards a deeper understanding of governance dynamics between the macro- and meso-level of one subsection of ACE.

Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. K. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. New York, London: Routledge. Desjardins, R. & Ioannidou, A. (2020). The political economy of adult learning systems: some institutional features that promote adult learning participation. Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung (2), 143–168. Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2016). Reformen der Hochschulsteuerung in Europa: Konzepte, Messung und empirische Befunde. In J. Schmid, S. K. Amos, & J. Schrader (Eds.), Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik. Internationalisierte Welten der Bildung: Bildung und Bildungspolitik im globalen Vergleich (1st ed., pp. 33–78). Nomos. Dollhausen, K., Wolter, A., Lattke, S., Scheliga, F., Spexard, A., & Geffers, J. & Banscherus, U. (2013). Developing the adult learning sector. Lot 3: Opening higher education to adults. Contract EAC 2012–0074. Final report. Brussel: Publications Office of the European Union. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. (Ed.) (2001). Varieties of capitalism: Oxford: University Press Oxford. Hanft, A., & Knust, M. (2009). Comparative Overview of Study Results. In M. Knust & A. Hanft (Eds.), Continuing Higher Education and Lifelong Learning: An international comparative study on structures, organisation and provisions (pp. 23–69). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Maag Merki, K., & Altrichter, H. (2014). Educational Governance. In K. Maag Merki, R. Langer, & H. Altrichter (Eds.), Educational governance: Vol. 17. Educational Governance als Forschungsperspektive: Strategien. Methoden. Ansätze (2nd ed., pp. 396–410). Dordrecht: Springer. Ministry of Education and Research (2007). The Swedish strategy for lifelong learning. A summary of principles and orientations. Rees, G. (2013). Comparing Adult Learning Systems: an emerging political economy. European Journal of Education. 2013(1), 200-212. Saar, E., Taht, K. & Roosalu, T. (2014). Institutional barriers for adults participation in higher education in thirteen European countries. Higher Education. 68 (5), 691–710. Schemmann, M. (2014). Analysis of the governance of university continuing education in the United Kingdom and Germany. In M. Schemmann (Ed.), Internationales Jahrbuch der Erwachsenenbildung: 37(1). Wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung im Kontext lebensbegleitenden Lernens: Eine thematische Einführung, 61–71. Schrader, J. (2010). Governance in adult and further education: Unified Germany as a case study. European Education, 41(4), 41-66. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice (1. publ). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Webb, S., Holford, J., Hodge, S., Milana, M., & Waller, R. (2019). Conceptualising lifelong learning for sustainable development and education 2030. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 38(3), 237–240.