Being a major factor for personal and societal development, (inter)national public and policy debates emphasize the critical role of adult education within the continuum of lifelong learning and for economic, social and sustainable development (European Commission, 2010; United Nations, 2015). However, a common understanding of adult education does not exist – neither on national levels nor on the international level. Therefore, adult education research faces challenges both with regard to the empirical observation of its subject and conceptually (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2013).

To understand factors that influence successful policies on adult education and factors that favour participation, integrative model approaches conceptualise adult education as multi-level systems (e.g. Boeren, Nicaise, and Baert 2010; Schrader 2010). They highlight reciprocal relationships between characteristics located at the macro- (legal and financing frameworks), the meso- (provision and providers) and the micro-level (individual’s participation and learning processes). Since comparative information on provision structures of adult education (meso-level) is hardly available, international research mainly focuses on relations between the macro- and the micro-level to explain existing variations in terms of participation rates and social selectivity within and between countries (e.g. Roosmaa & Saar, 2010, 2017). Attempts to explain cross-national patterns on the basis of existing typologies from economics or political science such as the welfare state system (Esping-Andersen, 1990) or the varieties of capitalism approach (Hall & Soskice, 2001) show deviations from the ideal-types of country classifications (Kaufmann, Reichart & Schömann, 2014; Roosmaa & Saar 2010). A straightforward application of typologies and indicators from neighbouring disciplines does not seem viable (e.g. Roosmaa & Saar 2017). Thus, questions arise if and how structures of adult education systems correspond to types of welfare state regimes or capitalist economic formations. Desjardins suggests a related typology for industrial countries differentiating between market-led adult learning regimes, state-led regimes, stakeholder-led regimes and state-led regimes with a high degree of stakeholder involvement (Desjardins 2017, pp. 25–31). Based on a sample of eight countries, this typology draws on the role of state versus market involvement, including relations between different stakeholders. Thereby, provider structures by contents (vocational education, basic education etc.) are in focus but not so much general relations between the institutional framework and provision and provider structures which seem necessary for e.g. indicator based analyses of provider structures between countries.

Therefore, this contribution focuses on the interrelations between the macro- und meso-level, analysing institutional regulations in terms of legal and funding frameworks (macro-level) and their influence on publicly financed adult education provision (meso-level) in three countries. These countries were identified as ideal-types of the existing classifications: England as traditional liberal welfare state and Sweden as social democratic type. Spain represents the familiaristic state in which the role of families is extremely strong in the social sector (Ferrera, 2005; Saar, Ure & Desjardins 2013).

The educational governance perspective provides a useful analytical framework for understanding phenomena in the complex multi-level structure of adult education systems. It focuses on the interplay of regulations, actors and their coordination principles in order to understand the mechanisms and functions of its characteristics (Schrader 2010). As it is not possible to distinguish clearly between subject and object of regulation processes in such multi-layered systems (Altrichter, 2015), the necessity to consider various actors or actor constellations and their coordination of actions is central for this research project. Focusing on the relations between institutional frameworks and adult education providers and provision, the environmental neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) provides another lens for analysis. Based on the assumption that organizations need resources and legitimacy to secure their existence, it focusses on the institutional context of organizations in which they are embedded.  

A qualitative case study design serves the complexity of the research questions regarding possible interactions between institutional settings at the macro-level and the provision of publicly financed education for adults at the meso-level. Case studies prove to be suitable for analysing phenomena within different contexts in their full width and for identifying typical characteristics (Yin, 2009). The comparative case study approach is particularly appropriate for social research dealing with policy and practice (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). This paper presents results of three different research steps: desk research, document analysis and content analysis of around 12 interviews held with central experts and actors representing the macro- resp. the meso-level in each of the three countries. For the document analysis material from various subdomains of the field is relevant, e.g. texts on legal and administrative structures, regulations, funding schemes and orders. Qualitative content analysis supports the systematically examination of both the selected documents as well as the interviews held using a category system guided by theory and developed on the material (Schreier, 2012). Supported by the MAXQDA software, the material is divided into units and processed one after the other focussing specifically on the various actors and actor constellations and their relations. Like this, the analysis reconstructs processes of coordination and possible trade-offs at national levels. In an additional step, it relates these processes with each other from a comparative point of view. This permits the identification of (similar or differing) system structures of adult education focussing on the publicly financed education of adults in the three countries as one sample area of the broad field of adult and continuing education. The above-mentioned educational governance perspective and neo-institutionalism guide the systematization of actors and their actions. Based on these findings of central actors, their constellations and relations, the analysis of documents and interviews examines the macro- and the meso-level to identify relationships between legal and funding frameworks and actor constellations on the different levels in more detail.

At this stage in the research process, concluding remarks on possible findings have to remain preliminary. One main expected outcome is a distinguished description of the structures and characteristics of publicly financed adult education in England, Sweden and Spain. In a second step, a comparison of these portraits will show common and differing features. By linking the identified features to certain institutional regulations on a more abstract level, this comparison has the potential to generate governance related statements regarding adult education systems in general. Drawing on the above-mentioned existing typologies it can be expected that providers and provision in England is characterized as market-led (Desjardins, 2017) and Sweden stakeholder-led or state-led with a strong degree of stakeholder involvement. This papers’ analysis of the actor constellations and actions at the macro- and the meso-level shows so far, that interrelations look slightly different: Despite being an ideal-type of the liberal welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990) and of the liberal market economy within the Varieties of Capitalism-approach (Hall & Soskice, 2001), in England a dense network of legislative frameworks and funding procedures aims at the regulation of adult education provision. Within the market-led typology, it could be expected that providers are heavily in competition with each other - especially for receiving state funding. However, the preliminary analysis of our interviews paint a different picture: we learned about several mechanisms of cooperation between providers, at least at the regional or local level. The expected outcomes function as basis for further research in the field. The formulation of characteristics and indicators of adult education systems is central for further analyses of adult education and lifelong learning structures and can offer follow-up possibilities for both national and international qualitative and quantitative research.

Altrichter, H. (2015). Governance – Steuerung und Handlungskoordination bei der Transformation von Bildungssystemen. In H. J. Abs, T. Brüsemeister, M. Schemmann, & J. Wissinger (Eds.), Educational governance: Vol. 26. Governance im Bildungssystem: Analysen zur Mehrebenenperspektive, Steuerung und Koordination (pp. 21–63). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2016). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge. Boeren, E.; Nicaise, I.; Baert, H. (2010). Theoretical models of participation in adult education: The need for an integrated model. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29 (1), 45-61. Desjardins, R. (2017). Political Economy of Adult Learning Systems: Comparative Study of Strategies, Policies and Constraints. London, et al.: Bloomsbury. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. European Commission. (2010). EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION. Brussels. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ferrera, M. (2005). The boundaries of welfare: European integration and the new spatial politics of social protection. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: Oxford University Press Oxford. Kaufmann, K., Reichart, E., & Schömann, K. (2014). Der Beitrag von Wohlfahrtsstaatsregimen und Varianten kapitalistischer Wirtschaftssysteme zur Erklärung von Weiterbildungsteilnahmestrukturen bei Ländervergleichen. Report - Zeitschrift Für Weiterbildungsforschung, 37(2), 39–54. Roosmaa, E.‐L. & Saar, E. (2010). Participating in non‐formal learning: Patterns of inequality in EU‐15 and the new EU‐8 member countries. Journal of Education and Work, 23(3), 179–206. Roosmaa, E.-L & Saar, E. (2017). Adults who do not want to participate in learning: A cross-national European analysis of their perceived barriers. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(3), 254-277. Saar, E., Ure, O. B., & Desjardins, R. (2013). The Role of Diverse Institutions in Framing Adult Learning Systems. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 213–232. 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 United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN Publishing. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2013). Second Global Report on Adult Learning and Education. Rethinking Literacy. Paris. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4. ed.). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 5. Los Angeles: Sage.