Participation rates in adult education tend to be unequal. Educational attainment, having a job or not, and age, are repeatedly found to be major determinants (Boeren, 2016; Desjardins, 2017). Those with the highest qualifications, with knowledge-intensive jobs, and those who are younger are more likely to take part. While girls have broadly caught up with boys in initial education systems in recent decades, as adults women in many countries tend to receive less support for participation in work-related training (EIGE, 2019). Recent research by Boeren (2019) has also demonstrated that adult migrants living in Europe tend to participate less in education. While separate variables such as gender, ethnicity and social class are known to correlate with participation in adult education, this paper extends knowledge on participation issues using the lens of intersectionality. This paper asks how barriers to equal participation in adult education play out differently between (a) men and women, and (b) women from different class and ethnic backgrounds. European Social Survey and Adult Education Survey data confirm that social origin is a significant barrier. The paper also draws attention to intersectionality: multiple simultaneous disadvantages, including gender (for women), social origin (for adults whose parents have basic or lower levels of education), and having an ethnic minority or migrant background. Current knowledge on adult education and intersectionality is based mainly on small scale studies. We draw on large scale representative data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and Adult Education Survey (AES) to further understand the role of gender and intersectional dimensions in adult education. This also allows us to move away from studying gender and intersectionality in one specific setting and to take into account the structural differences in the economy, labour markets and education systems that exist between the diverse countries of Europe. As previous studies show adult learning systems are indeed ‘embedded in specific economic and social arrangements’ (Ioannidou & Jenner, 2021, p. 321) and ‘lie at the intersection of a variety of other systems including a nation’s education and training system, labour market and employment system and other welfare state and social policy measures’ (Desjardins, 2017, p. 21). Women are less likely to receive financial support from their employer, though more likely to do so from public institutions. Ethnic minority status has a stronger negative effect for women than men. Mediterranean and post-socialist welfare regimes reduce the effects of intersectionality less than social-democratic regimes.

Boeren, E. (2016). Lifelong learning participation in a changing policy context: An interdisciplinary theory.Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Desjardins, R. (2017). Political economy of adult learning systems: comparative study of strategies, policies and constraints. London: Bloomsbury. EIGE (2019). Work-life balance and participation in education and training. Vilnius: EIGE. Ioannidou, A., & Jenner, A. (2021). Regulation in a contested space: economization and standardization in adult and continuing education. In A. Wilmers& S. Jornitz (Eds.), International perspectives on school settings, education policy and digital strategies: a Transatlantic discourse in education research (pp. 321–334). Opladen; Berlin; Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Leathwood, C. (2006).Gendered constructions of lifelong learning and the learner in the UK policy context. In C. Leathwood &B. Francis (Eds.),Gender and lifelong learning (pp. 40–55). London: Routledge. McCall, L.(2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Journal of Women in Culture and Society,30(3), 1771–1800. Stoilova, R., Ilieva-Trichkova, P., & Bieri, Fr. (2020). Work-life balance in Europe: institutional contexts and individual factors. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,40(3-4), 366–381.Tennant, M. (2007). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.