The task of the contemporary European universities is to develop systems of ensuring the internal quality thus also increasing the responsibility of the academic staff about the quality of the studies and about strengthening the name of the university. Despite the rapid development of the information and communication technologies the academic staff still is one of the most significant learning resources available to the students when developing the common European education and research space (EUA, 2010; ENQA, 2009). Nowadays an increasing attention is paid to the improvement of the professional competence not only in the students’ studies but also in the activities of the academic staff because mastery and competence are unquestionably necessary for effective action. However, they are not only the results but also means for reaching a deeper understanding. Thus the continuing education of the academic staff should be organized in accordance with the dynamic development of the modern urban society. It should become sustainable - oriented both towards the future needs of the academic staff and the studying society. At present the continuing education of the university staff should be treated as a lifelong learning phenomenon. It is formed by the system which combines the learning that has been organized formally, non-formally and informally in a holistic way (Engeström, 2005; Hargreaves, 2003; Fulans, 1999).

There is a need to improve the quality of the organisation and the process of continuing education in order to facilitate the acquisition of the future oriented competences of university academic staff in Latvia in the context of glocalisation.

The objective of the paper is to present the research findings of the study conducted in 2006-2011 in Latvia on future-oriented competences of the university academic staff in the process of continuing education.

The study was started in 2006 when University of Latvia participated in the international project “Assessment of the cooperation with Spain and the international training program of the academic staff: a model for the development of future projects in the common European space of higher education” (Medina Rivilla, Huber, Maslo et al. 2006)

The research question is: What should the continuing education of the academic staff be like in order to promote the acquisition of future-oriented competences of the university academic staff? 

Conceptually the study is based on the analysis of the normative acts concerning the policy of developing the common European education and research space.

Theoretical framework of the study is formed by theory of dialogical action and communicative action (Freire, 2000; Muth, 1998; Habermas, 1984), the theoretical basis of teaching and learning of adults (Knowles, 2007; Jarvis, 2004), teaching and learning in lifelong learning and knowledge society (Hargreaves, 2009; Jarvis, 2004); innovations in higher education (Domínguez Garrido, 2010; EUA, 2010), holistic approach to the studying of systems and processes (Medina, 2009; Miebach, 2009; Гершунский, 1998),continuing education as a system, the process, result and value (Miebach, 2009; Гершунский, 1998); implications that the development of common European education and research space has on the continuing education of the academic staff (EUA, 2010; Koķe, 2008).

1)Domínguez Garrido, C. (2010). Innovación y Docencia en la Universidad. In Domínguez Garrido, C., Medina Rivilla, A., Cacheiro Gonzáles, L. (Coord.), Investigación e innovación de la docencia universitaria en el espacio europeo de educación superior. Pp. 41-46. Madrid: CERASA. 2)Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media. 3)ENQA (2009). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved April 2009 from: Accessible: http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf 4)EUA Case Studies (2010). Creativity and Diversity: Challenges for Quality Assurance beyond 2010. Brussels: European University Association. 5)Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. 6)Fulans, M. (1999). Pārmaiņu spēki. Izglītības reformu virzieni. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. 7)Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press. 8)Hargreaves, A. (2009). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity. Berkshire: Open University Press. 9)Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult Education and Lifelong Learning. Theory and Practice. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 10)Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., Swanson, R. A. (2007). Lebenslanges Lernen: Andragogik und Erwachsenenbildung. Heidelberg; München: Elsevier Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. 11)Koķe, T. (2008). Higher Education for the Development of Latvia. Signum Temporis. Pedagogy & Psychology, 1(1), March. Riga: S&G, pp. 4-10. 12)Mayring, Ph., Huber, G. L., Gürtler, L., Kiegelmann, M. (2008). Mixed Methodology in Psychological Research. Sense Publishers. 13)Medina Rivilla, A. (2010). Formación y Desarrollo de Competencias Básicas y Profesionales. In Domínguez Garrido, C., Medina Rivilla, A., Cacheiro Gonzáles, L. (Coord.), Investigación e innovación de la docencia universitaria en el espacio europeo de educación superior. Pp. 21-40. Madrid: CERASA. 14)Miebach, B. (2009). Prozesstheorie Analyse. Organisation und System. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 15)Muth, C. (1998). Erwachsenenbildung als transkulturelle Dialogik. Berlin: Wochenschau Verlag. 16)Radnor, H. (2002). Researching your Professional practice. Doing Interpretative Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. 17)Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, Ch. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications. 18)Гершунский, Б. С. (1998). Философия образования для 21 века. Москва: Издательство «Совершенство».