Highlights
Trends
in participation point to the predominant function of ECER and the HRD
conference to facilitate dissemination and extend contacts, while the potential
for building or strengthening conferences communities seems to be less
pronounced.
Both
ECER and the HRD conference show similar patterns of attendance:
-
Three
out of four participating persons turned up only once in five years. Most
of these attended events which took place in particularly attractive environments.
It certainly is not speculative to detect a significant factor of tourism
in this participation rate - which after all is an agreed part of conference
management.
-
One out
of eight persons attended three or more annual events of the conference
concerned. These frequent participants can be regarded as the core group
of a conference community. The size of this group is fairly small, but
its effect on the conference concerned is substantial, since there is a
close linkage between frequent participation and involvement in research
networks and project partnerships.
Only a
few persons attended events of both ECER and the HRD conference: They account
for a tenth of the total number of individual European participants at
each conference. This proportion of parallel participation is remarkably
small, if the close links existing between the two research fields are
considered.
The
UK and the Netherlands may be regarded as the European pillars of participation
in the two conferences. However, with regard to parallel participation
in ECER and the HRD conference, the Dutch researchers are in the lead,
while the UK researchers are only modestly represented. Consequently, the
UK participants are the strongest force - by sheer quantity - in the divided
conference communities.
There
is a remarkable similarity between presentations at the two conferences,
according to the distribution of thematic descriptors. This outcome contrasts
with the low degree of linkage between the two conference communities.
Transnational
presenters and transnational sessions play a greater part at ECER than
at the HRD conference. A major reason for this difference can be found
in the specific context of European project partnerships and networks in
which many ECER participants are involved.
The
mailing lists operating for the two conferences have mainly the effect
of maintaining the community of previous participants while contributing
little to attracting newcomers.
Discussion
The following email messages
have been received by the author - further comments are welcome!
Jim Stewart, Nottingham
Trent University, UK; Chair of UFHRD (22 Dec 2005)
Two initial thoughts
- First, I wondered whether the two communities shared their participant
databases for publicising their conferences. I think I have suggested contacting
EERA to UFHRD/AHRD conference organisers in the past but I am not sure
if it has ever been done and I don't know either if any organisers of ECER
have ever used the UFHRD/AHRD conference or membership databases. My second
thought arises from my experience of
going from a regular participant
of both to not attending ECER. UK universities have been subject to a number
of pressures but two affect this directly; a general pressure on resources
and the UK RAE. It has always been the case that for the majority of UK
academics a paper has to be presented to receive funding for conference
attendance. However, in recent years resources have meant less conference
attendance can be supported and selection of which to support, because
of the RAE, is related to the probability of the conference paper being
eventually published in an 'appropriate' journal.
I think
your paper raises the possibility of closer cooperation between the two
communities even if this is at the level of sharing databases. Anyway,
much food for thought which I hope leads to some positive actions.
Massimo Tomassini,
ISFOL, Italy (25 Jan 2006)
Concerning the relationships
between the two subjects - VET and HRD - I think it will be important that
we will take care of a better focusing of our papers on both, trying to
demonstrate the implications of our arguments in each one of the two fields.
Concerning
the relationship between the two networks some exchanges should be encouraged,
although it is evident that for many people it is impossible to regularly
attend both. An interesting initiative could be the one of a cross provision
of texts (in electronic or paper version) of authors willing to have their
work known in the other network.
Tarja Tikkanen, International
Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS), Norway (3 May 2006)
The role of language
is pointed to in several places. As a non-native in English I still feel
like underlining the issue - which I believe is particularly pronounced
again in relation to extending conference attendance to the new EU countries.
It is crucial for participation – and particularly for non-participation.
Much of it of course boils down to resources, but even more so than for
native speakers. It can be both highly time-consuming for a non-native
to write a conference paper in English and expensive (and even more time-consuming/
laborious) to have it proof-read (those who have it done). Partnerships
in EU projects, naturally, give both an impetus and additional resources
for dissemination through conference participation. But there is more to
that than money. Attending the conference can be a real challenge, as the
native speakers very rarely pay attention to the fact that most of the
listeners are trying to make sense out of it as ‘foreigners’. Furthermore,
participating in the discussion can be even more challenging for non-natives
- as it can be a challenge to natives to listen to a non-native. Every
now and then this issue has been taken up in international conferences,
but with relatively little impact, as to what I have observed. Oftentimes,
then, writing a paper to a journal can be a more attractive alternative
to reach the international research community. However, I admit that my
perspective may be coloured by my Nordic background – we tend to be more
timid and sensitive in regards communication than the southern Europeans,
as you may have noticed. An example from the Nordic adult education conferences:
While the Scandinavians pretty much are able to understand each other,
there is often translation available to the Finnish attendants. However,
and somewhat surprisingly, Finnish participants have commented that they
find this (particular attention to them) uncomfortable and prefer using
English. When organised in Finland last time, the official conference language
was English!
This brings me to a brief
comment on the unproportional representation of Finland at ECER. This,
to me, again is an indication of the strongly education-favourable attitudes
of that little country. While PISA (OECD), among others, has shown the
good results of this approach in basic education, the analysis of the two
conferences perhaps speaks for the same in regards adult education (AE).
AE has special historical roots in the Nordic countries, but for some reason
it is Finland where the discipline is most established. There are seven
universities where it is possible to study AE - also HRD is mostly covered
by AE. The amount of professorships in AE is higher. In comparison, there
are 2-3 professors in AE in Sweden and none (or perhaps 1-2 if one wishes
to exercise goodwill in looking at it) in Norway. In the latter country
AE is only a marginally issue , holding to a significant extent also to
VET/CVET - though competence development in working life is an issues.
This analysis has included
two series of VET/HRD-related conferences, but left out the closely-related
'Research Work and Learning' conferences taking place every second year.
An indication of the strong attraction of these two now analysed/compared
conference series may be the fact that participation rate does not change
very much those years RWL takes place, though 2003 (RWL in Tampere, Finland)
seems to mark a flattening for HRD and a slight downturn to ECER. It would
be interesting to know whether RWL in Sydney last December had an impact.
Most important to the discussion here, however, is the fact that RWL is
still another conference series/ researcher community where the themes
and participants overlap with ECER and HRD and where there is a possibility
for synergies and dialogue – even if the participants in RWL have more
often their background in HRM (economics, management and business-schools).
Like said, I find it very
interesting and timely that this discussion has emerged. Much appreciated
that Cedefop is sharing interest in the issue. My paper in Limerick in
2004 - see British Journal of Occupational Learning, 3(1), 33-54, 2005
- addressed much of the same questions. However, it was discussing the
fragmentation of this field (which I prefer to see as merged) in terms
of consequences to theoretical development and methodology, commenting
also on the role of Academia in creating/maintaining the situation.
|
