Summary

Learning in associational activity is a phenomenon that, despite growing interest, is still relatively unexplored, even though many educationalists have defined it as one of the most important domains for learning, along with educational institutions and the workplace. Lifelong learning in civil society organisations (CSOs) can be defined as a holistic combination of educational practices and other activities, which evolves both organically as based on the needs of organisations and their membership and within the framework created by, for instance, various policy measures. It facilitates meaningful learning processes that influence the lives of individuals as well as their organisations, communities and society at large. The foundations and consequences of learning in CSOs are educational as well as socio-cultural, political and economic, and its ultimate worth equals the extent to which CSOs and their members can use it to advance their own goals.

 

This study compared lifelong learning in CSOs in Finland and Great Britain, more namely England. The data utilised in this study comprised policy texts from both countries and CSOs’ educational perceptions collected from Finnish and British CSOs by means of a postal questionnaire (N=783), and an additional e-mail questionnaire sent to Finnish CSOs (N=25). The study set off from the notion that under current circumstances it is of little use to explore learning in CSOs separately from the policy framework: after all, policy communities have in many countries paid considerable interest towards its advancement. Related research has so far mainly approached the phenomenon more purely from an educational or pedagogic angle, but the gradual mainstreaming of CSOs as service providers in Finland and particularly Great Britain means that the political dimension needs to be present.

 

Mainstreaming is particularly apparent in British education policy: CSOs become treated in the same way as educational institutions, resulting in similar funding rights and responsibilities. These may alter the voluntary-based nature of civic activity, even though financial rationalities have been present in CSOs’ educational activities for almost two centuries: the British Government has supported this kind of activity at least since 1833. Finnish education policy takes a more prudent stand towards increasing CSOs’ role in service provision, but anticipates it to be an important question in the near future. Differing from British policy, the Finnish lifelong learning view also stresses the benefits accruing to CSOs themselves. Even though policies in both countries shared similar themes, the way in which they conceive citizenship and civil society differ somewhat: whereas British policies highlight the economic dimension of citizenship, Finnish ones construct citizenship through civic activity. Employability and active citizenship, the main objectives of EU lifelong learning policies, are, however, given prominence in both countries.

 

British policy texts with their many metaphors and colourful figures of speech make an easy target for researchers’ critique. On the other hand, Finnish policy texts are generally more packed with expert terminology and less emotionally laden, making the highlighting of critical issues more difficult. However, for instance the way in which Finnish lifelong learning policies call for civic plurality raises certain questions. Many Finnish scholars have claimed that civic plurality does not materialise in Finnish society, since more critical activism is generally not encouraged. This raises the question about how plural the pluralism that policy documents wish to see really is. Moreover, the way in which learning in CSO activity is at present supported, with prominence given to information society skills displays a narrower view of what CSOs should be focusing on in their educational activities.

 

In Britain, on the other hand, at the same time as the Government is concerned about the autonomy of the voluntary sector, it ties the sector closer to the state through increased service production. Some CSOs already refer to themselves as an ‘arm and leg’ of the state, whereas others, whose views are supported by the Government, see that selling services makes them more independent than receiving subsidies. At the same time the political conception of civil society is narrowing, since the openly stated aim is to direct support to CSOs that share the Government’s views on inclusion – leisure-oriented ones increasingly fall outside the sphere of support and their work seemingly becomes undervalued, which has weakened their position within the voluntary sector according to some researchers. In practice, lifelong learning policies thusly concern a smaller group of CSOs than policy documents claim. Some CSOs become entwined with the state and are likely to have their voice heard, whereas others may fall in the margins, even if they have plenty to say.

 

The relationship between the state and civil society is not a static one, but the more CSOs become tied to the advancement of policies representing various fields, the more it will change, and the more the gap between service provision-oriented CSOs and other will widen. Can we even talk about a redefinition of civil society? The results of this study, in fact, revealed that CSOs that are already involved in service production, welfare and health oriented ones especially, held the most positive attitudes towards increasing the voluntary sector’s educational service provision and other key lifelong learning policy issues such as cooperation with educational institutions and building active citizenship. On the other hand, somewhat surprisingly, in this group there are also organisations that hold a negative view over the future of the voluntary sector and its influential powers, and also learning. Other kinds of CSOs take a more neutral view.

 

Educational perceptions and attitudes are difficult to predict on basis of organisational background, which was underlined by the way in which CSOs discussed educational success. Success factors reflect the state each organisation is in and the attitudes emerging from their circumstances to an even greater extent than they do various background factors; members’ expectations, hope and disappointments for their part influence these attitudes. For this reason it is not recommendable to exclude some CSOs from political discourses, especially since learning outcomes tend to be relatively similar regardless of organisation type: generic skills such as communication and problem-solving, which can be applied in almost any context, are learnt to a great extent in all kinds of CSOs. They are not, however, the most essential skills for organisations themselves, and, consequently, variation on more substantial skills was far greater: for instance, only 12% of sports organisations reported societal skills as an outcome, whereas virtually all political ones regarded them as an important learning outcome.

 

Both Finnish and British CSOs are focused on education to a relatively great extent, since at least two thirds of them have organised educational activities either themselves or in cooperation with others. They see that the greatest benefits of this activity fall on individuals, mainly members, since only one third offers their educational activities to outsiders and their other activities are usually also only open for members. When this result is examined within the policy framework it becomes problematic, even if it is not such for CSOs themselves. One of the main objectives of lifelong learning policies is the advancement of social cohesion and capital, and it is often openly stated that CSOs can take care of this. Nevertheless, participation in civic activity is not evenly distributed, but it reflects the ‘accumulation effect’: well-educated persons who are in paid employment participate the most in associational life, as also the results of this study indicated. Can CSOs be sanctioned if the do not contribute to social equality in ways defined by policy-makers? If they take part in service production through various contracts, they in a sense accept these policies and become responsible for them, but researchers who have studied CSO funding tend to be quite unanimous in their view that not all organisations can or should be expected to produce the same outcomes.

 

Highlighting the policy framework tied this study with current societal debates, the lack of which in comparative educational studies is often lamented. Even though educational practices and arguments tended to be the same across borders, related valuations and attitudes, nevertheless, reflected the political and socio-cultural circumstances prevalent in Finland and the UK quite strongly. Apparently due to their more long-standing experiences of service provision, British CSOs are more inclined to stress the good quality of their work than their Finnish counterparts, and they were more critical of policy ideas. The uncritical orientation of Finnish CSOs was explained in this study from two angles: first, as some researchers claim, under the Nordic welfare state model, with the state being the strong actor in service provision, citizens’ organisations tend to have closer relations with the state and be less assertive. Second, in Finland civic activity has until recent years been highly state-centred, and the breakdown of this way of thinking is still going on.

 

Comparative educational research is often undertaken in the name of policy borrowing, as there is a will to use the best practices emerging in other countries without questioning their applicability. The policy texts analysed for this study showed signs that a new culture of service provision is brought to Finland gradually, but are its effects discussed extensively enough? What does it mean that the service provision role of CSOs is increased or that, for example, the formal accreditation of learning in civic activity, which is a topic of considerable policy interest in both countries, is intensified? Finnish public debates, in particular as concerns the latter issue, have been relatively uncritical, and even though accreditation has its positive aspects, it should also be discussed critically. Guiding citizens towards rationalisation and self-surveillance can at worst steer volunteering towards becoming ‘point collecting’, even though it is good that all learning receives public appreciation. If schemes to increase the public accreditation of learning in CSO activities are kept lax, and are not tied to, for instance, funding arrangements, the worst case scenarios can probably be avoided. Nevertheless, the following question emerged from this study: whose civil society do we talk about when we talk about learning?

 

The power of money in steering the activities of CSOs also became apparent in this study. Even though earmarked project funding, which allows for more rigid controls than broad general grants, is making its way into Finland as well, CSOs’ attitudes towards it are relatively critical. The growing prominence of money appeared to frustrate some of the organisations that participated in this study: if there is none, it becomes difficult to organise activities, but if there is some, new stakeholders with their expectations and limitations enter the picture. Nevertheless, according to the results outside support helps CSOs to organise more and in their own opinion better learning activities.

CSOs’ views over active citizenship, the realisation of which depends to some extent on how much funds the organisation is able to raise itself or through various subsidies, may deviate from ‘official’ conceptions of citizenship. This can, furthermore, cause conflict, for example when making funding decisions. If certain educational criteria are met, authorities should support CSOs on a broad basis and not only favour those whose attitudes are most favourable. In a functioning democracy COSs of all kinds should have the opportunity to educate their members even if their ideological foundations do not necessarily correspond with policy conceptions of active citizenship.

 

Learning in associational activity is a phenomenon that, despite growing interest, is still relatively unexplored, even though many educationalists have defined it as one of the most important domains for learning, along with educational institutions and the workplace. Lifelong learning in civil society organisations (CSOs) can be defined as a holistic combination of educational practices and other activities, which evolves both organically as based on the needs of organisations and their membership and within the framework created by, for instance, various policy measures. It facilitates meaningful learning processes that influence the lives of individuals as well as their organisations, communities and society at large. The foundations and consequences of learning in CSOs are educational as well as socio-cultural, political and economic, and its ultimate worth equals the extent to which CSOs and their members can use it to advance their own goals.Learning in associational activity is a phenomenon that, despite growing interest, is still relatively unexplored, even though many educationalists have defined it as one of the most important domains for learning, along with educational institutions and the workplace. Lifelong learning in civil society organisations (CSOs) can be defined as a holistic combination of educational practices and other activities, which evolves both organically as based on the needs of organisations and their membership and within the framework created by, for instance, various policy measures. It facilitates meaningful learning processes that influence the lives of individuals as well as their organisations, communities and society at large. The foundations and consequences of learning in CSOs are educational as well as socio-cultural, political and economic, and its ultimate worth equals the extent to which CSOs and their members can use it to advance their own goals.

 

This study compared lifelong learning in CSOs in Finland and Great Britain, more namely England. The data utilised in this study comprised policy texts from both countries and CSOs’ educational perceptions collected from Finnish and British CSOs by means of a postal questionnaire (N=783), and an additional e-mail questionnaire sent to Finnish CSOs (N=25). The study set off from the notion that under current circumstances it is of little use to explore learning in CSOs separately from the policy framework: after all, policy communities have in many countries paid considerable interest towards its advancement. Related research has so far mainly approached the phenomenon more purely from an educational or pedagogic angle, but the gradual mainstreaming of CSOs as service providers in Finland and particularly Great Britain means that the political dimension needs to be present.

 

Mainstreaming is particularly apparent in British education policy: CSOs become treated in the same way as educational institutions, resulting in similar funding rights and responsibilities. These may alter the voluntary-based nature of civic activity, even though financial rationalities have been present in CSOs’ educational activities for almost two centuries: the British Government has supported this kind of activity at least since 1833. Finnish education policy takes a more prudent stand towards increasing CSOs’ role in service provision, but anticipates it to be an important question in the near future. Differing from British policy, the Finnish lifelong learning view also stresses the benefits accruing to CSOs themselves. Even though policies in both countries shared similar themes, the way in which they conceive citizenship and civil society differ somewhat: whereas British policies highlight the economic dimension of citizenship, Finnish ones construct citizenship through civic activity. Employability and active citizenship, the main objectives of EU lifelong learning policies, are, however, given prominence in both countries.

 

British policy texts with their many metaphors and colourful figures of speech make an easy target for researchers’ critique. On the other hand, Finnish policy texts are generally more packed with expert terminology and less emotionally laden, making the highlighting of critical issues more difficult. However, for instance the way in which Finnish lifelong learning policies call for civic plurality raises certain questions. Many Finnish scholars have claimed that civic plurality does not materialise in Finnish society, since more critical activism is generally not encouraged. This raises the question about how plural the pluralism that policy documents wish to see really is. Moreover, the way in which learning in CSO activity is at present supported, with prominence given to information society skills displays a narrower view of what CSOs should be focusing on in their educational activities.

 

In Britain, on the other hand, at the same time as the Government is concerned about the autonomy of the voluntary sector, it ties the sector closer to the state through increased service production. Some CSOs already refer to themselves as an ‘arm and leg’ of the state, whereas others, whose views are supported by the Government, see that selling services makes them more independent than receiving subsidies. At the same time the political conception of civil society is narrowing, since the openly stated aim is to direct support to CSOs that share the Government’s views on inclusion – leisure-oriented ones increasingly fall outside the sphere of support and their work seemingly becomes undervalued, which has weakened their position within the voluntary sector according to some researchers. In practice, lifelong learning policies thusly concern a smaller group of CSOs than policy documents claim. Some CSOs become entwined with the state and are likely to have their voice heard, whereas others may fall in the margins, even if they have plenty to say.

 

The relationship between the state and civil society is not a static one, but the more CSOs become tied to the advancement of policies representing various fields, the more it will change, and the more the gap between service provision-oriented CSOs and other will widen. Can we even talk about a redefinition of civil society? The results of this study, in fact, revealed that CSOs that are already involved in service production, welfare and health oriented ones especially, held the most positive attitudes towards increasing the voluntary sector’s educational service provision and other key lifelong learning policy issues such as cooperation with educational institutions and building active citizenship. On the other hand, somewhat surprisingly, in this group there are also organisations that hold a negative view over the future of the voluntary sector and its influential powers, and also learning. Other kinds of CSOs take a more neutral view.

 

Educational perceptions and attitudes are difficult to predict on basis of organisational background, which was underlined by the way in which CSOs discussed educational success. Success factors reflect the state each organisation is in and the attitudes emerging from their circumstances to an even greater extent than they do various background factors; members’ expectations, hope and disappointments for their part influence these attitudes. For this reason it is not recommendable to exclude some CSOs from political discourses, especially since learning outcomes tend to be relatively similar regardless of organisation type: generic skills such as communication and problem-solving, which can be applied in almost any context, are learnt to a great extent in all kinds of CSOs. They are not, however, the most essential skills for organisations themselves, and, consequently, variation on more substantial skills was far greater: for instance, only 12% of sports organisations reported societal skills as an outcome, whereas virtually all political ones regarded them as an important learning outcome.

 

Both Finnish and British CSOs are focused on education to a relatively great extent, since at least two thirds of them have organised educational activities either themselves or in cooperation with others. They see that the greatest benefits of this activity fall on individuals, mainly members, since only one third offers their educational activities to outsiders and their other activities are usually also only open for members. When this result is examined within the policy framework it becomes problematic, even if it is not such for CSOs themselves. One of the main objectives of lifelong learning policies is the advancement of social cohesion and capital, and it is often openly stated that CSOs can take care of this. Nevertheless, participation in civic activity is not evenly distributed, but it reflects the ‘accumulation effect’: well-educated persons who are in paid employment participate the most in associational life, as also the results of this study indicated. Can CSOs be sanctioned if the do not contribute to social equality in ways defined by policy-makers? If they take part in service production through various contracts, they in a sense accept these policies and become responsible for them, but researchers who have studied CSO funding tend to be quite unanimous in their view that not all organisations can or should be expected to produce the same outcomes.

 

Highlighting the policy framework tied this study with current societal debates, the lack of which in comparative educational studies is often lamented. Even though educational practices and arguments tended to be the same across borders, related valuations and attitudes, nevertheless, reflected the political and socio-cultural circumstances prevalent in Finland and the UK quite strongly. Apparently due to their more long-standing experiences of service provision, British CSOs are more inclined to stress the good quality of their work than their Finnish counterparts, and they were more critical of policy ideas. The uncritical orientation of Finnish CSOs was explained in this study from two angles: first, as some researchers claim, under the Nordic welfare state model, with the state being the strong actor in service provision, citizens’ organisations tend to have closer relations with the state and be less assertive. Second, in Finland civic activity has until recent years been highly state-centred, and the breakdown of this way of thinking is still going on.

 

Comparative educational research is often undertaken in the name of policy borrowing, as there is a will to use the best practices emerging in other countries without questioning their applicability. The policy texts analysed for this study showed signs that a new culture of service provision is brought to Finland gradually, but are its effects discussed extensively enough? What does it mean that the service provision role of CSOs is increased or that, for example, the formal accreditation of learning in civic activity, which is a topic of considerable policy interest in both countries, is intensified? Finnish public debates, in particular as concerns the latter issue, have been relatively uncritical, and even though accreditation has its positive aspects, it should also be discussed critically. Guiding citizens towards rationalisation and self-surveillance can at worst steer volunteering towards becoming ‘point collecting’, even though it is good that all learning receives public appreciation. If schemes to increase the public accreditation of learning in CSO activities are kept lax, and are not tied to, for instance, funding arrangements, the worst case scenarios can probably be avoided. Nevertheless, the following question emerged from this study: whose civil society do we talk about when we talk about learning?

 

The power of money in steering the activities of CSOs also became apparent in this study. Even though earmarked project funding, which allows for more rigid controls than broad general grants, is making its way into Finland as well, CSOs’ attitudes towards it are relatively critical. The growing prominence of money appeared to frustrate some of the organisations that participated in this study: if there is none, it becomes difficult to organise activities, but if there is some, new stakeholders with their expectations and limitations enter the picture. Nevertheless, according to the results outside support helps CSOs to organise more and in their own opinion better learning activities.

 

CSOs’ views over active citizenship, the realisation of which depends to some extent on how much funds the organisation is able to raise itself or through various subsidies, may deviate from ‘official’ conceptions of citizenship. This can, furthermore, cause conflict, for example when making funding decisions. If certain educational criteria are met, authorities should support CSOs on a broad basis and not only favour those whose attitudes are most favourable. In a functioning democracy COSs of all kinds should have the opportunity to educate their members even if their ideological foundations do not necessarily correspond with policy conceptions of active citizenship.