Search

What kind of workplace has the so-called "new economy" created? What problems are Canadian workers experiencing? How effective are Canada's lifelong learning policies that focus on high skills development for global competitiveness? These questions were explored as part of a three year research program. During the 2003-2004 academic year, using a grounded theory research method and working from a critical perspective, I asked these questions to 11 union organizers and staff representatives. During the 2004-2005 academic year, I interviewed seven academic adult educators and asked for their analysis of the issues raised by the Year 1 research participants, and for feedback on my analysis of the Year 1 data. Three interrelated "work" themes emerged from the interviews with union workers: increased workload, job insecurity, and loss of job satisfaction. Because of the workplace problems associated with the so-called new economy, the research participants were highly critical of the current focus of lifelong learning. This article explores the work themes and their critique. Building on a worker perspective, this research questions the direction of current Canadian lifelong learning policies. It looks at the barriers adult educators encounter in trying to change these policies and suggests that, if change is to occur, Canadian adult educators must retake their place at the policy table.

Historically, lifelong learning (under the name adult education) in Canada had a broad base and covered a wide variety of purposes and activities. Many programs included social, community and social justice visions and worked to strengthen local communities. However, with the advent of the so-called New Economy, this has changed. Canadian government lifelong learning policies have become increasingly tied to high skills development. Federal papers are filled with statements stressing the importance of addressing the "skills challenge." Words such as the "learning society" and the "knowledge society" are becoming commonplace. Lifelong learning is being promoted as the key to success in the high skills knowledge economy. Government policy papers argue that, by investing in themselves through education and training, Canadians can earn higher salaries throughout their lifetimes and this will enhance Canada's economic growth. However, high skills policies emphasize colleges, universities, and training organizations as the basis of their economic competitiveness. They ignore the jobs side of the equation. They believe that an unfettered market will magically lead to the creation of good high quality jobs. Instead, the author asserts, lifelong learning policies and job creation policies must benefit not only business but also--and more importantly--workers and the communities in which they live. Here, she discusses some current problems faced by workers: increased workload, job insecurity, loss of job satisfaction, and, in connection with the new skills agenda, the rise of credentialism. (Contains 18 notes.)

The globalized economy appears to promote economic insecurity and underemployment. Lifelong learning is increasingly focused on competitive advantage. Adult educators should encourage discussion and debate about the nature of these changes and advocate lifelong learning that benefits the whole person and broader community. (Contains 30 references.) (SK)

In the new economy, increased polarization of rich and poor is supported by the rhetoric of lifelong learning policies focused on training as panacea. Adult educators are urged to analyze the new economy from alternative perspectives, adopt a holistic view of lifelong learning, and advocate more progressive policies. (Contains 47 references.) (SK)

Economic globalization is having ill effects on employment, wages, and job quality. Training is not a panacea for these problems, and adult educators should not allow themselves to be manipulated by the rhetoric. They should inform themselves, stimulate public debate, and propose alternatives. (SK)

Explores the directiveness/nondirectiveness dilemma as experienced by community development practitioners. Discusses strategies used in attempts to deal with this dilemma and concludes with implications for practice. (Author)