in Journal of Workplace Learning 15 (7/8) 313-318. THE RESEARCHThis paper summarises the results of research commissioned by the Learning and Skills Development Agency of England, to map the conceptual terrain around non-formal learning. The remit was to investigate relevant literature, and clarify the meanings and uses of terms like informal, non-formal and formal learning. Because of Conference length restrictions, what follows is underreferenced (we consulted in excess of 250 texts, some of which were themselves reviews of further literatures). References, together with the full analysis and the detailed evidence that supports our argument, are in Colley et al (2003).The subject of this research is topical. Current EU policies in lifelong learning are raising the profile of informal and non-formal learning. The recognition and enhancement of such learning is seen as vital in improving social inclusion, and increasing economic productivity. This presents a problem and a paradox. The problem is a complete lack of agreement in the literature about what informal, non-formal and formal learning are, or what the boundaries between them might be. The paradox is that there are strong tendencies to formalise the informal -for example through externally prescribed objectives, curriculum structures, assessments and funding. Yet, at least in the UK, there are parallel pressures to informalise formal learning -through the use of less structured approaches to student support, provided by a rapidly growing army of classroom assistants, learning advisers, learning mentors and the like, who lack full teaching qualifications. These trends seem to represent two arms of a concerted movement to integrate informal and formal learning. MethodologyThree parallel lines of analysis were developed. Firstly, we did a major literature trawl, and then selected from within that trawl literature which we already knew or could easily identify, which set out to classify learning as informal, non-formal or formal. We examined a wide range of different positions, looking for criteria used to identify differences. We moved on from this approach when subsequent attempts seemed to reveal no new criteria -that is, we had achieved conceptual saturation. The second approach was to conduct a detailed investigation of a diverse range of learning situations -in work, in Further Education, in adult and community education and in mentoring. Thirdly, we researched the historical development of ideas through the literature. Our work was also informed by widespread consultation, focused on an interim report (Colley et al., 2002).

No abstract

All articles available through Birkbeck ePrints are protected by intellectual property law, including copyright law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law.

No abstract

Academic work is changing fast, as is the work of other professionals, because of challenges such as accountability and regulations frameworks and globalised academic markets. Such changes also have consequences for everyday academic practice and learning. This paper seeks to explore some of the ways in which academic work is changing by opening the 'black-box' of everyday academic work and examining the enactment of academics' everyday learning. The paper draws on a study of everyday academic practice in the social sciences with respect to the institution, the department and the discipline. Assuming a sociomaterial sensibility, the study also sought to understand how academics' learning is enacted in everyday work. Within three universities, fourteen academics were workshadowed; social, material, technological, pedagogic and symbolic actors were observed and, where possible, connections and interactions were traced. The paper illuminates through two stories from the study how specific practices and meanings of disciplinary academic work are negotiated, configured and reconfigured within and beyond the department or meso-level, attending to resistance and rejection as well as accommodation and negotiation. The paper responds to educational concerns of professional (here, academic) learning by foregrounding both the assembling and reassembling of academic work and the enactment of learning.