Interconnectedness of Adult Basic Education,Community-Based Participatory Research,and Transformative Learning

Abstract

This article argues for the beneficial interconnectedness of adult basic education as an educational practice, community-based participatory research as a methodological approach, and the framework of transformative learning, for exploring and theorizing about adult learning and education. It is elaborated that these three approaches are connected by shared core values that counter the dominant economistic discourse on adult basic education. A community-based participatory research project, comprising researchers with an adult basic education learners’ background, adult basic education practitioners, and the two authors as university-based researchers, serves as a local empirical example. Selected data from the research process illustrate how these three approaches complement each other and can show their inherent potential. Together, these three approaches establish a democratic space of learning and thus act as a resource of hope for education and research aimed at (self-) empowerment, emancipation, participation, and collective action toward humanization, democratization, and social justice.

Introduction

All industrialized countries show a certain proportion of adults struggling with literacy, numeracy, and computer use (OECD, 2013, 2016). The concept of adult basic education (ABE), a tool for emancipation and social justice, framed on the work of Freire (1972, 1998), aims to promote personal growth and contribute to social change. However, for the past 20 to 25 years, an increasingly economistic discourse has dominated discussions on adult literacy and numeracy (Yasukawa & Black, 2016; Zeuner & Schreiber-Barsch, 2018, pp. 31–34). Presumed deficits are individualized by ascribing the responsibility for this alleged blot on the individual, thus tending to mask the social structures of marginalization, disadvantage, and social inequality, and ABE is primarily justified by the competitiveness of economic systems and corresponding employability (which brings us—from a critical perspective—to the large-scale assessments by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development mentioned above).

From a critical-emancipatory stance, there has been profound and consistent critique on the economization of education (Höhne, 2012), as recently expressed by Darder et al. (2016), Giroux (2018), Greene (2015), or Tett and Hamilton (2019). Tett and Hamilton (2020) argued for the importance of considering and sharing pedagogical/andragogical “core values” that contradict the neoliberal ideals of commodification and competition, and for educational research acting as “resources of hope” for “resistance and change” by “documenting local experience and valuing participant perspectives in investigating research problems.”

Against this background, the purpose of this article is to argue for the interconnectedness of ABE as an educational practice, community-based participatory research (CBPR) as a research style, and transformative learning (TL), for exploring and theorizing about adult learning and education. The connecting and shared core values of these approaches are (self-) empowerment, emancipation, participation, and collective action toward humanization, democratization, and social justice. These values counter the dominant economistic discourse on adult education (Cennamo, Etmanski, et al., 2020), and the “narrowing of the curriculum away from emancipation and towards functional skills” (Tett et al., 2020, p. 10) in ABE.

This article builds on the local empirical example of a community-based, participatory study on the topic of learning, the cocreated research seminar on learning (Forschungskurs Lernen). This practice-university-cooperation was implemented by the authors of this article and in partnership with three ABE providers in one region in Austria. The research group comprised nine researchers with an ABE learners’ background, five researchers with an ABE practitioners’ background (three program managers and two adult basic educators), and two university-based researchers (the authors). This pilot project aimed to build capacity for further participatory research in the field of ABE. Referring to Hall (1992, p. 16), we understand participatory research as an integrated activity combining social investigation, educational work and learning, and social action. Accordingly, we suggested recognizing participatory research in ABE as a “social laboratory” (Kastner et al., 2018) where individual and collective (possibly transformative) learning can occur and be jointly explored.

The first section of the article is dedicated to the background and exploratory context of the pilot project. These brief remarks touch on the (research) field of ABE, the participatory research approach, and the concept of TL, as a rationale for implementing our CBPR project. In the second section, the empirical example is described in terms of learning to conduct research in ABE in a participatory way, and the potential of such an approach. The concluding section presents a research desideratum and emphasizes the importance of participatory research in ABE as a resource of hope for change.

Applying a participatory approach in ABE led to an iterative and circular process of action and reflection. It emerged that this unique field of practice, this methodological approach, and the foundational theoretical references (to perspective transformation and to TL in ABE) are interconnected because they share core values. So, the approach of this article is to elaborate on this claimed beneficial interconnectedness of ABE, CBPR, and TL by meandering between theory and research and to describe how these three complementary approaches played out in a localized study.

Background: How is Research Conducted in ABE?

In this section, the key foundations for the claimed interconnectedness are explained to clarify how these three approaches—educational, methodological, and theoretical—complement each other. The first brief review describes the educational practice of national ABE and highlights its principles of (self-) empowerment and emancipation. This concept suggests a participatory approach to research in ABE, and this research style is briefly outlined. This is followed by a brief description of the helpful and inspiring theoretical framework of TL: how existing research results on ABE and TL substantiate a broad and deep understanding of ABE, and how TL supports exploring and analyzing individual and collective learning processes when researching in a participatory way in ABE.

An Empowering and Emancipatory Practice: The Research Field of ABE

Programs catering to the basic education needs of adults vary across countries. We focus briefly on ABE at the national level. It was initiated in the early 1990s and has become a significant part of the Austrian landscape of adult education. In 2012, the Initiative Erwachsenenbildung, a national ABE program, was implemented under the aegis of the Ministry of Education (together with a “second chance program” that prepares adults to graduate from lower secondary school). However, before the implementation of the Initiative Erwachsenenbildung, ABE had been provided and developed primarily as a series of projects, starting with a program at Volkshochschule Floridsdorf, an adult education center in a Viennese district, where basic education courses for German-speaking adults were conducted from 1990 to 1995 (Brugger et al., 1997). This first program aroused a national ABE spirit inspired by the critical and emancipatory stances of Freire's work and the New Literacy Studies, complemented by the humanistic approach to education as represented in the Volkshochschulen. It was focused on (self-) empowerment and learner-centeredness, and oriented toward life-deep and life-wide learning. The national conceptualization of ABE is rooted in this first program (Cennamo et al., 2018). However, in 2018 and 2019, politically motivated ruptures in the national ABE field became “signposts of a changing landscape” (Cennamo, Kastner, et al., 2020). They indicated a reversal, weakening previously valid practice/expertise-driven approaches and their respective quality standards. There has been a strong tendency toward an increasingly economistic discourse at the national level. These ruptures fit the bigger picture of reducing ABE to mere upskilling of human capital. Referring to Freire’s (1972) dialectical reflection on the role of education, “domestication or liberation?” and his conviction that “education cannot be neutral” (p. 173), this bigger picture reveals how the initial and proven concept of ABE was abandoned. Hence, we ask whether research can ever be neutral and—even more important—whether it intends to contribute to liberation or domestication. The focus on dialectical reflection paved the way for a participatory research approach in ABE.

Bridging Perspectives and Researching Together: The Participatory Research Approach

In 2015, the authors and three ABE providers commenced preparation for a joint research proposal. The community of ABE practitioners at that time was critical of conventional research approaches. They reported that they felt overresearched in terms of requests for interviews or for observations in classrooms by outsiders (Kastner et al., 2017, p. 82). The three providers, Volkshochschule Floridsdorf, ISOP Steiermark, and Kärntner Volkshochschulen, had been lending their expertise to implement the concept of ABE as an empowering and emancipatory practice over the previous decades. They supported our research idea that involved including the voices of learners and practitioners to substantiate our shared understanding of the purpose and aims of ABE. In retrospect, considering the above-mentioned politically motivated ruptures, our endeavor could be perceived as an effort to preserve the legacy of an empowering and emancipatory conception of ABE at a national level.

Freire's liberating model of education, as outlined in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1998), claimed to act and reflect with the oppressed (and not for them) in a dialogical and problem-posing mode to promote conscientization and critical thinking. Freire has indeed (as have other social scientists/activists from the global south) played a central role in the origins of participatory research, as reflected by Hall (1981, p. 8). As Hall's (1992) participatory research combines social investigation, educational work and learning, and social action, it favors the oppressed, exploited, poor, or otherwise marginalized individuals and groups, and it sees no contradiction between the goals of collective empowerment and deepening of social knowledge (p. 16). Its wider aims include emancipation, democratization, and social justice (Unger, 2014, p. 21). There are various participatory research traditions, as compiled by Etmanski et al. (2014, p. 7). In solidarity with ABE learners and practitioners and to respect and appreciate their efforts, knowledge, and capabilities, we used the term community to signify a common cause, as explained by Unger (2014, pp. 27–29). Considering educational research as a critical and emancipatory endeavor, for us, it was key to conduct research with the local ABE community. The term participatory means “that the intended beneficiaries of the research (i.e., community members) have significant control over some if not all parts of the research process” (Etmanski et al., 2014, p. 8), based on “respectful relationships, as well as non-dominant ways of thinking, being, doing, and knowing” (p. 9). According to Ball (2014, p. 26), participatory research is about “mutual capacity building.” Following Bergold and Thomas (2012), participatory research draws on empirical social research procedures, especially qualitative methodologies and methods (para 2). This kind of research requires a “communicative space,” a “safe space”: disclosure of personal views, opinions, and experiences requires trust because participatory research seeks “dissenting views” (paras 12–16).

In a research synthesis on qualitative depictions of adult literacy learners in the research literature, Belzer and Pickard (2015) portrayed learners as “competent comrades” and “fully functional adults” (pp. 257–258). This depiction strengthened our decision to conduct participatory research because it talks about capability and is quite the opposite of a “deficit narrative” (Belzer & Pickard, 2015, p. 259; Kastner et al., 2017). This was accepted practice for the three providers and a shared perspective in their classrooms and program decisions. However, this depiction goes further by suggesting that “learners can and should be integrally involved […] in research and policy making” (Belzer & Pickard, 2015, p. 261). Finally, the purpose of participatory endeavors “is not simply to document the world's injustices, but to transform them” (Etmanski et al., 2014, p. 22).

The Power of TL in ABE

In Austria, a comparatively early reference (see Kokkos, 2012, p. 293, on the beginning of the debate in Europe) connects TL and ABE. Elisabeth Brugger, who developed the first national ABE program at Volkshochschule Floridsdorf, met Jack Mezirow in the late 1980s at Columbia Teachers College when working there as a teaching assistant for Victoria Marsick. In the documentation of this program, Brugger referred to Mezirow's theory of “perspective transformation” as a heuristic for explaining participants’ decision to enroll (Brugger et al., 1997, pp. 104–106). TL offers an extensive framework for promoting, studying, and theorizing about adult learning and education. Drawing on this early connecting reference, we applied TL as a baseline for our CBPR endeavor. To the best of our knowledge, there is no single, uniformly understood TL theory, and over the years, multiple theoretical perspectives have been developed based on Mezirow's initial concept. Therefore, we refer to empirical results and theoretical and methodological considerations that guided our actions and supported our reflections.

TL Processes and Outcomes in ABE

The following section testifies to broad and deep learning processes and outcomes: ABE may not be narrowed to teaching functional skills for employability. The transformative potential shown here is key to emancipatory learning and taking agency.

Wright et al. (2007) described ABE participation as “typically a life-changing experience for the learners who are overcoming personal, social, and situational barriers to literacy learning” (p. 641).

Cranton and Wright (2008) explained: “how adult literacy educators foster transformative learning through being a learning companion” (p. 33). “A learning companion encourages a shared curiosity and engages in an exchange of learning so that perspectives of both educator and learner are enhanced” (p. 36). Six themes were reconstructed based on these narratives: creating a sense of safety, fostering a trusting relationship, believing in students before they believe in themselves, helping learners overcome fear, helping learners develop a sense of self, and acknowledging the whole person (pp. 37–43).

King and Heuer (2009) developed the concept of “deep learning” in ABE, comprising strategies that facilitate TL for adult learners as well as adult educators: learner-centeredness (helping students identify goals and suggest resources); safety and trust (building on dialogue and respect); and facilitation and modeling based on the shared conviction “that we are all adult learners” (pp. 172–177). This concept of fostering deep learning enables adults to claim “their own growth and voice” leading to “expressions of possibility, empowerment, ownership, and new awareness” among them (p. 179).

Johnson et al. (2010) described the necessity of helping learners “to break free of their past perceptions about their inability to learn” because they “have to unlearn messages from their past” (p. 64) in overcoming emotional barriers before commencing on an “educational journey” (p. 63).

Duckworth and Ade-Ojo (2016) offered a distinction between “nontransformative learning settings,” which ignore the needs of specific learners and deny the need for support and empowerment in various forms (pp. 289–293), and TL conditions, which enable gaining relevant skills and confidence (pp. 294–298), as there is “a conscious recognition of the fact that the learner could potentially come with a hidden burden and that the first step in transformation is to help the learner recognize that these burdens are surmountable” (p. 297).

Walker (2017) concluded that learners “are often in educational shaming recovery” and that addressing shame “can and should be considered an educational outcome” (p. 368). “A shame-dissipating education is one where students are encouraged to practice, fail, and be gentle with themselves” (p. 369).

Tett (2019) queried “how negative learning identities might be transformed” (p. 155) and studied “the role of literacy programs in empowering the participants and leading to changes in identity” (p. 169). She examined how negative discourses, rooted in “early learning experiences,” can be overcome and could change the way learners “thought about themselves and their learning identities” (pp. 161–162). Tett identified important themes and conditions that foster and substantiate transforming (learning) identity: the recognition of learners’ knowledge and experience, a mode of learning and changing together, of giving and receiving care, and of changing practices (pp. 162–166). The latter is related to an awareness “of the changes in their emotional selves, their relationships with others, their self-perceptions, and their imagined futures” (p. 164).

Disorienting Dilemmas and Perspective Transformation

The emphasis placed on dissenting views as central to cocreation of knowledge in participatory research built a bridge to Mezirow's disorienting dilemmas and perspective transformation. The following considerations may appear abbreviated and do not do justice to the density of the theoretical considerations and further developments of the theory on TL in any manner. However, in retrospect, they helped us understand how the different perspectives of the researchers in our CBPR project stimulated critical-constructive dialogue and reflection, understood as learning opportunities that bear transformative potential.

Mezirow (2006) defined TL as “the process by which we transform problematic frames of reference (mindsets, habits of mind, meaning perspectives)—sets of assumption and expectation—to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective and emotionally able to change” (p. 26). Frames of reference “selectively shape and delimit our perception, cognition and feelings by predisposing our intentions, beliefs, expectations and purposes” (Mezirow, 2006, p. 26). Drawing on Habermas’ distinction between instrumental and communicative (emancipatory) learning, Mezirow pointed out that TL can occur in both, based on “communicative discourse” involving “critical self-reflection” (pp. 25–26). Transformations may be epochal—“sudden major reorientations in habit of mind, often associated with significant life crises”—or the result of a more cumulative process, “a progressive sequence of insights resulting in changes in point of view and leading to a transformation in habit of mind” (p. 28). Perspective transformation often commences with a “disorienting dilemma,” followed by “self examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt or shame” as described in his renowned phase model (Mezirow, 2006, p. 28). Cranton and Taylor (2012) considered constructivist, humanist, and critical social theory assumptions as of the philosophical underpinnings of TL theory. They criticized the “tendency to think in dualisms […], theorists and researchers write about rational or extrarational processes, a focus on individual change or a focus on social change, autonomous learning or relational learning. However, these perspectives […] can coexist” (p. 3; see Hoggan et al., 2017, pp. 54–56 for a continuation and deepening of this discussion).

Researching TL

In his review of empirical research, Taylor (2007, p. 188) highlighted “the unique compatibility between action research and transformative learning” because they share “the emphasis on dialogue” and “the essentiality of a reflective process in learning.” Taylor here refers to a contribution that brought TL and participatory research together: Percy (2005) related experiential learning to participatory research and named “second-order experiences,” “reflection,” and “dialogue” as “key features” (p. 129) for “changes in meaning perspectives” (p. 134). Merriam and Kim (2012) described critical and emancipatory approaches as aimed at “not only understanding a phenomenon but also analyzing the power dynamics of a situation” (p. 65). Participatory action research, therefore, is one of the promising approaches suggested (Merriam & Kim, 2012, p. 65) because at the heart of Mezirow's theory is “personal transformation,” whereas for Freire, “the goal of education is to become aware, through critical reflection and action (praxis), of the various oppressive forces in the world in order to transform it” (p. 66). Taylor and Cranton (2013, p. 42) noted that there “are no (or few) studies done in the time when the transformative learning occurs” or “studies that are in the critical paradigm (for example, participatory action research),” where “researchers ask, ‘what could or should be.’”

These were inspiring considerations for implementing our CBPR project. Although ABE, TL, and CBPR seem like a perfect match, we were able to locate only two attempts that have conducted research in the field of ABE using a participatory approach and were based on the theoretical foundation of TL: In a British–US cooperation, two adult learners acted as co-researchers contributing to the reconstruction of their successful journey from ABE to postsecondary education (Johnson et al., 2010). In Canada, a participatory approach was applied to develop, deliver, and evaluate an indigenous language and literacy program (Tulloch et al., 2017). These are meaningful local examples for cocreating knowledge about learning in ABE and basing programs on communities’ knowledge. However, in German-speaking countries, the normative, intervening orientation, and the inclusion of social actors in all phases of a participatory research process are still often viewed skeptically (Unger, 2018, p. 175).

Learning to Conduct Research in a Participatory Way

We now outline our CBPR pilot project as a local empirical example in terms of implementation (2016–2019). Followed by a discussion of its potential in terms of lessons learned, we comment further on the claimed beneficial interconnectedness of ABE, CBPR, and TL.

Cocreating a “Participatory Research Seminar on Learning”

Within our practice-university partnership, we agreed on fundamental preconditions when jointly preparing the research proposal:

Our mindset was established as process-oriented, open-ended, and reflective-responsive. We aimed at putting storytelling, discussion, and reflection center stage. A joint understanding of adult (basic) education as rooted in the idea of reciprocity between “teacher” and “learner,” and recognition and respect for the learners’ voice served as underlying principles. The general topic—learning—was set for the research proposal.

Equality was understood as our main principle, in the sense that all researchers ought to contribute to all decisions, starting with the task of jointly defining the research question(s), emanating from the general research topic learning. Reflecting and analyzing power relations (hierarchy, status) as well as internal and external depictions/ascriptions were understood as a central challenge.

Creating a pleasant, trusting, communicative, and vibrant atmosphere was understood as a prerequisite for researching in a participatory way (mirroring the good ABE setting). We agreed to proven, reliable methods for facilitating adult learning to build trust and enable informed consent, empower participation during all work phases, promote equal participation in decision processes, and jointly document and reflect on processes and outcomes.

To attract researchers with an ABE learners’ background, an invitation was distributed at the local adult education center. During our first one-day meeting in May 2017, we communicated the research approach (introduction of research steps, location and time frame, remuneration for researchers who had been ABE learners) and shared information about equal involvement in decision-making and specifics of participatory research in contrast to more conventional approaches. All nine ABE participants, who had accepted the invitation, joined the pilot project as researchers, based on informed consent.

The second two-day meeting took place in June 2017, focusing on the development of the research question(s) and the planning and practicing of data collection methods. Four research questions were formulated collaboratively: Why are you learning? What enhances your learning? What hinders your learning? Do you see a change in yourself because of your learning? Preselected research methods were presented, and the group opted to use interviews, group discussions, and photovoice. For building capacity, we practiced conducting and recording interviews together and leading group discussions; a written manual was jointly developed, and photovoice was tested. We jointly established the research plan. It comprised six interviews and four group discussions (e.g., with family members, work colleagues, course participants, or adult educators), and nine photovoice activities including oral narratives. Over the summer months, we collected data according to our research plan and constantly shared audio files and photovoice via WhatsApp.

In September 2017, data analysis was undertaken during the third one-day research meeting. The method for group-based analysis of qualitative data as developed by Jackson (2008) was adapted, basing it on the audio files. In four small groups, data analysis was conducted, where each group analyzed one of the four research questions. The results were then presented and discussed.

In September 2018, the group met again for two days to take stock of the process.

Participatory Research in ABE is Beneficial

Now we briefly discuss what we have learned when we researched in a participatory way. Building trust as a central (pre-)condition for CBPR was made possible for the researchers with an ABE learners’ background especially through the two researchers who were adult basic educators, and through Ricarda, one of the two university-based researchers, who coauthored this paper. She was understood to be affiliated with the ABE practice, because she had worked at the local adult education center a few years previously. Although the budget allocated was tight and the project duration limited, we successfully cocreated a safe space for collaborative working, capacity-building, and coconstruction of modus operandi and knowledge, for example, by applying easy-to-understand/read language, storytelling, democratically negotiating decision-making, and facilitating involvement. Group-based data analysis proved to be tremendously fruitful. It fostered communicative discourse based on the comparison of dissenting/consistent views, different positions, and individual/shared understandings as contained or provided in the collected data—apart from the social investigation in terms of our four research questions. Our fourth research question (Do you see a change in yourself because of your learning?) was exceedingly stimulating to think and talk about. During the final meeting, all researchers agreed that continuing research in a participatory way is desirable and necessary.

Under the given conditions of this pilot project (the constricted budget was not sufficient for further remunerating researchers who had been ABE learners, and limited project duration), it was not possible to jointly write a paper. So, the original writings of the researchers with an ABE learners’ background are not represented in project-related publications (e.g., Berndl et al., 2018). Collaborative writing is not an easy task, even for experienced scholars and practitioners. Gardner (2018) reported on strategies for collaborative writing that we think could be inspiring and helpful for future CBPR in ABE. Finding alternative ways of collaboratively disseminating to providers, policymakers, the research community, and society, and the creation of new arenas of research communication is a not yet completed mission in terms of interconnecting ABE, CBPR, and TL.

Little Disorienting Dilemmas Everywhere…and Their Potential

Now we comment further on the claimed beneficial interconnectedness of ABE, CBPR, and TL by presenting four illustrating examples from the research process. As we showed previously (Kastner et al., 2018), several disruptions or irritations emerged during the research process, and we suggest that it is essential to embrace disorienting dilemmas as fruitful and creative drivers in participatory approaches in ABE. These perturbations provoke new perspectives and movements in thinking about habitual standpoints, attitudes, perceptions, and depictions (p. 367).

If participatory research is conceived of and understood as an open-ended process that can, and should be, shaped by all research partners, as a process of cocreation of knowledge, then all researchers involved could possibly change. Therefore, CBPR in ABE is a cocreated space for individual and collective (possibly transformative) learning for all participating researchers, and learning cannot be located, fostered, and studied exclusively on the part of ABE learners. As this is an issue relating to positions of power, we, therefore, reflect on disorienting dilemmas that revolve around questioning power structures and hierarchies in adult education and research on the education and learning of adults. We present two portrayals that are based on the critical self-reflection of the two university-based researchers (the authors of this paper), followed by two depictions that are based on data from the research process and include the voices of our research peers.

Turning Serious Doubts Into a Productive Reminder

Ricarda observed and problematized on various occasions that we as the two university-based researchers were holding the reins in terms of preparing, leading, and concluding group works within our participatory pilot project. To hold the reins is what Ricarda usually does (and loves) in her professional life as a policy/advocacy officer in adult education, a teacher in Higher Education, or as an adult educator. This is presumably also an expectation that the research group had of her. When looking back at issues of involvement and inclusion among our research peers, she felt she still had to learn extensively about coleading group activities to fully include all researchers in research-related decisions. For her, this was an issue of balancing scientific standards with social action. The connecting element between maintaining scientific standards and doing social action is the individual and collective capacity-building of all researchers involved. To transform her guilty conscience into a productive reminder, she would spend more time jointly reflecting on positions of power and hierarchy within the research group and, generally, on social power relations in learning/researching settings, asking, “what could or should be,” following Taylor and Cranton (2013, p. 42). It takes time, willingness, support, and opportunity to try out and practice new roles in CBPR: “exploration of options for new roles, relationships and action” and “building competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships” (Mezirow, 2006, p. 28)—this is what Ball (2014, p. 26) meant by mutual capacity-building.

Researching Autonomously in Solitude or Aligning Science with Society

Becoming a scholar occasionally felt like a lonely and isolated endeavor for Monika, especially—and retrospectively—when she worked toward her postdoctoral qualification in the field of ABE with a more conventional research approach. Collaborating with Ricarda, with the ABE providers, and finally with the research group in the participatory pilot project changed the feeling of researching autonomously in solitude into a sense of belonging to a strong and capable community. It felt like a relief to know that more than one mind contributed to knowledge production. To generate or maintain an allegedly flawless image of a conventional researcher in academia is hard work, as this scholarly habitus is based on the idea, or illusion, of conducting unaided research, steering smooth-running processes, and harvesting perfect results. Thus, researching in a participatory way was a positive disorienting dilemma. In this regard, Tisdell has drawn attention to the fact that pleasure can also initiate/substantiate TL by drawing the learner into new experiences (Taylor & Snyder, 2006, pp. 46–47). This encouraging dilemma helped Monika to comprehend what it really means to align science with society in the research field of ABE, following the idea of a transdisciplinary science that is coresponsible for societal development and social change (Nowotny et al., 2014).

These two portrayals (based on critical self-reflection) relate to the depiction of “being a learning companion” that enhances “perspectives of both educator and learner,” as argued by Cranton and Wright (2008). Following Anderson and Braud (2011), research can provide opportunities for the transformation of self and others, especially when research projects have great personal meaning and researchers can become intimately involved. This is especially true when there is an expansive and inclusive research approach with multiple ways of knowing that are respected and considered, and when enrichment of research skills is in line with the project aims of the persons and groups involved (p. xvii).

The subsequently presented depictions are based on data from the research process. One disorienting dilemma occurred when we jointly built capacity for data collection in our second meeting. The other one occurred in our final research meeting when we explicitly reflected on power issues in education and research.

Trying Out New Things Autonomously Within a Supportive Group: We Do the Research Together!

When we were practicing procedures for data collection, it became apparent that some of us were taking on the role of researchers for the first time. While it was easy to answer our jointly formulated research questions, it was a challenge to conduct an interview or to lead a group discussion. When defining our research plan, everyone had to decide which data collection method(s) they would use. There was a moment of realization when some of us who would be doing such activities for the first time became aware that we all would collect data. We, the university-based researchers, interpreted facial expressions and reactions as surprise, uncertainty, hesitation, and nervousness; we perceived a disorienting dilemma. In our final meeting, we reflected on the empirical work that we have successfully done cooperatively. Several researchers described how we were initially at a loss when facing this unfamiliar task. Retrospectively, we described ourselves as becoming more secure and confident through and in fulfilling these activities and finally enjoying them. We spoke of surprise and pride that these activities had been undertaken quite easily (when looking back). So, a pattern of before and after became obvious. One researcher (who has an ABE learners’ background and opted to remain anonymous) concluded: “It is a real pity. We have laid the foundations. And now we are ready, and then the project is over.” This is an indication of “changes in their emotional selves, their relationship with others, their self-perceptions, and their imagined futures” as described as learning outcomes in ABE by Tett (2019, p. 164, italics added). And it speaks of claiming one's “own growth and voice” as described by King and Heuer (2009, p. 179).

“School is Ticked off my List”

When we were discussing power dimensions in learning settings, in general, and within our research group, we perceived one working group consisting of researchers with an ABE learners’ background as quite agitated. When sharing their discussion results, the speaker described that the group had focused on feelings of powerlessness and helplessness when they were pupils in school and nowadays as mothers of pupils. But one researcher (who opted to remain anonymous) had vehemently refused to join this perspective and she later explained:

We are at eye level with the educator [in ABE]. She does not treat us like pupils. We are like-minded peers. That's why I didn't get involved with the topic [here], because I don't want to go back to school. Because the topic [school] was not right for me now [to discuss it here]. Because school is ticked off my list and has been for a long time.

It appears that she had already successfully overcome her former negative learning identity that was rooted in “early learning experiences” for ABE fosters transforming (learning) identity, as described by Tett (2019, pp. 161–162). This is also reflected in the fact that she is an ambassador for ABE in our region. By sharing her dissenting perspective, she provoked collective reflection, and made us leave the dark place of unfortunate memories. She helped us understand that we as a group needed perspective transformation to focus our discussion more on the positive outcomes of learning in later life. For ABE in its empowering conception is based on respectful relationships that offer space for growing and blossoming, for seeing oneself as capable, and for taking agency (e.g., as a competent mother).

CBPR in ABE: A Resource of Hope

The purpose of this article was to argue for the beneficial interconnectedness of ABE, CBPR, and TL and how these three approaches—educational, methodological, and theoretical—complement each other by way of reviewing the underlying rationale and illustrating how the three complementary approaches can play out in a localized study. To substantiate this interconnectedness, we focused on disorienting dilemmas as creative drivers for learning of all researchers involved (the university-based as well as the practice-based) that occurred in our empirical work. The claimed interconnectedness of ABE, CBPR, and TL needs to be negotiated and substantiated in each new community-based research setting in a dialectical, participatory, and problem-posing way. The connection is not set and stable; rather it should be a constant reminder that research in ABE is always intertwined with questions of power and hierarchy. Claiming this beneficial interconnectedness is an approach to understanding and conceptualizing ABE, first, by basing it on shared pedagogical/andragogical core values of (self-) empowerment and personal growth (humanization), and individual or collective emancipation striving toward social action (democratization and social justice) and second, by enriching the “curriculum” instead of narrowing it (toward functional skills) by promoting mutual capability-building for joint research and democratic production of knowledge. This concluding section contains a research desideratum, and finally, endeavors to emphasize the importance of participatory research in ABE as “resources of hope” for “resistance and change” (Tett & Hamilton, 2020).

We argued that CBPR offers a possibility to study disorienting dilemmas and possible transformations on individual and collective levels. So, a relevant question is how best to study these processes and their potential outcomes from within? A necessary requirement for bringing disorienting dilemmas to consciousness is to be mindful and notice them as they occur. In CBPR, this would require capability-building for all researchers involved. Furthermore, heuristics could be tremendously helpful for jointly practicing reflectivity and perceptiveness and for empirically investigating and theoretically capturing individual and collective (transformative) learning processes and their outcomes.

In search of heuristics, we located two contributions: the “survey of transformative learning outcomes and processes” as developed by Stuckey et al. (2013) and the “typology” of transformation as proposed by Hoggan (2016). The first highlights processes as (a) cognitive/rational, that is, critical reflection, experience, and disorienting dilemma; (b) beyond rational/extrarational, that is, dialogue, emotional, and soul work; and (c), social critique, that is, unveiling oppression, empowerment, and social action (Stuckey et al., 2013, p. 217). The latter (Hoggan, 2016, pp. 65–70) identified six themes each with several codes: worldview (i.e., ways of interpreting experience, new awareness, or understandings), self (i.e., self-in-relation, empowerment, and personal narratives), epistemology (i.e., utilizing extrarational, or more open ways of knowing), ontology (i.e., the affective experience of life and ways of being), behavior (i.e., actions consistent with new perspectives and social action), and capacity (i.e., consciousness and spirituality). Stuckey et al. (2013) even suggested using their survey “in a critical paradigm, for example, in a participatory action research project” (p. 216).

How would these heuristics foster a research group's ability to perceive, discuss, and understand perspective TL processes and outcomes from within? How would this research desideratum contribute to the emancipatory ambition of including the voices of learners and practitioners as experts in coproducing knowledge in ABE? And how could the research group explore learning at the collective level? Percy (2005) pointed out that participatory research can cause “a shift in the groups’ consciousness,” referring to “the collective understanding of the situation on which the group is reflecting and acting,” and she suggested examining the practice of participatory research “to investigate further how this transformation of meaning schemes and perspectives is occurring at the collective level” (p. 134, italics added).

Coconstruction of knowledge and solutions is a call for changing power relations by questioning (and deconstructing) positions of power. Participatory research is an attempt to reach out to policymakers, the scientific community, and society. This is especially important in ABE, wherein the personal transformation and individual growth of participants are central (and legitimate) aims. However, focusing on collective transformation asks how the social structures of marginalization, disadvantage, and privilege can be altered. We refer here to Hoggan et al. (2017), who stated that Mezirow linked “deep forms of critical reflection by individuals to the active construction of democratic spaces of learning” (p. 58). CBPR in ABE creates such spaces for social action and should be understood as a resource of hope for change.

Places and Dates of Previous Oral Presentations

This paper builds on several oral presentations, which provided a space for discussing theoretical and methodological considerations, research experiences, and thoughts toward strengthening critical-emancipatory adult education. We would like to thank all the participants for sharing their thoughts:

Transformative learning in adult basic education (contribution to Symposium: Looking back and moving forward: learning and transformation in communities), August 5, 2019, 21st European Conference on Literacy, Copenhagen (Denmark).

Transforming ourselves and others? Reflections on a participatory research experience in adult basic education (invited talk), November 16, 2018, Numeracy as Part of Adult (Basic) Education: International and Comparative Perspectives, Hamburg (Germany).

A lived journey into participatory research in adult literacy education. (Transformative) learning(s) from a social laboratory (paper presentation), November 9, 2018, International Transformative Learning Conference, Teachers College at Columbia University, New York City (USA), with Irene Cennamo.

Traces of transformations: Dilemmas as learning resources and drivers for transformation? (paper presentation), June 30, 2018, Contemporary Dilemmas and Learning for Transformation (ESREA/The Italian Transformative Learning Network), Milan, University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), with Irene Cennamo.

Bridging perspectives of adult literacy learners, providers, and researchers: learning and researching in a participatory way (workshop), July 5, 2017, 20th European Conference on Literacy, Madrid (Spain), with Irene Cennamo.

EM:POWER—Participatory approaches in ALE and research (workshop), September 9, 2016, Eighth Triennial Conference of the European Society for Research on the Education of Adults (ESREA), Maynooth (Ireland), with Irene Cennamo.