Abstract
Lifelong learning (LLL) is widely recognised as a driver of economic, social, and personal development. However, its implementation in higher education (HE) remains fragmented, reflecting enduring tensions between humanistic and human capital approaches. In Ireland, many higher education institutions (HEIs) support LLL and offer a wide variety of LLL activity, yet systemic, cultural, and financial barriers persist. This study explores how senior stakeholders within Irish HE conceive the future of LLL in the sector, identifying three dominant visions: transformation, adaptation, and continuation. Using a phenomenographic research approach, it examines perceived challenges in the current state of LLL in Irish HE, as well as the guiding principles and key actions of the proposed ways forward. Framed by critical theory, the study interrogates not only institutional practices but also prevailing assumptions about LLL’s purpose and direction.
Introduction
Lifelong learning (LLL) has been widely promoted as a means of fostering economic growth, social cohesion, and personal development (European Association for the Education of Adults, 2019; European Council, 2011; International Labour Organization, 2019; OECD, 1996; UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2019; United Nations, 2015; World Bank, 2018). However, understanding what appears to be the relatively simple concept of LLL can be challenging, given the breadth and elasticity of definitions across the literature (Dehmel, 2006; Matheson & Matheson, 1996; O’Grady, 2013). As Evans et al. (2023) noted, LLL is variously described as a philosophy, policy, strategy, programme, or worldview. This definitional ambiguity has contributed to conceptual tensions – particularly between humanistic interpretations that emphasise personal development and social justice, and human capital models that prioritise employability and economic competitiveness (Biesta, 2006, 2014; Boshier, 2012; James, 2020; Regmi, 2015). These tensions are especially visible in how LLL is interpreted and operationalised within higher education (HE), a sector increasingly expected to play a central role in the delivery of LLL agendas.
International organisations continue to stress the role of HE in advancing LLL, particularly in the context of technological disruption, workforce transformation, and the need for greater social inclusion (European Commission, 2020; European Council, 2011; UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning & Shanghai Open University, 2023). Despite this growing political rhetoric, the integration of LLL into HE remains uneven, with significant variation across national contexts (Slowey & Schuetze, 2012; Spexard, 2015). In Ireland, although many HEIs support LLL through various initiatives, systemic, cultural, and funding barriers continue to limit progress.
As demand for more flexible LLL opportunities increases, this study investigates how senior stakeholders in Irish HE conceptualise the future of LLL. While existing literature often focuses on the views of educators and learners, the perspectives of senior stakeholders – those with the power to shape strategy and policy – remain underexplored. This study addresses that gap by capturing the voices of senior stakeholders, offering insight into whether LLL is a genuine strategic priority or a symbolic gesture within Irish HE. Using a phenomenographic approach, this study identifies three dominant visions for LLL in Irish HE: transformation, adaptation, and continuation. It explores the strategic logic underpinning each perspective, including perceived barriers, guiding values, and proposed actions.
LLL in HE: From an international to an Irish perspective
Before considering how LLL has been interpreted and implemented within Irish higher education, it is important to locate this discussion within the wider international and conceptual landscape. LLL is not a neutral or universally agreed term; rather, it is shaped by competing discourses that privilege different purposes for education. These tensions are visible in global policy, where UNESCO has consistently championed a humanistic, rights-based vision, while organisations such as the OECD, EU, and World Bank have promoted a more market-oriented, human capital approach (Biesta, 2006; Zarifis & Gravani, 2014). Understanding this contested terrain is essential to evaluating how LLL has been framed in Ireland and the extent to which policy commitments align with – or diverge from – these broader international currents.
Since the 1990s, discourse on embedding LLL within HE has evolved significantly, largely due to the increasing recognition of its role in fostering knowledge societies and driving social and economic development. The 1998 World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century recommended that: States…should develop HEIs to include LLL approaches, giving learners an optimal range of choices and a flexibility of entry and exit points within the system, and redefine their role accordingly, which implies the development of open and continuous access to higher learning. (UNESCO, 1998)
This message was reinforced in the European Universities’ Charter on LLL (European University Association, 2008), with member institutions committing to place LLL at the core of their mission and strategy. Similarly, the European Council (2011) urged HEIs to engage more actively with non-traditional learners as a demonstration of social responsibility. In 2020, the European Commission called on HE systems to strengthen their role in supporting LLL and reaching more diverse student cohorts – while acknowledging this would require major shifts in mindset, culture, and structure (European Commission, 2020).
Despite such commitments, there is no single, universally accepted definition of LLL in a HE context. Dollhausen and Jütte (2023) synthesised four main approaches: (1) Inclusion – widening participation to non-traditional groups; (2) Holistic – prioritising personal development and general education; (3) Delivery – using digital and flexible formats to remove spatio-temporal barriers to HE; (4) Labour market – focusing on vocational training and professional upskilling.
Similarly, Sursock and Smidt (2010) distinguished between LLL as an overarching ethos integrated into institutional strategy and culture, or a collection of discrete activities such as professional upskilling, distance education, and part-time study. The first of these conceptions aligns with UNESCO’s (2010) CONFINTEA VI Belém Framework for Action, which defined LLL as ‘a philosophy, a conceptual framework and an organising principle of all forms of education’ rooted in inclusive, democratic values. Scholars such as Vargas (2014), Davies (2009), de Viron and Davies (2015), and Mayo (2019) similarly advocated for LLL as an organising principle across HEIs where it should be implemented as an institutional culture rather than a set of bolt-on offerings. Walker (2007) conceptualised this as a three-dimensional mission: fostering personal growth, vocational preparation, and democratic citizenship.
Over time, two narratives have dominated conceptions of LLL in HE: a humanistic model, focused on personal growth and democratic participation; and a human capital model, framing education primarily in terms of workforce development and economic productivity (Biesta, 2006; Dollhausen & Jütte, 2023; Schuetze & Slowey, 2020; Walker, 2007). International agencies have reinforced this divide with UNESCO promoting a humanistic, rights-based approach, emphasising equity, cultural enrichment, and social transformation (Jarvis, 2008; Regmi, 2015). By contrast, the OECD, EU, and World Bank have tended to promote market-oriented strategies, framing LLL in terms of employability and productivity, a stance critics argue risks narrowing its scope and shifting responsibility from states and institutions to individuals themselves (Grummell, 2007; Hurley, 2015; Mayo, 2019; Zarifis & Gravani, 2014). Field (2012) observed that the policy emphasis on LLL had shifted away from personal development and social progress towards economic growth and global competitiveness, with responsibility for continued learning displaced onto employers and individuals. Indeed, Slowey (2004, p. 33) described how individuals either (overtly or implicitly) were being pushed onto ‘a learning treadmill’ in order to survive the pressures of the cut-throat global economy. As market-driven policies have increasingly influenced HE, critics have argued that universities have, in many contexts, become handmaidens to the economy (Keeney & Barrow, 2012), with corporate and economic imperatives crowding out public-interest goals (Mayo, 2019; Tomlinson, 2013). Gouthro (2002) warned that LLL has been reduced to ‘lifelong training’ in service of capitalist productivity, while Schuetze and Slowey (2020) noted that HE is now widely framed as a tool of economic policy. The European University Association (2017) has itself cautioned against an over-emphasis on employability rhetoric. Barr and Griffiths (2007) suggested that even academics committed to humanistic ideals may become complicit in skills-driven agendas whilst simultaneously criticising them. For Biesta (2006), the danger is not only that education becomes economised, but that its democratic and emancipatory purposes are obscured entirely.
Ireland’s engagement with LLL in HE mirrors this international evolution. From the 1980s onwards, the Irish government made several references to shaping a national LLL agenda starting with the Kenny Report (Commission on Adult Education, 1984). A core focus of the government’s approach for the ensuing years was on developing the adult education sector or as it was described the ‘last remaining educational frontier’ (Department of Education and Science, 1998, p. 124). By the late 1990s, the Irish government had formalised its commitment to LLL through the Universities Act (Irish Statute Book, 1997), which mandated universities to ‘facilitate LLL through the provision of adult and continuing education’ (Part III, Ch.1, 12(j)). The White Paper on Adult Education (Department of Education and Science, 2000, p. 33) marked a turning point, declaring LLL the ‘governing principle of educational policy’ and identifying its six key societal contributions: consciousness-raising, citizenship, cohesion, competitiveness, cultural development, and community building. At this stage, competitiveness – aligned with economic development – was present but not dominant. This early period reflected strong alignment with UNESCO’s humanistic model. However, the post-2008 economic crisis marked a decisive rhetorical shift towards skills, employability, and economic recovery as policy documents increasingly prioritised labour-market relevance over broader educational or civic goals (Fleming & Finnegan, 2014; Hunt & Loxley, 2021). The National Skills Strategy to 2025 (Department of Education and Skills, 2016) reflected this emphasis and positioned LLL as central to workforce upskilling, albeit with occasional nods to wellbeing and inclusion. As Flannery and McGarr (2014) noted, Irish policy has often balanced ‘the rhetoric of employability and competitiveness… with welfare and social justice’ (p. 426), reflecting a reluctance to be seen as promoting a purely neoliberal agenda. Scholars have been critical of this drift: Slowey (2012) identified heightened tensions between the narrow skills agenda and democratic LLL; Holborow (2012) argued that HE has been reduced to an ‘adjunct of the economy’ (p. 94–95); Hurley (2015) and Murphy (2020) lamented the erosion of the White Paper’s progressive ethos; and Grummell (2007) warned that the dominant functionalist approach reinforces existing social hierarchies. The Irish Universities Association (IUA) (2018) even pushed back against this trend, asserting that universities are ‘more than talent pipelines’ (p. 16). Similar critiques have also been levelled in other European contexts (Barros, 2012; van der Kamp et al., 2002; Taylor, 2001), suggesting that Ireland’s trajectory may be part of a wider regional pattern.
The 2023 OECD assessment of Ireland’s Skills Strategy concluded that, despite broad support for LLL, Ireland still lacks ‘widespread national messaging or a comprehensive national policy around LLL’ (OECD, 2023, p. 123). The OECD outlined three core priorities for improvement: incentivising individual participation, incentivising employer engagement, and making LLL more flexible and accessible. Without decisive action on these fronts, concerns remain about the effectiveness, equity, and sustainability of Ireland’s LLL initiatives in HE. The recent establishment of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS) offers some hope of renewed focus, as a series of initiatives are underway signalling a stronger commitment to embedding LLL within HE in a more balanced way. DFHERIS’ Statement of Strategy 2021–2023 identified ‘supporting learning for all’ as one of its six strategic goals, committing to inclusive, flexible education that meets the needs of vulnerable and marginalised learners. One key objective under this goal is to ‘support flexible offerings and LLL’ by increasing accessibility to education and enabling full societal participation (DFHERIS, 2021, p. 19). This ambition is echoed in the National Access Plan 2022–2028, which prioritises the creation of flexible pathways that reflect people’s life situations (Higher Education Authority & Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, 2022). More recently, Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science James Lawless T.D. stated his aim to create ‘a system that works for everyone not just for some’, outlining a vision for HE that ‘reflects the full diversity of our society and provides pathways and opportunities for all’ – one that unlocks ‘the full potential of our people, because when everyone has the chance to succeed, our whole society benefits’ (Department of Further and Higher Education et al., 2025). One initiative with tangible potential in this regard is the work of the National Tertiary Office, established in 2022 to develop cross-sectoral pathways between further and higher education. These tertiary programmes represent a structural attempt to address fragmentation in the Irish education landscape and to widen access, particularly for non-traditional learners.
The contested policy landscape outlined in this section – shaped by shifting balances between humanistic and human capital priorities – forms the backdrop against which the perspectives of senior stakeholders in Irish HE must be understood. Given their central role in shaping institutional priorities, the perspectives of senior stakeholders offer a critical vantage point on how Ireland might reconcile these competing imperatives. This study presents their visions for the future of LLL, exploring how these align with the trajectories traced above.
Methodology
This study adopts a phenomenographic research design to explore variations in how senior stakeholders in the Irish HE sector conceptualise the way forward for LLL in Irish HE. As Marton (1986) explained, phenomenography maps the ‘qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive, and understand various aspects of the world’ (p. 31). It seeks not a single essence but the variation and structure of this variation (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 117). Unlike other qualitative methods, phenomenography emphasises collective experience over individual views, focusing on the limited range of qualitatively distinct ways a phenomenon is understood within a group (Harris, 2008; Tight, 2016). Phenomenography adopts a second-order perspective, describing the world as it is experienced by others, rather than as it is (Hajar, 2020; Marton, 1981). This aligns with the purpose of this study: to uncover how key senior stakeholders in Irish HE conceive the future of LLL – not as neutral observers, but through the lens of their own professional experience (Hajar, 2020). While interviews were conducted with individuals, the aim was always to analyse collective patterns of understandings across the group (Barnard et al., 1999).
A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify senior stakeholders from relevant organisations across the Irish HE sector. Organisations were selected using a structured relevance framework developed by the researcher, based on four criteria: organisations with (1) a primary focus on LLL in HE; (2) a primary focus on HE with a strategic interest in LLL; (3) a focus outside HE but with influence on LLL; and (4) cross-sectoral or system-level actors relevant to the LLL ecosystem. This framework helped to identify the key organisations closest to the core focus of the study, with more peripheral actors excluded due to time and scope constraints. Where multiple similar organisations were identified, intensity and extreme case sampling (Patton, 2002) was employed to ensure both typical and outlier perspectives were captured. Participants were then selected based on their strategic leadership roles within these specific organisations. These included university presidents, heads of adult education/LLL units within universities, government policy advisors, and senior decision-makers from key national bodies. The final sample comprised seventeen participants across fourteen organisations, including national policy and funding bodies, representative organisations, and universities 1 . This approach ensured that the most structurally and strategically significant voices in Irish LLL policy and provision were included. While demographic data (age, gender, length of service) were not collected to avoid identifiability in Ireland’s relatively small HE sector, all participants held senior roles with decision-making power and influence over LLL strategy. Their inclusion was justified on the basis of professional role and institutional positioning, rather than demographic characteristics.
Semi-structured interviews served as the primary data collection method, enabling in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives while maintaining consistency across conversations. In line with Bowden’s (2005) guidance, questions were designed to elicit rich reflections, supported by prompts and probes tailored to LLL in the Irish HE context. Interviews lasted approximately one hour, were conducted online, recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim using a secure transcription service.
Data analysis was conducted according to the core tenets of phenomenographic research, with a focus on identifying variation in how participants conceptualised LLL. Initial themes emerged during transcription and early readings, and were refined through repeated engagement with the data and literature, integrating empirical insight with theoretical frameworks in an abductive manner (Given, 2008). Key quotations from the interview transcriptions were selected and grouped into emerging thematic clusters, which were refined through iterative comparison and reflection. Throughout this phase, the emphasis remained on identifying the range of qualitatively distinct collective understandings rather than on individual views. Following Åkerlind’s (2005) recommendation, the analysis began with an open-ended approach, gradually narrowing the researcher’s focus while maintaining a commitment to illuminating multiple perspectives. Subtle nuances in how participants conceptualised LLL were carefully examined to identify structurally significant differences (Marton, 1986). The process moved from understanding individual transcripts to identifying shared meanings across the dataset, as recommended by Åkerlind (2005). Categories of description – key to phenomenographic research – were developed to capture the diverse ways participants experienced and perceived LLL in Irish HE (Marton, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997). These categories stabilised during the latter stages of analysis, as quotations from the interview transcripts consistently aligned with the categories identified without requiring forced interpretations (Marton, 1986). This ongoing refinement – central to phenomenographic rigour – was crucial to identifying the stable and defensible categories of description presented in the findings section of this article (Åkerlind et al., 2005).
Differences and commonalities between the categories of description were then refined into dimensions of variation. The final stage of analysis involved constructing the outcome space, the hallmark of phenomenographic research (Marton, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997; Åkerlind, 2005). The outcome space displays how the categories of description are logically related to one another in a structural framework, usually through some form of hierarchically inclusive relationships (Marton & Booth, 1997; Åkerlind, 2005). Throughout the process, the researcher sought to adhere as much as possible to Marton and Booth’s (1997) three criteria for judging the quality of phenomenographic outcome spaces: (1) Each category of description in the outcome space should reveal something distinctive about a way of understanding or experiencing the phenomenon; (2) The categories of description need to be shown as logically related to one another, typically as a hierarchy of structurally inclusive relationships; (3) The system should be parsimonious so that the critical variation in the data is represented by a set of as few categories as possible (p. 125).
Several key ethical issues were considered in the design and implementation of this study. Firstly, it was informed by the researcher’s professional background in adult education and their longstanding commitment to equity and transformation in HE. As an insider researcher, the researcher was acutely aware of how positionality could shape this research. While the researcher’s professional role in the Irish HE sector facilitated access to participants, it also introduced potential biases such as perceived coercion to participate, informant bias, and researcher bias (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007; Fleming, 2018; Mercer, 2007). To mitigate these, the researcher engaged in continuous reflexive practice and bracketing, consciously setting aside personal conceptions so they did not influence interpretation. Marton and Booth (1997) called on phenomenographers to adopt this practice in order to effectively block out any of their own conceptions or experiences of the phenomenon to prevent them impacting their research. The central question while testing the coherence of the categories of description was: where is the evidence for this in the data? Ideas not supported with direct evidence from the data were discounted as Barnacle (2005) argued that ‘the rigour of phenomenography as a method is tied to the imperative to stay with the transcript’ (p. 49). This reflective stance aligns with critical theory’s emphasis on the political and value-laden nature of knowledge (Brookfield, 2018; Howell, 2013) and underpinned the researcher’s aim to surface how LLL is understood by those who hold power in key Irish organisations. Another concern related to the research participants being powerful people within the HE sector. Given the seniority of participants, careful preparation in advance of the interviews ensured the researcher was equipped with the confidence and assertiveness to conduct elite research, allowing them to both avoid being placated with surface-level detail and actually acquire deep and rich data for this study (Cohen et al., 2011; McHugh, 1994). Finally, the researcher was attentive to ensuring voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection for the research participants. They were assured that participation was entirely voluntary, with no obligation or pressure due to existing professional relationships the researcher.
Findings
Outcome Space – How the Way Forward for LLL in Irish HE Is Conceived by Key Stakeholders.
Together, these categories represent the collective variation in understanding among participants rather than individual viewpoints, and form the basis for interpreting how strategic visions for LLL align with or resist prevailing policy trajectories. Figure 1 demonstrates how this study’s outcome space (Table 1) can be represented as a spectrum of change (Figure 1) – from maintaining the status quo (Category C) to incremental adaptation (Category B), and finally to radical systemic overhaul (Category A). Spectrum of change as the way forward for LLL in Irish HE
Category A: Transformation
Category A represents the most radical and transformative vision for LLL in Irish HE uncovered in this study as it prioritises wholesale system redesign over adaptation. Participants in this category expressed significant frustration with the slow pace of progress in embedding LLL within Irish HE. They consistently located the problem in entrenched system design, cultural inertia, and resource allocation structures that privilege traditional full-time undergraduates. One research participant acknowledged the persistence of traditional structures, stating: The system itself is a traditional system that is geared and calibrated to take people out of school and teach them. And we celebrate the fact that there’s a thirty year old or a sixty year old or a ninety year old sitting in the class. But we celebrate it because it’s the exception.
According to another participant, the sector has ‘to get away from this notion that the bulk of traditional learners are between eighteen and twenty-one’ because ‘HE needs to be seen as a resource to the population’. Administrative processes were also viewed as inflexible, failing to accommodate the needs of adult learners. One research participant noted: We’re a bit clunky in terms of registration. You’ve got to be registered on a programme where really somebody just wants to enrol in a module, perhaps one module in one programme, one in another. So we need to be more agile.
Rather than the HE systems being reconfigured ‘in a way that really will accommodate LLL the way it should be accommodated’, a participant described how currently LLL ‘is being forced into the system, rather than the system adapting and flexing and changing to properly adjust to LLL’. The absence of a national guidance service was further identified as a critical gap, with another participant stating, ‘there’s so many offerings… but if people don’t know that they can do that, it’s no use to them’.
In addition to these systemic challenges, cultural barriers were seen as inhibiting progress. Several participants highlighted the need for a fundamental shift in mindset to position LLL as a national priority. One research participant described the challenge of ensuring collective commitment across sectors, stating that ‘a big challenge for our department is ensuring that everybody’s on board on this journey that we want to go on in terms of increasing the culture of LLL and increasing the embeddedness of LLL’. However, a word of caution around establishing this LLL culture was issued by another participant as they argued that existing examples of successful LLL cultures have only developed in regions where emphasis has been placed on a balanced and holistic LLL approach: The only places that have a culture of LLL is where they have a balance, where they have diverse systems, where they have a holistic one, where they have funding into non-formal community education and it’s Scandinavia and all of the stuff that we know… Where they build a culture of LLL anywhere that goes down the skills agenda, it creates more unequal LLL systems.
A particularly pressing concern was the issue of funding, which participants felt was disproportionately benefiting those who were already well-educated. One participant commented, ‘it’s a lot of insiders in well-structured, well-regulated employments, checking our box for LLL targets and not the harder-to-reach learners’. Another participant echoed this concern, stating that ‘one of the issues with people doing LLL in Ireland is that it’s usually people who are already educated… The most marginalised should be prioritised’. While Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) were suggested as a potential funding mechanism, concerns were raised regarding their complexity and accessibility. A participant also questioned whether universities would truly embrace radical change, stating, ‘you would hope that universities would do radical and different things… you need that disruption in the system’.
Despite these challenges, participants articulated a transformative vision for the future of LLL in Irish HE. Rather than viewing LLL as an add-on to existing structures, this category advocated for a complete redesign of the system to make LLL its foundation. As one participant put it, ‘it has to actually go back to a blank sheet of paper and start again’ where instead of adapting the current system to accommodate LLL, HE should be reimagined so that ‘the current context falls into it, rather than we’re trying to expand our current context to absorb LLL’. A modular approach, where learners accumulate credits over time rather than following rigid degree pathways, was seen as a key element of this vision. Another participant pointed to international examples where such models are successfully implemented, commenting, ‘adults can do this in so many different parts of the world, but it seems here it’s impossible’.
As part of this reimagined approach, participants highlighted several guiding principles essential for an effective LLL system. These included equality, diversity, flexibility, creativity, and respect for institutional autonomy. One participant expressed the aspiration for a more inclusive system, stating ‘we really do need to take on board the idea of a kind of a university for all where everybody can aspire to their own journey through education and life’. Furthermore, LLL was seen as a national priority that should not be confined to the HE sector alone. Another participant stressed the need for cross-sectoral collaboration, positing that ‘the vision for LLL can’t be captured by any sub-sector in the education and training system… It has to be a national-level initiative’.
To achieve this vision, participants emphasised the importance of initiating a national dialogue on LLL, bringing together policymakers, civil society, and all sectors of education. Ongoing collaborative forums were considered essential to refining ideas and ensuring that policy development remains inclusive and forward-thinking. Participants also called for a move away from overly prescriptive policies in favour of long-term, aspirational thinking. One participant summed up this approach, outlining how the discussion could be focused on ‘this is where we would like Ireland to be in 20 years’ time… and then address how do we get there’.
Category A sits at the ‘complete transformation’ end of the spectrum of change, qualitatively distinct from the more incremental or status quo positions of the other categories. It represents an idealistic, system-wide reimagining of LLL in HE that is underpinned by values-driven principles, and by a refusal to accept existing structures as the inevitable frame for LLL. The vision articulated by participants reflects a desire for a flexible, inclusive, and future-focused system that ensures LLL becomes a reality for all, rather than remaining an opportunity accessible only to a privileged few.
Category B: Adaptation
Category B is characterised by an incremental and pragmatic approach to LLL in HE. This category reflects a qualitatively different way of experiencing the phenomenon compared to Category A: rather than advocating for a wholesale redesign, participants in Category B perceive the goal as adapting the current model of LLL in HE in measured steps to broaden access and responsiveness. This reflects a conception of the future for LLL in Irish HE as an evolution of existing structures rather than their replacement, underpinned by a belief in working with the grain of the current HE system.
Participants in this category acknowledged that while progress has been made, it has been neither systemic nor widespread. Across the sector, there are what one participant referred to as ‘pockets of good activity, good practice’, while another participant noted ‘niche examples of really good practice that you come across’. However, there remains a fundamental challenge: these positive developments are not embedded consistently across all Irish HEIs. As one participant put it, the lack of systemic provision means that while some institutions champion LLL, others do not, leading to significant regional disparities: One institution championing LLL, adult learning – great! And it’s great for that institution, great for that city, great for that region. But what about the other ones? And what about the people living proximate or in the regions where the HEI doesn’t really take that approach?
Beyond institutional disparities, participants highlighted broader systemic challenges, particularly the difficulty of ensuring seamless pathways between different levels of education. A participant framed this as a key issue stating that ‘we have all this provision across the system, but are we really joining up the dots?’ Similarly, another participant argued that there is still a siloed approach within the education system, where universities, Education and Training Boards (ETBs), second-level, and primary schools often work independently rather than collaboratively: One of the other things that needs to be very much promoted is the de-siloisation process…so that there’s more interaction, more engagement, and that it’s not siloised as much.
This emphasis on connectivity and cross-sector alignment marks a key difference from Category A. Here, the challenge is not seen as the need to dismantle existing systems, but to connect and adapt them so that learners can move more fluidly across sectors.
In addition to structural challenges, there is also a cultural dimension to the slow rate of progress. A recurring theme in the interviews was the undervaluing of the further education (FE) sector, alongside a general lack of public awareness about the importance of LLL. Unlike other European countries where LLL is ingrained in the national psyche, Irish society largely still views education as ‘a once and done’ experience according to one participant as they claimed that ‘LLL is just not on people’s radar’. Other participants framed culture change as a long-term process that could be driven through visible institutional leadership and targeted public messaging, rather than through wholesale policy reframing.
Funding also remains a significant barrier in this category. While participants widely agreed that greater investment is needed, there was also a strong recognition that HE institutions are unlikely to prioritise LLL unless the funding model in the sector incentivises it. A participant pointed out that HEIs primarily follow existing funding streams, which overwhelmingly favour full-time undergraduate education. As one participant succinctly put it, ‘if you put the money in, it’ll happen. If you don’t put the money in, it won’t’.
Rather than advocating for a radical transformation of HE, Category B’s central objective is to work within the existing system, incrementally adapting structures to better accommodate lifelong learners. One participant articulated this perspective clearly: The aim is not to displace the existing model in HE, but rather to expand that model of provision for agile, responsive, modularised microcredentials, short targeted courses, part-time, accessible, all of that. It’s a complement to it rather than any sense of substituting out what happens currently.
This approach reflects a pragmatic recognition that HE is a traditional sector that is slow to change. While the government’s LLL participation target of 18% by 2025 is, in the words of another participant, ‘not that ambitious in truth’, achieving it will nonetheless require ‘architectural change, change from both the system and from the institutions’. The focus, therefore, is on incremental shifts: increasing flexibility, expanding shorter-form learning options such as microcredentials, and ensuring that HEIs play a more active role in supporting LLL.
In keeping with this pragmatic ethos, Category B is guided by several key principles. The first is an emphasis on flexibility and agility within the current system. Multiple participants stressed that LLL should not be seen as separate from mainstream HE but rather as a necessary adaptation of existing structures. Secondly, there is a strong emphasis on responding to market demand. A key argument put forward by several participants was that HEIs should expand short-term, flexible learning options, not simply for the sake of learners but because this is what employers and industry need. Short courses, microcredentials, and part-time study options were all identified as areas where HEIs should be focusing their efforts. A third guiding principle is institutional autonomy. Unlike approaches that advocate for a centralised national strategy, Category B recognises that different HEIs will have different approaches to LLL. One participant emphasised that ‘different things work for different people in different ways’, while another similarly argued that ‘not every HEI needs to do the same thing’. This perspective suggests that a one-size-fits-all solution is neither realistic nor desirable; instead, institutions should be given the flexibility to determine their own pathways towards expanding LLL provision.
Unlike Category A, which emphasises the need for a national consultation process, Category B is more inward-facing, placing the onus primarily on HEIs themselves to drive change. A recurring argument from participants was that LLL must become a strategic priority at the institutional level. One participant emphasised that LLL ‘has to be seen as central to the strategic mission of the institution, otherwise it’s not going to happen’. Another echoed this sentiment, arguing that unless LLL is embraced at the leadership level, ‘they will see it as a side event that happens at night times and weekends that’s largely invisible, that isn’t really core to the mission’. In addition to making LLL a core strategic priority, HEIs need to be more active participants in national policy discussions. A participant suggested that universities should not merely react to policy proposals but should actively shape the conversation by providing research and evidence. Another reinforced this point, arguing that ‘universities have an obligation to be a little bit more wider in terms of their thinking and talking and also trying to influence national policy around LLL’. Finally, there is a pressing need for greater collaboration between HEIs themselves. Currently, there is no strong national network of adult education and LLL units working collectively to influence policy. One participant suggested that HEIs ‘have to be more proactive in getting in there and trying to change the dialogue right from the start’ – not after policy documents have already been published.
Category B envisions the future of LLL in Irish HE as a process of adaptation rather than radical overhaul. While there are already positive examples of LLL provision within HE, these remain unevenly distributed and insufficiently embedded within the wider system. Addressing these challenges will require HEIs to be more flexible and responsive to lifelong learners, while also taking a more active role in national policy discussions. Ultimately, the success of LLL in HE will depend on whether institutions are willing to prioritise it, advocate for it, and embed it within their core mission.
Category C: Continuation
Category C represents a perspective that sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from Category A. It is an outlier category, distinct from the other two, as it prioritises the maintenance of the status quo rather than advocating for substantial change. While fewer research participants expressed this view in interviews, it nonetheless represents a qualitatively different way of perceiving the future of LLL in Irish HE and merits further exploration.
The core objective of Category C is for LLL in HE to continue on its current trajectory. There is a strong belief that sufficient strategies, plans, and provisions are already in place, and the primary challenge lies in ensuring these existing frameworks are fully acted upon and embedded. As one participant stated, the emphasis should be on implementation rather than reform, reinforcing the idea that the necessary structures are already in place. Another participant echoed this sentiment, arguing that the existing policy framework provides ample guidance for progress in the sector.
Unlike the other categories, which emphasise the need for cultural shifts, increased funding, or systemic transformation, Category C takes a more complimentary stance toward the progress made in LLL to date. Participants within this category acknowledged perceived gains in recent years, particularly in terms of the growing recognition of the importance of LLL. One participant highlighted how HEIs increasingly see LLL not only as a response to skills gaps but also as an opportunity for income generation. Another similarly noted that while LLL was previously more prominent in Institutes of Technology, traditional universities are now beginning to engage more actively in this space.
Rather than focusing on areas that require significant reform, Category C emphasises ongoing improvements in the delivery of LLL, particularly in relation to flexibility for working learners. The COVID-19 pandemic played a key role in accelerating the adoption of blended and online learning models, which are now seen as integral to the future of LLL. A participant stressed the importance of sustaining these delivery modes to better support learners in employment, a perspective strongly endorsed by another participant who argued that the traditional face-to-face model is no longer viable for continuing professional development (CPD). ‘The traditional approach of face-to-face is gone for CPD’, they stated, ‘online is the mechanism to do it’. Additionally, participants pointed to the ongoing impact of the Human Capital Initiative (HCI) as a key driver of progress in LLL. One participant emphasised that this initiative is facilitating better engagement with industry and advancing sector-wide projects that will have a lasting impact, even if their full effects may not be realised for another two to three years.
Like the other categories, Category C acknowledges the need for institutional autonomy, recognising that different HEIs serve different communities and should have the flexibility to tailor their LLL offerings accordingly. However, this category is particularly focused on the need to better measure and document current activity in the sector. A participant suggested that while Ireland may appear to lag behind in LLL participation, this perception is more a reflection of inadequate metrics than an actual lack of progress. They emphasised the growing pressure to refine measurement systems to provide a more accurate picture of LLL engagement. Several participants echoed concerns that a significant amount of LLL activity in HE goes unnoticed at higher levels of governance. One participant noted that while there is substantial engagement with LLL on the ground, much of it does not reach the attention of university leaders or policymakers. This, they suggested, is not necessarily due to a lack of interest but rather a structural issue in reporting mechanisms. Similarly, another participant remarked that LLL activity is not always visible at a central level because HEIs are only reporting the data that current systems require them to submit.
The key recommendation emerging from Category C is to focus on fully implementing existing strategies rather than introducing new ones. A participant pointed out that having a policy in place does not necessarily mean it is being effectively enacted across all institutions, acknowledging that while progress is evident in some areas, others still lag behind. Another participant reinforced this point, stating that if an initiative is included in national plans, there must be a firm commitment to seeing it through. Ultimately, this category presents a vision for LLL in Irish HE that is centred on maintaining and operationalising current policies rather than pursuing ambitious new reforms. It highlights the importance of sustaining recent improvements, particularly in online and flexible delivery, and ensuring that LLL activity is more effectively measured and reported. In this view, the pathway forward for LLL is not one of radical change but rather of steady, methodical refinement of existing practices.
Discussion
This study set out to explore how senior stakeholders in Irish HE conceive the way forward for LLL in the Irish HE sector. The three categories of description identified in the outcome space – Transformation (Category A), Adaptation (Category B), and Continuation (Category C) – reflect qualitatively distinct ways of experiencing and understanding the future of LLL in the sector. While presented in the previous section as second-order constructions grounded in participant accounts, they also invite interpretation in light of existing research, policy frameworks, and broader debates about the role of HE in society.
Category A embodies the most ambitious and disruptive vision, positioning LLL as the organising principle of HE rather than a peripheral add-on, and redeveloping HEIs as ‘LLL institutions’ (Atchoarena, 2021). This category offers a qualitatively distinct conception of the problem – not simply that LLL is insufficiently developed, but that it is structurally misaligned with the current HE architecture. Participants’ calls for ‘a blank sheet of paper’ redesign resonate strongly with critical literature advocating for a redefinition of the university in the face of societal, economic, and environmental challenges – whether that be framed as ‘a university for the common good’ (Hil et al., 2021), a ‘purpose-driven university’, (Haski-Leventhal, 2020), or an ‘ecological university’ (Barnett, 2018). The holistic orientation in this category also aligns with the original humanistic conceptions of LLL in the Delors (1996) report, in which education is valued for personal, civic, and cultural purposes as well as economic ones. This reflects UNESCO’s ongoing advocacy for education as a public good, in contrast to the narrower human capital model. However, while Category A embodies this humanistic vision, its utopian tone raises questions about feasibility: to what extent can entrenched HE traditions and economic imperatives be overcome? Centuries of tradition and market pressures suggest such ambitions may be naïve, and without structural change, the aspirations of Category A risk remaining rhetorical rather than realisable. As Slowey and Schuetze (2023) noted, formidable barriers continue to constrain meaningful change in global HE. Declining state funding, neoliberal marketisation, the dominance of international rankings, managerialist governance, and persistent inequalities in access all militate against the kinds of systemic redesign envisioned in this category.
Category B presents a more cautious approach to change within the current HE context. In acknowledging that the sector should be able to do more for non-traditional learners and that the pockets of good practice that currently exist within the system should become much more widespread, its focus is on increasing the responsiveness of the system to the needs of non-traditional learners. Rather than the complete renaissance suggested in Category A, this category focuses on adapting and making more room in the current system for learners who are not the typical 18–25 year old school-leaving population. This category echoes Jarvis' (2010) description of how ‘an ideal has been turned into a practical necessity with a pragmatic orientation’ (p. 45). It is critical to acknowledge that for many years now international organisations have been referencing the need for increased flexibility and agility within the HE sector in order to widen access to non-traditional learners, from UNESCO’s World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century (1998) which stated that ‘institutions of HE should be open to adult learners by creating opportunities for adult learning in flexible, open and creative ways’ (p.13/4), to the Education 2030 Agenda which ‘promotes flexible, student centred HE provision that allows students to pursue diverse learning pathways’ (Martin & Godonoga, 2020, p. 9). So the ideas in Category B are far from novel – many commentators in the literature have also been calling for such change for years now with remarkably little result (Cendon, 2018; Flannery & McGarr, 2014; Morgan-Klein & Osborne, 2007; Nicoll, 2006). Category B represents a safe approach; just a little bit of tweaking here and there to accommodate more learners so that the sector appears to be taking the LLL agenda seriously. This incrementalism risks perpetuating the status quo rather than challenging it. While more pragmatic than Category A, its focus on flexibility and market responsiveness reflects a drift toward human capital priorities, sidelining the democratic and emancipatory dimensions of LLL (Biesta, 2006; Field, 2012; Tight, 1998). In this sense, Category B illustrates an approach that may widen access, but without addressing deeper inequalities or shifting the cultural marginalisation of adult learners in HE.
In almost complete contrast to the other categories, Category C proposes that there is no need to change the course of LLL in Irish HE and that continuing on the current path and maintaining the status quo is the preferred way forward. Category C suggests that the LLL agenda can be achieved in Irish HE through the full operationalisation of existing strategies, plans, and projects to better support current provision. For this category, the National Skills Strategy (Department of Education and Skills, 2016) is the holy grail of LLL policy in Ireland. However, this strategy is almost exclusively focused on Biesta’s (2006) definition of the economic dimension of LLL as it concentrates entirely on developing skills for the labour market to enhance the Irish economy, largely to the detriment of both the personal and democratic dimensions of LLL. One very glaring example of the disregard for the non-economic dimensions of LLL in the national strategy is how the only mention of older people in the document is in the context of one of the actions of the strategy being to encourage older workers to remain active in the labour market (p. 103). Indeed, there is no mention of the wealth of evidence of the increased health and wellbeing benefits brought about by learning in the third age (Gibney et al., 2018; Talmage et al., 2016). This narrowing echoes Field’s (2019) concern that while attention and resources increasingly flow toward work-related learning, far less priority is given to citizenship and community learning – an imbalance that risks hollowing out the democratic purposes of LLL. The concern with this category is if this is the path to continue, then Ireland will persist in its focus on the economic dimension of LLL and will never be able to reach anywhere near the full potential of the more holistic LLL agenda. Category C, therefore, entrenches the human capital model, privileging skills and labour market productivity over personal development and democratic participation. This represents precisely the narrowing of LLL that critical scholars have warned against (Biesta, 2006; Gouthro, 2002; Mayo, 2019). In doing so, it risks undermining the transformative and collective purposes of education, effectively reducing LLL to what Gouthro (2002) terms ‘lifelong training’.
Taken together, the three categories identified in this study map onto the broader critical debates around LLL: Category A echoes UNESCO’s humanistic vision but risks idealism; Category B reflects incremental adaptation that may perpetuate existing inequities; and Category C entrenches the human capital paradigm, narrowing LLL to purely economic ends. This spectrum illustrates not only variation among the research participants, but also the ongoing tensions within the HE sector itself. This struggle reflects what Slowey and Schuetze (2023, p. 125) described as the ‘contested ideological arena’ of HE, where competing imperatives of funding, rankings, managerialism, and access continue to shape and constrain the scope for meaningful reform.
Conclusion
Åkerlind (2005) posited that a key contributory factor in assessing the validity of qualitative research is whether or not the research output is deemed to be of use or impactful. Entwistle (1997) similarly argued that for phenomenographic researchers in HE, the research process should not necessarily be judged against theoretical purity, but rather by the insights it can provide for policy and practice. This study contributes such insights by identifying three distinct stakeholder visions – transformation, adaptation, and continuation – and highlighting their implications for the future of LLL in Irish HE.
Taken together, these perspectives illuminate both tensions and opportunities. Category A highlights the emancipatory potential of reimagining HE as fundamentally learner-centred and socially inclusive but also the difficulty of dismantling entrenched systems. Category B reflects a pragmatic route of incremental adaptation, yet risks diluting ambition and leaving structural inequities intact. Category C represents continuing with existing policy, but in doing so entrenches a narrow economic framing of LLL that sidelines its civic and democratic purposes.
For policymakers and sectoral leaders, the findings of this research underline the urgency of resisting the reduction of LLL to labour market utility alone. If LLL is framed primarily as an economic project, responsibility for participation risks being further individualised, shifting accountability from institutions and the state to learners themselves. Instead, advancing LLL in HE more as a right than a duty requires collective responsibility, systemic support, and sustained political will (Biesta, 2006).
As international discourse increasingly emphasises cross-sectoral integration and social justice, Ireland’s HE sector stands at a pivotal moment. Whether it choses radical transformation, cautious adaptation, or continued reliance on the status quo will shape not only the accessibility of HE, but also its contribution to democracy, inclusion, and the broader public good.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
The Social Research and Ethics Committee of University College Cork approved the ethics application for this research in November 2021. Subsequently, the University of Liverpool Ethics Committee approved the ethics application for this research in January 2022.
Informed consent
Respondents gave signed written consent before starting interviews. Verbal consent was also obtained on the day of the interviews.
