‘courses’ - when discussing people’s learning experiences; at this point it is important
only to stress that the research included a wide range of experiences, and explored to
some extent their relative significance.
The report is structured as follows. After a brief introduction we present the
framework we have developed for analysing our data, and then summary typologies
of learning effects and of causal relationships. Part B contains thematic analyses of
the data. We begin with results that relate to people’s initial schooling and the
contexts of their subsequent learning. We then deal in successive sections (6-9) with
the effects of learning on parental adaptation, health, family lives and social capital.
Part C addresses the data from a different angle in order to give a more holistic
interpretation that stresses the interactions between the different effects - already
evident but implicit in the previous sections. Sections 10 and 11 present a number of
different individual biographical accounts. Each is accompanied by a diagram of the
individual’s educational ‘career’ and its effects of their lives. Part D concludes with
policy implications.
1.1 Sample and approach
The fieldwork comprised two projects, originally conceived of as distinct: on
Learning and Social Cohesion, and on Learning and the Management of Lifecourse
Transitions. Over 140 interviewees were drawn from the same three geographical
areas, chosen for their diversity: Camden in North London, an inner-city area of high
ethnic diversity; Tendring in Essex, a semi-rural area with a mainly white population
of below average income; and Nottinghamshire, a county that combines urban and
rural, with a spread of socio-economic lifestyles.
Selection of interviewees for both projects was based on purposive sampling, drawing
on people involved in a range of different learning contexts, from informal
community settings to higher education. The interviewees comprised learners drawn
from a variety of contexts, spanning formal and community-based settings and almost
the full range of levels. They split roughly 2:1 female:male; cover all ages from 16 to
over 70; and are from a range of different ethnic backgrounds. Appendix 1 contains
details of the respondents’ socio-economic profile.
The decision to use the same areas was deliberate, since we foresaw that there would
be a good deal of overlap between the two projects. The methodology used, in-depth
interviews with a clear topic guide, was common to both, with sections of the
interviews common to both projects. The overlap indeed materialised, with data
gathered in each that are highly relevant to the other. People interviewed on the social
cohesion project had things to say about managing change in response to having
children, and those on the transitions project often talked about their participation in
civic and voluntary activities, a principal theme of the social cohesion project. More
generally, both sets of respondents had things to say about the effects of learning on
their psychological health and family lives.