The notion of a ‘causal chain’ is only one available metaphor. As our individual case
studies show, the links between learning and its effects are complex and overlapping.
The chains are therefore often not linear, so we need to think in terms of a web as well
as a chain, or some fusion of the two images.
What is the nature or standing of our findings? The evidence we present here is not
from a representative sample of the population as a whole, or indeed of any particular
sub-populations. The findings map out the diversity of learning’s wider benefits, and
how these come about through different learning experiences, for individuals with
diverse personal biographies. But they cannot be generalised in any statistical sense.
In particular, it is important to stress the obvious point that we spoke to people who
had engaged in some kind of recognisable learning, in order to identify the benefits of
learning. The results cannot therefore be assumed to apply to those who are not
involved in learning, so that even if they were attracted into education the results for
them might be very different (for the purposes of this methodological point we speak
here as if there are two basic categories, of those who are and those who are not
involved). There is a selection bias of a kind, but not one that undermines the validity
of our findings.
Our respondents were made aware of the fact that we were interested in the benefits of
learning, and indeed came from a research centre carrying that name. They may
therefore have conscientiously delved particularly deeply to dredge up possible
benefits, producing a ‘rosier’ picture for us than might otherwise have emerged. We
did encourage them to consider other influences on their development, for example
parental, and it was fairly common for them to attribute things they had learnt to such
non-educational social or environmental factors.
In short, we are reporting on the benefits of learning as expressed to us by our selected
respondents. We have interpreted what they said, using a set of established social
science categories some of which we developed for the purpose. The interpretations
are being offered to policy-makers, to researchers and to practitioners; we expect each
of these communities to react with somewhat different questions about the nature of
the evidence, and for this to take the debate on a further stage in each case.
2. A triangular framework for analysis
Figure 1 on page 10 sets out the framework we have begun to use in analysing the
outcomes of the fieldwork. The triangle is constructed around the three poles of
human capital, social capital and personal identity. The sides of the triangle therefore
approximate to the socio-economic, the socio-psychological and the psycho-
economic.
Human capital requires little elaboration, being already a well-known concept
(OECD, 1998). It refers to the knowledge, skills and qualifications that individuals