Learning to construct our identities over the life course: a study with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults in Scotland

To date, adult educational research has had a limited focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) adults and the learning processes in which they engage across the life course. Adopting a biographical and life history methodology, this study aimed to critically explore the potentially distinctive nature and impact of how, when and where LGBT adults learn to construct their identities over their lives. In-depth, semi-structured interviews, dialogue and discussion with LGBT individuals and groups provided rich narratives that reflect shifting, diverse and multiple ways of identifying and living as LGBT. Participants engage in learning in unique ways that play a significant role in the construction and expression of such identities, that in turn influence how, when and where learning happens. Framed largely by complex heteronormative forces, learning can have a negative, distortive impact that deeply troubles any balanced, positive sense of being LGBT, leading to self- censoring, alienation and in some cases, hopelessness. However, learning is also more positively experiential, critically reflective, inventive and queer in nature. This can transform how participants understand their sexual identities and the lifewide spaces in which they learn, engendering agency and resilience. Intersectional perspectives reveal learning that participants struggle with, but can reconcile the disjuncture between evolving LGBT and other myriad identities as parents, Christians, teachers, nurses, academics, activists and retirees. The study’s main contributions lie in three areas. A focus on LGBT experience can contribute to the creation of new opportunities to develop intergenerational learning processes. The study also extends the possibilities for greater criticality in older adult education theory, research and practice, based on the continued, rich learning in which participants engage post-work and in later life. Combined with this, there is scope to further explore the nature of ‘life-deep learning’ for other societal groups, brought by combined religious, moral, ideological and social learning that guides action, beliefs, values, and expression of identity. The LGBT adults in this study demonstrate engagement in distinct forms of life-deep learning to navigate social and moral opprobrium. From this they gain hope, self-respect, empathy with others, and deeper self-knowledge.

Staff and students co-creating curricula in UK higher education: exploring process and evidencing value

Student engagement in learning and teaching is receiving a growing level of interest from policy makers, researchers, and practitioners. This includes opportunities for staff and students to co-create curricula, yet there are few examples within current literature which describe and critique this form of staff-student collaboration (Bovill (2013a), Healey et al (2014), Cook-Sather et al (2014). The competing agendas of neoliberalism and critical, radical pedagogies influence the policy and practice of staff and students co-creating curricula and, consequently, attempt to appropriate the purpose of it in different ways. Using case-based research methodology, my study presents analysis of staff and students co-creating curricula within seven universities. This includes 17 examples of practice across 14 disciplines. Using an inductive approach, I have examined issues relating to definitions of practice, conceptualisations of curricula, perceptions of value, and the relationship between practice and institutional strategy. I draw upon an interdisciplinary body of literature to provide the conceptual foundations for my research. This has been necessary to address the complexity of practice and includes literature relating to student engagement in learning and teaching, conceptual models of curriculum in higher education, approaches to evidencing value and impact, and critical theory and radical pedagogies. The study makes specific contributions to the wider scholarly debate by highlighting the importance of dialogue and conversational scholarship as well as identifying with participants what matters as well as what works as a means to evidence the value of collaborations. It also presents evidence of a new model of co-creating curricula and additional approaches to conceptualising curricula to facilitate collaboration. Analysis of macro and micro level data shows enactment of dialogic pedagogies within contexts of technical-rational strategy formation and implementation.