one hand they must be ‘good parents’, devong themselves to breaking the cycle of poverty through supporng their children’s learning and development in quite a prescribed way. On the other hand, they must be ‘good economic cizens’, and see educaon opportunies and outcomes solely in relaon to their employability.


I support the view of Preston and others (Preston, 2006, Marn, 2006, Thompson, 2005) that the trend within community-­‐based services for collecng qualitave data on learners is oen no more than the ‘auding of individualised learning within a moral framework of (normavely) good cizenship and behaviour’ (Preston, 2006:167). The data becomes ‘the property of provider’ (ibid) and is used merely to jusfy funding claims. There is also a need to queson the benefit, especially to the learner, of seemingly endless evaluaons and surveys. I would again agree with Preston (2006) that lurking within the posive argument that we should give marginalised learners a ‘voice’, is a danger of conflang this with real empowerment.


Bellis and Morris (2003) in their work focusing specifically on asylum seekers, argue for a move away from inclusion being equated with acceptance of unquesoned norms of the majority culture. In their study of learner idenes Clegg & McNulty (2002) sum up some of these themes in their argument that policy connecons between lifelong learning, employment and inclusion misunderstand the links ‘between people’s lives and learning’.


This project examines to what extent, if at all, the processes of learning taking place in and around community-­‐based centres are linked with inclusion, within the narrow definions that predominate. I was interested to see how the collecng and sharing of knowledge that these women were engaged with, matched, diverged from, escaped or resisted this policy and assessment context.


Research pracce


My research perspecve draws on feminist originated ideas on posioning, awareness and purpose. As described by Kelly it is, ‘about the quesons we have asked, the way we locate ourselves within our quesons and the purpose of our work’ (Kelly in Maynard & Purvis 2002). Järviluoma is helpful in highlighng how the researcher brings his/her own experiences of the gendered world to research and ‘parcipates in the construcon of gender in the course of the research as well’ (Järviluoma et al 2003: 25). McDowell's approach emphasises posioning in relaon to different knowledges and power structures and the importance of a commitment ‘to making visible the claims of the less powerful’ (McDowell 1992: 408). Two of the principles of feminist research outlined by Cohen & Mannion (2011) -­‐ the relaon between theory and pracce, and connecng the public and private -­‐ are also key.


Maynard & Purvis (2002) rightly stress that gender should not be isolated from race, class, disability and other factors of oppression. I took a decision however, not to collect in-­‐depth background informaon on the parcipants, though some came up naturally in the interviews. These women repeatedly get asked sets of quesons when they are accessing services, for data collecon by providers. I wanted to distance myself from this kind of quesoning and for parcipants to experience the interviews as something disnct from this. This choice does result in a shorall in informaon relang to social and economic factors, which make up a parcularly complex picture for diasporic groups, who are oen socially and economically reposioned as a result of migraon. This was a dilemma as a researcher, especially as these women are too commonly viewed as a homogenised group, and targeted in policies of inclusion simply because they are from migrant groups, while other contextual factors are ignored.


For me, the gendered nature of the research was reflected in how the methods played out for both myself and parcipants. The delaying of interviews because of commitments to cook for a school event, cancellaon because of child sickness, interrupons to feed a child, the last minute cancellaon a class because of a family emergency – all these highlight the porosity of boundaries between the fields of home, family, learning, caring, educang and community acvity that women are acve in. My research was bound up with the rhythm of these women’s lives and the negoaon of me in the compeng fields of work, study and home in my own. The gendered nature of the kind of learning and knowledge under consideraon is a thread running through the project and it was important that the research pracce fied this.


The centres under consideraon provided suitable and interesng mulcultural contexts in which to conduct the research. They are hybrid spaces where cultures, generaons and ways of learning are mixed. Being closely knit with


31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53