Inter-­‐culture / dominant culture


Inter-­‐cultural links were a very strong theme in the interviews. Parcipants frequently described the informal learning experience as an exchange, happening across cultural groups at least as oen as within groups. Interesngly, there was no special menon of a dominant host culture but much said about variety.


Significantly, one of the main reasons for learning English was so they could talk to each other, not necessarily to nave English speakers. However, learning English was also seen as a kind of acvator without which the other kinds of knowledge they have gained, or indeed already have, cannot be recognized outside their own groupings.


‘If I stay at home, only I’ve got my country ideas, there’s no chance, no. This is..I can meet all the people, those who come from different communies and different, different views and experience.’


It is interesng that so much acvity takes place amongst cultural groups sharing a disadvantaged or marginalised posion (Brah, 1996) and is only parally or indirectly mediated by the dominant culture. The cultural mix of the area, where diasporic groups make up about half the populaon and where there is a wide range of communies rather than one dominant group clearly has an influence on this (Office of Naonal Stascs 2009).


Individual v collecve pracce


The research seemed to reveal that learning and the accumulaon of knowledge for these women, far from being perceived as the individual journey it is set up to be in policy and pracce, was an acvity dependent on sharing, exchange and collecvity. The issue of recognion within and beyond the circles they moved in was also important and it had an impact on the ways they determined the value of their own learning. I drew on theories of social and relaonal capital to explore this further.


The building of social capital is oen seen as key to combang the exclusion of individuals and communies. In their study of Sure Start Children’s Centres, Bagley and Ackerley (2006) cite Gewirtz (2005) who disnguishes between bonding, bridging and linking social capital; the first being networks within groups, the second being horizontal connecons between heterogeneous groups and the last, vercal associaons providing links to more powerful individuals and instuons. Morrice (2007), in a study of refugee groups, also disnguishes between bonding and bridging capital.


Jackson (2010 & 2011) writes that the building of social capital can be beneficial but also exclusive. The social capital built by marginalised groups may not be valued by dominant groups, ‘social capital that is developed for example by women in the home or community.’ (Jackson, 2011: 5). In her arcle about migrant women using social spaces for informal learning Jackson (2010), proposes that they are building what she names as ‘relaonal capital’. This can be the formaon of networks replacing those damaged by the migraon experience and also about finding ways of understanding new relaonships and, ‘different ways of knowing and experiencing in somemes compeng worlds’ (Jackson, 2010: 249). In contrast to social capital, which is about accumulang individual benefits and privileges, the process of building relaonal capital is described as a more collecve experience based on the formaon of 'communies of pracce', building a 'repertoire of resources’; a 'collecve stock' (ibid 250).


The strong desire to collect and share found amongst the parcipants could be viewed in terms of concepts of ‘linking’ or ‘bridging’ social capital. But as it seems rooted in a desire to include, rather than build a privileged group that potenally excludes (though as marginalized groups who would they exclude?). It seems to coincide more with Jackson’s (2010) noon of communies of pracce that produce relaonal capital and a ‘collecve stock’ of resources.


Research conclusion


An analysis of the findings of the project suggests that migrant women aending classes are engaged with acve processes of collecng, sharing and ulising their learning in ways which do not match current discourses of inclusion and whose parcipaon is not necessarily on the terms that providers and policy makers intend. In


34


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