Lifelong education and transnational migration

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and through what mechanisms vulnerable adults are empowered through a second-chance education programme. At the same time, the paper aims at unveiling the obstacles hindering learners’ empowerment process and making suggestions for the improvement of the educational programme fostering further empowerment of the learners. To achieve the objectives set by the research, a hybrid methodological design was applied combining hermeneutic phenomenology and critical discourse analysis. Data collection was performed using three tools: semi-structured interviews, reflective journals and document analysis. The results led to the emergence of a multilevel empowerment scheme of vulnerable adults in the programme. The empowerment mechanisms that emerged were as follows: (a) empowerment through participation as a self-value, (b) empowerment through the reconstruction of past experiences, (c) empowerment through the strengthening of their social capital and (d) empowerment through literacy skills. At the same time, the study shed light on a number of factors that inhibit the process of learners’ empowerment, which unveil structural and operational weaknesses of the programme as well as of the policies pursued by the State.     

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES IN GERIATRIC EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR FACULTY

The demographic imperative for geriatric training and care is well documented and comes as no surprise to health care professionals working in the field (see National Institutes of Health, 1987). The dramatic increase in the numbers of elderly, particularly those age 75 and older, suggests that geriatric health care will grow in importance throughout the next decade. This article briefly examines strategies for geriatric education that may have relevance for attempts to formalize and institutionalize geriatric content in academic institutions, and suggests strategies for implementation.

The domains of geriatrics and gerontology have continued to overlap as models of training and health care delivery have evolved. Distinctions between these two perspectives remain important, particularly as they pertain to the emphasis on training related to normal versus pathological aging. For purposes of simplicity, the term geriatric is used in a broad context that includes gerontological education as well. The reality of our educational experiences suggests that a balance between normal and pathological aging content in our curriculum is one of the first crucial variables that needs to be addressed.     

Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives,philosophies, theories,methods, and practice

In recent years, there has been rapid growth in the volume of research output on the topic of e-government. To understand this research better, we used content analysis of eighty-four papers in e-government-specific research outlets (two journals and one conference series). Our analytical focus took in five main aspects: perspectives on the impacts of e-government, research philosophy, use of theory, methodology and method, and practical recommendations. Normative evaluation identified some positive features, such as recognition of contextual factors beyond technology, and a diversity of referent domains and ideas. Alongside this, though, research draws mainly from a weak or confused positivism and is dominated by over-optimistic, a-theoretical work that has done little to accumulate either knowledge or practical guidance for e-government. Worse, there is a lack of clarity and lack of rigor about research methods alongside poor treatment of generalization. We suggest ways of strengthening e-government research but also draw out some deeper issues, such as the role of research philosophy and theory, and the institutional factors – particularly pressures of competition and time – that may constrain development of e-government as a research field.     

Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer

A rejoinder to Gudykunst and Hammer's critique of a recent paper is presented. We argue that their position is based on two mutually exclusive propositions and cannot therefore be credible. We continue to maintain that the evidence on intercultural effectiveness shows both culture-general and culture-specific components.