|
|
|
Reviews / Comptes Rendus
| Bruce Spencer, ed. Unions and Learning in a Global Economy: International and Comparative Perspectives (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 2002) |
|
|
|
|
|
FOR THOSE INTERESTED in labour education an important book has just been released. Its importance is rooted in the fact that, until now, no comparative, international collection of labour education writing has existed. In Unions and Learning in a Global Economy Bruce Spencer has drawn together a rare and useful collection of voices to provide a solid introduction to the area, building on related work that Spencer has published since the early 90s. It has the rare quality of being able to satisfy the needs of a diverse readership, including those uninitiated to the field of labour education, those only familiar with their own national context, as well as labour educators themselves and, to some degree, labour education scholars who wish to delve into the comparative nuances across countries. |
1
|
|
The coverage of the book is impressive; it is productively broken into well thought out sections including Perspectives on Provision, Learning at the Local Level, Building the Union, Current Challenges, and Reflections on the Future. There are three types of gems to be found in the book. First, there are deeply engaged pieces of straightforward reporting that give an intimate feel for engaged campaigns (e.g. Wong's Chapter 6) and the complexities of political context (e.g. Cooper's Chapter 3; Laurendeau and Martin's Chapter 10). A standout that goes beyond mere reporting is a piece on the use of research circles as an alternative method of knowledge production by Härnsten and Holmstrand (Chapter 7). It provides actual analysis and it is unusual in the collection in that it takes up the issue of learning itself (as opposed to educational programming) to be the object of inquiry. A second type of gem to be found within, is the densely informative comparative chapters (e.g. Sterling's Chapter 2; Miller Chapter 12). Here there is a balance of literatures assembled to paint a useful comparative picture of labour education. And finally, there is even a far-reaching, partly sociological, partly educational, account of the role of unions and education in regards to civil society (Newman's Chapter 15). Standing on their own, each of these pieces provides important information that is otherwise unavailable or else scattered through obscure sources. |
2
|
|
This book, as I have indicated, is really the first of its kind, and therefore any critique must be taken with a grain of salt. But before proceeding, take a glance back at the title. This is probably based on a marketing decision rather than on an understanding of the material. Nevertheless, given a title such as this, there are some significant gaps. In the first place, the collection does not quite deliver on its promise of comparative international analysis. Beyond a few individual chapters, there is actually very little overall analysis across the various national contexts. Looking toward the introductory and closing chapters, we find they are descriptive rather than analytical. How has a global economy affected the character of education in unions internationally? This is still a question mark at the end of the book. |
3
|
|
An important missed opportunity for comparative analysis involved the issue of professionalization of labour education. Some authors suggest that the professionalization and formalization of "union learning" is positive and necessary (e.g. Nesbit Chapter 4). Others, such as Cooper (Chapter 3), and to some degree Härnsten and Holmstrand (Chapter 7), seem to indicate this formalization and professionalization may be a barrier for future development of the labour movement. Do levels of formalized training co-vary with the success of the labour movement historically? Who knows? The point here is that this seemingly central issue (perhaps even the defining issue for labour education scholars within the context of labour studies more broadly) is for all intents and purposes unaddressed in terms of solid comparative analysis. |
4
|
|
Another key critique deals with the book's claims about "union learning" and "union education." The title suggests we're going to read about learning when, in fact, with a notable exception, the book is about educational programming. Although Spencer provides a nice list of alternative topics that could be used to look beyond educational programming, including involvement of mass media, joint programs, museums, and cultural festivals to name a few (17–22), there is little indication he has actually taken the idea to heart. A book with "union learning" in the title could and should cover the full range of learning activity that workers engage in, and not limit itself to educational programming. Indeed, the book is at its weakest when it simply provides, or worse, simply decries the lack of program delivery statistics. The significance of an emphasis on educational programs to the exclusion of analyses of members' learning more broadly, to my mind, is actually quite serious. It belies a faith in members' capacities, not simply to learn and develop, but to also guide their own learning and development. This emphasis, despite the most progressive pedagogical technique, affirms a mantra that's pounded into members' heads from school through to work: working people do not understand, they do not know, they can not lead themselves, and they must be led. Not paying serious attention to how members learn individually and collectively outside of courses (and the ways that unions can and do facilitate this learning) makes an important instrumental error (in that this is where members actually do most of their learning), and a fundamental political one as well. |
5
|
|
Nevertheless, Spencer's Unions and Learning delivers a rich, deeply informed overview of the state of program delivery across an impressive array of national contexts. It is, in my view, inappropriately titled, but otherwise fills an important gap in our understanding of labour education internationally. It can not be ignored by those interested in labour education. |
6
|
|
Peter H. Sawchuk
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
|
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|