AN INDEPENDENT VOICE FOR NURSING

bs_bs_banner

Nurses and Lifelong Learning: Creating “Makers and Shapers” or “Users and Choosers”? Diane Butcher, RN, BN, MN, and Anne Bruce, RN, PhD Diane Butcher, RN, BN, MN, is Doctoral Student, School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; and Anne Bruce, RN, PhD, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. Keywords Education, instrumental learning, lifelong learning, neoliberalism Correspondence Diane Butcher, RN, BN, MN, School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada E-mail: [email protected]

Butcher

Bruce

PROBLEM. How have the meaning and goals of lifelong learning for nurses shifted under neoliberal political policy? METHODS. This article critically scrutinizes the political undercurrents of lifelong learning. While the original intent of lifelong learning was to foster intellectual, critical, social, and political citizen engagement (creating “makers and shapers” of social policy), instrumental learning— learning to meet practical economic ends—has taken priority and is instead creating marketable workers (creating “users and choosers”). FINDINGS. International educational neoliberal policy reform has altered the very nature of education. Under pervasive neoliberal political influence, lifelong learning has become distorted as the goals of learning have shifted towards creating marketable workers who are expected, while unsupported, to engage in learning to ensure ongoing employability in an open market. CONCLUSIONS. By examining new understandings of lifelong learning, nurses can make informed choices as to whether they aspire to be a “user and chooser” or “maker and shaper” of lifelong learning in their workplaces.

Throughout our teaching experiences, we have engaged in numerous discussions with colleagues about nursing students as lifelong learners. The range of books, journals, and articles from various authors who advocate for self-directed learning, a cousin to lifelong learning (Borg & Mayo, 2005), illustrates a notable and unquestioned rhetoric of lifelong learning in nursing. In this paper, we critically examine where the directive to become a lifelong learner has come from, and why. Further, we explore the possibility that lifelong learning has become dogma in nursing requiring critical and reflective thinking of this taken-forgranted trend. The title for this essay was inspired by Cornwall and Gaventa’s (2001) discussion on the need to reposition citizens as active participants in creating social policy. Under current political policy, citizens are limited to being “users and choosers” of predetermined services, which limits one’s ability to contribute to change.

Cornwall and Gaventa argue that, while using and choosing what is already established create an illusion of agency and choice, it is necessary to move beyond constraining social policies that predetermine choices for citizens. Thus, by a return to democratic governance, Cornwall and Gaventa argue, citizens can become active participants—“makers and shapers”— in affecting social policy development. For purposes of our discussion, we are suggesting that current political influences, and the reiteration of lifelong learning, are encouraging nurses to become “users and choosers” instead of “makers and shapers” of their own professional career development paths. The focus for this analysis is to unpack the dogma of lifelong learning by revealing the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge claims that underpin this concept. As well, we will examine how the sociopolitical context of neoliberalism is altering expectations for lifelong learning. Neoliberalism can be understood 97

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

Lifelong Learning as “a market-based political ideology; one that emphasizes reduced government intervention, free market forces, individual responsibility, and the extension of global capitalist relations” (Porter, 2012, p. 20). As a global political perspective, neoliberalism influences healthcare and education policy development by prioritizing deregulation, privatization, and competition, and exposes institutions (such as health care and education) to free market competition (Mudge, 2008). We hope that this discussion will promote further awareness and dialogue among nurses and nurse educators in order to uncover hidden agendas beneath the discourse of lifelong learning. Drawing on Foucault, we use the term discourse to highlight “what enables and constrains what can be said” (Barad, 2007, p. 146). Our aim is to foreground current assumptions and offer a way of thinking differently about the trend toward lifelong learning in nursing. Hurry Up and Know The term lifelong learner has been inserted in curricular documents, verbalized by instructors as one of the characteristics to be developed in their students, listed as an expectation of nurses in the workforce, and adopted by various authors as an accepted, common sense intention for nursing students and nurses. A search of the term lifelong learning on the Canadian Nurses Association web site, for example, gives rise to numerous documents that reference lifelong learning. There are documents outlining webbased continuing education for nurses, discussions regarding lifelong learning portfolio development, as well as a Bluedrop performance learning program for nurses, which is defined as pragmatic learning that will “improve the performance of organizations” (Canadian Nurses Association, 2013, p. 1). The revised practical nurse curriculum in British Columbia (Project Steering Committee, 2011) also outlines lifelong learning as part of the expectations for students, and includes lifelong learning in the spiral conceptual schema that represents various underlying theoretical and philosophical perspectives of the provincial curriculum. As noted in the practical nurse curricular document, “learning is lifelong, and is facilitated by a learner-owned approach that promotes cultural safety, caring, independence, critical inquiry and creativity” (Project Steering Committee, 2011, p. 13). Interestingly, the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill School of Nursing has a center for lifelong learning (University of North Carolina School of 98 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

D. Butcher and A. Bruce Nursing, 2012a). Within the mission and philosophy statement, leaders suggest that one goal of the program is “creating vibrant and supportive life-long learning environments to ensure a cadre of nurses who value and participate in scholarship and life-long learning” (University of North Carolina School of Nursing, 2012b, p. 1). What is most thoughtprovoking on the UNC home page is the title “Center for Lifelong Learning—Meeting Tomorrow’s Educational Needs Today” (University of North Carolina School of Nursing, 2012a, p. 1). We are quite intrigued with the notion of how members of this center are able to anticipate into the future what students will all need to “know” even before students do. Not only are nurses engaging in lifelong learning, but other healthcare professionals are expected to be lifelong learners as well. The Joint Position Statement on Scope of Practice for nurses, medical doctors, and pharmacists (Canadian Nurses Association, 2013) lists a “commitment to professionalism, lifelong learning, and patient safety” (p. 1) as a crucial element in the continuing development of expertise in these various professional groups. Authors argue in this document that the policies created that are related to professionalism, lifelong learning, and patient safety will ensure a competent, efficient, and sustainable workforce in the healthcare system. Worth noting is how none of the aforementioned documents or web sites provide a definition of lifelong learning. O’Shea (2003) suggests that a “consensus definition of lifelong learning does not exist” (p. 62), and both students and teachers have varying perspectives on the very meaning of the concept. While it may not be a realistic or appropriate goal to have a single, agreed-upon definition of lifelong learning, MacMillan (2013) notes that there is lack of clarity regarding lifelong learning in nursing, and recommends further discussion on the structure, meanings, and integration of professional development within nursing. Gopee (2005) suggests that there has been very little research examining lifelong learning, but also highlights the notion that lifelong learning can be related to other concepts in nursing, such as self-directed learning, continuing professional development/education/learning, problem-based learning, and adult education. Lack of conceptual clarity adds to confusion and assumptions surrounding the meaning of lifelong learning. Lifelong learning is a term so commonly used, so frequent, so common sense that it is assumed everyone understands its meaning. Could lifelong learning

D. Butcher and A. Bruce be dogma in nursing? Blackburn (2008) describes dogma as “a belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty” (p. 104). Merriam-Webster defines dogma as a belief “held as an established position, without being questioned or doubted” (Dogma, 2013, p. 1). We argue that lifelong learning is dogma because it appears to be a tenet or belief that is unquestionably accepted and used widely within the nursing education literature. So what is lifelong learning? Why has it become so significant in nursing education and professional practice? Creating “Makers and Shapers” What do authors suggest are the purposes or goals of lifelong learning? It is first important to frame lifelong learning with the context of learning theories and how adults are thought to learn. Assumptions related to the ontological and epistemological foundations of how we learn subsequently influence the intents of lifelong learning. Early philosophical foundations influenced future developments in learning theory, including Piaget’s cognitive constructivism, Knowles’ adult learning theory, and Vygotsky’s theory of social development. Perhaps the most well-known theories adopted in nursing education are Dewey’s pragmatic approaches to learning. Dewey, a prominent American philosopher and educator, suggested that students learn best in environments that promote learning within a community, engaging with others and artifacts in the ongoing construction of knowledge. Dewey framed his ideas within the context of democratic and pragmatic learning, where exposure to various perspectives, and consideration of context and personal histories, were all significant for creating socially responsible citizens (Sennis, 2012; Washington State University, n.d.). Similarly, Finlay (2010), in her discussions of the history of andragogy, suggests that andragogy (methods and approaches for teaching adults) was developed in the 1830s by German philosophers, and was subsequently adopted into North America by Eduard Lindeman. Lindeman emphasized education as occurring over one’s entire life while engaging in various experiences—thus, Finlay suggests that Lindeman could be seen as a very early proponent of lifelong learning. Knowles extended the understanding of andragogy by developing his andragogy of adult learning theory in 1980 (Finlay, 2010). Knowles outlined several assumptions regarding how adults learn:

Lifelong Learning adults are naturally self-directed in their learning, need to have input into identifying learning needs and goals, have diverse backgrounds and experiences from which new knowledge can be created (but can also have engrained biases), need learning to be lifecentered and personally relevant, and are more likely to be intrinsically motivated. It is apparent, then, that numerous developments in educational theory, with underlying epistemological views of democracy, cognitive constructivism, social constructivism, and constructionism, became assumptions from which expectations for teaching and learning evolved. It was in the contexts of the theorists’ ideas that lifelong learning was solidified as a natural way of learning for both children and adults. In addition, aspects of lifelong learning were focused on cultivating character, intellectual development, and critical thought, via democratic interactions in various social and institutional settings. These interactions would begin in childhood and extend throughout one’s life. Thus, in this context, lifelong learning was about a journey toward living life as a better human being (making and shaping one’s life), as opposed to being trained in marketable skills. From a postsecondary educational perspective, Rolfe (2012) discusses how historically the purpose of the university was also related to shaping one’s character, through offering a broad education to develop individuals who were “morally and practically equipped for any profession or walk of life” (p. 28). Côté and Allahar (2007) lament, however, that universities have turned into “credential marts,” with students now seeing education as a “means to an end, instead of an end in itself, an opportunity for selfdiscovery and intellectual development in the moment” (p. 67). With industrialization and political shifts, such as corporatization (shifting toward students as customers) and globalization (via deregulatory practices), the university is under increasing pressure to train workers to meet market demands. So how has the focus of learning changed? Shifting Toward “Users and Choosers” Cruickshank (2002) suggests that the aforementioned view of lifelong learning—utilizing various models and theories to support the formation of socially and politically engaged citizens—is only one view of lifelong learning. But Cruickshank argues that lifelong learning also has political underpinnings. From a critical perspective, Cruickshank suggests 99

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

Lifelong Learning lifelong learning is often seen as value-neutral, without according due attention to its more ideological and/or political implications. So a question arises— has the intended meaning of lifelong learning as sociopolitical engagement been replaced by more workforce production-motivated agendas in current educational contexts? If so, what are the potential political influences or meanings? Gustavsson (2002) argues that lifelong learning was once based on democratic and humanistic values of human welfare, egalitarianism, dignity, and optimism; however, the meaning of lifelong learning has begun to contort under the pressures of widespread political and social change. Lifelong learning has been seen in the context of collaboration, equality, and creation of responsible, moral citizens, but is now shifting under an ideological turn. Individuals are now becoming capital, and the previous social welfare focus of learning is being reshaped by discourses related to “efficiency, quality, competence, goal direction, and evaluation” (Gustavsson, 2002, p. 14). Underpinning this shift in how lifelong learning is understood is widespread, worldwide, political influence through the enactment of neoliberalist (Browne, 2001) social policy. As Ronan (2011) asserts, in neo-liberal Western societies, the demise of knowledge as the domain for broad-based independent thinking, critique, and action is directly related to the increasing association of information learning with political and economic rationalities. In this context, autonomous knowledge is reduced or replaced by information learning that is inextricably linked to pragmatic agendas and policies of markets and sovereign states. The new mantra accorded information learning is perpetual lifelong learning which can be characterized as narrow in scope and specific to retooling to meet the demands of everchanging neo-liberal agendas. (p. 28) So how did this shift toward a neoliberalist agenda gradually occur? In Western industrialized countries, including the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, numerous crippling recessions occurred throughout the 1970s. These crises were eerily reminiscent of Marx’s predictions of cycles of overaccumulation and economic decline that would result from capitalism (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006). Significant political change occurred over the decade, with movement toward free markets, shifting of partisan lines in American political parties, and changes in public policies by 100 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

D. Butcher and A. Bruce leaders worldwide (Mudge, 2008). Neoliberalist policy development prioritized deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and competition, while also allowing education and health care to be subject to free market competition (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006; Ronan, 2011). World leaders, including M. Thatcher (United Kingdom), G. Bush (United States), E. Nielsen (CAN), J. Chirac (France), and H. Kohl (Germany), solidified neoliberalism as a dominating discourse through the development of the International Democratic Union (IDU) in 1983. Interestingly, themes of community, social justice, and poverty, which prevailed in European liberal political discourse, were replaced by the IDU with the neoliberal core values of “free enterprise, free trade, private property, and limited government intervention” (Mudge, 2008, p. 716). Within this comprehensive shift in political thinking and prioritization of globalization, free markets, competition, and consumerism, educational priorities also shifted to encompass the values of neoliberalism. Various authors (Borg & Mayo, 2005; Cruickshank, 2002; Edwards, 2002; Gustavsson, 2002; Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006; Martin, 2003; Olssen, 2006) raise numerous concerns surrounding how the tenets of neoliberalism have altered the very nature of education. One major influence has been the changes made to educational policy by various global groups. For example, international education policy reform was initiated in the 1970s by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which represents 31 of the world’s leading industrialized countries. The overarching purpose of education, according to the OECD, is “providing students with so-called generic employability skills that are supposedly transferable between different occupational domains” (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006). Even at the university level, shifts have occurred through OECD policies in which “universities are increasingly becoming institutions focused on technical training and skill development rather than on creating informed and engaged democratic citizens” (Giroux, as cited by Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006, p. 13). Education within institutions is instrumental when it is designed to meet practical economic ends, and orientates teaching and research toward supplying employers with human capital for global markets (Brady, 2010; Young, Maxwell, Paterson, & Wolff, 2007). Thus, lifelong learning has taken on a notably instrumental flavor within educational contexts, where efficiency and productivity are the ends, and skilled, technically proficient workers are the means to

D. Butcher and A. Bruce that end (Higgins, 2011; Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006). The World Bank (2011) shares an instrumental view of lifelong learning in terms of describing lifelong learning as job retraining. According to The World Bank, workers need to function within the new knowledge economy by comprehensively and continuously responding and adapting to market demands. Individuals are thus expected to engage in lifelong learning that encompasses the entire life cycle, “from early childhood to retirement” (The World Bank, n.d., p. 3). The World Bank leaders argue that persistent lifelong learning is necessary to respond to the constant speed with which knowledge is changing; thus, workers need to be upgrading skills on a continuous basis. More profoundly, in The World Bank’s (2011) “Education Strategy 2020” document, leaders suggest that an all-encompassing learning for all mandate, “Invest early. Invest smartly, Invest for all,” creates an education system that generates economic progress and stimulates personal transformation. It seems that lifelong learning is not only good for the economy, but also the answer to the complete, worldwide improvement of individuals and all of society. Seen in a different way, Martin (2003) suggests that lifelong learning has become a life sentence. The earlier educational focus toward creating an independent thinking, morally responsible, and socially responsive citizen is being replaced by goals to create skilled workers who are mandated to engage in lifelong learning in order to be flexible in meeting the demands of an open market. It is the very nature of neoliberalism to train persons who not only will be personally responsible for lifelong learning, but will also assume the underlying market-driven political ideal without question, as if it is a given and presumed reality. Thus, not only has the intent of education been altered, but how citizens are created (and for what purpose) has also fundamentally changed. As Martin (2003) asserts, neoliberalism has reconstituted citizenship through the deconstruction of welfare, and therefore argues that lifelong learning should be interpreted not as an educational discourse, but as a political discourse. Further, Martin argues that as a political discourse, lifelong learning has become a politically expedient way of “converting deep-seated economic problems into short-lived educational projects” (p. 567). Thus, lifelong learning remains a dogma, although a dogma of a different kind.

Lifelong Learning Neoliberalism and Lifelong Learning in Nursing Education We have outlined an argument for lifelong learning as dogma, discussed the development of lifelong learning within learning theory contexts, and plotted the historical political shifts that have created a dominant and pervasive neoliberalist undercurrent throughout education as a whole. It is now important to focus on the impact of neoliberalism within a nursing education context. How has neoliberalism influenced lifelong learning within nursing education? How might educators teach in ways to consider possibilities for change? O’Shea (2003) conducted a literature review on the concept of lifelong learning in nursing education. As stated earlier, O’Shea states that there is no agreedupon definition of lifelong learning in the nursing literature, and also stresses that both students and instructors can have varying perspectives on the meaning of the concept. O’Shea ties lifelong learning to self-directed learning, as both are intertwined with adult learning theory and the intention of students developing lifelong skills in managing when, how, and what they choose to learn. Interestingly, O’Shea found that the majority of reports addressing self-directed learning date from the 1980s, which parallels the timing of large-scale political change that was discussed above. While some of the studies reviewed by O’Shea noted the considerable amount of time that nurses spent in continuing (lifelong) education, there were no explanations offered as to the motivations underlying this learning. For example, did learning take place due to regulatory requirements to engage in learning, or did learning take place because the nurse chose to engage on his or her own? Further, while O’Shea acknowledges that there is consensus in the nursing literature that lifelong learning is grounded in learning theories, there is disagreement, for example, as to whether adults are all self-directed, as argued by Knowles. There are discussions that perhaps not all adults are self-directed in their learning, and other factors such as motivation, maturity, and previous learning experiences also need to be considered (O’Shea, 2003). Interestingly, in reviewing O’Shea’s (2003) discussion, the underlying assumption is that self-directed or lifelong learning is a necessary skill to be developed in nursing students. The rationale is that nurses need to be able to continuously adjust and respond to a complex and rapidly changing healthcare 101

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

Lifelong Learning environment. As stated earlier, Canadian Nurses Association (2013) leaders suggest that lifelong learning will improve organizational performance and efficiency. So it does appear that lifelong learning is an ongoing necessity for all nurses in order to not only perform efficiently but be constantly readjusting and learning to maintain job flexibility. In addition, nurses are to be responsible for this learning, as employers do not often pay or facilitate scheduling changes in order for nurses to engage in this learning. As stated in the BC provincial practical nurse curriculum (Project Steering Committee, 2011), lifelong learning will be learner-owned. Much of the learning that nurses are expected to engage in relates to contextual, workplace learning, such as learning about new technologies or treatments. Employers often expect various workplace-related certificates and credentials to be obtained by staff, which often relate to the instrumental aspects of nursing care. Scott (2008) acknowledges that various competencies that are required by regulatory bodies and employers stress instrumental skills in nurses, to the point where caring behavior is no longer valued. As Scott cautions, “the growing emphasis on instrumental competence . . . has been accompanied by some erosion of relational care” (p. 240). While there is no question that nurses should continually develop their professional practice through continual learning, there remain questions as to whether ongoing learning and awareness of the sociopolitical contexts in which we teach and work are being addressed. That is, are nurses encouraged (by educators or workplace leaders) to critically question underlying forces that influence practice? Why or why not? Are nurse educators reflecting on how they teach and conceptualize constructs such as lifelong learning, as well as the implications of these conceptualizations? Do we teach in a way that encourages the formation of engaged citizens or creation of workers to fit the current workforce agenda? In contrast, Gopee (2002) claims that “lifelong learning is increasingly being appreciated for ensuring high quality patient care” (p. 608), and that it can be effectively sustained by supporting the concept of human and social capital (HSC). Gopee sees HSC as a fundamental element of lifelong learning, and includes “investment in education by the government or by the individual” (p. 609) in order to sustain economic growth. Thus, investment can include employers investing in employees, or self-investment by employees themselves. Social capital, on the other hand, refers to time, patience, and teaching that indi102 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

D. Butcher and A. Bruce viduals “invest” in each other by means of interactions in social groups. One wonders in current contexts if support of HSC is skewed in favor of self-investment, as opposed to employers investing in employees to engage in lifelong learning. Also, although it is beyond the scope of this discussion, it would be valuable to assess how effectively social capital is supported among working nurses—that is, do current workplaces allow for ongoing support and learning between nurses and other professionals in the workplace? How does this idea fit within an efficiency paradigm? In nursing, the instrumental nature of nursing is evident in regulations governing education programs (Scott, 2008). Within a neoliberal context, there are assumptions surrounding limited resources, competition, decreased state intervention, cutbacks in programs, and an increase in individual responsibility. Thus, the encouragement of lifelong learning is seen as a way for nurses to take on the responsibility of learning—for their entire careers—in order to remain marketable and flexible in the ever-changing, increasingly complex healthcare environments. Seen in this way, lifelong learning becomes a mechanism by which the neoliberal agenda can be maintained, while healthcare organizations remain peripheral to having to be part of continuing education for their nursing workforce. Thus, nurses are no longer encouraged to pursue varying educational interests that they may freely choose; instead, they are mandated (through regulatory bodies and/or workplace requirements) to prove their engagement in lifelong learning often within predetermined courses or programs tied to recruitment and retention efforts. While it appears that nurses may have choices about what they would like to learn, the realities of the workplace are such that while nurses are not financially supported for the ongoing learning, they are nevertheless required to engage in lifelong learning. Potential for Change Although we have presented a view to suggest that the dogma of lifelong learning is underpinned by neoliberal political interests, there are movements occurring that suggest that this may be beginning to change. For example, Dalhousie Think Tank (MacMillan, 2013) leaders suggest that nursing education should focus on the formation of a nursing professional identity, which would include embracing lifelong learning and scholarly practice. MacMillan

Lifelong Learning

D. Butcher and A. Bruce (2013) recognizes the lack of clarity surrounding the term lifelong learning, and recommends the development of clear definitions of professional development and how to best integrate it into the lives of nurses. Cruickshank (2002) notes that participation in lifelong education can be a catalyst for emancipation and “democratic participation” (p. 140), and there have been additions of emancipatory pedagogies in nursing curricula that provide evidence for this refocusing of the purposes of lifelong learning. Further, Browne (2001) suggests the importance of nurse leaders stimulating ongoing development of critically oriented nursing knowledge, which includes educators and researchers reflecting upon values and beliefs upon which our teaching is based. Realizing that knowledge is a political enterprise, embedded within political, social, and economic contexts, assists nurse educators to develop awareness and skills in disrupting normalizing discourses (such as lifelong learning). As Browne asserts, such analytical perspectives can “unmask and challenge the unquestioned and taken-for-granted political ideological premises that are interwoven into a wide range of nursing discourses” (p. 126). Literature on lifelong learning, such as Gopee’s (2002) discussion, supports movement toward a more democratic view of healthcare professionals by suggesting that organizations “treat people as assets, not costs, and hence investing in them” (p. 609). Further, Gopee asserts that the workplace is vital in cultivating learning among all professionals, and thus argues that the clinical setting should be reconceptualized as a learning organization. Gopee also acknowledges the significance of informal learning opportunities, such as through interactions in the hallways, over coffee, or in the parking lot, but we would question whether, in our current contexts, nurses even have time or the energy (or are able to take their breaks) to take advantage of this informal learning. Summary Lifelong learning as dogma, while originally underpinned by learning theories and democratic and formative intents, has been impacted by widespread neoliberal political influences in current healthcare contexts. Reinforced by curricular and regulatory documents, as well as educators themselves, nursing students and nurses continue to receive the message that ongoing learning, without question, is a reality of being a nurse. However, how, and what, one learns, is

often under the influence of discourses of efficiency, competition, and self-regulation, which compel nurses to make educational choices that they believe will make them marketable, employable, and flexible. Thus, one must remain competitive in the open marketplace in order to maintain employment. As nurse educators, what might we “do about it”? We suggest that a starting place is education itself, that is, educators and students being encouraged to consider the dogma of lifelong learning in nursing. Through critical inquiry, educators can explore how lifelong learning, when assumed as value-neutral, both enables and constrains how nurses and employers think about professional development. As educators, we can pay attention to the larger sociopolitical context and its more ideological and/or political implications. In addition, numerous authors are calling for ontological shifts in how we view education (Barnett, 2012; Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, & Day, 2010; Brady, 2010; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007; Hills & Watson, 2011; Hooks, 1994; Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006; Young & Maxwell, 2007). Perhaps shifting from predominantly focusing on learning skills and knowledge in order to meet external expectations to reflecting on our relationships and dispositions toward knowledge will allow for new possibilities for teaching, learning, and the “embodiment of knowledge” (Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007, p. 681). A view of knowledge where we will never completely know—that the world is ultimately unknowable—creates an uncertainty that positions individuals for new insights regarding knowing and unknowing. Within these shifts, new understandings can be explored, and all nurses can think carefully about what can, and should, be the goals of lifelong learning. Critical, reflective thinking can enable nurses to realize political undercurrents of lifelong learning, which can help nurses make an informed choice as to whether they aspire to be a “user and chooser” or a “maker and shaper” within their workplaces. References Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(1), 65–77. Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blackburn, S. (2008). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

103 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

Lifelong Learning Borg, C., & Mayo, P. (2005). The EU memorandum on lifelong learning. Old wine in new bottles? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(2), 203–225. Brady, N. (2010). Breaking the cycle of instrumentalism: Implications for pedagogy, learning, and the employability of business graduates from new universities. BERA Conference presentation. University of London, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from http://www.beraconference.co.uk/2010/ downloads/abstracts/pdf/BERA2010_0043.pdf Browne, A. J. (2001). The influence of liberal political ideology on nursing science. Nursing Inquiry, 8(2), 118– 129. Canadian Nurses Association. (2013). Canadian nurses association launches national online learning network. Ottawa, ON: Author. Cornwall, A., & Gaventa, J. (2001). From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Working Paper No. 27. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK. Côté, J. E., & Allahar, A. L. (2007). Ivory tower blues: A university system in crisis. Toronto, ON: Toronto University Press. Cruickshank, J. (2002). Lifelong learning or re-training for life: Scapegoating the worker. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(2), 140. Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2007). An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 679– 691. Dogma. (2013). In Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/dogma Edwards, J. (2002). Mobilizing lifelong learning: Governmentality in educational practices. Journal of Education Policy, 17(3), 353–365. Finlay, J. (2010). Andragogy (adult learning theory). Youtube video. Retrieved October 12, 2013, from https://www .youtube.com/watch?v=vLoPiHUZbEw Gopee, N. (2002). Human and social capital as facilitators of lifelong learning in nursing. Nurse Education Today, 22, 608–616. Gopee, N. (2005). Facilitating the implementation of lifelong learning in nursing. British Journal of Nursing, 14(14), 761–767. Gustavsson, B. (2002). What do we mean by lifelong learning and knowledge? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(1), 13–23. Higgins, C. (2011). The possibility of public education in an instrumental age. Educational Theory, 61(4), 451–466. Hills, M., & Watson, J. (2011). Creating a caring science curriculum: An emancipatory pedagogy for nursing. New York: Springer. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Sears, A. M. (2006). Neo-liberalism, globalization and human capital learning: Reclaiming education for democratic citizenship. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. MacMillan, K. (Ed.). (2013). Proceedings of a think tank on the future of undergraduate nursing education in Canada. Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University School of Nursing.

104 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 2, April-June 2016

D. Butcher and A. Bruce Martin, I. (2003). Adult education, lifelong learning and citizenship: Some ifs and buts. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(6), 566–579. Mudge, S. L. (2008). The state of the art: What is neoliberalism? Socio-economic Review, 6, 703–731. Olssen, M. (2006). Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: Lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(3), 213–230. O’Shea, E. (2003). Self-directed learning in nurse education: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(1), 62–70. Porter, A. (2012). Neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and Canadian social policy: Challenges for feminism. Canadian Woman Studies, 29(3), 19–31. Project Steering Committee. (2011). Practical nurse program provincial curriculum. Vancouver, BC: Project Steering Committee. Rolfe, G. (2012). Thinking as subversive activity: Doing philosophy in the corporate university. Nursing Philosophy, 14, 28–37. Ronan, J. P. (2011). The rhetoric of information learning in nursing: Where is knowledge? Aporia: The Nursing Journal, 3(1), 28–39. Scott, S. D. (2008). “New professionalism”: Shifting relationships between nursing education and nursing practice. Nurse Education Today, 28, 240–245. Sennis, M. (2012). John Dewey. Youtube video. Retrieved October 12, 2013, from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=nHJFcjwjG_0 University of North Carolina School of Nursing. (2012a). Center for lifelong learning. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. University of North Carolina School of Nursing. (2012b). Mission and philosophy statement. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Washington State University. (n.d.). John Dewey: America’s philosopher of democracy. Youtube video. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wMh1LYuZ3B4 The World Bank. (n.d.). The knowledge economy and the changing needs of the labour market. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLL/ Resources/Lifelong-Learning-in-the-Global-KnowledgeEconomy/chapter1.pdf The World Bank. (2011). Learning for all: Investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote development. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Young, L. E., & Maxwell, B. (2007). Student-centered teaching in nursing: From rote to active learning. In L. E. Young & B. L. Paterson (Eds.), Teaching nursing: Developing a student-centered learning environment (pp. 3–25). New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Young, L. E., Maxwell, B., Paterson, B. L., & Wolff, A. (2007). Decision making in nursing education: A model to support student-centered learning. In L. E. Young & B. L. Paterson (Eds.), Teaching nursing: Developing a student-centered learning environment (pp. 26–55). New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Nurses and Lifelong Learning: Creating "Makers and Shapers" or "Users and Choosers"?

How have the meaning and goals of lifelong learning for nurses shifted under neoliberal political policy?...
175KB Sizes 0 Downloads 5 Views