Academic professionalisation and hybrid professionalism in adult education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discourse on professionalisation and professionalism is a longstanding focus in adult education practice and research. Drawing on the theoretical framework of Freidson (2001) and Noordegraaf (2007, 2015), this qualitative research combined an explorative method and an in-depth analysis (Nutt Williams & Hill, 2012; Williams & Morrow, 2009). It focussed on the comparison of adult education programmes at the Master's level in three countries (document analysis), and the critical reflection on logics of action three adult educators of the referred countries themselves use to describe their work (semi-structured interviews). Thematic content analysis was used to examine data concerning academic professionalisation and professionalism in adult education. Findings showed that the extent of promoting professionalisation appeared differently in each country, depending on the social and historical contexts and the interplay among several factors within which higher education institutions offering programs on adult education are settled. In addition, the practice of adult educators expressed by themselves involved several logics of action. This study highlights the presence of hybrid professionalism in adult education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".