SOOAL SCIENCE AND THE MAKING
OF ADULT EDUCATION THEORY:
INFLUENCES ON THE STUDY OF
PARTICIPATION, 1930-1960
Sean
Courtney
INTRODUCTION
Between the First and Second World Wars, adult
education as an object of conscious reflection and policymaking was born. That
story has been told elsewhere with sufficient emphasis that the year 1926, the
year the American Association for Adult Education (AAAE) was formed (March 26
and 27, in Chicago), is now a permanent part of our modern history.(1) Obviously, neither in that year, nor soon after, did
the actual practice of adult education change substantially as a result of this
one event. Nevertheless, the twenties were significant because in that decade
came the first doctorates dealing with the adult learner and the establishment
of the first departments of adult education.(2) At a time when the future of
graduate studies in adult education is in flux, partly as a result of debate
over the identity of the field and its claims to distinctness as a body of
knowledge, it is useful to explore the origins of the field as it first began
to define itself: for what it said about itself, what it chose to study and
call research, and how it went about doing that research.
There is another purpose to this paper. This
conference has as its focus, not merely the evolution of adult education
between the Wars, but the history and evolution of workers' education and other
forms of adult education with a liberatory tendency. By exploring early
influences on the formation of adult education theory we can also see in what
ways liberatory or reformist tendencies entered the field of research and were
a major factor in determining the direction of that research until the end of
the 1950s. This paper presents and explores the history of a brief period when interdisciplinary
studies flourished. It is part of a larger dialogue, to explore the ideas and
social forces which shaped adult education thinking at a time when national
leaders, policymakers, and academics were beginning to take adult education as
a social movement seriously.
Almost the first subject for analysis discovered by
this newly self-conscious field was participation. Defining the scope of the
field and identifying who was involved in it went hand-in-hand. Already in
1926, the first "thorough" survey of participants in adult education
and their reasons for participation had been conducted by Marsh in Buffalo.
Other surveys were conducted across the country in quick succession.(3) Participation became a regular object of research and
discussion throughout the 1930s and 1940s, and, though it has continued to
dominate the field right up to the present time, by the middle of the 1960s,
the way the "question" of participation was being framed had changed
significantly.(4)
This paper explores the influence of social science
on adult education theory, particularly with respect to the subject of
participation. The period covered by this paper is roughly contained by the
publication of two books, Frank Lorimer's The
Making of Minds in a Metropolitan Area, in 1931, and Edmund Brunner's Overview
of Adult Education Research, in 1959. Between those two dates, the
influence of a newly emerging field of sociology on adult education was at its
strongest. Sociology gave adult education a subject for research, an attitude
towards methodology, and an approach to its subject matter which fitted
naturally with the emerging ideology of adult education. At a time when
consensus around the agenda for adult education research and theory may be
shifting, it is worth exploring these early influences on adult education
theory.(5)
A SHORT HISTORY OF AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGY
American sociology is a child of many forces, the
complex product of which lies beyond the present study. It first arose in
Europe as a "protest against the spirit of capitalism"(6) and is
associated with the names of Saint-Simon and Comte in France and Spencer in
Great Britain. It was Comte who gave it the name, "sociology." This
protest consisted, in large part, of a rejection of the "armchair"
philosophers, just as behaviorism at a later day was seen as a rejection of a
similarly-seated psychology. Rejection of classicism entailed a strong urge to
go out and study the real conditions of real people, to gather facts,
"statistics" as they were later called, and explain them through
application of the fiercest and most precise standards of the new human
sciences. The purpose of this analysis was not, however, merely to explain. In
many quarters it was indivisibly coupled with reformist zeal, with a desire to
counter revolution in some cases, but mostly with a desire to bring about
orderly change in society by studying how society works and feeding that
information to political leaders and policymakers. Later there would be a split
between those who wished above all to study, and those for whom research had to
be linked with practice. It is safe to say that adult education was conceived
by many as an example of the latter tendency, a practical application of the principles
of social science to the amelioration of social problems.
The roots of American sociology lie in the influence
of British sociology, which was, itself, rooted in conditions arising out of
the Industrial Revolution, and in the Social Science Movement which had swept
America in the early and middle 1800s. First, and under the influence
of Saint-Simon, Hegel, and Comte, many utopian colonies were established,
beginning in the early 1800s and lasting until the Civil War, based on the
principles of how societies are formed and how they can function better. It
was, writes Bernard, a "practical experimental sociology,"(7) fired
above all else by a deep desire to revolutionalize social life and bring about
a heaven on earth. Second, a new kind of transcendentalism, associated with
Emerson and the Concord group, arose in New England and became grafted onto the
fight against slavery. This latter movement, perhaps more than any other, lay
behind the founding of the American Social Science Association, destined to
lead the battle for social reform from the end of the Civil War until the
1880s. "It too was sociological only by grace of its appeal from the
armchair to human events and by virtue of its interest in humanitarianism and
reform."(8) Third, and the only one of the three to call itself
"sociology," was a movement which arose in the South and which,
drawing on the writings of Comte in the area of politics, was anxious to defend
its slave institutions.
All three had elements in common, elements that
fueled the eventual appearance of sociology as a scientific discipline: a
"passion for social reform and an adoration of science."(9) The
emergence of sociology in American universities could also be traced to the
appearance of key works by Lester Ward and Herbert Spencer, the influence of
the German universities,
and the "practical need for
exact knowledge of actual social conditions and workable methods of perfecting
the social organization and controlling ameliorative agencies."(10) The
first course to bear the name of sociology was taught by William Graham Sumner
at Yale in 1875-76. Sumner, though the father of American Social Darwinism, was
not praised for his effort. It was not until 1885 that Indiana University
offered the first "entirely separate" course bearing the title of
sociology. Finally, in 1892 the University of Chicago became the first
institution of higher learning to establish a separate department of sociology.(11)
Despite this growing acceptance, however, sociology
was far from being considered respectable: "It produced a new and
barbarous terminology going very often far beyond what was necessary for
accurate expression and frequently the intrinsically trivial subject matters
were unredeemed by connection with any important problems."(12) The earlier
social scientists had combined reformism with a strong desire to apply
scientific principles to an understanding of the individual in society. Few, if
any, of the early writers came to the subject out of mere intellectual
curiosity. Lester Ward (1841-1913), considered by many to be
the father of American sociology, prefaced famous Dynamic Sociology with
a declaration of commitment to social progress. "My thesis is that
the subject matter of sociology is human achievement. It is not what men are
but what they do,(13) that needs to be studied.
By the turn of the century, however, there was a
significant split between those who saw social science(14)
as a movement to use science to people's lives and those who were principally
concerned with the development of scientific theory. The first group went on to
become leading reformers and social workers; the second joined the ranks of
academic sociology. Among this latter group the "descriptive
passion," as Shils called it, was strong:
Enthusiasm about first-hand contact with human beings
or with data reporting the activities of human beings--an indispensable
condition the development of sociology--did not often become associated with
equally necessary enthusiasm to test important hypotheses.(15)
This need to do original research and to abandon the
armchair led to a preoccupation with methodology. The first
academically-trained armed with the techniques of statistics and the case
study, were eager to lay hold of concrete reality and to describe, classify,
and catalogue it in all its bewildering variety. Earlier research was mainly
historical and statistical. With the invention of correlation by Francis Galton
in the 1880s, it was becoming increasingly possible to subject ever more
complicated social facts determinate, scientific measurement. After the early
1900s, the historical method gradually slipped out of favor and was replaced by
statistical and the case study.
It was characteristic of these studies that they were
not motivated by a central scientific problem or by any clearly-defined
hypothesis. They represented simply an attempt "to see the life of the
community as a whole" in all its concreteness.(16)
The above quote is important for two reasons. First,
it was this climate of methodological zeal which influenced the earliest
research on "participation in adult education" (PAE). To call such
research "descriptive," which is now the vogue, is to condemn it,
whereas at that time it would have been to accord it the highest honor; it
would have meant studies undertaken within the most rigorous standards of
scientific objectivity. Second, sociologists' eagerness to study the whole
community influenced the earliest PAE surveys, suggesting that to be properly
understood, as both a practical and theoretical problem, PAE had to be seen in
terms of a matrix of forces. Undoubtedly, some of these forces were
educational, but many more were of a social, political, and economic nature
which had little to do with education, as such, and much more to do with the
way society translated itself, its power, and priorities down to the community
level and through the community to the individuals who were its members. It is
this second factor which is missing from most recent approaches to the
"question" of PAE and which this study was partly designed to
redress.
SOCIOLOGY AND THE CONCEPT OF
SOCIAL PARTIOPATION
Because social science first took hold in the newer
universities of the Midwest and in major metropolitan areas such as New York,
it was natural that "urban sociology" and the "community
study" should become the "two leading lines of development of research
and speculation".(17) We find this emphasis on urbanism and community life
in some of the better known introductory textbooks of the time, e.g., Robert
McIver's (1937) Society (for whom sociology was the "relationships
of social beings as they cohere into systems and as they change in response to
all the conditions that affect human life"), and Park and Burgess' (1924) Science
of Society. We find it also in the ground-breaking empirical studies of the
time, e.g., the Lynd's (1929) Middletown, and
Lundberg, Komarovsky, and McInerny's
(1934) Leisure: A Suburban Study.
A theme running through both urban and community
studies was that of “social participation” in all its many and varied forms.
Whole communities were subject to scrutiny--churches, rural life, professional associations,
trade unions, and immigrant populations were described and classified, as were
the various aspects of cultural and artistic life, and even the affairs of
government--everything from the most formally organized structures to the most
informal type of family and casual interaction.
The concept of social participation first appeared in
the academic literature in C. R. Henderson's "The Place and Function of
Voluntary Associations," published in the first issue of the American Journal
of Sociology in 1895.(18) As if to confirm its
commitment to this issue, the editorial stated: "In our age the fact of
human association is more obtrusive and relatively more influential than in any
previous epoch."(19) Moreover, the net was cast very widely, for participation
could be linked conceptually with the most intransigent problems of the world
polity as in Lemmert's (1943) "Social
Participation and Total War" or with highest forms of abstraction as in Boodin's (1921) "The Law of Social
Participation."(20)
Social participation research must be judged against
this backdrop of opposition between science and reform, between science for political purposes versus science for
disinterested ends. In its earliest phase the reformist tendency was strong. It
is evident in many of the early works on social participation, including those
of Queen, Chapin, and Anderson in the 1930s and 1940s. Here obstacles to social
participation were symptoms of "Social Pathology," the title of an
important study by Queen and Gruener, published in
1941. The subject of the latter was the wide variation in the extent of
participation among American adults: There were firstly, real
"joiners" who were involved with a variety of organizations and
activities; secondly, those for whom informal friendship networks, but not
formal organizations, were a significant aspect of their lives; and thirdly, a
minority who were veritable recluses. For Queen, the "social problem"
dimension to social participation had to do, not merely with the lack of
involvement in community life by those who were otherwise able to participate,
but with actual impediments to participation by those who otherwise were
interested, e.g., the physically impaired.
The proliferation of research on social relationships
and community life must also be understood, naturally enough, against the
backdrop of immigration which, between the late 1800s and America's entry into
the First World War, brought to these shores larger numbers of foreigners than
had ever come before. Sociologists were interested in these new groups--how the
assimilated, how they changed--and in the associations and media they created
to help them adjust to their new home while keeping their own culture alive. It
is important also to bear in mind that much of the institutional history of
adult education in this century grew out of the movement to
"Americanize" the immigrant.(21)
SOCIOLOGY AND ADULT EDUCATION
THEORY
One can find the influence of sociological
methodology on the earliest research in adult education more than one can find
the influence of contemporary sociological thinking and its sense of social
problems. And where it exists, that influence attests to an intriguing overlap
between the concerns of the new social sciences and the form adult education
was beginning to take in the period between the Great War and the onset of the Depression.
Ozanne, for example, grouped PAE surveys which had been undertaken up to 1934
into three categories: there was the "institutional survey" which was
limited to listing the agencies offering adult education in a given area; a
"student analysis" survey, which went beyond that and looked at
participants and their motives; and a (poorly labeled) "socio-economic"
survey whose "objective has been to study the community itself in order to
discover what the educational needs and potentialities of its adult population
are".(22) It was this latter survey which bore the signs of sociological
thinking, for it went beyond merely enumerative and client analyses and
attempted a more comprehensive understanding of the community itself and how it
functioned.
For example, the first comprehensive and systematic
survey of PAE in the United States was undertaken with the larger community in
mind. Frank Lorimer, a sociologist,(23) was
commissioned by the Board of Adult Education to survey the borough of Brooklyn
and study its provisions for adult education. This should have been the
"institutional" survey as defined by Ozanne. However, as the study
progressed, it became apparent that it is impossible to make an adequate
general study of the place of education in the lives of adults in a modern city
without attending to the whole interplay of economic, cultural and social
factors in the development of individual personalities [emphasis added].(24)
Lorimer's language and its
context evoked the kind of rhetoric sociologists were employing to justify the
large-scale studies then beginning to proliferate in the U.S. It is in the
studies which predate and set the stage for Middletown. It is in
Warner's Yankee City, whose field work was conducted between 1930 and
1935.
Lorimer's study is also
unique in the research annals for its attempt to correlate PAE with other forms
of educational and cultural expression: reading and library habits, readership
of “quality” newspapers and magazines, artistic interests, concert, theater and
museum attendance, and radio preferences. Though explicable in terms of
contemporary community studies, this orientation is largely lost in current
attempts to explore and explain PAE. A similar set of intentions motivated
Kaplan's study of Springfield, Massachusetts during 1943 and 1944. He too went
beyond mere PAE to study these other forms of cultural expression and, like
Lorimer, to find relationships between one kind of sociocultural
activity, e.g., PAE, and another, e.g., museum and library attendance.
The influence of sociology, however, went beyond
methodology and theoretical orientation. It suffused the justificatory
discourse within which the study is situated. Lorimer, for example, began his
discussion with a contrast between traditional, more stable ways of life, and
modern society with its characteristics of rapid change and complexity. There
was much talk of the challenge of technology, the "terrific strain"
put on the modern adult mind by "our economic and social
organization" which involves "unprecedented dangers, wars, cycles of
expansion and depression, and social conflicts."(25) Moreover, modern
individuals were also faced with unprecedented economic and cultural choices;
and it was important that they be educated to make these choices wisely and in
ways which promoted community as well as individual welfare.
The survival and defense of democracy naturally made
their appearance also.26 Quoting Alvin Johnson to echo a sentiment typical of
its day, Kaplan wrote:
In the long run, stability together with progress is
not possible except under essentially democratic conditions. But we cannot have
real democracy unless we have political intelligence and common ideals. We
cannot have intelligence and common ideals without adult education.(27)
As he conceived and justified it, Kaplan's survey of the
capital of Massachusetts was an attempt to study democracy at work in the lives
and social activities of individual men and women.
Contemporary sociologists who included adult
education within their list of concerns interpreted its mission along similar
lines. Lundberg, Komarovsky, and McInerny
(1934), for example, have a chapter in their ground-breaking study of leisure
patterns in a New York suburb which begins with the case for adult education.
The importance of adult education, as they saw it, grew largely "as a
result of the increasing tempo of social change."(28) Their language
continued in a vein which suggests that little has changed in the rhetoric
which defends the necessity of adult education to this day. In traditional
societies, the argument continued, we could count on the knowledge needed to
live and work remaining current for most of our working lives. Today (in the
1930s) this was not the case. Knowledge became obsolete quickly, and the
changing pace of industrialization made it more important than ever that adults learn how to learn.
Perhaps the clearest evidence of the sociological
tendency is in the writings of Edmund De Schweinitz
Brunner, principal author of the first anthology of adult education research,
published in 1959. Born in 1889, Brunner spent much of his professional life as
a professor of sociology at Columbia University. Throughout his career he wrote
prolifically in the area of religious and rural sociology. He became director
of the (Rockefeller) Institute of Social and Religious Research in 1921, and
during his tenure the institute published extensively in the area of community
and village sociology, to which Brunner himself contributed a number of volumes.(29) It was through Brunner that John Newberry came to
write the draft chapter on participation for the Overview of Adult Education
Research, published in 1959. Newberry was a sociologist by training, and
most of the literature reviewed for that chapter seems first to have appeared
in Newberry's dissertation, a study of voluntary associations. Newberry
continued his affiliation with adult education when he authored a paper on
participation with Coolie Verner, for a collection published in 1965. Many of
the same references appear in both the original chapter and the collaboration
with Verner. Some of these very same references can be found in PAE studies
written by other authors at about the same time.
A possibly more intriguing crossover between the
interests of sociologists and adult educators can be found outside of the area
of PAE. Most students of the field are aware of C. Hartley Grattan and his
history of adult education. Less well-known is the fact that the study of
Australia was the first love of this free-lance writer turned academic; his interest
in adult education came later. Grattan attended Clark College, where he studied
with Harry Elmer Barnes, sociologist, noted dissident, and author of the
influential work, An Introduction to the History of Sociology. Grattan
left Clark College in 1923 and went to work for H. L. Menken,
editor of the American Mercury. Later he worked at the Carnegie
Corporation for Frederick Keppel, who is credited with starting the AAAE. Grattan's specialty at the time was Australian studies.
Still later, he became a professor at the University of Texas.
Barnes renewed his friendship with his erstwhile
student and helped Grattan publish, Why We Fought, which supported Barnes's
view criticizing American entry into the Great War. Intriguingly, this paper
appeared in an anthology edited by Barnes and titled, In Quest of Truth and
Justice. Grattan's history of adult education,
the first of its kind, was of course titled, In Quest of Knowledge.
No work has yet been done on the influences which
expressed themselves in Grattan's history, given that
he had no model on which to rely and no previous account against which to
react. However, we can infer some of these influences by comparing similar
ideas. A significant one was the emphasis on diffusion of knowledge which is
expressed most eloquently in the writings of Lester Ward, and whom Grattan
later excerpted for his American Ideas About Adult
Education.
AN ASSESSMENT OF INFLUENCE
This study grew out of concerns about the
"pedigree" of the problem of participation within adult education
theory. Here the focus was on the historical dimensions of that pedigree. Two
questions arise in this regard, one concerning methodology, the second
concerning theory and interpretation. On the first question, my attempt to
establish an intertwining between sociology and adult education theory has been
based on a selection of primary research sources. However, even given my
contention that there was much more research of a "reflective nature"
than has ordinarily been ascribed to that period, nevertheless the sample is
small and open to other interpretations. While I may invoke Webster Cotton(30) to support the position taken in this paper, I
invite colleagues who have studied contemporary professional journals of adult
education to join this discussion and present their positions.
Of greater importance to me, however, is the question
of interpretation. What are we to make of the influence of sociology on adult
education theory during the formative period of modern adult education and does
this issue have relevance for us today? I raise this question though historians
often, and quite rightly, shudder at the "relevance" shibboleth,
because it is important in the context of this conference and what may come of
it.
On the issue of interpretation, Fisher (1983) has
advanced the thesis that philanthropic foundations are designed to
"maintain the social order rather than to alter it" Furthermore,
according to Fisher, before and during the period covered by this study,
roughly from the first decade of this century until the Second World War,
certain foundations were important in the "production and reproduction of
cultural hegemony." Finally, to understand the emergence of paradigms and
the socialization of academics and intellectuals, a "critical
conflict" rather than "developmental" or "Kuhnian" model is needed.(31) While Fisher's analysis
and perspective take us beyond the scope of the present study, it ought to be
considered for two major reasons. First, critical conflict models are largely
absent from adult education history, despite their obvious relevance. Second,
much of the interpretative history of the AAAE (e.g., Rockhill) could benefit
from Fisher's framework.
Fisher has made the argument that philanthropic
foundations, standing between the classes and the social uncertainty of the new
century, helped shape the new order and restore faith in capitalism. In so
doing, institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation laid the groundwork for the
emergence of a professional, technically-trained cadre of intellectuals who
were generally more interested in studying social problems than in solving
them. These were the new social scientists and they became, according to
Fisher's argument, supporters of the status quo, especially when- that support
was needed most, after the onset of the Depression.
It would not be hard to find, as in the case of
Brunner and Grattan, evidence for this thesis as applied to adult education.
Brunner's work benefited from support of the Rockefeller Foundation, while
Grattan worked "at the Carnegie Foundation at a crucial point in adult
education history. This being the case, we ought not then be surprised that
sociology might have been an important, though overlooked, source of influence
on adult education because both adult education and the newly forming social
sciences shared the same supporting factors: a) powerful capitalists, anxious
to preserve their wealth by preserving the world order which had made it
possible; and b) philanthropic foundations through which they channeled their
concerns. Thus, it is not so much that sociology influenced adult education
theory as that sociology and adult education "benefited" from certain
social and political forces which set them in motion at the same time and gave
them their justificatory discourse and hegemonically-oriented agenda.
Though beyond the scope of the data presented here,
the precise form taken by the new social sciences had much to do with an
emergent middle class, its close identification with professionalism as the
best kind of occupation (and a substitute for the religious vocation?), and the
solution of social problems by objective and scientific, rather than political
or religious, means. If this is so, then contemporary attitudes towards adult
education and its role in society would have smacked of the same concerns. It
would not then be so much a question of whether sociology influenced adult
education and how this influence was realized, but more a question of how adult
education and social science, in this early phase, were part of a larger social
project influenced by Progressivism, by the emergence of the middle class and
the professions, and by the desire to have social problems analyzed and
"solved" while maintaining the status quo.
NOTES
1. It is interesting that the importance of the AAAE is
underlined in the only two full-length histories of the adult education
movement in the United States, those of Knowles and Grattan, and that both men
had associations with that organization. Knowles was executive director of the
Association from 1951 to 1959. Less well-known is the fact that C. Hartley
Grattan worked for Keppel at the Carnegie Corporation at the time the
foundation was considering setting up the AAAE. Newer histories by Rockhill,
Stubblefield, and Rose (see below) are re-examining the role of Carnegie in the
early years of the AAAE's existence.
2. While the first doctorate in adult education is usually
associated with Columbia University and the year of that event given as 1935,
the first dissertations with the adult 'mind' or adult education as their
principal focus go back, at least, to 1918 and a study by Cecial
Cheverton at Boston University (Comprehensive
Dissertation Index, 1861-1972, Education volume, p. 198).
3. J. Ozanne, Regional Surveys of Adult Education (New
York: American Association for Adult Education, 1934).
4. Despite this interest, however, less than 20% of
published work on the subject of 'social participation' appeared in sociology
journals up to the 1950s, while over half of all research on this subject was
published between 1950 and 1959. These calculations are derived from J. Edwards
and A. Booth, Social Participation in Urban Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1973).
5. S. Courtney, "Visible Learning: Adult Education
and the Question of Participation" (Ed.D. diss.,
Northern Illinois University, 1984); S. Courtney, Why Adults Learn: Towards a Theory of Participation in Adult Education (London:
Routledge, in press). Those references provide a further elaboration of the
genesis of participation research and its connections with adult education.
6. L. L. Bernard, "Some Historical and Recent Trends
of Sociology in the United States," The Southwestern Political and
Social Science Quarterly 9 (December 1928): 265.
7. Ibid., 266.
8. Ibid., 267.
9. L. L. Bernard and J. Bernard, Origins of American
Sociology: The Social Science Movement in the United States (New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell, 1943), 846.
10. F. L. Tolman, "The
Study of Sociology in the Institutions of Learning in the United States," American
Journal of Sociology 7 (1902): 797.
11. Bernard, "Some Historical and Recent
Trends," 272, 281.
12. E. Shils, The
Present State of American Sociology (New York: The Free Press, 1948), 2.
13. H. E. Barnes, ed., An
Introduction to the History of Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1948), 174.
14. Social science was then defined to include economics,
sociology, and political science. See D. Fisher, "The Role of
Philanthropic Foundations in the Reproduction and Production of Hegemony:
Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences," Sociology (the
journal of the British Sociological Association) 17 (May 1983): 210.
15. Shils, The
Present State of American Sociology, 2.
16. Ibid., 8.
17. Ibid., 7.
18. Henderson headed the department of Ecclesiastical
Sociology, one of the two branches into which the independent department of
sociology later split, at the University of Chicago (Bernard, 1928, p. 281).
19. American Journal of Sociology, I (1895):
1.
20. J. E. Boodin, "The Law
of Social Participation, "American Sociological Review 27 (1921):
22-53; E. M. Lemmert, "Social Participation and
Total War," American Sociological Review 8 (1943): 531-36.
21. B. Clark, Adult Education in Transition: A Case of
Institutional Insecurity (Berkeley, California: University of California
Press, 1972).
22. Ozanne, Regional Surveys, 8.
23. F. Lorimer, The Making of Minds
in a Metropolitan Area (New York: Macmillan, 1931), foreword.
Lorimer was formerly a lecturer in social theory at Wellsley
College.
24. Ibid., 11.
25. Ibid., 3.
26. The issue of democracy and its defense as 'symbolic legitimation' of adult education is addressed by Rockhill
in R. Taylor, K. Rockhill, and R. Fieldhouse, University Adult Education in
England and the USA (London: Croom Helm, 1985).
27. A. Kaplan, Socioeconomic
Circumstances and Adult Participation (New York: Teachers College, 1943),
1.
28. G. Lundberg, M. Komarovsky,
and M. McInerny, Leisure: A Suburban Studx (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934),307.
29. See the 1958 edition of Current Biography. p. 668. A native of Pennsylvania, Brunner was also President
of the Rural Sociological Society, 1945 and member of the prestigious
Sociological Research Association, 1950.
30. W. Cotton, On Behalf of Adult Education: A
Historical Examination of the Supporting Literature (Chicago: Center for
the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, no. 56).
31. Fisher, "The Role of Philanthropic
Foundations," 206-7.
Return
to Breaking New Ground index
Return
to Kellogg Project opening page