Centre for Continuing Education,
Australian National University

Note: Thanks to Dr Margaret Somerville of the University of New England for her advice on this paper.

Introduction

While the student and the institutional focus of current research into adult education is essential, some of the more complex aspects of the role of the educator have been let slide. For instance, the teacher's relationship with research is ambigious.

The relationship of scholarship with mainstream university education is assumed in our society, with most university teachers facing assessment on scholarly publication rather than on their teaching success. As Paul and Rubin (1984, p. 142) point out, research is rewarded in academic institutions even when teaching is the primary function. On the fringes of the university and in other parts of the community, teachers of the Humanities face a different set of assumptions, notably that they are generally not researchers.

One of the reasons why the research role in adult education has not been focused on sufficiently is the philosophical basis of a great deal of the research on adult education itself. For example, Duckworth (1986, p. 48) asks "what is the role of teaching if knowledge must be constructed by each individual?" Do we really all have to reinvent all human knowledge? Is there a place for competent subject overviews and understanding by a teacher? What approaches do teachers use to teach, for instance, critical thinking, how to interpret current knowledge of a subject, and how students are to learn how to undertake research for themselves?

Duckworth (p. 48) talks about "The real thing" of the subject "not books or lectures about it", which is not a simple or even useful approach in many of the Humanities. This approach assumes an easily assimilable subject matter, as do approaches to subjects along the lines recommended by Freire and Knowles. It predetermines how much specialist knowledge is needed by an adult educator in the Humanities, and where educators obtain this knowledge.

Yet, how does an educator adjust to changes in his or her field of expertise in a sector that, unlike the schools sector, has little built-in subject and curriculum guidance? Teacher research is a valuable component in making difficult subjects user-friendly, as it can help in formulating material and may shape an understanding of it that is useful in a classroom. Original research is the natural though not necessary consequence of this, as we will see, and there is a real need for some teachers, especially those linked to research institutions, to be active in developing their field of study and for this to link into their teaching.

To answer these questions properly would be a large project. The aim of this paper is to throw up possible lines of research and concepts that can be pursued. It has been limited to the Humanities to help manage a very large and otherwise diffuse topic. This restriction places some limitation on the types of research methods under scrutiny, using Bagnall's (1982 p. 3) definition of research in a particular field as "valid and acceptable methods of inquiry". Within this broad field there are still numbers of types of research, but the subject focus assists somewhat. Questions that might come up under this broad heading include the difference between different types and levels of research, whether there is a need to keep abreast of a specialist field, and in what circumstances and with what provisos this counts as research, whether there is a need for teachers to teach original work, or simply use available curricula (if these are available) and what different teaching situations and educational background influences these choices.

This cannot be a definitive study. It is too small-scale and there is too little work to build on to make that possible. The lack of previous work on this subject was, I admit, a surprise. Most studies that incorporate ideas of the teacher as researcher (and there are virtually none that deal with the notion as a primary focus) refer to the research element of teaching almost as an aside and do not examine the implications of referring to research as a teaching tool. This study, therefore is a preliminary excursus that raises questions and that suggests directions, which, by implication, suggest the extent to which the research done by adult educators needs studying.

Background

The increasing credentialism and need for formal qualifications in the field of adult education brings new questions. While the need for adult educators to have teacher training is increasingly accepted and the complex nature of adult education has been studied, the relationship of the adult educator in the Humanities with his or her subject matter has received little attention in this context.

Also, too often adult and continuing education is defined as having a secondary status, partly because it is considered to be "informal" education, but also partly due to its flexibility. Few external curricula have been established in the field, with areas relating to Humanities teaching being particularly neglected. While teacher-training is more common for adult educators than it has been, the adult educator neither has the resource assistance of the secondary teacher, nor the research status of teachers in the academic streams at a university. This lack of a formal underpinning has led to the relationship of academic research with adult education being almost entirely neglected, apart from the theoretical field of adult education itself.

One basic question is particularly important. Does the introduction of adult education into the equation as a primary goal (replacing research for publication purposes, for instance) lead to a difference in the nature and style of research? And does the research change the nature of the teaching?

Most disciplines in the Humanities require a strong link to an intellectual tradition. Additionally, a large percentage of the material a teacher needs to teach is research-based in fields such as literature and history. Hesburgh, Miller and Wharton (1974, p. xiii) argue for a conciliation between core and continuing education, where the practitioner takes new knowledge, applies it, then reports on its usefulness to the researcher. At the school level this communication between researchers and teaching practitioners is organised through a formalised curriculum which makes provision of source material and pre-digested analysis relatively straightforward and frees most teachers from the need for extensive personal research.

However, in the adult education sector, the situation is different. There are pre-set curricula only in the TAFE sector, linked to the school and university curricula. This means that the links between primary research and classroom are ad hoc. A higher burden of subject knowledge is the least an adult educator in the Humanities must bear, and students normally expect subject knowledge to be current and to have useful perspectives and insights. As one of my students told me last year, if I were not a practising historian, she would have read a book on the subject instead of enrolling in my course. There are important forces therefore, pushing adult educators towards at least some private research. This is far less so in basic language teaching, and far more so in subjects like history.

Unlike scholarly research in by someone teaching in a university department, this research is seldom rewarded through job security or recognition or even access to professional conferences. So how is the research used, and what sort of teachers will do it despite the lack of reward? What attitudes do adult educators hold towards the notion of research?

It is an important question: whether adult educators undertake structured research. If they do, what sort of research and what level of research do they undertake?

Bagnall (1982, p. 2) talks about various components of the adult educator's role as a practitioner of education. He divides the role dimensions of teaching into (p. 12) teaching, programming, executive, policy, training and scholarship. The question is how discrete these roles are. How far does the scholarship side of education interact with the teaching and training roles, and in what circumstances do they overlap?

While this study will look at specific views of the subject, it is worth noting up front that research for teaching can be a form of active inquiry, enabling the teacher to more accurately and practically reflect the complexity of the subject being studied. That is why the Humanities are a useful starting point . It is easy in History or Political Science to oversimplify while teaching, leading to many students developing a poor understanding of the subject matter.

Additionally, in many cases in the Humanities, experiential learning is more difficult and where the link with the scholarly and with large bodies of often-undigested, information-based teaching is inescapable. Even the informant for this study who least used personal research (Oberman) relied on research done by others specifically for the purposes of the areas she teaches. A Freirian approach to the classroom, in circumstances like these, can be problematic.

The link between research and good teaching may be very strong. Paul and Rubin (1982, p. 143) point out that there exist arguments "that good researchers are likely to be stimulating teachers". In most cases this refers to having an expert and up-to-date knowledge in the field. However, they also suggest that these assumptions need to be questioned - does original research give the background necessary for teaching, or will secondary research, using the original research of others, be sufficient?

Bagnall (1982) also discusses the idea of research as related to teaching, seeing research as a necessary element of teaching. He (p. 11) distinguishes between basic research performance and the appraisal of knowledge and applied research, using the basic research. This latter is used in the practice of adult education. His discussions refer mainly to the Social Sciences, but the division between different levels of research is a useful one, as not all research is wholly original. The distinction Bagnall makes between research and research for teaching practice is particularly useful.

Cultural assumptions about adult educators (even those in a university environment) tend to be very different to those about mainstream university teachers. This means that there is no real understanding of the way the role of the scholar impacts upon the role of the adult educator. Adult educators in the Humanities are often poised between two very different worlds - that of Humanities theory, in which research and subject knowledge is essential, and that of adult education, in which the student generally takes precedence over the subject knowledge.

Bagnall (1982, p. 11) discusses the scholarship role in a theoretical sense, as concerned with the planned generation and dissemination of new knowledge. There is implied overlap between the role of scholar and the role of teacher. This study will explore some of the implications of that overlap, not least the question of whether teaching is a legitimate means of disseminating new knowledge without the underpinning of publication expected in the university world.

Literature review

It is far easier to give a list of studies where the role of the teacher has not been clearly examined than that where the teacher has. And, in those studies (eg Knowles, 1985) where the teacher is included or is the focus, research by the teacher is seldom considered of any importance. Studies such as the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation's 1987 study into the Adult in Higher Education and Colin Titmus's 1985 study focus so strongly on the student, the role of the teacher in the educational endeavour is negligible. On the other hand Weinberg (1972) while targeted at students, implies that scholarship and its aims are linked to education through shared need for personal development, implying that traditional scholarship might not be the type of scholarship best suited to educators, but that scholarship itself is of key importance.

Adult educators in the university context have been described in many ways. For instance, Kidd (in Charters and Associates 1981) describes the field of educational research especially in terms of its lack of comparativity and systemisation. The focus is on the role of research into adult education and neglects the role of research by adult educators.

By contrast, an excellent example of how research and working as an historian can interact actively with teaching can be found in Lynd 1968. In this case we see Lynd's personal development along with his growth and change as an historian. The historical context of this study is also useful, as it is part of a movement for social change. While Lynd's teaching is assumed rather than always expressed, it plays an active rather than a passive role in his life as an historian.

MEANING OVER MEMORY

(Stearns, 1993) is a new look at education in the Humanities. It examines the teaching of Humanities mainly in the formal education system in the USA, with a strong emphasis on schools and colleges. An important focus is how the Humanities can teach habits of mind rather than simply imparting bodies of knowledge, arguing that analytical skills are "vital for a critically informed citizenry" (p. x). A strong link between current research and teaching is assumed. Its major contribution to the field is in its argument that teaching is central to the Humanities rather than a side issue. Additionally, it addresses the U.S. idea of cultural canons.

Stearns looks at the usefulness of developments in Humanities scholarship and teaching, while Paul and Rubin (1984) theoretically look at the direct links between teaching and research in practice. Paul and Rubin in particular, address this in theory rather than in actuality. While this article focuses on the teaching economics and the need for quality instruction implying a need to research, some of its initial ideas are useful for an understanding of the link between teaching and research in general. Unfortunately, most of the article is weighted towards the usefulness of publication in academic journals as a measure of teaching capability, with the factual demonstration being largely linked to how an academic's knowledge of his or her field can be measured through publication. Other measures would have been useful. On the other hand, Duckworth (1986) focuses on educational research, but creates a useful link between teaching and classroom research.

The links between education and research emerge indirectly in bell hooks' feminist TEACHING TO TRANSGRESS (hooks, 1994). It addresses problems of cultural prejudice and learning and how to apply humanist philosophies to the adult classroom. The problem with the sort of multiculturalism described by hooks is that it is not the sort of multiculturalism that always applies outside America, with cultural differences being largely defined by skin colour rather than religion, family and so forth. A simple skin-colour definition of multiculturalism does not address the plurality of modern Australia, for instance, where I teach. This is very important as it alerts us to the fact that women's cultures and the positions and views of individual women may also differ. This offers useful insights to this project in that I have assumed a cultural universality for the purposes of opening up the subject, and it may not hold true: my informants are in Israel, America and Australia. While hooks does not offer direct insights on the nature of teaching, she offers very useful indirect insights through her observations of the nature of culture and the position of minorities.

Grundy (c. 1976), like most of the authors discussed here, does not address the subject directly. He does, however, provide a very useful theoretical construct - a theoretical spectrum of non-vocational to vocational education, with Humanities courses occupying an extreme point at one end of the spectrum.

By and large, the literature shows adult educators as teachers, but not as researchers although Duckworth (1986) emphasises the need for teachers to be learners. Research is an important tool for teachers as learners, both interpretative and self-directed.

When research is discussed it is research of adult education itself and of adult educators in their role as teachers. Yet an underlying assumption in the literature is that adult educators are of key importance in establishing lifelong learning. This assumes that a research role is possible, or that lifelong learning except in teaching practice does not apply to the educators, only to their students. This is a major issue. The literature appears to assign no research role or a minimal research role to adult educators in the Humanities for the subjects they teach.

Methods

This study is partly literature-based, with the information and insights gained from a study of the literature balanced and extended by a small group of informants. Because so little has been done in this area, this can only be a preliminary study, and cannot provide definitive answers.

My informants were people known to me prior to the project and who were happy to be asked a range of questions. To help reach an understanding of how these questions operate in practice, the informants were asked about their role as adult educators in the Humanities and how they view research. Questions included what research they undertake, if any, what methodologies they use and how they use it in their teaching, including the effect of student demands on the research. Follow-up questions included their use of research as a tool for self-development and the differences they have found between research for teaching and research for publication.

The background of these informants is intentionally quite varied, to take into account the major areas in which one would expect to find an adult educator in the Humanities. I have tried to select informants who represent different facets of a very diverse field. For instance, Oberman teaches English to migrants through an women's NGO (Non-Government Organisation), but she also teaches Jewish history, religion and culture to groups of visitors at the Jewish Museum in Melbourne, Dawson teaches privately, and Adelman teaches largely using the Internet and email from Israel.

Results and Discussion

BACKGROUND OF INFORMANTS

All three informants have had formal training in research, to at least Masters level, with Dawson currently completing his doctorate. Only Oberman has formal teacher training, with her field of research being education rather than the Humanities subjects she currently teaches. Adelman has a doctorate in Jewish Studies.

This background helps explain their various views on research and its role in teaching: Adelman gives research a significantly higher profile than the others, seeing it as necessary to his teaching. Dawson sees it as necessary but less important, while Oberman places a low value on her own research. Given she is teaching outside her field and has no Humanities research training, this attitude may be partly due to lack of confidence.

A TEACHING/RESEARCH SPECTRUM

ARE TEACHERS RESEARCHERS?

Stearns suggests that it is counterproductive to establish polarities between research and teaching (1993, p. 122) and that those teachers who can enthusiastically research and teach should be encouraged, but that teachers are not necessarily researchers. I would add that, even when the definition of research is extended to include low level, non-original research, not all teachers regard themselves as researchers. The relationship therefore, between teaching and research skills is a fluid one and depends very heavily on the nature of the subject, the style of teaching, the type of institution, the background of the teacher, whether there is a readily-available body of teachable material on a subject, as well as factors such as the research "comfort zone" of the teacher. This was demonstrated quite strongly when I asked my informants what purposes they used research for in teaching.

Adelman put the view of the researcher-teacher most succinctly when he wrote to me that "research is to teaching as sin is to confession; without the former, the latter would not be possible". Even when he is not teaching directly about his research concerns, he points out that "my nuanced understanding of the material and the richness of textual resonances, is informed by my research and preparing for the kind of scrutiny that publication's must undergo".

Oberman is at the other end of the spectrum, explaining that she sees no need to research for teaching purposes. Despite this comment by her, I have seen her preparation for classes and they do, indeed include a research component, though not, it must be said, any component of original research. Dawson, on the other hand, cannot teach without original research because the subject he was describing (historical combat in the West) is such a new field. For Oberman there were resources she could use, for Dawson, none.

For Adelman there are definitely resources, but his pure research interests informs his teaching. Adelman feels quite strongly that the best teaching of history and literature and related subjects has an exciting dynamic that comes from a teacher who is very enthused by his or her own work in the field. In Adelman's case there is also a strong link to publication, which perhaps reflects the fact that Adelman's teaching is closest to "normal" university teaching.

WHAT TYPE OF RESEARCH?

In noting that Oberman used investigative techniques to establish the material she needs to teach at the Jewish Museum or to approach her English teaching, yet that she does not regard these as research (original or other) I asked my other respondents what types of research they use in their teaching.

Dawson answered the question quite formally, replying that: My research consists primarily of examining diverse historical sources: literary, pictoral and archaeological, for evidence of combat methods and training modes. Secondarily I investigate approaches to transmitting such information in other cultural and historical milieus.

Adelman sees research more narrowly, as original studies using primary documents etc, with course preparation per se not counting, and secondary sources being "taken for granted, like bodily functions, with which they are often equated". He regards using the curricula of others as "a sign of professional death".

This reflects the idea of a spectrum with vastly original research at one end, represented by Adelman, and research for teaching purposes only, with little or no original component, as undertaken by Oberman. Within this spectrum, Dawson would incline to originality because of the nature of his subject, but evidently does not distinguish so finely between primary and secondary sources.

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RESEARCH

I would suggest that the dividing point between pure research and simply answering the queries a class proposes (as suggested by another respondent as his research component - he asked that he not be named) is a complex one. Partly, the end use of the research dictates how it is regarded, with published original research being considerably more prestigious than equally original research undertaken for a course, but both of them are original research. Adelman's division between primary and secondary sources may well apply to Jewish Studies, but in other fields (for example, in cultural studies) it is not so simple, with sources shifting from primary to secondary and even tertiary status depending on the subject being queried. For instance, reading Carruthers' book on memory in Medieval Culture (1990) can be a secondary source and not original research at all if used for a generic course on memory in the Middle Ages, but it can also be primary research if it assists in research which questions it and helps establish new groundwork in that area or a different one.

The dividing lines are not simple, which is why I suggest a continuum rather than simple categories. The stage at which a monograph ceases to be a source of pre-digested information and starts becoming a focus of theory and of new hypothesis is not always straightforward. So I would establish a continuum of research for teaching with pure research leading to publication at one end and simple answering of classroom queries very far away at the other.

PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH

This idea of a research continuum holds true for the presentation of research in an educational setting. True to form, Adelman does not prepare original research specifically for an adult education setting. He has focusses his research tightly and it informs his thoughts and his class preparation. He points out that "It helps determine what teaching techniques I use, for instance." This may be affected by the need to publish for career purposes.

While Dawson undertakes original research for his classes, due to the nature of the subject, his comments about the nature of his research are interesting, as he researches for publication as well as for class, and mostly those areas are different. Dawson points out that: Original research undertaken specifically for class use has not to date resulted in me presenting a scholarly paper or writing a scholarly article on the subject, although research in a parallel area which informs some areas of class work has.

Dawson also demonstrates the nature of the gap between teaching for scholarly publication and research for teaching that is that "the reframeing and additional work required from the classroom presentation is mainly in elaborating the process leading to the conclusions, and in explicitly bringing forward a greater mass of supporting material." The teaching process interplays with the research, because one must give "thought as to how the material is presented to different students, but also less often research into alternative versions of the material being presented." As Dawson says, "I do certainly find that there is more scope for personal interpretation of the subject when you teach from original research. It is generally sufficient to know that I am able to present the research in an appropriate scholarly fashion if necessary."

The interaction with students can also be important in inspiring new research projects, as Adelman points out that "Many of my projects, especially work on wife-beating came from student interest." However, he also points out that "The textual based nature of my findings does not usual excite the audience that stimulated the project in the first place."

Both Dawson and he concur then, that presenting research to students is a very different phenomenon to presenting a text to a scholarly audience. Adelman suggests that: I am finding that recently teaching adult education world wide on the web I am able to present research in a very personal level; I found that in past adult educational settings, often at synagogues, teachers meetings, etc. there was a reluctance to allow me to engage in the material personally. Often this was because my finding went against conventional wisdom and what made the students feel comfortable. For some reason I find that on the web I am able to be more personal and the students are more engaged.

Which suggests that it is not the act of teaching, but the mode of teaching and the learning expectations of students. The relationship between research and teaching is not a simple one!

MOTIVATION

hooks (1994, p. 7) discusses the classroom where such an atmosphere of high seriousness prevails that the excitement of learning is lost. Adelman's sense that the excitement of teaching for him partly lies in its link with research. For him, therefore it is likely that student excitement is generated by his enthusiasm. In an email class I attended, offered through J.U.I.C.E. - a Jewish cyberspace education oranisation, this proved to be the case, as he revised his attitude to a subject in the middle of a course, based upon our input and his subsequent re-directed research. Those students who had help cause his directional changes immediately engaged more closely in the course, feeling a sense of ownership.

This process is very different to the limited teacher-research envisaged by Weinberg (1972, p. 136) where he assumes that most subject reading is done by teachers during their formal university studies. If this had been the case for Adelman, that particular class interaction would not have happened, and his teaching on the subject would have been considerably less interesting.

IS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

Another point of agreement was that research is not necessary for all courses, apart from the low level, non-original research necessary to get a subject up and running. Oberman, as I have said, uses no original research in her teaching and is does not feel it is relevant. Adelman uses research for the same types of courses, namely history, literature and cultural studies. Dawson sees research as necessary to integrate apparently disparate subject matters. He points out that "The constraints of periodic class teaching often make it difficult to explore the natural unities, but research is essential to determine which cross-influences are most important and need to be explored for the students to get the best grasp of any given subject."

Research does not need to inform all courses, and, concomitantly, not all research needs to be ground-breaking. It is a part of the teacher's toolkit, not the entirety of it. Nor does it have to be high level. Oberman, when teaching, will reformulate matters she has used in other contexts, and reinterpret to meet the needs of her students. This reinterpretation can be insightful without needing to be at a level suitable for publication. Perhaps it is necessary to divide the interpretation elements of research with the bringing of ideas and material together, with the investigation of whole new subjects, and so forth.

In other words, research can be broken down into its component parts: while all Humanities teachers are likely to use some components of research as a part of their teaching, only those who also research independently for publication are likely to use the complete spectrum of skills.

This is important because it implies that most of the research done for adult education is not at the same level of scholarship as that undertaken, for example, by a dedicated researcher in a university department. In adult education, research is a tool, and teaching is the goal. There is overlap between the work of those who are primarily teachers and those who are primarily researchers, but the overlap is likely to be strongest in educators like Adelman, who also has a strong publication record.

FURTHER WORK

There is a great deal of work to be done on this complex set of relationships: how Humanities teachers actually use various research tools in their teaching is far too broad a subject for this study. There is an additional problem which is unfortunately outside the scope of such a short study, which is the necessary for research appraisal and how standards are maintained if the main outlet of the research is teaching. This is not very straightforward either, as Dawson and Adelman are both working on or have published various pieces on research interests. So the relationship of research tools with teaching and how to assess and maintain the level of scholarship need further work. All I can do is indicate for the second that the main researchers seem also to publish and that, none of my informants completely avoided research for their teaching, although they do not all undertake the same type or level of research or indeed, define it in the same way.

THE SPECTRUM

So at one end of the teaching-research spectrum we have Adelman, who undertakes research at a very scholarly level, and sees that research fit with his teaching as a part of a seamless whole, and at the other end we have Oberman, who undertakes only very low level research, using components of the researcher's skills, rather than the full spectrum. Oberman researches according to the description of Paul and Rubin (1982, p. 143), who suggest that research has a role to play in teaching through the selection of material to be taught and in keeping that material current.

Adelman uses teaching as a tool to retain and develop academic skills. He expresses it, as usual, very succinctly "Why else do it; otherwise could be a dean, and make more money." Oberman attends lectures and talks to achieve the same development, which fits in with her distrust of her own research skills in the subject areas she teaches. So research can operate independently, or it can work to develop subject skills, whether for academic or teaching purposes. It can also lead to better curriculum development. Duckworth (1986, p. 493) suggests that research by teaching can also lead into knowledge of curriculum possibilities, in other words that the dynamic interaction between research and teaching can open up subject areas and enable the teacher to interpret them in different ways.

Conclusion

The nature of research in teaching really comes down to the nature of teaching itself, and whether research is an essential component of some types of teaching. For many teachers, knowledge is perceived as fairly passive - they do not create new understandings of material or the world, but present material that others have already processed. For others, teaching cannot exist without original research.

I would argue that, for many Humanities adult educators and especially those with strong research training, the teaching is a major tool of ideas development and also a form of research communication. The research is integral to the process of teaching.

Knowledge is anything but passive - the very dynamic used in seeking and interpreting is a key facet of how some educators teach. As Adelman said "to teach one has to have something original to say". Teaching feeds into research by helping generate questions, test assumptions, develop new insights. And research feeds into teaching by providing greater depth and flexibility in the subject area and hence helps both curriculum development and classroom teaching, and, at its best, a positive dynamic in the classroom. Whether the relationship between teaching and research is the kind needed for refereed academic publications in the Humanities is another question.

Research especially helps the educator who is not limited by a predetermined curriculum, one who must seek out and structure possible topics for teaching or approaches that might help students. The research is not the goal - the goal for any teacher must be the learning achieved by students - but without it, educators in very informal frameworks in the Humanities may fall short in the depth, structure and originality of subject matter necessary to good teaching. Duckworth (1986, p. 490) points out the level of student engagement in good teaching.

Duckworth has a long list of questions relating to this relationship between ideas, research and teaching. She points out that to teach with this sort of interaction, the teacher needs to have a significant level of subject knowledge, which brings us back to where we started, to the fact that many Humanities subjects have a strong knowledge base, even when skills are being taught, and it brings us back to the comments by Adelman, that research and teaching have a dynamic bond and are interactive, not independent.

Research skills, used well, can expand a teacher's reach, adding to their flexibility and capacity to meet student needs. Also, if the teacher is continually learning and is prepared to share that process with students, then both teacher and students are working in a very positive environment of ongoing inquiry.

References

Bagnall R. (1982) Scientific research, design and evaluation paradigms in the training of Adult educators. In N. Haines (ed.) CANBERRA PAPERS IN CONTINUING EDUCATION. NEW SERIES 2, Canberra, Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University, 2-22

Carruthers M., (1990) THE BOOK OF MEMORY. A STUDY OF MEMORY IN MEDIEVAL CULTURE. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Centre for Educational research and Innovation, (1987) ADULTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Paris, OECD.

Duckworth, E. (1986) Teaching as Research. HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW. VOL. 56, NO. 4 481-495

Duke, C. (1982) Organising Continuing Education. In N. Haines (ed.) CANBERRA PAPERS IN CONTINUING EDUCATION, NEW SERIES 2 Canberra, Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University, 41-64.

Finifter, D.H. and A.M. Hauptman (ed) (1994) AMERICA'S INVESTMENT IN LIBERAL EDUCATION. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Grundy, T.P. (c. 1976) "Vocational" and "Liberal" - on the Use of Terms. In N. Haines (ed.) CANBERRA PAPERS IN CONTINUING EDUCATION. (SERIES 2). Canberra, Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

Hesburgh, T.M., Miller, P.A., and Wharton, C.R. Jnr, (1974) PATTERNS FOR LIFELONG LEARNING San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

hooks, b. (1994) TEACHING TO TRANSGRESS. New York and London, Routledge. Knowles, M.S. and Associates, (1985) ANDRAGOGY IN ACTION, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Lynd, S. (1968) Historical past and existential present. In Roszak, T. (ed.) THE DISSENTING ACADEMY. Middlesex, Penguin, 87-102.

Noddings, N. (1986) Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching. HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW VOL. 56, NO. 4 496-510.

Paul. C. W. II and P. C. Rubin. (1984) Teaching and research: The human capital paradigm. Journal of Economic Education Spring, 142-147.

Stearns, P. (1991) Linking humanities research and teaching. Liberal Education; v77 n3, 22-27

Stearns, P.N. (1993) Meaning over memory. Recasting the Teaching of Culture and history. Chapel Hill and London, University of North Carolina Press.

Titmus C. (ed.), (1985) Widening the field. Surrey, The Society for Research into Higher Education & NFER-Nelson

Weinberg, C. (ed) (1972) Humanistic foundations of education. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.