Adult learning systems have come to be dominated by the view that the essential role of adult learning is to generate the high levels of skills deemed necessary for competitiveness and growth in the globalised economy. This ‘education gospel’ is underpinned by human capital theory (HCT) and its contemporary conceptualisation in terms of the knowledge-based economy. Nevertheless, it remains the case that there are significant differences in the strategies of national governments towards adult learning and in patterns of engagement with the learning opportunities that are made available.

This article considers the role of diverse institutions in framing adult learning systems. The focus is on institutional characteristics and configurations in different countries and their potential impact on the extent of adult learning, as well as on inequalities in access to adult learning. Typologies of education and training systems as well as labour market and welfare systems are introduced in relation to specific particularities relevant to adult learning. An emphasis is placed on how institutions that are interwoven into several systems are relevant to adult learning. This is then considered and elaborated in the context of post-Socialist countries in order to highlight important nuances that are relevant to adult learning and skill formation systems.

In the area of education and training, different configurations of government with different institutional structures may produce similar or quite different educational and employment outcomes. Other factors come into play in assessing outcomes. For example, young people's transitions from education to work are shaped by a variety of structural and institutional relations in education and the labour market. We argue that analysis of developments in approaches to education and training benefits from including these perspectives. This article explores these differences and similarities in a comparative transnational context across two continents. The article suggests that it not useful, whether from a policy or scholarly perspective, to link education and employment without examining the role and type of the welfare state, including the role and type of capitalism within that state, and the relationship of the welfare state to transition systems. With these concerns as our focus, the article has two objectives. The first is to establish some links between comparative research on transition systems and the literatures on welfare state regimes and varieties of capitalism. The second is to draw out some of these links with two concrete and contrasting examples in a comparative manner, focussing on Denmark and Australia.

This article considers the counter-intuitive observation that some of the wealthiest nations can feature low tertiary graduation rates (e.g. Austria, Germany, and Switzerland). It also considers the observation that many countries with high tertiary graduation rates show low levels of social equity, while many countries with low tertiary graduation rates show high levels of social equity. These observations are considered through the lenses of institutional perspectives, and specifically welfare and production régime theories. The analysis elaborates on educational attainment, patterns and key aspects of economic functioning and development, and educational attainment patterns and their relationship to social inequality.

This article focuses on evidence regarding cross-national patterns of participation in adult education and an interpretation of these patterns from an institutional and public policy perspective. The interpretation follows from the perspective that sustaining high and widely distributed levels of investment in the development and maintenance of skills over the lifespan of individuals is to a large extent interconnected with a high-level of non-market coordination via institutional arrangements and/or specific public policy measures. Such arrangements and measures are seen to alleviate coordination problems that otherwise lead to underinvestment in skills and/or inequity in the distribution of access to education and training and hence skills. Consequently, it is argued that institutional contexts and public policy measures condition participation patterns in adult education, and are thus worthwhile to understand better for the purposes of informing policy.

This article addresses cross-country and cross-period differences in average levels of training activity from an institutional perspective. Firm-provided training in Europe between 1999 and 2010 is scrutinized in order to explore whether diverse institutional arrangements that can be linked to welfare state regimes can yield discernible cross-country patterns. An emphasis is placed on the limits of national skills strategies that are not well embedded in wider institutional environments. This is grounded in a view that policy efforts to influence training activity, involves nothing less than ‘reforming’ societies. Insights of this research should contribute both to a critical reflection of the EU's targets in the field of lifelong learning as well as supporting policy learning between member states.

This article discusses the emergence of a European E-Learning Area (EELA) as a consequence of three factors that can be observed in the e-learning developments over the past decade. The first factor consists of the carving of a policy sector in e-learning via formal instruments such as the eLearning Programme, the Lifelong Learning Programme and an array of other e-learning policy stipulations embedded in larger policy instruments at European level (e.g. Framework Programme). The second factor is represented by the mainstreaming of e-learning activities, both through formal and informal measures across multiple domains. Finally, the proliferation and consolidation of interlinked networks of practice as incubators of e-learning innovation and sharing of expertise act as the third factor in the shaping of EELA. The conceptualisation of EELA is substantiated through an analysis of the European e-learning policy documentation and the findings of a questionnaire distributed to the coordinators of projects under the eLearning Programme. In light of the findings, theoretical and practical implications for EELA as a nascent policy domain are explored and offered as a basis for further debate on this theme.

There has been much discussion about quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in different disciplines. In the behavioural and social sciences, these two paradigms are compared to reveal their relative strengths and weaknesses. But the debate about both traditions has commonly taken place in academic books. It is hard to find an article that deals with the generic issues related to the quantitative and qualitative divide by drawing on distinguished research literature. Interested in addressing this need, this article aims to explain the essential characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research approaches with an emphasis on their underlying epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. It elucidates the research design issues and concepts in relation to both research paradigms, from planning research to collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. The criteria that are used to evaluate research strategies and findings are also discussed.