Module 4 Reflections – Power and Ethics

Quotes such as Benjamin Franklin’s “An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest” and Edward Everett’s “Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army” illustrate the enormous power of education. However, while there is no question that an education can wield tremendous power in a person’s life, the process of achieving the education can be influenced, both positively and negatively, by the effects of power. I was pleased to find the inclusion of “power” as one of the major topics in this Program Planning course. In my dual roles as an adult learner and as a facilitator of adult programs, I have felt both the negative and the positive effects of power. As stated in the introduction to this week’s module, “adult education is always “political” in the sense that someone who “knows things” and can “do things” has more options than someone who cannot”. However, it is also true that “who has access to which learning” is dependent on many variables. “For a variety of reasons, some personal and some situational, not everyone is able to participate in the learning that they want or need. Where access to learning is limited by situational factors, either intentionally or unintentionally, some type of power dynamic is usually at play”. In my role as an adult learner, I have personally seen and felt the effects of this type of power dynamics. The majority of learners in my adult learning program are dependent on funding from outside sources, such as First Nations Reserves or government agencies. These learners require the funding to supplement their living expenses while they are attending school. This is an example of “determining populations” – one of the ways, as described by Caffarella (2002), that power influences the program planning process. Whether or not an individual learner receives funding in my program is often dependent on the positional or political clout of those in authority. The power in this case seems to rest entirely on the organization and/or individuals within the organization. A second example from my work experience of the effects of power in adult programming, relates to the fact that the entire operational funding for my adult education program rests on the acceptance or denial of the organization’s annual funding application by one group of stakeholders. In my experience with adult education and program planning within a formal educational context, I have found that the learning process itself can often be influenced by power dynamics. For example, in an educational setting, particularly formal learning situations, learners seldom have full control over their own learning. “Decisions about what should be learned and even how it should be learned are usually made by other stakeholders who have been given decision-making authority”. In my personal experience, any courses offered at my registered adult learning centre must be approved by the Adult Learning Branch of the provincial government. Thus, this branch of government wields the majority of programming power. The instructors, however, do have some power in determining how the courses will be delivered, and they are able to negotiate some of the content with the learners themselves.

Clearly, power dynamics come into play on a regular basis and on many levels within my experience as an adult educator and as a learner.  I have seen first-hand how critical it is for program planners to develop excellent communication and people skills in order to address these power dynamics. As Caffarella (2002) states, “One communication skill in particular that is essential for program planners when addressing issues of power is being willing and able to negotiate between and among the various stakeholders involved in the planning process” (pg. 70).

In her program planning blog my course mate, Jer, provides an apt analogy comparing a program planner to a juggler. Jer suggests that program planners are not only responsible for meeting their own needs, but must also juggle those of the other power players.

From this week’s readings, I have determined that in order to be an effective program planner one must not only identify the key individual, organizational, and “wider context” stakeholders, but must also understand the existing or potential power dynamics at play within these three stakeholder groups. For example, individuals can wield power based on their position or political clout as well as through their knowledge base or their ability to build coalitions. Organizations can wield power through setting and enforcing regulations and standards and can have major influence over program funding. The wider context – the economic, political, and social climate within which planners work is, according to Caffarella (2002), becoming increasingly important “…especially as program planners work across numerous types of borders, from geographic to cultural to ideological” (pg. 65). Thus, the power dynamics from the wider context can be just as influential as the power wielded at individual and organizational levels.

 It is also important for a planner to be cognizant of the fact that the various power dynamics can potentially have either a beneficial, or a detrimental, effect on the program. One example Caffarella (2002) suggests for using power positively in program planning is to “ensure that all voices that need to be heard are included”. This was the opposite of what occurred recently within our province’s adult education program when the Adult Learning and Literacy branch decided to make some major changes to how adult programs would be regulated and funded as well as how programs would be delivered. These controversial decisions were made without all voices being heard, and resulted in a volatile situation at a mandated in-service session for all stakeholders. As a result of the stakeholders’ negative response to their decisions, the governmental stakeholders relented on some of the changes. Perhaps if negotiations had taken place early in the planning process and, most importantly, had included representatives from all stakeholder groups, a more positive outcome would have been achieved and the negative situation would have been avoided. A second example provided by Caffarella (2002) of the positive influence of power is finding “…funding sources so opportunities can be given to any community member to attend no matter what their income level”. In this case, the provincial Adult Learning and Literacy branch does exert its power in a positive way by providing tuition-free programs which are accessible to all adult learners.

A concept introduced in this week’s readings that was new to me, and which I found particularly interesting, was the differentiation between “felt” and “ascribed” needs and how these needs can be affected, positively or negatively, by those in positions of power. Adult education and training programs are ultimately about creating some sort of change – on a personal, organizational or social level. Sometimes, there is agreement amongst all stakeholders about the desired change. Most often, however, the more powerful stakeholders (those with money and authority) will ascribe these needs to others. Thus, the more powerful voice is speaking more loudly than the others in determining the required learning outcomes. In the example of the situation with my provincial adult education program described earlier, the stakeholders in the position of power were attempting to ascribe the learning needs for the entire province without hearing the felt needs of all the other stakeholders. What I have learned is that ascribed needs, however, are not necessarily unfair or inappropriate in all cases. In adult education, for example, there exists a continuum of programs that range from flexible and learner-centred (based entirely on learners’ felt needs) to more structured or mandatory programs (based almost entirely on ascribed needs). I found this point very interesting as the majority of the adult learning research and literature I’ve read suggests that the most effective adult programs are those that are “learner-centred” and take into account the individual learners’ needs, goals, and learning styles. According to this week’s readings on the topic, while it is important for program planners to be cognizant of the learners’ needs and wants, these may not necessarily always be appropriate as the primary factor in shaping the program and thus the needs of all key stakeholders must be investigated. “In other words, program planners must be able to analyze the context of programs they are working with to determine where along the continuum of the program they are designing falls”.

This week’s lesson included a video about an adult training centre for underprivileged adults in Pittsburgh built by Bill Strickland who himself started out life as a disadvantaged youth. The video is a good illustration of the positive effects of power in the program planning process. Bill Strickland’s ability to use his highly-tuned people and negotiation skills to elicit support from potential funders is a good example of how “power” can be used in a positive way in program planning. Bill uses to his advantage his “power” – the ability to “sell” his ideas to others through creative storytelling and negotiation, as well as with humour. Bill Strickland’s vision for the centre he created was based on his belief that people will change their behavior when they have the opportunity to change the way they see themselves. He is a strong believer in the powerful effect of one’s physical surroundings on spiritual and emotional well-being. Along with state-of-the art programs, facilities, and instruction, Bill insists on top-notch aesthetics throughout his buildings. As he states many times throughout his presentation, Strickland believes that “flowers, sunlight, good food, music, and expectations” can cure “spiritual cancer” every time. Bill’s introduction of programs such as gourmet culinary arts, painting, music, and photography to his disadvantaged students could be considered an example of “ascribed needs” as these programs are primarily based on what he considers necessary for his students.

In conclusion, I have learned from this week’s readings and video that power is a key issue in the program planning process. By understanding the intricacies of the power dynamics in any given program planning situation, the planner can ensure the highest possible quality of program delivery. On the other hand, “if planners ignore those in power, they assure their own powerlessness” in the planning process. To effectively address the power dynamics in a program planning situation a planner must be able to:

• cultivate and/or enhance negotiation skills
• develop finely-tuned people skills
•  listen to multiple voices
•  be a good analytical thinker, and
•  be willing to communicate effectively through a variety of means

In order to incorporate the dynamics of power in the planning process, the planner must also ensure that his/her beliefs and actions convey ethical practices. Being reflective in one’s practice and stating personal, unit, and organizational beliefs related to program planning are essential elements of being consistently ethical in practice (Caffarella, 2002, pg. 80).

Advertisement