Karen Sichler

Article Critique Paper submitted to Dr. Lorenzo Bowman for

EPY8070 – Understanding & Facilitating Adult Learning
March 10, 2023
 In “Generative learning: Adulting learning within ambiguity,” the author negotiates

“liquid modernity” and how it intersects with adult learning. Using phenomenology as both a

framework and a methodology, Nicolaides (2015) pursues this qualitative inquiry with the

following questions:

(1) How do adults with complex forms of knowing, doing, and being encounter

ambiguity? (2) What, if any, capacity for learning emerge from their encounters

with ambiguity? (p. 181)

Nicolaides’ questions are inspired by the work of Polish sociologist Z. Bauman and their

formulation of “liquid modernity” which characterizes the modern world as one with institutions

lacking in stability and thereby unable to “serve as frames of reference for human learning…and

requiring individuals to [be] flexible, adaptable, and constantly reading and willing to change

tactics” (p. 180).

After initially confronting some difficulty in recruiting the appropriate participants for the

study, the author was able to recruit six of the nine interviewees after they had attended a 30-

minute, 3-act play he wrote and performed. The final three participants were culled from a group

of educators. Over a period of 15 months, 3 phenomenologically based interviews were

conducted with each of the participants. Following the work of French phenomenologist

Merleau-Ponty, Nicolaides strove to have conversations that approached the “nature of not only

this new definition of modernity but also this sense of ambiguity with which we now live.

The data was analyzed using narrative analysis. In addition, the data was shared with

participants to assist in the analysis and ensure internal checks. There were two general overall

findings in the work. First, the idea of metaphor providing “a ‘doorway,’ creating space for an

emerging understanding of the encounter with ambiguity” (p. 186). Second, participants
employed three learning strategies: “to endure, to be in communion, and to awaken” within the

ambiguous space (p. 190).

When considering this work as a whole, I have found several issues. The first two are

connected and have to do with how the methodology and data is represented in the piece. The

author needs to get into greater specificity into how the data the reviewed and analyzed. As I

often tell my students, one of the ways a piece of research in social science gains strength is in its

ability to be replicated. There is not enough information for the reader to know if these are the

best or only conclusions based on the type of data collected. With an initial 40 hours of

interviews, the potential for many points of departure exists.

In addition, I think the author is doing a disservice to the participants due to the lack of

their voices in the article. One of the most important aspects of qualitative research is allowing

the participants to speak for themselves. There are very few direct quotes from the participants.

Those that are included are brief. If the goal of the work is to ultimately get at the “essence” of

our new world order, would it not be more valuable to hear how the participants have

experienced this shifting, ambiguous reality for themselves?

Finally, I disagree with the premise the author employs for the selection of participants.

In the description of the participant selection, Nicolaides states they “chose a select group of

adults capable of highly complex forms of knowing, doing, and being as participants” (p.184).

Bauman’s idea of liquid modernity is one affecting us all. In fact, individuals who exist in less

rarified air are much more likely to be subject to it as their lives are already subject to the whims

and winds of the world around them. In addition, learning should not only be understood in a

much broader sense due to the continual ambiguities with which we live but only has to listen to
a handful of political rhetoric to have confirmed those in the lowest economic strata must learn

and adapt or face even more economic devastation.

While I may not have learned much about the current state of adult learning, I do believe

that this article and approach have a tremendous amount of potential, especially when

considering learning in the continuing COVID-19 landscape. The learning landscape has

changed as well as continues to experience many challenges. This article is a beginning step into

this new terrain for we can no longer adhere to the same paradigms as they no longer serve the

world in which we live or our learners.

In regard to our learners, I would completely change the focus of the research by

relocating to economically disadvantaged groups of eighteen years and older. Having worked at

both a non-profit and a university, I have worked with learners who are making decisions about

modalities and their investment in learning based on how much time and bandwidth they can

parse out of their day. As stated previously, individuals who have less economic power would be

more susceptible to the growing ambiguities of life and learning. Therefore, it is essential to get

at how they understand and cope with this ever more liquid modernity.