Adult learning and literacy learning for livelihoods: some international perspectives

This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 08 October 2014, At: 06:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Development in PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

Adult learning and literacy learningfor livelihoods: some internationalperspectivesAlan Rogers a , Judy Hunter & Md Aftab Uddin ba Centre of Applied Research in Education (CARE) , University ofEast Anglia , NR4 7TJ, Norwich, UKE-mail:b UNESCO Centre for Comparative Education Research, School ofEducation, The Dearing Building, The University of Nottingham ,Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK E-mail:Published online: 26 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Alan Rogers , Judy Hunter & Md Aftab Uddin (2007) Adult learning and literacylearning for livelihoods: some international perspectives, Development in Practice, 17:1, 137-146,DOI: 10.1080/09614520601092048

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520601092048

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09614520601092048

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520601092048

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Adult learning and literacy learning forlivelihoods: some internationalperspectives

Alan Rogers with Judy Hunter and Md Aftab Uddin

Reflecting contemporary interest in developing new adult literacy learning programmes based on

‘literacy for livelihoods’, this article examines some case studies from New Zealand, Bangladesh,

and Egypt, illustrating literacy being used in livelihoods, and relates these to the kind of literacy

being taught in many adult literacy programmes today. It argues that people often change their

livelihoods, and that each livelihood has literacy practices embedded within it. The authors

suggest that the use of these literacy practices embedded within the livelihood activities might

be a better starting point for adult literacy learning than a school-based textbook.

KEY WORDS: Labour and Livelihoods; Social Sector; Methods; Oceania and Japan; Arab States;South Asia

The relationship between literacy and livelihoods

This article presents some thoughts about the relationship between literacy and livelihoods and

the ways in which we can go about enhancing both kinds of practice. It raises some issues that

arise from a number of case studies drawn from various countries.1 We have tried to ensure that

the voices of the participant groups are heard, since on the whole relatively few (if any) of them

are heard in discussions of literacy and livelihoods among Western policy makers and planners.

We start with a case study from New Zealand.

People are engaged in livelihoods already

Case study 1: New Zealand

At the Urban Hotel, Karen, the night banquet manager, was preparing the orders for the

conference room service the following day. She was transferring relevant details from the

conference centre BEOs (Banquet Event Orders) to the hotel room set-up and kitchen trans-

fer work sheets. She wrote on prepared forms in the usual hotel jargon: ‘U/S’ for U-shaped

table arrangements, ‘Rds x 3’ for 3 round tables, ‘52 cookie monster’ for an assortment of

large cookies for 52 guests. When she first arrived on the job, with a recent degree in hos-

pitality services, she carefully wrote out the orders ‘in full’, in simple, clear English prose so

ISSN 0961-4524 Print=ISSN 1364-9213 Online 010137-10 # 2007 Oxfam GB 137

Routledge Publishing DOI: 10.1080=09614520601092048

Development in Practice, Volume 17, Number 1, February 2007

RE

SE

AR

CH

RO

UN

D-U

PD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

gary

] at

06:

42 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

that the workers would understand. To her surprise, it wasn’t well received. She ‘had to be

told’ by the workers that they couldn’t follow that kind of writing. I asked about literacy

issues among the workers, and she said that the housemen could speak well enough, but

their reading and writing were not as good. They needed the short-hand language of the

hotel to do their jobs efficiently. So she learned to use their code.

Karen presented this story as indicative of their limited language and literacy, that they

could only read the hotel jargon and symbols . . .but [they] didn’t understand much more.

The answer might be to improve their decoding and encoding of language. . . .But . . .by

telling the new banquet manager to use the hotel code, the housemen demonstrated their

own knowledge and skill in the cultural literacy of the hotel, and what’s more, they posi-

tioned themselves to teach her.. . . By teaching Karen what they needed as instructions,

they could be seen as challenging the hotel hierarchy. In that sense, they might have been

taking a critical stance on the power relationships in the workplace. On the other hand,

they also could be seen as engaging in a critical evaluation about the most efficient

means of communicating instructions. For at the least, reading an abbreviated code like

the examples above takes less time than reading long sentences; plus the codes have stan-

dardised, shared meanings for all the workers in the department. They are an efficient com-

munication system. (Hunter 2002)

Case studies like this remind us that people are engaged in livelihoods already; most of the

people involved in literacy and livelihood projects will already have a form of livelihood.

They may be happy with it; they may be very unhappy with it, but it already exists. Just as

in ‘learning’ and also in ‘literacy’, when a programme of ‘literacy for livelihoods’ is being

planned and promoted, the programme is intervening in something that is already going on,

not starting something that does not exist.

Such livelihoods are complex practices, frequently flexible, and changing rather than static.

The full livelihoods of those hotel workers are almost certainly not made up simply of their

work at the hotel and the payments that they receive. The family livelihood is likely to be

made up of many different activities – and most if not all members of the family will be

engaged in it. Some ‘work’ will be seasonal, some very opportunistic, seizing chances while

they exist. For some, there will be begging, borrowing from neighbours (and repaying as

well), and stealing, so that the local community will be involved in a family’s livelihood. It

may well include some welfare provision provided by the state, local government, or a chari-

table agency. As is clear from the case studies below, for many persons livelihood activities

will change, sometimes frequently. A farmer will go to work in a factory for a time, then on

to a building site, then open a shop, etc.

People need lifelong learning, not one-off training

Case study 2: Changing livelihoods, Bangladesh

Sheikh Ahmed farmed with his father in Noakoli District, Bangladesh. He had no schooling

or literacy skills. At age 16 he travelled to Chittagong and worked on a building site as a

daily labourer; he then set up as a sub-contractor and taught himself the literacy necessary

for that work (names of workers and names of building requirements). After 14 years, he

returned to his village to get married and open a shop. Again, he taught himself the literacy

necessary for that work (names of shop items and customers, and their credit sums and

repayments). After two years, however, he became a district councillor and a worker

with a political party. He did not learn the literacy required for this work – he felt it

would be too difficult and too shameful.

138 Development in Practice, Volume 17, Number 1, February 2007


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Md Chayedul Huq was the son of a labourer. He was sent to school, but on the third day the

teacher beat him and he never went back. He worked in a biri (cigarette) factory, then

started to make cigarettes on his own, without success. Then he worked again in a

factory, and seasonally as a daily field labourer on the local farms. He travelled to the

city (Dhaka), where he worked as a mason, and then in a jute factory. He believed that

the only way to improve his circumstances was to open a business. He started saving

and after two years or so he returned to his village and opened a shop.

Abdur Rob Bachu was the son of a carpenter and farmer. He had no schooling. After his

father’s death, the family was left destitute, and Abdur started begging. At the age of 12, he

became a cleaner to a wealthy family, then a cow herder, then he sold bread that his

mother made, as well as betel and cheap cigarettes that the family made. One brother

sold peanuts outside the school gates. He and his brother left for the nearby city and

began to work for a mason for five years, after which they moved and set up as masons

for themselves. Then Abdur moved (illegally) to Malaysia as a mason, where he prospered.

After a number of years there, he returned to Bangladesh a wealthy man and has set up

local businesses. All his literacy skills were developed independently.

These livelihoods are wider than simply the cash economy. Most people are already in the cash

economy, although many are in that economy marginally and precariously. But modern under-

standings of livelihoods go beyond this. Livelihoods embrace health issues (especially AIDS),

for one cannot engage in livelihood practices if one is ill. They involve secure housing, for one

cannot access social welfare benefits, or in many cases get a job, without a secure residence.

They include peace and security, for it is hard to obtain a sustainable livelihood in a field of

conflict. They will include resource management, for when the forests have been destroyed,

the livelihoods of many families will be greatly reduced. Learning for livelihoods is in fact

learning for life (Carney 2002; Ashley and Carney 1999; Mukherjee et al. 2002; Hussein 2002).

Some of the implications of this for programmes intended to enhance livelihoods (which

includes literacy learning) are still being worked out in the field (Solesbury and Daniels

2002). A ‘livelihoods programme’ will be an enhancement of what is already going on, devel-

oping new livelihood activities as much as changing people’s lives. But equally it is not a simple

matter of providing training in a new craft skill once and for all, and withdrawing so that the

participant can now engage for ever and a day in that activity (what Paulo Freire called a

‘banking approach’ to education and training). Rather it will include (but not be confined to)

training and retraining, and continuing learning and learning to learn – indeed, lifelong learn-

ing. It needs to be on-going, long-term engagement with groups and individuals, not just a

single-injection training. It needs to be nearer to agricultural and health extension – continuing

relationships over a long period of time – rather than the school, a one-off training for the

future. It needs to be aimed at strengthening the present (learning to be), rather more than

preparing for a new future (learning to become).

Many people do not see literacy as necessary to their livelihoods

Case study 3a, Egypt

I was taken to see a ‘very successful’ women’s literacy programme near El Minia, one of

the smaller towns in central Egypt. There I was introduced to a woman who – as a result of

attending the literacy and livelihoods class – had added to her existing activities a new

livelihoods project that she was following with great vigour and considerable returns.

She was taking a bus every week from her village into the nearest town, where she was

Development in Practice, Volume 17, Number 1, February 2007 139

Adult learning and literacy learning for livelihoods

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

buying needles, threads, buttons, zips, and fasteners, etc. and selling them in the village.

This was not the only livelihood that she and her family engaged in, but it was very reward-

ing. I asked to see the accounts that she had been learning to keep in the women’s literacy

class. She told me she did not need to keep written accounts, for she could keep and use

them more effectively and more quickly in her head.

Case study 3b, Afghanistan

Workers with the National Demilitarisation, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR)

programme in Afghanistan report that non-literate ex-combatants, when offered literacy

learning alongside their productive skills training, very rarely take up the offer, since

they claim they will not use it when they are engaged in their livelihood activities.

Case study 3c, Bangladesh

Liton Miah, son of a farmer, worked as a garage assistant and taught himself some literacy

skills. After 12 years he opened his own vehicle-repair garage and now employs six

persons. He says that he did not see literacy as being a fundamental factor in his

success, and that he would have been successful without literacy skills as ‘it is commit-

ment, belief, and sheer hard work that make a person successful’.

Md Mozibul Hoque, successively a farmer, brickmaker’s labourer, mason, and

shopkeeper, when asked if he had suffered any problems as a result of being ‘illiterate’,

said ‘no’. He did not believe that he had lost anything in his life because of non-literacy.

Manchura Begum, a beggar and hawker, said that illiteracy is not a problem in her life.

When asked if people ever cheated her, as she is illiterate, she said that there is no one in

this world who could cheat her. She also said that it is usually she who cheats other people,

especially if they are educated people.

Field studies reveal many men and women like this. Some may have command of literacy skills,

but they do not feel the need to use them for their livelihoods (Rogers et al.2004). Their cus-

tomary way is to use other tools and other strategies to accomplish the tasks that they wish

to do. Indeed, they may on occasion see literacy practices as a hindrance to their livelihoods.

Case study 4, Bangladesh

Md Danu Miah, fisherman and fishseller, and leader of a fishing co-operative (none of whose

members is literate), says he would not go to the local adult education centre because he

does not feel that there is any problem with his non-literacy. He felt that he had managed

for all these years without literacy skills, and that he would continue to do so. He went

on to say that he believed that if he were to become literate, it could have a negative

impact on his business. Because people know he is non-literate, he says, he is not reluctant

to approach the people who owe him money and ask for payment. He feels that if he were to

be literate, then these people would expect him to extend credit to them, and his cash flow

would suffer. At present, he is able to ask people for payment on the grounds that he could

forget the amounts they owed to him. The people accept this and pay him on time. He knows

other businessmen who are literate and keep accounts. Their customers increasingly

demand credit and become annoyed when asked for payment, taking it as an insult that

they were being mistrusted to pay when they were ready. He claimed that the literate

businessman had lost the ability to ask for payment on the grounds of forgetting.

Urging participants to use literacy as a value-added practice to enhance their livelihoods is in

effect an attack on their existing ways of doing things. It demeans valued practices and is an asser-

tion that such local and individual practices are inadequate for a modern society (Rogers 2005).



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Experience suggests that a livelihood is a more urgent need thanliteracy for many people

Case study 5, Bangladesh

Ayesha Begum, whose husband is disabled through an accident and who has four young

children, has to provide not only a livelihood for the family, but also money for drugs for

her husband. She keeps ducks and sells their eggs; she works as a daily help; and she

makes items from cane and bamboo to sell. She was invited to attend the adult literacy

class ‘so that she could become literate’. She agreed and attended the class at the centre.

She was only able to attend for a few days before she found that her daily commitments

were too great for her to spend time at the classes. To give up any of the income-generating

activities in order to attend classes meant that her livelihoods would be affected, and therefore

she would have less food to feed her already undernourished family. She said that survival is

her prime concern at the moment, and that literacy skills would not feed her. She said that lit-

eracy skills have no use in her life . . . she does not need to be able to read. She has no need to

maintain accounts, as she does not have any money to save. The assistance that she really

wants is with medical treatment for her husband and help with the feeding of her family.

She has no intention of joining a literacy class, as it will not address her immediate needs.

Many adults, in the search for livelihoods for themselves and their families, move from activity

to activity. Their primary motivation is apparently to learn the skills that they perceive will be

needed for each activity, as they do the tasks involved. The form of literacy learning offered to

them – the formal school-based literacy using set textbooks (primers) – is often seen as irre-

levant to the actual practice of livelihoods. Being adults, they are voluntary learners; they are

capable of learning what they want to learn (indeed, they are already learning to fulfil their own

aspirations). And they won’t learn what they don’t wish to learn; they won’t apply what they

have learned unless they feel it will benefit them (Rogers 1999; 2003). Motivating adults to

learn something that they do not want to learn is akin to treating them like children. They

are already motivated to learn, although they may not be motivated to learn what others

(such as aid agencies) want them to learn. Adult learning is premised on the need to start

where they are – not ask them to come to an artificial starting place of other people’s choosing.

If this is true, then literacy for livelihoods programmes needs to start with the concerns of the

learners, not with a pre-set agenda. During the learning programme, it may be that the partici-

pants come to appreciate that some literacy practices can be helpful to their livelihood activities,

but they need to see this for themselves, not merely be told it by outsiders. A livelihoods-

enhancement programme – making livelihoods more productive, more sustainable, more

secure – will call for the development of many skills and approaches, and literacy is one of

such skills and approaches. Where this is the case, it may be that a process of ‘literacy

comes second’ (Rogers 2000), rather than literacy comes first, would be more helpful. An effec-

tive Literacy and Livelihoods approach is not one which starts with literacy and incorporates

livelihood activities, so that improved livelihoods are the eventual outcome of a literacy

class; rather it is a question of starting with their livelihood aspirations and building up from

that point, incorporating literacy among the various skills being learned to enhance livelihoods.

Many people are already using literacy in their existing livelihoodsactivities

In many livelihood activities, the use of literacy skills is already well advanced. For example,

many tailors keep notebooks of customers’ measurements, and carpenters make notes of



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

requirements, designs, and materials. But many of these are not formal literacies; as the hotel

example above shows, they may be very informal. Alamgir Hosen, a shopkeeper in Bangladesh,

developed his own shorthand writing that only he could read – it is undecipherable to anyone

else. It consists of the first letter of the item for sale or the customer, in conjunction with a

symbol, and then he has separate symbols for the prices. He feels he keeps accurate records

. . . and he can read and write his own accounts.

Md Abdul Khalek, also a shopkeeper, reported that ‘if he has time between customers, tries to

note the amount of money owed onto a scrap of paper and puts a symbol alongside it to remind

him which customer it refers to. The symbols may be a hat, a walking stick, a dog etc.’ (Uddin

field notes).

The New Literacy Studies have shown us clearly that there are many literacies, all of which

need to be learned, not a single set of uniform skills which, once mastered, can be applied any-

where. This view is coming to be more widely accepted. The recent Global Monitoring Report

suggested that ‘the meaning of literacy has developed radically . . . Conceived now in the plural

as ‘literacies’ and embedded in a range of life and livelihood situations, literacy differs accord-

ing to purpose, context, use, script and institutional framework’ (GMR 2002:17, 60).

UNESCO’s most recent position paper on literacy is entitled The Plurality of Literacy and Its

Implications for Policies and Programmes. In Afghanistan, the Deputy Minister of Education

can write: ‘I as the Deputy Minister of Literacy and Non-formal Education in co-operation with

Land Afghanistan, organized a national workshop [in March-April 2004] to design and develop

the literacy and NFE curriculum, taking into account such things as new approaches to the lit-

eracies (as against the old idea of literacy), transformation and changes within communities’

(Afghan MoE 2005:3, our emphasis).

Such literacies are located within a complex web of power relations; and the national

state-promoted form of literacy taught in schools and in adult education classes is usually the

dominant form, the one owned by the educated elites. Religious literacies (such as Koranic

Arabic literacy) often have a high power base. But the literacies embedded in livelihoods

tend to be dismissed as inferior or vernacular literacies; some policy makers have called

them ‘proto-literacies’: embryonic and incomplete, but leading towards the fully developed

dominant literacy. What we have here is a clash between literacies, with one set claiming all

the moral prerogatives for itself. But once again the hotel example above shows that these live-

lihoods literacies may be valued by some people above the more formal state literacies, and they

may have greater utilitarian value.

The nature of the literacies involved in livelihoods means that they are highly contextualised

and often non-transferable. The literacy practices of a taxi driver are not the same as those of a

hospital porter, and to ask them both to abandon their livelihoods and to learn a common class-

room literacy would seem to regard the literacy practices of their livelihoods as meaningless or

worthless. Livelihoods literacies are diversified, not standardised.

What is more, they are very commonly informal in style. They rarely take the form of

sentences but rather consist of lists of building materials, shop items, lists of customers’

names, credit and loans, garage worksheets and invoices, or tailoring measurements. This

means that the well-known UNESCO definition of literacy as the ability to ‘read, write, and

understand a short simple statement’ renders all these literacies invalid. Although they are

clearly functional literacies, working literacies helping to develop a livelihood, these

‘embedded’ livelihoods literacies are still not recognised, as the hotel example also shows.

Many of those who use them will still define themselves as ‘illiterate’ because they do not

have a schooled literacy. And those who collect literacy data do not think these literacies

important enough to measure, so that such literacies do not show up in the national and

international statistics.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

The implications of this for the promotion of literacy among adults are significant. If we

are really to teach livelihoods literacies, we will need to teach non-standardised specific

literacies of each livelihood activity from the start. It is often argued that this is impossible:

that adults, like children, need to learn easy words first and more difficult words later. But

this is not true. Research has shown that the difficulty of any text is determined not by

the text itself but by the experience of the reader. Some people will cope with very difficult

words because they form part of their daily activities, while other apparently ‘simple’ words

are difficult for them, because they lie outside the experience of the reader (Moon 1993). And

there is a good deal of experience which demonstrates that it is possible for adults to learn

through relevant texts which may seem difficult to outsiders: learning literacy skills through a

water-pump manual, for example. The garage man in Bangladesh learned through the highly

technical terms of the components that he was sent to buy; another learned through building

and construction vocabulary and real prices. Shop owners teach themselves through the brand

names of the products that they sell. Livelihoods literacies use real terms, not ‘the cat sat on

the mat’.

There are of course some generic materials using the dominant literacies: texts for farmers

and for fisherfolk, for example, usually produced at post-literacy stages of the formal literacy

classes. Using these will demand the mastery of a dominant literacy, so that some of those

who have acquired the informal livelihoods literacies will say that they cannot read such

texts or even a newspaper (although our case studies show that some others have learned

how to read a newspaper after learning their informal livelihoods literacies).

These literacies of livelihoods are not usually learned in the classroom

The case studies collected from Bangladesh and other parts of the world show that much of

these embedded literacies are learned without going to school or to adult literacy classes:

they are learned on the job (Rogers and Uddin 2005).

Case study 6, Bangladesh: Learning livelihoods literacies informally

Alamgir Hosen felt he needed to be able to keep accounts to expand his business. . . . One of

his customers was the local barber, who was also a friend. He told his friend of his desire

to learn how to maintain accounts. The friend agreed to help him, because he had free time

around noon and in the evening. . . His friend also taught him how to add and subtract the

amounts and work out how much a customer owed him. . .

Md Chayedul Huq knew he would need to learn to read and write if he was to become

successful in business. He reached an agreement with his literate friend that they would

rent a house together and that the friend would teach him in the evenings.

Md Mozibul Hoque enrolled as a student and attended regularly, but he found that the

lessons did not bear any relation to the tasks that he needed to perform as [the mosque]

treasurer. . .he voiced his concerns to his brother. His brother agreed to give him support

with his tasks. So every day after class they would both go to the mosque and complete

the daily accounts. Over a period, he learned how to maintain the accounts on his own.

Md Abdur Rahim got hold of an old Year Four textbook from his village primary school. He

had some friends of the same age in the village who . . . were now high school students. He

asked them if they would help him to learn to read, and they agreed.

Md Abu Zaker joined the literacy class and was able to attend more frequently. . . .Every day

he was practising his writing and reading and accounts in his shop. Because he was a



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

relation of the teacher, he received a considerable amount of extra tuition that was specific

to his daily activities. After nine months of daily practice, Zaker was able to read, write, and

maintain basic accounts independently.

Livelihoods literacies will be only one form of literacy provision foradults

We therefore need to remember that there are different forms of literacy, and different

literacy learning programmes are needed. Adults will wish to learn different forms of

literacy for different purposes. Studies of the motivation of adults (Rogers 2004) reveal

that these motivations are complex. Some adults will want to start with a dominant

literacy for symbolic reasons relating to social status and their own identity. But others

will see this as irrelevant to their immediate needs. We need to start where they are,

which will mean a highly diversified learning programme. A one-size-fits-all programme

(even a livelihoods literacy learning programme) will never meet the wide diversity of

aspirations of adults.

Even for very poor adults, livelihoods are not the whole of life. Some (like Sheikh Ahmed)

found time, and indeed a livelihood, through local politics, and many had political interests

alongside their concern for livelihoods. Many have strong religious concerns – like

Md Mozibul Hoque in Bangladesh, who wished to learn literacy skills ‘to read the Qur’an

and other religious books in Bengali: again he found that the [state adult literacy] course did

not satisfy these goals, and he took help from his brother outside the class. . ..’.Many have social and family concerns apart from livelihoods: indeed, even very poor

families have been known to get themselves even further into debt to ensure payment for

suitable marriages for their children. Many – despite their poverty – spend time on resources

needed for community commitments.

And above all there is the issue of status. But this too is complicated: while it drives some

people to want to learn a dominant literacy, it deters others. Sheikh Ahmed turned away

from his shop keeping to become a district councillor and a part-time official. The livelihood

literacies that he had already developed were not sufficient for him to cope with the literacy

tasks of his new role and the duties attached to it. So once again he feels as if he is illiterate

in these new situations with new tasks. However, this time he feels that it would be difficult

for him to learn new literacy skills, so he has given up the idea that he would learn again.

He is coping with the tasks by asking friends and family members to read and write letters

and documents for him, or asking the union council staff to maintain accounts for him. He

says that he feels shy to tell people that he does not know how to read and write, so he lies.

He is not interested in learning literacy skills, because he thinks he is now over-aged for

such a task, and also that it is shameful to go to a literacy class or to ask somebody to help

him to learn literacy skills, as he did previously.

Conclusion

This article has argued as follows:

. Livelihoods literacies are only one form of literacy: there are multiple literacies.

. Learning a formal literacy may not fundamentally alter livelihoods; a livelihoods-

enhancement programme is needed for that.

. Where literacies are used in livelihoods, such literacies are often learned informally through

on-the-job activities, rather than through formal literacy classes.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

. Livelihoods literacies are often regarded, both by those who have them and those who

promote national literacies, as inferior, not worthy of counting as a literacy.

. The school-based formal literacy taught in adult classes, which is so highly prized by the

elites, is felt by some people to be irrelevant to their livelihoods.

. A livelihoods literacy is not the only form of literacy that poor people wish to learn.

The practical implications of all this for the construction of an adult-literacy strategy still need

to be worked out in detail, but the principles are becoming clearer.

Notes

1. The first case study was provided by Judy Hunter, and the Egypt and Afghanistan case studies by Alan

Rogers; the Bangladesh case studies come from the research work of Md Aftab Uddin. The conclusions

have been drawn out by Alan Rogers after discussion with the researchers.

References

Afghan MoE (2005) Literacy and NFE Curriculum Framework Report, Ministry of Education: Kabul.

Ashley, C. and D. Carney (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods: lessons from early experience, London: DFID.

Carney, Diana (2002) ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: progress and possibilities for change’,

Toronto: privately printed.

Global Monitoring Report (GMR) (2002) Education for All: is the world on track? Paris: UNESCO.

Hunter, J. (2002) case study cited in C. Holland, J. Hunter and C. Kell (eds.) ‘Literacy in Three Dimen-

sions: Dilemmas of Measurement’, unpublished paper presented at the 25th ACAL Annual Conference on

Literacy and Numeracy, Sydney, 1–2 November.

Hussein, K. (2002) Livelihoods Approaches Compared: a multi-agency review of current practice,

London: Overseas Development Institute.

Moon, C. (1993) Individualized Reading, International Reading Centre, University of Reading: UK.

Mukherjee, N., J. Hardjono, and E. Carriere (2002) People, Poverty and Livelihoods: links for sustain-

able poverty reduction in Indonesia, Jakarta: World Bank.

Rogers, Alan (1999) ‘Improving the quality of adult literacy: the “real literacies” approach’, International

Journal of Educational Development 19: 219–234.

Rogers, Alan (2000) ‘Literacy comes second: working with groups in developing societies’, Development

in Practice 10(2): 236–40.

Rogers, Alan (2003) Teaching Adults, 3rd edn., Buckingham: Open University Press.

Rogers, Alan (2004) ‘Adult literacy, adult motivation’, Adult Education and Development 61: 61–72.

Rogers, Alan (ed.) (2005) Urban Literacy: communication, identity and learning in developing countries,

Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education.

Rogers, Alan, Archana Patkar and L. S. Saraswathi (2004) ‘Functional literacy: gender and identities:

policy and practice’, in A. Robinson-Pant (ed.) Women, Literacy and Development: Alternative Perspec-

tives, London: Routledge.

Rogers, Alan and Uddin Md Aftab (2005) ‘Adults learning literacy: adult learning theory and the

provision of literacy classes in the context of developing societies’, in B. V. Street (ed.) Literacy

Across Educational Contexts, Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.

Solesbury, W. and Daniels, D. (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods: the influence of research on DFID policy

and practice, London: DFID.

The authors

Alan Rogers (corresponding author) is Visiting Professor of Adult Education at the Universities of

Nottingham and East Anglia, and Convenor of the Uppingham Seminars in Development. Contact

details: Centre of Applied Research in Education (CARE), University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

7TJ, UK. ,[email protected]. Judy Hunter is a practitioner in adult basic edu-

cation in New Zealand. Contact details: ,[email protected]. Md Aftab Uddin is an adult-literacy

practitioner in Bangladesh, and currently a research student at the UNESCO Centre for Comparative Edu-

cation at the University of Nottingham. Contact details: UNESCO Centre for Comparative Education

Research, School of Education, The Dearing Building, The University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus,

Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK. ,aftab65hotmail.com.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Adult learning and literacy learning for livelihoods: some international perspectives