From Andragogy to Artificial Intelligence: Tracing the Evolution of Adult Education Through Scholarly Journals Published by AAACE

 

 

By Lilian H. Hill (HOF 2018)

 

In adult and continuing education, scholarly journals provide a unique lens through which to examine how ideas develop over time, revealing not only what educators and researchers have studied, but also whose voices have been amplified, whose perspectives have been overlooked, and how the field has responded to changing social realities. A review of publications in adult and continuing education journals demonstrates that the field has undergone significant intellectual transformation over the past several decades.

 

Looking Beyond Familiar Names

Introductory adult education texts in the U.S. foreground a relatively small group of influential scholars, including Eduard Lindeman, Malcolm Knowles, David Kolb, Jack Mezirow, Sharan Merriam, and Stephen Brookfield. While these individuals made foundational contributions to the field, relying on a handful of familiar citations creates an impression that adult education scholarship is static. Instead, adult education is a rich and evolving field shaped by hundreds of scholars, practitioners, and community leaders across the globe.

 

An illustration of this diversity is the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame, which over the past thirty years has recognized nearly 500 leaders from over 40 countries for their contributions to adult and continuing education. The Hall of Fame includes researchers, practitioners, policy leaders, and innovators whose work spans community development, literacy, workforce education, transformative learning, lifelong learning, higher education, and social justice. The work of the Hall of Fame is ongoing with a new inductees honored each year.

 

Hall of Fame members have contributed directly to the scholarly literature. Foundational scholars include Malcolm Knowles (1996), Phyllis Cunningham (1996), Jack Mezirow (2003), Sharan Merriam (2003), Thomas Sork (2008), Stephen Brookfield (2009), John Dirkx (2013), and Patricia Cranton (2014). They published influential work, helping shape major areas of inquiry including andragogy, transformative learning, critical reflection, adult development, and lifelong learning. The date in brackets that follows scholars’ names represents the year they were inducted. Induction tends to occur when scholars are well-established, and sometimes years later. For example, Eduard Lindeman was inducted posthumously in 2002, yet his well-known publication, The Meaning of Adult Education, was released in 1926.

 

Journals as Windows into the Field

Journals demonstrate how knowledge production changes over time. Academic journals reveal the questions that scholars considered important, theoretical frameworks that gained prominence, and social issues that influenced research. They reflect shifting priorities, emerging debates, and growing recognition of previously marginalized voices. By examining publication trends, it becomes possible to trace the evolution of adult education as both a scholarly discipline and a social practice. This blog post focuses on publications of the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE): Adult Education Quarterly, Adult Learning, and Journal of Transformative Education.

 

 

Mid-Twentieth Century: Education for Democracy and Community Development

During the 1950s - 1970s, adult education scholars focused heavily on program development, community education, civic participation, and democratic engagement. Adult education was viewed as a practical endeavor that could strengthen communities and support social progress. Research emphasized effective teaching strategies for adult learners. Theories such as andragogy, experiential learning, and humanistic education gained prominence, reflecting a strong interest in understanding how adults learn and how educators could facilitate that learning more effectively. Broader social movements, including civil rights activism, labor organizing, and community development efforts, influenced the field. Adult education was closely connected to social purpose, citizenship, and collective improvement.

 

The 1980s and 1990s: Critical Reflection and Theory Development

The 1980s and 1990s marked a significant shift in adult education scholarship. Rather than focusing primarily on instructional methods, scholars began exploring deeper questions about power, inequality, and social structures. This era saw the emergence and expansion of transformative learning theory alongside growing influence from critical theory, feminist scholarship, and critical pedagogy. Researchers began asking important questions about who participates in adult education, who benefits whose knowledge is considered legitimate, and how learning experiences shape identity and power? The field moved beyond questions of how adults learn to examine why education matters and whom it serves. Adult education became increasingly concerned with issues of justice, equity, and social transformation.

 

The Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame inducted its first 78 scholars in 1996. The Hall had been in development for several years, and the induction recognized adult educators who were active in previous decades. Scholars who contributed to the literature who were inducted that year included Phyllis Cunningham, Cyril Houle, Alan Knox, and K. Patricia Cross. Authors inducted in the remainder of the decade include Peter Jarvis (1997), Myles Horton (1998), Donna Queeny (1998), and Dorothy Enderis (1998).

 

The Early 2000s: Globalization and Lifelong Learning

As globalization accelerated, adult education became increasingly international and interdisciplinary. Researchers explored cross-cultural perspectives and examined how global economic, political, and social changes influenced learning. Governments, international organizations, and educational institutions increasingly promoted lifelong learning as essential for workforce development, economic competitiveness, and adaptation to rapid social change.

 

At the same time, scholars debated competing visions of education. Was adult education primarily an economic tool designed to increase productivity and employability? Or was it a means of promoting social justice, civic engagement, and personal growth? This tension between economic and social purposes remains a defining feature of contemporary adult education discourse. Hall of Fame members who contributed to that debate included Ronald Cervero (2003), Stephen Brookfield (2009), Patricia Cranton (2014), John Dirkx (2018), and Laura Bierema (2022).

 

The 2010s: Equity, Identity, and Technology

During the 2010s, adult education scholarship increasingly focused on issues of equity, inclusion, identity, and culture. Researchers examined how race, gender, social class, disability, and other dimensions of identity influence educational experiences and outcomes. The field responded to major global challenges, including migration, economic instability, and public health crises. Greater attention was given to amplifying marginalized voices and understanding how systemic inequalities shape access to learning opportunities. Technology emerged as another major area of inquiry. Scholars investigated online learning, digital access, and the ways technology influences participation, engagement, and educational outcomes. Research increasingly blended theoretical analysis with practical applications, reflecting the growing need to address real-world challenges facing educators and learners. Hall of Fame Members active during this time included Stephen Brookfield (2009), Juanita Johnson-Bailey (2009), Elizabeth Tisdell (2014), John Dirkx (2018), Simone Conceição (2018), Paulette Isaac-Savage (2019), and Edward Taylor (2024).

 

The 2020s and Beyond: Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Challenges

The current decade is generating new questions for adult education scholars. Digital, media, and artificial intelligence literacy, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies have become prominent topics of discussion. Adult educators are learning to teach adults about addressing misinformation and disinformation, digital inequity, workforce disruption, and the changing nature of knowledge production. At the same time, foundational literacy skills remain important concerns. Ongoing focus on social justice, global interconnectedness, and lifelong learning continue to shape research and practice. Hall of Fame authors publishing in this decade include Chad Hoggan (2025), Lisa Baumgartner (2024), Lisa Merriweather (2024), and Laura Bierema (2022). There are more adult educators still to be recognized in this decade. Future scholarship will likely explore how artificial intelligence, data-driven systems, and evolving digital environments influence learning, teaching, and participation in society.

 

Lessons from the Evolution of Adult Education

Adult education has evolved from a largely practice-oriented field to one that is theoretically sophisticated, critically reflective, globally connected, and increasingly interdisciplinary. Throughout its history, the field has maintained an ongoing dialogue with society. Changes in scholarship have often mirrored broader social, political, economic, and technological developments. New ideas have emerged in response to changing contexts, while longstanding debates about purpose, access, equity, and power continue to resurface in new forms. The challenge for contemporary scholars is to engage with the broader and continually expanding body of literature that reflects the diversity, complexity, and global nature of adult learning and education.

 

Understanding this intellectual evolution helps educators and researchers situate their own work within a larger scholarly tradition. It highlights the diversity of voices that have contributed to the field and encourages engagement with both foundational theories and contemporary scholarship. Most importantly, the history of adult education reminds us that the field is not defined by a handful of influential thinkers. Rather, it is a living, evolving conversation shaped by generations of scholars, practitioners, and learners working to understand and improve the role of education in adult life.

 

The auto/biographical imagination and the shifting sands of adult learning

 

By Linden West (HOF 2020), Professor Emeritus

I want to draw, in this blog, on a lifetime’s passion for what feminist sociologist Liz Stanley called auto/biographical inquiry, and the myriad ways in which the stories people tell can be interpreted, including in dialogue with them. “Biographical” means the search to understand particular moments in the here and now, including education, in the context of a whole life. “Auto,” bringing the researcher’s presence and subjectivity to bear on what amounts to the deeply relational, intersubjective, often unconscious drama we call research. When two or more gather together, the struggle for openness, trust, and meaning in storytelling and interpretation begins.

The auto/biographical “turn” in adult education represented a reaction against superficial survey research on “why people learn”: boxes ticked on whether motivation was primarily personal or vocational. Forgetting, of course, that why we learn and desire a specific career can be deeply personal and familial. But then we have lived through times where vocational and economic motivation have been culturally valued, while the more personal and certainly liberal and expansive spirit once characterizing adult learning, in locations  like the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, has weakened. We once shared an idea of adult education as a laboratory for cultivating democratic learning, participatory citizenship, and inclusive, progressive politics, but this has dissipated, and education at all levels in a world of precarity is focused on “the economy, stupid!”

And the complexity of the human subjects at the heart of learning and research easily gets lost in the primacy of the quantitative gaze, the seductions of measurement, and evidence-based mantras. It was Max Weber who urged us towards understanding rather than simple measurement, but this aspiration can get sidelined in the worship of quantification. And although there are now many studies drawing on auto/biography, auto-ethnography, and qualitative perspectives, in the eyes of the powerful, governments and the academy, they really do not count. The loss of the human subject in social science and educational research remains a live issue if we really want to understand why people learn in depth and what this means on more of their own terms.

Doing auto/biographical research, drawing on the developing stories people tell, over time, demands care and attentiveness, and a relational, safe, transitional space for developing and interpreting stories. Attentiveness, respectfulness, and non-judgmentalism matter, alongside time, curiosity, and reflexivity towards what emerges. A giving of the researcher’s whole self to the process is one way of framing it: bodily awareness, spirit, mind, and an empathic imagination. And a quality of presence to help build trust and a shared interest in lives, most of all among those, maybe a majority, who feel themselves inconsequential. Auto/biography celebrates the ordinary, the mundane, the particular and the everyday: it is in the particular, in Umberto Echo’s famous phrase, that we find the universals of human struggle, vulnerability, lostness, desire, resistance, courage and the incarnation of new ways of seeing.

We then more easily appreciate the importance of love and generosity in a learning life, when that life has been overwhelmed by abuse. We appreciate the power of self- and other-recognition in reading a good novel, where we discover a character much like ourselves who keeps on keeping on against difficult odds, and we are able to introject some of their resilience. Processes of projection, identification, and introjection are at work in the complex relational ecology we call adult education. We might celebrate the apparently small gesture of a teacher in higher education, who intuitively knows the importance of calling someone by their name, and celebrating their stuttering contribution in a seminar. Small gestures are important and empowering in learning lives, when we listen to the stories people tell.

Of course, we require a living code of ethics – treading lightly because we can tread on dreams. The metaphor of Pandora’s Jar (which, in fact, is what it was) reminds us to be careful, remembering that research, even longitudinal research, offers no long-term supportive structure like psychotherapy. On the other hand, and most often the case, it is astonishing how research can be therapeutic, because someone listens, bears witness, and gives credence to what may have seemed inconsequential. Such understanding is a co-creation, requiring, care-fully and reflexively, the use of our own lives, at times, to illuminate those of others, and vice-versa. We may never have known the nightmare of forced migration, or a constant experience of humiliation and degradation at school. But every one of us, at some time or other, knows what it’s like to feel disdained and disregarded, and these intersubjective synergies can be drawn on to deepen, dialogically, our understanding of the other and self.

It helps to be part of a strong research community, to develop interpretation and avoid projecting onto others what really belongs to us. A community made up of other seekers, where truth and integrity matter, and everything is reflexively questioned in the company of generous colleagues. Communities like the European Society for Research on the Education of Adults Life History and Biography Research Network, which has involved diverse people working together from different traditions, ranging from highly abstract and empirically exhaustive traditions in the German-speaking world, to the more artistic, imaginative, relational, and eclectic epistemology of auto/biography in countries like Italy. Dialogue between these different ways of seeing matters.

Emphasis is often given to listening, stillness, empathy, curiosity, and non-judgmentalism, and careful recording and transcription of an encounter. There is space and time for reflection, shared comment, awareness of our own associations in what we hear, and feedback at all stages, especially when a study is longitudinal. The whole slowly becomes more than the sum of the parts in a dialogical, iterative, narrative space.  

A brief case study of the power and potential of auto/biography will help here. The story of someone called Mathew, a migrant, who fled a war zone, death within his family, and crossed dangerous seas. Eventually ending up in London, then taking an Access to Higher Education program at a local community college. Lost, lonely, and alienated as the noise of anti-migration campaigns and populist politicians invaded his psyche. But then two teachers took a particular interest when he stopped attending class. They liked Mathew and made contact to learn that he had been forced to report to a detention center more and more frequently as a way of keeping tabs on “dangerous people” like him. The teachers began a campaign to get him citizenship and to support him in the classroom. “Good parents they were to me,” as Mathew put it. He progressed to higher education, where his proficiency in four languages and cultural sensitivities enabled him to become an advocate for diverse others. Eventually, he worked in public health, where his languages and knowledge of different cultures, including the importance of spirituality in healing, came to matter.

I met him with a colleague who was also a migrant. She intuitively understood some of his struggles and later offered to help with his academic writing and listened to and reflected with him on his tendency to self-deprecate. Pushing the boundaries of research may be into a kind of counseling, some might say. I’m not sure, but Mathew deeply valued his time with us and loved engaging in thinking about his experiences. Later, much later, I used Mathew as a case study of migration and how this touched deep and complicated aspects of my own family history. A hotel housing migrants was the target in 2025 of violent protests in the struggling “post-industrial” city where I was born. I came to think of my own great-grandfather, John West, who fled Ireland in 1842 during the Great Famine. He lived about 200 meters from where the protest took place. Family histories overlap across time, and empathy is strengthened through a deeper appreciation of what migration truly entails. And the power of the auto/biographical imagination in research.

I was helped by an ESREA Life History and Biography Network Writing Retreat in Liguria, Italy, in 2025. Freema Elbaz-Luwisch, Emeritus Professor at Haifa University, led a workshop on dancing with ancestors, in her case, two grandmothers who died tragically young. Her father’s mother died of diabetes in Vienna in 1909. Her mother’s mother - born in what was then Russia, now Ukraine – in a time and place where anti-Semitism could be virulent, and life lived on a perpetual cultural edge.  But they were alive and young in the imaginative dance in a church on a sunny Italian Spring Day. An extraordinary moment, where we all joined in and were encouraged to connect with our own ancestors. Dancing in a place called once upon a time and reimagining lives trans-generationally. I was moved to pen a letter from John, my great-grandad, to me. A letter on the trials he went through – in a kind of narrative imagination – including the intense racism he experienced in mid-Victorian Britain. He never gave his place of birth on his marriage certificate, just the country of Ireland, and he was reluctant to provide more detail, given the ubiquitous racist disdain for all things Irish. He just wanted to get it over, he wrote. Narrative rather than narrower historical truth, but no less important for that.

Whatever, auto/biography represents a fundamental methodological and imaginative challenge to the conventional scientific idea of keeping messy subjectivity and intersubjectivity at bay, because it gets in the way of “science.” Such scienticism, as we might call it, risks narrowing our understanding of learners and learning, recognition, human motivation, and the relational, intersubjective dynamics of truly transformative learning. It constrains our understanding of how new ways of seeing and human agency, lifewide as well as lifelong, get forged between people, and with the symbolic world. 

 

As we celebrate 30 years of the Hall of Fame, what experiences, relationships, or moments in your professional journey have most shaped your contribution to adult and continuing education, and what lessons would you like to pass on to future generations? We invite Hall of Fame members and the global adult education community to share reflections, stories, and insights as part of this anniversary series.

IACEHOF 30th Anniversary Celebration 

The Hall of Fame is more than a recognition—it is a living record of the people and ideas that have shaped adult and continuing education globally

 

 

What China’s Workforce Challenge Can Teach Us About Talent Development

 

By William J. Rothwell (HOF 2023) 

 

When organizations expand globally, leaders often assume that technology transfer is mostly about systems, machines, and processes. But one of the most difficult forms of technology transfer is not technical at all. It is human.

A case study from China involving Motorola University and workforce learning initiatives dating back to the early part of this century illustrates a challenge that remains highly relevant today: organizations often underestimate the importance of transferring “soft skills technology” alongside technical expertise. The lessons from that effort have important implications not only for multinational corporations but also for organizations implementing artificial intelligence and other transformative technologies. In the case, an American professor—William Rothwell—wrote 10 graduate courses on Talent Development and delivered them by himself at Beijing University and Nankai University over an 18-month period in 1999 and 2000. The project costs were underwritten by 32 multinational companies, with Motorola leading the group. As part of the project, 4 Chinese professors (2 from each university) were given free seats to attend the event so they could learn how to teach the courses. All course materials prepared by Professor Rothwell were provided to the professors for use in teaching the 10 graduate courses at their universities going forward. It was essentially an effort to launch a state-of-the-art Talent Development Master’s degree program at 2 Chinese universities. Sixty-nine students participated from the 2 universities. Most were full-time students in MBA programs, but a few were selected high-potential staff from Motorola and other multinational companies.

The Real Challenge Was Never Just Technology

In the 1990s, multinational corporations operating in China faced a significant problem. They could find engineers and technical specialists, but they struggled to find professionals trained in workplace learning and performance (WLP), instructional design, training, and human resource development.

At the time, China had limited university infrastructure dedicated to these fields. As a result, companies had only a few options:

• Recruit talent away from competitors
• Train staff internally from scratch
• Hire Chinese nationals educated abroad
• Help build a local educational infrastructure

The fourth option was the most sustainable, but also the most difficult. It required patience, collaboration, and long-term thinking. In many ways, it challenged the short-term business mentality that dominates many organizations.

This issue is remarkably similar to what organizations face today with artificial intelligence (AI). Companies frequently invest heavily in AI systems while neglecting the human systems needed to support them. The result is predictable: impressive technology with disappointing organizational outcomes.

Why Soft Skills Matter More Than Ever

The China initiative recognized an important truth: technical systems succeed only when human systems evolve alongside them.

Motorola University and 31 other multinational companies working in China approached the problem strategically. They worked with Chinese universities, multinational training networks, and corporate leaders to develop awareness of the emerging field of workplace learning and performance. The effort was not merely educational; it was cultural.

The initiative followed six major steps:

1. Building awareness
2. Meeting immediate workforce needs
3. Delivering advanced certificates
4. Offering university-based certificate programs
5. Creating internships
6. Assessing long-term results

Motorola worked with Penn State University, Beijing University, and Nankai University to implement this change effort. This gradual approach acknowledged that workforce transformation cannot occur overnight. Sustainable change requires capability building at multiple levels simultaneously.

That lesson is particularly important now. Organizations implementing AI often focus almost entirely on the technology itself. They purchase software, automate workflows, and redesign systems. But they fail to consider how the introduction of new technology will change how people work together to achieve results, resulting in the well-known “the productivity paradox.”

Technology changes processes. But people determine whether those processes improve performance. Failing to consider the human side of the enterprise almost always leads to a failed change effort.

The Productivity Paradox Reappears

Economists and management scholars have long discussed the “productivity paradox,” the phenomenon in which organizations invest heavily in new technologies without achieving proportional gains in productivity.

One reason is simple: organizations frequently fail to redesign work around the technology.

The case of China demonstrates the opposite approach. Instead of merely importing training concepts, the project invested in local capability, cultural adaptation, and institutional development. It recognized that successful transfer requires more than technical replication. It requires integration into the social and organizational fabric of the workforce.

Today, many AI implementations repeat the same mistakes organizations made during earlier waves of technological change. Leaders assume that software adoption automatically creates value. Value emerges only when technology, leadership, structure, culture, and workforce capability align.

Without that alignment, organizations experience confusion rather than transformation. The result is often disappointed management expectations.

Building Capacity Instead of Dependency

One insightful aspect of the China initiative was its emphasis on localization.

Rather than depending indefinitely on expatriates or imported expertise, the strategy focused on developing local professionals who could sustain and expand the capability over time. This created long-term organizational resilience.

That principle matters enormously today.

Organizations should avoid creating permanent dependency on outside AI consultants or technology vendors. Instead, they should focus on developing internal capability:

• Managers who understand how AI changes workflows
• Employees who can work effectively alongside intelligent systems
• HR professionals who can redesign jobs and competencies
• Learning leaders who can support continuous adaptation

In other words, organizations must build learning ecosystems, not merely deploy tools. In the China case, the multinationals set out to work with Penn State to encourage local universities to establish and launch a new graduate program in Talent Development—sometimes called Training and Development.

Cultural Translation Is Essential

Another key insight from the China experience was the importance of cultural translation.

Technology transfer is never purely technical because all workplaces operate within cultural systems. Practices that work in one national or organizational culture may fail in another unless adapted thoughtfully.

The project recognized the importance of local facilitators, local partnerships, and sensitivity to Chinese educational and organizational traditions. That helped create trust and credibility.

Modern AI initiatives require similar sensitivity. Departments within the same organization may have different norms, fears, communication styles, and attitudes toward automation. Leaders who ignore these cultural realities often encounter resistance, disengagement, or passive noncompliance.

Successful transformation requires dialogue, participation, and trust-building.

Leadership Must Think Long-Term

Perhaps the most important lesson from the case is that transformational talent development requires long-term leadership commitment.

Short-term thinking often undermines strategic capability building. Executives may prioritize quarterly metrics over investments whose benefits emerge gradually. But sustainable organizational capability rarely develops quickly.

The China initiative invested in partnerships, education, and infrastructure because leaders understood that workforce capability is a strategic asset.

The same is true for AI transformation today.

Organizations that focus only on rapid automation may achieve temporary efficiencies while damaging long-term adaptability. By contrast, organizations that invest in workforce development, learning systems, and organizational alignment are more likely to achieve enduring success.

Final Thoughts

The Chinese workforce case is not simply a historical story about multinational business expansion. It is a reminder that organizational transformation is fundamentally human.

Technology alone does not create a competitive advantage. Human capability, organizational learning, and cultural adaptation determine whether technology produces meaningful results.

As organizations race to implement AI and other advanced technologies, leaders would do well to remember the lesson demonstrated decades ago in China: the most important technology transfer may be the transfer of knowledge, relationships, learning systems, and leadership practices that help people succeed together.

Organizations that integrate the human and technical sides will be the ones most likely to thrive in the future.

This blog post is a condensed and adapted version of a longer, full-length case study. Thoughts from other Hall of Fame members will be appreciated as the Hall celebrates its 30th anniversary and looks forward to how our field continues to adapt to AI and other changes in our professional environment.

 

References  

Reference

Yan, X., & Rothwell, W. (2006). Motorola University: Transferring skills through strategic alliance. In Harkins, P., Giber, D., Sobol, M., Tarquinio, M., & Carter, L. (Eds), Leading the global workforce: Best practices from Linkage, Inc. (pp. 171-182). Jossey-Bass.

 

 

IACEHOF 30th Anniversary Celebration 

The Hall of Fame is more than a recognition—it is a living record of the people and ideas that have shaped adult and continuing education globally

  

About the Author

William J. Rothwell (HOF 2023) is Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Academy Professor at Penn State University, University Park. He is an author and an internationally recognized expert in workforce development, leadership, human resource development, and organizational change. He has written and edited numerous books on talent management, succession planning, leadership development, and workplace learning. His work has influenced organizations and educational institutions worldwide through research, consulting, and executive education initiatives. He can be reached by email at wjr9@psu.edu or by phone at 814-441-4087.

 

 

Celebrating 30 Years of Global Leadership in Adult and Continuing Education

 

By Simone C. O. Conceição (HOF 2018) and Gary Miller (HOF 2004) 

International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame (IACEHOF) 1996–2026

For three decades, the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame has recognized leaders whose work has shaped adult and continuing education worldwide. Since its first induction ceremony in 1996, the Hall has honored more than 400 members from over 45 countries whose scholarship, leadership, advocacy, and innovation have transformed the field during a period of remarkable social, technological, and global change.

As we celebrate the Hall’s 30th anniversary, we also celebrate the collective impact of the individuals and ideas that helped define adult and continuing education over the last generation. This anniversary is not only an opportunity to reflect on the past, but also to engage with the present and imagine the future of lifelong learning worldwide.

Over the past 30 years, the field has experienced major transformations. Lifelong learning emerged as a global framework guiding education, workforce development, and civic participation. Distance and online learning expanded access to education across geographic and institutional boundaries. More recently, artificial intelligence and digital technologies have begun reshaping how adults learn, work, communicate, and participate in society.

At the same time, adult educators have continued to address persistent challenges related to access, participation, workforce preparation, democratic engagement, and the changing needs of learners across cultures and generations. Throughout these changes, Hall of Fame members have played important roles as researchers, institutional leaders, policymakers, practitioners, and advocates of adult learning worldwide.

To commemorate this milestone, the Leadership Perspectives blog will feature a special anniversary series throughout 2026. The series will include reflections from Hall of Fame inductees, thematic essays, timeline-based historical perspectives, and future-oriented discussions about where adult and continuing education is heading next.

The series will include:

• “Voices of the Hall” reflections from inductees sharing significant moments from their careers and perspectives on how the field has evolved.
• Timeline reflection posts exploring key developments from 1996–2005, 2006–2015, and 2016–2026.
• Thematic essays on lifelong learning, digital transformation, workforce learning, online education, and artificial intelligence.
• “Looking Ahead” posts focused on the future of adult learning and the role of technology in shaping society and professional life.

More importantly, this anniversary series is intended to foster dialogue across generations and regions worldwide. The Hall’s strength has always been its international and interdisciplinary character. By bringing together diverse voices and experiences, the series seeks to create a living digital record of how adult and continuing education has evolved and where it may go in the future.

The Hall of Fame is more than a recognition—it is a living record of the people and ideas that have shaped adult and continuing education globally.

We invite Hall of Fame members and the global adult education community to share reflections, stories, and insights as part of this anniversary series. As we celebrate 30 years of leadership, we also look ahead to the next generation of challenges, innovations, and possibilities for lifelong learning.

Share your reflections

• Looking back on your own experience, what change in adult and continuing education has had the greatest impact on your work or community?
• What moment or experience best reflects your contribution to the field of adult and continuing education?
• What gives you the most hope about the future of lifelong learning?

The Hall of Fame is more than a recognition—it is a living record of the people and ideas that have shaped adult and continuing education globally

 

Continued Engagement of Adult Educators After Retirement: Pathways to Purpose, Legacy, and Impact

By Simone C. O. Conceição (HOF 2018) and Lilian H. Hill (HOF 2018)

The Paradox of Retiring from a Lifelong Learning Profession

Here is a question worth sitting with: Can someone truly "retire" from a profession built on the belief that learning never stops? For those of us who have spent careers in adult and continuing education, retirement brings a unique paradox. We have championed lifelong learning at every turn — and yet, when the formal chapter closes, many of us find ourselves asking, Now what?

That question is not a sign of loss. It is an invitation.

The members of the International Adult and Continuing Education (IACE) Hall of Fame represent some of the most accomplished people. Recognition, though, is not a conclusion — it is a platform. In this post, we want to make the case that retirement opens a new and arguably richer chapter of contribution. Drawing on research and our own reflections, we share four pathways for adult educators to keep shaping the field they love.

Why It Matters

Let’s be honest: when experienced adult educators disengage, decades of practice-based knowledge disappear. Much of what we know about how adults learn and how programs succeed lives in people, not textbooks (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). Continued engagement also benefits us—supporting purpose, connection, and well-being in later life (Casanova et al., 2026). Generativity helps explain this drive to contribute (McAdams et al., 1993).

Pathway 1: Mentoring Emerging Adult Educators

Mentoring is a natural post-retirement role. Retired educators offer time, experience, and perspective without institutional constraints (Zachary, 2011). Early-career faculty often juggle competing demands (Terosky & Gonzales, 2016), and a mentor with the space to listen can make a significant difference.

Pathway 2: Coaching Graduate Students and Working Academics

Mentoring shares knowledge; coaching develops it through structured, goal-oriented dialogue. Retired educators are well-suited for coaching: they bring expertise, independence from institutional politics, and time for sustained engagement. This may include dissertation support, research decisions, or career development for academics.

Retired adult educators are well-suited for this role. We bring deep knowledge of adult learning theory and practice. We are free from the institutional politics that sometimes make it hard for active colleagues to give truly candid feedback. And we have time — the kind of unhurried, consistent availability that effective coaching requires.

For graduate students, mentoring might look like coaching through dissertation development, research design decisions, or the quiet challenge of forming a scholarly identity. For working academics, it might mean helping someone think through a publication strategy, prepare for promotion, or simply rediscover their passion for the work.

Pathway 3: Teaching, Writing, and Thought Leadership

Retirement offers what active academics often lack: time. Lifelong Learning Institutes and Universities of the Third Age provide opportunities to teach and learn in collaborative environments (Casanova et al., 2026).

Writing is equally meaningful. The books we always meant to write, the policy briefs that need a credible voice, the op-eds that could shift a public conversation — all of this becomes possible when we are not buried under curriculum revisions and committee work. The IACEHOF? Leadership Perspectives blog is itself a living example of this pathway. The post you are reading right now is an act of continued engagement.

Pathway 4: Consulting and Association Involvement

The skills that define a strong adult educator — program evaluation, curriculum design, assessment, strategic planning, leadership development — are exactly what organizations across sectors struggle to find and afford. As consultants, retired adult educators offer something rare: deep credibility, genuine objectivity, and real commitment to mission. At the same time, it is important to avoid perpetuating the “working for free” mentality that is often expected of faculty. Continued engagement should be valued as a professional contribution, not assumed as voluntary labor, and should be compensated or recognized in meaningful ways.

Professional associations are another natural home. Free from institutional obligations, retired educators can take on sustained leadership — chairing committees, guiding conference programs, mentoring through association pipelines, and advocating at the policy level with credibility and without risk. The IACE Hall of Fame should build on this by creating structured, ongoing roles for its inductees — making their continued involvement visible, valued, and purposeful.

What Organizations Can Do

Sustained engagement requires intentional support—recruitment, recognition, and community (Casanova et al., 2026). Associations can offer reduced fees, governance roles, and recognition of post-retirement contributions. Universities can provide affiliate access, coaching roles, and consulting opportunities. Associations should consider reduced membership rates, dedicated governance roles, and awards that honor post-retirement contributions. Universities should formalize retired-faculty coaching programs, preserve library and email access through affiliate designations, and develop consulting pools for community partners. Without these structures, even the most motivated retired educator eventually fades from view, and that is a loss for everyone. Without such structures, valuable expertise is lost. Organizations must also avoid relying on unpaid contributions and instead recognize this work appropriately.

A New Chapter of Generativity

Retirement is not the end of our story. If anything, it is the beginning of its most honest chapter, one where we can choose engagement that is fully aligned with our values, our strengths, and our hopes for the field. We can mentor without rivalry. We can coach without a conflict of interest. We can write without fear and advocate without institutional permission. What matters most is knowing that our work continues to have an impact. The next generation needs the knowledge and skills we carry.

So, we leave you with this: What wisdom do you hold that the field cannot afford to lose? We would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

References

Casanova, G., Weil, J., & Cerqueira, M. (2026). Experiencing retirement through teaching: Productive engagement in later life across two cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 41(1), 4.

McAdams, D. P., de St Aubin, E. D., & Logan, R. L. (1993). Generativity among young, midlife, and older adults. Psychology and aging, 8(2), 221.

Merriam, S. B., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2020). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Rubinstein, R. L., Girling, L. M., De Medeiros, K., Brazda, M., & Hannum, S. (2015). Extending the framework of generativity theory through research: A qualitative study. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 548-559.

Terosky, A. L., & Gonzales, L. D. (2016). Re-envisioned contributions: Experiences of faculty employed at institutional types that differ from their original aspirations. The Review of Higher Education, 39(2), 241-268.

Zachary, L. J. (2011). The mentor's guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. John Wiley & Sons.

 

 

 

Simone C. O. Conceição is a professor emerita at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a learning design consultant at SCOC Consulting.

 Lilian H. Hill is a professor emerita at the University of Southern Mississippi and a certified life coach at SCOC Consulting.  

Three Decades of Innovation

 

  

As we gear up to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame, I am reminded that we are also celebrating three decades of what has come to be called “e-learning”—the delivery of undergraduate and graduate degrees and professional certificates through online platforms to adult learners around the world.

 

E-learning has evolved over the years as educators use new technologies to better serve students wherever they may be and, in the process, help build and sustain local workforce communities and industries. Its early predecessor—correspondence study—emerged in the 1890s during the Industrial Revolution, when the United States was dealing with the combination of major immigration and rapid industrial growth. The 1960s saw the significant institutional innovation around the development of television and the creation of open universities modeled after the British Open University and, in the United States and elsewhere, “telecourses” that replaced classroom lectures with half-hour video lessons broadcast on public television and cable outlets. 

 

The 1990s marked the start of a new era in technology-assisted adult education. It was in the 1990s that the Alfred E. Sloan Foundation began a multi-year project, led by the late Hall of Fame member Dr. Frank Mayadas (HOF 2007), that has helped many colleges and universities in the U.S. develop online courses and degree programs for students worldwide.  In the process, the Foundation created a community of institutions to share ideas for innovation and their own experiences in the new field. 

 

Today, the e-learning community is facing a new generation of technical innovation. The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its acceptance by institutions and individuals around the world mark the beginning of a new generation of e-learning that is already impacting education at all levels.

 

Many IACE Hall of Fame members have been involved in the decades of innovation in e-learning and are now experimenting with how best to incorporate AI into the higher education mainstream. The Hall’s 30th anniversary would seem to be an excellent time for us to share our thoughts on the future of adult and continuing education in the new age of AI.  I invite you to use the Hall of Fame’s Leadership Perspectives Blog to share your thoughts on the future of adult and continuing education as the new AI environment matures. 

 

Best wishes.

 

Gary Miller (HOF 2004) 

           

Frank Mayadas and the Foundations of Modern Online Learning

 

By Gary Miller (HOF 2004)

I suspect that many Hall of Fame members who read the Hall’s quarterly Newsletter have read about the recent passing of 2006 Hall of Fame inductee Dr. Frank Mayadas.

Frank has had a very important impact on continuing education over the past three decades.  As the Sloan Foundation’s lead advocate for online learning, he worked closely with colleges and universities that received Sloan Foundation grants to develop and deliver online degree programs. Frank understood that institutions would need to rethink some basic policy, administrative, and cultural issues to effectively create a permanent home for e-learning within the institution.  He took steps to bring institutions that received funds into a community where institutions could share their experiences and help create viable standards and expectations.

Many Hall of Fame members have had the opportunity to work with the Online Learning Consortium and the JALN journal over the past decades. As we look back on Frank’s contributions and the impact of e-learning on our institutions, I encourage Hall members to share your experiences and ideas for the future of our field, as well as perspectives on Frank’s contributions, in a post for Leadership Perspectives.  Let’s celebrate the impact that Frank and the Sloan Foundation have had on our field.