An Option or Necessity: Can the ‘Informal’ and ‘Formal’ Co-Exist Within Higher Education?

Abstract

In further understanding the importance of the informal/formal nexus, it is posited that they can co-exist, as explained in the case description example of a Youth Professional Practitioner Network (YPPN). It posits the influence of ‘informal education’ that creates the opportunity for value-based notions such as respect in enabling individuals to form trusting relationships. Through such relationships, the possibility of a ‘community of practice’ is formed. Such notions are argued to be inherent within the YPPN. In presenting such discussions in the exploration of this question, it poses the argument that it is possible and is more of a necessity.

1. Introduction

This case description example presents reflections on the challenges and opportunities the YPPN encounters. It suggests the methodology, method, and approach nexus is fundamental in the purposeful development, maintenance, and sustainability of a people-focused practice-informed network. Through such pedagogically informed shared experiences, it considers the precarity of HE ‘Youth Work Courses’ in the United Kingdom (UK) in the current socio-political and economic landscape, posing the question—is it an option or necessity? The discussions derive from a perspective as posed by Freire (Freire, 1997), that it ‘is a dialogical (or conversational) rather than a curricula form’ and such ‘dialogue involves respect’ (Smith, 1997/2002). This informality informs the purpose to cultivate communities, associations, and relationships that make for human flourishing (Jeffs & Smith, 1995/2005/2011), thus leading to a ‘community of practice’ where ‘learning is formed from a combination of community, identity, meaning and practice’ (Ord, 2016).

2. YPPN Rationale, Purpose, and Function

2.1. Rationale and Purpose

The rationale for the YPPN was established with the development of three professional practice-based degrees in a UK higher education institution (HEI), more commonly known as a university. All the degrees were developed with a focus on youth work from a UK perspective, which included a Bachelor’s undergraduate to a Post Graduate Masters level. All had the same premise of a joint academic and professional practice-based option. The professional practice-based aspect of all the degrees had the requirement of learning in the youth sector and a minimum of hours to be completed, like most practice-based degrees. To achieve the professional recognition of a qualified youth worker, a set of National Occupational Standards (NOSs) also needed to be met. Such standards in the context of England are set by the Professional, Statutory and Regularity Body (PSRB) and can be found at the National Youth Agency (2024). In stating their purpose, they highlight that ‘we are committed to enabling high quality youth work across a range of settings to benefit the health and outcomes of young people and strengthen local communities’ (National Youth Agency, 2024). Additionally, two sub parts to the PSRB also contribute to this. These include ‘the Education and Training Standards (ETS) committee…a subcommittee of the NYA, responsible for setting the assessment standards… and employment conditions as agreed by the Joint Education Training Standards Committee’ (National Youth Agency, 2024).

For this to be achieved, links with youth organisations needed to be developed and established to offer a variety of opportunities within differing settings and contexts of work with young people. The university had the existing systems in place to support the generic placing of students but did not concentrate on the new discipline of youth work. This focus was needed to support the achievement of the above-mentioned requirements. To become an additional vehicle for supporting students to be placed in the sector and forge stronger links with the degrees, the YPPN came to fruition.

To enable this rationale to have meaning and create tangible outputs, the YPPN was created to guide the functions and functionality, mentioned below, to smoothly run. The purpose is presented as being the following:

“… is a shared space for discussion, identifying how to explore and address issues on a local, regional, national, and global scale.

We work with our colleagues and external partners to identify opportunities for initiatives and projects, conducting research, and accessing funding”.

(Nottingham Trent University, 2024a)

This is underpinned by a set of aims and objectives:

• “Develop stronger collaborations with partner organisations, including through informing the curriculum.
• Support the development of work-based placement opportunities.
• Create opportunities for practitioner guest speaker slots within courses.
• Develop projects alongside course teams and students.
• Act as a vehicle for sharing information and expertise between the sector and training providers.
• Support Nottingham Trent University’s (NTU) social impact agenda, including Knowledge Exchange
• Link with NTU’s Youth Research Group and feed into the Centre for Policy, Citizenship and Society
• Promote consultancy opportunities.

Explore regional, national, and international collaborations” (Nottingham Trent University, 2024a).

It also promotes the notions of knowledge exchange, focusing upon ‘impact and outcomes’ that are practice-informed, and links to the university research strands that enable joint activity such as student research evaluations of practices within organisations.

Having such a remit allows the flexibility and variety of cross-collaborative activities to take place, embedding the notion that the exploration of unique and individualised needs can be considered. This ‘pushes back’ the perception that ‘one-size fits all’ when practice engages with the academy. This supports the host university approach to knowledge exchange that is ‘used to describe to the transfer of ideas, expertise or skills, often as a result of collaboration between a university and a business, community, third sector organisation or government’ (Nottingham Trent University, 2024b), as well as the United Kingdom Research & Innovation—Research England (2024) description of knowledge exchange with HEIs who ‘also work with many different types of partner to ensure that this knowledge can be used for the benefit of the economy and society’.

2.2. Functions and Functionality

The functions of the YPPN create a shared space of mutual respect where practitioners and academics can explore issues that affect young people from both the sector and within the teaching and learning environment. A lead facilitator conducts many of the planning, organising, and delivery tasks but support is available from other academics with aspects of the network. The lead facilitator role is key to enabling the network to have a ‘figure head’ that organisations can communicate with and respond to, offering a single point of contact. Such a facilitator role is underpinned by youth work methodology, from a UK perspective, whose core premise is value-based, respectful, uses anti-oppressive practices, and is of voluntary engagement (Davies, 2012). The network meetings are held once per quarter to prevent over meeting and to allow preparation to take place. Each meeting has a practice-chosen theme where guest speakers can share their knowledge, expertise, and projects. A key part of the meeting is offered to enable informal networking between members.

From a functionality perspective, drawing from the UK youth work methodology notion of reflection and reflexivity with planning, conducting, and evaluating practice provides a learner, or network member, with relevant experience from which to learn…through observation, active participation, and critical reflection (Sapin, 2013). The YPPN is constantly reviewed to meet the needs of all, practitioners and academics, through an informal on-going dialogue as well as a more formal annual focus on the aims and objectives, delivery, and themes. The reflection offers a constant ‘check-in’ and opportunities for change with practice members that is akin to Trelfa and Telfer (2014)’s re-articulation of the reflective practitioner as something one needs to be, not just do. However, moving this further into a reflexivity domain enables the action of change to take place via the involvement of all. Incorporating the need for ‘Intersubjective reflection’ as deemed by Finlay (2008), this inclusive involvement enables the relational context supporting an emergent, negotiated nature of practice encounters. In evaluating whether the functionality is effective, several factors are considered: attendance, engagement, practice-initiated requests, exchange of information and expertise, and linkages to other activities via the vehicle of the network. Upon reflection and evaluation, it has been noted that members have increased engagement at varying levels. This has been evidenced with partners attending linked events in collaboration with others but promoted through the YPPN, information sharing through member ‘callouts’, guest speaker slots within the curriculum, engagement in evaluation activity with the degree courses, and an increased level of communication traffic between the members and the team. It is argued that this has produced some tangible and developing outcomes to be achieved over a period and is still in flux which offers both members and academics definable outputs. In a time still immersed in managerialist and new public management discourses, these outcomes and outputs are still necessary for the need for evaluation, and the search for efficiency and performance (Tomo, 2018) for all. These, in turn, suggest the use of managerial systems for improving organisational efficiency, effectiveness, and economy (Flynn & Asquer, 2017).

3. Case Description Examples of ‘Informality’, ‘Formality’, and Creating a Community of Practice (CoP)

3.1. Informality

Within the methodology of informal education and UK youth work lies a selection of fundamental aspects that underpin the very nature of the practice itself. As noted by Gee (2020), much of youth work practice is guided by the principles of voluntary participation, democracy, fairness, conversation, and well-being (Gee, 2020). These are consciously considered and reflected upon to enable an inclusive environment for all participating in the YPPN, professional practitioner or academic, to collectively share in the activity taking place. Such activity includes posing questions, offering critical conversation, exploring the complexities of the issues raised, developing shared solutions, reflection, and reflexivity, and becoming informed of new areas of practice and/or research, among others. Using the ‘tool’ of activity within such a domain of informality offers areas of discovery that fully formalised approaches may restrict. This is considered as taking such an approach moves youth work into the realm of a form of improvised practice which has no pre-set curriculum and no pre-set objectives (Jeffs & Smith, 1995/2005/2011), offering an explanation and justification for such an approach. As posed, the endeavour of informal education is to engage with its participants via the unpredictable art of conversation, an art that requires improvisation (Gee, 2020). Such improvisation is possible with the facilitator having an understanding and experience of such approaches in applying them to varying contexts.

Furthermore, considering the concept of informal education by Freire (1997), he notes that it ‘is a dialogical (or conversational) rather than a curricula form’ and such ‘dialogue involves respect’ (Smith, 1997/2002). Through conversation and dialogue, it offers the opportunity for mutual respect to be formed and thus can create an emphasis upon all to carefully listen to the varying points of view, opinions, perspectives, and experiences. Placing the activity of conversation within the realms of a metaphor enables the possibility to understand, which can develop into a shared journey of discovery where learning as both the ‘individual’ and the ‘collective’ can evolve in the same space. This posits the notion that respect can be internalised within the individual as well as externalised to others via mutual respect.

Through this mutual respect that is inherent in the network, it is premised on a perspective of values and principles. These enable the social interactions of relationship-building to develop, impromptu discussions to begin, shared mutual interests to be formed, alliances to be formed and nourished, and new learning to be discovered and usually take place within the ‘in-between spaces’ of the planned activity. Such ‘in-between spaces’ are given importance to create flexibility within the structure that allows for them. Jeffs and Smith (1995/2005/2011) explain this as a spontaneous process of helping people to learn. This spontaneous aspect can only take place if such environments are created for the learner to explore such notions, to then transfer the learning to practice. It is posited that such informality can be fostered within the network where it could continue within the practice context, where such spaces have been eroded within the managerialist and new public management environment.

Additionally, referring to the explanations by Burbles who suggests informal education as follows:

• “It entails a particular kind of relationship and interaction, with certain virtues and emotions:

• Concern—In being with our partners in conversation, to engage them with us, there is more going on than talk about the overt topic.
• Trust—We have to take what others are saying on faith—and there can be some risk in this.
• Respect—There is mutual regard, a commitment to equality, fair-mindedness, opposing degradation and rejecting exploitation.
• Appreciation—Linked to respect, this entails valuing the unique qualities that others bring.
• Affection—Conversation involves a feeling with, and for, our partners.
• Hope—While not being purely emotional, hope is central. We engage in conversation in the belief that it holds possibility. Often it is not clear what we will gain or learn, but faith in the inherent value of education carries us forward.” (Burbules, 1993).

Such a relationship also considers the impact of ‘power’ and ‘power dynamics’ by drawing upon the Foucauldian conception of ‘power-knowledge’ (Foucault, 1979, 2000, 2008) in which power is not something that is held but rather is a feature of relationships (Lohmeyer, 2020). Correlating this to the YPPN context, members are constantly aware of the ever-present potential power held by HEIs and the perception presented by the ‘academic.’ However, as noted earlier, this is in a constant state of reflexivity as the ‘academic’ strives to foster and maintain the youth work methodology. From this perspective, informal education is a mutual conversation between equals through which both parties learn from each other (Jeffs & Smith, 1995/2005/2011; Batsleer, 2008; Beck & Purcell, 2010; Lohmeyer, 2020). This is where the power imbalance can change as members become equals within the YPPN context.

3.2. Formality

Even though the premise of youth work methodology has inherent informal education aspects, there also exists a space for formality within the YPPN. Such formality is a requirement in both environments and creates the ability for such activity to take place. Through the current managerialism’s ideologically based attributes that exist, an approach to ensuring high-quality outputs is required. This is needed to support the business-orientated aspects of public funds, governmental expectations, and the effective use of resources (student fees and research grants). Examples of such formality include ensuring that the remit of the network conforms to the HEI corporate approach to collaboration with partners and follows the strategic overview of its mission to support society and communities; creating opportunities for future collaborations including research development and curriculum input, carefully managed resources, potential consultancy, and income generation; and capturing impact in relation to knowledge exchange.

3.3. The Nexus

This is where the informal and formal co-exist together to enable such activity to take place. Through this nexus, the facilitator may align with that of an informal educator as ‘part of the role of the informal educator is to keep the condition for conversations alive, even in situations of conflict’ (Batsleer, 2008). In a recent (2024) internal review of the network, the facilitator (YPPN lead) reflected upon the continued development and its various produced outputs and impacts afforded to the very existence of the YPPN:

The network has gone from strength to strength since inception 2 years ago with seventy members now. Through its’ mission to offer a shared space for discussion; identifying how to explore and address issues on a local, regional, national, and global scale; it works with colleagues and external partners to identify opportunities for initiatives and projects, conducting research, and accessing funding. The Knowledge Exchange activity helps to build a strong evidence base for those organisations, as well as potentially generating future commercial income through paid evaluations. Additionally, through guest speakers, organisation presentations, themed discussion workshops, and solution focused methods a sharing of knowledge, skills and expertise has been possible. Specifically, this year the knowledge exchange has focused upon consolidating the above with an array of successful outputs including access to training and funding streams; supporting curriculum/course development; and NTU staff expertise requests leading to further consultancy development opportunities.

(Jones, 2024)

This supports the suggestion that where a nexus exists, there is a possibility for furthering new ventures, stronger bonds, reflections and evaluations, shared vision setting, collective voice and agency, transcendence of knowledge across varying domains and settings, and opportunities not necessarily considered to become reality. This nexus reality affirms the ideas by Jeffs and Smith who indicate a three-pronged approach to evaluation—‘direct evaluation’—which is described as a means of managerial control; ‘negotiated evaluation’, a method of evaluation that is agreed upon by parties concerned and set in advance; and ‘dialogical evaluation’, which the educators and participants take responsibility for (Gee, 2020). This offers the assertion that a nexus can be complex but can also be useful for multiple stakeholders. With stakeholders having varying needs and accountabilities, drawing from such a three-pronged approach enables a pluralism effect to function, offering impact evidence in many forms. Examples of the nexus in action in enabling tangible outputs for the varied stakeholders include the facilitation of practice research evaluations by students within YPPN organisations; network guest speaker slots covering an array of subject-related topics; and increased support with curriculum development. An increase in student placement offers has taken place too, suggesting that professional trust and integrity are being developed through mutual respect. This has also created a more open exploration of supporting and participating in both student research projects/dissertations and joint staff research.

3.4. Creating a Community of Practice (CoP)

The above-mentioned informality informs the purpose of cultivating communities, associations, and relationships that make for human flourishing (Jeffs & Smith, 1995/2005/2011), thus leading to a ‘community of practice’ where ‘learning is formed from a combination of community, identity, meaning and practice’ (Ord, 2016). The formed CoP is the space and place for a shared identity within one symbolic entity, the YPPN, to hold a connectedness for members. Through such a connectedness, the enabling nature can evolve with both the existing members and new members joining the network. This, according to Lave and Wenger, requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community. ‘Legitimate peripheral participation’ provides a way to speak about the relations between newcomers and old-timers, and about activities, identities, artefacts, and communities of knowledge and practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Considering the YPPN as a ‘community’ via a shared CoP gives members a sense of belonging, ownership, validation, worth, and equal status to offer the flexibility of participation and engagement while maintaining connections. Through maintaining connections, the ability to respond to external factors can be more possible to be met, especially relevant to the current precarity of the youth sector. As Ord (2016) alludes, even though the social world around us has changed, the ability to be involved is still present, but in different forms and contexts, as we are all involved in communities of practice all the time—at work, at school, and in family life (Ord, 2016 in Jones & Brady, 2022).

4. Societal Context: (Pre-Election) Neo-Liberal Stance and the Pandemic Impact

4.1. (Pre-Election) Neo-Liberal Stance

The paper was written when the previous government was in power, hence it was ‘pre-election’ informed before the UK General Election of 2024. The political ideology of the day was suggested to be neo-liberal in stance. This environment was host to the approach suggested to be applied to youth work practice via austerity cuts and HEIs via the agenda of ‘employment-based’ courses becoming more commonplace. This included more ‘practice’-focused learning with an array of employer needs to be met such as ‘on-the-job’ training and central government levies to support employers’ reduced or non-existent training and development budgets. As the UK enters a new administration, it is too early to ascertain what, if any, change will take place. Early indications are suggesting more of a review of public services rather than a ‘rank and file’ change.

4.2. The Pandemic Impact

Again, the paper was written following the global COVID-19 pandemic, and it is posited that this had presented many challenges but also opportunities. The YPPN was a newly formed group that could meet in numbers and in person, which was contrary to the pandemic days in forming a community of professional practitioners via the lens of a CoP, establishing the connectedness that was limited throughout the pandemic. Thus, the community developed a sense of belonging from the physical and social disconnection the pandemic created, with individual identity becoming more than before, in that the experience that takes place creates a new meaning of the different social world surrounding oneself, and the notion that learning is formed through the ‘doing of activity’ that forms developed practice (Ord, 2016 in Jones & Brady, 2022). It could be argued that because all the members experienced the pandemic simultaneously, they already had a sense of connection as a society at large. There would have been nuanced differences with individualised narratives, but these were part of the overall pandemic journey for all.

5. Posing Arguments: ‘An Option or Necessity, Can the ‘Informal’ and ‘Formal’ Co-Exist Within Higher Education’?

In further understanding the importance of the informal/formal nexus, it is posited that these can co-exist as demonstrated by the example of the YPPN. Other such examples can also lie within differing contexts and settings as commonly embarked upon within youth work practice itself. For example, the informal educator (youth worker) conducts groupwork with pupils within a school engaged in interactive dialogue and activity while also navigating the formal curriculum and strict protocols of formal education. Such examples can be many for the youth worker and can transcend across many varying contextual domains with carefully managed techniques and an understanding of the complexities that can present themselves. This skilled approach is where the informal educator or youth worker can thrive and break through challenges that other professions can find more challenging. This is where informality comes to bear its credibility and validity having much relevance in engaging with others. However, this is not to say such work is necessarily easy, as evidence of such relevance becomes problematic, especially within the current neo-liberal discourse regarding quality, effectiveness, and value for money. As Jeffs and Smith pose, the importance of qualitative evaluation needs to consider the complexity of the work of informal educators, particularly when it is difficult to provide positivistic evidence of the cause and effect of informal education (Gee, 2020). As Gee ponders here, attempting to measure such informality using an opposing perspective-based method as a tool for impact restricts or even prevents the true meaning from presenting itself.

Considering this within the HEI context, a similar dilemma can unfold in how the academic offers evidence of the impact of such activity. Similar positivist measures are also inherent within this sector and are becoming increasingly more focused on to survive this environment governed by such neo-liberal notions which can impede and hinder such activity and not recognise the impact it truly can offer to both the practice and HEI sector. This does vary among differing HEIs, with differing foci to be followed and maintained within an environment of societal impact being more under the public scrutiny lens of how education funds are used and the impact HEIs offer. This complexity, as previously mentioned, can offer challenges as well as opportunities and the scope to be aware of, and having an understanding and exploration is needed in such a space. As Derrida (1982) argues, our understanding of the world comes from a sense of difference, that concepts and words only make sense by understanding what they ‘are’ in relation to what they ‘are’ and also ‘not’ (Gee, 2020). Such a way of understanding the nature of informality and formality can be considered from a Derridean perspective as recognising what this entails and what it does not, thus enabling a more effective use and thus challenging the notion that Derrida is keen to acknowledge that structuralist thought tends to incorporate a binary sense of hierarchisation (Derrida, 1982; Gray, 2004; Gee, 2020). From this position, the argument that these can co-exist is accepted and the consideration moves to the possibility of inhabiting the HEI environment. However, this goes further in questioning whether this is an option or a necessity. If it is an option, then this can be suggested as being afforded by another which can also be rescinded, with the informality notion not recognised and needed. From the notion of being a necessity, this could create challenges so as to offer evidence as to why it is needed. From the perspective of the informal educator, this would be argued to be a necessity as the approach is paramount to the success of engagement and thus impact. In the neo-liberal managerialist context, then, the explanation of what is to be reciprocated becomes the foreground of discussions in ensuring something is repaid and or returned. Again, from a Derridean perspective, the notion of ‘Gift and Economy as a Duality’ comes to mind, as when one is giving or receiving a gift, there is a sense that the gift must be repaid, and that the receiver is somehow in debt to the giver (Gee, 2020). This contradictory dilemma can be played out in many a collaboration between HEIs and the practice sector in striving for ‘effectiveness’ in both domains.

From such discussions, it can be argued that informality and formality can co-exist, and they are more of a necessity to strengthen various sector needs. This is where the YPPN can explore such dualities in enabling both needs to be met.

6. Conclusions

This communication paper has offered the consideration that a nexus exists between informality and formality whereby these opposing approaches can co-exist. It goes on to posit that this is possible in a HEI context via the vehicle explained to be the YPPN. Through this case description example, the rationale, purpose, and functionality were presented to validate its meaning. Incorporating the nexus discussion of informality and formality in creating a CoP brought together the domains of practice and HEI contexts in highlighting the youth work methodology inhabits both. However, external factors are also recognised to have influenced this discussion: the pre-election timeline of writing (pre-UK general election 2024) and it being post-pandemic. In drawing these discussions together, it posed the question of ‘an option or necessity, can the ‘informal’ and ‘formal’ co-exist within HE’? In presenting such literature in an exploration of this question, it posed the argument that it is possible and is more of a necessity.