Good question, and 'yes' the word 'study' is not ideal. Definitions, meanings and interpretation are always contestable and open to one's subjective experiences. There are also many adaptations that have evolved out of the original study circle approach practiced in Sweden.
The Australian Study Circles Network uses the term 'Community Wide Study Circle Program' intentionally for two main reasons.
Firstly, that we subscribe to the 125 year old tradition and practice of 'study circles' in Sweden. With a population of 9 million, nearly 3 million participate in study circles annually. There is more information on this in 'The Circular', Edition 5 and the 'Reports - Research' section of our website.
The term 'learning circle' is often used - especially in Australia, because of the reason you state. However the idea of 'study circles' comes from the Swedes, that is what it is called over there and internationally, so although not ideal (perhaps lost a little in translation), this is a way we can recognise the true Swedish historical origins and remain connected to other initiatives internationally. A quick Wikipedia look at the Swedish term 'folkbildning' is a real insight.
"Folkbildning is a name given to an approach to Community Education in Scandinavia, particularly in Sweden. Because of its uniquely Scandinavian elements, many proponents of the folkbildning approach to education resist attempts to invent an English word or phrase to embrace it. Some have even coined a quasi-English form of folkbuilding.
Folkbildning as an idea developed within the democratisation processes that began in the late 19th century. Education in the folkbildning style is often highly democratic, informal and locally based.
Folkbildning encourages education which is driven by the needs of the learners and where the teacher takes more of a role of facilitator or moderator. So-called study circles are often part of the process. Because of its democratic style, folkbildning is always voluntary and traditional ideas of marking or grading do not typically have a good fit in the pedagogy."
Secondly, we follow the complete 'Program' approach developed over the past 20 years by Everyday Democracy (previously 'Study Circles Resource Center') in the US.
We are holding true to the Swedish origins, and building upon the US refinement. We understand that some like to use the term 'study circle' or 'learning circle' alone. We see the 'study circles' themselves as one component of the whole Program. To us, there are three distinct phases. Organisational planning - the round of dialogue - the Action Forum and follow up.
Also, a 'Community Wide Study Circle Program' could also be seen as a community engagement method first, that often leads to - and results in considerable learning. Instead of placing learning or study as the main purpose or intent, the key objective is to engage people in the dialogue first. The learning then occurs. It is inherently pedagogical, but not explicitly.
One last thought - a Community Wide Study Circle Program is not for everyone. The key here is the purpose. If the purpose is to only gather and test information, or settle conflicts, or just explore an issue, or mediate, or give out information, or allow concerns to be heard then a Community Wide Study Circle Program will not do this.
Much of the above may occur during a Community Wide Study Circle Program, but none alone could be considered the main goal.
The main goal of a Community Wide Study Circle Program is to find common ground on an issue, build ownership around solutions for the issue and be a catalyst for action.
For more on this, there has been some good work done by the National Center for Deliberative Dialogue in the US on what community engagement method/s suit what purpose, intent or focus. See:
http://thataway.org/exchange/files/docs/Engagement_Streams.xls
In the end the point is important Paul, and perhaps I haven't fully answered the question. It is about the unpacking of the meaning of 'study'. We can't cover everything in a generic description, however ASCN believes it is important to be congruent with history.
Thanks,
Mark.
