ages and Net
ks: A S
thesis of Six C
partners and collaborators with the necessary expertise, contacts, and resources to
support expanded activities. Hence, the need to establish linkages with partners and
develop a network of such linkages to make CLCs truly learning hubs and magnets for
a variety of activities to serve the community, address its issues, and meet its needs.
In order to further study the potential of these linkages and networks to strengthen
and expand the contribution of CLCs to their communities, UNESCO APPEAL initiated a
sub-project in 2004 to look at how networks developed in a sample of six countries.
C. Empirical Basis for the Study: Six Country Reports
The empirical basis for this study is the collection of reports about CLC networks
from those six countries, namely, Japan, China, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and
Bangladesh. The reports were commissioned in 2004, and in 2005 a regional workshop
was held in Indonesia to share and refine research findings.
The scope of the six country reports differs quite significantly. The Japan study
reported on only one Community Learning Centre in the Niimura district, whereas,
on the other end, the Philippines surveyed in detail 50 CLCs from three regions in
the southern Mindanao area. Indonesia surveyed 29 CLCs in 15 districts, and also did
an analysis of three types of CLC network institutions. Thailand studied 5 CLCs in the
Northeast region, and Bangladesh chose 7 CLCs, five of them run by NGOs, in three of
the country's six regions. China studied 26 CLCs, and these have been clustered within
the report as groups from five different provinces, three in the West, one in the East,
and one in Central China.
By contrast, though the scope of each one differed significantly, there was consistency
of methodology in five of the six reports. Only the Japan report, whose author was
intimately familiar with the single CLC she reported on, did not describe a methodology.
The other five country reports showed a consistency in the process of selection of
districts and then specific CLCs chosen for the study, in the actual tools for the survey
(using documentation analysis, survey questionnaires, field study visits, focus group
discussions, guided individual interviews) in analysis and in summarizing results. With
minor variations, these five adhered closely to the terms of reference given them by
UNESCO, and further refined their papers after the 2005 Indonesia workshop.
Common Features of the Reports
Aside from the commonality of the methodology, a number of common features
can be gleaned from the reports. Each study included a general background of the
country setting (except Japan, which gave a background of only the Niimura district in