This paper aims at bringing to light the interactive relationship between the development of a reflective community of practice and the formation of community coordinators’skills with a view to building a more egalitarian society. The author turns her attention to a collection of narratives on the practices of consciousness-raising organized by members of the Quebecois Collective of Consciousness-raising (Collectif Québécois de Conscientisation: CQC). The CQC is a network of activists, community organizers, researchers who have been involved in actions with the working class using consciousness-raising approach since 1970s. Considering this collective as a reflective community of practice, the author shows the process of community development and the elements that constitute this process as described in the narratives of consciousness-raising practices between 1970s and ‘80s. In addition, she analyses the relationship of this process to the formation of community coordinators’skills that promote the initiative of the consciousness-raising approach in the community. Finally, the author demonstrates the structure of a reflective community of practice that contributes to changing the oppressive social system.

  The aim of this study is to elucidate the benefits and issues that support local citizens’ life-long learning through the universities’ science communication activities conducted for universities and local citizens. Therefore, we regarded these universities’ activities as implementations of social education and evaluated them.

  In recent times, many universities have extension courses or science cafes as part of their social action programs, and thus local citizens have great opportunities to acquire academic knowledge. The universities’ activities to explain the fruits of their research and to study with local citizens are called “science communications.” They are subjects of a new discipline that deals with the relationship between science and society.

  The universities’ support of local citizens’ learning has been discussed by social education studies. Although the study of science communication concerns the universities’ activities in support of local citizens’ learning, it has not been based on results from social education studies. Therefore, we reviewed the previous studies of university extensions, and furthermore, critically evaluated the “model” of science communications.

  Our results are as follows:

  Science communicators should actively collaborate with the universities’ extension-course leaders. Through courses connecting academic and local knowledge with “pleasure,” science communicators would be able to re-establish the relationship between universities and local citizens. Potentially, extension courses with science communications might develop into a modern university extension venue. In fact, this would be the first step in a university becoming a center of community (COC).

  Thus, the agenda is to overcome unstable conditions and organizations of both science communicators and extension-course leaders. Hence, to develop and organize both entities that assume responsibility, coordinators between local communities and universities are required.

  Every individual lives in association with his or her local community, but people who actively engage in community development are more than just inhabitants. They establish strong relationships with local people and experience a learning process along with community development.

  In community development, these voluntary learners have a sense of leadership that involves behavioral traits and a community-based approach reflecting their way of life.

  This study focused on the process of rural youths’ learning activities in Kaneyama-machi, Mogami-gun, Yamagata, and discussed the creation of these community-development leaders’ initiative.

  The study found a mechanism that helped create an initiative with definite intention for community development. These youths understood the local-specific practical challenges while imagining who all would benefit from their activities in a “small community” where everyone resided. They shared the learning process with all members in the same community, thus making their learning and applied experiences practical.

1) When did the term “Shakai-Kyoiku” (Adult and Community Education) become widely used in Japan?

2) What did “Shakai-Kyoiku” mean at that time?

3) What historical factors led to the emergence of adult and community education in Japan?

This study is the first attempt to address these three subjects as a whole in an organized manner.