Work-Related Learning

Post-structuralism

When looking at post-structuralism it probably makes sense to say something about first about how structuralism, used mainly in a literary context, drew attention to how much of our imaginative world is structured in a binary way. A focus upon current binary views can be challenged in two ways. First, the binary oppositions can be overturned and replaced by new structures that are themselves binary. Second, the limitations of binary views can be exposed by saying there are a much wider range of ways to look at things. Foucault (1972a) outlined the idea of how one system of thought, with dominant ways of thinking, replaced another in periods of revolutionary cultural change. He also analysed the range of ways knowledge and power operated in modern society. Sarup (1998) points to the similarities between Foucault's ideas, applied to culture as a whole, and Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts where stable established scientific ways of thinking are interrupted by periods of scientific revolution. Within social science, structuralist views emphasised how certain ways of thinking were dominant and constrained how people viewed the world, with culture offering a degree of agency and choice but also circumscribing the range of possibilities.

In contrast, post-structuralism sees a much wider range of possibilities, and questions the extent to which people can be represented as sharing one of a relatively small number of ways of thinking about society and culture. The much wider range of options is coupled with a view that cultural 'scripts' are much more open to individual influence. Post-structuralism is concerned with breaking down over-arching narratives, concerned with the 'big picture', into a series of smaller narratives that deconstruct the 'structure' as a whole and thereby release more ways of making sense of particular parts of the bigger picture.

In some senses therefore post-structuralism is a tool to sensitise the researcher to the possibility of multiple meanings and narratives associated with discourse and action in the particular contexts under investigation: it also has the potential to throw light upon aspects of society that could be overlooked. In this sense, depending on the nature of the topic and the intention of the researcher this perspective may be useful as a frame for investigation. Ironically, the more often this approach is used the less useful it may become: whether the focus upon discourse and meaning is illuminative partly depends upon how many previous studies there have been adopting this approach and the extent to which does indeed generate new insight.

The interesting thing for me is that you can, of course, use other frameworks to achieve similar effects. So personally, while occasionally drawing on insights from theorists associated with post-structuralism I have never used the framework to underpin my research. I also often find the work rather dense and so tend to prefer other ways of achieving the same ends. Indeed I wonder whether you can use Foucault's (1972b) own one idea of discourse existing within a complex web of meanings affected by shared, but changing, understandings of the 'rules of exclusion' to apply to much of this work: many of us are excluded from discussions on this because the ideas are not clearly expressed. However, it may be good to hear from those with more familiarity with some of these ideas, especially if they can communicate in a less exclusive way.

For other introductory ideas about post-structuralism see the following social bookmarking contribution: http://del.icio.us/NGRF/post-structuralism%2C

References - see also the post-structuralism tag in our NGRF connotea shared bookmarks (RSS is available)

• Foucault, M. (1972a) The Archaeology of Knowledge (New York, Pantheon).
• Foucault, M. (1972b) The discourse on language. Appendix to Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge , pp. 215-238 (New York, Pantheon).
• Kuhn, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sarup, M. (1988) An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead .

The meeting on February 11th went very well - thanks for all your efforts. We will need one more meeting to flesh out the final two categories (transitions and trajectories) and policy and then review all ten sub-categories and see how well they fit together. We thought we would have a little time before fixing the next meeting, so that we can catch up with some of the proposed technical refinements. 

After the final meeting in April / May (that can also consider how to represent all the TLRP wrl projects at the Sydney conference) Sally and I will work on linking to exisiting documents etc. so that we can give a demonstration of the full potential of the system at the TLRP annual conference,

I will circulate possible dates for the next meeting and thanks again for your ideas - things are starting to take shape,

Alan

      

Distinguishing between working and learning through work is difficult. It is similarly difficult to separate factors that affect learning at work because in many cases they interact strongly. The distinctions made below particuarly in the main headings should be understood as analytical aids rather than distinctly different categories.

Factors affecting learning emphasises the relational aspects of learning at all levels. It is a dynamic rhetoric.

Individual

• life history
• current position
• hopes
• dispositions
• attitudes to career

Group/community

• availability of support
• informal communication
• occupational positioning
• presence or absence of learning culture
• the nature of teamworking

Wider organisations

• the nature and challege of work
• the kind of mentoring available
• patterns and management of work
• HR systems
• quality of feedback
• purpose of product and service strategy
• corporate structure

Macro (labour market): structures

• Globalising tendencies (how to translate policy through intermediaries)
• MNCs
• Third and First world
• American hegemony
• ICT
• Workforce mobiltiy/migration (illegal workers)
• Performance discources

Labour market

Gender

Ethnicity

Class

Formal knowledge

Informal knowledge

Technical knowledge and skills

People skills

Tacit knowledge

Procedural knowledge

Process knowledge

Knowledge of the organisational culture

Collective and organisational knowlegde

Knowledge transfer

Emotional labour?

Emotional intelligence?

This section allows entry into the range of methods, methodologies and strategies that have been and are currently in use or being considered to study learning at work. It identifies a range of methods in use. It also gives links to the epistemological and theoretical positions that can underpin their use.

Some methods (which are often used in combination)  include:

• Observation (participant/repeat/non-participant)
• Interviewing
• Use of technology (eg email, computer assisted interviewing, video)
• Instruments and tools (eg questionnaires, diaries and learning logs)

A case study approach is often used, which frequently draws upon a mixture of methods.

Consideration also has to be given to:

• Decisions about which methods to use (eg epistemological positions)
• Methods in action (adapting and using methods in context)
• Data handling, reduction, analysis and synthesis (eg validation, tracking, coding, etc)
• Ethical concerns
• Scope of the study (eg longitudinal, snap-shot)

Of course methods are not used in a vacuum. They are used in accordance with theorectical/epistemological perspectives, which can be found under Theoretical bases.

Theorectical bases involves how they predispose people to look at research on learning in and through work.

Activity theory

Actor network theory

Socio-cultural practice theory

Multi-lens perspective

Labour process theory

Sociol-cultural linguistics

Organisational learning

Knowledge development/management

Socio-psychological constructivist

Post-structuralist

Grouping of concepts

Perspectives and concepts:

Gender

This will take place on 11th February from 10 - 3.30 at the Institute for Education, 20 Bedford Way, London Room 901.

The group will consider development of text for some of the other categories at this meeting. Results of the meeting will be posted here.

Note the links above (just below the date) show how we could link to existing D-space entries.

Strategies for enhancing learning

Some key issues for organisational learning and work redesign are:

• relationships/ culture
• flows of people and work
• experiences and engagement (of individuals and groups)
• organisational policies and influences
• couplings between learning and work
• 360 degree learning
• learning as an organisation
• roles and influence of tools and technology

Learning contexts and settings

Materials which analyse the social practices oriented towards learning within different settings. Topics include opportunities for learning, spaces for learning, expectations for learning and creating supportive learning contexts. Other key areas include:

• use of and access to artefacts, information, knowledge
• pressure of work
• expectations, rewards and punishment
• availability and nature of feedback
• challenge and value of work
• organisation and nature of work
• group learning: culture of setting; relationships

Additionally, contexts for learning include schools and colleges, workplaces, training centres, networks, communities and families.

Contexts for learning at work include:

• Meeting context
• 'on the job' context
• 'working alongside' context
• 'work encounter' context

Learning contexts and settings

Organisational learning and work redesign

Strategies for enhancing learning

The group agreed at the meeting on the 6th January to revise the chosen categories. After further  discussions the group as a whole came up with the following ten categories:

• Factors affecting learning
• Policy (national / regional / organisational)
• Learning processes
• Knowledge at work
• Learning trajectories and transfer