Relational interdependence as means to examine work , learning and the remaking of cultural practices

This paper focuses on dualities in both the process and outcomes of participation in work. The process of participation in work activities and interactions is held to draw on the contributions of both individuals and the social world in ways that are interdependent, yet relational. The affordances of workplaces shape the array of experiences able to be accessed by individuals and, they in turn, elect how they engage, construe and construct what the workplace affords. Both the social and individual contributions are exercisable with different degrees of intensity, focus and intentionality, making the process of participation a relational one. Consistent with these processes, the outcomes of workplace participation also comprise dualities. These are individual learning or change, on one hand, and the remaking or transformation of cultural practice that comprises work, on the other. In illuminating and elaborating these concepts, this paper draws upon the initial findings of a research project that is mapping the working lives of groups of three workers in each of four workplaces. The aim is to understand how these relational interdependences shape the participation, learning and remaking of work practices in these workplaces, their workers and identify the exercise of both affordances and engagement for each participant within the same workplace, and then to make comparisons across the four workplaces. The findings emphasise the distinctive bases by which individuals engage with work and construct meaning and practice as a result of that engagement and in turn their remaking of the work practices. Learning and work: remaking cultural practices Understanding further the learning potential of the workplace is important for both practical and conceptual purposes. Practically, at a time when the requirements for work are in constant change and turmoil, there is a need to understand how individuals can best learn these changing requirements through work and throughout their working life. It seems that the most likely and accessible environment to assist this learning will be workplaces themselves. The possibilities and capacities of providing effective and ongoing skill development in vocational education systems or universities seems to be only partial, at best. The evidence suggests that workplaces can be highly generative of much of the knowledge required for work performance (Eraut 2004, Fuller & Unwin, 2002; Rogoff & Gauvain, 1984; Scribner, 1984, 1985a). However, they also have significant limitations in terms of the distribution of opportunities for learning, the prospects of securing effective learning experiences and the issue of recognition of that learning (Bierema, 2001; Eraut 2004, Fuller & Unwin, 2003; Solomon, 1999). Much research has been undertaken to determine whether particular instructional strategies can be adapted to workplaces and through this has come an increasing emphasis on mentoring and guided learning in the workplace(Billett, 2001; Fuller & Unwin, 2003). This is all well and good. At least some evidence suggests that this kind of learning support is particularly helpful in securing knowledge that will not be learnt by discovery alone. Nevertheless, the key premises that appear to underpin both learning through engagement in everyday work activities and interactions, and through intentional learning strategies are those associated with the degree of affordances (e.g. support, opportunities, interactions, guidance) provided by the workplace, and also the degree and bases by which individuals engage in the workplace (Billett, 2004). That is, how both individuals and workplaces exercise their intentions, agency and effort in participating in and learning through work, and how these contributions are negotiated, and then construed and constructed by individuals. So, a related practical concern is that individuals’ learning is not an isolated process without consequences for the workplace and work