Although professional socialisation studies in workplaces are under-represented, Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) have made influential contributions in their theorisation of learning and the socialisation of novices in communities of practice. Basing their theory on participation in social practice as the fundamental form of learning (1991:54), the writers propose the concept of legitimate peripheral participation as ‘a descriptor of engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent’ (1991:35). The concept highlights learners as inevitable participants in communities of practitioners and who acquire mastery of knowledge and skill in their progression toward full participation in the practices of the community (1991:29).
Several writers have pointed out limitations in Lave and Wenger’s theorisation. Bathmaker and Avis (2005) highlight issues about applying the communities of practice model to the present-day unpredictable and rapidly changing work climate. Their study focuses on trainee lecturers on a teaching placement at a further education college. The writers note that the impact of changes in further education in the UK had led to existing communities of practice being unmotivated, burnt out and lacking commitment to students. In the face of these conditions, rather than receiving encouragement to participate more fully in the existing communities of practice, trainee lecturers experienced difficulties with access and were further alienated by the cultures in these communities.
Fuller and her colleagues (2005) argue that the complex settings in contemporary workplaces and institutional environments play an important role in the configuration of opportunities and barriers to learning, and show that patterns and forms of participation
36 are more diverse than theorised in the concepts of legitimate peripheral participation and communities of practice. The limitations of the model of learning in Wenger’s (1998) expanded monograph on communities of practice led Olesen (2006) to comment that: ‘In fact, Wenger’s conception can be questioned as to whether it provides a theory of learning at all, or even a relevant account of (or parts of) the social context in which learning may take place’ (2006:56).
Lave and Wenger’s theorisation of learning offers a perspective on learning as situated and social in character, thus debunking the notion of learning as internalised within the mind which the writers argue was problematic (Lave and Wenger 1991:47-49). However there are assumptions in their studies of five apprenticeships that seem to be important in their theorisation but were not adequately addressed in their account. Coupled with the differences between their observations in the apprenticeship studies and mine in the placement kitchens, their account offers little purchase for my purposes.
Unlike the largely benign and welcoming communities of practice in Lave and Wenger’s apprenticeship studies, the community of practice in the professional kitchen seemed ambivalent to the trainees and was as welcoming as it was not. Access to practice appeared to vary with work situations, workers and trainees, and the issue of access seemed hardly straightforward. Indeed Fuller and Unwin (2003) showed some of the complexity involved in their characterisation of workplace learning environments on a continuum between ‘expansive’ and ‘restrictive’ according to the extent to which they offered apprentices access to communities of practice.
But in Lave and Wenger’s theorisation of learning there is little account of the complexities involved in access. The writers state that having access to practice was important for legitimate peripheral participation:
37 The key to legitimate peripherality is access by newcomers to the community of practice and all that membership entails. To become a full member of the community of practice requires access to a wide range of ongoing activity, old- timers, and other members of the community; and to information, resources and to opportunities for participation. The issue is so central to membership that, in a sense, all that we have said so far is about access. (Lave and Wenger 1991:100-101, emphasis mine)
To be able to participate in a legitimately peripheral way entails that newcomers have broad access to arenas of mature practice. (Lave and Wenger 1991:110) Yet the issue of access did not appear to be adequately treated. The writers acknowledged that there were problems with access which the apprenticeship studies they cited have ‘on the whole [been] silent’ (1991:86). Arguably if access is ‘key’ to legitimate peripherality and hence in becoming a full member of the community of practice, it seems important to address its related issues e.g. organising access, problems with access, the implications for access and for the learner of less-welcoming communities of practice etc.
The writers go on to discuss structural factors regarding access: the need for ‘transparency’ in the ‘technology of practice’, the possibilities of ‘sequestration’ and the fact that access is liable to manipulation (1991:100-105) but this discussion nonetheless fails to address the problem of access and their account of learning thus threatens to leave learners out of the theory. Olesen (2006) makes a similar point in critiquing the lack of ‘useful answers’ to learner-oriented questions such as learners’ negotiation of identities in communities of practice in Wenger (1998) and argues that: ‘To create a theory of learning requires theorizing the learner as a subject in its own right, and of the processes that s/he is undergoing’ (2006:56).
Moreover there is a fundamental difference in the way learning and working is organised in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) apprenticeship studies and in the placement kitchens in this research. The writers state that:
38 Apprenticeship learning is not “work-driven” in the way stereotypes of informal learning have suggested; the ordering of learning and of everyday practice do not coincide. Production activity-segments must be learned in different sequences than those in which a production process unfolds, if peripheral, less intense, less complex, less vital tasks are learned before more central aspects of practice. (Lave and Wenger 1991:96)
In the placement kitchens, learning was almost invariably ‘work-driven’. Learning and everyday practice coincided and were inextricable; learning was part of everyday practice and trainees learned through working as a regular worker. They carried out the tasks required of kitchen workers. These tasks were not simple, piecemeal tasks broken down for the benefit of the novice; trainees did not necessarily start with simpler tasks and progressed to more challenging ones, thus learning ‘in different sequences than those in which a production process unfolds …’, as the quote above suggests. These tasks were tasks that kitchen workers themselves had to do right then had they not assigned them to the trainees. When tasks were more complex and trainees struggled with them, workers stepped in to provide further instruction.
The situation of learning and working in the placement kitchens is distinctly dissimilar from that described in Lave and Wenger’s account. Perhaps the difference had something to do with the different learning/working schemes: Lave and Wenger’s ‘apprentices’ and particular arrangements in these apprenticeship schemes and my ‘trainees’ who did not work under similar conditions. Nevertheless the point remains that the organisation of learning and working in the placement kitchens which is fundamental to trainee experience bears little resemblance to that in the account given in Lave and Wenger’s theory.
Michael Eraut and Stephen Billett have extensively theorised and empirically studied workplace learning. Eraut’s approach prioritises cognitive dimensions. In Eraut (2004), the writer compiles data from several research projects focused on the workplace learning of professionals, technicians and managers and addresses the questions of what was being
39 learned, how it was learned and the factors that affected the level and directions of learning effort (Eraut 2004:248). A typology of the knowledges, skills and competences learned at the workplace was developed (2004:265). The writer identified four main types of work activity that regularly gave rise to learning: participation in work activities, working alongside others, tackling challenging tasks and working with clients (2004:267), and the learning activities embedded within those processes include:
formal study, listening, observing, reflecting, practising and refining skills, trial and error, supervision or coaching, mentoring, problem solving, learning from mistakes, getting information and asking questions, being proactive and giving and receiving feedback. (ibid.)
Billett takes a sociocultural constructivist perspective in his approach. The writer conceptualises workplace learning as ‘co-participation’ between workplace resources and individual activity. The concept of co-participation refers to:
the reciprocal process of how the workplace affords participation and how individuals elect to engage with and participate in work activities and interactions, and learn co-constructively through them. (Billett 2004:191)
The workplace affords participation through its invitational qualities, ‘that is, the kinds of activities and guidance individuals are able to access and elect to engage in’ (ibid.). These activities include those that ‘take place in the workplace (‘what we do here is…’) and how they are undertaken (‘how we do things here is…’)’ (Billett 1999:155). Activities may be routine or non-routine with each type having consequences for what individuals came to know through their participation (Billett 2004:198). Thus:
The more non-routine the activity, the more likely it will lead to new learning. More routine activities will provide learning through reinforcement that strengthen the organisation of existing knowledge and enhances the confidence with means of proceeding with tasks. (Billett 2000:3)
Workplace affordances also include having access to guidance. Guidance may be direct or indirect. Direct guidance is provided by experts and other workers (Billett 1999:156) who
40 provide ‘guidance in the form of questioning, direct instruction and making knowledge accessible’ and who ‘models and coaches workplace procedures and then monitors the progress of the learner’ (Billett 1999:161). Indirect guidance includes ‘observing and listening to other workers’ (Billett 1999:156) and resources in the workplace environment that provide ‘clues, cues and models that assist individuals’ thinking and acting and hence their learning and understanding’ (Billett 2000:1).
Although workplace affordances were important, Billett stresses that they were not sufficient to shape learning. Much also depended on the individual learners:
[Participation at work], and therefore learning, is also mediated by the degree to which the individual construes what is being afforded as invitational. This shapes how they engaged in the workplace activities and interactions from which they learn. (Billett 2004:191)
For Billett, individuals were agentic and their agency shaped how they participated and engaged in activities as well as responded to guidance. He writes that:
Meaning and practices arising from the social world require interpreting and construing. Yet, even beyond simply attending to, engaging with and comprehending what is being suggested, importantly individuals also bring possibly unique bases of conceptions, procedures and values to their engagement with social forms and practices. (Billett 2007:190)
Billett’s conceptualisation explicitly places emphasis on individual agency, instead of participation alone, as central to learning. As he argues, ‘participation in work activities does not lead to the unquestioned learning of what is afforded by the workplace. Individuals are active agents in what and how they learn from these encounters’ (2001:211). To varying degrees, it is generally accepted in these theories of workplace learning that participation in work activities was needed for learning. As mentioned, Eraut (2004) also provided concrete details of the ‘learning activities’ involved, such as observing, asking questions, learning from mistakes, supervision and coaching, and being pro-active. Implicit
41 in these activities was seeking guidance from workers (e.g. asking questions) and individual engagement through agentic actions (e.g. being pro-active).
Participation, seeking guidance and individual engagement were similar themes in Billett’s conceptualisation of workplace learning which he summarises in the concept of co- participation. In addition to participation, direct and indirect guidance were forms of workplace affordances that influenced what individuals learned. Significantly, Billett emphasises individual agency and engagement as important factors that shaped learning: individuals drew on unique personal histories and values, and decided as active agents the nature of their engagement in work activities and guidance.
Although their studies have been conducted with adult learners/workers, Eraut’s (2004) and Billett’s (2007, 2004, 2001, 2000, 1999) research into workplace learning have provided useful points of reference in my study on the learning/working experience of trainees in the professional kitchens. Their findings and observations including participation in work activities, guidance from workers and individual agency described in their extensive work resonate with my data from the placement kitchens.