Balance de Riesgos

The literature on governmentality and performativity showed the powerful potential influence of targets and performance indicators on the way some managers performed in education and chapter 2 showed the large scale policy influence and drivers on the sector. Breaking the cycle of constantly responding to government power and performance indicators would therefore require a fundamental shift in managers thinking. An equally powerful type of learning would be needed to break the strong culture embedded in so many of the managers’ thinking. Transformative learning theories could provide an insight into models of learning that significantly differ from traditional leadership views and set out to make managers rethink the deep set principles and

understanding they had developed over time in the role. Transformative

learning (Mezirow 1991; 1995; 1996; Cranton 1994; 1996) was described by Mezirow as:

“the process of effecting change in a frame of reference...frames of reference are the structures of assumptions through which we understand our experiences” (Mezirow 1997, p.5).

The study of transformative learning emerged with the work of Jack Mezirow (1990; 1997). Transformative learning was defined as learning that induces more far-reaching change in the learner than other kinds of learning (Clark 1993). Mezirow (1990) developed concepts of meaning perspectives, an

individual’s overall world-view, and meaning schemes, smaller components that contained specific knowledge, values and beliefs about individual experiences. He suggested a number of meaning schemes work together to generate an individual’s meaning perspective. The key to the theory was that meaning perspectives were developed in childhood and youth. They operated as

perceptual filters that determined how an individual would organise and interpret the meaning of his/her life’s experiences. Transformative learning targeted these meaning perspectives in adulthood with a view to changing perspectives through significant events in the adult’s life. The influences on Mezirow’s early theory of transformative learning included Freire’s (1970) conscientisation, and Habermas’ (1971; 1984) domains of learning:

“transformative learning is the expansion of consciousness through the transformation of basic worldview and specific capabilities of the self; transformative learning is facilitated through consciously directed

processes such as appreciatively accessing and receiving the symbolic contents of the unconscious and critically analysing underlying premises” (Elias 1997, p.3).

Transformative learning has been divided into three phases including critical reflection, reflective discourse and action (Merriam and Caffarella 1999). Freire (1970) also articulated a theory of transformative learning which he referred to as conscientisation or conscious-raising. Dirkx (1998) suggested that:

“Through dialog and problem-posing, learners develop awareness of structures within their society that may be contributing to inequality and oppression. Learning helps adults develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which these social structures shape and influence the ways they think about themselves and the world” (Dirkx 1998, p.3).

Freire (1970) argued that education should foster freedom among the learners by enabling them to reflect on their world and, thereby change it and

transformative learning can be emancipating and liberating at both a personal and social level. Daloz (1986) suggested that transformative learning is more closely oriented to personal change and less to altering social structures and Boyd (1991) suggested that adult learners experience transformative learning by making the unconscious conscious, becoming aware of aspects of

themselves of which they are not conscious. Dirkx (1998) however focused on the forces acting on individual’s actions:

“Central to our understanding of transformative learning is the emphasis on actualisation of the person and society through liberation and

freedom. Actualisation is constrained through the presence of coercive forces or factors within our personal and socio-cultural contexts. These forces limit or shape the ways in which we come to understand who we are as persons and communities and what might be in our best interests. In effect, they constrain the degree to which we can be who or what we are. Transformative learning aims at identifying these forces and freeing us from their coercive influence through reflection, dialogue, critique, discernment, imagination and action.” (Dirkx 1998, p.8).

For Mezirow (1997), one of the benefits of transformative learning was the development of greater autonomy as a person, a defining condition of

adulthood. Mezirow (1997) stated that leadership development that wanted to effect transformative learning needed to challenge managers’ current

boundaries, thinking and working practices. Three common themes in the theory of transformative learning were – experience, critical reflection and rational discourse. To facilitate transformative learning Mezirow (1997) suggested that:

“educators must help learners become aware and critical or their own and others’ assumptions. Learners need practice in recognising frames of reference and using their imaginations to redefine problems from a different perspective” (Mezirow 1997, p.10).

Transformative learning develops through discussion and exploration of concepts relating to these kinds of experiences. Another key aspect that was critical to helping effective transformative learning in adults, was the

understanding of the importance of supportive relationships. Having a safe supportive system of teachers, coaches and other significant people could greatly facilitate the students’ willingness to move forward with transformative learning (Rogers 1957; West-Burnham and O’Sullivan 1998; Kemp 2008; Hobson 2012; Hobson and Malderez 2013). Taylor (1998) presented the case however that although the theory is much discussed, the practice of

transformative learning has been minimally investigated, inadequately defined and poorly understood. Dirkx (1998) also warned that transformative learning was quite rare:

“Some would lead us to believe that transformative learning is or can be a fairly common experience among adult learners, but it is my sense that transformative learning, as it has been defined here, is relatively rare within settings of adult education” (Dirkx 1998, p.11).

If a leadership development programme was aiming to effect potentially transformative learning through fostering personal development in managers then it would be important to consider the climate that was needed to facilitate this personal challenge. The opportunities afforded in the coaching programme to facilitate transformative learning could be considerable. The environment required to challenge established learning in the managers needed be

considered carefully in the design of the programme. The literature (Coffield 2007; Coffield et al. 2008; Coffield 2008; Edward et al. 2007) showed that breaking the traditional management mould and encouraging managers to think radically and challenge all their previous conceptions could be done.

3.7 Agency

As the policy context in chapter 2 showed, the strength of influence of

government drivers and targets on the sector had increased significantly since incorporation in 1993. The literature on governmentality and performativity showed the potential influence of policy on individuals and cultures but also suggested an understanding of these influences could in fact set managers free to reframe their understanding and actions. The theory of agency could then provide a critical lens through which to view any growth in personal confidence, and change in organisational creativity and culture and whether the managers were ‘set free’ to challenge the habits of college management in the case study.

In Calhoun’s (2002) dictionary of social sciences the definition of agency was related to the legal concept of principal and agent where the agent was given authority to act autonomously on behalf of the principal. A simple, more

situated definition of agency was provided by Emirbayer and Mische (1998) as:

“the capacity of actors to critically shape their own responsiveness to problematic situations” (1998, p.971).

Agency in education followed on from Kant’s concept of enlightenment (2013 [1803]). A propensity and vocation for free thinking was the basis of

autonomous action and it was suggested this could only be brought about through education (Kant 2013). Evans (2002) identified 12 factors of

importance in the analysis of bounded agency including confidence, belief that opportunities are open to all, belief that own weaknesses matter, belief in planning not chance and active career seeking (Evans 2002, p.255). Cote and Levines’ (2002) construct also considered agency as residing in tangible

personal assets such as memberships of organisations, and intangible personal assets such as internal locus of control and a sense of purpose in life (Cote and Levine 2002, p.143-149). Commentators varied in how they defined agency with the distinction being mainly how much the individual or the context

influenced the agentic orientation of parties in situations. Three different types of agency commonly highlighted in the literature: individual, ecological and relational are discussed below.

Levine (2005) described agency very much as a characteristic of the individual developing five constructs: self, self-concept, social identity, personal identity and ego identity. Bynner et al. (2001) also described personal agency as comprised of an individual’s disposition and resources: social, cultural, human capital (Bynner et al. 2001, p.23). Bourdieu and Giddens developed their ideas of individual agency around pragmatism, with the notion of ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu 1977; 1990) and ‘practical consciousness’ (Giddens 1984; 1990; 1991). Emirbayer and Mische (1998) described their three key aspects of individual agency as the chordal triad. Emirbayer and Mische described the first element of individual agency as the iterational element:

“the selective reactivation by actors of past patterns of thought and action, as routinely incorporated in practical activity, thereby giving stability and order to social universes and helping to sustain identities, interactions, and institutions over time” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p.971).

They suggested that increased individual agency was often due to the opportunity to be more ‘reflective’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p.973). Following on from the iterational element Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) second proposition of projectivity encompassed:

“the imaginative generation by actors of possible future trajectories of action, in which received structures of thought and action may be

creatively reconfigured in relation to actors hopes, fears, and desires for the future” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p.971).

This was similar to Schutz’s (1967) concept of the project as a completed act to

be. Thirdly the changing context in which the programme was embedded

provided opportunities for the coaching to challenge the ‘practical evaluative’ capacity of the managers to:

“make practical and normative judgments among alternative possible

trajectories of action, in response to the emerging demands, dilemmas, and ambiguities of presently unfolding situations” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p. 971).

This concept was similar to Dewey’s (1922) theory of inquiry which promoted three dominant ‘tones’ (problemisation, decision and execution) and two secondary tones (characterisation of a situation against the past experiences and deliberation over possible trajectories of action). Emibayer and Mische suggested the importance of ‘the capacity of actors to critically shape their own responsiveness to problematic situations’ (1998 p.971). According to Biesta and Tedder (2007):

“the achievement of agency is inextricably linked with the ways in which people are ‘in control’ of their responses. Given the triadic nature of agency this means that the achievement of agency is influenced by the ways in which actors can re-organise the composition of their agentic orientations” (2007 p.138).

Emirbayer and Mische (1998) also suggested however, that human agency could be seen as a more complicated relationship where context is crucial:

“the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments - the temporal relational contexts for action - which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgement, both

reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (1998, p.970).

Emirbayer and Mische (1998) built on the work of Alexander (1988; 1992) and other pragmatic sociologists (Dewey 1922; Mead 1934) and phenomenology (Schutz 1967) defining a type of ecological agency. The focus of ecological agency here, according to Emirbayer and Mische (1998), was the complex interrelationship between individuals, their contexts, their own habits and their understanding of their own capacity to reshape these factors. Biesta and Tedder (2007) described their version of ecological agency suggesting that:

“agency should be understood as something that has to be achieved in and through engagement with particular temporal-relational contexts-for- action. Agency, in other words is not something that people have; it is something that people do” (2007 p.136).

This type of agency was described as ecological in that “it focuses on the ways in which agency is achieved in transaction with a particular context-for-action, within a particular ‘ecology’” (Biesta and Tedder 2007 p.137). Biesta and Tedder (2007) highlighted that:

“this concept of agency highlights that actors always act by means of an environment rather than simply in an environment. To think of agency as an achievement makes it possible to understand why an individual can achieve agency in one situation but not in another” (Biesta and Tedder 2007 p.137).

Biesta and Tedder (2006) also differed from Emirbayer and Mische’s view of ecological agency in that they suggested the importance of the context

engaging with individuals rather than the other way round:

“In our discussion of Emirbayer’s and Mische’s understanding of agency we mentioned that one of the shortcomings of their analysis is that they pay far more attention to the different ways in which individual actors engage with temporal relational contexts than with understanding how such contexts ‘engage’ with actors” (Biesta and Tedder 2006, p. 22).

According to Bevir (1999):

“the subject is a function of regimes of power/knowledge. The claim seems to be valid as the composed one that all agency is influenced by its social context: the subject is not autonomous” (Bevir 1999, p2).

Fuchs (2001) also suggested that there was an over socialised, macro view of agency in social research, often ignoring the local or specific – or concentrating too much on individualised notions of agency. Agency was also described by Archer (2000a) as autonomy and causal efficacy. Archer criticised what she saw as the oversocialised view of someone who is ‘shaped and moulded by his social context’ (Archer 2000b, p.11). Some commentators also questioned how institutional change was possible if actors’ intentions, actions and rationality are conditioned by the institutions they wish to change (Holm 1995; Seo and Creed 2002). Some also reaffirmed the ability of actors to escape the determining power of institutions (DiMaggio 1988; Rao 1998; Beckert 1999; Carney and Gedajlovic 2002). Arendt (1958, 1977) also suggested that we cannot act in isolation, in order to act others need to respond to those actions.

The impact of the shift in policy and funding in FE outlined in chapter 2 also meant that the participants were experiencing a completely new and

challenging education environment. Emirbayer and Mische (1998) described how agency could increase in times of significant change:

“during periods of upheaval, other forms of agentic activity may come into play. While certain sets of actors might resist change and holds tightly to past routines (such as local or national traditions) in an attempt to ward off uncertainty, others may be more likely to engage in projective activity (as expressed in ideologies and utopias) as they seek to imagine alternative futures for problematic present” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p.1006).

The unsettled times in which the case study college was operating could contribute to the opportunity for the increased individual and ecological agency of the managers.

Edwards et al.’s (2010) study focused on the relational agency aspects of the work in schools and how practitioners felt this needed to develop to respond to the need to prevent social exclusion. They concluded that:

“Relational agency, which we would argue is a prerequisite for inter- professional work, demands more. It is premised on: (a) informed

interpretations of, for example, a child’s trajectory as an object of activity; and (b) the capacity to make those interpretations explicit….Relational agency requires that practitioners are not only able to recognise and draw on the expertise that is distributed across local systems, but also to contribute to it” (Edwards et al. 2010, p.41).

Actors who are located in more complex relational settings must

correspondingly learn to take a wider variety of factors into account (Coser 1975). The extent to which the relational agency of the participants could be developed through the leadership development programme could be

considered. The literature on relational agency was the least developed with only a handful of studies considering this aspect. An interesting question for the research would be to what extent did the participants’ relational agency

increase developing their collective knowledge from each other and how did the

cultural aspects of the college and the contradictions in policy, culture and strategy affect the actions and responses of the managers?