As a community of practice, the Forum discussed the issues faced by clients who were JSA- sanctioned and participants decided to take collective action starting with gathering documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. In an ethnographic study, Orr (1996, p. 125) describes how photocopier repair engineers share “war stories” of their experiences “with as much context and technical detail as seems appropriate to the situation of their telling”. Orr (1996) argues that recalled stories constitute knowledge objects which enable experiences to be recounted and reiterated by others. The use of the Forum’s meetings as a platform for recounting the experiences of JSA-sanctioned clients through the eyes of frontline practitioners was tantamount to such sharing of war stories (Orr, 1996). As noted by the Project Steering Group, the Forum was evolving into a platform where practitioners were able to share knowledge and experiences about key social welfare issues “….other priorities which emerged were: JSA sanctions, referrals (‘One Door’ idea), waiting times and
do not attend. These were discussed at the CC team meeting where it was agreed that a working party would need to take this forward before the next Forum” (PSG minutes of meeting, 13/5/14). On the morning of the third Forum meeting, as the author was finalising his preparations, he noted that “….one practitioner asked me how the planning was going and I said that the meeting was going to be more or less self-running….the groundwork had been done and the priority was to go through the work on JSA sanctions and the setting up of a working group to look at no shows” (PJ entry: 2/6/14).
Recounting war stories (Orr, 1996) also reflects Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998a) analyses about how new practitioners on the periphery (e.g. someone who does not have a story to tell about JSA sanctions) are inducted into communities of practice through knowledge sharing and situated learning processes. One example of inducting peripheral practitioners was when the author “….attended the volunteers’ daily briefing to talk about the Hub….let them know that it was arriving soon and also about the work on JSA sanctions” (PJ entry: 28/7/14). Another example of such drawing in from the periphery involved a practitioner who was involved in a totally different area of social welfare advice. The author’s discussion with them revolved around email and web-based advice work and its impact on vulnerable clients such as individuals who were JSA-sanctioned. “….The practitioner’s experiences were that the questions asked online by advisers overwhelmed many clients and not all clients were able to give the necessary information in one go….so the toing and froing cause delays….some clients cut off and stop engaging (PJ entry: 29/9/15).
Learning is a social process in which “legitimate peripheral participation” provides opportunities for practitioners, new and old, to have conversations about “….activities, identities, artefacts, and communities of knowledge and practice” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 29). As a partnership project, the Forum was a site for inter-organisational situated learning enabling practitioners to connect to each other through their work, have conversations about their tacit or assumed practices, explicate their knowledge, skills and expertise and co-create new knowledge (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Soekijad, Huis in’t Veld and Enserink, 2004; Wenger, 2004). In a meeting with a senior practitioner about the continuation of a pilot monitoring process of clients who had been JSA sanctioned, the
author noted that “….a useful meeting with a practitioner about continuing to monitor referral categories on the back of the reception forms….Also the practitioner had told advisers to flag up inquiry forms to alert us about JSA sanctions….advisers will use the JSA sanctions template to record cases….this was a good outcome and shows that it is possible to work together” (PJ entry: 24/6/14).
The process of recounting and sharing war stories with other practitioners about JSA sanctions can be overlaid with Schön’s (1991) notion of reflecting on practice. The moments in the Forum meetings when practitioners recounted critical incidents about client experiences of JSA sanctions were symbolic of practitioners having a “conversation with the situation” (Schön, 1992, p. 125). Examples of such situational conversations are illustrated in the following practice journal entry and a news item in the managing agency’s newsletter:
“Quiet time generally….Interesting discussion with a practitioner about JSA sanctions and clients not knowing that they have to inform housing benefit if they have been JSA sanctioned. The Department of Work and Pensions informs Housing Benefit anyway and the latter assumes that the client has a job and is sanctioned….this results in an accumulation of debt” (PJ entry: 26/6/14).
“Vipin reported that Charnwood Connect Forum wants to collect some case studies of clients who have experienced sanctioning from JSA. In such cases….please consider referring the client for this study – there is a pro-forma available to record details. The Forum hopes to use the case studies to get a dialogue with local decision makers” (Managing agency’s newsletter, July 2014).
For some practitioners such encounters may be literal conversations and anecdotal sharing of “war stories” (Orr, 1996) without in-depth conscious reflection whereas for others, more systematic and deeper reflections may be involved (Schön, 1992). As a collective activity, compiling and analysing evidential data about JSA sanctions were opportunities for both critical reflection and social learning enabling practitioners to consider what further actions to take. Nicolini (2012 p. 2) states that practice-based approaches to understanding and acting on organisational phenomenon is demonstrative of how practitioners make use of
everyday routines and artefacts which are “….knotted together in such a way that the results of one performance become the resource for another”. Like Schön (1991), Nicolini (2012, p. 2) challenges the merits of technical rationality approaches to understanding practice and suggests instead that “….things seem to fall into place much better if we think of the fluid scene that unfolds in front of us in terms of multiple practices carried out at the same time”. Such fluidity is illustrated in the following entry which discusses how a Forum meeting covered multiple items including JSA sanctions, the no-shows work, an end of year verbal review and a validatory gesture. The author noted that “….day of CCF 4….a good discussion related to the key agenda items including JSA sanctions and no shows….also reviewed CCF given this was the fourth and final one of the year….review did not reveal anything new except people saying that they valued the time together….I acknowledged their contributions and highlighted the importance of CC connecting and staying connected with practitioners” (PJ entry: 29/7/14).
The principles of fluidity and multiple practices emerged again in the project’s draft year 1 monitoring report to the funder which stated that “….training and sharing expertise is at the heart of CC. This sits well with our drive to promote social policy work. We have now included an information exchange session at forum meetings and are encouraging partners to gather evidence so we can influence policy makers. This is a new work stream which came out of the specialist benefit sanctions training which was commissioned in August 2014” (Big Lottery Fund, Year 1 draft project monitoring form, October 2013-September 2014).
The practitioners’ commitment to record case-studies of the impact of JSA sanctions on clients transformed the war stories from anecdotal conversations to cataloguing war records. The war records would catalogue evidence and hope to verify the claims and experiences of practitioners. The following anonymised vignettes which are extracted from the case-studies of JSA-sanctioned clients that were submitted by practitioners, illustrate this principle of transitioning from anecdotal war stories to verifiable war records:
“Jamal is 58 years of age and has a learning disability. His benefits were sanctioned because when he completed a form online, he was unable to read it properly and had ticked the wrong box”.
“Anthony was sanctioned for not looking for work on the approved database even though he had been looking elsewhere and had attended interviews”.
“Carlos, a Spaniard, was in his mid-50s and had a joint JSA claim with his wife. He was told that he had not supplied enough evidence that he was looking for work and was sanctioned for two weeks. Although he was notified about this, he was unaware of another two week suspension that had also been imposed….the client suffered emotional stress as he was unsure about who he needed to speak to and this was made worse by the fact that he was unable to access any information in Spanish”.
“Sam is a young white British male, unemployed and a single parent. The first that he was aware that his benefits had stopped was when he found that the benefits had not been paid into his bank account….He had no money and with a toddler to support, he came to us for help. We were able to give him some money from our hardship fund and also advised him to go to the job centre to get a hardship payment. We are not sure what happened after that”.
(“The effects of Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions: Summary evidence from Charnwood Connect”, KMO report, 8/1/15)
Although the primary purpose of the investigation about JSA sanctions was to gather evidence, the Forum was a learning exchange and knowledge sharing platform for practitioners about social policy issues such as JSA sanctions. As experiential processes, practitioners were able to consider what actions to take, individually through their own practices and collectively through platforms such as the Forum and partnership bodies such
as Charnwood Connect, ensuring that knowledge, learning and doing were not disjointed or disaggregated (Swan, Scarbrough and Newell, 2010; Narayanaswamy, 2013). In his theory of adult learning and conscientisation, Freire (1972b, p. 31) states that consciousness raising through reflecting on practice can contribute to the transformation of social conditions but all participants should be viewed as “equally knowing subjects” engaging in an “authentic dialogue”. Reflection (conscientisation) and action need to be connected (Freire, 1972b), a phenomenon that is often “….decoupled within organisations, leading to reactive or routinised responses rather than learning” (Swan, Scarbrough and Newell, 2010, p. 326). The author had an “….interesting meeting with a senior practitioner about JSA sanctions….only two possible cases have emerged in the last month….far below the scale of what we were expecting” (PJ entry: 28/7/14) leading the author to consider recommending to the Forum and the Project Steering Group “….to put a stop to the JSA sanctions work if we do not get any more cases….need more substantial evidence if we are going to present a case to politicians and decision-makers” (PJ entry: 28/7/14). As a further illustration of how learning was coupled to organisational routines, in its report to the funders, the project noted that “….four CCF meetings held providing facilitated opportunities for practitioners to work jointly, share experiences, improve collaboration and act on issues of client concern e.g. JSA sanctions. Working group established to examine options for tackling no shows, referrals and improved advice pathways” (Big Lottery Fund, Year 1 draft project monitoring form, October 2013-September 2014).
As discussions at the Forum and outside continued, it became apparent that the issue of JSA sanctions was not a priority for all practitioners and their agencies. For some practitioners, this social welfare measure was not an explicit part of their organisation’s remit or expertise and others had not dealt with any JSA sanctioned clients. In turn, this realisation contributed to disappointment for the author and his reticence to complete the JSA sanctions report. The author noted in his practice journal that “….needed to get on with the JSA sanctions report….been putting it off for ages. Disappointing that despite the fact that Forum members thought that this was a big thing, only a handful of cases have appeared or at least reported as part of the survey Charnwood Connect Forum decided to carry out” (PJ entry: 10/12/14). Once completed however, the JSA sanctions report was well-received and when it was “….sent to some practitioners….good feedback from both….another practitioner
suggested we put it on the Hub to start a further discussion” (PJ entry: 16/12/14). This was on the back of earlier “….feedback from a practitioner about the JSA sanctions case-study template….they commented that it was very good” (PJ entry: 17/6/14).
Working on this social welfare measure provided this inter-organisational community of practice with an opportunity to share knowledge and experiences, provide mutual support and act collectively. The drafting and finalisation of the case-study template, evidence gathering and compilation of case studies by practitioners, ongoing discussions at the Forum and the dissemination of a summary report of the outcomes reinforced the Forum as an inter-organisational community of practice. As a broker, the coordination of the case studies and the summary report provided artefacts for practitioners to establish further connections with each other, client experiences of social welfare reforms and Charnwood Connect’s objective of improving advice services, an achievement that was noted in the project’s draft year 2 report to the funders:
“Eight quarterly meetings of the CCF have taken place over the two years. The CCF has proved to be a useful platform for face2face networking, training, exchanging knowledge, sharing expertise and taking joint action on social welfare issues e.g. JSA sanctions and one front door approach” (Big Lottery Fund, Year 2 draft project monitoring form, October 2014- September 2015).
5.6.2 Learning outcomes
1. Frontline advice, information and support practitioners face profound challenges when confronted with social welfare legislation and changes over which neither they nor their clients have much control.
2. Situated learning and knowledge sharing through platforms such as the Forum are profound for practitioners who may experience individual and collective exasperation, burnout and powerlessness when they do not have control over their work due to external changes.
3. Face-to-face and online platforms for frontline practitioners such as the Forum and the Hub provide individuals with validatory spaces to learn, share knowledge, exchange experiences and advocate for clients on key areas of social welfare such as JSA sanctions.
4. Evidence-based practice through the compilation of client case-studies is important when undertaking advocacy work on social welfare issues to mediate between different communities of practice of managers, practitioners and policy makers.