Communities of domination? Reconceptualising organisational learning and power

Huzzard (2004)

This paper addresses the under-theorised relationship between learning and power. It identifies:

1.     a shortcoming in situatied learning theory that it is narrowly restricted to routine labour processes, and

2.     a shortcoming in work on sensemaking, in that this has been unrelated to micro-political processes and considerations of power

The role of power in communities of practice was clearly identified by Lave & Wenger (1991) in their initial formulation of situated learning theory. Yet power has since become somewhat lost as the notion so CoPs has been subsumed within the organisationa learning literature.

Huzzard argues for a ‘conceptualisation of sensemaking, sensegiving and learning in a model of organizational change that focuses on learning through exploration in projects rather than learning through exploitation in routine activities’

Could it be argued that undergraduate courses ‘exploit students in routine activities’ – i.e. is the traditional lecture an example of this? If an UG course were reimagined as a community would student learning happen more through ‘exploration in projects’?

According to Lave & Wenger:

·       ‘the mastery of knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community’ (1991: 29)

·       learning is a social process that ‘…includes, indeed it subsumes, the learning of knowledgeable skills’

·       knowledge of the socially constituted world is socially mediated and open ended…cognition and communication in, and with, the social world, are situated in the historical development of ongoing activity (p.51)

Situated learning theory departs from “mainstream’ accounts of learning (Gherardi et al, 1998) in that a contrary view is taken on the ontological status of knowledge:

·       in mainstream accounts, knowledge is seen as something that is objective, uncontested and unproblematically diffused to learners.

·       For Lave & Wenger, however, knowledge is socially constructed: when actors draw on new “knowledge” they attribute new meaning to it, contextualise it locally and translate it into practice through everyday interaction. New understandings are then generated retrospectively through collective reflection. Accordingly, learning has a relational character whereby the negotiation of meaning is pivotal. Although such learning can be triggered by information obtained from external sources, it is nevertheless more appropriately defined in terms of the (social) negotiation of meaning during its contextualization rather than the receipt and storage of “facts”; for example, the content of training manuals.

This is a key argument in favour of reimagining UG courses as communities. In order for this to happen, how should the role of the tutor change?

·       Traditional approaches [to learning in organisations] see knowledge as objective and learnable through data collection routines = learning as uncertainty reduction whereby understanding leads to action (Addleson, 1996; Ford & Ogilvie, 1996) Spender, 1996)

·       Situated learning sees knowledge as ambiguous and thereby subject to interpretation and trial-and-error application = learning as meaning creation whereby action leads to understanding (Addleson, 1996; Ford & Ogilvie, 1996; Spender, 1996)

·       Legitimate peripheral participation: short of full participation, a novice is not fully accepted within the community (is short of legitimacy), and lacks belonging (remains peripheral)

·       Crucially, therefore, LPP suggests that learning is embedded in power relations and processes of identity formation, an insight markedly absent in mainstream accounts (Contu & Wilmott, 2003)

Contu & Wilmott (2003) sought, from a post-structuralist perspective, to pay more sustained attention to how learning practices are embedded in relations of power. For them: 

·       power is articulated through social practices that produce the “truths” that make up our self-concepts and the institutions in which our selves are embedded

·       power is not exercised by sovereign individual, but is located in social practices and the relationships on which such practices are built

·       power relations accordingly operate to either facilitate or impede learning processes

The ‘radical’ view (Lukes, 1974)

This views organisations as arenas of domination whereby the powerful are in control of socialisation processes and political agendas. Those in dominant positions wield power through shaping

1.     common ideologies

2.     common definitions of issues and

3.     common beliefs

In each of these three views there is an implicit recognition that actors have real, material interests. However, in the radical view of Lukes, actors are not always aware of what their real interests are. Power, accordingly, can be exercised subconsciously – disconnected from any notion of intent. I could argue that this is certainly the case in classrooms where the teacher wields all the power, even though they are not necessarily aware of this ‘power’ and of their potential to shape ‘common beliefs’ in their students.

The ‘relational’ view (Foucault, 1982) and post-structuralism

This view questions the tendency…to assume that individuals or groups are sovereign agents or possessors of power. Such sovereignty and agency are, rather, the product of regimes of “power/knowledge” (Contu & Wilmott, 2003). Such regimes find their expression in discourses, and power is located in relationships. In the relational view, power is involved in everything we do and necessarily implies resistance. It is a capillary force and not the property of dominant groups (Fulop & Linstead, 1999). As with the radical view, there is an emphasis on social construction and non-intentionality; on the other hand, post-structuralists question not only whether it is possible to identify what “real” interests are, but also argue for the impossibility of our knowing the material world outside of our preferred discursive constructions.

Two views:

1.     that a material world exists, outside and independent of discourse, about which we can make plausible truth claims. In terms of discourse, agency is attributed to the dominant party. i.e. 'The Gevernment are more powerful than me because they have more power'

2.     that there is also a socially-constructed world ontologically different from the real world. Power may exist in either covert or overt forms; it may or may not involve agential intent that is associated with the perceived real interests of dominant groups. In terms of discourse, a sort of quasi-agency is attributed to the discourse itself. i.e. in the 'real' world the Government don't have any more 'real' power than I do, but their power is created through the influence of their rhetoric/discourse. This feels 'real' because the population share a common perception of their power created through the verbal and written word, but this 'reality' is in fact socially constructed.'

Is this right?

Conclusions

Learning is an outcome of power. But this needs to be made more specific: do unequal relationships of power enhance learning or is learning enhanced when such inequalities are broken down and more equal relations prevail in a community of learners?

Proposition 1:

A degree of domination is required in projects to shape and direct learning processes in line with the project remit and its financial and time constraints.

Proposition 2:

Learning is enhanced when hierarchies are broken down and power relations are (temporarily) set aside. This would appear to have some support in the literature (Dixon, 1997) and has been a fundamental belief at the core of action research efforts aimed at generating learning in development projects through democratic dialogue (Gustavsen, 1992).

Proposition 3:

An outcome of learning processes can be new power relations. Power, or rather newly-configured power relations, might be the outcome of learning.