Search results

It is argued that social learning, transformative learning, collaborative learning and transgressive learning are branches and offshoots of the same ‘learning tree’. This chapter examines the sources and evolution of theories of education and learning focused on transforming the learners' self-understanding and transforming the structures and social arrangements in which they and their educational and learning processes are embedded. The ‘transformative learning’ theories reviewed here span the last 50 years. They critique and go beyond the functionalist understanding that education and learning are meant to socialize learners within existing or dominant cultural and societal structures and/or in function of the transmission of knowledge, skills and attitudes from generation to generation. The first part of this article covers transformative learning and learning for transformation in the tradition of Freire, Habermas, Mezirow, and others. The second part concentrates on more recent ideas of collaborative learning, social learning and deliberative social learning evolving into transformative, and transgressive learning. By highlighting the warp and weft of the conceptual traditions and pedagogical practice within a variety of contexts and conditions, a colourful tapestry of transformative education and learning emerges. It is shown that, over time, the pertinence of transformative learning has only increased. The evolution of transformative learning presents itself as a virtual cycle, starting from marginalized and excluded people and communities via individual persons engaged in adult education and environmental education, to (groups of) people participating in collaborative and transgressive social learning, thereby becoming capable and empowered actors in processes of societal change and transformation.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of workplace learning, with a focus on the non-formal learning that takes place among online journalists. The focus of this article is journalists working in an online newspaper and their experiences with workplace and non-formal learning, centring on framework conditions and learning environments.

The empirical data in this article are based on qualitative interviews conducted with journalists working in an online newspaper in the Western part of Norway. The sample comprises of five informants. The interviews were based on a combination of open-ended and more specific questions where the aim was to get a broad perspective on the informants’ experiences workplace non-formal learning and to investigate alternative perspectives that emerged during the interviews.

The findings indicate that a theory of online journalists’ workplace learning should take into account the fact that learning, in this context, takes place at various levels of conscious awareness, encompassing cognitive, behavioural, motivational and emotional aspects.

This project provides the field of workplace learning and journalism with context-specific research on the non-formal learning processes of online journalists.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate social workers' processes of informal learning, through their narration of their professional experience, in order to understand how social workers learn. Informal learning is any individual practice or activity that is able to produce continuous learning; it is often non‐intentional and non‐structured learning.

The study employed qualitative research methods, according to specific epistemologies such as Grounded Theory, and Inquiry into Narrative. The tool used for data collection has been the narrative interview. The scientific software ATLAS.ti has facilitated the analysis of the contents and the narrative structure.

The data classified throughout the analysis allow for observing and explaining possible interpretations of informal learning of the social workers. The informal learning process, depending on the level of intentionality, can be random and often appears as a learning process leading to change and improvement, resulting from reflection and awareness.

The paper offers a methodological contribution for narrative data collection and analysis, through elaborating a network of all elements examined within each interview and defining some characteristics and meaning of informal learning in the workplace.

This paper aims to explore what opportunities for learning practitioners in rheumatology perceive of in their daily practice, using a typology of workplace learning to categorize these opportunities.

Thirty-six practitioners from different professions in rheumatology were interviewed. Data were analyzed using conventional qualitative content analysis with a directed approach, and were categorized according to a typology of formal and informal learning.

The typology was adjusted to fit the categories resulting from the analysis. Further analysis showed that work processes with learning as a by-product in general, and relationships with other people in the workplace in particular, were perceived as important for learning in the workplace. The use of many recognized learning opportunities was lower. Barriers for learning were a perceived low leadership awareness of learning opportunities and factors relating to workload and the organization of work.

The generalizability of results from all qualitative inquiries is limited by nature, and the issue of transferability to other contexts is for the reader to decide. Further studies will need to confirm the results of the study, as well as the proposed enhancement of the typology with which the results were categorized.

The study highlights the importance of relationships in the workplace for informal learning in rheumatology practice. In the clinical context, locally adapted strategies at organizational and individual levels are needed to maximize opportunities for both professional and interprofessional informal learning, taking the importance of personal relationships into account. The findings also suggest a need for increased continuing professional education in the specialty.

The workplace learning typology that was used in the study showed good applicability to empirical health-care study data, but may need further development. The study confirmed that informal workplace learning is an important part of learning in rheumatology. Further studies are needed to clarify how informal and formal learning in the rheumatology clinic may be supported in workplaces with different characteristics.

Rapid advancement of data science has disrupted both business and employees in organizations. However, extant literature primarily focuses on the organizational level phenomena, and has almost ignored the employee/individual perspective. This study thereby intends to capture the experiences of mid-level managers about these disruptions vis a vis their corresponding actions.

In a small-sample qualitative research design, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was adopted to capture this individual-level phenomenon. Twelve mid-level managers from large-scale Indian organizations that have extensively adopted data science tools and techniques participated in a semi-structured and in-depth interview process.

Our findings unfolded several perspectives gained from their experiences, leading thereby to two emergent person-job (mis)fit process models. (1) Managers, who perceived demands-abilities misfit (D-A misfit) as a growth-alignment opportunity vis a vis their corresponding actions, which effectively trapped them into a vicious cycle; and (2) the managers, who considered D-A misfit as a psychological strain vis a vis their corresponding actions, which engaged them into a benevolent cycle.

The present paper has major theoretical and managerial implications in the field of human resource management and business analytics.

The findings advise managers that the focus should be on developing an organizational learning eco-system, which would enable mid-level managers to gain their confidence and control over their job and work environment in the context of data science disruptions. Importantly, organizations should facilitate integrated workplace learning (both formal and informal) with an appropriate ecosystem to help mid-level managers to adapt to the data-science disruptions.

The present study offers two emergent cyclic models to the existing person–job fit literature in the context of data science disruptions. A scant attention of the earlier researchers on how individual employees actually experience disruption, and the corresponding IPA method used in the present study may add significant value to the extant literature. Further, it opens a timely and relevant future research avenues in the context of data science disruptions.

This paper aims to review the challenges of urban foresight via an analytical method: apply this to the city demonstrations on the UK Foresight Future of Cities: and explore the implications for ways forward.

The methodology is based on the principles of co-evolutionary complex systems, a newly developed toolkit of “synergistic mapping and design”, and its application in a “synergy foresight” method.

The UK Foresight Future of Cities is work in progress, but some early lessons are emerging – the need for transparency in foresight method – and the wider context of strategic policy intelligence.

The paper has practical recommendations, and a set of propositions, (under active discussion in 2015), which are based on the analysis.

The paper aims to demonstrate an application of “synergy foresight” with wide benefits for cities and the communities within them.

To overcome the shortcomings of diversity training programs, the purpose of this paper is to conceptualize an organizational diversity-learning framework, which features an organizational intervention for employees’ joint decision-making process with other employees from different statuses, functions, and identities. Borrowing key principles from the diversity learning (Rainey and Kolb, 1995); integration and learning perspective (Ely and Thomas, 2001; Thomas and Ely, 1996), and the key practices informed by deliberative democratic theories (Thompson, 2008), the authors develop a new organizational diversity learning framework for behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive learning at workplaces. They conclude with directions for future research.

This paper first presents an overview of key shortcomings of diversity training programs in relation to their group composition, design, content and evaluation. Second, it borrows the key principles of diversity learning (Rainey and Kolb, 1995); integration and learning perspectives (Ely and Thomas, 2001; Thomas and Ely, 1996), and the key practices informed by deliberative democratic theories (Thompson, 2008) to delineate the organizational diversity learning framework. Third, it presents a table of the approach contrasted with the shortcomings of diversity training programs and discusses practical and theoretical contributions, along with directions for future research.

This paper conceptualizes an organizational diversity-learning framework, which features an organizational intervention for employees’ joint decision-making process with other employees from different statuses, functions, and identities.

The organizational diversity learning framework developed in this paper provides an inclusive diversity learning paradigm in which diversity learning rests in the experience of the learner. As stated by experiential learning theory, this framework encourages workers to heuristically learn about diverse perspectives in a psychologically safe environment, to reflect on different perspectives, and to create a new awareness about learning from others. As the participants learn to apply new repertoires for interacting with others in their daily work interactions (e.g. listening to different perspectives shared by unfamiliar social group members), it proposes that their behaviors may create a ripple effect, changing other colleagues’ attitudes, behaviors, and thinking patterns on working with diverse coworkers.

This paper provides detailed instructions for practitioners to facilitate diversity learning. It highlights a few key practical implications. First, the framework provides a method of organization-wide diversity learning through intersecting networks within the workplace, which is designed to reduce the elitist organizational decision making that mainly occurs at the upper echelon. Second, unlike other stand-alone diversity initiatives, the framework is embedded in the organizational decision-making process, which makes employees’ learning applicable to core organizational activities, contributing to both employees’ diversity learning and organizational growth. Third, the framework provides a preliminary model for transferring employees’ diversity learning in daily work operations, nurturing their behavioral learning to interact with different social groups more frequently at work and inclusive of their colleagues’ perspectives, feelings, and attitudes.

Workforces across nations are becoming increasingly diverse, and, simultaneously, the gap and tension between demographic representation in the upper and lower echelons is widening. By joining with other scholars who have advocated for the need to move beyond diversity training programs, the authors developed the organizational diversity learning framework for meaningful co-participation of employees with different statuses, functions, and identities. By inviting minority perspectives into the organizational decision-making process, top managers can explicitly send a message to minority groups that their perspectives matter and that their contributions are highly valued by the organization.

There has not been a conceptual paper that delineates the diversity inclusive decision-making process within a workplace. The authors established the organizational diversity learning framework based on the diversity learning, organizational diversity integration and learning perspectives, and deliberative democracy practices. The proposed framework guides organizations in structural interventions to educate employees on how to learn from multiple perspectives for better organizational decision making.

This chapter argues that Deliberative Dialogues (DDs) are a form of Education for Sustainable Development, whose design, process focus, wide-tent approach, and interdisciplinarity align with best democratic practices. DDs are an effective method for bridging seemingly opposing forces in academia and the larger society: Narrow expertise versus interdisciplinarity, individual orientation versus collaboration, polarization and prioritization of majority/privileged voice versus inclusivity and search for common ground. This chapter will define and describe deliberation and DDs as useful for a wide range of disciplines, offer models, explore basic components, and analyze the author’s participant researcher experience in crafting and facilitating DDs in 35 classes across multiple disciplines in a small private university. The chapter will look at the planning process, the logistics of running the DD, post-DD outcomes, and provide questions and suggestions for future enhancements. A particular kind of DD will be explored, the Syllabus Deliberation method (also known as the negotiated or process syllabus). Finally, the chapter will articulate findings related to the process of preparing for the deliberations, ways in which scaffolded activities improved, relationship between the dialogues and course curriculum, evolution of faculty and researcher-facilitator roles, challenges, and successes. Students’ and faculty’s perceptions of some outcomes are also included.

This chapter provides foundations of differentiating the sophisticated and various theoretical approaches towards safe spaces demonstrated in this book. For the purpose of framing the examples provided in this collection, we offer three broad ways of thinking about safe spaces: safe learning spaces as separate, counterhegemonic, or third spaces; safe learning spaces of difference, sameness, and intersecting identities; and deliberative and democratic learning spaces. It needs to be noted, however, that these are not mutually exclusive but different aspects to consider and that they each operate within and across, and are therefore influenced by, the five levels of inequity discussed in Chapter 2. That said, not all levels of inequity are necessarily addressed by any given space, regardless of the frame used to interpret it. This discussion respects the multiple paradoxes in education, especially the one of pluralism and sameness, offering approaches to modes and learning settings of inclusion and exclusion and how they create different, yet “safe,” spaces.