Exploring Negotiation Through Personal Work Practice

  • Raymond Smith
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 23)


This chapter concludes Part I of the book (Chaps.  1,  2,  3 and  4) and outlines how the ethnographic research investigation that generated The Three Dimensions of Negotiation framework was constructed and conducted. It explains and justifies the qualified ethnographic approach taken and the collaborative measures adopted. The chapter introduces the men and women who opened their working lives to examination through research participation and outlines what that participation involved. A focus is on the comparative and the personal and contextual differences that sit at the heart of seeking to engage people in accounting for and critically reflecting on their experience as both personal and social practice. How people are viewed and understood is central to work-learning research and the extended ethnography – 18 months of observation and interview – outlined in this chapter offers insight into how the significance of the personal, and its acceptance and characterisation as the dynamic self-in-action (see Chaps.  1 and  3), can generate rich and robust data that begins to accurately identify and explore the nuances and subtleties that assist both personal and professional understanding of learning practices that are enacted within and incidental to the necessity of work. The guiding question of the research is outlined – How is learning negotiated in work – and the resulting framework is briefly discussed in terms of how its three dimensions relate to the perspectives taken and advanced through the first three chapters of the book. This outline becomes an introduction to the full elaboration of the framework through Chaps.  5,  6 and  7.


  1. Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present (pp. 137–162). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.Google Scholar
  2. Agar, M. (1996). Professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (2nd ed.). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Alasoini, T. (2011). Workplace development as part of broad-based innovation policy: Exploiting, and exploring three types of knowledge. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 1(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angrosino, M. (2005). Recontextualising observation: Ethnography, pedagogy and the prospects for a progressive political agenda. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 729–746). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashton, D. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beck, U. (2000). The brave new world of work (P. Camiller, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(x), 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhaskar, R. (2007). Theorising ontology. In C. Lawson, J. Latsis, & N. Martins (Eds.), Contributions to social ontology (pp. 192–204). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Billett, S. (2004). Learning through work: Workplace participatory practices. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 109–125). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Brewer, J. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cain, M., & Finch, J. (2004). Towards a rehabilitation of data. In C. Seale (Ed.), Social research methods: A reader (pp. 517–524). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Carspecken, P. F. (2001). Critical ethnographies from Houston: Distinctive features and directions. In P. F. Carspecken & G. Walford (Eds.), Critical ethnography and education (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clough, P. T. (1994). Feminist thought: Desire, power and academic discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Crick, M. (1982). Anthropological field research, meaning creation and knowledge construction. In D. Parkin (Ed.), Semantic anthropology (pp. 15–37). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, C. A. (2008). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1975). Knowing and the known. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dobbert, M., & Kurth-Schai, R. (1992). Systematic ethnography: Toward an evolutionary science of education and culture. In M. LeCompte, W. Millro, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 93–160). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work., 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fetterman, D. (1998). Ethnography (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method. New York: The Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  28. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  30. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological fieldwork. Social Forces, 36(3), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, J., Dixon, C., & Zaharlick, A. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on the teaching of the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Grey, C. (1994). Career as a project of the self and labour process discipline. Sociology, 28(2), 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammersley, M. (1991). Some reflections on ethnography and validity. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris, M., & Johnson, O. (2000). Cultural anthropology (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  36. Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2004). The significance if individuals’ dispositions in workplace learning: A case study of two teachers. Journal of Education and Work, 17(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. James, A. (2012). Seeking the analytic imagination: Reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 562–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, S. (2004). Depth interviews. In C. Seale (Ed.), Social research methods: A reader (pp. 257–260). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Leontyev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. (M. Hall, Trans.). London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2010). Negotiation (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  44. Lichterman, P. (2015). Interpretive reflexivity in ethnography. Ethnography.
  45. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian new Guinea. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  46. Mariampolski, H. (1999). The power of ethnography. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  48. O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pusey, M. (2003). The experience of middle Australia: The dark side of economic reform. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reed, I. (2016). Ethnography, theory and sociology as a human science: An interlocution. Ethnography, 0(0), 1–23.Google Scholar
  51. Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schutz, A. (1954). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. The Journal of Philosophy, 51(9), 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Silverman, D. (2003). Analysing talk and text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 340–362). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Small, M. (2009). How many cases do I need?: On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, J. K., & Hodkinson, P. M. (2005). Relativism, criteria, and politics. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 915–932). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, R. (2005). Epistemological agency and the new employee. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 45(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
  58. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  59. Steier, F. (1991). Reflexivity and methodology: An ecological constructionism. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 163–185). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Tope, D., Chamberlain, L. J., Crowley, M., & Hodson, R. (2005). The benefits of being there: Evidence from the literature on work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(4), 470–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Trinh, T. M.-h. (1992). Framer framed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Wenger, E. (1998). Communites of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilkins, R., & Wooden, M. (2014). Two decades of change: The Australian labour market, 1993-2013. The Australian Economic Review, 47(4), 417–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Worrall, L., Mather, K., & Cooper, C. (2016). The changing nature of professional and managerial work: Issues and challenges from an empirical study of the UK. In A. Wilkinson, D. Hislop, & C. Coupland (Eds.), Perspectives on contemporary professional work: Challenges and experiences (pp. 60–85). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations