Negotiation as Frame

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

Abstract

This chapter addresses the second of the three dimensions of the negotiation as learning model advanced through the book – The Three Dimensions of Negotiation framework. Drawing on a range of empirical data, it elaborates how workers are engaged in a range of multiple and simultaneous negotiations through their work. Workers are found to enact composite negotiations – those that pre-mediate current activity, and contiguous negotiations – those that are enacted simultaneously in current activity. Negotiation as frame elaborates these temporal and co-continuous aspects of negotiation as the personal negotiation frame or context in and through which workers enact their practice. Such a perspective on learning as negotiation enables work-learning to be seen as workers’ negotiation and renegotiation of the negotiations in which they are engaged – and there are many. Taken together, these numerous negotiations may be said to comprise the ‘frame’ in, of and by which workers enact their practice as personal practice. This frame is personally constructed, not by the individual as sole arbiter of their engagement in activity, but by the individual worker as unique construer and thereby, unique investor of self in the negotiations that constitute their learning and work. Negotiation as frame enables the socio-personal significance of work-learning to be identified as workers’ subscription rather than workers’ obligation to the practices that comprise their work.

References

  1. 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
  2. Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Billett, S. (2006a). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2006b). Work, subjectivity and learning. In S. Billett, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billett, S. (2008). Learning throughout working life: A relational interdependence between personal and social agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1975). Knowing and the known. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ellstrom, E., Ekholm, B., & Ellstrom, P. E. (2008). Two types of learning environment: Enabling and constraining a study of care work. Journal of Workplace Learning., 20(2), 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellstrom, P. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work., 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engestrom, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etelapelto, A., & Saarinen, J. (2006). Developing subjective identities through collective participation. In S. Billett, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning (pp. 157–178). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments: Integrating organisational and personal development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126–144). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Gherardi, S. (2009). Community of practice or practices of a community? In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 514–530). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leontyev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality (M. Hall, Trans.). London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Piaget, J. (1968). Structuralism (C. Maschler, Trans. & Ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, R. (2006). Epistemological agency: A necessary action-in-context perspective on new employee workplace learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(3), 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56–74). New York: Cambridge University Press.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