ERA-AARE Conference, Singapore

Paper presented by Nicky Solomon, Senior Research Fellow, Research 
Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology 
Sydney

Workplace Learning: the agenda for research
Cultures of workplace learning: cultures of sameness or difference?

Abstract
The topic `workplace learning' is not a single discrete area that sits 
in a neatly defined location. Rather it is located within a complex set 
of political, economic and social agendas and practices that are part 
of a globalisation process, encompassing a number of fields of study. 
These include:

.vocational education and training: challenging the traditional 
boundaries between education & training and involving the development 
of national systems of standards and national curriculum informing all 
sites of learning, be they educational institutions or workplaces;
.education: encompassing the notion of lifelong learning and the 
different sites of learning including the learning organisation;
.work: including HRD, management and communication systems, labour 
market studies looking at employment patterns and the different sites 
of work.

There is a dynamic operating between these fields realised in much of 
the common language. This language belies the cultural differences and 
collisions within and across each, and these collisions are exemplified 
in the uneasy relationship between the `economic human capital' and 
`celebration of difference' discourses.

Paper
We are living in a world of unprecedented global changes, resulting in 
unprecedented changes in work and the education and training for work. 
The process of globalisation, involving the dismantling of economic and 
national borders and the accompanying movement of people for work and 
migration purposes, has heightened the changes to our workplace 
`culture', at the same time as amplifying the need for `valuing 
difference'.

Increasingly the word `culture' is being used to signify a set of 
shared values and beliefs of a particular workplace or a particular 
aspect of that workplace - we have, for example, the corporate culture, 
management culture, team work culture and the learning culture of an 
organisation.

These uses of the word `culture' reflect an understanding of the 
importance of human bonds and relationships and the commonality that 
brings about a sense of belonging. This culture, a culture of sameness, 
though is accompanied by an understanding of the value of diverse 
cultures. In other words different cultural and language backgrounds, 
different world views, different ways of doing and learning are seen as 
economically valuable and vital. Such differences are seen to give 
companies a competitive edge as they are utilised in communicating 
within and across multinational companies, communicating with diverse 
ethnic and language communities and customers and generating innovative 
ideas and competitive products and services.

But have vocational education and training systems and workplaces 
addressed the complexities when developing common sets of values, and 
when promoting the valuing (if not celebrating) of difference? Is 

something very important being lost in turning `cultural difference' 
into `cultural capital'.

An analysis of workplaces and workplace learning reveals that in spite 
of the imperative to value difference, we continue to encourage a 
monocultural view of the generic employee, employment and learning 
practices. Indeed workplace `culture' with its notions of commonality 
and shared beliefs and values provides the framework for workplace 
learning where different knowledges, experiences, language styles, 
learning styles are not valued. (Cope & Kalantzis 1994) There may be 
competing organisations and competing sales, but within these there is 
little space for any contestation of what is valuable knowledge, or 
competencies. The hegemonic wins out!

What follows are a number of examples that inform my argument.

In Australia the development and implementation of a national 
vocational education and training system as a key product of national 
training reforms has to a certain extent realised some of its 
objectives. For example in many workplaces, training is no longer an ad 
hoc response to filling identified gaps in skills; indeed training is 
now an integral part of workplace activities; and importantly there is 
now greater portability of credentials across states and across 
industries. However this system could also been seen as part of the 
technology that is maintaining culture as sameness rather than culture 
as difference. We need to ask, `Does the vocational education and 
training system recognise differences in knowledge and experiences and 
identities, does the system assist in the development of pedagogies 
that engage with differences not simply as a deficit but as a resource 
in learning and working, and do the learning outcomes reflect 
difference or sameness?'

Unfortunately while the rhetoric around difference is there, the 
systems and products suggest that we are promoting a culture of 
sameness. For example:

.Industry competency standards (one of the key technologies for the 
construction of the skilled competent worker) prescribe singular ways 
of being and doing, providing templates for training that will 
regenerate the same ways. In the call for standardisation and 
benchmarking, the strict boundaries around 'units of work' and 'units 
of learning' render invisible the overlaps and the complex 
relationships that allow for different ways of doing. It could be 
argued that national industry competency standards and national 
competency based training systems are part of an assimilationist 
technology.

Recognition of prior learning has been heralded as one of the key 
conceptual shifts that marks the acknowledgment and accreditation of 
learning outside formal institutions. Potentially it provides the 
opportunity for giving space and reward for `the other', ie., to give 
meaning to the individual's diverse knowledges, experiences and skills. 
But when this meaning is recognised and assessed, and therefore framed 
within monocultural classifications of competence, then as Elana 
Michaelson (1996) points out `each can only be understood in terms of 
sameness and conformity'.

Workplaces, an increasingly important site of learning, are engaged in 
the rhetoric of workplace culture and a promise of recognition of 
diverse experiences and knowledges. Yet the culture of work is mainly 
understood as a culture where similar kinds of people come together and 
share common goals, doing common tasks in similar ways, working towards 

particular sets of workplace standards. This is reinforced in a number 
of workplace practices. For example:

.Recruitment practices and criteria mainly reflect very specific kinds 
of attitude and values (ie., those that match those of the corporate 
culture); also increasingly application processes include personality 
tests and more recently extend into 'family' interviews, thus 
reflecting a blurring of the distinction between public and private 
domains where the corporate sphere is expanding more deeply into all 
aspects of employees' lives.

.Employees are often locked into particular ways of doing by management 
systems, such as Total Quality Management categories and documentation 
requirements which are designed to ensure uniformity and compliance to 
standards. 

.Communication systems and practices, motivated by the need to improve 
information flow, are being standardised. While the standardisation of 
modes and formats can assist in both the giving and receiving of 
information, it can also function to limit and define the construction 
and generation of new meanings eg. document templates ensure particular 
constructions of texts. At the same time as the increase in written 
documentation to record information, spoken information continues to be 
communicated through powerful informal networks thereby bypassing the 
'other'. In team meetings, voices that use the 'appropriate' language 
and communication strategies are listened to, while those who have 
accents, who aren't 'assertive', or who argue either too tentatively or 
too aggressively, are ignored. In addition communication training 
focuses mainly on individual language skills that 'empower', rather 
than examining the power relations within the organisation that empower 
some while disempowering others.

.Training sessions in which the pedagogies seldom draw on the knowledge 
and experience of learners; this is accompanied by training and 
assessment practices that assume particular kinds of language and 
literacy skills and reward only particular kinds of learning and 
learning outcomes.

.At times cultural knowledge is utilised for productivity purposes. 
This is illustrated by the cultural knowledge of migrant employees that 
is often drawn upon in shaping and producing products (and services) 
for local or international niche markets and for communicating with 
multinational partners as well as the local community. However if the 
value of the 'human resource' doesn't have a direct relationship to the 
product or the service, it is not valued and in various ways becomes 
invisible. At times overt or covert racism can silence employees who no 
longer feel  confident about what they can contribute - thus diverse 
contributions become invisible.

The `promotion' of multiple identities, diverse knowledges and skills, 
different ways of doing is in apparent contradiction to the 
organisational culture of sameness, where specifically defined values, 
beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are rewarded and developed through 
training programs that are framed and implemented by very singular 
kinds of structures and technologies.

To conclude we need to consider how educators can intervene in the 
homogenisation process. We need to reframe our way of thinking around 
the dialectic relationships within and between:
.global culture and local diversity, 
.workplace culture (with its common goals) and the diverse knowledges 
and skills of the employees 

.the systematisation of training and different kinds of knowledge 
learnt in different ways.

We need to see the relationship between the goals of cohesion and the 
utilisation of difference not as contradictory or competitive, but as 
relationships of complementarity. These complementary relationships 
suggest that we need to recognise the cultural complexities and 
emerging dialogues that occur as we engage in culture as difference. It 
isn't enough to respect difference either for its exoticness or as the 
first step in a cloning process. We need to recognise that all of us 
are cultural boundary crossers as we live, work and learn in contexts 
in which the boundaries and definitions are constantly being redefined.


Future research
In terms of engaging with a culture of difference in workplace 
 learning we need to work with difference at many levels, including:
.at the systems levels, where we need to integrate 'difference' in our 
education and training frameworks and policies. This needs to be part 
of the developmental process rather than simply an add-on.
.at the program level, where we need to investigate:
-curriculum development that addresses the complexities of different 
sites of work and learning, 
-pedagogies that work with different kinds of knowledge and different 
ways of learning.
Our research also needs to distinguish between formal and informal 
learning. (Informal learning is considered to be 'natural' yet it is 
heavily influenced by the often implicit values of an organisation.)

With the current emphasis on the 'enterprise', research on workplace 
 learning needs to examine the social and power relations within 
 organisations. Such research needs to explore the various sites of 
 work, including off-shore organisations and home work.

We need to explore further the language of 'new' work, including ways 
 of communicating different perspectives in 'team work' contexts, in 
 mentoring relationships and in the design and implementation of 
 information, communication and learning technologies.


References
Cope, B., & M. Kalantzis (1994) `Making diversity work: the changing 
cultures of Australian workplaces' in The Abundant Culture: Meaning and 
Significance in Everyday Australia (Eds D. Headon, J. Hooton and D. 
Horne) Allen and Unwin

Michaelson E. (1996) Taxonomies of sameness: the recognition of prior 
learning as anthropology. Paper presented at the International 
Conference of Experiential Learning, July 1 - 6, University of 
Capetown, South Africa