As noted earlier (section 2.7), participation has been “black-boxed” in theories of situated learning. While, scholars such as Ribeiro (2007, 2012, 2013) have opened the black box to look at different ways of participating or levels of participating there remains room to explore participation in situated learning. My thesis seeks to explore another aspect of participation, that is, how is access to participation negotiated? To understand this issue of LPP, it is time to focus on the treatment of access and power in the literature.
To understand how power dynamics, enable or impede access to learning opportunities (Contu and Wilmott, 2003), it is important to understand what power is. Nicolini and Monteiro (2017: 114) make a brief mention of power when they state –
‘Practices and their assemblages empower certain courses of action (and those positioned to take them) over others. Hence, no one can ever step aside from the circuits of power just as they cannot step out of the texture of practices – which is synonymous to social life (Schatzki, 2002).’
Therefore, power is always present within practices (Watson, 2016). They further equate agency to power and state that ‘the world is highly unequal as access to such agency (which means ‘power’ by any other name) is unevenly distributed’ (Nicolini & Monteiro, 2017: 114). Schatzki (2002: 191) states that agency is ‘doings’ which, in turn, makes the agency a form of action. If agency is power and action, the best place to define power stems from Foucault’s (1982) work. For Foucault (1982: 789) ‘power exists when it is put into action.’ This notion of power fits in well from a practice perspective because, like knowledge, or learning, power is not a thing or possession, it is a process. Furthermore, Foucault (1982: 790) states,
‘what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action which does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their actions: an action upon an action, on existing actions or on those which may arise in the present or the future.’
Hence power is the ability to influence the actions of others through one’s direct or indirect actions (Foucault, 1982). When this notion of power is related to agency, agency becomes the actions one can take which, in turn, influence the actions of others. Furthermore, access to agency then means access to actions that influence the actions of others. Access to agency/power determines the ability to use actions to influence the actions of others. As peripheral participants newcomers have limited access to participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), in terms of power, this is theorized as limited ability to act to influence the actions of others. This ability to act is noted by Lave and Wenger (1991: 36) when they state,
‘As a place in which one moves toward more-intensive participation, peripherality is an empowering position. As a place in which one is kept from participating more fully – often legitimately, from a broader perspective of society at large – it is a disempowering position.’
As newcomers go through the process of LPP, their ability to influence the actions of others, that is, to exercise power has the potential to increase if their peripherality changes. In turn, actions of the other members of the community influence this process which influences the actions of the newcomers in their ability to act. To understand the process of transition, then, it is important to understand how these relationships of power influence, and are influenced by, the actions of newcomers as they transition to (relative) old-timers and vice versa.
Power as a concept becomes necessary for my research because it can be linked to access to participation. Hence, drawing on Contu and Wilmott’s (2003:285) notion, learning the practice and becoming a member is significantly dependent on power dynamics that enable or impede access to learning practices. Contu & Wilmott’s (2003) critique of the situated learning theories states that while Lave and Wenger (1991) mentioned the notions of power and access, they (Lave & Wenger, 1991) did not provide a sufficiently in-depth analysis of the topic. In exploring the access element in the LPP process, this research draws on the literature on power and situated learning (Levina & Orlikowski, 2009; Contu, 2014). Hence, it follows others in the move away from COPs as homogenous entities (Contu & Wilmott, 2003; Fuller, 2007; Contu, 2014). Fox (2000: 8) perceives learning as the ‘process of local struggle’ with the self, with others and with materials.
Hislop, Newell, Scarborough & Swan (2000: 407) looked at the political nature of innovation appropriation processes and found that the ways in which formal authority was translated into actual power depended on the ‘specificities of organizational contexts’. In LPP too, the translation from formal authority to actual power depends on organizational contexts. Heizmann (2011) focuses on the issues of power struggles within knowledge sharing. Looking at organizational change Kellogg (2011) reflects on why less powerful members of organizations, even though
having access to cultural resources, do not challenge traditional practices. Her study reveals how legitimacy to participate does not guarantee that resources will be accessed or that participation will be accomplished. Kakavelakis and Edwards (2012) discuss the relationship between continuity, change and the divisions between practitioners. While there has been an increasing interest in power dynamics in the LPP process, this is most commonly articulated as the power struggles between generations of old-comers and new-timers as a means of developing new practices (Fuller, 2007).
Concerning the maritime industry, the rigidity of hierarchy within the industry also brings issues of access and power relations more to the front (Sampson, 2013). For example, Kahveci, Lane and Sampson (2001) report cases where the junior officers were unwilling to challenge the master, which led to accidents. While these studies are interested in explaining the deficiencies within the system that have resulted in a lack of a competent workforce, none have focused on how seafarers learn to become competent practitioners within the rigid hierarchical systems in which they participate. Reflecting on the practices of access negotiation involves focusing on how access is negotiated and, more importantly, access to what. It is within participation that access becomes an important analytical theme. LPP theory states that it is through access to participation, resources, and old- timers that newcomers can potentially progress from partial to full participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2002). Referring to the importance of access to the process of LPP Lave and Wenger (1991: 100) state, ‘the issue is so central to membership in communities of practice that, in a sense, all that we have said so far is about access.’ While studies mention that members negotiate participation, there has not been much said about how this negotiation of participation and access to participation takes place.
As my study takes a practice-based approach, here, the focus is on access to participation in practices. This access includes access to tools, specialist equipment, spaces, people, and networks. Access to these aspects of practice becomes crucial for the process of transition from newcomer to full participant. In previous literature, there are allusions to unequal access and what this means for participation (Contu & Wilmott, 2003; Nicolini & Monteiro, 2017). Participation enables or constrains opportunities to develop identities and practice, including ‘linguistic practices’ (Handley et al., 2007: 175). While all studies of LPP look at participation in practice, only a few have looked at different forms of participation (Ribeiro, 2007; 2012; 2013). The present study opens the black-box of participation to look at how newcomers in a COP negotiate access to participation. In doing so, it looks at the ways in which newcomers negotiate access to further participation.