The movement back from sea to shore is the third phase of the movement between sites of practice. This takes place between the two sea-service contracts and after the second sea-service contract. The cadets, at this point, have participated both in the practices at CCTC where distinctions were initially drawn and connections were made for them, and the practices on board the ship, where they learned to re-draw the previously learned distinctions through learning new ways of doing and through experiencing doing in practice. Having participated in both sites, when the cadets come back to CCTC after their sea-service contracts, they start to reflect (Schön, 1983, Jordan et al, 2009) on the connections and disconnections between sites of practice. During the third phase CCTC as a site of practice then becomes an important space for reflection as the cadets start to make new connections between the sites of practice and start perceiving the practical
training in a different way. Reflection then marks another shift in the process of transition as the dominant mode of learning during this phase switches from disconnecting to reflecting. Reflecting is only possible because of the three phases of transition – phase one and two where the cadets learn through connecting and disconnecting between sites of practice and phase three which gives them a platform for reflection. Reflection is critical for the process of transition because it allows newcomers a chance to also reflect on the drawing and redrawing of distinctions which allow for further refinement of these distinctions (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001; Seirafi, 2013). The further refinement of distinctions allows newcomers to gain a better understanding of the practices of seafaring that is required for them to know how as fuller participants.
Having experienced life at sea the cadets have realized that there are new or other ways of doing than what is being learned at the training center. As such, when the cadets come back from their sea-service, they start to reflect on the similarities and differences between their experiences at both sites. An aspect of reflecting is that they start perceiving the usefulness (or not) of the academic principles taught at CCTC by comparing their learnings at CCTC with their experiences on board. The example below shows the transition from the instructors making connections and drawing distinctions for the cadets, to the cadets starting to make the connections themselves. The interviewee notes that there is fuller comprehension of theory after coming back from sea. Having had sea-service experience, the cadet notes “everything is related to what I have experienced.” The cadet can reflect on what was learned at CCTC and what was experienced on board. Before going to the ship, the cadets do not have a sense of what is important to know and what is not. They have to take the old-timers’ (CCTC old-timers) word that what is being learned at CCTC is useful to know on board, but they able to experience the nuances of the practices of seafaring.
In this third phase, the cadets are learning technical subjects that focus on the practices of navigation, cargo handling, and management, subjects closely related to the tasks performed by officers on board. Having been on board, the cadets are able to reflect on the connections they made in the first phase about what they have to do when they become officers and what they have seen the officers do on board in the second phase. For example, when the cadet compares it to his understanding before going to sea, he states, he would “just say yes” to what they were saying because there was no frame for comparison.
I: And so, have you noticed a change in the way that you learn now that you have been to sea?
I5-C3: Yes. I can understand most of the things that they are teaching here. Everything is related to what I have experienced, and everything is absorbed, and I can fully understand what they are talking now.
I: What was it like before? Can you give me a comparison of what it was like before and after you have been to sea?
I5-C3: Well, before I get on board everything that they tell me I will just say yes, yeah, because I do not know anything about what they are talking about. I do not know the experience, the practice and everything I don’t know. However, like now that I have experienced what they are talking about if they are talking something that is not, I know that is different from what I have experienced I can relate. I can tell them; it is not something that I have learned, it is different from what we have learned so we can compare everything, the knowledge before and the knowledge from now, that kind of conversation.
The example above shows the transition that takes place in learning through movement between sites of practice. The cadet now has a frame of reference with which to compare the information given at the training center. This is noted when he states that if the instructors tell him things
that are different from his experience, he can make that comparison and tell them that there is a difference. The cadet can engage in a dialogue (Tsoukas, 2009) with the old-timers about the experiences that he has had on board, which is only possible through the movement between sites of practice. The engagement in dialogue also marks the shift in identity from being a CCTC trainee to becoming a prospective officer because during the first phase as CCTC trainees the cadets were passive listeners in the classroom agreeing with everything the instructors said. In the third phase, because of their experiences at sea they start to question the differences between what they are learning and what they have experienced. This questioning and the subsequent engagement in dialogue shows a shift in identity. Furthermore, the response of the old-timers to explain why there are differences between the practices at both sites also shows that they acknowledge the change in identity of the newcomers as legitimate peripheral participants of the practices of seafaring.
Additionally, during the third phase, the cadets start to refine previously drawn and redrawn distinctions. The drawing and re-drawing of distinctions that takes place during the first two phases of movement come together in the third phase, the cadets themselves are able to reflect on the similarities and differences and, in doing so, they are able to refine their distinctions further. This is described in the example below where the cadet notes the shift from imagining scenarios in the first phase to experiencing ‘the real thing’ in the second phase. Having both these experiences leads to the cadet having a better understanding and better imagined scenarios in the third phase.
I: And do you notice a difference in how you learn and what you learn now that you have come back from the sea?
I8-C6: Yes, definitely because especially when we tackle our lessons and the training right now I have a better understanding of what our instructors
are telling. Before I only had mere imaginations or like ideas based on what I see, what I hear or things I read in books, only those things but then after getting exposed on board to the real thing now I can appreciate more the things that we do and then I can imagine better the scenarios that take place and the benefits of the things that they teach us.
On board the ships, the cadets did not have a chance to engage in dialogues with the old-timers as to why there were differences in ways of doing, or why certain procedures were not followed per regulations, which is perhaps why disconnecting became a dominant mode of learning. During the third phase, the findings show that the cadets are now able to engage in a reflective dialogue with the old-timers. This is noted in the example below, where the cadet notes that his experience of sailing makes it easy to follow the points being made by the instructors and he could ask questions.
I10 C8: Yes, it’s easy because I already have this knowledge and if I asked them they will explain to me and I can relate more to what they’re explaining to me.
When the cadets reflect on the differences between sites of practice, they are able to engage in a dialogical process of developing new insights into practice along with the old-timers at CCTC. This process of reflecting is done through the dialogical process of developing new insights. This, in turn, allows the cadets to refine the previous distinctions.
The field notes, taken during a class on Passage Planning Techniques with Nautical Publications shows the cadets discussing the crossing of the international date-line and how retardation or advancement of time is calculated. One of the cadets, speaking from his sea-service experience notes a rule where going from the Eastern to Western Hemisphere would involve going back 24 hours. While the instructor agrees with him, another
cadet disagrees and notes that, during his sea-service contract, he experienced something different. This difference in experience then leads to a discussion on why the cadets might experience a difference in what is being taught during the class and what happens on board.
Capt O asks the class if it matters if they are moving eastwards to westwards if they are calculating tidal predictions. One of the cadets says no because they already have the time of arrival at port given to them. They are concerned with the time when they are performing the crossing and not in comparison to where they are now so they need not bother with that. When they do the eta calculation, they do need to convert all the times to UTC and then reconvert the final time to actual time at port. They calculate the eta from Prince Rupert - 8 hours to Hong Kong + 8 hours. He teaches them two ways of doing it. They don’t seem to understand the second method. One of the cadets asks him a question which they start discussing. The question is if you are going from +12 hours to UTC to -10 hours would you retard the time or advance the time. Coming from Eastern hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere crossing the date line what would you do?
One of the cadets says that he knows that a special rule applies to the international date-line. Capt O asks him what that is. The cadet says that they would have to go back 24 hours, so the date matters and not the time. Capt O agrees with him. The cadet narrates a story narrated to him by an officer where they crossed the international date-line on December 31st, so they got to celebrate New Year’s Eve twice. Another cadet disagrees and says, but they don’t use this principle to calculate in their computations on his ship. Capt O asks them what he told them. They are doing objective calculations not the progressive retarding or advancing of time as they would do on the ship. Otherwise, from Prince Rupert to Hong Kong, they would retard the time till they reached the international date-line and then advance 24 hours. One of the cadets asks why they don’t calculate it as
they would on the ship. Capt O says that on the ship they would change the time progressively. So, the captain would ask that the time is changed every 2-3 days. For Prince Rupert to Hong Kong voyage, they need to advance 16 hours in 11 days. Capt O asks them how they would respond progressively to this and still manage to get sleep. [CCTC Field Notes, Third Block]
As can be seen from the example above, the cadets are able to discuss and debate the differences of their individual sea-service experience and the way in which the calculations are done at CCTC. The cadets are working out the tides in Hong Kong. First, they have to find out the time of arrival and date of arrival Hong Kong as tidal height is a function of date and time. On board the ship, navigators use a publication called the ‘Tide Tables’, and one has to be very careful with the time calculation. As the ship is going from Prince Rupert to Hong Kong, on the way, she will cross the international date-line. This is confusing for the cadets, and they are trying to remember how it was being done on their ships. Some of them only remember progressive advance or retardation of clocks on their ship but not that the full-time difference needs to be calculated at once to get the ETA. They do not know how the navigator calculates the ETA when crossing the date-line is involved. This reemphasizes the point raised in section 4.2.1 that access to certain practices is an important aspect of the process of transition. The lack of know-how comes because the newcomers did not have access to physical immersion (Ribeiro, 2012) the practices of navigation where such calculations take place. Returning to CCTC allows them to understand these aspects of the practices of navigation that they did not get a chance to observe on board.
The example highlights another key point; the sharing of the cadets’ experiences with each other. On board the ships at Crewco, there are only one or two cadets on board, usually one deck cadet and one engineering cadet. Furthermore, due to differences in route, the number of port stops,
weather conditions and, most importantly, the community on board, means that sea-service experiences might be different for cadets on different ships. Therefore, when they return from sea-service, the cadets not only have access to the old-timer resources but to other cadets who also become important learning resources. Through sharing the differences in their experiences on board, cadets decipher that what they might experience on one ship might be different from what another cadet has experienced on their ship. These differences in shipboard experiences allow cadets to realize different ways of doing, not just between CCTC and the ship, but also between different ships, which helps further develop their understanding of the practices of seafaring. Furthermore, it is known that practitioners learn through narratives or war-stories (Orr, 1996). The sharing of different shipboard experiences is a form of the telling of war- stories. War stories or sharing narrative can be perceived as a form of reflection as well. Through telling stories, newcomers highlight what they found to be interesting or confusing, further developing an understanding of practice. As such, their participation at CCTC in the third phase allows them to reflect-in-action and reflect-on-action (Schön, 1983). They are reflecting-in-action on the differences in calculation that they are learning at CCTC now through comparing them with the ship and they are reflecting-on-action through their dialogue with each other about differences in shipboard experiences.
Overall this section has shown that in the third phase the dominant mode of learning changes from disconnecting to reflecting. Reflecting is possible only through breakdowns or changes in use (Gherardi, 2000) of the distinctions in the first two phases. This is because the cadets need to have drawn the distinctions and then redrawn those distinctions in order for them to reflect of the similarities and differences in practices at both sites. Consequently, reflecting is made possible through the disjuncture exposed through movement between sites of practice. When the cadets come back to
the training center, through sharing their experiences at sea with both the old-timers and with other cadets, they are able to reflect on their previous experiences. Additionally, the section shows that reflecting leads to the refining of distinctions because through engaging in dialogue, the cadets are able to understand the differences and similarities in ways of doing at both sites which, in turn, allows them to refine the previously drawn and re- drawn distinctions.