This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]On: 06 October 2014, At: 17:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Studies in Continuing EducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csce20

Development Engineers'Conceptions of Learning at WorkKaija CollinPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Kaija Collin (2002) Development Engineers' Conceptionsof Learning at Work, Studies in Continuing Education, 24:2, 133-152, DOI:10.1080/0158037022000020956

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158037022000020956

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 24, N o. 2, 2002

Development Engineers’ Conceptions ofLearning at WorkKAIJA COLLINOpen University, University of Jyvaskyla

ABSTRACT The purpose of the study, reported in this article is to explore developmentengineers’ and product designers’ conceptions of their learning in a work context from aprocess-oriented perspective. The empirical data consist of 6 weeks’ observations andinterviews with 18 employees in two companies in Finland. Phenomenographic analysis ofthe interviews yielded six categories of descriptions: learning through doing the work itself,learning through co-operation and interaction with colleagues, learning through the evalu-ation of work experience, learning through taking over something new, learning throughformal education and learning from extra work contexts. The results reported here suggestthat all the categories are relevant dimensions of the learning phenomenon, while theconstruction of competencies through work experience and learning as participation andcollective action will receive closer scrutiny at a subsequent stage of this research effort.

Introduction

In recent years the fundamental importance of the workplace as a site for learninghas been reasserted. Moreover, it has been evident for some time that most of thelearning that takes place at work is informal (see Benson, 1997; Watkins & Marsick,1992). Learning is seen as a natural aspect of everyday work, and work itself is seenas a rich source of learning (Darmon et al., 1998; McGill & Slocum, 1994). Studiesin the United States (Darrah, 1995) and in Japan (Koike & Inoki, 1990) havefocused on investigating the processes whereby individuals acquire skills in thecourse of their everyday work. According to these studies, high levels of skillformation can be achieved through learning on the job (see also Doornbos & Krak,2001).

The objective of the research project of which this study forms part is to examinethe kinds of practices and situations through and in which learning is assumed totake place. The aim of this study was to investigate development engineers’ andproduct designers’ conceptions of learning in the workplace. Learning is understoodhere as ubiquitous ongoing activity, though often unrecognised as such (see Lave,1993).

Ways of learning at work have previously been investigated in a few larger-scalestudies. These studies, conducted by interviews, have sought to answer such ques-tions as what is being learned at work, how learning takes place at work and whatq

ISSN 0158-037X print; 1470-126X online/02/020133-20 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0158037022000020956

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

134 K. Collin

kinds of factors affect the amount and direction of learning in the workplace (Erautet al., 1998a; Gerber, 1998a; Gerber et al., 1995). The evidence obtained from thesestudies suggests that the purpose and direction of learning at work are largelyderived from the goals set of the work itself, arising naturally out of the demands andchallenges of the job and out of social interactions in the workplace with colleaguesand clients. Learning at work sometimes involves undertaking formal training, butalmost always requires learning from experience and from other people (Boud &Miller, 1996).

A problem in the discussion concerning the study of learning at work is that it isa very complex phenomenon, which continues to lack systematic, sensibly conceptu-alised and comprehensive theorisation. It suffers from three kinds of problems: (1)the enormous diversity of work in various parallel but non-overlapping � elds ofstudy and practice; (2) terminological proliferation; and (3) variation in the meaningof the same term depending on the ideological and organisational perspective of thewriter or the speaker (Candy & Matthews, 1998).

Accordingly, there seems to be a strong need for research on the nature of learningin the workplace from such perspectives as how learning occurs, the various ways inwhich learning can be organised and controlled, and how learning in the workplaceas a learning environment can more effectively be made to meet the needs of andbene� t more people (Boud et al., 1998; Lahteenmaki et al., 1999). In particular,there is a need to examine learning at work according to how it is seen by the actorsthemselves (see, for example, Garrick, 1998, 1999). To examine learning in this waywe need more interpretative approaches, process-oriented methods and detaileddescriptions of work in natural settings, such as case studies and workplace eth-nographies (Eraut et al., 1998a; Henriksson, 1999; Karakowsky & McBey, 1999;Sandberg, 1994; Torraco, 1999). Also, discursive approaches for use in qualitativeand narrative forms of research in speci� c contexts need to be developed further(Bouwen, 1998). According to the studies cited above it is now time to focus onworking practices themselves as sites of learning. Hence the aim of this study is toexplore and describe learning on the job as perceived by development engineers. Inaddition, different conceptions of individual learning experiences at work and theinteraction in the workplace during which the meaning-making and learning pro-cesses take place, will be examined.

What is Learning at Work Like?

Learning in the workplace has been studied relatively little compared with learningin educational settings. One reason for this may be that this area of research is stillin its infancy. Learning at work has been approached, for instance, from theperspectives of organisational learning and the organisational culture (Argyris &Schon, 1996; Brown & Duguid, 1991), developmental work research (Engestrom,2001; Engestrom et al., 1995), re� ective professional practices (Marsick, 1996), andlearning as participation in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991, 1999;Wenger, 1998). It is also widely acknowledged that practising a profession in acompetent way not only requires an appropriate education but also involves learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 135

throughout one’s career (Eraut et al., 1998a; Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Thedevelopment of expertise may thus be seen as one important aim of learning at work(see, for example, Etelapelto & Light, 1999; Tynjala et al., 1997).

Despite the pluralistic nature of the research that has been done in the � eld oflearning at work, it is possible to discern a certain measure of agreement about whatcharacterises this phenomenon. Firstly, learning at work takes place informally orincidentally in relation to everyday problem solving (Argyris & Schon, 1996). Whatand how one learns is determined by circumstances, other people, innovations,discoveries and experimentation. Learning can thus be seen as a side-effect of aperson’s work-related activities (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Similarly, Garrick(1999), in his study of informal learning among HR developers, found that local andcontext-bound power relationships form the locus of informal learning in work-places. Learning seemed to be constructed discursively, through work-based com-munication and symbolic patterns of behaviour, i.e. it is subjected to the discoursescirculating about the job itself.

Secondly, learning at work is experiential. For workers this means, for instance,that working and learning are dif� cult to separate from each other. The objective ofthe worker’s activity is not to learn but to work and do the job. Learning isembedded in everyday problem-solving situations (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993),in the accumulation of competencies, in learning through mistakes and in interactivenegotiations with colleagues. The Japanese theory proposed by Nonaka andTakeuchi (1995), for example, describes the process of knowledge production asgoing hand in hand with the experiential learning of a team, group or organisation.They emphasise the role of “tacit knowledge” in organisations and the importanceof turning this implicit knowledge into more explicit ways of knowing at the groupand organisational levels.

Thirdly, learning at work is context bound, that is, the nature of learning in theworkplace as situated and negotiated is widely accepted nowadays (e.g. Brown et al.,1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). In speci� c contexts, through interac-tion, people create common interpretations and meanings, for instance aboutlearning or competencies (Billet, 1998; Henriksson, 1999). Competence can beneither separated from the context in which the performance is expected to occurnor transferred from one context to another (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Ellstrom,1997; Orr, 1996; Sandberg, 2000; Torraco, 1999). From the context point of view,learning at work can also be seen as participation in communities of practice (seeLave & Wenger, 1991). Communities of practice are described as dualistic systemsof participation (membership and interaction) and rei� cation (instruments, docu-ments, forms and points of focus created in a community), which determine, on theone hand, the interaction of the world and the experience of the action in the worldand, on the other, how meanings produced by the culture are negotiated (Wenger,1998). The learning context is stressed, for example, in Osterlund’s (1996) observa-tional study, which suggested that salesmen learned to direct, elaborate and adjusttheir participation in multiple contexts. Osterlund calls for learning to be seen asembedded in socially situated structures of ongoing practice and across the contextsof practices. Accordingly, organisational culture, the work itself and the role of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

136 K. Collin

colleagues may determine what is learned and what is possible to learn (see alsoKarakowsky & McBey, 1999).

Learning at work may also be approached through the activity theory developedby Engestrom (e.g. 2001). His basic unit of analysis is the activity system, meaningthe complex interrelations between the individual and different groups or communi-ties in the workplace connected by the division of labour and by established rulesand procedures. Engestrom and his colleagues (1995) analyse learning at work ascrossing boundaries between various contexts, as in the case of those inside anactivity system or between systems themselves. In his more recent work (2001), hehas described a new approach to the concept of expansive learning, which problema-tises the fact that in organisational practices we are required to learn new forms ofactivity which are not yet in place. Engestrom argues that the depiction of learningas vertical processes aimed at higher levels of competence is inadequate. A comple-mentary process, horizontal or sideways learning and development, also needs to beconstructed and both these processes taken into account in analysing learning atwork. Consequently, the primary aim of this initial study is to � nd out whichelements or features best describe employees’ experiences concerning learning in theworkplace.

Conceptions of learning have mainly been studied in formal education contexts,and phenomenographic analyses have focused on people’s conceptions of whatlearning is (see, for example, Marton et al., 1993). The phenomenographic approachis concerned with the qualitatively different ways in which people experience orthink about various phenomena (Marton, 1988). Phenomenographic studies havealso focused on knowledge and concept formation in various domains, includingstudents’ conceptions at various educational levels and systems in formal as well asinformal settings (see, for example, Boulton-Lewis et al., 2000; Johansson et al.,1985; Linder & Erickson, 1989; Pillay & Boulton-Lewis, 2000; Tynjala, 1997). Incontrast, relatively few studies have been conducted outside the formal learningcontexts. One such example is Sandberg’s (1994) phenomenographic analysis ofhuman competence at work (Sandberg, 1994, 2000). He concludes from his analysisthat it is the meaning work takes on for workers in their experience of it, rather thana speci� c set of attributes, that constitutes competence at work. In the present study,phenomenographic analysis is utilised to � nd out what engineers’ initial conceptionsof learning are prior to investigating some of them in greater depth at a later date.

Aims of the Study

The primary aim of the present research project, of which this study forms the � rstphase, is to investigate development engineers’ and product designers’ learning inthe course of their work. In this study, engineers’ and designers’ conceptions of howlearning takes place at work are identi� ed. In view of the increasing interest beingshown in the work and expertise of symbolic analysts in identifying, solving andbrokering problems, engineers and designers in this � eld have been chosen as thesubjects of the study. In fact, the number of ill-de� ned occupations is on theincrease (see Reich, 1991), which means that the demands for development and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 137

learning in these domains will assume even more importance in the future (Ete-lapelto, 1998). The purpose of this study is to answer the following question: Whatkinds of conceptions do engineers have of learning at work?

Study Design

The empirical data for this ethnographic study are based on observations andinterviews conducted in two high-tech companies in central Finland. Two groups ofworkers (n 5 18) were observed and interviewed in spring and autumn 2000,respectively. In both companies the observations were carried out for 6 weeks, afterwhich the interviews were conducted. The workers, all male, ranged from 22 to 58years of age. Thirteen of them had been educated as engineers and three astechnicians, and two of them had a university degree. Five of the participants hadmore than 20 years of work experience and at least 10 years of experience in design.Four were employed in a supervisory role (team leaders) and had at least 10 yearsof work experience. The remainder had 1–5 years of design experience and, in a fewcases only, very limited experience in the company in which they were currentlyworking.

One of the two companies investigated is an international supplier of industrialworkstations and � exible production systems (n 5 8), while the other providesservices to electronics manufacturing (n 5 10). In both of these � elds, job domainsare typically ill de� ned. The employees in both enterprises work under the title ofproduct designer or development engineer in a product development and designteam. These jobs involve many different tasks and require competencies in variousareas. As Jaikumar and Bohn (1992) point out, in today’s manufacturing environ-ment, knowledge of procedures is incomplete, problematic situations change con-stantly and solutions are typically of short duration. Designing and producingproducts tailored to customers’ needs means facing unexpected and challengingsituations every day. To be bene� cial, work needs to be done co-operatively by bothusers and designers (see also Bodker & Gronbaek, 1996). The best possiblesolutions to customers’ needs must be sought individually, usually with only littlereference to past cases.

In this study, the purpose of the observations was to describe the work setting andcontext, the situations in which learning is assumed to take place, and how thepeople involved see their actions and those of others (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998;Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). Everyday practices and situations, and ways ofdealing with them, become more visible through observations. By contrast, themeanings attached to experiences in working contexts can be obtained only frominterviews. The purpose of the interviews was, thus, to understand the subjects’actions by obtaining information about the meanings given to learning in the worksetting (Kvale, 1996). Consequently, the interview and � eld data were combined, toenable better sense to be made of the one through the other (Silverman, 1993.)

The study design is described in Fig. 1. The conceptions of learning obtained willfunction as the basis for the later stages in the project in which conceptions thatdeserve closer scrutiny will be studied. Thus, the second stage will examine the ways

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

138 K. Collin

FIG. 1. Study design.

perceived by the designers as the most effective and meaningful for learning at work.In the � rst stage, the construction of competencies through working, doing andexperiencing will provide the � rst theme of interest to be followed by further analysisof the descriptions of learning as participation in different working contexts wherethe spotlight will be on collective learning processes.

Methods

It is worth noting that the method of analysis adopted in this study is morecommonly used for the purpose of describing learning in formal learning contexts(see, for example, Marton, 1988, 1994; Marton et al., 1993; Tynjala, 1997).However, the present focus of analysis is the same as that in studies conducted, forinstance, in schools where conceptions of learning are reported by the learnersthemselves. It can be argued, therefore, that the method is applicable also toinformal contexts of learning, for instance at work. It is also worth noting that whilethe analysis conducted here is not a phenomenographic analysis, it is neverthelessbased on phenomenographic principles.

The themes taken up in the interviews were tasks currently being worked on, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 139

competencies needed in design work, challenging situations at work, the organisa-tional atmosphere and culture of the workplace, and learning at work. The em-ployees were asked questions such as: Tell me about your current job. What kindsof competencies are needed in order to meet the challenges of your everyday job?Where have they come from? How do you feel you learn at work? Describe achallenging or problematic situation at work. How did you solve the problem? Whatdid you learn? All the employees were interviewed individually for approximately1

1

2–21

2 hours. They were informed that the purpose of the interview was to sup-plement the observations conducted earlier and to � nd out about their experiencesand conceptions of learning at work. The employees were told to answer thequestions on the basis of their own experiences and it was emphasised that therewere no “right answers”. Owing to the congenial atmosphere created during theobservation period, it was assumed that the interviewees were inclined to be honest.Thus, a common interpretative space for the discussions was created (see Kvale,1996).

According to Marton (1994), in conducting an interview of this kind too manyquestions should not be made up beforehand, nor should too many details bedetermined in advance. Rather, the point is to establish the phenomenon asexperienced and to explore the different aspects of the experience jointly and as fullyas possible. Consequently, it was possible to ask the subject to come up withinstances of the phenomenon in question, such as examples of learning situations inwhich both interviewee and interviewer had been present. A concrete case couldusually be found as a point of departure and the researcher then asked the subjectto re� ect on the situation or problem and his way of dealing with it. Many of thedesigners also stated that the interview offered an uncommon opportunity to re� ecton their work and their learning in the course of it.

For the analysis 18 interviews were recorded, each of which produced approxi-mately 20 pages of text transcription. Multiple methods of analysis were used,although this article deals only with the phenomenographic analysis carried out asdescribed by Marton (e.g. 1988, 1994; Uljens, 1989). Firstly, utterances relating tothe topic in hand, that is, how learning takes place at work, were picked out.According to the principles of phenomenographic analysis, attention was thenshifted from the individual subjects to the meanings embedded in the utterances,regardless of whether these meanings originated from the same individuals. Thus,the interviews were handled as a whole to extract “a pool of meanings” and readrepeatedly. After the initial selection process they were more closely examined inorder to assign utterances having a similar meaning into preliminary categories.After this, a more detailed analysis was carried out in terms of core meanings andborderline cases between categories. This analysis established the � nal descriptivecategories and, in some cases, subcategories. The entire analytical process wascarried out by the author. To establish the reliability of the analysis all the intervie-wees were asked to re� ect on the results and say whether the categories capturedtheir opinion about how they perceive learning at work. The variety of interviewees’conceptions of learning at work and examples from the transcripts will be describednext. The results are summarised in Fig. 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

140 K. Collin

FIG. 2. Categories of descriptions and the number of expressions in each category.

Results

The analyses of the 18 interviews yielded a great variety of themes on the topic oflearning at work. The purpose of this article is to report on the analysis of thosedescriptions that dealt with learning processes at work. As a result of the phe-nomenographic analysis, six different categories of description were identi� ed: (1)learning through doing the job itself, (2) learning through co-operating and interact-ing with colleagues, (3) learning through evaluating work experiences, (4) learningthrough taking over something new, (5) learning through formal education, and (6)learning through extra-work contexts.

It is important to note that the categories of descriptions found in this analysis donot form as strict a hierarchy as is usually the case in studies conducted phenomeno-graphically (e.g. Marton et al., 1993). One may question whether it is even possibleto locate such a hierarchy in conceptions of learning in work contexts where learningmay be taken up in various forms and where a shared understanding of thephenomenon itself does not yet exist (see, for example, Ashworth & Lucas, 1998).In addition, this analysis focused on descriptions of “how” learning occurs at work,and not “what” is learned at work. Although these “what” descriptions also occur inthe six categories, they were included in these broader “how” categories. Forexample, “learning through formal education” often included a description of what

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 141

had been learnt at school and how it could be applied at work. In the sense oflearning in a work context, “how” and “what” questions are often inseparable. It isalso important to notice that phenomenographic research deals with people’s under-standing of various phenomena, as expressed in their discourse. Phenomenographiccategories do not distinguish types of individuals, which is why an individual mayreport more than one conception of learning at work, as is the case here. Examplesof each descriptive category and subcategory will be presented next.

(1) Learning through Doing the Job Itself

Expressions belonging to this general category were found in all the interviews. Morespeci� cally, learning was perceived as taking place in real everyday problem-solvingsituations. Problem solving provides an opportunity to learn, for instance, aboutcurrent procedures and tools. Learning by doing includes the various ways ofunderstanding one’s work situations and the frames determined by the task one isperforming. This can be done by observing and modelling other people andcolleagues at work:

You just have to start drawing, acting, making offers, talking with salesmenon the phone, trying to discuss real problems and all kinds of thingsconcerning those problems … through actions like these you learn. (G2/43)

This category also includes understanding the nature of the competencies andknowledge needed to accomplish speci� c tasks and knowing of other employees whopossess this knowledge. In addition, this conception of learning seemed to be verycontext dependent; that is, only those things needed to perform the task will belearned:

And of course the job itself teaches the worker and if you have beeninvolved in all sorts of projects you would start … you start learning that Ipersonally will need this information or this piece of information must begiven to someone else who is working with this problem in order to meetthe challenge posed by that speci� c task in the � rst place. (S10/12)

(2) Learning through Co-operation and Interaction with Colleagues

Learning through co-operation and interaction was the most usual way of describinglearning at work. This category includes asking for advice, listening, having discus-sions, considering issues in teams and at meetings, consulting colleagues andlearning from their experiences. Stress was laid on the importance of not being leftto cope alone with ill-de� ned situations at work. Instead, it is always possible to askother people for help. The importance of negotiation and discussion arises out of thetesting of one’s own ideas and from the desire to choose the best possible solutionfrom among the various options. To observe and listen to experienced workers wasperceived as a very valuable way of learning:

It is also very nice when you can ask someone else’s opinion of something,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

142 K. Collin

“what do you think of this” … I have discussed things many times withXX … how he perceives the situation and how it could be dealt with … thatyou are not left alone to decide how it will be done, that you can � ndsupport for your own opinion or your colleague expresses his or heropinion and then we negotiate over the best way to do it. (G8/8)

Sometimes I talk with older, more experienced designers. In discussionswith these people you can get useful information, insights and knowledgeand you try to connect these new insights to something … in discussionsyou can get knowledge … it just appears mysteriously. (S5/12)

For years it has been my practice to seek the company of people who havemore knowledge and skills than I have, because you can always learnsomething from them … especially things that would take too much time tolearn alone, and I see the working environment as one of the mostimportant domains … more experienced workers should act as “spiritualleaders” who work in projects setting an example to younger workers.Those with more experience have enough knowledge and competence thatyounger people can learn from … they can guide younger workers to asource of information … or if younger workers cannot � nd the informationthey need, it can be sought together. (S10/10)

(3) Learning through Evaluating Work Experiences

This evaluative view of learning was also very commonly expressed. Three subcate-gories emerged: learning through one’s own work experience (3a), learning frommistakes (3b), and learning through the accumulation of experiences and competen-cies (3c). It was typical of this category that the resources for learning were locatedin past experience. Solutions and errors could be used to advantage in modellingnew solutions. As a result of learning processes like these, subconsciously modi� edcompetence or expertise could be accumulated.

(3a) Learning through one’s own work experiences. This was a very common way ofanalysing one’s learning. Previous experience can be brought to bear on new orsimilar situations at work. One can remember knowledge and feelings relating todifferent solutions and situations which can help in new situations. Totally new ideasare often based on the harnessing of former experiences to new practices andsituations. At its most inclusive, this store of experiences may involve other areas oflife, and for this reason it might be called life experience:

Next time you face a totally new situation or a case similar to former cases,past experiences help, you can apply them … from this past experience youare left with little pieces of information, feelings and suchlike … somehowthese things remain in your head and next time you are able to handle thecase better. (G4/5)

If one faced a similar situation in the future, it would be easier … one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 143

would know what to do … you see, you already have solved such problemsbefore and they are clear to you … there would be no need to think how.(G8/6)

But naturally new ideas are at any case based on former experiencestoo … you have sometimes experienced this or gone through the samekinds of things … as if you can get an insight somewhere even though it hasalready been there (in the head) for a while … the basic idea must comeinto your head from somewhere, it is only that you have to try to dig it out.That is the way I feel about it. Someone has told you about it sometimes,or you have read about it, perhaps, or you have worked with that kind ofproblem before yourself. (S9/11)

(3b) Learning from mistakes. In this view, “good” mistakes are especially effectivesources of learning. Mistakes made earlier help, for instance, in remembering tocarry out regular checks. The effectiveness of learning from mistakes has an emotivebasis: it is unpleasant to receive negative feedback:

The bending of sheet plate … can be learned through trial and er-ror … when you get “feedback” from the factory and drawings marked witha red pencil often enough, then you learn … When you have to listen to themachine operator yelling at you a few times, you learn all right. (G6/12)

Making mistakes causes delays, which in turn cause dissatisfaction to employers andcustomers (e.g. costs). Other colleagues will often have to deal with these mistakes.At worst, a colleague may encounter them later in other situations and will have toremedy them:

So you see, you can learn by doing and by noticing that mistakes are madeand with a help of these mistakes you can learn to avoid making the samemistakes again and again … you get a sense of proportion. (S7/7)

(3c) Learning through the accumulation of experiences and competencies. Learning inthis category is acquired through repeated problem solving in different situationsand getting to know more about the job:

But it will become routine … these cases will be repeated. (G4/8)

You just notice that through some particular routes you can achieve abetter result … and you get to know more and more about these things.(S1/17)

In this kind of learning neither the time nor place for learning can be located, northe depth of the learning process recognised. The accumulation of competenciesresembles more the result of a learning process, and it takes place subconsciously:

It depends on … how radical the learning is and how radically it changesyou at the time … what is so important that it will be learned even withoutnoticing it … you just realise it later, perhaps. (G4/14)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

144 K. Collin

(4) Learning through Taking Over Something New

This category of description was characterised by a forward orientation. The aim isto resolve whole new problems or tasks, which are not necessarily solvable byreference to former cases or by asking colleagues. Ways of resolving them are foundin acquiring new information, considering various options, experimenting, develop-ing fresh ideas, that is, acting creatively, producing something new. The creativeprocess may be emotionally demanding, usually takes time, and the worker’s faith ineventually � nding a solution may be weakened. Six different subcategories of thisview were found:

(4a) Learning through � nding out. The conceptions belonging to this subcategorystressed that designing new products requires a continuous search for new knowl-edge and gaining familiarity with new issues. In this process former experiences arenot necessarily of any use. Since continuous learning is dif� cult, � nding themotivation to meet new challenges was seen as of special importance by theengineers. They perceived success at work to be rewarding as well as giving them thestrength to face the next challenge. One noteworthy difference exists betweencategories 4a and 4c. The employees perceived “Learning through � nding out” asmore dif� cult and more laborious than “innovating and discovering”, while theyperceived the latter as more inspiring and satisfying:

This XX programming is quite new even for me … so you � nd yourselftrying time after time to discover how new things are being done, since youhave no information or former experience about how it could be done.(S3/1)

After thinking around a problem for a while the right answers will be foundsooner or later … in manuals and on the internet you may � nd a few similarcases or examples which help. (S3/11)

(4b) Eureka-experiences from the subconscious. Conscious action is not always neededto solve problems; instead, the solutions may appear subconsciously. There is no setplace or time for discoveries of this kind:

The interesting thing is that these ideas don’t come into your mind whenyou are thinking about them during the day (working hours); instead, theydon’t come until late in the evening or early in the morning when itsuddenly appears to you that something must be done in a totally differentway or the other way around; you notice a mistake which you have made.These must be written down as soon as possible. It is strange how ideascome in this way. (G8/6)

(4c) Innovating/discovering/thinking. This description of the learning process atwork includes conscious consideration and working in a team and alone, sometimesto a tight timetable. Problems may be caused by the fact that the product is whollynew. Nonetheless, this is perceived as a challenging, rewarding and effective way of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 145

learning. This kind of learning typically involves the use of items (e.g. measuringdevises) or a search for channels through which information can be obtained. Thedifference between categories 4a and 4c is that this “innovating” is not perceived tobe as laborious as “learning through � nding out”:

The dif� culty is that you don’t know it already … you don’t know how toact in some cases or how to do something … you have absolutely no ideaabout the particular case … that makes it dif� cult … it must be dug outfrom all over the place and sometimes too much time is spent � nding outlittle things. (S3/12)

It is complicated on a job like product development because no completeproduct exists yet. The new product must be, like, drawn in theair … trying to visualise the idea of the product and tell people what will bethe most important phases … the new product will not come into existenceuntil during the development process … that is why I understand that they(younger workers) need a holistic sense of the process, because I need it atevery moment. (S10/13)

(4d) Applying and connecting theoretical and practical knowledge (knowledge as atool). This subcategory concerns the conception of the relation between the theor-etical and experiential. The � rst example indicates the important role of criticalre� ection in the relation between the theoretical and the experiential:

I think theoretical things are important issues, they support your doing.The theoretical basics must be understood … and if they are profoundlyunderstood there is always a possibility of understanding new things aswell. To learn something new you need some kind of base through whichthe new can be learned and understood … theory and practice supporteach other very well … for example, there are many theories which I havecompletely understood by analysing them through practice … (S10/8)

Theoretical knowledge is seen as a working tool, which can be applied:

Work is based on education … things learned at school can be applied atwork. At least, I have been trying to apply what I learned at school … notalways trying to discover something supposedly new all by myself. (S9/3)

(4e) Experimenting. Sometimes the designers reported that the only way of gettingforward is through incidental experimentation, which from time to time may lead tosuccess:

Since nobody knows anything about a thing, that’s why everything takes solong … you just have to experiment time and again. (S3/17)

This category is connected to the category of “learning from mistakes” in thatwithout risking something there is no opportunity to learn either. On the other hand,there is always the risk of failure:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

146 K. Collin

But in this � eld, if you don’t have the kind of madness to experiment andto take the risk of failing … I think the most important thing here is thecourage to experiment and also take responsibility for your mistakes. (S4/2)

(4f) Creating. Creativity was usually needed in development work where solutionshad to be designed and created as if out of nowhere:

You have to believe or know that we are going to manage this … you haveto know the means of making a product … how would I putthis … creativity … as if you can get something ready. … You can say thatI or we together made this product. (S10/2)

(5) Learning through Formal Education

In this category education was perceived as a foundation for learning at work. It wasconsidered that without any technical education one couldn’t learn anything new atwork. The ability to search for information in the right places and to know aboutbasic methods and various tools was the outcome of formal education:

You can’t get along without a technical education … you have to have aspecial way of thinking to do this job … you must be capable of thinkingabout technical issues in a speci� c way and, in addition, to know where to� nd the information you need. (G3/6)

It was worth noticing, however, that the more experienced the worker, the more hereported the work itself to be an important or meaningful site for learning. The valueof formal education seemed to fade with time:

You are in� uenced by school somehow, but you can only use about 10%of what you learned there in our work, perhaps … you don’t get a veryprofound understanding until your � rst job … and until you start to thinkabout the job from your own point of view. (S4/4)

(6) Learning from Contexts Outside Work

Comments in his category of description stressed that learning also takes placeoutside the workplace or school. Interests, “benchmarking”, trade fairs, friends andclients were identi� ed as contexts of learning outside the workplace. Three differentsubcategories were identi� ed:

(6a) Interest in technical matters. Some workers expressed an interest in all kinds oftechnical or technical matters, many of which they may already have been interestedin as children. This unde� ned interest in the technical was called “a technical wayof thinking”. The following example is typical:

Well, many ideas originated from my hobbies with cars and motorcycleswhich I have built all of my life … every now and then I develop self-made

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 147

components for cars … and something of that is also being applied here (atthe workplace) in a way … I think most of my ideas are connected to myhobbies in some way or other … you might suddenly remember for in-stance a lever in a car which could be applied here. (G5/17)

(6b) Benchmarking. Knowledge about the suitability of various procedures andprocesses used in other occupational � elds was seen as especially valuable fordesigners. Experiences across � elds can be exchanged in discussions with clients andon courses. Both of these can be helpful in problem-solving:

But, on courses you make useful contacts with other people … talking withcolleagues in the same � eld (or very different � elds) about their experi-ences, similar problems to theirs … and sometimes it is possible to getsome good tools for this kind of work too. (S8/12)

(6c) Trade fairs, friends, clients and customers as a source of learning. Important piecesof information about good or poor solutions can be obtained from trade fairs orclients. From poor solutions one can learn to avoid making similar mistakes in thefuture:

Well, the ideas mostly come from the fairs we have visited … it does nothave to be in our … I mean, it does not need to be industrial furniture … itmight for instance be a separator in which you can � nd new ideas whichcould be used and applied here … also in magazines or lea� ets you cansometimes � nd something usable … it does not need to be directly relatedto our products, instead, it is useful when it is applicable to our productsin some way. (G8/7)

Discussion

Despite the fact that the phenomenon of learning in the workplace is becoming ofincreasing interest and has been studied from various perspectives, there remains aneed to examine the nature of learning in the workplace from the point of view ofworkers themselves. The aim of this study was to analyse product designers’ anddevelopment engineers’ learning at work by investigating their conceptions oflearning.

Six different conceptions of learning at work emerged, ranging from learningthrough performing the work itself to learning with the help of contexts external tothe workplace. Learning was most frequently described as the outcome of theevaluation of one’s work experiences and of co-operation and interaction withcolleagues. These are in line with the results of previous extensive surveys (e.g. Erautet al., 1998a; Gerber, 1998a; Gerber et al., 1995), which indicate learning asemerging out of the demands and challenges of the job and out of social interactionsin the workplace with colleagues, clients and customers. As Valkeavaara (2001)found in her study of Human Resource Development (HRD) practitioners’ careerstories, there is a clear need for interaction with the forums in which new knowledge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

148 K. Collin

can be acquired and interpretations of practical experiences shared. The informalnature (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Marsick & Watkins,1992) of learning and learning through everyday problem solving was also reportedby employees as the most usual way of learning at work. The results yielded a varietyof other conceptions of learning in work contexts. This does not imply, however,that some of the less frequent can be ignored; rather, they may all prove to berelevant dimensions of the learning phenomenon. In addition, while learning pro-cesses, according to the results, take place in the present, the resources for learningare located in past experiences, in previous solutions to problems or in mistakesmade earlier in the career. In some cases, however, a dimension oriented to thefuture was also reported. This dimension involves experimentation, hard investiga-tive work and creativity (see, for example, Engestrom, 2001). Finally, the role ofaffect should not be forgotten as an important aspect of learning.

A phenomenographic approach was adopted in carrying out this investigation. Asthe starting point for a broader research project, phenomenographic analysis wasused here to identify employees’ primary conceptions of their learning at work. Inaddition, despite basing the analysis on the question “How does learning takeplace?”, responses concerning “what is learned” were also taken into account. Theresulting conceptualisation thus comprises both “what” and “how” components.The six categories of description can be seen as hierarchically ordered to some extentbut due to the nature of this preliminary analysis this should be seen as tentativeonly. It was not possible to constitute a strictly hierarchical system, as seems to bethe case in many phenomenographic studies (see, for example, Marton et al., 1993).For example, Ashworth and Lucas (1998) argue that the hierarchically and logicallyrelated categories may not necessary be the most appropriate way of thematisingtypes of conceptions. They argue that this may lead to an unwarranted emphasis onthe “authorised conceptions”, while other conceptions are merely deviations fromthe ideal. Further, as is typical of a phenomenographic study, it does not aim toidentify types of individual but ways of understanding the phenomena.

The categories of description arrived at are based on the formulations that emergein the interview but at the same time are differentiated from and partly independentof these formulations (Svensson, 1997). One can ask, however, whether the concep-tions elicited in interviews can be considered at all as conceptions about learning ingeneral. Rather, they tell only of the interpretations expressed during the interviewsthemselves. The most often described method of establishing the reliability ofphenomenographic analysis, interjudge agreement, was not used here (Sandberg,1997). Instead, the interviewees themselves were asked to read the author’s interpre-tations. All the participants were asked to re� ect on the results and to say whichcategories they recognised and which categories described their conceptions oflearning especially well. This was conducted via e-mail. Altogether 10 answers werereceived, while 2 of the18 interviewees could not be reached. All of the respondentsagreed that every category described their experiences of learning at work to someextent. Although their comments were very general, there was special agreementabout categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. For instance, the engineers described learning astaking place through knowledge acquired from tasks already completed and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 149

with the help of this experience experimenting and creating new solutions. Also,everyday communication with colleagues (described in category 2) was found to bea very important basis for problem solving over a wide range of problems. Thus, theinterpretations of the author can be seen as parallel to those of the intervieweesthemselves. However, as researchers we can never escape from our own interpreta-tions in the research process.

On the basis of the results, learning as the construction of one’s competenciesthrough work experiences as well as seeing learning as a participative and collectiveprocess will be explored more closely at later stages of this project. This will beconducted through a narrative analysis of employees’ experiences of their learning atwork, and through ethnographic case analysis describing concrete working situationswhere participative and collective learning takes place. The richness and naturalnessof individuals ’ descriptions will be captured with the help of ethnographic analysis,which is better able to retain variation in experiences than pehnomenography (seeMarton, 1988). As Saljo (1997) has stated, the experiential accounts given byindividuals in interviews are grounded in discursive patterns, and researchers tend toconnect the utterances collected from interviews with experiences rather thandiscourse, even though it is the latter that is in fact being analysed. He also calls foralternative interpretations of the functional mechanisms of why people talk the waythey do. Thus, these criticisms of the object of phenomenographic analysis may bemet in the forthcoming analysis by connecting the observations and interviews tonarrative and ethnographic interpretations. In addition, observation and interviewsas an integrated method will offer the study a more powerful source of validationthan any primary method (Adler & Adler, 1998.)

Though this study was conducted only in the limited contexts of product design-ers’ and development engineers’ work, these results also give a vague picture oflearning processes in other work contexts, as understood by the actors themselves.However, it would be premature to draw conclusions about how learning is per-ceived in other contexts, since learning is assumed to relate to the aims, tasks andcontext of the work itself (see, for example, Collin et al., 2001). The results couldat least be used as a framework for understanding the nature of learning amongdesigners. The study is clearly of bene� t to the employers of the two organisationsin question in so far as it gives them information about their employees’ experiencesand conceptions of learning which will enable them to focus future HRD efforts inareas that could more effectively meet the needs of more people in their workplaces.On the other hand, the employees themselves have had the opportunity to re� ect ontheir own understanding of their work and learning in performing it. In the future,increased emphasis will be placed on the role of working life as a site of learning, andthus there will be an increasing need to understand the processes of work-basedlearning, especially in vocational education. The results of this study may thus alsobene� t efforts to achieve co-operation between formal education and working life.

Address for correspondence: Kaija Collin, Institute for Educational Research, Univer-sity of Jyvaskyla, PO Box 35, 40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

150 K. Collin

References

ADLER, P.A. & ADLER, P. (1998). Observational techniques. In N.K. DENZIN & Y.S. LINCOLN

(Eds), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 79–109). London: Sage.ARGYRIS, C. & SCHON, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.ASHWORTH, P. & LUCAS, U. (1998). What is the “world” of phenomenography? Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415–431.BENSON, G. (1997). Informal learning takes off. Training & Development, 51(5), 93–95.BEREITER, C. & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature of expertise.

Chicago: Open Court.BILLET, S. (1998). Understanding workplace learning: cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. In

D. BOUD (Ed.), Current issues and new agendas in workplace learning (pp. 47–68). Spring� eld,VA: NCVER.

BODKER, S. & GRONBAEK, K. (1996). Users and designers in mutual activity: An analysis ofcooperative activities in system design. In Y. ENGESTROM & D. MIDDLETON (Eds), Cognitionand communication at work (pp. 130–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BOUD, D., FREELAND, J., HAWKE, G. & MCDONALD, R. (1998). More strategic, more critical, moreevaluative: Perspectives on research into workplace learning and assessment. In D. BOUD

(Ed.), Current issues and new agendas in workplace learning (pp. 136–150). Spring� eld, VA:NCVER.

BOUD, D. & MILLER, N. (1996). Synthesising traditions and identifying themes in learning fromexperience. In D. BOUD & N. MILLER (Eds), Working with experience (pp. 9–18). London:Routledge.

BOULTON-LEWIS, G.M., MARTON, F., LEWIS, D.C. & WILSS, L.A. (2000). Learning in formal andinformal contexts: conceptions and strategies of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanderuniversity students. Learning and Instruction 10, 393–414.

BOUWEN, R. (1998). Relational construction of meaning in emerging organization contexts.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 299–319.

BROWN, J.S., COLLINS, A. & DUGUID, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

BROWN, J.S. & DUGUID, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Towarda uni� ed view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

CANDY, P. & MATTHEWS, J. (1998). Fusing learning and work: Changing conceptions of work-place learning. In D. BOUD (Ed.), Current issues and new agendas in workplace learning(pp. 9–30). Spring� eld, VA: NCVER.

COLLIN, K., TYNJALA, P. & VALKEAVAARA, T. (2001). Three perspectives on learning in the workplace:Employees, students and HRD-practitioners. Poster presentation at the Second Conference onResearching Work and Learning, Calgary, Canada.

DARMON, I., HADJIVASSILOU, K., SOMMERLAD, E., STERN, E., TURTSIN, J. WITH DANAU, D. (1998).Continuing vocational training: Key issues. In F. COFFIELD (Ed.), Learning at work (pp. 23–36). Bristol: Policy Press.

DARRAH, C. (1995). Workplace training, workplace learning: A case study. Human Organization,54(1), 31–41.

DENZIN, N.K. & LINCOLN, Y.S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. London: Sage.DOORNBOS, A.J. & KRAK, A.J. (2001). Learning processes and outcomes at the workplace. A

qualitative research study. In J.N. STREUMER (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Conference onHRD Research and Practice across Europe (pp. 53–63). Enschede: University of Twente.

ELLSTROM, P.-E. (1997). Many meanings of occupational competence and quali� cation. In A.BROUN (Ed.), Promoting vocational education and training: European perspectives (pp. 47–58).Hameenlinnan Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Ammattikasvatussarja 17.

ENGESTROM, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptual-ization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conceptions of Learning at Work 151

ENGESTROM, Y., ENGESTROM, R. & KARKKAINEN, R. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundarycrossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities.Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336.

ERAUT, M., ALDERTON, J., COLE, G. & SENKER, P. (1998a). Learning from other people at work.In F. COFFIELD (Ed.), Learning at work (pp. 37–48). Bristol: Policy Press.

ERAUT, M., ALDERTON, J., COLE, G. & SENKER, P. (1998b). Development of knowledge and skills inemployment. Final report of a research project funded by “The Learning Society” Pro-gramme of the Economic and Social Research Council, University of Sussex.

ETELAPELTO, A. (1998). The development of expertise in information system design. JyvaskylaStudies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 146. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.

ETELAPELTO, A. & LIGHT, P. (1999). Contextual knowledge in the development of designexpertise. In J. BLISS, P. LIGHT & R. SALJO (Eds), Learning sites: Social and technologicalresources for learning (pp. 155–164). Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier.

GARRICK, J. (1998). Informal learning in corporate workplaces. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 9(2), 129–144.

GARRICK, J. (1999). Doubting the philosophical assumptions of interpretive research. InternationalJournal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(2), 147–158.

GERBER, R. (1998). How do workers learn in their work? The Learning Organization, 5(4),168–175.

GERBER, R., LANKSHEAR, C., LARSSON, S. & SVENSSON, L. (1995). Self-directed learning in a workcontext. Education 1 Training, 37(8), 26–32.

HAMMERSLEY, M. & ATKINSON, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.HENRIKSSON, K. (1999). The collective dynamics of organisational learning. Lund Studies in Eco-

nomics and Management 49. Lund: Lund University Press.JAIKUMAR, R. & BOHN, R.E. (1992). A dynamic approach to operations management: An alterna-

tive to static optimization. International Journal of Production Economics, 27, 265–282.JOHANSSON, B., MARTON, F. & SVENSSON, L. (1985). An approach to describing as change between

qualitatively different conceptions. In L. WEST & A. PINES (Eds), Cognitive structure andconceptual change (pp. 233–257). Orlando: Academic Press.

KARAKOWSKY, L. & MCBEY, K. (1999). The lessons of work: Toward an understanding of theimplications of the workplace for adult learning and development. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 11(6), 192–201.

KOIKE, K. & INOKI, T. (1990). Skill formation in Japan and Southeast Asia. Tokyo: TokyoUniversity Press.

KVALE, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.LAHTEENMAKI, S., MATTILA, M. & TOIVONEN, J. (1999). Being critical on organisational learning

research—Towards developing a measure. In S. LAHTEENMAKI, L. HOLDEN & I. ROBERTS

(Eds), HRM and the learning organisation (pp. 17–48). Turku: Publications of Turku Schoolof Economics and Business Administration, Series A-2.

LAVE, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. CHAIKLIN & J. LAVE (Eds), Understanding practice.Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. (1999). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. InR. MCGORMICK & C. PAECHTER (Eds), Learning & knowledge (pp. 21–35). London: PaulChapman in association with the Open University.

LINDER, C. & ERICKSON, G. (1989). A study of tertiary physics students’ conceptualisation ofsound. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 491–501.

MARSICK, V.J. (1996). Toimintaoppiminen ja re� ektio tyopaikalla [Action learning and re� ectionin the workplace]. In J. MEZIROW (Ed.), Uudistava oppiminen. Kriittinen re� ektio aikuiskoulu-tuksessa (pp. 41–65). Helsingin yliopisto. Lahden koulutus- ja tutkimuskeskus.

MARSICK, V.J. & WATKINS, K.E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London:Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

152 K. Collin

MARTON, F. (1988). Phenomenography: Exploring different conceptions of reality. In D.M.FETTERMAN (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education. The silent scienti� crevolution (pp. 176–205). New York: Praeger.

MARTON, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. HUSEN & T.N. POSLETHWAITE (Eds), The inter-national encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 4424–4429). Oxford: Pergamon.

MARTON, F., DALL’ALBA, G. & BEATY, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal ofEducational Research, 19(3), 277–300.

MCGILL, M.E. & SLOCUM, J.W. (1994). The smarter organisation: How to build business that learnsand adapts to marketplace needs. New York: Wiley.

NONAKA, I. & TAKEUCHI, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companiescreate the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

ORR, J.E. (1996). Talking about machines. An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: IRLPress/Cornell University Press.

OSTERLUND, C.S. (1996). Learning across contexts. A � eld study of salespeople’s learning at work.Aarhus Universitet. Psykologisk Skriftserie 1(21).

PILLAY, H. & BOULTON-LEWIS, G. (2000). Variations in conceptions of learning in constructiontechnology: Implications for learning. Journal of Education and Work, 13(2), 163–181.

REICH, R.B. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books.SALJO, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice—A critical look at phenomenographic inquiry and the

appeal to experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 173–190.SANDBERG, J. (1994). Human competence at work. Goteborg: BAS.SANDBERG, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education Research and

Development, 16(2), 203–212.SANDBERG, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach.

Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 9–25.SILVERMAN, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction.

London: Sage.SVENSSON, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research

and Development, 16(2), 159–171.TORRACO, R.J. (1999). Integrating learning with working: A reconception of the role of workplace

learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(3), 249–265.TYNJALA, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conception of the learning process in

different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–292.TYNJALA, P., NUUTINEN, N., ETELAPELTO, A., KIRJONEN, J. & REMES, P. (1997). The acquisition of

professional expertise—A challenge for educational research. Scandinavian Journal of Educa-tional Research, 41, 475–494.

ULJENS, M. (1989). Fenomenogra� n—forskning om uppfattningar. Lund: Studentlitteratur.VALKEAVAARA, T. (2001). Constructing expertise in careers: The career stories of human resource

developers. In J.N. STREUMER (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on HRD Researchand Practice across Europe (pp. 337–353). Enschede: University of Twente.

WATKINS, K.E. & MARSICK, V.J. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning inorganizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 4, 287–300.

WENGER, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

17:

55 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014