Learning with, from and about others in multi-agency teams. Expanding perspectives of
doing and being
Paper submitted to the ‘KM, Learning organisations and organisational learning’ conference
stream at 14th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and
Practice across Europe, hosted by Brighton University, 5-7 June 2013.
Kate Black
University of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester, UK. CH1 4BJ
[email protected]
This paper is work in progress. Please do not quote from this paper without the author’s
permission
1
2
Abstract
Purpose: The paper examines the learning engendered by professionals working as multi-agency
teams within a North-West England local authority Children’s Services. As collaborative
working becomes the norm across the sectors, the context of this empirical research typifies the
broader challenges facing contemporary organisations across developed economies.
Design/Methodological approach: Using a case study design, the research takes a qualitative
and largely inductive methodological approach. Data were derived from photo-elicitation focusgroups and interviews.
Findings: The learning that was reported is described and analysed in terms of its expansive
outcomes, with specific focus upon the creation of new identity, practice and language.
Research limitations/implications: The research was limited by its small-scale exploratory
nature and by the degree of researcher subjectivity. Proposals for extending the research are
presented.
Practical implications: As we face the challenges of shifting workplace configurations in efforts
to confront the complexities of change, so there is increased need for stimulating generative
learning and co-creating new knowing within workplace settings.
Originality/value: The research fills an important gap in the literature in providing empirical
evidence of relationships and learning within multi-agency teams. It refines and extends
perceptions of learning that stress regularity of practice and social cohesion, by examining
learning within a context typified by tension, difference and change.
3
Introduction and context
Amidst increased economic turbulence and austerity, the past decade has seen a significant
paradigm shift in the working forms of organisations within the private, public and not-for-profit
sectors across Western Europe. This has been characterised by a move away from relying upon
scientific approaches to problem-solving the ever more complex ‘wicked’ problems facing the
contemporary workplace (Entwistle, 2010), to recognising the importance of sharing ideas
through partnerships and collaborations. It is intended that such hybrid forms will offer
alternative approaches to problem-solving, enhancing organisational efficiencies and
effectiveness beyond that which might be achievable through any single domain of expertise
working alone.
However, these new working landscapes require the interdependence of individuals or groups,
often with very different professional backgrounds and training, to work together across the
boundaries of their professions and/or expertise. This necessitates a radical change in ways of
working, thinking and ‘being’ for all those involved – the development of a new ‘knowing-inpractice’. Yet, the complexities surrounding the realities of professional formation and practice
in the implementation of collaborative working practices remain inadequately conceptualised and
theorised (Hartley & Bennington, 2006; Glasby & Dickinson, 2008; Oborn & Dawson, 2010).
This research seeks to address this gap by taking a qualitative, inductive approach to examine the
development of new knowing within one such collaboration. Herein, knowing is understood to
comprise reified knowledge, discourse, practice and identity (Wenger, 1998). A public sector
collaboration, multi-agency teams within a North-West England’s local authority Children
Services department, acts as a ‘revelatory’ case-study (Yin, 2009, p.47).
Specifically, the
research considers how the learning required to respond to the new challenges facing these multiagency teams requires not simply replicative learning but an expansive learning.
This is
engendered not by imposed structures, training and acquisition of ‘required’ competencies, but
through learning which is both non-formal and implicit to work processes and relationships. To
date, consideration of relationships and learning within multi-agency practice contexts remains
underdeveloped within the literature (Collins & McCray, 2012).
Previous research has focused upon how an integrated solution might be developed, but little
examination has been made of what this learning and new knowing actually is. Through better
understanding ‘if’ and ‘what’ knowing ‘is’ being co-created within these multi-agency teams, so
4
policy-makers and policy-implementers might better understand ‘how’ change might be might be
brought about more effectively. The case can be seen to have wider relevance since this English
local government context typifies the broader challenges facing organisations throughout the
sectors across developed economies as they seek increased service quality and innovation in the
face of resource efficiencies.
This paper is structured into two key sections. Firstly, consideration is made of the nature of
collaboration, specifically the policy initiatives for multi-agency working within Children’s
Services in England. A critical overview of the two central literatures, Lave and Wenger’s
(1991) situated learning theory and Tajfel and Turner’s (2001) social identity theory is then
offered, with connections made to other supporting literatures to expand their value for
understanding multi-agency learning and practice. Secondly, the empirical methodology and
case study are reviewed. The findings of the research are then discussed. Finally, conclusions
will be drawn suggesting that, contrary to the assertions of much previous research, these multiagency professionals have learned to work together effectively, expanding their ways of ‘doing’
(practice) and ‘being’ (identity).
Collaboration within local government
Over the past decade, collaboration in its many guises has expeditiously entered the codebook of
professional and managerial jargon. In response, as we seek better understanding of how we
might manage across institutional and/or professional boundaries, so the field of interorganisational and inter-professional collaboration has seen a flurry of empirical studies (for
example, Odegard & Bjorky, 2012). However, despite this increased attention, its precepts lack
coherence with a diversity of models and definitions proliferating (Taylor & LeRiche, 2006).
Whilst some argue that this has “rendered it nearly meaningless” (Pitsis, Kornberger & Clegg,
2004: 24), enthusiasm for collaboration gathers velocity. Yet the question of how best to
establish and maintain such working relationships remains largely unexplained, and there is a
very limited comprehension of what this really means for those involved (Hartley & Bennington,
2006; Glasby & Dickinson, 2008; Oborn & Dawson, 2010).
Collaborative working has a long history within UK local government problem-solving (for
example, Gajda, 2004; Sloper, 2004; Andrews & Entwistle, 2010). Whilst its success has been
variable, the previous Labour Government’s ‘modernisation’ agenda, “unleashed” a “wave of
5
experimentation” with these working configurations (Parker & Gallagher, 2007: 13-14; see also
Newman, 2001; Webb & Vulliamy, 2001). Reportedly one of the most ambitious of these
initiatives has been the union across the breadth of professional groups and agencies comprising
the Children and Young People’s workforce.
Since the Climbié inquiry (Laming, 2003) legislation has required local authorities in England to
replace their previously fragmented silo systems with a multi-agency model: an ‘Integrated
Children’s Services’. This has necessitated professionals and practitioners, including teachers,
health, social care and the criminal justice system, also the voluntary sectors, to overcome their
professional boundaries, reconfiguring their practices as a ‘wider children’s workforce’.
Underpinning this is an assumption that these disparate professional groups will do more than
just their ‘own’ professional activities within a shared context, developing a common language,
identity and a shared knowledge-base (Edwards, 2005; Cameron et al., 2008). This research
specifically focuses upon the multi-agency teams that were established in response to this within
a North-West England’s local authority Children’s Services. These teams comprise both core
members from within social care, an education psychologist and education social worker, also a
more fluid non-core membership that includes Youth Offending, Probation, Police, Healthcare,
education professionals and voluntary bodies.
A significant literature has documented the challenges facing these Children’s Services
professionals as they span professional norms and systems; difficulties that far exceed those
typically faced elsewhere (Abbott et al., 2005; Frost, 2005; Anning et al., 2006; Frost &
Robinson, 2007). It is widely recognised that these professionals hold a shared understanding of
the intended outcomes of multi-agency collaboration, that of caring for ‘the child’. However,
their professional identities, the discourse and models they use, and thus the lens through which
they understand this agenda, differ. Furthermore, the foundations of collaboration: developing
highly interdependent relationships distinguished by integrated strategies, shared responsibility
and collective purpose (Keast et al., 2009), run contrary to a history between these professionals
which is characterised by conflictual relations, hierarchies and stereotyping (Hind et al., 2003;
Hean et al., 2006). In a climate where knowledge confers ‘power,’ why might these professionals
be motivated to share when it may conceivably affect their own profession’s standing and
performance (Thistlethwaite, 2012).
6
An ever-growing literature, drawing upon many different concepts and perspectives, has explored
knowledge sharing across communities. However, this has “left more questions open than
answered” (Osterlund & Carlile, 2005: 91). Within Children’s Services, much of the research
undertaken has focused upon how Children’s Services’ professionals might share knowledge,
engendering mutual learning as effective multi-agency teams rather than what this knowing is.
This work has principally drawn upon Engeström’s (1987) Activity Theory (Warmington et al.,
2004; Daniels and Warmington 2007) with Edwards also returning to the underpinning Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (Edwards, 2007). However, this work holds significant limitations in
this context. Perhaps, most importantly, Engeström’s concept of ‘knots’ of professionals
knowledge-sharing to overcome issues is based upon only narrow empirical foundations. It also
assumes that these professionals wish to boundary span, and possess the necessary skills to do so
(Fenwick, 2007). The reality may be distinctly different to this.
Theoretical framework
As noted above this research takes a largely inductive approach to better understand what new
knowing is being created within these Children’s Services’ multi-agency teams. This approach
does still recognise the importance of theoretical interpretation. It purely opts to delay this
engagement until after the participants’ meanings are identified. Two central bodies of literature
guide the research and aid interpretation: situated learning theory and social identity theory.
These are now both briefly examined.
The research is predicated upon assertions that professional integration requires an explicit focus
upon organisational learning (Lin & Beyerlein, 2006). However, true to tradition, the
government is adopting a techno-rational approach in pursing this change. Their focus has been
upon ascribing ‘role requirements’, artefacts and ‘best-practice’ models supported by off-the-job
training (for example, DfES, 2003; DfES, 2007). The presumption was that the knowledge for
multi-agency working could be acquired individually, transferred, shared and applied to assist
these professionals to function in practice (Weick & Roberts, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Davenport & Prusak 1998; Cook & Seely Brown, 1999; Probst et al., 2000; Schneider, 2007).
Furthermore, these artefacts would provide a new common language and knowledge-base for
understanding to develop across the workforce.
7
However, the efficacy of such ‘scientification’ of learning has been heavily debated (Gherardi,
2006; Swart, 2011).
Whilst some individual, de-contextualised ‘acquisition’ of knowledge
through models and manuals may be necessary to engender these new multi-agency practices, to
‘know’ is not enough (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The government’s approach fails to recognise the
signficance of tacit knowledge and wisdom that arises from an “intimate familiarity” with the
social, organisational, relational and cultural factors of context-specific practice (Yanow, 2003:
286).
Yet of considerable significance is the relationship between both knowledge and
knowledge-in-practice: what Cook and Brown (1999) refer to as the “generative dance”.
Furthermore, this approach also fails to accommodate the evolutionary needs of complex and
ever-evolving workplaces. Consequentially, there is limited evidence of these ascribed ‘recipes’
benefitting practice or outcomes for children and families (Oliver et al., 2010).
Recent years have witnessed an increasing recognition of the importance of tacit knowledge,
socially distributed and embedded within practice. In emulating this practice-turn in
understanding learning, this research understands that knowledge for multi-agency practice is an
evolving, collective and social “inter-psychological” goal-directed participatory process (Billett,
2004: 317) through which practices and identity are learned, unplanned in situ (Eraut, 2000), and
through which individuals shape and transform themselves and their environment (Illich, 1971;
Lave & Wenger, 1991; Nicolini et al., 2003; Orlikowski, 2002; Barab & Roth, 2006; Gherardi,
2006, 2009). The importance of such non-formal implicit learning is well-recognised, with Eraut
(2011: 207) for example, observing how 80% of professional learning occurs thorough
participation in “work processes”.
The research is anchored upon one of the most prominent approaches to participatory learning:
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning theory (SLT). This model asserts how learning
arises through a process of active social engagement and participation situated within a
'community-of-practice' (CoP). In the case of this research, this comprises the “situated recurrent
activities” integral to multi-agency working (Orlikowski, 2002:253). This lens has not yet been
systematically applied to empirical work on multi-agency working, nor specifically utilised in
considering the creation of new professional knowing in interdisciplinary collaborative contexts.
However, it is asserted that it has the capacity to offer unique and valuable, fresh insights into
understanding the reflexive action, learning and creation of new knowledge that is required
within the complex and conceivably conflictual social setting of Children’s Services. In doing
8
so, this research extends understanding of learning beyond those accounts of SLT that typically
stress the regularity of practice and social cohesion (Edwards, 2005; Fuller, 2007; Gherardi,
2009), examining learning within a context, akin to many contemporary workplaces, that is more
typically associated with conflict and tension, discord, difference and change, dispersed and
differing levels of participation.
Central to SLT are practice, participation and identity: participation within a CoP “shapes not
only what we do, but who we are and how we interpret what we do” (Wenger, 1998:4).
Traditional interpretations of this theorising suggest that CoPs provide a means by which
newcomers learn established knowledge and thereby practice this. Through productive
involvement in the community, the newcomer learner moves from a position on the periphery of
practice in a trajectory towards ‘full practice expertise’ at the core of the community (Lave &
Wenger, 1991: 29): the process of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). Therefore, learning
changes the individual (identity), inherently changing their form of participation, the relationship
between the participants, and, reciprocally, changing the practice. However, more recent
interpretations have suggested that it is possible to generate new forms of knowledge and practice
across all members of the CoP (Eraut, 2000; Gold et al., 2010). Indeed, Lave and Wenger’s
critics have suggested that this centripetal movement from novice to expert is problematic for
understanding how the process of learning may take place within multi-agency CoPs (Fuller,
2007). These CoPs are characterised by a fluid membership, with all of the professionals
potentially considered both experts and/or novices, according to the case in hand. Additionally,
as ‘newcomers’ move into these multi-agency communities many will be, or have been, experts
in their professional CoPs. They will bring in already formed and relevant knowing, skills and
expertise in an equivalent field from another community, rather than being the ‘true’ novices
usually considered by SLT where no account is made of the skills/knowledge that novices have
to share with others (Fuller et al., 2004: 22-24). Therefore, in these CoPs there are no sole oldtimers or sole experts. Thereby, it is suggested that some extension of SLT is required in order to
fully understand its potential for engendering new knowing in multi-agency teams. In this, the
research draws upon the work of Edwards (2010) to suggest that multi-agency expertise is
fostered through the development of relationships. Thereby, the development of expertise in
these new multi-agency practices does not require access to inanimate resources, but rather ‘who
you know’ significantly governs ‘what you come to know’, (Granovetter, 1973; Lave & Wenger,
9
1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991, 2000; Orr, 1996; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2002; Nardi et al, 2002;
Engeström, 2008). Therefore, productive participation requires these professionals to have
refined relational skills, enabling them to reveal, access and work with the knowledge of others in
a common, if slightly differently interpreted and/or understood, endeavour.
Furthermore, there is a need to move beyond the notions of participation that favour
‘reproduction’ to consider a more ‘productive’ form of participation that will advance communal
knowing (Godemann, 2008; Edwards, 2010). Whilst Engeström’s (2001, 2004, 2007a, 2007b)
‘expansive learning’ has been well-used in understanding the ‘transformation’ of practice, this
radical approach is considered inappropriate due to the nature of this specific context. To the
contrary, Gherardi (2006) describes how internal tensions between opposing knowledge forces,
the different professions within the community, will encourage them to reflect upon contested
practices. Stimulating the questioning of taken-for-granted assumptions and established norms,
this will encourage them to think and act in new ways, potentially transforming them (see also
Eraut, 2000; Fuller & Unwin, 2004; Wallo, 2008). This recognises the importance of
positive/productive workplace contestation and dilemmas, how they might be used fruitfully,
perhaps even encouraged, in the advancement of new knowing (Contu & Wilmott, 2003; Fuller,
2007). However, whilst this suggests how expansive (generative) learning might occur, it does
not explain what learning outcomes transpire, or what the role of formal learning within this is.
Moreover, SLT does not consider the characteristics of the context in which learning occurs (for
example, Billett, 2004; Eraut, 2011; Fuller & Unwin, 2011; Illeris, 2011), nor do they
acknowledge who the key agent(s) in this learning are.
In response, this paper draws upon two frameworks which can be readily assimilated with Lave
and Wenger’s theorising. Billett (2004) examines the implications of individuals’ ability to shape
their own norms and to endorse communal norms. In the quest to maintain their professional
distinctiveness, processes of exclusion and subordination (Lave & Wenger, 1991: 135) operating
both locally and structurally, may enable some individuals (professions) to take a more
empowered position, forcing others to a lesser one. This ‘intentional regulation’ (Billett, 2004:
317), may work to present some professionals’ knowledge-base as ‘superior’, whilst excluding
other professional groups from discussions or at least precluding them an equal role in them.
Also of significance is these professionals’ ‘calculated engagement’ whereby they co-operate at a
minimal level to protect their professional interests. From a structural perspective, an adaptation
10
of Fuller and Unwin’s (2004) under-used ‘restrictive-expansive participation continuum’
identifies barriers to, and enablers of, learning, notably: the macro- and micro-level context and
culture, also contradictory policy mechanisms. Importantly, this also reminds us of the
complementary value of ‘off-the-job’ learning, as presented in central and local governmentinstigated training, in developing a new multi-agency knowing.
Finally, as indicated above, SLT places focus upon ‘identity’, with learning comprising an
understanding who we are and who we become. Whilst Lave and Wenger observe that this is not
solely a process of imitation, they offer very little account of how or why identity develops, or of
the roles of context and/or agency in this. Contemporaneous with the SLT lens, Tajfel &
Turner’s (2001) social identity theorising (SIT) understands how individuals self-categorise,
identifying with and behaving as part of a social group (Mead, 1934; Goffman, 1959). This
shared identity influences their feelings/actions towards ‘others’ (Hogg, 2008) and inherently,
their willingness to learn from them (Handley et al., 2007). Multi-agency working necessitates
these professionals to not only socialise and learn with these ‘others’, but to integrate with them
as ‘new professionals’. Furthermore, this conceals a fundamental debate surrounding
conceptualisations of identity. Professional integration is being determined by policy, thereby,
rather than these professionals selecting their own self-identity, it might be argued that it is being
imposed externally and shaped by the actions of others (King & Horrocks, 2010). The way in
which this identity is understood has significant implications for their intentions to ‘forget’ their
past and to undertake the necessary “identity work” (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Sveningsson &
Alvesson, 2003) to create a new multi-agency knowing and being. As will be suggested in the
findings, these professionals have been effective in stimulating this socially expansive learning,
as well as finding a ways of assimilating their identity. Attention now turns to describe the
empirical study.
Methodology, methods and analytical approach
This exploratory research takes a qualitative, interpretivist methodological approach. It adopts a
single case-study design (Yin, 2009) within a purposively selected North-West England
authority’s Children’s Services. This methodology emphasises the description and interpretation
of the participants’ own meanings of the phenomena of multi-agency practice, thereby offering
deeper understanding of this local situation. Further, it reflects the limited empirical and
11
theoretical research that is available in this area. However, the limitations of this approach, not
least that of research subjectivity and bias are acknowledged.
Due to the complexities of these professionals’ working situations and the ‘trickiness’ of
exploring knowing (Gauntlett, 2007), gaining cognitive access to their lives through interview,
the dominant data collection tool within the qualitative paradigm, was considered problematic.
Consequentially, this research employed the as yet, under utilised tool of participant-generated
photo-elicitation focus-groups and interviews with a total of 20 professionals drawn from these
multi-agency teams. In advance of interview, participants were requested to collect 5-8 photos or
images in response to three broad prompt questions, namely: ‘what does multi-agency working
mean to you?’; ‘what does being a multi-agency professional/worker mean to you?’; ‘[how] have
you become the multi-agency professional that you are today?’. These images acted as stimuli to
help explore participants’ perceptions of the difficult, often hidden facets of learning,
relationships, identity and practice that might be hard to access, or overlooked as inconsequential
(Clark, 1999; Mizen, 2005; Widdance-Twine, 2006). Additionally, they acted as an aid to help
them express self-understanding and emotions, either verbally or in place of words (Hurworth,
2003). With meaning constructed in the interaction between the researcher, participant and the
image, led by the participant, it is asserted that this elicits a richer data and extended personal
narratives of the details of these professionals’ everyday multi-agency lives and experiences than
conventional interview techniques (Pink, 2007; Ray & Smith, 2012). Additionally, the images
act as data in their own right. Whilst visual methods are “relatively uncommon” in organisational
research (Bryman, 2008), Harper (2002) suggests that their use in identity research is growing.
The benefits of this tool have been well-documented (Pink, 2004, 2005), notably, their tendency
to empower the participants, enabling them to make the decisions over what images to provide
and thereby, what to discuss, whilst also enabling participants to be more reflective. Its
limitations are, however, noted and discussed later. Additionally the ethical issues arising
through the use of photos, above those typically associated with qualitative research are
acknowledged. Whilst the researcher might have offered photos for exploration within the
interview, this approach would have risked imposing her preconceptions upon the participants
(Willig, 2008), thereby, risking the depth of reflection evoked and the insights into their cultural,
political and social contexts (Becker, 2002).
12
The interviews and focus groups were recorded, capturing the participants’ accounts, and
enabling the analysis of detailed verbatim transcripts. The intention was that meaning would be
constructed through consideration of both what the participants said, and also how they said it
(Bailey 2008). However, it is recognised that the researcher will have influenced the research
process, therefore, researcher reflexivity aims to minimise the imposition of own meanings
(Butler-Kisber, 2010).
Analysis took a form of qualitative content analysis, with analytical codes induced from within
the data (Silverman, 2011). NVivo10 was used as the data management tool. Focus was upon
both identifying codes emergent within the transcribed interview/focus-group data, and also from
within the images themselves, but grounded within the interview data. These codes were refined
and organised through the course of the analysis and through iteration with established theoretical
understandings. Relationships and connections between these initial codes enabled axial codes to
be established (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Recurring patterns of meaning within these axial codes
were then sought, enabling the identification of categories, and then subsequently, themes
emerging from the data. As a second stage, these themes were compared and contrasted with
themes identifiable from within the literature, enabling further, theoretically informed, themes to
be established. Finally, relationships were explored through the use of matrix displays.
Findings
Data analysis is still in progress. However, in what follows details are offered of the ways these
professionals explained their practice and the meanings that they took from this, also the ways in
which they saw and spoke of themselves within this. Focus is upon new knowing being created
within this new CoP. The findings illustrate both the complex and highly dynamic nature of the
multi-agency context under investigation. As one of the professionals observed, “what you are
hearing are coloured by people’s feeling of what’s happening in [the authority] … it’s not the
most optimistic. Had you spoken to me 3 weeks ago, believe me I would have told you something
different”. Consequentially, data saturation was not achieved. This is not considered to be
problematic, but acts merely to demonstrate this fluidity in the meanings they take from their
daily professional lives.
13
Making sense of multi-agency practice
The participants offered varied perceptions of the nature and effectiveness of multi-agency
practice. This can to a limited extent be explained by the positions that the professionals held:
whether they were core or non-core team members, although other factors, notably the broad
professional grouping from which they were drawn, were clearly in play.
There was an overwhelming agreement across all of the professionals, that multi-agency working
was essential in the 21C. They cited two reasons. The need for ‘the child’ was emphasised, “else
it’s very mixed messages, with a confused child becoming more confused …. and they don’t have
to keep retelling the blooming story all the time to a thousand different people”. However,
despite this espoused shared objective of ‘the child’s’ wellbeing, there was a clear tension as to
the means by which this should be achieved; whether they should be ‘fixing’ children/families or
empowering them to help themselves. Secondly, there was extensive acceptance that, in the
current economic climate in which they were being required to achieve ever-moving, higher
demanding, service delivery targets, joined-up efficiencies were the only means to survival.
However, the impact of this was varied. Some observed how these austerity measures were
starting to close up information sharing, yet, simultaneously, there was an acute awareness that,
in some instances, the austerity measures were benefiting the multi-agency cause, with
professionals being brought together, through financial necessity, under single managers, creating
more extensive multi-agency teams.
Despite agreement that multi-agency was essential, the extent to which was perceived embedded
within their day-to-day work practice varied, typically according to professional grouping. Social
Care professionals suggested “it’s the culture in this area now. Even if it did stop as we know it
today, the links would still be there”. Conversely, some education-related participants explained
how “everyone gets on very well, and people understand the system but that’s multi agency
discretion not multi agency working”. Furthermore, some non-core agencies described how
“sometimes the multiagency bit can seem like it’s an extra tagged on …”. In some instances
their peripherality also meant that that information sharing protocols meant they could not be
kept informed.
Facilitating multi-agency practice
All of the participants spoke of the importance of organisational structures for facilitating multiagency working. These were typically the local and national accountability mechanisms. This
14
was borne out in two photos provided by a school-based professional: one of drawer of folders,
and another of the ring binders, illustrated the multiple agencies that she worked with. However,
these also symbolised her underlying awareness of the accountability mechanisms that she was
working within and to, also the need to “cover my back”.
Supporting artefacts, especially those provided by central government, were regularly affirmed as
being fundamental to enabling communication between the different professional groups.
Importantly, many participants confirmed how these were encouraging the creation of a new
form of language between these professionals. One professional recalled, “... it was a random
selection of professionals, I hadn’t met any of them, they were from different agencies and
different schools, but we all worked under this universal umbrella and it was just a clear
demonstration really that this is how we all work and our language is universal … but yes, it is
only really over the last sort of three to four years that that universal language has kind of
become a bit more used”
The importance of the appointed Area Team Leaders was also highlighted by many participants.
They remarked how these individuals ensured the sustainability of the Area Teams, helping them
to work around problems that faced them. One core member, providing an image of abseilers,
explained how “there must be people just making sure the ropes are all right going over the edge,
not getting caught. There must be someone saying oh you need to move across, we can do it
better that way if we move there or do that” (respondent emphasis). Another spoke of howhow,
like his Honda Goldwing motorbike, leadership was critical to “keeping the bike moving,
lubricated … bringing in another part, replacing a part, changing the ways we do it when we’ve
used the wrong spares …. doing it differently to how we did before”.
However, these structural facets were also reported, at times, to contradict multi-agency
principles. This was typically the case where professionals were faced with conflicting targets
and accountabilities, different sets of processes, paperwork and confidentiality codes. One team
leader described her frustration, explaining, though using the analogy of a sleigh, how “I’ve got
the staff on the sleigh, I’ve dealt with the bit of resistance, we’ve got to the point of doing it, I’ve
got some training with them, we’re ready. So I pull and then I realise I can’t find which kids
we’re working with” due to one profession’s codes on information sharing.
Others cited what one labelled as “system failure”. Much of this was caused by tensions between
imposed structures and what, intuitively, they understood to be the ‘best way’ forward in a
15
specific situation. In part, this was considered to be due to the “people higher up don’t really
know how it works on the ground”. However, they also spoke of the gaps that still existed, not
specifically within Children’s Services, but in the transition with other providers, notably
between children’s and adult services and with 16-19y old children with disabilities. This also
extended to a concern over the commissioning process, which, one Team Leader explained,
“needs threading through the Area Teams … it isn’t ....”.
Whilst the structures where crucial to formalising information sharing and initiating working
together, there was overwhelming belief that “it’s not enough to sign an agreement saying we all
adhere to multiagency working and having the structures in place, it’s down to the individuals”.
Whilst, generally, it was agreed that there were always some individuals that didn’t want to get
involved, that didn’t see multi-agency working to fit with their personal trajectory, what was
indisputably clear was the level of individual drive, commitment and passion, across the
professionals to “make things work”. Some spoke of their willingness to change work shifts in
order to attend Area Team meetings, which they knew, were fundamental to effective practice.
Agentic influence also extended to challenging existing assumptions about current practice,
thereby stimulating new understandings and perspectives. As one group of professionals agreed
“it takes individuals to challenge and to say we’re not doing it that way, we don’t have to do it
that way. Just because we’ve always done it that way doesn’t mean to say that we have to
continue doing that”. However, for many of these professionals, their individual commitment
extended well beyond their ‘day job’. For example, one spoke of how he was involved in setting
up football training for the local youths as a means to reducing anti-social behaviour. This
modification to his behaviours might also be understood to be his social re-positioning of his
‘self’ in the eyes of the young people, and perhaps also in the eyes of his colleagues. It is to this
way of multi-agency ‘being’ that focus now shifts.
Being a multi-agency professional
Overwhelmingly, these professionals understood that being a multi-agency professional meant
working alongside others “in a productive way”. There was very little indication that they were
developing as the new ‘hybrid’ professional that has been assiduously reported within the
literatures, rather, as one Teal Lead described, “professionals A and B, they are touching each
other, not actually overlapping. We’re not creating anything new, we’re just shifting the focus”.
16
Indeed, the importance of working together, rather than “becoming one another” was
encapsulated by the abseiler image mentioned previously. He explained how “each has abseiled
down, positioned themselves as part of the circle …. someone else can’t do their job for them …
it’s dangerous abseiling down the cliffs”.
The importance of ‘relationships’ was recognised overwhelmingly as vital to enabling multiagency working and, of their ‘being’ a multi-agency professional. Whilst the structures and
artefacts provided the necessary formal links and connections, almost all of the professionals
reported how ‘knowing who’, which they developed individually through informal relationships,
was fundamental to developing their expertise as a multi-agency professional. In confirming this,
a non-core team member commented how “beforehand you were very isolated, it was like tough,
whereas now it’s like, if I’ve got a safeguarding issue I know that I can phone ‘x’ …. You’d know
you have the right answer then”.
However, the perceptions of the tightness of this relationship did vary. Some indicated that to
them, this involved merely being a part of the central and local processes that were in place to
ensure safety of the child: undertaking the tasks that they were set. To the contrary, other
professionals explained how to them, being a multi-agency professional was much more intricate.
They offered a number of metaphors to illustrate this, including: a rugby team, jigsaw piece and a
linked chain. The positional leaders used slightly different metaphors, indicative of their coordinating role. One spoke of feeling like a ‘zipper’ and ‘matchmaker’: introducing different
professionals/agencies to one another, locking them together with the intention of looking for
new joint solutions.
Largely reflecting these differing perceptions of multi-agency working, so some participants
spoke specifically about their ‘identity’ whilst others used the term ‘role’. For those using
‘identity’, some participants talked about the duality of identities that they felt had within their
professional lives, whilst others, notably one Team Leader, spoke of her uncertainty over her
identity, still sometimes wondering really “where we fit and belong”. To the contrary, the term
‘role’ was used extensively by both those professionals within the non-core agencies who
typically remain working with their host agencies rather than within the team itself.
The notion of being multi-agency, whether defined as a role or an identity, was considered to be
influenced by whether the professionals felt that had received the necessary training to ‘be’ multiagency; an assumption that training would be internalised into effective practice. One non-core
17
participant spoke proudly of how “I’ve been on the training courses, I’ve done the modules ….”,
whilst another explicitly cited how “you’ve got to be trained to know how to work this way”.
Both consciously and unconsciously, there was a distinct affirmation of the importance and
centrality of acquiring knowledge to be effective as a multi-agency professional.
However, it was not just the conceptions of ‘role’ or ‘identity’ that saw differing convention, so
too did whether these professionals saw themselves as being part of a ‘group’ or a ‘team’.
Intriguingly, one ATL referred to her “area team group” on a number of occasions. Typically,
term ‘team’ occurred regularly alongside a declaration of having a multi-agency identity and a
distinct multi-agency culture, with the synergistic nature of these teams being acknowledged.
Perhaps significantly the use of the term ‘group’ was not clearly associated with a participants’
conceptualisation of self as being, or not, a multi-agency professional. For example one
professional within social care offered an interesting juxtaposition of explaining “I feel, multiagency” yet asserting how it was all “about the support and help within the group”.
Whilst the majority of participants specifically asserted that having a team identity was a key
facet of their multi-agency ‘being’, the nuances of their language, in many instances, indicated a
different ‘story’ to this rhetoric. Such words as “I’m an ‘x-professional’ and I kept telling them
that” (participants’ emphasis) appeared to align with the existence of professional hierarchies,
despite many of the participants explicitly asserted how all the professionals are on an equal
plane within the Area Teams. Whilst one professional was perhaps more pragmatic in suggesting
that, “there are always going to be boundaries, there are certain things I can’t disclose and it’s
the same in any organisation …”, to the contrary, others explicitly acknowledged the innate
hierarchies still existing within the workforce. One participant observed how “without question,
social work’s at the top and then the others fall underneath in some shape or form because
you’re all confirming to their processes”
The participants offered considerable evidence of how multi-agency working was causing, or
enabling, them to reposition their ‘self’ within the ‘wider children’s workforce’. A number of the
non-core workers highlighted how their own professional status had been elevated appreciably
through multi-agency working. However, this had involved, in some cases, not insignificant
amounts of ‘identity work’, as her role was “kind of ‘bigged up’”.
What was clear was that these changed relationships, and identity readjustment, had mirrored a
change in inter-professional attitude. This had been fashioned both through evidenced effective
18
joined-up working as well as through an increased understanding and awareness of the value of a
holistic approach. As one professional commented “I’m realising that we are not the be all and
end all of a young person’s support, others are too. For me that was the biggest learning curve”.
However, despite this generally positive feeling amongst the professionals, one education-related
participant asserted how the “dominant culture is taking over”. She referred to the Star Wars
characters, “The Borg”, to explain how social care were assimilating the “other species” and that
“resistance is futile”. Perhaps, interestingly, she did not indicate that she felt that way; rather she
explained, “that’s what a lot of the professionals tell me they feel like”. However, her further
comments corroborated that this too was her reading of her ‘self’. It might be suggested that, in
having to take on social care’s practices, that she was feeling more like a novice, rather than the
expert that she had been after many years in her profession, and so, in consequence, was
defensive and protectionist.
Learning through practice
The importance of these professionals ‘knowing who’ also extended to ‘knowing who’ was best
to work with a particular child/family. This it was claimed came down to what they had learned
through practice. As well as ‘having’ the ‘knowledge’ gained through training, these
professionals recognised the value of what one described as “all that sort of stuff that you
couldn’t write down but that you do …. it’s that which leads you to ask the right questions. It’s
that experience and knowing what worked and didn’t … you only get that through doing it don’t
you”. This individual also observed how “it [working with other professionals] brings up things
that you wouldn’t normally think about ….” and how this then helped them to increase their
knowledge and understanding. Indeed, as an ATL claimed, “the experts now are those on the
ground having gone through the process and know who to ask”, not the senior managers and
government.
This new knowledge and their changed ‘being’ relative to others, that these professionals have
developed though practice with other professionals, also documents their changed way of doing
things (practices). This included: no longer working towards higher-level referrals but to early
intervention; increased representation from non-core agencies/groups; a far greater understanding
between the professions and a willingness to ask for advice. One ATL related an amusing tale
that emphasised this improved relationships and the increased trust of others;
19
“… they were talking about ‘muggers’, how underused all the ‘muggers’ are and how they
should use the ‘muggers’ for football. I asked, muggers to teach our kids to play bloody football.
Have I wandered into a twilight? The place just erupted with laughter. The ‘Muggers’ are Multiuse Gaming Areas (MUGAs)”.
However, the participants did also allude to some problems that this changed practice was
fostering. The change of focus from referral to prevention, had increased the numbers of early
interventions, one of the key accountability mechanisms, “so it looks like the Area Team’s aren’t
working”. Furthermore, some participants reported how certain groups/agencies/professionals
were starting to adopt more of a blended role, which was, in some instances starting to re-create
barriers between them. This they ascribed to the changing economic climate.
Finally, but of considerable significance, is the context in which this new learning, new ‘being’
and new practice was being created. These have been alluded to in what is offered above,
however, this does also need explicit attention due to the impact it has had upon the stories that
these professionals have told.
All of the professionals overwhelmingly emphasised the considerable effects that the current
economic, and resulting local ‘political’, situation, notably restructuring, were having upon their
ways of ‘doing’ and ‘being’. One professional spoke of the “crescendo” that they had reached
about 2 years ago when the Area Teams were “running like a dream”. However, some,
especially within the non-core groups, reported how the information sharing was closing down as
they sought “self preservation in the face of market forces”. Many also spoke of the importance
and history of the local culture. This, they contended, was orientated towards, what they termed,
“fixing kids” rather than helping them to become more independent in helping themselves. This
did at times, they suggested, create problems, observing how “it isn’t just about the practice, it’s
about having a shared set of goals … and we don’t always have that it seems”.
However, this uncertainty was being exacerbated by national policy which was promoting the
‘Safeguarding’ agenda, and thereby, Social Service’s concerns, at times ignoring those of other
professionals. Some of the education and justice-related professionals articulated how this had
significant implications for the perceived priorities for the Area Teams and therefore, for
resourcing. Moreover, many of the professionals spoke about the impending legislative change
and the implications this would have not only for themselves, but also for the relationships that
they had built up with those families involved.
20
Therefore, in summary, it can be suggested that ‘five’ key themes emerge from these findings,
notably:
1. the importance of structures to facilitate multi-agency working
2. the importance of relationships developed by individuals
3. individuals’ commitment to working as a multi-agency team
4. the importance of the Team Leaders for sustaining the multi-agency community
5. the perceived importance of ‘training’ but an awareness that their identified changed ways
of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ are consequential of working together with others in their day-today activities.
Discussion and conclusions
This paper aimed to offer empirical evidence of the co-creation of new knowing between
professionals comprising the multi-agency teams of a North-West England’s local authority
Children’s Services department.
As outlined in the Introduction, the governments’ ‘scientific’ approach to engendering the
necessary learning for effective multi-agency working, offers only a part of the story. It fails to
acknoweldge the signficance of tacit knowledge and wisdom that arises only through contextspecific practice (Cook & Brown, 1999; Orlikowski, 2002), and the “generative dance” between
this knowledge and knowing (Cook & Brown, 1999). The qualitative research reported here is
exploratory in purpose and cannot therefore, provide confirmable explanations. However, the
findings have presented illustrations of these professionals’ shifting identity, their changing dayto-day practices, and some indications of the development of a multi-agency language. The
challenges that they face as they assume these new ways of ‘being’ and ‘doing’, and inherently
the limitations that constrain its extensiveness, are nonetheless acknowledged.
It was seen that, whilst there was some discrepancy between the social care and education-related
professionals as to the exact focus of their pursuit: whether ‘fixing’ or ‘empowering’, there was a
strong collective and individual commitment to a shared goal, that of caring for ‘the child’
(Wenger, 1998). It is acknowledged that this was, to an extent, also influenced by the current
financial climate; these professionals’ fear of further job losses and thereby, their attentiveness to
the need to be working more efficiently. However, this shared commitment and the generally
strong allegiances that they have demonstrated to one another, runs contrary to much previous
21
research within Children’s Services that has emphasised the enduring barriers between
professionals (Abbott et al., 2005; Atkinson et al., 2005; Frost, 2005; Anning et al., 2006; Frost &
Robinson, 2007; Hean et al., 2006).
These mutual beliefs, and the supporting structures and artefacts provided both locally and
nationally, have encouraged the sharing of knowledge as they worked together, stimulating a
productive participation. As these professionals sought not only to challenge the currency of one
another’s practices but also, in light of this, the assumptions of their own practice, so there is
evidence to suggest that this has fostered expansive learning outcomes. Thinking and acting in
new ways, this has transformed their practice (Eraut, 2000; Fuller & Unwin, 2004; Gherardi,
2006; Wallo, 2008). However, rather than just affirming that new learning has occurred, as has
been the focus of previous research within this field, this research has offered evidence of what
this new practice actually is. It has been shown that these professionals practice has at least
started to re-form into what might be termed a multi-agency practice model, depicted by the
significance of relationship development. Certainly there is evidence that aspects of these
professionals’ day-to-day activities are distinctly different to that with which they would have
been involved pre 2003 when they were working uni-professionally. It can be asserted, that
expertise within these new multi-agency communities was not held exclusively by ‘old timers’,
as Lave and Wenger’s LPP would suggest, but comprised a form of ‘relational expertise’
(Edwards, 2010) in which ‘knowing who’ is more important than ‘knowing what’. Their
expertise was achieved through developing relationships that enabled them to work effectively
with others in caring for ‘the child’. Significantly, these relationships had typically evolved
through informally and by individual initiative, beyond the formalised structures. Furthermore,
there is evidence of a new multi-agency language developing between these professionals,
stimulated through the provision of shared artefacts.
Whilst many of these professionals asserted the importance of training in enabling them to
‘become a multi-agency professional’, it has been shown that much of their understanding had
been developed informally, over time, as they worked alongside the other professionals. This
current study has therefore served to further affirm Lave and Wenger’s (1991) assertions of the
importance of learning–through-practice. The significance of the situated nature of this has also
been demonstrated. The context – the structures, local culture, relations with other professionals,
and also the wider economic climate, have been shown to have significant implications for what
22
they have come to know, the meanings they have drawn from it – and importantly, the challenges
this has presented them with. This confirms the importance of Fuller and Unwin’s (2004)
enablers of learning and what they term, ‘restrictive’ and ‘expansive’ learning environments. The
significance of the Team Leads in bridging between professionals, fostering, what might be
considered to be these multi-agency communities-of-practice, has also been demonstrated. Their
presence explicitly aided the generation of solutions to the problems facing the professionals in
this new landscape.
This research has also emphasised the importance of agentic influences upon learning. Some
individuals’, notably education-related professionals, have been shown to be intentionally
working to satisfy their personal trajectories, their stories advocating efforts to ‘protect’ their
professional distinctiveness and interests. Whilst not actively excluding other professional
groups, these individuals demonstrated some indifference to others’ know-how (Billett, 2004). It
might be suggested that, due to the processes being predominantly led by those of social care,
that these education-related professionals were feeling threatened and thereby sought to protect
their professional status and identity through disregarding others and seeming the victim.
This inherently connects with the third central concept of SLT: how participation shapes not only
practice, but also ‘who we are’ (Wenger, 1998). This research has demonstrated how it is not just
these professionals’ practice that had evolved, but so too had their identity. There was still some
enduring ‘in’ and ‘out-group’ identification, distinguished by references to ‘them’ and ‘us’, and
some indications of persistent professional hierarchies. However, typically, these professionals
had experienced significant ‘identity work’ (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Sveningsson &
Alvesson, 2003), having largely developed a distinctive team identity alongside their existing
professional identities. The degree of this team identification was inferred to relate to whether
multi-agency working had been imposed upon a pre-existing team or the team had been created
specifically as multi-agency.
Thereby, it can be concluded that SLT has provided an invaluable lens for understanding the
importance of learning as a by-product of practice (Eraut, 2011) within multi-agency teams. It
has demonstrated how, contrary to the assertions of much previous research, these multi-agency
professionals have learned to work together effectively, expanding their ways of ‘doing’
(practice) and ‘being’ (identity).
23
However, the research has also refined and extended perceptions of learning beyond those
accounts of SLT that typically stress the regularity of practice and social cohesion, by examining
learning within a context that, akin to many contemporary workplaces, is more typically
associated with conflict and tension, difference and change. Whilst some might argue that the
fast-paced change facing these Children’s Services’ professionals might not be favourable for
workplace learning, the research has demonstrated how a coherent assimilation can be made,
between an examination of the expansive (generative) learning that occurs and of the interplay
between contextual affordances and individuals’ engagement, to enable Lave and Wenger’s SLT
to be revitalised. This inherently extends understanding of workplace learning across
professional boundaries.
Limitations, further work and implications for HRD policy and practice
Certain limitations of the study must be acknowledged. These provide the basis for further
research. Firstly, and perhaps most significant, is the small-scale nature of the inquiry and the
degree of researcher subjectivity both in selecting participants and in analysing and interpreting
the data. However, with the relativist ontology underpinning this qualitative research,
recognising that there are multiple realities, there is no concern for generalisability of the findings
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Instead, the strength of this research approach is the detail that it
provides (Willig, 2008) enabling the reader to decide or themselves what does, and does not,
have relevance for them.
Secondly, photograph-elicitation has presented significant value to the research process, offering
greater cognitive access to the complex, abstract concepts of knowing. However, it is recognised
that it is not without its shortcomings. Interviews, in whatever form, are inherently limited by
their contrived rather than naturalistic interaction, with the researcher being unable to account for
issues of social desirability and for gaps between what the participants say and do. Therefore,
this still fails to offer “a transparent window on the world” (Mannay, 2010: 99). Rather they
present a “staged and selected …. partial truth” (Widdance-Twine, 2006:126). Further, the
participants themselves were typically absent from the photographs/images so their actual ‘place’
within this reality was omitted (Felstead et al., 2004).
Thirdly, Warren (2005) observes how the relationship between words and image remains “uneasy
and unclear”. It might be questioned to what extent the researcher should attempt to interpret
24
what the images ‘actually’ mean since it is for the participants that they signify reality. However,
by grounding the analysis within the interview and focus group data, it is contested that this
added further confirmation of the data.
Finally, it is difficult to determine to what extent the participants offered socially desirable
stories, aware that a summary of the findings of the research were to be provided to the local
authority and that the future of the Area Teams might, to some extent, be influenced by the
outcomes.
Therefore, future research should focus upon trying to achieve a more ‘neutral’ perspective of
these professionals’ lives. A comparative case-study would diminish the effects of the local
‘politics’ influencing the case-study authority at the time of the research. Moreover, a
longitudinal study involving a wider range of core and non-core professionals might be
particularly revelatory of the realities of these professionals’ workplace learning. The qualitative
approach has offered an exploratory view, however, in moving to the quantitative paradigm, so a
cross-sectional survey might be develop to test and isolate the variables influencing these
professionals’ learning (Cian, 2011).
Nevertheless, based upon the findings from this research, implications for professional learning
policy and practice can be asserted. The rapidly changing and complex 21C workplace
accentuates the need for continuous learning. Whilst conventionally, learning has been
considered best assimilated through training and off-the-job education, there is increasing
awareness of the importance of enabling learning through practice. This is particularly important
as in cases where there is a need to diminish the compulsion of top-down policy imposition.
Therefore, there is an increased need, across public, private and the voluntary sectors, in the face
of these rapidly changing environments, to stimulate expansive learning within these workplace
settings. However, expansive learning requires the learners to reflect upon the beliefs, attitudes
and values that inform their practice. Therefore, there is a need to cultivate an environment
wherein learning through practice is encouraged and opportunities provided for reflection upon
this (Ellinger & Cseh, 2007). It is only through such actions that we shall be able to effectively
to face the challenges of future change.
25
References
Abbot, D., Watson, D. & Townsley, R. (2005). The proof of the pudding: what difference does
multi-agency working make to families with disabled children with complex health care needs?
Child and Family Social work, 10, 229-238.
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing
the Appropriate Individual. Journal of Management Studies 39,5, 619-44.
Andrews, R. & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does Cross-Sectoral Partnership Deliver? An empirical
exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20, 679-701.
Anning, A., Cottrell, D., Frost, N., Green, J. & Robinson, M. (2006). Developing
Multiprofessional Teamwork for Integrated Children’s Services Maidenhead: OUP
Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: Transcribing. Family Practice, 25, 2,
127-31.
Barab, S. & Roth, W-M (2006). Curriculum-Based Ecosystems: Supporting Knowing from an
Ecological Perspective, Educational Researcher, 35, 5, 3-13.
Becker, H. (2002). Visual evidence: a Seventh Man, the specified generalization, and the work of
the reader. Visual Studies, 17(1), 3-11.
Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning
environments, Journal of. Workplace Learning, 16, 6, 312-324.
Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a
unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science 2, 1.
Brown, J & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing it.
Harvard Business Review. May-June, 73-80.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. (3e). London: Sage.
Butler-Kisber, L. (2010). Qualitative Inquiry: Thematic, Narrative and Arts Informed
Perspectives. London: Sage.
Cameron, C., Moss, P., Owen, C., Petrie, P., Potts, P., Simon, A. & Wigfall, V. (2008). Working
Together in Extended Schools and Children’s Centres A study of Inter-Professional Activity in
England and Sweden. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education
Cian, L. (2011). How to measure brand image: a reasoned review. The Marketing Review, 11, 2,
165-87.
Clark, C. (1999). The autodriven interview: A photographic viewfinder into children’s
experiences. Visual Sociology, 14, 39-50.
Collins, F. & McCray, J. (2012). Relationships, learning and team working in UK services for
children. Journal of Integrated Care, 20, 1, 39-50
Contu, A. & Wilmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations
in learning theory. Organizational Science, 14, 3, 283-296.
Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10, 4, 381-400.
26
Daniels, H. & Warmington, P. (2007) Analysing third generation activity systems: power,
contradictions and personal transformation. Journal of Workplace Learning 19(6), 377–391
Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. How organizations manage what they
know. Harvard Business School Press.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005), “Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln, (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, (3rd
ed.) (pp. 1-29). London: Sage.
DfES (2003). Every Child Matters. Norwich: Stationery Office.
DfES (2007). Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education. Norwich: Stationery
Office.
Edwards, A. (2005). Let’s Get Beyond Community and Practice: the many meanings of learning
by participating, The Curriculum Journal, 16. 1. 53-69.
Edwards, A. (2007). Relational Agency in Professional Practice: a CHAT analysis, Actio. An
International Journal of Human Activity. 1. 1-17.
Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise.
Professional and Practice-based Learning Series Volume 3. London: Springer.
Ellinger, A. & Cseh, M. (2007). Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others’ learning
through everyday work experiences. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 7, 435-452.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical
Conceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 1, 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2004). The New Generation of Expertise: Seven theses’, in H. Rainbird, et al.
(eds.), Workplace Learning in Context. London: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2007a). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson
& L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2007b). Putting Vygotsky to work: The Change Laboratory as an application of
double stimulation. In Daniels H., Cole M., Wertsch J.V. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to
Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Entwistle, T. (2010). Collaboration. In R. Ashworth, G. Boyle & T. Entwistle (eds) Public
Service Improvement: Theories and Evidence, (pp162-183),Oxford: OUP.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 70, 1, 113-36.
Eraut, M. (2011). How researching learning at work can lead to tools for enhancing learning. In
M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans & B. O’Connor, (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Workplace
Learning. (pp. 181-97), London: Sage.
Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Lee, T. and Walters, S. (2004). Better
learning, better performance: evidence from the 2004 Learning at Work Survey, Leicester:
NIACE
27
Fenwick, T. (2007). Towards enriched conceptions of work learning: Participation, expansion
and translation/mobilization with/in activity. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 3, 285302.
Frost, N. & Robinson, M. (2007). Joining up children's services: safeguarding children in multidisciplinary teams. Child Abuse Review, 16, 3, 184-199.
Frost, N. (2005). Professionalism, partnership and joined-up thinking: a research review of frontline working with children and families. Dartington: Research in Practice.
Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive Learning Environments: integrating personal and
organisational development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace Learning in
Context. London: Routledge.
Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P. and Unwin, L. (2004). Learning as Peripheral
Participation in Communities of Practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning.
British Educational Research Journal 33,5, 743-759
Fuller, A. (2007). Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice. In J. Hughes, N.
Jewson & L. Unwin (Eds), Communities of Practice, Critical Perspectives. (pp.17-29), London:
Routledge.
Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2011). Workplace learning and the organization. In M. Malloch, L.
Cairns, K. Evans & B. O’Connor, (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. (pp. 4659), London: Sage.
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative exploration: New approaches to Identities and Audiences.
London: Routledge
Gajda, R. (2004). Utilising collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal
of Evaluation, 25,1, 65-77.
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Gherardi, S. (2009). The critical power of the ‘Practice lens’. Management Learning, 40(2), 115128
Gherardi, S. & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning the Trade. A Culture of Safety in Practice.
Organization, 9, 2, 191-223.
Glasby, J. & Dickinson, H. (2008). Greater than the sum of our parts? Emerging lessons for UK
health and social care. International journal of Integrated Care, 8(7)
Godemann, J. (2008): Knowledge integration: a key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation.
Environmental Education Research 14, 6, 625-641.
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Gold, J., Holden, R., Griggs, V. & Kyriakidou, N. (2010). Workplace learning and knowledge
management. In J. Gold, R. Holden, P. Iles, J. Stewart & J. Beardwell (Eds), Human Resource
Development, (pp. 193-215) London: Palgrave, London.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 13601380.
28
Handley, K., Clark, T., Fincham, R & Sturdy, A. (2007). Researching situated learning:
Participation, identity and practices in client-consultant relationships. Management Learning, 38,
2, 173-191.
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 1, 1326.
Hartley, J. & Bennington, J. (2006). Copy and Paste, or Graft and Transplant? Knowledge
Sharing through Inter-organisational Networks. Public Money and Management, 26, 2, 101-108
Hean, S., Macleod, J. Clark, J., Adams, K., & Humphris, D. (2006). Will opposites attract?
Similarities and differences in students’ perceptions of the stereotype profiles of other health and
social care professional groups. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20, 2, 162-181.
Hind, M., Norman, I. Cooper, S., Gill, E., Hilton, R, Judd, P (2003). Interprofessional perceptions
of health care students. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17, 1, 21-34.
Hogg, M. (2008). Personality, individuality, and social identity. In F. Rhodewalt (Ed.),
Personality and social behavior (pp. 177-196). New York: University Press.
Hurworth, R. (2003). Photo-interviewing for research. Social Research Update, 40, 1, 1-4.
Illeris, K. (2011). Workplaces and learning. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans & B. O’Connor,
(Eds). The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. (pp32-45), London: Sage.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. London: Boyars.
Keast, R., Glasby, J. & Brown, K. (2009). Inter-agency Working: Good Intentions and
Interaction Dynamics. 13th International Research Society for Public Management Conference,
April, Copenhagen.
King, N. & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage
Laming,
H.
(2003).
The
Victoria
Climbie
Enquiry.
Online
at:
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/website/ich/academicunits/Centreiforievidenceibasedichildihealth/Custo
mMenui02/TheiLammingireportiiVictoriaiClimbieiifulliversionii2003.pdf
[Retrieved
11.07/2007]
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lin, Y. & Beyerlein, M. (2006). Communities of practice: A critical perspective on collaboration.
In M. Beyerlein, S. Beyerlein, & F. Kennedy (eds.) Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work
Teams: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford: Elsevier/JAI Imprint.
Mannay, D. (2010). Making the familiar strange: can visual research methods render the familiar
setting more perceptible? Qualitative Research, 10: 91-111.
Mead, G. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their Activity in Intensional
Networks. CSCW, 11, 1, 205–242.
Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.
Nicolini, D., Yanow D. & Gherardi, S. (2003). Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based
Approach. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
29
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oborn, E., & Dawson, S. (2010). Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle,
accommodation and privilege. Human Relations, 63(12), 1835-1857.
Odegar, A. & Bjorkly, S. (2012). A mixed methods approach to clarify the construct validity of
interprofessional collaboration: An empirical research illustration. Journal of Interprofessional
Care, 26, 283-288.
Oliver, C., Mooney, A. with Statham, J. (2010) Integrated Working: A review of evidence. Leeds:
Children’s Workforce Development Council.
Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed
organizing. Organization Science, 13, 3, 249-273.
Orr, J. (1996). Talking About Machines. New York: Cornell University Press.
Osterlund, C., & Carlile, P. (2005). Relations in practice: sorting through practice theories on
knowledge sharing in complex organizations. The Information Society, 21, 91–107.
Parker, S. & Gallagher, N. (2007). The Collaborative State: How working together can transform
public services. DEMOS: London.
Pink, S. (2004). Visual methods. In C, Searle, J. Gumbrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative
research practice (pp.391-406). London: Sage.
Pink, S. (2005). Doing Visual Ethnography: Images, Media and Representation in Research.
London: Sage.
Pitsis T. & Clegg S. (2004). Inter-organisational synthesis: an approach to understanding the art
of relationships in collaboration. Management, 7, 3, 47-67.
Probst, G; Raub, S. & Romhardt, K. (2000). Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ray, J. & Smith, A. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: evidence,
considerations and application in a field of study. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 2, 288315.
Schneider, U. (2007). Coping with the concept of Knowledge. Management Learning 38, 5, 61333.
Silverman, D. (2011). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Sloper, P. (2004). Facilitators and barriers for co-ordinated multi-agency services. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 30, 571-580.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. (2nd ed), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sveningsson, S. & Alvesson, M (2003). Managing Managerial Identities: Organizational
Fragmentation, Discourse and Identity Struggle. Human Relations 56, 10, 1163-93.
Swart, M. (2011). That's why it matters. The value generating properties of knowledge.
Management Learning. 49, 3, 319-332.
30
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. Hogg & D.
Abrams (eds) Intergroup relations Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Taylor, I. & LeRiche, P. (2006). What do we know about partnership with service users and
carers in social work education and how robust is the evidence base? Health and Social Care in
the Community, 14, 5, 418-425.
Thistlethwaite, J., Jackson, A. & Moran, M. (2012). Interprofessional collaborative practice: A
deconstruction. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Early online 1-7 [doi:
10.3109/13561820.2012.730075].
Warmington, P., Edwards, A., Leadetter, J., Martin, D., Brown, S. & Middleton, D. (2004).
Learning in and for interagency working: conceptual tensions in ‘joined up’ practice. Paper
presented to the TLRP Annual Conference, Cardiff, November 2004. Available online at
www.education2.bham.ac.uk/documents/.../Warmington_TLRP_04.doc [Accessed 10/2/2009]
Warren, S. (2005). Photography and voice in critical qualitative management research.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(6), 861-882.
Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (2001). Joining up the solutions: the rhetoric and practice of interagency cooperation. Children and Society, 15, 315-32.
Weick, K. & Roberts, K. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight
decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: CUP.
Widdance-Twine, F. (2006). Visual ethnography and racial theory: Family photographs as
archives of interracial intimacies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 3, 487-511.
Wallo, A. (2008). The Leader as a Facilitator of Learning at Work: A Study of Learningorientated Leadership in Two Industrial Firms, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linkoping
University, Linkoping, Linkoping Studies in Arts and Sciences 461.
Willig, C. (2008). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and
Method, (2nd ed.), Buckingham: Open University Press.
Yanow, D. (2003). Accessing local knowledge. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds), Deliberative
Policy analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, (pp.228-246). Cambridge:
CUP.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research (4th ed.), London: Sage.