Meaningful Workplace Learning in The Digital Age

Meaningful Workplace Learning
in the Digital Age
David James Petersen

Green Templeton College
Trinity Term 2018
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Education (Learning & Technology)
Dedication
To my father, James, who taught me to love work.
To my mother, Francine, who taught me to love learning.
To my wife, Emily, who supported me through every part of this program.
Finally, to my son, Starling, for waiting to be born until I could finish writing.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to Dr Rebecca Eynon, my supervisor, for her constant support
and guidance throughout this program and especially during the process of producing
this dissertation. Thank you also to my other excellent instructors, Dr Niall Winters and
Dr James Robson, for all they taught me this last year.
I would additionally like to thank the organisations who provided access to conduct
this research and to all the people who participated in any way.
The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a
million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one
in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life… Every man is tasked
to make his life, even in its details, worthy of the contemplation of
his most elevated and critical hour.
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Meaningful Workplace Learning in the Digital Age
Abstract
Technology continues to sustain a transformation of how people live, work and make
meaning in their lives. Employment, for many individuals, consumes a large portion of
their time and energy. Accordingly, researchers have long studied how to make peoples
work experience a more meaningful part of their lives. Significant research has been
done in recent years in the field of positive organisational psychology, seeking to foster
improved experiences for workers. A key insight from this research has been the
development of social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974), which describes an individual’s
identity as a socially constructed reality influenced by the individuals group
memberships and roles. Meanwhile in the field of workplace learning increasing
emphasis has been placed on the social aspects of learning, especially with the theory
of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). This change contrasts the field’s traditional
focus on learning as knowledge transmission (Brown & Duguid, 1991). As these theories
have gained traction throughout the academic community and become more regularly
adopted in practice, the world has been experiencing enormous change. The rapid
diffusion of technology has led to an increasingly connected Network Society (Manuel
Castells, 2004). This has reconfigured how work is done and increased competition
globally. This dissertation considers how meaningful workplace learning experiences
might be fostered in a climate of such rapid change. This study draws upon social-
constructivist theories of learning, meaning-making and technology to understand if
learning at work can be a meaningful experience and if participation in the design of an
IT learning system can be meaningful. To explore this, I conducted a series of semi-
structured interviews and a participatory design workshop with team-members from two
different organisations, a manufacturing company and a university department. The
results of these interviews indicate that learning at work can be meaningful under
certain circumstances and that participatory design may be an effective means of
fostering meaningful experiences.
Keywords: workplace learning, participatory design, meaningful work, workplace

polarisation
i
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. v
– Introduction............................................................................................... 1
Two Kinds of Meaningful Workplace Learning .............................................................. 1
The Digital Age .................................................................................................................... 2
Diffusion of Technology, Especially ICTs ................................................................. 3
Globalisation and the Networked Society ............................................................... 3
Automation and The Polarisation of the Workforce .............................................. 3
Knowledge Work and The Growth of the Service Economy ............................... 3
Generational Shifts ....................................................................................................... 4
Flex-workers and the Jobless Society ..................................................................... 4
Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................................................. 6
- Perspectives from the Literature.............................................................7

Meaningful Work ................................................................................................................. 7
Constructing Meaning at Work ................................................................................... 7
Social Identity Theory and Meaning .......................................................................... 7
Threats to Meaningful Work in the Digital Age ............................................................. 8
The Spread of Technology and the Work People Do ........................................... 8
Globalisation and Personal Meaning-Creation ....................................................... 9
Automation and Changes to Work............................................................................ 9
Flexibility and Finding Meaning at Work ................................................................. 10
Workplace Learning .......................................................................................................... 10
The Rise of Computers and Theories of Learning at Work .................................. 11
Exporting SCORM Globally through the Internet ................................................... 11
Disparities Between Knowledge Work and Cognitive Learning Theory ........... 11
Communities of Practice, A Social Theory of Learning at Work......................... 13
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 14
– Research Design and Methodology..................................................... 16

Operationalising Social Identity Theory ........................................................................ 16
Participatory Design Research ........................................................................................ 17
Methods Selection and Design ....................................................................................... 18
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 19
Participatory Design Workshop Intervention ......................................................... 21
Follow-up Internet Survey.......................................................................................... 21
Sample Design .................................................................................................................. 22
Inclusion Criteria 1 – Professional Groups ............................................................. 22
Inclusion Criteria 2 – Points of Parity ...................................................................... 23
Inclusion Criteria 3 – Points of Distinction ............................................................. 23
Selected Participant Information .................................................................................... 23
Obtaining Informed Consent .......................................................................................... 25
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 25
ii
One-on-One Interviews ............................................................................................. 25

Participatory Design Workshop Intervention ........................................................ 25
Online Surveys ............................................................................................................ 26
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 26
Validity and Generalisability ........................................................................................... 28
Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................... 29
– Research Findings and Discussion ..................................................... 30

RQ1: Do different professional groups construct meaning through learning at
work? If so, how? ..................................................................................................................... 31
Reasons for Rarity of Meaningful Workplace Learning Experiences ................ 31
Examples of Meaningful Workplace Learning ...................................................... 32
RQ2: How, if at all, can participation in designing an IT learning system be
meaningful for different professional groups?.................................................................. 35
The Initial State of Social Identity ............................................................................ 36
The Participatory Design Workshop Intervention ................................................ 37
The Post-Intervention State of Social Identity....................................................... 37
Enabling Meaningful Workplace Learning in the Digital Age ................................... 39
1. Design for evolution ............................................................................................... 40
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives ........................ 40
3. Invite different levels of participation ................................................................. 40
4. Develop both public and private community spaces...................................... 40
5. Focus on value ........................................................................................................ 41
6. Combine familiarity and excitement .................................................................... 41
7. Create a rhythm for the community ..................................................................... 41
– Conclusion............................................................................................. 42
Workplace Polarisation Might Not Be So Clear-Cut ................................................... 42
Limitations of Educational Technology ......................................................................... 43
Future work ........................................................................................................................ 43
Participatory Methods in Organisations ................................................................. 44
A Longitudinal Look at Meaning-Creation ............................................................. 44
Workplace Polarisation.............................................................................................. 44
The Ongoing Pursuit of Meaning ................................................................................... 44
References .................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix A – CUREC Approval ................................................................................. 51
Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet .......................................................... 67
Appendix C – Pre-Workshop Semi-Structured Interview Protocol ........................ 71
Appendix D – Participatory Workshop Artefacts.................................................... 74
Appendix E – Follow Up Survey ............................................................................... 78
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Two Kinds of Meaningful Workplace Learning ............................................... 2
Figure 2 – Meaningful Workplace Learning in the Digital Age ...................................... 5
Figure 3 – The Knowledge-Creation Spiral....................................................................... 12
Figure 1 – A Ladder of Citizen Participation ...................................................................... 17
Figure 4 – Methodology for Studying Meaningful Workplace Learning ..................... 19
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Participants from Manufacturer .................................................. 24
Table 2 – Summary of Participants from University ....................................................... 24
Table 3 – First Cycle Question Codes .............................................................................. 26
Table 4 – First Cycle Topical Codes ................................................................................. 27
Table 5 – Second Cycle Codes.......................................................................................... 27
v
– Introduction
The search for meaning is a universal human drive. Frankl went so far as to call it
“the primary motivation” of human life (1984, p. 121 emphasis added). Individuals with a
strong sense of meaning are happier, healthier, better learners, more creative, and
more productive. The cultivation of meaning, then, is not just an individual prerogative;
it is in the interest of civic leaders, educators, and employers to foster meaningful
experiences. For most adults, work forms a significant part of life, both in terms of time
and energy. Ideally, employment is both a means of obtaining a livelihood and a source
of meaning from which individuals derive personal fulfilment.
Many aspects of human life can be observed in a workplace: human interaction,
financial exchange, creativity and innovation, teamwork, conflict, power dynamics, and
learning. It is no wonder then that researchers in many disciplines find the workplace,
and those who inhabit it, a fascinating context in which to research. While there are
significant bodies of literature regarding meaningful work and workplace learning
separately, relatively little has been done to explore a connection between these two
ideas. This dissertation looks at if and how learning at work can become meaningful to
different kinds of workers.
Two Kinds of Meaningful Workplace Learning

At least two kinds of meaningful workplace learning can be distinguished
conceptually (see Figure 1). First, some opportunities for learning at work are intrinsically
rewarding, an example of what Csikszentmihalyi (2008, p. 67) calls autotelic
experience. The term autotelic derives from the Greek words auto (self) and telos
(end/purpose) and denotes an innately rewarding learning experience which is an end
in itself. Autotelic learning is concerned with facilitating a process of development and
learning outcomes can be considered the natural by-products of this process. Second,
learning experiences can help individuals develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSA) or the qualifications required to participate in future meaningful experiences. This
kind of learning can be described as a means to an end. Especially at work, meaningful
jobs often require specialised training. Learning as a means to an end concentrates on
achieving learning objectives as efficiently as possible. Distinguishing these two types
of meaningful workplace learning provides a useful construct for comparing key
characteristics (such as the purpose, goals, and outcomes) of different kinds of learning
1
experiences. Importantly, these two kinds of meaningful experiences are archetypes

that need not be mutually exclusive. The ideal scenario would be an intrinsically
meaningful learning experience, worthy of pursuit as an end in itself, that additionally
enables other meaningful activities.
Meaningful
Meaningful Workplace
Workplace
Work Learning
Learning
Learning as an End Learning as an Means

The learning experience,
The learning experience is
though not meaningful in itself,
intrinsically meaningful
enables other meaningful activities
Figure 1 – Two Kinds of Meaningful Workplace Learning
The Digital Age

Studies of the workplace are further enriched and complicated by the effects of the
Digital Age. The Digital Age is an umbrella term for a combination of macro-level forces,
trends and changes, which are mediated by technology. These forces shape society
and commerce in significant ways. Understanding the nature of these technological and
societal shifts is essential to understanding meaningful workplace learning because
they directly affect opportunities for employment, workplace learning and meaning-
creation. In this dissertation, I will examine six of these factors that play a role in defining
the Digital Age. They are:
1. Diffusion of technology, especially internet and communication technologies

(ICTs)
2. Globalisation and the Networked Society
3. Automation and the polarisation of the workforce
4. The growth of the service economy and a shift away from manufacturing
2
5. Generational shifts as Baby Boomers retire and Millennials take over the
workforce
6. Flexibility of when, how and where work is completed
I will introduce each of these shifts briefly here, then explore them more fully in the
next chapter by examining how the academic literature suggests each may affect
people’s opportunities for significant learning experiences at work.
Diffusion of Technology, Especially ICTs
Few people dispute that extraordinary change has occurred since the advent of
computing technology, yet descriptions of this change vary greatly. Webster (2014)
outlines five types of definitions which scholars have used to explain the rise of the
Information Society: technological, economic, occupational, spatial and cultural.
Attempting to account for deficiencies in each explanation, he proposes that the
principal characteristic of the Information Age is that “theoretical
knowledge/information is at the core of how we conduct ourselves these days” (2014,
p. 11).
Globalisation and the Networked Society
Networked communication technologies radically accelerated the global transfer of
information. This expanded to facilitating commercial transactions in an increasingly
“flattened” global marketplace. In practical terms, ICTs transformed how society
experienced both time and space. Castells terms these phenomena timeless time and
the space of flows (2010, p. 407). Timeless time refers to the effects of instantaneous
and asynchronous communication. Physical distances and local time differences
collapse in irrelevancy as individuals come together in virtual space.
Automation and The Polarisation of the Workforce

Automation has varied effects on the demand for labour depending on the nature of
the task being performed. Routinised tasks are more susceptible to being substituted
by automation, thereby decreasing the need for human labour. Conversely, non-routine
tasks, like those involving perception and manipulation, social intelligence or creativity,
are typically complemented by automation (Frey & Osborne, 2017, pp. 22–28).
Knowledge Work and The Growth of the Service Economy
Castells points out that what is commonly described as the post-industrial age is just
a different form of knowledge-based industrial, agricultural and services production.
The decline in industrial work was matched by the expansion of the services sector.
First machines and then computers increasingly took on the burden of repetitive tasks,
3
leading to “a steady rise in formal and abstract skills”, such as engineering, technology
or finance (Casey, 1999, p. 19).This opened doors for advancement to those shifting to
knowledge work, while closing them to the lower-skilled workers. This reconfiguration
of labour coincided with the gradual but ever-present changes in generational
workplace demographics.
Generational Shifts
The dominant western generational model divides society into Traditionalists, born
before the end of the Second World War; Baby Boomers, born after the Second World
War and before the early- to mid-1960s, Generation X, born between the early- to mid-
1960s and the mid- to late-1980s, and Millennials, born from the late 1980s to the late
1990s. This breakdown is problematic because generational boundaries are
inconsistently defined between studies, and various countries have generational
patterns that do not conform to this model (see Hole, Zhong, & Schwartz, 2010 for
several international examples). Lyons and Kuron (2017), argue that to be useful,
generational data needs to be used more cautiously and be highly contextualised.
Bearing this caution in mind, it is still possible to substantiate some distinct trends across
generations. The world is becoming increasingly focused on the individual; this is seen
in rising levels of extroversion and conscientiousness, but accompanying levels of
neuroticism and narcissism (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Keith Campbell, & Bushman,
2008). The individualisation corresponds with an increased expectation of material
rewards for good work, but decreased sense of the centrality of work. Overall, work-life
balance is more critical, especially for Millennials. These shifts are timely and relevant
because Millennials are expected to become the largest segment of the workforce
globally by 2020 as Baby Boomers retire (Manpower Group, 2016). Consequently, it is
important to create work that is individually meaningful and allows for personal
development.
Flex-workers and the Jobless Society

ICTs have increased the flexibility of work for many individuals, often allowing them
to work where, when and how much they choose with a great degree of autonomy. This
transformation can be seen as the “individualization of labour” (M Castells, 2010, p. 282).
The traditional nine-to-five workweek in a company-owned workplace is being
exchanged for adaptable work hours which can be worked remotely. The result of these
changes is to foster a “just-in-time” labour force (Carnoy, 2004, p. 3), in line with the
principles of Lean Management. Networked businesses can rely on a diverse array of
4
labour management practices such as subcontracting work, employing consultants or

outsourcing tasks to cheaper labour markets. This increasing variety of labour has led
to a decline in job stability, as work becomes more project- and task-oriented. Project-
based labour does not necessarily include the commitment for future employment. It
also doesn’t promote the traditional employer-employee social contract, where
employees offered their loyalty to an employer in exchange for certain rights, fair
compensation, and opportunities for professional development (M Castells, 2010, p.
282). Despite being more connected than ever before, the workforce is increasingly
fragmented.
These six societal and technological changes provide the backdrop for my
exploration of meaningful workplace learning in the digital age (see Figure 2). While
there are undoubtedly other factors that may have an influence, these six factors were
intentionally chosen to highlight different aspects of the context in which meaningful
workplace learning is situated. Together they shed light upon the technological, global,
societal, occupational, demographic forces that may be affecting the kind of
experiences individuals have for personal and professional development at work.
The Digital Age

Technological Knowledge
Proliferation Work
Generational
Globalisation
Shifts
Meaningful
Meaningful Workplace
Workplace
Work Learning
Workplace Learning Flexible
Polarisation Workforce
Figure 2 – Meaningful Workplace Learning in the Digital Age
This dissertation explores if and how individuals experience workplace learning as

meaningful. It further seeks to understand how the Digital Age may be affecting the
ability of individuals to have significant learning experiences at work and to have
learning experiences that prepare them for increasingly fulfilling work.
5
Structure of the Dissertation

This dissertation consists of six chapters that paint an increasingly detailed picture
of meaningful workplace learning. I will summarise the purposes of these chapters
briefly here and provide a sketch of their principal arguments.
Chapter 2 builds upon the conceptual map outlined in Figure 2, making a case for
studying meaningful workplace learning and its relationship to technology. A basic
premise of my research, presented in Chapter 2, is that meaning at work is actively
created rather than passively discovered and that, in the right circumstances, the
workplace may provide an environment for employees to develop meaningful learning
experiences together. Developments in technology may jeopardise workers’
opportunities for meaningful work in a variety of ways, which I outline. It gives direction
to the succeeding chapters by developing two research questions, which set up my
research.
Chapter 3 references the methodology literature to develop a strategy for analysing
the research questions raised in Chapter 2. I briefly mention some of the philosophical
and ontological assumptions of this research before explaining the selection of the
sample and methods used. One-on-one interviews, a participatory workshop and an
internet survey provide the primary data sources for my research. I explain why each
technique was chosen, how data was collected and how the results come together to
answer the research questions. I discuss the implications that these techniques have
on the validity and generalisability of findings offered in Chapter 4. I conclude the
chapter with a discussion of the ethical implications of this research, and the steps that
I have taken to mitigate any risks involved.
Chapter 4 presents findings based on my research with two companies, a
manufacturing company and a university department. Using examples from the
participants of this study, I examine how the data gathered helps to answer the research
questions. I compare these findings with other literature using the theory of
communities of practice.
Chapter 5 weaves together the key arguments of the dissertation into a few
recommendations for practice. I summarise the questions that are addressed, how data
has illuminated the research questions, and what implications that has for researchers
and practitioners. I conclude with a few reasons that I believe people should value
studying meaning-creation and learning at work.
6
- Perspectives from the

Literature
So far, I have introduced a conceptual map to guide this dissertation’s primary
research problem, the search for a connection between meaningful work and
workplace learning. This study benefits from the confluence of research from several
disciplines, which indicates that such a relationship is likely to be found. Here I will show
how this existing literature helps to unpack the ideas of meaningful work and workplace
learning, integrating the digital trends raised in the introduction.
Meaningful Work
Understanding how meaningful work has been comprehended historically is a good
place to start. Weber traced capitalism to the Protestant Reformation, construing
meaning that individuals derive from work in terms of a calling or vocation, a sense of
spiritual obligation to one’s work (Weber, 2015, p. 14). Meaning found in such a calling
is a by-product of a particular kind of belief structure, in which work itself becomes an
act of faith. One’s daily labour was given meaning when performed within a community
of the faith in majorem gloriam Dei. The idea of vocation, a term which evokes its
religious roots (from the Latin vocare, meaning ‘to call’), continues to be influential in
literature relating to meaningful work (Steger & Dik, 2009, p. 132).
Constructing Meaning at Work
In contrast to Weber’s notion of meaning at work being derived from a sense of
spiritual calling, meaningful work can also be conceived as an aspect of identity that is
constructed by an individual within the social context in which he or she is situated (Pratt
& Ashforth, 2003, p. 311). Steger and Dik trace the evolution of contemporary
constructivist theories of meaning at work in which meaning arises when one can make
sense of their experience and feel that the experiences "unfold in accordance with
some over-arching purpose" (2009, p. 3). Meaning-creation as a kind of sense-making
depends on the understanding of one's roles and obtaining a defined purpose.
Social Identity Theory and Meaning

Social identity theory offers a useful model for explaining this kind of intersubjective
meaning-making (Tajfel, 1974). It claims that at an individual’s sense of self is formed
based on the memberships of his or her roles within the groups in which he or she
participates. In this intersubjective process, “it is important to remember that individuals
7
are not passive respondents: individuals help create the meanings that express and
confirm their desired sense of self” (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003, p. 314).
People create meaning based upon their social identity by finding “where they fit” in
their broader social context. Negotiating this sense-making process personally involves
self-categorisation and an internalisation of group norms (Turner & Reynolds, 2012, p.
9). Teams tend to exhibit ingroup favouritism when individuals see their membership
as part of their personal identity, there are ways to compare between groups, and when
it is relevant for inter-group comparison to occur (Haslam, 2004, p. 67). This makes
sense because individuals who have invested a part of their self-concept in a group are
likely to find its activities meaningful. Pratt links identity and meaningfulness by arguing
that groups fill a, “variety of needs, including safety, affiliation, self-enhancement, and
more holistic needs, such as being a part of something greater than themselves” (2001,
p. 14). Fostering meaningful work “involves changing the nature of one’s organizational
membership. One finds meaning not in what one does, but in whom one surrounds
oneself with as part of organizational membership, and/or in the goals, values and
beliefs that the organization espouses” (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003, p. 314).
Threats to Meaningful Work in the Digital Age

The multiplication of ICTs globally and the rise of the network society pose significant
challenges for meaning-making in the Digital Age.
The Spread of Technology and the Work People Do
There has been insufficient research on the effects that the technological
transformation of the workplace is having on the meaning people create at work. The
impacts of new technology are often unpredictable. Technological artefacts provide
affordances, impose constraints, require dependencies and produce consequences.
None of these characteristics exclusively determine how a technology will be used, but
they can shape how a user may interpret an artefact. As such, technology can be seen
as a political construct because it can exert an influence on human behaviour. The idea
that technology has political qualities is still provocative to many people. In fact,
Langdon Winner has stated that “No idea is more provocative in controversies about
technology and society” (2004, p. 668). The instrumental view of technology as a
neutral tool is still pervasive in society at large but becoming less so in academic circles.
To say that technology is neutral is to say that does not affect society. It is easy to see
how the blacksmith creates a hammer, turning raw materials into a useful tool. It is,
8
perhaps, more challenging to see how the hammer creates the blacksmith, making it
more likely for him to perform particular kinds of work in the future, using specific
accepted practices, and leading to predictable economic and personal outcomes.
Globalisation and Personal Meaning-Creation
Businesses affected by globalisation can disrupt an individual’s social identity and
consequently his or her ability to create meaning at work. Rothstein uses the US
automotive industry as an example of semi-skilled work which was initially protected by
strong labour unions and relative freedom from foreign competition. The consolidation
of the US, Canadian and Mexican auto industries undermined the national labour
organisations and resulted in declining working conditions throughout North America
(2012, p. 139). Foreign cars entered the marketplace, constructing non-unionised plants
in the US (2012, p. 135). Workers who were once members of powerful unions with
substantial collective bargaining power (like United Auto Workers), lost negotiating
strength. As the power of the labour unions faded, the membership became less
valuable to an individual’s social identity. The empowerment at work they had once
found as a member of an influential collective was diminished as globalisation coerced
concessions from the unions.
Automation and Changes to Work

From the Luddites to those warning of an imminent AI apocalypse, history is replete
with examples of tensions arising from technological change. Among these tensions,
the fear that new technology will make workers obsolete is a recurring theme. As
previously noted, automation may substitute for labour, as evidenced by the reduction
of US workers employed in agriculture (41 per cent in 1990 compared to 2 per cent in
2000), but the reality of automation’s effect on labour is more nuanced than Neo-
Luddites care to admit (Autor, 2015, p. 5). Automation may also complement or
transform work, as witnessed by the adoption of automated teller machines (ATMs).
Interestingly, between the early 1970s - when ATMs were first introduced - and 2010,
the number of bank tellers increased (Bessen, 2015). The ATMs did automate many of
the repetitive tasks that bank tellers had been performing, but the new technology freed
them for other higher-value tasks such as strengthening relationships with customers
and offering them additional bank services.
In the wake of increasing automation, society has witnessed a “hollowing out” of
middle-income, semi-skilled jobs (Frey & Osborne, 2017, p. 3; Goos & Manning, 2003;
Kochhar, Fry, Researcher, & Rohal, 2015). The lowest-skilled jobs (food service,
9
custodial, etc.) tend to remain because unskilled labour can be had inexpensively; it
may be uneconomical to automate such tasks. High-skilled jobs are also generally safe
from automation because most of them cannot readily be routinised. Most high-skilled
jobs consist of tasks that fall into one of the three categories (perceptive, creative and
social) outlined by Frey & Osborne. This “hollowing out” of the middle-class presents a
threat to meaningful work experiences for many individuals. Meaningful work may be
disrupted due to loss of employment, or through a radical change in the nature of a job.
Flexibility and Finding Meaning at Work

Consider how the fragmentation and individualisation of society complicates the
construction of an individual’s social identity and accordingly their creation of meaning
at work. “Never was labor more central to the process of value-making. But never were
the workers (regardless of their skills) more vulnerable to the organization, since they
had become lean individuals, farmed out in a flexible network whose whereabouts were
unknown to the network itself” (M Castells, 2010, p. 302). Such fragmentation doesn’t
threaten to abolish the group memberships or roles which social identity theory
suggests are necessary to create meaningful experiences, it threatens to make them
invisible. Membership denotes a certain level of permanence and continuity, which the
individualisation of work does not afford.
The Digital Age has clearly had far-reaching effects on people’s opportunities for
meaningful work. What influence has it had on the workplace learning process itself?
Workplace Learning
“Until the last decade or so, it might have been said that there was no relationship
between academic learning and work—students learn, workers work (Kirby, Knapper,
Evans, Carty, & Gadula, 2003, p. 34). The rapid change occurring in the digital age has
made lifelong learning a necessity, if not a contractual requirement, for many workers.
This continuous training has become essential to remaining competitive in the
knowledge economy. Aside from the economic benefit that can be derived, there are
good reasons to believe that workplace learning may provide opportunities for making-
meaning. Workplace learning is a means by which one’s roles are modified, and one
becomes a member of different groups. According to social identity theory,
opportunities to learn in the workplace are therefore likely to be experiences in which
individuals construct meaning.
10
The Rise of Computers and Theories of Learning at Work

The rise of computers coincided with the Cognitive Revolution. This marked a turn
from the behaviourist work of Pavlov and Skinner, which equated learning with
conditioning, towards an understanding of learning as a cognitive process (Harasim,
2017, p. 49). It was, as Bruner recalls, an attempt to “bring ‘mind’ back into the human
sciences after a long cold winter of objectivism”, yet almost from the beginning its
emphasis shifted “from the construction of meaning to the processing of information”
(1990, pp. 1–2). The metaphor of the mind as a computer became the dominant theory
of the community. A kind of computer-mind symbiosis was fostered in the form of
intelligent tutoring systems and work on artificial intelligence (Harasim, 2017, p. 55).
Exporting SCORM Globally through the Internet
It is impossible to divorce the history of workplace learning technology in this era
from the influence of the US Military. Gagné, who pioneered the science of instruction
in the US Army Air Corps during World War II, was instrumental in shaping the
development of the kind of routinised training still used in business today (Richey, 2000,
p. 228). The Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) is a technical
specification created during the Cold War by the US Defence Department to allow for
learning content to be packaged and shared between computerised learning systems.
In both the academic and corporate e-learning environments, this specification is still
widely used today. The infrastructure for the Internet was a creation of the military
during this era (see Friesen, 2009, pp. 201–225 for a critical look at the US Military’s
involvement in developing e-learning technology).
Disparities Between Knowledge Work and Cognitive Learning Theory
Although cognitive psychology made more sense of the inner-workings of learning
than behaviourism, certain aspects of the paradigm began to be seen as untenable as
time went on. Cognitivism treats learning as an individual process that is facilitated by
an instructor. It has a start and an end and is decoupled from other activities. Often the
knowledge acquired in this manner is so far removed from its context that learners
dismiss it as irrelevant (Wenger, 1998, p. 3). Recognising these limitations led to the
formulation of a new social learning paradigm.
The roots of this social learning theory extend at least to the early 1990s when Brown
& Duguid demonstrated the importance of socialisation at work. “Workplace learning is
best understood”, they assert, “in terms of the communities being formed or joined and
personal identities being changed. The central issue in learning is becoming a
11
practitioner not learning about practice” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, p. 48). In their work at
Xerox, Brown and Duguid illustrated the potential for divergence between an
organisation’s espoused practice and its enacted practice. This divergence is
problematic for organisations that attempt to promulgate a systematised canon of
standard operating procedure. Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed a model which helps
organisations integrate their espoused and enacted practice by creating knowledge
“through the social interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge” (1995, p. 230).
Dialogue
TACIT EXPLICIT
Socialisation Externalisation
Linking Explicit Knowledge

TACIT
Field (Team) Building
EXPLICIT
Internalisation Combination
Learning By Doing
Figure 3 – The Knowledge-Creation Spiral

Adapted from Nonaka et al., 1995
According to this model tacit knowledge is transferred between individuals through

socialization or codified through externalization. Externalising tacit knowledge can be
beneficial because it allows for processes to be systematised. Codified knowledge can
then be combined with other ideas before being internalised by individuals and
becoming an implicit part of their everyday work practice. Different pieces of external
knowledge can be joined through combination to form new ideas. Finally, individuals
could achieve mastery through internalisation or making the previously external
knowledge part of their tacit skillset. An important implication of this theory is that
workers across organisations likely have accumulated tacit knowledge that is not
currently shared throughout the organisation. An example of how social knowledge-
creation can be effectively operationalised at work can be seen in the idea of
12
Communities of Practice, A Social Theory of Learning at Work

Wenger’s notion of communities of practice challenges the idea that learning is best
described as an individual process, separated from social activity. According to this
perspective, learning is centred around the ideas of meaning, practice, community and
identity (1998, p. 5). Meaning refers to how individuals and groups make sense of their
world. Practice is a way of communicating the shared experience to members of a
community. Communities coalesce around distinct areas of competence, which
members consider valuable. Identity means one's personal history and aspirations,
within the context of the community memberships.
Communities of practice are pervasive. In their day-to-day activities, everyone
becomes a member of multiple communities. Wenger's description of the workplace is
germane to our discussion:
Workers organize their lives with their immediate colleagues and

customers to get their jobs done. In doing so, they develop or
preserve a sense of themselves they can live with, have some fun,
and fulfil the requirements of their employers and clients. No matter
what the official job description may be, they create a practice to
do what needs to be done. Although workers may be contractually
employed by a large institution, in day-to-day practice they work
with - and, in a sense, for - a much smaller set of people and
communities. (1998, p. 6)
While many organisations see the benefit of fostering communities of practice (for a list
of strategic benefits of communities of practice, see Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2012, p. 49),
it may be misguided to attempt to institutionalise them. This is because efforts to
deliberately organise a community of practice is unlikely to prove successful. They
emerge naturally from lived activity. A community of practice need not be explicitly
identified, but there are some signs that a community has formed, such as:
1. sustained mutual relationships - harmonious or

conflictual
2. shared ways of engaging in doing things together
3. the rapid flow of information and propagation of
innovation
4. absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations
and interactions were merely the continuation of an
ongoing process
5. very quick setup of a problem to be discussed
6. substantial overlap in participants' descriptions of who
belongs
7. knowing what others know, what they can do, and how
they can contribute to an enterprise
8. mutually defining identities
13
9. the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and

products
10. specific tools, representations and other artifacts
11. local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter
12. jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the
ease of producing new ones (Wenger, 1998, p. 125)
Wenger differentiates two parallel realities that exist in any organisation: the
designed organisation, and the practice. The designed organisation refers to the
structure of the organisation, its rules and policies. The practice refers to the
overlapping "constellations" of communities of practices that form the day-to-day
experience of individuals within the organisation. This division is similar in many ways
to Brown's (1991, p. 41) identification of espoused and enacted practice. I will now
present the research questions that serve to structure my research into meaningful
workplace learning in the Digital Age.
Research Questions
The transformations occurring in the workplace, accelerated by technology, raise
important concerns regarding the future of meaningful work. As demonstrated in the
previous two sections, there are good reasons to infer a relationship between
meaningful work and workplace learning. To explore this relationship, I propose the
following two research questions:
• RQ1: Do different professional groups construct meaning through learning at

work? If so, how?
• RQ2: How, if at all, does participation in designing an IT learning system

become meaningful for different professional groups?
In both of the research questions I employ the term professional groups, which,
unless situated would leave the subject of analysis very vague. In this dissertation, I
employ a definition compiled by Kozlowski and Bell. What I will refer to in this research
as teams, groups or professional groups:
(a) are composed of two or more individuals,(b) who exist to

perform organizationally relevant tasks, (c) share one or more
common goals, (d) interact socially, (e) exhibit task
interdependencies (i.e., workflow, goals, outcomes), (f) maintain
and manage boundaries, and (g) are embedded in an
14
organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team,

and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2001, p. 6).
In the next chapter these two research questions will guide my methodology in the
search for meaningful workplace learning in the Digital Age.
15
– Research Design and

Methodology
All empirical studies, to be coherent and internally consistent, must harmonise their
ontological and epistemological assumptions with their research methodology.
Hitchcock and Hughes describe the natural order in which “ontological assumptions …
give rise to epistemological assumptions which have methodological implications for
the choice of particular data collection techniques” (2002, p. 21).
In the case of this dissertation, social identity theory provides the theoretical basis of
my analysis of meaningful work. In this chapter, I will explain how the theory’s social-
constructivist epistemology informs the methodological approach I employed in this
study. Specifically, I will address how semi-structured interviews, a participatory design
workshop intervention and an internet survey combined to provide the data needed for
this search for meaningful workplace learning.
Operationalising Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory, as the name suggests, asserts the constructed nature of one’s
identity. This is seen as a radical proposition to those who presuppose a personal view
of identity. Stating that something is socially constructed is not a particularly insightful
observation because just about anything (from Authorship to Zulu Nationalism) may be
analysed from a social-constructive perspective (Hacking, 1999, p. 1). The purpose of
considering the social nature of an idea is often to raise consciousness about it. Hacking
presents three axioms of social construction; each argues against inevitability:
Social constructionists about X tend to hold that:
1. X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or

X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of
things; it is not inevitable.
Very often they go further, and urge that:

2. X is quite bad as it is.
3. We would be much better off if X were done away with, or
at least radically transformed. (Hacking, 1999, p. 6)
In the case of identity theory, a social approach suggests that identity is not merely
a subjective phenomenon, a fixed trait that an individual possesses. Instead, social
identity theory sees identity as an intersubjective reality that is negotiated by individuals
within groups. Because meaning at work is derived from one’s social identity, it provides
16
a construct to explore the influence of workplace learning on meaning-making.

Hacking’s second and third axiom point to possible improvements to be made through
fostering more meaningful learning experiences at work. One method that allows
individuals to see beyond the inevitable nature of workplace learning technology is
participatory design research, which I will now briefly touch on.
Participatory Design Research

Participatory design research is ideally suited the search for the link between
meaningful work and workplace learning because its object is to create meaningful
experiences through design-based research. Participatory research is a branch of
action research designed to empower those who traditionally have been marginalised
and to give a voice to those without one (Cornwall et al., 1995, p. 1667). Its methods
have been applied in development efforts in low to middle-income countries
(Andersson, Grönlund, & Wicander, 2012), with young people (Groundwater-Smith,
Dockett, & Bottrell, 2014), in community development (Paul, 1987; Wallerstein & Duran,
2006), and in public health initiatives (Daniel S. Blumenthal & DiClemente, 2013; Farmer,
2003; Oliver, Geniets, Winters, Rega, & Mbae, 2015; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). What
stands out about participatory methods is not necessarily the techniques used, but the
cultural context that is created to foster them (Cornwall et al., 1995, p. 1667).
Participatory research seeks to challenge the status quo by intentionally altering the
distribution of power.
Arnstein (1969) was the first to elaborate a ladder-model of participation, suggesting
eight gradations of involvement which ranged from non-participatory manipulation to
complete citizen control (see Figure 4).
8. Citizen Control
7. Delegation Citizen Control
6. Partnership
5. Placation
4. Consultation Tokenism
3. Informing
2. Therapy
Non-participation
1. Manipulation
Figure 4 – A Ladder of Citizen Participation

Adapted from Arnstein, 1969
17
Despite the potential for an imbalance of power between employees and employers,
there are too few examples of participatory research methods being used at work.
Elden and Taylor (1983, pp. 5–6) problematise the use of participatory methods in the
workplace, highlighting three challenges. First, it is difficult for researchers to surrender
complete control of a research project to the participants. The higher on Arnstein’s
ladder a project ascends, the more difficult it is for a researcher to guide the research.
Second, in a work environment, it is almost impossible to successfully initiate a
participatory project without management’s tacit or explicit support. Elden and Taylor
note “This leads to the danger of change being limited to relatively marginal problems
and to the likelihood that only relatively well-off companies with good labour-
management relations will engage in participatory research: the well-off become even
better off” (1983, p. 6). Finally, if a participatory project is successful, it may become a
source of institutional power which may lead to additional issues common to shifts in
the balance of power.
A variety of methods may be useful, depending on the degree to which individuals
are empowered in a given participatory initiative. The characteristics of good practice
between methods are the extent to which they help participants externalise their ideas,
goals, and preferences in meaningful decision-making. Many techniques that are
common to other constructivist paradigms can find practical application in participatory
research.
Methods Selection and Design

I will now explain the methodological approach that I used to search for meaningful
workplace learning. This methodology naturally arises from the epistemological and
theoretical foundation provided by social identity theory (see Figure 5). First, it was
necessary to understand the current state of each participant’s social identity and the
extent to which he or she perceives work and workplace learning as meaningful. I
gathered this data via a one-on-one interview with each participant, as outlined in the
following section. Next, I held a participatory design workshop with each team to
collaboratively build an IT learning solution. The second research question seeks to
understand if/how such an intervention could be meaningful to participants. Social
identity theory predicts participants would find the intervention meaningful if it modified
group memberships or individual roles within the group. Lastly, Internet surveys were
18
used to follow-up with workshop participants about how meaningful the intervention
had been to them and their team.
Research Question 1 Research Question 2
Current Becomes Future

Social identity and Social identity and
sense of meaning sense of meaning
Aff
Measures
Measures
cte
s
Semi-structured Participatory design Follow-up
interviews workshop/intervention survey
Social identity theory
Social-constructivist epistemology
Figure 5 – Methodology for Studying Meaningful Workplace Learning

Interviews
Semi-structured interviews provide a useful instrument for deeply exploring the
individual subjective experience of members of a sample. This study's focus on
personal meaning-creation made interviews an ideal choice for data collection. In
designing an interview, it is essential to keep in mind the nature of research questions
involved as well as the characteristics of the respondents (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,
2011, p. 415). In this case, the questions centred around how the individual found
meaning as a member of their team. It was important not to enter the interview with the
preconception that the participant had given much thought to learning at work.
Constructivists see interviews less as "mining" for information and more as "taking a
journey" with an interviewee (Kvale, 2007, p. 19). Exploratory interviews, particularly,
seek developing hypotheses instead of harvesting raw facts (Oppenheim, 2000, p. 65).
Each interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. The interview protocol that I
developed (see Appendix C) was essential to making use of the limited time available
(as Patton, 1990, p. 343 suggests). The objective of the interview was to understand
better:
1. What parts of work the individual found most personally meaningful. In
formulating questions to understand an individual's background, it was vital
19
for them to be open-ended and to allow for narrative creation. One such
narrative-evoking question that enquired what a typical day on the job looks
like for the individual. This question enabled the respondents to select salient
aspects of their work, the kind that will most likely be felt as meaningful. In
reality, the groups the individuals were part of during these meaningful
moments were of greater interest than the descriptions of the tasks. Tuckman
suggests that such indirect questioning “is more likely to produce a frank and
open response” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 417; Tuckman, 1994, p. 458). Another
similar question probed their professional background and allowed for a
more extended account to be constructed by the respondent, framing their
current role in terms of their past. This question gave an overarching view of
how the individual understands their place at work and specifically within
various professional groups that they work with.
2. How each employee interpreted their workplace learning experiences. The
interview asked for examples of learning opportunities that the employee
had had within the last six months. By designating a fixed timeframe, it was
likely easier for respondents to select specific, recent examples. I followed
up this question with a series of hypothetical situations. I asked the
respondents how such cases would be handled in the workplace; these
included things such as onboarding, giving feedback, asking questions, etc.
These questions helped to understand the culture of learning in both of these
companies more clearly, which segued into the final set of questions.
3. How the individuals saw their role in the social structure of the team. This
final set of questions sought to detail how the employees saw their role as
learners or as sharers of knowledge within their organisation. The
conversation up to this point had focused on the individuals as learner's, but
I wanted to get a full picture of their experience of learning at work. Many
times, this included new opportunities to train others and share their
expertise.
I piloted the protocol in a number of mock interviews and revised several questions
before soliciting feedback from my advisor. I consolidated this feedback into a final draft
of the protocol (see Appendix C), which I followed in all of the interviews. The next part
of my methodology concerns the planning of the participatory design workshop.
20
Participatory Design Workshop Intervention

The goal of the workshop was to collaboratively design an IT learning system for the
use of the participants, but the research objective was to observe changes in the
participants’ social identity. Potentially, holding a participatory workshop could
stimulate in-group and out-group behaviour, create a membership in a new team of
collaborators, or reconfigure existing roles.
Rather than using an interview protocol, like in the individual interviews, the
participatory design workshop was structured around a collaborative brainstorming
technique called "affinity diagramming" (Scupin, 1997, p. 235), adapted from the field of
total quality management. Affinity diagramming allows team members to brainstorm
ideas in an organised way, and then collaboratively discover themes among their ideas
in a discursive way. This technique is a useful tool in constructing an understanding of
a group's various ideas and identifying themes from the contributions of individual
suggestions.
Participants wrote ideas on sticky notes, which were collected and put on a wall or
whiteboard. After this, members of the team categorised the sticky notes, identifying
themes and relations between the ideas. This approach worked well because the
manufacturing team was already familiar with the method, and many on the university
team were familiar with a web-based tool that facilitates affinity diagramming digitally.
Affinity Diagramming is similar to other constructivist methods, such as PhotoVoice
(Wang & Burris, 1997) and Body Mapping (Cornwall, 1992), in that they effectively
generate ideas and discussion. By first prompting participants to submit ideas for
consideration and categorisation by the group, individuals were given a voice, and the
risk of groupthink is mitigated. Once all of the ideas were collected, a few participants
sorted the ideas into themed groups, and then the team discussed the emerged
themes. When appropriate, individuals were asked to clarify their meaning about an
idea that had been shared or to explain why they submitted it for consideration. The
resulting discussion allowed for structured reflection on the chosen topic and created
a wealth of qualitative data for analysis. The topics and themes provide one level of
insight and recording the discussion provide additional granularity about the
importance of the ideas.
Follow-up Internet Survey

To understand how the intervention influenced individual’s social identity
(responding to RQ2), it was necessary to have participants reflect on their experience
21
and whether it was meaningful to them. An online survey (see Appendix E) provided a
means for individuals to respond after taking adequate time to reflect on their
experience in the design workshop. As the survey was designed to be self-
administered, it needed to be as brief and straightforward as possible, while gathering
the necessary data, to maximise the number of responses and minimise confusion
about any of the items. Questions avoided loaded terms or leading respondents toward
specific "right" answers. A drawback with surveys is that it is much more difficult to
anticipate how much text respondents may provide. The format also does not allow for
follow-up probing questions to be asked.
The questionnaire consisted of three open-ended questions. The first question
prompted a description of the individual's experience at the participatory design
workshop. The second pertained to changes in the individual's understanding of
learning at work. The final question related to changes in the individual's understanding
of his or her role as a learner or knowledge creator in the professional group. Each of
the questions was designed to invite the participants to reflect on their experience and
share any meaning that they created through their participation. While the questions do
not directly ask about meaning-making, each presents the opportunity to share
meaningful experiences and probes aspects of the participant’s social identity.
Correlating the surveys with the one-on-one interviews and workshop data can be a
means of tracing the individual’s formation of meaning throughout the process of this
intervention.
Sample Design
While probability-based sampling becomes powerful relative to its generalisability,
purposive sampling derives its power from its emphasis on in-depth understanding
(Patton, 1990, p. 46). The authority of a purposive sample depends on the criteria with
which it was selected, which requires researchers using this approach, “make fully
transparent the criteria upon which the sampling process was based” (Jupp, 2006, p.
245). This dissertation employed a form of purposive sampling using criteria which I will
now explain.
Inclusion Criteria 1 – Professional Groups
Social identity theory conceptualises meaning-making as a social process, so the
smallest unit of analysis that would provide the adequate depth of understanding is a
professional group. For inter-group comparison to be possible, this study requires a
22
minimum of two teams; in order to maximise comparability and isolate valued points of
distinction, two teams may also be ideal. Of course, it is prerequisite that these groups
belong to organisations that are willing to grant me access to and time with their
workers for research purposes.
Inclusion Criteria 2 – Points of Parity
Teams selected should be as similar as possible in size, gender ratios, ethnic
composition, age and other variables that could confound findings. Although purposive
sampling does not aim at generalisability (Daniel, 2012, p. 95), a common reason to
isolate variables between groups, similarities can be helpful for comparing the
experiences between teams. More points of parity between groups make it possible to
compare aspects of their learning cultures and identify the traits of meaningful
workplace learning that are common between them.
Inclusion Criteria 3 – Points of Distinction
Teams selected should differ from each other in a few significant ways. To better
explore the influence of the six aspects of the Digital Age raised in Figure 2, it would be
best if the teams came from different industries. Ideally, there would be one team from
a high-skilled, knowledge-work sector and another from a lower-skilled sector. It would
also be interesting to contrast teams in different stages of development to evaluate how
the length of time together as a team affects individuals’ sense of meaning. The points
of distinction between the two organisations enable contrast between teams in different
stages of development and various industries.
Selected Participant Information

Two companies agreed to participate in this study and fulfilled the selection criteria,
a manufacturing company and a university. Although I was acquainted with these
companies, I had not worked directly with the teams who participated in this research.
I was privileged to work with two very talented teams in this research (see
Table 1 and 2 below for a summary of participant characteristics). Of the 17
individuals invited to interview with me, 13 individuals consented to be interviewed and
recorded. An additional four individuals agreed to participate in the manufacturer’s
participatory workshop, making a total of 21 participants.
These two companies were particularly well-suited to address my research
questions because they made it possible to examine the creation of meaning in
contrasting contexts. As required by the selection criteria, the teams were similar in
23
many respects; each is roughly the same size, having 8 or 9 members, and each has a
similar distribution of men and women. The teams also contrast each other in significant
ways – sector, and time together as a team, for example. Few better contrasts could be
found than a manufacturing company and a university. University employees epitomize
the knowledge worker while manufacturing workers would be more likely to be
negatively affected by automation. The most striking difference is the average length of
tenure of the members of the two teams. The manufacturing team is comprised of
individuals who have worked for the organisation for many years. On the other team,
the most senior employee has worked for the university for just under two years.
Table 1 – Summary of Participants from Manufacturer
Years with
Participant ID Gender Interview Workshop
Organization
MFG Employee A 4.75 F X X
MFG Employee B 6 F X X
MFG Manager A 4.08 M X
MFG Manager B 5.5 M X X
MFG Manager B 14.83 M X
MFG Manager C n/a M X
MFG Manager D n/a F X
MFG Executive A 9.25 F
MFG Executive B 19.75 M X X
MFG Executive C n/a F
Average Female 50% Response Response
9.17 Years Rate Rate
40% 80%
Median Male
6.0 Years 50%
Table 2 – Summary of Participants from University
Years with
Participant ID Gender Interview Workshop
Organization
UNI Employee A 0.08 M X X
UNI Employee B 0.08 M X X
UNI Employee C 0.08 M X X
UNI Employee D 0.67 F X X
UNI Employee E 1 F X X
UNI Employee F 1.42 M X X
UNI Manager A 0.58 F X X
UNI Manager B 1.1 F X X
UNI Manager C 1.83 M X X
Average .78 Female Response Response
Years 45% Rate Rate
100% 100%
Median Male
.67 Years 55%
24
Obtaining Informed Consent

Each participant received a copy of the Participant Information Sheet (see Appendix
B) which I reviewed with them to be “ever vigilant in fully informing and protecting the
people who honor [me] by agreeing to participate in [my] research” (Patton, 1990, p.
271). Each understood that involvement was entirely voluntary and that he or she had
the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Everyone who took part in the study
verbally consented to participate. Once permission was attained, I was able to begin
the process of data collection.
Data Collection
One-on-One Interviews
The one-on-one interview provided an opportunity for each individual to formulate
and begin expressing their ideas about learning at work, without the presence of other
team members, the conversations offered nuanced insight into team dynamics and
existing practices. Individuals create meaning in many different ways, and if the same
questions had been asked in the focus group, it might have been more difficult for
individuals to share their unique insights.
Each of the telephone interviews were recorded using a conference call system
called Zoom. Initially, I planned on using Zoom to facilitate video interviews, but many
of the manufacturing participants did not have access to a device with a webcam. For
these, recorded phone interviews proved sufficient for obtaining a snapshot of the
participant’s social identity and initial ideas about workplace learning. These recordings
were securely backed-up and transcribed using Amazon Web Service’s cloud
transcription tool, AWS Transcribe. The computer-generated transcripts were proofread
for accuracy and imported into NVIVO for analysis.
Participatory Design Workshop Intervention

I conducted an hour-long workshop with each of the companies which consisted of
two rounds of affinity diagramming and discussion of the ideas generated during each
of the rounds. The first round centred on problems experienced by individuals with
regards to training in their organisation. The topic was intentionally broad, to allow for
a wide variety of responses. The second round was likewise similar but focused on
ideas that individuals had for improving training for their group. After everyone was
done submitting his or her sticky notes for each round, a few of the team members
joined in categorising the ideas. We then talked through each category, and I elicited
25
additional information about the major themes. With the manufacturing group, we did a
quantitative ranking of the themes, but feeling that it was less successful than a
qualitative approach, we stuck to just discussing each of the salient ideas with the
university group. Each workshop was recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Online Surveys
The surveys were distributed via email to all workshop participants. A Google Form
was used to collect responses from the manufacturing group, but its user interface
made it unintuitive that the user could input a much text as he or she wanted.
Consequently, responses were very brief. To adjust for this, Qualtrics was used to
distribute the same questionnaire to the university group. This platform’s interface
afforded larger textboxes and resulted in lengthier responses.
Data Analysis
Up to this point, I have divided the sections in the chapter relating to the research
design and data collection into separate sections for each of the methods (interviews,
workshop and survey). In this section, however, I want to synthesise this data into an
analysis that answers this dissertation’s two research questions.
The first data collected was the transcripts of the one-on-one interviews. I began the
analysis by reviewing each interview transcript in NVIVO to categorise statements
based on the questions outlined in the interview protocol (see Table 3).
Table 3 – First Cycle Question Codes

Personal Information Learning at Work Role as
Learner/Teacher
• Professional • Learning • Culture of learning
background experiences at work
• Normal day at work • Learning new things • Roles at work
• Enjoy about job • Improving learning • Opportunities to
• Biggest challenge • Learning systems train others
• Learning • Learning situations
preferences
After this, I began developing additional codes dealing with emergent, relevant
topics. These topics consisted of the following:
26
Table 4 – First Cycle Topical Codes

Topical Codes
• Improvement • Team Learning • Opportunities to
• Knowledge sharing • Roles at work train others
• Learning Systems • Changing Practice • Lack of Time
• Opportunities to • Cultural Changes • Off-task
learn • Culture of Learning • Being overridden
• Personal • Don't Know
development
Analysing the data gathered from the workshop was similar to that done with the
individual interviews. The recordings of the workshops were transcribed and coded
using the same first-cycle codes as previously mentioned.
To analyse the survey data, I imported the responses to NVIVO and coded them, as
with the interviews and workshop transcripts. Overall, the data was limited because
responses were brief; however, there were a few individuals who wrote a considerable
response. The length and thoughtfulness of responses may be indicative of the level of
investment that respondents had in the survey. While some highly invested individuals
may have still been laconic, taking time to write a fuller response could be seen as a
sign of commitment.
Coding the surveys finalised the first cycle of analysis, enabling me to proceed to the
second cycle of coding (see Table 5), where the individual tags were refined into the
following thematic categories:
Table 5 – Second Cycle Codes

Thematic Codes
Meaning through design Meaning through culture Meaning through learning
• Improvement • Changing Practice • Opportunities to learn
• Knowledge sharing • Cultural Changes • Personal development
• Learning Systems • Culture of Learning • Team Learning
Meaning through purpose Meaning destruction

• Roles at work • Lack of Time
• Opportunities to train • Off-task
others • Being overridden
• Don't Know
27
In the next chapter, I will explore these categories and interpret what insights might
be gathered from them to answer the research questions. Before that, it is essential to
evaluate the validity and generalisability of this research.
Validity and Generalisability

Tracy (2010) describes eight characteristics of excellent qualitative research. To
achieve the highest standards of quality, research must: have a worthy topic;
demonstrate rigour; be sincere; have credibility; resonate with readers; provide a
significant contribution; be conducted ethically; and exhibit meaningful coherence.
Volumes have been written on each of Tracy’s criteria, and I refer readers to her paper
for an in-depth look at them. The following is a summary of the steps this research took
to meet these criteria
1. Worthy Topic
The worth of studying meaningful workplace learning can hardly be lost on
anyone who has been compelled to attend a monotonous training experience.
Likewise, anyone who has experienced significant learning and development, at
work or elsewhere, will comprehend why such experiences should be
encouraged.
2. Rich Rigour
The theoretical constructs used in this dissertation have been derived from
trusted academic literature and a carefully gathered dataset. I have illustrated
the most significant theoretical constructs referred to with diagrams to
demonstrate their utility in the exploration of meaningful workplace learning.
3. Sincerity
I have sought to be as transparent as possible in my research and have done
everything possible to eliminate personal bias from disturbing this research. To
that end, my supervisor reviewed my interview protocol and follow-up survey,
the two written instruments I used to collect data. She also discussed the
methods I employed in the design workshop.
4. Credibility
Wherever possible, I have made explicit the theoretical assumptions and
methodological decisions in conducting this research. The credibility of this study
will be manifest in the quality of the data presented in the next chapter.
5. Resonance
28
The findings of the naturalistic inquiry are not generalisable in the sense that a
randomised-controlled trial is generalisable, others may “gain insight by
reflecting on the details and descriptions” (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010, p. 599)
presented in this research.
6. Significant Contribution
Few, if any, studies have sought to link workplace learning with meaningful work.
This research seeks to fill that gap.
7. Ethical
In each interaction with a participant, I ensured that participants knew that any
information shared with me would be anonymised prior to publishing and
disseminating this dissertation. I assured them that there are no “right” answers,
other than their candid opinion. Additional attention is given to ethics in the
following section.
8. Meaningful coherence
While qualitative research, such as this, can be invaluable for exploring lived
experience and social interactions there are also many things that it cannot do.
The information presented here may prompt further research, but it should not
be taken out of the context in which it is situated, to other organisations or
contexts. Although the methods used in this study may be applied elsewhere
with beneficial outcomes.
Ethical Considerations
Researching in the workplace presents several unique challenges to educational
research (BERA, 2011). First of all, there can be a challenge in creating a safe
environment for employees to speak candidly. Employees may feel a sense of
obligation to participate when recommended by their employer. Next is the difficulty of
obtaining voluntary informed consent in the workplace. Finally, there is the issue of
ensuring that the research benefits the participants. Further attention to these ethical
considerations is given in the CUREC ethics review application that was approved
(CUREC Reference Number: ED-CIA-18-157) for this project (see Appendix A).
29
– Research Findings and

Discussion
This chapter presents the findings of this dissertation, based on the data collected
to answer the two research questions raised in the literature review. These questions
are:
RQ1: Do different professional groups construct meaning through learning at
work? If so, how?
RQ2: How, if at all, can participation in designing an IT learning system be

meaningful for different professional groups?
The literature revealed a clear link between meaningful work and their social identity.
This led to the hypothesis that workplace learning becomes meaningful when it affects
an individual’s social identity. To test this hypothesis, the study operationalised the
construct of social identity using qualitative methods to understand an individual’s
social identity before and after a participatory workshop intervention. Participants from
the university and the manufacturing company brought unique perspectives which
illuminate how meaningful work functions across industries and with teams at different
stages of development.
To give these findings structure, I have segmented this chapter into five main
sections. The first section presents the findings relating to RQ1, gathered before the
workshop in one-on-one interviews. Apart from illuminating RQ1, these results also
serve as an initial measurement for understanding the effects of the participatory
workshop intervention. The second section analyses RQ2 using the data collected
during the workshops and through the follow-up surveys. The third section introduces
a typology of meaningful workplace learning, based on the data presented in the first
two sections. The fourth section examines how these findings relate to the broader
literature on workplace learning, educational technology and meaningful work. What
emerges is a picture of meaningful workplace learning, designed to succeed in the
Digital Age.
30
RQ1: Do different professional groups construct meaning

through learning at work? If so, how?
In the 17 interviews I conducted, only 4 volunteered specific examples of participating
in a meaningful learning experience in the previous six months. This was startling
because, without exception, everyone interviewed stated that they felt they were part
of a learning community at work. When asked about what they enjoyed most about their
job, however, none mentioned learning as being important to their satisfaction. Why this
discrepancy?
Reasons for Rarity of Meaningful Workplace Learning Experiences
A simple explanation would be that employees are just not having enriching learning
experiences while on the job. Such experiences might arise rarely in interviews because
they are, in fact, scarce. However, there are several compelling reasons that they might
rarely appear in the gathered data, even if they are still occurring. Enquiring about these
experiences in an interview setting assumes: a) that people have meaningful
experiences at work, and 2) that they can identify and articulate them. It is unclear
whether the assumption holds because, for many, their sense of meaning may remain
beyond conscious attention. Confronted with the non-stop workload of the “daily grind”
faced by many employees, reflection on these matters may not be a consistent part of
most individuals work experience.
Another possibility for the rarity of these experiences is that certain individuals may
not actively seek to make meaning through their work. This may be the case if the job
is not a good “fit”, that is, it does not align with the individual’s social identity. It may also
be explained from certain individual’s desires to compartmentalise their work
experience. Several of the individuals I spoke with described having a “work self” and
a “home self”, with the “home self” as the locus of most of their personal fulfilment and
meaning-making. Consider this employee’s responses:
I’m not sure that I really get a self-fulfilment [at work], but I also don’t
necessarily know what I would be doing to get that either. I may be
still trying to figure that out, so I don’t necessarily think that it’s the
employer’s fault or the job’s fault. I’m really good at separating work
and family life. And, right now so much is going on the family life
that that’s like all my self-fulfilment, through my family and my kid
and everything.
– Employee A, University Team
31
I have to separate [work and home] a lot. One of the things I didn't
love about my last job is that I was kind of on all the time…As for my
identity? I’m not quite sure.
– Employee D, University Team
This rigorous compartmentalisation, desiring to be fully productive at work and fully

present when off the clock, seems to divorce their work experiences from many of the
significant sources of meaning. There were examples of meaningful work as well:
If you've ever been laid off, like I have, you come quickly to
understand - when you're sitting at home putting out the feelers on
LinkedIn - and trying to find something; everyone, I’m sure, is
different, but I found my self-worth; right? I'm like, "What am I
doing?". I'm trying to find a job, right? So, I find a lot of value in work,
a lot of personal value.
– Manager C, University Team
Whatever the reason for the infrequency of meaningful workplace learning

experiences being brought up, a few participants did share personally significant
experiences with me. These deserve further consideration.
Examples of Meaningful Workplace Learning
The experiences that the individuals I interviewed found most meaningful revolved
around opportunities to develop new work relationships, join new teams and take on
new roles. These findings provide initial evidence for the hypothesis that workplace
learning becomes meaningful when it affects an individual’s social identity.
One employee described her experience at a company retreat as particularly
significant. The facilitator asked each employee in the university department to bring
three objects from home for the experience. The objects needed to reflect something
personally meaningful, such as a childhood memory or what motivates them to come to
work every day. Each team member shared the meaning of their three items to a few
others in their randomly assigned groups.
Everyone brought these items in that are very significant, and at

every table I was at, someone was crying. And, I was just crying
from other people crying … It's cool to hear everyone's experience,
especially like ‘Why do you do what you do?’ … Some of them are,
‘My sister died when she was really young, and I want to continue
on living her legacy. She would want me to be happy and be happy
at work. And that's why I do what I do’.
– Manager B, University Team
These groups enabled new social bonds to be formed. The manager continued, “I think
it really tightened our department because you weren’t separated [with your normal
32
working group]”. While the emotional character of the experience could explain its
salience, a final comment from this participant was noteworthy. “It may not be formal
training on like, “This is how you do your job”, but it’s going to impact how you go back
to your job and keep doing it”.
This meaningful workplace learning experience could be described as nearly
irrelevant to the day-to-day operations of the university team. What, then, was the
learning outcome? From the standpoint of social identity theory, broader departmental
memberships were formed as the individuals mixed with other employees outside their
immediate work group. I will touch on this later on, but the experience exhibits many of
the traits Wenger describes as necessary to extend one’s core community of practice
to a greater periphery (2002, p. 57).
There are obvious risks with such emotionally charged experiences. Wenger notes
that successful communities of practice do not coerce participation but rather “‘build
benches’ for those on the sidelines”, that is, creating safe spaces for “semiprivate
interaction” (2002, p. 57). Sharing personally meaningful items with unfamiliar
individuals at work requires a level of trust and willingness to become emotionally
vulnerable. An additional risk lies in how the motives behind the experience are
interpreted by participants. Highly effective experiences could easily be construed as
manipulative to employees. The outcomes likely depend on the degree of trust
employees feel to those coordinating the event.
A junior member of the manufacturing team shared another experience that bore
many points of similarity with the previous example. This team member was invited to
participate in an internally-led continuous improvement course that took place a few
hours per week over the course of several months. The participant described the course
as follows:
It was it was a fantastic experience, getting to know people from all

different areas of the of the plant. You wouldn't normally get to
know the head of QA or the head of HR in any kind of normal
circumstance at work. So, it was it was awesome to go through that.
Not only that, but they're teaching you … a new way of problem-
solving.
– Employee A, Manufacturing Team
While there was no additional financial compensation for participating in the course,
the participant has since received a promotion since the time of the course. She did not
attribute her promotion to the willingness to participate in the course. Rather, she
attributed her promotion to the skills that she had gained while in class.
33
This manufacturing company not only created a meaningful opportunity for training
its employees but styled the course graduates Continuous Improvement Champions, a
term which quickly became one of recognition within the organisation. People were
inducted into this group by participating in the extended learning experience. This
learning experience led to increased responsibilities at work and an increased voice in
certain kinds of decision-making. It was designed to be a significant achievement with
the real benefits to the individual and the company.
Similar to the Manager B’s experience at the university retreat in the previous
example, Employee A’s participation in the continuous improvement course socialised
individuals into a broader network of employees and expose them to varying
viewpoints. The diversity of opinion fostered by the course was a key element of its
value, as the participant describes:
You're learning it with all of these different sets of eyes and

different opinions, so it's a way of really looking at being different
because you form your own opinion, but then you're hearing
someone else's, and it makes you look at a problem with different
eyes...
In contrast to Manager B’s experience at the university retreat, the continuous

improvement course taught employees new skills which they found personally and
professionally valuable, but which they said they were unlikely to seek out on their own.
In this way, the company positioned itself to expose employees to something radically
new, something that Biesta (2013, p. 41) described as one of the hallmarks of real
teaching. Encountering radical newness can be a jolting, even painful (Plato, 2016, p.
159), experience, but it is also likely to promote the creation of meaning.
The manufacturing company's seasoned team described finding meaning in their
well-established roles. Several mentioned changes to their roles that were meaningful,
job expansions or promotions. These are symbolically (and often monetarily) meaningful
events that individuals can interpret into the narrative histories of their work life.
Contrastingly, the majority of the university team were trying to negotiate their roles
within the context of a very new team. The more senior members hold a great deal of
responsibility based on seniority on the team, but all the team members are hoping to
solidify their roles and responsibilities. When I interviewed this team, they had
established basic functional roles and accompanying jurisdiction over certain decisions.
There was still considerable ambiguity about how far up the "chain of command" a plan
34
had to go before someone had sufficient power to decide. This process of negotiating
roles and forming a team was meaningful to the members of the university team.
Both experiences of meaningful workplace learning shared here serve to
substantiate the hypothesis that workplace learning becomes meaningful by
precipitating a change in one’s social identity. In response to RQ1, these findings confirm
that individuals do create meaning through learning at work. In the foregoing, I have
described the conditions under which this meaning-making occurred, but this leads to
an explanation of the intervention conducted to explore RQ2. Does participation in such
an intervention create the conditions for meaningful experience?
RQ2: How, if at all, can participation in designing an IT

learning system be meaningful for different professional
groups?
Designing an IT learning system may seem like a rather specialised task to delegate
to team members without backgrounds in either computer science or instructional
technology. The perplexity that such an intervention might raise may be at least
somewhat allayed by considering the nature of participatory measures. Apart from their
instrumental value (e.g. producing a product of value), participatory methods seek
emancipatory outcomes (e.g. involving the traditionally marginalised in decision-
making). Countless pre-packaged IT learning systems are readily available in the highly-
saturated marketplace for learning management systems. Why not simply purchase and
implement one of these? The end result of a participatory intervention to design an IT
learning system might, in fact, be the decision to adopt an off-the-shelf system (based
on the specifications set out in the group), but the process for reaching the decision is
fundamentally different than a top-down plan for implementation. Participatory design
research is not a tool for getting an employee’s token “buy-in”; rather, it is a
methodology which can be used to deliberately change a group’s social identity in a
way that fosters individual and group empowerment. The product of such a bottom-up
approach is more likely to be used by frontline employees because it will have been
designed by them to meet their own needs.
This section will detail the results of conducting participatory workshop interventions
with the manufacturing company and the university to design an IT learning system
35
tailored to their needs. I will begin by describing the initial state of the social identities
of these two teams, as revealed through my initial interviews.
The Initial State of Social Identity
When the interviews for this research first began, the manufacturing team had been
working together for several years. The managers selected to participate worked
directly with each other on a regular basis and shared what they unanimously described
as a high level of trust. The non-manager employees selected to join the team likewise
expressed their engagement in the processes of continuous improvement. The team,
as a whole, could be justly described as highly-functional, with well-defined roles,
standard operating procedures, and clearly stated degrees of autonomy for different
kinds of decisions. Several workers described the culture of openness that prevails in
the company:
We're a small group, and we talk all the time. We huddle twice a
day. We talked about any issue. They know that the door is open
to talk about anything any time. Hopefully we've instilled in them,
they know that they can trust us if they make a mistake. It's okay to
come to us and tell us…
- Manager B, Manufacturing Team
The team from the university could likewise be considered a functional group, albeit
in a different stage of team development. Where the manufacturing team had worked
together for several years and was comprised of veteran employees (see Table 1 for
details), the university had experienced significant employee turnover in the previous
year, and the new team was rapidly trying to establish its culture and define roles and
processes. The group nearly doubled in size in a single month, just before I conducted
the interviews with them. To say that their team was in a period of immense growth and
change would be understating it. The most senior team member recalled:
I think we had some capable people on the team, but I think the
attitudes were just not conducive to the team like what we have
now. I know that we have you know three new members of the
team but I’ll tell you I’m more optimistic about team in the direction
[we’re headed].
- Manager C, University Team
The team seemed to share this optimistic vision of the future, now that they had hired
replacements for the employees who had left the previous year. Members expressed
respect for the previous members of their team, while also expressing their belief that
the personnel changes were for the best. Because of the turnover, some members had
36
experienced promotion to fill the vacancies of key roles. These became the most senior
members of the team, even though the most senior had been hired less than two years
previously.
The Participatory Design Workshop Intervention
I described the format of the participatory design workshop in the methodology
chapter, but now I will explain the data gathered and the artefacts created (see
Appendix D) in these sessions. I will start with the manufacturing company’s workshop
and then proceed to the workshop conducted with the university.
In the first round of affinity diagramming, the manufacturing team generated 30
examples of challenges or problems that they were facing as an organisation with
training. These ideas were categorised into 5 categories: retention, time, training,
accuracy, standard operating procedure improvements (see section Manufacturing
Round 1 in Appendix D). The next round focused on features that the team desired in
an IT learning system. This generated 33 ideas which were then sorted into 8
categories: Retention Testing, Process, Time, Engagement, Electronic Accessibility,
Visual, Trackable, Updatable (see section Manufacturing Round 2 in Appendix D).
The university team generated 37 ideas regarding problems or challenges in the first
round of affinity diagramming. These were organised into the following 5 categories:
Process or Role is not Made/Created, Standardisation, Training, Communication,
Decision-Making (see section University Round 1 in Appendix D). The second round,
dealing with desired features of an IT training system generated 13 ideas, which were
categorised into 3 thematic groups: Communication Training / Creation of Process,
Individual Role Training, Standardizing Training (see section University Round 2 in
Appendix D).
The responses gathered in the workshop provide a map of the major problems and
the desired features of an IT training system for both organisations. The intervention
brought together employees from different levels of the organisation (employees,
managers and executives) to the table, giving each a voice in the decision-making. In
terms of fostering a participatory experience, the workshops were quite successful. In
purely instrumental means, there is still lots of work to be done before either company
has implemented a successful IT training system.
The Post-Intervention State of Social Identity
A week after the intervention I emailed a follow-up survey (see Appendix E) to the
workshop participant to understand their experience as a participant and see what
37
effects, if any, the intervention had on the participant’s social identity. Here is a sample
of responses given when asked to reflect on their experience at the workshop:
I realized that different people communicate different expectations,

which is confusing and frustrating. It also makes the team look
completely disorganized. Making sure everyone understands
goals, roles and responsibilities is now my top priority.
– Manager A, University Team
It was a good way to create an open space to talk about team

challenges and opportunities for improvement.
– Employee F, University Team
It made us all much more aware that we have a lot of problems with
our current training system. Still, we were unable to solve those
problems. It isn't a discussion that our team has made a priority after
the workshop (even though it should be). I would set aside an hour
to analyze problems, and an hour to actually settle on solutions if
this design workshop is used anywhere else.
– Employee E, University Team
I recognize we need to do a better job with onboard training.

It was clearly stated what the management wants/sees in a training

software program
– Manager D, Manufacturing Team
Everyone seems to be on the same page as far as ideas and

concerns. It was refreshing to see that my same ideas and thoughts
on how we need to improve our training program are shared by so
many.
The consensus seems to be that the experience was an effective means of raising
issues with each organisation’s current training system in a constructive manner,
preparing for the beginning of custom development or vendor selection. When
asked if the experience had changed their perception of learning at work, however,
respondents indicated that the intervention’s impact had been negligible.
Probably hasn't changed anything yet.

– Manager B, Manufacturing Team
Again, not a major influence. It does confirm the role of continuous

improvement and everyone in the work place's role. Great concept
38
that does need to be rolled out to all employees. We need buy in

from everyone.
– Manager C, Manufacturing Team
Virtually no change, although I recognize we need to do a better

job with onboard training.
In retrospect, these answers make sense. Social identity theory suggests that in
order for an experience to be meaningful, an individual’s group memberships or roles
within their existing groups must be altered in some way. If the intervention could be
reframed as the first in an ongoing set of initiatives with a particular focus, perhaps the
teams would interpret it as a new membership that might create meaning. As noted in
the introduction, membership requires the sense of a certain level of permanence and
continuity. It is likely that this intervention, though positively viewed, was deemed as an
event that ultimately would not radically disrupt the status quo significantly.
Alternatively, the intervention could have altered the roles of existing teams by
delegating responsibility and given oversight of this project to different members of the
team. Some individuals found the experience mildly useful, but the findings of this study
do not offer much evidence to affirm RQ2. The data remains inconclusive. It is safe to
conclude that implementing participational design methods in the workplace does not
negatively affect meaning-making.
Enabling Meaningful Workplace Learning in the Digital Age

Technology has been used to deliver information but meaning is usually constructed
through social interactions. In each case, the aspect that was found most transformative
was not the skills that trainees learned. In this research, participants found forming new
and strengthening existing relationships to be the most meaningful part of learning
experiences at work. This supports the view that communities of practices are a
powerful, if slippery, means by which to foster meaningful learning at work. Wenger and
McDermott (2002, p. 51) proposes seven principles for cultivating communities of
practice, which I will use to structure my thoughts about how the trends of the Digital
Age are affecting the opportunity for meaningful workplace learning. I will take each of
Wenger and McDermott’s principles and see what bearing the six digital trends I have
been following throughout this dissertation have on the principles for fostering
39
1. Design for evolution

I have already mentioned the difficulty of deliberately trying to organise communities
of practice. Wenger and McDermott concur. “Because communities of practice are
organic, designing them is more a matter of shepherding their evolution than creating
them from scratch”. In what sense are practitioners to shepherd their evolution? One
possible means is through the use of participatory practices. These are already well
established in the management literature under the notion of participatory management
(see for example Argyris, 1957; Feldman & Khademian, 2003, p. 346; Likert, 1961). Such
participation is extremely resonant with the rising Millennial workforce.
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
An axiom of social identity theory is that groups tend to display bias for members of
an ingroup and against those of an outgroup (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971, p.
172). Deliberate attempts to create a dialogue between such factions, such as those
conversations facilitated by participatory methods, can help people to stay informed of
issues affecting the entire community.
3. Invite different levels of participation
Arnstein’s (1969) model of participation coincides with admonition to allow for varied
levels of involvement within a community of practice. In their model of degrees of
community participation, Wenger and McDermott’s (2002, p. 57) advocate for at least
three degrees of involvement: a) the core group, which would correspond to those
entrusted with citizen control on Arnstein’s model; b) active participants, who be
granted a minimum of some form of partnership; c) peripheral participants, those who
should at least be informed of decisions taken by the group.
4. Develop both public and private community spaces

Technology has been instrumental in the development of the space of flows,
digitally-mediated social spaces which facilitate collaboration and the transmission of
knowledge irrespective of physical location. The idea of timeless time is likewise
pertinent to the development of public and private community spaces. Castells
describes it as a “systemic perturbation in the sequential order of phenomena
performed in that context (2004, p. 494). The temporality of everyday existence has
become less relevant to an individual’s abilities to collaborate in digital spaces. Many
organisations focus on their public events, but private one-on-one conversations may
be just as, if not more, meaningful to individuals than the events on the public
calendar(Wenger & McDermott, 2002, p. 58).
40
5. Focus on value
Communities of practice form by creating relationships of reciprocal value.
Individuals of differing levels of experience collaborate to learn, practice and associate
with one another. In the Digital Age, especially when it comes to learning technology,
there is a tendency to “get caught up in the hype” of the latest trend. Technological
solutionism is an easy trap for the uncritical to accept (Morozov, 2013, pp. 5–9). It is easy
for IT learning systems to be “oversold and underused” (Cuban, 2001). Therefore, in the
Digital Age, it is essential for use to dictate needs, for pedagogy to dictate technology
requirements. Moreover, it is important for practitioners of learning technology to
conceive of ways that the digital can transform how things are taught, not simply digitize
conventional methods of teaching (Cuban, 2001, p. 103).
6. Combine familiarity and excitement

People are drawn to the novel but find belonging in the familiar. In communities of
practice, individuals should know what to expect, but be occasionally excited by
something new. Many of the digital trends provide a significant opportunity for such
novelty. The baseline of an effective community of practice should be a safe place
where people feel free to “ask for candid advice, share their opinions, and try their half-
baked ideas without repercussion” (Wenger & McDermott, 2002, p. 61).
7. Create a rhythm for the community
The process of guiding a group between the familiar and the exciting creates a
natural oscillating rhythm for the members. This rhythm is naturally kept going by the
network of relationships of community members. Employers should create spaces and
opportunities to develop communities of practice by facilitating meaningful workplace
learning experiences.
41
– Conclusion
Enquiring how people might make their work or their lives more meaningful is
different from many kinds of research. Such research is inextricable from the duty to
foster change so that more people can experience the fulfilment that comes from
meaningful learning experiences. This research has demonstrated that these kinds of
meaningful learning experiences can come at work through organising participatory
designing projects, through encouraging the formation communities of practice, and
through providing other opportunities for individuals to contribute in valuable roles
within teams. In this chapter, I will explore some of the implications that this research
has for practice and suggest possible avenues for further research.
Workplace Polarisation Might Not Be So Clear-Cut

Autor and others have produced a compelling picture of the effects of automation
on the workplace. Those whose tasks are complemented rather than substituted by
automation typically benefit from automation, while the reverse is also true. Following
this line of thinking, along with human capital theory, it would seem that employers
would be less inclined to invest in the development of unskilled workers. The results
from this study indicate that this might be too simplistic of a picture.
Firstly, even if a hard-line human capital argument is taken, arranging so that minimal
training would be given to unskilled employees, there are plenty of reasons to believe
that organisations engage in sub-optimal decision making. Individuals and
organisations operate within the constraints of bounded-rationality. Additionally, they
must operate with scarce resources; even if an employee is unskilled and easily
replaceable, he or she may be the only employee available for training. There may not
be time or money to onboard another employee for the role. The very idea of "climbing
the corporate ladder" indicates a long-term, increasingly complex, socialisation and
training for roles of greater responsibility.
Secondly, a host of other factors may be at play. Regardless of how one-
dimensionally Hollywood may portray them, companies usually make decisions based
off of more than profit maximisation. This is increasingly true in the era of growing focus
on corporate social responsibility. Such additional factors could be:
• An employer's direct commitment to employees’ growth.
• Desire to retain individuals with great potential.
42
• Desire to support a local community.

• Crowdsourcing ideas for improvement from all levels of an
organisation.
• Fostering a culture of trust and safety.
Limitations of Educational Technology

While educational technology has facilitated many aspects of learning, there are
limitations to what learning technology can accomplish. Learning technology breaks
down when it tries to substitute for socialisation. Reductionists argue that any implicit
knowledge can be measured, systematised and made explicit. Many complex
processes have given way, but the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate that
the three classes of activity outlined by Frey and Osbourne, tasks requiring social
intelligence, creativity, or perception and manipulation, can be seamlessly encoded into
algorithms (2017, pp. 24–28).
In this study, the examples of learning experiences that were difficult or impossible
to replicate using technology fell into these categories. On the manufacturing line, the
task involved defect-spotting, an intense kind of perceptive task. At the university, the
non-replicable learning experience was training business development managers to
sell courses to interested parties, a complex task that requires a great deal of social
intelligence (and arguable a good deal of the both creativity and perception).
This is not to say that in either case there could be applications of educational
technology that could serve to compliment the learning experience. However, it seems
that (at least) current technology cannot substitute for humans in teaching social,
creative or perceptive skills. Exploring the limitations of learning technology, as
presently constituted, could provide fodder for an entire sub-field of research. Perhaps
someday there may be computers that have developed sufficient complexity to be
considered conscious; many technologists are certainly attempting to create this. If such
a technological singularity ever occurs, I hope that we will have exercised sufficient
judgment in developing them for us to be able to continue to engage in meaningful
activities.
Future work
Academic research is a hydra. In the struggling to find answers to research
questions, it is impossible to escape the tares of more questions. When one question is
43
finally dealt with, a dozen more arise. Such is certainly the case with this project. I will
highlight only a few of the questions raised by this research that I believe would be most
important to pursue.
Participatory Methods in Organisations
First, I believe there needs to be more research into participatory methods in the
workplace. Interdisciplinary collaboration in the areas of participatory research
methods, human capital pipelines, employee engagement, teamwork, and social
identity could be very fruitful. What benefit and disadvantages might accrue to
organisations which foster communities of practice through participatory design
research? How could participatory methods influence the fields of job redesign?
A Longitudinal Look at Meaning-Creation

Another potential area of further study could look at meaning-creation over a longer
period of time. A longitudinal study was, of course, outside the scope of this dissertation,
but it would be insightful to see how the meaning derived from participation in a
collaborative project evolves over time. How do the social identities of participants
involved in participatory research evolve over time? What length of a project is most
effective in empowering individuals within an organisation? How do social groups within
an organisation change over time, when members are involved in participatory
projects? What happens if a few employees from different work groups or departments
are selected to participate?
Workplace Polarisation
One final area for further exploration could be looking at workplace polarisation in
greater depth. Why are some blue-collar workers not being displaced by automation?
Is automation virtually inevitable due to economic factors or are there industries that
are not being affected? How do these industries differ in the meaning that workers are
able to make in their lives? Are there differences in the desires of individuals in high-
skilled and low-skilled jobs to make meaning at work? If a job’s required skill level
doesn’t predict the likelihood of an employee receiving training, what does predict it?
The Ongoing Pursuit of Meaning

Human life is inherently meaningful. Life is a gift we freely receive. We are creatures
who, from childhood “desire to know” (Aristotle & Reeve, 2016, p. 2) and desire
“relationship” (Buber & Kaufmann, 2013, p. 77). There are many kinds of knowledge, and
many levels of meaning given to knowledge. Some knowledge is common-place while
44
other knowledge is treasured. The things we learn that are most dear to us, most
meaningful, are that which we “learn by heart”. In a world that is increasingly
economising for efficiency’s sake, I believe that we need to invest more in creating
meaning. Meaning is created by sharing experience and taking on new challenges in
teams. Too often, workplace learning technology is bought ready-made rather than
developed together. Perhaps we should rethink that, if we want to sustain meaning
workplace learning in the Digital Age.
45
References
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization; the conflict between system and the
individual.
Aristotle, & Reeve, C. D. C. (2016). Metaphysics. Hackett Publishing Company,
Incorporated. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=prGgCwAAQBAJ
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of
Workplace Automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.
http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
BERA. (2011). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British Educational
Research Association, 5. http://doi.org/978-0-946671-32-8
Bessen, J. (2015). Toil and technology: Innovative technology is displacing workers to
new jobs rather than replacing them entirely. Finance and Development.
Biesta, G. (2013). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance
of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 35–49.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:
Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science,
2(1), 40–57. Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634938
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YHt_M41uIuUC
Buber, M., & Kaufmann, W. (2013). I and Thou. eBookit.com. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5zDrO1fqXWYC
Carnoy, M. (2004). Inaugural Lecture of the 2004-2005 Academic Year. Retrieved
from http://www.uoc.edu/inaugural04/dt/eng/carnoy1004.pdf
Casey, C. (1999). The Changing Contexts of Work. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.),
Understanding Learning at Work (1st ed., pp. 15–28). London, England: Routledge.
Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781134674145
Castells, M. (2004). Informationalism, networks, and the network society: A theoretical
blueprint. In M. Castells (Ed.), The network society: A cross-cultural perspective (pp.
3–45). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar. Retrieved from https://ezproxy-
prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/login?url=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxford/detail.ac
46
tion?docID=227179
Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society. Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishing (Vol. I). http://doi.org/10.2307/1252090
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.).
London, England: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/login?url=https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxf
ord/detail.action?docID=1144438
Cornwall, A. (1992). Body mapping in health RRA/PRA. RRA Notes, 16, 69–76.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. Optimal
experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Cuban, L. (2001). Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the
Classroom. System Dynamics Review (Vol. 9).
http://doi.org/10.1080/14759390200200228
Daniel, J. (2012). Sampling Essentials: Practical Guidelines for Making Sampling
Choices. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452272047
Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2003). Empowerment and cascading vitality.
Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, 343–358.
Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s Search for Meaning. Washington Square Press.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: how susceptible are
jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–
280.
Friesen, N. (2009). Re-thinking e-learning research : foundations, methods, and
practices. New York : P. Lang.
Goos, M., & Manning, A. (2003). Lousy and Lovely Jobs: the Rising Polarization of
Work in Britain. Retrieved from
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20002/1/Lousy_and_Lovely_Jobs_the_Rising_Polarization_o
f_Work_in_Britain.pdf
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press.
Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XkCR1p2YMRwC
Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies. Taylor & Francis.
Haslam, A. (2004). Psychology in Organizations : The Social Identity Approach
(Second Edition). London, UNITED KINGDOM: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from
47
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxford/detail.action?docID=254590
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (2002). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative
Introduction to School-based Research. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WhmIAgAAQBAJ
Hole, D., Zhong, L., & Schwartz, J. (2010). Talking about whose generation? Deloitte
Review, 6, 84–97. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-
Austria/Local Assets/Documents/Studien/HC/032_2010_Whose_Generation.pdf
Jupp, V. (2006). The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020116
Kirby, J. R., Knapper, C. K., Evans, C. J., Carty, A. E., & Gadula, C. (2003). Approaches
to learning at work and workplace climate. International Journal of Training and
Development, 7(1), 31–52. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00169
Kochhar, R., Fry, R., Researcher, S., & Rohal, M. (2015). The American Middle Class Is
Losing Ground. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/2015-12-09_middle-class_FINAL-report.pdf
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2001). Work Groups and Teams in Organizations. ILR
Collection, (2003), 1–70. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212017
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management.
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2017). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of
the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
35(S1). http://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
Manpower Group. (2016). Millennial careers: 2020 vision, 20. Retrieved from
https://www.manpowergroup.com/wps/wcm/connect/660ebf65-144c-489e-975c-
9f838294c237/MillennialsPaper1_2020Vision_lo.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Mills, A., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research.
Thousand Oaks, California. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397
Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological
Solutionism. PublicAffairs. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=fdggBahA1qsC
Oppenheim, A. N. (2000). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude
Measurement. Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6V4GnZS7TO4C
48
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. SAGE

Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XRO2AAAAIAAJ
Plato. (2016). The Republic. Vintage Books. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=srjuDAAAQBAJ
Pratt, M. (2001). Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An organizational
psychology/organizational behavior perspective. In Social Identity Processes in
Organizational Contexts (pp. 13–30).
Pratt, M., & Ashforth, B. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work.
Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, (January
2003), 309–327.
Richey, R. (Ed.). (2000). The legacy of Robert M. Gagné. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Information & Technology, Syracuse University. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445674
Rothstein, J. S. (2012). When Good Jobs Go Bad: The Declining Quality of Auto Work
in the Global Economy. In I. Grugulis, C. Lloyd, C. Smith, & C. Warhurst (Eds.), Are
Bad Jobs Inevitable?: Trends, Determinants and Responses to Job Quality in the
Twenty-First Century (First Edit, pp. 128–142). New York, NY: Macmillan Education
UK. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=odvNygAACAAJ
Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2012). Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic
Advantage. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3y-azTxHnGsC
Scupin, R. (1997). The KJ Method: A Technique for Analyzing Data Derived from
Japanese Ethnology. Human Organization, 56(2), 233–237.
http://doi.org/10.17730/humo.56.2.x335923511444655
Steger, M. F., & Dik, B. J. (2009). Work as Meaning: Individual and Organizational
Benefits of Engaging in Meaningful Work. In The Oxford Handbook of Positive
Psychology and Work. Oxford University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195335446.013.0011
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science
Information/Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 13(2), 65–93.
http://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
49
Takeuchi, I., & Nonaka, P. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B-qxrPaU1-MC
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Tuckman, B. W. (1994). Conducting Educational Research. Harcourt Brace College
Publishers. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4ZWcAAAAMAAJ
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology:
Volume 2. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222
NV - 2
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008).
Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x
Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for
Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387.
http://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309
Weber, M. (2015). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. [United States]:
Wilder Publications : Made available through hoopla. Retrieved from
https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11531137
Webster, F. (2014). Theories of the information society (4th ed.). London, England:
Routledge. Retrieved from https://ezproxy-
prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/login?url=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxford/detail.ac
tion?docID=1656811
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (First
Edit). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=heBZpgYUKdAC
Wenger, E., & McDermott, R. A. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide
to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m1xZuNq9RygC
Winner, L. (2004). Do artifacts have politics. Readings in the Philosophy of
Technology, 251–263.
50
Appendix A – CUREC Approval

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ETHICS
COMMITTEE (CUREC)
Form CUREC 1A Checklist for the Social Sciences
and Humanities
The University of Oxford places a high value on the knowledge, expertise, and
integrity of its members and their ability to conduct research to high standards of
scholarship and ethics. The research ethics clearance procedures have been
established to ensure that the University is meeting its obligations as a responsible
institution.
They start from the presumption that all members of the University will take their
responsibilities and obligations seriously and will ensure that their research on human
subjects is conducted according to the established principles and good practice in
their fields and in accordance, where appropriate, with legal requirements. Since the
_ requirements of research ethics review will vary from field to field and from project to
project, the University accepts that different guidelines and procedures will be
appropriate.
• Please check "Where and how to apply for ethical review" and the CUREC
flowchart first to see if you need ethics approval.
• Please complete this form using a word processor and email it, together with your
supporting documents, to your Departmental Research Ethics Committee
(DREC) (if applicable). If you don’t have a DREC please email this form to
ethics@socsci.ox.ac.uk using your official ox.ac.uk email address. Only emailed
applications will be accepted.
WHAT THIS CHECKLIST IS DESIGNED FOR
51
This CUREC 1A checklist is designed largely for research that falls within the
Divisions of Social Sciences and Humanities where ethical issues are relatively few
and straightforward. Interviews, field work and oral history are also included in the
CUREC process.
The full CUREC 2 application is only required where certain project
characteristics (e.g. type of participants, or procedures) result in a more complex set
of ethical issues. It is expected that only in a limited number of cases will it be
necessary for researchers to complete a CUREC 2 application. The checklist below
will direct you to a CUREC 2 application if needed.
WHAT THIS CHECKLIST WILL NOT ASSESS

This checklist does not cover research governance, satisfactory methodology, or
compliance with the requirements of publishers when administering their tests or
questionnaires. As principal researcher, it is your responsibility to ensure that
requirements in these areas are met.
CUREC does not review studies classed as audit (see Glossary and Decision
Flowchart for CUREC on our website).
If your study involves NHS patients, NHS staff / data / facilities, or human
tissue, please check the Decision Flowchart for NHS approval and contact the
Clinical Trials and Research Governance (CTRG) team in the first instance.
Further information on the University’s research ethics procedures is available from

the CUREC website.
SECTION A: Filter for CUREC2 application

This section determines whether your study raises more complex issues which
require the completion of a full application for ethical review, known as the CUREC
2 application.
(Please mark ‘X’ in the Yes/No column as appropriate to indicate your response.)
52
1. Are research participants classed as people whose

ability to give free and informed consent is in question?
(This may include those under 18 (though see “competent
youths”), prisoners, or adults “at risk”.) Your attention is drawn
to the University’s Safeguarding Code of Practice and its Yes No
implications for researchers involving children or adults at risk, X
including the need for the work to be risk assessed and for
researchers to undertake related training.
(Note: If any of your participants are aged 16 or under,
please answer ‘Yes’ here and also answer question 5 below.)
2. By taking part in the research, will participants be at
Yes No
serious risk of criminal prosecution (e.g. by providing
X
information on drug abuse or child abuse)?
3. Does the research involve the deception of Yes No
participants? X
4. Does your research raise issues relevant to the
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (the Prevent duty), which
Yes No
seeks to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism?
X
Please see advice on this on our Best Practice Guidance web
page.
If you have answered ‘No’ to all of the questions above please go to Section B. If
you have answered ‘Yes’ to any question above continue to question 5 below.
5. Is your project covered by a CUREC approved Yes No
procedure (formerly known as “CUREC Protocols”)?
If yes, please give research procedure number(s):
If you answered ‘Yes’ to ANY of questions 1-4, and answered ‘No’ to question 5,
please stop completing this checklist and do not submit it for ethical review.
Instead, please complete the CUREC 2 application form from the CUREC website.
Then submit the CUREC 2 form for ethical review.
If you answered ‘Yes’ to ANY of questions 1-3, and answered ‘Yes’ to question 5,
please go on to Section B.
53
SECTION B: Contact details and project description (NB: must be typed not
handwritten)
Contact details:
1. Principal researcher/supervisor Dr Rebecca Eynon
(title and name)
(if student research):
2. Name of student (if student David Petersen
research):
3. Degree programme, e.g. DPhil, MSc in Education (Learning &
BA, MPhil, BSc, MSc Technology)
(if student research):
4. Department or Institute name: Department of Education
David Petersen
5. Address for correspondence (if Green Templeton College
different from above): 43 Woodstock Road
Oxford OX2 6HG
6. University e-mail (not private david.petersen@gtc.ox.ac.uk
email) and telephone:
7. Name and status of others taking James Petersen, research assistant
part in the project,
e.g. third year undergraduate;
postdoctoral research assistant:
SECTION B continued
Project description:
Participatory Design of Workplace
8. Title of research project:
Learning System
9. List of location(s) where project will Utah, USA
be conducted:
10. If your research involves overseas Yes X
travel or fieldwork, by the time the No
research starts, will you have completed N/A
and returned a travel risk assessment
form? (This has to be approved by your
54
department before you travel. If you are

travelling overseas, you are strongly
advised to take out University travel
insurance.)
11. Anticipated duration of research 7 months or years (maximum
project overall: 5)
From: (19/03/18)
12. Anticipated start and end dates of To: (30/09/18)
the research project involving human Please note that you will need
participants: ethics approval before you start your
research. CUREC1As may take up to
30 days to process.
13. External organisation funding the research
(if applicable):
14. Title and very brief and simple lay description of research (about 150
words), plus description (about 200 words) of the nature of participants.
a) Title, brief description of research (150 words) in lay language. When
describing the research, please include your methodology, how you are applying
professional guidelines, and the use to which results/data will be put. Please also
declare any conflicts of interest here.
The project will be exploring the development of a workplace learning

system using a participational design approach. Methods will include semi-
structured personal interviews, focus groups, online surveys and app meta
use data. The project will involve employees and employers in workplaces.
The interviews and focus groups will be geared around the design of a tool
to help with workplace training. In all aspects of the research, individuals will
give informed consent to participate and will have the right to withdraw at
any time.
There are no conflicts of interest.

SECTION B continued
55
b) Description of participants and obtaining informed consent (200 words).

When describing participants, please include
• criteria for inclusion/exclusion
• method of recruitment
• processes for consent to participate
Please ensure you attach as separate documents (if applicable, in English

translation):
• your recruitment and advertisement material e.g. a poster or brief invitation
letter/ email
• information for participants to read (or hear) before they agree to take part
e.g. written information sheets or (only if applicable) oral information scripts.
• a document to record informed consent. Templates for written consent
forms and/or oral information scripts (in case of an oral consent process) are
available from the CUREC website
• a guide to interview questions (this may be a list of questions to be asked, or
a preliminary scope of questions), or a sample of other instruments (such as
a sample questionnaire)
• (if relevant) debriefing document after participants have taken part
The criteria for inclusion will be that the individuals must be either an
employer or an employee of a company that has consented to participate in
the study. No individuals under the age of 18 will be permited to participate
in the study.
Companies will be recruited through personal networking and individuals
(employers and employees) of that company will be invited to participate in
the research study. Those who express interest in participation will be given
a written consent that will explain the aims of the research and how the data
obtained from them will be used. Participants will be informed that they may
withdraw their participation in the study at any time without consequence.
Participation in this study will include completing online questionnaires;
using pencil and paper to depict their design ideas in the form of
wireframes, flowcharts and mind-maps; focus groups; individual interviews;
audio recording and video recording. At each stage individuals will be able
56
to provide or withdraw their consent. The ethical implications of these

methods are examined below.
15. What are the ethical issues connected with your research and what steps
have you taken to address them? Please do not answer ‘none’. The committee
needs to see evidence that you have identified potential ethical issues with respect
to your research and have taken steps to address them. These issues could relate
to:
• your own physical and psychological safety as a researcher (please see the
University’s and Social Science Division’s Safety in Fieldwork guidance
• participant burdens and/or risks, and
• data protection/ confidentiality.
For more guidance on ethical issues, please see

http://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/ethics/resources
• Both my physical and psychological safety will be minimised by taking
reasonable precaution in a safe workplace environment. The research will
either be conducted remotely from Oxford or will take place in my home
country.
• Individuals will be asked how they could improve certain aspects of their
company’s learning systems. There is minor potential for employees to
express dissatisfaction with particular aspects of corporate culture or
different requirements of their job. If an employee discloses anything that
could be prejudicial to their own career or relationships with team members,
the information would need to be anonymised. Individuals can also withdraw
their participation at any time.
• All data collected will be encrypted in multi-factor authenticated (MFA)
secure systems that are redundantly backed up for maximum durability.
57
Copies of the data will additionally be encrypted and stored in a physical

form (USB drive or other form of flash memory) in a secure physical location.
• The project does not require deception or withholding important information
from participants. There is no anticipated harm that could be caused through
participation. The only investment from participants will be time, and I hope
that the benefits outlined below will justify their contribution of time.
• The research is designed to directly benefit the participating companies and
the individuals who participate in the project. The companies will be able to
have a system that meets their need, and hopefully benefit from the
dialogue that the research starts around learning in the workplace.
Individuals who participate will have a greater voice in how the company
they work for does training and development.
Section B continued
16. Will you obtain informed consent according to CUREC
Yes No
guidelines and good practice in your discipline before
X
participation?
If you have marked ‘No’, please give a brief explanation and justification for this
decision here:
17. Will your research involve discussing sensitive issues?
This could be information relating to race or ethnic
Yes No
origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, physical/mental
X
health, trade union membership, sexual life or criminal
activities.
If you have marked ‘Yes’, please make sure that you have included some
supporting information (as directed in question 14 of this section) showing the
range of questions covering these issues.
18. Will you ensure that personal data collected directly

Yes No
from participants or via a third party is held and processed in
X
accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act?
58
19. How will you ensure that any personal and/or sensitive data are captured,
transferred and stored securely?
In particular if data are to be captured electronically, please consult with the
University’s research data team (researchdata@ox.ac.uk) and your local IT
department and, with respect to University IT security policies, please comment on
how you will capture such data in the first instance, how you will transfer them over
networks or via portable media and how, where and how long data will be stored.
For more information please see the University’s web pages on research data
management.
Any personal data collected electronically will be captured and transferred using
SSL encryption. Data will be stored either in a cloud with enterprise-grade security
(MFA and server-side encryption). Any data collected in-person will be transported
securely by researches, digitized and stored in a secure location. All personal data
will be stored separately to research data.
SECTION C: Methods and procedures to be used
Method used: Please ensure you have addressed any potential

Please
ethical issues related to these methods in Section 14 and in your
mark ‘X’
Participant Information Sheet
1. Analysis of existing records

2. Snowball sampling (recruiting through contacts of existing
participants)
3. Use of casual or local workers e.g. interpreters
4. Participant observation
5. Covert observation
6. Observation of specific organisational practices X

7. Participant completes questionnaire in hard copy
8. Participant completes online questionnaire or other online task X

9. Using social media
10. Participant performs paper and pencil task X

11. Participant performs verbal or aural task (e.g. for linguistic study)
59
12. Focus group X

13. Interview X
14. Audio recording of participant (you will generally need specific
X
consent from participants for this)
15. Video recording of participant (you will generally need specific
X
16. Photography of participant (you will generally need specific
17. Others (please specify):
60
SECTION D: Professional guidelines and training
In this section, please mark ‘X’ against at least one of the following
professional guidelines you aim to adhere to.
Please
You should use the principles listed in your chosen guideline(s) in
mark ‘X’
conducting your own research.
Note: this is not an exhaustive list.
Research
specialism/ Association and guidance document
methodology
Association of Social Anthropologists of the
Anthropology
UK and Commonwealth
British Society of Criminology: Code of Ethics
Criminology
for Researchers in the Field of Criminology
British Educational Research Association
Education X
Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research
Association of American Geographers
Statement on Professional Ethics
Geography
Royal Geographical Society: Research Ethics and
Code of Practice
Oral History Society of the UK Ethical
History
Guidelines
British Psychological Society: Conducting
Research on the Internet
Internet-based
Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Guide
Research
Also see our Best Practice Guidance on
internet-based research
Law (Socio- Socio-Legal Studies Association: Statement of
Legal) Principles of Ethical Research
Academy of Management’s Professional Code
Management
of Ethics
American Political Science Association
Political Science (APSA) Guide to Professional Ethics in Political
Science
61
Political Studies Association. Guidelines for

Politics
Good Professional Conduct
British Psychological Society Code of Ethics
and Conduct
British Psychological Society: Conducting
Psychology
Research on the Internet
Also see “Internet-based Research” guidance
above
Social Research Association: Ethical
Social Research
Guidelines
The British Sociological Association: Statement
Sociology
of Ethical Practice
ESRC National Centre for Research Methods
Visual Research Review Paper:
Visual Ethics: Ethical Issues in Visual Research
Other professional guidelines. Please specify the other guidelines
used here:
Please indicate what training in research ethics the researchers involved with
this study have received, e.g. the title of the course and date completed (online
training available at http://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/support/training/ethics).
If no formal training has been undertaken, please indicate any discussions of
research methodology between researchers and supervisors here.
David Petersen has completed the ethics training provided in the Foundations of
Educational Research course of the MSc. in Education (Learning & Technology).
SECTION E: Signatures
• ‘Electronic signatures’ sent as email confirmations from a University of
Oxford email address can be accepted. Separate emails should come from
each of the relevant signatories as outlined below, indicating acceptance of
the relevant responsibilities.
62
• If you have obtained handwritten (wet-ink) signatures, please scan them and
the rest of the checklist pages to create a single PDF document and email
through.
Please ensure this checklist is signed by:
For staff research: For student research:
1. Principal researcher 1. Principal researcher (project
supervisor)
2. Head of Department (or nominee) 2. Head of Department (or
nominee)
3. Student researcher
1. Principal researcher signature/supervisor signature (if student research)
I understand my responsibilities as principal researcher as outlined in the

CUREC glossary and guidance on the CUREC website.
I declare that the answers above accurately describe the research as presently
designed, and that a new checklist will be submitted should the research design
change in a way which would alter any of the above responses so as to require
completion of CUREC 2 (involving full scrutiny by an IDREC). I will inform the
relevant IDREC if I cease to be the principal researcher on this project and supply
the name and contact details of my successor if appropriate.
Signature: ………………………………………………………………………..
Print name (block capitals): Date: ………………………………

……………………………………………………..
2. Departmental endorsement signature
I have read the research project application named above. On the basis of the
information available to me, I:
(i) consider the principal researcher to be aware of her/his ethical responsibilities
in regard to this research;
(ii) consider that any ethical issues raised have been satisfactorily resolved or
are covered by relevant professional guidelines and/or CUREC approved
63
procedures, and that it is appropriate for the research to proceed (noting the
principal researcher’s obligation to report should the design of the research change
in a way which would alter any of the above responses so as to require completion
of a CUREC 2 full application);
(iii) am satisfied that: the proposed project design and scientific methodology is
sound; the project has been/will be subject to appropriate peer review; and is likely
to contribute to existing knowledge and/or to the education and training of the
researcher(s) and that it is in the public interest.
Signed by Head of Department or nominee (example nominees for student
research include the Director of Graduate Studies/ Director of Undergraduate
Studies):
Signature: …………………………………………………
Print name (block capitals): Date: …………………………

……………………………...................................
3. Student signature (if student research)
I understand the questions and answers that have been entered above
describing the research, and I will ensure that my practice in this research complies
with these answers, subject to any modifications made by the principal researcher
properly authorised by the CUREC system.
Signed by student:
Print name (block capitals): DAVID PETERSEN Date: 09/03/2018
64
SECTION F: SUBMITTING THE COMPLETED CHECKLIST Please

mark ‘X’
1. Check you have completed all sections (A-E) X

2. Ensure your application is signed by you, your supervisor (if
X
student) and department
3. Please attach all supporting documents (see section B, X
question 14b for details). If the appropriate supporting
documentation is not included with your application, you will
then be asked to provide this separately. This may well delay X
the ethical review process, and thus the start of your
research. X
4. Ensure you have declared conflicts of interest (if any) in
Section B, question 14a.
X
5. If your department has a Departmental Research Ethics
Committee (DREC), submit this checklist and supporting X
information to the appropriate departmental officer.
6. If your department does not have a DREC, submit the
checklist and supporting information to the SSH IDREC (email
ethics@socsci.ox.ac.uk).
7. Applications must be sent by email from your official ox.ac.uk
email account. Please do not send applications by post.
65
CUREC Application Approval: ED-C1A-17-

Title: Participatory Design of Workplace Learning System
Researchers: David Petersen; Rebecca Eynon (supervisor)
The above application has been considered on behalf of the Departmental
Research Ethics Committee (DREC) in accordance with the procedures laid
down by the University for ethical approval of all research involving human
participants.
I am pleased to inform you that, on the basis of the information provided to

DREC, the proposed research has been judged as meeting appropriate ethical
standards, and accordingly, approval has been granted.
Please note that CUREC approval does not guarantee access to participants,
and it is your responsibility to check whether countries or contexts in which
you plan to conduct your research might impose additional requirements.
If your research involves participants whose ability to give free and informed
consent is in question (this includes those under 18 and vulnerable adults), then
it is advisable to read the following NSPCC professional reporting
requirements for cases of suspected abuse
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-
service/factsheet-child-abuse-reporting-requirements-professionals.pdf
Should there be any subsequent changes to the project which raise ethical
issues not covered in the original application you should submit details
to research.office@education.ox.ac.uk for consideration.
Good luck with your research study.
Yours sincerely,
Heath Rose
--
Heath Rose
Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics
Department of Education
University of Oxford
15 Norham Gardens
Oxford, OX2 6PY
United Kingdom
66
Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet

David Petersen
Email:david.petersen@gtc.ox.ac.uk
UK: 07709 879 088
US: (435) 590-5976
MSc. Student
Participatory Design of Workplace Learning System

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
Ethics Approval Reference: ED-CIA-18-157
1. What is the purpose of this research?

Our study is exploring how employees and employers think about learning and
training in their workplace. We are also interested in seeing what sort of learning
system could be invented if we enlist managers and employees in the design process.
2. Why have I been invited to take part?

You have been invited to take part in this study because you are employed by a
company that is participating in the project.
3. Do I have to take part?

No. You can ask questions about the study before deciding whether or not to
participate. If you do agree to participate, you may withdraw yourself (and any data
you have provided to us) from the study at any time, without giving a reason and
without penalty, by advising the researchers of this decision. If you do withdraw you
also have the right to request that the information you have provided up to that point
be excluded, until the research has been published. If you request this, we will delete
all copies of your data.
4. What will happen to me if I take part in the research?

If you are happy to take part in the research, you will be asked to participate in an
interview with one of our researchers and to attend a focus-group session in which we
67
will co-design a learning system. We will ask you to fill out a short email follow-up
survey about a week after the focus group. The focus group sessions and any
interviews we do will be video-taped to help our research. The focus group session
should take approximately 90 minutes. Personal interviews may vary slightly in time,
but we anticipate they will take around 30 minutes. Time spent helping on this project
will be considered normal work time by your employer.
5. Are there any potential risks in taking part?

We want to encourage everyone to speak their mind freely about how to improve
learning and training. While we will keep conversations constructive, we will also
make sure that you are free to withdraw comments if you are uncomfortable with
anything you say. Additionally, we are using industry best practices to ensure any
information you give us remains very secure. We want to make sure you are safe
during this research project.
6. Are there any benefits in taking part?

One benefits of taking part in this study is that you will have a say in developing a
state-of-the-art learning system. Your input will be essential to developing a learning
system that your company will be able to use, and we will be responsive to your ideas.
Additionally, you may find that your own understanding of workplace learning is
deepened.
7. What happens to the data provided?

The research data will be stored and encrypted using state-of-the-art security
measures. All the information you share with us will be secured. Your responses will
be not anonymised, because we want to be able to follow-up with you about
questions or comments you send us. However, at the end of the study and before the
findings are reported more widely your data will be anonymised. The research team
will have access to research data. We would like your permission to use direct quotes.
All research data and records will be stored for a minimum of 3 years after publication
or public release of the work of the research
8. Will the research be published?
68
The University of Oxford is committed to the dissemination of its research for the
benefit of society and the economy and, in support of this commitment, has
established an online archive of research materials. This archive includes digital
copies of student theses successfully submitted as part of a University of Oxford
postgraduate degree programme. Holding the archive online gives easy access for
researchers to the full text of freely available theses, thereby increasing the likely
impact and use of that research. The research will be written up as a thesis. On
successful submission of the thesis, it will be deposited both in print and online in the
University archives, to facilitate its use in future research. The thesis will be openly
accessible.
9. Who is organising and funding the research?

The Department of Education of the University of Oxford is organising this study as
part of the MSc. in Education (Learning & Technology) dissertation for David Petersen.
The project is being funded personally by David Petersen.
10. Who has reviewed this study?
This study has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through, the
University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee (ED-CIA-18-157).
11. Who do I contact if I have a concern about the study or I wish to complain?
If you have a concern about any aspect of this study, please speak to David
Petersen +44 (0)7709 879088 or their supervisor Rebecca Eynon +44 (0)1865 287206,
who will do their best to answer your query. The researcher should acknowledge your
concern within 10 working days and give you an indication of how they intend to deal
with it. If you remain unhappy or wish to make a formal complaint, please contact the
relevant chair of the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford who will
seek to resolve the matter in a reasonably expeditious manner:
Chair, Social Sciences & Humanities Inter-Divisional Research Ethics Committee;

Email: ethics@socsci.ox.ac.uk; Address: Research Services, University of Oxford,
Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD
12. Further Information and Contact Details
69
If you would like to discuss the research with someone beforehand (or if you have
questions afterwards), please contact:
David Petersen
15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom
UK: 07709 879 088
US: 435-590-5976
Email: david.petersen@gtc.ox.ac.uk
70
Appendix C – Pre-Workshop Semi-

Structured Interview Protocol
Interview Purpose
This interview seeks to understand employee perspectives about learning at
work and their role as a learner or instructor at work.
Example Introductory Remarks (1-2 Minutes)

My name is David. I’m doing research about how employees and employers
think about learning and training in their workplace. Thank you for agreeing to
help me with the research. I hope you will find it a useful opportunity to think
about your own experiences regarding training or personal development.
I want to ask you some questions about yourself; then about your job; then
about learning and development. The whole conversation should take about
30 minutes. The information you give is confidential. It will not be reported
back to anyone in a way that will identify you. I will be recording our discussion
to use in my research. Is that ok with you? You don’t have to answer any
question you don’t want to. There are no right or wrong answers. All I want is
what you really think.
Before we get started, do have any questions that you would like to ask me?
Personal Information
I’d like to start by getting to know a little about you.
1. What team are you a part of? Who do you report to?
2. What does a normal day of work look like for you?
3. What is your background prior to working here?
4. What do you enjoy about your job?
5. What are your biggest challenges?
Learning at work
6. What experiences have you had learning at work in the last 6 months?
o Was the learning experience part of a formal training?
o If so, how was the training delivered? (in-person, electronically, on
paper)
o What was good or problematic about it?
o How do you feel about learning at work?
7. To what extend does your job enable you to learn new things?
o How often are you involved in training? Do you find it adequate?
71
o At work, how much freedom do you have to learn work-related things

on your own?
o To you, is there a difference between learning at work and training at
work?
8. Can you explain to me how these different situations are handled on your
team?
o When someone is new and needs to learn something for the first time
o When someone needs feedback or guidance
o When someone needs more information than is provided
o When someone has a question
o When someone needs to refresh their knowledge
o When someone encounters a problem
9. What changes do you think could be made to improve ___?
o People’s attitudes toward learning at work
o The extent to which training is implemented
o The outcomes of training
10. Organizations care a lot about ensuring that there are processes in place so
that knowledge can be effectively shared across the organisation in the most
efficient and effective ways. From your perspective what kinds of approaches
does this organisation have to facilitating knowledge sharing (i.e. top-down,
bottom-up, laterally)?
o Who decides what knowledge is important and what needs to be
shared?
o Who checks if training is accurate?
o How is knowledge stored and shared?
Role as Learner or Instructor at Work

11. Do you feel like there is a culture or community of learning at work?
o What part do you play in the learning community at work?
12. We have talked about various times in which you’ve received knowledge, but
can you think of an example or two when you were a creator of knowledge?
o What experiences have you had leading training or sharing knowledge
at work?
13. How do you find that you learn best, in general? Are these preferences
considered at work?
72
Example Conclusory Remarks (1 Minutes)

Thank you so much for taking time to talk with me.
Are there any questions that you have for me?
Is there anything that you think would be valuable for me to know that I haven’t
asked?
Thanks again and I look forward to seeing you at the design workshop.
73
Appendix D – Participatory Workshop

Artefacts
Manufacturing Team Workshop Artefacts
ROUND 1: Problems or Challenges with the Current Training

Each bullet point represents one sticky-note idea. The headings represent the themed
groupings that emerged from combining the individual suggestions.
Retention
• Retention?
• No check knowledge in place with SOPS
• No check knowledge in place in JBS
• Keeping people motivated
• How well are employees retaining knowledge
• All training logs are manual paper than input into computer
• Training vs Reading
• Job breakdown sheet testing on operations
• Training vs reading SOPs
Time
• Time to get everyone trained

• Time to do it
• Training while lines are running
• Set timing for training
• Time consuming inputting rolls
• Training is very time consuming
• Enough time to properly train
Training
• Training is disconnected from level advancement

• Training documentation
• Engagement
• Understanding SOPs
• Making sure that only trained people run a line
• High variability in quality of SOPs
Accuracy
• No system to audit compliance to JBS and SOPs
• Multiple versions
• Need more frequent checks to ensure best practices are followed
• Standards not being followed
• After being trained on JBS, using the JBS for every process
• Auditing of JBSs to ensure best practices
74
SOP Improvements
• SOPs are difficult to keep current / accurate
• SOPs are not visual
ROUND 2: Desired Features in a Future Training System

Each bullet point represents one sticky-note idea. The headings represent the themed
groupings that emerged from combining the individual suggestions.
Process
• Validation of System
• Version Control
Time
• Time to do it
• Line shut down for 30 min to 1 hr
Engagement
• Tie training into pay and skills
• Fun / Engaging
• More motivation and engagement
• Are best practices being followed
Electronic Accessibility
• Less time to update SOPs
• JBS on iPad
• Electronic signature
• SOPs on iPad
Visual
• Visual
• Images
• Visibility of training
• Audit external / Audit ready
• Visibility of audits
• Videos
• JBS Training Videos
Trackable
• Easy to track training (who’s trained)
• Easy to retrieve per employee
• Easily accessible
Retention Testing
• Testing of knowledge
• Testing on SOP
75
• Testing (small scale)

• Check knowledge
• Retention testing
• Comprehension compliance
• Testing on JBS
• Testing
• Short / Retainable training
Updatable
• Easy to update
• Easy to update
76
University Team Workshop Artefacts

ROUND 1: Problems or Challenges with the Current Training
ROUND 2: Desired Features in a Future Training System
77
Appendix E – Follow Up Survey

Each participant was emailed a link to the following three-question internet
survey:
Thank you again for participating in the design workshop! Please know that if
you have any further ideas in the coming days I would welcome additional
input.
Warm Regards,
David Petersen
1. How would you describe your experience participating in the training design
workshop?
How, if at all, has participating in the workshop:
2. Influenced your perception of learning at work?
3. Influenced your understanding of your role in training at work?
78

Meaningful Workplace Learning in The Digital Age

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meaningful Workplace Learning in The Digital Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meaningful Workplace Learning

in the Digital Age

David James Petersen

Trinity Term 2018

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Keywords: workplace learning, participatory design, meaningful work, workplace

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. v

- Perspectives from the Literature.............................................................7

– Research Design and Methodology..................................................... 16

One-on-One Interviews ............................................................................................. 25

– Research Findings and Discussion ..................................................... 30

Appendix A – CUREC Approval ................................................................................. 51

Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet .......................................................... 67

Appendix C – Pre-Workshop Semi-Structured Interview Protocol ........................ 71

Appendix D – Participatory Workshop Artefacts.................................................... 74

Appendix E – Follow Up Survey ............................................................................... 78

Two Kinds of Meaningful Workplace Learning

experiences. Importantly, these two kinds of meaningful experiences are archetypes

Learning as an End Learning as an Means

Figure 1 – Two Kinds of Meaningful Workplace Learning

The Digital Age

1. Diffusion of technology, especially internet and communication technologies

Automation and The Polarisation of the Workforce

Flex-workers and the Jobless Society

labour management practices such as subcontracting work, employing consultants or

The Digital Age

Figure 2 – Meaningful Workplace Learning in the Digital Age

This dissertation explores if and how individuals experience workplace learning as

Structure of the Dissertation

- Perspectives from the

Social Identity Theory and Meaning

Threats to Meaningful Work in the Digital Age

Automation and Changes to Work

Flexibility and Finding Meaning at Work

The Rise of Computers and Theories of Learning at Work

Linking Explicit Knowledge

Figure 3 – The Knowledge-Creation Spiral

According to this model tacit knowledge is transferred between individuals through

Communities of Practice, A Social Theory of Learning at Work

Workers organize their lives with their immediate colleagues and

1. sustained mutual relationships - harmonious or

9. the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and

• RQ1: Do different professional groups construct meaning through learning at

• RQ2: How, if at all, does participation in designing an IT learning system

(a) are composed of two or more individuals,(b) who exist to

organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team,

– Research Design and

Operationalising Social Identity Theory

Social constructionists about X tend to hold that:

1. X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or

Very often they go further, and urge that:

a construct to explore the influence of workplace learning on meaning-making.

Participatory Design Research

7. Delegation Citizen Control

Figure 4 – A Ladder of Citizen Participation

Methods Selection and Design

Research Question 1 Research Question 2

Current Becomes Future

Social identity theory

Figure 5 – Methodology for Studying Meaningful Workplace Learning

Participatory Design Workshop Intervention