Janice Malcolm

The interrelationships between informal and formal learning

This paper summarises some of the analysis and findings of a project commissioned to investigate the meanings and uses of the terms formal, informal and non-formal learning. Many texts use these terms without any clear definition, or employ conflicting definitions and boundaries. The paper therefore proposes an alternative way of analysing learning situations in terms of attributes of formality and informality. Applying this analysis to a range of learning contexts, one of which is described, suggests that there are significant elements of formal learning in informal situations, and elements of informality in formal situations; the two are inextricably inter-related. The nature of this inter-relationship, the ways it is written about and its impact on learners and others, are closely related to the organisational, social, cultural, economic, historical and political contexts in which the learning takes place. The paper briefly indicates some of the implications of our analysis for theorising learning, and for policy and practice.

Making a mess of academic work: experience, purpose and identity

Within the policy discourse of academic work, teaching, research and administration are seen as discrete elements of practice. We explore the assumptions evident in this ‘official story’ and contrast it with the messy experience of academic work, drawing upon empirical studies and conceptualisations from our own research and from recent literature. We propose that purposive disciplinary practice across time and space is inextricably entangled with and fundamental to academic experience and identity; the fabrications of managerialism, such as the workload allocation form, fragment this experience and attempt to reclassify purposes and conceptualisations of academic work. Using actor-network theory as an analytical tool, we explore the gap between official and unofficial stories, attempting to reframe the relationship between discipline and its various manifestations in academic practice and suggesting a research agenda for investigating academic work.

Learning Academic Work Practices in Discipline, Department and University.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the everyday practices of academic work in social science to understand better academics’ learning. It also asks how academic work is enacted in relation to the discipline, department and university, taking temporality as its starting point. Design/methodology/approach The study sought to trace academic activities in practice. Within three universities, 14 academics were work-shadowed; social, material, technological, pedagogic and symbolic actors were observed and where possible connections and interactions were traced (including beyond the institution). This paper reports on a subset of the study: the academic practices of four early-career academics in one discipline are analysed. Findings Email emerges as a core academic practice and an important pedagogic actor for early career academics in relation to the department and university. Much academic work is “work about the work”, both in and outside official work time. Other pedagogic actors include conferences, networks and external Web identities. Disciplinary work happens outside official work time for the most part and requires time to be available. Disciplinary learning is therefore only afforded to some, resulting in structural disadvantage. Originality/value By tracing non-human and human actors, it has emerged that the department and university, rather than the discipline, are most important in composing everyday work practices. A sociomaterial approach enables researchers to better understand the “black box” of everyday academic practice. Such an approach holds the promise of better support for academics in negotiating the demands of discipline, department and university without overwork and systemic exploitation.