Reading :: The Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning

The Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning: A Critical Reader

Edited by D.W. Livingstone and David Guile

This book is from the same publisher as Guile's monograph The Learning Challenge of the Knowledge Economy and covers some of the same ground: How do educators deal with changes in the economy?

In their introduction, the editors argue that all human economies are knowledge-based (p.xvi) and ask: what, if anything, is new about the knowledge economy? (p.8). The pieces in the collection wrestle with this question in one way or another. I'll just pull out a couple of those pieces for discussion.

Beth A. Beckhy. "Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction" (pp.229-256)

In this chapter, Beckhy notes that occupations are interdependent and examines how they compete for control in task areas, specifically in the case of "the work of engineers, technicians, and assemblers at a manufacturer of semiconductor equipment" (p.229). She focuses on artifacts, which "embed the knowledge of their creators" and which "symbolize social categories and influence and constrain social action" (p.232). Thus "examining artifacts provides a window into the social dynamics of occupational groups, because as artifacts cross occupational boundaries, they highlight the social interaction coalescing around them" (p.232). 

After some discussion of the case, Beckhy presents a table showing the impact of occupational artifacts on workplace jurisdiction (p.237). The columns: 

• Knowledge
• Authority
• Legitimacy

The rows:

• Drawings 
• Machines

And the results: These artifacts functioned as representations of knowledge (pp.237-w38), but also as "boundary objects" that "were used to mediate across occupational boundaries during episodes of problem solving" (p.238). She found that drawings allowed engineers to deflect blame and place blame because "they were open-ended and in a state of flux"—engineers could blame others' poor interpretation of the drawings (p.245). Meanwhile, technicians had physical control of their machines, so they could "challenge the authority of engineers" in that domain (p.246; cf. Dorothy Winsor's work at "AgriCorp"). I saw a lot of resonance with genre theory here.

Peter H. Sawchuk. "Divergent Working and Learning Trajectories in Social Services: Insights from a Use-Value Perspective." (pp.277-300)

Here, Sawchuk argues that to understand a knowledge-based economy, we must understand "the details of everyday economic life and learning" as an "arena of political economic struggle" (p.277). He argues that two things have not changed:

• knowledge, which "continues to be central to production and control"
• use-values, "the direct satisfaction of individual and collective need" (p.277)

However, "in the course of the intensification of learning and change ... the contradictions that emerge may provide an important point of departure for analysis of occupational change" (p.277). This analysis is guided by the use-value thesis (UVT), the result of a "dialogic interaction" between cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) and labour process theory (LPT) (p.278). He contrasts this approach with that of Engestrom, which (he charges) leaves to one side "the broader purpose and political economic dimensions" (p.282), including primary contradictions, which Engestrom and Sannino name-check (pp.282-283) but don't empirically investigate in a consistent way (p.283). He quotes Avis' critique of Engestrom's approach, in which Avis charges that "contradictions" actually secure the interests of capital (p.283). Sawchuk develops UVT as an alternative approach.

David Guile. "Working and Learning in the 'Knowledge-Based' Creative and Cultural Sector: Vocational Practice, Social Capital, and Entrepreneurability." (pp.301-316)

Guile discusses the rise of the creative and cultural (C&C) sector over "the last 20 years" (p.301; n.b., the collection was published in 2012). The knowledge economy has captured the imagination of policy makers, leading to educational policies that encourage developing C&C education and jobs. However, "the link policy makers and transnational agencies assume exist between  qualifications and access to employment does not apply in the ways they imagine in this sector" (p.301). (This argument sums up and extends the one that Guile made in his 2010 book.) Specifically, the C&C sector offers a tangible and intangible contribution to the economy," and policy is not well equipped to deal with the intangible (p.304). In the UK C&C sector, common features include:

• "external labour markets and hence freelance work"
• "individualized rather than unionized work practices"
• "multi-faceted conceptions of expertise" (p.308)

Guile overviews developments, then concludes that they "are likely in the current financial climate to exercise a suppression effect on the aspirations of people who lack financial and emotional forms of support and to position those who do have access to such support to take advantage of the port-of-entry positions that are either advertised in the C&C sector or uncovered from participating in C&C networks" (p.314). 

Overall, I found a lot to like in this collection. If you're interested in the knowledge economy (you can put scare quotes around the phrase if you like), take a look.