Through difference comes a deeper confidence

cropped-picture-of-dunes-2.pngThis week I was at conference in Bristol, UK on the ‘contemporary relevance of the work of Pierre Bourdieu’ where I presented my paper on the connections and opportunities between Bourdieu’s thinking and action learning. It was one of the best conferences I had been to drawing people from all over the world and importantly working with Bourdieu’s ideas in very different ways.

I have been deeply affected by his work which has influenced a number of my books, papers and thinking in general. But I have lacked confidence on two counts. Firstly, his life’s work was enormous, there are few who have a deep understanding of his work and the context from which it emerged. Secondly, appreciating the contemporary ways in which those ideas were being taken up by people at the conference. In other words, I was very aware that my interest was focused on a small area of a far wider moving project.

Over the three days it was great to see the myriad of ways that people were working with his ideas. Some I was deeply drawn to, attracted by the interaction between excellent empirical work and theory. Others like Lisa Mckenzie’s work on the working class in London made me wonder what sort of world we had created. But others took Bourdieu’s work and applied multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and other quantitative techniques that left me cold wondering what Bourdieu would have thought. Similarly, words and phrases such as ‘technique’, ‘tool’, ‘using’, ‘framework’ were applied to some of Bourdieu’s concepts in a way that just seemed to miss the shifting, relational, emergent qualities of his ideas reminding me of his comment: ‘Everything conspires to encourage the reification of concepts, beginning with the logic of ordinary language, …’ (Bourdieu, 1973, p62). Despite these differences and affinities my thinking was being challenged.

Through these differences and talking with those people who saw his work from other angles I became more confident about my areas of interest, that of reflexivity and the ‘friction’ between his concepts of habitus and field. This was not an arrogant confidence; I knew that I had something that was worth saying but with a humility to explore other ideas and how these were being taken up.

What implications does this have more generally? It is by being with other people of differing views and exploring their ideas that we become more confident and curious about our own position and how that position might develop. But that is not what I see around me. Politicians talk of building walls (metaphorically, literally and implied in their ‘dog whistle’ speeches), or they just talk and don’t listen. Perhaps we do the same; we surround ourselves with likeness amplified by our interaction with Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Here I am suggesting a different type of deeper confidence. I am not talking about an arrogant confidence that is defensive, inward looking and is brittle to challenge. I am talking about confidence that is open to the development of thought and keen to engage others with differing and challenging views. I think Bourdieu himself would have had views on this …

Bourdieu, P. (1973). The three forms of theoretical knowledge. Social science information, 12(1), 53-80.

 

Advertisements

Trust in Organisational Life – Call for papers

Capture1Trust is an essential lubricant of working relationships.  Over the last year I have become increasingly interested in this, which led me to carry out a research project with Alison Donaldson, funded by Roffey Park.

I have now been invited to act as guest editor of the Winter 2016 edition of e-Organisations and People (e-O&P), the journal of AMED, on trust.

Here are some examples of the kind of articles that I am interested in:

  • Accounts of how trust can be affected (for good or/and ill) by either planned or accidental actions. By planned, I mean, for example, an organisational development initiative that has been deliberately designed and implemented to improve how a group is working together. By accidental, I mean the unintended consequences of a misjudgement, an external shock and/or some cunning or political action.
  • You might have developed a way of conceptualising trust, or perhaps a framework for generating trust. If so, how has this has been taken up and used in the workplace? What has this enabled?  And what other important issues might it be distracting us from?
  • Something from left field that takes a refreshing and insightful view of trust that might challenge some of our basic assumptions about the nature and manifestations of trust.

These are just a few suggestions. You may well have others.  If this strikes a chord with you, please send me a brief initial proposal of 200-300 words by 15 July. If you’d like to discuss your ideas beforehand, please get in touch too.

My e-mail address: r.warwick@chi.ac.uk.

Our publication timetable is:

  • 15th July 2016: Expressions of interest to guest editor.
  • 15th September: First drafts to guest editor (earlier if possible).
  • 30 November: Winter 2016 e-O&P is published online.

About e-Organisations & People

e-O&P is AMED’s quarterly online journal, published in pdf format. For 25 years, e-O&P has been connecting the worlds of work, theory, ideas, innovation and practice by making new knowledge and original thinking available to developers, facilitators and their clients through persuasive writing.

Our readers and authors are both practitioners and academics who are curious about life in organisations and about how we might affect that life and each other for the better.

Articles are normally between 1,500 – 3,000 words, written in an engaging and lively style that will be of interest to academics and alike.  We encourage the use of headings, images, diagrams and live hyperlinks.  Following receipt of your expression of interest, we will send you a copy of e-O&P’s Guide to Contributors.

Editions of e-O&P are often associated with a lively pre- or post-publication gatherings. As far as it can, e-O&P aims to support its authors according to principles of critical friendship.

I look forward to receiving your initial expression of interest (a simple paragraph or set of notes outlining your provisional ideas) by 15 July.

Decembers’ Postscript:

We had a great response to our call from all over the world. Over the last few months we have been working closely with several authors who had similarly pondered the nature of trust. The journal editorial can be found by clicking on the following link.

An antidote to bullet points

cropped-picture-of-dunes-22.pngRecently I was in the Netherlands visiting their Open University lecturing and talking with a group of PhD students.

In one conversation we discussed the question of ‘contribution’, or how could research make a difference. Suggestions were discussed that you could imagine would lead to a few bullet points. Quite understandable but not quite hitting the mark it seemed to me, particularly when we are researching day-to-day goings on in organisations. Such an approach plays into the hands of the person who sees knowledge as an abstract entity that can be applied from one context to another with assured results.

Here is a suggestion. Before we get to the bullet points the author explains their situation. This narrative contains enough of the gritty detail to enable the reader to ‘live that experience’, but not in a fictional sense, but in a way that enables them to build a ‘bridge’ between their experience and that of the writer. This does not mean that they have to agree or for that matter directly relate to the situation, but just to say ‘yes, I can see why they have done …’ This might include a few striking moments that challenged one’s thinking or assumptions or where events took a surprising turn. It might also include a few textured details of the people involved, the location or the sense of anticipation or apprehension.

By this stage we have now established a connection of common understanding. And with assertive humility we can offer some grounded suggestions. These are suggestions that the reader can now relate to and imagine how they might be useful for them, adapted to the situation that they are facing.

This way of thinking recognizes both the power of the writer/researcher and the reader, it is now more nuanced. We have moved away from knowledge as being absolute where the reader’s voice is absent. For this to work, by which I mean any test of validity (a key point in and PhD), we need to recognize the role of the reader in how this might be useful, both the story and any bullet points that might follow.