A case of productive entanglement? Researching a post = compulsory learning network

From: Subject: A case of productive entanglement? Researching a post compulsory learning network Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:51:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01CBE7E8.497ABAC0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CBE7E8.497ABAC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/165488.htm =EF=BB=BF A case of productive entanglement? Researching a post = compulsory learning network

A case of productive entanglement? = Researching a=20 post compulsory learning network

Annelies Kamp

Deakin University, Australia

Paper presented at the British Educational Research = Association=20 Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 = September=20 2007

Contact:
Dr Annelies Kamp
Research Fellow
Deakin = University
221=20 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
annelies@deakin.edu.au

Dr Annelies Kamp is a Research Fellow in the = Faculties of Arts=20 and Education, Deakin University. Her doctoral research formed one = component of=20 an Australian Research Council grant that explored networks and = interagency=20 collaboration as a new form of post-compulsory educational policy = response to=20 young people considered to be at risk of disengaging from formal = structures of=20 education and training in the =EF=BF=BDrisk society.=EF=BF=BD

This paper draws on research supported by an Australian Postgraduate = Award=20 (Industry) scholarship and undertaken within the context of an = Australian=20 Research Council Linkage scheme. That support is gratefully = acknowledged. I also=20 acknowledge background information sourced from the Victorian Tapestry=20 Workshop.

Abstract

In this paper I aim to achieve two outcomes. The first is to open up = thinking=20 around how, in a context where governments are increasingly exploring = and=20 drawing on notions of fluid networks, joined-up government, interagency=20 collaboration and so on, we can develop forms of policy sociology that = can=20 capture the complex =EF=BF=BDwhat happened=EF=BF=BD of policy outcomes. = Secondly, I want to=20 briefly share the findings of my own case study research into one such=20 government-instituted network in Victoria, Australia.

Introduction

In May 2003 I began the doctoral journey that is the subject of this = paper.=20 Deakin University, in collaboration with one of the state = government-instituted=20 Local Learning and Employment Networks (LLEN) was successful in an = application=20 for an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage scheme project entitled = =EF=BF=BDUnderstanding and managing "risk" for 15 =EF=BF=BD 19 year = olds in a learning=20 network: a case study of the Geelong LLEN.=EF=BF=BD LLEN had = progressively been=20 established across all areas of the state of Victoria since 2001 = subsequent to=20 Ministerial Review into Post Compulsory Education and Training Pathways = (Kirby=20 2000). That review reported that youth in transition from schooling to=20 independence faced persistent and severe difficulties unknown to = previous=20 generations; the irregular effects of globalization were at work (Beck = 1992,=20 Castells 2000). LLEN, incorporated associations rather than an arm of=20 government, would bring together the expertise and experience of local = education=20 providers, industry, community organisations, individuals and government = organisations. As a result of their local decisions, collaboration and = community=20 building efforts it was intended that opportunities for young people = would be=20 enhanced. The Geelong LLEN that was a partner in our research was at = that time=20 funded AUD400,000 per year for three years, after which time it was = intended=20 that all LLEN would have become self-sustaining. As it happens, in 2007 = LLEN are=20 still receiving government funding, albeit at a significantly reduced = level,=20 after a number of compelling evaluations and reviews (VLESC 2002, 2003, = 2005).=20 However it is generally accepted that at the end of 2008 any form of = government=20 funding will cease.

The ARC Project that commenced in 2003 had two separate research = components.=20 The first component involved a team of researchers from the Faculty of = Education=20 working with community stakeholders to explore their understandings and=20 experiences of the LLEN. The second involved a doctoral candidate in = completing=20 an ethnographic case study of the LLEN; this eventually became my role. = As such,=20 I neither selected my topic nor devised my methodology. It was this = context that=20 initially brought a loose idea of a tapestry to mind, an idea that was=20 subsequently researched and reworked to the idea of a woven tapestry = with=20 increasing conviction. Woven tapestries involve a loom that frames the = work and=20 is dressed with warp threads stretched lengthwise to be crossed by the = weft=20 threads that the weaver progressively builds. The warp threads are = orderly,=20 providing direction; the weft threads are often irregular, providing=20 individuality. The weaver bases her work on a cartoon =EF=BF=BD a = full-size outline -=20 mounted behind the warp. It seemed to me that in my doctoral studies, = the=20 cartoon was the ARC Project that was created by the research team; the = warp=20 threads were the methods; the loom was constructed by the university = where I=20 would complete my candidature. It was my task as weaver to interpret the = design=20 and weave the weft.

However, the tapestry weaving metaphor also enabled me to resolve a=20 methodological tension. Case studies concerned the intensive study of a = bounded=20 system characterised by a wholeness and the integration of its parts = (Stake=20 1995, 1998); most commonly a community or an organization (Bryman 2001). = But my=20 subject - by virtue of its nature as a network - was far more than a = bounded=20 system with integrated parts. LLEN did include the establishment of an=20 incorporated association, a contractual entity that government could use = to=20 provide the limited funding allocated to getting these networks off the = ground=20 and this entity acted as the administrative core, occupying a LLEN = office and=20 providing one of many points of entry into the network. However, the key = challenge for me was to portray far more than that entity and to capture = the=20 network =EF=BF=BDat work. My tapestry weaving metaphor enabled me to = resolve the tension=20 of doing justice to the case study portrayal of a network within the = constraints=20 of a doctoral thesis. Taking my inspiration from Deleuze & Guattari = (1987),=20 rather than thinking of chapters, I sought to weave a series of panels = on a=20 variety of looms. The looms enable me to weave with different warp = settings,=20 weft densities, colour mixes and techniques and, in the process, to = portray both=20 the establishment and the operation of the LLEN. The weaving of the = formation of=20 the located, bounded LLEN instituted by government is more linear, = capturing as=20 it does a process of policy implementation; the weavings of the = unbounded LLEN=20 as an instance-in-action are more chaotic using changes in shape, colour = and=20 texture. The threads of theory and data with which I wove =EF=BF=BD = including Bourdieu=20 (1986), Foucault (1977), Lewin (1946) - form connections between the = various=20 looms indicating that these images are always in the middle and = fundamentally=20 interconnected.

The Geelong LLEN

Over the period of time that I was in the field, the Geelong LLEN = came to be=20 seen as something of a success, an outcome I will expand on later in the = paper.=20 It is worthwhile providing some detail on the antecedents of that = success. These=20 are not difficult to identify given the LLEN differentiated itself from = the=20 other 30 LLEN from the beginning. Whereas some LLEN invested their = operational=20 funds in capital items such as high-profile buildings or vehicles = =EF=BF=BD in effect=20 establishing themselves as =EF=BF=BDthe=EF=BF=BD node of the network = =EF=BF=BD this LLEN invested in a=20 more invisible kind of process. In the Key Implementation Tasks outlined = by the=20 Department for LLEN (Department of Education, Employment and Training = 2001) the=20 timelines proposed that by March 2001 a LLEN Office would be established = and the=20 process for selection and appointment of an Executive Officer would have = commenced. Many LLEN moved quickly to appoint their Executive Officer to = allow=20 the work of the LLEN to commence:

Other LLEN they set up their Committee of Management = straight=20 away, they appointed their Executive Officer straight away and they did = it all=20 without consulting anyone. And they wonder now why they, why the = community looks=20 at them and says, =EF=BF=BDWell you didn=EF=BF=BDt consult us, why = should we work in with you?=EF=BF=BD=20 They did it all the wrong way. Some of them had appointed their = Executive=20 Officer within the first two weeks and they wonder why they = weren=EF=BF=BDt being held=20 in high regard. (Matthew, LLEN committee member, = 2005)

The process of selecting and appointing an Executive Officer was seen = as one=20 that must be owned by the community and held over until an informed and=20 representative Committee of Management was appointed.

The organisation of all LLEN was dictated in their Articles of = Incorporation:=20 staffing would be minimal, LLEN were commonly expected to operate with a = full-time Executive Officer, a part-time Office Administrator and, on = occasion,=20 contracted project staff. They would be governed by a voluntary = Committee of=20 Management formed of no more than 15 elected community members = representing=20 various membership categories. Within that framework, the Geelong LLEN = adopted=20 an evolving Working Party structure focused on core business. Each = Working Party=20 was allocated a portion of initial small project budget, an arrangement = that=20 =EF=BF=BDdrove the Department insane=EF=BF=BD (Executive Officer 2003) = but resulted in a high=20 level of ownership. While it was recognised that a Working Party = structure could=20 =EF=BF=BDtend to overwork people=EF=BF=BD (Executive Officer, 2003) this = structure was=20 fundamental to the philosophy underlying the LLEN from the start: it = enabled=20 active participation by members of the LLEN and other community = stakeholders, it=20 demonstrated the commitment to avoid the perception of =EF=BF=BDempire = building=EF=BF=BD that=20 could have occurred if available funds had been used to employ staff; it = maximised the connections within the network and, finally, it = underscored the=20 perspective that the LLEN was the network, not the entity that gained = funding=20 from government, acted as the administrative core and occupied the LLEN=20 office.

LLEN were implemented into the Victoria education context which, by=20 international and national standards, was already highly dynamic = (Keating and=20 Robinson 2003). It was characterised by a high degree of devolution, = high levels=20 of fee-paying education, innovative tertiary education arrangements and = the=20 largest and most diverse adult and community education (ACE) sector in = Australia=20 (Connors 2000; Keating & Robinson 2003). However, the context was = also=20 coloured by the legacy of the 1990s when, under a Liberal state = government,=20 Victorians had experienced both a shift away from a welfare state = ideology and=20 the imposition of private sector management practices (Ball 2000, = Blackmore=20 2000, 2002). In education, teachers and schools operated within a sense = of close=20 external scrutiny (Shacklock 1998). Funding systems had also placed = schools in=20 competitive relationships (Blackmore 2002), a development that brought=20 =EF=BF=BDwidespread disquiet=EF=BF=BD in many communities seeking to = work co-operatively=20 (Connors 2000, p.17). Despite the policy shift subsequent to the = election of a=20 Labor state government in 1999, schools and other education and training = providers remained in a context where funding was premised on individual = student=20 numbers within a marketised and devolved context. Thus, at time when it = was=20 accepted that more players, in a range of contexts, would need to become = involved in post compulsory education and training (Eldridge 2001, = Ministerial=20 Council on Education Employment and Youth Affairs 2004), schools were = often=20 forced to behave in entrenched ways. The challenge was to move away from = a model=20 that placed schools as the central players in this complex environment = to one=20 where schools were one of many players in a new sector that included = education,=20 training and industry. This challenge was to be taken up by a voluntary = network,=20 in a community of over two dozen secondary schools, a range of other = education=20 and training providers and a population of over 200,000.

Theoretical Approach =EF=BF=BDand . . . and . . . and . . . = =EF=BF=BD(Deleuze and Guattari=20 1987)

During the process of data generation I had come to appreciate the=20 impossibility of a single weaving on a fixed sett doing justice to the = myriad of=20 potential patterns that could be woven within the constraints of my = doctoral=20 loom; I became persuaded to compose =EF=BF=BDraggedy panel(s)=EF=BF=BD = (Scheurich 1997, pp.2-3)=20 whose orientation was poststructural. I use the term = =EF=BF=BDpoststructural=EF=BF=BD while=20 acknowledging that the term itself is problematic given it implies a = singular=20 body of work rather than a =EF=BF=BDbundle of different discourses, = knowledge traditions=20 and methodologies=EF=BF=BD (Lee 1992, p.8). Following Lather (1993), I = take=20 poststructural to mean the working out of academic theory within the = culture of=20 postmodernity, that is, the shift in material conditions of late 20th = century=20 monopoly capitalism. A poststructural approach begins with a perspective = that=20 reality is discursive and multiple and that

Life is the way it is because of accidental and = unintended=20 convergences in history; because of the arbitrary desires and passions = of=20 individuals; because certain discourses, for no particular reason = perhaps,=20 become more important than others; and because anonymous and contingent = forms of=20 knowledge have produced practices that can be contested and = changed=EF=BF=BD .

I see this quote from St Pierre as being inherently=20 =EF=BF=BDrhizomatic=EF=BF=BD (Deleuze & Guattari 1987). A concern = with =EF=BF=BDaccident and=20 unintended convergences=EF=BF=BD is a concern the rhizome where there is = no centre, just=20 endless expansion and haphazard and temporary intersections at which = point=20 desires and passions can be released. While the metaphor contrasts the = rhizome=20 to the tree that has been conceptually dominant in modernist = philosophies these=20 are not opposed models: =EF=BF=BDthere are knots of arborescence in = rhizomes, and=20 rhizomatic offshoots in roots=EF=BF=BD (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, = p.20). I see the=20 rhizome in my candidature; all of us could easily be tempted to claim=20 arborescence: focusing on that which is fixed, singular, confirmed and = in the=20 process suppressing the unstable, plural and dynamic. And that rhizome = is=20 fundamentally connected to others: the rhizome that is my life and the = rhizome=20 that is the network I am attempting to study.

Using a rhizomatic model involves a concern with the middle - a space = that is=20 made of lines moving in multiple directions (Semetsky 2004, p.230) - and = a=20 concern with points that appear at the intersection of these moving = lines. Thus=20 we decentre key linkages and notice new ones that appear not because we = combined=20 old ones in new ways, but because we became open to the ruptures and=20 discontinuities that in turn create other linkages (Alvermann 2000, = p.118). The=20 rhizomatic approach also provides for multiple entryways and multiple = readings=20 (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Whilst my images are woven individually and = offer=20 distinct perspectives, each one is present in and provides a point of = access to=20 the other. Together they are a form of text with edges that are ragged: =

Texts are not smooth, grid-like weaves with neat = edges. That is=20 why they do not give themselves up to unravelling by the master=20 philosopher/analyst who knows the right thread to pull (Derrida 1998: = 37-8).=20 They are not well-wrought tapestries or close-knit fabrics that bind = their=20 arguments into grids of meaning or stitch together a coherent self . . . = . Texts=20 are always incomplete and fragmentary because they are part of the = unceasing=20 fabrication of the world, which involves both making and unmaking. Bits = are=20 unravelling at the very instant that new connections are being knotted = together.=20 So texts do not have clear-cut edges: or at least, their borders only = come into=20 being at the moment that they are carved out by the =EF=BF=BDcutting = trace, the decision=20 of each reading.=EF=BF=BD (Derrida 1981 cited MacLure 2003, = p.128)

My research reflected the belief that knowledge generated in social = research=20 is not absolute and my mode of enquiry reflected this. Thus my primary = tools of=20 analysis were my field notes and research journal; in the weaving = between these=20 texts my analysis progressed. Whereas once this would be the = =EF=BF=BDhidden chapter=EF=BF=BD of=20 research I have, like Britzman (2000, p. 231), opened up and included = this data=20 in an effort to be =EF=BF=BDaccountable to complexity=EF=BF=BD (Lather = 2000, p.305).

It=EF=BF=BDs all in how you think about it

Seeing the connectedness of things is the starting = point for=20 understanding a world that otherwise appears baffling . . . Yet it is = far easier=20 to assume a world without connections, a world of fewer dimensions where = simple=20 heuristics carry us through. This is perhaps the hardest aspect of a = connected=20 world and the reason why our concepts and institutions may be doomed to = lag=20 behind the reality they seek to make sense of.

In the first past of this paper, I introduced the question of how = case study=20 researchers can engage with the task of researching networks. The=20 =EF=BF=BDpoststructrual turn=EF=BF=BD (Lather 1993) has exposed the = shaky ground on which both=20 qualitative and quantitative case studies of all kinds stand. At the = same time,=20 there are specific challenges in completing case studies of networks = that=20 broaden the usual range of complexities confronting researchers and that = demand=20 thoughtful approaches to methodology. This is brought to bear not only = in data=20 generation, where in my case the research journal became a central tool, = but=20 also in the approach to analysis where the challenge is to find = processes that=20 enable any resulting text to convey the movement, interconnection and = growth=20 that are inherent in networks-in-action. I did not think about the = network as a=20 series of pre-existing entities, or points, that had been connected as = in some=20 form of community join-the-dots. I also wanted to move away from the = idea of a=20 =EF=BF=BDhub=EF=BF=BD or =EF=BF=BDnode=EF=BF=BD that often raced to grab = centre stage in any discussion of=20 networks, immediately placing structure in the way of understanding what = was=20 going on. Rather, my interest was in following the incessant flows of=20 multiplicities which, when they came into connection with the incessant = flows of=20 other multiplicities, caused a temporary point of energy, connection, = potential=20 to appear. Thus in this second part of the paper I present a selection = of my=20 research findings, for two reasons. Firstly, because they are = significant in=20 underscoring the difference between a network as a governable entity and = network=20 as a process of desire. Secondly, because they serve as an example of = what we=20 find when we analyse for movement.

=EF=BF=BDThe=EF=BF=BD LLEN or a network?

They said, =EF=BF=BDAre you going to write all that = down?=EF=BF=BD and I said,=20 =EF=BF=BDWell why wouldn=EF=BF=BDt I?=EF=BF=BD And they said, = =EF=BF=BDBecause this organisation did it.=EF=BF=BD And I=20 said, =EF=BF=BDYes, I am going to claim it as an outcome . . . because = it is part of the=20 delivery on the LLEN agenda.=EF=BF=BD Now this is our most active = Working Party that=20 somehow thought I was taking liberties on the things I was saying. But = where=20 else does it fit but here? This is what we=EF=BF=BDve said we were going = to do. You are=20 all the people who sit here. Of course I am going to claim these = outcomes=20 (laughs). You know, it kind of pulled me up a little bit to = think, =EF=BF=BDOh=20 goodness, they=EF=BF=BDve forgotten again . . . that they are the = LLEN.=EF=BF=BD (Executive=20 Officer, 2005)

Throughout my time in the field, a tension existed around what the = LLEN was.=20 For some, including the Chair and the Executive Officer, the LLEN was an = unbounded opportunity to act. In such a conceptualisation individuals = and=20 structures were interchangeable as circumstances demanded: who was in = the=20 network and where in the network they were, would be based on the needs = of the=20 network at any given time (Urry 2003). The LLEN Office was no more than = one part=20 of the multiplicity alongside the other parts. Thus local industry, the = Field=20 Officer, local government, the LLEN staff, local education providers, = schools,=20 youth agencies and so on were all parts of a multiplicity that was the = network=20 and in which they were involved through their daily work; none of them=20 consistently occupied =EF=BF=BDthe centre.=EF=BF=BD

For others, including even some members of the Committee of = Management the=20 LLEN was an entity that =EF=BF=BDshould do something.=EF=BF=BD These = stakeholders were troubled=20 by the lack of a clear organisational entity that was = =EF=BF=BDbadged=EF=BF=BD in the evolving=20 post compulsory education, training and employment sector, perceived the = nature=20 of industry involvement as problematic and, when facing their own = performative=20 pressures, on more than one occasion blamed inadequacies in =EF=BF=BDthe = LLEN=EF=BF=BD as the=20 reason for those failures. As such, when the comment was made that = =EF=BF=BDthe LLEN=20 didn=EF=BF=BDt do anything=EF=BF=BD this was not a self-referential = comment.

This discussion suggests two things. Firstly, governmentally = instituted=20 networks must be both entities (allowing government probity measures to = be met)=20 and rhizomes (allowing innovative things to happen). The network must = continue=20 to evolve with its members moving to different points =EF=BF=BD = sometimes in the core=20 membership, sometimes at the periphery which is the greatest point of = connection=20 (Wenger 1998) =EF=BF=BD what ever is needed at a given time in a given = context. This is=20 an essential rhizomatic characteristic: each element ceaselessly varies = and=20 alters its distance in relation to the others (Deleuze and Guattari = 1987, p.30).=20

Secondly, if we see ourselves as being the network by virtue of our=20 involvement in our own daily life, does this allow us to think = differently about=20 the costs of network involvement? (Seddon et al. 2005; Tett 2005). If we = adopt=20 the =EF=BF=BDopportunity=EF=BF=BD perspective, some of this cost becomes = balanced by gain; if we=20 adopted the =EF=BF=BDentity=EF=BF=BD perspective then our network = involvement takes us away from=20 our =EF=BF=BDreal=EF=BF=BD work to contribute to a job that someone else = is funded to do.=20

How do we govern it?

This brings me to a second key finding. In my thesis, I suggested = that we=20 need to be mindful of the work of mathematicians Duncan Watts and Steven = Strogatz (1998). Thus, LLEN can be understood, governed and measured on = the=20 basis that they are =EF=BF=BDsmall worlds=EF=BF=BD: both orderly = and random, both=20 bounded and unbounded. Or as Deleuze would offer: And rather than Is. = Thus =EF=BF=BDthe=20 LLEN=EF=BF=BD is no more than a (necessary from a perspective of = legitimation) knot of=20 arborescence in a (necessary from a perspective of innovation) unbounded = rhizome.

This has implications for government practices. The Victorian = government=20 funded LLEN in an effort to build on the potential demonstrated by = organic=20 collaborative networks to respond to local issues in times of declining=20 resources. However, in so doing - in bounding those networks and = exposing them=20 to public sector accountability processes - their potential was = threatened. This=20 was not a necessary condition given LLEN were established as = incorporated=20 associations but this ran counter to the established expectations in the = Department:

The difficulty government had was to understand what = they had=20 set up was an incorporated body, not another department . . . The = bureaucrats=20 treat the LLEN, the Committee of Management and its Executive Officer as = one of=20 its own, part of its own bureaucracy and that is understandable but it = actually=20 interferes with the work of the Executive Officer. Takes up time, takes = up=20 thought, interferes with the Committee of Management=EF=BF=BDs room to = move, it also=20 reduces the risk you can take because really you=EF=BF=BDve got to do = what government=20 departments have to do which is to implement policy rather than create = policy.=20 (Freya, LLEN committee member, 2003)

The accountability and reporting framework privileged measures of=20 performativity over the outcomes that reflected the broader policy = agenda of=20 partnerships, interagency collaboration and so on (Seddon et al. 2005). = For=20 example, partnerships were a measure but the measure was the number of=20 partnerships, with partnership defined as those bounded by a Memorandum = of=20 Understanding. In this network, the two strongest partnerships that were = central=20 to the achievements of the network, had never been subject to a formal=20 agreement. Rather they had formed over years of ebbing and flowing, = relationship=20 building, dialogue and shared commitment to the agenda. This demanded a = new=20 language of governance =EF=BF=BD the potential for which had been = recognised in LLEN=20 (Robinson & Keating 2005)-, one that included government in = the=20 network. However, the reporting and accountability practices used did = not=20 recognise government=EF=BF=BDs role as an equal part of the network; = with occasional=20 brief respite, it remained in a hierarchical relationship with the = network.=20

Structuring or flowing?

In drawing on the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1987) we can = understand the=20 LLEN policy as an attempt to establish a Body without Organs (BwO). In = simple=20 terms, the BwO explains our attempts to take away structures that are = organised=20 in ways that obstruct the flow of intensities. In other words, we = recognise all=20 the players who now become involved in post compulsory education and = training=20 and we focus on freeing them to work more effectively. This is a two = phase=20 process: one has to first construct the BwO and then one has to make it = flow=20 (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p. 152). The evidence of this could be the=20 establishment of a post compulsory education training and employment = sector and=20 its success would be measured in terms of flow: not only the extent to = which=20 bridging and linking networks are formed across the formerly separate = education,=20 training and employment sectors but more the extent to which = information,=20 capitals and people flow backwards and forwards through these networks. =

The LLEN works between schools, education providers and other = agencies=20 working for and with young people; each of these is in itself a = multiplicity and=20 has different, and often competitive, commercial interests, hence the = focus on=20 learning how to work collaboratively in these in-between spaces. = This=20 undermining process is often necessarily imperceptible: allowing flows = that=20 escape the capture of dominant discourses (Roy 2003, p.31): much of the = work of=20 the network/rhizome would indeed be underground with the outcomes of the = work=20 becoming manifest within the organisations that comprise the post = compulsory=20 education training and employment sector doing whatever it is they are = funded to=20 do. For example, while schools might declare they didn=EF=BF=BDt know = anything about the=20 network or may not be aware of the involvement of their school, they may = well=20 have experienced that there was less resistance when they went about = their work=20 within their school network, that there was a greater understanding of = other=20 parts of the multiplicity, that there was an enhanced level of trust: = that they=20 could =EF=BF=BDlive smooth=EF=BF=BD (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p.482) = despite the arborescence=20 of their space.

learning Networks or Learning networks?

The Geelong LLEN has demonstrated the potential of = =EF=BF=BDLearning networks=EF=BF=BD=20 to forge a post compulsory education, training and employment sector. As = was the=20 intent, economic capital is increasingly being replaced by social = capital=20 (Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1988, Putnam 1993). However, in a context of=20 performativity a policy that implements networks and provides funding is = only=20 one part of the machinic activity, quality assurance and performance = indicators=20 are the pedals of the machine; audit, review, evaluations and so on are = the=20 tools that calibrate the machine (Blackmore 2004, p.22). In the absence = of=20 change to these =EF=BF=BDpedals and tools=EF=BF=BD the development of = social capital will be=20 undermined through limiting the opportunities for those in networks to = build the=20 norms and trust required for a whole-of-government, whole-of-community = post=20 compulsory education training and employment sector. It is through both=20 governmental change and flowing networks that the plane of = consistency=20 (Deleuze and Guattari 1987), holding together its divergent elements = through a=20 state of intensity that derives from the commitment to working for young = people=20 rather than any intrinsic similarity or extrinsic force, is achieved. At = the end=20 of 2008, there will be no further funding for LLEN. The absence of = government=20 would free the network from the limitations of performativity however it = would=20 also remove the connection through which the network contributes to the=20 Department=EF=BF=BDs awareness of the intersections that obstruct its = policy agendas, as=20 we have detailed elsewhere (Angwin, Harrison, Kamp & Shacklock 2004, = Kamp=20 2006, 2005, 2005a, 2003, nd).

Some concluding thoughts . . .

There are many more stories to set in motion about this particular = network.=20 Of particular significance are stories of the boundary work by means of = which=20 assemblages of multiplicities form. Into the hands of exceptional = individuals=20 the network has been =EF=BF=BDable to focus its volume of social capital = . . . power=20 incommensurate with the agent=EF=BF=BDs personal contribution=EF=BF=BD . = In the context of the=20 Geelong LLEN this agent is primarily, but not exclusively, the Executive = Officer. Other boundary agents have significantly influenced the = creation of the=20 conditions of flow through the network. These agents forged a connection = and=20 flows of communication across boundaries; acting as a form of adaptor as = the BwO=20 has been forming. Is it of significance that, in this study, that work = was=20 overwhelming undertaken by women? However, those questions must remain = for=20 another day. In this paper I have been concerned with opening up and = exploring=20 the methodological dilemmas of researching networks in the postmodern = context. I=20 have offered my own response to these dilemmas, outlining my = methodological=20 approach as well as =EF=BF=BDthe weaving, the tapestry, the = message=EF=BF=BD that has resulted.=20 The last word remains with Deleuze and Guattari (1987, p.xv)

The question is not: is it true? But: does it work? What new thoughts = does it=20 make it possible to think? What new emotions does it make it possible to = feel?=20 What new sensations and perceptions does it open in the = body?

References

Alvermann, D. E. (2000) 'Researching libraries, literacies, and = lives: A=20 rhizoanalysis', in St Pierre, E. A. & Pillow, W. (Eds.), Working = The=20 Ruins. Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, = Routledge,=20 New York, pp. 114-29.

Angwin, J., Harrison, L., Kamp, A., Shacklock, G. (2004) The Young = Parents=EF=BF=BD Access Project, Deakin University, Geelong.

Angwin, J. & Kamp, A. (2007) Policy hysteria in practice: Teenage = parents=20 at secondary school in Australia. In J. McLeod & A. Allard (Eds.),=20 Learning from the Margins: Young Women, Social Exclusion and = Education,=20 Routledge. London, pp.95-107.

Ball, S. J. (2000) 'Performativities and fabrications in the = education=20 economy: Towards the performative society?' Australian Educational=20 Researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1-23.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Theory, = Culture=20 & Society, Sage, London.

Blackmore, J. (2000) ''Restructuring relations' between the state, = family,=20 work and education in globalising economies', The Australian Educational = Researcher, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 17-36.

Blackmore, J. (2002) Learning networks as new educational spaces and=20 strategies of educational reform in response to risk and independence, = Paper=20 presented at ECER Conference, Lisbon.

Blackmore, J. (2004) 'Passion, professionalism & performativity. = Gender=20 and social justice in education', Redress, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. = 21-31.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) 'The forms of capital', in Richardson, J. G. = (Ed.)=20 Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, = Greenwood=20 Press, New York, pp. 241-60.

Britzman, D. (2000) 'The question of belief: Writing post-structural=20 ethnography', in St. Pierre, E. A. & Pillow, W. (Eds.), Working = the=20 Ruins. Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, = Routledge,=20 New York, pp. 27-40.

Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods, Oxford University = Press,=20 Oxford.

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, The = Information=20 Age: Economy, Society and Culture, 3, 2 ed., Blackwell, Oxford.

Coleman, J. (1988) 'Social capital in the creation of human capital', = American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, pp. Supplement S95-120. =

Connors, L. (2000) Public Education: The Next Generation, = Ministerial=20 Report, Department of Education, Employment and Training, Melbourne.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. = Capitalism and=20 Schizophrenia, 2, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Department of Education Employment and Training (2001) A Guide for = Local=20 Learning and Employment Networks, Implementation Guide Version 1, = Department=20 of Education, Employment and Training, Melbourne.

Eldridge, D. (2001) Footprints to the Future, Youth Pathways = Action=20 Plan Taskforce Report, Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, = Canberra.=20

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, Penguin Press, = London.

Kamp, A. (under review). Capitals and courage. The case of a local = learning=20 and employment network, Australian Educational Researcher.

Kamp, A, (2006) Teaching teachers: Building a post compulsory = education=20 training and employment sector through teacher education. Refereed = paper=20 presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education = Conference,=20 Melbourne.

Kamp, A. (2005) 'A teacher is here to ask for your help.=EF=BF=BD = A story of=20 schools, employers and networks. Paper presented at the Australian=20 Association for Research in Education Conference, Sydney.

Kamp, A. (2005a) On Track to What? A Foucauldian Analysis of a = Recent=20 Victorian Post-compulsory Education Policy Initiative, Youth Studies=20 Australia, 24, 2, pp. 39-45.

Kamp, A. (2003) Reactions and responses: The concept of learning=20 networks. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE Conference, = Auckland.

Keating, J. & Robinson, L. (2003) Networks and LLENs: Policy = and=20 Practice, ARC Project Occasional Paper No 1, University of Melbourne = Centre=20 for Post Compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning, Melbourne.

Kirby, P. (2000) Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education = and=20 Training Pathways in Victoria, Ministerial Report, Department of = Education,=20 Employment and Training, Melbourne.

Lather, P. (1993) 'Fertile obsession: Validity after = poststructuralism',=20 Sociological Quarterly, vol. 34, pp. 673-93.

Lather, P. (2000) 'Drawing the line at angels: Working the runins of = feminist=20 ethnography', in St Pierre, E. A. & Pillow, W. (Eds.), Working = the Ruins.=20 Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, Routledge, = New=20 York.

Lee, A. (1992) 'Poststructuralism and educational research: some = categories=20 and issues', Issues in Educational Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. = 1-12.

Lewin, K. (1946) 'Action research and minority problems', Journal = of=20 Social Issues, vol. 2, pp. 34-46.

MacLure, M. (2003) 'Fabricating the self: metaphors of method in = life-history=20 interviews', Discourse in Educational and Social Research, Open=20 University Press, Buckingham, pp. 119-32.

Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth = Affairs (2004)=20 Career and Transition Services Framework, Ministerial Report, = Department=20 of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.

Mulgan, G. (2004) 'Connexity revisited', in McCarthy, H., Miller, P. = &=20 Skidmore, P. (Eds.), Network Logic. Who Governs in an Interconnected=20 World?, DEMOS, London, pp. 49-62.

Putnam, R. D. (1993) 'The prosperous community. Social capital and = public=20 life.' The American Prospect, vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 1-6.

Robinson, L. & Keating, J. 2005, Networks and Governance: The = case of=20 LLENs in Victoria., ARC Linkage Project Occasional Paper No 3, The=20 University of Melbourne Centre for Post Compulsory Education and = Lifelong=20 Learning, Melbourne.

Roy, K. (2003) Teachers in Nomadic Spaces: Deleuze and Curriculum, = Complicated Conversation, Pinar, F., Peter Lang, New York

Scheurich, J. J. (1997) Research Method in the Postmodern, = Qualitative=20 Studies Series, Goodson, I. F. & Sceurich, J. J., Falmer Press, = London.

Seddon, T., Clemans, A. & Billett, S. (2005) 'Social = partnerships:=20 Practices, paradoxes and prospects of Local Learning Networks', The=20 Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 25-48.

Semetsky, I. (2004) 'Experiencing Deleuze', Educational Philosophy = and=20 Theory, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 227-31.

Shacklock, G. (1998) 'Fast capitalist educational change: personally=20 resisting the images of school reform', Discourse: Studies in the = Cultural=20 Politics of Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 75-88.

St. Pierre, E. A. (2000) 'Poststructural feminism in education: An = overview',=20 Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 477-515. =

Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, = Thousand Oaks,=20 California.

Stake, R. (1998) 'Case studies', in Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. = S.=20 (Eds.), Strategies for Qualitative Enquiry, Sage, New York, pp. = 86 =EF=BF=BD=20 109.

Tett, L. (2005) 'Partnerships, community groups and social = inclusion',=20 Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-15.

Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity, Polity Press/Blackwell = Publishing,=20 Cambridge.

Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission (2002) = Evaluation of=20 the Local Learning and Employment Networks, Evaluation, Department = of=20 Education & Training for the Victorian Learning and Employment = Skills=20 Commission, Melbourne.

Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission (2003), Making = A=20 Difference - Local Learning and Employment Networks, Impact Report,=20 Department of Education & Training for the Victorian Learning and = Employment=20 Skills Commission, Melbourne.

Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission (2005) Review = of the=20 Local Learning and Employment Networks, Department of Education = &=20 Training for the Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission,=20 Melbourne.

Victorian Tapestry Workshop (2003) Victorian Tapestry Workshop: An = Information Guide, Victorian Tapestry Workshop, Melbourne.

Watts, D. & Strogatz, S. (1998) 'Collective dynamics of = 'small-world'=20 networks', Nature, vol. 393, pp. 440-442.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and = Identity,=20 Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational = Perspectives, Pea,=20 R., Seely Brown, J. & Hawkins, J., Cambridge University Press,=20 Cambridge.

This document was added to the Education-Line database on = 05=20 September 2007

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CBE7E8.497ABAC0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/elsmall.gif R0lGODlhIgEWAPcAAEpKc5RKhKVjxmN7lJSUrbmIwbW1xrXGzs7O3ta11tbe597W1ufW7+fv7/f3 9/////Ip8HcBAAAA1PISAIDuFgC+5UEAvPISAKDzEgCw/xIARLnzdzjO83f/////gO4WALvxQwAQ 7BYAGPwSAGYAAACA7hYAogMFAPgeEwABAAAAEOwWAEwAAACiAwUAAABAABDsFgAAAAAAAAAAAAEA AAD8HxMABAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA+B4TAGDzEgBsAAgAGQAcAAAAAACA7hYAYHNAANQCSABPcGVuAAAD AAIAAADc8xIAQO5CAAQAAAASAQAAAGJXAE46XEJFSVxFRFVDT0xcU0FNXHBvcnRhbABlbC5naWYA zPMSANzzEgCKe+d3AAAAAAAAAAAgAAAA3PMSADz0EgDvY/d3zPMSADAAAAAAAAMAAgAAAEDuQgB1 IOd3xAMZAAACAAAAAAAAKAAFAJkdVwAoAAAASAAAAAIAAADCFOd3ogMFABIBAACV8AAAEAAZAAAA AACeAgAAAQAAAPBDWAAAYlcAEDUVADQDAQICAAAAAPAAABgwFQCoKBUAAAAAANBiVwB49BIAAAAT ABny+HckAAAAgAwTAAAAEwAAAAAAUPQSAAAEAAB49RIA1Cz5d2DY+Xf/////PPUSALFM9ndIBRMA TjpcQkVJXEVEVUNPTFxTQU1ccG9ydGFsXGVsLmdpZgCcR+h3ogMFAAAAAAAAAAAAlfAAABAAGQAB AAAAg0fodzsXRQCiAwUAxAMZABIBAABDF0UAogMFAMD3EgACAAAAAAAAAABiVwAFAAAAAAAAAD72 EgDYLxUAAQABAgFlYWT8ABMAcPUSACMAAAAuAAAA+PcSAAEAAAAAAAAAKENYAAAAAADY7xYAEgAA ACABAAAIAAAAXgEAAIj1EgCqKPB3AAATAAgABAAYAQAAZgAAAGYAAACiAwUAAQAAAAAAAAA0AwEC BwCKAQcAigFQ9RIAnBHtd7D/EgBEufN3yM3zd/////8FhkMAogMFACH5BAEAAA8ALAAAAAAiARYA QAj+AB8IHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnEixosWLDwEAOKiRoEYDAw0AABly5MCOCgdoBOCA40aD KAc2CBCAIE2C/AoE0Pkg506HPgsc1ClUYNCaAm8OZKAUo9OnUKMyXLnyJFUAA1xSbUlQ5VWBBGIK FPuA7NiXIWmqFWCQJj9+SQO8hctQrVqbSAe6pUuTrV67ARZIHUy4sOHDiAvOpbuY7sLFDSEnnky5 Mky0HjGXRSuSpMDOAhWYzQzW7GixCQL4/UvQgVuaruU6Vhh7tsDYrV/bFczasu/fwIMLH068uPHj yJMrXz7xKlrnmkGX9Lz5a0GNBK5DJ21QAGAGOPn+we4pPu/j8gibvh0fNwFeu8zjS72KwKr26QSl I8Cq8IBGB6dpdlZBTcXFW0+6lffWX/ANpOBBBSp4U2rmqVVAAdTJp6FFAWbWAHcDWlWfVldl2OFA CxTInkA6JQDXTgG4aBtCLc7YIkE1PtCgQCmat+GPQAYp5JBEFmnkkUgmqeSSTFbknFUrZfiAdJ+Z 1NVKWRkU1mVP2neQAxcWwJWD/CTgHnlmAlXmmQaladSaBJl54ANm1slmk0KeWF1+VlbpWVjPZUdQ A1W5ZGhBOgXQknfm8dNjTY4WqFCkPvKo3qO9ZYpnkXo+QChnfU7Z52iZhZXlfZcRGCNeB5aHwE7f rgJF04iq0urqTzqal9pqmxJJn5fAUikqSfud6lJ2GimQ6rKW+riihHLtxeBdDroFYaO6LUDUezTd Cd234IYr7rjklmvuuehStdmhVZ4qkrEqeUaqqF2CaC+FcRZI4Yv7znjQvm3qa+2OcfV65Iki8ZdZ ll4RtB8AH34KLL2oVtxeXLzmugBcFG7sb1uBzUjTnCNzTC2LuBpMpAEstxxSy1ISBKigBiGg0gAH DKTAALSORfNnMbNsUI8CgFdQA2YuSKeMHw9qp5sCQe1p0nTJGefTKmet9dZcd+3110AGBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CBE7E8.497ABAC0--