LEARNING IN A COSTELLATION OF INTERCONNECTEDPRACTICES: CANON OR DISSONANCE?Silvia Gherardi 1ResearchUnitonOrganizationalLearningandCognition,DipartimentodiSociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Universit di Trento.and 2Davide NicoliniThe Tavistock Institute, OCTI Programme, and Research Unit on OrganizationalLearning and Cognition, Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Universitdi Trento.AbstractSafetyisanorganizationalcompetencethatarisesfromaconstellationofinterconnectedpractices.Apractice-basedapproachhasbeenusedtoshowthatthe 1SilviaGherardi,viaVerdi26,38100Trento,Italy,tel.0461-881311.fax.0461-881348,e-mail:silvia.gherardi@soc.unitn.it.DavideNicoliniTheTavistockInstitute,OCTIProgramme.30TabernacleStreet,LondonEC2A4DD,UK,Ph.+441714178310, Fax: +44 171 417 0568, E-Mail: d.nicolini@ tavinstitute.org2 The present article is based on research into organizational learning as part of a projectfor the Kolleg Organizational Learning in Various Environmental Conditions, financedby the Daimler-Benz Foundation. It is the outcome of joint and indivisible work by theauthors.learning of safety in a constellation of communities of practice is mediated by comparisonamongtheperspectivesoftheworldembracedbytheco-participantsintheproductionofthispractice.Theaimofthepaperistoinvestigatetheaccountsofthecausesofaccidents provided by the members of three different communities of practice (engineers,sitemanagersandprimecontractors),internaltoamediumsizedcooperativebuildingfirm.Comparison among perspectives is made possible by a discursive practice targeted onthealignmentofelementsmentalandmaterial,withinmutuallyaccountablediscursivepositions.Thesealignmentsareprovisionalandunstable,theyproducetensions,discontinuitiesandincoherences(dissonance)justasmuchastheyproduceorderandnegotiated meanings (canon).Introduction"Practice is where nature and society and the spacebetweenthemarecontinuallymade,un-made,andremade" (Pickering, 1992: 21)Learninginacommunityofpracticeisdescribedintheliteratureasaprocessofprogressive engagement in the practices of that community. Yet there are practices thattraversetheboundariesofseveralcommunitiesandwhichasinstellarformationscreateanetworkofrelationswithinaconstellationofcommunitiesofpracticestiedtogether by interconnected practices.Howthenisabodyofsharedknowledgecreatedwithinaconstellation?Howdothecontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesamongcommunitiesofpracticeshelporhinderthecirculation of knowledge?Themostaccreditedanswersintheliteraturedescribethisprocessintermsofnegotiated order (Strauss, 1978), the negotiation of meanings (Wenger, 1998), alignmenteffects(Law,1994;Suchman,1998),orprocessesofcollectivesense-making(Weick,1995). These replies emphasise the consensual and prevalently harmonious aspect of theprocess and, in our view, they more appropriately describe the production of knowledgewithinasinglecommunity.Buttheyunderestimatethediscontinuityamonginterconnectedpractices,andtheyfailtodescribehowknowledgeremainsisolatedandnot communicated from one community to another.Our argument is that, in a constellation of interconnected practices, discourse amongcommunities is a specific practice not directly aimed at reaching understanding and/or theproduction of collective action, but rather at learning mediated by comparison among theperspectivesofalltheco-participantsinapractice.Comparingamongdifferentperspectivesdoesnotnecessarilyinvolvethemergingofdiversityintosomesortofsynthesis harmonizing individual voices and instruments into a symphony (or a canon) but rather the contemplation of harmonies and dissonances that may coexist within thesame performance3.We shall seek to show that discursive practice in a constellation of interconnectedpracticesisfundamentallyandnecessarilyadissonance.Todosoweshallrefertoempirical research conducted on a building site, which we consider as a constellation of 3Acanonisaspeciesofmusicalcompositioninwhichthedifferentpartstakeupthesamesubjectoneafteranother,eitheratthesameoratadifferentpitch,instrictimitation.A dissonance is a combination of tones causing heats and thus producing a harsh effect;also, a note which in combination with others produces this effect.We are indebt to Attila Bruni for the discussion of this musical metaphor.interconnectedpracticesamongitsprincipalcommunitiesofpractice:theengineers,thesitemanagers,andtheprimecontractors,allofwhombelongedtothesamebuildingcooperative,andother,secondarycommunitiesofpractice.Wearethereforeinterestedinunderstandinghow,besidesthematerialartifact(thebuilding),thisconstellationalsoproducedasituadedcompetencesafetywithregardtowhicheverycommunityhasdifferent conceptions and practices.Weconsidersafetytobeanemergingpropertyofculturalsystemsprofessional,organizational,industrial,socialwhichproducesocialconceptionsofwhatisdangerous or safe, and of what attitudes and behaviours towards risk, danger and safetyare appropriate.Traditionalapproachestosafetyasregardsbothindustrialdisastersandworkplaceaccidentsconsidersafetytobeapropertyoftechnicalsystemswhichisobjectifiedinsafe technologies and artifacts. We may call this the technical route to safety. This isflanked by the normative route which views safety as the outcome of the application ofrulesandregulationswhichprescribesafeindividualandcollectivebehaviours.Althoughoneshouldcertainlynotunderestimatetheimportanceofsafety-embodyingtechnologicalartifacts,orofthesocialandorganizationalproductionofnormswhichimposesafeworkingconditions,technologicalandbureaucraticsafetyculturesdisplayseriousshortcomingsbecausetheyconveydecisionpremisesandvalueassumptionswhich view safety as extraneous to work practices. Our contention is that it is not safetythat is learnt, but safe work practices. A notion of situated safety implies that:-knowledgeaboutsafetyanddangerisrelational,situatedinasystemofinterconnected practices.-themeaningofwhatissafeanddangerousisnegotiatedwithinthecommunityofparticipants to these practices.- the learning of safety is of concern to people involved in these activities.Therefore safety may be considered to be a collective ability to produce organizationalandinterorganizationalworkpracticeswhichprotectbothindividualwelfareandtheenvironment. It is therefore a competence which is realized in practice, which is sociallyconstructed,innovatedandtransmittedtonewmembersofthesystemofpractices,andwhichisinstitutionalizedinvalues,normsandsocialinstitutions.Butpracticeisanemergent structure, produced and sustained by the members of a community of practiceas an open process and it is at once highly perturbable and highly resilient.1. Learning in practice, learning a practiceRecentpractice-basedtheorizinghasreconceptualizedthetermorganizationallearning,detachingitfromtheoriginalpsychologicaldomainoflearningtheoriesinorder to examine the metaphorical operation (Gherardi, 1999) which, by juxtaposing twounrelatedterms,constructsarepresentationofanorganizationasifitwereengagedinpractices concerned with knowledge and knowing.Amidthediversityoftheschoolsofthought,thespecificcontributionofpractice-basedtheorizingtoanalysisoftheknowledgeintrinsicinpracticecanbesummedupasfollows:- Learningisacquiredthroughparticipationincommunitiesofpractice(LaveandWengen, 1991; Brown and Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998).- Organizingcanbeseenasaactivitysystemwhichrevealsthetentativenatureofknowledgeandaction(Blackler,1993;1995;Blackler,CrumpandMcDonald,1998).Incoherences,inconsistencies,paradoxesandtensionsareintegralpartsofactivity systems.- Knowledge and action are located in ecologies of social-material relations (Fujimura,1995; Star, 1995).- Knowingisenacted(Weick,1979),situated(Suchman,1987),resilientbutprovisional (Unger, 1987), public and rhetorical (Vattimo, 1985).- Practiceinvolvestheaccomplishmentofalignmentsacrosshumanandnon-humanelements(Latour,1986;Law,1994)fromparticularpositioningsatparticulartime,within a network of relations (Suchman, 1998).Emphasisonpracticefocusestheresearchonknowledgeonthedoingandonthematerialityofsocialrelations,therebydetachingitfromtheidealisttraditionandthecognitiveapproaches.Inpractice-basedtheorizingtheMarxist,materialistandanti-functionalist approaches join forces.Learningapracticeinvolvesactiveparticipationinasetofactivitieswithconcreteindividualswhorecognizethisparticipationascompetence.Engagementinpracticealsodevelopsanidentityinrelationtothecommunity:suchparticipationshapesnotonlywhatwedo,butalsowhoweareandhowweinterpretwhatwedo(Wenger, 1998: 4).Astheengineerslearntbuildingsitepracticetheylearnthowtobeengineers.TheydevelopedanidentityasengineersfromcooperativeXandrefinedanengineeringvocabularysothat,whendealingwithpracticalproblems,theycouldtalkabouttheirpracticeswithotherengineers.Sotoodidthesitemanagersandtheprimecontractors.Ineverycommunityofpractice,practiceisacontextforthenegotiationofmeanings:that is to say, actions do not achieve their meanings in and of themselves. Being engagedin a joint enterprise gives rise to relations of mutual accountability among those involved.The sense of what we do must be made accountable both to ourselves and to the personswhosurroundus.Competenceindoingsomethingmustberecognizedandappreciated.Itmustalsobetransmittedwithlinguisticcodesandappropriateaesthetics(Polanyi,1958, 1967; Cook and Yarrow, 1993; Strati, 1999) in order to develop a sensibility andan aesthetic and moral judgement on appropriacy codes.Mutualaccountabilityisthereforeaprocesswhichconsolidateslearningmediatedbythedifferencesofperspectives,therebyshapingidentityandspecificculturalforms.Forthisreasonweconcentratedourfieldresearchontheaccountsprovidedbythethreecommunities of practices concerning why on-site accidents happen.2. The research settingThe aim of the research study described in this paper was to investigate the accountsofthecausesofaccidentsprovidedbythemembersofthreedifferentcommunitiesofpractice(engineers,sitemanagersandprimecontractors),internaltoamediumsizedcooperative building firm located in Modena, northern Italy.Inthebuildingindustry,dangeroussituationsfrequentlyariseinbothworkactivityandtheworkenvironment,consequently,buildingworkersandmanagersregardsafetyasanissueofcrucialimportance.Moreover,threedistinctbutinterdependent(intermsof skills and hierarchical position) communities of practice share responsibility for safetyonabuildingsite.Theirmutualaccountsinexplanation,justificationorcriticismofaccidentsareadiscursivepracticewhichmakestheorganizationalphenomena"accountable" to oneself and to others.Causal accounts are a form of discourse on organizational referents: they pre-define asemanticspaceinwhichfacts(whathappened)andbeliefs(whyithappenedandthemeaningsofwhathappened)areinterchangeablymixedandmadeaccountabletothespeakeraswellastothelistener(AntakiandFielding,1981).Thisisespeciallytrueofbeliefs concerning events that the organization views as problematic: namely accidents.Ourresearchmethodologyassumedadistinctlyethnomethodologicalfocus.Theaccountsofworkplaceaccidentswerecollectedbymeansofinterviews(recordedandtranscribed)conductedwiththemembersofthethreecommunities(sixengineers,threeprime contractors and six site managers).Firstanalysedweretheexplanationsforworkaccidentsprovidedbythemembersofthetwocommunitiesofpractice(buildingengineersandsitemanagers);onlycausalaccountscouchedinordinarylanguagewereexamined.Theresults(Gherardi,Nicolini,Odella,1998b)suggestedthatthecausalschemesplottedfromtheinterviewtranscriptsfittedintothreeideal-typicalmodelsofcausalexplanation:alinearmodel,aco-occurrencemodel,andaramifiedorfactorialmodel.Startingwiththesamesetofpossiblecausesofanevent,thelinearmodeltakestheformofasequentialchainofcauses; the co-occurrence model assumes the synchronous action of several causes; andtheramifiedmodelexplainstheeventintermsofasinglefactor(orlatentcause)whichencapsulates other antecedent causes.Preliminaryanalysissuggestedtheexistenceofarelationshipbetweencommunitymembershipanduseofoneofthevariousaccidentexplanationmodels.Theramifiedmodelwasassociatedwithmembershipofthecommunityoftheengineers;theco-occurrence model was associated with membership of the occupational community of thesitemanagers,andthelinearmodelwasnotsignificantlyassociated4witheitherofthetwo communities of practice. 4Inperformingtheanalysiswewerefacedbyaproblemofsignificanceduetotheextremelysmallsizeofthesample.However,inthesecasesitispossibledrawontheveryspecializedfieldofstatistics(StatXact)usuallyappliedbybiometricsandepidemiological studies and perform thought combinatory calculus exact statistical tests.WewereinformedofthisopportunitybyProf.HansM.Schadee,towhomwearegreatlyindebtedforhisadviceandhelp.TheramifiedmodelwasassociatedwithIn this paper, starting from the assumption that the three communities of practice havetheirowncultureofsafety,weshalldiscusshowmutualaccountabilityisachievedintheir discursive practice. In order to gain a broader picture of learning safety in practicewereliedonanethnographicstudyofthesituatedcurriculumofanovicesitemanager(Gherardi,NicoliniandOdella,1998a)andhisengagementinacommunityofpractice(GherardiandNicoliniforthcoming).Thereforeweintegratedthetranscriptsfromtheinterviews with our field notes.3. Being on site: the site managers experienceWe know from the literature on disasters that they have an organizational dimension,andthattheyareprecededbyalongperiodofincubation:theyareman-madedisasters(Turner and Pidgeon, 1997). Any problem which is concerned either to create a site, orwhichusessites,becomeinvolvedinamultiplicityofsystems,somedesigned,someunpredictable(TurnerandPidgeon,1997:57).Forexamplethedesignofsubwaysasmeans to separate pedestrians and traffic overlooks the opportunity created "on site" forthesesubwaystobeusedbyteenagegangsorexhibitionists.Turner'sconceptof"onsite"isintriguingbecauseitreferstothefactthatanyconcreteormaterialsystempossessesnumerousproperties,allofwhicharepotentiallyevidentwhenthesystemis membership of the community of the engineers (the significance of this association for asampleof12caseswas5%-Fisherexacttest-andthevalueofthecoefficientofassociation chosen - Goodman and Kruskal Tau - was 0.466 with 10% significance); theco-occurrence model was associated with membership of the occupational community ofthe site managers (the significance of this association for a sample of 12 cases was 13% -Fisher exact test - and the value of the coefficient of association chosen - Goodman andKruskalTau-was-0.800with0.8%significance).WewanttothankourcollegueFrancesca Odella for her help in the statistical elaboration of the data.directlyencountered.A"site"istheconcreteaggregationofwhateverabstractsystemshavebeenimposeduponit,anditsplannersorusersbecomeinvolvedatthatsiteinamultiplicityofsystems,atoncedesignedandunpredictable.Difficultiesinorganizingderivepreciselyfromthis"onsite"situatedness,whichischaracteristicofallconstellations of interconnected practices.Thesitemanagerisresponsiblefortheday-to-dayrunningofthebuildingsite.Heisawareofbeingthenodeatwhichnumerouspracticesintersected.Indeed,hedescribedhimselfasatrafficwardensupervisingthepieceworkers,thecrane-drivers,thecarpenters,andthosewithlorriestounload.Iactthewardenandgiveurgencytothework as I want(intcap 3/2).Thisimageofthewardenshowshowthesitemanagersexplanationsofthecausesofaccidentsrelatetothesimultaneityofevents.Abuildingsiteisarelativelyconfinedphysicalspacewhichbecomesthetheatreforactionbynumerousgroupsofactorswhoarebothindependentandcloselyinterdependent.Andthisiswhythesiteforeman describes accidents in terms of:a. temporal interdependence. One team goes further ahead with the work, and those thatfollow are put in danger. The pieceworkers do not bother to keep the site tidy, and thosethat come after them work in dangerous conditions.b.spatialinterdependence.Everythinghappensatthesametime.Theworkisneverperfectlysynchronized,andmanagementofthephysicalspaceshouldbeacollectivetask.c.culturalmodels.Specificworkingconditionslikepieceworkorblackmarketworkcreatealackofconcernwithpersonalsafetywhichjeopardizesthesafetyofothers.Conversely, the trusties personify control delegated by the site manager.In explaining the causes of accidents and how to prevent them, the site managerexpresses a vision of the world which is not shared by all the site managers working forthecooperative,norbyallthepersonswhodothatparticularjob.Yetasharedperspective can be identified, and it is constructed by participation in shared practices, byexperience of similar situations, and above all by taking active part in discursive practicescentredonthepracticeitself.Accordingly,wemaysaythatacommunityofpracticeconstitutesadiscursivecommunity(Vaux,1999),andthatcompetentparticipationindiscourseonpracticebothconstructsthepracticeandshapesthecommunity.Forexample,thesitemanagersshapetheircommunitybyconstructingtheirviewofsafetyaround the theme of the simultaneity of events:Itsallachain,sothatworkingquickermeansthatthereislesstimetokeepthesitetidy.Ifthesiteistidy,accidentsarelesslikelytohappen.Theresallthatmaterialthatthepieceworkersandpipefittersthrowaround,andIalwaystrytokeep things tidy (intcap. 1/2)Whenitsabigsite,Ihavetobeeverywhereatonce.Sotherearefiveorsixpeopleworking,anditmayhappenthatoneofthemdoessomethingthatendangers someone else who comes later and doesnt know about it. There has tobe a bit ofcooperation (intcap. 1/5).The people who work here know where the danger is, but whether they want to dosomethingaboutit[accidentprevention]isverysubjective,itvariesagreatdealfrom person to person. If the crane-driver is someone who cares, when the materialis attached he checks that its done properly (intcap.2 /8).Thesitesinordertheeveningbefore,butwhenthemenstartworkingtheproblems begin. If they need a piece of wood, they take it from the scaffolding anddontthinkabouttheconsequences.Whentheyreplasteringandthescaffoldinggetsintheway,theyremoveit.Theyalwaysactasiftheywereinthejungle(intcap. 3/13)Whenthesitemanagerstalkedabouttheirsafetypractices,theyproducedasituational vision of safety. They exemplified it by narrating actual episodes or dangersaverted.Thesesituationswereinhabitedbynumerousactorswhocoordinated,orotherwise,theiractions.Theythereforealsoproducedanoccupationalidentitycentredon the image of the traffic warden and the analogy between road traffic and the danger-generating intersection of specific practices each with its own safety criteriainthesamephysicalspace.Unlikeatrafficwarden,whopossessesahighlycodifiedgesturalvocabulary,thesitemanagerconstantlywanderedthesite,lookingfordangerandpointingitouttotheothers.Todosoheuseddiscourse,persuasionandthelinking-upof non-communicating practices.Thisactivityhasbeentermedbrokering(Eckert,1989;Wenger,1998),giventhatthebrokerpersonifiestheabilitytotransfercertainelementsofonepracticetoanother,to understand and appreciate the differences in perspective between one community andanother,andauthorizationtoinfluencethepracticesofoneormorecommunities.Brokeringisoftenassociatedwithinnovativeness,orthecreativecopyingthatresultsfrom exporting elements of a practice developed in one particular community to another.Thismaybethecase,forexample,ofasitemanagerwhomovestoanotherfirmandpersuades his new community to adopt elements of his former communitys practice. Butbrokering is also what the site manager does in his day-to-day work, when he acts as anintermediarytosynchronizethepracticesofapluralityofactors,eachwithaspecificbodyofknowledge.Hisownknowledgeconsistsinanabilitytounderstandtheothersknowledgetotheextentnecessarytogetthemtocommunicate,anditinvolvestranslation, mobilization, and alignment (Latour, 1986; Law, 1992) among perspectives.Hisbrokeringpracticeconstructsasocialstructurethatreflectssharedlearningandwhich,althoughitmayutilizenon-humanintermediariesintheformoftechnologicalartifacts (or boundary objects), is prevalently a discursive practice based on the ability totranslatefromonelanguagetoanother.Moreover,wordstoohavetheirmaterialitybothinphonologicalshapeandinwrittenscriptandfullybelongtothecategoryofartifacts.Scholarsoforganizationalculturemeanbyartifactsallthevisibleexpressions(Gagliardi,1990:3)"which-whilehavinganexistenceindependentoftheircreators-callonthepowersofcomprehensionofthedestinee,ratherthanontheircapacitytoexperience formal qualities concretely through the senses".4. Being on site: the engineers knowledgeabilityCommunitiesofpracticeareclosedculturalsystemswhichpreventtheirmembersfrom comparing their implicit beliefs. Conflict or simple differences of view are thereforea given additional to the complexity generated by space and by a multiplicity of events inthesamespace.Aswehaveseen,thesitemanagersviewedandnarratedtheaccountabilityofon-sitesafetyonthebasisoftheirpracticalexperience,bycitingexamples, entering into detail, interrogating themselves what else they could have done inotherwords,locatingsafetyatthelevelofrelationsamongpractices.Theengineers,bycontrast,recountedsafetyintermsofeventsthatshouldnothavehappened,offailuresofforesightorregulation.Forthesitemanagersaccidentswerepartoftheorderofthingsandwhetherornottheyhappeneddependedoncircumstances;fortheengineersaccidentssymbolizedthedisorderthatinterfereswithandupsetsanidealorder. In the community of engineers:Youstudythesiteplanonpaper,whichmeansdecidingwheretoputtheequipment, the junction boxes, the crane [] When you prepare the cement mixersyou already know that theyve got to have safety protection [] so youre awareofasetofregulations.Attheplanningstageyoureincontrolofwhatthesafetyrequirements should be so that the various work phases can go ahead (inting. 2/2)The basic problems of safety are always the same, and the rules to obey are alwaysthesame.Butthenitseasiertoenforcethemononesitethananother,forobjective reasons [] Some things you can generalize, others you have to look atcase by case (inting. 1/3).Good information management on a scientific rather than a voluntary basis [makes]the information available to everyone, and then its information not interpretations(inting. 3/6)Formalizingmeansclarifyingwhattheobjectiveis,andhowcorporateresourcescanbedeployedtoachievethedeclaredobjective,ratherthaneveryoneactingaccording to what they think is right or most important (inting. 3/6).Becausetotheextentpeoplearecommanded,ifyoudonotcommandthemtheydowhattheywant,totheextenttheyknowhow,asIveseenthemdo,astheyplease, but anyway according to factors that count for nothing in the description ofthe organizational structure (inting. 4/10).Safetyisthereforeaccountablebyvirtueofnormsoftechnicalrationalityandmanagerial rationality. The reverse case is constituted by rules which are inadequate anddisobeyed.Thisistheperspectiveexpressedbycheck-listlogic,wherethecheck-listsymbolizes the practice that made the engineers accountable to their community.Althoughtheydeclaredthattheyhadnotlearntsafetyatuniversitybuton-site,theirprofessionalknowledgeenjoyedasociallegitimacyandthereforeanauthorityandauthoritativenessthatthesitemanagersknowledgedidnot.Theformerwasabstractknowledgeanditbestowedqualitieslikegeneralizability,codifiabilityortransferability;the latter was practical knowledge, and it was contingent, situated, implicit, and did notconfersocialauthoritativeness.Theformerinformedthetechnicalrulesandlegalpracticesofascribingresponsibility,aswellasscientificriskanalysis;thelatterwasgoodpracticalhousekeeping,anditwascodifiedonlyasapracticecode.Theformerbelonged to the symbolic universe of the male; the latter to the female.Howthendidconversationcomeaboutbetweenthesetwocommunitiesofpractice,given that they were interdependent?Wenger(1998:129)answersthequestionbypointingtotwoelements:styles(whichspread as people community of practicey, borrow, imitate, import, adapt and reinterpretwaysofbehaving)anddiscourses(whichtravelacrossboundariesandcombinetoformbroader discourses as people coordinate their enterprises, convince each other, reconciletheirperspectives,andformalliances).However,Wengerwrites,stylesanddiscoursesare not practices in themselves. They are available material resources that can be usedin the context of various practices.We dispute Wenger on the latter point: discursive practice is a practice in itself, which isnot performed to produce negotiation over meanings, nor to convince, to form alliances,ortocoordinate,eventhoughtheseoutcomesmayariseandbevisible.Discursivepracticeinaconstellationofinterconnectedpracticesaccommodatesapluralityofdiscoursesandlegitimatestheirco-existence.Discursivepracticecreates-inthefirstplace-aconversationalspaceandactualizespotentialconversation,inthemeantimeeveryotheroutcomeofconversationsisleftopen.Itemergesfromconversation,fromalternationbetweentheparticipants,fromtheenergiesunleashedinconversation,fromitsemotionalforce,andsoon.Discoursesarenotsolelythemeanstoproducesocialrelationslikeunderstanding,negotiation,conflict,butratheranautonomouspracticeofsociability. People talk in order to talk and not solely to do something.Discursivepracticeamonginterconnectedcommunitiesofpracticecomesaboutbothintheformofdiscourse-in-practiceandofdiscourse-on-practice.Whentheengineer and the site manager were deciding how to set up the site or to solve a problem,theywereunitedinasharedpractice:doingandsayingwerethesamethings.Wordswerejustasinstrumentalasdrawingsoranyotherartifact.Instead,whentheyweretalkingaboutpracticeforinstance,tryingtounderstandingwhyanaccidenthadhappened, or at any rate working out the reasons for some or other on-site episode -thiswasareflexivediscoursewhichinterruptedtheflowofthepracticetomakespaceforthe social activity of mutual accountability.Situatedpracticesarebothpre-reflexive(dependingonunstatedassumptionsandsharedknowledgeforthemutualachievementofsense)andreflexivelyconstitutiveofthe situated members contextsfromwhichtheyarise.Reflexivityistheoutcomeoftheseparationorbreakdownbetweensubjectandobjectand,forethnomethodologists,theneed for accountability - by which is meant making the world comprehensible to oneselfandtotheothermembersofacollectivity:Reflexivityreferstothedynamicself-organizational tendency of social interaction to provide for its own constitution throughpractices of accountability and scenic display (Flynn, 1991: 28).Reflexivity,therefore,isacharacteristicofallorder-producingsocialactivities,andmoreovertheessentialreflexivityofaccounts(Garfinkel,1967)isusedtocreateasense oforderliness for action but it reflexively creates that selfsame context. Reflexionon practice makes the world comprehensible both to oneself and to others. It may modifythepracticeormayleaveituntouched,butinbothcasesthefunctionoftalkaboutpractices is principally symbolic. It symbolizes membership and competence in discursivepractice among different communities (apart from ones own), and it celebrates identity.Discursivepracticeaboutpracticeputsthecommunityon-stage,producingitculturallyandsymbolically.Consequently,participatinginadiscursivecommunitymeansbeingable to understand the discourses on practice of other communities. Learning the varioussituatedvisionsofpracticethatothershaveofit,mayhelpinunderstandingtheirpositioning within the network of relations produced by the interconnection of practices.Discursivepracticeonpracticeenablesthespeakerstopositionthemselvesandtheircommunityofpracticewithinthenetworkofpower/knowledgerelations,andtolegitimize that positioning. In order to illustrate this with an example, we shall introduceafurtheractorintothewebofinterconnectedpracticesthatgiverisetoabuildingsite:the prime contractor. But first we must briefly examine the concept of positioning.5. Being on site as positioningThe concept of positionality comes from gender studies (Alcoff 1988; Davies & Harr1990,Gherardi,1995)andisusedmainlytoexaminetheproblemoftheproductionofsubjectivity.ForDaviesandHarr,theconceptofpositioningbelongstosocialpsychology, and their use of the term "positioning" contrasts with the concept of humanagency as role player. It is therefore useful for the analysis of the production of self as alinguisticpracticewithinthedynamicoccasionsofencounters.Adiscourseisaninstitutionalizeduseoflanguageandofothersimilarsignsystems,anditiswithinaparticulardiscoursethatasubject(thepositionofasubject)isconstructedasacompoundofknowledgeandpowerintoamoreorlesscoercivestructurewhichtiesitto an identity.Asubjectpositionincorporatesbothaconceptualrepertoireandalocationforpersonswithinthestructureoftherightspertainingtothosewhousetherepertoire.Apositioniswhatiscreatedinandthroughconversationsasspeakersandhearersconstruct themselves as persons: it creates a location in which social relations and actionsare mediated by symbolic forms and modes of being.Throughpracticesofmutualaccountability,speakingsubjectsnotonlymaketheworldmoreintelligiblebutchooseadiscursivepositionforthemselvesandforothers.This process was particularly evident in the way in which the prime contractors insertedthemselves into the on-site network of relations.Theprimecontractorisarelativelynewfigureinthebuildingindustry:heembodiesthe economic rationality which now flanks, and/or conflicts with, the technical rationalityof the engineers and the relational rationality of the site foremen. The prime contractorspoint of view is overtly biased towards the economic aspects of safety:If youre sorted out [with the law], things go better, then you avoid fines and alsoaccidents,becauseaccidentscostyou.Theinsurancecompaniesmakeyoupaymore if youve had a certain frequency of accidents (intcom.2/3).I have to immediately work out what my difficulties are going to be in running thebuilding site. But its not that I can alter the project; I must only decide how to getit done well and in the least time possible, and safely. Time is money, and I alwayshave to keep an eye on accident prevention (intcom. 1/6).Astobeexpected,theprimecontractorsdiscourseconcentratesoneconomicconsiderations.Andyetitentersintoconversationwiththediscursivepositionsofothers, acknowledging their situated legitimacy:Usuallymostsensitivetosafetyarethepersonslegallyresponsibleforit,whoincertain cases are our in-house engineers (intcom. 2/6).Ive got fifteen building sites and not all the site managers are equally safety-aware.Even we technicians, were not all the same, we dont see things in the same way.Thereisntarule,orelsethereshouldbearulebutitsobservedasoneseesfit(intcom. 2/4).As a group its the carpenters who make on-site safety (intcom. 1/4).If in the end nothing happens on a site, theres been a lot of good luck involved aswell (intcom 1/5).As people assume a discursive positions for themselves, they also attribute explicitly orimplicitly discursive positions to possible audiences. For the sake of simplicity, we haverestrictedparticipationintheconversationaboutsafetytothethreecommunitiescomprisingtheengineers,sitemanagersandprimecontractors.But,ofcourse,othercommunities with different positionings could have taken part in the same conversation.Firstly, the three communities analysed were those with most authority and responsibilityvis--vissafety,butalsopresenton-sitewasthecommunityofworkersfromthesubcontractor firms:[Compliancewiththelaw]doesntconcernouronlyworkers,whoareundercontrol, but also the other people who work on the site for us [] who are outsidethecompanysjurisdiction,externalanddistantfromcompanyheadquarters(inting. 3/7)Alsotheemploymentrelationshipdiscriminatesinparticipationinadiscursivecommunity on safety with positionings situated in power relations: between the workersemployedbythecooperativeandthepieceworkersfromthesubcontractingfirmeventhough they participated in the same practice. Detailed analysis of this feature would bebeyond the scope of this article: we have mentioned it merely to show that a building sitewhenconsideredasaconstellationofinterconnectedpracticescontainsadiscursivecommunitywhichproducesknowledgeandmodesoforderinglocatedin,andaccountable to, their particular historical, discursive and material circumstances.Learning in constellations of interconnected practices is mediated by comparison amongdifferent perspectives. These perspectives, however, do not necessarily blend to produceasingleandharmonioussymphony.Onthecontrary,thefactthattheyaresituatedinmaterial and social relations means that they assume discursive positions that may equallywell be antagonistic, so that their simultaneity produces dissonance rather than a canon.6.DiscussionWe have described the discourse on safety as a practice which engenders conversationinadiscursivecommunityinternallytowhichvariouscommunitiesofpracticeassumetheir positionings. Discourse is therefore a doing, a situated practice, and this is a visionofdiscoursedifferentfromitsconceptionasasetofbeliefsandassumptions,orasamental model (Senge, 1990).Itiswidelyacknowledgedthatdifferentcommunitiesofpracticehavedifferentexplanations of how an organization works. Schein (1996), for example, identifies threedifferenttypesofextremelycommonmanagementculture:(i)anoperatorculture,oraline organization which views work as involving interconnected systems and cooperationamong people; (ii) an engineering subculture which values technical, error-free solutions;and(iii)anexecutivesubculturewhichfocusesonthefinancialbottomline.Oursitemanagers,engineersandprimecontractorscaneasilyberelatedtoScheinsthreeoccupationalsubcultures.Ifweconsiderthesetofideasthattheyexpress,theirbeliefsindubitablyinducecoherentpredispositionstowardsaction(safetyprevention).Thatthought precedes action is a belief widely held in Western culture, with its profound trustin rationality, although one could equally well argue the opposite, and also maintain thatthelinkagebetweenthoughtandactionisalmostnon-existent,asinhypocrisy(Marchand Olsen, 1976; Brunsson, 1982; 1989).ThetheoreticalproblemthatScheinsmodeldoesnotaddressisexplaininghowcoordinated action in the presence of an incoherent thought system is possible. Scheinsdefinition of culture, in fact, emphasises the ideational elements that come to be shared.Consequently,everythingthatisnotharmonizedorsedimentedinevitablyendsupinaresidual category which we may call noise.Afurtherexampleoneveryclosetoourresearchexperienceinthatitconcernsanincidentreviewprogrammeinanuclearplant,andarootcauseanalysisatachemicalprocessplantfromalearningperspectiveisprovidedbyCarroll(1998).Thearticlebeginsbyquotingthewordsofastationmanageratanuclearplantwithanexcellentsafety record: What we do around here doesnt always make sense. The question thatCarroll asks, therefore, is why should effective behaviours and activities not be explicableand perhaps not discussible? The answer is that the difficulty lies in the available mentalmodels (Senge, 1990) or understandings of organizations, people and technologies.Carrollexplainsthedifficultyintermsoffourcategoriesoflogicobtainedbycross-referencingtwodimensions:anticipationversusresilience(orfixingorientationversuslearningorientation)andconcreteversusabstract.Hefindsthatdesignengineersworkwithlogicsthathelpthemanticipateandthereforedefendagainstproblemsinconcreteobjects. Their world is visual, and their natural reaction is to fix the problem and restoreeverythingtoitsoriginalstate.Alsoexecutivesarefocusedonanticipation,modelsandstrategic plans, but their world is numerical rather than visual. By contrast, operators andcraftspeople,whohavetheirhandsonequipment,areconcernedwithresilience,andtheirworldismanualortactile.Finally,therearethesocialscientists,managementconsultants and human factor experts, with their long-term view of experimentation andlearningintheabstract.Theirsisaverbalworldofideas,writtenpublicationsandpersuasive conversations (Carroll, 1998: 711).Carrollsarticleisveryconvincinginitsdescriptionoftworesearchprojectsinwhichgroupsofpeoplefromdifferentcommunitiesofpracticecometogethertoproduceknowledgeonthethemeofsafety.Carrollsargumentisthatlearningingroupsisactuatedbyafeedbackcycle(observing,reflecting,creating,acting),andthatmentalmodelscreatedifficultiesforbothlearningandorganization.Hisinterpretationpresupposesaconceptionoflearningasamainlycognitiveactivity,andanidealistconception of knowledge and knowing.This is a legitimate representation of learning, knowledge and knowing in organizations,but it is antithetical to a system of representation which conceives learning as intrinsic toeveryformofpracticeandwhichemphasisesthematerialcharacterofknowledgeandthe social character of knowing. Our interpretation of what happens in groups of peoplewithvariousorganizationalandculturalbackgrounds,whomeetforaperiodoftimeinorder to analyse a problem or to draw up a project (Gherardi, forthcoming), is that theycreateadiscursivecommunityandactivateasituateddiscursivepracticewhichenablesthemtocompareamongdifferentperspectives,comingtorealizethattheyareandwillremainisolated,juxtaposed,non-communicating,andevenconflictual.Comparingamongperspectivesmeansbothcomprehendingandnotcomprehending,acceptingdiversityaswellasrejectingit,understandingandmisunderstanding.Toassumeadiscursivepositionistopositiononeselfinanetworkofsocialrelationsstructuredbypower,interestednessandthemobilizationofinterests.Foranorganization,therefore,the formation of groups of this kind means acting at the level of discursive practices. Thismay give rise to change in one or more of the constellations of interconnected practices,but it is a mistake to think that it amounts to knowledge management. When we look atthepracticesthatweaveotherpracticestogether,theimageofheterogeneousengineering(Law,1992)"inwhichbitsandpiecesfromthesocial,thetechnical,theconceptual, and the textual are fitted together", may prove useful.Discursivepracticeiscentraltoorganizationalknowingandacting,becauseitmakesmaterialsdocileandtractableinthattheybecomeorganizationallyaccountable.Discourseperformstheephemeralandunstablealignmentwhichpreservesthearrangementofmaterials,persons,technologiesandknowledgesinaformrecognizableas a practice. In this sense one may argue that discourse is a practice generative of otherpractices, a mode of ordering distinguished by its capacity to handle both coherence andincoherence: the canon and the dissonance.ConclusionsSafetyisanorganizationalcompetencethatarisesfromaconstellationofinterconnectedpractices.Apractice-basedapproachhasbeenusedtoshowthatthelearning of safety in a constellation of communities of practice is mediated by comparisonamongtheperspectivesoftheworldembracedbytheco-participantsintheproductionof this practice.Comparison among perspectives is made possible by a discursive practice targeted onthealignmentofelements,mentalandmaterial,withinmutuallyaccountablediscursivepositions. These alignments are provisional and unstable because the practices of each ofthe communities are situated within specific views of the world (and of safety) and powerrelationsvis--vistheothercommunities.Theythereforeproducetensions,discontinuitiesandincoherencesjustasmuchastheyproduceorderandnegotiatedmeanings.Discursivepracticeamonginterconnectedcommunitiesofpracticeisamodeofordering which produces a body of knowledge shared by the communities involved, butnot only in the form of stable, cumulative knowledge institutionalized in routines. Indeed,thedistinctivefeatureofabuildingsiteisthatitisatemporalorganizationwhichisusuallybornanddieswithinayearandcannotrelyonstructuringprocessesakintoorganizational memory. The discursive practice that we have described does not rule outtheprocessesofharmonization,negotiationofmeanings,andtheintegrationoflocalformsofknowledge;nordoesitruleoutthecomplementaryonesofcompetition,conflict, dominance and exclusion, although it should be stressed that all these processestakeplacethroughdiscourseandinthematerialityoftalk:understandingislessnecessarytobeabletotalkthanrecognitionofthediscursivepositionanddiscourselegitimacy of the Other.We have proposed a metaphor for discursive practice in a constellation of interconnectedpractices:thosewholistentoitwillnotrecognizetheharmonyofacanon,northeorchestrarehearsalsconductedtoproduceasymphony;rather,theywilllearntodistinguishthedissonanceofpracticeandtheplacesinwhichthecacophoniesareproduced, thereby perceiving a form and a mode of ordering in what at first seemed onlyto be noise.Communitiesofpracticeinourcase,theengineers,sitemanagersandprimecontractors assume their respective positionings within the situated discourse on safety.Theengineersconductconversationinordertoaccreditatechnicalanderror-freeconception;thesitemanagersemphasisethecontingencyandimpermanenceofconcomitantevents,andtheprimecontractorshighlightthecompatibility/incompatibilityofsafetycostswithotherparameters.Intheirshareddiscursivepracticetheycomparetheirperspectivesbothduringdiscourseinpractice(i.e.inthecourseofcollectiveaction)andduringdiscourseonpractice(i.e.whenthenarrativeconcernsaccountable action).Whilstitisrelativelyeasytoconceiveaconstellationofinterconnectedcommunitiesof practices performing a practice, it is more difficult to see how that practice "performs"the community. And yet the two concepts define each other, and it is through discursivepractice that the constellation acquires shape for those looking at it.Just as learning in a community of practice can be described by the concepts of legitimateperipheralparticipation(LaveandWenger,1991;Wenger,1998)andofsituatedcurriculum(Gherardi,NicoliniandOdella,1998a),solearninginaconstellationofinterconnected practices can be described as a brokering activity situated in a discursivepractice which relates situated bodies of knowledge to the minimum extent necessary to"perform" the community.ReferencesAlcoff, L. (1988). CulturalFemminismVersusPost-Strutturalism:theIdentityCrisisinFemminist Theory. Signs, 13(3), 405-436.AntakiC.,&Fielding,G.(1981),ResearchonOrdinaryExplanationsinThePsychologyofOrdinaryExplanationsofSocialBehaviour.InC.Antaki(Ed.),European Monographs in Social Psychology. London: Academic Press.Blackler,F.(1993),'KnowledgeAndTheTheoryOfOrganizations:OrganizationsAsActivity Systems And The Refraiming Of Management. Journal of ManagementStudies, 30, 863-884.Blackler, F. (1995). 'Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview andInterpretation'. Organization Studies, 16(6, 1021-1046.Blackler,F.,CrumpN.&McDonaldS.(1998).'ManagingInnovationinComplexActivityNetworks:AnActivityTheoreticalAnalysisofLearninginHighTechnologyOrganization',paperpresentedatTheAcademyofManagementAnnualMeeting,SanDiego,symposiumonSituatedLearning,LocalKnowledge,andAction:SocialApproachestotheStudyofKnowinginOrganizations.Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (1991), 'Organizational Learning And Communities Of Practice:TowardAUnifiedViewOfWorking,LearningAndBurocratization.Organization Science, 2, 40-57.Brunsson,N.(1982)TheIrrationalityofActionandActionRationality:Decision,Ideologies and Organizational Actions, Journal of Management Studies, 19.Brunsson, N. (1989) The Organization of Hypocrisy. Chichester: Wiley.Carroll,J.(1998)'OrganizationalLearningActivitiesinHigh-HazardIndustries:theLogicsUnderlyingSelf-Analysis'.JournalofManagementStudies,35(6),699-717.Cook,S.,&Yanow,D.(1993).'CultureandOrganizationalLearning'.JournalofManagement Inquiry, 2, 373-390.Davies,B.&Harr,R.(1990).Positioning:TheDiscoursiveProductionofSelves.Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 1, 43-63.Eckert,P.(1989)JocksandBourouts:SocialCategoriesandIdentityintheHighSchool. New York: Teachers College Press.Flynn, P. (1991) The Ethnometodological Movement.New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Fujimura,J.(1995)EcologiesofAction:RecombiningGenes,MolecularizingCancer,and Trasforming Biology, in S. L. Star (Ed.),EcologiesofKnowledge,Albany:State University of New York Press.Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), (1990), Symbols and Artifacts, de Gruyter, Berlin.Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnometodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Gherardi,S.'WhereLearningIs:MetaphorsAndSituatedLearningInAPlanningGroup', Human Relations, forthcoming.Gherardi,S.(1999),'Learningasproblem-drivenorlearninginthefaceofmystery?Organization Studies, 20, 1, 101-124.Gherardi S., (1995) Gender, Symbolism and Organizational Culture. London: Sage.GherardiS.,&NicoliniD.,LearningtheTrade.ACultureofSafetyinPractice,Organization, forthcoming.GherardiS.,NicoliniD.,OdellaF.,(1998a),TowardASocialUnderstandingOfHowPeopleLearnInOrganizations:TheNotionOfSituatedCurriculum,Management Learning, 29(3),273- 298.GherardiS.,NicoliniD.,OdellaF.,(1998b),WhatDoYouMeanBySafety?ConflictingPerspectivesOnAccidentCausationAndSafetyManagementInsideAConstructionFirm,JournalofContingenciesandCrisisManagement,vol.7(4), 202-213.Latour,B.(1986),ThePowerofAssociation,inJ.Law(Ed),Power,ActionandBelief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.Lave,J.&Wenger,E.,(1991)Situatedlearning:legitimateperipheralparticipation.New York: Cambridge University Press.Law,J.,(1992),NotesontheTheoryoftheActor-Network:Ordering,Strategy,andHeterogeneity, System Practice, 5(4), 379-393.Law, J. ( 1994 ), Organizing Modernity. Oxford: BlackwellMarch,J.&J.Olsen(eds)(1976)AmbiguityandChoiceinOrganizations,Universitetforlaget Bergen.Pickering, A.. (1992)Science as Practice and Culture,Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress.Polanyi, M., (1958) Personal knowledge. London: Routledge.Polanyi, M., (1967) The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Schein,E.(1996)'TheThreeCulturesofManagement:ImplicationsforOrganizationalLearning'. Sloan Management Review, 38, 9-20.Senge,P.(1990)TheFifthDiscipline:TheArtandPracticeoftheLearningOrganization. New York, Doubleday.Star,S.L.,(1995),EcologiesofKnowledge,Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Strati, A., (1999) Aesthetics in Organizational Life, London, Sage.Strauss, A. (1978) Negotiations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Suchman,L.(1987).PlansandSituatedAction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Suchman, L. (1998) 'Organizing Alignment: A Case of Bridge-Building', paper presentedatTheAcademyofManagementAnnualMeeting,SanDiego,symposiumonSituatedLearning,LocalKnowledge,andAction:SocialApproachestotheStudy of Knowing in Organizations.Turner,B.A.&Pidgeon,N.E.(1997)Man-MadeDisasters,Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford.Unger, R. (1987) False Necessity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Vattimo, G. (1985) Fine della modernit (End of Modernity). Milano: Garzanti.Vaux, J., (1999) Social groups and discursive communities: context and audience in theexplanatorypracticesoftheartificialintelligence(AI)community.PaperpresentedatTheTransformationofKnowledgeconference,UniversityofSurrey, January 12-13.Weick,Carl(1979)TheSocialPsychologyOfOrganizing,ReadingMa:AddisonWesley.Weick, K., (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage.Wenger,E.,(1998)Communitiesofpractice.Learning,meaningandidentity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.