General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework  

This study is related to an ongoing participatory action research project involving researchers, teachers and other co-workers at Arcada professional university in Helsinki. Our overall purpose is to create a culture in which the voice of pedagogy makes a difference. The aim of this paper is to explore the conditions for designing a Place for Space for pedagogical reflection and negotiation.

Results from an earlier phase in the research process have indicated the need for designed platforms for collaboration and negotiation among the personnel. However, one dilemma that underpins the understanding of what pedagogy stands for is the organizational challenge to find solutions where more than a few personnel are committed in the process of identifying alternative and innovative pedagogical approaches in the provision of higher professional education, it was evident that there is a need to create an architecture for participation.

Our suggested brand a Place for Space is coined to express platform topography. A platform for negotiation affords an opportunity (a place) for developing creative pedagogical professionalism which fuels an atmosphere (a space) for participation by participation.  Regarding the social formations of platforms as practice architectures (Kemmis, 2007; Kemmis & Grootenboer 2008;Wenger1998) these are seen as extra-individually pre-figured and changeable (Habermas 2006, Schatzki 2002, Kemmis 2007). Platforms for enhancing critical thinking among professionals are understood concretely as scheduled time and space and symbolically as communicative spaces. Our engagement in developing a deeper meaning of adult learning is drawn from the impact of practices. Potential lies in the impact of participatory action for creating a community of practice.

A community of practice such as a work community in an educational institution can be described, according to Wenger (1998, 2009), with four components: meaning, practice, community and identity. Looking closer at the component community, a sense of belonging is crucial in the challenge of creating authentic commitment. The modes of belonging – engagement, imagination and alignment are process and practice-driven. Engagement is about active mutual involvement in processes of negotiation of meaning, and imagination emphasizes our experiences as a framework for creating images of the world, whereas accenting the importance of co-ordinating our activities within broader structures motors alignment.

Shaping a community of practice heading for participation thus illustrates preconditions, process and outcome.  Kemmis (2007) argues that how a teacher participates in discussion or debate will depend on his/her own experience of discourses, but in part it depends on the language and discourses used by others to address the issues.

The research questions are: How are communities of practice built where academic and non-academic personnel engage themselves in pedagogical negotiations? How is imagination supported to enhance development of pedagogical awareness? How is participation mediated and distributed for the benefit of alignment?

Carr ,W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer. Cousin, G. (2009).Researching Learning in Higher Education. An Introduction to Contemporary Methods and Approaches. NewYork, NY: Routledge. Greenwood, D. (2007). Teaching/learning action research requires fundamental reforms in public higher education. Action Research Volume 5(3): 249-264. Habermas, J. (2006). The theory of communicative action. The critique of functionalist reason. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Polity Press. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Ed.).The SAGE handbook of qualitative research .3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Kemmis, S. (2007). Action research as practice-changing practice. In Educational Action Research Journal 17(3), 463-474. Kemmis, S. &Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice. Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In Kemmis, S. and Smith T.J. (Eds.) Enabling Praxis. Challenges for Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Løvlie, L.(2007).The pedagogy of place. In Nordic Educational Research 1/ 2007. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, p. 32- 37. Silius-Ahonen, E. (2005). Lärande som text. En dramapedagogiskt förankrad läsning av de kroppsliga, rumsliga och retoriska i kunskapsbildande processer. Åbo: Åboakademisförlag. Silius-Ahonen, E., Rosengren, Å., Brantberg, B. (2012). Promoting participatory learning opportunities in higher education. In E. Poikela & S. Poikela (eds.). Competence and Problem Based learning – Experience, Learning and Future. Rovaniemi University of Applied Sciences. Publications A no 3., p.77-89. Schatzki, T.R. (2005) Peripheral Vision. The Sites of Organizations. Organization Studies, 26, pp. 465-484. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. 2009.A social theory of learning. In Illeris, K. 2009.Contemporary theories of learning. New York: Routledge.