These two issues of definition and purpose pose problems for anyone studying
workplace learning. The nature of these problems is often attributed to interpretation:
we all have different perspectives, and just need to be reminded to make them explicit.
However, this article argues for a different analysis. The problem is not simply one of
perspective, as though all perspectives can be embraced and understood in a single
ontology that values things like inclusion and tolerance. The critical problem lies in
mistaking learning as a single object when in fact it is enacted as multiple objects, as
very different things in different logics of study and practice. At the very least,
particularly in the contested arena of work as a site of economic conflict and production,
learning needs to be appreciated as a messy object, existing in different states, or
perhaps a series of different objects that are patched together through some
manufactured linkages. For those who align themselves more with the sensibilities of
adult education, however they might define that field, than with fields such as human
resource development (HRD), management, organization, vocational or labour studies,
there lies a responsibility in surfacing and confronting this problem. Because the
understanding of learning is arguably a core tenet of adult education tradition, we
should expect adult education researchers to help delineate the diverse objects that have
come to be represented under the one over-stretched signifier of ‘learning’. Even better,
adult education might help extend conceptual strategies for bridging these messy objects
calling themselves learning, and suggest languages for tracing their diverse enactments.