The seminar goes to work: Towards a theory of collaborative literacy

Context: The humanities and the modern workplace

The future of work is uncertain, unpredictable, and ambiguous. With the influx of new technologies, the advent of artificial intelligence, and the increase in remote or disconnected workplaces, the only thing we can count on is the unrelenting speed of change (DXC Technology, 2017). This change disorients and often adversely affects our sense of connection, belonging, and contribution.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (Deming, 2017) notes that, since 1980, social-skill intensive work has grown by over 12% as a share of all US jobs. Wages have also grown rapidly for those who have the required skills. As information and communication technology have transformed the workplace, the need has increased for workers who are flexible and adaptive problem solvers and who engage in teamwork that requires “the capacity to understand the motivations of others. Working effectively with others means not only observing their behavior but also understanding why they act the way they do” (Deming, 2017: unpaginated). The contemporary workplace demands that teams understand the complexity of a wide variety of context-specific problems, as they respond in real time to each other in ever-changing circumstances.

These challenges, among others, invite a new approach to bringing the richness and possibilities of the humanities to strengthen and deepen workplace learning. Bruner (1986) asserted an essential component of the humanities when he wrote, “The humanities seek to understand the world as it reflects the requirements of living in it” (p. 50). Building on Bruner’s theoretical assertion, the subject program evolved in alignment with a definition of the humanities as the study of “human experience: what can happen to people and what people can do; possible ways of thinking, ways of feeling, and ways of speaking; possible motives and possible values […] humanity as a whole and [also] individual (though culturally embedded) human beings in all their immense diversity” (Wierzbicka, 2011: 36). This long-term study of the effects of literature in the workplace provides insights into the sustained collective impact born in a shared exploration of the humanities.

This work relies on multiple theoretical contexts for its design and implementation (Table 1). The humanities, and literary narrative in particular, constitute the philosophical ground for its design. Reading matters in an increasingly digital world (Pennington and Waxler, 2018), but reading alone is insufficient. Adult learning theory links directly to the humanities and also to well-developed theories supporting the need for lifelong learning in the 21st century. Recent advances in cognitive science have identified processes of enaction that stress the value of participatory sensemaking and emergence (De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2008) as factors in addressing the complex conditions of contemporary workplaces.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Theoretical foundations.

Theoretical context	Relationship to humanities in the workplace
The value of narrative and reader response theory	A means to explore the human condition (Bruner, 2004). Discussions that “make sense of the world” (Skalin, 2017: 122–123). Narrative creates a space for the “transformation of both our personal and cultural background” (Caracciolo, 2012: 19). Reading is “an important corrective to the increasing emphasis on non-print digital media and the culture of global capitalism” (Pennington and Waxler, 2018: 3). Reading as a two-way transaction whose character depends on what is being read (e.g. efferent vs. sensory) (Rosenblatt, 1982). The “reader’s stance inevitably affects what emerges from the reading” but “does not deny the importance of the text” (Rosenblatt, 1982: 269).
LLL	Widely accepted answer to contemporary uncertainty, but often places functionally-defined economic, social, and technological demands on individuals (Field, 2006). UNESCO Report (Delors, 1996) asserted that LLL must address changes in the workplace and must also “constitute a continuous process of forming whole human beings […] and encourage them to play their social role at work and in the community” (p. 19).
Adult learning theory	Four essential elements: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live [and work] together, and learning to be (Delors, 1996, 2015). More sophisticated views of learning as intersecting, complex processes of cognition, emotion, and social interaction (Illeris, 2014; Jarvis, 2006). Needed investment not only in economic capital but social capital required in complex and changing networks (Alheit, 2009; Illeris, 2003).
Cognitive sciences: enaction and emergence	Participatory sensemaking as an enactive process that can promote social understanding (De Jaegher and Di Paolo, 2008). When embedded in complex social settings may promote emergence of novel forms of identity leading to impact on individuals as well as larger organizational contexts (De Jaegher and Di Paolo, 2008).

Note: LLL: lifelong learning.

Caracciolo (2012) summarized the potential of linking these broad theoretical contexts:

[…] there are large dividends to be reaped for opening up the discussion of narrative and interpretation to the complexity of human cognition and meaning-making in all its forms. […] producing and receiving stories is one of the activities whereby human beings interpret—and therefore enact—the worlds they live in. (p. 21)

The Books@Work model

Books@Work recruits and coaches college and university professors to facilitate discussions of high-quality content with learners in non-traditional spaces: the workplace and the community. Using fiction and narrative non-fiction, participants investigate essential questions, explore diverse perspectives and life experiences, and bring their distinctive voices to the proverbial table. Programs vary by company, with groups discussing books weekly or bi-weekly or short stories monthly or periodically.

With a commitment to social change, Books@Work partners with companies to offer their least-educated employees an opportunity to read and discuss literature alongside the most-educated employees, using narrative texts to break down hierarchical barriers and boost individual and collective skills. Exploring human relationships through literature need not, and should not, be limited to managers; high-quality narrative literature invites all readers—from the management suite to the shop floor—to reflect on their own life experiences.

The central concept of this work lies in narrative itself—beginning with the text, extending to the shared stories of the gathered individuals, and ending with the collective language emerging from the group’s ongoing and iterative interpretation and discussion. Unlike a college literature course, the narrative text in a Books@Work seminar is not “on the table” for examination and interpretation, but “at the table,” offering both a perspective on the human condition and the conversational space to explore issues rarely addressed in workplace settings.

Since its inception, Books@Work has served over 7400 participants in 389 programs in 62 organizations in 24 US states and 11 foreign countries, led by 304 professors from 188 colleges and universities—demonstrating sufficient scale to support the findings of this study. Despite internal variation, the program represents only one approach to introducing the humanities to the workplace. Other approaches might provide additional insights or outcomes.

Methodology

The subject of this article is simultaneously an evidence-based practice and a practice-embedded study, with research as well as assessment implications (Smith and Nestor, 2017). We approach the practice through the lens of scientific inquiry, marrying theory, and participant experience to shape the curriculum, refine the practice, and capture learnings and insights. Surveys are conducted to compare outcomes prior to and after a program, and we conduct one-on-one semi-structured interviews (in person, by video, or by phone) with as many participants as are available.

We approach the resulting data using grounded theory to discover insights from the data rather than prove a set of predetermined hypotheses (Charmaz, 2014). We systematically analyze, categorize, and condense the data to socially construct participant meaning and lived experience, allowing us to develop theories informed by participants’ observations, as well as what is happening as a result of the individual and collective experience (Charmaz, 2014). In this article, we report on selected themes (particularly as they relate to the humanities) emerging from over 800 interviews with participants, professors, and supervisors conducted over the 6-year period since 2013. The participants interviewed range in age, culture, gender, and educational level and occupy roles from the shop floor or frontline to the executive suite in a broad array of industries, including manufacturing, distribution, health care, high-tech, professional services, nonprofit and government, among others.

Specifically, we have chosen to use examples from a subset of our data, interviews with 12 individuals, 7 chosen with intention and 5 at random. This data subset includes eight women and four men, with two managers, six professionals, and four frontline workers. Table 2 provides more detail about these individuals, including their gender, role, industry, and hierarchical level.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Informant demographics.

Disguised name	Male/female	Title/role	Industry	Hierarchical level
Shelly	Female	Systems analyst	Law firm	Professional
Tom	Male	Director of HR operations	Manufacturing	Manager/executive
Mary	Female	Contract worker-quality	Manufacturing	Frontline
John	Male	Analyst	Law firm	Professional
Julie	Female	Facility administrator	Health care	Professional/manager
William	Male	Shop floor	Distribution	Frontline
Katy	Female	Analyst	Health care	Professional
James	Male	Frontline	Manufacturing	Frontline
Susan	Female	Advance practice nurse	Urban hospital	Professional
Nancy	Female	Secretary	Law firm	Frontline
Lisa	Female	Technical writer	Manufacturing	Professional
Elizabeth	Female	Study nurse	University	Professional

But Books@Work is not a randomly designed practice, being researched and assessed from a distance. Along with the research methodology, the program also grounds its practice methods in engaged scholarship and theory (Van de Ven, 2007). Because participants share their experiences with us, they become co-investigators as much as they are participants and informants. Importantly, this multi-layered approach reveals results that go beyond continuous improvement cycles within the practice to inform new theoretical and practical understandings of adult learning in the workplace.

Findings

Systematic analysis of data revealed two powerful findings about the impact of the humanities in the workplace:

Valuable human interactions emerge when participants engage in questioning, listening, and connecting during the literature discussions.

Discussion

The findings of this study show that facilitated literature discussions (especially in non-traditional environments like the workplace) unlock the conversations people rarely find occasion to explore and help colleagues to make sense of the world they share. The findings not only illustrate this observation but also illuminate the mechanisms that contribute to the phenomenon. These discussions, grounded in narrative, build on a powerful interplay of questioning, listening, and connecting that encourages emotional awareness and social interaction (Illeris, 2014) and new forms of learning.

Questioning, listening, and connecting are such well-used terms that it might seem as if they hardly need theorizing. And yet, the power of these activities expressed in the findings reminds us that the simplest concepts are the hardest to explain, let alone to teach. Schein’s conception of humble inquiry (2013) as an open, curious, and selfless act of trying to understand another’s perspective can be a challenging starting point for someone schooled in asking pointed or purposeful questions. But a narrative text provides a critical platform to erase personal agendas and, as John explains, to enable an exploration of “more loaded, more difficult and painful” topics. By leveling the playing field—after all, the rare workplace counts “literature expert” among its hierarchy of titles—the humanities take participants back to the essentials, to seeing each other and themselves, as Katy describes, in a “whole new light.”

Participant insights provide shape and context to the simple act of listening—from simply hearing to listening with the head and the heart (Garrison, 1996). Shared perspectives challenge our assumptions (Mezirow, 1990) and, as James points out, new perspectives cause us to revisit our own views, with sensitivity to what we offer and what we may have missed.

Although the findings demonstrate that questioning, listening, and connecting are iterative rather than linear processes, these are nonetheless distinct mechanisms that operate together to create the kind of high-quality connections that Dutton and Heaphy (2003) envision to scaffold more productive and positive workplaces. Our findings build on this vision, by illustrating that high-quality connections must first be constructed and that they cannot be formulaic. Rather, the connections our participants develop, fueled by their practice in “connecting” at a more personal level, are transferred and sustained beyond the literature discussions and into the stuff of everyday work. As Mary eloquently put it, the “tribal knowledge” of the workplace, the very heart of a company’s organizational knowledge and processes, requires a “path” for sharing. “You need something to open the path.”

Mary is not alone. Many participants reported their surprise and pleasure in finding that these discussions had an impact that reached well beyond the sessions themselves and strengthened the quality of interaction in their day-to-day work. This surprise highlights a powerful discovery and theoretical contribution: the collaborative approach to the text and the collective impact of the discussions interact to become a precursor to something even more powerful and more sustaining—a new kind of collaborative literacy built on the enactive nature of the Books@Work learning experience (Carraciolo, 2012).

Katy explains it well. Books@Work conversations helped her see people differently, challenging her assumptions about others. Replacing these assumptions with a deeper understanding of the motives and beliefs of other people helps her to “see” herself working with someone with whom she had not previously felt comfortable. Many participants reinforced this perception, as they thought about how their evolving assumptions carried over into solving work problems more effectively. And as James reminds us, “Once we have these different conversations, it may spark a different conversation later on.”

This learning about ourselves and each other, unlike traditional modes of workplace learning, move well beyond training or knowledge development, what Delors (1996) calls “learning to do” and “learning to know”). As the outcomes and behaviors of a Books@Work session transcend the exercise to move into the workplace, they trigger more existential and interactive forms of learning, or what Delors (1996) calls “learning to be” and “learning to live together,” a concept we interpret for workplace purposes as learning to “work” together. This being and working together provides the key drivers for effective collaboration. Recall Tom’s insights: “I am learning more about people” and developing insights that are “meaningful to the collective team.” Finally, he adds an uncanny illustration of this concept of an emerging literacy: “I think that’s becoming more natural.”

As we theorize about the collaborative literacy emerging from the sessions themselves, the continuing presence of the text deserves note. It is tempting to assume that the text has done its work, that it served as the diving board, and the group is now swimming together in life’s complex waters. But it is not that simple. Even in her late-career perspectives in reader response theory, Rosenblatt (1982) theorized the process of reading as the transaction between the text and the reader, still describing a bilateral, albeit interactive, relationship. Books@Work participants offer a third approach—a collaborative approach—that moves beyond the single reader experiencing a text to include a group of readers, each of whom experiences the same text but brings divergent contexts to understanding and absorbing it. And the collective in turn enriches the text. Julie’s comments illustrate a recurring theme: another reader’s different interpretation opens participants not only to new views of that reader but also to new views of the text itself. The ensuing return to the text becomes an exercise enabled by the humanities: deeper thinking, parsing meaning and active, real-time participatory sensemaking (De Jaegher and Di Paolo, 2008).

Finally, it is important to note that this collaborative literacy is not an individual ability but a collective competence. In fact, the collaborative or participatory sensemaking in a Books@Work session often augments or completely replaces the sensemaking that individuals bring into the session. Lisa’s joy in discovering that the sharing of literature means the sharing of different interpretations led her to see that the views of others helped her to affirm and extend her own conclusions. Another participant, she explains, “might have gathered something really small that you didn’t think about that changes your perspective. I loved that.” And Julie, a health-care facility administrator, confirms Allison’s observation: “When two people read the same thing, you can get two very different interpretations.” Once she saw two, she became alert to the presence of still more perspectives that, at work, might first be viewed as conflict but that later become additional valuable insights in improving patient care outcomes. Her simple assertion, “You know […] you’ve got to be way more open,” reflects the important transfer of abilities from Books@Work to a collaborating team or group.

Implications for future practice and research

This systematic qualitative study demonstrates the powerful results that can be achieved by bringing the humanities into the workplace. The program has had a broad geographical reach and has crossed many industries and contexts, as well as all levels of hierarchies in organizations. The consistent findings suggest important implications for theory, practice, and research in the humanities, adult learning, and workplace interventions to strengthen organizations and communities.

Efforts to address the “soft” skills needed in the workplace have rarely looked directly to the humanities as a source for developing the qualities of mind and interaction that are required in complex organizations. This study confirms that engagement with literature promotes the very sensibilities that companies seek: critical thinking and problem-solving through questioning; empathy and inclusion through active listening; and stronger and more effective social interactions through connecting with each other in meaningful conversation. Rather than being a learning activity separate from the life of work, these discussions have established a clear link between the shared exploration of human experience and the quality of the workplace as people learn to be and to live and work together.

It is important to note that, from the program’s inception, Books@Work discussions have diverged from the way the humanities have generally been delivered in the academy to include a robust exploration of the life experiences of participants. It is that combination of text and experience that participants inevitably stress as the value of the program and that challenges educators to consider more creative ways to bring such an approach into non-traditional settings. As described earlier, narrative establishes a learning ground (Alheit, 2009) that has produced unexpected outcomes in the workplace.

Laura Baudot (2019), a Books@Work professor, describes her own insights that contributed to changed practice in her liberal arts college seminars. She writes:

The activity of close reading no longer functioned simply as a way to teach the methods and rigors of a discipline. Rather, it was a critical skill and a life skill—a way to enrich experiences both of literature and of the world. What I sought to learn and to teach was integration. (pp. 26–27)

The notion of collaborative literacy that emerges from this study holds promise as a novel approach to learning in multiple settings. It is, in fact, a literacy of collaboration involving complex elements of learning that includes cognitive awareness, emotional acuity, and specific types of social interaction. Further research is needed to define more fully what factors create and/or promote shared language and skills that participants have described as drivers of positive change in their day-to-day interactions and their effectiveness in the workplace. In addition, the findings of this article compel additional research into the generalizability of collaborative literacy in other programs as well in the academy, as Baudot (2019) suggests.

Conclusion

Books@Work represents a workplace learning initiative that engages the heart as well as the head, using stories to connect to emotions, insights, and other people. Toward the end of her career, Louise Rosenblatt (1982) reflected,

For years, I have extolled the potentialities of literature for aiding us to understand ourselves and others, for widening our horizons to include temperaments and cultures different from our own, for helping us to clarify our conflicts in values, for illuminating our world. (p. 276)

Originally conceived as a program to advance the growth of individual participants, this approach to humanities in the workplace reveals that, when colleagues discuss stories and share their own life experiences, important collective changes also emerge. As part of a social learning process, the humanities drive deep collegiality, effective interpersonal interactions, and collaborative literacy. Collaborative literacy is, in fact, more than the collaborative approach to reading we found in the data. It is more than the synchronized practice of questioning, listening, and connecting, and it is more than the existential growth that comes from learning to be and learning to work together. Collaborative literacy is the collective ability or the competency to co-exist and co-create, to accept and manage difference, and to enact a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. This ongoing study demonstrates that the humanities help us be better together.