Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning : digital ethnography in a knowledge work context

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning : digital ethnography in a knowledge work context © 2023 the Authors Published version Karhapää, Anne; Hämäläinen, Raija; Pöysä-Tarhonen, Johanna Karhapää, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Pöysä-Tarhonen, J. (2023). Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning : digital ethnography in a knowledge work context. Studies in Continuing Education, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2023.2274596 2023 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csce20 Studies in Continuing Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csce20 Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning: digital ethnography in a knowledge work context Anne Karhapää, Raija Hämäläinen & Johanna Pöysä-Tarhonen To cite this article: Anne Karhapää, Raija Hämäläinen & Johanna Pöysä-Tarhonen (25 Oct 2023): Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning: digital ethnography in a knowledge work context, Studies in Continuing Education, DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2023.2274596 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2023.2274596 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 25 Oct 2023. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning: digital ethnography in a knowledge work context Anne Karhapää a , Raija Hämäläinen a and Johanna Pöysä-Tarhonen b a Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT Informal workplace learning is an essential part of lifelong learning. In recent years, digital technology has come to play an increasingly important role in enabling informal learning at work through various tools and resources. However, as little empirical research exists on informal learning in this context, more knowledge of digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning is needed. This paper describes a digital ethnography that was conducted to investigate informal learning in authentic work settings. The data were collected from a public sector workplace during the years 2020–2022 and included observations, interviews, and participant diaries, which were analysed using qualitative ethnographic content analysis. This study draws on practice theories to further understand digital work practices and how they are formed in people’s daily activities and interactions in the social and material environments of digital technology and work. We present our findings in terms of five practice categories –workrelated communication, relational communication, sharing, following and listening, and controlling the use of digital technology –to illustrate how informal learning takes place in everyday work. The detailed accounts of these practices contribute to understanding how digital technology can be used to foster informal learning in work. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 19 January 2023 Accepted 14 October 2023 KEYWORDS Workplace learning; informal learning; technologyenhanced learning; digital work practices; digital ethnography Introduction Informal learning at work refers to the spontaneous, often unconscious, implicit learning that occurs in different situations during everyday work, triggered by multiple factors, such as individual needs or available opportunities (Eraut 2004; Kyndt, Govaerts, and Dochy 2018; Manuti, Pastore, and Scardigno 2015). Informal learning can lead to changes in competences, knowledge, skills, performance, and attitudes (Baert 2018; Cerasoli et al. 2018). It is individual process integrated with everyday work activities, such as work tasks, interaction, and experimentation (Eraut 2011; Jeong et al. 2018). It © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Anne Karhapää anne.m.karhapaa@jyu.fiDepartment of Education, PL 35, 40014 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland STUDIES IN CONTINUING EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2023.2274596 is also collective by nature, as it often involves interaction with others and is embedded in the sociocultural context of the workplace (Watkins et al. 2018). Informal learning is a prominent concept as it promotes lifelong learning and can be a key to competitiveness and employment (Kyndt, Govaerts, and Dochy 2018). A significant portion of workplace learning takes place by participating in work practices (Billett 2014). Work practices are established understandings and ways of acting (Byström 2023), covering work activities, personal and social relations, positions and tools, and artefacts used (Illeris 2011). Practices are collective, situated, and co-produced by a range of actors, both human and non-human (Hager, Lee, and Reich 2012). Ley et al.’s(2020) knowledge appropriation model explains how individual and collective learning takes place within work practices involving creation, sharing, and application of knowledge. Since technology plays a crucial role in several work processes, the support for learning can be embedded within the technology and processes themselves (Ley 2020; Treasure-Jones et al. 2019). Technology provides several possibilities for workplace learning with various environments, tools, resources and practices that it enables (Littlejohn and Pammer-Schindler 2022; Tynjälä, Häkkinen, and Hämäläinen 2014). The ubiquitous digital technology supports the integration of working, learning, and living, thus diversifying opportunities for informal learning (Clark et al. 2018). Digital technology can facilitate just-in-time learning, for instance, by connecting individuals with experts and providing the necessary resources, allowing them to acquire new knowledge or skills for immediate work tasks (Littlejohn and Pammer-Schindler 2022). Emotions shape social interaction and everyday practices at work (Hökkä, Vähäsantanen, and Paloniemi 2020), and given that close proximity and daily interaction during work assignments enable learning from others (Crans et al. 2021), workplace practices should also facilitate this kind of interaction in digital environments. Digital technology provides new possibilities for relational communication –that is, for building and maintaining relationships in the workplace (Jämsen, Sivunen, and Blomqvist 2022). For instance, enterprise social media can offer support and platforms for informal learning and building social capital (Sharma et al. 2022). Tools specifically designed for informal learning can support structured ways of working and increase active discussions and the engagement of wider networks (Treasure-Jones et al. 2019). However, technology is not yet viewed by all to be a natural tool for informal learning, because face-to-face presence is considered necessary (Amenduni et al. 2022). As the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions closed offices, it forced many to engage in fully digital work options, and thus new practices for work and communication were developed (see Byström 2023; Jämsen, Sivunen, and Blomqvist 2022; Karatuna, Jönsson, and Muhonen 2022). Consequently, informal learning does take place, and perhaps should increasingly take place, in digital environments. While the importance of work practices for learning has been acknowledged (see Billett 2014), little is known about how digital work practices can support informal learning in everyday work. In this regard, the need for further studies on the use of technology for informal learning has been recognised (see, e.g. Littlejohn and Pammer-Schindler 2022; Nygren et al. 2019). More specifically, there is a need to understand the distinctive practices that emerge in digital work and how they affect learning processes (Lemmetty et al. 2022;Vallo Hult and Byström 2022). To address this need, this paper focuses on the digital work practices and draws on practice theories that provide valuable ways to 2A. KARHAPÄÄ ET AL. examine informal workplace learning (Hager, Lee, and Reich 2012; Nicolini 2012). We share Nicolini’s(2012) understanding of practice theories as a complex web of theories, rather than as a single unified theory. Through practice theories, practices can be seen in a new way, not merely as the activities of people, but as sayings, doings, and relatings that are enabled and constrained by cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements (Kemmis et al. 2013). With this approach, we can investigate the activities, practices, and socio-material arrangements in which informal learning is embedded at work (Boud and Rooney 2018) and the digital technologies that serve as artefacts and tools within these practices (Nicolini 2012). As Kemmis (2021) points out, learning happens in practice, but learning itself is not a practice. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the actual practices of digital work to understand how they can promote informal learning. We use the concept of informal learning to refer to the learning that takes place in everyday work. We leave formal training outside of this study, although we acknowledge that both formal and informal learning are essential parts of workplace learning and complement each other (see Marsick et al. 2017). In knowledge work, digital technologies are fundamental tools, and thus, the work practices of knowledge work are often digital. The term digital technology is used in this study to refer to the digital services, resources, and tools the participants used at work or in work-related learning. One of the first tasks of this study was to investigate the kinds of digital technologies used when learning informally at work. We did not define in advance the kinds of digital technologies that would be included in the study but instead focused on those the work community was using in their day-to-day activities. By investigating the practices of digital work we can better understand how digital technology can be used to support informal learning. To do so, in this study, we asked the following question: what kinds of digital work practices promote informal workplace learning? Methodology This research applied the digital ethnography approach (Hine 2015; Pink et al. 2016)to study informal learning within digital work practices. Today, in knowledge work, the physical workplace is only one part of the work environment, due to the fact that digital environments now form a substantial part of it. Thus, it is essential that researchers find ways to participate in these digital environments. The ethnographic approach thus provides particularly suitable tools for studying the complex phenomenon of informal workplace learning by engaging with these digital environments (Lemmetty et al. 2022) and capturing the mundane activities within them, through which it is possible to understand the relevant social and material activities –that is, the practices (Nicolini 2012). The use of digital technology is often routine, embedded in the everyday (Hine 2015), as is informal learning. Therefore, digital ethnography as a methodology and the concept of practice as an analytical construct were particularly useful for capturing and researching digital practices that promote informal learning. In the present study, digital ethnography was conducted as an open-ended and flexible process, in which digital methods were developed in relation to the research question (see Pink et al. 2016). Initially, the first discussions, interviews, and observations served to outline the digital environments used in the target organisation, while also illuminating STUDIES IN CONTINUING EDUCATION 3 the ways in which the researcher could engage in them. As the research progressed, it was possible to specify the inquiries and focus in more detail on the everyday actions taking place in these environments. Data collection methods included observations, interviews, and participant diaries. In addition, discussions were held with informants in online meetings or emails that allowed for entrance into the work community and provided information about the work practices studied. Each dataset enriched the others, provided depth to the accounts of practices, and assisted the researchers in reflecting on their interpretations. Research setting The workplace studied had 70 staffmembers and comprised one unit of a public sector training organisation in Finland. Because of the COVID-19 restrictions, the research participants worked remotely during a large part of the data collection period. It is worth noting that the staffwere accustomed to using digital technology for their distributed work prior to the imposition of COVID-19 restrictions. Many had worked remotely a few days a week, and as the offices and thus other colleagues were located in two cities, collaborating online was an everyday practice. A large part of the daily interactions took place via digital technologies. During data collection, there was ongoing development of the digital work environments, which included the implementation of Microsoft Teams. This tool became a workspace for storing shared files, collaborating and communicating, reorganising knowledge management into various digital channels, developing the social aspects of their work environment, and organising teams. Data The research data were collected online from 2021–2022. The first author had the main responsibility for the data collection and analysis. Entering the versatile digital environments and effectively capturing the work practices and the informal learning taking place within them required time. Long-term engagement in the research setting enabled the researcher to identify and record the perspectives and understandings of the work community (Coffey 2018) and thus recognise instances of informal learning. There were some quiet periods in the online activity in the workplace, such as during the summer vacation season (1.5 months), during which the data collection was paused and thus its duration lengthened. The data were recorded in Finnish. The first author translated the quotations presented in this paper into English. A detailed description of the data is presented in Table 1. The data collection process began by negotiating the entrance to the work community and its digital environments. Ethical consideration was needed to determine how to enter the community online, how to take fieldnotes from diverse online environments, and what data were ethically sustainable to use (Schrooten 2016). All members of the work community were informed about the research, and participation was voluntary. Information about who participated in the interviews and wrote in the diaries was only available to the first author. The researcher obtained permission from the workplace’s management to observe the digital work environments. The employees had the option of excluding 4A. KARHAPÄÄ ET AL. themselves from observations. The researchers omitted certain discussions and digital channels from the study to avoid handling the data of persons outside the research. Ethnographic fieldwork was conducted as openly as possible (Hammersley and Atkinson 2019), even though in online environments, the researcher’s presence easily remains unnoticed. Therefore, the researcher always announced her presence in online meetings and posted reminders about the ongoing research on the online forums used by the target organisation. She attended online meetings and followed online discussions to observe employees in their everyday work and produced accounts of these ongoing interactions in field notes (see, e.g. Wästerfors 2018). In addition, the online forums and chats served as documents to which the researcher could return to. The researcher focused on observing the ways in which digital technology was used and the possibilities for learning that were present in these situations and environments. The online discussion was very active; daily conversations took place on multiple channels. Interviews and diary collection were planned to support the online observations. To ensure a representative sample, the interviewees were selected from all sectors of professions in the workplace, including training officers, secretaries, and managers. Work experience was also considered, and both newcomers and more experienced employees were interviewed. The interviews were initiated by the researcher, who contacted employees via online forums and emails and asked for volunteers to participate. While the researcher had predefined themes (e.g. the use of digital technology at work and the experiences of the employees) that provided a framework for the interviews, the discussions otherwise proceeded openly, allowing for free-flowing conversation and enabling the interviewees to bring forward issues they considered relevant. In some interviews, the researcher used observation data as material to stimulate, promote, and focus the discussion (Gaskell 2000). Discussing online activities with the interviewees offered deeper insight into the experiences of the informants. In addition to individual interviews, one group interview was conducted with the management team, which provided a more comprehensive view of the use of digital technology at the target workplace and the related practices. The interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams, which was in everyday use in the target organisation and thus familiar to the participants. Therefore, online interaction was easy and natural. The interviews were recorded and transcribed non-verbatim. Table 1. Research data. Type of data NData collection period Number of pages Observations in: .Online meetings and gatherings (official/team/ informal meetings focusing on topical issues, and virtual coffees) 23 March 2021–September 2022 Fieldnotes: 24 pages and two screenshots .Online forums and chats (2 Yammer groups, 2 Teams group channels, and 2 Teams chat threads) 6 March 2021–September 2022 Fieldnotes: 33 pages and three screenshots Interviews 11 March 2021–June 2022 123 pages of transcript Participant diaries 7 Two weeks during March 2021–June 2022 35 pages text and pictures STUDIES IN CONTINUING EDUCATION 5 Diaries were collected from employees who volunteered to participate in this part of the process (n= 7). The researcher informed the work community about the collection of diaries, and volunteers signed up. The participants reported and reflected on their everyday learning and the use of technology in their diaries for two weeks. The diaries were written on online Word documents that were shared with the researcher. Writing diaries online allowed for easy access and fluent use throughout the research process, thus enabling interaction; for instance, the researcher asked the participant to write about a meeting or a discussion she had observed to get more information. Online diaries offered the possibility of studying environments and events that would have otherwise been difficult to access (Pöysä, Mäkitalo, and Häkkinen 2003). The diaries enriched the observation data and provided further access to the experiences of the employees (Kozinets 2015). Specifically, they provided valuable insights into the use of digital technology, the learning opportunities it provided, and detailed information about the activities and experiences that arose in these situations. Analysis Ethnographic fieldwork is a flexible and exploratory process in which data gathering and analysis are concurrent processes (see, e.g. Hammersley and Atkinson 2019). The data served to facilitate new ideas and develop those arising from earlier research and the researchers’experiences. After the data collection was complete, the data were analysed using ethnographic content analysis (Coffey 2018). First, the primary researcher carefully read transcribed interviews, field notes, and diaries, to familiarise herself with the data. Then the data was coded using Atlas.ti analysis software (Friese 2014). This helped manage and combine the versatile data. The analysis started by inspecting the actions and speech of people in digital environments in their everyday work. The researcher used open coding and initially focused on identifying the kinds of digital technologies that were used, then explored in more detail how they were used and for what purposes. The researcher began to recognise actions and patterns in the use of digital technology related to informal learning, such as using the chat function to ask colleagues questions. Data triangulation (Hammersley and Atkinson 2019) assisted the researchers in confirming their interpretations, for instance, by comparing observation notes of an online discussion with an interview or a diary that covered the same incidents. Next, the initial findings were interpreted in light of the notions of practice theories (Nicolini 2012), which assisted in developing an understanding of the structures and processes behind these everyday actions and routines. The researchers identified several digital work practices. Some of the practices were more individualoriented, while others were shared workplace practices. The researchers grouped the shared practices into categories that serve to illustrate how they promote informal workplace learning. Ethnographic research requires reflexivity throughout the research process (Coffey 2018). In this study, the primary researcher kept a research diary that assisted in documenting the evolving research process and encouraged reflection on the researcher’s position, data collection, and emerging analytical ideas. In addition, the researcher reflected on how technology, as both the target and tool of this research, affected the knowledge produced (Pink et al. 2016). 6A. KARHAPÄÄ ET AL. Findings: digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning The workplace studied was accustomed to using digital technology for everyday work, thus they had settled digital work practices. Based on the analysis, we describe our findings by presenting accounts of shared practices of the workplace that were found to promote informal learning. These were (1) work-related communication, (2) relational communication, (3) sharing, and (4) following and listening, and (5) controlling the use of digital technology. The practices are complex, and the categories overlap to some extent, thus a practice can relate to more than one category. Figure 1 illustrates the connection of the categories. In addition to the shared workplace practices that form the main categories of our results, the digital work practices included individual activities and practices that promoted informal learning. For instance, in diaries employees described how they used digital technology to seek information or learned to use digital technology through trial and error. To be noted, we do not aim to give an exhaustive description of digital work practices; rather, these categories serve as representations of shared work practices and illustrate their meaning for informal learning. Table 2 summarises and gives examples of digital work practices and informal learning intertwined in them. Next, we introduce these categories in more detail. Work-related communication via digital technology The work community used actively various digital channels such as Yammer or Teams for work-related communication. Formally structured practices, such as creating designated Yammer and Teams channels for teams, work tasks, or topics, coexisted with more informal practices, such as chat discussion threads that originated spontaneously in response to needs arising from everyday work. During the data collection period, Teams replaced Yammer to a certain degree, bringing forth the need to reconsider the Figure 1. Categories of digital work practices that promote informal learning. The arrows signify that practices are connected to each other. Controlling practices are central to the existence of other practices. STUDIES IN CONTINUING EDUCATION 7 of digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning. Instead of studying tools made particularly for informal learning at work (see, e.g. Treasure-Jones et al. 2019), this study investigated how informal learning takes place while using the general digital technology of work. By investigating mundane activities and the meanings behind them, we found several digital work practices that can facilitate informal learning. We presented our main findings through five descriptive categories of shared practices of a workplace: work-related communication, relational communication, sharing knowledge and experiences, following and listening, and controlling the use of digital technology. These practices illustrate how learning is embedded in everyday work. Digital technology served not only as a tool for these practices but also shaped them. Communication via digital technology included work-related and relational communication practices that fostered informal learning by enabling discussion, support, and knowledge construction. Asking questions and getting information are proactive actions that are essential for learning, but ascertaining whom to ask requires confidence and social understanding (Eraut 2011). Digital technology not only allowed for flexible ways to communicate on work-related matters, but also provided knowledge about the workplace as a social environment and facilitated the expression of emotions. Because emotions can support or hinder learning at work (Hökkä, Vähäsantanen, and Paloniemi 2020), the digital forms of expression have special significance. While workplace relational communication via digital technology is a challenge, it is simultaneously a possibility (Jämsen, Sivunen, and Blomqvist 2022). Our findings provide more detailed knowledge about the practices of relational communication via digital technology. Sharing knowledge and experiences allows others to learn from them and brings attention to things that might otherwise remain unnoticed. Thus, the reflection promotes informal learning also for the person sharing (Eraut 2004). The practices of following and listening enabled learning from constantly flowing information in these digital environments. Digital work practices produce an accumulating body of knowledge that digital technology enriches, documents, and makes visible, thus offering rich possibilities for learning. In addition, the work community studied had developed practices to jointly control the use of digital technology, which was important for creating shared digital work practices and addressing the challenges related to the use of digital technology. Due to the emergent nature of practices (Hager, Lee, and Reich 2012), discussion and reaching a consensus on digital work practices need to be a continuous process. Furthermore, the fast-changing nature of digital technology requires the constant development of these practices. Along the same line as the knowledge appropriation model (Ley 2020; Ley et al. 2020), the digital work practices identified in this study involved sharing knowledge and experiences, co-creating new knowledge, and augmenting knowledge with additional knowledge or expertise from others. Through digital work practices, knowledge is documented in various ways, thus making it accessible to others and facilitating collective knowledge development. The digital work practices also had scaffolding functions (see Ley et al. 2020). For instance, a chat discussion thread provided peer support for work problems but faded away when the need for support decreased. In workplaces where digital work practices are still new or little used for collaboration, digital environments have been perceived to be partially inadequate to meet the diverse needs of human interaction and thus to support informal learning (see Amenduni et al. 14 A. KARHAPÄÄ ET AL. 2022; Byström 2023; Karatuna, Jönsson, and Muhonen 2022). The findings of this research demonstrate that informal workplace learning also takes place in digital environments, provided that the work community has well-developed digital work practices. The digital technology used in the target workplace was advanced, as it supported collaboration and knowledge management. However, it was still primarily designed for working rather than learning. We argue that workplace practices and organisational culture, emphasising learning, played a crucial role in shaping these shared digital work practices that promote informal learning. Limitations and further research We acknowledge that informal workplace learning is a challenging phenomenon to study, as it often takes place unconsciously and is closely intertwined with work. In this research, we could only capture some potential instances of and opportunities for informal learning. We do not suggest that this is an exhaustive representation of the complex process of informal learning. Our research methodology and the methods we used, guided the focus of the study and the findings mainly to the shared practices of the workplace. Therefore, some of the individual practices and learning processes remained hidden from our study. However, with the ethnographic methodology, we were able to provide rich accounts of digital work practices of a workplace and exemplify how informal learning takes place in knowledge work today. Regarding the applicability of the findings, it is worth considering the context-specific aspects of the research. The workplace investigated had a developed culture of using digital tools in its everyday work and learning, and thus settled digital work practices. It would be interesting to compare these practices to those of a workplace that has less experience with digital work. The affordances of digital technologies will inevitably affect digital work practices which could be studied in future works. In addition, it is worth emphasising that our study primarily focused on the opportunities digital technology offers for learning. While we briefly addressed the challenges we identified, it is imperative to conduct further research on problems that relate to the use of digital technology. Conclusion As digitalisation changes the workplace, it is particularly important that educational research examines the emergence of digital work practices (Harteis 2017). These practices require new competencies from employees, as well as leaders, to overcome the challenges that digital transformation poses for learning (Vallo Hult and Byström 2022). Accordingly, this study contributes to improving our understanding of informal workplace learning in knowledge work. By examining the practices of digital work, we can see how these practices emerge from the complex network of actions of people, shared understandings of the work community, the established organisational culture, and the material and virtual environment the digital technology provides. Today, knowledge work is increasingly multi-location and mobile. When a significant portion of work is done remotely, it is important that learning from others is not solely STUDIES IN CONTINUING EDUCATION 15 reliant on chance face-to-face encounters in the workplace. Our study illustrates that digital work practices can actually facilitate informal learning. In the future, it will be crucial to find novel ways to support informal learning, such as by creating practices of digital work that encourage work-related communication along with relational communication. While this is particularly essential in multi-located workplaces or remote work contexts in which people have limited opportunities to meet face-to-face, all workplaces should pay attention to these developments. With increased knowledge of digital work practices, all workplaces can create a more favourable environment for informal learning. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by Academy of Finland [grant numbers 336231 and 353325]. ORCID Anne Karhapää http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6967-2444 Raija Hämäläinen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-9619 Johanna Pöysä-Tarhonen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6614-0098 References Amenduni, F., E. Ryymin, K. Maetoloa, and A. Cattaneo. 2022.“Facing Disruptive Changes with Informal Workplace Learning Strategies: The Experience of European Companies.”Frontiers in Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.889850. Baert, H. 2018.“Informal Learning at Work: What do we know more and Understand Better?”In Informal Learning at Work: Triggers, Antecedents, and Consequences, edited by G. Messmann, M. Segers, and F. J. R. C. Dochy, 153–187. New York: Routledge. Billett, S. 2014.“Learning in the Circumstances of Practice.”International Journal of Lifelong Education 33 (5): 674–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.908425. Boud, D., and D. Rooney. 2018.“The Potential and Paradox of Informal Learning.”In Informal Learning at Work: Triggers, Antecedents, and Consequences, edited by G. Messmann, M. Segers, and F. J. R. C. Dochy, 134–152. New York: Routledge. Byström, K. 2023.“From Paperless Offices to Peopleless Offices: The Effects of Enforced ICT Usage during Covid-19 Lockdowns on Workplace Information Practices.”In The Usage and Impact of ICTs during the Covid-19 Pandemic, edited by S. Yang, X. Zhu, and P. Fichman, 221–247. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003231769 Cerasoli, C. P., G. M. Alliger, J. S. Donsbach, J. E. Mathieu, S. I. Tannenbaum, and K. A. Orvis. 2018.“Antecedents and Outcomes of Informal Learning Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Business and Psychology 33 (2): 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9492-y. Clark, H., P. K. Jassal, M. Van Noy, and P. L. Paek. 2018.“A New Work-and-Learn Framework Forging Informal and Formal Learning through Innovative Assessment Design.”In Digital Workplace Learning: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning with Digital Technologies, edited by D. Ifenthaler, 23–41. Cham: Springer. Coffey, A. 2018.Doing Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781526441874 16 A. KARHAPÄÄ ET AL. Crans, S., V. Bude, S. Beausaert, and M. Segers. 2021.“Social Informal Learning and the Role of Learning Climate: Toward a Better Understanding of the Social Side of Learning among Consultants.”Human Resource Development Quarterly 32 (4): 507–535. https://doi.org/10. 1002/hrdq.21429. Eraut, M. 2004.“Informal Learning in the Workplace.”Studies in Continuing Education 26 (2): 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245. Eraut, M. 2011.“How Researching Learning at Work can Lead to Tools for Enhancing Learning.” In The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning, edited by M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evan, and B. N. O’Connor, 181–197. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Friese, S. 2014.Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Gaskell, G. 2000.“Individual and Group Interviewing.”In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 38–56. London: SAGE. Hager, P., A. Lee, and A. Reich. 2012.“Problematising Practice, Reconceptualising Learning and Imagining Change.”In Practice, Learning and Change: Practice-Theory Perspectives on Professional Learning, edited by P. Hager, A. Lee, and A. Reich, 1–14. Dordrecht: Springer. Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 2019.Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 4th ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Harteis, C. 2017.“Machines, Change and Work: An Educational View on the Digitalization of Work.”In The Impact of Digitalization in the Workplace: An Educational View, edited by C. Harteis, 1–10. Cham, Switzerland: Sringer. Hine, C. 2015.Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury. Hökkä, P., K. Vähäsantanen, and S. Paloniemi. 2020.“Emotions in Learning at Work: A Literature Review.”Vocations and Learning 13 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09226-z. Illeris, K. 2011.“Workplaces and Learning.”In The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning, edited by M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evan, and B. N. O’Connor, 32–45. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Jämsen, R., A. Sivunen, and K. Blomqvist. 2022.“Employees’Perceptions of Relational Communication in Full-Time Remote Work in the Public Sector.”Computers in Human Behavior 132: 107240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107240. Jeong, S., S. J. Han, J. Lee, S. Sunalai, and S. W. Yoon. 2018.“Integrative Literature Review on Informal Learning: Antecedents, Conceptualizations, and Future Directions.”Human Resource Development Review 17 (2): 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318772. Karatuna, I., S. Jönsson, and T. Muhonen. 2022.“Job Demands, Resources, and Future Considerations: Academics’Experiences of Working from Home during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.”Frontiers in Psychology 13: 908640. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2022.908640. Kemmis, S. 2021.“A Practice Theory Perspective on Learning: Beyond a ‘Standard’View.”Studies in Continuing Education 43 (3): 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1920384. Kemmis, S., J. Wilkinson, C. Edwards-Groves, I. Hardy, P. Grootenboer, and L. Bristol. 2013. Changing Practices, Changing Education. New York: Springer. Kozinets, R. V. 2015.Netnography: Redefined. Los Angeles: SAGE. Kyndt, E., K. S. Govaerts, and F. Dochy. 2018.“Antecedents of Informal Workplace Learning: A Theoretical Study.”In Informal Learning at Work: Triggers, Antecedents, and Consequences, edited by G. Messmann, M. Segers, and F. Dochy, 12–39. New York: Routledge. Lemmetty, S., K. Collin, V. Glăveanu, and S. Paloniemi. 2022.“Capturing Actions of Communities: Towards Virtual Ethnography and Digital Tools in Researching Organizations and Workplace Learning.”In Methods for Researching Professional Learning and Development: Challenges, Applications and Empirical Illustrations, edited by M. Goller, E. Kyndt, S. Paloniemi, and C. Damşa, 397–418. Cham: Springer. Ley, T. 2020.“Knowledge Structures for Integrating Working and Learning: A Reflection on a Decade of Learning Technology Research for Workplace Learning.”British Journal of Educational Technology 51 (2): 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12835. STUDIES IN CONTINUING EDUCATION 17 Ley, T., R. Maier, S. Thalmann, L. Waizenegger, K. Pata, and A. Ruiz-Calleja. 2020.“A Knowledge Appropriation Model to Connect Scaffolded Learning and Knowledge Maturation in Workplace Learning Settings.”Vocations and Learning 13 (1): 91–112. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12186-019-09231-2. Littlejohn, A., and V. Pammer-Schindler. 2022.“Technologies for Professional Learning.”In Research Approaches on Workplace Learning: Insights from a Growing Field, edited by C. Harteis, E. Kyndt, D. Gijbels, P. Tynjälä, M. Goller, K. Vähäsantanen, and S. Paloniemi, 321– 346. Cham: Springer. Manuti, A., S. Pastore, and A. F. Scardigno. 2015.“Formal and Informal Learning in the Workplace: A Research Review.”International Journal of Training and Development 19 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12044. Marsick, V. J., K. E. Watkins, E. Scully-Russ, and A. Nicolaides. 2017.“Rethinking Informal and Incidental Learning in Terms of Complexity and the Social Context.”Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation 1 (1): 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1556/2059.01.2016.003. Nicolini, D. 2012.Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nygren, H., K. Nissinen, R. Hämäläinen, and B. D. Wever. 2019.“Lifelong Learning: Formal, NonFormal and Informal Learning in the Context of the Use of Problem-Solving Skills in Technology-Rich Environments.”British Journal of Educational Technology 50 (4): 1759– 1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807. Pink, S., H. Horst, J. Postill, L. Hjorth, T. Lewis, and J. Tacchi. 2016.Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE. Pöysä, J., K. Mäkitalo, and P. Häkkinen. 2003.“A Participant Experience Method for Illustrating Individuals’Experiences in the Course of Evolving Virtual Learning Community.”In Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, edited by U. Hoppe, B. Wasson, and S. Ludvigsen, 451–460. Dordrecht: Springer. Schrooten, M. 2016.“Writing EFieldnotes: Some Ethical Considerations.”In EFieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology in the Digital World, edited by R. Sanjek and S. W. Tratner, 78–93. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sharma, A., J. Bhatnagar, M. Jaiswal, and M. Thite. 2022.“Interplay of Enterprise Social Media and Learning at Work: A Qualitative Investigation.”Journal of Enterprise Information Management 35 (2): 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2020-0227. Treasure-Jones, T., C. Sarigianni, R. Maier, P. Santos, and R. Dewey. 2019.“Scaffolded Contributions, Active Meetings and Scaled Engagement: How Technology Shapes Informal Learning Practices in Healthcare SME Networks.”Computers in Human Behavior 95: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.039. Tynjälä, P., P. Häkkinen, and R. Hämäläinen. 2014.“TEL@work: Toward Integration of Theory and Practice.”British Journal of Educational Technology 45 (6): 990–1000. https://doi.org/10. 1111/bjet.12164. Vallo Hult, H., and K. Byström. 2022.“Challenges to Learning and Leading the Digital Workplace.”Studies in Continuing Education 44 (3): 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0158037X.2021.1879038. Wästerfors, D. 2018.“Observations.”In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, edited by U. Flick, 314–326. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Watkins, K., V. Marsick, M. Wofford, and A. Ellinger. 2018.“The Evolving Marsick and Watkins (1990) Theory of Informal and Incidental Learning.”New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2018 (159): 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20285. 18 A. KARHAPÄÄ ET AL.