Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T04:48:18.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Experiences in Return to Work Among Workplace Actors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2015

Åsa Tjulin ,
Ulrika Müssener ,
John Selander  and
Kerstin Ekberg
Åsa Tjulin*
Affiliation:
Division of Public Health Sciences, School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Malardalens University, Sweden
Ulrika Müssener
Affiliation:
Division of Community Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Sweden
John Selander
Affiliation:
Department of Health Science, Mid Sweden University, Ostersund, Sweden
Kerstin Ekberg
Affiliation:
National Centre for Work and Rehabilitation, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Sweden HELIX Vinn Excellence Centre, Linkoping University, Sweden
*
Address for correspondence: Åsa Tjulin, Mälardalens högskola, Box 883, 721 23 Västerås, Sweden. E-mail: asa.tjulin@mdh.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this article was to investigate how individual learning emerges among workplace actors during the return-to-work process, and whether the prerequisites for collective learning at the workplace are present and managed by the actors. Learning in this context is viewed as a change in the preconceptions, experience or competence of the individual as a result of interactions in the workplace due to the return-to-work process. Method: A qualitative method was used, consisting of open-ended interviews with 19 individuals across 11 workplaces in the public and private sector. Inductive content analysis was performed. Results: The key findings from this study are that individual learning emerges in the return-to-work process due to previous experience, communication with other workplace actors, or insights into what works for the individual. However, the individual learning that occurs in the return-to-work process is not carried over into workplace learning due to barriers in understanding the needs and opportunities that may be present in the process. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that individual learning occurs within social practices through social interaction between the actors involved (workers on sickness absence supervisors and colleagues) and individual experiences. A greater knowledge of the factors that contribute to workplace learning could facilitate biopsychosocial and ecological return-to-work interventions, which allow workplace actors to draw on previous experiences from one return-to-work process to another.

Keywords

workplacelearningreturn to workSwedenqualitative
Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Disability Management , Volume 10 , 2015 , e1
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barley, S.R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12 (1), 76–95.Google Scholar
Billett, S. (2006). Relational Interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13 (1), 53–69.Google Scholar
Billett, S. (2009). Personal epistemologies, work and learning: Learning through work. Educational Reserach Review, 4 (3), 210–219.Google Scholar
Brown, J.L., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2 (1), 40–57.Google Scholar
Coutu, M.F., Baril, R., Durand, M.J., Cote, D., & Rouleau, A. (2007). Representations: An important key to understanding workers’ coping behaviors during rehabilitation and the return-to-work process. [Research Support, Non-US Govt Review]. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17 (3), 522–544. doi: 10.1007/s10926-007-9089-9Google Scholar
Dunstan, D.A., & MacEachen, E. (2013a). Bearing the brunt: Co-workers’ experiences of work reintegration processes. [Research Support, Non-US Govt]. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 23 (1), 44–54. doi: 10.1007/s10926-012-9380-2Google Scholar
Dunstan, D.A., & Maceachen, E. (2013b). A theoretical model of co-worker responses to work reintegration processes. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. doi: 10.1007/s10926-013-9461-xGoogle Scholar
Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quartely, 12 (4), 421–435.Google Scholar
Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, T.J. (2003). Professional growth plans: Possibilities and limitations of an organization-wide employee development strategy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (1), 59–77.Google Scholar
Finansdepartementet. (2008). Budgetpropositionen Fler i arbete — fler vägar tillbaka. Stockholm, Sweden: Regeringen.Google Scholar
Franche, R.L., & Krause, N. (2002). Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 12 (4), 233–256.Google Scholar
Illeris, K. (2007). Lärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Illeris, K. (2011). The fundamentals of workplace learning. Understanding how people learn in working life. London, England: Routlegde.Google Scholar
Kosny, A., Lifshen, M., Pugliese, D., Majesky, G., Kramer, D., Steenstra, I., . . . Carrasco, C. (2013). Buddies in bad times? the role of co-workers after a work-related injury. [Research Support, Non-US Govt]. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 23 (3), 438–449. doi: 10.1007/s10926-012-9411-zGoogle Scholar
Le Clus, M. (2008). Affordances and constraints on informal learning in the workplace: a sociocultural perspective. Murdoch University.Google Scholar
Lee, T., Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004). Workplace learning: Main themes and perspectives. Centre for Labour Market Studies: University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Li, L.C., Grimshaw, J.M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P.C., & Graham, I.D. (2009). Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4 (11).Google Scholar
Lukic, D., Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. (2010). How organisations learn from saftey incidents: a multifaceted problem. The Journal of Workplace Learning 22 (7), 428–450. doi: 10.1108/13665621011071109Google Scholar
Lysaght, R., Fabrigar, L., Larmour-Trode, S., Stewart, J., & Friesen, M. (2012). Measuring workplace social support for workers with disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22 (3), 376–386. doi: 10.1007/s10926-012-9357-1Google Scholar
Lysaght, R.M., & Larmour-Trode, S. (2008). An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work, 30 (3), 255–266.Google Scholar
Nilsen, P., Nordström, G., & Ellström, P.-E. (2012). Integrating research-based and practice-based knowledge thorugh workplace reflection. Journal of Workplace learning, 24 (6), 403–415.Google Scholar
Noordik, E., van der Klink, J.J., Geskus, R.B., de Boer, M.R., van Dijk, F.J., & Nieuwenhuijsen, K. (2013). Effectiveness of an exposure-based return-to-work program for workers on sick leave due to common mental disorders: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-US Govt]. Scandanavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 39 (2), 144–154. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3320Google Scholar
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers: Sweden: Will the recent reforms make it? Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (1), 76–84.Google Scholar
Tjulin, A., Maceachen, E., & Ekberg, K. (2010a). Exploring the meaning of early contact in return-to-work from workplace actors’ perspective. Disability Rehabilitation. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.489630Google Scholar
Tjulin, A., Maceachen, E., & Ekberg, K. (2010b). Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return-to-work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 311–321. doi: 10.1007/s10926-009-9209-9Google Scholar
Tjulin, A., MacEachen, E., Stiwne, E.E., & Ekberg, K. (2011). The social interaction of return to work explored from co-workers’ experiences. [Research Support, Non-US Govt]. Disability Rehabilitation, 33, 21–22, 1979–1989. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.553708Google Scholar
van Oostrom, S.H., Driessen, M.T., de Vet, H.C.W., Franche, R.L., Schonstein, E., Loisel, P., . . . Anema, J.R. (2009). Workplace interventions for preventing work disability (review). The Cochrane Library (2).Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (2002). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization articles from the SAGE Social Science Collections, 7 (2), 225–246.Google Scholar
Young, A.E., Roessler, R.T., Wasiak, R., McPherson, K.M., van Poppel, M.N., & Anema, J.R. (2005). A developmental conceptualization of return to work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15 (4), 557–568.Google Scholar