A case of productive entanglement? Researching a
post compulsory learning network

Annelies Kamp

Deakin University, Australia

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September
2007

Contact:
Dr Annelies Kamp
Research Fellow
Deakin University
221
Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
[email-masked]

Dr Annelies Kamp is a Research Fellow in the Faculties of Arts
and Education, Deakin University. Her doctoral research formed one component of
an Australian Research Council grant that explored networks and interagency
collaboration as a new form of post-compulsory educational policy response to
young people considered to be at risk of disengaging from formal structures of
education and training in the �risk society.�

This paper draws on research supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award
(Industry) scholarship and undertaken within the context of an Australian
Research Council Linkage scheme. That support is gratefully acknowledged. I also
acknowledge background information sourced from the Victorian Tapestry
Workshop.

Abstract

In this paper I aim to achieve two outcomes. The first is to open up thinking
around how, in a context where governments are increasingly exploring and
drawing on notions of fluid networks, joined-up government, interagency
collaboration and so on, we can develop forms of policy sociology that can
capture the complex �what happened� of policy outcomes. Secondly, I want to
briefly share the findings of my own case study research into one such
government-instituted network in Victoria, Australia.

Introduction

In May 2003 I began the doctoral journey that is the subject of this paper.
Deakin University, in collaboration with one of the state government-instituted
Local Learning and Employment Networks (LLEN) was successful in an application
for an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage scheme project entitled
�Understanding and managing "risk" for 15 � 19 year olds in a learning
network: a case study of the Geelong LLEN.� LLEN had progressively been
established across all areas of the state of Victoria since 2001 subsequent to
Ministerial Review into Post Compulsory Education and Training Pathways (Kirby
2000). That review reported that youth in transition from schooling to
independence faced persistent and severe difficulties unknown to previous
generations; the irregular effects of globalization were at work (Beck 1992,
Castells 2000). LLEN, incorporated associations rather than an arm of
government, would bring together the expertise and experience of local education
providers, industry, community organisations, individuals and government
organisations. As a result of their local decisions, collaboration and community
building efforts it was intended that opportunities for young people would be
enhanced. The Geelong LLEN that was a partner in our research was at that time
funded AUD400,000 per year for three years, after which time it was intended
that all LLEN would have become self-sustaining. As it happens, in 2007 LLEN are
still receiving government funding, albeit at a significantly reduced level,
after a number of compelling evaluations and reviews (VLESC 2002, 2003, 2005).
However it is generally accepted that at the end of 2008 any form of government
funding will cease.

The ARC Project that commenced in 2003 had two separate research components.
The first component involved a team of researchers from the Faculty of Education
working with community stakeholders to explore their understandings and
experiences of the LLEN. The second involved a doctoral candidate in completing
an ethnographic case study of the LLEN; this eventually became my role. As such,
I neither selected my topic nor devised my methodology. It was this context that
initially brought a loose idea of a tapestry to mind, an idea that was
subsequently researched and reworked to the idea of a woven tapestry with
increasing conviction. Woven tapestries involve a loom that frames the work and
is dressed with warp threads stretched lengthwise to be crossed by the weft
threads that the weaver progressively builds. The warp threads are orderly,
providing direction; the weft threads are often irregular, providing
individuality. The weaver bases her work on a cartoon � a full-size outline -
mounted behind the warp. It seemed to me that in my doctoral studies, the
cartoon was the ARC Project that was created by the research team; the warp
threads were the methods; the loom was constructed by the university where I
would complete my candidature. It was my task as weaver to interpret the design
and weave the weft.

However, the tapestry weaving metaphor also enabled me to resolve a
methodological tension. Case studies concerned the intensive study of a bounded
system characterised by a wholeness and the integration of its parts (Stake
1995, 1998); most commonly a community or an organization (Bryman 2001). But my
subject - by virtue of its nature as a network - was far more than a bounded
system with integrated parts. LLEN did include the establishment of an
incorporated association, a contractual entity that government could use to
provide the limited funding allocated to getting these networks off the ground
and this entity acted as the administrative core, occupying a LLEN office and
providing one of many points of entry into the network. However, the key
challenge for me was to portray far more than that entity and to capture the
network �at work. My tapestry weaving metaphor enabled me to resolve the tension
of doing justice to the case study portrayal of a network within the constraints
of a doctoral thesis. Taking my inspiration from Deleuze & Guattari (1987),
rather than thinking of chapters, I sought to weave a series of panels on a
variety of looms. The looms enable me to weave with different warp settings,
weft densities, colour mixes and techniques and, in the process, to portray both
the establishment and the operation of the LLEN. The weaving of the formation of
the located, bounded LLEN instituted by government is more linear, capturing as
it does a process of policy implementation; the weavings of the unbounded LLEN
as an instance-in-action are more chaotic using changes in shape, colour and
texture. The threads of theory and data with which I wove � including Bourdieu
(1986), Foucault (1977), Lewin (1946) - form connections between the various
looms indicating that these images are always in the middle and fundamentally
interconnected.

The Geelong LLEN

Over the period of time that I was in the field, the Geelong LLEN came to be
seen as something of a success, an outcome I will expand on later in the paper.
It is worthwhile providing some detail on the antecedents of that success. These
are not difficult to identify given the LLEN differentiated itself from the
other 30 LLEN from the beginning. Whereas some LLEN invested their operational
funds in capital items such as high-profile buildings or vehicles � in effect
establishing themselves as �the� node of the network � this LLEN invested in a
more invisible kind of process. In the Key Implementation Tasks outlined by the
Department for LLEN (Department of Education, Employment and Training 2001) the
timelines proposed that by March 2001 a LLEN Office would be established and the
process for selection and appointment of an Executive Officer would have
commenced. Many LLEN moved quickly to appoint their Executive Officer to allow
the work of the LLEN to commence:

Other LLEN they set up their Committee of Management straight
away, they appointed their Executive Officer straight away and they did it all
without consulting anyone. And they wonder now why they, why the community looks
at them and says, �Well you didn�t consult us, why should we work in with you?�
They did it all the wrong way. Some of them had appointed their Executive
Officer within the first two weeks and they wonder why they weren�t being held
in high regard. (Matthew, LLEN committee member, 2005)

The process of selecting and appointing an Executive Officer was seen as one
that must be owned by the community and held over until an informed and
representative Committee of Management was appointed.

The organisation of all LLEN was dictated in their Articles of Incorporation:
staffing would be minimal, LLEN were commonly expected to operate with a
full-time Executive Officer, a part-time Office Administrator and, on occasion,
contracted project staff. They would be governed by a voluntary Committee of
Management formed of no more than 15 elected community members representing
various membership categories. Within that framework, the Geelong LLEN adopted
an evolving Working Party structure focused on core business. Each Working Party
was allocated a portion of initial small project budget, an arrangement that
�drove the Department insane� (Executive Officer 2003) but resulted in a high
level of ownership. While it was recognised that a Working Party structure could
�tend to overwork people� (Executive Officer, 2003) this structure was
fundamental to the philosophy underlying the LLEN from the start: it enabled
active participation by members of the LLEN and other community stakeholders, it
demonstrated the commitment to avoid the perception of �empire building� that
could have occurred if available funds had been used to employ staff; it
maximised the connections within the network and, finally, it underscored the
perspective that the LLEN was the network, not the entity that gained funding
from government, acted as the administrative core and occupied the LLEN
office.

LLEN were implemented into the Victoria education context which, by
international and national standards, was already highly dynamic (Keating and
Robinson 2003). It was characterised by a high degree of devolution, high levels
of fee-paying education, innovative tertiary education arrangements and the
largest and most diverse adult and community education (ACE) sector in Australia
(Connors 2000; Keating & Robinson 2003). However, the context was also
coloured by the legacy of the 1990s when, under a Liberal state government,
Victorians had experienced both a shift away from a welfare state ideology and
the imposition of private sector management practices (Ball 2000, Blackmore
2000, 2002). In education, teachers and schools operated within a sense of close
external scrutiny (Shacklock 1998). Funding systems had also placed schools in
competitive relationships (Blackmore 2002), a development that brought
�widespread disquiet� in many communities seeking to work co-operatively
(Connors 2000, p.17). Despite the policy shift subsequent to the election of a
Labor state government in 1999, schools and other education and training
providers remained in a context where funding was premised on individual student
numbers within a marketised and devolved context. Thus, at time when it was
accepted that more players, in a range of contexts, would need to become
involved in post compulsory education and training (Eldridge 2001, Ministerial
Council on Education Employment and Youth Affairs 2004), schools were often
forced to behave in entrenched ways. The challenge was to move away from a model
that placed schools as the central players in this complex environment to one
where schools were one of many players in a new sector that included education,
training and industry. This challenge was to be taken up by a voluntary network,
in a community of over two dozen secondary schools, a range of other education
and training providers and a population of over 200,000.

Theoretical Approach �and . . . and . . . and . . . �(Deleuze and Guattari
1987)

During the process of data generation I had come to appreciate the
impossibility of a single weaving on a fixed sett doing justice to the myriad of
potential patterns that could be woven within the constraints of my doctoral
loom; I became persuaded to compose �raggedy panel(s)� (Scheurich 1997, pp.2-3)
whose orientation was poststructural. I use the term �poststructural� while
acknowledging that the term itself is problematic given it implies a singular
body of work rather than a �bundle of different discourses, knowledge traditions
and methodologies� (Lee 1992, p.8). Following Lather (1993), I take
poststructural to mean the working out of academic theory within the culture of
postmodernity, that is, the shift in material conditions of late 20th century
monopoly capitalism. A poststructural approach begins with a perspective that
reality is discursive and multiple and that

Life is the way it is because of accidental and unintended
convergences in history; because of the arbitrary desires and passions of
individuals; because certain discourses, for no particular reason perhaps,
become more important than others; and because anonymous and contingent forms of
knowledge have produced practices that can be contested and changed� .

I see this quote from St Pierre as being inherently
�rhizomatic� (Deleuze & Guattari 1987). A concern with �accident and
unintended convergences� is a concern the rhizome where there is no centre, just
endless expansion and haphazard and temporary intersections at which point
desires and passions can be released. While the metaphor contrasts the rhizome
to the tree that has been conceptually dominant in modernist philosophies these
are not opposed models: �there are knots of arborescence in rhizomes, and
rhizomatic offshoots in roots� (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p.20). I see the
rhizome in my candidature; all of us could easily be tempted to claim
arborescence: focusing on that which is fixed, singular, confirmed and in the
process suppressing the unstable, plural and dynamic. And that rhizome is
fundamentally connected to others: the rhizome that is my life and the rhizome
that is the network I am attempting to study.

Using a rhizomatic model involves a concern with the middle - a space that is
made of lines moving in multiple directions (Semetsky 2004, p.230) - and a
concern with points that appear at the intersection of these moving lines. Thus
we decentre key linkages and notice new ones that appear not because we combined
old ones in new ways, but because we became open to the ruptures and
discontinuities that in turn create other linkages (Alvermann 2000, p.118). The
rhizomatic approach also provides for multiple entryways and multiple readings
(Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Whilst my images are woven individually and offer
distinct perspectives, each one is present in and provides a point of access to
the other. Together they are a form of text with edges that are ragged:

Texts are not smooth, grid-like weaves with neat edges. That is
why they do not give themselves up to unravelling by the master
philosopher/analyst who knows the right thread to pull (Derrida 1998: 37-8).
They are not well-wrought tapestries or close-knit fabrics that bind their
arguments into grids of meaning or stitch together a coherent self . . . . Texts
are always incomplete and fragmentary because they are part of the unceasing
fabrication of the world, which involves both making and unmaking. Bits are
unravelling at the very instant that new connections are being knotted together.
So texts do not have clear-cut edges: or at least, their borders only come into
being at the moment that they are carved out by the �cutting trace, the decision
of each reading.� (Derrida 1981 cited MacLure 2003, p.128)

My research reflected the belief that knowledge generated in social research
is not absolute and my mode of enquiry reflected this. Thus my primary tools of
analysis were my field notes and research journal; in the weaving between these
texts my analysis progressed. Whereas once this would be the �hidden chapter� of
research I have, like Britzman (2000, p. 231), opened up and included this data
in an effort to be �accountable to complexity� (Lather 2000, p.305).

It�s all in how you think about it

Seeing the connectedness of things is the starting point for
understanding a world that otherwise appears baffling . . . Yet it is far easier
to assume a world without connections, a world of fewer dimensions where simple
heuristics carry us through. This is perhaps the hardest aspect of a connected
world and the reason why our concepts and institutions may be doomed to lag
behind the reality they seek to make sense of.

In the first past of this paper, I introduced the question of how case study
researchers can engage with the task of researching networks. The
�poststructrual turn� (Lather 1993) has exposed the shaky ground on which both
qualitative and quantitative case studies of all kinds stand. At the same time,
there are specific challenges in completing case studies of networks that
broaden the usual range of complexities confronting researchers and that demand
thoughtful approaches to methodology. This is brought to bear not only in data
generation, where in my case the research journal became a central tool, but
also in the approach to analysis where the challenge is to find processes that
enable any resulting text to convey the movement, interconnection and growth
that are inherent in networks-in-action. I did not think about the network as a
series of pre-existing entities, or points, that had been connected as in some
form of community join-the-dots. I also wanted to move away from the idea of a
�hub� or �node� that often raced to grab centre stage in any discussion of
networks, immediately placing structure in the way of understanding what was
going on. Rather, my interest was in following the incessant flows of
multiplicities which, when they came into connection with the incessant flows of
other multiplicities, caused a temporary point of energy, connection, potential
to appear. Thus in this second part of the paper I present a selection of my
research findings, for two reasons. Firstly, because they are significant in
underscoring the difference between a network as a governable entity and network
as a process of desire. Secondly, because they serve as an example of what we
find when we analyse for movement.

�The� LLEN or a network?

They said, �Are you going to write all that down?� and I said,
�Well why wouldn�t I?� And they said, �Because this organisation did it.� And I
said, �Yes, I am going to claim it as an outcome . . . because it is part of the
delivery on the LLEN agenda.� Now this is our most active Working Party that
somehow thought I was taking liberties on the things I was saying. But where
else does it fit but here? This is what we�ve said we were going to do. You are
all the people who sit here. Of course I am going to claim these outcomes
(laughs). You know, it kind of pulled me up a little bit to think, �Oh
goodness, they�ve forgotten again . . . that they are the LLEN.� (Executive
Officer, 2005)

Throughout my time in the field, a tension existed around what the LLEN was.
For some, including the Chair and the Executive Officer, the LLEN was an
unbounded opportunity to act. In such a conceptualisation individuals and
structures were interchangeable as circumstances demanded: who was in the
network and where in the network they were, would be based on the needs of the
network at any given time (Urry 2003). The LLEN Office was no more than one part
of the multiplicity alongside the other parts. Thus local industry, the Field
Officer, local government, the LLEN staff, local education providers, schools,
youth agencies and so on were all parts of a multiplicity that was the network
and in which they were involved through their daily work; none of them
consistently occupied �the centre.�

For others, including even some members of the Committee of Management the
LLEN was an entity that �should do something.� These stakeholders were troubled
by the lack of a clear organisational entity that was �badged� in the evolving
post compulsory education, training and employment sector, perceived the nature
of industry involvement as problematic and, when facing their own performative
pressures, on more than one occasion blamed inadequacies in �the LLEN� as the
reason for those failures. As such, when the comment was made that �the LLEN
didn�t do anything� this was not a self-referential comment.

This discussion suggests two things. Firstly, governmentally instituted
networks must be both entities (allowing government probity measures to be met)
and rhizomes (allowing innovative things to happen). The network must continue
to evolve with its members moving to different points � sometimes in the core
membership, sometimes at the periphery which is the greatest point of connection
(Wenger 1998) � what ever is needed at a given time in a given context. This is
an essential rhizomatic characteristic: each element ceaselessly varies and
alters its distance in relation to the others (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p.30).

Secondly, if we see ourselves as being the network by virtue of our
involvement in our own daily life, does this allow us to think differently about
the costs of network involvement? (Seddon et al. 2005; Tett 2005). If we adopt
the �opportunity� perspective, some of this cost becomes balanced by gain; if we
adopted the �entity� perspective then our network involvement takes us away from
our �real� work to contribute to a job that someone else is funded to do.

How do we govern it?

This brings me to a second key finding. In my thesis, I suggested that we
need to be mindful of the work of mathematicians Duncan Watts and Steven
Strogatz (1998). Thus, LLEN can be understood, governed and measured on the
basis that they are �small worlds�: both orderly and random, both
bounded and unbounded. Or as Deleuze would offer: And rather than Is. Thus �the
LLEN� is no more than a (necessary from a perspective of legitimation) knot of
arborescence in a (necessary from a perspective of innovation) unbounded
rhizome.

This has implications for government practices. The Victorian government
funded LLEN in an effort to build on the potential demonstrated by organic
collaborative networks to respond to local issues in times of declining
resources. However, in so doing - in bounding those networks and exposing them
to public sector accountability processes - their potential was threatened. This
was not a necessary condition given LLEN were established as incorporated
associations but this ran counter to the established expectations in the
Department:

The difficulty government had was to understand what they had
set up was an incorporated body, not another department . . . The bureaucrats
treat the LLEN, the Committee of Management and its Executive Officer as one of
its own, part of its own bureaucracy and that is understandable but it actually
interferes with the work of the Executive Officer. Takes up time, takes up
thought, interferes with the Committee of Management�s room to move, it also
reduces the risk you can take because really you�ve got to do what government
departments have to do which is to implement policy rather than create policy.
(Freya, LLEN committee member, 2003)

The accountability and reporting framework privileged measures of
performativity over the outcomes that reflected the broader policy agenda of
partnerships, interagency collaboration and so on (Seddon et al. 2005). For
example, partnerships were a measure but the measure was the number of
partnerships, with partnership defined as those bounded by a Memorandum of
Understanding. In this network, the two strongest partnerships that were central
to the achievements of the network, had never been subject to a formal
agreement. Rather they had formed over years of ebbing and flowing, relationship
building, dialogue and shared commitment to the agenda. This demanded a new
language of governance � the potential for which had been recognised in LLEN
(Robinson & Keating 2005)-, one that included government in the
network. However, the reporting and accountability practices used did not
recognise government�s role as an equal part of the network; with occasional
brief respite, it remained in a hierarchical relationship with the network.

Structuring or flowing?

In drawing on the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1987) we can understand the
LLEN policy as an attempt to establish a Body without Organs (BwO). In simple
terms, the BwO explains our attempts to take away structures that are organised
in ways that obstruct the flow of intensities. In other words, we recognise all
the players who now become involved in post compulsory education and training
and we focus on freeing them to work more effectively. This is a two phase
process: one has to first construct the BwO and then one has to make it flow
(Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p. 152). The evidence of this could be the
establishment of a post compulsory education training and employment sector and
its success would be measured in terms of flow: not only the extent to which
bridging and linking networks are formed across the formerly separate education,
training and employment sectors but more the extent to which information,
capitals and people flow backwards and forwards through these networks.

The LLEN works between schools, education providers and other agencies
working for and with young people; each of these is in itself a multiplicity and
has different, and often competitive, commercial interests, hence the focus on
learning how to work collaboratively in these in-between spaces. This
undermining process is often necessarily imperceptible: allowing flows that
escape the capture of dominant discourses (Roy 2003, p.31): much of the work of
the network/rhizome would indeed be underground with the outcomes of the work
becoming manifest within the organisations that comprise the post compulsory
education training and employment sector doing whatever it is they are funded to
do. For example, while schools might declare they didn�t know anything about the
network or may not be aware of the involvement of their school, they may well
have experienced that there was less resistance when they went about their work
within their school network, that there was a greater understanding of other
parts of the multiplicity, that there was an enhanced level of trust: that they
could �live smooth� (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p.482) despite the arborescence
of their space.

learning Networks or Learning networks?

The Geelong LLEN has demonstrated the potential of �Learning networks�
to forge a post compulsory education, training and employment sector. As was the
intent, economic capital is increasingly being replaced by social capital
(Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1988, Putnam 1993). However, in a context of
performativity a policy that implements networks and provides funding is only
one part of the machinic activity, quality assurance and performance indicators
are the pedals of the machine; audit, review, evaluations and so on are the
tools that calibrate the machine (Blackmore 2004, p.22). In the absence of
change to these �pedals and tools� the development of social capital will be
undermined through limiting the opportunities for those in networks to build the
norms and trust required for a whole-of-government, whole-of-community post
compulsory education training and employment sector. It is through both
governmental change and flowing networks that the plane of consistency
(Deleuze and Guattari 1987), holding together its divergent elements through a
state of intensity that derives from the commitment to working for young people
rather than any intrinsic similarity or extrinsic force, is achieved. At the end
of 2008, there will be no further funding for LLEN. The absence of government
would free the network from the limitations of performativity however it would
also remove the connection through which the network contributes to the
Department�s awareness of the intersections that obstruct its policy agendas, as
we have detailed elsewhere (Angwin, Harrison, Kamp & Shacklock 2004, Kamp
2006, 2005, 2005a, 2003, nd).

Some concluding thoughts . . .

There are many more stories to set in motion about this particular network.
Of particular significance are stories of the boundary work by means of which
assemblages of multiplicities form. Into the hands of exceptional individuals
the network has been �able to focus its volume of social capital . . . power
incommensurate with the agent�s personal contribution� . In the context of the
Geelong LLEN this agent is primarily, but not exclusively, the Executive
Officer. Other boundary agents have significantly influenced the creation of the
conditions of flow through the network. These agents forged a connection and
flows of communication across boundaries; acting as a form of adaptor as the BwO
has been forming. Is it of significance that, in this study, that work was
overwhelming undertaken by women? However, those questions must remain for
another day. In this paper I have been concerned with opening up and exploring
the methodological dilemmas of researching networks in the postmodern context. I
have offered my own response to these dilemmas, outlining my methodological
approach as well as �the weaving, the tapestry, the message� that has resulted.
The last word remains with Deleuze and Guattari (1987, p.xv)

The question is not: is it true? But: does it work? What new thoughts does it
make it possible to think? What new emotions does it make it possible to feel?
What new sensations and perceptions does it open in the body?

References

Alvermann, D. E. (2000) 'Researching libraries, literacies, and lives: A
rhizoanalysis', in St Pierre, E. A. & Pillow, W. (Eds.), Working The
Ruins. Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, Routledge,
New York, pp. 114-29.

Angwin, J., Harrison, L., Kamp, A., Shacklock, G. (2004) The Young
Parents� Access Project, Deakin University, Geelong.

Angwin, J. & Kamp, A. (2007) Policy hysteria in practice: Teenage parents
at secondary school in Australia. In J. McLeod & A. Allard (Eds.),
Learning from the Margins: Young Women, Social Exclusion and Education,
Routledge. London, pp.95-107.

Ball, S. J. (2000) 'Performativities and fabrications in the education
economy: Towards the performative society?' Australian Educational
Researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1-23.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Theory, Culture
& Society, Sage, London.

Blackmore, J. (2000) ''Restructuring relations' between the state, family,
work and education in globalising economies', The Australian Educational
Researcher, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 17-36.

Blackmore, J. (2002) Learning networks as new educational spaces and
strategies of educational reform in response to risk and independence, Paper
presented at ECER Conference, Lisbon.

Blackmore, J. (2004) 'Passion, professionalism & performativity. Gender
and social justice in education', Redress, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 21-31.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) 'The forms of capital', in Richardson, J. G. (Ed.)
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood
Press, New York, pp. 241-60.

Britzman, D. (2000) 'The question of belief: Writing post-structural
ethnography', in St. Pierre, E. A. & Pillow, W. (Eds.), Working the
Ruins. Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, Routledge,
New York, pp. 27-40.

Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information
Age: Economy, Society and Culture, 3, 2 ed., Blackwell, Oxford.

Coleman, J. (1988) 'Social capital in the creation of human capital',
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, pp. Supplement S95-120.

Connors, L. (2000) Public Education: The Next Generation, Ministerial
Report, Department of Education, Employment and Training, Melbourne.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and
Schizophrenia, 2, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Department of Education Employment and Training (2001) A Guide for Local
Learning and Employment Networks, Implementation Guide Version 1, Department
of Education, Employment and Training, Melbourne.

Eldridge, D. (2001) Footprints to the Future, Youth Pathways Action
Plan Taskforce Report, Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, Canberra.

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, Penguin Press, London.

Kamp, A. (under review). Capitals and courage. The case of a local learning
and employment network, Australian Educational Researcher.

Kamp, A, (2006) Teaching teachers: Building a post compulsory education
training and employment sector through teacher education. Refereed paper
presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference,
Melbourne.

Kamp, A. (2005) 'A teacher is here to ask for your help.� A story of
schools, employers and networks. Paper presented at the Australian
Association for Research in Education Conference, Sydney.

Kamp, A. (2005a) On Track to What? A Foucauldian Analysis of a Recent
Victorian Post-compulsory Education Policy Initiative, Youth Studies
Australia, 24, 2, pp. 39-45.

Kamp, A. (2003) Reactions and responses: The concept of learning
networks. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE Conference, Auckland.

Keating, J. & Robinson, L. (2003) Networks and LLENs: Policy and
Practice, ARC Project Occasional Paper No 1, University of Melbourne Centre
for Post Compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning, Melbourne.

Kirby, P. (2000) Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education and
Training Pathways in Victoria, Ministerial Report, Department of Education,
Employment and Training, Melbourne.

Lather, P. (1993) 'Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism',
Sociological Quarterly, vol. 34, pp. 673-93.

Lather, P. (2000) 'Drawing the line at angels: Working the runins of feminist
ethnography', in St Pierre, E. A. & Pillow, W. (Eds.), Working the Ruins.
Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, Routledge, New
York.

Lee, A. (1992) 'Poststructuralism and educational research: some categories
and issues', Issues in Educational Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-12.

Lewin, K. (1946) 'Action research and minority problems', Journal of
Social Issues, vol. 2, pp. 34-46.

MacLure, M. (2003) 'Fabricating the self: metaphors of method in life-history
interviews', Discourse in Educational and Social Research, Open
University Press, Buckingham, pp. 119-32.

Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (2004)
Career and Transition Services Framework, Ministerial Report, Department
of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.

Mulgan, G. (2004) 'Connexity revisited', in McCarthy, H., Miller, P. &
Skidmore, P. (Eds.), Network Logic. Who Governs in an Interconnected
World?, DEMOS, London, pp. 49-62.

Putnam, R. D. (1993) 'The prosperous community. Social capital and public
life.' The American Prospect, vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 1-6.

Robinson, L. & Keating, J. 2005, Networks and Governance: The case of
LLENs in Victoria., ARC Linkage Project Occasional Paper No 3, The
University of Melbourne Centre for Post Compulsory Education and Lifelong
Learning, Melbourne.

Roy, K. (2003) Teachers in Nomadic Spaces: Deleuze and Curriculum,
Complicated Conversation, Pinar, F., Peter Lang, New York

Scheurich, J. J. (1997) Research Method in the Postmodern, Qualitative
Studies Series, Goodson, I. F. & Sceurich, J. J., Falmer Press, London.

Seddon, T., Clemans, A. & Billett, S. (2005) 'Social partnerships:
Practices, paradoxes and prospects of Local Learning Networks', The
Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 25-48.

Semetsky, I. (2004) 'Experiencing Deleuze', Educational Philosophy and
Theory, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 227-31.

Shacklock, G. (1998) 'Fast capitalist educational change: personally
resisting the images of school reform', Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 75-88.

St. Pierre, E. A. (2000) 'Poststructural feminism in education: An overview',
Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 477-515.

Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
California.

Stake, R. (1998) 'Case studies', in Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S.
(Eds.), Strategies for Qualitative Enquiry, Sage, New York, pp. 86 �
109.

Tett, L. (2005) 'Partnerships, community groups and social inclusion',
Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-15.

Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity, Polity Press/Blackwell Publishing,
Cambridge.

Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission (2002) Evaluation of
the Local Learning and Employment Networks, Evaluation, Department of
Education & Training for the Victorian Learning and Employment Skills
Commission, Melbourne.

Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission (2003), Making A
Difference - Local Learning and Employment Networks, Impact Report,
Department of Education & Training for the Victorian Learning and Employment
Skills Commission, Melbourne.

Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission (2005) Review of the
Local Learning and Employment Networks, Department of Education &
Training for the Victorian Learning and Employment Skills Commission,
Melbourne.

Victorian Tapestry Workshop (2003) Victorian Tapestry Workshop: An
Information Guide, Victorian Tapestry Workshop, Melbourne.

Watts, D. & Strogatz, S. (1998) 'Collective dynamics of 'small-world'
networks', Nature, vol. 393, pp. 440-442.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity,
Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Pea,
R., Seely Brown, J. & Hawkins, J., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

This document was added to the Education-Line database on 05
September 2007