This paper identifies factors that shape how learning proceeds in workplaces. It focuses on the dual bases of how workplaces afford opportunities for learning and how individuals elect to engage in work activities and with the guidance provided by the workplace. Together, these dual bases for participation (co-participation) at work, and the relations between them, are central to understand the kinds of learning that workplaces are able to provide and how improving the quality of that learning might proceed. The readiness of the workplace to afford opportunities for individuals to engage in work activities and access direct and indirect support is a key determinant of the quality of learning in workplaces. This readiness can promote individual's engagement. However, this engagement remains dependent upon the degree by which individuals wish to engage purposefully in the workplace.

Arguing against a concept of learning as only a formal process occurring in explicitly educational settings like schools, the paper proposes a conception of the workplace as a learning environment focusing on the interaction between the affordances and constraints of the social setting, on the one hand, and the agency and biography of the individual participant, on the other. Workplaces impose certain expectations and norms in the interest of their own continuity and survival, and in the interest of certain participants; but learners also choose to act in certain ways dependent on their own preferences and goals. Thus, the workplace as a learning environment must be understood as a complex negotiation about knowledge-use, roles and processesessentially as a question of the learner's participation in situated work activities. Workplaces as learning spacesThis paper discusses workplaces as learning environments emphasizing workplace participatory practices as conceptual foundations. These practices comprise the kinds of activities and interactions workplaces afford learners, on one hand, and how individuals elect to participate in workplace activities and interactions, on the other. Underpinning both workplace affordances and individuals' participation are the associated concepts of intentionality and continuity. Workplaces intentionally regulate individuals' participation; it is not ad hoc, unstructured or informal (Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2002). This regulation is a product of cultural practices, social norms, workplace affiliations, cliques and demarcations. Those who control the processes and division of labour, including interests and affiliations within the workplace, regulate participation to maintain the continuity of the workplace through regulatory practices (Grey, 1994). Similarly, individuals will engage in ways that best serve their purposes, such as assisting their career trajectory (Bloomer and Hodkinson, 2000), securing opportunities, or even locating easy work options. There is no separation between engagement in thinking and acting at work, and learning (Lave, 1990(Lave, , 1993Rogoff, 1990Rogoff, , 1995. Therefore, the kinds of opportunities the workplace affords individuals in terms of the activities they engage in and interactions with others, and how individuals elect to engage are salient to their learning through participation in the workplace.Commencing by arguing for fresh appraisals of workplaces as learning environments, the paper challenges some current assumptions about workplaces as learning environments. Then, through a consideration of workplaces as historically, culturally, and situationally-shaped environments in which individuals elect to engage in particular ways, workplace participatory practices are advanced as premises for understanding and organising learning through work. Central here are the relational

A greater acknowledgment of relational interdependence between individual and social agencies is warranted within conceptions of learning throughout working life. Currently, some accounts of learning tend to overly privilege social agency in the form of situational contributions. This de-emphasises the contributions of the more widely socially sourced, relational and negotiated contributions of both individual and social agency. As these accounts fail to fully acknowledge the accumulated outcomes of interactions between the individual and social experience that shapes human cognition ontogentically and which also acts to remake culture, they remain incomplete and unsatisfactory. In response, this paper proposes a consideration for the role of individual agency (e.g. intentionality, subjectivity and identity), how it is socially shaped over time and serves to be generative of individuals' cognitive experience, and its role in subsequently construing what is experienced socially. This agency also enacts a relational interdependence with social and historical contributions. Through advancing the conception of relational interdependence, this paper aims to balance views that currently privilege particular social influences in conceptions of learning for work and throughout working life.

This article proposes bases for a workplace pedagogy. Planes of intentional guidance and sequenced access to workplace activities represent some key workplace pedagogic practices. Guidance by others, situations, and artifacts are central to learning through work because the knowledge to be learned is historically, culturally, and situationally constituted. However, the quality of learning through these planes of activities and guidance is ultimately premised on the workplace's participatory practices, which shape and distribute the activities and support the workplace affordance workers and from which they learn. Situational and political processes underpin these workplace affordances. Yet participatory practices are reciprocally constructed because individuals elect how to engage in and learn from what workplaces afford them. A workplace pedagogy is founded in these coparticipatory practices and needs to account for how workplaces invite access to activities and guidance and how individuals elect to participate in what the workplace affords.Over the past decade or so, interest in workplaces as learning environments has intensified. Much of this interest is founded in pragmatic concerns associated with reducing the cost of vocational skill development and enhancing its access and relevance to industry sector needs as well as pertinence to particular enterprise requirements (Boud & Garrick, 1999). Other, perhaps more enduring, interests, however, are now pressing for the formulation of a workplace pedagogy directed at developing expert vocational practice through work and throughout working lives. ), where he holds the position of associate professor. His research has focused on the requirements for work practice and how vocational expertise can best be developed in workplace settings and educational institutions.

Background: Understanding the resilience of healthcare is critically important. A resilient healthcare system might be expected to consistently deliver high quality care, withstand disruptive events and continually adapt, learn and improve. However, there are many different theories, models and definitions of resilience and most are contested and debated in the literature. Clear and unambiguous conceptual definitions are important for both theoretical and practical considerations of any phenomenon, and resilience is no exception. A large international research programme on Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) is seeking to address these issues in a 5-year study across Norway, England, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland (2018-2023). The aims of this debate paper are: 1) to identify and select core operational concepts of resilience from the literature in order to consider their contributions, implications, and boundaries for researching resilience in healthcare; and 2) to propose a working definition of healthcare resilience that underpins the international RiH research programme. Main text: To fulfil these aims, first an overview of three core perspectives or metaphors that underpin theories of resilience are introduced from ecology, engineering and psychology. Second, we present a brief overview of key definitions and approaches to resilience applicable in healthcare. We position our research program with collaborative learning and user involvement as vital prerequisite pillars in our conceptualisation and operationalisation of resilience for maintaining quality of healthcare services. Third, our analysis addresses four core questions that studies of resilience in healthcare need to consider when defining and operationalising resilience. These are: resilience 'for what', 'to what', 'of what', and 'through what'? Finally, we present our operational definition of resilience. Conclusion: The RiH research program is exploring resilience as a multi-level phenomenon and considers adaptive capacity to change as a foundation for high quality care. We, therefore, define healthcare resilience as: the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high quality care. This working definition of resilience is intended to be comprehensible and applicable regardless of the level of analysis or type of system component under investigation.