Finnish Police Supervisors’ Conceptions of Workplace Learning and Its Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, it is an interesting study on an exciting topic that is relevant and has used an insightful methodology. There are some points that should be worked out more clearly to increase the quality. In particular, the theory section could be expanded, and the recommended revisions should then be addressed accordingly in the discussion. It should be worked out even better why the police is such an appropriate context for the study.

Some specific comments:

The section on workplace learning lacks clarity. So what exactly is workplace learning? How is workplace learning distinguished from related constructs such as work-related learning (e.g., Kyndt & Beart, 2013)? Why does it include only formal and informal learning? Can forms such as self-regulated learning not also be workplace learning? See for example work by Decius on this topic.

Decius, J., & Decius, L. (2022). Sovereign Workplace Learning: A Process Model to Integrate Self-regulated and Informal Learning. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2022, No. 1, p. 14907). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Kyndt, E.& Baert, H. (2013). Antecedents of Employees' Involvement in Work-Related Learning: A Systematic Review. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 273-313. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313478021

 

The sentence seems tautological (p.2): "Indeed, studies suggest that over 80 % of work-related learning takes place at work [9, 11]"

 

I have the feeling that the term is being used inflationarily right now, without any reference to the original meanings of sustainability and its dimensions. I think the concept should also take into account the UN's SDGs, and it fits in quite well with SDG4 and SDG8.

I think it makes sense to relate to the new strand of research on sustainable careers. Here, it seems to me, there are similarities but also differences. It would be good to pick this up in the text and work it out.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & De Vos, A. (2015). Sustainable careers: Introductory chapter. In A. De Vos, & B. I. J. M. Van Der Heijden (Eds.). Handbook of research on sustainable careers (pp. 1–19). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

De Vos, A., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Akkermans, J. (2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103196.

 

 

Why is the supervisor's perspective so important? What difference does it make to look at the phenomenon from their perspective? Here, a good rationale is missing in the theory so far and should be added.

 

Figure 3 should be redesigned, the process over three lines is not well represented this way. Why are some elements larger than others? It is not sufficient to describe such a complex process only in the graphic and not in the text, essential steps should be explained in the text.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the positive feedback on our manuscript. We found your comments very valuable and have responded to them as well as we can:

1) The theory section could be expanded.

We have included the suggested UN SDGs as well as an approach to sustainable careers with appropriate references. We found both of these suggestions very relevant but were struggling with the word limitations. This is why we highly appreciate this comment and we had now the possibility to include these issues in the theory section as well in the discussion. Thank you for this valuable and important comment!

So what exactly are WPL and other related concepts such as work-related learning and self-regulated learning?

We have tried to make clear what we mean by WPL and what it does not mean. The concept of work-related learning refers us more to the deliberate practices in work contexts during vocational education thus including more purposeful pedagogical elements of learning. The conceptualization of WPL refers more to authentic learning that takes during work practices and is more informal in nature. We see that self-regulated learning is one form of WPL, but this has not been the focus of our study. The suggested reference of Kyndt & Baert is now included in the theory section to make our approach clearer.

2) It should be worked out even better why the police is such an appropriate context for the study.

Good point! We have now argued more broadly why polices and why police supervisors especially. Our approach is that supervisors have an important role in understanding the phenomena of WBL more broadly to be able to support employees' learning in a sustainable way.

3) Figure 3 is now redesigned. We hope it is now more informative. After careful proofreading of the whole manuscript (by professional proofreading services) tables, appendices, and figures, we hope the language of the article is also more smooth. 

Thank you for your very insightful comments, we hope the quality of the manuscript is now improved. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The journal manuscript presents an impressive data analysis and effectively connects the results to the current literature. The authors have provided a thorough review of the relevant literature and have utilized appropriate methods to analyze their data. However, the study falls short in explaining the rationale for the research and why it is important. The introduction section lacks a clear justification for the study. Specifically, how different perceptions of sustainability in multiple levels of the organization matters and how does that lead to the case of Finnish police in this manuscript.

The literature is great. However, it is unclear why this study is important. For instance, how work-related learning and its demands affect the Finnish police supervisors? The change from literature to research aim is absurd. The author(s) need to summarize the literature and reinforce the rationale of their study. Why Finnish police, specifically?

“Little previous research has been conducted on the conceptions of WPL and how sustainable learning emerges in the context of police work from police supervisors’ perspectives” – this is a wonderful rationale and should have been stated earlier right in the introduction.

The author(s) need to elaborate on the structure of the interview. If the questions were developed based on WPL literature, provide more details. How many coders were involved in the data analysis process? If more than one, should inter-coder reliability be calculated? Despite the above areas of improvement, the manuscript provides valuable insights 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your important and valuable comments on our paper. We have tried to reply to them as well as we possibly can to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1) However, the study falls short in explaining the rationale for the research and why it is important. The introduction section lacks a clear justification for the study. Specifically, how different perceptions of sustainability in multiple levels of the organization matters and how does that lead to the case of Finnish police in this manuscript.

Thank you for this comment. We have strengthened the rationale of the study, as nicely suggested, hopefully, more clearly from the introduction and in the theory section. We have been especially careful in explaining why we see the role of supervisors (and Finnish supervisors) as essential in the WPL of employees. 

2) The author(s) need to elaborate on the structure of the interview. If the questions were developed based on WPL literature, provide more details. How many coders were involved in the data analysis process? If more than one, should inter-coder reliability be calculated? Despite the above areas of improvement, the manuscript provides valuable insights.

This clearance is needed. Thank you for this comment. In the methodological section, we have described in more detail the operationalization of the interview themes. We have highlighted that there was only one coder/person conducting the analysis. 

The paper is also proofread by professional proofreading services to polish the language. 

Thank you for your valuable comments. We hope that our revision has improved the quality of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the revisions. Unfortunately, they are difficult to track because no specific details were given about the changes, so the only way to track the changes is by tediously laying the versions side by side. For future reviews I would highly recommend this to make it easier for the reviewers. Thank you!

I think all in all the manuscript has continued to improve. I think the study is really interesting and after further revision probably worth publishing, however it still needs a better structure and theoretical derivation. The revisions were in the right direction, but not yet comprehensive and convincing enough.

1. Even though I think the text has improved and better addresses the sustainability aspect, the title suggests that the paper is actually about the construct of sustainable workplace learning. In this respect, I think it would make more sense to integrate chapters 2 and 3 and thus better elaborate on the sustainability of workplace learning (the title could then be Definition of Sustainable Workplace Learning). This should also solve the problem of the word limit, as sentences can certainly be saved in this way.

2. In this way, one certainly saves enough words to further elaborate the meaning of this construct for the specific context of the police. I would recommend a chapter on "Importance of sustainable workplace learning in the police." This could certainly use some of the text from the methods section. Overall, it is not yet sufficiently well derived why this is a relevant context for sustainable workplace learning (which I definitely support) and what is already known about it and what is not yet. The managerial perspective aspect also needs to be better elaborated. This should all be done in this chapter (new chapter 3), which should then come before the current chapter 4.

3. I don't see that Figure 3 has changed (except that it is now Figure 1). Please still modify this. Also, I suggest describing the process first and only then showing the figure so that the reader can understand it better.

4. The abstract will certainly need some revision after the text has been revised further. The reference to the topic of sustainability should also come out better, which is currently not yet the case.

5. The revisions should then also be considered in the discussion.

6. "In the literature, it is also typical to divide WPL into formal and informal learning based on its nature and how it occurs at work [7, 20, 27, 29]. However, this division has been seen as old-fashioned and not appropriate for contemporary work life [7], as both forms of learning are, together, important for any learning at work." --> There are studies, which highlight the interaction of formal and informal learning which would further underline your agument, e.g.,
Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 239-257.
Richter, S., Kortsch, T., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Understanding learning spillover: the major role of reflection in the formal–informal learning interaction within different cultural value settings. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(7), 513-532.

7. Also, the contribution of Tannenbaum and Wolfson (2022) is certainly relevant for consideration in the Sustainable workplace learning section:

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Wolfson, M. A. (2022). Informal (field-based) learning. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 391-414.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading of our revised manuscript. All the further comments are highly valuable and we found them useful and inspiring. Next, we will try to answer all suggested changes and also try to argue for what kinds of modifications we have ended up with and why. 

1) Thank you for the revisions. Unfortunately, they are difficult to track because no specific details were given about the changes, so the only way to track the changes is by tediously laying the versions side by side. For future reviews, I would highly recommend this to make it easier for the reviewers. Thank you!

This is a serious mistake by us and we apologize. It must have been difficult to follow the made revisions. This is why we have now pasted all the modified and added sections with yellow color for you to better follow the changes.

I think all in all the manuscript has continued to improve. I think the study is really interesting and after further revision probably worth publishing, however it still needs a better structure and theoretical derivation. The revisions were in the right direction, but not yet comprehensive and convincing enough.

1. Even though I think the text has improved and better addresses the sustainability aspect, the title suggests that the paper is actually about the construct of sustainable workplace learning. In this respect, I think it would make more sense to integrate chapters 2 and 3 and thus better elaborate on the sustainability of workplace learning (the title could then be Definition of Sustainable Workplace Learning). This should also solve the problem of the word limit, as sentences can certainly be saved in this way.

Thank you for this useful and constructive suggestion. After a thorough discussion, we decided not to change the structure of the theoretical part of the manuscript. There are two reasons for it: First, our aim is not to examine sustainable workplace learning as a concept (because it is not an established and broadly elaborated definition yet). Neither did we aim to construct a theoretical framework of sustainable workplace learning while it would have been impossible based on this small empirical data at hand. Instead, we revised the title of the paper to better align our research aims which is to examine police supervisors' conceptions of WPL and the sustainability of such learning. Second, we utilized two different analytical (phenomenographic and thematic) tools to examine WPL and its sustainability in two different phases, also the reporting of findings is structured along with two different RQs and two analytical processes. If we changed the structure of the theoretical section in a suggested way, the ultimate aim of the whole research would have changed. In this case, also the analysis would have needed to do anew based on RQ focusing more on conceptions of sustainable workplace learning which originally was not the aim at all. We hope we have now made the aim and RQs clearer to address this. Thus, in addition to the title, there is a small change in the wording of the second RQ now: How does sustainability manifest in these conceptions?

2. In this way, one certainly saves enough words to further elaborate the meaning of this construct for the specific context of the police. I would recommend a chapter on "Importance of sustainable workplace learning in the police." This could certainly use some of the text from the methods section. Overall, it is not yet sufficiently well derived why this is a relevant context for sustainable workplace learning (which I definitely support) and what is already known about it and what is not yet. The managerial perspective aspect also needs to be better elaborated. This should all be done in this chapter (new chapter 3), which should then come before the current chapter 4.

Thank you for your comments. We think that the sustainability of WPL is increasingly important in any (expert) work. Police work in our study represents contemporary expert work in which continuous learning is vital. This is something we have been highlighting in the description of the context and participants (see the yellow-pasted sections), however not seen as helpful so separate this description to a theoretical section of the paper as suggested. We also believe that whether including the contextual description in the theoretical part or in methodology, is also a question of style and disciplinary conventions. We have decided to include this description and arguments in the introduction and methods. 

What comes to the suggestion to strengthen the managerial perspective we would like to see that we are not studying management or leadership themselves, but the interviewees are supervisors and represent the participants in the study. This is why we do not see addressing the managerial perspectives here as a separate section in the theoretical section. We have also been trying to polish the idea of why we have selected the police supervisors but not employees, for instance. We were especially interested in whether participants in supervisory roles acknowledge their vital meaning for WPL leaders as part of sustainable human development in organizations. Police supervisors have offered us an example of such a group of agents.

3. I don't see that Figure 3 has changed (except that it is now Figure 1). Please still modify this. Also, I suggest describing the process first and only then showing the figure so that the reader can understand it better.

This is unfortunate, but we actually have revised the figure to make the left-hand side arrows in every row a bit bigger and clarified this also in the text (marked with yellow). We hope the figure and added description now better respond to what you suggested.

4. The abstract will certainly need some revision after the text has been revised further. The reference to the topic of sustainability should also come out better, which is currently not yet the case.

This is true. We have revised the abstract in highlighting the importance of human sustainability as a starting point for our research aims. Hope it is now clearer.

5. The revisions should then also be considered in the discussion.

Yes, the revisions made in revision rounds 1 and 2 are now clearly highlighted in yellow.

6. "In the literature, it is also typical to divide WPL into formal and informal learning based on its nature and how it occurs at work [7, 20, 27, 29]. However, this division has been seen as old-fashioned and not appropriate for contemporary work life [7], as both forms of learning are, together, important for any learning at work." --> There are studies, which highlight the interaction of formal and informal learning which would further underline your agument, e.g.,
Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 239-257.
Richter, S., Kortsch, T., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Understanding learning spillover: the major role of reflection in the formal–informal learning interaction within different cultural value settings. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(7), 513-532.

Thank you for these updates in the literature. They are highly important and we have added them both in the theoretical section as found relevant to describe the phenomena at hand.

7. Also, the contribution of Tannenbaum and Wolfson (2022) is certainly relevant for consideration in the Sustainable workplace learning section:

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Wolfson, M. A. (2022). Informal (field-based) learning. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 391-414.

Thank you for this reference as well. After getting familiar with it, we have also included it in the text as a relevant one.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you so much for taking my input and making the revisions to the manuscript that I feel are now so well implemented!