The focus of this doctoral research study is making the most what a person knows and can do, as an outcome from their lifelong learning, so as to better contribute to organisational achievement. This has been motivated by a perceived gap in the extensive literature linking knowledge with organisational achievement. Whereas there is a rich body of literature addressing the meta-philosophies giving rise to the emergence of learning organisations there is, as yet, scant attention paid to the detail of planning and implementing action which would reveal individual/organisational opportunities of mutual advantage and motivate, and sustain, participation at the day-to-day level of the individual. It is in this space that this dissertation seeks to contribute by offering a mechanism for bringing the, hindsight informed, response “but that’s obvious” into the abiding explicit realm at the level of the individual. In moving beyond the obvious which is prone to be overlooked, the emphasis on “better” in the introductory sentence, is very deliberately made and has a link to awakening latent individual, and hence organisational, capabilities that would otherwise languish. The evolved LCM Model – a purposeful integration valuing the outcomes from lifelong learning (the L) with nurturing a culture supporting this outcome (the C) and with responsiveness to potentially diverse motivations (the M) – is a reflective device for bringing otherwise tacit, and latent, logic into the explicit realm of action. In the course of the development of the model, a number of supplementary models included in this dissertation have evolved from the research. They form a suite of devices which inform action and lead to making the most of what an individual knows and can do within the formal requirements of a job and within the informal influences of a frequently invisible community of practice. The initial inquiry drew upon the views and experiences of water industry engineering personnel and training facilitators associated with the contract cleaning and waste management industries. However, the major research occurred as an Emergency Management Australia (EMA) project with the Country Fire Authority (CFA) as the host organisation. This EMA/CFA research project explored the influence of making the most of what a CFA volunteer knows and can do upon retention of that volunteer. In its aggregate, across the CFA volunteer body, retention is a critical community safety objective. A qualitative research, ethnographic in character, approach was adopted. Data was collected through interviews, workshops and outcomes from attempts at action research projects. Following an initial thirteen month scoping study including respondents other than from the CFA, the research study moved into an exploration of the efficacy of an indicative model with four contextual foci – i.e. the manner of welcoming new members to the CFA, embracing training, strengthening brigade sustainability and leadership. Interestingly, the research environment which forced a truncated implementation of action research projects was, in itself, an informing experience indicative of inhibitors to making the most of what people know and can do. Competition for interest, time and commitment were factors governing the manner in which CFA respondents could be called upon to explore the efficacy of the model, and were a harbinger of the influences shaping the more general environment of drawing upon what CFA volunteers know and can do. Subsequent to the development of the indicative model, a further 16 month period was utilised in the ethnographic exploration of the relevance of the model within the CFA as the host organisation. As a consequence, the model is a more fully developed tool (framework) to aid reflection, planning and action. Importantly, the later phase of the research study has, through application of the model to specific goals within the CFA, yielded operational insight into its effective use, and in which activity systems have an important place. The model – now confidently styled as the LCM Model – has three elements that when enmeshed strengthen the likelihood of organisational achievement ; and the degree of this meshing, as relevant to the target outcome, determines the strength of outcome. i.e. - • Valuing outcomes from learning: When a person recognises and values (appropriately to achievement by the organisation) what they know and can do, and associated others recognise and value what this person knows and can do, then there is increased likelihood of these outcomes from learning being applied to organisational achievement. • Valuing a culture that is conducive to learning: When a person, and associated others, are further developing and drawing upon what they know and can do within the context of a culture that is conducive to learning, then there is increased likelihood that outcomes from learning will be applied to organisational achievement. • Valuing motivation of the individual: When a person’s motivation to apply what they know and can do is valued by them, and associated others, as appropriate to organisational achievement then there is increased likelihood that appropriately drawing upon outcomes from learning will occur. Activity theory was employed as a device to scope and explore understanding of the issues as they emerged in the course of the research study. Viewing the data through the prism of activity theory led not only to the development of the LCM Model but also to an enhanced understanding of the role of leadership as a foundation for acting upon the model. Both formal and informal leadership were found to be germane in asserting influence on empowering engagement with learning and drawing upon its outcomes. It is apparent that a “leaderful organisation”, as postulated by Raelin (2003), is an environment which supports drawing upon the LCM model; and it may be the case that the act of drawing upon the model will move a narrowly leadership focused organisation toward leaderful attributes. As foreshadowed at the beginning of this synopsis, nurturing individual and organisational capability is the guiding mantra for this dissertation - “Capability embraces competence but is also forward-looking, concerned with the realisation of potential” (Stephenson 1998, p. 3). Although the inquiry focussed upon a need for CFA volunteer retention, it began with a broader investigation as part of the scoping foundation and the expanded usefulness of the LCM Model invites further investigation. The dissertation concludes with the encapsulating sentiment that “You have really got to want to”. With this predisposition in mind, this dissertation contributes to knowledge through the development and discussion of the LCM model as a reflective device informing transformative learning (Mezirow and Associates 1990). A leaderful environment (Raelin 2003) aids transformative learning – accruing to the individual and the organisation - through engendering and maintaining making the most of knowledge and skill – motivating and sustaining “the will”. The outcomes from this research study are a strong assertion that wanting to make the most of what is known and can be done is a hallmark of capability. Accordingly, this dissertation is a contribution to the “how” of strengthening the capability, and the commitment to applying that capability, of an individual and an organisation.

This thesis considers a theoretical tradition which is concerned with how adult literacies education might not always serve to socialise students into existing society, instead encouraging possibilities for desirable alternatives to it. Without this possibility, adult literacies education might only be understood as a socialising machine that slots students into society as it stands and where the role of research is to describe its operation. My research describes a long-standing refusal by educators, researchers and students to accept this possibility and my thesis continues this tradition. Through the analysis and interplay of the work of Pierre Bourdieu, James Paul Gee, Paulo Freire, Jacques Rancière, I distinguish between empowerment and emancipation in the context of literacies education. I set out the assumptions that Bourdieu and Gee make, how they understand power, identity, discourse and oppression, and what this means for the practice of an empowering adult literacies education. I also present assumptions made by Freire and Rancière, how they understand equality and oppression, and how an emancipatory literacies education might be understood and practiced. In particular, I describe how education for ‘empowerment’ encourages practices underpinned by the assumption that ideological processes prevent students from understanding how oppression is manifested. In contrast, I describe how an emancipatory education implies enacting educational relationships that are not reliant on this assumption, whilst exerting a social response to societal oppression. I make three claims. Firstly, that the idea of an emancipatory literacies education has come to be neglected or conflated with the idea that literacies education might empower, which has come to hold great sway. In so doing, I critique Freire’s work whilst reclaiming it as an emancipatory project. Secondly, that the educational practices associated with adult literacies for empowerment can be understood to encourage the socialisation of students into society as it stands. This emphasises the importance of distinguishing between empowerment and emancipation in the context of adult literacies education. Finally, that emancipation is a notion that must continue to be questioned and explored if educators, students and academics are to take responsibility for the practice of adult literacies education and its consequences. An emancipatory literacies education cannot be reliant upon the assumption that discourse is inherently ideological. Instead, it is predicated upon teachers and students assuming that emancipation is possible and acting on that assumption.