The example of the inclusion
of On-the-Job Training Actions (AFEST) in vocational training law

Béatrice Delay^[1] and Anne-Lise Ulmann^[2]

This chapter hypothesises that the way in which public action is conducted, in particular by deliberating at work and on work, constitutes a powerful lever for bringing about a transformation of social relations that contributes to the emancipation and development of individuals. It envisages democracy not only as an institutional process far from citizens, whose opinion is only requested sporadically through the vote, but also as a more ordinary and continuous experience, a ‘way of life’ (Laugier and Ogien, 2014) that brings out of invisibility the political dimensions of daily work. This approach, which originates from the pragmatist heritage, considers public action as situated action and establishes a particular framework of participation that leads to a rearrangement of responsibilities.

To develop this point of view, we will present an experiment initiated at the beginning of 2016 by the French State and the social partners, which was intended to support innovation and democratise access to training. Its goal was to invent and characterise the contours and conditions of implementation for a new type of action, hitherto unrecognised in the institutional landscape of vocational training: On-the-Job Training Action (AFEST). The latter, which must be carried out within the company by using the work activity as teaching material, aims to tackle modestly but head-on a double social issue: the well-known and persistent issue of inequalities in access to training, and the less prominent in public debate yet just as problematic issue of its insufficient economic and social utility.

This chapter proposes an analysis of this experimental approach as a singular and demanding path in the field of public action production, a path which, in several respects, can be likened to a democratic dynamic of work deliberation. Our presentation, necessarily oriented by the place we have held in it^[3], does not seek objectivity but rather the intelligibility of a work process which, beyond the AFEST object, questions the conduct of public action.

In the first part, we will present the chronicle of this approach and the different biases and working methods applied to carry it out; we will then go on to discuss how this working process, which has been called an ‘experiment’, has contributed to the development of innovations through the exchange of points of view and expertise and the redistribution of responsibilities between State, social partners, and everyday professionals. We will conclude with a remark on the interest and fragility of this approach and its consequences on democracy at work.

1. Chronicle of an experiment

1.1. Reiterated findings in a sedimented context

The inclusion of AFEST (On-the-Job Training Actions) in the 5 September 2018 law “For the freedom to choose one’s professional future” is the result of more than two years’ work, initiated by the General Delegation of Employment and Vocational Training (DGEFP). Within the small ecosystem of vocational training financed by public and mutualised funds, this incorporation is quite an event, since this training modality generates and implies, for all the professionals concerned, the deconstruction of a set of habits and operating logics accumulated over the decades. The AFEST introduces a break with the French model that had prevailed since the founding law of 1971^[4]. Historically, this model has been characterised, on the one hand, by the relative exclusion of the least qualified and the employees of smaller businesses, and on the other hand, by the supremacy of the pedagogical model of the ‘training course outside the production site’, which protects the employee undergoing training from the subordination relationship, by separating ‘work’ from ‘training’. This unipolar and separatist model has long been anchored in the practices and representations of trainers, but also of the State, social partners and economic actors.

The DGEFP therefore deemed it useful to initiate a proactive action, with an aim far surpassing the AFESTs alone. It was a matter of getting a grip on the unsatisfactory use of public and mutualised vocational training funds and encouraging economic players to reinvest in the development of skills for all working people, in contrast to the predominantly selective, administrative, accounting, and outsourced approach to training that has prevailed in recent decades.

The concerns of the initiators of this approach stemmed from various observations reiterated in each successive reform, when discussing the levers for acting on them. Among the objectives targeted, several stood out repeatedly, such as encouraging the least trained people, who are often reluctant to learn through school-based formats, to benefit from training, or facilitating access to training for VSEs and SMEs employees, despite production constraints. But also, enabling the rapid acquisition of skills required in the exercise of the activity and focusing on developing sensitive knowledge or specific skills in occupations in short supply, or which can only be acquired in situ and for which there is no available or accessible training offer.

In the light of these different aims, the fact that it is possible to link a training action to work situations has emerged as a promising way.

1.2. Conducting the survey with stakeholders

first of all, the State focused on an apparently paradoxical situation: on the one hand, work has long been recognised as a means of acquiring skills. This is demonstrated by the successive plans for the development of work-linked training and the introduction in January 2002 of the Validation of Acquired Experience (VAE) as a means of access to certification. However, as a counterpoint to these relatively consensual positions, training through or in the workplace hardly existed in the field of actions covered by the vocational training law. This did not prevent On-the-Job Actions (AST) from taking place. However, most of these were carried out in large companies, often thanks to the mobilisation of private funds from structures with substantial resources and structured HR departments.

At this design stage, a generic hypothesis was posed: the non-existence of work-related training arrangements was not so much linked to an impeding legal framework, even if it had little incentive. Rather, it originated in the established practices of public and joint bodies, which were mainly concerned with securing the ‘proper use’ of dedicated funds. Fearing the financing of disguised production situations, they nourished a resistance to any training method that brought the training act closer to the productive act. These obstacles, which were obviously partial, needed to be clarified, confirmed, supplemented, and clarified, but also accompanied by ways of overcoming them.

Guided by this dual challenge of elucidating and solving problems, the State entities, which delivered their analyses in an initial document called a ‘technical brief’, designed an approach that aimed to understand these difficulties before producing solutions. In a way, these entities wanted to conduct an enquiry as defined by Dewey. They sought to establish ‘the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one which may be so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole’ (1993 [1938], p. 169). The ‘technical brief’ set out a framework and, in a way, indirectly reiterated the structural steps of the enquiry process –the exposition of the original situation’s ‘indeterminacy’; the ‘elements of the problem’; the provisional determination and hypotheses– and concluded on the value of conducting an experiment that would test the hypotheses against observed and analysed facts.

1.3. Structuring the policy framework to bring several working bodies into dialogue

To launch the survey, the designers of the approach chose to structure it around three categories of actors who complemented each other in terms of their respective analyses and fields of intervention. The Authorised Joint Collector Organisms (OPCAs^[5], which have since become OPCOs) were approached as a matter of priority, as they were directly concerned by this type of action, particularly from the point of view of funding. They were invited to propose experimental sites by soliciting volunteer companies to formalise an AFEST project, monitoring it with the help of an external training consultant/organisation. Likewise, a group of experts and researchers belonging to different disciplines, but with knowledge on training, were brought together in a technical and scientific committee in charge of supporting the development and deployment of the projects, particularly through analysing the difficulties encountered. The ANACT-ARACT network had the task of coordinating support and capitalisation. Finally, the State entities monitored all the work: its progress, difficulties, capitalisation, and foreseeable consequences on the legal texts. This organisation, which brought together actors from the productive and scientific worlds, was underpinned by the conviction that ‘the question of knowledge in organisations can only be tackled with an interdisciplinary approach involving the multiple disciplines concerned, attempting to go beyond the stage of courteous dialogue to initiate the co-construction of new approaches and to overcome the formidable obstacle of differences in culture, language, modes of reasoning and methods’ (Teulier and Lorino 2005, p.13). This mechanism sought to establish the conditions for a debate on an issue that was so tense —the use of mutualised training funds— that it lay as if buried within these joint bodies. It gradually made it possible to bring it back to the fore and to set up a dialogue between these different bodies by accepting the uncertainty about the fate that would ultimately be reserved for this training method.

1.4. Engaging in action and analysing failures

This work was carried out aiming at transformation. Its promoters were trying to bring about a shift in the ways of training, mostly inherited from the path traced since the founding law of 1971 and strongly impregnated with top-down pedagogical logics, and which was dissociated from professional activity practices. However, work-based training proceeds in the opposite direction: it starts from work situations, i.e., from the action to be carried out, confronting them directly and returning to them at a later stage in order to use what has been done, analyse the issues at stake, the consequences, the questions left unanswered, etc. With regard to these ways of training, which are better articulated with work, the experiment did not propose the participants any particular prior learning on the paths to be taken. Each of them explored them as they best suited their work context (animal caretakers, gardeners, dental assistants, cleaners, recreational and cultural industries, etc.), with or without the help of consultants, and with no obligation to achieve results other than sharing the work done. In the conduct of the actions initiated by the OPCAs, no time or method constraints were imposed on the various categories of actors involved. They could organise themselves as they wished in terms of choice of training, role distribution and breakdown of undertaken actions. The only instruction was to experiment with this AFEST formative modality, taking care to articulate phases of real work situations and reflective sequences. This single methodological constraint was based on a long-established observation by professional didactics (Pastré, 2011): we learn by and in the workplace but also at a distance from work. These two moments, the action and the reflective sequence, ensure that the learner experiences work and transforms this experience into skills to be able to act in other contexts. This methodological requirement, which was laid down from the outset, has also reassured the OPCAs about their fears that training logic might be crushed by production logic.

Thus, beyond this generic methodological instruction, the participants in the experiment were invited to identify their steps along the way. In particular, they were encouraged to pay particular attention to unsuccessful attempts at action, dead-ends, and strategies ‘invented’ to get around difficulties. Against the classic way of conducting public action, these times of wandering were considered to be essential learning vectors, hence the importance of not hiding failures. The participants were requested to make them visible transform them into working material for collective analysis.

The examination of incomplete attempts was also instructive. Some cases led to questions about the very relevance of this type of training. It emerged, for example, that AFEST does not lend itself to all work configurations. Some cannot easily be transformed into learning situations because of the dangerous nature of the acts in certain situations, as in the medical sector; the cost of materials, as in the luxury textile sector; or the pressure of production objectives, especially in construction companies and public works. Thus, contrary to what is implied by the current rhetoric that promotes AFEST as a systematic response, it quickly became apparent during the exchanges between the various bodies involved in the organisation that this type of action is not adapted to all fields of activity, or even to all employee profiles. Gradually, in the exchanges based on the analysis of the results obtained by the OPCAs, the principles of an AFEST began to take shape, and its inclusion in vocational training law, together with various conditions arising from these collective analyses, could be envisaged. It should be noted that the AFEST implementing decree of the 2018 law is one of a few to have received a unanimously favourable opinion from the bodies consulted in the context of this reform’s adoption. We hypothesise that this relative consensus surrounding the institutional consecration of AFEST is not unrelated to how this experiment was conducted, gradually revealing to all the actors involved the part played by politics in the day-to-day and ordinary work of training.

2. The levers of a democratic approach to work

This experiment, which aimed to create a new type of training action, without knowing its content and contours in advance, breaks with the dominant logic in force in the production of public norms: it was not a matter of thinking up a model from above, in a relatively close decision-making circle, and then imposing it on the intermediaries of public action, responsible for helping to implement it on the ground. This Taylorian-inspired logic, which consists in marking a sufficiently watertight boundary between the design of a project and its operational implementation, was not the one adopted by the promoters of this approach. On the contrary, they tried to ‘work in successive stages, immersed in the situations, and not overviewing them’ (Cefai and Joseph, 2002, p. 6), in order to transform the social relationships between different categories of actors (training designers, social partners, researchers, public servants, OPCA professionals) and ultimately allow for more democracy in access to training. Three working principles have contributed to the establishment of this democratic ‘way of life’: working in uncertainty, that is, co-constructing without prejudging the results; deliberating and leaving significant room for manoeuvre and autonomy to the actors involved; acting by dealing with the complexity of reality and by creating an environment which is favourable to collective learning and allows each person to move away from those routine professional patterns.

2.1. Conducting an experiment while dealing with uncertainty

Naming this approach ‘experiment’ rather than ‘project’ is not a neutral choice. Inspired by Dewey’s pragmatism, the experimentation described differs from the model of ‘experimentation controlled by random assignment (or randomised), which has been adopted by economical and sociological research programmes in France during the public policy reforms’ (Serverin and Gomel, 2012 p. 128). It is neither a question of evaluating the effectiveness of a pre-existing system to decide whether it should be generalised on a larger scale; nor is it a question of comparing a test group benefiting from the system with a control group that does not; nor is it a question of simply mobilising researchers, calling them upon a political request, for them to follow precise and prescriptive instructions concerning the method to be used, often inspired in the experimental sciences. This type of controlled experimentation is in every way opposed to the uncertain experimentation conducted here to implement AFEST in the vocational training landscape.

More properly, in Joseph’s words about the city, it refers to a ‘community of explorers, dealing with problematic situations in the laboratory of public affairs’ (Cefaï and Joseph, 2002: 10). Rather, it invites ‘a wandering of thought’ aimed at producing knowledge about an unknown phenomenon, with the aim of inventing and designing a way of training that is both effective in terms of learning and compliant with the law. The promoters of the approach therefore did not seek to ‘methodically and progressively structure a future reality’ (AFITEP, 1989). They did not start from a previously identified problem to construct a solution, but sought to identify a misunderstanding, an ‘undetermined situation’, in order to explore its causes and transform it into ‘a determined situation’ (Dewey). The work carried out in these different instances is a matter of trial and error, experimentation, research, and for these reasons is similar to the process of enquiry described by Dewey (1993 [1938]): a ‘procedure’ at the end of which a ‘communitý of investigators’ succeeds in resolving a ‘problematic situation’ with which it is confronted. Contrary to experimentation by assignment, or even to project logics, the fact that each instance is set to work without assurance of results and assuming the uncertainty, like any researcher facing a new subject, breaks with the belief of the undivided power of expertise. In this case, the experiment mobilised a large number of actors, including civil servants, initiators and promoters of this approach, who committed themselves to this work without any assurance of the results obtained. Uncertainty has opened up the space for a quest for collective understanding, facilitating the circulation of knowledge and the sharing of experiences. In so doing, it has reduced the distances between technical and political instances, bringing each of them face to face with new questions and thus contributing to a transformation of social relations. The fact that the pedagogical aspect was not dissociated from or prioritised over the socio-economic and legal issues —which were more familiar to public and joint bodies— thus introduced a break with the usually more segmented and compartmentalised ways of acting. The professionals from the OPCAs, who had previously been ‘at the end of the line’ implementing public policies found themselves at the centre of the debates and on an equal footing with researchers and State representatives in this work process.

2.2. Debate and deliberation without seeking an alignment of positions

In concrete, the working methods implemented were based on action-research. Developed by psycho-sociologists, and in particular Lewin (Ulmann et al. 2017), this working method aims to ‘lead social actors to rethink their actions and enable them to assess the changes they desire, by means of a better understanding of the intricate registers that interfere and are subject to ignorance or confusion, and also by elaborating on experience and conflicts, resituated in the context of their appearance and examined through the methods used to deal with professional realities’ (Giust-Desprairies, 2005).

Consistent with the principle of experimentation developed here, this working method contributed to the break with top-down, pre-planned functioning, from a procedural and temporal point of view. The deliberative dynamic, based on the model of ‘disputatio, i.e., the regulated organisation and instruction of a technical dossier in which points of view diverge and arguments must be put forward to convince’ (Clot, 2014, p. 12), was not immediately appropriate for OPCAs, as they were used to operating in an environment that is both competitive and prescribed. This deliberative work, desired by the promoters of the approach, presupposes a certain commitment, a risk-taking, which is not only resolved by authorising the work to be done but also presupposes the establishment of subjective and organisational conditions to enable this debate.

The proposed framework promoted the confidence needed for the expected creative work. It provided guarantees, in particular legal immunity ensuring that OPCAs could not be charged a posteriori by the State’s control services for funding that did not comply with the regulatory framework. This guarantee was an essential prerequisite for establishing confidence and considering new or renewed ways of training. It thus made it possible to turn the unthinkable into something thinkable, and then the thinkable into something feasible, containing the self-censorship mechanisms generated by the fear of being sanctioned for departing from the established order.

Encouraging debate and the confrontation of ideas requires giving those least equipped for argumentative work the resources to argue without running the risk of being excluded by those more experienced in this exercise. From this point of view, the framework established was ‘enabling’ (Fernagu Oudet, 2012) by making resources in terms of expertise and support available to the OPCAs. Workshops offering various types of input (reading a response to a call for tenders, monitoring the work of a consultant, reflexivity, etc.) were proposed, with no obligation to participate, but allowing each person to find the answers they were lacking without necessarily exposing themselves by asking for help. These available resources allowed for the expression of doubts, misunderstandings, and methodological, technical or conceptual gaps. Through these diverse contributions, the experiment opened up a new space where exchanges on the work allowed each person to construct his or her own point of view, without necessarily conforming to a homogeneous discourse.

In addition to installing this secure and empowering work environment, the awareness of contributing to a meaningful project was also a determining factor in the investment and commitment of all the people involved. The OPCOs are committed to the development of people who, thanks to training, will be able to access what is known as ‘a second chance’. Thinking about training for the most disadvantaged has constituted a kind of ‘driving imagination’ —even if it is still partly ‘deceptive’ (Enriquez, 1983)— which links these different operators and introduces commonality and cooperation, without however stifling rivalries or differences in approach. Even if their conceptions and uses of training differ, the sense of commitment to this experiment has sustained their mobilisation.

The presentations of the AFEST experiments were therefore the subject of numerous exchanges ‘on an equal footing’ (Ogien, 2015) between the participants, in order to collectively identify the complexities but also the hitherto unimaginable caveats to consider with such training methods. These local training experiences, which were collectively debated, made it possible to compare and capitalise on new practices that gradually revealed a new relationship with training. For example, training is no longer seen as a time reserved solely for the acquisition of knowledge but takes greater account of the organisation into which it must be inserted. These changes, which gradually became commonplace, even though they were initially unthinkable, did not happen suddenly. They are the result of debates in which ‘randomness’ and ‘subjectivity’ were not considered ‘as a pollution of reasoning but as crucial variables to be included’ (Midler, 1996, p. 53). Each person’s points of view had their place in the debates conducted during these experiments and changed other individual positions, not only those of the OPCA professionals but also those of the approach supervisors and supporters, the State entities, and the scientific committee. These times of exchange are therefore more than ‘spaces for rational debate’, reduced to a mere moderation technique: they become, as such, ‘places of experimentation and innovation that are diffracted on multiple environments (political, judicial, regulatory, scientific) and in multiple situations (test measurement, testimonies, disputes, controversies, trials). Logics of rationality and legitimacy are adopted therein […] and public cultures emerge on which future political activities can be based’ (Cefaï and Joseph, 2002, p. 10).

2.3. Acknowledging the complexity of reality and loosening time constraints

The last lever we consider to have acted on the transformations produced by this experiment is that of working without any desire for illusory simplification, taking note of the complexity of reality. Working with and on reality has often proved to be a delicate matter, both with the OPCAs and with the technical and scientific committee.

The principle of on-the-job training consubstantially entails a continuous and close dialogue with work. This engineering that involves evaluating the formative potential of work situations (Mayen and Lainé, 2019) –which are by nature far from being learning situations– leads to the discovery that work, as it is done, is not reduced to the activities and skills listed in the reference systems. This understanding of the complexities leads to an awareness of the obsolete or unsuitable nature of the tools which undermine the previous representations, particularly those of the OPCAs, as to the ingredients that define well-designed training. This return to the reality of the work activity, which appears more complex than initially expected, can constitute a real test that requires support to overcome it.

Taking note of reality was not easier for the technical and scientific committee, particularly with regard to the choice made by the State entities to involve the OPCAs in this experimentation. OPCAs are key players in vocational training, judging the eligibility of training actions for financial support and ensuring their effectiveness. In addition to their collection and redistribution functions, they also have a responsibility for ‘quality’ and have been strongly encouraged in recent years to consolidate their role of providing local support to VSEs and SMEs. A shift in their core business from a predominantly managerial and administrative role to that of a ‘service provider’ has taken place in the course of successive reforms. However, these legislative prerogatives are not enough to make the measures effective and various studies have highlighted their educational shortcomings relative lack of knowledge about VSEs and SMEs (Bentabet and Théry, 2005).

This observation could have led to this experimentation being carried out without including these intermediaries, whose expertise did not lie in the fields of pedagogy and work analysis. It would, for example, have been possible to directly solicit employer-trainer pairs willing to commit to the approach, which would probably have been quicker and simpler. This hypothesis, far from being a mere possibility, was the subject of (sometimes heated) debate within the technical and scientific committee. Some would have preferred to favour a more rapid implementation of the work process, ignoring, as it were, the reality of this organisation and its actors, in order to design, off the ground, a prototypical system, no doubt very relevant, but not anchored in this professional environment. Based on the principle that transformation is achieved more by supporting the actors and mediating than by excluding them (Schwartz, 1997), it was decided to maintain the OPCAs as essential partners. This choice made it possible to take advantage of their expertise, particularly in the formal aspects of a training action, while acknowledging the need to support them in increasing their skills in terms of pedagogy and knowledge about VSEs and SMEs.

This deliberate decision to favour the integration, support and accompaniment of the OPCAs, designated as project designers and coordinators in the companies, and, consequently, to postpone the transition to action, which could have produced results more quickly, breaks with the habit of a planned coordination and a relative time scheduling. It was a decisive component in the conduct of this experiment that enabled a real transformation to take place: all the actors, field workers, researchers, and promoters of the approach were able to grasp the complexity of the situations in order to debate, confront each other, and progressively construct the outlines of the object that mobilised them: on-the-job training. To this end, time was not considered as ‘natural factor but a strategic variable’ (Midler, 1996, p. 94), in contrast to the principle of immediate effectiveness, which focuses more on the results than on the developing process.

This deliberate and constant attention to the process made it possible to double the initial work on on-the-job training with a second learning space, a sort of AFEST within the AFEST, where action and reflection on action were interwoven throughout the process for all participants: OPCAs, government entities, experts, and researchers. The learning and reflective virtues of the approach required a long time. The latter, which emerges as an essential lever of democratic work, enabled the various actors called upon not simply to be ‘project leaders’, subservient to an injunction from the administration, but rather to constitute themselves as ‘experimenters of forms of democratic life or, to put it in “pragmatic” terms, political investigators’ (Laugier, 2018, p. 4).

Conclusion

This experiment ended with the constitution of a body of knowledge materialised in the final analysis report, both on the design engineering and deployment of an AFEST and on the effects —even the indirect ones— of this type of action not only on the beneficiaries but also, more broadly, on the actors of the company and the modes of work organisation. This material was collected for the normative production on behalf of the DGEFP in the context of the drafting of the 2018 law and enabled the AFEST to be registered in the legal order, authorising and promoting type of approach in socio-productive configurations where professionals have little access to training. Although the legal and regulatory framework has now been established, can we consider this to be the end of the story? Has this experimentation on AFEST only concerned this formative modality? Is it not a question of a more ambitious programme that seeks to institutionalise new forms of discussion and participation based on ‘a transformation of the mechanisms for distributing knowledge, circulating information, stimulating innovations, and making decisions, as well as their legitimisation systems?’ (Cefaï and Joseph, 2002, p. 7).

Experimentation has established virtuous principles of action, in the sense that it has contributed to the recognition of essential actors who are nonetheless frequently excluded from decision-making processes and reduced to the execution of procedures. However, it is far from having exhausted the subject, and other issues could be discussed: evaluation, changes for trainers, management, transformations in work organisations, etc.

The question then arises as to how such an approach can be extended. The transition from experimentation to development on a larger scale can be envisaged in two ways. The first will consider this transition as an industrial process that reproduces a prototype: it will acknowledge the end of the experimentation and avoid these wanderings of thought to quickly produce other AFESTs, in conformity with the newly enacted regulatory standards. The second will see this deployment as a continuation of the experimentation: it will mobilise actors, set up arenas for deliberation, and bring out controversies and dilemmas in order to initiate the search for new solutions without limiting itself to analytical practices —by definition, partial and localised—, as carried out during the national experimentation. In the first case, the experiment ends, and with it, an open conception of politics in which the individuals concerned by the problem contribute ‘on equal footing to bringing about a satisfactory solution’ (Dewey). In the second case, the experiment becomes a more continuous operation, where everyone can ‘make their voice be heard outside the institutionalised processes of deliberation, emerge from invisibility, reappear in the public space thanks to new mechanisms of participation, foster proximity in social relations and in daily life [and] participate in [a] genuine process of production of democracy’ (Laugier and Ogien, 2014 p. 46).

The current deployment of AFESTs therefore raises questions about the fragility of the processes that enable the establishment of democracy at work. If, in some places, the experimentation is trying to continue posing new questions, in others, we see a return to less open and dynamic forms that seek to replicate and instrumentalise the achievements of the experiment at the risk of sclerotising them and, in so doing, draining them of their substance.

Bibliography

AFITEP, 1989, Vocabulaire de gestion de projet, Afnor.

Bentabet B. et Théry M., 2005, Les organismes paritaires collecteurs agréés acteurs du changement des comportements des petites entreprises, Marseille, Céreq.

Cefaï D. et Joseph I., 2002, L’Héritage du pragmatisme. Conflits d’urbanité et épreuves de civisme. La tour d’Aigues, Éditions de l’Aube.

Clot Y., 2014, “Économie et sens. Réhabiliter la dispute professionnelle”, Le Journal de l’école de Paris du management, n° 105, 9-16.

Dewey J., 1993 (1938), Logique : la théorie de l’enquête, Paris, PUF.

Enriquez E., 1983, Les jeux du pouvoir et du désir dans l’entreprise. Sociologie clinique, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer.

Fernagu Oudet S., 2012, “Concevoir des environnements de travail capacitants : l’exemple d’un réseau réciproque d’échanges des savoirs”, Formation emploi, n° 119, 7-27.

Giust-Desprairies F., 2005, “Éléments pour un repérage de la spécificité de l’intervention psychosociologique” [En ligne], 4 p. Texte accessible sur www.arianesud.com

Laugier S., 2018, “La démocratie comme enquête et comme forme de vie”, Multitudes, n° 71, 157-166.

Laugier S. et Ogien A., 2014, Le Principe démocratie. Enquêtes sur les nouvelles formes du politique, Paris, La Découverte.

Mayen P. et Lainé A., 2014, Apprendre à travailler avec le vivant. Développement durable et didactique professionnelle, Dijon, Raison et Passions.

Midler, C., 1996, L’auto qui n’existait pas. Management de projets et transformation de l’entreprise. Paris, Inter Éditions.

Ogien A., 2015, “La démocratie comme revendication et comme forme de vie”, Raisons Politiques, n° 57, 31-47.

Pastré P., 2011, La didactique professionnelle. Approche anthropologique du développement chez les adultes. Paris, PUF.

Schwartz B., 1997, Moderniser sans exclure, Paris, La Découverte.

Serverin E. et Gomel B., 2012, “L’expérimentation des politiques publiques dans tous ses états”. Informations sociales, n° 174, 128-137.

Teulier R. et Lorino P. (dir.), 2005, Entre connaissances et organisation : l’activité collective, Paris, La Découverte.

Ulmann A.-L., Weill-Fassina, A. et Benchekroun T. H., 2017, Intervenir. Histoires, recherches, pratiques, Toulouse, Octarès.

---