The Concept of the Co-Present Group

  • Paul HagerEmail author
  • David Beckett
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)


This chapter (Six) begins Part II, the heart of the book, which introduces participation in small groups as a significant human phenomenon, one that is central to complexity thinking (set out in Chap.  7). Conversely, as Chap.  8 then shows, complexity thinking expounds and illuminates the characteristic potency of small groups, which we call ‘co-present groups’. It is the task of this chapter (Six) to establish the notion of the co-present group. First, four examples of familiar groups (identified in Chap.  1) are given greater significance here. These small groups show how a ‘sense of place’ transcends (although also includes) geography: juries, sub-schools, a mother and baby, and a string quartet are locatable in places, primarily geographically, but their distinctive identities as groups emerge over time in what we may call ‘stretched places’ of intensive intimacy as well as of extensive significance. A jury is embedded in a legal system that persists over generations, if not centuries; a sub-school persists over several years of students’ and teachers’ engagement; a maternal bond lasts a lifetime, and a string quartet (both the entity and the performances it gives) contributes to musical history. Second, these commonalities lead us into the significance of particular underpinning features of what we now call ‘co-present groups’—their holism, their focus on affect, and their locus in ‘place-in-time’. Third, we define the concept of the ‘co-present group’: the sharing of relationally holistic and social activities, particularly affective functioning, in distinctive places. Finally, we present three ‘real-life’ narratives where vivid accounts of personal workplace experiences show how ‘co-present groups’ have progressed this ‘holistic relationality’.


  1. Aristotle. (1941 version). Nicomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  2. Beckett, D. (2001). Workplace learning as postmodernist enactment: A model from dementia. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(1), 141–160. Scholar
  3. Beckett, D. (2012). Of maestros and muscles: Expertise and practices at work. In D. Aspin & J. Chapman (Eds.), Second international handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 113–127). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckett, D., & Hager, P. (2018). A complexity thinking take on thinking in the university. In S. Bengsten & R. Barnett (Eds.), The thinking University (pp. 137–153). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bower, M., & Gallagher, S. (2013). Bodily affects as prenoetic elements in enactive perception. Phenomenology and Mind, 4(1), 78–93).Google Scholar
  6. Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, plans and practical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1989). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works: 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 2–294). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press (Original work published 1949).Google Scholar
  8. Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E. A., & Cavedon, L. (2000). Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS–2000) (pp. 111–118). Boston, MA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  9. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Scholar
  10. Frost, I. (2016). How can wine tasting be best learned, best taught? Unpublished postgraduate research project, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  11. Gallagher, S., & Bower, M. (2014). Making enactivism even more embodied. AVANT, 5(2), 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garrison, J. (1999). John Dewey’s theory of practical reasoning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31(3), 291–312. Scholar
  13. Glanville, R. (1900). A translation of Glanville (J. Beames, Trans.). Washington DC: J. Byrne. (Original work published ca. 1190).Google Scholar
  14. Hager, P., & Johnsson, M. (2012). Collective learning practice. In P. Hager, A. Lee, & A. Reich (Eds.), Practice, learning and change: Practice theory perspectives on professional learning (pp. 249–265). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heidegger, M. (1972). What is called thinking? (J. Glenn Gray & F. Wieck, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row (Original work published 1954).Google Scholar
  16. Hely, S. (2016, August 5). Steve Hely—30 Rock scribe, Melbourne Writers Festival guest—spills the beans. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
  17. Kant, I. (1929). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: Macmillan (Original work published 1787).Google Scholar
  18. Lancaster, J. (2012). The complex systems of practice. In P. Hager, A. Lee, & A. Reich (Eds.), Practice, learning and change: Practice theory perspectives on professional learning (pp. 119–131). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malpas, J. (2015). Place and singularity. In J. Malpas (Ed.), The intelligence of place: Topographies and poetics (pp. 65–92). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  20. Malpas, J. (2017). Thinking topographically: Place, space, and geography. Accessed June 22, 2017.
  21. Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., & Lamersdorf, W. (2005, September 11–13). A goal deliberation strategy for BDI agent systems. In MATES 2005: Proceedings of the Third German Conference on Multiagent System Technologies (pp. 82–93). Koblenz, Germany.Google Scholar
  22. Rovelli, C. (2014). Seven brief lessons on physics. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  23. Simpson, J. (Director). (2014). The devil’s brood [Television series episode]. In C. Granlund (Executive producer), The Plantagenets. London: BBC Television.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang, Y. (2016). The world is your home: Permanently temporary. Unpublished postgraduate research project, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations