Search results

Action learning is a term that is used with a wide range of meanings: from an equivalent term for experiential learning to a philosophy of learning. This chapter takes the latter position and focuses on action learning as a scholarly activity. The chapter has two main sections. In the first part the breadth and depth of action learning is introduced: its variations and applications are discussed. The second part explores how action learning is at the cutting edge of engaging practitioners in real change and at the development of scholar–practitioners and actionable knowledge of how organizations change, how it offers a modality of an action-oriented approach to inquiry that accords with contemporary paradigms of useful and relevant research, its contribution to organization and management theory comes through how critical action learning engages with issues of power and social relations and through its critique of management education.

The invitation in this chapter is to see or remember¹ what can be gained and achieved by turning our attention from a style of thinking and speaking that focuses on the “truth about things” and shifting it to a recognition of the contribution of our own cultural practices in how things come-to-be what they seem. We are invited to look at human social processes and the relationships of how things in the world get caught up in these, historical or current but always active, processes and in so doing create meaning.The point here is to arrest or interrupt the spontaneous, unself-conscious flow of our ongoing activity, and to give “prominence to distinctions which our ordinary forms of language easily make us overlook.” ( Wittgenstein, 2001, p. 43 )We are invited to indulge a little less in the apparent “nature of things” and instead give a little more attention to the practices that make things happen and the relations between their inter-actors. Rather than having the relationship between “a directly perceiving mind and reality” as our primary focus we are looking afresh at those social processes that attribute characteristics to its actors and “cause us to hold beliefs.” We might call this “relational practicing.”² I assume that the proper study of interaction is not the individual and his [sic] psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of different persons mutually present to one another….. …Not, then, men [sic] and their moments. Rather moments and their men. ( Goffman, 1982, p. 2 )Goffman richly points out the variety of ordinary, everyday ways in which people participate in social encounters and how they conduct the minutia of constitutive relational practices. Goffman spent a lifetime illuminating the relevance of the almost hidden inter-participant grammar in cooperative performance of coordinated meaning and structure and also had much to say about the practical relationships between the actors and those prevailing enacted structures.

Choosing or designing learning events involving groups should ideally mean adopting an approach which is consistent with the values and principles of leadership that the event is intended to promote. These principles should be reflected in the design of the learning event, its structure, processes and the social and political culture it helps to generate. This idea has its foundation in the development of group work involving more participative designs and which value experience as a basis of learning.

This chapter looks at applications of groups to development which take account of more recent ideas of leadership and ways these ideas can be reflected in the structure and methods comprising their design. This chapter also addresses some of the practicalities of leadership development, the role of the facilitator or consultant, frameworks for making sense of group processes and opens up the topic of evaluation. How do we know that our particular group-based approach to leadership development works?

Purpose – This chapter argues that “Partnership Learning to learn” across different disciplinary and professional boundaries is integral to good practice and is necessary in order to promote and to support multidisciplinary practice and education.

Design/Methodology – The chapter draws upon empirical data collected as part of a research project based at Liverpool Hope University (United Kingdom) and previous work undertaken by the authors.

Findings – This chapter explores the models of leadership associated with good or promising collaboration. It suggests that this is likely to include an explicit understanding of the rationale, its role, and purpose; that debate and opposition are encouraged; and that space and time are created to facilitate structured conversations. Finally, a model of engaging with collaborative inquiry needs to be systematically developed.

Research implications – The chapter argues that this model offers insights into how good teacher education and professional development across different settings and disciplines can be promoted. In this chapter, the authors argue that working across boundaries is defined as involving academics, teachers, “experts,” and students.

Practical implications – The chapter suggests that this model of collaborative inquiry and practice has significant implications for how we might model our approach to professional and practitioner education and learning across different professional settings and boundaries.

Originality – The chapter draws upon existing and ongoing development work that has implications for holistic change within organizations.