Search results

A fundamental assumption within action learning is that learning only occurs through participation, reflection and action. Revans maintains that individuals will fail to understand the “how” of an experience until they have experienced it for themselves, i.e. “learned by doing”. The purpose of this paper is to postulate that Revans’ second phase of action learning, the reflection phase can, in situations where participation is not possible, be enhanced through reflective vicarious learning (RVL) or learning from the behaviour of others.

This paper adopts a desk research approach review of the literature.

The authors maintain that Revans’ concept of “learning by doing” in the context of the goldfish bowl exercise can enhance an individual’s insight through RVL or learning from the behaviour of others.

The paper is limited in some respects as it focusses on the viewpoint of the author coupled with the literature. Future research could explore participant voices to add an extra dimension to the work.

In terms of utility for others, this paper is useful for developing an understanding of the differing learning opportunities that RVL and action learning combined can offer. As such, it has meaning for action learning facilitators, set members, academics and educational consultants.

This papers originality is that it seeks to enhance Revans’ proposition by illustrating how RVL in the second phase of action learning can enhance an individual’s learning in situations where participation is not possible.

The purpose of this paper is to respond to calls for research into the use of action learning in management education (Hay, 2011). It reports on student experiences of action learning in a final year module for part time Master of Business Administration students. It focuses specifically on the development of an understanding of the interpersonal relationships that existed within those action learning sets; both positive and negative. The paper then discusses the subsequent impact those dynamics may have on the effectiveness of the action learning process.

An interpretivist philosophy underpins the research framework adopted in this paper. Data were captured by means of semi-structured questionnaires distributed at both the beginning and end of the module. The data were thematically analysed using open coding.

The paper used two contrasting views of the interpersonal relationships in action learning sets: Revans’ (1982) “comrades in adversity” and Vince's (2004) “adversaries in commonality” as a framework for discussion. It found that various interpersonal dynamics existed within the sets, which in this case, had the ability to influence individual satisfaction and the overall effectiveness of the set.

The findings provide insights, via participant voice, into aspects of interpersonal relationships within action learning sets. In particular, the politics and emotions that occur within the learning sets, whilst considering the subsequent impact on both participant satisfaction and the effectiveness of action learning sets.