Intentions and Interpretations of Action Learning by biipmi Pte Ltd

INTENTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF ACTION LEARNING

Ramaswamy Nithya Masters of Arts in Lifelong Learning Aug 2011

Institute of Education University of London

This dissertation may not be made available to the general public for borrowing, photocopying or consultation without the prior consent of the author. Word Count: 21,981 words

To cite this Article: Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning', biipmi Journal Online, 2013.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Acknowledgements I owe my gratitude to all those individuals who have made this dissertation possible, and because of whom I will cherish this post graduate experience close to my heart.

My deepest appreciation is to my supervisor, Professor Paul Morris, for his guidance in helping me complete this dissertation successfully. I am blessed to have a supervisor who encouraged me to explore my interest, whilst making insightful comments throughout this period, which enabled me to structure and scope this dissertation. I am extremely grateful to him for the considerable amount of time and effort he has spent with me to listen to my concerns, provide constructive advice, and make countless revisions along the way.

I would like to thank action learning experts Dr David Botham, Dr Verna Willis, Dr Yury Boshyk, Dr Michael Marquardt and Dr Victoria Marsick, all of whom shared their honest views and thought-provoking insights on the topic, strengthening the analysis and conclusions of this dissertation. I am ever grateful to Dr Botham, who despite being ill during the period of my research, constantly encouraged me with his rich wisdom on the subject and was extremely helpful in extending to me rare and unpublished sources from the Revans Institute. I owe my appreciation to Dr Willis, who spent considerable time chatting with me, offering her insights generously with such humility and grace. I am also indebted to Dr Boshyk, who helped a great deal in starting me off, providing the right direction and connections to steer my research, without whom, many of the connections and interviews established along the way would not have been possible.

I am also grateful for the support of the CAN organisation in Delhi, in particular, Ms Seema Baquer and her associates, Ms Anjali Sharma and Ms Malancha Tandon for providing me with action learning project reports, and inviting me to their homes to share with me their experiences involving action learning. Special ~ ii ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

thanks to Seema for her generosity and time in painstakingly sieving through boxes of working papers and extending to me rare working papers written by her late father Professor Ali Baquer, with Revans, all of which helped strengthen the analysis of this study.

I would like to acknowledge the staff of SIM University, Singapore for their insights on the topic, and on their perspectives of the action learning program undertaken at the university. In particular, I would like to thank Dr Teng Su Ching for her support in allowing me to analyse the program offered at the university as part of this study. I am also grateful to Mr Alex Chow and Mr Yeo Beng Teck who, because of their passion for action learning, were always willing to share their perspectives and ask great questions to enrich my ideas.

My appreciation extends to the staff at Institute of Adult Learning, in particular Ms Gog Soon Joo for her continuous support and encouragement throughout the program. In addition, I would like to thank my classmates who acted as sounding boards, to discuss ideas, and served as motivators at every step of the way.

Most importantly, this dissertation would not have been possible, without the love and support from my family. My heartfelt appreciation to my husband, Amol, who stayed up late nights with me whilst I wrote this dissertation, listening and engaging in thoughtful discussions based on my thoughts. My appreciation to my parents, Ramaswamy and Jayalakshmi who showed their concern and support throughout my study. Last but not least, I dedicate this dissertation to my three-year old daughter, Isha, whose patience, love and endearing care has encouraged me and kept me going all this while.

~ iii ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Abstract

A variety of forms of action learning (hereafter abbreviated as AL) are growing in significance, as a leading workplace learning approach in organisations worldwide. In this dissertation, I study the intentions and interpretations of AL, as developed by its founder, Dr Reginald Revans. The dissertation consists of four main sections. Initially, I attempt to explain the relevance of AL within the broader context of lifelong learning, leading to an understanding of the significance of AL as a learning method for adult learners. I go on to probe into the meaning of AL to determine its distinctiveness, by investigating its origins and history, as well as to seek out the learning principles that form the concept of AL.

Then, I examine the way in which AL has evolved or regressed,

stemming from different schools of thought within the AL community. Interviews with AL experts, rare sources of Revansâ&#x20AC;&#x; unpublished work, and a case study application of traditional AL serve to support my analysis. Finally, this dissertation narrows in on the AL model adopted in the Singapore context by examining an AL program in a local university. An examination of the nature of AL leads me to conclude that its eclectic nature allows it to be shaped according to the larger context of lifelong learning in which it is applied. In the case of Singapore, this has resulted in a form of AL characterised by a high degree of structure, procedures and taught instruction, least like the AL approach conceived by Revans.

~ iv ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Table of Contents

TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………..i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………..........ii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………..........iv TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….........v CHAPTER 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………............1 1.1 Research Questions……………………………………………………………..3 1.2 Structure of Dissertation………………………………………………………...3 CHAPTER 2 Significance of Action Learning………………………………………………....5 2.1 Growing Recognition of Lifelong Learning…………………………………....7 2.2 Reconceptualisation of Theory and Practice…………………………………10 2.3 The Knowledge Economy and the Changing Practice of Research.………13 2.4 Relevance of Action Learning as an Ethos for Lifelong Learning……….....17 CHAPTER 3 History and Origins of Action Learning…………………………………..........19 3.1 History and Conception of Action Learning..................................................23 3.2 Definition of Action Learning……………………………………………………30 3.3 Key Tenets of Action Learning…………………………………………………33 3.4 Applications of Action Learning……………………...………………………...49 CHAPTER 4 The Many Faces of Action Learning…………………………………..…………54

~v~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

4.1 World Institute of Action Learning (WIAL) Model………….…………………58 4.2 Action Reflection Learning (ARL) Model…………………….........................62 4.3 Business Driven Action Learning (BDAL) Model.……………..………….….65 4.4 Continuum of Action Learning………..………………………………………...68 CHAPTER 5 Action Learning in Singapore……………………………………………...….....71 5.1 Action Learning and Singapore‟s Lifelong Education Context……….…..…74 5.2 Conclusion of Study…………………………………………….…..…..…........81 REFERENCES………………………………………………….……………………86 APPENDICES Appendix 1……………………………………………….…………………..……….94 Appendix 2…………………………………………………………………..………..96 Appendix 3………………………………………………………….………….…….108 Appendix 4……………………………………………………………..………….…117 Appendix 5……………………………………………………………..….…………119 Appendix 6………………………………………………………………….…..……128 Appendix 7……………………………………………………………………….......130 Appendix 8……………………………………………………………………..….…131 Appendix 9……………………………………………………………….…………..139 Appendix 10…………………………………………………………………….…....152 Appendix 11…………………………………………………………..…….………..159 Appendix 12……………………………………………………………………….....161

~ vi ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Chapter 1

Introduction

If one looks up the term, “Action Learning” on the internet, the numerous varied descriptions displayed would only serve to befuddle the reader. Revans (1982,p.103) who is viewed as the founder of AL remarked, “Since it is less structured, like space and time themselves, it is available to all persons and may be all things to all people.” The multiple meanings of AL, or rather, a lack of one definition has led to the concept being associated with many labels such as problem-based learning, reflective learning, action research or even experiential outdoor learning.

The skeptic would ponder if such a concept is attempting to encompass everything yet nothing, because the range of meaning and application may be so broad, yet there seems to be nothing original about it. Willis(2004,p.12), highlights that even amongst the AL community “we are more than a little like the blind men describing an elephant. What we „see‟ is what we are closest to. Clearly we do not share a common mental picture of action learning, and we have uneven experience in examining Revans‟ theoretical positions.”

Yet, despite the many “faces” of AL, or rather because of its varied applications and ability to be combined with other approaches, the concept “is gaining popularity as a way to improve performance, promote learning, and position

Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

~1~

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

organisations to adapt better in turbulent times,”(Dilworth, 1998,p.28). As lifelong learning implies a continuous relationship with education, occurring in both formal and informal settings, there is an increasing emphasis on workplace learning. Burns(2002,p.44) aptly describes the organisational trend as a shift in emphasis

from

recurrent

education,

where

learning

takes

place

“discontinuous learning phases set between periods of work” to lifelong learning, where learning is “said to be continuous and embedded formally and informally in work and other activities.” AL fits in well with this notion of making learning a way of life, towards seamless workplace learning and learning through dealing with the actual organisational complexities.

In Singapore, numerous organisations have applied action AL as a way to “solve complex problems, develop leaders, build teams and expand corporate capability,”(WIALS,2011). For example, the Singapore Police Force has applied AL to develop its leaders, and the Ministry of Education has used AL as a collaborative approach for teachers to enhance student learning,(WIALS,2011). There is also an innate desire by organisations to reduce the dependency of learners on external training programs and instead, encouraging them to be selfdirected to drive their own learning.

As an AL facilitator in a Singapore-based university, I hold a genuine interest to study the intentions and interpretations of AL, to understand the concept in its entirety, including its key tenets. The university‟s AL program is a popular elective taken by more than four thousand students till date. It would also be ~2~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

inappropriate to be facilitating a topic that carries the label of AL, but in fact bears little resemblance to the approach. Moreover, as the university is currently reviewing its AL program, I believe that the findings from this study will prove useful in providing recommendations to the course re-development.

1.1

Research Questions

The significance and growth of AL as a way to learn effectively, despite its varied applications, forms the basis of my research. In this dissertation, I attempt to answer three research questions. First, I ask what exactly is AL? Second, I ask why and how has AL evolved or regressed into several variations, based upon issues of contention amongst the AL community? Finally, I ask, what is the â&#x20AC;&#x153;faceâ&#x20AC;? of AL in Singapore, and what are the reasons for its popularity? I argue that the model of AL predominant in Singapore has become especially popular because of its fit with the developmentalist nature of the state.

1.2

Structure of Dissertation

I have adopted the following structure for my dissertation. Whilst Chapter One provides the introduction to this dissertation, Chapter Two discusses the relevance and significance of AL to adult learners, recognising that lifelong learning extends well beyond formal education. Chapter Three explores the origins and meaning of AL, as well as its underlying principles. Chapter Four analyses why and how AL has evolved or regressed into various models, based ~3~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

on the issues of contention in interpreting and applying the concept, leading to the conclusion that the vague yet flexible concept of AL lends itself to a larger lifelong learning context. Chapter Five narrows in on the AL model adopted in Singapore, and discusses its relevance to the developmentalist state.

Given that this study entails a conceptual analysis of the intentions and interpretations of AL, the conventional format of beginning with a literature review, and proceeding on with an empirical study would not be suitable. Rather, qualitative sources of data such as rare, unpublished sources on AL and unstructured interview responses from AL experts are interwoven into the chapters to support my analysis and conclusions. The dissertation concludes by revisiting the main issues discussed and examining potential areas for future research.

~4~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Chapter 2

Significance of Action Learning “The conviction of the Working Party was, and has been, that the appropriate people to restructure the services and to improve thereby the care of the clients and patients are those who work in these services. It was, therefore, resolved at the outset that the study should be done by the providers of services within the system. The Working Party believed that the very exercise of systematically evaluating a service by those running it will lead to overall improvements. The methodology developed during this project aimed at drawing on the ideas and skills of those in the field. At all stages of the development of this project the direction of research remained in the hands of the group of providers of services from the selected areas and representing all professions involved in the care of the mentally handicapped. This method transformed research into a „learning by doing‟ exercise for all those at the „cutting edge‟ of the service,” (Baquer,1972,p.1).

The above quotation from the working party, led by Dr Reginald Revans, for the AL project on the King Edward‟s Hospital Fund, London, is reflective of the nature of the concept and significance of AL as it stands today. The changing nature of the role of a professional implicit in the above quote goes beyond exercising expert knowledge to being able to coordinate a broad range of services and to manage the interests of multiple stakeholders in the service chain. The quotation implies that frontline professionals themselves are in the best position to be researchers of their own practice, to recognise gaps and make improvements, rather than reliance on experts brought in from outside of the system. ~5~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

The idea of professionals as masters and learners, capable of themselves making changes to improve the services was recognised early on by Revans when he conceptualised the term, “action learning,” in 1972. However, academics and consultants may have seen their contribution as essential to building up the expertise of the professionals within an organisation. As such, AL can be viewed as “controversial, especially because of its championing of the ideas of practitioners or action learners over those of experts and teachers,”(Pedler et al.,2005,p.49).

Whilst there is much to be examined about the interpretations of AL, it is important to recognise that AL is according to Adams, “widely respected as a powerful

approach

with

objectives

such

leadership

development,

organisational change, team building, problem-solving, raising self-efficacy, and building competitive advantage,” (Adams in Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010b,p.119). As much as it seems impossible to achieve all of these objectives with one learning approach, AL nevertheless has gained significant ground in the workplace and other informal contexts of learning which are central to the discourse of „lifelong learning‟. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the larger context of lifelong learning, which leads to AL gaining ground as a relevant and practical learning approach.

~6~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

2.1

Growing Recognition of Lifelong Learning

According to the „Learning To Be‟ UNESCO report (Faure 1972, cited in Boshier, 1998), lifelong learning is based upon three concepts, namely vertical integration, horizontal integration and democratisation of education systems. Vertical integration refers to an individual‟s lifespan, where learning occurs throughout life, from cradle to grave. Horizontal integration refers to life-wide learning which enriches the spread of learning, by bringing the complementarity of formal, nonformal and informal learning into sharper focus (Commission of the European Communities,2000). Democratisation refers to the removal of barriers that impede access to education, with a greater emphasis on information seeking and learning how to learn, through the creation of a learning society, where learners take charge of the learning process (Boshier,1998).

The Delors report provides yet another perspective of the definition of Lifelong Learning. The concept is defined according to 4 pillars: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be (Burns,2002). In other words, lifelong learning according to Delors, is seen as one that:

“meets the challenges posed by a rapidly changing world. This is not a new insight, since previous reports on education have emphasised the need for people to keep learning in order to deal with new situations arising in their personal and working lives. The need is still felt and is even becoming stronger. The only way of satisfying it is for each individual to learn how to learn,” (Delors in Kumar,2004,p.560).

~7~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Another fundamental definition suggested by Jarvis is that lifelong learning is an intrinsic part of the process of living, as the:

“combination of processes throughout a lifetime whereby the whole person – body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions, beliefs and senses) – experiences social situations, the perceived content of which is transformed cognitively, emotively or practically (or through any combination) and integrated into the individual person‟s biography resulting in a continually changing (or more experienced) person,” Jarvis(2006,p.134).

There are two commonalities across the above definitions in understanding how human beings learn, that have direct implications on the growth of AL. Firstly, the idea of learning how to learn implies the prevalence of “non-taught” learning that extends well beyond formal classroom education to all aspects of life, encouraging

learners

self-directed,(Jarvis,2007,p.141).

Revans‟

recognition of the need for learners to be in charge of their own learning was apparent in his account of the AL project for the UK health and social services, in which he reflected that “in order to learn, whether leaders or not, persons must wish to learn, for they learn only of their own volition, and not at the will of others,”(Baquer and Revans,1973,p.15).

Similarly, Knowles emphasises that

adults learn by drawing from their rich experiences, indicating that “The learner is self-directed but has a conditioned expectation to be dependent and to be taught,”(Knowles in Mumford,2006,p.71).

Secondly, the emphasis on life-wide learning indicates that learning is seen as a social and adaptive process, in that human beings are continuously learning ~8~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

from and with each other in various communities they are a part of, and much of that learning occurs through being presented with novel and somewhat complex situations which lead to a state of “disjuncture” that is seen to be “a necessary condition

for

learning

occur,(Jarvis,2007,p.139).

Revans

(n.d.a,p.2)

recognised that “learning is a social process and those in the exercise learn with and from each other”. For example, using AL in the UK Health Services led to an emphasis on learning as “a wider understanding by the individual of the needs of the handicapped (patient), of his own role, and of the roles of others in fulfilling those needs and, above all, of his responsible involvement with others in the provision of services,(Baquer and Revans,1973,p.21).

When Revans(n.d.d,p.4) wrote, “Action Learning, as it is known in 1984, derives from a recommendation in 1945 to set up an expert-less mining college, where those with real and current troubles would be encouraged to learn with and from each other,” it is apparent that the various elements of lifelong learning such as non-taught, self-driven learners, life-wide, social and adaptive process, disjuncture, which are valued by organisations, are inherent in the AL process. As such, it is clear that the nature of AL is well aligned with the notion of lifelong learning. It is therefore not surprising as to why the concept of AL has been so well received by organisations, as both an ethos and a pedagogy that complements formal learning and embraces lifelong learning in its entirety.

~9~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

2.2

Reconceptualisation of Theory and Practice

The prominence of lifelong learning, and consequently AL, arises from the rapid rate of changes in the environment, which is a result of the increasing economic interdependence on globalisation, the knowledge-based economy and new ways of doing business through “borderless” organisations. Revans(1979,p.2) asserted that “If conditions are changing more rapidly than the organism can learn (or adapt), it will fail; it may even die, or cease to exist,” leading him to conclude that “when learning is as fast as, or faster than change, the organism survives and is likely to grow.” In other words, a pragmatic approach needs to be adopted towards how human beings learn, and the learning ought to be applicable in a variety of situations we encounter.

Jarvis(2007,p.106) supports Revans‟ view that the rate of change in the environment results in human beings “being forced to learn, informally and almost incidentally, in order to live,” and stresses the frequent occurrence of incidental learning, “in which we can no longer take the present for granted, one in which we are frequently confronted with disjunctural situations which cause us to adapt our thinking, change our approach and so on.” Therefore, the realisation of the extent of learning occurring in practice situations, beyond theoretical constructs taught in educational institutions, has led to the reconceptualisation of theory and practice, with AL emerging as the “handmaiden” of lifelong learning.

~ 10 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

The rapid pace of change has also led to the enlargement of the role of professionals. The concept of a T-shaped professional has emerged. For example, the role of a medical doctor has evolved from that of a skilled expert possessing professional medical knowledge, to that of a “collaborative and civic profession” in which he/she is expected to go beyond expert knowledge to possessing broad-based skills such as teamwork, communication, project management and supervisory abilities,(Adler et al.,2007,p.366). Increasingly, professionals are expected to work as part of a larger service chain, having to play a dual role of a professional and a manager, in which coordination of services to the end user ought to be managed.

In addition, the multiplicity of demands imposed on professionals by stakeholders has led to a widening gap between the body of knowledge and the unprecedented expectations of society. For example, teachers today are expected to do a whole lot more than teaching, such as handling administrative matters, counseling students and managing parents‟ expectations. Not only are these tasks complex, but they are often conflicting in values, depending on whose interests they serve. Schon(1983,p.17) refers to these dilemmas as “professional pluralism” where multiple images of the profession have emerged due to a heightened “awareness of uncertainty, complexity, instability, uniqueness and value conflict.” Therefore, professionals are expected to “trial and error” possible solutions and to respond intuitively,(Revans,1979,p.3).

~ 11 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

With the increasing need to intuitively respond in practical situations, the relevance of „practical wisdom‟ of reading and addressing the situation appropriately is a valuable skill that organisations seek, (Jarvis,2007). Revans dismissed traditionalist taught methods that dominated the education systems and emphasised the need for a more pragmatic approach, where “reality is the best teacher and that all, whether professor, manager, school boy, must sit together at its feet” and that in order to “understand anything whatsoever, one must know a little about the conditions in which it first came into existence,” (Revans,n.d.d,p.6). Higher education institutions as well as vocational training centres are recognising the relevance of situational learning and emphasising more on practical application based on workplace challenges.

Whilst educators are adopting a more practice-oriented approach, the role of the professionals has been enlarged such that they are expected to “become fieldwork teachers, coaches, mentors and assessors (Schon in Jarvis, 2007,p.132).”

As early as the 1940s, Revans, through his observations of

workers in the coal mines, realised the need for them to serve as teachers and learners of each other by sharing their current operational challenges, leading him to recommend a program for mutual exchange of learning. His idea of AL was inspired by his observations that “all the learning came, not from outside experts, but from the reinterpretation of the graffiti already scrawled by decades of experience across the cortical slates,” where experienced miners themselves were far more capable of running the mines than outside experts,(Revans, n.d.d,p.3). ~ 12 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

The reconceptualisation of theory and practice has led us to consider new ways of learning, beyond behaviourist and cognitive learning methods to learning from practical situations, including workplace learning (Jarvis, 2007). AL is a process that is well aligned with this pragmatic approach, emphasising learning by doing. Such a concept, although criticised in the 1970s and 1980s because of professionals‟ perception that technical expertise was far more important than practical experience,(Schon,1983), is now being regarded as “some of the most interesting and promising innovations in management learning,”(Canadian Centre for Management Development in Dilworth,1998,p.28). AL is also thought to be the most impactful leadership development approach in some US organisations, recognising that “the fastest and most lasting learning is produced when people are engaged in finding real solutions to real problems,”(Warren Bennis in Giber, Carter and Goldsmith,2000). The concept is also gaining popularity in Asian countries such as Japan, China, India, Malaysia and Singapore.

2.3

The Knowledge Economy and the Changing Practice of Research

The rigidity or fluidity of the structure of an organisation affects its ability to readily absorb, diffuse and cross-fertilise knowledge across functional areas when required. Organisations increasingly compete based on their ability to adapt to changes and to synergise the collective pool of talent to respond to real and urgent issues. Ford in Istance et al.(2002,p.117) asserts that “action learning is becoming a central focus of the emerging work organisations and ~ 13 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

workplaces” and that “action learning, team learning, organisational learning, and cross-cultural learning are becoming critical concepts in the design of appropriate workplaces,” in the knowledge-based economy.

Drawing on the collective talents of an organisation to learn and respond as effectively as possible in the shortest time, requires organisations to move away from a traditional hierarchy structure to adopting structures that are suitable to that of a “learning organisation” as shown in Figure One. Organisational restructuring would mean breaking down reporting structures and bureaucracy, and moving towards interconnected, boundaryless work areas that promote collaborative learning.

Figure One: Restructuring of organisations, towards a “learning” organisation (Ford in Istance, Schuetze, and Schuller, 2002 p.118).

~ 14 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Revans(1998,p.83) explained the significance of AL by highlighting the symbiosis of work and learning when he said “There can be no learning without action and no action without learning”, with his views relating back to the notion of a “learning organisation. In such a “learning organisation”, work would be seen as synonymous to learning, and one cannot happen without the other. In other words, adults tend to be “life-centred, task-centred (or problem-centred) in their orientation to learning,”(Knowles in Dilworth and Willis, 2003, p.26).

Relating to the rate of change in the knowledge economy, is the changing nature of research undertaken to improve practice. As with a pragmatic approach adopted towards learning, a similar stance is being sought for conducting research. Jarvis(2007,p.172) questions the validity of traditional research methods, as “first, that by the time they are published, they are often already history, and, second, that the situation they report may probably have changed as well.” New ways of doing research have emerged such as action research and practitioner research, “which cannot have external validity because it recognises that all situations are unique and changing rapidly,” and instead “are validated by the fact that they fulfill their claims in the practice situation,”(Jarvis, 2007,p.174).

AL, although not as rigourous as traditional research methods, can be seen to be similar to action research and practitioner research in the way that it seeks to improve work practices through solving real complex problems. However, as Revans argues, it is not to be confused with being a research method per se, ~ 15 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

but rather a way of learning to review current ways of doing things so as to address gaps or suggest improvements. The AL process was often referred to by Revans as “participatory research” in which “the major departure from the scholastic method has been in placing the responsibility for research decisions on the providers of the service” and that “improvement in a system is most effectively produced when all those with responsibility for taking action in the system are involved in an examination of it,”(Baquer and Revans, 1973,p.23). Therefore, the AL process reflects the practical realities of how organisations carry out research today.

Most of our industries exist as “services”, where coordination across multistakeholder representatives becomes essential. Reviewing current ways of doing things is an ongoing continuous effort by practitioners as part of their jobs and increasingly not viewed as a separate activity. Moreover, services in which “there is a highly specialized human input” such as health care, hospitality, finance or education, need continuous review to provide personalised services and continuous support to every client, as “each client is different, with specific needs,”(Coghill and Stewart, 1998, p.13).

Reflecting on the application of AL to enhance the coordination of services for the mentally handicapped, Revans highlighted that the changing practice of research demanded that “providers themselves suggest questions which they would like to answer, in order to understand better the coordination of their services,”(Revans,1975,p.153). Making stakeholders own the process resulted ~ 16 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

in them “asking critical questions rather than merely answering the questions formulated

others,”

compared

traditionalist

professionals

whose

“expectations for an authoritarian research design for long maintained its inhibiting influence upon their learning, (Revans,1975,p.153).” Therefore, whilst noting that the model of employing consultants or outside experts has thrived, it is worth recognising that the long history and success of service providers themselves improving upon their practices within organisations such as in the National Health Service, are very relevant to the workplaces of today.

2.4

Relevance of Action Learning as an Ethos for Lifelong Learning

It can be seen that the concept of AL “is extremely compatible with the emphasis on organisational learning, creating learning organisations, continuous learning, and lifelong learning,”(Dilworth and Willis,2003,p.31). Dilworth(1998,p.37) asserts that the pragmatic approach of AL dovetails well with the “spontaneity and speed of adaptation,” in which the organisations of today operate.

Increasingly, more universities worldwide are incorporating AL to collaboratively discuss and resolve business challenges.

According to Dilworth and

Willis(2003), one of the significant developments is the advent of corporate universities, which is likely to increase the prevalence of AL in educational institutions. As summarised succinctly by Meister in Dilworth and Willis (2003, p.30):

~ 17 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

“Today the venue is most likely to be the workplace, and rather than learning the five or seven steps to creative thinking, managers are now involved in action learning and computer simulations where they examine business strategies and recommend real-time solutions. Action learning is “training” that takes the form of an actual business problem for teams of learners to solve together.”

Given the increasing emphasis on lifelong learning beyond formal learning, the reconceptualisation of theory and practice, and the changing nature of research in today‟s knowledge economy, AL as a pragmatic approach to learning is gaining significance worldwide, both in organisations as well as educational institutions. However, much of what exactly defines AL, what learning theories it derives from and what makes it distinctive as a learning approach are unclear. The concept has often been modified to varied interpretations and applications that exist today. For example, Marsick(1999) draws attention to a conference in which AL was showcased as a myriad of things, including coaching, projects, role plays and outward-bound experiences. Even amongst the AL community, significant variations in interpretations exist. Therefore, discovering the essence of AL, is the main focus of the next chapter.

~ 18 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Chapter 3

History and Origins of Action Learning “I asked my father much later in life what he felt he had gained from having to help conduct the report upon this dreadful (Titanic) disaster; his reply was that it had emphasised to him the difference between cleverness and wisdom. Every single detail of the design of the liner, including its watertight bulkheads to make it „unsinkable‟, was of the highest standards; the conduct during the maiden voyage of every responsible officer was all that could be expected. What was wrong was that nobody paused to ask whether all these separate perfections would cope with conditions that had not yet been fully encountered. This turned out to be an iceberg of a peculiar shape; in trying to avoid it the vessel was slit from stem to stern by underwater ice that could not be seen. My father identified the difference as mainly that the wise, as distinct from the clever, remind themselves that there may be important questions still to be asked that had so far not crossed anybody‟s conscious mind. It is this need for being doubtful about one‟s own qualification and ability to deal with the here and now that is the essence of Action Learning,”(Revans,n.d.c,p.1).

The above unpublished reflections from Revans describing AL as a way to learn from one‟s own ignorance is one of the many attempts by him throughout his lifetime to have us understand its meaning. However, a grave difficulty in researching AL has been a lack of a single definition of it. Attempts to research its meaning are further complicated by the various sources from which AL draws its inspiration from, out of which, “most are not unique to action learning” and are instead drawn out of other theories such as “adult learning theory, management science, psychology, behavioural and laboratory science, anthropology, systems ~ 19 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

theory, and cybernetics in evidence, to name only a few,”(Dilworth and Willis, 2003, p.10).

Revans himself “resisted the temptation to define action learning or prescribe restrictive parameters,”(Boshyk and Dilworth,2010a,p.43), choosing to regard it as a concept rather than a specific technique. He deliberately stated what AL was not, and eschewed any one definition, “holding the focus on the philosophy of action learning rather than on its practice,” (Pedler in Simpson and Bourner,1997,p.175) whilst discouraging its use to a rudimentary, highly prescribed technique, that would significantly curtail experimentation and learning. As highlighted by (Dilworth and Willis,2003, p.2), “Action learning, in the end, is as natural as living life itself, and the power of action learning is in understanding some of the basics that bring it about.”

In investigating AL, it is useful to establish at the onset that AL be regarded as an “ethos, a set of abstract principles not attached to any particular form of implementation” rather than as a specific teaching or learning “method, with some defined and describable processes,”(Pedler et al.,2005,p.58). Thinking of AL as a philosophy of learning or a way to learn effectively would motivate the researcher to understand the intention of the approach, without prematurely dismissing it as another management fad. Additionally, whilst it is clear that many of the characteristics of AL may not be unique, and may be borrowed from other learning theories, it is parochial to assume that AL is simply a concoction of other theories. Perhaps, what is distinctive about the concept of AL is the way ~ 20 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

in which the combination of various learning theories and paradigms come together

into

“collective

mosaic”

form

effective

learning

approach,(Dilworth and Willis,2003,p.15).

Given the vast and varied literature on AL, a conceptual analysis will be useful for

“systematically

collecting,

analyzing

and

making

inferences

from

messages,”(North et al in Wilkinson and Birmingham,2003,p.68). This is especially true for AL, as it is necessary to distil the intentions and interpretations of the approach that may be implicit rather than explicitly stated. As highlighted by Plunkett(2010,p.2), a conceptual analysis goes beyond “a semantic debate about what falls under the labels “concept” and/or “conceptual analysis”” to researching on “claims about conceptual content that are distinguished from substantive claims about the extensions of those concepts.” Therefore a conceptual analysis of the intentions and interpretations of AL would involve understanding its original meaning and purpose, and distinguishing it from other labels that claim to be AL but are derived from other approaches.

In this Chapter, I seek to answer the first research question on what exactly AL is. Answering this question requires drawing on four main sources of information. I draw on a wide-ranging literature review on AL. Additionally, a considerable amount of insight is drawn from unpublished sources of documents on AL written by Revans himself, officially obtained from Dr David Botham of the

~ 21 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Revans Institute in the University of Manchester1. These rare documents shed light on Revans‟ reflections on AL, which help to clarify its intentions, key tenets and distinctiveness as a learning approach.

Beyond published and unpublished data sources, I supplement my analysis through interview responses from two AL experts, Dr David Botham and Dr Verna Willis who knew Revans personally. The nature of the interviews adopted an unstructured and free-flowing manner to allow participants to feel comfortable and speak their mind. The list of questions in Appendix One, include prompter questions that serve to guide the discussion, but were not applied in a prescriptive or sequential manner. Respecting the idea of “verstehen” means allowing participants to set their own pace in directing the flow of the conversation, (Johnson and Chistensen,2004). Therefore, questions were asked beyond those listed to seek specific details. Whilst the detailed transcribed responses from the two interviews are at Appendices Two and Three, selected responses were inserted into the respective sections of this chapter.

A fourth source of information is the insights through unstructured interviews with social workers who have been involved in traditional AL projects for a nonprofit organisation called Concerned Action Now(CAN) founded in 1982 by Ali Bacquer in New Delhi, India. Bacquer, a close friend of Revans, established CAN on the premise of AL to use it as a technique of social research to promote 1

Permission was granted by Dr David Botham, to use original papers written by Reginald Revans. These were given to me during the interview with Dr Botham on 3rd March 2011 at the University of Manchester. ~ 22 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

education in disability services. The reason for selection of this organisation, is because of its close application of traditional AL as intended by Revans, and the difficulty of identifying such an application of AL in Singapore. As described by Baquer(2003,p.18), “CAN was, and remains today, an expression of my personal tribute to Reginald W Revans and what he stood for by preaching and practicing the tenets of Action Learning.” The list of questions attached at Appendix Four served to guide the discussion. Selected responses from the interviewees were inserted into relevant sections, whilst the transcribed responses are at Appendix Five.

This chapter seeks to address the meaning and distinctiveness of AL and begins with investigating the history and conception of AL, as conceived by Revans. Definitions representative of AL are examined, followed by a detailed analysis of its key tenets. Finally, applications of traditional AL are investigated, by looking at natural applications at the CAN organisation.

3.1

History and Conception of Action Learning

The understanding of AL can be achieved by studying the history of Revans‟ life as it is often said that “The philosophy is the man,”(Revans,1982,p.16) and “if we are to understand the man at all, it is through his lifelong deeds. They provide

abundant

clues

(about

action

learning),”(Boshyk

and

Dilworth,2010a,p.43). It is the intent of this section to highlight the significant events and inspirations in Revans‟ life, which led to the conceptualization of AL. ~ 23 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Revans acknowledged that the essentials of AL were stirred up through his own life experiences, the most notable one being of the learning from his father, a naval architect, involved in the Titanic Disaster inquiry. His father had reminded of the need, no matter how much of an expert each one of us was, to always be “doubtful about one‟s own qualifications,” (Revans,n.d.c,p.1) by going beyond cleverness towards asking discriminatory questions, as “the essence of wisdom is an intelligent concern for what one cannot see in one‟s troubles, not the spectacular elaboration of what is already evident – if only to the expert,” (Revans,1978,p.123). Revans believed that AL helped to cultivate wisdom, through the process of inquiry to seek out ignorance.

Upon obtaining his doctorate at the age of 23 years, in 1930, Revans worked as a research fellow at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, under the supervision of Ernest Rutherford. He recalled that at that time the Cavendish had eleven Noble Prize winners and was probably the “greatest concentration of intellectual ability on human record,”(Revans,1972). However, he was more intrigued that despite the immense expert knowledge, the climate was such that colleagues would ask questions with the intent to learn from one another, “without trying to impress upon each other on how clever they were,”(Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010a,p.62).

One such occasion arose when the British government had stopped offering the Cavendish a research grant, and Rutherford gathered his team to strategise how to move forward. Revans (n.d.c,p.2) recalls this incident as “one of the events in ~ 24 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

the development of action learning” as “it was not prefabricated solutions that Rutherford was asking for; he saw the limitations of the expert.” What struck Revans was not so much the impressive analytical suggestions, but the humility to put aside one‟s expertise and ask “silly questions” without being afraid to,(Revans, n.d.c,p.3). Towards the end of the discussion, Rutherford stated, “What‟s impressed me for the past four hours is my own bloody ignorance; what does yours look like to you yourselves?”(Revans,1972). It was these values of honesty and humility that he wanted learners to espouse through the AL approach.

Following the aftermath of the great depression, Revans was deeply inspired by Cambridge economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes words were essential to the philosophy of AL, as:

“a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits - a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities,”(Keynes in Revans,n.d.c,p.4).

Through repeated sources of inspiration such as that of his father, Rutherford and Keynes, Revans came to believe that because the nature of human learning always involves elements of the “personal, the intuitive and the subjective,” it can be then assumed that learning itself “is by its very nature incomplete,” echoing the significance of lifelong learning, (Revans,n.d.c,p.4). ~ 25 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Revans‟ view that, ”physics was moving in the direction of developing weapons of mass destruction,” led him to change his career from that of a physicist to an educator at the management faculty, University of Manchester.(Dilworth and Willis,2003,p.8). During this period, he was actively involved with the National Health Service, in examining the causes for such high attrition amongst the nursing cadets. He discovered that those who resigned were often from hospitals which discouraged them from discussing their daily hardships. The recognition of the “hospital as a human system” reinforced the need for comrades to come together in challenging times as it was “only through the exchanges of fear, anxiety, stress, and even resentment of those in authority, that they could retain their confidence in themselves,”(Revans, n.d.c,p.5). Revans‟ experience led him to conceptualise the term “comrades in adversity” as a necessary condition of the AL process, where learners would most learn from the mutuality of their concerns, resulting in greater awareness “about their tasks, about themselves, about their workers and their colleagues and their bosses,” (Revans, n.d.c,p.5).

Revans was tasked in the 1940s to develop an education plan for the British coal mines by way of observation of what went on underground and understanding the job responsibilities of the mining managers. It was during this period that he decided to “develop his philosophy of and theoretical premises for action learning,”(Dilworth and Willis,2003,p.8). The power of mutual learning in a shared context of disjuncture, in which miners got together to discuss every day ~ 26 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

problems relating to the management of the coal mines, led him to conclude that “the ultimate power of a successful general staff lies not in the brilliance of its individual

members,

but

the

cross

fertilisation

its

collective

abilities,”(Revans,n.d.c,p.6).

Revans went on to investigate the relationship between the situation faced by comrades in adversity and the size of the group (Revans,n.d.c,p.7), leading him to believe that, ““If these (exchanges) are small and close, ideas are soon exchanged; if big and scattered, suggestions may be misdirected and confused.” His observations revealed that there was an optimal size for learning amongst “comrades in adversity” to occur, as the size of the group was directly related to the overall morale of the group, which in turn impacted the extent towards which the group overcame the problem.

Revans suggested creating opportunities for dialogues around everyday challenges amongst the miners. Such recommendations were representative of the AL process, although no formal name was accorded to the process then. One such recommendation was to set up an expertless mining college where fellow

miners

will

learn

and

teach

each

other,(Revans,n.d.d).

His

recommendation was viewed as “too radical and a more traditional college was provided,”(Revans,n.d.d,p.2).

However, his push for learning amongst miners was realised in 1952, when “a programme was launched out in the coalfields to encourage such mutual ~ 27 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

learning and the success of this led to other innovations in managerial exchange,” (Revans,n.d.d,p.4). The program took the form of informal workplace learning, and involved learning exchanges amongst small groups of coal miners of their everyday operational challenges. Whilst Revans‟ convictions on mutual learning at the workplace were conceived as early as the 1950s, it is worth noting that his ideas are not unlike later theories about learning such as social learning, informal learning and workplace learning.

In comparing the learning exchanges amongst the miners to AL, he asserted that “the words Revans Action Learning were nothing more than a rearrangement of Real Rings can Innovate,” in which “real” meant that the interactions were concerning actual, urgent problems that miners were facing, and “rings” referred to the local groups of coal miners within the collieries,(Revans, n.d.d,p.5). The successes of high productivity and morale, derived from miners being empowered to deal with challenges, led Revans in the 1960s and 1970s to apply the AL approach in several other notable projects, with a view to ascertain if “such „organicity‟ might be identified in totally different human systems altogether,”(Revans,n.d.d,p.3).

One such project was the Hospital Intercommunication Study in the 1960s involving small groups of staff from ten of London‟s largest hospitals, to discuss their operational challenges and learn from each other‟s experiences by visiting each other‟s work context. The recommendations that arose from this study, “led to a major drop in mortality rate in participating hospitals, shorter hospital stays, ~ 28 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

and vastly improved employee morale, reflected in a lower attrition rate,”(Dilworth and Willis, 2003,p.9).

Another significant project in the 1960s led by Revans, “involved a consortium of the five leading Belgian universities and major companies,” working in “teams of five senior corporate executives, each dealing with an unfamiliar problem of great complexity that was centered in an industry other than their own,” (Boshyk and Dilworth,2010a,p.286). The significant improvements that arose from the ten-year study were attributed to Revans‟ AL approach. The Operational Research Society in 1987 stated:

“Revans was the catalyst for a celebrated self-help project in which senior managers from very large Belgian firms worked together on each others‟ problems. This programme has been credited with some of the responsibility for Belgium‟s exceptional growth in industrial productivity during the 1970s-up to 102% in the decade to 1981, compared to Japan at 85% and Britain at 28%,” (ORS Newsletter in Revans,n.d.c,p.12).

The large-scale nature of the Belgium study raised awareness of AL amongst organisations worldwide. Revans was asked to describe this approach at several forums, and invited to pioneer similar projects using AL. In particular, many organisations and academics were inquisitive of its actual form and theoretical underpinnings. Revans was then instigated to formalise the approach using the term “action learning” in 1972, and to articulate the essence of the approach, in terms of its distinguishing characteristics.

~ 29 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

3.2

Definition of Action Learning

As purported by Pedler et al (2005,p.52), â&#x20AC;&#x153;A prime difficulty in researching action learning is the lack of an agreed definition,â&#x20AC;? leading to varied interpretations in the way AL is understood and applied. Whilst Revans made a deliberate attempt not to define AL, in the spirit of discouraging practitioners from using the concept in a prescribed manner, the lack of an agreed definition has inadvertently led to a broad variety of application. Some practitioners apply it as a broad framework for learning, whilst others use it in specificity, in the form of a defined learning method or a course, (Weinstein,1999).

It is worthwhile to restate that the term AL is to be regarded as an ethos rather than to assume a specificity to it (Pedler et al,2005). Botham opines that AL is a natural process in which we learn, and explains for the reason why some practitioners choose to treat it as a procedure instead of a process:

Botham: Reg(Revans)himself was quite stern in saying that once we have defined it, we have completely misunderstood it. Why did he say it? Well, I think that he said that because it is very difficult to define a process. A process is changing so quickly, so rapidly. You look at several different processes which we have to encounter as people, they are very difficult to predict. Take love for an example, as a process. How can we possibly define love? It means so much to different people in different ways, it is the heart of the human process. We all recognise it is necessary, we all experience it in different ways. We exude it, we take it in, we try to write about it, some people try and sing about it and so on. The opposite is a procedure. People have tried to make action learning a procedure, which is more prescriptive in thinking. But sometimes, we need a procedure to understand a process. For example, if you go into hospital for a severe health problem, the first ~ 30 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

thing the doctors and the nurses want to do is to control it because it's a process which could lead to the ultimate process of dying. So that is unacceptable and so they adopt procedures to arrest it. So I'm not saying we don't need procedures, we do, in order to exist and manage our lives. But we got to recognise the thing that we are dealing with is not a procedure, it is a process, sometimes within a process. I would call it much more processual, moving from one process to another one. Sometimes we think it's out of control, so therefore we find procedures to organise, control and manage it. (Botham,March 3,2011)

Willis agrees that AL is to be regarded as an ethos:

Willis: I mentioned ethos because I do think that action learning has distinguishing character, tone or guiding beliefs. I don‟t think its pedagogy. I do think it encompasses aspects of social learning theory, cognitive theory and certainly constructive theory because people in the action learning process are reconstructing reality. I have said that Action Learning is “the process of reflecting on one‟s work and beliefs in a supportive confrontational environment of one‟s peers for the purpose of gaining new insights and resolving real business and community problems in real time”. (Willis,March 25,2011)

It is also important to highlight the distinctive purpose of AL as highlighted by Malinen(2000,p.19), that from the evidence of applications of the approach, it was “intended as an approach to the resolution of management difficulties and management development-not as an educational instrument,” This distinction is necessary to avoid the approach from being criticised as having no original theoretical grounding for pedagogical purposes.

A concerted effort was made by Revans to meaningfully explain AL, in a project report for the UK Health service administration. AL was described as combining

~ 31 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

“the principles of learning and of problem-solving in an approach which both achieves results and develops people as individuals and team members,”(ALP International,1977,p.2). The report elaborated that learners in the process were:

“involved in solving a real problem fundamental to their ultimate concern, encouraged to define their own problems by using facts drawn from the conditions, obliged to take actions on the solutions proposed, concerned to learn by using their own skills, knowledge and experience and the skills, knowledge and experience of working colleagues, and willing to accept change in their own attitudes and work patterns and in the working of their organisation,” (ALP International,1977,p.3).

Revans made attempts to clarify what AL was not by distinguishing it from other approaches it was often confused with (Revans,n.d.a). Revans contrasted AL with professional consultancy and operational research, as these methods involved expert intervention. He dismissed AL as resembling a case study approach as the problems in AL were real challenges, not hypothetical situations. He distinguished AL from transactional analysis, counselling, project work and job rotations, as these approaches were often prescribed by senior management and learners‟ ownership of taking action were often curtailed.

Simpson and

Bourner(2007) built on Revans‟ attempts by distinguishing AL from more recent learning approaches such as coaching, action research, problem-based learning and experiential learning, with details of their work at Appendix Six. It is notable that whilst AL is influential mainly in adult or work-based contexts, concepts such as problem-based learning and experiential learning are more commonly used in school contexts.

~ 32 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Whilst Revans intended to reduce confusion by explaining what AL was not, contrasting AL with specific learning methods inadvertently created greater confusion by reducing the approach from an ethos to a method or technique. Contrasting the approach in specificity with other techniques, may have arguably also led to the variations in interpretations and applications that exist today.

3.3

Key Tenets of Action Learning

Willis summarises succinctly the key tenets of AL:

Willis: Non- expertise that‟s one, no facilitation that‟s two, small groups that‟s three, real issues and problems and real settings, and engagement. The most crucial of all is that we learn best with and from each other. Action learning hinges on the mutuality of our concerns and the mutuality of our efforts to address those concerns. It is a collective search for greater wisdom than any one of us possesses independently of the wisdom of others. It is very humbling, if we are doing it as Revans intended, and yet it is also very self-enhancing as we trust or rethink our own insights. (Willis,March 25,2011)

Revans was influenced by several people and theories, in conceiving these tenets, which are fundamental to our understanding of AL. I attempt to explain these in detail in this section.

~ 33 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

a. Small Group Size

In the 1950s, where experts believed in “the big pit and the big team trailing the big machine with the big target,” (Revans,n.d.d,p.2), Revans emphasised the positive effects of small groups. He believed that there was an optimal size for the group in which morale would be kept high, and beyond a certain number, morale would decline. If the group size was kept to about five members or so, only then could every member feel the spirit of “comrades in adversity” by feeling mutually responsible for resolving the problem at hand, and learning through “rich and frequent exchanges,”(Revans, n.d.c,p.7). Botham supports Revans‟ view on small group size:

Botham: Being a chemist, I understood about Benzene, and you know Benzene has this marvelous configuration of six carbons. As the human body is made up of mainly carbon, I looked at this to look at the optimal group size for action learning, and I used Benzene, because valency is shared amongst all those members. If you created a bigger ring, it collapses, it strains. (Botham,March 3,2011)

Moreover, the high morale and the quick cross-fertilisation of ideas in a small group would lead to quicker resolution of issues and offer a sense of protection to the group from overlooking major implementation challenges. Referring to the program launched in the coal mines for small groups of miners, Revans asserted that, “the ideas of the vitality of the small group, to improve morale and effectiveness alike, were the foundation of the first action learning programme of 1952,”(Revans,n.d.d,p.2).

~ 34 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Revans‟ recommendations were validated by several publications in the 1950s, “to the effect that small mines, or small groups of men in large mines, had relatively fewer accidents and disputes, as well as better attendance and lower costs,”(Revans,n.d.d,p.2). Revans‟ notion of a small group leading to high morale and performance gained greater acceptance with the success of the Quality Circles in Japan in the late 1950s, in which working in small groups led to high levels of productivity, and the publication of “Small is Beautiful” by his colleague in the National Coal Board, Dr E.F. Schumacher(1973) who elaborated on the effects of the size of the group on productivity and efficiency, (Revans, n.d.d).

Schumacher contended that as organisations grew in size and capability, there was an inherent need to form teams to “attain smallness within bigness” and to seek

“both

freedom

and

order,”

(Schumacher,1973,p.40).

Additionally,

Schumacher (1973) urged people to be flexible in altering the size of the group based on what was being taught. For example, he believed that theoretical instruction could occur in large classes, whilst other types of learning such as workplace learning through dealing with real problems would require a more close-knit group. Revans endorsed the views of Schumacher, and believed that personal exchanges of experience on real challenges was more often the medium in which adults at the workplace learnt, and therefore, the size of the group directly affected the effectiveness of these exchanges. Hence, the need for the size of the group to kept to five or so learners. ~ 35 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

b. Emphasis on Practical Knowledge over Theoretical Knowledge

Revans emphasised that managers learnt more often than not by being able to “reappraise and reorganise” their past experiences to adapt to new and changing circumstances presented to them, instead of purely on acquisition of theoretical knowledge,(Revans,n.d.a,p.5). He asserted that learning occurred not only as a result of programmed knowledge, which he described as “the systematic record of experience already lived and classified,” but also based on the “framing of fertile (useful, discriminating) questions in conditions of risk, uncertainty and confusion, evidently charged with guesswork (subjective judgment, recollected experience),”(Revans,1979,p.3).

It was this assertion which he described in a formula, “L (Learning) is a function of P (Programmed Knowledge) + Q (Questioning Insight)”, (Revans, 1982,p.14). The distinction between P and Q goes beyond merely reflecting on one‟s prior experience, as whilst experience involves a certain reliance on past judgment to intuitively respond to a given situation, it may lead to short-sightedness of practitioners missing out important current information (Raelin,2007). Therefore, Revans recognised the need for a certain level of professional mastery or wisdom in order to critically reflect on the situation at hand, and to situate the problem within the current context, by way of questioning. The process of Q as described

Revans

similar

Cunningham‟s

(Cunningham

Raelin,2007,p.503) description of experts‟ “wisdom-in-action”, emphasising the epistemology of practice over theory. ~ 36 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Moreover, as P was regarded by Revans as a “product of technical instruction” and was expected to be “acquired through the published syllabus of the teaching institution,” from the adult learner‟s prior learning, the focus of AL was predominantly on the Q part of the equation, as the answer to insightful questions could not be taught and had to be discussed “with a real change exercise, among real people in real time, and with a stable set of other Qlearners”, (Revans,1979, p.6). Botham validates that the need for a certain degree of theoretical knowledge is assumed, to participate in AL:

Botham: You absolutely need both P(theoretical knowledge) and Q (questioning). If you become a Q-ist, then there is no basis for the process. One needs to have a certain degree of acquired knowledge as he enters the process, and through action learning, the idea is to improve that knowledge from that which is implied, through questioning. And this means then that through Q, you build upon P. P is expansive, not fixed, and ought to increase to keep up with the pace of change. (Botham,March 3,2011)

Revans‟ emphasis on Q is comparable to Donald Schon‟s reflection-in-action, where one questions his/her own assumptions for any given situation, and by doing so, allows the problem to be re-framed,(Schon,1983). Although there is no indication of Revans acknowledging Jon Dewey‟s work, it is worthwhile to note that the emphasis on questioning over theoretical knowledge can be traced back to Dewey‟s cognitive constructivism, whereby Dewey distinguished the process of knowing through inquiry into solving actual problems, from knowledge that often stood apart in terms of its meaning and was disconnected from inquiry, (Boyles,2006). Knowledge was considered by Dewey as an ends rather than a means of solving a problem and to focus solely on knowledge gave ~ 37 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

way to an epistemology of practice that was incomplete. Therefore, AL which drives learning through inquiry, is not a new approach. However, Revans was able to frame the approach to managerial work contexts where intuitive thinking takes precedence over theory.

The learner‟s disposition as he/she participates in the AL process is adapted from that of a subject matter expert in his/her own field to that of an inquisitive “Q-learner”, learning through “the continuous exchange of advice, criticism and support” of fellow “Q-learners”,(Revans,1979). Raelin(2007,p.504) refers to this as the reconceptualisation of the “role of the master-teacher”, where the learner becomes more adaptable and open-minded, instead of being “transfixed to any one world view.” Since learners are expected to resolve their problems without reliance on external experts (Revans,1978), the process is akin to Dewey‟s epistemology of practice in which the learners are „knowers‟ who are “concretely and

dynamically

embedded

the

world”,

instead

passive

“spectators”,(Dewey in Boyles,p.8).

Weinstein (1999,p.34) highlights that :

“in a „classic‟ AL programme, there is no taught element. The programme centres on the combined expertise of the set members….And when it comes to knowing our own situations and circumstances, each of us is the expert on that.”

What perhaps could be seen as distinctive about AL is that it is non-expert led, and the precedence of questioning over one‟s expertise leads to learning. Both Botham and Willis stress the importance of the process being non-expert led: ~ 38 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Botham: Reg was very anti-facilitation. Here is where the big divide is amongst various ways in which action learning is practiced….. In this case, it is more learner-directed. In our case, I am facilitating this conversation and I am helping you, but the dynamic is you came all the way to ask me to help, and I was willing to help. So I was interested in what you were doing and you were interested in what I am doing, and this is a natural way of coming together to learn rather than me saying, “I am the expert here.” The most important thing is being humble enough to realise that I am here to learn. I remember Reg saying to me, “I will come to any action learning set as long as I am able learn from it.” He wanted to learn from the set, and he would sit there listening. He was a very wise man, and this is what action learning is about. (Botham,March 3,2011)

Willis: I think that, one of the things we have to realise is it is anti-expert in naturethat‟s one of the distinctive things about it. You know, he made very explicit comments about the extra effectiveness of being unfamiliar with the situation, unfamiliar with the discipline, and in unfamiliar settings…….Very much, action learning was for him (Revans) a democratisation process, laying your expertise outside the door as you walk in to the session. (Willis,March 25,2011)

c. Notion of Polarity

The notion of polarity brought about by conflicting ideas which help to restore balance and seek resolution, was conceived in the first half of the 19th century in Hegel‟s theory of the dialectic. Hegel‟s dialectic was described as the “process of change in which a concept or its realisation passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite,”(Raapana and Friedrich,2005).

Revans viewed AL as a dynamic approach to discuss issues in order to achieve stability amidst the chaos and uncertainty. Whilst academics may criticise the possibility of action preceding learning, Revans believed that one had to learn by ~ 39 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

“acting”, as individuals “learn only after they see the outcome of their own deliberated plans, implemented by themselves,” (Revans,1978,p.121). Revans‟ notion for managers to balance theoretical know-how with practical experience and spontaneous experimentation (Revans,n.d.c) has been elaborated by Schon‟s(1983,p.40) rigor/relevance dilemma, in which, “problems do not present themselves to professionals as givens,” and the metacognitive processes involved in making sense of everyday challenges often extend beyond the model of “technical rationality.”

The dialectic perspectives are apparent in the AL process, as highlighted by Lessem in Revans(1982,p.5). Finding the “right” answer to a workplace challenge involves a process of inquiry to understand and address a problem. Through the process of questioning, a dialogue results, which “emphasises the idea of a meaning that flows between people from which emerges a greater understanding - possibly even a shared meaning,” (Weinstein,1999,p.39). Revans believed in the representation of diverse roles in the set, such as policy makers and administrators, to obtain varying perspectives. In explaining AL, Revans also explored the relationship of the individual to the group, and believed that the learning of any one individual was tied to his/her willingness to learn with and from the others. Finally, learning through AL cultivates wisdom, through admittance and awareness of one‟s own ignorance.

AL bears some resemblance to action research as dialectic tensions of action and research or learning are experienced in both approaches. Just as ~ 40 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

researchers make use of the “here and now concrete experience” to “validate and test abstract concepts” in the Lewinian model of action research, managers in an AL set trial possible actions to problems based on their collective perspectives.

However, AL is, according to Botham, different from action

research:

Botham: Kurt Lewin was given the credit for action research, where he said if you really want to understand something, try to change it… It‟s true that action learning has to be designed so that it will change something, in order to learn from it. It‟s a bit like the Newtonian model, unless we have an action, we haven‟t got a reaction…. Where action learning and action research are different is this. What action learning requires is for the person or actor creating the action to look at himself/herself to say, “what has changed about me? What have I learned about myself which I didn‟t know before?” I am not so sure if Kurt Lewin asked this question, but Reg did. So I think action learning goes to another level, and I have certainly seen a lot of Phds in action learning where the researcher takes a different stance in the thesis, looked closely at themselves and demonstrated in their own way what they have learnt about the experience themselves. I have not seen that in an action research thesis, it‟s all about “that”, not me. “That” is about being outside, a bit like the epic and emic perspective. But this is worth looking at, I think. (Botham,March 3,2011)

d. Association with Scientific Method and General Systems Theory

Whilst AL bears some resemblance to experiential learning, in that both approaches stress “learning by doing”, the term experiential learning itself seems to be used as a catch-all phrase for various approaches. Therefore, to dismiss AL as just another label for experiential learning will be problematic as experiential learning is “used in many distinct and differing ways: sometimes it is ~ 41 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

understood as a large paradigm or framework of adult education, sometimes as one of many „techniques‟ of teaching adults,”(Criticos in Malinen, 2000,p.15). Therefore, whilst AL does involve drawing on one‟s previous experiences to understand the current situation, it is not possible to affirm that it is a akin to experiential learning per se, as there are “too many interpretations and priorities amongst the theorists and practitioners, that no single, clear definition of these foundations could be constructed,”(Malinen, 2000,p.15). This is not unlike the predicament of AL itself, and therefore attempting to associate the two only leads to greater confusion.

Furthermore, in all of Revans‟ work, there is no indication of him adapting AL from experiential learning, particularly Kolb‟s experiential learning cycle, which involves learning through four consecutive stages of experience, reflection, conceptualization and experimentation,(Kolb,1984). Instead, Revans attributed the AL process to the scientific method developed by Francis Bacon, consisting of a cycle involving five steps, namely, survey or observation, theory or hypothesis, test or experiment, evaluation and review, (Revans,n.d.b,p.2) that “is not a linear sequence.” Importantly, the step involving observation was not intended to be based on observations of external stimuli or changing situations alone,

but

“an

awareness”

examination

one‟s

own

values,(Revans,n.d.b,p.2a). This would mean that making observations involves an insight into one‟s own inner reflections, in addition to external changing circumstances, thereby involving both cognitive and social elements.

~ 42 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Botham and Willis claim that Revans dismissed the association of AL with Kolb‟s(1984) experiential learning cycle:

Botham: What Reg claimed was that Kolb really stole Reg‟s own ideas. Reg said there were not four stages of learning, there were five and they were nothing to do with the Kolb cycle. Reg was looking at the conventional scientific method that has been used for many years successfully. The method consists of survey, hypothesis, experiment, audit and review. He told me that when he visited MIT, that David Kolb was in the audience, and he was copying down Reg‟s points and so on. There was a professional misunderstanding going on between Reg and Kolb, and certainly those who have tried to influence the world with so called experiential learning have latched on to action learning. Some people have done studies where they have tried to say that the two are the same thing with a different label. My own view is they are not. If you take Revans‟ theories, one aspect of his approach involves evaluation. Experiential learning might or might not have an evaluative stance to it, but it‟s very clear in action learning that we want to ask ourselves, “Have we achieved what we wanted to do? How have we done that? If we haven‟t what can we do about that?” So action learning is at a different level completely by having the evaluative position under the review part of the process.(Botham,March 3,2011) Willis: I asked Revans about Kristina Weinstein‟s circular diagram that is very similar to Kolb, but he rejected it as the action learning process. What he thought was I think that it was too regular, too much of a train track with stops, you know, always going in one direction…..it doesn‟t spiral even. It‟s only a recurral circle that goes round and round. So then again, that goes back to systems thinking, that would not be an open system(unlike action learning). You couldn‟t get into it or out of it readily.(Willis,March 25,2011)

Additionally,

Dilworth

and

Willis(2003)

note

that

linked

with

Bertalanffy‟s(1969) general systems theory, in that the contribution of the group creates a synergy in which learners‟ collective contributions are much greater ~ 43 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

than each individual‟s contribution put together. Willis clarifies the importance of situating AL within the ambit of general systems theory:

Willis: But, what I think we need to do is to put this in the context of general systems theory, which is systemic in nature. It doesn‟t reject systematic procedural processes but it depends on the whole thesis of general systems theory, which is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So if you think general systems theory, then action learning can have parts of it that are systematic and procedural but the overall is what you call specifically a symbiosis…I have direct knowledge that Revans knew about general systems theory and its proponents in England when in 1996 I asked if he knew Sir Stanford Beer and Sir Geoffrey Vickers (who were both mainstream contributors to development of the systems paradigm)… He told me he knew both. Beer, an expert in cybernetics and Revans were both faculty members of the college of Manchester. Vickers was an attorney for the National Coal Board when Revans was analyzing productivity problems, working alongside the miners, and when he was proposing a “staff college” for mining workers. Walter Buckley, in his book explains general systems theory as a “metascience”, providing a “metalanguage” scientists of many disparate disciplines might use to discuss and understand the general “properties” of the units, systems and subsystems that might turn out to be “common” across all disciplines. It acknowledges that the theory is not exclusive to any single discipline or field of study…..It would take me a whole book to demonstrate to you, point by point, how I know Revans was familiar with general systems theory. I believe he saw how it would change the way people think about human systems in the future. (Willis,March 25,2011)

e. Mutuality of Learning with and from each Other

Revans stressed the social nature of learning in which managers learnt best under “community conditions: first, by an attack with real people upon real changes in real time; second, in the course of that attack; and third, by the reciprocal processes of offering these same Q-learners one‟s own advice, ~ 44 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

criticism and support in return,”(Revans,1979,p.3). The process also assumes that learners themselves, as practitioners, are in the best position to deal with the impending challenge rather than seeking help from external experts. Revans cautioned that whilst a set advisor may ease learners into the process of learning and problem-solving, such a set advisor is “neither a teacher nor a discussion leader,” but preferably “is a fellow from an earlier programme,” (Revans,1979,p.6).

Botham provides a clear example of the social learning process of AL applied amongst a group of political prisoners on Robben Island (Ramudzuli,n.d):

Botham: They were not allowed to communicate very often because the regime was harsh. They used to communicate by writing on a toilet tissue, just a sentence. They were all determined to learn something whilst they were there, and they decided to form their own university at Robben Island, so they came up with a suggestion and it was simplified as, “Each one, Teach one.” If you know something about a subject, it is your moral duty to teach other people what you know about it. So people who had been in politics or industry or whatever field they had been in, their expertise was passed on to other prisoners who knew nothing about it. So they educated themselves as a group of political prisoners…And the criminality stopped. They (the criminal prisoners) stopped attacking the political prisoners because the value and knowledge was more important than being told to attack them…... One of the books they managed to smuggle in was Reg‟s book on action learning, and that book had a great effect on these prisoners, learning from and with each other. And the whole idea of peace and reconciliation was born in Robben Island. (Botham,March 3,2011)

AL balances cognitive constructivist thinking, by way of appreciative inquiry and reflection, with an equal emphasis on social learning. This is important as an ~ 45 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

overemphasis on cognitive skills occurs at the expense of “emotional development” and it is “preoccupied with the aggressive, agentic and autonomous motives to the exclusion of the homonymous, libidinal and communal motives”,(Jones in Knowles,p.25). In AL, one extends his/her reflections to others, and is open to others‟ perspectives, rather than reflecting on one‟s own ideals alone.

Mutual learning with and from each other aids the discovery of one‟s own ignorance. As summarised by Revans in Weinstein(1999,p.34):

“in true action learning it is not what a man already knows and tells that sharpens the countenance of his friend, but what he does not know and what his friend does not know either. It is recognised ignorance, not programmed knowledge that is the key to action learning: men start to learn with and from each other only when they discover that no one knows the answer but all are obliged to find it.”

Discovery of one‟s own ignorance is similar to the disclosure model of selfawareness, known as the Johari Window, developed by Luft and Ingham(1955). The extent of shared awareness develops with the mutual exchanges of learning, leading to the discovery of unknown issues relating to the problem as well as revelations of learners‟ blind spots and facades.

Revans envisaged that learning occurred as a result of learners‟ interactions with three symbiotic systems, Systems Alpha, Beta and Gamma, during the AL process. Systems Alpha refers to problem diagnosis phase in which learners seek inquiry into the problem‟s occurrence. Systems Beta refers to the five-step ~ 46 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

problem-solving process based on Bacon‟s scientific method described above. Systems Gamma focuses on the learning that results from the process, and “insists that it is ultimately the quality of the interplay amongst and within the specific contexts, the set members, and the individual learner that inhibits or enables action learning,”(Dilworth and Willis,2003,p.55). The interdependence of the three systems described by Revans was inspired by the three levels of learning conceived by Bateson(Bowers,2010.p.24), who extended learning from “responding to a stimulus”(Level 1), to learning how to learn based on varied contexts(Level 2), to learning as a result of the relationships between human beings and their surroundings and the awareness of the interdependencies in human ecologies(Level 3). Botham affirms the influence of Bateson‟s levels of learning on Revans:

Botham:He(Revans) told me that he was influenced by a very powerful thinker in America, who was British, by the name of Gregory Bateson… You will find that when you look at Bateson‟s ideas, he was the first man to look at learning in orders of learning. He looked at the difference between trial and error learning and learning how to learn, which was abstract in his thinking. Revans met Bateson when he was in America and the two discussed on learning through questioning insight, and learning to learn by doing, and so on. (Botham,March 3,2011)

The significance of mutual learning in AL is also evident in Vygotsky‟s(1978) zone

proximal

development

(ZPD)

and Wenger‟s

communities of

practice(1998). Vygotsky‟s(1978,p.86) acceleration of learning as a result of a certain degree of handholding by the “competent other” who may be a teacher or more experienced learner, is similar to Revans‟ description, “in action learning, the expert becomes a learner in his own subject, sitting at the feet of his masters ~ 47 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

the

set-or

others

from

distant

parts

the

learning

community,”(Revans,1978,p.124).

Wenger‟s(1998,p.117) extension of communities of practice to encompass “peripheral forms of participation” in which there exists a “degree of permeability” in which learning opportunities can be created as a result of the interactions between intra-communities, as well as interactions between those inside and those outside of the community, is applicable to the process of AL. Revans anticipated the notion of peripheral participation when he clarified that AL is not restricted to the learners within a set alone, “since each of these (learners) will shape the views and draw out the experience of all with whom he works; there will be at least half a dozen in his field project and twice as many on the edges of it elsewhere in the organisation (even his own) with and from whom he will also learn,”(Revans,1978,p.121). For example, in the Belgium project, learning was multiplied such that “each fellow influences every other, so that ideas and experiences

each

percolate

into

other

enterprises

and

other

industries,”(Revans,1978,p.122).

In summary, AL is a non-expert led process, driven by learners themselves, that involves a balance between acting on real challenges and learning. The problem-solving process models Bacons‟ scientific method and involves a small group of learners whose diverse perspectives contribute to the collective wisdom of the group. Learning is achieved through the emphasis of Q over P, through discovery of one‟s own ignorance and through the mutual learning exchanges

~ 48 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

with and from each other. In the next section, I provide examples of how these tenets are applied in AL projects.

3.4

Applications of Action Learning

While Revans wrote extensively on the philosophy of AL, the specifics were intentionally avoided as he deliberately did not want AL to become a “syllabus” with a specific set of procedures to follow,(Revans,1979,p.6). However, with the growing interest in the application of the approach, Revans was pressured to prescribe the operational procedures for executing the AL process. It was Revans‟ belief that such procedures existed as paraphernalia, and it was more important to bear in mind the overarching tenets.

AL experts have attempted to distil out the common features of the process into a set of standards for future applications. For example, Pedler et al.(2005,p.58) devised the Revans „classical principles‟ (RCP) as a “construct, a shorthand for the consistencies in a reading of his (Revans) considerable writings over more than fifty years.” Similarly, Willis(2004,p.12) noted a total of twenty-three operational features, termed as Revans Gold Standards detailed at Appendix Seven, “against which all other ideas about and applications of action learning are to be compared.” It can be observed that the gold standards are in fact an articulation of the five tenets of AL, specifically detailed into operational terms to provide clarity on using the approach.

~ 49 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

In this section, I discuss two AL projects from the CAN organisation to demonstrate how the AL tenets are applied. These include “an AL project for creation of a day care centre for persons affected with leprosy,” (CAN,1998,p.1) and “an AL project on problems faced by blind and low vision children of middle school

learning

science,

mathematics

and

associated

subjects,”(CAN,2009,p.1). Interview responses by two social workers involved in these projects will be highlighted here to capture the essence of the approach.

Learning occurred in small groups under community conditions, on real issues by stakeholders themselves,(Revans,1979), emphasising practical knowledge over theory and a balance of problem-solving with learning:

Anjali: Action learning meant engaging with all groups of stakeholders – the PALS(persons affected with leprosy), their family members, the multi-disciplinary professionals who were involved in the treatment and care of the PALS such as the doctors and nurses, and the various non-governmental agencies that were involved in helping the PALS…We wanted to involve everyone, right from the disabled persons, that is persons affected with leprosy, their family members and the professionals who were involved with them in giving care on a daily basis.(Anjali,March 29,2011)

The impact of involving all stakeholders in the conceptualisation of a day care centre, valuable recommendations that would otherwise have been omitted, were identified. As a result, the idea of awareness of one‟s own ignorance through asking questions, was evident:

~ 50 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Anjali : We asked about the stigma of being associated with leprosy, in terms of reactions from the common men towards the disabilityâ&#x20AC;Ś..We also asked the PALS specific questions on what kind of facilities they would like to have at the day care centre and whether they would like to mix with persons with other disabilities. Interestingly, about 80% of the PALS indicated that they did not want to mix with other persons because of the stigma associated with it, and preferred to remain as an exclusive community. We would not have realised this if we had not observed what was going on at the communities, and speaking to them directly on their concerns and issues. (Anjali,March 29,2011)

Similarly in the project to facilitate the learning of blind or low vision children, contrary to the perception that these children could not cope, it was found that they enjoyed learning Mathematics and Science and were able to understand the concepts, but needed some assistance with specific topics such as geometry(CAN,2009). As such, it was recommended that tactile instruments and Braille be introduced to facilitate teaching rather than excluding children from these subjects altogether.

What was clear in both projects was that those affected by the problem themselves drove the process, reflecting the non-taught, non-expert led tenet of AL. In one of the projects, the process led to stakeholders realising the value of empowerment and collective wisdom of the group, leading them to self-organise themselves into sets of six persons, called Disability Action Groups,(CAN, 2009):

Anjali : In most interviews, we put our own views forward, and make a list of questions that we think we need to ask and usually formulate recommendations based on secondary data. It was not like that in this case, we asked questions to

~ 51 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

those who were directly involved, and formulate more questions based on what they told us….. We learnt that you know the problem is theirs but the solution also lies with them….We wouldn‟t be able to tell them because we are not part of their daily activities. Parents are part of it. Professionals are part of it. They are able to recognise those problems, communicate those problems, recognise which sources they could use and act on it. Through the many rounds of engagement we had with them, we would be able to narrow down on specific issues they need to focus on, so we help to scope it for them, but they are the ones who own the project eventually…. The best thing about this project was that through these discussions and meetings, a group called DAGS – Disability Action Groups was formed, which comprised a variety of stakeholder groups such as children, parents, professionals, teachers, NGO workers, etc. (Anjali,March 29,2011)

Additionally, the tenet of mutual learning with and from each other, through several rounds of engagement with stakeholders was apparent:

Malancha : That is what action learning is about, it is about going into the whole situation with an open mind. As interviewers, we also go into it with an open mind, and after talking to them informally, we know exactly what kind of questions we should ask so that the responses are what we need to know. It is not what we put into them. It‟s not like a “yes”, “no”, “very good” or “I don‟t know” answer. We go into the questioning process because we know what the situation is now, and what the problems are. Then we tailor our questionnaires according to that. So that‟s learning for us. Action learning is double learning. (Malancha,March 29,2011)

A final observation is that the idea of providers of the services working on real problems learning with and from each other worked well in this case because of the culture in India and attitudes of those involved in the project:

Malancha : We learnt to understand the needs of the disabled communities a lot better through action learning projects but culture indeed plays a part….there are

~ 52 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

many things we can do because of the easy penetration into the communities. The action learning process works in India because of that close reach within the community, and people are willing to connect with each other. (Malancha,March 29,2011)

What emerges from the above is that AL can be best described as a social learning approach that involves a self-organising set of individuals who are learning mutually with and from each other, in which the epistemology of practice rather than expertise carries greater significance, and the collective wisdom of the set is far greater than the individual contributions of each learner. Yet, despite its significance as a pragmatic approach to learning and its underlying philosophy in terms of the value it brings to organisations and stakeholders, varying interpretations of AL have led to the emergence of multiple “faces” of the approach, some of which have conflicting values from that of the traditional model. It is therefore necessary to examine in the next chapter, the reasons for the multiple “faces” of AL, as well as to recognise the popular types of AL models that exist today, which reflect key issues of contention within the AL community.

~ 53 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Chapter 4

The Many Faces of Action Learning

“The integrity of action learning

is called into question whenever we

discover that something called action learning is not even close to what it purports to be(Marsick & O‟Neil, citing York, 1999). It is also called into question when an action learning variant does not exhibit the principles of Revans‟ theory-intact, or when Revans‟ theory and other theories are incompatibly lumped together. Surely, cognitive dissonance arises if Revans‟ coherent theory is invoked and cited in events that are inconsistent with that theory. This could mean that „action learning‟ is not being accorded its due as a truly distinguishing term and distinct style of practice. If, as declared earlier, the theory Revans spelled out does not have this protection even amongst scholars, then „action learning‟ easily may slip into the lexicon of the public domain as a label that can be pasted anywhere,” (Willis,2004,p.14).

The above quote reflects the current state of AL in that whilst it is regarded as a pragmatic learning approach, it has been both “diluted and criticised” on the one hand, and evolved to suit specific contexts on the other,(Pedler et al,2005,p.52). AL practitioners might not have understood the essence of AL due to a lack of a single definition in Revans‟ publications, leading to the concept meaning, “different things to different people,” (Weinstein,1999,p.29). Revans‟(1979,p.6) intention of not confining AL to a “syllabus” has inevitably led to a range of interpretations, some experts applying it as an ethos, whilst others applying it as a specific technique, and even some others using the label of AL to approaches that do not qualify as AL at all. ~ 54 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

The degree of control an organisation asserts over the learning process, can significantly influence the duration and structure of AL adopted,(Marsick,1999). Not all corporate or social cultures would readily accept an approach that encourages learners to drive their own learning. As argued by Weinstein(1999, p.18), “It‟s too revolutionary for many companies: it teaches you to ask questions. Action learning threatens some people. If they are a little insecure, they don‟t like to lose control.” Pun in Spence(1998,p.2) adds that, “action learning, in its pure form, is difficult to implement in cultures with largely didactic approaches to education.”

Willis(2004,p.12) highlights that practitioners while not intentionally trying to distort Revans‟ traditional AL, inadvertently approach the theory from the “lenses of their own disciplines,” and in the end, their approaches are not AL in its classic form:

Willis: I‟m aware that there are people who have continued to codify action learning and they are doing so in ways that reflect their own backgrounds I feel. For example if you have had T-group training with National Training Labs, then that‟s your background and that may be your orientation…So I think what people are doing, sinking their own practices, their educational backgrounds and specialties and accommodating action learning to what they already have and what they are already doing. And that makes for certainly not classical action learning, it makes patch work if you will…I think that in some cases there are so many rules, exercises and points of view that people have acquired as facilitators or as teachers that they just enjoy using them…You can load these into action learning but they aren‟t action learning as far as I‟m concerned, you know they aren‟t true to the classics. (Willis,March 25,2011)

~ 55 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Another point of contention is differing views on how individuals learn. Smith (1998,p.28) argues against Revans‟ view that learners themselves are in charge of their own learning, without external interference, as this standpoint ignores the perspective that in certain situations of learning, “outsiders can contribute alternative framings of problems,” (Smith,1988,p.28). Alternatively, external consultants are capable of providing an element of neutrality to the group dynamics, especially in situations where group members can be highly political or biased to the problem at hand.

Additionally, Smith challenges Revans‟ view that questioning cannot be taught and is driven by instinctive, spontaneous thought. Smith (1988,p.29) argues that:

“In this he(Revans) is totally wrong, and possibly the whole controversy hinges on this point. There are multitudes of methods of stimulating your Q: synectics and other creativity techniques, Feyerabend‟s idea of counter induction, ideas from personal construct psychology, and a whole battery of ideas in ethnography which attempt, by bringing your own assumptions into conflict with those of others, to help you explore the limits you set on yourself and solutions to your problems.”

Therefore, AL practitioners supporting Smith‟s view have adapted the approach to include interventions through a learning coach to guide the questioning process.

In this chapter, I address the second research question, which involves an analysis of why and how AL has evolved or regressed into various “faces” or forms of AL, based on issues of contention amongst the AL community. To ~ 56 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

answer this question, I draw on two sources of data, namely, published literature on various versions of AL and interview responses from AL experts who apply these alternative models of AL. Whilst there are numerous AL models, I highlight three of the more popular AL variations.. These are the World Institute of Action Learning (WIAL) model, Action Reflection Learning (ARL) model and Business Driven Action Learning (BDAL) model respectively.

I support my analysis through interviews with three AL experts who promote specific models of AL, namely, Dr Michael Marquardt, Dr Victoria Marsick and Dr Yury Boshyk. The issues of contention on AL are highlighted through analysing their responses and contrasting their views with those of AL experts, Dr David Botham and Dr Verna Willis, who adhere closely to the classic form of AL as promoted by Revans. The interview questions at Appendix One, serve to guide the discussion with these experts, with the nature of the interview being unstructured to allow for open discussion. Whilst the transcribed responses from the three interviews can be found at Appendices Eight, Nine and Ten, specific responses are inserted into the chapter sections, as appropriate.

This chapter will encompass four sections. The first three sections discuss the popular variations of AL, in relation to why and how they have evolved or regressed from traditional AL. The fourth section summarises the key issues of contention in light of the alternate models, in comparison to traditional AL. This chapter argues that whilst organisations have adapted AL to best suit their contexts, such adaptations have inadvertently created models which do not ~ 57 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

follow the tenets of the original concept, leading to AL covering a range of practices which have little in common with each other.

4.1

World Institute for Action Learning (WIAL) Model

As president of the WIAL, Marquardt has “introduced Action Learning to thousands of leaders and hundreds of organisations around the world since 1995”,(WIAL,2011). Having an affiliate office in Singapore, the WIAL model appears to be the predominant model applied in Singapore organisations. Referring to Marquardt as the “father of action learning” and WIAL as “the certification organisation for action learning”, may mislead organisations to assume that historical origins of the concept reside with the WIAL, and that AL requires certified coaches to facilitate the process,(WIALS,2011). Moreover, referring to the WIAL model as AL, yet altering the basic principles underpinning the approach, may have undoubtedly deluded organisations to assume that the WIAL model is all there is to AL, without being aware of its roots.

The WIAL model can be viewed as a formulated approach involving six components to AL, two ground rules as boundaries for the interactions, clear roles of set members, and a pre-defined number of questions that are to be asked by the coach at each stage of the problem-solving process. As described by Marquardt:

Marquardt: If you do not have an urgent problem, the group will realise it is just a big game. If you have twenty-five people (size) it is not going to work. If you don‟t have people question each other and just make statements it won‟t work. If they ~ 58 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

don‟t take any action at the end of it, it won‟t work. If there is no learning intentionally in it, it won‟t work. If there is no coach, in some way or another, it won‟t work, or it may not work as effectively. Anytime you have one of these six components not present, it is my belief that you have the potential of not getting the full power of action learning. (Marquardt, November 12,2010)

Marquardt opines that he has improved upon Revans‟ AL through providing a well-defined structured process:

Marquardt: Well, I think I am a disciple of Reg Revans but I have advanced it. The way I relate it is Reg Revans developed the airplane and I have made the airplane a modern 380 or 747… I got my doctorate degree in learning and psychology and management, that as in the field of human resource development. So I had the skills, I worked with some professors, physicists, scientists, so I was able to see the physical sciences that support action learning as well as the social sciences… To say that we were stuck as where Reg was, Reg built an airplane, but he didn‟t know all of the dynamics that would make these things work you know. Reg didn‟t say it because he didn‟t have the knowledge, he didn‟t have social sciences, perhaps very little, in management. (Marquardt,November 12,2010)

However, I opine that a highly structured process is capable of “automating” the learning process through well-defined procedures and regular interventions by a learning coach. For example, during the process, the coach asks, “Do we have agreement of the problem? Yes or no?” If a member were to speak freely, the coach would exercise control over the process by stopping him/her and reminding that he/she should answer “yes” or “no” literally. Whilst learners may ask questions of each other, the nature of questions asked is also controlled by the coach.

~ 59 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Furthermore, the emphasis on programmed knowledge more so than questioning insight is evident in the WIAL model. Marquardt(2004) modifies Revans equation L= f {P, Q} to L= P + Q + R(reflection) in which he indicates that we begin with programmed knowledge. As highlighted by Dilworth and Willis(2003,p.17), “That breaks sharply with Revans‟ philosophy, since Revans clearly specifies that the operational start point must be Q(Questions). It is Q that expresses the realisation that the solution to the problem is unknown, or the problem would have been solved already.”

The concept of discovering one‟s own ignorance through insightful questions and mutuality of learning with and from each other is significantly curtailed in the WIAL model through the adoption of a programmed approach. The ground rules, “statements should be made only in response to questions,” and “the AL coach has power to intervene when there is a learning opportunity” restricts the natural flow of questioning and interferes with the self-organising properties of the set, whilst placing a high degree of control with the coach driving the learning,(Marquardt,2004,p.8 and 9). As described by Pedler et al (2005,p,60), such an approach may be described as “auto action learning” which operates “in favour of a repeated discipline of holding oneself to account for action against a of questions,” by way of using a “action-learning problem brief.”

Marquardt argues that having a coach is not against Revans‟ thinking:

Marquardt: Reg Revans did not believe in having experts. He detested experts, people who controlled and manipulated a group, and gave them answers and ~ 60 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

made the group dependent upon expertise. So in action learning you got to be very careful not to inhibit the group. Much of what often becomes facilitation or coaching did that. What I did was to make a very conscious effort is, and I think Reg would strongly support what I do, because the coach does not get engaged in the action. When you are in a coaching role, all you can do is ask questions, and the questions have to be about the learning, not about why you made this decision or that decision. The focus is on being a servant leader to the group. (Marquardt,November 12,2010)

However, the mere presence of a coach, asking questions of the group to steer the problem-solving process, goes against the tenets of traditional AL, in particular, Revans‟ philosophy of self-driven learners, and his notion that “persons must wish to learn, for they learn only of their own volition, and not at the will of others,”(Baquer and Revans,1973,p.15).

Willis highlights her

disagreement of having a learning coach :

Willis: Let me put it this way, I feel very disturbed by the recent emphasis on learning how to be a learning coach. I do not believe that this should be expert-led. And anyone who learns to be a learning coach, is in fact, setting themselves up as an expert even though they may be a very quiet one, even though they may be very much in the background, sort of auto-pilot if you will, their presence is in the group, which no one really can ignore. (Willis,March 25,2011)

Therefore, contrary to Marquardt‟s view, traditional AL practitioners opine that “intervention can hinder rather than promote the learning process,” as “experiencing uncertainty and having to deal with it without “crutches” or support systems can be a central part of the learning experience for adults,”(Dilworth and Willis, 2003,p.15). ~ 61 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

4.2

Action Reflection Learning (ARL) Model

The ARL model originates from the Management Institute of Lund(MIL) in Sweden. Janebrant(2011) from the MIL describes ARL as:

“action learning with a special emphasis on reflection. We see reflection as the engine for learning. The action in itself does not necessarily produce any learning, but it is when you reflect upon it, then learning is created. ARL is much more a philosophy than a model, ARL is a combination of many methods, we have many inspirations.”

ARL expert, Marsick, shares the history and development of ARL:

Marsick: I discovered it first in working with some colleagues from Sweden…The environment was changing and traditional management education was teaching skills that were good for certain contexts but will not help managers think independently, be more strategic in the way that they look at issues, be able to see how the whole system works, and be more clear about not only the external environment but also looking deeply into themselves, and thinking, “What do I think management is? How do I think I should be operating as a leader? Now, they (MIL) knew about the fact that other people were using it in other places, most particularly, the person who is often spoken of is the “father of action learning”, Reginald Revans in England…but they developed their own, you know it‟s not that they invented everything from whole cost but they did invent something that was very specific to the context in Sweden at that time. (Marsick,April 19,2011)

ARL draws on Jack Mezirow‟s emphasis on critical reflection, in which learners ought to “recognise that their perceptions may be flawed because they are filtered through uncritically accepted views, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings inherited from one‟s family, school, and society,” and that “such flawed

~ 62 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

perceptions often distort one‟s understanding of problems and situations,” (O‟Neil and Marsick,2007,p.9).

However, Willis argues that critical reflection is already inherent in traditional AL:

Willis: For example in action reflection learning, that comes out of a critical school thinking, a constructivist point of view, so their main concern with reflection is, is it changing the social learning process, is it changing the reality? That‟s probably too simplified but you see, people practicing ARL don‟t actually believe that Revans was a reflective thinker or that people using classic action learning are applying critical thinking. Well they are. See what I mean? (Willis,March 25,2011)

Emphasising

critical

reflection,

ARL

practitioners

believe

highly

interventionist approach, in which only a person external to the process such as a coach can help to surface deeply held values or assumptions:

Marsick: I think you have to have a certain capability in being already an independent thinker, enough so that you can direct your own learning…. the unconscious forces that people are subject to in organisations are so strong that without the facilitator being willing to do interventions that help people to see what they‟re subject to and to see how they are giving up their agency and to see how they are influenced indirectly by a number of these forces such that it interferes with their being in a healthy environment and being in a place where they could fully be themselves and also contribute fully. (Marsick,April 19,2011)

Marsick highlights an example of the interventionist, planned approach of ARL that goes against the AL tenet of non-expert led, self-driven learning:

~ 63 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Marsick: But, one of the differences (from Revans) is they did work with these kinds of facilitators who really tried to get people to think critically and push people through a number of experiential exercises… In one occasion, they were concerned about the very elitist bias of managers who were unwilling to really see the humanity in people throughout all society...What they did in advance was one of the people who was a facilitator in the program, not someone they knew but one of the people associated with the faculty staff, dress up as a hobo, as someone who was a smelly, itinerant person…So they created an uncomfortable situation where the managers were confronted with a person of lower class. They did that on purpose because they wanted to problematise the understanding of humanity and the value that people could bring…But it is not unusual in the Swedish version to turn things upside down. It‟s basically a similar idea (to ethnomethodology) that sometimes, people and things are taken for granted, that we can‟t actually see them and learn differently, especially when they are deeply held social and cultural values, unless you make the back view visible and subject it to the questioning. (Marsick,April 19,2011)

Whilst ARL practitioners advocate external intervention to help surface hidden assumptions and values, Botham contends otherwise:

Botham: Say you go back to Singapore and try out action learning for the first time, you start to understand all the things that can go wrong, you start getting more motivation to understand it as you go through the process. So it forces you to understand the things that are necessary for you to research it. But if I gave you twenty five lectures on how to engage in the process, the chances are you will just pick up my method, but you won‟t ask the questions which are pertinent to understand it, and that interferes with your learning. The real skill in teaching is to give people the space to learn for themselves. Action learning is a process which requires learners to have inquiring minds, and be self-driven to learn from themselves. (Botham,March 3,2011)

~ 64 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Therefore, a key difference of ARL from Revans‟ AL is the planned and interventionist nature of the process, with the existence of a coach, which undoubtedly affects the self-organising properties of the set.

4.3

Business Driven Action Learning (BDAL) Model

Boshyk, chairman of the Global Executive Learning Network organisation, conceptualised BDAL as a:

“results-focused method and set of principles used by organisations and their teams to address business and leadership challenges, and to explore new opportunities; whilst doing so, BDAL also focuses explicitly on the learning as well as the business outcomes from these activities,”(Boshyk,2011,p.1).

Boshyk elaborates that BDAL builds on traditional AL, with organisational development(OD) principles:

Boshyk: BDAL consists of action learning combined with organisational development (OD). There are two aspects to a BDAL program, the personal challenge(PC) and the business challenge(BC) side. The BC side is about OD, it is a problem by the chairman, by the CEO, who says, “I want a resolution on this.” On the PC side, it is a personal or leadership challenge, which is usually the same thing. The BC side is more focused on solving the problem, whereas the PC side focuses on being self-organised. The critical component to the BC is the “outsidein”, which means if I want to solve a really good business challenge, I have to look outside to get to the solution, outside the organisation, outside my silo thinking, whatever it is. On the PC side is really about traditional action learning, such as personal challenge teams that you may have seen.(Boshyk,June 18,2011)

~ 65 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Boshyk opines that whilst Revans‟ AL was intended to be about both taking action and learning, often the approach was used by organisations more for selfdevelopment purposes. On the other hand, he was aware that organisations such as GE that practiced “Americanised” AL were more focused on taking action on business problems, without much emphasis on the learning aspect,(Boshyk,2011). He therefore wanted to make the “action” in AL more explicit, whilst being careful to balance the learning with the action. Boshyk adds that his practical experience had influenced his thinking in the way he thought about the applications of AL, wanting it to achieve both impactful actions and desirable learning, for organisations and learners:

Boshyk: Too much emphasis was being placed on the theory rather than the helping people with business problems…So that‟s why I put back the word, “business”. In a way I didn‟t realise it but it matched or blended with Revans later I just intuitively saw that it was too much related to the learning side. It has gone over too much this way. I remember Albert Barker told me that he (Revans) would always say to people at meetings, “What are we going to do about this?” As a scientist, he focused on doing, not so much the theoretical part. He was an experimental physicist, you know that right? So he was always on the action side… And I was recruited into GE, right? And I was recruited into a very practical business school, the IMD in 1990…So that was the background and my own personality at that time was very action-oriented too, and still is. So, there were a variety of reasons I was naturally attracted to the action side of this…When people ask about what is BDAL and how it is done, I wanted to make it very clear about the possibilities of combining traditional action learning and OD. (Boshyk,June 18,2011)

However, I am of the view that Revans‟ approach already encompasses both taking action and learning whilst doing so, and therefore, there is no real need to ~ 66 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

combine OD to the approach. Significant applications of traditional AL led by Revans such as the Belgium study project (Revans,n.d.c) described in Chapter Three, highlight that the traditional approach by itself is capable of achieving both action and learning.

Furthermore, traditional AL practitioners argue that combining alternative approaches to the original approach does not make it part of AL. Willis(2011) highlights that traditional AL is:

“far more natural than set activity which is very structured, very formulated, and considered to be a part of something else, like a management development program. Action learning really is a standalone process. It might be used in conjunction with other types of information giving, lectures and so forth, but it is not really part of that.”

The role of the facilitator when discussing personal challenges in the BDAL process, is similar to the set advisor role described by Revans, in that he/she is non-interventionist in nature and is present to clarify the process. Boshyk opines that this type of facilitation is akin to Heron‟s autonomous mode, in which the “bedrock of learning is unprompted, self-directed practice, and here you give space for it. This does not mean the abdication of responsibility. It is the subtle art of creating conditions within which people can exercise full self-determination in their learning,” (Lamb, 2010).

Boshyk clarifies the role of the facilitator in the BDAL process:

~ 67 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Boshyk: A facilitator is different from a coach. A facilitatorâ&#x20AC;&#x;s role is to bring out the learning in a group. For example when you do talk about the problem that you work on in sets, you describe the process. You get people to understand it, but you donâ&#x20AC;&#x;t talk about any specific methodology. (Boshyk,June 18,2011)

Whilst the BDAL approach dismisses coach-led interventions, set members in the BDAL process, by virtue of the strategic nature of the issues discussed, are naturally senior officials in the organisation, and are themselves experts in one way or another. Therefore, where BDAL differs from traditional AL is that it involves senior leadership as part of the set instead of service providers themselves, and as such, is better described as a strategic business model that uses some of the tenets of traditional AL. BDAL also includes both formal learning and informal learning methods to address business challenges and personal challenges respectively. Additionally, traditional AL is primarily used when the set discusses personal challenges, which is only one of the two aspects of the BDAL process.

4.4

Continuum of Action Learning

It can be seen that the issues of contention over AL, result from differing views on how individuals learn, differing disciplines of AL practitioners which influence the way in which they approach AL, and the recognition that AL as an informal learning approach may be combined with other approaches, or adapted to suit any given context.

~ 68 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Following research on US organisations, Willis(2004) depicted AL applications along a continuum as shown in Figure Two, in which most applications seemed to be interventionist in nature(less like traditional AL), as opposed to selfevolutionary(more like traditional AL). Most AL applications tend to demonstrate a planned or structured component, well-defined procedures to control the process, and a relatively heavy emphasis on programmed knowledge or expert instruction.

Figure Two: Continuum of Action Learning (Willis,V.J.2004)

Willis(2004,p.26) claimed that most AL applications lie on the left side of the continuum probably because of contextual factors in the US, which â&#x20AC;&#x153;stress market practices, stress also the individual performer and stress the importance of managers more than workers.â&#x20AC;? Similarly, it can be observed that the WIAL, ARL and BDAL models demonstrate one or more of the elements of being planned, procedural or having programmed knowledge, with the BDAL model being closer towards the traditional AL approach compared to the WIAL and ARL models, as shown in Figure Three.

~ 69 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Figure Three: Placement of WIAL, ARL and BDAL models along Willis’s Continuum of Action Learning (Willis, V.J. 2004)

In conclusion, there are many models that use the term AL and claim to derive from Revans‟ approach, yet in practice, they bear little resemblance to the tenets of classical AL. Just as the American business context has influenced the nature of AL, it is probable that the broader features of the national context and culture in a country may also influence the “face” of AL that is eventually selected. Organisations will eventually choose a “face” of AL that best suits their contexts. Having a sound understanding of the foundations and developments of AL, I explore in the next chapter, what then is the “face” of AL in Singapore, and examine its alignment with the forms of lifelong learning promoted by the state.

~ 70 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Chapter 5

Action Learning in Singapore

Although in terms of policy rhetoric, lifelong learning has similar meanings and objectives, in practice, lifelong learning takes on many “faces”, depending on the model of governance adopted by the state. Green(2002) highlights that while the international rhetoric of lifelong learning signifies a convergence in policy principles, lifelong learning practices across various states remain divergent in nature.

Singapore is described as a developmentalist state in which state leadership plays a dynamic and overarching role in directing and regulating economic activities towards certain national goals,(Green in Han and Green,2005). According to Castells (1998,p.270):

“a state is developmental when it establishes as its principle of legitimacy its ability to promote and sustain development, understanding by development the combination of steady high rates of economic growth and structural change in the economic system, both domestically and in its relationship to the international economy”.

A developmentalist state can be seen as essentially authoritarian in nature, with a focus on economic legitimacy. In Singapore, education was used as the instrument to develop the economy, achieve and maintain national sovereignty, and to develop a national identity to bind the people together, (Green in Han and ~ 71 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Green, 2005). Low (2001) argues that stakeholder representation was regulated through the country functioning as a corporation, Singapore Inc, and adoption of the Japanese practice of „amakudari‟ (descent from heaven) where politicians and civil servants were „retired‟ into business conglomerates as a way of aligning corporate policy with state macroeconomic direction.

Singapore has intentionally interpreted lifelong learning as lifelong education to ensure that employees remain employable and contribute towards the nation‟s productivity and economic progress. Because of the emphasis on education rather than learning, the learner tends to be seen as the passive receiver instead of the driver of learning, and what is learnt is determined by his/her organisation or provided by the government, (W.Tao et al,2009).

Policies and practices surrounding lifelong learning vary depending on models of state governance, ranging from demand-led models to those that are state-led. Burns(2002,p.70) highlights that lifelong learning has appeared in a “bewildering number of guises”, ranging from a means to improve national competitiveness, an instrument for change in organisations and society, and as a strategy to promote active citizenry. This would mean that the type of lifelong learning model chosen inevitably leads to developing and applying an AL model that best fits the learning context.

In this chapter, I address the third research question which examines the “face” of AL in Singapore, and the reasons for its popularity. I argue that the model of ~ 72 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

AL predominant in Singapore is especially popular because of its alignment with the developmentalist nature of the state. I discuss the AL model that is popular in Singapore by taking reference to the program offered at the School of Human Development and Social Sciences, Singapore Institute of Management(UniSIM).

I draw on published literature on lifelong learning and AL, supplementing my analysis with unstructured interview responses from two AL UniSIM facilitators, based on the list of questions at Appendix Eleven. Where appropriate, responses from the interviewees are inserted into chapter sections, whilst the detailed transcribed responses are at Appendix Twelve.

This chapter comprises two sections. The first examines why the WIAL model adopted by UniSIM, despite it being least like traditional AL, is well aligned with Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x;s lifelong education context. I highlight the limitations of the WIAL model, noting that these limitations are strikingly similar to the limitations to learning in a developmentalist state. Additionally, UniSIMâ&#x20AC;&#x;s efforts to develop a new AL program that incorporates the tenets of traditional AL are highlighted, recognising that such efforts are in line with Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x;s recognition to move towards greater stakeholder partnership and learner empowerment. The second section concludes this dissertation by revisiting the main issues discussed and examining potential areas for further research, arising from the findings of this study.

~ 73 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

5.1

Action Learning and Singapore’s Lifelong Education Context

The WIAL model of AL appears to be popular in Singapore organisations as the high degree of structure, standardised procedures and expert-led interventions inherent in the model enable it to be replicated quickly and readily to any learning context. UniSIM has offered the WIAL model of AL as an elective program since 2006 to its students, who are working adults, pursuing higher education:

Alex: The WIAL model was selected because it was the model that the Dean knew about at that time because she was from the university that had taught her this particular model of action learning. She felt most familiar with this method. She did not explore any other method and felt that this was the method that she can go with, and part of the reason was that there was a time constraint….Given the short timeline; they went with what was most familiar and easiest. (Alex,June 29,2011)

The WIAL model, can be said to have a heavy emphasis on the 3Ps of Willis‟s(2004) AL continuum, demonstrating elements of being highly planned, procedural and having programmed knowledge, contrary to the tenets of traditional AL. UniSIM facilitators describe the current program as one which interferes with the self-organising properties of the set:

Beng Teck: Each group will have a learning coach. This coach will go through a process within a certain time, there will be a set of questions to ask, and there are two phases. The first phase is to make sure the problem is framed and to get to the root cause of the problem. You cannot make a statement unless it is in response to a question. Subsequently they move into a discussion on what possible actions the problem presenter would take. At the end of the whole process, the problem ~ 74 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

presenter will then share what actions he/she has derived from that discussion... As you can see, it is controlled in terms of the timing and the set questions as part of the whole process...Generally in Singapore our education is very instructional, so it fits very well that it has to be structured. (Beng Teck,June 29,2011)

Alex: The model follows a very linear process that seems to be centred on the structure, and it almost moves forward like a straight line rather than a circle. Everything moves ahead by timing and checkpoints. The process is conducive for certain types of learners – learners who process information in a linear way and who thrive best with checklists, objectives, with end points down the road, who are clear about what the end outcome is and then they move forward, “tap” “tap” “tap” item by item. However, for people who interact more laterally, they need interactions to form the basis of their opinions, they will find this model going against them, in their natural way of processing information because they are going forward before they have all the information to get the generative conversations going. (Alex,June 29,2011)

Much of what is described is akin to the structured mode of learning in Singapore. The term „out of bounds (OB) markers,‟ used in the game of golf to guide on what is permissible and what is not, is used to describe the “space of civil society” in Singapore, “in which the state constantly intervenes,” in setting boundaries for a “state-sanctioned sphere of engagement,” (Lyons and Gomez,2005,p.2). Using „OB markers‟ in the sphere of learning similarly restricts learner engagement, by prompting learners to follow instructions rather than learning through insightful questioning and intuitively responding to others.

How(1998,p.2) highlights the instrumentality of learning in Singapore institutions, by stating that, “Fences are sometimes necessary to prevent people from doing wrong. But some fences are bad, because it prevents you from doing what is ~ 75 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

necessary or right.” Whilst such a planned and controlled curriculum can be easy to administer, over planning can lead to “crippling” learners from being able to apply what they have learnt by themselves. Both UniSIM facilitators comment on learners being unable to use AL on their own:

Alex: The difference was that the school put the coach as the centre, whereas Reg Revans put the group as the centre of learning. The set advisor was a supporting role and not to be the centre...The group members themselves are not empowered with the know-how to run this on their own. (Alex,June 29,2011)

Beng Teck: They may understand the concept of discussing an unknown problem, asking questions working on a small group. But during the class, the additional component of a coach was added in and the group members may have the idea that a coach is required for this. So when they bring this back to the organisation, they may not be sure how to proceed, because they were not involved in creating the process themselves. (Beng Teck,June 29,2011)

The interventionist nature of the WIAL model practiced in Singapore, driven by the need for taking actionable outcomes, leads to focusing on what can be calculated rather than memorable, (Ball,2010). The limitation of a productivitydriven, outcome-based approach “forces” learners to report on results achieved or suggested actions, curtailing the extent of learning to a superficial level. Such a limitation is comparable to how organisations in Singapore measure learning effectiveness in terms of quantitative indicators such as the number of training hours, which may not necessarily reflect the true value of learning.

Gray (1997,p.353) argues that an outcome-based approach may lead to „target fetishism‟ that is a “concern with targets which threatens to become detached ~ 76 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

from the social purposes of the policies at stake.”. In the context of the university, „target fetishism‟ translates to learners practicing AL in a prescriptive manner and reporting on hypothetical actions at the end of the session, just for the sake of achieving good grades, without actually having reflected deep enough on the problem or having understood the intentions of the approach entirely.

In 2010, UniSIM recognised the limitations of the WIAL model, leading to a review of the program. One of the UniSIM facilitators elaborates on the current program being corrective rather than empowering, contrary to Revans‟ approach of learners being self-driven to learn mutually with and from each other:

Alex: The program nearly saw an end to its life in the school...There was a heavy emphasis on the students having to produce action steps or results by the end of a short 90-minute interaction. That puts the pressure on the students and the actual learning transfer, including any learning and actions taken may not be clear to both the school and the students. It‟s not empowering but it becomes corrective because the conversation then shifts towards behaviours and results... I think many people in the school saw that limitation. (Alex,June 29,2011)

In light of these limitations, the AL program at UniSIM was re-developed, emphasising less on structure and procedures, and

removing coach-led

interventions completely, with learners themselves discussing and taking action on real challenges. However, being an academic program, certain elements such as lectures, grading and assessment of students still need to exist, as part of the university‟s standards. This is not unlike higher education institutions in the UK in which key features of traditional AL are incorporated, whilst differing

~ 77 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

from Revans‟ AL in that taught elements are included, and the program is linked to a qualification, (Pedler et al,2005,p.54).

Additionally, with UniSIM‟s direction to incorporate online learning, the new course incorporates a virtual AL segment, where students engage in dialogue online over a one week period. However, despite such modifications, the new program attempts to incorporate tenets of traditional AL, which are evident in its revised form and structure. The program can therefore be viewed as yet another “face” of AL, developed by UniSIM. Figure Four summarises the differences in the old and new program, by depicting the key features along Willis‟s(2004) AL continuum.

Figure Four: Placement of UniSIM’s current and new programs along Willis’s Continuum of Action Learning (Willis, V.J. 2004)

~ 78 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

The new AL course at UniSIM which is to be delivered in the second half of 2011 is described as follows:

Alex : From the pre-work to the first module to the outside of classroom time given to learners to work on organisational challenges, and then to come back and share their findings, there‟s really a spacing of time given for the action learning group...Such a timeframe creates more opportunity for real change to happen, with the discovering of attitudes and mindset. The other key feature is the blended learning approach of the program. We have elements of group interaction, face to face discussions, online learning and discussion. These elements are very much in line with the evolving needs of the learners in the university, especially with the university having a more sophisticated and mobile work force amongst its learners.(Alex,June 29,2011)

UniSIM‟s facilitators welcome the new program, which recognises AL as a philosophy instead of a prescribed technique, leading it to be more in line with Revans‟ ideas. Evolving the program to include tenets of traditional AL becomes even more important, when recognising that Singapore as a developmentalist state must adapt and evolve towards greater stakeholder representation, in view of the changing expectations of today‟s learners:

Beng Teck: That is where we decided, let us adopt the traditional(AL) model but we adapt it to having a little structure, with a set advisor to provide broad direction, but fading away gradually. Of course, being a university, there are certain constraints in terms of the format, classroom time and processes that we must adhere to. But I think this approach will better provide learners self-direction to go back to their organisations and continue to apply action learning on their own…It would be nice to see the next generation of learners practicing action learning naturally, I hope to see that. (Beng Teck,June 29,2011)

~ 79 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Alex: The only way to have generative conversations is to listen more and to ask more questions of people involved. Similarly, the Singapore government has to listen more, tell less and ask more questions, in a genuine way. In action learning too, if you ask questions, listen more, and tell less, it leads to better outcomes in terms of learning and action...In the 70s when Reg Revans came to Singapore and presented his approach to the Ministry of Health, it was decided by government health officers that his approach was far too advanced for Singapore. But I think today, we stand on the brink of something new that could be achieved or enhanced by the foundations of traditional action learning. The first premise of “Small is beautiful” applies to us directly. Singapore is a small country so I think we have a parallel with such a philosophy. And this goes further into the roots of the community...The environment Singapore is moving into will be complex but there will also be unknowns, new challenges, and unfamiliar situations. So that itself is the kind of deep learning that traditional action learning encourages. So I think it aligns well with the national development and orientation of the future, in terms of people involvement, working together, stakeholder consultation, these are all what action learning advocates. (Alex,June 29,2011)

Whilst UniSIM believes in the importance of philosophy of AL and its relevance to adult learners, it is too early to comment on how the new program is working. It will be likely that the new program gradually and progressively moves along the continuum, rather than jumping from the “3P” end to the self-evolutionary end straightaway. This is akin to Singapore gradually progressing from a developmentalist model to a state partnership model. Learners will need time to adjust and drive their own learning, without reliance on experts. The coaches, who are now stripped of control and assume the role of advisors will need to see the greater value behind empowering learners to learn by themselves, rather than perceiving their new roles as a loss of control and becoming redundant in the process. ~ 80 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

5.2

Conclusion of Study

This dissertation began with recognising the importance of lifelong learning, and its impact on AL gaining ground as a practical learning approach. It was clear from lifelong trends such as the extension of learning beyond formal learning, the reconceptualisation of theory and practice, and the changing nature of research in today‟s knowledge economy, why AL was emerging as a “handmaiden” for lifelong learning and gained significance as a way to learn in the workplace.

I proceeded to examine what exactly AL is, by examining the significant events and inspirations in Revans‟ life, to determine its distinctiveness as a learning approach. Moreover, given the wide-ranging literature on AL, it was necessary to discover the essence of the concept through a detailed analysis of Revans‟ original sources. The intentions and interpretations of traditional AL were identified and the key tenets underpinning the concept were analysed. Studying the application of traditional AL at the CAN organisation, helped to strengthen the meaning of AL and reinforce the existence of the key tenets as part of the AL process.

Having established the essence of AL, I then analysed why and how AL has evolved or regressed into various models, based on the contentious issues within the AL community. Three popular models of AL were discussed and compared to the tenets of traditional AL, leading to the conclusion that there are ~ 81 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

many models that use the term AL and claim to derive from Revans‟ approach, yet in practice, some of these models may bear little resemblance to the tenets of classical AL. It was also observed that AL being an ethos rather than a specific technique, allowed it to mould itself to varying learning contexts of organisations or countries. This meant that interpretations and intentions of AL could be wide-ranging along a continuum of AL, ranging from models that are highly planned or procedural to models that are more self-evolutionary in nature.

Finally, I examined the “face” of AL in Singapore, by taking reference to an AL program at UniSIM, a local university. I argued that the WIAL model although least like the traditional approach, was selected because of its alignment with the developmentalist model in Singapore. Additionally, limitations present in the developmentalist model of learning were observed in the WIAL model, causing the university to re-develop their program. The gradual progression towards less structure and procedures, and more learner empowerment were briefly discussed, in light of Singapore‟s need to evolve towards a state partnership model.

In seeking to answer my three research questions, I went beyond a wideranging literature review to draw insights from Revans‟ unpublished documents, obtained from the Revans Institute in Manchester. Additionally, the application of AL was clarified through candid interviews with social workers from the CAN organisation in Delhi, who shared their experiences of using AL for disability education projects in India. The analysis in Chapters Three and Four were ~ 82 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

validated by unstructured interviews with AL experts, two of whom were traditional AL practitioners, whilst the other three experts advocated alternative models. Finally, unstructured interviews were carried out with UniSIM facilitators to understand the “face” of AL in Singapore, and to examine its alignment with the developmentalist model for lifelong learning.

Despite the extensive analysis of Revans‟ sources and valuable insights from AL experts and practitioners, this study is limited in terms of examining how the tenets of traditional AL apply in practice. Given the limited time, only insights from the CAN organisation on traditional AL and UniSIM on their model of AL were gathered. This study could benefit from looking at applications of traditional AL in private and public organisations, and comparing these with applications using the WIAL, ARL and BDAL models respectively. Additionally, it would have been valuable to obtain insights from learners involved in the AL process, to understand what went on, and to ascertain if Revans tenets are practically realisable by the providers of the services.

Three potential areas for future research are recommended. The first is to examine the contextual factors that are conducive for application of traditional AL. Revans‟ model was considered and rejected in the 1970s in Singapore. It will be useful to understand why AL was regarded as unsuitable at that time, by whom and for what purposes it was explored. The distinctive tenet of AL being non-taught may have received opposition from officers who perceived a loss of power and were skeptical to invest in a learning methodology which has very ~ 83 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

limited external input. However, such reasons for resistance have to be investigated further.

Secondly, it will be worth studying the extent to which traditional AL can be applied in Singapore organisations by way of examining specific case applications. One possible project is to study the applications of AL in the UK National Health Services, to analyse why traditional AL was successful in that context, and to ascertain if such an application can be replicated to the Singapore Health Services. Similarly, the applications of AL in the CAN organisation could be further analysed to see if such applications can be recreated in Singapore community-based organisations. Another project may involve studying the implementation of the new AL program at UniSIM, in terms of the extent to which traditional tenets of AL are practiced.

A third area for future research is to explore the application of traditional AL in virtual settings. Virtual AL is an emerging trend, given the growing significance of technology learning platforms to cater to learning across borders for the mobile workforce. Several organisations are already implementing virtual AL platforms using social networking media and technology platforms such as â&#x20AC;&#x17E;Blackboardâ&#x20AC;&#x; to engage in dialogue on real workplace challenges amongst virtual AL sets. The study could examine the feasibility and extent towards which tenets of traditional AL can be applied in a virtual environment.

~ 84 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Eventually, it is hoped that the philosophy of AL is interpreted accurately to be used in its intended spirit, and distinguished from other methods that carry the label of AL but by no means are characteristic of the AL process. Through a greater understanding of the essence of AL, a collection of best practice applications can be garnered to analyse the effectiveness of AL as an informal learning method for adult learners and to continue to learn from such applications.

~ 85 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

REFERENCES

Action Learning Projects (ALP) International Ltd. (1977). „Action Learning in Hospitals for the Mentally Handicapped,‟ UK: ALP International Publications. Adler, P.S., Kwon, S.W. and Heckscher, C. (2007). „Professional Work: The Emergence of Collaborative Community,‟ Perspective: Organisation Science, 19(2), pp 359-376, INFORMS. Ball, S.J. (2010). „New Voices, New Knowledges and the New Politics of Education Research: the gathering of a perfect storm?‟ European Education Research Journal, 9(2), 124-137.

Baquer, A. (1972). „Project on Coordination of Services for the Mentally Handicapped,‟ UK: King Edward‟s Hospital Fund for London. Baquer, A. and Revans, R.W. (1973). „”But Surely That Is Their Job?” A Study in Practical Cooperation Through Action Learning,‟ UK: ALP International Publications. Baquer, A. (2003). “Remembering a Man for All Seasons: Professor Reginald W. Revans (1907-2003),” India: Concerned Action Now. BERA. (2004). „Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research‟, UK. Bertalanffy, L.V. (1969). „General System Theory,‟ NY : George Braziller,Inc. Boshyk, Y. and Dilworth, R, L. (2010a). „Action Learning: History and Evolution‟, UK : Palgrave MacMillan.

~ 86 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Boshyk, Y. and Dilworth, R.L. (2010b). „Action Learning and Its Applications, Present and Future,‟ UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Boshyk, Y. (2010). „The New Competitive Edge: Solving Problems ,Exploring Opportunities and Developing Global Leaders through Business (Results) Driven Action Learning (BDAL)‟, Presentation Slides, SIM University, Singapore.

Boshyk,

(2011).‟Accelerating

Global

Growth,

Innovation

and

Leader

Development through Business Driven Action Learning,‟ Singapore: Global Executive Learning and the annual Global Forum on Executive Development. Bowers, C.A. (2010). „The Insights of Gregory Bateson on the Connections Between Language and the Ecological Crisis‟, Language and Ecology vol.3 no.2 2010, Online Journal. Boyles, D,R. (2006). „Dewey‟s Epistemology: An Argument For Warranted Assertions, Knowing And Meaningful Classroom Practice‟, Education Theory Journal, 56:1, 57-68, University of Illinois. Burns, R. (2002). „The Adult Learner at Work: The Challenges of Lifelong Education in the New Millennium‟, Australia : Allen and Unwin Castells, M. (1998). „End of the Millennium, The Information Age: Economy‟, Society and Culture, Vol.III, Cambridge, MA; Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell. Coghill, N.F. and Stewart, J.S. (1998). „The NHS: Myth, Monster or Service? Action Learning in Hospital‟, UK: The Revans Centre for Action Learning and Research, University of Salford.

Concerned Action Now. (1982). New Delhi, India. http://www.canfordisabled.org.in/ Concerned Action Now. (1998). „The New Life Centre Research Report,‟ The Leprosy Mission : India. ~ 87 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Concerned Action Now. (2009). „An Action Learning Project on Problems faced by Blind and Low Vision Children of Middle School in Learning Science, Mathematics and Associated Subjects,‟ Rashtriya Vigyan Evam Prodyogiki Sanchar Parishad, DST Delhi : India. Dilworth, R.L. (1998). „Action Learning in a Nutshell‟, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11:1, 28-43. Dilworth, R.L. and Willis, V.J. (2003). „Action Learning: Images and Pathways‟, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Gray, A.(1997). „Contract Culture and Target Fetishism: The distortive effects of output measures in local regeneration programmes,‟ Local Economy, 11, 343-357. Sage Publications. Giber, D., Carter, L. and Goldsmith,M. (2000). „Best Practices in Leadership Development Handbook‟, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Green, A. (2002). „The many faces of lifelong learning: recent education policy trends in Europe‟, Journal of Education Policy, 17:6, 611-626.

Han,C. and Green,A. (2005). „Schooling Outcomes: An Examination of Identity and Social Cohesion Outcomes: literature review‟, report written for the „Schooling Outcomes: An examination of Identity and Social Cohesion Outcomes‟ project, Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, esp. pp. 1440.

~ 88 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

How,T,T. (2008), „Creativity, Society and (?) Schools‟, panel discussion on “Curriculum in Singapore: A Critical Perspective”. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies.

Istance, D., Schuetze, H.G. and Schuller, T. (2002). „International Perspectives on Lifelong Learning: From Recurrent Education to Knowledge Society,‟ UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Janebrant, J. (2011). „Video on Action Reflection Learning,‟ Singapore: Annual Global Forum on Executive Development. Jarvis, P. (2006). „Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning‟, UK: Routledge Publications. Jarvis, P. (2007), „Globalisation, Lifelong Learning and the Learning Society: Sociological Perspectives‟, UK: Routledge Publications. Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2004). „Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches (2 nd Edition)‟, Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Knowles, M. (1984). „The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (3rd Ed.)‟, Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, D. (1984). „Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,‟ NJ : Prentice-Hall. Lamb, I. (2010). „Heron‟s Modes and Dimensions,‟ Retrieved July 8, 2011 from : http://www.gp-training.net/training/vts/group/heron.htm

~ 89 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Lyons,L.T. and Gomez,J. (2005). „Moving beyond the OB Markers: Rethinking the Space of Civil Society in Singapore,‟ Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 20:2, 119-131. Luft, J. and Ingham, H. (1955). „The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness‟, Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development (Los Angeles: UCLA). Malinen, A. (2000). „Towards the Essence of Adult Experiential Learning: A reading of the theories of Knowles, Kolb, Mezirow, Revans and Schon‟, Jyvaskyla, Finland: SoPhi, University of Jyvaskyla. Marquadt, M, J.(2004). „Optimising the Power of Action Learning‟, CA : DaviesBlack Publishing. Marsick, V.J. and O‟Neil, J. (1999). „The Many Faces of Action Learning,‟ Management Learning, 30:2, 159-176. Sage Publications. O‟Neil, J. and Marsick, V.J. (2007). „Understanding Action Learning,‟ NY: Amacom. Pedler, M,. Burgoyne, J. and Brook, C. (2005). „What has Action Learning Learned to Become?‟ Action Learning: Research and Practice 2:1, 49-68. UK: Routledge Publications. Plunkett, D. (2010). „Expressivism, Representation and the Nature of Conceptual Analysis‟. Philosophical studies 0031-8116. Springer: Netherlands. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9582-4 Raapana, N. and Friedrich, N. (2005). „What is the Hegelian Dialectic?‟ Retrieved May 20, 2011 from : http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

~ 90 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Raelin, J.A. (2007). „Toward an Epistemology of Practice‟, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(4): 495-519. Ramudzuli, A. (n.d). „Education for Africa : From Robben Island to ITISA.‟

Revans, R.W. (1972). Videotape of Reg Revans interview on action learning. Retrieved Nov 12, 2011 from Dr. Yury Boshyk. Revans, R.W. (1975). „Helping Each Other To Help the Helpless: An Essay in SelfOrganisation,‟ Kybernetes Journal, 4:1, 149-155. UK: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd. Revans, R.W (1978). „Action Learning-or Antiquity Reborn‟, Education and Training Journal, April 1978 issue. UK: Revans Institute. Revans, R.W (1979). „Action Learning: Its Terms and Character‟, UK: Revans Institute. Revans, R.W. (1982). „The Origins and Growth of Action Learning,‟ UK: Krieger Pub Co. Revans, R.W.(1983). „Action Learning at work and in school – Part 2,‟ Education and Training Journal, Dec 1983 issue. UK: Revans Institute. Revans, R.W. (1998). „ABC of Action Learning,‟ UK : Lemos & Crane. Revans, R.W (n.d.a). „The Theory and Practice of Action Learning: What Action Learning is Not‟, UK: Revans Institute, obtained from Dr David Botham on 2 March 2011, at the Revans Institute, University of Manchester.

~ 91 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Revans, R.W (n.d.b). „The Universality of Action Learning‟, UK: Revans Institute, obtained from Dr David Botham on 2 March 2011, at the Revans Institute, University of Manchester. Revans, R.W (n.d.c). „How Can We Discover Ourselves?‟, UK: Revans Institute, obtained from Dr David Botham on 2 March 2011, at the Revans Institute, University of Manchester. Revans, R.W (n.d.d). „The Evolution of Action Learning‟, UK: Revans Institute, obtained from Dr David Botham on 2 March 2011, at the Revans Institute, University of Manchester. Schon, D. (1983). „The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action‟, USA: Basic Books. Schumacher, E.F. (1973). „Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered,‟ UK: Blond and Briggs. Simpson, P. and Bourner, T. (2007). „What Action Learning is not in the Twenty-first Century,‟ Action Learning Research: Research and Practice, 4:2, 173-187. Smith, P (1988). „Second Thoughts on Action Learning,‟ Journal of European Industrial Training, 12: 6, 28 – 31. Spence, J. (1998). „Action Learning for Individual and Organisational Development,‟ OH: Center on Education and Training for Employment. Tao, W., Dong,W., Wang, J. and Cheng, J. (2009), „East Asia Lifelong Learning Community 2020: Objective, Organisation and Operation‟, Transition Studies Review, 16:2, 252-268.

~ 92 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.

Published in biipmi Journal Online, 2013

Weinstein, K. (1999). „Action Learning: A Practical Guide (Second Edition)‟, UK: Gower Publishing Company Wenger, E. (1998). „Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity‟, USA: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, D. and Birmingham, P. (2003). „Using Research Instruments: A Guide for Researchers‟, UK: RoutledgeFalmer Publications. Willis, V.J. (2004). „Inspecting cases against Revans‟ „Gold Standard‟ of Action Learning‟, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1:1, 11-27. UK: Routledge Publications. Willis, V.J. (2011). „Video on Traditional Action Learning,‟ Singapore: Annual Global Forum on Executive Development.

World Institute for Action Learning. (WIAL). Retrieved June 6, 2011 from: http://wial.org

World Institute for Action Learning Singapore. (WIALS). Retrieved June 6, 2011 from: http://www.wial.sg/

~ 93 ~ Nithya, R (2011) 'Intentions and interpretations of action learning'.