Education + Training

Emerald Article: Action learning comes of age: questioning action learning

Tom Bourner, Liz Beaty, John Lawson, Suzanne O'Hara

Article information:
To cite this document: Tom Bourner, Liz Beaty, John Lawson, Suzanne O'Hara, (1996),"Action learning comes of age: questioning
action learning", Education + Training, Vol. 38 Iss: 8 pp. 32 - 35
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400919610146306
Downloaded on: 20-09-2012
References: This document contains references to 2 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 8 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 733 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

François Des Rosiers, Jean Dubé, Marius Thériault, (2011),"Do peer effects shape property values?", Journal of Property
Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 510 - 528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150376

Signy Irene Vabo, Viola Burau, (2011),"Universalism and the local organisation of elderly care", International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 31 Iss: 3 pp. 173 - 184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443331111120627

Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role
of electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63
Iss: 2 pp. 168 - 187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 Action learning is a process of reflection and
Action learning comes action, aimed at improving effectiveness of
action where learning is an important out-
of age: questioning come. Its purpose is to learn from experience
action learning in order to act more wisely. It can be used
wherever a group can support the learning of
others in a context where it is possible to learn
from experience.
Tom Bourner The authors of this article are all experi-
Liz Beaty enced participants and set advisers in action
learning. We have come to the conclusion that
John Lawson and now is the time to question where and for
Suzanne O’Hara whom action learning might not work. As
advocates of action learning, we have helped it
to make inroads into higher education along-
side more traditional models of learning. It is
felt that action learning is now robust enough
The authors to take care of itself if we stand back and
Tom Bourner is Principal Lecturer, Centre for Management reflect on our experience to seek the limits of
Development, Liz Beaty is Principal Lecturer, Education the method.
Development Unit, and John Lawson and Suzanne Action learning has reached a maturity
O’Hara are Senior Lecturers all at the University of which allows us to ask the question “what can
Brighton, Brighton, UK. go wrong?” without feeling disloyal to its
principles. We believe that the case for action
Abstract learning has now been established in principle
Questions where and for whom action learning might not and the focus can now be shifted to improving
work and seeks to find the limits of the method. Suggests the practice. By sharing our mistakes as well
that by better understanding the situations in which action as our successes, we can discover where and
learning works least well, its more effective use will be with whom it works best and, in this way, we
more fully understood. can learn to do action learning better. This is
in the spirit of action learning: looking for the
obstacles rather than basking in the successes.

The bad times

We began work for this article by agreeing to
share our worst experiences with action learn-
ing. We all had tales to tell of times when,
either as participant or set adviser, a set did
not work as well as we expected, when indi-
vidual participants had not seemed to gain
from the experience and when we felt failures
as set participants or as set advisers. Here are
some examples:

The in-house set

This set was formed from those in the most
junior management positions within the same
organization. Most were new to management.
Originally they had asked for workshops on
specific themes including (didactic) instruc-
tion on how to manage. They were persuaded
that an action learning programme would
better meet their needs. Some brought with
Education + Training
Volume 38 · Number 8 · 1996 · pp. 32–35 them a competitiveness with the other
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0040-0912 members of the set, summed up in a
32
subsequent revelation by one person that her
main reason for joining the set was to find out
what the others were doing to ensure that they
did not get ahead of her. There was a high
level of defensiveness such that the set mem-
bers filled their time in the set with mono-
logues that allowed no opportunity for the
other members to ask questions.
The uncommitted set
The ground rules of this set stated that each
member agreed to perform achievable tasks
by the next set meeting to progress their
project completion. This worked very well for
many months. However, over time it was
noticeable that certain members were not
completing the tasks that they had set them-
selves. At one meeting only one set member
had completed any of the actions to which
they had committed. That set member felt
demoralized by this experience. The erstwhile
successful framework was collapsing and he
felt angry at the other set members and
unwilling to maintain his own contribution to
the set. At the following meetings, lack of
completion of agreed actions showed that
commitment was clearly waning. At the same
time, attendance was also falling off. The set
never again provided the level of support and
motivation that it had in its early days.
The set adviser’s set
During the first set meeting the set adviser
told the set of her troubles, including thoughts
of suicide. The set’s supportive comments
were used by the set adviser to develop a
“lonely and unloved” theme. The set mem-
bers eventually became frustrated and
attempts to turn the focus on to more perti-
nent issues were resisted by the set adviser.
This led to a questioning of her role as set
adviser. She was adamant that she too had
needs from the set meeting and had a right to
raise these. She did not see herself as confined
to providing a servicing role to the other
members. This issue absorbed nearly all of the
time of the set meeting. Set members felt
angry that the set adviser had used her posi-
tion to divert the work along her own agenda,
imposed on the other set members.
The group project set
This set had worked well together for a year.
The second year of its life, however, was
marked by a shift from individual projects to
an attempt to work on a group project. This
33
started well and the group seemed to enjoy
working together. However, disagreement
soon emerged regarding the project’s
progress, apportioning blame became a recur-
ring theme and absenteeism became more
common. Eventually, acrimony and mistrust
grew and the group became increasingly
divided. Tripartite telephone conversations
assisted that process. None of that was
brought to the set meetings and, eventually,
the project foundered.
‘…A test of the integrity of a theory or an
approach is the extent to which it is
prepared to apply to itself the
methods that it advocates. To what
extent are those within the action
learning fold willing to test and then
refine their practice of action
learning? To what extent are we
willing to apply the critical
questioning approach of action
learning to action learning itself?…’
These were isolated incidents among very
many positive and powerful experiences of
action learning and our commitment to it
remains firm. Nevertheless, as proponents of
action learning, we wanted to see if combin-
ing and discussing our experience of where
action learning had been least successful for
us, we could find patterns of success or failure
that would enable us to learn from our experi-
ence. If we could find out where and when it
has not worked then it would help us to find
where it works best and use it more effectively.
In discussing the origins of action learning,
Reg Revans has spoken of his experience in
the Rutherford Laboratory at Cambridge
where Nobel prize-winning scientists came
together to learn from discussing their failures
and their problems rather than their success-
es. A test of the integrity of a theory or an
approach is the extent to which it is prepared
to apply to itself the methods that it advocates.
To what extent are those within the action
learning fold willing to test and then refine
their practice of action learning? To what
extent are we willing to apply the critical
questioning approach of action learning to
action learning itself?
Action learning: who, what, where and
when?
There was a time when “confirming cases” of
the application of action learning were sought.
In the early days of action learning that was an
appropriate thing to do. Confirming cases
were not difficult to find. They provided
ample evidence that action learning can work.
The question on the agenda now is when and
where is action learning most applicable? In
order to find the domains of applicability of
action learning one needs to look for “discon-
firming” cases. One needs to find where and
when action learning has worked least well
and examine the circumstances. The shift of
focus from “confirming cases” to “discon-
firming cases” is a consequence of the grow-
ing maturity of action learning.
‘…One set of questions on the new
agenda for action learning is to
identify its domain of applicability:
when, where and with whom is it most
effective?…’
For what kinds of people is it most effective?
For what kinds of people is it least effective? If
management development is learning for the
bosses, how about learning for those who they
manage? Is it most effective with senior man-
agers? Or is it just as effective with junior
managers? Does it work with those in non-
management positions? Is action learning
most effective with older people or younger
people? Is it only for adults? When it has been
used with schoolchildren, how effective has it
been? If we are looking to identify the
domains of applicability, one needs to know
where it has gone wrong at least as much as
where it has gone right.
For what kinds of learning is action learn-
ing most and least effective? As so often, Reg
Revans has led the way: he distinguished
problems from puzzles. Action learning is
appropriate for the sort of learning associated
with problems and inappropriate for the sort
of learning associated with puzzles. This is a
helpful start. If, however, we try to move
action learning from management develop-
ment to a more central position in the field of
human learning, then we are forced to con-
front areas of learning where the puzzles/
problems distinction is less useful. If action
34
learning is the best way of learning everything,
then why are you reading this article? Why
read the words of Reg Revans? Books and
journal articles are a physical embodiment of
programmed learning. Is the issue that you
hope to address by reading this article a
puzzle or a problem? Is action learning
important or useful or even relevant to learn-
ing to be a good parent? How about learning
to play a musical instrument? Learning to use
a word processor? Learning to overcome
aversion to computers? Learning to be a good
partner? Learning to be a good citizen?
Learning to swim? Learning to manage your
time better?
One set of questions on the new agenda for
action learning is to identify its domain of
applicability: when, where and with whom is
it most effective? A second set of questions is
how to “do” action learning better. The
theory of action learning is quite well-
developed. We now also have a lot of experi-
ence (empirical evidence) about what works
best and in what circumstances. The spirit of
action learning involves testing out our ideas
in action and then modifying our ideas as a
consequence. Action learning that ossifies
into hard and fast principles would be an odd
thing. Action learning that does not reflect on
and learn from the experience of its applica-
tion is a self-contradiction. Do we only reflect
on our own experience or can we find ways of
sharing the experience and learning from the
experience of one another? How can we best
share that experience?
Looking ahead
There was a time (only a couple of decades
ago) when action learning was a heresy within
both management development and educa-
tional establishments. In this last decade of
the twentieth century, it is riding high.
According to the AMED report[1], by the
end of the 1980s Action Learning had
reached the top ten out of 90 different identi-
fied methods and approaches to management
development. By the early 1990s, Pedler was
able to write:
The six-month management development
programme which has a “start-up module,
monthly learning sets, occasional workshops
and a final workshop” has almost reached the
status of a new orthodoxy in some quarters[2,
p. xxi].
In the early years, action learning was resisted
in institutions of further and higher education
and particularly in business schools. Some
academics took it as an affront to suggest that
what people could learn from interrogating
their own experience could be more valuable
to them than the wisdom recorded in books
and journals. Possibly it was also seen as a
threat by academics who had invested heavily
in acquiring their knowledge from books and
journals. In recent years, however, action
learning has made significant inroads into
higher education (e.g. within Certificate,
Diploma and Masters courses in management
and also in teacher training). Action learning
has been seen as a valuable way of implement-
ing ideas of student-centred learning, reflec-
tive practitioners, learning contracts and self-
managed learning. It has even been used to
support the learning of research degree
students.
It can reasonably be said of action learning
that it has become part of the mainstream of
management development and it has gained
entry to the educational system, particularly
at the higher level. We look forward to its
further growth and its spreading into the more
general fields of human learning. We also look
forward to the development of action learning
from how it is at the moment to forms that are
applicable to enabling people to learn from
the experience of resolving other human
problems.
References
1 Association for Management Education and Develop-
ment, Developing the Developers: Improving the
Quality of the Professionals Who Develop People and
Organisations, AMED, London, 1991.
2 Pedler, M., Action Learning in Practice, 2nd ed.,
Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

Editors note
Readers may be interested to note the existence and activities of the International Foun-
dation for Action Learning.
The Foundation is a registered charity set up to promote action learning. Since 1977
when it was established IFAL has become well-known and respected as a source of infor-
mation and support for those who practise or interested in action learning. IFAL encour-
ages the use of action learning by:
• Information – responding to requests and promoting discussion by phone or letter.
• Library – IFAL has a substantial library of writings about action learning, including
many unpublished papers. Copies of items can usually be purchased for the cost of
copying and distribution.
• Newsletter – a regular newsletter provides the opportunity for members to share
their ideas and experience. It includes book reviews and reports on conferences.
• Meetings/Conferences/Workshops – IFAL arranges a range of forums to discuss
and debate the issues surrounding the practice and application of action learning.
• Networks – through its international membership IFAL constructs a network of
people who can support one another in their diverse experience of action learning.
Further information can be obtained from Pennie Drinkall/Angela Mercer, IFAL
Administrators, Department of Management Learning, Lancaster University, LA1 4YL.

35