Make use of action learning (AL) ideas to enrich the topic of practice-based intellectual learning: a white paper

An exercise to make use of action learning (AL) ideas to enrich the topic of practice-based intellectual learning in managerial intellectual learning (MIL)

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer, Hong Kong, China

Abstract: As a newly developed topic, practice-based intellectual learning in managerial intellectual learning (MIL) needs to be conceptually enriched. In this paper, the writer conducted a literature review on action learning (AL) in order to consider how AL ideas can be employed in practice-based intellectual learning, thus enriching the topic. Out of the review exercise, a set of AL ideas have been identified that are found useful to enhance practice-based intellectual learning practice. Nevertheless, in order to maintain the theoretical foundation of practice-based intellectual learning on critical systems thinking/ the Multi-perspective,  Systems-based (MPSB) Research, the paper argues that the principle of pluralism in critical  systems thinking be upheld when importing AL ideas into  practice-based intellectual learning. For the same reason, practice-based intellectual learning is also required to apply the key MPSB concepts in the MPSB Research so that it remains multi-perspective and systems-based.

Key words: action learning, managerial intellectual learning (MIL), multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) research, practice-based intellectual learning

Introduction

In the academic venture of developing managerial intellectual learning (MIL) theories, the writer proposed that MIL involves practice-based intellectual learning, among other learning activities. This paper takes a closer look at this topic. Specifically, it undertakes a literature review on the subject of action learning (AL) so as to introduce some useful AL ideas to enrich the topic of practice-based intellectual learning in MIL. By doing so, the paper aims at making further theoretical development on the topic of practice-based intellectual learning. The next section starts with an introduction of MIL, with particular reference to one of its ingredient activities, namely, practice-based intellectual learning. It is then followed by a literature review on AL. Finally, how AL ideas can be introduced into practice-based intellectual learning practice, while maintaining the theoretical foundation of practice-based intellectual learning is explored. Such a foundation is critical systems thinking and the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research.

managerial intellectual learning and its ingredient activities

By managerial intellectual learning (MIL), the writer is referring to a specific academic research venture launched by this writer in 2013 (Ho, 2013a). It is chiefly about learning academic theories in business management using Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) thinking to build up managerial intellectual competence (see the bibliography on The Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research Facebook page for details[1].). The main writings on the subject are Ho (2013a; 2013b; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2014d; 2015a; 2015b; 2016a; 2016b). There is also a managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by the writer. The ingredient activities, support infrastructure and constraints involved in MIL have been acknowledged in a framework on MIL (Ho, 2014b), now shown in Figure 1 as follows:

Referring to Figure 1, the managerial intellectual learning process works like a continuous learning cycle with environmental influences and constraints (i.e., the component of “work & non-work influences, support and constraints”) and infrastructural support (i.e., the component of “infrastructural support”) (see also Ho (2013b) on e-learning support and Ho (2015a) on coaching  and mentoring support.). The learning process is propelled by a set of mechanisms called managerial intellectual learning capability-building mechanism (MILCBM). As to the ingredient activities of the MIL process itself, there are four of them: (i) data management, (ii) absorbed reading. (iii) the MPSB knowledge compilation and (iv) practice-based intellectual learning. These four ingredient MIL activities are inter-related. Data management and absorbed learning are essentially literature search and literature review as explained in Research Methods textbooks (see Ho (2015c) on literature review via the managerial intellectual learning lens.). The MPSB knowledge compilation is a prime activity that renders the defining characteristic of the MIL, which is that the managerial intellectual learning process is multi-perspective, systems-based. Specifically, it makes use of the key MPSB concepts[2] to comprehend and organize knowledge structures that are conceptually grounded on the MPSB Research which comprises the key MPSB concepts. These knowledge structures can range from generic with low actionable value to context-specific with high actionable value. These knowledge structures are also conceived as the cognitive filters for managers to cope with concerns and issues that they encounter in their working lives (Ho, 2014a). Underlying the MIL is a set of theoretical principles, such as pluralism, that essentially endorse critical systems thinking (Ho, 2015b; Jackson, 2000: part III). Finally, the fourth ingredient activity of Practice-based intellectual learning is about learning via practices, notably in real-world managerial work-settings. In Ho (2014b), practice-based intellectual learning is conceived as applying the notions of “knowing in practice”, “work-based learning”, “action learning mindset” and “management learning by walking around”. (Further information on managerial intellectual learning can be found in the managerial intellectual learning Facbook page, maintained by the writer, see Bibliography for information). In this paper, the writer takes a closer look at the subject of action learning with the specific aim of further enriching the subject of practice-based intellectual learning in MIL. Before doing so, this paper conducts a literature review on the main action learning ideas in the next section.

The main ideas of action learning in the academic literature

Action learning (AL) was developed in the late 1930s by Reg Revans (Jacobs, 2008). It has since evolved into a subject with a substantial literature and impacts in the field of management learning, e.g., in leadership development, organization development fields (Bong et al., 2014), nursing and health disciplines ((Jacobs, 2008). There is an academic journal, namely, Action Learning: Research and Practice (Routledge), dedicated to the subject. Action learning embraces a set of ideas in its thinking and practices, which are described here. The fact remains that: (i) it is not easy to provide a clear definition on what is action learning, as Revans “never gave an authoritative definition of action learning” (Simpson and Bourner, 2007), (ii) “AL
has been variously interpreted over time” (Kozubska and MacKenzie, 2012), (iii) “..The design of any AL initiative is contingent upon understandings of factors such as philosophy, purpose, time frame, degree of change and epistemology” (Kozubska and MacKenzie, 2012), and (iv) there are now different schools and approaches of AL, e.g., critical action learning (Soffe et al., 2011; Ram, 2012; Jacobs, 2008), virtual action learning (Dickenson et al., 2010), the scientific, the experiential, the critical reflection and the tacit schools (Marsick and O’Neil, 1999). Nevertheless, to convey a working AL image to readers, AL can be understood as dynamic group-based real-problem-driven learning process that brings benefits to participating group members and their organization (Schwandt and Marquardt, 2000). Revans (2011) has also identified eight AL components: individuals/teams, sponsors/clients/participants, problems, the learning equation, the set, induction exercises, program phases, and supporting assemblies. The main action learning ideas, categorized into four groups, namely, group 1 (learning experience and outcomes-related), group 2 (learning practices-related), group 3 (action-related) and group 4 (academic domain-related). Details are provided below (Bourner, 2011; Hawkins, 2011; Ingram et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2014; Simpson and Bourner, 2007; Soffe et al., 2011; Stephens and Margey, 2015; Kozubska and MacKenzie, 2012; Pedler, 1997; 2008; Rigg and Trehan, 2004; Rooke et al., 2007; Waddill and Marquardt, 2011):

Group A: Learning experience and outcomes-related

Idea a1: “prepositional knowledge (knowing about) only really comes to have internalised and real meaning as knowledge when the receiving learners begin to apply that prepositional knowledge to themselves, by relating in some way to their experience” (Rooke et al., 2007);

Idea a2: Al involves learning from experience;

Idea a3: “Individuals and groups construct learning from the action or experience as well as norms and meaning [note: a constructivist perspective]” (Soffe et al., 2011);

Idea a4: AL was initially formulated for manager development; now its usage has been broadened to cover personal, professional and community development (Rooke et al., 2007);

Idea a5: AL requires manager-learners to become reflective practitioners (Stephens and Margey, 2015);

Group B: Learning practices-related

Idea b1: AL is chiefly group-based (i.e., “working with peers in an action set” (Stephens and Margey, 2015; Rooke et al, 2007);

Idea b2: AL employs facilitators of learning but is intended to be self-managed ultimately (i.e., “without the ongoing presence of a set advisor at set meetings to facilitate the process” (Bourner, 2011).);

Idea b3: AL is evolutionary and emergent in nature;

Idea b4: AL encourages asking insightful and moral questions;

Idea b5: AL needs to be more attentive to the emotional and power dynamics in the learning process (Rigg and Trehan, 2004);

Idea b6: Learning in AL is driven by open-ended, important and challenging real problems in real time;

Idea b7: AL endorses the notions of voluntary engagement, comradeship in adversity, resilience, commitment and perseverance (i.e., “an ability to cope with the frustration of not knowing” (Kozubska and Mackenzie, 2012);

Idea b8: An AL initiative can be conceived as “a network of interactions between different stakeholders” (Hawkins, 2011), thus “the interests, perspective and biases of particular stakeholders” need to be adequately taken into consideration in such learning process (Kozubska and MacKenzie, 2012);

Idea b9: AL can be resource intensive, time-consuming (Ingram et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2014), too theoretical (Pedler, 1997), too focused on individual learning (Waddill and Marquardt, 2011) and too conservative as “it mobilises current organisational power structures rather than allowing for critical thought and radical change” (Pedler, 2008);

Group C: Action-related

Idea c1:  Action is chiefly an input and a learning facilitator, not the aim of action learning; the primary aim of AL is on learning (Rooke et al., 2007);

Idea c2: AL involves critically exploring issues (i.e., ‘learning by doing something different’ and own thinking (Simpson and Bourner, 2007) and asking fresh questions) and taking practical actions via repeated cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflection;

Idea c3: Actions in AL can be personal actions, social actions, or both;

Group D: Academic domain-related

Idea d1: AL’s main focus is on developing the learners’ problem-solving skills and understanding of the problems under scrutiny, not contributing to “new knowledge to the public domain” (Simpson and Bourner, 2007);

Idea d2: The group members participating in AL are encouraged to analyze and debate on academic principles relevant to the problems they are coping;

Idea d3: AL involves “embedding academic knowledge in a working environment and solving real problems” (Stephens and Margey, 2015).

Altogether, via literature review, 20 AL ideas have been presented which capture the AL experience, outcomes, action, learning practices and academic domains. Their applicability in practice-based intellectual is to be examined in the next section.

Enhancing Practice-based intellectual learning in mil with action learning ideas

The AL literature clearly offers a broad array of ideas and practical experiences at the theoretical and practice levels to enrich practice-based intellectual learning in MIL (re: Figure 1). It not only provides relevant practical and clarifying guidelines for practice-based intellectual learning, but also indicates the constraints of its practice as well as the diversity of theoretical perspectives (including schools of thinking on AL) on which AL can anchor. The AL themes of learning experience, learning practices and action are certainly of tremendous interest in practice-based intellectual learning study. In this regard, practice-based intellectual learning’s theoretical position is as follows:

a.     Practice in practice-based intellectual learning is very much about application of intellectual ideas in real-life setting, from which application experience is gained. Such application inevitably involves actions of some kind.

b.     It is prepared to consider the various schools of thinking and approaches of AL under the principles of critical systems thinking, notably on pluralism[3]. This is because MIL itself is explicitly grounded on critical systems thinking.

c.     With practice-based intellectual learning, the academic principles to be employed (re: AL idea d2) have to include the key MPSB concepts from the MPSB Research, in addition to any other academic principles that are considered relevant to the problems under review in the AL or practice-based intellectual learning initiative.

As practice-based intellectual learning is based on critical systems thinking and the MPSB Research, its practice, which can be happily enriched with the AL ideas, it is appealing to adopt the form of triple loop learning of Flood and Romm (1996). The reason is that triple-loop learning is an authoritative critical systems-based learning methodology. The topic of how practice-based intellectual learning can take the form of triple-loop learning is not further examined in this paper. The following table, Table 1, offers specific comments on the applicability of AL ideas, as identified in the previous section, to practice-based intellectual learning.

Table 1: Comments on the applicability of AL ideas to practice-based intellectual learning

AL ideas	Comments on applicability to practice-based intellectual learning
Idea a1: prepositional knowledge only really comes to have internalised and real meaning as knowledge when the receiving learners begin to apply that prepositional knowledge to themselves, by relating in some way to their experience	This AL idea underlines the importance of experience in intellectual learning, notably on one based on application (practice). It is able to clarify the rationale of practice-based intellectual learning in this respect.
Idea a2: Al involves learning from experience	This AL idea is relevant for learning based on experience reflection; it is equally applicable to practice-based intellectual learning.
Idea a3: Individuals and groups construct learning from the action or experience as well as norms and meaning	This AL idea is a useful reminder of the subjective and intersubjective nature of intellectual learning process, including the practice-based version. Nevertheless, practice-based learning should be capable to be reflective and critical too.
Idea a4: AL was initially formulated for manager development; now its usage has been broadened to cover personal, professional and community development	This idea points to a much larger scope of AL application; such situation is equally applicable to practice-based intellectual learning. Nevertheless, when more participants get involved in the learning process, inevitably the process becomes much more challenging to manage. Consequently, practice guidelines should differ when the number of participants changes significantly.
Idea a5: AL requires manager-learners to become reflective practitioners	It is also the aspiration of practice-based intellectual learning to develop reflective practitioners; this AL idea is thus readily shared in practice-based intellectual learning.
Idea b1: AL is chiefly group-based	To be group-based learning is desirable in practice-based intellectual learning. (It is also in line with the AL idea of b8.) However, it may not be feasible sometimes. Regardless, practice-based intellectual learning can also be a personal activity.
Idea b2: AL employs facilitators of learning but is intended to be self-managed ultimately	This idea resonates with that of practice-based intellectual learning using coaches and mentors to facilitate the learning process (Ho, 2015a). Thus, this AL’s idea is informative to the study of practice-based intellectual learning.
Idea b3: AL is evolutionary and emergent in nature	This AL idea clarifies the exploratory nature of learning in a problematic situation facing the learner(s). The idea is equally appropriate to describe practice-based intellectual learning.
Idea b4: AL encourages asking insightful and moral questions	This AL idea is also one of the aspirations of critical systems thinking, on which practice-based intellectual learning is theoretically grounded.
Idea b5: AL needs to be more attentive to the emotional and power dynamics in the learning process	This idea is quite compatible with critical systems thinking, thus also applicable on practice-based intellectual learning.
Idea b6: Learning in AL is driven by open-ended, important and challenging real problems in real time	This is in line with the practice-based intellectual learning thinking. It is highly applicable to practice-based intellectual learning in this case.
Idea b7: AL endorses the notions of voluntary engagement, comradeship in adversity, resilience, commitment and perseverance	This AL idea should also be relevant for practice-based intellectual learning in group form. It enriches our understanding of group-form practice-based intellectual learning. It is much less relevant for personal-form practice-based intellectual learning.
Idea b8: An AL initiative can be conceived as a network of interactions between different stakeholders, thus the interests, perspective and biases of particular stakeholders need to be adequately taken into consideration	This AL idea is applicable to practice-based intellectual learning, whether it is individual, group or organization-based. This is because the intellectual learning happens in a real-world social setting with concerns and issues associated with a range of stakeholders
Idea b9: AL can be resource intensive, time-consuming, too theoretical, too focused on individual learning and too conservative	The AL limitations could exist if the learning process is formal and the academic principles are intellectually demanding for learners to learn, among other reasons. These limitations could also happen in practice-based intellectual learning. Learners do need to be aware of them in going through the practice-based learning process. Other than that, when sufficiently informed by critical systems and MPSB thinking, practice-based intellectual learning should not be conservative (i.e., unimaginative); instead it should be holistic, critical and creative.
Idea c1:  Action is chiefly an input and a learning facilitator, not the aim of action learning; the primary aim of AL is on learning	Similar to AL, practice-based intellectual learning’s utmost concern is on intellectual learning, not actions. On the other hand, practices (and action, broadly understood[4]) make up an inseparable ingredient of this learning process.
Idea c2: AL involves critically exploring issues and asking fresh questions, and taking practical actions via repeated cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflection	This idea is quite compatible with the aspiration of critical systems thinking and the Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research which make up the theoretical foundation of practice-based intellectual learning. For this reason, the AL experience on this idea is relevant to practice-based intellectual learning. Alternatively, AL can also learn from critical systems thinking and the MPSB Research on this topic.
Idea c3: Actions in AL can be personal actions, social actions, or both	This AL idea is also relevant for describing actions arising from practice-based intellectual learning. Such actions can be personal, group-based, organizations-based or social in nature. This idea is closely related to AL idea b4.
Idea d1: AL’s main focus is on developing the learners’ problem-solving skills and understanding of the problems under scrutiny, not contributing to “new knowledge to the public domain”	This idea is compatible with the emphasis on learning and intellectual learning capability building in practice-based intellectual learning. Developing new knowledge is primarily the aspiration of the MPSB Research[5], not practice-based intellectual learning per se, although the MPSB Research offers the intellectual inputs to the practice-based intellectual learning. This idea is closely related to AL idea a5.
Idea d2: The group members participating in AL are encouraged to analyze and debate on academic principles relevant to the problems they are coping	Applying academic principles is a defining characteristic of intellectual learning, including the practice-based one. Nevertheless, for practice-based learning, more specifically, it is mandatory to employ the key MPSB concepts. Otherwise, it is not practice-based intellectual learning in the MIL subject at all.
Idea d3: AL involves embedding academic knowledge in a working environment and solving real problems	This AL idea is useful to clarify the nature of practice-based intellectual learning. It is closely associated to AL idea d2.

This ends the discussion on the applicability of AL ideas to practice-based intellectual learning. Via the discussion, the subject of practice-based intellectual learning has been enriched by relating to the AL literature. The next section makes some concluding remarks on this study.

concluding remarks

Via the literature review on AL, this writer recognizes the rich source of AL ideas and practice experience relevant to practice-based intellectual learning in MIL. Nevertheless, the importation of AL ideas into practice-based intellectual learning needs to be done in a way that keeps the practice-based intellectual learning’s theoretical foundation on critical systems thinking and the MPSB Research unbroken. In particular, the diversity of AL perspectives is recommended to be handled by heeding the pluralism principle in critical systems thinking [requirement 1]. For the same reason, the key MPSB concepts have to be the mandatory academic principles to apply in practice-based intellectual learning [requirement 2].  [Certainly, practice-based intellectual learning also is receptive to ideas from other disciplines.] With that two requirements met, practice-based intellectual learning has no conceptual difficulty to assimilate AL ideas into its practice. Lastly, given the theoretical nature of this paper, it is recommended that more empirical research works need to be carried out on this topic to make concrete conceptual advancement in practice-based intellectual learning. Readers are also referred to the MIL and the MPSB Research literature for further details of them, as this paper does not elaborate on these two subjects.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bong, H.C., Y.J. Cho and H.S. Kim. 2014. “Developing an action learning design model” Action Learning: Research and Practice 11(3), Routledge: 278-295.

Bourner, T. 2011. “Developing self-managed action learning (SMAL)” Action Learning: Research and Practice 8(2) July, Routledge: 117-127

Dickenson, M., J. Burgoyne and M. Pedler. 2010. “Virtual action learning: practices and challenges” Action Learning: Research and Practice 7(1) March, Routledge: 59-72.

Flood, R.L. and N.R.A. Romm. 1996. Diversity Management: triple loop learning, Wiley.

Hawkins, R. 2011. “ICRA. Stakeholders: Key concepts” (http://www.icra-edu.org/

objects/anglolearn/Stakeholders-Key_Concepts.pdf) (visited at January 27, 2012).

Ho, J.K.K. 2013a. “A Research Note: An exploration on the intellectual learning process of systems thinking by managers in the digital social media ecosystem” European Academic Research 1(5) August: 636-649.

Ho, J.K.K. 2013b. “A research paper: Providing e-learning support to part-time students in business disciplines using Facebook from the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) perspective” Systems Research and Behavioural Science 30: 86-97.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014a. “A Research Note on the Concept of the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Cognitive Filter for Management” European Academic Research 2(1) April: 686-704.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014b. “A Research Note on the Managerial Intellectual Learning Capability-Building Mechanism (MILCBM)” European Academic Research 2(2) May: 2029-2047.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014c. “An empirical study on managerial intellectual learning (MIL) and managerial intellectual learning capability-building mechanism (MILCBM)” European Academic Research 2(8) November: 10564-10577.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014d. “An examination of the underlying concern of work-life balance for managerial intellectual learning” European Academic Research 2(6) September: 7516-7536.

Ho, J.K.K. 2015a. “A brief research note on coaching and mentoring practice guidelines and principles for the Multi-perspective, Systems-based managerial intellectual learning” European Academic Research 3(7) October: 7291-7303.

Ho, J.K.K. 2015b. “An examination on the study scope and theoretical principles of managerial intellectual learning” European Academic Research 3(4) July: 4602-4618.

Ho, J.K.K. 2015c. “Examining Literature Review Practices and Concerns Based on Managerial Intellectual Learning Thinking” International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Science, Society and Culture 1(1): 5-19.

Ho, J.K.K. 2015d. “An updated research note on the key multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) concepts in the multi-perspective, systems-based research” American Research Thoughts 1(1) September: 2693-2704.

Ho, J.K.K. 2016a. “A literature review on employability with diagramming techniques” American Research Thoughts 2(6) April: 3771-3784.

Ho, J.K.K. 2016b. “A literature review on housing market using diagramming techniques” Joseph KK Ho e-resources blog May 10 (url address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2016/05/a-literature-review-onhousing-market.html).

Ingram, H., J. Biermann, J. Cannon, J. Neil, and C. Waddle. 2000. “Internalising Action Learning: A Company Perspective.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 12 (2): 107–114.

Jackson, M.C. 2000. Systems approaches to management, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York.

Jacobs, G.C. 2008. “The development of critical being? Reflection and reflexivity in an action learning programme for health promotion practitioners in the Netherlands” Action Learning: Research and Practice 5(3) November, Routledge: 221-235.

Jones, K., S.A. Sambrook, L. Pittaway, A. Henley and H. Norbury. 2014. “Action learning: how learning transfers from entrepreneurs to small firms” Action Learning: Research and Practice 11(2), Routledge: 131-166.

Kozubska, J. and B. MacKenzie. 2012. “Differences and impacts through action learning” Action Learning: Research and Practice 9 (2) July, Routledge: 145-164.

Managerial Intellectual Learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K.Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/timeline).

Marsick, V. and J. O’Neil. 1999. “The many faces of action learning” Management Learning 30(2): 159–76.

Midgley, G. 1992. “Pluralism and the  Legitimation of Systems Science” Systems Practice 5(2): 147-172.

Pedler, M. 1997. “Interpreting Action Learning.” In Management Learning; Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice, edited by Burgoyne, J. and M. Reynolds, Sage: London: 248–264.

Pedler, M. 2008. Action Learning for Managers. Padstow: TJ International.

Ram, M. 2012. “Polemical essay: Critical action learning: extending its reach” Action Learning: Research and Practice 9(3) November, Routledge: 219-224.

Revans, R. 2011. ABC of Action Learning. Surrey: Gower.

Rigg, C. and K. Trehan. 2004. “Reflections on working with critical action learning” Action Learning Research and Practice 1(2), Routledge: 149–65.

Rooke, J., C. Altounyan, A.  Young and S. Young. 2007. “Doers of the Word? An enquiry into the nature of action in action learning” Action Learning: Research and Practice 4(2) September, Routledge: 119-135.

Schwandt, D.R. and M.J. Marquardt. 2000. Organizational learning: From worldclass theories to global best practices. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Simpson, P. and T. Bourner. 2007. “What action learning is not in the twenty-first century” Action Learning: Research and Practice 4(2) September, Routlege: 173-187.

Soffe, S.M., M.J. Marquardt and E. Hale. 2011. “Action learning and critical thinking: a synthesis of two models” Action Learning: Research and Practice 8(3) November, Routledge: 211-230.

Stephens, S. and M. Margey. 2015. “Action learning and executive education: achieving credible personal, practitioner and organizational learning” Action Learning: Research and Practice 12(1), Routledge: 37-51.

The Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/multiperspective.systemsbased.research/?fref=ts).

Waddill, D., and M. Marquardt. 2011. “Adult Learning Theories and the Practice of Action Learning.” In Action Learning in Practice, edited by Pedler, M., Surrey: Gower: 415–427.

---

[1] The MPSB Research is defined as “A research programme that makes use of critical systems thinking to review management disciplines with a view to developing knowledge structures of management disciplines as a path to make theoretical advancements in systems thinking” (Ho, 2015d).

[2] The key MPSB concepts are: (i) multi-perspective, (ii) systems-based, (iii) the MPSB research, (iv) MPSB frameworks, (v) perspective, (vi) a perspective switch, (vii) a migration of perspective, (viii) perspective anchoring, (ix) an MPSB rich picture building exercise, (x) an MPSB knowledge compiler, (xi) the in-built tension of pluralism, and (xii) an MPSB cognitive filter for management (Ho, 2015d).

[3] The principle of pluralism, e.g., Midgley (1992), is singled out here as it is able to consider all the different schools of AL thinking (endorsing diverse theoretical perspectives) at the same time.

[4] For the writer, actions can be (i) communicating and (ii) using academic ideas to comprehend a problem-situation in a systematic way. It is not exclusively about individual, group or organizational interventions.

[5] The MPSB Research and the MIL do share the intellectual aspiration to further develop the MIL theories, including those on practice-based intellectual learning.