Utilizing adult learning literature to enrich the subject of managerial intellectual learning

Utilizing adult learning literature to enrich the subject of managerial intellectual learning: a proposal

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: Managerial intellectual learning (MIL), as a research topic in the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research, is about using the MPSB concepts to pursue intellectual learning in management disciplines so as to purse the life-goal to become an MPSB scholar-practitioner. As such, its targeted users are primarily adult learners. Thus, it is useful, in the conduct of MIL research to examine the adult learning literature so as to propose how the adult learning literature can enrich the MIL study. This study takes up this task. It identifies five research themes in adult learning and puts forward five research proposals for MIL based on the adult learning literature review. The findings from this study contribute to the theoretical enrichment of MIL. Finally, the paper encourages more theoretical and empirical study on MIL, as informed by these findings.

Keywords: adult learning, literature review, managerial intellectual learning, mind map

Please cite the paper as: Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “Utilizing adult learning literature to enrich the subject of managerial intellectual learning: a proposal” Joseph KK Ho e-resources blog July 23 (url address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2016/07/utilizing-adult-learning-literature-to.html).

1.      Introduction

The subject of managerial intellectual learning (MIL), launched by this writer in 2013 (Ho, 2013a) is both a sub-theme of the broader research topic called Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research (re: The Multi-perspective, Systems-based Facebook page) as well as a theme about application the MPSB Research ideas in intellectual learning (re: Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page). In this regard, it is closely associated to an earlier key MPSB concept called enlightening management education (Ho, 2013b). The main aim of this paper is not to explain what is MIL because there are already published works on it, see the managerial intellectual learning Facebook page (re: the bibliography). This paper examines some of the literature on adult learning so as conceptually enrich the MIL subject. Such an intellectual exercise adopts the same investigation approach as Ho (2016), which is on enriching practice-based intellectual learning in MIL with the action learning literature; except that this time, the literature review is on adult learning instead of action learning, and the application target is the MIL subject as a whole, instead of a component MIL activity, namely, practice-based intellectual learning. Thus, the next section is a briefing on some of the main ideas of adult learning, followed by a discussion on how adult learning ideas can enrich the MIL subject.

2.      Main ideas of adult learning from the academic literature

Adult learning is “a growing part of the population in the academic setting, as well as other settings…” (Gayle et al., 2000).  As a subject, adult learning is, unavoidably, a complicated one. This is because adults are beyond doubt not a homogeneous group of people; Wikipedia describes an adult as “a human being… that has reached sexual maturity. In human context, the term adult additionally has meanings associated with social and legal concept. In contrast to a “minor”, a legal adult is a person who has attained the age of majority and is therefore regarded as independent, self-sufficient, and responsible” (Wikipedia.org, 2016). The following definition is typical on adult learning:

“the entire range of formal, non-formal and informal learning activities which are undertaken by adults after a break since leaving initial education and training, and which results in the acquisition of new knowledge and skills” (National Research Centre for adult literacy and numeracy, 2010).

Adult learning forms, also called andgragogy (Kearsley, 2010), cited by Pappas (2013), cover both “art and science of adult learning”. Four areas of adulating learning research have been identified by Brookfield (1995) which inform “how a great many adult educators practice their craft”; these are (i) self-directed learning, (ii) critical reflection, (iii) experiential learning and (iv) learning to learn. Some trends in adult learning since the 1990s include: cross cultural adult learning, practical theorizing, distance learning (Brookfield, 1995). Adult learners are recognized as “extremely diverse in their nature, needs, and preferences” (Cornelius and Gordon, 2009). The following are some of the main ideas in the adult learning literature, grouped into five related research themes, i.e.: (i) profiles and images of adult learners, (ii) adult learning activities, (iii) education programmes for adult learning, (iv) roles of educators and mentors and (v) contexts and supportive infrastructures:

Theme 1: profiles and images of adult learners

Idea 1.1.                    “…adult learners tend to (1) ‘‘have a need to know why they should learn something’’; (2) ‘‘have a deep need to be self-directing’’; (3) ‘‘have a greater volume and different quality of experience than youth’’; (4) ‘‘become ready to learn when they experience a need to know or to be able to do’’; (5) ‘‘enter into a learning experience with a task-centered orientation to learning’’; and (6) ‘‘are motivated by both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators….” (Knowles (1996: 255-258) as cited by Gayle et al., (2000).);

Idea 1.2.                    “…Younger adult learners have the advantage in ‘‘reasoning, short term memory, and processing speed,’’ …. At the same time ‘‘acculturation knowledge ….. long-term memory, and quantitative knowledge appear to increase through most of adulthood…’’ (Gayle et al., 2000);

Idea 1.3.                     “…there are no generic or normative learning habits and educational pursuits among older people…” (O’Dows, 2005); “…Self-directed learners ….. know their specific learning requirements and personal learning preferences and can self-monitor and reflect productively on their own learning in order to achieve their goals”  (Knowles (1984) and Lai et al. (2013) cited in Botha et al. (2015).);

Idea 1.4.                    “..The self-managing learner is one who is self-aware, capable of exercising choice in relation to needs, of taking an active self-directing role in furthering his or her own learning and development….” (Harrison, 2000);

Idea 1.5.                    “…The effective learner is seen as embodying a strong ‘sense of self, intrinsic motivation, personal control and responsibility, high self-perceptions of competence and self-esteem’ ….. The ‘desirable’ self is represented here as a rational, self-aware and well-informed decision-maker freely choosing between learning opportunities and career destinations…” (Harrison, 2000);

Theme 2: adult learning activities

Idea 2.1.                    “ …. theory development in adult learning is weak and is hindered by the persistence of myths that ….  adult learning is inherently joyful, that adults are innately self-directed learners, that good educational practice always meets the needs articulated by learners themselves and that there is a uniquely adult learning process as well as a uniquely adult form of practice..” (Brookfield, 1995);

Idea 2.2.                    “The learning achieved by individuals through their work-based activity is unique and differentially experienced. It involves a combination of intuitive reasoning, inference and inductive thinking which is normally tacit and not available for analysis” (Cox, 2005);

Idea 2.3.                    “….that learners frequently use conversations to learn from self-paced, technology based training strongly suggests that dialogs and discussions are important in the design of these new ways of learning…” (Dobrovolny, 2006);

Idea 2.4.                    “…As adults, we ….. construct knowledge by conversing with others, analyzing problems together, identifying solutions together, and meeting goals together…”  (Dobrovolny, 2006);

Idea 2.5.                    “…for every teacher who values the “motivation” of adult students whose learning goals are tied to real life concerns, it is not hard to find another who bemoans their overweening “practicality” and lack of patience for reflective attention to the bigger philosophical questions” …..” (Hodson et al., 2001);

Idea 2.6.                    “…traditionally we have been concerned with ‘the qualitative changes in how the student knows and not just what the student knows’…  However, this may not represent the adult learners’ position, which frequently may have more specific goals…” (Hodson et al., 2001);

Idea 2.7.                     “…Metacognition is …. It is the process of regulating and modifying our cognitive activity …, planning and selecting strategies, monitoring the progress of learning, correcting errors, and changing strategies when necessary…” (Dobrovolny, 2006);

Idea 2.8.                    “…Reflection is careful, deliberate thinking that helps us make sense of experiences and supports our knowledge construction process (Jonassen and Reeves (1996) as cited by Dobrovolny (2006).);

Idea 2.9.                    Five levels of reflection have been identified by Griffiths and Tann (1991), cited by Cox (2005), namely, (i) rapid reaction, (ii) repair, (iii) review, (iv) research, and (v) retheorize and reformulate.

Idea 2.10.                “…‘reflecting-in-action’—the tacit knowledge which people bring to any situation—and ‘reflecting-on-action’, which has been summarized as ‘retrospective reflection carried out after and usually away from the event’…” (Rolfe (1998) cited in Cox (2005).);

Idea 2.11.               “…structured reflection-on-action could be viewed as a highly introspective activity that has little relevance except in higher level occupations. Reflection-on-action may have relevance in professions where there are ethical dimensions to be considered and important decisions to be made…” (Cox, 2005);

Idea 2.12.               “..the critical consciousness and particularly….theoretical reflectivity… becomes realized through perspective transformations: Perspective transformation involves not only becoming critically aware of habits of perception, thought and action, but of the cultural assumptions governing the rules, roles, conventions and social expectations which dictate the way we see, think, feel and action….”(Mezirow (1981: 129) cited in Cox (2005).);

Idea 2.13.               “….reflective practice involves reflective dialogue that ‘engages the person at the edge of their knowledge, their sense of self and the world as experienced by them’…” (Brookbank and McGill (1998) cited in Cox (2005).);

Idea 2.14.                “Self-directedness has been associated with life-preparedness, which includes the cultivation and nurturing of attributes such as agency, resilience, agility and the anticipation of adverse events” (Lent (2013) cited in Botha et al. (2015).);

Theme 3: Education programmes for adult learning

Idea 3.1.                    “…the self-learning method promoted motivation to learn, but some [postgraduate] students found the experience not meeting their expectations. In particular the role of tutors and the lack of tutor direction were key features associated with the concerns expressed by the disaffected learners…” (Hodson et al., 2001);

Idea 3.2.                    “..Adult learners have been shown to value courses which include options, allow personalisation, encourage self-direction, and provide variety…” (Ausburn (2004) and Nelson (2008), cited by Cornelius and Gordon (2009).);

Idea 3.3.                    “…Whereas …[younger students]…usually follow a consecutive, linear learning route, adults’ engagement with education and training tends to be intermittent and more varied…” (McGiveney, 2004);

Idea 3.4.                    “…It is generally found that that men are more likely to cite course-related, finance-related or work-related reasons for leaving courses [education programmes] before completion, whereas women are more likely to withdraw for reasons to do with family commitments and the lack, inadequacy or costs of childcare…” (McGiveney, 2004);

Idea 3.5.                    “…the wrong choice of course was a highly significant factor in early withdrawal from further and higher education programmes…” (McGivney, 2004);

Theme 4: Roles of educators and mentors

Idea 4.1.                    It has been suggested by Mezirow (1981: 135), as cited in Cox (2005), that the adult educator’s role is to “‘respond to the learner’s educational need in a way which will improve the quality of his or her self-directedness as a learner”;

Idea 4.2.                    “In the face of ….diversity in self directedness (and learners’ other needs and preferences) the educator’s role is to provide a framework in which learning can take place, and learners are themselves responsible for contextualising their learning – making it important, relevant, and instructive (Illeris (2007) cited by Cornelius and Gordon (2009).);

Idea 4.3.                    “….mentoring influences doctoral student retention, degree completion, and overall satisfaction, and that it can help close significant gaps across demographic groups and academic disciplines…” (Mullen et al., 2010);

Idea 4.4.                    “….Co-mentorship or collaborative mentoring promotes reciprocal learning, power sharing, turn taking, co-leading, dialogue, constructive feedback, and authenticity in learning….. Co-mentorship occurs where mentors and mentees (or students) proactively teach each other in ways that are completely respectful while being critically supportive….” (Mullen et al., 2010);

Theme 5: contexts and supportive infrastructures

Idea 5.1.                    “It is widely assumed that adults should engage in learning throughout their working life in order to adapt to changing conditions in the labour market and to ensure that national economies remain competitive in a global skills race” (Jenkins, 2016);

Idea 5.2.                    “…In narrating and reflecting upon their past lives, participants spoke, often in terms of class and gender, about how initial schooling, family life, employment or unemployment affected their present lives in terms of attitudes towards and participation in learning…”  (Merrill, 2004);

Idea 5.3.                    “…Most individuals are now expected to be more self-sufficient: managing lives with less support from the state, public institutions or large employers. (McNair (1996 : 8) cited by Harrison, 2000);

Idea 5.4.                     “Since self-directed adult learners manage their own learning, they require a facilitative environment in which to learn optimally (Knowles (1984) cited in Botha et al. (2015).);

Idea 5.5.                    “…While adult learners represent a wide variety of developmental stages, for information literacy, for a successful search for electronic information, each one must learn to cope with the burgeoning explosion of information…” (Gayle et al., 2000);

Idea 5.6.                    “…the main problem [with lifelong learning] is that it fails to critically assess how conditions for individual development, ethnic and social background, previous schooling and working life conditions create very different preconditions for lifelong learning…” (O’Dowd, 2005);

Idea 5.7.                     “…Modularization, credit transfer, open learning and competence based qualifications have contributed towards the development of a more complex set of choices for learners and a correspondingly increased role for guidance and the use of techniques such as ‘ action planning’, ‘personal development planning’ and ‘ recording achievement ’…” (Harrison, 2000);

Idea 5.8.                    “..When the impact of mobile and wireless technology on lifelong learning (LLL) is discussed, the specialist literature suggests many possible positive influences: increased flexibility, engagement, critical thinking, collaboration and communication…”  (Cobcroft (2006), cited by Seta et al. (2014).);

Idea 5.9.                     “….Our goal in libraries is to help adult learners …. make good decisions in selecting ….information. The users must first make a decision about which resources to search. Next they must identify and locate appropriate sources within those resources, make judgments about their appropriateness, and finally integrate the data and information into their understanding of the topic before producing a written report…. “(Gayle et al., 2000);

The ideas associated with the five research themes are representative viewpoints and voices in the adult learning literature; the literature review conducted by the writer is not comprehensive as the adult learning literature is quite substantial. Together, these ideas render in a broad-brush way the knowledge structure on adult learning as informed by the literature review done by this writer, also refer to Literature on adult education Facebook page. This knowledge structure can be visualized in the form of a mind map (see appendix 1). It is not the intention of this paper to provide an introduction to all the adult learning ideas mentioned here as this will substantially lengthen the paper. Rather, the identified adult learning ideas serve as illustrative examples as well as pointers to the original sources of them. All in all, the adult learning ideas help us to develop a more comprehensive and complicated understanding on adult learning. For the same reason, these adult learning ideas promote a more comprehensive and complicated pathway to theoretically develop the subject of MIL. The next section further explores this topic how adult learning ideas could enrich MIL.

3.      Research proposals on how to enrich MIL with the adult learning literature

Managerial intellectual learning is “the Multi-perspective, Systems-based intellectual learning by people of management concepts to be employed to inform real-world management practices” (Ho, 2015a); it relies on the MPSB Research, including its key ingredient MPSB concepts, to go through the intellectual learning process. Especially, it is attentive to the MPSB concept of enlightening management education (Ho, 2013b) and is structured with the managerial intellectual learning process framework (Ho, 2014), see Figure 1.

Referring to Figure 1, the MIL framework identifies a number of components, notably component 1 (the managerial intellectual learning capability-building mechanism (MILCBM)), component 2 (the MIL process), component 3 (infrastructural support), component 4 (the world of management practices), and component 5 (work & non-work influences, support & constraints). Besides, the “feedback” arrow in Figure 1 is also important for stressing the looping nature of the MIL process. These components are introduced in Ho (2014). Subsequently, the components of the MIL framework has been enriched with ideas from the coaching and mentoring academic literature (Ho, 2015b) and the action learning literature (Ho, 2016). Since MIL is mainly for adult learners to adopt so as to pursue the career goal of becoming an MPSB scholar-practitioner, it benefits from learning from the adult learning literature. This enables the development of a more comprehensive and complicated view of MIL. With a set of adult learning ideas identified in the previous section, this writer can now propose how these adult learning ideas can enrich the subject of MIL. This proposal takes the form of a set of research proposals that need to be conducted based on both the adult learning ideas and the MIL framework (re: Figure 1):

Research proposal 1: to consider the profiles and images of adult learners (adult learning theme 1) to configure MILCBM for specific adult learners;

Research proposal 2: to consider how the observations of adult learning activities and adult learning theories (adult learning theme 2) can inform theoretical and empirical investigation of the various MIL phases, i.e., data management phase, absorbed reading phase, the MPSB knowledge compilation and practice-based intellectual learning;

Research proposal 3: to consider how adult learning ideas on education programmes (adult learning theme 3) can inform the theoretical and empirical study of enlightening management education in the MPSB Research as well as “infrastructural support” and “work & non-work influences, support & constraints” in MIL.

Research proposal 4: to consider how adult learning ideas on educators’ and mentors’ roles (adult learning theme 4) can inform the theoretical and empirical investigation of “infrastructural support” and “work & non-work influences, support & constraints” components in MIL.

Research proposal 5: to consider how adult learning ideas on contexts and supportive infrastructures (adult learning theme 5) can inform the theoretical and empirical investigation of “infrastructural support” and “work & non-work influences, support & constraints” components in MIL.

The five MIL research proposals above are daunting research topics as each adult learning research theme and each MIL component itself comprises a number of theories and concepts. Clearly, these research proposals require both substantial theoretical and empirical studies. These studies are non-trivial intellectual ventures; it is thus outside the scope of this paper to discuss them further.

4.      Concluding remarks

Managerial intellectual learning is chiefly targeted at adult learners who aspire to become MPSB scholar-practitioners. Naturally, it is necessary to inform its theoretical development using ideas from the adult learning literature. This is done in this paper, resulting in the identification of five adult learning research themes with associated ideas. A mind map on adult learning further renders an image of the intellectual landscape on the adult learning subject. Finally, the enrichment of the MIL subject takes the form of five MIL research proposals on MIL based on the identified research themes and associated ideas of adult learning. Particularly, the adult learning ideas identified in this paper equip the MIL researchers with additional conceptual concepts and tools to conduct theoretical and empirical investigation on MIL. These MIL research proposals thus represent the study outcome of this paper on adult learning and MIL – the enrichment of the MIL study with the adult learning literature.

Bibliography

1.      Ausburn, L.J. 2004. “Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online educational environments” Educational Media International 41(3): 245-252.

2.      Botha, J.A., M. Coetzee and M. Coetzee. 2015. “Exploring adult learners’ self-directedness in relation to their employability attributes in open distance learning” Journal of Psychology in Africa 25(1): 65-72.

3.      Brockbank, A. and I. McGill. 1998. Facilitating reflective learning in higher education, Buckingham, SRHE.

4.      Brookfield, S. 1995. “Adult Learning: An Overview” in Tuinjman, A. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

5.      Cobcroft, R. 2006. “Literature Review into Mobile Learning in the University Context” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.

6.      Cornelius, S. and C. Gordon. 2009. “Adult learners’ use of flexible online resources in a blended programme” Educational Media International 46(3): 239-253 (DOI: 10.1080/09523980903135392).

7.      Cox, E. 2005. “Adult learners learning from experience: using a reflective practice model to support work‐based learning” Reflective Practice 6(4): 459-472 (DOI: 10.1080/14623940500300517).

8.      Dobrovolny, J. 2006. “How Adults Learn from Self‐Paced, Technology‐Based Corporate Training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers” Distance Education 27(2): 155-170  (DOI: 10.1080/01587910600789506).

9.      Gayle R., G.R. Christian, C. Blumenthal and M. Patterson. 2000. “The Information Explosion and the Adult Learner: Implications for Reference Librarians” The Reference Librarian 33: 69-70, 19-30 (DOI: 10.1300/J120v33n69_03).

10.  Griffiths, M. and S. Tann. 1991. “Ripples in the reflection” in Lomax, P. (Ed.) BERA dialogues No.5, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters: 82-101.

11.  Harrison, R. 2000. “Learner managed learning: managing to learn or learning to manage?” International Journal of Lifelong Education 19(4): 312-321 (DOI: 10.1080/02601370050110374).

12.  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.

13.  Ho, J.K.K. 2013b. “An endeavor to render an impressionistic image of Enlightening Management Education in Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research” European Academic Research 1(6) September: 1013-1034.

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

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

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

17.  Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “Utilizing action learning (AL) ideas to enrich practice-based intellectual learning in managerial intellectual learning (MIL): a conceptual study” American Research Thoughts 2(7) May: 3851-3865.

18.  Hodson, P., M. Connolly and D. Saunders. 2001. “Can Computerbased Learning Support Adult Learners?” Journal of Further and Higher Education 25(3): 325-335 (DOI: 10.1080/03098770120077685).

19.  Illeris, K. 2007. How we learn. Routledge, Abingdon.

20.  Jenkins, A. 2016. “Adult learning and qualifications in Britain” Journal of Education and Work (DOI: 10.1080/13639080.2016.1196347).

21.  Jonassen, D. H. and T.C. Reeves. 1996. “Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools” in Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York.

22.  Kearsley, G. 2010. Andragogy (M.Knowles). The theory Into practice database. Retrieved from http://tip.psychology.org.

23.  Knowles, M. S. 1984. Andragogy in action. Jossey-Bass, California.

24.  Knowles, M.S. 1996. “Adult learning” in Craig, R.L. (Ed.) The ASTD Training and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human Resource Development, New York: McGraw-Hill: 253-265.

25.  Lai, C., D. Gardner and E. Law. 2013. “New to facilitating self-directed learning – the changing perceptions of teachers” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3): 281-294.

26.  Lent, R.W. 2013. “Career life-preparedness: revisiting career planning and adjustments in the new workplace” The Career Development Quarterly 6(11): 2-14.

27.  Literature on adult education Facebook page, maintained by Joseph KK Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-adult-education-279353712415928/).

28.  Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph KK Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/?fref=ts).

29.  McGivney, V. 2004. “Understanding persistence in adult learning” Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 19(1): 33-46.

30.  McNair, S. 1996. Putting Learners at the Centre: Reflections from the Guidance and Learner Autonomy in Higher Education Programme, DfEE, Sheffield.

31.  Merrill, B. 2004. “Biographies, Class and Learning: the experiences of adult learners” Pedagogy, Culture and Society 12(1): 73-94.

32.  Mezirow, J. 1981. “A critical theory of adult learning and education” Adult Education, 32(1): 3-24.

33.  Mullen, C.A., V.L. Fish and J.L. Hutinger. 2010. “Mentoring doctoral students through scholastic engagement: adult learning principles in action” Journal of Further and Higher Education 34(2): 179-197 (DOI: 10.1080/03098771003695452).

34.  National Research Centre for adult literacy and numeracy. 2010. “Final report for: Study on European Terminology in Adult Learning for common language and common understanding and monitoring of the sector” Call Number: EAC 11/2008, National Research Centre for adult literacy and numeracy (url address: http://www.pedz.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-b/gdbk/10/adultreport_en.pdf) [visited at July 21, 2016].

35.  Nelson, A. 2008. “Online personalization: The key to engaging the learner” Development and Learning in Organizations 22(1): 11-13.

36.  O'Dowd, M. 2005. “Learning from childhood to mature adulthood: what makes people want ‘to learn to learn’ and keep on learning?” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 35(3): 321-338 (DOI: 10.1080/03057920500212639).

37.  Pappas, C. 2013. “The Adult Learning Theory – Andragogy – of Malcolm Knowles” elearningindustry.com May 9 (url address: https://elearningindustry.com/the-adult-learning-theory-andragogy-of-malcolm-knowles) [visited at July 21, 2016].

38.  Rolfe, G. 1998. “Beyond expertise: reflective and reflexive nursing practice” in C. Johns, C and D. Freshwater (Eds) Transforming nursing through reflective practice, Oxford, Blackwell.

39.  Seta, L., A. Kukulska-Hulme and M. Arrigo. 2014. “What have we learnt about mobile Lifelong Learning (mLLL)?” International Journal of Lifelong Education 33(2):161-182 (DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2013.831954).

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

41.  Wikipedia.org. 2016. “Adult” Wikipedia.org (url address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult) [visited at July 21, 2016].

Appendix

How the action research literature can enrich the MPSB Research

literature can enrich the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The contemporary version of the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research adopts the vision of considering practice-/ action-oriented research methodologies in its research scope so as to strengthen its ability to produce intellectual knowledge of higher actionable and usable value to the real-world of management practices. One of such research methodologies is action research. This paper conducted a literature review on action research and figured out how the action research literature can enrich the MPSB Research subject. Several observations are made in this respect. Overall, the paper contributes to the theoretical development of the MPSB Research.

Keywords: action research, multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) Research, literature review

Please cite the paper as: Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “An exploratory study on how the action research literature can enrich the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research” Joseph KK Ho e-resources July 18 (url address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2016/07/an-exploratory-study-on-howthe-action.html).

1.      Introduction

The Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research was initiated by this writer in 1992 as his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Hong Kong. It resulted in the publication of a thesis report as well as a number of academic papers in the 1990s (Ho, 1996). The 1990s’ version of the MPSB Research was chiefly literature review-based, focusing on examining the subjects of management accounting, information systems and logistics management using critical systems thinking. Since then, the MPSB Research has directed its attention towards practice- and issue-focused type of research strategies so as to produce research outputs that are usable, relevant and high in actionable value (Ho, 2014). Out of this theoretical review of the MPSB Research, the writer identified action research as relevant to be employed in a more comprehensive as well as practice- and issue-focused MPSB Research version (Ho, 2014). This paper now takes a close look at the action research literature to explore how its literature can enrich the MPSB Research. To do so, the next section presents the literature review findings by the writer on action research. This is then followed by a discussion how these literature review findings can contribute to the theoretical development of the contemporary version of the MPSB Research.

2.      The main ideas underlying the action research literature

Action research was put forward in the 1950s by Kurt Lewin and was associated with his social-psychology work (Bradbury-Huang, 2010). Lewin originally conceptualized it as a means for “the betterment of society by enabling the resolution of social problems” (Gill et al., 2010) and the role of researcher as “a participant in concrete problem solving and real-life issues” (Greenwood and Levin (1998) as cited in Sandberg and Wallo (2013).). Unquestionably, its social justice focus has a long history (Weaver-Hightower, 2010). It is described by Bradbury-Huang (2010) as “an orientation to knowledge creation that arises in a context of practice and requires researchers to work with practitioners”. For Shani and Pasmore (1985: 439) cited in Roth et al. (2007), action research is “an emergent inquiry process in which applied behavioral and organizational sciences are applied to solve real business problems”. By now, action research has developed into a diverse set of approaches (Gill et al., 2010), see also action research and action learning Facebook page in bibliography. To conveniently comprehend its fundamental characteristics, two definitions on action research are provided by Gill et al. (2010):

Definition 1: “Action research is the process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need of that system; feeding back these data back into the system; taking action by altering selected variables within the system based both on data and hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data” (French and Bell, 1999).

Definition 2: “….action research is a participatory, democratic, process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview… It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities” (Reason and Bradbury, 2006).

These two definitions underline some key characteristics of Action Research, such as: “taking action”, “feeding… data back into the system..”, “participatory”, “practical knowing”, “practical solutions”, “reflection” and “theory”, etc.. More specifically, Bryman and Bell (2007), citing Eden and Huxham (1996), identify the following four action research characteristics:

·       Have implications related to other situations

·       Be usable as well as theory-related

·       Be able to generate emergent or grounded theory

·       Have practical findings that meet participants’ expectations

A number of theoretical viewpoints on action research have been raised in the academic literature, which offers a stimulating comprehension on action research. They are related to three research themes, namely: (i) related to research goals, (ii) related to participants, roles and their relationship, and (iii) related to research process and actions. Details are as follows:

Theme 1: Related to research goals

Idea 1.1.                    “… many action researchers consider normative goals, especially democracy or democratic processes, utopian ..….Some action research approaches have been criticized for prioritizing practical development at the expense of critical research…” (Sandberg and Wallo, 2013);

Idea 1.2.                    “Drawing upon emancipatory educational and social transformation movements, action research is focused on addressing issues through inquiry into human problems in the real context … in order ‘to liberate the human body, mind and spirit in the search for a better, freer world’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2001, p. 2)….” (Aziz et al., 2011);

Idea 1.3.                    “…a criterion of ‘success’ of an action research process is the politicization of the participants. Thus I perceive the role of the action researcher as an activist who must be critically reflective of her own activist position, being careful not to impose her own ‘liberatory’ agenda … on those with whom she researches and works….” (Fisher and Phelps, 2006);

Theme 2: Related to participants, roles and their relationship

Idea 2.1.                    “The researcher is challenged to keep a balance between distance and proximity, to approach situations open-mindedly and to value and see clearly the beliefs and values of oneself and those of others” (Snoeren, 2011);

Idea 2.2.                    “…action research with practitioners always includes practitioners as partners in the work of knowledge creation” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010);

Idea 2.3.                    “If we wish to promote participation and engagement [of stakeholders] we should establish open, trustworthy and reciprocal relationships. This requires the formation of ‘communicative space’ (Wicks & Reason, 2009), which follows three phases. The 1) inclusion phase ….. 2) control phase. …. …. 3) intimacy phase”….” (Snoeren, 2011);

Idea 2.4.                    With insider action research, “…the insider action researcher …. needs to be prepared to work within the political system such that the research project will yield the optimal results for both the system and the scientific community ....” (Snoeren, 2011);

Idea 2.5.                    “….insider action researchers augment their normal organizational roles with the researcher role … This very act is likely to create role conflict where the insider action researchers find themselves caught between organizational loyalty, past and present role relationships, and problem identification.…” (Snoeren, 2011);

Idea 2.6.                    “Engagement is seen as an important characteristic of action research. The term is often used to refer to the participation and involvement of the research participants….. the involvement and ‘closeness’ of the researcher, although necessary within action research, can also have a darker side as people have the tendency to get trapped in their own beliefs and prejudices” (Snoeren, 2011);

Theme 3: Related to research process and actions

Idea 3.1.                     “….Action research is not seen as a collection of principles, with distinct theories and methods, but more as a perspective on how to conduct research…” (Sandberg and Wallo, 2013);

Idea 3.2.                     “Action researchers do not readily separate understanding and action, rather we argue that only through action is legitimate understanding possible; theory without practice is not theory but speculation” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010);

Idea 3.3.                    Action researchers “acknowledge that all claims to knowledge are shaped by interests (consider that knowledge claims are never neutral)” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010);

Idea 3.4.                    The action research notion of actionable is understood as “the extent to which work provides new ideas that guide action in response to need as well as our concern with developing action research crafts of practice in their own terms” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010);

Idea 3.5.                    “the concept of reflection has undergone uneven development across various disciplines under the umbrella of Action Research (AR)” (Chiu, 2006);

Idea 3.6.                    “Although the interpretation of critical reflection as an unmasking of the assumptions underlying oppressive explanations of prevailing social order appears to be common among action researchers, interpretations of the ‘who’ and the ‘how’ of critical reflection are diverse” (Chiu, 2006);

Idea 3.7.                    Schön (1996) discerned two forms of reflection, namely, reflection-in-action (RIA) and reflection-on-action (ROA). RIA is “tacit and spontaneous and often delivered without taking thought” (Schön, 1987: 3) while ROA is retrospective, being “an intellectual [activity which] requires verbalisation and symbolisation” (Schön, 1987: 5).

Idea 3.8.                    “reflection can be seen as a necessary component of knowledge production through experience with different aspects: cognitive, emotive and dialogic” (Chiu, 2006);

By now, action research has been employed in the social sciences to examine a broad range of issues with a diversity of approaches. For example, in his literature review of action research, Dick (2006) discerns a number of topics covered: (i) educational action research, (ii) community applications, (iii) participatory development applications, (iv) human services and health care applications, (v) organizational applications, (vi) appreciative inquiry, (vii) professional and practice development. Dick (2006) also expressed concern about the “proliferation of action-research-like processes under different labels”. With a set of action research ideas gathered from the literature, the paper moves on to examine how these can be related to the MPSB Research in the next section.

3.      Five observations about enrichment of the MPSB Research with ideas from the action research literature

From the original conception as a research programme to review management disciplines in the 1990s, the MPSB Research has evolved to the present MPSB Research version that embraces the ambition to create knowledge with high actionable value to the world of management practices; the contemporary (or the 2010s version) MPSB Research is now interested in studying how practice- and action-oriented research strategies such as action research can be incorporated into it (Ho, 2014). From the literature review reported in the previous section, the following five observations are made:

Observation 1: action research, possessing pragmatic, interpretive and critical orientations, is quite compatible with the theoretical foundation of the MPSB Research, namely, critical systems thinking (re: ideas 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.6); in particular, it is endorsed by the rationale of pluralism in critical systems thinking.

Observation 2: action research offers more than one practice-/action-oriented research programme version or approach for the MPSB Research to employ (re: idea 3.1);

Observation 3: the action research literature has accumulated substantial experience on the opportunities and challenges encountered in the employment of a strongly practice- and action-orientated research programme (re: ideas 1.3, 2.1; 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6);

Observation 4: action research is attentive to the close coupling between theory/knowledge and practice; such strong attention of action research on this coupling is now well recognized in the MPSB Research; admittedly, the primary source of theories and intellectual ideas of the MPSB Research is from critical systems thinking (re: ideas 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8);

Observation 5: the action research literature introduces concepts, terms and viewpoints that can be employed in the contemporary version of the MPSB Research, thus enriching the MPSB Research thinking (re: politicization of participants (idea 1.3), engagement with participants (idea 2.6), actionable attribute (idea 3.4), communicative space (idea 2.3) and reflection (ideas 3.5, 3.6).

The five observations thus point to how the action research literature is able to enrich the MPSB Research. They indicate further MPSB Research topics to study that are informed by the action research literature, see also the Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research Facebook page in the bibliography.

4.      Concluding remarks

Updating the MPSB Research vision to consider practice- and action-orientated research methods and programmes, as a research aspiration, is one thing, finding out exactly how this can be done as well as sorting out the implications of this ambitious research vision adoption by the MPSB Research are major intellectual challenges. In this respect, this paper, by reviewing the action research literature to enrich the MPSB Research programme, directly addresses this intellectual challenge. By doing so, it contributes to the theoretical development of the MPSB Research. It also shows that a lot of research works still need to be done to respond to this daunting challenge.

Bibliography

Action research and action learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph KK Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Action-research-and-action-learning-1967450773480332/).

Aziz, A., M. Shams and K.S Khan. 2011. “Participatory action research as the approach for women’s empowerment” Action Research 9(3), Sage: 303-323.

Bradbury-Huang, H. 2010. “What is good action research? : Why the resurgent interest?” Action Research 8 (1), Sage: 93-109.

Bryman, A. and E. Bell. 2007. Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press.

Chiu, L.F. 2006. “Critical reflection: More than nuts and bolts” Action Research 4(2), Sage: 183-203.

Dick, B. 2006. “Action research literature 2004-2006” Action Research 4(4), Sage: 439-458.

Eden, C. and C. Huxham. 1996. “”Action Research for Management Research” British Journal of Management 7(1): 75-86.

Fisher, K. and R. Phelps. 2006. “Recipe or performing art : Challenging conventions for writing action research theses” Action Research 4(2), Sage: 143-164.

French, W.L. and C. Bell. 1999. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, Pearson.

Gill, J., P. Johnson and M. Clark. 2010. Research Methods for Managers, Sage, London.

Greenwood, D.J. and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change, SAGE, London.

Ho, J.K.K. 1996. Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks July, a thesis submitted to Faculty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The University of Hong Kong.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “A Review of the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research with an MPSB Knowledge Supply Chain Framework” European Academic Research 2(1) April: 705-729.

Reason, P. and H. Bradbury. 2001. “Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration” in Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice London: SAGE: 1-14.

Reason, P. and H. Bradbury. 2006. “Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration” in Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (editors) Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London: 1.

Roth, J., A.B. R. Shani and M.M. Leary. 2007. “Insider action research: Facing the challenges of new capability development within a biopharma company” Action Research 5(1), Sage: 41-60.

Sandberg, F. and A. Wallo. 2013. “The interactive researcher as a virtual participant: A Habermasian interpretation” Action Research 11(2), Sage: 194-212.

Schön, D.A. 1987. Donald Schön’s presentation, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, to the 1987 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Transcribed by J. Carrick, January 1998 and posted by Tom Russell, Queen’s University, January 1998 (Accessed at 4 January 2005 from: http://educ.queensu.ca/~ar/Schön87.htm).

Schön, D.A. 1996. Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design forteaching and learning in the professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Shani, A.B.R. and W.A. Pasmore. 1985.. “Organization inquiry: Towards a new model of the action research process” in D.D. Warrick (Ed.). Contemporary organization development: Current thinking and applications Glenview, IL, Scott, Foresman: 438-448.

Snoeren, M.MWC. 2011. “Engagement enacted: Essentials of initiating an action research project” Action Research 10(2), Sage: 189-204.

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

Weaver-Hightower, M.B. 2010. “Using action research to challenge stereotypes” Action Research 8(3), Sage: 333-356.

Wicks, P.G. and P. Reason. 2009. “Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space” Action Research 7(3), Sage: 243-262.