An agile literature review on management research relevance for informing the managerial intellectual learning (MIL) study

 

Working paper: jh-2021-04-4-a (https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-agile-literature-review-on_4.html)

 

An agile literature review on management research relevance for informing the managerial intellectual learning (MIL) study

 JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Dated: April 4, 2021

 

Abstract: Literature review, done in an agile way, is handy for part-time undergraduate students, who are typically busy, to carry out. The article provides a demonstration on an agile literature review exercise covering the topic of management research relevance. With this review topic, the article produces useful review findings that enables intellectual enhancement on the research topic of managerial intellectual learning (MIL), as proposed by the writer.

Key words: agile literature review, literature review, management research relevance, managerial intellectual learning.

 

Introduction

Literature review is a main topic in academic study. For part-time undergraduate students, it is advantageous to practice literature review in an agile mode. Motivated by the research interest on managerial intellectual learning and the teaching work on part-time degree programmes in Business Management, the writer produced this article about “conducting an agile literature review on management research relevance to contribute to the research topic of managerial intellectual learning (MIL). The next section presents the agile literature review performed by the writer. It is followed by a brief discussion on how the literature review findings is able to contribute to the research project of MIL.

An agile literature review on management research relevance

An agile literature review endorses a nimble, evolutionary and responsive way to conduct literature review. The advantage of it is its ability to be in sync with the pace of life of part-time undergraduate students in business management. The agile literature review exercise on management research relevance was carried out by the writer from Mach 2-4, 2021. The exercise made use of Google Scholar and two U.K. university e-libraries for the literature search part. The aim of the exercise is to generate useful findings to contribute to the research endeavour of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) (Ho, 2014; 2021) as initiated by writer. The literature review findings are presented as follows in the form of Table 1, with the key ideas in bold font.

Table 1:  A set of gathered academic ideas related to management research relevance, grouped in three categories

Categories	Academic ideas of management research relevance
Category 1: the underlying issue of management research relevance (idea 1.1)	“The question of non-relevance is so controversial that it could limit the development of management studies, also due to the growing belief that it is unnecessary to commit to supporting research that is deemed unnecessary. Ghoshal (2005) sustains with very convincing arguments that academic management research, under scientific pretense, actually diffuses theories that are not only irrelevant but also have a negative effect on good management practices and on society” (Vicari, 2013).
Category 1: the underlying issue of management research relevance (idea 1.2)	“Professionals today have the perception that management science produces very thorough knowledge of irrelevant issues and that the type of concepts generated are fragmented to such an extent as to be of no use, as demonstrated by many studies indicating that academia is not the basis of key management techniques (Pfeffer and Fong, 2004; Birkenshaw and Mol, 2009). Added to this overall irrelevance, according to managers, is the considerable arrogance of researchers (Roux et al., 2006), accompanied by an inability to communicate the few results of some interest to companies beyond the inner circle of scientists” (Vicari, 2013).
Category 1: the underlying issue of management research relevance (idea 1.3)	“More than a decade ago, Anderson et al. (2001) raised concerns about researchers and practitioners moving further apart in the field of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Short, Bing, and Kehrhahn (2003) questioned the survival of human resource development (HRD), observing that “HRD [human resource development] research and, to some degree, practice appear divorced from real-time problems in organizations” (p. 239). Similarly, linking theory to practice was also declared as the “grand challenge” for management research (Tranfield & Denyer, 2004)” (Tkachenko et al., 2017).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.1)	“ …. management research could be thought of as a field, which was ‘soft’, ‘applied’, ‘divergent’ and ‘rural’. It was ‘soft’ in that no single paradigm dominated; ‘applied’ in that it addressed practical concerns and built a knowledge base often using case law; ‘divergent’ in that disciplinary boundaries were ragged and research questions were being opened up rather than closed down; and ‘rural’ in that a broad intellectual territory was being addressed with a low people to problem ratio” (Tranfield, 2002).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.2)	“Overall, the long-term aim of the management research community must be to develop a high quality and highly relevant management research on which both the academic and practitioner communities can reliably base their thinking, decision-making and actions” (Tranfield, 2002).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.3)	“The production of scientific knowledge in any discipline, be it social, humanistic or scientific in the strict sense, requires that the researcher’s sole objective is precisely knowledge and nothing else. The reason, as we have known since Aristotle’s time, is that knowledge develops from the intellectual curiosity of the individual who wants to go beyond the limits of what is already known. This ‘going beyond’ can only be driven by intellectual freedom and the inquisitiveness of individual researchers” (Vicari, 2013).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.4)	“… the social system of science, including management science, has developed its own logic, and that as a result, the relationship between scientific rigor and practical relevance is far less harmonious than it is often assumed to be. Rather, a trade-off between rigor and relevance is to be expected (Kieser, 2002): Increasing relevance of management research is only possible at the expense of scientific rigor and vice versa” (Kieser and Nicolai, 2005).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.5)	“While we all recognize the value of experience, that experience is unique to every person, and there is no objective way to choose between the best judgment based only on the experience of different decision makers. Experience can also be confounded with responsibility bias: sales managers might choose lower advertising budgets in favor of higher expenditures on personal selling, while advertising managers might prefer larger advertising budgets” (Liliena et al., 2002).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.6)	“Anderson et al.’s (2001) model, known as the fourfold typology of research…. is built around two dimensions: (a) theoretical and methodological rigor and (b) practical relevance. According to the authors, the resulting four quadrants—Pragmatic Science, Popularist Science, Pedantic Science, and Puerile Science—present the four types of science. Pragmatic Science is research that is high on rigor and high on relevance. Popularist Science is low on rigor but high on relevance. Research that is high on rigor but low on relevance is termed as Pedantic Science, while Puerile Science is research that is low on both dimensions. According to Anderson et al. (2001), there is a drift from Pragmatic Science toward Pedantic and Popularist forms of science. Specifically, the academic community, by means of peer reviews, academic journal requirements, and tenure processes, pushed for Pedantic Science. At the same time, stakeholders mainly interested in quick solutions on practical issues were a catalyst for Popularist Science” (Tkachenko et al., 2017).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.7)	“Researchers and practitioners belong to separate discourse communities with very different perspectives and ideologies and these differences impede utilization (Beyer & Trice, 1982). Others argue that the lack of newness negatively affects the curiosity of managers (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Daft & Lewin, 1990), while concurrently the fragmentation of the organizational study field is said to lead to confusion (Pfeffer, 1993, 2007), a viewpoint that from a different line of reasoning is shared by Lex Donaldson (Donaldson, 1995). Normal science which stands for formal research design, quantitative data, validation, reliability, and replicability and a steady accumulation and building of empirically generated knowledge on the one hand is contrasted with contra science or postpositivism such as social constructionism and action research (Beer, 2001; Marsden & Townley, 1996), since it is assumed that the positivist traits of managerial research do not fit the organizational reality, a viewpoint shared by the proponents of mode 2 research (Bartunek, 2011a, 2011b; MacLean, MacIntosh, & Grant, 2002; van Aken, 2001)” (Vermeylen, 2014).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.8)	“We define engaged scholarship as a collaborative form of inquiry in which academics and practitioners leverage their different perspectives and competencies to coproduce knowledge about a complex problem or phenomenon that exists under conditions of uncertainty found in the world. Engaged scholarship is consistent with an evolutionary realist philosophy of science, which is a pluralistic methodology for advancing knowledge by leveraging the relative contributions and conceptual frameworks of researchers and practitioners. Engaged scholarship also frames a given problem as an instance of a more general case so that theoretical propositions can be developed and applied in specific contexts of practice” (Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.9)	“Our argument for engaged scholarship is based on the concept of arbitrage—a strategy of exploiting differences in the kinds of knowledge that scholars and practitioners can contribute on a problem of interest. Arbitrage is commonly known in financial circles as the exploitation of price differentials (Harrison, 1997). But, as noted by Friedman (2000), one can do arbitrage in literature as well as in markets. In his analysis, Friedman goes on to show how arbitrage can lie at the heart of sensemaking in a world of diverse and distributed knowledge” (Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.10)	“Embodying the scholastic focus on abstract knowledge, modern educational institutions emphasize theory and decontextualized practical skills. Knowing-of-practice tends to take precedence over knowing-in-practice (Lave, 1996). Knowing-in-practice, however, requires not only knowing-that and knowing-how (i.e. skills, techne) but also knowing-what-for and knowing-in-order-to (Heidegger, 1977; Roth, 2010)” (Roth et al., 2014).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic  (idea 2.11)	“… research information is defined as, information that results from scientific research investigating underlying factors in management phenomena. By contrast, practice information is defined as information about events observed by practitioners during management work. These can exist along a continuum ranging from a report of longitudinal scientific research in a leading scientific periodical to a spontaneous short post on a company web site (Pettigrew, 1990; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)” (Stefan and Groesser, 2016).
Category 3: the solution considerations of the management research relevance topic (idea 3.1)	“Proponents of this view [the popularization view] are concerned with how existing academic knowledge can be transferred to practitioners. They regard the inaccessibility of research and the use of academic jargon as the most important barriers to relevance (e.g. Bansal, Bertels, Ewart, MacConnachie, & O’Brien, 2012; Duncan, 1974; Hambrick, 1994; Ryan, 1977; Steffens, Weeks, Davidsson, & Isaak, 2014). While the advocates of this view do not doubt the practical value of academic research—“We could help” says Hambrick (1994, p. 15; italics added)—they identify a problem in transporting the valuable knowledge from academia to practice. Accordingly, popularization is the key to narrowing or “bridging” the relevance “gap” (Kieser et al., 2015).
Category 3: the solution considerations of the management research relevance topic (idea 3.2)	“Proponents of the institutional view ….  are concerned with the practical relevance of research institutions— particularly business schools—as a whole rather than with the relevance of management research in particular. Typically, this literature does not focus on scholarly research but speaks about “the business school” or “the business professor” in general (e.g. Behrman & Levin, 1984; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Porter & McKibbin, 1988). Accordingly, the relevance issue is treated as a problem of the business schools’ strategic planning, leadership, human resource development, quality management, stakeholder management, incentive structures, and so on” (Kieser et al., 2015).
Category 3: the solution considerations of the management research relevance topic (idea 3.3)	“In the past few decades, the field of marketing has evolved into a distinct academic discipline and a profession for practitioners. The field has produced many important theories and concepts (e.g., segmentation, positioning) and developed methodologies for translating them into practice (e.g., focus groups, perceptual maps). Yet, many senior managers believe that marketing is intrinsically art and experience, and is not amenable to the systematic approach to decision making that characterizes such management disciplines as finance, production, and logistics. This belief suggests that there is a gap between marketing theory and marketing practice” (Liliena et al., 2002).
Category 3: the solution considerations of the management research relevance topic (idea 3.4)	“There are not set divisions between management scholars and management practitioners. Instead, during portfolio careers, people can spend some time working as management scholars, as management consultants, and as management practitioners (Platman, 2004). Furthermore, management scholars and management practitioners are not dependent upon each other for the production of useful information” (Fox and Groesser, 2016).

 

Regarding Table 1, there are three categories of academic ideas on management research relevance. They are (1) the underlying issue of management research relevance, (2) the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic, and (3) the solution considerations of the management research relevance topic. A concise recap of their ideas is as follows:

On “the underlying issue of management research relevance” (category 1), the prime issue is that such irrelevance implies the uselessness of knowledge produced form management research due to its divorce from real-world managerial problems.

On “the ingredient concepts of the management research relevance topic” (category 2), the main ingredient notions include: (i) the attributes of the management research field (soft, applied, divergent and rural), (ii) the long-term aim of the management research community, (iii) the rigor and relevance trade-off, (iv) the value of experience and responsibility bias, (v) the Anderson et al.’s model of research typology, (vi) the discourse communities with different perspectives, (vii) engaged scholarship, (viii) knowing-of-practice and knowledge-in-practice, and (ix) research and practice information.

On “the solution considerations of the management research relevance topic” (category 3), some of the main topics are (i) the popularization and the institutional views, (ii) marketing as art and experience, and (iii) the portfolio careers of management scholars and practitioners.

On the whole, the academic literature on management research relevance offers a conceptually rich repository of ideas that point to certain issues in managerial intellectual learning (MIL). The MIL discussion with regard to management research relevance is provided in the next section.

 

Enriching the comprehension on the managerial intellectual learning (MIL) process model with the management research relevance literature

The research theme on managerial intellectual learning (MIL) was initiated by the writer in 2014 (Ho, 2014; 2021). It is primarily about personally developing intellectual competence by learning and reflecting on management disciplines via the critical systems thinking lens and real-world managerial practices. The concomitant life-goal for the learners in this respect is to be a scholar-practitioner in business management. The sketch of the MIL scope of study is the MIL process view as depicted in Figure 1.

(re: Ho, 2014)

 

Figure 1 portrays a systematic, evolutionary process view on MIL, covering the managerial intellectual learning capability-building mechanism (MILCBM), the MIL learning process, the feedback look as well as the external supporting and constraining factors (Ho, 2014). It also acknowledges the prime roles of (i) the critical systems and the multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) intellectual lens for conducting literature review on the academic literature on management disciplines and (ii) reflection on real-world practices (re: the items of “Phase* practice-based intellectual learning, the world of management practices, and feedback in Figure 1). With reference to the MIL process model (Figure 1), the issues raised by the academic literature on management research relevance will inevitably be encountered in “Phase 3: the MPSB knowledge compilation”, “Phase*: Practice-based intellectual learning”, and “feedback” from “the world of management practices”. In this regard, the agile literature review findings of management research relevance (re: Table 1) contributes to a more sophisticated comprehension of the MIL research topic.

 

Concluding remarks

The agile literature review exercise, as demonstrated in this article, is a lightweight method of particular advantage for busy part-time students to use (e.g., for doing course assignments and final-year dissertation projects). It enables them to engage in intellectual learning more conveniently. The literature review output on management research relevance (re: Table 1) makes for a useful reading for learners on this topic. Lastly, this literature review output also contributes to the conceptual enhancement of the MIL research theme.

 

References

Fox, S. and Groesser, S.N. 2016. “Reframing the relevance of research to practice” European Management Journal 34: 457-465.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “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. 2021. “An updated account of the research theme status of managerial intellectual learning (MIL)” Joseph KK Ho e-resources March 4 (url address:  https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/an-updated-account-of-research-theme.html).

Kieser, A. and Nicolai, A.. 2005. “Success Factor Research Overcoming the Trade-Off Between Rigor and Relevance?” Journal of Management Inquiry 14(3) September: 275-279.

Kieser, A., Nicolai, A. and Seidl, D. 2015. “The Practical Relevance of Management Research: Turning the Debate on Relevance into a Rigorous Scientific Research Program” The Academy of Management Annals 9(1): 143-233, DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2015.1011853.

Liliena, G.L., Rangaswamya, A., van Bruggenb, G.H. and Wierenga, B. 2002. “Bridging the marketing theory–practice gap with marketing engineering” Journal of Business Research 55: 111– 121.

Roth, W.M., Mavin, T. and Dekker, S. 2014. "The theory-practice gap: epistemology, identity, and education" Education + Training 56(6): 521- 536.

Salvatore Vicari. 2013. “Is the Problem Only Ours? A Question of Relevance in Management Research” European Management Review, Vol. 10, 173–181.

Tkachenko, O., Hahn, H.J. and Peterson, S.L. 2017. “Research–Practice Gap in Applied Fields: An Integrative Literature Review” Human Resource Development Review 16(3): 235–262.

Tranfield, D. 2002. “Formulating the Nature of Management Research” European Management Journal 20(4): 378–382.

Van De Ven, A.H. and Johnson, P.E. 2006. “Knowledge for theory and practice” Academy of Management Review 31(4): 802–821.

Vermeylen, S. 2014. "The Theory–Practice Gap: Redefining Relevance" In A Focused Issue on Building New Competences in Dynamic Environments. Published online: 29 Oct.:  271-335. DOI: 10.1108/S1744-211720140000007010

Vicari, S. 2013. “Is the Problem Only Ours? A Question of Relevance in Management Research” European Management Review 10(4): 173–181.

An agile literature review on reflective learning for managerial intellectual learning (MIL) research

 

Working paper: jh-2021-4-3-a (https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-agile-literature-review-on.html)

 

 

An agile literature review on reflective learning for managerial intellectual learning (MIL) research

 

 JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Dated: April 3, 2021

 

Abstract: Literature review, performed in an agile way, is helpful to part-time undergraduate students who typically are busy. More fundamentally, the topic of agile literature review is an important topic in the research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) as propounded by the writer. In this regard, this article has academic and pedagogical value by (i) providing an illustration on how an agile literature review exercise on reflective learning is conducted, (ii) contributing conceptually to the research venture of MIL and (iii) offering a concise study material on reflective learning.

 

Key words: agile literature review, managerial intellectual learning (MIL), reflective learning.

 

 

Introduction

Literature review, as a topic in Research Methods, is very often, a difficult one for part-time undergraduate students to learn and a challenging one for the lecturer, like this writer, to teach to these students. Both for teaching and research interest in intellectual learning, notably on managerial intellectual learning (MIL) (Ho, 2014; 2021), this writer is interested in developing literature review that is agile. Literature review, being agile, is particularly useful to part-time undergraduate students who typically have a busy pace of life. This motivates the writer to write this article, which presents an agile literature review exercise on reflective learning with the aims to (i) provide an illustration on how to conduct an agile literature review exercise and (ii) find out how the academic literature on reflective learning can support a more complicated comprehension on the research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL). The next section is to present the agile literature review findings on reflective learning. It is followed by a brief exploration on how the findings can allow for a more complicated comprehension on the research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) as propounded by the writer.

 

An agile literature review on reflective learning

This agile literature review exercise was conducted by the writer form April 1 to 3, 2021. Agile implies being nimble, lightweight and responsive in this regard. It is a desirable feature of literature review mainly to part-time undergraduate students who typically have a busy pace of life. The literature search for this exercise made use of Google Scholar and two U.K. university e-libraries. The objective of the exercise is to gather some useful academic ideas on reflective learning to contribute to the study of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) of Ho (2014; 2021). The literature review findings on reflective learning are presented in Table 1.

Table 1:  A set of gathered academic ideas related to reflective learning, grouped in three categories

Categories	Academic ideas of reflective learning
Category 1: the basic nature of reflective learning (idea 1.1)	“Henderson, Napan, and Monterio use the term reflective learning to describe consciously thinking about and analyzing actions. Reflective practice is the process of obtaining new insights through self-awareness and critically reflecting upon present and prior experiences. More recently, reflective learning has been defined as a process of holding experiences up to a mirror in order to examine them from different perspectives, whereas reflective practice assists one to explore what exists “just beyond the line of vision.” (Jacobs, 2016).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.1)	“Johnson states that reflection is necessary to determine how one learns and one thinks, make sense of information, think critically, view problems from varying perspectives, develop new insights, bridge theory and practice, and understand one’s strengths and weaknesses” (Jacobs, 2016).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.2)	“As scholars have suggested, unexamined experience is an unreliable source of learning because we often make wrong judgments about our actions and what they mean (Reynolds and Vince 2007; Lambie 2009). However, when experience is reflectively examined, it helps learners to cross beyond impressions and immediate judgments, transforming the experience into a source for improved action and behaviour (Raelin 2001; Sadler 2010)” (Perusso et al., 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.3)	“Schon (1987) distinguished two types of problems that practitioners encounter: instrumental and ill-defined. Managing the first type of problems requires a modus operandi Schon called ‘knowing-in-action’: an automatic execution of performance without reflection on the actions taken. However, often enough practitioners meet unexpected situations that interfere with their knowing-in-action, transforming an instrumental problem into an ill-defined one. To solve it, practitioners must re-think their knowing-in-action in ways that go beyond rules, facts and theories. They must restructure strategies and invent ‘on-the-spot’ experiments to test new understanding: reflection-in-action” (Perusso et al., 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.4)	“Moving from understanding and interpreting experience to a more critical perspective, in the 1980s Edward Cell conceptualized “retroactive reflection” as a process through which we could “overcome distortions” in our experiential knowledge (Mezirow, 1991, p. 101). Jack Mezirow, drawing on the legacy of Paulo Friere and Habermas, took this further in his concept of “transformative learning.” He conceptualized reflection as a process “grounded in cognition and content” through which we can transform the “meaning perspectives” that we have and that we are not comfortable with. Stephen Brookfield argued that a process of “critical reflection” through which we challenge our assumptions is essential for such a transformation (Illeris, 2007, pp. 62-63)” (Jordi, 2011).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.5)	“Learning from experience needs to be responsive to the specific internal rhythms of each individual or collective—it is “learner centered”—rather than being reliant on any external teaching or development agenda. This suggests being in touch with deep internal processes of development as the driving force of meaning making and change (Kaplan, 2002). It is only by being fully in their rhythm or in their “flow” that people can be present to their tacit knowledge and meaningfully engage with it (Stelter, 2005)” (Jordi, 2011).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.6)	“Although scholars generally agree on what reflection should not target, they disagree over what it should. In their review of reflection in social work, psychology, and teacher education, Van Beveren et al. (2018) found reflection’s expressed purposes varied. They found three levels on which researchers justify its use: (a) the personal, (b) the interpersonal, and (c) the sociostructural level. On each, reflection purportedly changes what a person knows or does relevant to the aims of that level. Given such diversity, people should explain why they are using (or promoting) reflection” (Roessger, 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.7)	“The range of skills and knowledge one targets when assessing reflective learning has limitations. Consider Moore et al.’s (2009) framework for clinical skill assessment of health professionals …..   They argue that a comprehensive assessment of professional services should consider declarative knowledge (knows), procedural knowledge (knows how), contrived performance (shows how), and authentic performance (does). Each level contains myriad targets for assessment. But the lowest almost exclusively involve instrumental learning …., a process whereby emerging professionals construct understandings aligned with those of their profession (Roessger, 2015). Minimal support exists for reflection in this domain” (Roessger, 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.8)	“Reflection, or reflective practice, has a long tradition and stems from philosophy, particularly the work of Dewey (1933) on reflective thinking for personal and intellectual growth. Dewey’s approach is considered to be psychological and is concerned with the nature of reflection and how it occurs. A more critical and transformative approach to reflection, which is rooted in critical social theory, is evident in the work of Freire (1972), Habermas (1974) and others who have followed their lead (see, e.g., Hatton & Smith, 1995; Mezirow, 1990). Scho¨n’s (1983) work on the ‘reflective practitioner’ has also influenced many scholars interested in the work of professionals and how ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ can influence their professional education” (Ryan and Ryan, 2013).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.9)	“Most researchers and commentators agree that there are different types or hierarchical levels of reflection. Grossman (2008) suggests that there are at least four different levels of reflection along a depth continuum. These range from descriptive accounts, to different levels of mental processing, to transformative or intensive reflection. He argues that students can be scaffolded at each level to produce more productive reflections” (Ryan and Ryan, 2013).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.10)	“The process of reflection is usually characterized by the inference course where learners attempt to identify, analyze, and solve the problems (Dewey, 1963; Edwards, 1996; Park & Son, 2011). It is the mental and emotional activities that individual engages in searching and probing for prior experiences in the attempt to solve the problems (Boud, Keogh, &Walker,1985). During the process, learners are allowed to face a dilemma and consider what is needed to address the problem through the steps of reflection, which are vital to learn (Henderson, Napan, & Monteiro, 2004; Park & Son, 2011; Potting, Sniekers, Lamers, & Reverda, 2010). Jay (1999) suggested that reflection can be treated as problem-solving strategy” (Koong et al., 2014).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.11)	“Dewey (1933) sees reflection as involving an integration of attitudes and the skill of judgement in methods of inquiry, and attempts to resolve problems through rational thought processes. Therefore, Dewey is concerned with the process and experience of learning as well as the ability to solve problems. Kolb’s model of experiential learning draws on the work of Dewey. Both Dewey and Kolb theorise reflection as experiential learning. In the ‘cycle of experiential learning’, Kolb (1984) identifies how experience, observation and reflection can help learners understand concepts and develop new concepts through experimentation” (Harrison et al., 2003).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.1)	“As a researcher and reflective practitioner, I strive toward a classroom community in which learners feel safe and welcome to express their individual and, frequently, changing views. Creating a cohesive community requires acknowledgement of cultural diversity, accommodation for a range of (disjabilities, and sensitivity to gender, race, and class identities. "In this experience the beautiful, the decent, and the serious form a circle with hands joined" (Freire, 1998, p. 32). The students who come together as a group of "different equals" are united in their bond of self-discovery as well as learning new ways of being in the world” (Soleil, 2000).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.2)	“Reflection is necessary to improve the depth of individual learning to support development of self-insight and growth, however this research identified that it can result in an uncomfortable experience for participants. While most participants seemed to understand the significance of reflection, they mentioned that reflection was difficult. For example Rhys said ‘I battled to reflect…this is difficult for me’ and Mbali said ‘I am pretty bad at it.’ Participants recognised that reflection is not an easy process as they are not accustomed to taking time to reflect as they are often so busy” (Robertson et al., 2019).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.3)	“Reflective learning has become a central feature of management and professional education, supported and influenced by many professional bodies. Anderson (2003) suggests that critical reflection is a ‘hallmark’ of Masters level management education, and authors such as Reynolds (1998) see a management curriculum embracing reflection as indicative of a more critical curriculum, challenging the traditional, functionalist orientation,  with its emphasis on the transmission of knowledge. Yet the curriculum remains problematic. One of the challenges of teaching reflective practice that has been noted in the literature is a lack of student engagement. Relevance is questioned (see, for example, Halton, Murphy, and Dempsey 2007) and practices such as the need for learning logs perceived as unnecessary (Samkin and Francis 2008)” (Griggs et al., 2018).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.4)	“Approaches to reflection may involve reflective journals, logs, portfolios, and self-writing (Barney & Mackinlay, 2010; Carrington & Selva, 2010; Moon, 2004). They proffers a elaborate list of information that are intended to help learners understand how to learn reflectively. However, it is relatively hard to check if the students do actively reflect (Ryan & Ryan, 2013). Collaborative reflections, on the other hand, can help students actively reflect though different reflective skills. Through information sharing, helping each other, discussion, and evaluating one another’s ideas can help students to improve the reflection efficiently” (Koong et al., 2014).
Category 3: application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.5)	“Through reflection, however, the practitioner “can surface and criticize the tacit understandings . . . and can make new sense of the situations of uncertainty or uniqueness which he may allow himself to experience” (Schön, 1991, p. 68).3 Apparently, the “uncertainty” and “uniqueness” of practice, rendering it unfit for technical rational knowledge, are not immediately available to the practitioner as practice is filtered and mediated by “tacit knowledge” (cf. Polanyi, 1966). If the tacit knowledge is not questioned, Schön argues, we end up with “unreflective practitioners . . . [who are] limited and destructive” as they do not learn from the “feedback” inherent to practice (Schön, 1991, p. 290)” (Ratner, 2013).

 

A collection of academic ideas, grouped into three categories, is listed in Table 1.  A brief summary of the ideas with key words in bold font is provided as follows:

On “the basic nature of reflective learning” (category 1), reflective learning is about conscious and analytical thinking on actions and experience from different perspectives.

On “the ingredient concepts of reflective learning” (category 2), the academic literature utilizes a plethora of notions, including: (i) reflection, including critical reflection, (ii) experience transformation, (iii) instrumental and ill-defined problems, (iv) knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action, (v) transformative learning, (vi) retroactive reflection, (vii) purposes of reflection usage, (viii) personal and intellectual growth, (ix) critical social theory, (x) reflective practitioner, (xi) depth levels of reflection, and (xii) reflection as problem-solving strategy and experiential learning model.

On the application considerations of reflective learning (category 3), some examples of topics include (i) “different equals” groups, (ii) individual learning depth, (iii) a “hallmark” on management and professional education, (iv) reflection approach, (v) “tacit understanding” surfacing and critique, and (vi) “practice feedback” learning.

All in all, as revealed by the agile literature review performed by the writer, the academic literature on reflective learning comprises a growing repository of analytical and empirical ideas on learning. These ideas can now be explored further to foster a richer intellectual examination on the managerial intellectual learning theme (Ho, 2014; 2021) as propounded by the writer. This is taken up briefly in the next section.

 

Enriching the managerial intellectual learning (MIL) process model with the reflective learning literature

Managerial intellectual learning (MIL) is a research theme proposed by the writer to study personal learning on academic literature on management disciplines using the critical systems thinking and multi-perspective, systems-based research lens to build up intellectual competence. Managerial intellectual learning is interested in examining individual learning that is practice-based, reflective and engaging in order to improve intellectual learning competence and support the pursuit of scholar-practitioner in business management as a prime life-goal (Ho, 2014; 2021). The scope of MIL research is portrayed in the MIL process model as shown in Figure 1.

(re: Ho, 2014)

 

With reference to the MIL process model (re: Figure 1), there are a number of MIL sub-topics that are associated in a process model of an evolutionary kind. In this case, the literature review findings on reflective learning are directly related to the study of the two components of “Phase*: practice-based intellectual learning” and “feedback” (re: Figure 1). The academic ideas (re: Table 1) enable a more complicated and critical comprehension of these two MIL process model components under a systemic and evolutionary process model on MIL. As such, this agile literature review exercise on reflective learning has academic value by contributing to the conceptual enhancement of the MIL research theme.

 

Concluding remarks

The agile literature review exercise on reflective learning provides an illustration on how it is conducted. The literature review finding itself should be of interested to those interested in the topic of reflective learning. Learners on the subjects of literature review and managerial intellectual learning could also find this article helpful. Lastly, this article has academic value for its intellectual contribution to the advancement of the MIL research venture.

 

References

Griggs, V., Holden, R., Lawless, A. and Rae, A. 2018. “From reflective learning to reflective practice; assessing transfer” Studies in Higher Education 43(7): 1172-1183.

Harrison, M., Short, C. and Roberts, C. 2003. “Reflecting on Reflective Learning: The case of geography, earth and environmental sciences” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 27(2): 133-152, DOI: 10.1080/03098260305678.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “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. 2021. “An updated account of the research theme status of managerial intellectual learning (MIL)” Joseph KK Ho e-resources March 4 (url address:  https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/an-updated-account-of-research-theme.html).

 Jacobs, S. 2016. “Reflective learning, reflective practice” Nursing 46(5): 62-64.

Jordi, R. 2011. “Reframing the Concept of Reflection: Consciousness, Experiential Learning, and Reflective Learning Practices” Adult Education Quarterly 61(2): 181–197.

Koong, C.S., Yang, T.I., Wu, C.C., Li, H.T. and Tseng, C.C. 2014. “An investigation into effectiveness of different reflective learning strategies for learning operational software” Computers & Education 72:  167–186.

Perusso, A., Blankesteijn, M. and Leal, R. 2020. “The contribution of reflective learning to experiential learning in business education” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 45(7): 1001-1015, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1705963.

Ratner, H. 2013. “The Social Life of Learning Theory: The “Ideal” and “Real” of Reflective Learning” International Journal of Public Administration 36(3): 200-209, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2012.749280.

Robertson, J., Le Sueur, H. and Terblanche, N. 2019. “An account of practice: employing drawings and stories to enable reflective learning, Action Learning” Research and Practice 16(1): 77-86, DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2019.1562702.

Roessger, K.M. 2020. “Assessment Strategies for Reflective Learning in the Workplace:  A Pragmatic Approach” Adult Learning 31(4) November: 175-184.

Ryan, M. and Ryan, M. 2013. “Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education” Higher Education Research & Development 32(2): 244-257, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.661704.

Soleil, N. 2000. “Toward a Pedagogy of Reflective Learning: Lived Experience in Research and Practice” Journal of College Reading and Learning 31(1): 73-83, DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2000.10850103.