Examining the “situatedness” in managerial intellectual learning with an agile literature review on situated learning

 

Working paper: jh-2021-03-08-a (https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/examining-situatedness-in-managerial.html)

Examining the “situatedness” in managerial intellectual learning with an agile literature review on situated learning

JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Dated: March 8, 2021

 

Abstract: The managerial intellectual learning theme, as propounded by this writer, can benefit from the academic literature of other learning theories. By performing an agile literature review on situated learning, this article learns from the situated learning literature in order to discuss the situatedness of managerial intellectual learning. It identifies, in terms of the managerial intellectual learning process model, how the academic ideas on situated learning can be considered in the managerial intellectual learning process.

Key words: agile literature review, managerial intellectual learning, situated learning.

 

Introduction

The research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) was proposed by this writer in 2013 (Ho, 2013). It has been developed by this writer via academic literature review and self reflection on its practice over time. An updated account of its research status was made by Ho (2021a). A recent effort to make further conceptual development of MIL was made with an agile literature review on creativity to examine how MIL can promote creativity (Ho, 2021b). This article is another attempt to do so with an agile literature review on situated learning. Specifically, it takes a closer look at the situatedness of MIL based on the agile literature review findings on situated learning.

An agile literature review on situated learning

This agile literature review exercise took two days to perform; it made use of the e-libraries of two UK universities and Google Scholar. The theme of situated learning is considered highly relevant as it draws on learning theories that are practice-based, which is also endorsed by MIL. Both situated learning and MIL are academic themes on learning. The agile literature review exercise was done in March 2021 and its findings are presented in Table 1.

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

Categories	Academic ideas
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.1)	“The broad label of PBS [practice-based studies] covers a wide range of related approaches (Corradi et al., 2010; Nicolini et al., 2003). These include perspectives such as ‘CoPs’ [communities of practice] (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Lave and Wenger, 1991), ‘knowing in practice’ (Amin and Roberts, 2008; Gherardi, 2000; Orlikowski, 2002), cultural learning (Cook and Yanow, 1993), work-based learning (Raelin, 1997) and social learning perspectives (Elkjær, 2003), as well as activity theory and aesthetic approaches (Nicolini et al., 2003). Despite important differences among these approaches (Corradi et al., 2010; Nicolini et al., 2003), they share a radical critique of cognitive learning perspectives (Handley et al., 2006). Learning and knowing are seen as social processes that are based on mutual engagement in activities and situated in a wider community” (Hotho, Saka-Helmhout and Becker-Ritterspach, 2014).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.2)	“In contrast to the cognitivist perspective, situated learning theory sees learning and knowing as processes which are integral to everyday practice in workplace, family, and other social settings. The focus shifts from decontextualized ‘objective’ knowledge to the accomplishment of knowing in action and in practice” (Handley, Clark, Fincham, and Sturdy, 2007).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.3)	“Recent research lends considerable support to Lave and Wenger’s (1991: 47) argu­ment: ‘[L]earners can in one way or another be seen to construct their understanding out of a wide range of materials that include ambient social and physical circumstances and the histories and the social relations of the people involved’.” (Lervik, Fahy and Easterby-Smith. 2010).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.4)	“Behavioral learning theories restrict the definition of learning to a change in behaviors that result from an external stimulus, with minimal focus on the role of the mind. In contrast, cognitive learning theories focus on the internal mental processes involved in learning to the exclusion of the influence of contextual or environmental factors. Both situated cognition theory and social learning theories subsume behavioral and cognitive approaches by adding situational factors that contribute to the cognitive processes involved in learning” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, and Ives. 2010).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.5)	“We offer an operational definition of situated learning as a change in mental models that happens through social interaction in a given context. Human cognition is central to this learning due to its focus on mental models” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, and Ives. 2010).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.6)	“Learning is not an individual activity of acquiring abstract knowledge; rather, learning naturally occurs when a person experiences a particular situation. The situation is not simply a background influencing learning; rather, the situation is a part of learning (Greeno, 1997)” (Kim and Merriam, 2010).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.7)	“Learning in communities of practice includes developing mutual engagement among members, understanding what the communities of practice strive to achieve, and being familiar with mutual resources—language, artifacts, and tools (Wenger, 1998).” (Kim and Merriam, 2010).
Category 1: nature of situated learning (idea 1.8)	“It should be noted that the term “situated” can specify both physical as well as social settings” (Langer, 2009).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.1)	“Situated learning theory brings a renewed focus on ‘identity’. ‘Learning’ is concerned not only with developing ways of ‘knowing’ in practice, but also with understanding who we are and what potential we have (Lave, 2004)” (Handley, Clark, Fincham, and Sturdy, 2007).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.2)	“A review of the literature reveals several conceptualizations of identity. These vary in their emphasis on structural or agential influences, their accounts of identity development, and the possibility of stability around a single or multiple sense(s) of self. Social identity theory, for example, argues that our sense of identity develops through the medium of the groups we belong to (or disassociate with). An implicit assumption here is that these groups (which may, for example, be ethnic, sociocultural or work-based) are relatively internally coherent and therefore act as a stabilizing influence” (Handley, Clark, Fincham, and Sturdy, 2007).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.3)	“Situated action theory focuses on human activity as it emerges directly out of a specific situation, and emphasizes the importance of individuals’ knowledge, values, and social networks. However, it places the main emphasis not on any of the above factors, but on everyday activities of people acting in specific settings (Lave, 1988). Therefore, the unit of analysis is not the individual, but the interaction between the individual and the environment. An extension of the situated action theory, the situated learning theory, argues that learning in the workplace should not be structured in advance, but should grow directly out of the needs of the workplace situation, and should be embedded in workplace interactions (Lave and Wenger, 1991)” (Ardichvili, 2003).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.4)	“The distributed cognition theory asserts that cognition occurs not just inside the heads of individuals, but in cognitive systems comprised of multiple interacting individuals and the artifacts they use (Hutchins, 1994). Cognitive systems are social units working towards the achievement of specific common goals. Examples of such systems are crews of naval vessels, or teams of air traffic controllers” (Ardichvili, 2003).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.5)	“Situated learning theory posits that actors learn in their daily work. Rhythms of work are influ­enced by societal and organizational temporal structures such as legislation and conventions shap­ing work versus leisure time (Zerubavel, 1979), rhythms of customers and product markets as well as cycles of financial markets (Ancona and Chong, 1996; Frei, 2006)” (Lervik, Fahy and Easterby-Smith. 2010).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.6)	“The discussion of time in situated learning perspectives refers to a large extent to internally driven processes. Wenger (1998: 218) discusses the interplay and sequencing of engage­ment, imagination and alignment to support the situated learning of communities. He further argues that ‘communities have life cycles [… and develop] according to the timing, the logic, the rhythms and the social energy of their learning’ (1998: 96)” (Lervik, Fahy and Easterby-Smith. 2010).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.7)	“A situated learning perspective emphasizes how the actor’s ability to draw on physical clues and epistemic objects influences the development of new understandings. Ewenstein and Whyte (2009) discussed visual representations as unfolding and in flux, showing their genera­tive role in stimulating collective sensemaking rather than as fixed, historical representations of codified knowledge” (Lervik, Fahy and Easterby-Smith. 2010).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.8)	“Mental models (or cognitive maps) are psychological representations of real, hypothetical, or imaginary situations (Johnson-Laird, 1980) that help individuals make inferences (Holland et al., 1986) and take actions in unfamiliar situations (Senge, 1990). Each mental model is a possible state of affairs in the world (Johnson-Laird et al., 1999). Mental models are internal, inherently limited (since we cannot have mental models for all possible states of affairs), and responsible for our understanding and knowledge of the phenomenon that they represent (Johnson-Laird et al., 1999; Schaffernicht, 2006)” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, and Ives. 2010).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.9)	“Structure refers to the social world as a structure that influences the thoughts and actions of individuals. Agency refers to the ability of individuals to act in various situations. Power is a much more complex and contested term (for reviews, see e.g. Dowding 2012; Haugaard 2010). In broad terms, power can be applied within several meanings, most commonly with the meaning of domination, power over (Dahl 1957; Hayward 2000; Lukes 1974), in terms of empowerment, power to (Arendt 1970; Parsons 1963), or in terms of negotiation and cooperation, power with (Allen 2008; Haugaard 2010). We use power to refer to power over others to emphasise the agency of actors in creating changes in social structures” (Ratinen and Lund, 2016).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.10)	“Communities of practitioners (or communities of learning) are often referred as communities where learning takes place. They are communities, which newcomers join to master particular skills and knowledge” (Ratinen and Lund, 2016).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.11)	“Power is an important component in situated learning. To learn a practice, to become a member of a community, one must have access to the community and to be able to participate in the practices. However, not all learning leads to full-membership. Power relations can inhibit entry and participation” (Ratinen and Lund, 2016).
Category 2: ingredient concepts of situated learning (idea 2.12)	“Constellations of interrelated CoPs [communities of practice] form a “social learning system” (Wenger, 2000) that produces an “ecology of knowledge” (Brown & Duguid, 1998). Employees, beyond being members of their organizational CoP, also belong to other broader CoPs, owing to their professional networks and specialization (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Swan et al., 2002)” (Theodorakopoulos and Figueira, 2012).
Category 3: application considerations of situated learning (idea 3.1)	“Social interaction occurs between individuals in a group that is formed around a particular subject. The subject matter is of common interest shared by all members of that group. In the example of a team of employees given above, the common subject is product development. Intrinsic interest in the common subject also plays a role in situated learning. While the level of interest may vary between individuals, and extrinsic motivators may exist for undertaking the learning activity, situated learning calls for a basic intrinsic interest in the subject” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, and Ives. 2010).
Category 3: application considerations of situated learning (idea 3.2)	“The situated action and learning perspective helps to switch attention from rigid learning plans to an examination of dynamic work activities and emergent learning strategies. The distributed cognition perspective stresses the importance of shared learning and cognition, thus promoting the development of learning activities aimed at the creation of tacit knowledge imbedded in social systems, not individual players” (Ardichvili, 2003).
Category 3: application considerations of situated learning (idea 3.3)	““Proponents of a more radical view of situated learning at times emphasize cognition as the shared product of a specific group collaborative process, rather than an individually derived outcome. That is, the value of the learning achieved is measured by the individual’s contribution to a specific learning environment, which is heavily if not completely socially defined” (Langer, 2009).
Category 3: application considerations of situated learning (idea 3.4)	“The field work from which Lave and Wenger developed situated learning was invariably performed within the environment of low-tech occupations, or in one case a social organization, but the implication is that the perspective is relevant to all learning. I would like to call this the principle of educational uniformity, which holds that the theory and practice of education should be roughly the same at all levels and for all subjects” (Ben-Ari, 2005).
Category 4: issues on the situated learning theme (idea 4.1)	“Duguid (2001) acknowledge that a firm’s knowledge base partially draws on broader institutional structures, but exactly how these institutional structures affect situated learning and knowledge processes, and how they interact with formal organizational structures (Nicolini et al., 2012; Roberts, 2006), has received little attention. Exceptions aside (e.g. Gherardi and Perrotta, 2011; Hong et al., 2006), the influence of broader institutional effects on situated learning still seems largely unrecognized and underplayed” (Hotho, Saka-Helmhout and Becker-Ritterspach, 2014).
Category 4: issues on the situated learning theme (idea 4.2)	“An important deficiency of the situated learning literature is the absence of a conceptual framework and methodology which links the concepts of participation, identity and practice in ways which inform research activity. Conceptual frameworks create ‘boundary objects’ (Star and Griesemer, 1989), which enable researchers to share an understanding of theoretical perspectives and their methodological implications” (Handley, Clark, Fincham, and Sturdy, 2007).
Category 4: issues on the situated learning theme (idea 4.3)	“… given the emphasis on identity, there is little elaboration in the situated learning literature of how identities develop and are shaped by social and contextual influences as well as individual agency, except to reject the idea that it is purely a process of imitation (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 95). This central omission weakens the explanatory power of situated learning theory, leaving researchers ill-equipped to construct empirical narratives of how and why identities change (for a notable exception, see Keller and Keller, 1996)” (Handley, Clark, Fincham, and Sturdy, 2007).
Category 4: issues on the situated learning theme (idea 4.4)	“Trajectories of legitimate peripheral participation are treated as the function of choices and activities within the control of central members of the community. However, current treatments of temporal aspects of learning do not consider external influences on rhythms of activity within a learning community.” (Lervik, Fahy and Easterby-Smith. 2010).
Category 4: issues on the situated learning theme (idea 4.5)	““The concept of situated learning has been developed and applied to explain how learning occurs in organizations (Brown&Duguid, 2001). However, there is a lack of a definition in prior literature that allows for measuring such learning” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, and Ives. 2010).
Category 4: issues on the situated learning theme (idea 4.6)	““Given the complexities of the social process, predicting the effects of collaboration on the individual can be a risky venture. In fact, research suggests that group decisions are simply not the additive contributions of each participant” (Langer, 2009).

 

Referring to Table 1, the outcome of the agile literature review on situated learning is a number of academic ideas that are grouped into four categories, with the ingredient key words in bold font. The four categories are (1) nature of situated learning, (2) ingredient concepts of situated learning, (3) application considerations of situated learning and (4) issues on the situated learning theme. In order to subsequently examine the situatedness of MIL, ideas on these tour categories are highly informative to the writer. From the literature review findings (re: Table 1), it can be said that:

Regarding category 1, situated learning, as learning and knowing, is a social process that (i) takes place in communities of practice conceived as a distributed cognitive system and (ii) changes the learners’ mental models.

Regarding category 2, situated learning mainly draws on situated action theory, distributed cognitive theory and social identity theory; it is sensitive to the academic ideas of social identity, rhythms of work and markets, mental models, structure, agency and power, and communities of practice.

Regarding category 3, situated learning application is attentive to social interaction, intrinsic interest in subjects of learning and the broader institutional effects, among others.

Regarding category 4, situated learning needs to further study the research concerns of conceptual frameworks and identity development, temporal aspects of learning and the collaboration effects on the individual, among others.

Table 1 provides some quotations on the ideas of these four categories. It points to more study of them as a way so as to enrich understanding on situated learning in general and managerial intellectual learning in particular (from the research interest of this article). The rough understanding of situated learning gained by the agile literature review (re; Table 1) is adequate to enable some specific observations on the “situatedness” of MIL. They are presented in the next section.

The nature of “situatedness” of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) as informed by the literature of situated learning

The overall MIL process and its major components are captured in the MIL process model of Ho (2014). This is shown in Figure 1. While the MIL process is essentially concerned about individual intellectual learning via the critical systems thinking/ multi-perspective, systems-based research lens by scholar-practitioners in the field of management, it explicitly acknowledge the importance of practice-based intellectual learning (Phase*), the world of practices (where communities of practice are located), and the various influences and infrastructural support (re: Figure 1).

 

 

(re: Ho, 2014)

 

With reference to Figure 1, it can be pointed out that:

Category 1 ideas on “nature of situated learning” contribute primarily to the conceptual understanding of the MIL process components of “the managerial intellectual learning process”, “work & non-work influences, supports and constraints” and “infrastructural support” (re: Figure 1);

Category 2 ideas on “ingredient concepts of situated learning” offers a number of learning theories that mainly enhance MIL knowledge on the component of “practice-based intellectual learning process [Phase*]” of Figure 1.

Category 3 ideas on “application considerations of situated learning” provides concrete insights on the component of “practice-based intellectual learning process [Phase*]” of Figure 1.

Category 4 ideas point to research concerns of situated learning that are shared by the research study of MIL.

As the academic ideas identified in Table 1 cover a broad research scope on situated learning, they are also relevant in different degrees to the study of all the major MIL components in Figure 1.

 

Concluding remarks

The agile literature review on situated learning is intellectually rewarding as a way to enhance the intellectual content of MIL. The scope of academic ideas on situated learning covers all the components of the MIL process. Nevertheless, this exercise does not constitute a deep-level intellectual learning exercise. To do so, there needs to be a much more critical reflection of the situated learning ideas with regard to their compatibility with the critical systems thinking/ multi-perspective, systems-based thinking lens. Also, more review needs to be made to come up with some more specific practice guidelines on MIL that are informed by the situated learning ideas. These research tasks should be taken up in the future.

 

References

Ardichvili, A. 2003. “Constructing socially situated learning experiences in human resource development: an activity theory perspective” Human Resource Development International 6(1): 5-20, DOI: 10.1080/13678860110063596.

Ben-Ari, M. 2005. “Situated Learning in ‘This High-Technology World’” Science & Education 14:367–376, Springer.

Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I. and Ives, B. 2010. “Situated Learning: Conceptualization and Measurement” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 8(1) January: 215-240.

Handley, K., Clark, T., Fincham, R. and Sturdy, A. 2007. “Researching Situated Learning Participation, Identity and Practices in Client–Consultant Relationships” Management Learning 38(2): 173–191, Sage.

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. 2021a. “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).

Ho, J.K.K. 2021b. “Performing agile literature review on “how managerial intellectual learning (MIL) can promote creativity” for illustration purpose” Joseph KK Ho e-resources March 2 (url address:  https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/performing-agile-literature-review-on.html).

Hotho, J.J., Saka-Helmhout, A., and Becker-Ritterspach, F. 2014. “Bringing context and structure back into situated learning” Management Learning 45(1): 57– 80, Sage.

Kim, Y.S. and Merriam, S.B. 2010. “Situated Learning and Identity Development in a Korean Older Adults’ Computer Classroom” Adult Education Quarterly 60(5): 438–455.

Langer, P. 2009. “Situated Learning: What Ever Happened To Educational Psychology?” Educ Psychol Rev 21:181–192, Springer.

Lervik, J.E., Fahy, K.M. and Easterby-Smith, M. 2010. “Temporal dynamics of situated learning in organizations” Management Learning 41(3): 285–301, Sage.

Ratinen, M. and Lund, P.D. 2016. “Alternative view on niche development: situated learning on policy communities, power and agency” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28:1: 114-130, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2015.1073251.

Theodorakopoulos, N. and Figueira, C. 2012. “What Can Situated Learning Theory Tell Us About Leading to Develop Organizational Learning Capabilities for Entrepreneurial Performance? Lessons from a Knowledge- Intensive Small Firm” Thunderbird International Business Review 54(6) November/December: 859-873.