Begin forwarded message:

From: Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 5 May 2010 01:32:19 GMT+01:00
To: Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Strengthening action research networks


Hello Jack and everyone
And thank you so very much for keeping this discussion flowing. I greatly look forward to the significant contributions this network is making being heard across the many streams that the Congress is “pooling”. 

From ALARA’s point of view, we are aware that the fields of action learning and action research are widely used across the world, and have for decades been hybridising to fit disciplines (like adaptive management in environmental management environments), cultures (like “yarning” to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing), and sectors (like continuous improvement process to work with corporate systems and values).  

There are a few problems that this inevitable situation creates, which may be good practice development material for this network to contribute to, particularly with the living theory construct in our hearts, minds and hands. 

First, often in these adaptations, the founding theories, wisdoms and strengths (like Revan’s Action Learning Set practice, Agyris and Schon’s action science etc) are lost to obscurity and with them the link to action learning and action research.  

For example, a colleague raised the relationship between adaptive management and action research in an environmental educators network the other day – they had never heard of AR and were not very interested in the connection.  It felt like a social science practice which was too far away from an environmental science background. 

Somehow we need to reach across these epistemological and sectoral gaps to let people see their connections with the extraordinary origins and developments taking place in AR and AL, developments which could so profoundly contribute to the work they are doing and essentially save time (perhaps our shortest resource).  

How can living theory contribute to the practices of reaching across such gaps to instil good founding theory and quality hybridisation? 

Second, as well as losing the wisdom of theoretical innovation that the AR and AL fields develop,  there are psychological and relational costs. A cynicism and lethargy can enter the fields (both in the AR and AL fields, and the fields of “application”) as the distinguishing characteristics are smoothed away in the inability to address the cultural challenges of keeping good theory evident in practice environments. The temptation is to revert to simple, pragmatic tools – and language - in a belief that theory is only for academics and not related to practical realities. But tools tend to kill off the creativity of thought that theory generates.

An example of this cynicism can be found in our Australian education sectors. One of our tertiary education sectors, the Vocational Education and Training sector (VET) uses learning from experience as its primary mode of education, however “Action Learning” is buried in diploma level management certificates and then, only as one performance criteria for a whole page of about 30 such criteria for the one aspect of the qualification. And, the actual form of Action Learning is not specified.  

In this sector as well as the academic tertiary education sector (I work and study in both) the idea of action learning is embedded in the pedagogy but teachers are rarely trained in it, and its explicit use is considered only relevant to higher tertiary education students such as diploma or post graduate level. If learning is seen as a human right, this reification of AR and AL is just wrong. 

How can living theory change this misconstruction of AL and AR when they become systemised (trapped in the development state they were in when they were systemised, vulnerable to hierarchies of access) – so that the innovations in AL and AR practice can be continually incorporated at a systemic level and its explicit presence enjoyed by all?

Third, another reaction to the loss of theory within our AR and AL field that I have seen is for theorisers to ghetto ourselves into a kind of specialisation, even though we preach democracy with generic practices – we become specialists of non-specialisation – a problem I have been trying to get my head around for years! What I have seen develop is a rift between those who focus on AR and AL theory and those who focus on the community or organisational development outcomes that such theory can create. In reality we are deeply complementary (perhaps even co-dependent) in our preferences. 

How can living theory help us to relate more effectively with each other within our AR and AL streams of variation?

The systemic costs of loss of theory and resulting losses to language and relationship need to be appreciated for these questions to be seen: loss of time in the face of our global pressures perhaps being the most significant. 

So my hope is that this strengthening of action research networks throughout the world through the significant engagement that you, the other Chairs of the Congress Streams and all those participating in them offer, will help us recognise good practice across our differences and reach towards each other with appreciation and strength. I hope that we will be able to  find/create the languages and the relationships of respect and egalitarian interest in each other as this network has long exemplified in this “third space”, so we can join together to bring the great richness of diversity back into broad action research and action learning fields. 

With kind regards, appreciation and much respect

Susan Goff
(President, ALARA).