Mapping the journey of practice

Abstract

There has been an enduring problem in defining what action learning is, Revans himself never gave a single definition and always maintained that there was no one form to what he described as ancient wisdom. What he emphasized in his description of action learning (Revans 2011) includes: to learn with and from each other; to search out the meaning of the unseen; learning by posing fresh questions and people who want to effect change. In their attempt to map the extent, growth and variety of action learning in the UK, Pedler, Burgoyne, and Brook (2005) discovered six varieties of practice in use which included selfmanaged action learning, online action learning, critical action learning, auto action learning, action mentoring, business-driven action learning and. Boshyk (2016) suggests that this has grown to at least 27 varieties worldwide. For those practitioners who are firmly embedded in Revans work on action learning and those who aspire to follow the Revans’ gold standard of action learning (Willis 2004) some of the varieties that have emerged are both exciting and puzzling. However, action learning is evolving with new technologies, practitioners and action learners, and it is the accounts of practice from those currently working with the ideas of action learning that help us to map the journey of action learning practice, of how it is being both interpretated and practiced in the field. This part of the journal is for those practising action learning either as an organiser, facilitator, or participant to share their practice to both support other practitioners and to help us understand the evolution of action learning itself. We welcome contributions to help map the journey of action learning in all of its varieties, why they work or do not work, and examples of what goes on within a set or within a particular organisation or community to explain this. Accounts of practice can be a celebration of the power of action learning, but equally can shed light on questions we do not understand. Sometimes contributors feel uncomfortable about sharing what went wrong, but learning from what feels like a mistake, a mishap or even a depressing/disappointing ending is, in itself, valuable. This section is not peer-reviewed but peer-supported throughout the writing and publication process by fellow practitioners, so we invite you to add your experiences to the understanding of how action learning is applied and practiced. Don’t delay – contact us! In this edition, we have accounts of practice from Scotland, South Africa and China that reveal in their variety of approach the authors understanding of action learning and its practice. In the first account Sharp et al, describe the implementation of a process of collective action inquiry to bring about a coaching culture within and across a public service organisation in Scotland. The stated intention of their work ‘ ...was to develop a simple way to have coaching style conversations in a range of settings to complement more formal approaches.’ Yet to achieve this, their approach is a systemic solution that places collective learning above procedure to achieve the commissioned aim. The authors position the action inquiry methods they adopted as a new interpretation of action learning. Indeed, their account of practice describes a process of action learning on a grand scale whereby people learned by doing