weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

Copyright 2006 ã weLEAD, Inc.

August 2006 Editorial

Communities of Inquiry and Practice

Shannon Flumerfelt, PhD.

Editor of the E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership

An acquaintance of mine describes her experiences in a growing company as fraught with conflicting social behavior. While her company had a mission statement reflective of the value of teamwork, actual work flows, arrangements of furniture and job assignments did not facilitate collaborative approaches. In another organization I am familiar with, contradictory social behaviors occur as well. In this organization, an administrator speaks highly of taking risks to improve organizational effectiveness, but refuses to consider implementing changes proposed by stakeholders. Stakeholders are invited to participatory meetings and provide input, but their ideas are not recognized or tried. While the administrator is linguistically committed to risk taking, the reality of risk taking is not a part of the organization’s culture. In these two examples, the first organization was able to recognize and solve its misalignment of the espoused mission of teamwork with what was in reality being done, while the second organization made no attempt to do so. When organizations attempt to understand both how and why incongruence in social behaviors occurs in their specific settings, they are considered communities of inquiry and practice. Such communities inquire or seek to understand where problems occur, as well as to practice or implement viable solutions to those problems. Argyis and Schön (1974) describe the activities of communities of inquiry and practice as creating congruence between espoused theories and theories in action.¹ In essence what occurs in these communities is an interdependent relationship between inquiry and practice. The relatedness of inquiry and practice forms the basis for organizational social behavior that creates the culture of such communities.

Research examining the congruence between inquiry and practice is well established. Lewin [1890-1947] was one of the first to examine social phenomena by integrating inquiry and practice as described by Schein (2000).² He used a process that allowed for the interaction of inquiry and practice. This process was different from the classical model of deductive reasoning found in scientific methods. Instead of isolating variables for control, such as with scientific reasoning, and identifying whether or not those variables were significant, he chose to study the dynamics of multiple variables, many of which cannot be controlled. This approach is logical when one considers how difficult it is to identify fixed and control variables in the study of social phenomena, such as with the two organizations described above. Since there is no way to control the myriad of variables that create such problems, Lewin reasoned that to attempt to do so would produce useless results. So, Lewin used inductive thinking by examining the situation as a whole and then identifying elements and their relationships to the system. (Smith, 2001)³ His work is described by Schein (2000) as, “The power of Lewin’s theorizing lay not in a formal propositional kind of theory but in his ability to build ‘models’ of processes that drew attention to the right kinds of variables that needed to be conceptualized and observed.” (p. 1)⁴ There are tools, such as taxonomies, that are useful in understanding and measuring such complex processes. (Flumerfelt, 2005)⁵ Taxonomies are developed using inductive reasoning to identify and examine those complex and unpredictable variables present in the study of social processes.

Argyis (1991) then built from Lewin’s work by advocating for organizational learning processes whereby dialoguing, corporate problem identifying and solving are used to develop mental models or taxonomies of organizational dynamics.⁶ The significance of this approach is that both the discovery and testing of hypotheses occur in the context of organizational social learning. So the inquiry is done in the naturalized setting in which the problem occurs and is inextricably linked to practice. This means that organizations seeking solutions to ineffective social dynamics will study the social processes, not in a laboratory or controlled environment, but in the working environment. Hence, the relationship of inquiry and practice emerges as interdependent and contextual. Parkay, Anctil and Hass (2006) define social learning as “placing greater emphasis on the influence of external cues on behavior and on how thinking influences action and vice versa.” (p. 166-167)⁷ Under their definition, social learning is a part of system, not an isolated variable, therefore, it is critical to examine it systemically and in context in order to really understand it.

Argyis, Putnam and McLain Smith (1985) also used social learning theory and developed the term action science, which seeks to combine the intentions of rational and empirical hard science with interpretive and hermeneutic human science.⁸ They describe the relationship between inquiry and practice as essential to the study of social learning. Furthermore, they strongly agree with Parkay, Anctil and Hass in terms of conducting action science inductively and contextually. They state,

As a science that hopes to produce knowledge that can inform action, action science requires a conception of practical knowledge that goes beyond the common conception of choosing means to achieve predetermined ends. . . . action science makes it possible to test competing interpretations in the action context. Just as the scientific community of inquiry is the basis of scientific rationality, so the norms and rules of inquiry in the behavioral world of a client system are the basis of deliberation in practical affairs; and action science addresses itself to those norms and rules of inquiry. (p. 2, ibid)

Argyis, Putnam and McLain Smith (1985) describe social and organizational theorists, such as “Bennis, 1973 and 1976;. . . Likert, 1961;. . . Blake and Mouton, 1964,” (p.7) for example, who have tried to “integrate science and practice” (ibid) in order to understand organizational behavior. The idea of developing communities of inquiry and practice are long-standing and well-founded ideas for organizational success.

Further support for pursuing both inquiry and practice in organizational learning can be found in the work of others as well. Learning theorists, such as Dewey (1859-1952) have developed such ideas. Dewey advocated for learning via action science methods, something he called the theory of inquiry (1938).⁹ His theories of learning are known as constructivism. With constructivism, the learner connects cues and behaviors from the environment and then internalizes that information into behavior changes. With constructivism, reality is internally constructed as the learner (or organization) engages in making or constructing meaning from the environment. Under constructivism, the locus of control is with the learner. Learning is a personal process, one that should be facilitated and guided. Dewey believed that learning should not and cannot be controlled from an external source (such as the teacher or leader).¹⁰ But, rather that as Lewin used inductive reasoning to understand social phenomena from a system’s perspective, so Dewey’s beliefs about how individual learning occurs—as the result of complex, interrelated social and intellectual factors—promote self-directed learning, whereby meaning is created as the learner’s knowledge and experiences increases the perspective of the big picture.

The combining of inquiry and practice is often seen as working well as a collaborative endeavor in organizations, such as with Senge’s (1990) learning organization descriptions¹¹ and DuFour’s (2004) professional learning communities.¹² These authors encourage the use of collaborative inquiry models designed to foster corporate understandings of organizational problems and how to solve them. A key tenet of such organizational endeavors is to develop systems perspectives. DuFour states,

The powerful collaboration which characterizes professional learning communities is a systemic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve their teaching practice. Teachers work in teams engaging in a cycle of questions to promote deep team learning. (p. 7, ibid)

Communities of inquiry and practice, then, have two distinctions. First, they inquire and they practice. They don’t just theorize, they work and produce results. On the other hand, they don’t just work, they think about how the work gets done. Second, communities of inquiry and practice understand that collaborative organizational work is about creating congruence between inquiry and practice, that they are responsible for identifying and solving gaps and disconnections between these two realms. Use of inductive reasoning as proposed by Lewin, constructivist learning as proposed by Dewey and action science methods as proposed by Argyis, Putnam and McLain Smith are helpful tools for communities of inquiry and practice. Such organizations not only value systems thinking and recognize the complexities of social phenomena, but are able to utilize these ideas to improve their effectiveness.

If communities of inquiry and practice could be symbolized, the image would be of a boot with a puzzle on it. The boot represents the performance that is necessary for success and the puzzle on the boot represents organizational learning that is necessary for sustainability. Puzzles and boots—these are what communities of inquiry and practice are about.

References:

¹Arygis, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

²Schein, E. H. Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of managed learning [Electronic version]. a2zpsychology.com. Retrieved from: http://www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/kurt_lewin's_change_theory_page7.htm

³Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research [On-line]. The encyclopedia of informal education. Available: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm

⁴Schein, E. H. Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of managed learning [Electronic version]. a2zpsychology.com. Retrieved from: http://www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/kurt_lewin's_change_theory_page7.htm

⁵Flumerfelt, S. (2005). Leadership development and a case for the use of taxonomies [Electronic version]. E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 4,1-9.

⁶Arygis, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn [Electronic version]. Harvard Business Review (69), 3, 99-109.

⁷Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J. & Haas, G. (2006). Curriculum planning: A contemporary approach, Eighth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

⁸Arygis, C., Putnam, R. & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

⁹Dewey, J. (1938). The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

¹⁰Dewey, J. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey#Educational_philosophy

¹¹Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

¹²DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership (61)8, 6-11.

Comments to: flumerfe@leadingtoday.org

About the author:

Shannon Flumerfelt, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Oakland University. Previously, she worked in public school administration and teaching, which included leadership development initiatives, restructuring schools with the Coalition of Essential Schools’ principles and other various change issues related to traditionally-based settings. Her scholarly interests include organizational leadership change and development and technology.