by Action learning (and its family members) are an approach to solving complex problems that starts with the premise that every situation is unique. If there is a clear solution to a problem, you probably don’t need action learning. It’s more suited to messy, complex problems for which there isn’t a clear solution For me, working on a project to “fix” higher education, for example, is a complex problem without a ready solution that could benefit from the action learning approach. The expectation is that the team will understand the problem better and move it forward, but not necessarily solve it.
Last week in Alternative Perspectives class at Houston Foresight, one of our students, Mackenzie Dickson, shared an excellent review of his experience as an intern with action learning with UNESCO’s foresight group under the tutelage of futurist Riel Miller.
They are working on developing what they call Futures Literacy Knowledge Laboratories, which Riel as a process for creating knowledge using the collective intelligence that emerges from structured learning-by-doing conversations about the future of a particular topic that is meaningful to the participants. See this short video for more info.
A key objective of the approach is to build capacity in the groups they work with. A key element of the approach is to “make assumptions about the future visible,” which in turns opens up the group to generate alternative assumptions. They tap the group’s collective intelligence to generate ideas and use shared sense-making to interpret them.
There is a general framework with lots of rooms for different approaches within it. He mentioned that one group used Sohail Inayatullah’s Six Pillars approach.
One interesting aspect of the process, which might be a challenge for some clients, is that there is less emphasis on “deliverables.” In a sense the process and experience is the deliverable, although my colleague and dissertation advisor Jeff Gold notes that a successful action learning project generates commitments to action on the part of participants [see his overview video]. It’s perhaps less of a stretch than one might imagine, as traditional approach such as scenario planning often suggest that a key benefit is going through the process as opposed to simply reading a final report.
Mackenzie was struck by the tremendous energy and enthusiasm that the approach generated. In one three-day workshop in the Philippines, for example, there were about 100 participants from a wide range of functions that were enthusiastic participants.
My reflection is that action learning represents an ongoing shift in how foresight is evolving. There has been a long-term shift away from expert-driven content projects to more collaborative participatory approaches. This does not mean that we don’t need expertise, but that the expertise fits within the process rather than driving it. Nor does it suggest we don’t need content, just that there is a lot of content out there, and that the value add is in selecting what content to use and supplementing as needed. Jose Ramos has done some great writing on this subject (and was kind enough to visit with our class last year). Andy Hines
Leave a Reply