The objective of this article is to map the manyfacets of organizational learning into an integrative and parsimonious conceptual framework that can help researchers and practicioners identify, study, and introduce organizational learning to organizations. The article addresses the gap between theoryand practice of organizational learning byproviding a working definition of “productive organizational learning” and then describing the conditions under which organizations are likelyto learn. The model presented draws on scholarly organizational learning literature, practicioner accounts, and our own experiences as researchers and practitioners. It argues that learning by organization, as distinct from learning in organizations, requires the existence of organizational learning mechanisms. These mechanisms, which represent the “structural facet, ” are necessarybut not sufficient for generating productive organizational learning. The qualityof organizational learning depends on additional facets of organizational learning (cultural, psychological, policy, and contextual), which facilitate or inhibit learning and are also explored in this article.

Although participation is widely discussed in the action research literature, relatively few studies deal with building the participative relationship itself. This article attempts to fill that gap through a ‘first-person action research’ involving a relationship between Jewish researchers and a Palestinian Arab non-governmental organization in Israel that failed to live up to our espoused values of participation. It employs an action science method for joint critical reflecting on this relationship and analyzing the data from the reflection. It presents two ‘theories of action’: one aimed at explaining the paradox of participation and one for dealing with it more effectively. By opening our learning, including our errors, to the scrutiny of other action researchers, we hope to generate actionable knowledge that can contribute to building genuinely participative relationships in action research.

Despite the growing popularity of organizational learning and the proliferation of literature on the subject, the concept remains elusive for researchers and managers alike. This article argues that enduring uncertainty about the meaning and practice of organizational learning reflects its so-called mystification. It attributes mystification to five features of the field: (a) ever-increasing conceptual diversity, (b) anthropomorphizing organizational learning, (c) a split in the field between visionaries and skeptics, (d) the reification of terminology, and (e) active mystification of the concept. The article explains and illustrates how the literature on organizational learning has contributed to these processes of mystification. It concludes by specifying a number of strategies that researchers and practitioners can employ to demystify the concept of organizational learning.

No abstract

No abstract

The goal of this article is try to retrieve the idea of `good theory' that provides accessible and useful tools for practitioners, academics, and other participants in action research. In doing so, we advocate the importance of explicit theory building and testing as an integral part of action research practice. The association of theory with positivist research methodologies has resulted in the rejection of theory by many action researchers, who are fundamentally interested in interpretation and change and correctly see positivist theorizing as antagonistic to these aims. Drawing on the example of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön's `theory of action' approach, we identify six qualities of a non-positivist `good theory'. Broadly, these suggest that theory needs to be both sensitive to the meanings participants give to their situation, yet go beyond these to explore unseen causal dimensions of their behavior and the environment, and the interaction of the two. A case study based on our own practice illustrates these points. We conclude that empowering clients to make practical and sustainable changes means co-creating a shared knowledge of the causal conditions of their social world and its attendant difficulties, and that this knowledge is theoretical.

ARIELI D., FRIEDMAN V.J. & HIRSCHFELD M.J. (2012) Challenges on the path to cultural safety in nursing education. International Nursing Review59, 187–193 Aim:  The purpose of this study is to identify central challenges to be addressed in cultural safety education. Background:  In recent years, the idea of cultural safety has received increased attention as a way of dealing with diversity in the nursing profession, especially in divided societies. The idea of cultural safety goes beyond recognizing and appreciating difference, to an attempt to grappling with deeper issues like inequality, conflict and histories of oppression. Methods:  The paper is based on formative evaluation, using action research, of an academic nursing programme in Israel, involving Jewish and Arab students. Part of this research dealt with the integration of cultural safety education into the curriculum. Findings:  The study revealed four challenges in cultural safety education: making it safe for minorities to present their culture to the majority group (‘the ambassador's dilemma’), dealing with tendency of groups to deny the existence of conflict (‘the one big happy family fantasy’), making dynamics of oppression discussable (‘the oppressed and the oppressor’) and creating conditions in which people can freely choose their individual and group identities (‘the threat of identity’). Conclusion:  Cultural safety education may be experienced as unsafe for many participants. Better understanding of the challenges of cultural safety education is necessary for making it more effective.

No abstract