Systemic Approaches to Social Learning – TB872 Part 03 Week 15-17

Table of Contents:

TB872 (Managing Change with Systems Thinking in Practice) Part 03

Part 03 of TB872 involves thinking about:

• How systems thinking in practice (STiP) happens in a social context, and the implications of this
  • How we are personally affected by social contexts
  • How social contexts can constrain the processes of managing change as learning
  • How social contexts can enable the processes of managing change as learning
• Learning about learning
  • Focus on social learning
  • Understanding how learning is relevant to managing change
  • learning from experience of situations
  • learning from use of conceptual frameworks
  • approaches or frameworks that facilitate interactive learning processes.
• How we can orchestrate systemic practice with others who may or may not be engaged in systems thinking in practice themselves
  • Systemic frameworks and methodologies for facilitating interactive learning processes and managing change with others
  • How practitioners think about, prepare for, design and take into account interactions with other people.

‘The overarching idea is that, unless you have learning, and social learning in particular, it is difficult to effect change that could be systemically desirable and culturally feasible.’

TB872 3.1.1

We will be selectively reading module materials, particularly from Social learning systems and communities of practice, an edited reader on social learning systems, compiled by Chris Blackmore (2010).

We will also use the ‘PFMS’ framework that we learnt earlier in the module, to reflect on the relational dynamics within situations or systems of interest.

Table 1: Examples of ways to apply PFMS in social learning contexts

Our learning will inform the design of a learning system to manage change with STiP in a situation of concern—mine being concerned with challenges relating to EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion) in the design of postgraduate curricula (particularly the STiP modules at the Open University with which I am engaging). My reading, learning, and choice of preferred approach is therefore done with my situation of concern in mind.

We will have the option to choose between ‘Communities of Practice’ (CoPs) and ‘Critical Social Learning Systems’ (CSLS) as approaches for managing change with STiP (using systems thinking to design a process of learning for continual improvement), so I will be weighing up these approaches in regards to their appropriateness for my situation of concern.

Experience of social learning

The process of managing change in situations requires learning in order to understand a situation and the interconnected elements that affect it, and continue to make appropriate changes based on the changing situation. Our learning, understanding, and choices of how to act in a situation can be seen as existing always in a social context.

I physically learn alone most of the time, because I am not around others much. My personal experiences are examples of individual learning. However, a lot of my learning from external sources is social in the sense that I am learning from the experiences and knowledge of others with their own long histories and traditions, also shaped by social learning. I reinforce and develop learning by discussing with others, exploring different perspectives and combining with my own understanding.

Whether I learn with others or by myself, anything shared or learnt with others benefits the community in some way. Each of our perspectives enriches collective understanding, if the community is open to those perspectives.

One of my main concerns throughout this module has been my lack of ability to ‘act systemically’ and enact change, let alone show evidence that I am doing so. Having shared my concerns with my tutor, the feedback was somewhat reassuring (although other discussions in the forum define systems practice differently):

‘Any time you are considering perspectives of others, you are interacting systemically… Every time you consider interrelationships, you are acting systemically. When you identify a boundary, you are acting systemically.’

Roberts, P., 2025

Interacting with tutors and other students on the forums, attending tutorials and reading peer-reviewed course materials, have been forms of social learning that expanded my own perspective and reinforced learning. It is useful to see questions from students being answered, that I may not have thought of myself, and being able to contribute to the group myself.

Reading about social learning systems

It is my second reading of Social learning systems and communities of practice (Blackmore, 2010), so although I don’t remember everything I read and didn’t understand all of it, I am able to refer to my notes in the margins and build upon my understanding in a new context. After re-reading the introduction of the book, I note that I am now familiar with many of the concepts (such as social learning, learning systems, system boundaries), but I would benefit from learning more about appreciative systems and system environments.

The start of chapter 12 mentions that ‘most of the examples in the course come from work-based settings’. This has not been of great interest to me, although these examples are relevant to many ‘complex’ / ‘messy’ decision-making situations and where learning for collective action can take place. Having to think more about my situation of concern in Part 02 and 03 has reinforced the importance of applying systems thinking in organisational policy and workplace practice although I am still detached from this as a student, not an employee, in the context of my situation of concern.

It is interesting to see a difference in emphasis between this book and Ray Ison’s views in previous module materials about our ability to affect systemic change. On my first reading of Social learning systems and communities of practice, when I had not yet been exposed to the strong focus on reflexivity in systemic practice that we would have in Part 01-02, I highlighted the sentence ‘change does not just happen in a detached way, but we are often part of it… we often have the ability to affect as well as be affected by systemic change’ (p. 202). The phrasing sounds so soft in comparison to the idea reinforced in Part 01 and 02 that we are always a part of the situation / system of interest, and always affecting and being affected by it! I assume that we are still expected to express this viewpoint in our analyses since we are still expected to use the PFMS and BECM frameworks which require self-reflection and reflexivity as a primary consideration in systemic practice.

It was important to me on my first reading, as it is now, to understand why certain systems thinkers and approaches were chosen by Blackmore (and others involved in creating STiP module materials) to be featured.

‘They all offered descriptions, analyses and examples with potential to be of use to current and future practitioners in making sense of, influencing and managing the kinds of systemic changes that rely on high quality and multi-level individual and interactive learning.’
‘…this book offers insights into new ways of being and acting in the world in relation to each other which arise from both old and new understandings of communities, learning and systems. It is from these insights that the possibility of influencing and managing systemic change for a better world emerges.’

Blackmore, C., 2010, p. 217

From the beginning of the module, I needed to know whether my values were similar enough to the course creators that I would respect their choices of themes and thinkers, descriptions and definitions. I will not fully know whether that is the case until I know just as much as them about Systems to make my own determinations. However, my choice of ‘situation of concern’ is based on the desire to have some reassurance that regardless of our differences and values, there were systems designed to ensure that EDI was considered in the design of curricula that would inform our collective practices as students and professional practitioners.

Notes on system thinkers

Summary of descriptions from ‘Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice’

Donald Schön (ch. 1)

• Public learning / societal learning
• Cybernetics influence
• Non-linear dynamics
• Constructivist – knowledge developed rather than transferred
• Central government as facilitator rather than trainer

Sir Geoffrey Vickers (ch. 2)

• Constructivist
• Highly dynamic (dynamics of learning – ‘moving model’, p. 203)
• Cybernetics influence
• Appreciative system – group & individual experiences, in context → social learning
• Distinctions between: facts and values, appreciation and action, events and ideas
• Standards and ‘settings’

Richard Bawden, Hawksbury Group – Critical Social Learning Systems (ch. 3, 6)

• Generalised model
• How to distinguish an effective learning community
• Defines learning system (p. 203)
• ‘Epistemological, ethical and emotional dimensions’ (p. 204)
• Worldviews and messy issues
• Influenced by Vickers (appreciative system) and Schön, D. (transformation)
• Model’s characteristics could apply to Communities of Practice

Jim Woodhill, Hawksbury Group (ch. 4)

• Contextualising learning in environment and development
• Focus on institutions and sustainability, collective learning, multi-level action, development, resource management, environmental decision-making
• Democratic adaptation for generational collective well-being (p. 204)
• Cognitive process of learning

Ray Ison, Hawksbury Group, SLIM (ch. 5)

• Focus on institutions and sustainability, collective learning, multi-level action, development, resource management, environmental decision-making
• Defines social learning (p. 204)

Etienne Wenger-Traynor – Communities of Practice (ch. 7, 8, 11)

• Individual and collective learning
• Wide range of domains, characteristics of which affect effectiveness of learning (structure, community, practice)
• ‘Social theory of learning rather than a social learning theory’ (p. 205)
• Learning as social and historical process
• Learning as practice
• Learning at boundaries of CoPs (peripherality, marginality, identity)
• ‘Landscape of practice’ (ch. 8)
• Snyder and Wenger-Traynor (ch. 7)
  • The world as a learning system
    • Action learning capacity
    • Cross-boundary representation
    • Cross-level linkages
  • Fractal structure
  • Community of communities

Mary Gobbi (ch. 9)

• Professional capital
• Professional practice
• Interpersonal relationships
• Learning through experience, similar to Hawksbury Group

Linda G. Polin (ch. 10)

• CoP-based, social learning model
• graduate education
• constructivist
• linear to systemic learning, similar to Schön

Summary and activities from TB872 3.3

References:
Blackmore (2010) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice
Ramage and Shipp (2009) Systems Thinkers
Ramage and Blackmore (2020) TB872 Part 03

Donald Schön (1930–1997)

Career: Philosophy, Education, Management, Military, New Product Development, Urban Planning, Design
Interests: Music, Technology, Innovation

Stuff to check out:

• BBC Reith Lectures, 1970
• Beyond the Stable State, 1971
• Theory in Practice, 1974
• Organisational Learning, 1978

Concepts:

• Reflective practice / practitioner
• Theory of action
• Knowing-in-action / Knowledge in action
• Reflection-in-action
• Single-/double-loop learning
• Organisational learning
• ‘Crisis of confidence’ in professional knowledge
• The ‘swamp’
• Technical rationality
• Learning systems in institutions
• Indeterminate zones of practice / zones of indeterminacy:
  • uncertainty (undefined issue)
  • uniqueness (novel problems)
  • conflict (conflicting values)
• ‘Crisis’ (disruptive evidence against accepted theory) → change
• Loss of the stable state
• Dynamic conservatism (dynamically conservative systems protect against disruption)
• Learning society
• Ideas in ‘good currency’
• Framing in institutional context, policy/political reframing

Schön on The Nature of Learning:

New theory is constructed based on past experience and knowing-in-action. Knowledge is exhibited in enaction (knowing-in-action). This knowledge leads to reflection-in (the midst of)-action.

Experience + action → theory + knowing-in-action → reflection-in-action

Our priorities for learning are shaped by values of the time. Current educational systems do not support learning in practice, but practitioners can continue to learn through habitual reflection-in-action.

Schön on Designing Learning Systems:

Professional education is unsuited for problems of ‘the swamp’, typically following a top-down distribution of ‘knowledge’ that is slow to be adapted to practice in real life situations.

Social systems can be resistent to change, often proportionally to the change proposed. Institutions must be learning systems, able to transform themselves quickly to address current problems whilst maintaining their identities. Determining what the problem is, may be the real problem.

Politics affects inquiries and priorities for public learning. Governments’ public learning structures ineffective for developing policy—they should instead derive themes of policy by induction of peripheral ideas of good currency and be facilitators and supporters of transformation/adaptation at the local level.

Critique of Schön:

• ‘Focuses on individual practice, learning and reflection’; ‘weak focus on power and politics’ (Ramage and Shipp, 2009, p. 292)
• Does government ‘learn for society’? Is it possible for people that seek power to distribute that power in a meaningful way? To what extent do local councils in UK have freedom to adapt policy?
• Technology affects speed of learning and adaptation, and relevance of solutions to current issues, but also makes manipulation of values easier.

Examples of ‘ideas in good currency’:

There have been many paradigm shifts in 21st century Britain, as exponential development of technology changes the possibilities available to us and therefore the way we see the world. If we see ‘ideas in good currency’ as those taken up by the mainstream and actioned by the government to some extent, then we can see the following as being in ‘good currency’:

• The Internet as a primary source of information and means of communication
• The realities and practicalities of anthropogenic climate change
• The realities and practicalities of Artificial Intelligence

Exponential technological development is not met with exponential social learning—we do not have the systems to support it. Matters of ethics trail behind. Social awareness is sparked by peripheral groups but policy change is slow, such as in the following areas:

• Animal rights
• Queer rights
• Ethics of intelligent technologies

The UK government has guidelines (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/systems-thinking-for-civil-servants) for systems practice and I am very curious to what extent they are utilised! There will always be boundaries regarding who is consulted for inquiries (probably not those on the peripheries…)

Ways to apply Schön’s ideas to PFMS:

Sir Geoffrey Vickers (1894–1983)

Career: Lawyer, soldier in WWI, Director of Coal Board, affiliated with Open University (OU) and Lancaster University, President of Society for General Systems Research.

Influenced by: Weiner, Bertalanffy, Ashby

Influenced: Soft Systems Methodology

Stuff to check out:

• Checkland and Casar, 1986
• Open Systems Group, 1984

Concepts:

• Appreciation / ‘Appreciating a situation’
• Appreciative system (ongoing process of sense-making → epistemological basis for nature of ‘judgement’)
• Standards and values inform judgements, and are modified by acts of ‘appreciation’
• Meaning is more important than the action to which meaning was assigned
• Recontextualising through imagination
• Systems as tools of understanding, not descriptors of reality → valued diverse perspectives
• Human relationships > seeking goals (in management) → valued personal responsibility for societal stability
• Phenomenological perspective on management

Vickers on The Nature of Learning:

Learning occurs through a cycle of experience and actions informing our understanding of the world, and our understanding of the world informing our experiences and actions.

Circular relations of reinforced values, and readiness to notice certain situational aspects, limits openness to change.

‘Facts are relevant by reference to judgement of value; judgements of value are meaningful in regard to some configuration of fact’

Vickers, 1968, p. 198

Vickers on Designing Learning Systems:

‘Neither automatic regulation nor human design could be trusted to achieve ‘betterment’ …we should be much better for understanding the limits and conditions of human control’

Vickers, 1987, pp. vii-viii

My interpretation:

Critique of Vickers:

Is development of value / meaning the same as learning?
Learning suggests growth / adaptation appropriate to circumstance (but this may be my own bias, and an example of ‘values selecting facts’!)—changed values / meanings are note always relevant / beneficial / ‘true’

Understanding ‘appreciation’:

Appreciation is the process by which we are changed by our experiences. Specifically, the values and interests inform what we pay attention to (appreciative settings, or ‘readinesses’ to see, to value, and to do) and therefore how we experience situations; those experiences are changed in our engagement with them, as are we in the meanings we assign to them and the ways we communicate about them. Since we are changed by the situation, our further understanding and engagement is also changed, continuing the process of learning / changing. Over time, the systemic interaction between these aspects of ‘appreciating a situation’ can be described as an ‘appreciative system’.

Ways to apply Vickers’ ideas to PFMS:

Mary Catherine Bateson (1939-2021)

Bateson, M.C. provides powerful feminist, sociological, anthropological insight into societal systems that influence social learning.

Career: Social anthropologist, linguist, humanitarian

Influenced by: Parents Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson – ‘in my family, we never simply live, we are always reflecting on our lives’ (Bateson, M.C., 1984, p. 11)

Stuff to check out:

• Composing a Life, 1989
• Willing to Learn, 2004

Concepts:

• Construction of identity as part of change
• The experience and outcomes of socialisation into womanhood
• Formal education as a means of social control, requiring submission and the self-classification of ‘ignorant’
• ‘weaving a pattern’ from what you know (recycling yourself)—we all have experience and perspective that is valuable
• ‘we are not what we know but what we are willing to learn’ (Bateson, M.C., 2004, p. 8)
• Accepting the role of learner and dependent
• Interdependence (independence does not exist)
• Improvisation towards discovery
• Fluidity, discontinuity

M.C. Bateson on The Nature of Learning:

Learning is epistemological, but in practice requires us to look outward. Empathy and understanding of others as a matter of habit defines lifelong learning and change. We have to be willing to learn by embracing difference. There is no fixed truth in a fluid world, so teachers are learners, and learners are teachers.

‘Willingness to learn demands respect for others across difference… the greater the difference, the more there may be to be learned… willingness to learn is a form of spirituality’ (Bateson, M.C., 2005)

M.C. Bateson on Designing Learning Systems:

Living in a world of change, values must be flexible. The experience of learning new values can provide models for integrating new understanding into existing ones in new situations. Savour complexity, resist easy answers, let diversity flower into creativity.

We must question the degree of uniformity needed for society to work. Either we commit to adapting to the change that is happening, or we wait to ‘hit rock bottom’. We have to teach values that support the change we want to see. Multi-cultural society needs meta-values that support growth and adaptation e.g. pluralism, democracy, empathy.

Critique:

???

Ways to apply M.C. Bateson’s ideas to PFMS:

Richard Bawden (1939- )

Career: Environmental research and management, part of Hawksbury Group which also included Ison and Woodhill.

Influenced by: Critical Theory, as are other Critical Systems Thinking traditions.

Stuff to check out:

• Churchman, 1971
• Kitchener – cognition, metacognition, epistemic cognition (as levels of transformation)

Concepts:

• Integration
• Epistemology
• Ethics (critical focus)
• Systemic praxis
• Critical reflection
• Risk society
• Reflexive modernisation
• Traditions of understanding – language, dialogue, experience
• Communication is distorted by worldviews
• ‘Tensions of difference’
• Blending systems theory and practice.

Bawden on The Nature of Learning:

Experiential learning is the recurrent process of adaptation based on a rigorous process of transformation. We try to make sense of the world in order to take action, and through our interactions with different ways of knowing (with critical consciousness), meaning emerges and our individual ‘episteme’ matures over time.

Bawden on Designing Learning Systems:

Education should be epistemic with a critical dimension. Learning communities should be facilitated, accommodating and appreciating different worldviews and ways of knowing. blending systems theory and practice can help to develop understanding of ‘being systemic’.

Critique of Bawden:

‘Systemic worldviews are a prerequisite for treating the world in a systemic (holistic) way’

Blackmore, C., 2010, p. 42

…are they?

Ways to apply Bawden’s ideas to PFMS:

Etienne Wenger-Traynor (1952- )

Career: Education, PhD in AI, research in learning

Stuff to check out:

• Wenger, 1998 – CoP: Learning Meaning and Identity

Concepts

• Communities of practice (an ancient practice, but the term was coined with J. Lave ~1990s) re self-organising communities
• situated learning
• Living curriculum (social structure for learning)
• Domains of practice (area of knowledge, shared passion, commitment)
• Community (people interacting / identifying, and their relationships)
• Practice (activities reference shared historical / social resources)
• boundary processes
• legitimate peripheral participation
• Social theory as a technical way of telling our stories

Wenger-Traynor on The Nature of Learning

Learning is a product of its social context, and ‘practitioners are in the best position to steward knowledge assets related to their work’. People that regularly communicate in order to develop practice in their shared domain can be considered communities of practice (different from communities of interest, or temporary project-based communities). We rely on expert practitioners to collaborate and solve problems.

Wenger-Traynor on Designing Learning Systems

A CoP is defined by the domain, community, and practice that are the focus of the community. Practitioners can collectively define the boundaries and purpose of their community of practice by thinking about:
– Practice: what are we doing?
– Meaning: what is our experience?
– Identity: who are we becoming?
– Community: where do we belong?

Regular interaction and sharing is required for effective praxis. By identifying with the community of practice, those that are considered members become accountable to the community. The community defines competence, and therefore who is a member. Expertise in collaborative inquiry and conflict management is beneficial.

To address complex global challenges, we must increase global intelligence—cognitive, behavioural, moral, capacity for inquiry, ability to create and adapt (Churchman, 1971).

A ‘world learning system’ must have:

• Action-learning capacity (reflexive adaptation)
• Cross-boundary representation (wide demographic)
• Cross-level linkages (local / national / global)

Critique of Wenger-Traynor

• It is not totally clear to what extent a CoP must be intentional, or something that can naturally occur amongst certain communities in certain circumstances. Based on some of the definitions I have read, there may not be many actual CoPs aside from those that are institutionally organised and have resources to remain active. This is impractical in many organisations and groups.
• Who designs—where, when, on what scale?
• which individuals are likely to be excluded from communities, despite their potential contributions?

Ways to apply Wenger-Traynor’s ideas to PFMS:

My experience of communities as social learning systems and CoPs

My first thought was that the closest to ‘community of practice’ that I have experienced is in online, social media forums. For example, in LinkedIn groups, people discuss and share content related to their shared interest and passions. These groups do not necessarily have regular interactions or defined purpose to develop practice as a community so I am not sure if this counts as a ‘community of practice’ as described by Wenger-Traynor and Snyder as these communities are often very informal, not tying into identity, not expecting commitment or accountability.

However, I recall when I previously studied at university for my BA in design, I joined several of my fellow students in regular meetings to practice design, and work as a team to complete design projects. Due to our inexperience in the field of design, our group was perhaps more of a community to develop the practice of being design students and future professional designers. We had limited access to professional community, so we shared what resources we had access to. We gave our group a name and offered a networking service to other students as a way of expanding our own networks with people who had shared interests.

I think that a group I recently joined may be a community of practice—the OU Black STEM group. This group allows students to join to improve the practice and experience of being a black student. People join because it is their interest or passion, resources are shared, events organised and attended by members. There are ‘leaders’ and organisers but feedback from the group determines future group activities, and participation from anyone that supports the group’s purpose is encouraged.

Non-Western traditions: Ubuntu

Stuff to check out:

• Chilisa, 2012
• Tutu, D., 1999
• Woermann and Engelbrech, 2019
• Mamman and Zakaria, 2016
• Mackay, 2018
• Bolden, 2014

Concepts

• ‘Humanness’ / humanity
• Ethical framework of interdependence in community
• “I am because we are” (constructivist ontology)
• Communality, collectivity, social justice, human unity, pluralism, sharing, participating, affirming, openness, available to others, self-assurance, empathy, respect
• Offers decolonised alternative for African governance (Mamman and Zakaria, 2016)

The Nature of Learning

• Individuals’ sense of being cannot be detached from their social context (Bolden, 2014)

Designing Learning Systems

• Ubuntu provides moral compass that acknowledges systemic nature of human existence in the world (Mackay, 2018)
• Importance of agreement, consensus, group cohesion
• Focus on harmony encourages participation
• Emphasis on wellbeing

Critique

Consensus is not necessarily systemically desirable, and may be arrived at by conformity or coercion to maintain group cohesion

Ways to apply Ubuntu ideas to PFMS:

Non-Western traditions: Pratītyasamutpāda

Stuff to check out:

• Thich Naht Hahn, 1999
• Joanna Macy, 1991, 2003

Concepts

• ‘dependent rising’ / ‘dependent origination’
• mutual causality of all aspects of nature
• the teaching of cause and effect
  ’cause and effect co-arise and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions’ (Thich Naht Hahn, 1999)
• ‘I am because the world/universe is’

The Nature of Learning

• ‘the preoccupations and predispositions of the mind shapes the reality it sees’ (Macy, J., 1991)—similarly, cybernetics and systems thinking challenges the individualistic concept of self
• We learn together, immersed in systems

Designing Learning Systems

???

Critique

???

Ways to apply Pratītyasamutpāda ideas to PFMS:

Thoughts on non-dualistic belief systems

I find the reference to non-dualistic belief systems relevant due to my own spiritual experiences through yoga practice which induced a state of experiencing ‘oneness’ that changed my entire perception of the world and my relationship to it. I ‘saw’ and felt the consequences of my actions as they relate to the wider systems I exist in, changing me forever. Of course this also changed how I receive information, interact with the world, and practice in my daily life. I was more open to the experiences of others with greatly increased empathy for those unlike myself, including animals. My behaviour and ways of living were informed by those experiences. I would say this is beyond ‘social learning’ which focuses on our interaction with other humans—such learning is global and universal.

It was a necessary experience for me to feel the urgency of systemically desirable action I would need to take. I do not think it is necessary for everyone to have this kind of ‘systemic realisation’ in order to act in a way that prevents harm wherever possible, but such an experience does greatly increase the motivation to act with awareness of our role in systems.

When I had these experiences, I was drawn to exploring Asian religious beliefs that commonly discuss this type of ‘understanding’ as something that comes from practicing yoga and meditation. However, non-dualistic epiphanies are not an uncommon experience amongst practitioners of other belief systems such as christian mysticism and new age spirituality where prayer or meditation facilitates a state of ego-death or separation from the ‘self’.

Choosing an approach

Systemic approaches to social learning provide many factors for us to think about when analysing and designing social learning systems. Although we are only required to choose between CoPs and CSLS for the TB872 end-of-module assignment (EMA), it is useful to note the emergent themes summarised by Blackmore (2010):

Themes / ‘landscape of social learning systems praxis’ (p. 207)
1. Institutions, organisations and institutionalising
2. Ethics, values and morality
3. Communication
4. Facilitation
5. Managing interpersonal relationships and building trust
6. Communities and networks
7. Levels and scale
8. Boundaries and barriers
9. Conceptual frameworks and tools
10. Knowledge and knowing
11. Transformations
12. Time lag and dynamics of praxis
13. Design for learning
14. Stability, sustainability and overall purpose.

In regards to my choice of approach, it initially seemed that CoPs may be applicable to my situation of concern as CoPs are professional communities that collaborate to facilitate learning. This would be relevant in an educational setting since educators are often passionate about their practice and more inclined to form a CoP. However, I did not find indication that such communities organically formed within the institution I am focusing on and it seems that organic formation due to shared passions and interests is a requirement of this categorisation.

CSLS would be more appropriate in this case because regardless of the practice that currently exists, an ethical and epistemic approach can be undertaken to highlight ‘not just what could be done but what should be done’, and ensure that ‘different kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing are made explicit’ (Blackmore, C., 2010, p. xiv).

I am also drawn to critical approaches because of my personal interest in socially just practices. I would like to learn more about how such an approach has been utilised in the past, and can be used in future to improve organisational practice.

References

Blackmore, C. (ed.) (2010) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. London: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.

Ramage, M. and Blackmore, C. (2020) ‘Part 3. Social learning systems for managing change’, TB872: Managing change with systems thinking in practice. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2303527.

Ramage, M. and Shipp, K. (2020) Systems Thinkers. London: Springer London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7475-2.

Roberts, P. (2025) Email to A. Magombe, 02 March.