Understanding the Use of Knowledge
in Practical Action:
A Learning Perspective
Per-Erik Ellström
Linköping University
www.liu.se/helix
HELIX Centre of Excellence
Managing Mobility for
Learning, Health, and Innovation
• A multi-disciplinary research program
• An interactive research approach
• A partnership of research, companies, public
sector and labor market organizations
Purpose
1. To present a theoretical framework on
individual learning in organizational contexts.
2. To explore some implications of this framework
for understanding and facilitating knowledge
utilization and organizational development.
Some Theoretical
Points of Departure
a ”theory-knitting” approach, i.e. the use of alternative theoretical
perspectives in an attempt to integrate their strongest features with
one’s own ideas about a certain problem or phenomenon (Kalmar &
Sternberg, 1988);
•
• a critical, social realist framework (Archer, Bashkar);
• an understanding of learning as an interplay between actors and
structures within a framework of:
- analytical dualism (Archer);
- cognitive theories of action (e.g. Frese, Norman);
- neo-institutional organizational theory (e.g. Feldman, Scott).
Knowledge Utilization
Four Classical Conceptions
1. An instrumental use of knowledge: To give input in
decision-making processes, to improve the performance
of a certain practice or to give “solutions” to specific
problems
2. A conceptual use of knowledge (“the enlightenment
model”): To help people conceptualize, (re-)define, or
critically reflect on their reality
3. A political use of knowledge: To provide arguments
(“political ammunition”) pro or contra a certain course of
action
4. A symbolic use: To legitimate a certain course of action
through the symbolic value of scientific knowledge
A Fifth Conception:
Knowledge Utilization as a
Learning Process
Specifically, KU as an interplay between:
1. adaptive and developmental (innovative)
learning
2. individual and organizational learning
Working Assumption I:
On the Duality of Knowledge Use
Knowledge (evidence, ideas) get reinterpreted
and acquire new meaning during use, and the use
of a certain idea in a new context is at the same
time an act of knowledge creation.
Working Assumption II:
On “Non-Technological” Practices
A learning perspective is assumed to be
relevant not least with respect to the many
practices that are:
• highly skilled,
• but not highly articulated or codified,
and therefore difficult to disseminate as
standardized “best practices”
The Concept of Learning
The concept of learning as used here refers to:
• a continuous process starting from and building on previous
learning
• that is sometimes deliberate and conscious (e.g. formal
learning), but often incidental or unconscious (implicit) on the
part of the learning subject (an individual or a collective)
• resulting in long-lasting changes in competence (“behavioral
potential”)
The Concept of Competence
Defined here as:
• the potential capacity of an individual (or a
collective)
• to successfully handle certain tasks or situations
• according to certain formal or informal criteria,
set by oneself or by somebody else
On the Duality of Learning
1. Adaptive (mastery) learning: a process of getting
knowledge into practice, i.e. a process of
adopting/mastering given knowledge to handle
certain problems or cases, resulting in increased
performance competence
2. Developmental (innovative) learning: a process of
getting knowledge out of practice, i.e. a process of
creating new solutions to handle emerging
problems or searching for ways to understand a
new case, resulting in increased developmental
competence
Understanding Learning and Knowledge Use:
A Cognitive Action-Theory Framework
• A focus on action as mediating between the individual (the
learning subject) and her/his environment
• There is a continuous interaction between the learning subject
and the pre-existing environment (social, material and cultural)
• Social, material and cultural aspects of the environment is
assumed to enable and constrain individual action, interaction and
learning - in this sense we can talk about learning conditions
• Learning is not just about change, but also about stability and the
maintenance and preservation of an individual’s competence or an
organization’s practices
The Concept of Action
The concept of action as used here refers to:
• intentional behaviors that are carried out on
the basis of, implicit or explicit, knowledge or
rules in order to perform a certain task;
• a distinction can be made between different
levels of action on the basis of their degree of
cognitive control and on their knowledge base.
Levels of Action and
Knowledge Use
Level of Action:
Characteristics:
Knowledge Base:
Level I: Skill-based action
Automatic processing
routinization
Tacit (implicit) knowledge
Level II: Rule-based action
Higher degree of attention
and conscious control
Procedural knowledge
Level III: Knowledge-based
action
Conscious control of actions
to handle novel or unfamiliar
tasks. Problem-solving.
Declarative knowledge
Level IV: Reflective action
Critical reflection on tasks,
goals, and other conditions.
Meta-cognitive knowledge
The Action-Learning Cycle
Level IV
Goal/Task
Knowledge
Mental Model
Individual
Plan of Action
Level III
Level II
Reflection
Evaluation
Interpretation
Level I
Execution
Perception
Consequences/Effects
Environment
Other People
Things/Tools
Social
Environment
Physical-Material
Environment
Information
Cultural-Symbolic
Environment
Learning as an Interplay Between
Levels of Action
Adaptive/
Mastery
Learning
Developmental/
Innovative
Learning
Reflective Action (Level IV)
Knowledge-Based Action (Level III)
Rule-Based Action (Level II)
Skill-Based Action (Level I)
Organizational Development Through
Individual and Organizational Learning
Explicit Work Processes
The Logic of
Development:
Developmental
Learning:
• Transformation/
Improvement
• Codification
• Articulation
• tasks/routines as officially
prescribed
• on the basis of explicit
knowledge (ideas, evidence,
theories, models)
Implicit Work Processes
• tasks/routines as redefined
and performed in practice
• on the basis of implicit (“tacit)
knowledge
• characterized by variation
and improvisation
The Logic of
Implementation:
Adaptive
Learning:
• Internalization
• Routinization
• Standardization
Four Dimensions of
Tasks and Work Processes (WP)
• the task/WP as prescribed (e.g. in guidelines);
• the task/WP as perceived and redefined;
• the task/WP as performed in practice;
• the task/WP as reconstructed
Two Logics of Learning
The Logic of Development:
•
•
•
•
reflection, alternative thinking, experimentation, risk taking;
tolerance of ambiguity, variation, and mistakes;
critical analysis and transformation of routines and structures;
developmental (innovative) learning
The Logic of Implementation:
•
•
•
•
implementation of prescribed routines and structures;
reduction of variation, consensus, and stability;
routinization and standardization of effective actions;
adaptive learning
Implications for
Research and Practice I
• Once established routinized actions are difficult to change,
i.e. to unlearn” and “relearn”, through planned change
interventions.
• This is especially true, if one primarily relies on intellectual
and verbal forms of instruction (e.g. written guidelines).
• At the same time, individuals as well as organizations learn
and change continually in response to emerging problems,
unexpected events and daily contingencies.Thus, in this
sense problems are driving forces for developmental
learning and change.
Implications for
Research and Practice II
• Ongoing variation and improvisation in implicit work processes
represent potentials for learning and practice-based innovations.
• In order to realize these potentials, it is necessary - but not
sufficient - to externalize (“make visible”) ongoing variation in the
implicit work process. That, is to carry out interventions that
facilitate articulation and codification of what’s going on in the
“tacit dimension”.
• Through externalization it is possible to explore, test and debate
strengths and weaknesses of potential innovations, and possibly
to select them for tentative inclusion - and more systematic tests in the explicit work process.
Interactive Research
Theories and
concepts
Data collection
and analysis
Problems/
issues
Research System
Conceptualization
and interpretation
of the research
object
Practice System
Organizational
action
Problems/
issues
Local theories
References
Ellström, P.-E. (2006). The Meaning and Role of Reflection
in Informal Learning at Work. In: D. Boud, P. Cressey,
& P. Docherty (Eds.), Productive Reflection. An Anthology
on Reflection and Learning at Work. London: Routledge.
Ellström, P.-E. (2002). Time and the Logics of Learning.
Lifelong Learning in Europe, 2, 86–93.
Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating Learning and Work:
Conceptual Issues and Critical Conditions. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12, 4, 421–435.