Energising critique in action and in learning: The GNOSIS 4R Framework^*

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Action Learning Conference, Ashridge, March 2017 and in August 2017 at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management in Atlanta. It received recognition as a best paper and a shorter version ‘Critical Action Learning Revisited: The GNOSIS 4R Approach’ appeared in Guclu Atinc (Ed.), Best Paper, Proceedings of the Seventy-seventh Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Online ISSN: 2151-6561.

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a fresh conceptualisation of critical action learning by energising critique in action and in learning, embedding this as integral to Continuous Professional Development (CPD). The criticality that action learning promotes could be most impactful, in fostering a mode of learning – Learning in Crisis – that cultivates reflexive critique and Phronesis to guide professional conduct, particularly when dealing with professional dilemmas. The GNOSIS 4R Framework supports CPD that fosters Re-search, Readiness, Resilience and Renewal. It does so by cultivating Ways of Seeing, through Review, Reflection and Reflexivity, to extent Ways of Being in professional conduct that demonstrate beyond Competence, Character and Conscience. The GNOSIS 4R Framework also enables Ways of Becoming by fostering courage to engage in phronesis through critique that ignites Curiosity and builds Confidence to arrive at informed Choices that serve the common good. The GNOSIS 4R Framework is illustrated with fragments of the dialogical exchanges between the author and a Secretary of Education over 15 months typical of GNOSIS collaborative research engagements. The impacts of the GNOSIS 4R Framework is accounted for also from the perspective of the author and the wider implications for Action Learning especially on Professional programmes (e.g. Professional Doctorates) are considered.

KEYWORDS:

• Action learning
• collaborative and relational approaches
• reflexivity

Acknowledgements

The Author acknowledges the valuable comments of reviewers and extends special thanks to Professor David Coghland, Dr David Higgins and Professor Russ Vince for their constructive feedback. Special thanks are extended to the Secretary of Education, referred to in the paper, who for research ethics purposes will remain anonymous.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on Contributor

Elena P. Antonacopoulou is Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the University of Liverpool Management School, where she leads GNOSIS – a research initiative advancing impactful collaborative research in management and organization studies. Her principal research expertise lies in the areas of Organisational Learning, Change and Knowledge Management with a focus on the Leadership implications. Her research is distinguished by the international, interdisciplinary and interactive approach that engages executives and policy-makers and not only fellow scholars in the co-creation of actionable knowledge.

Notes

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Action Learning Conference, Ashridge, March 2017 and in August 2017 at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management in Atlanta. It received recognition as a best paper and a shorter version ‘Critical Action Learning Revisited: The GNOSIS 4R Approach’ appeared in Guclu Atinc (Ed.), Best Paper, Proceedings of the Seventy-seventh Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Online ISSN: 2151-6561.

1 Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (NE 1139) identifies five modes of knowledge Techne (technical/artisan/craftmanship knowledge), Episteme (scientific knowledge), Phronesis (practical knowledge), Sophia (wisdom) and Nous (pure apprehending). GNOSIS aims to connect all these modes of knowledge to enhance the ‘eye of the soul’ with multiple ways of seeing which is what these various ways of knowing also promote.

2 Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer (2014) explicate ‘Hubris’, ‘Hamartia’ and ‘Anagnosis’ (HH&A) as vices that transpire in interactions amongst humans especially when faced with challenges such as tensions, dilemmas and paradoxes that call for decisions or actions that extend beyond their current experiences. HH&A are reflected in the disposition and stance underpinning behaviours where being unwilling to listen (hubris), and limitation of seeing the whole and stepping outside of one's limited perspective (hamartia) and acting in a vacuum of ignorance (anagnosis), present blind spots or dismissive responses to the significance of the challenges. HH&A affect the practical judgments (phronesis) that guide action because, collectively they explicate the defensive mechanisms that individuals may exhibit in their efforts to protect themselves and their self-image.