Scholarly practice: re-connecting the l, p and q

This special issue provides a space to question, and to better understand, the relationship between action and learning which occurs when practitioners ‘become’ scholarly practitioners. As practitioners of action learning, and scholars employed within the UK Higher Education sector, we are aware that the notion of ‘becoming’ a scholarly practitioner remains a central feature of many educational programmes. However, we share a concern that the action and learning, which emerges from engagement with educational initiatives, remains largely hidden. Therefore, we asked contributors to address the question:

• Can we surface and share the learning which occurs when scholars become practitioners and practitioners become scholars?

The oft quoted ‘equation’ on action learning (l = p + q) highlights the relationship between learning (l), programmed knowledge (p) and questioning insight (q). The pivotal role of questioning insight is accepted as a hallmark of ‘good’ action learning (Brook et al. 2016). It is argued that these ‘good’ questions will lead to learning at three levels, alpha, beta and gamma. System alpha focuses on the identification and analysis of real organisational problems; system beta involves the rigorous exploration of the problem through cycles of action and reflection; and system gamma focuses on the learning experienced by the scholar practitioner.

The notion of ‘becoming’ a scholarly practitioner, by researching a complex practice-based problem, has gained momentum and underpins the discourse of many supported postgraduate and professional doctoral programmes (Lawless, Sambrook, and Stewart 2012). It is argued that Scholarly Practice research can: ‘address critical problems of practice through the use of theory, inquiry, and practice-oriented knowledge.’ (MacGregor and Fellabaum 2016). Scholar practitioners are required to transfer their learning, reflecting on and assessing the impact of their work and the knowledge they develop (Griggs et al. 2018). This ideal is based on collaborative and relational learning through active exchange within communities of practice (Lawless 2008).

This special issue provides varying perspectives on the scholar-practitioner concept as it relates to: management education; management research; teaching within business schools; as well as the meaning the concept has acquired in other professional disciplines.

In the first article Professor David Coghlan and Paul Coughlan reflect on how ‘scholarly academics’ exercise the scholarship of teaching. They draw from their shared reflections on their individual practice and contribute a ‘Praxeology of the Scholarship of Teaching’. Working out of systems alpha/beta/gamma and enacting L = P + Q they illustrate how academics working together, attentive to their own assumptions, practice and reflections, can become the ‘best students in the classroom.’

The notion of the academic as student, is further developed in the second article by Mary Hartog. She explores what it means to research one’s own practice, drawing on her experience as an educational action researcher. Mary illustrates how learning the skills of scholarship helped her to understand the world from her own point of view and to find a voice in the academy. In presenting the case for a ‘scholarship of practice’ Mary surfaces an ethical dimension to educational practice and urges academics to examine: ‘the lives we live and the lives we touch.’

The third article by Loliya Agbani Akobo is set within the context of a radio show for women entrepreneurs in Africa and illustrates a relational approach to scholarly practice. Loliya discusses how the questions asked by the radio presenter enabled participants to question insights, think critically about issues, unlearn and learn new perspectives. She calls for further research on the role of radio in action learning.

In our final article, Paul Ellwood explores the learning that occurs when practitioners transition to scholarly-practitioners and provides an alternative reading of the classic action learning equation (L = P + Q). He identifies ‘scholarly-ness’ as the source of questioning insight (Q) and equates practitioner expert knowledge with P. Paul contributes a conceptual framework of scholarly practice which relates the entanglements of scholarly and practitioner actions to the learning that occurs when trying to effect organisational change.

In January 2018 we organised a Futures Event, bringing together a group of scholarly practitioners. This event, hosted by Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University enabled a community to engage with some difficult questions concerning the future of Action Learning within Higher Education. The accounts of practice selected for this special issue emerged from this intervention.

In the first account of practice Catherine Groves, Gabrielle Orbaek White, Fuangfa Panya, and Jim Stewart argue that: ‘Management education is at a pivotal crossroads’. They utilise Kotter’s 8-stage model of change to outline a pathway for change and action, arguing that business schools need to adapt a more scholarly practice approach to undergraduate education.

Helen Collins and David Callaghan reflect on the ‘unanticipated benefits’ which emerged when action learning was introduced to international students. They provide insights into the cross-cultural adjustment experienced by the students and discuss the learning that occurs when (international) scholars become practitioners and practitioners become (international) scholars.

Our final account of practice is written by Meriel Box and Tracy Elllis, who are both members of the North West Higher Education Staff Developers Group, (NWHESDG). They focus on a particular programme that has enabled the development of scholarly practitioners, the Aurora Leadership Development Programme. They advocate action learning as a key process to foster scholar/practitioner relationships.

Finally, our special issue includes two informative books reviews. Dr Julie Davies reviews Bartunek and McKenzie’s co-edited text on academic–practitioner relationships and concludes that the book: ‘provides an inspiring and timely guide for management researchers who collaborate with organisational practitioners.’

Paul Taylor reviews John Edmonstone’s text into the developing practice of action learning across health, social and community care. He commends John for bringing together the principles, practice and resources needed to move towards collaborative and integrated practice.

In summary, the contributors to this special issue have provided varying perspectives on scholarly practice and have shared with us their learning and insights from practice. This re-connection of l, p and q informs current debates relating to impact and we have surfaced the creative integration of research, teaching and professional practice which occurs when scholars become practitioners and practitioners become scholars.