Key Words:
reflection-in-action
practice learning professions education philosophy epistemology
understanding inquiry
For some 40 years,
Don Schon inquired into, wrote about, and effected change in the field of
organizational learning. En the field, his name was often associated with Harvard scholar Chris
Argyris (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978). Numerous insights around learning and practice
originate with Schon uniquely, and he is well-known in professional fields other than
management, including education, urban planning, and social work (e.g., Schon, 1983, 1987).
Many of Schon's insights, though not well distinguished in the management literature, continue
to have a significant impact in the conceptualization of organizational learning.
Schon's work can
be organized into four themes: (a) his concept of inquiry as reflection-in-
action, (b) constructing a learning dialectic in organizations, (c) the practice of learning how to
learn, and (d) his commitment to a new educational paradigm that teaches practitioners how to
reflect-in-action. The first two themes make up a new epistemology of practice: that knowledge
must be embodied in direct action. The third and fourth themes set this practical epistemology
in the context of learning to learn by generating new contexts or frames of reference. The goal
of this article is to briefly review these themes of reflexive action and generative knowledge and
to offer a more general understanding of Schon's work through the use of nonlinear dynamics
and self- organization theory (Gleick, 1987; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Weick, 1977).
SCHON'S EPISTEMOLOGY
OF LEARNING-PRACTICE
Generative Knowledge
Through Reflection-in-Action
Schon's work rests
in part on a powerful insight that is now all but taken for granted. He insists
that managers and all decision makers in science and the professions must move beyond a
purely rational model of understanding to one that is transactional, open-ended, and inherently
social (Schon, 1994). He advocates a mode of knowing that can inquire into and transcend its
own axioms, as well as inquire into and transform one's own practice. Whereas natural science
is based on imparting knowledge about isolated events and "objective" entities, Schon's
approach is relational, allowing for a direct connection between epistemology (how do we
know) and reflective practice, inquiring into the process of knowing itself. In this interactive
mode, "the inquirer does not stand outside the problematic situation like a spectator; he is in
it
and in transaction with it" (Schon, 1994, P. 2).
In contrast to
the deterministic model of technical rationality, Schon recognizes that inquiry in
the moment is inherently uncertain, whereas at the same time this very uncertainty is what leads
to new knowledge. "Thoughtful practice, grounded often in uncertainty and uncertainty's
affective complement, anxiety, can become a generator of new knowledge... " (Schon, 1994,
p. 3). Even more directly, Schon's generative approach speaks to a new approach for
epistemology, where "knowledge is in the action" (Schon, 1983, p. 56). In Schon's model,
coming to know is self-consciously active and inherently connected to the situation at hand.
This idea of a
generative knowledge that only exists in and through action, identifies a significant
break from the traditional Cartesian philosophy of modernity and its 20th century explication of
"empirical positivism," which required an observer who could be separate from action (Berman,
1984; Chalmers, 1982). Whereas this separation of thought from action allows for the
development of empirically testable general laws that govern the behaviors of physical entities
(Lastrucci, 1967; Taylor, 1992), it also has led to an increasingly untenable fissure between
mind and body that has had tremendous negative consequences for society (Bateson, 1972;
Berman, 1984; Capra, 1982; Torbert, 1991). Schon's model of generative knowing, of being
future oriented rather than past oriented, is remarkably progressive and continues to be
avantgarde in modem philosophical writings. These ideas are perhaps most eloquently framed
by renowned hermeneutic philosopher Richard Bernstein, who descr! ibes the processional
nature of knowledge by suggesting that "meaning comes into being through the happening of
understanding" (Bernstein, 1983, p. 3). Likewise, feminist philosophers describe a more
"complete" epistemology in which personal experience is fully connected to understanding
(Bleier, 1986; Harding, 1986; Harding & Hintikka, 1983; Lichtenstein, 1988; Rose, 1983). In
the words of Harding and Hintikka (1983), "What counts as knowledge must be grounded on
experience" (p. x).
However, although
these philosophers point to the importance of integrating knowledge and
action, Schon actually shows how to shift to this new way of generative knowledge:
How am I framing
the problem that I am trying to solve? ... There is some puzzling, or
troubling, or interesting phenomenon with which the individual is trying to deal. As he tries to
make sense of it, he also reflects on the understandings that have been implicit in his action,
understandings which he surfaces, criticizes, restructures, and embodies in further action. It is
this entire process of reflection-in-action which is central to the "art" by which practitioners
sometimes deal well with situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict.
(Schon, 1983, p. 50)
Toward a New Definition
of Learning
An essential ingredient
in reflection, when it's going well, is the quality of surprise, one's
spontaneous response to the unexpected, to behaviors and results that could not be predicted
from their antecedent actions. Schon (1983) emphasizes that a good deal of reflection-in-action
is in fact initiated by an experience of surprise: "When intuitive performance leads to surprises,
pleasing and promising or unwanted, we may respond by reflecting-in-action" (p. 56).
At an individual
level, reflection-in-action occurs through a behavioral inquiry into one's
personal theory of action. An individual's theory of action reflects the norms, strategies, and
assumptions one has about the world, literally one's "models of the world which ha[ve] claims
to general validity" (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 10). Most of the time these models or theories
of action are tacit; they are used implicitly without an awareness of their impact (Polanyi,
1967). These tacit behavioral patterns represent one's "theory-in-use." Through moments of
surprise, puzzlement, or confusion, these tacit patterns are made more explicit so that dedicated
inquiry or reflection in the moment can reveal a mismatch between the values one says one is
going to enact (one's espoused theory of action, e.g. collaboration), and what one actually does
(one's theory-in-use, e.g. unilaterally mandating that a work team must collaborate) (Argyris,
Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Schon, 1983; ! Torbert, 1991). Learning is generated when one faces
this mismatch, first by daring to face it, and then by gaining the ability to recognize and correct
it.
In Schon's model,
truly effective learning begins with a calling into question of one's theory-in-
use, generally when one is put face to face with a mismatch or contradiction between thinking
and action. "It is our hypothesis that... [second-order] learning comes about only through
dilemmas-that is, [when] the individual is confronted with a progressively intolerable conflict of
central elements in his theory-in-use" (Schon, 1975, p. 8). When an individual faces something
unexpected, his or her sense of surprise and the resulting reflection-in-action elaborated by
Schon, can lead to a new way of framing or testing the situation. The inquiry examines one's
tacit understandings, makes conscious one's underlying assumptions, and provides access to an
alternative theory-of-action. In Schon's words:
In each instance,
the practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or
confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomena before
him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behavior. He carries out an
experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomena and a change
in the situation. (Schon, 1983, p. 68)
It is the combination
of new understanding with a real change in behavior that is the essence of
Sch6n's new epistemology
When someone reflects-in-action,
he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not
dependent on the categories of established theory and technique .... He does not separate
thinking from doing .... Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built
into his inquiry. (Schon, 1983, p. 68)
That implementation
is built into inquiry represents an important advance for understanding how
learning actually occurs. Even more than hermeneutic or feminist philosophers who connect
knowledge and action, Schon shows how real change in one's theoryin-use is directly tied to
one's ability to reflect on that internal model as an experiment in the midst of action. As such,
the process of knowing is not separated from the action of practice. In this way, a new
epistemology is opened in which knowledge and behavior occur simultaneously, even
reflexively (Keller, 1985). Schon uses this idea to construct an important definition for learning:
"I would like to advance here the concept of 'learning as experience-based change in theory- in-
use"' (Schon, 1975, p. 7, italics added).
What Schon does
not emphasize is how rare it is for persons to seek out feedback about
mismatches between their principles and their actions. The fact that such learning may be
extraordinarily useful and enlightening does not mean that many individuals are willing to
undergo the suffering it often requires (Torbert, 1991). From this perspective, Schon is calling
for more than a kind of "community of practice" that knowledge creation theorists suggest
(e.g.,
Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nonaka, 1994). Rather, he is describing a community of inquiry
within a community of social practice that the "learning organization" researchers are supporting
(Argyris et al., 1985; Senge, 1990; Torbert, 1973).
The integrative
prospect of Schon's definition of learning and practice is an important if not well
recognized contribution. Long-standing research on individual learning highlights a long-standing
debate between behavioral and cognitive definitions of learning (Torbert, 1973). Whereas the
behaviorists claim that learning can only be identified through a concrete change in actions over
time, the cognitivists argue that our internal representations of the world are an unassailable part
of who we are, and that learning that alters those mental representations is to be considered
real.
Cutting through
and integrating this apparent dichotomy is Schon's definition of learning as
change in theory-in- use, which links experience and cognition in a more complex
understanding of the nature of action itself. An individual's theory-in-use is a cognitive model
that directly influences action. Thus, a change in theory-in-use would effect both cognitive and
behavioral change. As such, Sch6n's definition of learning is completely congruent with his
practice-based idea of generative knowledge, where coming to know is directly linked to
personal experience. This connection is especially evident when learning is examined at the level
of organizations.
Organizational
Learning as Dialectical Inquiry
An organization
has a theory of action that is either implicit or relatively explicit in its mission,
vision, and strategizing processes and statements. Although this complex system of norms,
strategies, and assumptions is to some extent shared, each member of the organization
constructs his or her own representation of the overall theory-in-use in an image that is always
incomplete (Kim, 1994). As conditions change, individuals actively test, reflect on, and modify
their image or map and compare it to others. "It is this continual, concerted meshing of
individual images of self and others... which constitutes an organization's knowledge of its
theory-in-use" (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 16).
However, to create
learning that is truly organizational, the accumulated meshing of images that
creates knowledge must be embodied in behavior within the firms (Huber, 1991). This idea
directly follows from Schon's epistemology, which assumes that knowledge and action are
simultaneous. "In order for organizational learning to occur, learning agent's discoveries,
inventions, and evaluations must be embedded in organizational memory" (Argyris & Schon,
1978, p. 18). From this, Schon's theory of organizational learning can be derived. Individual
knowingin-action is meshed with that of other organizational members to create organizational-
level knowledge. This knowledge becomes learning when useful insights and successful
experiments become set into shared maps and actions within the firm. When this knowledge is
shared in a dialectical, reflexive manner through mutual inquiry and reflection, learning can be a
"self-organized" emergent process (Nonaka, 1994). Reflecting on L! earning
How to Learn
Even more than
content learning, which occurs within a specific context of organizational action
and inquiry Schon was seeking to understand what it means to learn how to learn. His
questions present a deep inquiry into the nature of learning, and how the process of learning
gets effected in organizations. To develop such a broad theory, Schon starts from the research
of Gregory Bateson. Bateson's recognition was that traditional (Newtonian) views of
knowledge operate by separating out all extraneous, contextual factors from the object at hand
to understand the thing in itself. However, such separation is unfounded in the real world
(Bateson, 1984). Instead, Bateson asserts that "The observer must be included within the focus
of observation, and what can be studied is always a relationship or an infinite regress of
relationships" (Bateson, 1972, p. 246).
Bateson used this
insight to distinguish between first-order learning (i.e., learning within a
specific context), and second-order learning (i.e., breaking free of the specific context to the
"meta-context," in which the initial framework becomes one choice among many). In an
organizational sense, first-order learning refers to improving performance within a specific
framework of mission, strategy, and objectives, whereas second-order learning implies calling
the entire framework into question, identifying a new mission and set of goals that better
achieve what is necessary at that time. In Schon's approach, the need to shift from first-order to
second-order learning is sparked by an organizational dilemma, a problem that can only be
resolved through an "organizational inquiry which leads to a restructuring of the [current]
organizational theory of action" (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 147). This restructuring is the
essential work of organizational learning, and to be suc! cessful, it requires a simultaneity of
theory and practice, understanding and action, and knowing and doing in a reflective practice.
SELF-ORGANIZATION
AND GENERATIVE LEARNING
When compared to
the current literature on organizational learning, Schon's deep integration of
knowing and doing can be seen as pioneering work. The majority of literature on organizational
learning describes the process as a series of separable elements that may generate learning over
time (e.g., Huber, 1991; March & Olsen, 1976). Schon initiated an alternative approach, a
simultaneous interdependence of reflection-with-action that generates learning in individuals and
organizations. In Schon's approach, action and reflection occur at the same time so that learning
is necessarily embodied in concrete situations. As mentioned above, this type of learning has
been called "generative" because cognitive understanding is generated through one's active
participation in a project, group, or system (Edmonson & Moingeon, 1996; Senge, 1990;
Torbert, 1991). Generative learning, or reflection-in-action, can be better understood in terms
of the growing insights from dynamical ! systems and self- organization theory.
Research on dynamic
systems (Cheng & Van de Ven, 1996; Dooley, 1997; Gleick, 1987;
Goerner, 1994; Jantsch, 1980; Kauffman, 1993; Leifer, 1989; Smith & Comer, 1994) has
shown that a certain class of nonlinear open systems are capable of generating new and
unexpected patterns of order (Goldstein, 1994; Lichtenstein, 1995; Prigogine & Stengers,
1984). Dynamic systems that exhibit spontaneous emergence are very similar to Schon's
prescriptions for generative knowledge. The literature of dynamic, nonlinear systems identifies
characteristics involved in selforganized processes like generative learning (Lichtenstein,
1997,1999, in press). These characteristics can be described in three categories that are steps
in a process of change. First, interactive, reflexive processes allow a system to continuously
develop and expand. Second, at the peak of that expansion, when the current capacity of the
system is overloaded, a critical trigger tends to occur that causes anxiety! and conflict to be
expressed. Third, when the trigger is strong enough, and when the process is self-referenced, a
new framework or theory of action will emerge that is literally selforganized from aspects of the
previous (limited) theory-in- use and from experiments and learning that happen along the way.
Reflection-in-action
is a dynamic process because the experimentation and inquiry requires a
constant comparison of new behaviors with one's espoused theory of action. In a formal sense,
systems are termed dynamic when there is continuous feedback between the outcomes of
action and the internal state of the system (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). In Schon's approach,
generative knowledge is highly dynamic, being based on continuous feedback between the
consistent testing of one's behaviors against the internal state of the system (i.e., one's espoused
theory of action). The process is reflexive in that the more one reflects on the mismatch
between espoused theory and theory-inuse, the more information one has for reflective
analysis, allowing one to improve one's quality of reflection. This generates more examples,
improving reflective practice, and so on. Schon (1994) exemplifies this dynamic process in a
quote from Dewey (1938), who suggests how this ongoing inquiry proces! s does not simply
solve one's problems, but "institutes new ... conditions that occasion new problems" (p. 2).
New problems generate further learning, and the momentum for reflective learning increases.
A second general
characteristic of nonlinear systems is that as this process grows, the capacity
of the system to maintain its current framework (theory-inuse) is challenged, often to a critical
trigger point (Guastello, 1995; Lichtenstein, 1997). From the generative learning perspective,
one's theory-in-use is only so effective at making sense of the actual circumstances one faces.
Increased anxiety and conflict are experienced as one's theory-in- use reaches the capacity of
its usefulness. That is, when the conflict between an individual's espoused theory and his or her
theory-in-use becomes increasingly intolerable, the resulting dilemma and the chaos it brings
can spark new learning that is truly transformative (Schon, 1975). In effect, it takes a trigger
strong enough to force individuals out of their simpler modes of action, to really make explicit
their tacit theories of action, to reflect on their assumptions, and to generate, in the moment, a
new theory of action th! at better matches with reality (Gersick, 1998).
The generation
of an expanded theory of actionliterally, the shift to second-order, double-loop
learning-is a new pattern of order that spontaneously emerges in the midst of chaos (Prigogine
& Stengers, 1984). The emergence of this order is what I have been referring to as generative
knowledge, which Schon talked about as reflection-in- action. This new internal framework,
grounded in practical experience, triggered by uncertainty and anxiety (Schon, 1983),
generates a more accurate model of behavior in the world (Sch6n, 1994).
A third quality
of emergent systems is that they are usually self-referenced or built on and
connected to the previous experience of the individual in context (Jantsch, 1980; Smith &
Comer, 1994). This selfreferencing quality of self-organized emergence is precisely what Schon
is trying to get at in his descriptions of generative knowledge. In his reflection-inaction model,
"the inquirer does not stand outside the problematic situation... he is in it and in transaction
with
it (Sch6n, 1994, p. 2). Being in the situation-and fully referenced to it-is a prerequisite for
understanding it through action. Thus, "knowledge is in the action" (Sch6n, 1983, p. 56).
Generative knowledge is always connected to one's current map of reality and to one's
behavior in context. This view is also taken by Torbert (1976,1991), Weick (1979; also, Daft
& Weick, 1984), and others.
Moreover, this
quality of referencing an emerging system to its direct context of action is at the
heart of Schon's theory of practitioner education (Schon, 1987). Rather than a traditional
model of professional training where more and more information and theories are given in
increasingly abstract ways, Schon advocates a deeply contextualized approach to professional
development. His "reflective practicum," organized around learning by doing, provides a rich
context for self- referenced action. The interactive, self-referenced nature of his approach
makes it much more likely that a self-organized framework for understanding will emerge in a
practitioner, greatly expanding his or her capacity to continue to grow and develop throughout
his or her career.
In summary, research
in chaos and complexity theory has identified three key characteristics of
systems that exhibit self- organized emergence: (a) a process of dynamic reflexivity; (b) tension
as the initial process reaches its capacity of effectiveness; and (c) transformative, self-organized
change that is reflexive, selfreferencing, and inventive. Each of these three characteristics is at
the heart of Schon's theory of generative knowledge.
Finally, although
Argyris & Schon's (1978) argument that organizational learning is made up of
changes to an individual's theories of action, there is evidence that nonlinear, self-organizing
processes occur at organizational levels as well as in individuals. Dynamic models of
organizational development show how large-scale organizational behavior can be transformed
through small, well-placed, well-timed interventions (Fisher & Torbert, 1995; Goldstein, 1994;
Lichtenstein, 1997). In a similar way, organizational leaders and other individuals can
experience qualitatively distinctive emergences or transformations to increasingly inquiring and
innovative modes (e.g., Herron, 1992; Torbert, 1987, 1991; Wilber, 1983). Schon's work
provides a philosophical and practical foundation for this possibility, expanding the literature on
learning to a new dimension.
CONCLUSION
The goal of this
article was to broadly summarize a sampling of the work of Don Sch6n,
concentrating on the unique contributions he has made to the literature of individual practitioner
and organizational learning. These contributions can be integrated into a model of generative
learning. Notably, Schon's approach to generative learning corresponds to the insights of
nonlinear dynamics and self-organization theory, and yet, in many ways, predates them by
decades.
Although my approach
in this article has some limitations, I have some confidence that the
insights I have presented here are true to Schon's work and accurately summarize his important
writings. Furthermore, this approach to self-organization and emergence provides a useful lens
that others have also used to understand second-order learning as a nonlinear, discontinuous
process (Bateson, 1972; Burton, 1981; Keeney, 1983). Finally, the self-organization approach
offers an excellent framework for understanding the nature of generative knowledge,
highlighting this unique contribution of Don Schon's work among theorists of individual and
organizational learning.
My hope is that
through this brief introduction to Schon's work, a broader group of
management scholars will be able to apply his insights to the growing research on organizational
learning and to the expanding literature of chaos, complexity, and self-organization. In this way,
his passing can optimally be seen as the passing on to us of a creative, incisive approach to
reflection and action. Schon's model can produce generative knowledge insofar as we,
collectively increasing our inquiry-in- action, create a reflective practice by facing ongoing
dilemmas in organization theory and management practice.
1. William R. Torbert
