I’d like very briefly to comment on Lawler and Sillitoe’s (2013) framework as a basis for our report. I don’t think that there’s enough space to critique the various interpretations of double-loop learning, and most definitions include the action of questioning the governing principles that characterise double-loop learning (Argyris, 2002). The quotation from page 497 is followed by the defining statement; double-loop learning “encourages the re-framing or re-shaping of the underlying patterns of thinking with the object of enabling an informed change in behaviour” (Lawler & Sillitoe, 2013, p. 497), and effects the critical action Argyris demands. From this week’s reading, I formed the impression that double-loop learning was not as much a contested notion as triple-loop learning (c.f. Tosey, Visser & Saunders, 2011). What is more necessary for us as a team isn’t to adopt any particular version of double-loop learning (because of space and lack of dispute) but to present an analysis of our own issues using the overall notion of double-loop learning. Good luck.
Lawler, A., & Sillitoe, J. (2013). Facilitating “organisational learning” in a “learning institution.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(5), 495–500. http://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.825415
Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. (2011). The origins and conceptualizations of “triple-loop” learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291–307. http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611426239