Action Science PCT

Marc

I think its really interesting- the other reference you need to make is to
Philip Runkel- In his book "casting nets" there was a whole chapter on
Action Research which may also add credence to your arguments- and the
natural link possibly of PCT to such an approach.
Cheers

Rohan Lulham

···

At 04:32 PM 11/05/2003 -0700, you wrote:

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.1912) ]

Purpose:
Last post today on "Action Science". In this post I will introduce the
concepts of Single-loop and double-loop learning. The purpose of which is
to show the relevancy to PCT and the potential for research and practice.
I will present the material as Argyris represents it and comment on it at
the end. I will clearly delineate my comments and views from those of
Argyris. We do not at the current time share the same ones.

Argyris' Single and double learning concepts are attributed to Ashby and
the negative feedback loop. Argyris compares Single-loop learning to
controlling the temperature in a room by the opening and closing of a
valve in the system. He compares Double-loop learning to changing the
settings on the thermostat. Single-loop learning is a change in the way
errors are handled. Double-loop learning is when there is a change in
assumptions and values. Model I facilitates single-loop learning. Model II
facilitates double-loop learning.

My comment:
There of course is a great deal more to this then I represented above, but
it does give one the flavor of what Argyris is trying to say. There is no
such thing as single or double-loop. It is all one loop. A control loop,
and it's called PCT/HPCT. Again, tons of empirical data exists on this stuff.

One can read _Action Science_ on the web @
<http://www.actiondesign.com/action_science/index.htm&gt;http://www.actiondesign.com/action_science/index.htm\.
it is in pdf format.

Anyone with any comments on my days postings? Any interest in any of this
stuff?

Marc

This is Phil Runkel replying to Rohan Lulham of 11 May 03 at 06:10 PM
Pacific replying to Marc Abrams of 11 May 03 at 04:32 PM Pacific:

I have read a couple of Argyris's books, several of his articles, and
corresponded with him for a while. I would say that Argyris's Model I
and II are less like my chapter on action research in "Casting Nets" and
more like Powers's going-up-a-level. But thanks, Rohan Lulham, for
looking for a connection. ��Phil R.

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1748) ]

Rohan,

Thanks for the cite. I read and loved Phil's book many years ago. I forgot
all about that chapter. I will reread it with my new understanding of the
possible relationship between PCT and Action Science in place. Thanks a
bunch.

Marc

···

From: "Rohan Lulham" <rlul2096@MAIL.USYD.EDU.AU>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 6:10 PM

Marc

I think its really interesting- the other reference you need to make is to
Philip Runkel- In his book "casting nets" there was a whole chapter on
Action Research which may also add credence to your arguments- and the
natural link possibly of PCT to such an approach.
Cheers

Rohan Lulham

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1742) ]

This is Phil Runkel replying to Rohan Lulham of 11 May 03 at 06:10 PM
Pacific replying to Marc Abrams of 11 May 03 at 04:32 PM Pacific:

I have read a couple of Argyris's books, several of his articles, and
corresponded with him for a while. I would say that Argyris's Model I
and II are less like my chapter on action research in "Casting Nets" and
more like Powers's going-up-a-level. But thanks, Rohan Lulham, for
looking for a connection. ��Phil R.

Phil thaks for getting involved in this discussion. Phil, do you believe
there is potential here for some mutual informing? What came of your
communications with Argyris?. I know Bob Putman, one of his many students.
Met with him in Boston a number of years ago, but not with regard to PCT. I
plan on contacting him again. He heads up *Action Design* the consulting
firm that has the web page I referred to yesterday for the book *Action
Science* and one of its co-authors. I believe Argyris' *ladder of
inference* is equivalent to Bill's *going-up-a-level*. I believe Argyris, in
describing Model I & Model II behavior and his notions of single and
double-loop learning are ( using his own vernacular ) espousing his theory,
but his theory-in-use is actually HPCT and the change at the principle and
possibly system levels. Do you view this differently? If so could you please
elaborate.

btw, in speaking to Dag yesterday, I understand your new book on PCT will be
hitting the shelves sometime in the very near future. My order has been
placed. Best of luck. I am looking forward to reading it. *Casting Nets* is
one of my top ten all-time favorite, and important books.

Marc