Paul raises an interesting question in response to my distinction
between innovation and learning. To address it, I need to stress it
was a distinction, not an opposite. Also, I need to say that it -
and will remain for now at least - incomplete. It was intended to
point at a phenomenon that might usefully be considered outside of
learning.
So it would be completely valid to say, as Paul suggests, that
"experience can initiate learning". That indicates that experience
may provide the basis for interrupting the existing system - a system
more or less satisfied with its own integration before the
experience. But the experience isn't the learning or even part of
the learning process itself except as one of the possible sources of
its beginning.
And at no time am I intending to exclude experience from learning.
Its the relationship of the two that I am wanting to highlight by
calling that relationship into question. (I'm seldom interested in
providing answers.)
Paul then asks me to relate experience, innovation and learning to:
> Learning can take one of two forms, single or double loop. Single
> loop will merely modify ones mental model of the situation. Double
> loop learning will require fundamental change to the world view
> adopted.
I can't answer the question because I haven't dwelt sufficiently in
that language. I don't find that "single loop" or "double loop" add
anything to the language I've been using. That is one of logical
levels and logical types. There are far more distinctions that
single or double and I'm not sure what is intended when the phrases
are used. My understanding of "double loop" is that it questions the
processes of learning itself. But something else seems to be implied
in Paul's use of double loop - something like, it will challenge the
more senior or meta models than the one under direct consideration.
I consider both of these to be useful but also to be very distinct
operations. But I'm pretty sure that neither refers to what I was
after in trying to usefully distinguish "innovation". I was making
points about experience and innovation more than about learning.
I think the distinctions of learning have to do with intentionality
and process and that those of innovation may be very different. And
that "experience" is not the originating source of either. This can
be demonstrated by a biological model, by creating a history of
mental construct development (ie emergence or evolution) and by
direct empirical experiment - none of which would "prove" anything,
just provide a useful grounding for the thinking perspective being
offered.
> Can this second, double loop learning, be paralleled with
> innovation ?
I think the question above is of a different category. Innovation,
as I've attempted to distinguish it, isn't about learning at all. It
may support, trigger or call for learning or it may be have merely an
accidental relationship to learning and yet be equally important.
The usefulness is mainly in the possibility of creating structure to
cause or encourage innovation that may be independent of those that
cause or encourage learning.
-- Happy hunting! Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk