scholarly+inquiry+discussion

To apply scholarly inquiry to determine the validity of information I encounter, relative to Argyris and Schön’s Model II, I will be hypersensitive to clues that would betray circumstances, conditions or dispositions that align with the governing variables, action strategies, and intended consequences as described in Model I. 

Therefore, as I review the author's credentials, I will consider the authors’ reputation, other published articles, and the authors’ association with the publisher and whether the publisher is an academic or peer-reviewed journal, or scholarly source such as a university, government agency, or professional organization.

In addition, as I read the material, I will note the intended audience, scope and detail of the subject and its’ appropriateness, jargon use and words that convey emotion. Although I suspect that the authors’ governing variables will not be readily apparent, the characteristics of Model I action strategies may surface as I critically read. When I consider the first governing variable of Model 1, is 'define goals and try to achieve them’ I interpret that to mean achieving a predetermined outcome by manipulating the environment. I  will be concerned   , if I detect inconsistencies, incongruence, defensiveness or evidence of environmental management that is not disclosed or the writing seems defensive, or includes extremes of concern or reassurance for others. I will also be alert to the second governing variable, maximizing winning, minimizing losing, characterized by action strategies that work to maintain control to protect the author’s goal or winning outcome. The authors write that the actor will, “Use whatever means will ensure success, no matter what their merits”; Cooperate with behavior that achieves goals and temporize behavior that does not” (p. 67). To probe for possible application of this strategy, I will consider the justifications for elements and methods to determine if they were appropriate or applied to ensure a specific outcome. Next, “minimize generating or expressing negative feelings” in order to protect oneself. On page 71 of the text, “These participants speak in abstractions and without reference to directly observed events. The effect intended or unintended, is to force others to guess at their meaning. If the others assume that they understand the meanings and act accordingly, the actor can argue (especially if he sees that he is losing) that the others did not understand him.” I will be alert to what may appear diplomatic, vague or defensive in contrast to concise language. The last governing Variable of Model I, is ‘Be rational’, actualized by censoring information and thus limiting freedom of choice. (p.86) I will look for information that seems to  have been avoided   , omitted or not explored appropriately. 

Model II, of course, emphasizes the absence of governing variables and action strategies that produce self sealing consequences for learning. In my scholarly inquiry, I will look for valid  information, where the author acts as a facilitator, not as owner or controller. II will look to see that there is free and informed choice, the author works to ensure that relevant values and variables  are known   (p.88), and that information   is related   in ‘directly observable categories rather than in inferred categories of attribution or evaluation’ (p.90) Reference: Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice” Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers