Cambio en la cadena de valor en las organizaciones

Freire (1970/2004) names praxis as the key to revolutionary change. He defines praxis as “reflection and action [sic] directed at the structures to be transformed” (p. 96), and sees praxis as intimately bound up in the revolutionary struggle to transform broader systems of power. Freire is concerned with action that is bound up in revolutionary goals, and sees personal transformation as resulting from processes of reflecting then acting, reflecting and then acting again. Wenger (1998) articulates a similar notion of the interconnections between reflection and action, but rather than expressing concern for revolutionary movements, he emphasizes their significance for professional communities of practice. He argues, “Learning is the engine of practice, and practice is the history of that learning” (p. 96). Wenger sees learning as fuelling all practice, and articulates that one can reflect on learning through reflecting on the action (i.e. practice) one has taken in the past. Both scholars see learning as a process of reflection and action that triggers effects in spheres extending beyond the self that might include the professional workplace or the revolutionary social movement.

Participants in the inquiry group similarly saw action and reflection as interconnected. They entered the group with the common goal to grow in their understandings of racism and their organizing skills in order to strengthen the broader organization. Participants came together in the initial few meetings to engage in inquiry and common reflection, and they planned to move this reflection into action toward the end of the group. However, as the action component of the project became eminent, tensions became apparent regarding participants’ different emphases on inquiry or action components of the study. Some participants felt that the inquiry aspect of the study was most significant and should be the focus of the group, while others saw inquiry as valuable mainly for its service to action.

Josh speaks about this inherent tension when reflecting on the fourth inquiry group meeting: “we kept oscillating very strongly between, ‘Here is a bunch of concrete stuff.’ ‘No

wait, but we need no concrete stuff.’… it was oscillating back and forth, and really rapidly” (Interview 2). Participants conceptualized inquiry and action as interconnected concepts, but participants tended to weight their value differently. Some participants prioritized educative approaches with perspective change goals, while others believed that concrete action was a necessary expression of group learning.

Participants struggled with how to reconcile the focus on deep inquiry with their desire to trigger change within their broader organization. Corey was strongly in support of allowing the inquiry group to exist in a space of contemplation and reflection, rather than pushing for resolution and an illusion of clarity in action. He said:

“[W]hat I hate is, especially in talks of these sort of big, overarching huge ideas, where you go, we have to resolve this. Naaaaah. I think sometimes letting it breathe a little bit. We’re gonna still be here and we can talk about it more. But quick resolutions, I’m not a fan of” (Inquiry Group 1).

Corey expresses his view that there is a fragile relationship between inquiry and action. He hesitates to delve too quickly into action because he believes that superficial engagements in inquiry lead to superficial solutions.

While Corey saw inquiry as the fundamental goal for the group, and while he felt that sometimes a focus on action can push forward superficial solutions and responses, other participants felt that action is useful both in itself as well as for making the inquiry component of the group come alive in a new way. Miriam articulated: “I think that the fact that we did those actions… pushed us into a place where we all have a goal, [which was] to get people in the two workshops that we did to talk about these things” (Interview 3). Miriam saw action as allowing the group to bring the opportunity for inquiry to a wider audience outside of our small inquiry group, and to engage wider populations of people in meaningful conversation.

Zak similarly saw the process of designing the action as an extension of the inquiry work: “I think talking through the ideas was the biggest contributor to the group becoming one

on the same page… I think the actions are sort of just the consequences of such collaboration, it’s like, ‘Okay, now we’re kind of on the same point, now what?’ And I think most of the learning… happened through talking the ideas out” (Interview 3). As it turned out, the struggle to design an action with group consensus required a great deal of discussion and debate. Participants felt that this process of designing the action became part of the inquiry process itself. Through striving to reach common consensus on the direction of the action, the group increasingly became “on the same page” and made concrete decisions about how to move forward to trigger change within the broader organization. In this sense, like in Freire (1970/2004) and Wenger’s (1998) conceptualizations, the action was inherently both a part and an extension of the inquiry work.