Federació Catalana d’Entitats Corals (FCEC)

Learning   in   universities   revolved   around   students   across   the   aspects   of   teaching,   research  and  curriculum.  Learning  in  universities  has  been  conceptualised  in  relation  to   student   activities   (Bringle   and   Hatcher,   1996:2000;   Haggis   2003)   with   little   direction   towards  the  organisational  view.  Currently,  there  is  a  shift  from  just  student  learning  to   learning   comprising   other   internal   stakeholders   of   universities   (Brennan,   2005);   and   also   how   universities   can   become   learning   organisations.   The   LO   (prescriptive)   perspective  concentrates  on  examining  how  organisations  can  become  the  “ideal  form”   that   is   how   universities   should   learn   (Tsang,   1997).   As   Senge’s   view   suggests   that   LO   are  organisations  that  facilitate  the  learning  of  their  members  and  continually  develop/   transform  themselves.  This  perspective  mirrors  the  humanistic  approach/models  of  OL.   The   Humanistic   view   builds   on   the   potential   and   desire   for   growth   as   a   basic   assumption,  considering  individuals  and  organisations  as  having  unlimited  potentials  to   improve  themselves  and  seek  fulfilment  (Smith,  2003).  

Models   of   LO   are   primarily   associated   with   the   outcome   of   learning   as   it   relates   to   continuous   transformation   or   change   in   organisational   culture,   structure   and   the   system.  HEIs  as  central  institutions  in  the  society  are  responsible  for  learning  and  the   advancement   of   knowledge.   However,   it   is   rather   questionable   whether   these   institutions   practice   what   they   preach   (if   they   learn   as   organisations)   (Albrecht   et   al   2007:404).  Garvin  (1993)  and  Patnaik  et  al  (2013)  however  argue  that  universities  do   not  fit  as  learning  organisations,  as  a  learning  organisation  “is  an  organisation  skilled  at   creating,  acquiring,  and  transferring  knowledge,  and  at  modifying  its  behaviour  to  reflect   new  knowledge  and  insights”  (Garvin  1993:  3).  Garvin  believes  universities  should  not   be   addressed   as   learning   organisations   because   they   lack   the   required   attributes   needed  to  carry  out  OL  (the  skill  of  creating,  acquiring  and  transferring  knowledge).  For   instance,  few  universities  have  developed  systematic  processes  for  either  acquiring  or   creating   knowledge   to   foster   their   core   process   of   learning   or   for   applying   acquired   knowledge  in  their  systems.  While,  Senge  (1990)  posits  that  learning  organisations  can   reflect   different   features   depending   on   the   contextual   setting.   With   regards   this   argument,   Galbraith   (1999)   investigated   the   extent   to   which   universities   as   organisations  exhibit  features  associated  with  learning  organisations.  According  to  the   study,   universities   exhibit   unique   features   of   LO   (the   five   discipline)   because   of   their   special  structure  and  setting.  To  this  end,  the  five  disciplines  of  LO  in  universities  are   mental  muddles,  personal  mystery,  shared  fission,  team  lurching  and  system  tinkering   as  oppose  Senge’s  disciplines  of  mental  models,  personal  mastery,  shared  vision,  team   learning  and  system  thinking.  In  essence,  universities  could  be  defined  as  LO  based  on   what  is  applicable  in  their  system.  

Defining  universities  as  LO  has  over  the  years  been  considered  as  desirable,  especially   as  most  studies  continue  to  investigate  learning  in  Universities  in  the  light  of  becoming   LO  (Dee  and  Leisyte,  2016).  Prelipcean  and  Bejinaru  (2016)  present  how  universities  as   institutions   focusing   on   teaching   and   learning   can   become   learning   organisations.   In   their   view,   universities   can   transform   to   LO   through   building   a   learning   climate,   creating  knowledge  and  knowledge  management.  Building  a  favourable  learning  climate   involves  improving  leadership  capacity  to  learn,  improving  the  structural  and  cultural   capacity   to   learn   (that   is   improving   learning   mechanisms   and   the   driving   culture),   as   organisational  members  are  encouraged  to  learn  if  this  behaviour  is  reflected  by  their   leaders;  and  the  mechanisms  and  culture  required  for  learning  is  in  place.  Knowledge  

creation   as   a   LO   strategy   involves   the   transformation   of   individual’s   tacit   knowledge   into   explicit   knowledge   through   the   use   of   analogies   or   body   language,   which   is   then   shared   and   transferred   to   other   organisational   units   through   different   means   of   communication.   While   knowledge   management   is   a   process   that   begins   with   the   acquisition   of   knowledge   from   diverse   sources;   this   is   followed   by   the   process   of   distributing   acquired   knowledge   using   both   formal   and   informal   sharing   mechanisms   within   the   organisation.   The   next   stage,   which   is   knowledge   interpretation,   is   a   stage   where  a  common  organisational  vision  is  developed  from  shared  knowledge,  this  is  then   stored  in  the  organisational  memory  and  changes  are  evident  in  the  system,  procedures   and   rules   of   the   organisation.   Similarly,   Lewis   et   al   (2008),   in   their   study   argue   that   within   universities,   there   are   grounds   for   the   development   of   learning   organisations   because   these   institutions   are   explicitly   and   implicitly   built   on   ideas   relating   to   individual   learning   and   learning   forms   the   primary   reason   for   the   existence   of   universities.  But  Portfelt  (2006)  argues  that  although  universities  activities  are  related   to  learning  such  as  teaching,  research,  supervision  and  innovation,  this  does  not  form   the  sufficient  condition  to  label  universities  as  learning  organisations.    

According  to  Chiang  (2005),  building  a  LO  is  crucial  for  organisational  adaptation  in  the   ever   changing   environment.   Considering   that   in   the   21st   _{century,   universities   are}   challenged  to  do  more-­‐  offer  more  services,  balance  stakeholders’  demands,  to  become   entrepreneurial-­‐.  And  in  response  to  the  demands,  universities  are  expected  to  set  goals   substantial   in   managing   these   demands   and   challenges;   and   that   entails   universities   being   LO   as   those   organisations   distinguished   from   traditional   organisations   through   their  ability  to  continually  learn  and  strive  for  excellence.  But  for  universities  to  become   LO,  their  learning  according  to  Chiang  (2005)  must  be  supported  by  major  changes  in   their  culture,  structure  and  systems  for  success,  similar  to  Argyris  and  Schon’s  notion  of   double-­‐loop   learning.   It   is   therefore   arguable   that   LO   are   those   who   are   capable   of   learning  with  alterations  in  their  culture,  structure  and  system,  but  learning  does  result   in   this   form   of   changes   even   when   such   organisations   are   considered   non-­‐   learning   organisations.   Bui   and   Baruch   (2013)   in   their   study   presented   two   reasons   why   universities  should  become  LO.  Bearing  in  mind  that  universities  are  not  profit-­‐making   organisations,  it  is  crucial  that  universities  should  consider  becoming  LO  as  they  wish  to   be   true   “temple   of   knowledge”.   This   is   because   most   highly   ranked   universities   have  

resources,  from  human  to  technological  resources  and  facilities;  therefore  they  do  not   have  to  struggle  for  resources  to  become  LO.  In  essence,  universities  have  the  “DNA  of   Learning  organisations  that  they  inherit  from  one  generation  to  the  next  to  maintain  them   in  the  process  of  becoming  LO”  (Bui  &  Baruch,  2013:  233).  Secondly,  universities  should   become   LO   as   most   universities   are   able   to   continually   expand   their   activities   to   accommodate   students   and   staff   expectations   and   manage   national   politics   and   this   enables  them  to  gain  prestigious  and  competitive  advantages  among  other  universities   (Patterson,   1999).   Similarly,   Retna   and   Ng   (2016)   note   that   becoming   LO   seems   the   ultimate  choice  for  universities  to  survive,  develop  and  build  competitive  edges.      

From  a  different  point  of  view,  Baks  (2012:  164)  raised  that  “today’s  [universities]  face  a   dilemma  in  that  they  support  a  curriculum  that  teaches  the  importance  of  LO,  while  at  the   same   time   struggling   to   become   them”.   However,   the   struggle   and   challenges   experienced   by   universities   is   posed   by   three   key   factors;   organisational   culture,   organisational   structure   and   political   challenge.   These   factors   are   triggered   by   government   grants/funds,   policies   and   structural   changes.   Therefore,   the   success   of   HEIs   becoming   LO   is   highly   dependent   on   these   challenging   factors.   Despite   the   increasing  interest  in  the  LO  field  in  universities,  its  conceptualization  remains  unclear.   Mulford   (2001)   defines   the   LO   as   an   organisation   that   shape   and   re-­‐shapes   itself   in   ways   that   both   the   organisation   and   its   members   continually   learn   from   each   other,   from  their  experiences  and  from  the  environments.  In  this  organisation,  learning  results   in  improvement  or  the  solving  of  problems.  While  to  Stoll  and  Kools  (2017)  the  LO  is  an   organisation  that  establishes  conducive  conditions  for  learning  and  uses  its  learning  to   adapt  to  the  environment  similar  to  the  explanation  of  OL  as  presented  by  Carmeli  and   Sheaffer  (2008)  that  learning  is  not  just  about  the  process  that  enables  organisational   adaptation,   but   it   is   concerned   with   the   existence   of   a   conducive   environment   for   learning.   Researchers   need   to   distinguish   between   the   activities   and   processes   of   OL   and  the  LO,  this  is  because  in  the  research  literature  on  universities,  scholars  commonly   adopt  the  concept  of  LO  in  investigating  learning  in  organisations  and  these  terms  are   often   used   synonymously.   Although   Lewis   et   al   (2008)   argue   that   organisational   learning  is  the  process  that  leads  to  LO,  while  Ortenblad  (2005)  views  LO  as  a  metaphor,   as   learning   in   organisations   is   a   continuous   process   and   not   a   defined   end.   Learning   therefore  occurs  in  all  organisations,  following  different  paths.  In  essence,  universities  

learn  as  organisations  utilising  their  unique  process  and  path.  Similar  to  the  thoughts  of   Dill  (1999:146),  that  though  universities  are  often  considered  as  learning  organisations;   but  this  does  not  mean  that  universities  cannot  learn.  Universities  engage  in  learning,   not   because   they   are   LO   but   because   learning   is   a   process   that   occurs   through   their   activities   in   which   different   units   participate.   However,   Tsang   (1997)   mentioned   that   models  that  discuss  LO  have  paid  less  attention  to  examining  the  nature  and  process  of   organisational   learning.   Similarly,   Lipshitz   et   al   (2002)   argue   that   models   of   LO   seem   unrealistic  as  all  organisations  are  learning  systems  and  learning  should  be  investigated   in  terms  of  the  process.

Albrecht   et   al   (2007)   in   their   study,   argue   that   organisational   learning   in   universities   occur  as  a  process.  The  process  is  often  triggered  by  the  need  to  broaden  organisational   knowledge,   from   where   organisational   actors   of   the   university   carry   out   the   learning   process   through   their   communication   with   the   internal   and   external   environment.   Knowledge  acquired  is  then  disseminated  (through  organisational  language,  values  and   formal  systems)  and  interpreted  for  organisational  use.  However,  the  knowledge  base   of   the   organisation   becomes   modified   if   the   learning   process   is   successful   and   this   depends  on  factors  influencing  the  process.    However,  very  few  studies  investigate  OL  as   a  process.  The  competitive  environment  of  universities  throughout  the  world  appears  to   be   developing   incentives   for   universities   to   engage   in   OL   effectively.   Differentiating   between   learning   in   business   organisations   and   universities,   Bimbaum   (2000:105)   argues  that  the  comparison  between  universities  and  businesses  on  OL  does  not  hold   because  each  organisation  serves  a  fundamentally  different  purpose,  a  distinction  most   reformers   fail   to   consider.   He   compares   the   question   of   why   universities   cannot   be   more   like   business   organisations   to   the   question,   why   can   a   cat   not   be   a   dog?   While   businesses   are   driven   by   profits   and   must   constantly   adapt   to   customer   demands,   universities  are  motivated  by  a  core  set  of  principles  that  must  be  conserved  if  they  are   to   sustain   their   societal   significance.   A   major   reason   why   learning   in   universities   and   that   of   businesses   cannot   be   compared   lies   in   the   fact   that   business   and   government   organisations   are   bureaucratized,   formalized,   hierarchical,   and   tightly   coupled.   Whereas,  universities  are  professional  organisations-­‐  they  are  loosely  coupled  systems  in   which   managers/   leaders   with   restricted   authority   provide   support   for   relatively   autonomous  specialists  (Albrecht  et  al  2007;  Lamal  2001).  Nevertheless,  Chatterton  and  

Goddard   (2000:494)   suggest   universities   can   also   stimulate   a   shift   from   a   loosely   coupled  institutional  form  to  a  managerial  one  through  learning.    

In  universities,  OL  provides  a  sustainable  avenue  for  transformation  and  an  opportunity   for   continuous   renewal   from   within.   In   essence,   universities   can   examine   and   exploit   what  they  have  already  learned,  likewise  innovating,  solving  problems,  and  developing   learning   mechanisms   and   knowledge   to   face   evolving   challenges.     While   OL   fosters   a   proactive   stance   instead   of   a   reactive   position,   universities   are   used   to   constant,   externally   imposed   changes   and   innovation,   often   mandated   or   induced   by   external   forces,   such   as   legislatures,   that   may   be   contradictory   or   incompatible   with   the   institution’s   belief   and   goals   (Lamal,   2001:67).   Universities   have   become   skillful   at   reacting   and   adapting   to   societal   demands,   while   less   proficient   at   taking   proactive   positions  made  possible  by  OL.  OL  constitutes  ongoing  learning  with  a  view  to  internal   implementation   of   changes   as   improvements   backing   the   organisation’s   objectives.   Individuals   learn   either   deliberately   or   accidentally   from   numerous   sources   and   universities   can   learn   from   the   collective   experiences,   views,   and   capabilities   of   individuals  (Kolb  and  Kolb,  2005).  Similarly,  Bauma  (2005:25)  asserts  that  universities   learn   through   their   institutional   actors   who   are   capable   of   applying   their   practices   as   communities   of   researchers   to   the   institution   itself.   She   also   identified   that   organisational  learning  is  promoted  among  groups  in  universities  based  on  the  presents   of   three   conditions:     the   presence   of   new   ideas,   the   cultivation   of   doubt   in   existing   knowledge   and   practices,   and   the   development   and   transfer   of   information   among   organisational   members.   As   learning   becomes   more   collaborative,   so   must   the   professional   development   of   educational   staff,   which   needs   to   foster   professional   networks  and  learning  organisations  within  schools.  

The   capacity   and   motivation   for   organisational   learning   depend   to   an   extent   on   the   larger  institutional  structures  within  which  universities  operate.  These  include,  among   other  things,  the  roles  of  school  boards,  governments  and  unions;  the  role  of  markets   and   competition   in   the   funding   of   schools;   and   the   perceptions,   concerns   and   opportunities   for   contribution   of   stakeholders.     Understanding   the   factors   that   either   promote   or   impede   learning   by   and   within   educational   organisations   is   an   essential   element  in  developing  realistic  innovations  and  improving  education  (Spencer,  2010).   Collinson  et  al  (2010:110)  in  an  empirical  study  suggest  that  the  culture  of  learning  of  

most  universities  exist  mainly  in  a  single-­‐loop  phase  that  does  not  encourage  creativity   and   innovation   among   academic   staff.   The   study   further   identified   interrelated   conditions   that   may   foster   OL   in   educational   systems:   prioritizing   learning   for   all   members;  facilitating  the  dissemination  of  information,  knowledge,  skills,  and  insights;   attending   to   human   relationships;   fostering   inquiring;   promoting   democratic   governance;   and   providing   for   member’s   self-­‐fulfillment.   While,   Imants   (2003)   investigating   OL   in   schools   presents   critical   factors   for   effective   OL:   steering   information   about   teaching   and   learning,   and   encouraging   interaction   among   employees.   Further   stressing   that   learning   in   schools   is   reinforced   by   external   and   internal  factors.  The  effectiveness  of  learning  according  to  Beltman  (2009)  is  influenced   by   individualism,   leadership   styles,   and   staff’s   personal   dispositions,   departmental   cultures  of  collaboration,  school  management  and  national  regulations  (in  Hamzah  et  al   2011).