Reflection in self-organised systems - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 101

Double-loop reflection
Double-loop reflection is described by Argyris and Schon (1996), who use the term
'double loop learning', and Courtney et al. (1998) as a higher level of reflection than
single-loop reflection - it incorporates the first loop (that centres on finding the best
means of achieving an end) together with a second loop. This second loop centres on
the examination and reflection of the theory or perspective in use. It is recognised that
the action and consequences striven for in the first loop may not be valid - that there
may be different perspectives regarding what the outcome should be and therefore as-
sumptions, premises and context are questioned. Consequently, double-loop learning
asks, 'Are we doing things right AND are we doing the right things' (Flood and Romm,
1996). While it is advised that the 'gate' into the second loop should be used frequently,
it cannot be sustained constantly (Brockbank and McGill, 1998) as the required
paradigmatic shift that the second loop requires is often disruptive to everyday activities.
Dooley (1999) gives as an example of double-loop learning when, in the 1980s, Royal
Dutch Shell delayed its plans for acquisition of oil fields when it foresaw the drop in oil
prices and the demise of the Soviet Union. It examined what it was doing, as well as
how it was doing it. See Figure 9.2 for an illustration of the combination of the two loops
to form double-loop learning as depicted in Encyclopedia/Forum (2004).
Figure 9.2. Schon's double-loop reflection.
Reflecting against ideal
Morris and Moore (2000) maintain that research has shown that 'the way individuals
make sense of experienced outcomes is greatly determined by thoughts of what could
have been, by comparisons of actual outcomes to counterfactual alternatives'. When
preparing for an action, 'upward counterfactual comparisons' as anticipatory reflection
lead to enhanced outcomes. Therefore, reflection against an ideal, or counterfactual al-
ternatives, when anticipating or reviewing action has been shown to improve the outcome
of the process.
There is a double movement in all reflection: a movement from the given partial and
confused data to a suggested comprehensive (or inclusive) entire situation; and back
from this suggested whole - which, as suggested, is a meaning, and idea - to the partic-
ular facts, so as to connect these with one another and with additional facts to which
the suggestion has directed attention (Dewey, 1997, p. 80).
Dewey (1997, p. 12) warns that it is impossible to reflect against an ideal if one has not
had experience in a similar situation: 'But unless there has been experience in some degree
analogous, which may now be represented in imagination, confusion remains mere
confusion. There is nothing upon which to draw in order to clarify it'.