This article reviews social scientist and organizational researcher Chris Argyris’s publications from the 1970s through the 2000s about organizational learning. In his role as an action scientist and consultant, working to facilitate learning in organizational contexts and drawing on earlier work in psychology from John Dewey and Kurt Lewin, Argyris developed his “theory of action” perspective on learning and interpersonal inquiry. According to Argyris, learning involves increasing the effectiveness of our actions so as to produce the intended results. He argued, however, that we are often unaware of the extent to which our actions inhibit learning in social contexts. Argyris sought to identify defensive routines that inhibit learning at the individual, group, intergroup, and organizational levels and promoted a shift from single-loop to double-loop learning and from defensive (Model I) to productive (Model II) reasoning. In this article, based on Argyris’s work, I construct a general framework of principles and action heuristics for lifelong learning and inquiry, applicable across organizational, professional, and everyday contexts. After reviewing basic concepts of Argyris’s theory of organizational learning, I identify principles and strategies for individuals seeking to develop in themselves, as well as to promote in others, an orientation of general lifelong learning and inquiry.

No abstract

This essay draws on resources in philosophy, psychology, and related social sciences—specifically, works by Joshua Greene, Jonathan Haidt, George Lakoff, and Martha Nussbaum—to analyze the moral and political dimensions of the recent polarization in the United States related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Three questions are addressed: (a) What psychological factors may have contributed to this polarization? (b) Why have conservatives and liberals taken the positions they have on issues relating to the pandemic (e.g., masks, economic reopening, vaccines, science)? and (c) How can we reduce this polarization and work more effectively with others to face societal challenges, despite our differences?

Over the past 10 years, the Psychology Department at Indiana University Kokomo has worked to incorporate more opportunities for students to engage in undergraduate research throughout the psychology curriculum. Our previous requirements included a lower level methods course that most students took prior to statistics, with the result that students did not have the opportunity to practice the use of statistics in research contexts unless they completed an independent research project during their senior year. We made several curricular changes to enhance these opportunities to apply statistical knowledge, to increase research literacy and critical analysis, and to better prepare students who go on to complete an independent research project. The lower level methods course was redesigned to explore psychology as a major and career, introduce research concepts, and help students develop critical thinking skills. We also reinstated an upper level methods course with statistics as a prerequisite, allowing better integration of statistics with research methods. Most recently, in fall 2018, we added a lab to the upper level methods course, in which students use computer-based statistical software for data analysis. In addition to these curricular changes, the department has recently been promoting and facilitating more student travel to research conferences throughout the undergraduate program. In this article, we describe the program we designed to scaffold student research and present a six-level framework applicable across a broad range of disciplines. We also present data collected from current students and alumni in psychology to assess their perceptions of the impact of these changes on their research confidence and competence as well as limited results from assessment of student learning. Finally, we provide recommendations for other programs interested in increasing opportunities for student research in their disciplines.