Organizational learning is understood, studied and practiced from different theoretical perspectives, as Elkjaer (2022), among others, shows many examples of. When we as researchers work with collective competence and development processes, for example in schools and kindergartens and across municipal service areas, our theoretical perspectives and basic understandings of organizational learning will have an impact on how we work in practice. We always have some presuppositions when we work with research (and development) (Bateson, 2002, Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006). In a time of great uncertainty, combined with a high degree of complexity in the organizations where collective competence development is to take place, it is also an important ethical question how we as researchers contribute to development processes. How do we handle the uncertainty and complexity? Are we able, as Elkjaer (2022, p. 598) points out, to contribute to what is best for society and act responsibly and openly? And do we contribute to learning becoming a method for developing and maintaining critical thinking? Elkjaer argues for a learning theory of organizational learning inspired by pragmatism. In the study that this paper deals with, we will follow Elkjaer's suggestions for what is important for organizational learning in the future, but we will not pursue pragmatism, but rather go to critical realism, which incidentally has a kinship with pragmatism (Zotzmann et. al., 2022), and we will also connect critical realist insights within systems theory, what Price (2023) refers to as third generation systems theory. Like pragmatism, critical realism is a meta-theoretical position (Bhaskar, 2016), and meta-theory specifies ontological, epistemological and methodological presuppositions in scientific practice (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006). These assumptions can often be less explicit in research and development work, while it can be very enlightening both for researchers themselves and also for the organizational participants involved in collective competence development if they are made explicit and clear, and preferably understandable - because this should be possible and desirable if the researcher is to act responsibly.

There are two intertwined research questions that are discussed in this paper: What is central to a theoretical basis for organizational learning from critical realist meta-theory and third generation systems theory? And what could be important practical implications in light of these theories, for collective competence development in schools and kindergartens, and for the good of society? The aim of the study is to contribute to a theoretical basis for organizational learning related to collective competence development that both addresses uncertainty and complexity, and at the same time provides the most "simple" possible directions for competence and practice development. This contribution is intended for both researchers and organizational participants who are involved in concrete, practical development processes, and who seek basic understandings that can contribute to more sustainable development processes than has often been the case in, for example, school development.

The theoretical frameworks that will be addressed and applied in this study are organizational learning, based on Elkjaer's article (2022) and other relevant publications in this field. Furthermore, critical realism is the most central framework in the study, which also underpins the third theoretical perspective, namely third-generation systems theory, as presented by Leigh Price (2023). Critical realism is a comprehensive meta-theory with a large international literature, and in order to extract some of the main points, I particularly use Bhaskar's 2016 book Enlightened Common Sense, which also points in the direction of emphasizing common sense and simplicity, while maintaining an understanding of the complex and avoiding reductionism.

The methodological work in this study consists of theoretical work in the form of reading and presenting critical realist meta-theory, including third-generation systems theory and relating this to organizational learning, and placed in a practical context that deals with collective competence development in schools, kindergartens and associated municipal service areas, based on a Norwegian context. As part of this, a literature study of international articles addressing the link between organizational learning and critical realism will be conducted. The purpose of the literature study is to highlight both coinciding and possibly divergent theoretical perspectives, and to make an independent summary and reflection on what may be particularly important theoretical contributions to organizational learning and to practical work with collective competence development. A preliminary search in google scholar for "organizational learning and critical realism" after 2020 shows more than 17,000 results, and it will be an important methodological task to make this literature study manageable within the framework of this paper, and at the same time sufficiently comprehensive and solid that the study can become a useful reference for further development work.

The expected results of the study are that important theoretical perspectives related to organizational learning will be highlighted, and that these will also provide guidance for practical work with competence development.

Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: a necessary unity. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Bhaskar, R. (2016). Enlightened Common Sense (1st ed.). Routledge. Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: a critical realist perspective. Scandinavian journal of disability research, 8(4), 278- 297. Elkjaer, B. (2022). Taking stock of “Organizational Learning”: Looking back and moving forward. Management Learning. Vol. 53(3) 582-604 Zotzmann, K., Barman, E., Porpora, D. V., Carrigan, M. & Elder-Vass, D. (2022). Round table: is the common ground between pragmatism and critical realism more important than the differences?, Journal of Critical Realism, 21:3, 352-364, DOI: 10.1080/14767430.2022.2073674