Glossary of Terms
Chapter 3: Methods Review
3.5 Consideration of stakeholders
3.5.2 Social Learning Concepts
The theory of Social learning goes back to ideas about social cognition (Bandura 1977; 1986), where learning is a process of observation, interaction and imitation within a social environment. It has also been pointed out that within Natural Resource Management the term social learning is now more widely used to describe a number of learning styles, and in particular the original concept does not include the development of shared meanings and values that provide a basis for joint action (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). It is also argued that within Natural Resource Management (closely related to urban water management), both the governance structure and the natural environment is linked to processes of multi-party cooperation and
100 social learning (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Alexander (2008) reinforces this, finding that social learning in this context often refers to multi-party problem-solving involving different agencies and diverse knowledge sources. In terms of the theory of social learning by Bandura (1977, 1986) there are four key elements:
• Reciprocal determinism: the reciprocal influences between an individual’s social environment and his/her personality, cognitive skills and attitudes;
• Observational learning: the learning that happens through observing (i.e. paying attention to an incident), retaining information (i.e. having a mental representation of the incident), reproducing the incident (i.e. imitating the observed behaviour in a similar circumstance) and having the motivation (i.e. evaluating the benefits of a particular behaviour);
• Self-regulation: self-evaluations which informs the choice of behaviour; i.e. in a simple and narrow sense, evaluating (partly on the basis of self-efficacy) whether he/she can carry out, or will further develop from a particular behaviour in a particular context; and
• Self-efficacy: the individual’s belief in his/her capability of carrying out a particular behaviour and achieving the goals and managing the situation. Alexander (2008) argues that
‘Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are likely to be more motivated to pursue learning based goals as they are more confident they will achieve their goals’.
A key addition to the theory of social learning has been contributed by Argyris and Schön and Argyris and colleagues (Argyris et al. 1985; Argyris and Schön 1996) with the introduction of the concepts of single and double loop learning, as described in the simplified Figure 3-6. These types of learning occur within individuals but also within an organisation or an institution; and the governing variables in Figure 3-6 refer to those key variables that are the foundation of the action strategies, such as beliefs, values and assumptions. The governing variables are critical for how action strategies are formulated. The action strategies are developed to achieve a certain set of consequences, and in the single loop learning the action strategies are adjusted on the basis of fine-tuning, skills development and trial and error to reach the best consequences. In the
101 more fundamentally adaptive double loop learning, the governing variables are questioned often leading to completely new action strategies to be explored and evaluated.
Figure 3-6: Single- and double-loop learning cycles Source: Adapted from Argyris et al. 1985
While the double learning is critical in particular in situations of high stakes and high uncertainty, it is noted that the underlying theory of social learning which is based on years of research argues that the cognitive processes of individuals in organisations often actually inhibit effective exchange of relevant information that is required for double loop learning, causing a dilemma (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999).
Also, cultural factors have been shown to be important in determining the type of participatory processes that are adopted, based on a mostly qualitative synthesis and comparison of ten case studies of public participation in water management in Europe (Enserink et al. 2007). The identified factors are power distance (indicating essentially equality), strength of individualism, masculinity (indicating the degree to which masculine ideals of control, achievement and power are linked with perceived success), uncertainty avoidance (the level of tolerance of ambiguity
Governing variables
Action Strategy
Consequences
Single loop learning
Double loop learning
102 and uncertainty) and long-term orientation (the degree to which the society embraces forward thinking values). Based on these factors they propose the following hypotheses:
• A high power distance index is not conducive to public participation;
• Individualism is not a determining factor for the extent and success of public participation in a country;
• Collectivism facilitates a high degree of public participation, but this may be left to informal processes if the power distance is high; and
• A high masculinity score is not conducive to public participation. (Enserink et al. 2007: 8)
Similarly, Tippett and colleagues (2005) have explored social learning in the same ten case studies in Europe where the context is river basin management, and have identified factors supporting and barriers hindering social learning (probably correlated with the cultural factors identified by Enserink et al. 2007). Factors supporting social learning in river basin management, based on the ten case studies are (adapted from Tippett et al. 2005):
• Providing sufficient time to participate
• Ensuring early involvement of stakeholders
• Ongoing attention to the structures and processes of multi-stakeholder interaction;
including commonly accepted ground rules, transparent communication and recording of inputs from participants
• The use of a variety of meeting types and communication tools, with an attempt to find different ways to represent technical information, makes the process more accessible to a wide range of stakeholders. (adapted from Tippett et al. 2005: 296)
Barriers hindering social learning in river basin management, based on the ten case studies are:
• Insufficient provision of time and resources are major barriers to social learning and often due to tight deadlines and ambitious goals.
• Failure to ensure adequate representation of stakeholders, or being unable to attract a sufficiently broad range of stakeholders and key players, can lead to decisions being seen
103 as lacking legitimacy. It may also lead to a lack of cooperation in implementation by those who were ‘excluded’ from the process.
• Financial, technical and resource constraints can have a negative impact on the ability of stakeholders to remain involved in the process.
• It can be difficult to maintain interest over the long timescales required to develop social learning and long-term plans.
• Lack of both trust and appreciation of the different ways that stakeholders can contribute to the success. Lack of clarity about roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes can exacerbate distrust and can lead to unmet expectations and frustration.
• Hierarchical decision-making processes can impede interaction and communication between different sectors and levels of scale. A technocratic culture, in which experts are not familiar with talking to different stakeholders in terms that they can relate to, can impede constructive communication with different stakeholders, (adapted from Tippett et al. 2005: 297).
Along the same line there are also some words of warning from the authors of HarmoniCOP (2005) saying that before launching into processes of social learning, the following must be accepted about the process: that it is resource intensive and so typically requires both time and money; outcomes are open and can not be predetermined; it requires sharing of responsibilities and so will not be controlled by one or a small number of key stakeholders; and it can not be imposed and while the facilitator of the process can encourage and provide a vision, it is a difficult undertaking for stakeholders to participate and this must be respected.
So what are the processes and activities that can support social learning? One contender is the use of Communities of Practice which is a method defined as groups of people who gather together around something they do and which they are passionate about, and where they meet regularly to learn how to improve what they do (Wenger 1998, 2000). This seems to encapsulate the notion of both social learning as well as single and double loop learning. Other methods and tools described in the HarmoniCOP literature (2003; 2005) for supporting social learning are:
104
• Geographical Information Systems (GIS), using software mapping tools to identify legitimate stakeholders, manage shared geo-spatial information, communicate geo-spatial information, collect and communicate public knowledge, perceptions and comments, and to bring people together (HarmoniCOP 2005: 45-47).
• Group Model Building, which is a methodology for facilitating the involvement of a group to develop an understanding about a system and its problems and solutions, and translate that into a conceptual model. This can be used to gain knowledge, gain common understanding, and to understand others’ perspectives and constraints (HarmoniCOP 2005:
48-49).
• Maps which form a model of reality and a kind of visual language. They can be used to identify spatial phenomena, articulate and specify spatial issues, clarify issues and mechanisms, synthesise arguments and designs, consolidate findings, views, options and decisions, and to provide identify for stakeholders (HarmoniCOP 2005: 50).
• Planning Kits such as for River Basin Management, providing policy makers with tools to explore various policy options and scenarios. It can be used to specify and present measures and interventions, gain system knowledge and to structure decisions and synthesise arguments and designs (HarmoniCOP 2005: 52).
• Role Playing Games help foster communication among a set of stakeholders and make their mental models explicit. It can be used to understand others’ viewpoints and constraints, explain one’s views, share views on a common system, and support dialogue at a rules level (HarmoniCOP 2005: 54).
• Round Table Conferences which is an open discussion between participants where the goal is to share visions and viewpoints and give stakeholders a voice. It can help reveal and understand the diversity of perceptions amongst stakeholders (HarmoniCOP 2005: 58).
• Web Sites that allow for one-way communication, and allow interactions between stakeholders. It can be used to identify legitimate stakeholders, manage community information capital, to collect and communicate public perceptions and knowledge, and to bring people together (HarmoniCOP 2005: 62).
105 Many of these tools are in fact Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools or some type of models which are used to facilitate the process of social learning and this can be referred to as Participatory Modelling which will be further described in a later section. For example, one of the Participatory Modelling frameworks, the Companion Modelling process, typically employs Group Model Building for developing Multi Agent Systems (MAS), sometimes incorporating maps or GIS, and usually Role Playing Games within the social learning process (Barreteau et al. 2003).