CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION
9.2 Discussion of results of the simulations
making it difficult for scientists and on-the-ground fishers to come together. There was however a very clear desire for all parties to work together.
The feelings of non-recognition and powerlessness, described by the fishers, illustrate the importance of acknowledging the emotions of all involved. Thus, overlooking emotions and self-esteem were detrimental (Carnall 2003; Van Tonder 2004; Kirkpatrick 2001). What was also interesting to note was how the system as a whole shaped events, to a point where all stakeholders are now meeting together to discuss the future. Therefore, despite the initial events, the system somehow moved to a point where the option of excluding anyone simply does not make sense. Most stakeholders furthermore have seemed to comprehend the futility and consequent negative reactions that could occur, if they ignored any particular stakeholder group.
The importance of acknowledging the role of organisational culture, structure and processes was also significant. These factors are highlighted in Carnall’s (2003) work. This was demonstrated by the longing for more attention to be cast on issues concerning Government procedures, authority, decision-making and staff changes. Even amongst the fishing communities, leadership issues around the need to involve people on the ground also came to the fore.
Ferdig’s (2007) study highlighting that leaders do not have all the answers, and that each person has a personal responsibility to collaborate with others, is of relevance.
come across as intended. This is supported by Savolainen’s (1997) findings that having participants involved helps to have the models critically examined.
The inclusion of issues from the literature strengthened the simulation, as was highlighted by Chua (2005). A potential weakness however could be that of researcher bias, where I selected certain issues for inclusion. The simplification and representation of the issues from the interviews was more challenging than portrayed by most literature. It is critical to not have exact duplication, as was found by Feinstein et al. (2002) but the reality is that there was a tendency to be quite literal in the conceptualisation of the simulation. Another challenge was to have activities that were engaging for all involved.
The formation of the roles in the simulation was based on the real world stakeholders, and participants thus had an opportunity to experience other roles, considered critical by most authors (Pivec et al. 2003; Chua 2005). The MCM simulation was interesting in that all the participants were in reality Government employees; only two in the simulation however portrayed that role. It is clear from the results that there was still learning experienced, even for those who played the same roles. Those who played opposite roles got to see the Government role from an outside perspective.
An attempt was made for the participants to view the whole system. This unfortunately was not realised fully due to the background of the participants, as well as the roles that participants had in the simulation. Only certain participants therefore had an opportunity to view the whole system, and this is in contradiction to many studies (Le Roux & Steyn 2007; Geurts et al. 2007).
The simulations illustrated to participants a holistic view but did not enable a proactive view.
Some participants could therefore not take action as they were not enabled to do so in the real world. This is in contrast to the findings of Geurts et al. (2007) in arguing that simulations can do both.
Participants had the chance to engage in an interactive environment to engage with ideas and principles, as highlighted by Jackson (2004). The use of various roles may have facilitated double-loop learning for the participants, and this was further induced by having participants experience the consequences of their actions, as found by Serrano et al. (2006). The simulations may have been a beginning in facilitating a move towards continuous learning and improvement, as mentioned by Cecchini and Rizzi (2001). There is however no way of knowing whether this was definitely the case and it can furthermore not be assessed in the bounds of this study. The simulation did however highlight to participants the importance of not being overly- dependent on plans.
The concept of problem-solving within simulations was interesting to note. Although the simulations made no direct reference to the fisheries context, participants did seem to draw key learning lessons. It cannot be stated with certainty however that they discovered new features to the problem or generated new ideas, as found by Geurts et al. (2007). Most participants in the system may have been aware of their problems, but not on a deeper level. The simulations did however allow participants to develop critical skills. The simulations definitely provided the participants with an opportunity for critical reflection, as found by other authors (Fannon 2003;
Le Roux & Steyn 2007).
The results of the involvement of both the leaders and fishers in the Langebaan simulation can be correlated to findings from a few other studies. Firstly, the simulation permitted for involvement from participants who are on different hierarchical levels in real life, as highlighted by Keys et al. (1996). This led to key learning lessons for the leaders as to how to involve the fishers in future. The simulation was successful in bringing all the fishers together, and was a step towards strengthening ties, as documented by Barreteau et al. (2007). The simulation also allowed the fishers to see their part in the big picture (Geurts et al. 2007). These findings are further supported by occurrences in the MCM simulation, where the participants themselves made mention of the absence of senior management. This corresponds to the findings of Green (2002) in stating that participants appreciate the involvement of those at the top.
There were benefits in having a trial run of the simulation before use with the intended audience, as supported by Fannon (2003). The issue of group dynamics was not as pertinent due to the similarities between the participants. The issue of group allocation was however rather relevant, as highlighted by Adobor and Daneshfar (2006). Participants were in all three simulations allocated to teams, which could have had a bearing on how the simulations unfolded. The importance of having a user-friendly simulation came through strongly, as was also found in other studies (Adobor & Danesfar 2006; Barreteau et al. 2007).
The facilitation of a simulation, and the qualities of the facilitator were undoubtedly critical to the success of the simulation, as found by other authors (Keys & Wolfe 1990; Borodzicz 2004;
Green 2002; Leigh 2004). The simulations in this study necessitated adequate knowledge of the simulation, as well as a good balance between being prepared yet flexible. What was also required was a thorough knowledge of the context, so as to be able to relate to participants during the debriefing phase.
The learning objectives were not highlighted during the briefing phase, as suggested by Adobor and Danesfar (2006) as it was felt that this would have interfered with emergence. Neither was
mention made of any theory, nor was much detail provided about the simulation, as mentioned by some authors (Chua 2005). Based on the findings of this study, participants may actually have gained more when such details were highlighted in the debriefing phase rather.
The debriefing phase was critical as highlighted by many authors (Pivec et al. 2003;
Thiagarajan 2003). It was important to have participants firstly describe their experiences in the simulation. Connections to the real world had to be made but did not happen as planned, due to the background of the participants, and the roles that some had which predisposed them.
Authors such as Green (2002) thus highlight that participants transfer knowledge to the real world through the debriefing phase, but this was challenging to accomplish in reality.
The simulations followed the traditional three-stages; briefing, activities and debriefing, as recommended in many studies (Thiagarajan 2003; Leigh 2004). The stages however took on a journey, characterised by interesting occurrences, both for the facilitator and participants. The briefing phase had the participants very confused as to what to expect; which then led to a great deal of pressure being exerted on the facilitator. During the activities, the facilitator became more relaxed, as the participants became immersed in the simulation, and some participants actually ended up feeling stressed due to happenings. The debriefing phase was a relief for all;
the participants could make sense of occurrences in the simulation, and then relate it to the real world, and this then in turn was rewarding to see.
Most participants highlighted that the simulations made them think differently about the real world, whereas a few indicated that the simulation had not made them think differently because the simulation showed how the real world was. The question then is whether those who found the activities in the simulation similar to the real world took away any learning to the real world.
Thus, findings from this study cannot fully support claims by other studies around verisimilitude (Borodzicz 2004; Keys & Wolfe 1990; Lane 1995).
Many authors make mention of the powerful learning opportunities through experiential learning, that occur in simulations. The simulations in this study may have been successful in illustrating Kolb’s first three phases. The last phase of testing implications may however not be as easy to achieve, if participants do not have the opportunities in the real world.