Deconstructing the social learning discourse

Romina Rodela

Wageningen University and Research Centre

Presetnation given at

Rhodes Univestity - Environmental Science

Grahamstown, South Africa

September 2012

Deconstructing the social learning discourse:

Current trends and themes in natural

resources management literature

Natural resource management seeks to balance theneeds of people with the capacity of the naturalresource system.

Rigid and uni-dimensional management methods witha narrow definition of the problem led to a gradual andunexpected change of the ecosystem (Holling, 1995).

Failure with top-down and rigid approachescontributed to a quest for alternatives.

New ideas :

adaptive management, co-managemet

and social learning.

Origins of the Discourse

Origins of the SL in NRM Discourse

Influences from disciplinary traditions :

Political sciences: democracy theory (Dryzek’s and Habermas).

Pedagogy: theories on learning (e.g., Argyrs, Mezirow, Kolb).

Systems theory: soft systems thinking,

Influences from alternative approachess to problem solving:

Introduction

Social learning (SL) is a conceptual construct upon which

the resource management literature has not reached an

agreement. It is conceptualized, understood and used in

many different ways.

This heterogeneity leads to questions e.g. what social

learning really entails? What is the specific contribution of

a social learning approach in light of this criticism? How

this is reflected in current literature?

The Analitical Framework

(1) characterizing features, (2) level of analysis, and

(3) operational measures.

Broken down into further questions:

(1) how the literature understands the learning process;

what the assumed outcomes of a social learning process

are,

(2) who the learning agent is,

(3) how this is made operational.

Research Methods

systematic review, evaluation of research that is

qualitative, descriptive, does not use comparable research

designs (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006)

inclusiion: (i) quality (pee reviewed) (ii) relevance (use SL

within NRM applic. domain

exclusion: (i) consistency, do not use of SL

two researchers searched electronic bibliographic

databases (ISI; SCOPUS), search terms included social

learning, learning used both alone and in combination with

natural resources, resource systems, and resource

management appearing in titles, keywords or abstracts

Research Methods

Analysis involved:

a data extraction form, detailing the codes was used,

data extraction based on information provided within the

paper so to minimize subjectivee judgement,

test-retest reliability was performed over a two week

interval and was found to be significant.

Results

116 unique publications > of which 97 met the inclusion

criteria

descriptive statistic: helped to identify for general trends

e.g. resource type, geogrf. areas, applicative area,

appraisal against pre-defined analytical items: helped to

identify emerging themes, identify the differences and

similarities in how social learning is conceptualized

Results: general trends

Type of natural resource research has reported about.

Results: general trends Trend indicating an increase of research looking at certain

type of NR.


Geographical distribution of natural resource empirical

cases.

Results: general trends Trend indicating an interest for certain applicative contexts.

Results: general trends Trend indicating a type of research published.

Results: differences and similarities

INDIVIDUAL-CENTRIC NETWORK-CENTRIC SOCIO-CENTRIC

- CHARACTERIZING FEATURES-

LEARNING PROCESS

Learning as a transformative process that occurs

during a participatory activity (transformative)

LEARNING PROCESS

Learning as a process embedded in past experience, and/or

observation of other practitioners (experiential

LEARNING PROCESS

Learning as an emergent property of the socio-

ecological system (emergent)

OUTCOMES

A change of participants’ internal-reflective processes

of (four dimensions); a change of participant’s

behaviour.

OUTCOMES

A change in of established resource use or management

practices.

OUTCOMES

Shift of the socio-ecological system on a more

sustainable path.

-UNIT OF ANALYSIS-

LEARNING AGENT

The individual (stakeholder) who participates to a

participatory workshop.

LEARNING AGENT

The practitioner who is a member to a community of practice

and/or network of practitioners.

LEARNING AGENT

The socio-ecological system.

-OPERATIONAL MEASURES-

OPERATIONALISATION

Improvement of the participant’s civil virtues (moral

dimension); an improved understanding of the

problem domain (cognitive dimensions) and relational

base (relational dimension).

OPERATIONALISATION

Improved relationships. Change in how things are done

OPERATIONALISATION:

A change in the institutions and management

practices, with a consequent change of the

ecosystems status.

-KNOWLEDGE-

KNOWLEDGE

Pre-existing: participants already possess knowledge

which they share in the course of a participatory

activity.

KNOWLEDGE

Co-created: network members possess some knowledge but

also contribute to develop new knowledge which is feed into

the network.

KNOWLEDGE

Incomplete: agents have incomplete knowledge.

They strive to up-grade their knowledge base in

a joint endeavour.



research seems to share the reasons for turning to a

learning based approach to NRM

issue driven

interdisciplinary

Yet there are differences in how SL is

operationalized and three research approaches to

social learning have been identified.


normative construct

collaborative activity

learning is about change

Research emphasizes some aspects over others and

prescribe different properties to social learning,

particularly with regards to how social learning

contributes to resources management

Conclusions

What are the current issues with SL research in NRM?

1. limited empirical research that reports on good quality primary data

2. limited understanding of learning processes in NRM

a need is identified to:

3. reflect on aspects of knowledge production and validation

(what is the epistemological base of the SL discourse?)

4. reflect on research designs/methods

(how to get there?)

References

Rodela, R. 2013. The social learning discourse: Trends, themes and interdisciplinary

influences in current research, Environmental Science & Policy, 25: 157-166,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.002.

Rodela, R., Cundill, G., Wals A. (2012). Methodological underpinnings of social learning

research in natural resource management. Ecological Economics, 77: 16-26

Rodela, R. (2011). Social learning and natural resource management: the emergence of

three research perspectives. Ecology and Society. 16(4): 30.

Romina Rodela, The social learning discourse: Trends, themes and interdisciplinary influences in current research, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 25, January 2013, Pages 157

Romina Rodela, The social learning discourse: Trends, themes and interdisciplinary influences in current research, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 25, January 2013, Pages 157

Thank you for your attention !

For further information: [email protected]

Acknowledgments:The research reporter here is funded under the MarieCureActions-

PEOPLE-FP7(project titled Social Learning Processes in Natural Resource

Management: the Role of Learning, Negotiation and Social Capital for more

Sustainable Natural Resource Management).