Socially Situated Learning

Social Learning, draws from both transformative and communicative learning (Van der Veen, 2000) and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) and can broadly be defined as

“learning how to use oneself and one’s environment to better meet one’s needs and those around of others” (Davids, Theron & Maphunye, 2005:20). Van der Veen (2000 as cited in Muro and Jeffrey, 2006) believes that through social learning people construct inter-subjective understandings of a situation with others, which is especially relevant in the context of wicked problems “where there is no clear knowledge, or perhaps there is conflicting knowledge, available about the situation or the best solution”. Reed et al (2010) expand on the individual focus and state that for a process to embody social learning it must:

• Demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved,

• Demonstrate that this change goes beyond the individual and becomes situated within wider social units or communities of practice, and that

• It occurs through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network.

In participatory development, social learning emerges through the inclusion of multiple stakeholders with differing knowledge and experiences, and involves the unpacking and integration of different and often contrasting participant viewpoints (Mostert et al., 2007). When tackling a complex problem these multiple view points synthesise into

shared understanding and can contribute to empowerment and eventually emancipation.

Pahl-Wostl et al (2007) present a conceptual framework for analysing multi-party collaboration in a specific context that leads to specific outcomes, and that captures the essential practices of multi-level social learning. Writing from a resources management perspective their focus is on how synergies between the natural environment and various technologies are understood and developed by a multi-party, collaborative group resulting in specific technical requirements and building social capital. Figure 4.5 presents an adapted model using participatory design as the lens. It presents the process of social learning as a collective activity driven by contextual needs. The iterative nature of the model also frames participation as an end, with the long term goal being the development of social capital and ongoing civic momentum.

The context of social learning in participatory design is made up of rules and regulations rooted in formal (legal and institutional) and informal (traditional systems/

customs) institutions; the community as place/relationships/collective political power, and; roles and the division of labour within the community. The PD process component forms the core of social learning and provides the platform for sharing of knowledge, framing/reframing objectives and developing relationships. The integration of social and contextual issues is facilitated by relational practices, such as object-oriented reciprocal and reflexive actions (Bouwen and Tallieu, 2004 cited in Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007).

Figure 4.5: Conceptual framework for analysing multi-party collaboration (adapted from Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007)

The outcomes of the process feed back into contextual practices, and through empowerment and the redesign of systems, a resilient community can be built, leading to the emancipation of community members from outdated systems.

Muro and Jeffrey (2006) also present a compound model of social learning (Figure 4.6). They draw from multiple sources and present a collated view of social learning in the participatory planning context. Here we see communication and interaction in participatory processes supported by a spread of process features that aim at enabling social learning and the co-creation of knowledge. This process aims to contribute to a common understanding amongst participants of the issue, mutual agreement on ways forward, and role definition for collective action. This process of collectively defining issues and reaching action consensus hopefully leads to the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and the core component of collaboration, trust.

!

Figure 4.6: Compound model of social learning (Muro and Jeffrey, 2006)

Because social learning is most useful when there are multiple viewpoints and different perspectives on a mutual issue, it is important to get “the whole system in the room” (Roberts, 2000). This can often be difficult as although people might be concerned, there are a number of factors that can keep them from full participation.

Mathews (2014) states three general components that influence a person’s participation in voluntary initiatives, these are:

• Their perception of the context,

• Their social relations within the context, and

• Their perceived control and empowerment within the community.

These however, primarily speak to an insiders perspective and willingness to participate, it is important to also note ‘outsiders’ reasons or motives for participation in collaborative projects. Although individuals might have their own preconceived agendas, and although these might need to be addressed to retain their participation, the crucial point of social learning in a collaborative setting is when “the group transforms from a collection of individuals pursuing private interests, to a ‘community’

which defines a common purpose and is oriented toward shared interests” (Webler et al, 1995 as cited in Muro and Jeffrey, 2006). Here we see a community as a place or series of relationships progress to a community as a collective political power. As individuals become a community rallied toward mutual interests they become a community of inquiry (CoI), recognising knowledge as embedded within the social context, which requires agreement and consensus among those involved in the process of inquiry. It is through this collective understanding that legitimacy is reached.

Arising out of this community of inquiry is a community of practice (CoP). Although in early definitions a CoP was defined a group of people who share a craft or profession (Lave & Wenger, 1991) Wenger (1998) later went on to embrace the notion of duality in CoP’s, of which he identified four, participation-reification, designed-emergent, identification-negotiability and local-global, and describes CoP’s as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, n.d). Here we see a shift in focus from a shared profession to a shared objective. Wenger (1998), in his description of a CoP structure, states three interrelated components:

• Mutual Engagement: the formation of collaborative relationships between community members through participation. A social entity, in this case a CoP is as strong as its relationships.

• Joint Enterprise: the creation of a shared understanding created through interaction. Continually (re)negotiated by its members, the joint enterprise is sometimes referred to as the 'domain' of the community and contributes to the its resilience.

• Shared Repertoire: the production of shared resources through collaborative practices, which includes both symbolic and literal meanings. This collaborative meaning-making contributes to the groups object formation, i.e. the goal/s that orient the groups activity (Wenger, 1998; Kaptelinin, Kuutti & Bannon, 1995:191).

Mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire can contribute to a CoP supporting situated learning, when said CoP is based in a specific social and physical environment, what Schön (1983) refers to as a “conversation with the situation.” Here we see the interplay between knowledge production and knowledge application directly linked to the context (Figure 4.7). This ongoing contextual learning can contribute to a community’s resilience. Hung (2002) states that learning starts with trying to solve a problem. If the problem/s are framed collectively, one should see a collaborative approach to problem solving, and shared outcomes that benefit all.

Figure 4.7: Situated Learning