Personal Blogs

I am having a few days off between the last assignment and the full blown end of module assessment. Off in the sense of allowing myself to read some of the pile of literature that i didn't read as part of the lit review and that now seems ever more pertinent. Slightly worried that this will just give me even more far too much material for the EMA but it is a gift to myself to have a few days reading. The works are kind of split into three groups - practical 'typology of a virtual community of practice' type docs, theoretical social learning docs, and organizational understanding collaboration type docs. I like the middle ones best. What this means is that a. i run the risk of my EMA trying to run in three directions simultaneously and going nowhere, b. i run the risk of ending up with too much material and too many ideas, c. if i favour the middle i run the risk of being too airy fairy for this practice oriented project. Wow. Studying is really a risky business.

Anyway, just wanted to note about CoPs, i have this paper by Kimble (2006), a very good critique of the concept showing how it evolved with the evolving historical context. CoPs have been seen as a heuristic device, a theory, and an application in turn. I guess what I am doing is going back to seeing it as a heuristic device, but what i thought i was doing at times was looking at it as an application. Which is why sometimes i end up trying to name the parts as it were "This is the purpose" "This is the community". Using it as a heuristic allows for a more fluid 'becoming' view (Chia, 1995). With thanks to helen for lending me that paper.

good reminder about the importance of design for what happens in the future p36. how we design the alumni program will influence if not determine what happens.

"It calls for educational processes and systems that nurture active citizens and open minds by encouraging wonder, creativity, tolerance, cooperation, and collaboration... It promotes vigorous self-criticism, combats rigidity and apathy, and fosters anticipatory decision-making and adaptive learning... such societies prepare their individuals, organizations and institutions to counteract maladaptive forces and respond to unforeseen challenges and changes that are beyond their control with hope, joy, imagination and unruffledness"p36-37

individual learning and social learning co-dynamic p39

Change can be catalyzed by a crisis or surprise (adaptation p47), or it can be planned and directed (p46). Glasser (and AWARD) are interested in planned change. Planned change and learning seen as inseparable. Actually probably unplanned change results in learning too.

"Any planned directed change by individuals or collectives is built on learning" (p46). I agree. But i wonder what other explanations might be offered apart from 'learning'. To me it is so self evident that I cannot even contemplate another way. FOLLOW UP.

Note that Glasser does not "necessarily believe that learning must necessarily engender behavioural change" This is because:

1. not all learning warrants behaviour change
2. sometimes the environment -interests, goals, objectives - militate against change.

"it is only through learning that we acquire our values, attitudes, and concerns along with our conception of reality." p47

p47 Glasser gives five interpretations of social learning. i think Blackmore in her book also gives a list of interpretations. Or maybe it was Ison talking about SLIM. FOLLOW UP

i love having all these interpretations so i can cherry pick the ones i like best at this moment...

"[it] reflects the idea that hte shared learning of interdependent stakeholders is a key mechanism for arriving at more desirable futures. [...]A consistent characteristic of the various approaches is that they advocate an interactive (or participatory) style of problem solviing, whereby outside intervention takes the form of facilitation" (Leeuwis and Pyburn 2002 - FOLLOW UP?) p47

Parson and Clark (1995) talking about the same suggest "the deepest difference is that for some, social learning means learning by individuals that takes place in social settings and/or is socially conditioned; for others it means learning by social aggregates." p48

i think a CoP view of learning sees both as interdependent like Giddens' structure and agency. you need both levels of learning/change.

Regarding change in our fellows, it is interesting what Glasser says about Bandura's social learning theory (1977).

• Attention: a model behaviour in the environment must grab or capture a potential learner's notice. so this is partly the role modeling, partly the dreaming about one's self and where you want to be
• Retention: remember the observed behaviour
• Reproduction: replicate the observed behaviour. This is the skills development in leadership and science supported by mentoring
• Motivation: the environment must offer a consequence that increases the probability for a learner to demonstrate what she has learned. So these are the institutional settings, but also the Senge 'success breeds success' virtuous circle.
  

This makes me think how many of the fellows feel the need for an alumni program in order to keep being inspired. I guess you can't have a promotion every day so you can motivate yourself by the 'Attention' part of the model.

p50 Glasser talking of ecocultural sustainability, exemplifies Bandura, which gives an idea of entry points

"Ecoculturally sustainable behaviours are commonly seen as less appealing, so they fail to grab our attention. They are frequently unfamiliar so they are less likely to be retained. They are also often more involved and more compled so they are less likely to be reproduced. Finally they are seen as inconvenient, time.consuming, uncool so there is little motivation to try them out"

Active social learning is change. Glasser breaks it into three categories (p51):

• hierarchical - predetermined inflexible relationships between teacher and taught
• non-hierarchical - two way learning between experts in their own right
• co-learning - based on the above, collaboration, trust, full participation and shared exploration

he claims that 1 and 2 are great for expanding existing knowledge, but 3 also "supports the generation of new knowledge and novel strategies for addressing real-world problems"

"Co-learning supports change, positive change in particular"

so that is the shape we should aim for in the alumni group - co-learning. This is why i have felt a resistance to traditional alumni programs which are vertical built. Yes, they are about sharing information and expertise, but this is a key difference - the creation of new knowledge, which for me is new ways of being and doing and this calls out for co-learning. IMPORTANT

"I posit that the most successful forms of active social learning will result from non-coercive relationships that rest on building a common language, transparency, tolerance, mutual trust, collaboration, shared interests and concern for the common good" (pp52-53)

p55 is the definition I used of social learning in the last assignment: [attempts] to funnel uncoordinated and inharmonious individual actions into collective actions that support explicit goals". Though in the light of what i was thinking above about the new knowledge this is probably a bit of a lite definition.

(Still in the introduction, Wals is summarising the chapters)

This is from his summary of chapter 3:

[social learning] ... is an essentially contestable concept that is claiming, normatively, to offer desirable directions for action, and at the same time demanding practical change. Therefore it must be elaborated in an action-oriented way, reflecting a contextual balance between what is deemed desirable and what may be made feasible.

I think it is important to recognise that social learning and particularly societal learning:

• is normative
• is action-oriented

This means that it involves change, and change always means winners and losers, however relative. And so social learning is always critical, whether or not the term is explicitly used. It also opens up questions of ethics and power. Yes the power is coming from below generally and is horizontal not vertical, but it is still power, and with power comes responsibility.

His summary of chapter 4 highlights some interesting relevant questions:

• If sustainable development is contestable, can and should learning lead to agreement?
• If learning for SD is to contribute to action for sustainable development, then how can the relationship between thinking and doing be conceived? and that is back to the last posts on action competence maybe..?
• If reflexivity is involded in action for SD, then learning must include fundamental values, worldviews and identity. How can that be achieved? i think this is refering to the critical and responsible point i was making above.

now i am pulling it all together and trying to find other people's research that supports the kind of picture i have in my mind of how my research fits in with the world.

The research was the coming together of a practical need to explore a nascent fellowship alumni community and my own interest in social learning for change, or societal learning as Irene Guijt prefers to call it and i agree.

So i have been reading around the subject - particularly the book Social Learning: Towards a sustainable world - but have not had time to write my thoughts up and link them explicitly to AWARD. And if i don't type my thoughts only develop 80%!

Note that it is of course talking about sustainability in an environmental sense and I am talking about sustainability in a project outcome sense. But there is a lot about the concept of sustaining and the role of learning in that can be shared.

Introduction

Wals and van der Leij explore the meaning of sustainability and of social learning. They say (p18) that it takes place at the level of individuals, groups and networks. It would be interesting to use that to expand the neat matrix from De Laat and Simon (2002):

Especially if you add in a dose of this next definition: social learning is "the collective action and reflection that occurs among different individuals and groups as they work to improve the management of human and environmental interrelations" (Keen et al. 2005). Obviously in my situation it would be improving something else but what intrigues me is the collective action part. Glasser (chapter 2) does not see action as necessarily in there. And this has been a source of discussion on the STiP forum.

Helen's comment on the last post made me think. We have these three dynamic streams interacting: the fellows, the alumni thing and the environment. I realise now that I didn't explore enough the fellows' personal trajectory and now i have a lot of questions about that.

Some fellows want to use the alumni group as a way of sharing good practices and experiences about reaching the poor in rural communities; others want to use it to multiply the AWARD effect and build agricultural science leadership capacity in other cohorts of women and girls, others want to use it to increase their visibility and further their careers.

Now it could be that some people are more egotistical than others, but i suspect the difference lies with the fellows progress on their trajectory. Those who are now quite high in their career want to give back, make a difference, set agendas and influence policy. How can i explore this? Well, i guess i could look at the job title... but the job title we have on file is the one they started the fellowship with not necessarily current. Though I am sure i could find the current one with a little effort.

And/or i can share these findings - somehow in a way that does not judge fellows on the basis of their altruism - and see if it rings true to them. So, possibly sharing one to one not as a wider forum...?

going through the interviews i can see different needs and readinesses of the fellows. Reasons for wanting an alumni scheme seem to depend on the fellows' progress on their personal trajectory:

• skills acquisition, motivation, access to expertise

• desire to share forward, multiply what they have experienced, sharing forward leadership training, writing training and mentoring younger fellows in instituttions , sensitiszing men, reaching out to girls in schools
• desire to engage with external environment, set agendas, influence policy, lead relevant research

Frameworks to help understand this or locate individuals are:

Mayoux four powers framework that we use in AWARD

• power from within (confidence, motivation, networking for inspiration)
• power to do (skills acquistion, networking for personal career development)
• power over (resource generation, networking for visibility)
• power with (setting agendas, influencing policy, networking for concerted action)

What i feel doesn't fit exactly and maybe this extends that framework a bit, is the desire many of them have to act as a multiplier of the AWARD effect. Maybe the empowerment framework is seen principally as a personal thing and doesn't cater for this kind of altruistic power to in the sense of giving it to... What other preposition could we use to render this idea?

Power from? Power through? Power beyond? Power across?

Waddell typology of networks

societal learning. Networks can be seen as a typology of increasing societal impact where the last is generative network in which the network is outward looking and aims to create societal change.

Appreciative systems

Using the term 'readinesses' made me think of Vicker's appreciative systems.  I wonder if there is anything there which could be helpful in this analysis. TIme to go back and reread.

Kitchener's three levels of cognition

AWARD helps the fellows solve problems better, then they get meta prepared, reflexive, self aware to step out of their scientific cloud and see the bigger purpose (as Sheila Ommeh said). A third level can be seen as trying rather than being good at adapting to the envrionment, as trying to shape the environment.

Of course the framework i haven't mentioned is the actual CoP framework that guided my research. I hope that is not going to matter....

p453... Patterns are descriptive findings. Lots of respondents found this

Themes are more abstract than this, there is an element of interpretation. Lots of respondents found this... and I will label that group as this abstract theme.

Inductive analysis is about discovering patterns

Deductive analysis is when the data are analysed according to an existing framework.

Can i be inductive within the boundaries of a framework? Recognising that the questions and slant of interviews were influenced by a framework of prior knowledge and reading, but within that, attempting to let the story in the data emerge for themselves?

Grounded theory emphasises being immersed in the data - grounded - so that embedded meanings and relationships can emerge.

p454

Once patterns, themes and/or categories have been established thorugh inductive analysis, you can move to deductive analysis  in testing and affirming the authenticity and appropriateness of the inductive content analysis. So, you can move from one to the other. I guess it is a form of triangulation. Looking at what you think you see from other perspectives

An "interplay of making inductions (deriving concepts, their properties and dimensions from data) and deductions (hypothesizing about the relationships between concepts) (Strauss and Corbin 1998, in Patton 2002)

HOWEVER

Analytic induction begins with an analyst's deduced propositions or theory-derived hypotheses and is a procedure for verifying theories and propositions based on qualitative data".

Nope, that's not what I'm doing. I'm using those propositions and hypotheses as a tool for exploring qualitative data, the conceptual model is a way of making a boundary so that there is an acceptably small amount of data to handle and already organised in some way, but not then verifying. Verifying to me means truth-checking and I am not doing that.

Later in the same paragraph however, it does seem more to describe what i want to do:

Sometimes [...] qualitative analysis is first deductive or quasi-deductive and then inductive as when, for example, the analyst begins by examining the data in terms of theory- derived sensitizing concepts or applying a theoretical framework developed by someone else [...] After or alongside this deductive phase of analysis, the researcher strives to look at the data afresh for undiscovered patterns and emergent undertandings (inductive analysis).

Inductive analysis is one of the primary characteristics of qualitative inquiry, so we need strategies for thinking and working inductively.  Here are two:

1. identify, define and elucidate the categories developed by they people studied (emic)

2. seeing patterns that he people studied do not describe in their own terms, so the analyst develops them (etic)

OK... steps

1. get organized. do an inventory. is everything complete? holes in data? is everything labeled? Dates, places, ways of identifying sources

2. read through the lot

3. read through the lot again

4. Now what about Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Management and Analysis? Helpful or a distraction? Will the time invested in understanding it be more than offset by its power in helping understand patterns in the data? As a further output of this course familiarity with a CAQDMA could be useful. p444 Patton gives some examples of software programs

5. I can glimpse already patterns and systems coming forth out of the data i have so far. I think certain ways of seeing the purpose will be linked to certain other ways of seeing the alumni program. Is that something a CAQDMA can help me see? Is there any difference by country and batch and academic level? (Obviously not statistical but question-raising differences?)

p 445 The 4 fundamental types of information that contribute to the construction of a finding of "answer" in qualitative analysis are:

1. characteristics of the sources where information is sought
2. primary information or objects collected from the sources
3. secondary information or objects created to aid in th interpretation of primary objects, and
4. characteristics of the coders who construct the secondary objects (MacQueen and Milstein 1993:31, in Patton)

I think what this is saying is that you have information about the source, then the info itself, your interpretation of that, and your framework that you are operating in.

So then you segment and create metadata. Segments are bits of text, metadata are categories, codes, comments, annotations, graphical representations

p434. Purpose guides analysis. So what is my purpose:

Applied qualitative research? If audience is scholars, then judged by "rigor and contribution to theory". If policy makers, relevance, clarity, utility and applicability of the findings willl become most important.

In TMA02, I called my approach "pragmatic, constructivist, critical" so let's keep that to the forefront of our minds when thinking about the purpose. I said it is for action and improvement and aimed at usefulness.

This is a kind of action research, kind of testing CoP theory? Well Yes in the sense that I expect the people involved to "share the analysis process" with me (p436), and that is by the way one form of triangulation. If my 'findings' make sense or make no sense to them.

But, there is also the purpose of the End of Module Assessment - the thesis as it were, which needs to follow the rules set down in the instructions and not 100% compatible with the way i do things.

Bear in mind, Arwen, that this research was born from an interest in social learning systems... it would be useful and satisfying if I could link back to that elegantly at the end.

So i have decided to follow my instinct and not the advice i have been given. Living dangerously. I reread the interviews I have transcribed so far and that has - maybe - helped me write questions that will give me the info I want. And i have put the Purpose questions right up front. The advice i received said start with the easy factual questions (Like "are you in any other fellowship alumni schemes?") but what i don't like about that is I think it makes your mind start thinking in a certain way. And I want to start with the Big Picture - WHAT IS THIS ALUMNI THING FOR? Not whether or not it will have face-to-face meetings or a blog roll? Starting the questionnaire with reference to other programs, closes down the options. Same thing about multichoice questions. One pilot fellow asked whether it wouldn't be easier if i had multi choice questions (seminars, website, etc.) but what i don't like about that is that if someone says do you want these things you are likely to say "oh yes, that would be great! I'll take the lot" Whereas i want to see what the fellows envisage themselves. When it comes to analysis, it will be more onerous but there are only 30 or them not 3000 so it is doable. (Famous last words?)

I was surprised how little my pilots wrote. it could have been for loads of reasons, but looking at my questionnaire I realized that in order not to make the questionnaire look too long and scary, I had made wee text boxes. Now i have made them adult-sized and hope it will make a difference. I am DYING to send it out. But want the last two pilots (with the Big Picture questions first and the larger text boxes) - or at least one of them - to come back to me first to make sure that the questions do to some extent work.

Must stop piloting now or I will run out of fellows before i send the final version!!

As i am interviewing, I am perhaps doing a bit too much discourse analysis - noting the language used. For example the fellow whose interview i am transcribing at the moment uses a lot of language, for the if-there-is-no-alumni-program scenario, around death and dying "it will die", "stagnation". I suspect this will probably be outside the scope of my research, but the thought is there now, can't unthink it, so let's see what happens next.

The more interviews I do, the more I realize the unconscious assumptions i had about what the fellows would tell me. I never expected the huge focus on actually wanting to network for advancing their research for helping rural women and other poor farmers. Silly me really, as that is one of the selection criteria. But I guess sitting here in Rome, that hadn't quite hit me.

Each interview that goes by, i have to concentrate more and more so i don't get distracted, asking the same questions again and again. And I have only done 7 interviews!! Imagine if it were 20 or 30! Jees, Louise! I also have to fight myself to really listen to the answers and not be influenced by the previous fellows' responses so i kind of feel like i know what they are going to say. I have to treat each interviewee as though she is the only one. My English language teaching training is useful here, doing oral interviews where half your mind is on the response and registering the content so you can build on it in a semi-natural conversation way, and half your mind is on your next question and how you can best phrase it to get the kind of information you want. In English teaching that was questions to stimulate certain fields of vocab, or certain grammar structures ("if you won the lottery,...?"), here it is trying to stimulate responses that answer my research questions. Without leading of course!

I shared my first assignment with all the fellows who volunteered for an interview. It seemed to me like a courtesy to involve them, and then also as i mentioned in an earlier post, i prefer to see them as fellow travelers, co-researchers. We are talking about amazing, clever women here. They know i am doing research and they know it is about an alumni thing, so they may as well know the whole lot. No? I don't feel like there is any benefit to hiding the research point.

Which maybe brings me to Chris Blackmore's suggestion that i mention the ethnographic tradition in much CoP research. Interesting point. While I can't exactly go and be a participant observer, I am inside the situtation (system) with the fellows and from that perspective it is a bit ethnographic.

Oh, another thing with interviews, is that my least comfortable mode is audio. I am very kinesthetic and visual (and olfactory!!) but listening for me is really tedious. I am fidgeting like mad while listening and talking. Wish i was there. Like the human contact.

After four interviews (non transcribed just impressions)

the purpose (domain) is mainly very cohesive - to help poor farmers

the practice too is pretty cohesive - networking for project proposal development, discipline interactions, information about calls for grants, conferences, information about who is where when, helping younger women scientists, best practices regarding getting to women and farmers on the ground. conferences and f2f feature less.

It is not what i expected. I expected there to be more on the women's leadership and capacity building bit but this seems pretty secondary. I want to read again the networks book which identifies suitable network types for different needs. one reason i chose CoP is because CoP are good for capacity building. If the practice is not capacity building maybe another typology would be more helpful. Mind you, another reason for choosing CoP is because CoPs are about learning and learning seems to be very much part of practice

Community - quite a wide difference in boundaries of community suggested- from AWARD alumni only to the World. It may be linked to how they see community. Thinking about the types identified in lit review, one fellow seems to see it as an alumi community, the others more of a best practice, ideological or task based community. I need to read that again.

Competence - everyone is familar with email and they are in touch with others through email, facebook, linked in. My feeling but i don't know if it comes from them or my own bias is that they need to have the technology part as part of their daily interactions, not a place to visit.

Phase: varies - from non existent community to small existing active communities

Institutional form - of course it is between institutes  the fellows work in different institutes and different countries. What surprises me is the amount of support from institutes that interviewees so far claim to have. So participation in this kind of community would be integrated in work day not extra.