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....
Comments
placesaver so i can share blog post
placesaver so i can share blog postOn Frameworks and What They Leave Out
On Frameworks and What They Leave Out The question you're circling—what happens when a framework captures most of what you see but misses something important—is precisely where systems thinking begins. Mayoux's four powers framework gives you a useful map: power from within, power to do, power over, power with. But you've identified a gap: the desire to multiply, to give forward, to act as a multiplier rather than just a beneficiary. "Power to" doesn't quite fit because it implies agency for oneself. "Power through" suggests a conduit, which is closer but still instrumental. "Power beyond" hints at something generative—a capacity that exceeds the individual and creates conditions for others. That might be the one worth holding onto. What you're describing is the difference between empowerment as a personal outcome and empowerment as a relational dynamic. The first is about building capacity in individuals. The second is about creating the conditions under which capacity can be passed on, adapted, and transformed by others. They're not the same thing, and they require different kinds of support. Waddell's typology of networks is relevant here. The shift from a network that serves its members to a "generative network" that aims to create societal change is precisely the move you're observing. The question is whether that shift can be designed for, or whether it emerges only when the conditions are right. One thought: if you're looking for a framework that accommodates this, the CoP framework you mention might actually be more useful than you think. Communities of practice aren't just about learning together; they're about the reproduction and transformation of practice across time and contexts. The "multiplier" effect you're seeing might be a feature of a mature CoP, not an exception to it. Regards,
Russell Larke
BA (Hons) Business Management | MSc Candidate (Systems Thinking)
Trading Beyond Charts