Effective Networking for Social Learning The Experience of Grupo Chorlaví Julio A. Berdegué Presented at the Annual Meeting 2004 of Euforic, June 8-9, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands

Contents Grupo Chorlaví What we mean by effective networking for social learning? Achieving the intended outcomes Issues for further experimentation and critical reflection

Grupo Chorlaví Contents What we mean by effective networking for social learning? Achieving the intended outcomes Issues for further experimentation and critical reflection

Grupo Chorlavi 10,000 individuals 442 NGOs and CBO

Grupo Chorlavi The objective of Grupo Chorlaví is to promote social learning to support the initiatives carried out by individuals, groups and organizations working for the transformation of Latin America rural societies An experiential learning approach, i.e., social learning based on critical reflection about initiatives being carried out by a wide variety of catalysts of change in Latin American rural societies

Grupo Chorlavi Tools and platforms Fondo Mink’a de Chorlaví - Competitive Grant Fund Electronic conferences InterCambios electronic newsletter www.GrupoChorlavi.org Internet-based distance training Chorlaví electronic list Special Cooperation Agreements Eldis en Español

What we mean by effective networking for social learning? Contents Grupo Chorlaví What we mean by effective networking for social learning? Achieving the intended outcomes Issues for further experimentation and critical reflection

Effective networking for social learning Why social learning? Disappointing results of old approaches New economic, political, social and cultural contexts New societal demands on rural societies New objectives of rural social actors Few of the old ways of thinking and of doing are still relevant and effective

Effective networking for social learning Can be defined based on three outcomes: A functional, vibrant, group or community of individuals and organizations Diversity and representativeness of participants Intensity and frequency of the interactions Trust and reciprocity

Effective networking for social learning Can be defined based on three outcomes: The quality of the social learning process and its results and products Who learns? Are the questions (learning objectives) pertinent and to whom? (“Boundary partners”) Is existing knowledge considered? How rigorous and systematic is the experience-based critical refection process? Are conclusions and lessons up-scalable? Is the process well documented and communicated? Are new capacities built or strengthened?

Effective networking for social learning Can be defined based on three outcomes: Influence It cannot happen if the two above have not been achieved Is dependent on how much the ‘boundary partners’ trust the knowledge generated and the group of people who generated it

Achieving the intended outcomes Contents Grupo Chorlaví What we mean by effective networking for social learning? Achieving the intended outcomes Issues for further experimentation and critical reflection

Achieving the outcomes Effective networking for social learning is: 10% inspiration and 90% transpiration 90% of the transpiration is experimentation A constant frame of mind: learning about social learning

1. The people and the quality of the interactions The approach to the issue of the participants and their interaction will depend on which of two types of networking is taking place: netWORK or NETwork

1. The people and the quality of the interactions netWORK: Which people and which types of interactions do you need? Is about the coordination of distributed work and co-production of knowledge, goods and services Is about bringing together specialized skills ... and coordinate them to obtain an integrated result

1. The people and the quality of the interactions NETwork Which people and which types of interactions do you need? Is about mutual contributions of information to independent (not coordinated) goals, objectives, initiatives .... Is about linking people who complement in each other in the type of knowledge they have access to, but that are related enough to be relevant to each other

1. The people and the quality of the interactions Regardless of the type of networking, ICTs cannot deliver the goods if there is not a pre-existing social nucleus Networks which work for everyone and no one on particular, tend to be the victims of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’

2. The quality of the social learning process Grupo Chorlaví’s experience is more of the netWORK kind, with elements of NETwork A seven step process: Identify and engage the ‘boundary partners’ Establish a social learning agenda Identify critical questions and issues  learning objectives Design ‘learning projects’ to achieve ‘learning projects’ Document the process and the results Communicate Build capacities

2. The quality of the social learning process Identify and engage the ‘boundary partners’ netWORKING for social learning cannot be very effective if it is a ‘common property’ process, that engages everyone and no one in particular Who asks the questions? is engaged in the learning process? who establishes the meaning of the results? who qualifies the findings? who is the end user and ‘beneficiary’ of the process and of its results?

2. The quality of the social learning process Establish a social learning agenda What are the important questions that the network will answer in the medium term? Criteria need to be defined, of two types: What we would like to do What we can actually do Experts need to be engaged and consulted, to compare with the ‘state of the art’

2. The quality of the social learning process Identify critical questions and issues  learning objectives To netWORK effectively you need to define clear objectives Learning objectives are specific questions that, in total, allow the network to deal with the medium term social learning agenda

2. The quality of the social learning process Design ‘learning projects’ to achieve ‘learning projects’ Once learning objectives are clear, social learning processes can be treated as a project: A theory A learning method Milestones Partners with tasks and obligations Time framework Budget Partnership Governance mechanism for the partnership and the project

2. The quality of the social learning process Document the process and the results Self-evident... But almost never done!!!

2. The quality of the social learning process Communicate Diffuse communication – to the broad public of individuals and groups presumably interested in the agenda, the learning objectives and the results and outputs of the learning project Focused communication – an attempt to reach specific individuals and organizations who have it in their power to ‘do something important’

2. The quality of the social learning process Build capacities A response to the demand for demonstrating impact of the learning process Limited in reach, but significant ICT-based opportunities Engage boundary partners who can have large ‘multiplier effects’, for example: Higher education (leading MSc courses) Managers of large development projects Leadership of significant social movements & organizations Coordinators and key members of important networks Publishers of regional or national journals

3. Influence By definition, social learning organizations and processes do not have ‘impacts’ in the sense of direct and lineal cause effect relationships For all practical purposes, it is impossible to attribute effects to a social learning process But social learning can have great influence A direct function of: The quality of the people engaged in the learning process and of their interactions The quality of the learning process and its results and products

Issues for further experimentation and critical reflection Contents Grupo Chorlaví What we mean by effective networking for social learning? Achieving the intended outcomes Issues for further experimentation and critical reflection

Issues for further experimentation Should we seek to have sustainable networks or should we be more concerned with effective networking resulting in outcomes which are sustainable in themselves? When one or the other or both? How do we evaluate effective networking for social learning? What do we do with ‘accountability’ and ‘impact’? Are there technically and politically feasible alternatives? How do we deal with issues of power in networks? For example, donors as participants in networks, N-S networks, researcher-practitioner networks, computer skilled and equipped vs unskilled and less equipped... Capacity-building in networking

www.GrupoChorlavi.org and www.FondoMinkaChorlavi.org Thank you! www.GrupoChorlavi.org and www.FondoMinkaChorlavi.org