Institutional Change and Social Learning: Keys to Sustainable Development Outcomes I Blane Harvey for Our Common Future 2015
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•1,415 vues
By adopting evidence of how social learning can help address global climate and development challenges, large global funding and implementation bodies can catalyse a step-change in how we plan, support, and measure research for complex development challenges, particularly climate change. Learn more: www.ccafs.cgiar.org
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Plus de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Plus de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Institutional Change and Social Learning: Keys to Sustainable Development Outcomes I Blane Harvey for Our Common Future 2015
- 1. Institutional Change and Social Learning: Keys to Sustainable Development Outcomes Blane Harvey, Research Associate, Overseas Development Institute Wiebke Foerch, CCAFS, ICRAF; Tonya Schuetz, CCAFS; Philip Thornton, CCAFS, ILRI; Ewen LeBorgne, CCAFS, ILRI
- 2. The challenge Current responses to the “double exposure” of climate change & development short of the scale of impact needed. Not just an issue of resourcing, but how to best use limited resources to address complex challenges. Research & practice show iterative, learning-based approaches are well suited to these types of challenges (Folke 2005; Pelling et al. 2008) Lots of recent evidence on effectiveness and emerging good practice from social learning approaches at local & SES scales… …but limited evidence of effective use within organisations that are financing and designing adaptation action. (ICAI 2014; Harrington et al 2015; Harvey et al 2012)
- 3. Failure to incorporate reflexive learning […] could manifest itself in misguided policy positions and an inability to assess the changing science of climate change, with serious consequences for practitioners and funding… (Boyd & Osbahr 2010: 630)
- 4. Source: Ensor & Harvey, WIREs Clim Change 2015; See also Harvey et al. 2013
- 5. Our proposal However, recent evidence also suggests that the rise in audit culture and a ‘results agenda’ creates disincentives for learning, experimentation or the risk of failure. (M&C Saatchi 2015; Ramalingam 2011) So, where next? By adopting evidence of how social learning can help address global climate and development challenges, large global funding and implementation bodies can catalyse a step-change in how we plan, support, and measure research for complex development challenges, particularly climate change.
- 6. Assess and articulate the case for support Make learning a dimension of organisational performance Empower learning leaders and champions Embed learning processes in to the core of programming work Broaden existing learning processes Invest in capacity Measure and communicate their impacts and outcomes Ways forward: Elements of a pathway for institutional transformation
Notes de l'éditeur
- Assess and articulate the case for support: First, better understand how climate change multiplies risks and increases uncertainty with regard to organisational performance indicators and targeted development outcomes. Consider assessing the extent to which portfolios of work are exposed and the levels of complexity and urgency in safeguarding against these risks (Wilby & Vaughan 2010). This can provide evidence of when is it worth investing into institutional change/ social learning and when it may be less critical. This will not, in itself, lead to an organisational shift toward a learning perspective, but it is an important step in building a case for action around safeguarding work toward organisational objectives (Berkhout 2012). Make learning a dimension of organisational performance to counterbalance the noted tension between a “results agenda” (particularly payment by results) that privileges clearly-defined timelines, deliverables and costing at the expense of deviation based on emerging results or new understandings (M&C Saatchi 2015; ICAI 2014). Adopt tools and metrics for systematically collecting evidence to that effect (the growing use of theories of change are a useful step in that direction). Monitor not only the sharing of learning, but its adoption into planning and practice and ensure that organisational incentive structures do not present barriers to these practices (ICAI 2014). This can help re-cast learning and (well thought through and justified) strategic change as evidence of effective performance rather than a sign of deviation from the workplan. It can also provide justification for the investment of time into learning processes - a consistent area of concern for staff (Boyd & Osbahr 2010). Empower learning leaders and champions: Leadership is consistently cited as a critical factor in the integration of learning approaches into organisational practice. Frequently this comes from formal or informal institutional “learning champions”, who may struggle to have their voices heard at the levels needed for transformative change to take place, and may face active resistance to proposed changes to practice. Creating formal (sanctioned) as well as informal spaces for learning and reflection, and ensuring there is senior level engagement with the processes that are initiated can prevent learning agendas from being undone or pushed to the margins of organisational policy (Boyd & Osbahr 2010). Valuable lessons can be gleaned from the experience of mainstreaming gender into organisational practice. Embed social learning processes into the core of programming, not at its margins: To ensure the processes are not peripheral to the core elements of organisational practice, they should be features across the components of programming (e.g. communications, evaluation, knowledge management), as well as across its lifecycle (from planning through evaluation). Ensuring that business cases and portfolio development include a social learning dimension that draws on experiences from relevant past and present programming from both inside and outside of the organisation can ensure that the right questions are being asked, that the right people are engaged from the outset, and that opportunities for ongoing learning are nurtured from the outset. These processes should be integrated into the day to day work flows of staff to ensure their uptake (ICAI 2014). Broaden existing learning processes: Social learning is, by definition, a process that engages a range of stakeholders from multiple domains of action in collective reflection and action. Social learning on climate change only heightens this need, as the challenges posed by climate change span multiple disciplinary and scalar divides, and add uncertainty, that heighten the need for joint reflection and collective learning (Cash et al 2006). Opening up organisational learning processes to external stakeholders (where appropriate) including targeted beneficiaries, funding recipients, experts from the social and natural sciences, and other donors, can ensure that outside perspectives are brought into organisational planning processes (ICAI 2014), thereby avoiding an “echo chamber” effect amongst core staff, or at the level of Headquarters. In many cases, however, learning processes are targeted downward at funding recipients and do not trigger upward change (see Harrington et al 2015). Invest in capacity: Our research has revealed that many institutions working in climate and development lack the institutional capacities required for facilitating and documenting social learning processes (Ensor & Harvey 2015; Harvey et al 2012) and for tracking learning outcomes (Kristjanson et al 2014). A further capacity gap critical to learning processes on climate change are knowledge translation and brokering to support learning across disciplinary divides and between expert and lay audiences (Clark et al 2011). If these processes are to be embedded in organisational practice, the skills needed cannot not simply left to external consultants, and must instead figure as part of key team competencies. Measure and communicate the impacts and outcomes of learning approaches: The absence of frequent, unambiguous and salient empirical evidence can be a major hurdle in initiating changes in organizational practice (Berkhout 2012). We have called elsewhere for a stronger evidence base to address this gap (Kristjanson et al 2014) and have proposed a monitoring framework that can be applied across a range of contexts (Van Epp & Garside 2014). This involves collecting not only data against key metrics but well-documented stories of change told both from the ground up, and from the top down.