Tag: Critical Social Learning Systems

TB872: Advantages and disadvantages of CSLS

Posted on March 22, 2024May 1, 2024 by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

A human-centric illustration depicting diverse characters around a circular layout, with a vibrant tree at the centre, representing ideas and dialogue through symbols and soft colours.

I’ve written previously about Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS) and how I’ve chosen this approach for my End of Module Assessment (EMA) over Communities of Practice (CoP). The CSLS approach involves critical reflection, participatory methods, and adaptive management, all within a systems approach.

What I haven’t done so far is outline the advantages and disadvantages of CSLS, which is what this post seeks to rectify.

Advantages of CSLS

Holistic understanding of complex issues: unlike more traditional, linear methods of problem-solving, CSLS encourages considering multiple perspectives and dimensions of a problem, leading to more comprehensive and adaptive solutions. This holistic approach helps address complex, real-world issues.
Enhanced adaptive learning: an emphasis on reflexivity and the inclusion of meta-learning and epistemic learning allows participants in a CSLS to not only learn about the “issue at hand” but also about the process of learning itself and the limitations imposed by their worldviews. This can enhance the system’s adaptive capacity in the face of changing contexts and challenges.
Empowerment through participation: promotes active participation and dialogue among all stakeholders, recognising the value of diverse approaches to knowledge. This is a democratic approach which can empower individuals and communities, and encourage a sense of ownership and commitment to both the learning process and its outcomes.
Sustainability of solutions: encourages the development of solutions that are sustainable in the long term by engaging deeply with the root causes of issues (rather than just symptoms). CSLS integrates ethical, ecological, and social considerations, and this helps address underlying systems that generate problems.

Disadvantages of CSLS

Complexity and resource intensity: engaging in a CSLS can make it a resource-intensive process, requiring significant time and effort from participants. This can be a barrier to implementation, particularly in “resource-constrained” environments.
Challenges in facilitation and management: skilled facilitation and management is required to successfully navigate the dynamics of a CSLS, with its emphasis on critical reflection, learning at multiple levels, and managing diverse worldviews. This can be challenging to achieve, especially in large or very diverse groups.
Risk of overemphasis on process: by focusing on learning processes, reflexivity, and the critical examination of worldviews, there is a risk that participants overemphasise process at the expense of actionable outcomes. This requires balancing reflection with action to avoid “analysis paralysis”.

I haven’t chosen CSLS over CoP because I necessarily think it’s a ‘better’ approach or more ‘suitable’, but rather because I want to spend time finding out more about it. As I’ve said in previous posts, I’ve spent a reasonable amount of time studying, participating in, and helping facilitate CoPs. While I think they’re a really useful approach, they’re not the best for every situation.

Questions and Reflections

I have some questions and reflections as I start planning my EMA, which involves designing a learning system to manage change in my situation of concern (see here):

Vulnerability: examining and challenging one’s own worldview requires vulnerability, as this plays a role in genuine learning and transformation within CSLS. How can I design a learning system that enables facilitators to create ‘safe spaces’ that encourage this vulnerability?
Cultural shifts: CSLS has the potential to catalyse broader cultural and organisational shifts towards more reflective, learning-oriented environments. What are some ways I can envision CSLS contributing to such systemic changes?
Ethics: the role of facilitator in a CSLS involves guiding the learning process, managing dynamics, and ensuring inclusivity. How can facilitators reflect on their ethical considerations and responsibilities to promote autonomy and empowerment among participants?

How can I find a way of balancing (i) the need for comprehensive, reflexive learning processes, with (ii) the practical realities of time, resources, and the urgency of action in my situation of concern?
Given power dynamics and disparities in knowledge/expertise, what strategies can I employ to encourage genuine participation and engagement across diverse stakeholder groups?
In what ways can the insights and approaches of CSLS be adapted/scaled to address issues of varying scope and complexity?

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Bawden and transforming worldviews

Posted on March 8, 2024May 1, 2024 by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

An abstract representation of a learning system visualized as a network of interconnected, glowing nodes, each signifying individuals or subgroups within a community. The nodes, varying in colors and sizes, represent diversity and are linked by both tense, sparking wires and harmonious lights, illustrating the dual nature of tensions and potential growth within the system. This metaphorical image captures the dynamic and complex relationships within critical learning communities.

This post focuses on the arguments made by Richard Bawden in his two chapters of the book Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. As I will show, his understanding and foregrounding of ‘worldviews’ is central to this.

In Chapter 3, which was originally written in 1999, Bawden (2010) sets the stage by illustrating the journey that faculty at the Hawkesbury School of Agriculture underwent. Shifting from a production-centric to a focus on “responsible rural development,” they also moved from a teaching approach to one focused on learning, and from a paradigm they realised was reductionist to one much more holistic.

The chapter highlights the challenges involved in transformation at both the individual and community levels, with Bawden identifying the “tensions of difference” within the sub-systems making up the overall learning system. These tensions, he believes, are crucial to the effectiveness of critical learning systems in community development. Bawden criticises prevailing non-systemic models of development as being inadequate in addressing the complexities and uncertainties of modern life. Not only are they deterministic and materialistic, but they are individualistic, leading to community disintegration and a deficit of trust.

The way forward, Bawden argues, is to transform communities into learning systems which are capable of adaptive learning. He proposes a synthesis of ‘inspirational’ and ‘experiential’ learning to allow meaning to emerge, with an integrated model which weaves these elements together. Bawden then concludes the chapter with a list of practical considerations for those seeking to establish, develop, and/or evaluate learning communities.

Moving to Chapter 6, which was written specifically for the edited collection, Bawden (2010b) reflects on his experiences at Hawkesbury, focusing on the collective beliefs of the faculty. He discusses worldviews specifically and how they influence systemic action. This chapter is much more focused on issues around wellbeing, ethics, and the growing climate crisis.

Bawden transitions from talking about theoretical issues to more practical applications, ending with a discussion on the global and systemic nature of contemporary challenges. Whereas in the previous chapter, Bawden spoke of “critical learning systems” in this one he explicitly talks of “Critical Social Learning Systems” (CSLS), defining this as “a group of people that have decided to collaborate in order to seek systemic improvements to some messy complex situation that together they regard as critically problematic” (Bawden, 2010b, p.94). “In other words,” he says:

a CSLS is a collection of individuals who agree to act together as a coherent group of people who are prepared to ‘collectively learn their way through’ an issue that they all agree is problematic in some way or another to them all. They accept that in addition to learning all they can about that issue as ‘the matter to hand’ as the prerequisite for taking informed action to improve it, they will also address, and respond to two other ‘levels of learning’ as they proceed: In essence they will be learning in three dimensions concurrently. So even as they are investigating the matter to hand they will also be critically reflecting on the processes of learning that they are bringing to bear: their ‘meta-learning’. These
reflections will include (i) their own impressions on the actual processes that they are using to generate shared knowledge and understanding from their experiences, (ii) how they are testing the quality or validity of that knowledge, (iii) how they are designing plans for action in the face of the knowledge that they are generating and decisions that they are beginning to formulate in response, and (iv) how they might actually put those plans into action for change. In this manner, they are seeking improvements in the way that they are learning even as they go about that learning.
Bawden (2010b, p.94)

Central to Bawden’s argument is the concept of worldviews: mental models that shape our interactions with the environment, influence our sense-making processes, and serve as the context for our judgments and the foundation of our moral compass. He emphasises the transformative potential of worldviews, questioning whether our cultural perspectives leave us equipped to handle life’s complexity. In fact, he wonders whether we are even aware of our own worldviews.

Worldviews, according to Bawden, comprise “personal presuppositions” about the following:

(a) the nature of nature (or ontology, philosophically speaking),
(b) the nature and origins of the universe, of life itself and, especially, of the spiritual essence of mankind (or cosmology),
(c) the nature of knowledge (or epistemology) and
(d) the nature of human nature especially as it relates to motivations, dispositions
and values, especially ethics and aesthetics (or axiology).
Bawden (2010b, p.96)

By recognising and transforming our worldviews, Bawden believes that we can better address the “complex messiness” of today’s challenges. Although this transformation must take place on an individual level, it is also crucial that it happens collectively: a communal shift towards reflective, adaptive, and holistic learning systems.

References

Bawden, R. (2010). ‘The community challenge: the learning response’. In Blackmore, C. (ed.) Social learning systems and communities of practice. London: Springer. pp.89-101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.
Bawden, R. (2010b). ‘Messy issues, worldviews and systemic competencies’. In Blackmore, C. (ed.) Social learning systems and communities of practice. London: Springer. pp.89-101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Key concepts in Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS)

Posted on March 6, 2024May 1, 2024 by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

The table below is adapted from the course materials (The Open University, 2021) and is a guide to help me with my End of Module Assessment (EMA) in which I have chosen Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS) as an approach.

Concept	Useful page references (Blackmore, 2010)
Critical (Social) Learning System	Intro to Part II – Hawkesbury approach focused on systemic praxis (p.36) Chapter 3 – Distinguishing ‘system’ from everyday usage (pp.40-41) – Justificiation for CSLS (pp.42-43) – Learning community as CSLS (p.47) Chapter 5 – Design considerations for learning systems (p.85) Chapter 6 – ‘Social’ not explicitly included in description of development of Critical Learning Systems (p.89) – Five key assumptions to the emergence and character of how Critical Learning Systems evolved at Hawkesbury (pp.89-90) – CSLS as developmental project (p.90) – Hawkesbury approach focuses on nature and development of systems of learning (p.93) – Analysis of four words of CSLS and why each necessary (p.93) – Essential functions of a system based on CSLS (p.94) Chapter 12 – Differences between social learning and social learning systems (pp.203-204) – Mapping a landscape of social learning systems praxis (pp.207-216)
Social Learning	Chapter 1 – Public learning (pp.6-9) Chapter 2 – Social learning as ‘two streams’ (p.20) Chapter 3 – ‘Lost competency’ of social learning and need for reflexivity (p.43) – List of key aspects of social learning (p.54) Chapter 4 – Need for a ‘third way’ of governance (p.62) – Social learning should build on local community participation (p.62) – Not a new concept (p.63) – Definition (p.63) – Learning includes social norms and values, etc. (p.64) – Social learning requires conscious design and facilitation (p.64) – Social learning requires different actors with different interests engaging in dialogue (p.65) – Institutions as the means to, and outcome of, social learning (p.67) – Social learning depends on decision-making and responsibilities resting at the appropriate scale (p.68) Chapter 5 – Opportunities for social learning are squandered (p.74) – Social learning as an emergent property of collaboration (p.78) – Social learning requires the development of shared platforms for decision making and action (p.79) – Social learning involves communicative action, so an understanding of how human communication occurs, is key (p.79) – The role of dialogue in social learning (p.81) – Definition of social learning (p.84) Chapter 6 – CSLS as an experiential approach to social learning for collective development (p.90)
First- and Second-order Change	Chapter 5 – First-order R&D is the most common, with the researcher remaining outside the system being studied – as if it’s a closed system (p. 75) – Second-order R&D involves the researcher or practitioner being part of the interactions being studied (p.75) – Questions by von Foerster (1992) capturing the difference (p.77) – First-order characteristics – including belief in an ‘objective reality’ (pp.77-78) – Second-order characteristics (pp.78-79)
Sustainability	Chapter 4 – Modern industrialised society deeply unsustainable (p.57) – More radical democracy as essential precondition of creating environmental sustainability (p.60) – Three propositions r.e. connection between democratic participation and sustainability (pp.60-61)
Design of Learning Systems	Chapter 5 – Table showing independent sets of design considerations for learning systems (p.85)
Institutional Design	Chapter 4 – Constraints ranging from investment to governance (p.58) – Broader institutional dilemmas (p.59) – Spectrum from tradition through to questioning assumptions (p.63) – Critique of economic and political power is vital (p.64) – One of three elements of facilitating social learning – along with philosophical reflection and methodological pluralism (p.64) – Simple question: what types of institutions would facilitate social learning and participatory democracy? (p.66) – Eight principles for facilitating institutional design (pp.67-69)
Traditions of Understanding	Chapter 5 – Crisis in “how we claim to know what we know” (p.74) – Based on Maturana and Varela’s (1979) biological theory of cognition (pp.76-77) – Role of metaphor – incl. work of McClintock (1996) (pp.80-81)
Learning Community	Chapter 3 – A kind of definition (pp.39-40) – First step towards creating one is learning to learn about learning (p.47) – List of key aspects of a learning community (p.54)
Worldviews	Chapter 3 – Systemic worldviews are a prerequisite for treating the world in a systemic (holistic) way (p.42) – Epistemic learning helps with learning about worldviews which contextualise what is being learned. (p.47) – Introduction of a worldview matrix based on Burrell and Morgan (1979) and Miller (1983) (pp.48-49) – Critical learning process must include discourse about the nature and influence of worldviews on process of learning (p.49) – Normative worldview window (pp.49-50) – Integrated critical learning system diagram, including worldview elements (p.53) Chapter 6 – Intellectual and moral perspectives = worldviews (p.89) – Worldview perspectives are capable of development (p.89) – Worldviews as epistemes (Foucault, 1970) which leads to epistemic development (p.91) – We are “abysmally ignorant” that we even hold particular worldviews (p.91) – CSLS involves challenging worldviews (p.92) – Differences in worldviews are often the cause of tensions between people seeking consensus (p.94) – Impossible to over-emphasis the significance of worldviews when dealing with any kind of learning (p.95) – Worldviews act as filters to our understandings and foundations for our morality (p.95) – List of personal presuppositions that worldviews contain (p.96)
Levels of Learning	Chapter 6 – Three levels: learning, meta-learning, and epistemic learning (p.94) Chapter 12 – Reference to Kitchener (1983) and level 3 learning (p.212)

References

Blackmore, C. (ed.) (2010). Social learning systems and communities of practice. London: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.
The Open University. (2021). ‘3.5.2 Working with CSLS concepts’, TB872: Managing change with systems thinking in practice. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2171593&section=3.5.2 (Accessed 6 March 2024).