Learning to Network and Networking to Learn: Facilitating the Process ...

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn: Facilitating the Process of Adaptive Management in a Local Response to the UK’s National Air Quality Strategy

Shortened title: Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Status: currently being revised in accordance with referees’ comments

Mark Stubbs* Faculty of Management and Business The Manchester Metropolitan University Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH, UK [email protected]

Mark Lemon International Ecotechnology Research Centre Cranfield University Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

ABSTRACT / The adaptive management leitmotiv of ‘learning to manage and managing to learn’ sets out an attractive agenda for dealing with the overwhelming complexity of environmental phenomena which humans have problematized. To ensure that this rallying cry translates into effective action, it is important to give consideration to structures and procedures for facilitating the efforts of those willing or able to respond to the adaptive management call. To date, calls to establish the ‘right organization’ to coordinate multiagency responses have tended to emphasize the noun, or bounded-entity, sense of the word organization. We believe that this is at the expense of its other, verb or process, connotation. In this paper, rather than searching for the perfect organization structure which mandates mutual trust and collective action shaped by all relevant parties’ perspectives and possible contributions, we direct attention towards the process of nurturing integrated adaptive responses amongst individuals who have diverse organizational allegiances. By shifting the balance towards the process connotation of ‘right organization’, we hope that a new mindscape can be discerned for those interested in putting adaptive management principles into practice. We seek to conjure up an image of this mindscape through the phrase ‘learning to network and networking to learn’, and set out to strengthen this by demonstrating how adaptive response networks can arise from the mutually-defining relationship between stakeholders and issues.

This is demonstrated through a local response to the United

Kingdom’s National Air Quality Strategy.

KEY WORDS: Adaptive Management; Organization; Network; Learning; Creativity; Air Quality

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Conceptualizations of adaptive and integrated environmental management have appeared as beacons within the resource management literature in recent years. These approaches can be distinguished from their forebears by their emphasis on continually revealing and working with the dynamic complexity of socio-ecological systems (see for instance Born and Sonzogni, 1995; Brown and MacLeod, 1996; Haney and Power, 1996; Smith and others, 1998). These accounts stand in stark contrast to approaches that start from the assumption that durable and effective simplifications of socio-ecological complexity will necessarily precede interventions in the field.

Adaptive management combines post-modern modesty about limits on understanding, with the twin aims of making a positive difference and reflecting critically on actions taken. This means that objectives and rules for interventions are developed through doing, rather than being fixed beforehand.

In other words, although journey and destination are inextricably linked, in

adaptive management the destination emerges from the journey. For environmental intiatives this does not mean that guiding notions like sustainable development are rejected. On the contrary, placing journey to the fore requires the detail of the destination to be worked out along the way. Visions of distant goals (such as sustainability) which are gaining increasing acceptance, play an essential role in informing individual and collective decisions about how to move forward. This mandate to seek understanding as an integral part of the journey is written into the popular leitmotiv which has come to capture the spirit of adaptive management: “Learning to Manage and Managing to Learn.”

As others have given considerable thought to the concept of adaptive management (for instance Walters, 1986, or, more recently McLain and Lee, 1996, and Smith and others, 1998), it is appropriate here to summarize our view of their work as this shapes the arguments which

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn follow. For us, the concept rests on the assumption that any individual’s or collective’s capacity for knowing and doing will always be partial and parochial, never encapsulating the complexity of processes and phenomena for which management responsibility has been assumed. The creative tension which drives adaptive management comes from coupling this modesty to the inspirational mission of building and deploying management capacities in ways that are in tune with core processes in the assumed domain of responsibility so that a positive difference can be made.

Together, these central tenets underpin the orientation towards

flexibility, pluralism, holism, experimentation, dialogue and learning which has come to characterize the concept of adaptive management.

The concept is often illuminated by case studies of organizations responsible for natural resource management that have made improvements to processes of institutionalized learning and stakeholder communication (e.g. Haney and Power, 1996). These contributions tend to be co-authored by individuals willing not only to implement adaptive management principles in their organizations, but also to share their experiences of doing so. Collectively these situated accounts provide a captivating image of the central project for proponents of adaptive management.

This typically involves making the ‘right organization right’, equipping a

“governance institution” with a structure that ensures fair representation and participation for all relevant parties - scientists, the public, business and so on (Imperial et. al., 1993; McLain and Lee, 1996). Our intention in this paper is to extend the horizons of this search for the ‘right organization’.

Some authors, particularly in the management and business literature (e.g. Morgan, 1986, and Pedler and others, 1991) have fought hard against the interpretation of organizations as bounded, machine-like entities. Despite this, the restrictive connotation has remained firm in

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn many people’s minds. Images of the ‘right organization’ for adaptive management rarely stray too far from the territory of a “neutral institution” ultimately responsible for making systemwide decisions (McLain and Lee, 1996). It is our view that a philosophy of ‘think of the other’ (to which we will return later) can open up this territory, encouraging ‘organization’ in other senses to come to the fore. To illustrate our position, a UK case study in the management of Air Quality will be presented which demonstrates a process, rather than bounded-entity, interpretation of ‘right organization’. It will convey the need to align, but not necessarily seek consensus about, different perspectives on Air Quality Management and, in particular, responses to changing legislation and guidelines. It will suggest how ‘joined-up thinking’ can be fostered amongst individuals with diverse organizational allegiances. To mark our point of departure into the territory that some management and business scholars are calling network organization, we will introduce a new leitmotiv of “Learning to Network and Networking to Learn”.

Air Quality Management Case Study The example that we will use to demonstrate our process perspective concerns the development of an air quality management response for Bedfordshire in the South Central region of the United Kingdom (UK), to the North of London. The historical background to this case study is set by international negotiations, particularly within the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which had laid foundations for the development of national air quality strategies across Europe.

UK

proposals for a National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) focused on local government as the tier of governance best able to provide an integrated management response - a task most local councils had expressed reluctance to take on without the promise of additional funding.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Proposals talked of co-operation and co-ordination between neighbouring local government bodies and co-operation between tiers of governance and the departments within them, such as public health and transport. (For readers unfamiliar with the stratification of local governance institutions in the United Kingdom, a brief summary can be found at the end of this article.) Complex, Transboundary Like other environmental issues, air quality has no respect for the boundaries of authority and responsibility that are inscribed in the routines and decision horizons of the bodies in place to manage them. It was thus readily apparent to all concerned that an integrated response would extend beyond local government departments to encompass other relevant agencies such as health authorities, major businesses, transport bodies and the Environment Agency (the UK equivalent to the US EPA). In short, the so-called ‘enabling legislation’ proposed for UK air quality management assumed inter and intra agency co-operation at scales varying from local, through to regional and national, and lacked the luxury of significant new financial resources with which to discharge the new responsibilities it set out. It was a daunting prospect for all involved.

In addition to the organizational complexity which the air quality management proposals brought into view, the dynamic complexity of the processes underpinning air quality phenomena and, particularly, the effects thereof, was equally daunting. For instance, the detailed chemistry of ozone formation in the lower atmosphere is far from straight forward, involving various non-linear interactions of a whole range of compounds with different emission rates, lifetimes, and transport rates in the presence of meteorological (and possibly chemical) catalysts (Hadfield and Cannibal, 1996). Furthermore, linkages between air quality and health were equally problematic but had assumed a relatively high profile in public

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn perceptions of traffic-related asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The lack of an overarching organizational entity which could respond to public concern about poor air quality made adaptive management an attractive option for those with strategic environmental responsibilities in local government. However, the central question of how to develop an adaptive, inter and intra agency response remained.

Action-research In 1996, local government was invited to comment on the draft proposals for the new air quality management regime.

As part of their response to this, representatives from

Bedfordshire County Council and Bedford Borough Council made contact with Cranfield University’s International Ecotechnology Research Centre (IERC) to discuss ongoing research into traffic-derived air pollution. Particular areas of interest were the need to monitor and evaluate local responses to the air quality agenda, and the development of an action-research method for the co-ordination of intra and inter-organizational responses to complex environmental issues (see Stubbs, 1998). The latter of these is reported in this paper.

The action-research method had evolved from contact with managers in a number of UK organizations with responsibility (assumed or otherwise) for dealing with environmental issues. Recurrent observations suggested that complex and dynamic environmental issues rarely fitted neatly into the departmental and organizational structures that were in place to deal with them. The question was often raised about how to manage phenomena that had no respect for organizational boundaries. A research agenda had therefore been formulated in these terms. This agenda connected well with the challenge of developing an integrated air quality

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn management response for Bedfordshire and subsequently developed into a longitudinal participative study.

The study had two key objectives: to discern the network of individuals who had formal responsibility for, or could make most difference to, Bedfordshire’s air quality; and to facilitate activities designed to share understanding between those individuals and highlight opportunities for coordinated action. These objectives drove a reflective and adaptive research process which followed the philosophy of ‘think of the other’. This philosophy was manifest in a three-way focus on how actions were being felt by others, how things might be other than they appeared, and how theory and data were informing one another. This approach was strongly influenced by the desire to develop a Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990) which reflected experience gained from participation as well as observation. We shall review the merits of this approach later.

Discovering the Network In the course of the study, departmental and organizational boundaries were crossed in pursuit of the network of actors who were already involved, or could usefully get involved in an integrated air quality response. It soon became clear that key groups were maintaining diverse, sometimes conflicting, interpretations of the processes that generated what were widely accepted as central phenomena or issues relating to air quality. For example, investigations into the relationship between incidents of respiratory illness and air quality suggested that people were seeing things very differently depending on the organizational networks in which they routinely played a part. Environmental health officers were working primarily in terms of air quality metrics; transportation planners were working in terms of traffic volumes and

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn distribution; Environment Agency officers were concerned about industrial processes; public health officers were concerned about increasing levels of asthma.

If the language of

stakeholders is used in its broadest sense of clusters of shared interest and concerns, then stakeholders were defining issues, but issues were also defining stakeholders (see Mitroff and Linstone, 1993). This mutually-defining relationship between stakeholders and issues raised a central challenge for both the integrated response and the study alike, namely how to discern and engage those who could contribute to understanding a particular issue and those who impacted upon, and responded to, it.

A strong desire within local government to develop an integrated and defensible response to the national government air quality proposals meant that the question of appropriate participation was one of political and academic interest.

In Bedfordshire a process of

determined ‘networking’ was initiated to ensure that the local response would be taken seriously by national government. This process involved key actors (the main proponents of an integrated response and the researcher) identifying and enlisting the active participation of representatives from stakeholder groups considered important to the issue at hand.

This

process also sought access to the representations of the issues maintained by the groups, often partially inscribed in computerized data sets, which could subsequently contribute towards more holistic understanding. Engaging diverse groups in an integrated response typically involved negotiation and deal making to convince stakeholder representatives that it would be worth contributing their time, data, insights and expertise. Whilst the urgency of a deadline set by the national government for responses to the draft air quality framework made activities unusually intense, there was some historical evidence to suggest that ‘networking’ was an important mechanism by which effort was co-ordinated across organizational and departmental boundaries in Bedfordshire’s agencies of local governance. For instance, within the County

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Council the role of at least one networker had been formalized through a full-time position, funded jointly by two departments. The management and business literature often views such “boundary diplomats” as performing a difficult but essential role in facilitating a more holistic and less parochial approach (Kanter, 1994). Experience from the case study supported this assessment.

The process of networking did more than just bring resources to bear on the issue that happened to be in focus (in this case air quality).

For those who saw themselves as

networkers, it also instilled a sensitivity towards stakeholder agendas and resources which might subsequently be drawn upon for dealing with other complex issues that transcended the boundaries of the agencies concerned. For instance, enhanced awareness of opportunities for joint initiatives on social deprivation was a welcome by-product of air quality discussions between social services, health and housing agencies that had explored links between domestic living conditions and incidents of respiratory illness. This awareness of the latent potential of the ‘network’ was an important addition to the mobilization of expertise and resources for dealing with the issue of air quality. Although the ‘networking’ approach nurtured some adaptive capacity for dealing with future issues, as in the social deprivation example, it was apparent (not least from the insights gained in brokering deals to secure participation from diverse groups) that there was more to an integrated response than just bringing together a set of stakeholder representatives and their data. The challenge was to find ways of bringing this network together so that each representative could appreciate and learn from the insights and efforts of other actors. Establishing a group of people who see an environmental issue in different ways does not guarantee a productive outcome (Crance and Draper, 1996), and we were mindful of this in our action-research efforts to design and execute a series of events for the Bedfordshire air quality stakeholders. We were conscious that the individuals concerned

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn did not have a history of co-operation, and therefore placed our initial emphasis on creating a climate that would foster a shared understanding of each other’s positions and contributions. After Peter Senge’s (1990) work on organizational learning, this process was termed Creative Dialogue.

Creative Dialogue: learning from diverse perspectives Differing perceptions of ‘relevant facts’, conflicting views on the relative significance of phenomena, and inherent difficulties in conceptualizing the temporal and spatial scales deemed necessary for assessing environmental effects, do little to facilitate the sharing of understanding about environmental issues. Whilst individual appreciations of an issue often embody valuable knowledge, the assumptions on which that knowledge is founded are rarely exposed for scrutiny by others. In other words, we usually take our “way of seeing” for granted (Morgan, 1986). In group situations, the natural tendency of individuals seems to gravitate towards defending rather than challenging their positions on issues being discussed (Argyris, 1993). If stakeholders are to learn from each other’s perspectives then defending without questioning an individual position must be discouraged as a behavioural norm (Senge, 1990).

Facilitating a Spirit of Inquiry In face-to-face stakeholder dialogue, a workshop facilitator can take on responsibility for creating and maintaining conditions which encourage assumptions to be surfaced and judgements likely to invoke unquestioning, defensive behaviour to be postponed. With their focus on the process rather than the content of proceedings, facilitators can use a range of techniques to help them foster an appropriate “spirit of inquiry” (Senge, 1990).

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn For instance, in group situations the simple rule of encouraging “yes, and how ...” rather than “yes, but ...” can help suspend premature judgement and the defense routines it triggers so that an idea or position can be articulated more fully (Rickards, 1990). Other techniques include recording perceptions of key problems as goal-oriented statements (“How to ...”). This format encourages stakeholders to present the problems they see in a positive way, which can encourage others to suggest possible solutions.

Capturing these under the rules of

brainstorming (where judgement is postponed) and making them visible to all, can help participants to see quickly the problems which other stakeholders face and the part they might play in possible solutions (Rickards, 1990).

Individual or group mapping exercises can

encourage participants to identify pathways through which they believe significant change manifests itself in their everyday lives. For instance, for a particular phenomena of concern, factors believed to give rise to it can be elicited and possible implications can be highlighted. Linkages or pathways between these can reveal perceived agencies of change, their interactions and the spatio-temporal scales at which those interactions take place (Lemon and Longhurst, 1996). With sensitivity to the risk of triggering defense routines, facilitators can reinforce regular questioning of underlying assumptions in all these activities by promoting reflection with prompts such as “Can you explain what makes you say that ?” (see Senge, 1990). Chris Argyris (1993) calls this “left-hand columning”, revealing the assumptions and workings-inthe-margin which underpin statements made.

The strength of these techniques lies in revealing diverse perceptions of the ‘same’ issue in order that some level of consensus about the complex nature of that issue may be reached. They offer a way to bring together a diverse network of individuals so that each can learn from the others. However, recognizing and appreciating different “frames of reference” (Swaffield, 1998) that are in play in a meeting stops short of engaging the holders of those frames in

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn exploring changes that go beyond minor refinements to the status quo. A potential source of techniques for facilitating more radical exploration of possibilities for collective action lies in the literature of creative thinking, particularly in the branch termed Synectics - a word derived from Greek, meaning “the joining together of different and apparently irrelevant elements” (Gordon, 1961, p. 3).

Metaphor and Synectics William Gordon describes Synectics as a deliberate attempt “to make the familiar strange” in order that creative suggestions on a way forward can emerge, adding that “[p]lay with metaphor is one of the most fruitful of the mechanisms which can be used to make the familiar strange.” (ibid., p. 31). The potential of metaphor as a technique for revealing novel insights is well recognized within literature on creativity (Morgan, 1993). For instance, deliberately seeking a metaphor for a problem on which a group has become stuck features strongly within Tudor Rickards’ suggestions for “creative analysis” (1990). Whilst metaphor frames avenues of inquiry in environmental management, understanding of its influence and potential as a tool is still being explored (see Jeffrey, 1996 and Swaffield 1998).

When used as a tool in

facilitated stakeholder dialogue, alongside the “spirit of inquiry” techniques described earlier, it appears to offer significant potential for building shared understanding of possible futures. It is the combination of the two that we call Creative Dialogue.

In the reflective practice tradition of action-research, a grounded appreciation of the techniques of Creative Dialogue was gained by facilitating a series of air quality workshops as part of the air quality response in Bedfordshire.

The process of networking (described earlier) had

revealed a diverse range of individuals - from different agencies and departments - who had the

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn potential to make a difference to Bedfordshire’s air quality. These individuals did not have a history of co-operation, so the workshops offered a chance to alert them to the possibilites of a network response. Our experiments, with the techniques of Creative Dialogue, to engage that network of individuals in a process of learning are now described.

Applying the Techniques Using the response to the draft National Air Quality Strategy as an initial focus, a list of attendees was drawn up including representatives from relevant departments in the County Council and surrounding Boroughs; the Environment Agency; and members of the public involved in Local Agenda 211 and transport groups. About twenty invitations to consider “our local response” were sent out at short notice and a surprisingly high level of acceptance (almost 100%) was achieved for the initial event which comprised two half-day workshops, a week apart. The decision to split the event enabled each workshop to adopt a distinct flavour and provided scope for reflection and responsive planning in between. The overall aim for the first workshop was to reveal diverse perceptions and to think creatively; the ambitious aim for the second was to converge on a shared vision of ways forward. These intentions were communicated to participants at the start of the event.

Workshop#1: Divergence The priority for the first workshop was to establish the “spirit of inquiry” described earlier. The event opened with a ‘warm-up’ session in which participants’ ideas for uses of a wooden spatula were captured on flip-charts. This deliberately-irrelevant exercise provided an ‘ice-

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn breaker’ and, more importantly, enabled the facilitator to establish behavioural norms for the group in a light atmosphere, encouraging creative behaviour and discouraging critical or defensive behaviour. After a break, participants were invited to identify “How to ...” problemstatements that defined the air quality issue as they saw it. Almost one hundred different suggestions were recorded - frequently one participant’s idea would spark several others. These problem-statements were then reviewed and suggestions regarding helpful clusters were captured.

These clusters were then used to identify four key problems about which

participants hoped to make creative suggestions: • How to empower the public ? • How to establish risk and know what to do about it ? • How to target our efforts on air quality ? • How to manage when you’re being pulled in different directions ?”

After some debate the workshop chose to focus first on “How to target our efforts on air quality ?” A number of suggestions were forthcoming and, with occasional interventions from the facilitator, participants listened carefully to these, occasionally asking for clarification on points they had not understood. After about fifteen minutes, contributions began to dry up and the facilitator invited suggestions on a metaphor for the problem being considered.

The

metaphor of targeting a weapon was chosen and a host of suggestions was recorded. The facilitator then invited participants to bring these ideas back to the problem at hand. An observation about biological weapons, for instance, sparked a debate about how the public could be ‘infected’ with air quality and health messages:

1

Local Agenda 21 is a response from local authorities and local communities in the UK to Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 document signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. In effect, it seeks to empower communities to

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn [] It’s got to be like a biological weapon so that the effects spread [] Shrapnel ? [] What about something that’s constructive rather than destructive ... [] Do I need to keep firing this thing ? ... or does it have a knock-on effect that’s self perpetuating [] You need to soften ‘em up as well, you need to ... [] Propaganda ? [] If we changed biological weapons to biological infection, then we can talk about infecting populations with a good idea [] I can see some mileage there [] You’re getting close to the true model because, in fact, the danger with some of this stuff is the idea that you can fire a missile onto a target that’s conveniently sitting there waiting to be hit and that’s it really ... because our problem is people really isn’t it and their behaviour ? ... [] Aha ... Resistance builds up !

All suggestions were recorded and a similar exercise was then undertaken for the problem of “How to manage when you’re being pulled in opposite directions ?”. An extract is shown below which illustrates, amongst other things, the difficulty of describing pertinent causal links between transport and air quality:

[] ... Well we’ve got a dichotomy haven’t we ... [] That’s on the basis of current assumptions. If we change [transport] technology, the problem doesn’t exist any more

take ownership for sustainable development issues at a local level.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn [] ... The priority of air quality is just not as high ... what seems to be on top is the car - can these people access that development by car ? That comes way before air quality. The priority is wrong. [] Well, in fairness, in theory ... it’s accessibility. I mean what we’ve got is a society that demands increasing accessibility and I agree with you, at the moment that means cars [Fac] So if you focus beyond the problem - there it’s not the car it’s accessibility - it’s that which moves things on ? [] I think further to what [X] was saying, you look for a solution where both sides win ...

The following extract (taken from the same debate) demonstrates how brainstorming the metaphorical problem sparked practical suggestions for how to deal with present air quality dilemmas:

[Fac] ... coming back to the mental picture of being pulled in two different directions, any other ways you can think of coping ? [] Decide to go one way or the other ... [] Toss a coin [] Review your resources [] I thought the idea of coin tossing was a good one. In other words, use something that’s not involved to help you decide - a third party, for instance ...

Again, all suggestions were recorded and the workshop closed after about two-and-a-half hours.

Formal evaluation undertaken at the end of the first workshop indicated that

participants had enjoyed the opportunity to explore different perspectives, but felt that the

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn number of ideas revealed in the session meant convergence on meaningful action would be unlikely the following week.

Workshop#2: Convergence In the period before the second workshop, reduced copies of all materials generated in the first workshop were communicated as an aide-mémoire to all participants, together with an invitation to review the draft NAQS (National Air Quality Strategy) and to consider the relative importance of stakeholders involved in Bedfordshire’s air quality. Only a limited number of participants chose to perform the stakeholder analysis exercise but everyone seemed to have read the NAQS when the second workshop commenced. This became obvious in the opening session in which a range of constructive suggestions for improving the NAQS was collected, including:

“Pull together other air quality information, eg Radiological Board data ... Focus explicitly on indoor as well as outdoor air quality ... Provide more guidance on the status of modelling tools ... Use specific taxation to fund monitoring and research ... Include statements on the link with Local Agenda 21 ...”

After allowing some general discussion about air quality management in Bedfordshire to develop in the context of the NAQS, Senge’s (1990) concept of “leverage” was then introduced by the facilitator. The workshop divided into two smaller groups to consider which of the problems highlighted in the first workshop could be influenced by carefully-applied but relatively small, local actions. Each of the “How to” problem-statements from the previous

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn week had been transferred to cards which groups were invited to organize into YES, NO and MAYBE piles, depending on consensus about the possibility of a small action having a big effect. At the end of the exercise a spokesperson for each group shared observations on their efforts with participants from the other group. An extract is shown below:

[Fac] ... any general themes that came out ? Is there any one in particular where a small action would have a big effect ? [Grp 1] I guess legislation [Grp 2] Yes [Grp 1] Where legislation was actually stated in the “How to” - in other words it was already happening - then we agreed that legislation was going to achieve a lot ... and on the contrary, those where we though that we weren’t going to achieve anything were those where the “How to”s required a change in the legislation. Because these are similarly important, ... we came to the conclusion that legislation was the most important thing. But the NOs are actually how to get the changes in the legislation .... [Grp 1] Cards relating to education ... were sort of on the YES pile ... [Grp 2] We came to that conclusion as well - that education was a lever ...

The facilitator then invited the whole group to suggest local resources or decision-making structures that could be utilized to achieve actions identified as levers. Suggestions for several institutions and agencies were noted, including voluntary groups, bus companies, General Practitioners and schools.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Participants were then invited to work with their earlier groups to define a small, workable project that would improve air quality in Bedfordshire. The template of soft systems root definitions (see Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990) was introduced to structure project proposals.

These were employed specifically to surface assumptions about what

needed to be done, how, why and who would be involved. (See Brown and MacLeod, 1996, for other observations on the potential of soft systems for environmental management). One group made two suggestions. Their first was a project coordinated by the green business network (a forum for promoting environmentally-sensitive business practice) to encourage local businesses to consider flexible working arrangements. Their second was a project to increase the frequency of emissions monitoring for taxis and private hire vehicles. The other group suggested a project to establish a novel community transport scheme which they hoped would become a model for other areas. Whilst these projects were relatively small, they opened participants’ eyes to possibilities for co-ordinated action involving a network of major actors.

Collaboration between representatives from different agencies within the meeting

appeared in stark contrast to what had gone before.

Informal evaluation undertaken at the end of the second workshop indicated positive feelings towards the process. Participants seemed “pleasantly surprised” that “things hadn’t gone down the usual rat-runs” and that some projects had been identified which appeared both desirable and feasible. When asked what had made the strongest impression on them in the event, several participants (independently of one another) drew attention to a particular incident. In the first workshop, a flip-chart had been placed so that arriving participants could sign in. Without the prompt of headings, each chose to write both their name and their position upon it. significant:

It was the facilitator’s reference to this, that participants regarded as

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

[Fac] ... Now, one of the key things in writing down your name and position over there [motions towards the flip-chart by the entrance] was that you have symbolically left your positions on that piece of paper; you can just bring your experience and insight into today’s debate ...

Feedback suggested that participants recognized their formal roles to be constraining but such recognition did not make it easy to get beyond them. Positive feelings towards the Creative Dialogue process related to the opportunity it had provided to “step outside of” day-to-day role constraints. In Peter Senge’s language, the techniques had gone some way towards mitigating the “learning disability” of “I am my position” (ibid.). However, most participants agreed that actions to be taken when stepping back into role needed careful thought. A list of immediate actions was not obvious, although the importance of inter-agency collaboration (which had reached unprecedented levels for many of the workshop participants) was widely acknowledged.

Workshop #3: Sharing Mental Models Relationships between participants from different agencies which had been forged in the initial workshops were subsequently built upon in an event designed to integrate data sets and knowledge of processes relating to air quality, transport and health. The workshops and the networking which had preceded them, had demonstrated that a network of relevant individuals could be brought together to discuss air quality. Several of those individuals felt inspired to take things further, so they made arrangements to pool available data with a view to recognising patterns therein and sharing individual appreciations of the processes underlying

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn those patterns. A Geographical Information System was loaded with data sets supplied by the different stakeholder groups and its visualization features were used to provide stimulus for debate. Large maps of the Bedfordshire region were generated using colour variations to denote intensity of readings - for instance, areas with high incidences of respiratory hospitalizations appeared in red; areas of low intensity appeared in green.

These maps

provided a focus for discussion of apparent patterns. Factors highlighted as significant in the course of discussion were recorded on flip-charts. Participants were then invited to articulate how they believed these factors to be connected. This approach has many similarities with the techniques of Cognitive Mapping, developed by Colin Eden and colleagues (Eden, 1988), and described below by Swan: “The approach starts with the premise that action arises out of people’s interpretation of the meaning of situations, and that the same situation can be interpreted differently by different individuals. Producing a cognitive map for the individual will facilitate that person’s understanding of their own meaning system and enable them to see areas where they might be able to change or influence events. The person will be able to reflect upon their own system of interacting concepts that make up the problem area being addressed. Individual maps for the group of people are then merged. The aim of the merged map is to produce a facilitative device that promotes psychological negation among the members of the group so that they can come to a consensus on the definition of the problem, key concepts relating to the problem, relationships among these concepts, and areas of strategic intervention.” (Swan, 1995, p. 1265)

The range and interconnectivity of factors revealed during the workshop is illustrated by a composite cognitive map constructed to summarize similarities in individual models of underlying processes shared during the meeting. Figure 1 represents this map - the ‘A’s and

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn ‘B’s simply denote links mentioned in the meeting which proved too difficult to connect in the diagram; they should be read as if they were linked - ie. one ‘A’ should be connected to the other ‘A’. The composite map is less a ‘map of’, and more a ‘map for’. It is primarily a vehicle for encouraging consideration of how one assumed domain of responsibility is interlinked with others. In short, it is a map for reinforcing the importance of inter-agency collaboration; it is an emergent outcome of the process of networking to learn in Bedfordshire.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

distribution of work, shops, homes, schools, leisure ... business purchasing policies

demand for transporting goods

education where people live

lifestyle

(un)employment

media demand for individuals’ resources personal travel & priorities for allocating them

perceived risks (safety, crime, delays ...) perceived attractiveness of transport alternatives

travel via particular modes of transport

revenue for transport operators resources allocated to improving particular transport networks

household income quality of people’s living environments

car ownership

nature & use of domestic heating

individual smoking health circumstances personal exposure to health risks

B

residential risk factors

transport pollution B

traffic coverage, comfort, cost & convenience management of transport networks schemes

incidents of respiratory illness distribution of air quality

distribution of travel (traffic densities ...) experiences of travel A

vehicle operating efficiency & duration of travel

more informed diagnosis

lie of the land, climate & vegetation

perceived attractiveness of neighbourhoods distribution of employment opportunities

distribution of polluting industry

commercial decisions to locate industry, business, shops, retail parks, new homes, etc.. local transport/planning/development policy

respiratory hospitalisations & treatment

research resources for need for social A health care services support demands on government funds

calls for action

central government guidance (NAQS, PPGs,... etc)

Figure 1 Key factors and their interconnections highlighted in an air quality, transport and health workshop (Stubbs, 1998, p. 236)

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Facilitating the Workshops Throughout the workshops a range of facilitation techniques was employed to build and sustain an appropriate atmosphere for discussing the complex and often emotive problems of air quality management. Activities were structured to ensure a balance between reducing complexity to facilitate action within a stakeholder role, and revealing complexity to facilitate reflection upon the appropriateness of such actions and roles. Critical reflection on experience gained from the workshops led to a grounded formulation of the concept of Creative Dialogue. This focused attention on: •

maintaining an open spirit of reflective inquiry;

•

surfacing and exploring each others’ mental models and;

•

working together with imagination.

The last attribute was phrased with deliberate ambiguity to invoke the special way in which creative thinking techniques were used at both an individual and group level. Individuals were encouraged to work together with their respective imaginations and the group as a whole was encouraged to work together in an imaginative way.

Nurturing an Emergent Response Critical appreciation of the interests, concerns and capacities for action of different stakeholder groups, gained through Networking and Creative Dialogue, helped hone a Sense of Audience for those touched by the issue under investigation. However, that Sense of Audience both emerged from and drove the processes of Networking and Creative Dialogue. These concepts and the interconnections between them can be represented as constituent parts of a larger process brought into focus by the study’s central interest in responses to complex,

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn transboundary issues. When the case is viewed in these terms it becomes apparent that the outcome of that larger process is an adaptive response network. In effect, this is a virtual organization of stakeholder representatives with an enhanced capacity for ‘joined-up thinking’. The emergence of this response is shown diagrammatically below:

Context Issues

Content Stakeholders

Response Networks

Process Creative Dialogue Networking Sense of Audience

Forming adaptive networks

Figure 2 Process Overview (Stubbs, 1998, p.250)

Comparing experiences from the case with integrated responses described elsewhere (particularly, Born and Sonzogni, 1995; Haney and Power, 1996 and Selin and Chavez, 1995), it is possible to identify those individuals involved in the response network by their shared vision of an adaptive management response to the issues at hand. In other words, their actions demonstrated their commitment to the ideal of learning to manage and managing to learn. However, at any moment, such individuals could be more or less central to the core of a response to the pressing issue. In some cases, relationships between them were made more

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn durable through investments in joint information systems and jointly-funded job roles. In others, temporary arrangements were established for mutual benefit in the form of projects that sought responses to transboundary issues informed by diverse perspectives.

Initial Discussion When the adaptive response network is presented in this way it is clear that there is an inevitable tension between the virtual organization and the stakeholder groups in which it is anchored. Within this tension lies the capacity for redirecting the actions, resources and norms of constituent groups. Understanding contributed by each can shape action taken by the others, but if the agenda of the adaptive response network becomes hijacked by a powerful stakeholder group so that it mirrors their own, then the network may fragment as other groups cease to participate. Whether the creative tension that provides the transformative capacity of an adaptive response network can be sustained seems largely to depend upon the skills and determination of those individuals who provide a ‘bridge’ between the stakeholder groups and the adaptive response network. This points the way to new avenues of inquiry which focus attention upon the challenge of operationalizing adaptive management at an actor-network rather than organisational level. We will return to this research agenda in our conclusions.

Summarizing the Case In order to highlight key relations between the concepts that have been introduced, we will now summarize in diagrammatic form the case-study (Figure 3) and the tensions to which it points (Figure 4).

Taken together, these diagrams illustrate the ideas, opportunities and

challenges that we recognized in our foray into the territory of virtual organization and hope to call to mind with the phrase: ‘learning to network and networking to learn’.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

Figure 3 portrays how an adaptive response network emerged through a process involving Networking and Creative Dialogue. This process was informed by, and led to, an increasingly acute Sense of Audience for those touched by the focal issue of air quality. In other words, each participant became more aware of how the issue appeared to other individuals. Obvious similarities in agendas, resource capacities and behavioural norms, enacted in daily routines, provided an effective means to categorize individuals into stakeholder groups2.

As each

group’s horizon of interest brought issues other than air quality into focus, the diagram reflects how the issue of air quality defined stakeholders, yet these stakeholders also defined other complex issues, e.g. social deprivation.

Indications that stakeholder representatives had

organized themselves into a precarious, transboundary collective are conceptualized as attributes of an adaptive response network. The diagram emphasizes how this precarious network response was apparent in: • a shared vision of adaptive management, • a durable core of network brokers and information infrastructure which supported stakeholder representatives engaged in particular projects, and • a set of loose affiliations which seemed likely to take on greater importance in the future.

2

The inspiration for this categorization lies in mechanisms through which divisions in society become pronounced, highlighted by the sociologist, Anthony Giddens (1984).

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

Context Issues

Content Stakeholders

can define

can organise

Shared vision learning to manage & managing to learn

priorities Dynamic complexity processes interactions

horizon

Response Networks

worldview Agenda

Durable core brokers & information infrastructure

representations & representatives

Process Creative Dialogue facilitating a spirit of inquiry surfacing & exploring mental models working together with imagination

Resources

data

Norms

culture

expertise agency

drivers

Open, collaborative projects focusing on leverage & intuition making interventions ‘in-tune’ working with diversity

Loose associations flexibility from weak ties gatekeepers

Networking discerning the network maintaining relationships brokering deals

Sense of Audience reflexivity & thinking of the other

Forming adaptive networks

Figure 3 The process of forming an adaptive response network (Stubbs, 1998, p. 270)

Tension between participation in this network and participation in its constituent stakeholder lifeworlds is highlighted in Figure 4. The notion of different ‘planes’ is used to emphasize the stepping in and out of role which participation in the response network required. In this way, the annotated image of two planes in creative tension highlights opportunities and challenges for thinking global and acting local apparent in the case.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

Adaptive response network plane Shared vision Durable core Open, collaborative projects Loose Associations

horizon

horizon

worldview Agenda

Resources data expertise agency

worldview Agenda

Resources data expertise agency

priorities

Norms

Stakeholder plane

priorities

Norms

culture

drivers horizon

culture

drivers

priorities

worldview Agenda

Resources data expertise agency

Norms

culture

drivers

Emergent complex issues

Figure 4 Tension between stakeholder groups and an adaptive response network (Stubbs, 1998, p. 267)

Reflection and Conclusions Resonance is readily apparent between concepts developed through this air quality actionresearch project and McLain and Lee’s (1996) “new adaptive management”.

“...scientific adaptive management relies excessively on the use of linear systems models, discounts non-scientific forms of knowledge, and pays inadequate attention to policy processes that promote the development of shared understanding between diverse stakeholders. To be effective, new adaptive management efforts will need to

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn incorporate knowledge from multiple sources, make use of multiple systems models, and support new forms of cooperation among stakeholders.” (McLain and Lee 1996, p. 437)

However, rather than sketching a broad picture of the characteristics of adaptive management, using brief examples to illustrate each of those characteristics, the process theory developed in this study has provided a rich account of how adaptive responses can be fostered on the ground, offering sensitizing concepts on both a strategic and an interpersonal level. In this way, findings from the study complement, rather than overturn recent work on adaptive management (eg. Imperial and others, 1993; Haney and Power, 1996; and Smith and others, 1998). Of central importance to the arguments which initiated this paper is the fact that the theory formulated to transfer insights from the air quality case (Figure 3) is framed in terms of the organization of adaptive response networks, rather than organizations in a bounded-entity sense. The Action-Research Approach In some ways, action-research (like that described here) can be considered a high-risk strategy for furthering understanding. Its success rests on a researcher’s ability to read, to reflect upon, and to articulate a continually emerging situation in which she or he is an active participant. Projects which reflect upon experimental action provide a unique source of insight, but actionresearchers must be conscious that their efforts might be seen as untested meddling. Pretending that serious research can be distanced from this would most likely be dishonest. There is probably an element of action-research in all studies which concern people - even if the study is executed without anyone’s awareness, its findings will have some effect (Giddens,

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn 1984). What differs in research for and about people is the extent to which such effects are given explicit consideration. As Schön observes:

“In the organizational context, the quest for objectivity, in the sense of freedom from influence by the research process, is probably hopeless. A more appropriate kind of objectivity has to do with the researcher’s awareness of his or her effect on others.” (1983, p. 127)

In this paper, we have highlighted the importance of a sense of audience, for both practitioners and researchers. Reflexive awareness of how actions are felt by others inspires learning. The iterative model of continually refining understanding through experimentation, comparison and reflection fits well with the ethos of Adaptive Management. Indeed, the circular nature of our research efforts had obvious similarities to the challenges faced by the practitioners with whom we were working (Figure 5).

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

appreciation of the phenomenon being investigated

agenda for guiding interaction with informants

strategy for choosing sources with which to interact

Figure 5 An inter-linked research process (Stubbs, 1998, p. 301)

The guiding vision of making a useful difference, coupled with a ‘disciplined scientific imagination’ (Blaikie, 1993) and the impetus of developing an acute sense of audience and potentially-enlightening theory, helped transform our research process from a viscious cycle to a virtuous one (Senge, 1990). But, in so doing, knowing when to stop became problematic. Here, Grounded Theory’s notion of “theoretical saturation” offered some counsel (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1992). In simple terms, it says stop if further effort is unlikely to yield new theoretical insights; stop when the story has become clear. For us, a story had become apparent of how a diverse group of individuals in Bedfordshire began networking to learn and learning to network. It is that story we have sought to share, hoping to create impetus for our next research efforts as we learn how that story is received. The way we have told it and the things which appear within it - networking, metaphor techniques,

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn creative dialogue, and so on - are the results of continual movement between the field and the literature. This, our emphasis on sense of audience, our interest in alternative critiques of apparent realities through metaphor, and our noun and verb views of organization, are manifestations of our philosophy of “think of the other”. We see this as part of a broader call for reflexivity and imagination in the turbulent, pluralist world of environmental management where diversity and complexity are necessarily simplified (by labels, such as science and management), but the act of simplification often disappears.

When we think how things might have been done differently in our action-research, we note that effort must be invested in getting-in, getting-on and getting-out - there are lessons to be learned from each stage. With hindsight we realise that we did not do justice to the latter, and will attempt to address this in future.

We would encourage other action-researchers,

particularly those who adopt the role of process facilitators, to be conscious of all three stages.

Further Work We are not alone in trying to break the captive hold that formal notions of organization threaten to exert on integrated adaptive management initiatives. Born and Sonzogni, for instance, emphasize how the ...

“interactive/coordinative dimension of Integrated Environmental Management is interorganizational and intergovernmental ..., but must extend beyond those formal networks to embrace directly and indirectly affected interests.” (1996, p. 172).

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn In this paper we have offered an account of how such extension was fostered in a particular response to issues of air quality. The theory representing this account (Figure 3) has been crafted so that it could be taken as a tentative model for how such extension might be fostered elsewhere and we would welcome feedback from any who choose to interpret it in this way. Our account stops short of providing a theory of how adaptive response networks can be sustained when the human bridges between them and their constituent stakeholder lifeworlds are most likely under considerable strain (Figure 4). This limitation could be addressed by new, more personal studies of how individuals attempt to reconcile the holistic principles of adaptive management with its bias for action. As one senior manager in the Environment Agency involved with the Bedfordshire air quality response put it:

“the talk ‘round here is how do we take the blinkers off and still keep our eye on the ball ?”

For us, this new research agenda is congruent with the mindscape conjured up by the phrase ‘Learning to Network and Networking to Learn’, for we believe learning to be inextricably bound to action. However, an agenda framed in terms of actor-networks (see, for instance, Law, 1994) might help to avoid the bounded-entity thinking that could otherwise constrain ideas about the right organization for adaptive management.

From our philosophical standpoint we find it impossible to make sense of the world other than through mental images and constructs invoked by words like ‘organization’. However, this does not preclude us from suggesting that some of these are better than others for dealing with particular sets of problems. Whilst environmental issues are generally regarded as dynamic, it is the static, noun or bounded-entity sense of the word organization which often overshadows

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn its more dynamic, verb or process sense of organizing. For this reason, we prefer to talk about how an adaptive network of individuals can be facilitated in their efforts to think global and act local. Ultimately, organizations can neither think nor act; so, for us, dynamic actor-networks have more appeal as a unit of analysis for considering ways of putting adaptive management principles into practice. We hope that our case study and our arguments will serve to stimulate fresh ideas about how this can be achieved.

Literature Cited Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Blaikie, N. 1993. Approaches to social enquiry. Polity Press, Cambridge. Born, S.M., and W.C. Sonzogni. 1995. Integrated environmental management: strengthening the conceptualization. Environmental Management 19: 167-181. Brown, J.R., and N.D. MacLeod. 1996. Integrating ecology into natural resource management policy. Environmental Management 20: 289-296. Checkland, P.B. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Checkland, P.B., and J. Scholes. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Crance, C., and D. Draper. 1996. Socially cooperative choices: an approach to achieving resource sustainability in the coastal zone. Environmental Management 20:175-184. Eden, C. 1988. Cognitive Mapping - A Review. European Journal of Operation Research. 36:1-13. Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Gordon. W.J.J. 1961. Synectics: the development of creative capacity. Coller-Macmillan, London. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society, outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge. Hadfield, L., and G. Cannibal. 1996. An integrated investigation into the scientific and social aspects of air quality management: understanding the whole picture. Paper presented at the Interdisciplinary Environmental Conference in Boston, US. Haney, A., and R. Power. 1996. Adaptive management for sound ecosystem management. Environmental Management. 20:879-886. Imperial, M.T., T. Hennessey, and D. Robadue. 1993. The evolution of adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: the national estuary program and its precursors. Ocean and Coastal Management 20:147-180. Jeffrey, P. 1996. Evolutionary analogies & sustainability. Futures, 28:173-187. Kanter, R.M. 1994. Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, July-August:96-108. Law, J. 1994. Organizing modernity. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Lemon, M. and P. Longhurst. 1996. Toward a conceptual framework for environmental education. In: 3rd International Conference in Environmental Impact Assessment, 23rd-26th September, Prague. Vol. 1 Proceedings:167-175. McLain, R.J. and R.G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20:437-448. Mitroff, I.I. and Linstone, H.A. 1993. The unbounded mind: breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. Oxford University Press, New York. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Sage, London. Morgan, G. 1993. Imaginization: the art of creative management. Sage, London.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne, and T. Boydell. 1991. The learning company: a strategy for sustainable development. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. Rickards, T. 1990. Creative problem solving at work. Gower Publishing, Aldershot. Schön, D. 1983. ‘Organizational Learning’. In: Morgan, G. Beyond method. Sage, California, 114-128. Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19:189-195. Senge, P. 1990. The Vth disicpline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Century Business Press, London. Smith, C.L., J. Gilden, B.S. Steel, and K. Mrakovcich. 1998. Sailing the shoals of adaptive management: the case of salmon in the pacific northwest. Environmental Management 22:671-681. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, London. Stubbs, M. 1998. Dealing with complex issues: networking, creative dialogue and a sense of audience in environmental management. PhD Thesis, Cranfield University. Swaffield, S. 1998. Frames of reference: a metaphor for analyzing and interpreting attitudes of environmental policy makers and policy influencers.

Environmental Management

22:495-504. Swan, J.A. 1995. Exploring knowledge and cognitions in decisions about technological innovation: mapping managerial cognitions. Human Relations 48.11:1241-1270. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

Note: Stratification of Local Governance in England In the United Kingdom central government controls many of the activities of local government. Local government is enacted through a (broadly) hierarchical system of councils, but there is regional variation in the way that councils operate. Systems in Scotland and Wales, for instance, are different from one another, and from England. (http://www.local.gov.uk provides details). Although other systems operate in England, the case study area of Bedfordshire is a Shire County, so its hierarchy of councils is best understood in terms of the table shown below (Table 1). The County’s main settlement, Bedford, has special status. Its council carries the ceremonial title of Borough to indicate that it has a royal charter. In English Shire Counties the powers of a Borough are equivalent to those of a District council.

Council Hierarchy in Bedfordshire: • County Council • District Councils and Bedford Borough Council ... • Parish Councils ... Table 1 Council Hierarchy in Bedfordshire

Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of all those working together to improve Bedfordshire’s air quality, particularly Paul Vann of Bedfordshire County Council, and Barry Williams of Bedford Borough Council.