A reflection on research design and methodologies used in the social learning literature
- Authors: Rodela, Romina , Cundill, Georgina , Wals, Arjen
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , report
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/436584 , vital:73284 , ISBN 978-1-919991-81-8 , 10.13140/2.1.1855.3285
- Description: This paper reviews the social learning research literature related to natu-ral resources management. It provides an overview of the social learning discourse and then comments on methodologies used by social learning researchers. The present study is part of an activity that looked at the so-cial learning methodological agenda. As such it is a companion study to the analysis reported in Rodela, Cundill and Wals (under review) where aspects of knowledge production and validation in social learning re-search were considered. The present analysis adds to this a deconstruc-tion of the research designs used and a reflection on methodologies that can best support the study of learning processes in a natural resource management context.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
A search for coherence: Social learning in natural resource management
- Authors: Cundill, Georgina , Rodela, Romina
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , report
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/436597 , vital:73285 , ISBN 978-1-919991-81-8 , https://transformativelearning.education/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/reviews-on-social-learning-literature.pdf
- Description: This paper presents the results of a review process that sought to disen-tangle the different ways in which social learning is conceptualised in nat-ural resource management. We begin with an historical review that seeks to reveal the roots of social learning theory in natural resource manage-ment. Based on this analysis, we develop typologies of statements about the processes that support social learning, and the outcomes of these processes. We then conduct a systematic review of the literature to as-sess the extent to which there is an emerging consensus around these typologies. We conclude that a key source of the confusion currently prevalent in the literature, stems from the fact that the same term is used to refer to quite different processes, which have different outcomes as their goal. To find our way out of the current confusion in the literature, researchers must be explicit about the definitions that they adopt for so-cial learning, and locate these definitions within the historical develop-ment of thinking around social learning in this field. Active debate about appropriate definitions for social learning, based on empirical studies and experience, should form the basis of this field of research in the coming years.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012