Social Learning: Methods Matter but Facilitation and Supportive Context Are Key—Insights from Water Governance in Sweden

Abstract

This paper analyses and discusses how and to what extent social learning (SL), as a means to address complex adaptive problems in water governance, can be enabled in local and regional multi-stakeholder collaborations. Using a multi-method, qualitative, collaborative, and self-reflective case study design, the conditions, challenges, and enablers for SL were studied, comparing three complementary cases of voluntary multi-actor platforms (water councils) to improve water quality in West Sweden. These councils were established to foster the implementation of the Water Frame Directive and—on a voluntary basis without a formal decision mandate or responsibility—to implement measures or act. Using participant observation, evaluation workshops, and a survey, the methods employed by the councils, which were founded on trust-based approaches, were assessed based on how they contributed to trust and social learning. Observed outcomes included an increased number of participants, sub-projects, local water groups, and measures. Respondents mentioned better dialogue, higher commitment, and broader knowledge as positive outcomes. Based on this, we conclude that there is a need for neutral spaces for meetings led by process facilitators, enabling cross-sectorial and cross-level exchanges, a process which is not common in Swedish water management.

Exploring enablers and obstacles to policy‐oriented learning in Swedish marine national park planning

“…Establishing what is below the surface in terms of ecosystem characteristics and human impacts is key to problem‐solving in marine conservation. Many forums in the Koster Sea case show resemblances to the professional forums discussed in policy research (Weible & Nohrstedt, 2013) and to the deliberative practises of collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Bächtiger et al, 2010; Reed et al, 2018) and social learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Prutzer et al, 2021; Wenger et al, 2002). Accordingly, the results show how policy‐oriented learning across coalitions in national park planning was facilitated by the existence of forums where actors from different coalitions could meet and discuss based on reliable knowledge.…”

“…; Cicin‐Sain, 1992; Fisher et al, 1991; Morf, 2006). This requires trust, building open and equal interaction over a longer time with special attention to the process and related facilitation skills (Prutzer et al, 2021; Senecah, 2004). Moreover, both interests and escalation may vary across groups, requiring a differentiated and iterative approach (Bloomfield, 1997) and thinking beyond conservation (Morf et al, 2017).…”

“…This study draws primarily on policy research, adopting the concept of policyoriented learning (Sabatier, 1988;Weible & Nohrstedt, 2013) to describe the presence and absence of belief change and the convergence of beliefs among actors in the national park planning processes studied (Sandström et al, 2021; see also Lundmark et al, 2018). Similar ideas about the essence and outcomes of learning are elaborated in research on conflict management (Fisher et al, 1991;Madden & McQuinn, 2014), collaboration (Ansell & Gash, 2007), participation (Reed et al, 2018) and social learning (Prutzer et al, 2021;Sol et al, 2013). Insights from these fields have been used to construct the analytical framework and discuss the results.…”

Multi-Actor Platforms in the Water–Agriculture Nexus: Synergies and Long-Term Meaningful Engagement

“…In accordance with Sabatier et al's view [35] that successful collaborative approaches require varied strategies for meaningful engagement, these cases illustrate the use of techniques such as identifying win-win solutions, acknowledging farmer's problems, and knowledge-based and collaborative learning. Prutzer et al [63] argued that, to meet the multitude of obstacles to collaboration and trust, in processes with social learning ambitions, a supportive context is key. In accordance with this argument are the studies that show that active and visible platform coordinators and making use of a diversity of strategies are important for the development of trust and for supportive engagement approaches [1,46,64].…”