A Learning History of Low Carbon Innovation in Local Authorities

Learning History 'small group' work starts with Bath and NE Somerset Council

Working with Learning Histories at Bath & NE Somerset Council.

A cross-department group of officers from Bath & NE Somerset Council (BANES) have been brought together to participate in the research. The group will meet periodically and work in different ways with the Learning Histories asking what learnings are relevant to their own organisation. 

This is an exciting development for the research which has been exploring different ways of working with Learning Histories and assessing which approaches are optimal for inspiring and cultivating a culture of innovation. 

Single workshop events, such as the 2008 February workshop,  are inspiring but occur as a once-off; individual 1:1 work such as that carried out with Thurstan is empowering for the individual but is solitary and lacks support back in the organisation. The 'small group' work is collective and iterative and so offers real potential for deepening learning over time.

A series of 4 seminars organised around the Learning History work started in June 2008.

Theme 3: Culture & Mindset - in a nutshell?

Asked what enables or inhibits innovating for carbon reduction, participants in the research brainstormed and clustered their responses into 13 themes that seem to be important. 

Of these 13 themes, by far the most populated was this one....

  

Theme 3: Culture & Mindset

I've been looking at this poster again these past few days as I prepare to do more work with Learning Histories at a local council. I wanted to get the essence of what was on there. What key learning message/action point did it convey about the culture for innovation? 

So, to start with, I listed and categorised all the stickies that were on there into enabling factors (+) and inhibitors (-).

This led to the following list:

Blockers

Risk

- Risk aversion (coupled with lack of knowledge) x 2

- Distracted, dis-interested & risk averse senior management

- Fear of Failure

- Fear of unknown territory - leads to inaction

- Lack of belief in making change happen

Competition vs Collaboration

- Competition by ego rather than co-operation/collaboration

- Too many egos (senior officers)

- Breakdown in political concensus

- Territorial silo mentality - competition

- Confused public : sceptics, behaviour change

Organisational Culture

- Habit, routine, institutional inertia

- Inward-facing nature of Local Authorities

- Limited conceptual framework (Organisation & Individual)

Action without Strategy

- Initiativitis: Lack of focus & priority

- Innovation for its own sake rather than doing what needs to be done

Enablers

+ A culture of innovation

+ Willingness to experiment

+ Identifying the 'can openers' - key leverage points

+ Outward facing - open to other ways 

+ Courageous decision making councils

+ sustainability as part of the corporate identity

+ simple easy to grasp elegant policies/projects

+ open management culture

From the light categorisation I could see that participants had identified more inhibitors than enablers. The blockers seemed to divide into 4 categories - risk, competition, organisational culture and lack of focus. The enablers seemed to be all about openness, courage and willingness to experiment IN COMBINATION with focus and discernment. I looked at the list for a while and tried to them come up with a sentence that would summarise the message from the poster. Here was my first stab at this summarising message of the kind of culture that would enable a local authority to innovate around carbon reduction: 

Theme 3: Its message in a nutshell? 

"'For an innovative culture that will help to address climate change, organisations need to be open and willing to embrace risk and change but to do so in a co-operative, discerning & thoughtful way; attempts to bring about change need to be framed as thoughtful experiments that are celebrated for their potential rather than their outcome"

Does this description ring true I wondered - for the message on the poster and more generally for any organisation asking what is the culture for change and innovation?

Participants express mixed feelings about 'iconic' examples.

A learning history combines story with analysis. On the first evening of the Workshop we discussed how working with stories is different. A reader might have all kinds of conflicting thoughts/feelings whilst reading. Different readers will interpret the story in different ways. To prepare participants for this, we presented a brief overview of the 5 inspirational stories that would be featured throughout the event. We then asked for their reactions to those stories and we recorded these on posters.

Don't iconify just these examples, warn participants.

Mixed feelings about the Inspirational Stories presented.

As the posters above show, 'inspirational stories' such as those featured in this research can provoke mixed feelings. Participants saw that the stories were inspiring and clearly a good source of learning. However by putting just a few examples on a pedestal and asking others to learn from them an unintended set of consequences can arise: For example, less well-known but valuable projects in their own right remain unacknowledged when we hone in on just a few examples. Also the courage of those who 'tried and failed' does not appear to be recognised if we stick to the success stories.

Keen to address this, an important part of the Learning History workshop was to invite those present to bring in their own stories of carbon reduction. This they did during story circles. They are also invited via this website to share their ongoing stories of addressing carbon reduction in their own locale.

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Adrian Hewitt on participating in the research process

Adrian Hewitt, from Merton, was the first interviewee for this research. When we met back in September 2006 the research methodology was just evolving. Since then Adrian has participated in all the different stages of the Learning History research including, for this History, an extensive cylce of 'perspective gathering' from others actors involved in the Merton Rule. At the workshop stage, Adrian, like other protagonists present, could see people working with the story he had told.

Adrian Hewitt - Pictured against Chris Seely's graphical poster of Merton that includes a cartoon of his cat Randolph!

At the workshop I had the opportunity to ask Adrian how, after 18 months, he reflected on his participation in this research. Click on the audio button below to hear me pose this question to Adrian and to hear his response.

".....The value for me is to see someone taking an interest at an academic level in the story rather than just in the outcomes of the Merton Rule at a technical level..."

In the audio clip, Adrian goes on to talk, among other things, about the value in making comparisons with other protagonists from other Learning Histories - in particular Steve from the Nottingham Declaration who was also attending.

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Jessie Marcham on participating at the workshop

Jessie Marcham, campaign co-ordinator, from Derbyshire County Council, was exactly the kind of 3rd party stakeholder that the research (via the workshop) was keen to reach out to . An overall purpose of the research was to amplify awareness about the featured examples. Like a handful of participants present Jessie was not that familiar with the examples featured: so the workshop was playing a part in spreading awareness of what can be achieved. A purpose specific to the workshop itself was to create a collective learning environment in which new conversations and links might be created between participants. Again, like other participants, Jessie did not know many (if any) of the other attendees at the workshop.

Jessie Marcham and others looking at the themes emerging from the group brainstorming exercise

In a short snatched moment between exercises I asked Jessie how she was finding the process. Click on the audio play button below to hear what she said.

I think the process is the most valuable

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Thurstan Reflects...on the value of participating in the research

Thurstan Crockett, head of sustainability and environmental policy at Brighton & Hove city council has been working hard to push low carbon work in his council. He became involved in the research back in May 2007 as the first active reader . This meant that he received Learning Histories as they were written and then he would actively read, comment and engage with them, looking for parallels in his own work. He reflected then as he went along how the process was making a difference to him. At the workshop, I collared him to ask him how he had found the process....click on the 'play' button below to hear what he said.

Thurstan - the eponymous "Active Reader" reflects on the value in the research process and the difference between working 1:1 and in a workshop setting.

"above all else it's given me permission and time to reflect" .....

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Basing Histories on just one or two perspectives: An ethical dilemma

One very particular aspect of this research is its presentation of a Learning History based on the perspectives of just one or two people close to the case. With other Learning Histories, researchers have generally interviewed several actors involved in one case and the researcher has then kneaded all these different inputs into a coherent narrative. I’d imagine that making choices in the creation of this coherent narrative puts the researcher in quite a powerful position He/she will necessarily have to move from representation to make interpretive decisions about the final story that is presented.

With this research, as I’m not working with so many stories for an individual Learning History, weaving a coherent narrative has been relatively easy. I stick close to the interviewees’ story and cross-match it with public domain information about the case. It usually tallies pretty well. I still make choices on what to write – but these are more representational. I am generally not judging or balancing between several competing views. And where I interpret, I try to name that and move it into a box or to the side. However this moves rather than avoids the ethical implications of what I’m doing. By choosing to work with just one or two stories, am I not excluding others’ stories altogether? How can I be sure that by amplifying the voice of one person I am squashing the voices of all the others that I didn’t interview?

I was aware of this challenge quite early on. To address it I had the bright idea that after writing the Learning History, I would approach all those who were mentioned in the History and give them the opportunity to comment or add their own perspectives. I imagined that in doing this I would create a virtual pub table. At this virtual pub table, old friends and colleagues would sit around and reminisce, listening to each others’ tales, awaiting their turn to share their memories. As with any round of pub-stories there would be a tolerance for any slight differences there might be in the collective remembering of what had happened. After all I wanted to create an aspect of celebration in this research – I wanted to celebrate the things people had done and as much as possible invite all those involved to feel that sense of achievement through their collective storytelling……

That was the plan. I’ll write more about what actually happened here or in my PhD! If you can anticipate some of the issues that might come up with taking this approach – please do comment.

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Explaining....What is a Learning History?

A Learning History is an action research approach to learning that seeks to bring analysis and story together in a way that has value for those originally involved in the case as well as those seeking to learn from it. The approach was originally developed by researchers, Roth and Kleiner from MIT’s Society for Organizational Learning and was further developed by Hilary Bradbury in her doctoral work (Roth and Kleiner 1998; Bradbury 2001). Roth and Kleiner coined the term ‘learning history’ describing it as a way to get past listing best practice and more into the ‘thinking, experimentation and arguments of those who have encountered the situation’ (Roth and Kleiner 1998). The learning history has been used to good effect in many settings in the industrial sector (e.g. at a large US auto manufacturer) and the social sector (e.g. at The Natural Step).

A learning history has, to-date, mostly been applied within one organisation and in the private and NGO sector. By contrast, in this research, learning history is being applied across 5 different organisational settings within Local Government in the UK. The examples being charted are where innovative carbon reduction has taken place. They involve low-carbon technologies in some way. This Learning History then is just one of in a series. The individual histories may be partial – sometimes not fully describing all aspects of the innovation in question. However the totality of the series aims to paint a picture of how innovation for carbon reduction comes about across different contexts. It seeks to present this picture in a way that increases the potential for learning and action.

Read how a Learning History differs from a Case Study.

Read about the ethical dilemmas posed by working with individual stories.

Read about how this research got started.

References

Bradbury, H. (2001). Learning with the Natural Step: Action Research to Promote Conversations for Sustainable Development. Handbook of Action Research. P. Reason and H. Bradbury. London, Sage Publications.
Bradbury, H. and C. Mainemelis (2001). "Learning History and Organizational Praxis." Journal of Management Inquiry 10(4): 340.
Connelly, M. and D. J. Clandinin (1999). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco, Jossey Bass Wiley.
Roth, G. and H. Bradbury (2008 (in preparation)). Learning History: An Action Research Practice in Support of Actionable Learning. Handbook of Action Research. P. Reason and H. Bradbury. London, Sage.
Roth, G. and A. Kleiner (1998). "Developing Organizational Memory Through Learning Histories." Organizational Dynamics 27(2): 43-60.
Van Maanen, J. (1998). Tales of the Field. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Steve reflects on participating in the workshop & the research....

Steve Waller, sustainability adviser at the Improvement & Development agency for Local Government (I&DeA) has been involved in the research in two different capacities. Formerly, from Nottingham City Council, Steve was instrumental in the creation of the Nottingham Declaration and therefore was a protagonist interviewed for that Learning History. Now at the IDeA his interests lie in exploring how knowledge and learning about sustainability can be shared across Local Government organisations. Recently Steve has been involved in the running of the "Tackling Climate Change" beacon scheme, where those councils who have made considerable strides in addressing the climate change agenda are elected as "Beacons".

Toward lunchtime at the workshop I asked Steve how he was enjoying the workshop and his top of the head thoughts on the process of the research thus far. Click on the audio button below to hear what he said.

Steve - in conversation at the workshop

".....It's also been really good fun - this is a new way of doing things"

[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]

Explaining... How Categories and this Blog relate to the Learning History Research

As far as I know a Learning History hasn't been created online like this before. Hitherto it's been a written document. In written Learning Histories, like the individual Histories in this research, there are different commentaries: multiple voices and analyses are presented alongside a story thread. In this way the reader can pick and choose how they read the History - honing in on the parts that are most appealing to him/her.

The categories on this Blog have been chosen to emulate the mix. Categories like 'reflecting', 'theorising', 'storytelling', 'analysing' relate directly to the different ways of representing you can see in written Learning Histories. This multi-threaded nature of a Learning History can be even more richly presented online. By selecting categories as well as working more from photos, a reader can more flexibly choose which mode of representation they wish to use to engage with this Learning History.

A Learning History is as much a process of participation as it is an output. For this reason I have chosen verbs for the categories rather than nouns. I wanted to indicate that this is a live and evolving process. Online Blogging offers a dynamic quality that you don't get with a written document. I am deliberately choosing to expose the creation of this Joint Learning History as it goes along to participants. This feels risky - it feels personally exposing and also it's not usual to submit a blog as part of PhD. However I am doing this again in the spirit of experimentation and will reflect on some of this in the category 'researching'. It feels more congruent with the notion of participation to expose the creation of the History than to hide away and then reveal it at a later stage. The categories of 'participating' and 'taking actions' and 'questioning' particularly speak to the desire to involve or at least emphasize the voices of the many participants in this research. The use of photos directly from the workshop also emphasize this point. I want to present, in a coherent way, an uneditted view of participant's thoughts and comments.

In summary then there are categories that relate to content: these relate to the individual learning histories and, as important, there are the categories that refer to different activities around those histories.

In this way I hope to produce a Learning History that is inviting, even messier than normal, but truly a 'jointly told tale'.

You can read a background story about how I got started with this Learning History research here.