Unpacking social learning in planning: who learns what from whom?

ABSTRACT

Social learning is the process of exchanging and developing knowledge (including skills and experiences) through human interaction. This key planning process needs to be better understood, given the increase and variety of non-planners influencing planning processes. This article explores who learns what from whom through social learning in planning. We unpack social learning theoretically to be able to map it, and employ empirically-based storytelling to discuss its relevance to planning practice. We conclude that social learning can lead to positive and negative outcomes and provides a useful analytical lens to understand planning practices at the level of individuals.

KEYWORDS:

• Social learning
• knowledge
• planning practice
• storytelling
• individual

1. Introduction

Planning and development processes depend on social learning (see Friedmann and Abonyi 1976; Rydin 2010; Scholz, Dewulf, and Pahl-Wostl 2014; Vlaev and Dolan 2015; Young 2009). Social learning is the process of developing knowledge (including skills and experiences) through human interaction. As Baum (1983, 1987) and Schön (1982) have argued, planning practitioners rely on the ability to negotiate and reflect on knowledge emerging and developed through interaction with others involved in planning, such as developers, activists, citizens, politicians, and business-owners. These actors interact to defend their own motivations and self-interest, although this can be broader than personal financial or social gain. The engagement of various actors in planning is expected to increase in quantity and intensity, as contemporary planning practice harbours wide advocacy for the ideals of ‘collaborative governance’, ‘participation’, and ‘co-creation’ (EC n.d.; Ehlen 2015; Savini and Majoor 2014; UN-Habitat 2010; van den Berg 2013; Westerink et al. 2016). The role of social learning in planning processes remains obscure and begs the question of who learns what from whom, and what it leads to. Planning studies on social learning frame the concept with a positive narrative and a connotation of guaranteed desirable outcomes (Dumitru et al. 2016; Holden, Esfahani, and Scerri 2014; Sánchez 2009; SLIM 2004). While those studies are valuable, the a priori emphasis on positive outcomes can be problematic, as social learning could also lead to reinforcing mistakes or tensions.

Social learning as studied in planning and related disciplines is often entangled in three interpretations. First, social learning is understood as an inevitable process resulting from interaction among actors. Second, social learning is seen as an agenda that should be embedded in planning practice. Third, social learning is considered as a process that intrinsically leads to desirable and constructive outcomes (for examples of these three interpretations see EC 2014; Gelauff and van der Knaap 2016; Reed et al. 2010; UN-Habitat 2016). The latter two interpretations assume that social learning is an intrinsically positive process, neglecting possible undesirable consequences. Mapping the social learning process more comprehensively allows for a better grip on what these processes can – and cannot – accomplish.

Seeking details of who learns what from whom through interaction is fundamental to understanding planning as a practice of knowing (Davoudi 2015). Developing typologies of who learns what from whom does not aim to ‘demarcate knowledge from “non-knowledge”,’ but rather to provide tools for planners – and others – to ‘fully engage with the tensions and contestations of their knowing and doing’ (Davoudi 2015, pp. 322, 328). To provide these tools, and drawing key insights from psychology, this article develops an overview of types of knowledge, interaction and learning that social learning relates to. Based on this overview, a map of social learning is proposed. This map enables the empirical review of planning projects and unpacks how social learning influences planning practice in its various phases and contexts. It thereby contributes and relates to key skills planners need (see Baum 1983, 2015; Ferreira 2013; Forester 1999; Healey 1992; Schön 1982).

This article aims to (i) further develop social learning as an analytical lens inspired by psychology, (ii) apply the emerging map to planning practice, and (iii) show how anonymised storytelling can enable the sharing of sensitive empirical material on social learning. We begin with an overview of what sets social learning apart from other forms of learning, and then present a number of relevant typologies of who learns, what, from whom, as identifiable within social learning processes in planning. This provides a map of social learning embedded in planning practice. Next, this map is applied to study an anonymised case through storytelling. The gained insights and their contribution to planning are then discussed. The conclusion reviews the main contributions of this inquiry and makes suggestions for further research.

2. Social learning

Below we give a short definition of types of learning to clarify the specificity of social learning. We then identify typologies to explore ‘who learns’, ‘what’, ‘from whom,’ while reflecting on how this can inform planning practice.

2.1. Learning

Learning is a process of adaptation to one’s environment, in which an experience in one moment leads to alterations in (implicit) knowledge structures¹ and eventually is likely to impact behaviour. In psychology, four types of learning are usually identified: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, cognitive learning and social learning. Classical conditioning works through the gradual association of a representation of something with the thing itself. Classical conditioning might lead an individual to learn that pink is a ballet-colour through the continuous appearance of the colour pink in ballet shoes. Operant conditioning works through perceived consequences of voluntary actions. Operant conditioning might induce an aspiring dancer to learn that an intense warm-up is unpleasant but leads to better results during practice. Cognitive learning is learning through reading or other internal activities, such as thinking to oneself. A dancer might read about human mechanics and then relate this gained knowledge to the way she can perfect a certain movement. Social learning is understood as imitation or other forms of learning through a social context (e.g. direct instruction). In this case, the dancer might learn by observing and copying the movements of other dancers, or through the discussion with others of how certain movements could work. These types of learning are not mutually exclusive; for instance, cognitive learning can occur through social learning. The only point at which any of the other types of learning exclude social learning is when individuals learn cognitively by reading an informational text or experimenting by themselves. For more information on each type of learning see Wiekens (2012, Chapter 2).

Baum (1983) and many subsequent authors on governance and participation in planning have shown that planning is in fact an inherently social and interactive discipline. Although this is not always acknowledged, even in non-participatory planning, planners cannot do their jobs without interacting with developers, funders, landowners and various government authorities (Baum 1983; Forester 1999; Rydin 2010; Schön 1982). Even if planners are inclined to working by themselves, thus avoiding social learning processes, this is no longer considered acceptable or workable in an age where citizen participation and negotiations between government and market actors are considered essential (Beebeejaun 2016; Savini et al. 2016; Swyngedouw 2005; UN-Habitat 2016). Social learning therefore warrants further scrutiny in planning. This is even more so when the intentions in governance turn to further diversification of actors involved (see e.g. Beck and Schnur 2016; Beebeejaun 2016; Franke, Niemans, and Soeterbroek 2015; Rosa 2011; Rydin 2011; van den Berg 2013; Zandbergen and Jaffe 2014).

2.2. Social learning

In this article, the following definition of social learning is used: Social learning is a process in which individuals and groups exchange or jointly develop knowledge (including skills and experiences) through human interaction (De Jaegher, Di Paolo, and Gallagher 2010). Knowledge exchange differs from knowledge development: in the former, knowledge is new only to one or a few people involved, while knowledge development means that the emerging knowledge is new to all those involved – an important distinction for observing when social learning leads to the reproduction of existing knowledge, and when it leads to the creation of new knowledge (Bandura 1971; Hasson et al. 2012; Heyes 2016; Kalkstein et al. 2016; see also Savini 2018 for how this distinction can be crucial for planning). This definition relies mostly on understandings from psychology (e.g. Bandura 1971) but is also informed by organisational studies (e.g. Argyris and Schön 1978), environmental and participatory governance (e.g. Blackmore 2007, 2010; Wals 2009), and planning (e.g. Holden 2008; Muro and Jeffrey 2008). Note that (perceived) avoidance is also a form of social interaction. This broad definition is meaningful because it allows an understanding of the effect of common social interactions in planning practice, ranging from formal planning meetings between actors and informal discussions over coffee, to exchanges via email and annoyances about lack of face-to-face meetings amongst decision-makers and other actors. All these interactions have an impact on social learning – for example how a planner expects a citizen or a large-scale developer to behave, how a citizen perceives planning practice, or what knowledge about measurements and regulations is gained or retained in a more or less formal setting.

It is possible that a social learning process does not create easily noticeable change. It can simply confirm or reassess the value of existing knowledge (see e.g. Argyris and Schön 1978). This is a subtle yet important form of change because it can reinforce convictions and make them resistant to change. Furthermore, one social learning process is likely to influence the next. Thus, it is important to see each observed moment of social learning as part of a string of related social learning processes.

The approach to social learning in psychology focuses on how individuals and groups learn to behave in certain ways, which could have a positive or negative outcome from the perspective of normative goals (e.g. it could make something more socially inclusive but could also promote social exclusion instead) (see also Bandura 1971). Similarly, organizational studies look at social learning from the perspective of the correction of errors, usually regarding economic stability or gain, but acknowledge that this need not be in the interest of wider society (Argyris and Schön 1978; Huber 1991). Organizational studies are also relatively open in terms of the direction of learning, particularly in terms of what can be learned (e.g. Davis and Luthans 1980).

By contrast, a normatively directional understanding of social learning is employed in environmental governance and (collaborative) planning. Here, the concept becomes intricately intertwined with desired outcomes such as social inclusion, equity, justice and sustainability, especially as these outcomes are meant to emerge through communicative practices (Albert et al. 2012; Blackmore 2007; Holden 2008; Muro and Jeffrey 2008; Pahl-Wostl 2006; Scholz, Dewulf, and Pahl-Wostl 2014). Some authors in these traditions interpret social learning as a socially beneficial or outcome-based concept, in which the learning process has a necessarily positive social impact (e.g. Moulaert et al. 2013). What and when something is ‘social’ remains unspecified (e.g. it may not be clear if it refers to ‘social’ in terms of involving two or more people, or in terms of ‘good for society’), and the expectation of positive impact can create confusion in comparison to other authors’ and disciplines’ approaches to social learning. Notably, the contributions of such literature are very valuable, yet they tend to neglect how social learning can have undesirable effects as well. This creates a gradual association of social learning with a panacea for solving problems, and risks to muddle our understanding of the process and its connection to a particular outcome. This article therefore builds on the valuable existing literature on how social learning contributes to desirable outcomes (Albert et al. 2012; Blackmore 2007; Blackmore and Jiggins 2007; Brookfield 2016; EC 2014; Gelauff and van der Knaap 2016; Holden 2008; Holden, Esfahani, and Scerri 2014; UN-Habitat 2016; Wals 2009), and proposes to add a more critical dimension to these studies, which incorporates an understanding of how social learning may lead to undesirable consequences as well. The outcomes of social learning processes can then be evaluated in relation to the desired goals, and the process potentially changed in the next instance to better encourage the attainment of the desired goal.

The following sub-sections unpack social learning into ‘who learns’, ‘what’, ‘from whom’ – keeping in mind that this analysis is made artificially static for illustration purposes but in fact occurs as part of a dynamic process over time.

2.2.1. Who learns?

Social learning occurs at four levels: individual, group (e.g. Deyle and Schively Slotterback 2009), organization (e.g. Argyris and Schön 1978) and society (e.g. Pahl-Wostl 2006), each of which involves different dynamics in terms of time taken for learning to manifest, and in terms of how and what knowledge is exchanged. This article focuses on the individual level because of the relevance of personal dynamics (Tewdwr-Jones 2002b) to planning practice, and because this is possibly the less well studied, yet most fundamental of the four levels, which best allows to understand how social learning can lead to both desirable and undesirable consequences.

At the individual level, it is possible to identify a variety of actors participating in a planning project. These should be identified on a case-by-case basis, for which various authors provide inspiration to avoid missing important actors (e.g. Bennett and Howlett 1992; Bryson 2004; Dolowitz and Marsh 1996; Freeman 1984; Reed et al. 2009). In collaborative planning, actors likely include individuals from the local planning department, the police, public maintenance, representatives from large-scale development companies, individuals implementing projects, people living in the area, representatives or owners of businesses in the area, representatives from non-governmental organisations and social movements, and so on. Actors usually get involved in planning based on one core role, such as those named above, but importantly each individual actor might have several roles, some of which may be more overt than others, and which might change over time (see also Lyles (2015, 1969), Scharpf (1997) and Scholz, Dewulf, and Pahl-Wostl (2014) on ways roles have been reflected upon in planning). These roles can function as starting points in planning processes, but can also restrict how a person is awarded power and legitimacy. It can also impact who is involved and who learns (what) from whom.

The ‘who learns’ question uncovers the intentions and backgrounds of each individual, which influence their actions. Intentions to behave in particular ways are shaped by attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control, as shown in the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991). Beyond intentions, each individual has a particular background that shapes how he or she learns (see Schön 1982; Tewdwr-Jones 2002a; Wiekens 2012). For instance, common social learning strategies are to ‘copy when uncertain’, ‘copy the majority’ and ‘copy the most successful’ (Heyes 2016), and each of these strategies is relative to the individual’s own existing knowledge and their (initial) position in a group. Thus, it is also important to determine the knowledge and social position an individual (planner as well as non-planner) attained before interaction takes place.

2.2.2. What?

If we accept that what is socially learned can go in any direction, whether we normatively ascribe to it or not, then it is especially important to understand the content. To know what to look for, we distinguish between types of knowledge, types of interaction and sub-types of (social) learning.

2.2.2.1. Types of knowledge

Knowledge in planning can be split into two types: process knowledge and content knowledge. Process knowledge indicates what we learn about the interaction with others and the how of planning. This includes technical knowledge (i.e. skills), such as how to use certain software to communicate better among actors. For example, mapping software (GIS) can visualize and represent options for change in a certain area and help to communicate about policy choices among a wider audience. For example, this can be applied for mapping options of flood prevention in areas prone to flooding (Albert et al. 2012). Similarly, a person can learn how financial requirements are met through the interaction with and copying of others. Process knowledge also includes subjective knowledge (this can also be seen as a skill), such as reflexivity and emotional management under stress (Ferreira 2013; Schön 1982; Vanderhoven 2016). An individual can socially learn during and about any part of project development.

Content knowledge refers to facts, such as the required width and materials for building roads, or the relationship between the location of a road-signpost and the ability of someone to read and understand the signage in a timely manner. Content knowledge can also refer to financial safety standards or requirements and formats for grant applications and so on. It might also refer to ‘social content’, such as who has what kind of network, or what is usually considered acceptable behaviour in which social circles (see also Salomon and Perkins 1998). This type of knowledge is topic specific, and thus vital to certain situations but usually not widely applicable. After a period of strong focus on process knowledge, there is renewed interest in content knowledge in planning, as for example argued by Talen and Ellis (2002) in relation to ‘good city form’.

Knowledge has also been categorised in other ways, such as by source (e.g. expert knowledge, ‘lay’ knowledge, community knowledge), or along its ‘explicitness’ (explicit vs tacit knowledge), among other possibilities (Asheim, Coenen, and Vang 2007; Beebeejaun 2017; Boyd, Richerson, and Henrich 2011; Natarajan 2015; Stone et al. 2014). These distinctions can be made within both process and content knowledge when this is considered relevant. Many studies in planning have so far focused on how planners themselves learn, gain new knowledge, and/or avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ (e.g. Baum 1983; Peel and Lloyd 2008; Schön 1982). This could indicate that planners prefer to learn through non-social means. However, as Baum (1983, 1987) shows, interaction is key in the profession and tendencies show that social learning with non-planners will continue to play a significant role in planners’ learning processes. In the current context of increasingly collaborative planning, this article suggests to give more attention to contributions from non-planners involved in planning practice and to their impact on social learning for all involved.

2.2.2.2. Types of social interaction and sub-types of learning

Social interaction is a necessary condition for social learning to occur. The frequency of interaction matters. However, the type of interaction also does. Interactions can be classified as verbal or non-verbal; formal or informal; mediated (e.g. through phones, emails, social media) or face-to-face; and more (see e.g. De Jaegher, Di Paolo, and Gallagher 2010; Jiang et al. 2012; Williams 1977). As shown in the map below (Figure 1), the verbal or non-verbal typology is a first-level classification identified within a certain moment of a second-level classification as formal or informal, mediated or face-to-face and so on. Uncovering differentiations between types of interaction leading to what outcomes in terms of social learning provides interesting insights for planning practice.

Figure 1. Mapping a social learning moment (Source: authors).

Learning has been categorised into five types (section 2.1). Here we divide each type of learning into four sub-types: confirming, disconfirming, changing (building) or indexing (see Argyris and Schön 1978). This is important because social learning, far from assuming that people begin a learning process as blank slates, starts from the premise that there is existing knowledge in each individual from the start (see Tewdwr-Jones 2002a for this in the case of planners). However, social learning is not only about adding knowledge to one’s own by getting it from or developing it with others (Salomon and Perkins 1998). It is also about confirming what one already knows or expects, or disconfirming it, in some cases without immediately offering an alternative to what was assumed as known (Schön 1982). Furthermore, it is possible that individuals identify a gap in their knowledge and choose not to fill it. Instead, they learn who knows. This is knowledge indexing: that is, learning who knows what, and so instead of learning what others already know, simply referring to them or asking them to provide context-specific advice based on their knowledge when needed.

2.2.3. From whom?

To fully understand social learning in planning it is necessary to identify and map the sources of knowledge. This has important consequences for which individuals should be included where and when in different parts of the project. The actors who learn can belong to the same category as those who provide the knowledge (see section 2.2.1.). For example, one planner might learn from another planner. At the same time, individuals from different (primary) categories – planners, developers, citizens – might learn amongst each other. The background of each individual, whichever categories they belong to, should be identified separately. It may be significant to a planning project what its participants learned from interaction with residents in an area slated for redevelopment, or from interaction with others in previous projects or in personal circles. Even if these aspects are not considered in the direct analysis of a case, it is crucial to be aware that the ‘from whom’ question can be partially explained, for example, by confirming knowledge based on interaction with people outside the immediate planning project’s participants. For example, a business-owner might have had a previous experience with a planner that did not lead to a discussed result. He may now ‘confirm’ his knowledge that the planner of the project under study uses similar terms and acts in similar ways, and so decides that he also can’t be trusted.

Several theories exist on who one is most likely to socially learn from. This is linked to how individuals socially learn, and to topics such as group dynamics. This largely goes beyond the scope of this paper, but we refer readers to authors such as Heyes (2016) who goes into depth on the different theories of how we choose who to learn from; Rand and Nowak (2013) who describe how collaboration is influenced by who we choose to interact with through different mechanisms; and Kalkstein et al. (2016) who show the impact of physical and psychological closeness. Knowing who a certain individual learns from is influential to the outcomes of a decision, and provides information for further analyses of social learning processes (e.g. at the group level).

2.3. Mapping social learning

Figure 1 maps one moment in a social learning process – the production of a readable map necessitates an artificially static representation, which we nevertheless consider useful. We integrate the above conceptual discussion by representing individual realms and the social realm through which their interaction occurs. The social realm can be mediated, for example, by the physical space in a room or through emails. The individuals have different backgrounds (indicated by the shading of their individual realms), representing the discussion on who learns. Their individual realms contain knowledge on process (circular figure) and content (squared figure), representing part of the discussion on what is learnt. Since knowledge can be under revision, from the start or after a social learning moment, such knowledge figures are outlined with dotted lines. The arrows represent interaction, either verbal (full arrow) or non-verbal (dotted arrow). The triangle represents a potential outcome of the social learning process (see T3). The social learning moment is divided into three parts: T1, in which the individuals take on a particular constellation among each other; T2, in which these individuals interact; and T3, in which an outcome can (but doesn’t always) emerge. A planning project, or even one get-together for a planning project, can consist of thousands of these tripartite moments. In practice, these moments can be aggregated to increase feasibility (e.g. observing the kinds of social learning occurring during a one-hour formal meeting, and those occurring via email over a month). However, to understand the process of social learning, it is useful to be aware that it is composed of a large amount of small moments, as described below.

2.3.1. T1: coming together

At T1 individuals 1, 2 and N² are not yet interacting, each harbouring potentially different knowledge (divided into content and process, see the different shapes) and personal characteristics, as represented by the differently shaded individual realms. They come together around a social realm, which is the space or medium through which they can share knowledge with each other through interaction. The social realm is potentially also accessible for N number of individuals. The potential collective outcome (triangle) does not always emerge, but can be, for example, a development plan, a physical object to be placed in a public space, or a formalized agreement. The potential collective outcome can also be accessed by others without the presence of the individuals that created it, albeit remaining subject to the newcomers’ reinterpretation (for example, a created plan or policy document can be read and changed by others, but they might interpret it somewhat differently from those who were part of its production process).

2.3.2. T2: interaction

At T2, the individuals begin interacting, and so each individual contributes to the social realm. A potential collective outcome (triangle) can emerge in the social realm, which is at least one of the subjects about which the interaction takes place. Individual 1 non-verbally contributes process-knowledge, for example through a relaxed posture and open observation that makes the others feel at ease. Individual 2 verbally contributes content and process knowledge, for example through discussion. Through this interaction she gains process knowledge, which induces her to reconsider some of her content knowledge (see shifts in knowledge figures in T2 in the figure). For example, by learning about the convincing nature of the interaction with individual N, individual 2 becomes more inclined to revise her knowledge on the value of temporary building solutions for the revaluation of public space. Individual N brings in content knowledge, and for example gains knowledge on the process of interacting with individuals 1 and 2 and on the content of proposed plans for a discussed area.

2.3.3. T3: outcomes

At T3, the change in knowledge is represented by the solidifying shapes in the individual realms, and a slight change in the structure of individual 1’s personal characteristics: he had only shared process knowledge, but through observation he had emotional reactions which changed his attitude to the plan or to others. For example, he may have become more or less genuinely interested and motivated for the plans discussed.

In this mapping process of a moment of social learning, change in knowledge is represented by a given shape increasing in size (knowledge confirmed), the emergence of new shapes (knowledge gained) or faded shapes (knowledge disconfirmed or unsettled, becoming ‘under revision’) in the individual realm. If, as the example shows, the triangle in the social realm solidifies, it can be seen as a collective outcome of a social learning moment, and can later be taken up again (e.g. a plan might be left to work on again another day). Each individual is likely to have their own interpretation of what the triangle represents to them, but there is enough overlap for it to be a collective entity outside the individual realm, which could be shared with another individual who might enter the social realm.

2.3.4. Table: tallying outcomes

The table in the figure summarises what each individual learned, in terms of knowledge, through the interaction with the others. In a real-life example these would of course be specified in terms of their content, and thus also show the differences and similarities between different forms of content and process knowledge, which are left out in Figure 1 for the sake of clarity of the figure.

Overall, Figure 1 maps the process behind who learns what from whom, and qualifies what in some detail. It helps visualize the connections between the various elements of types of learning, knowledge and interactions as discussed above. By unpacking social learning through the mapping of particular moments of social learning, this concept’s practical implications can be observed and understood. As noted before, the moments can be aggregated or selectively studied. Such a study becomes particularly valuable, as will be shown below, to acknowledge and understand the consequences of planning interactions for their outcomes and for future collaborations between actors. Below, we apply this map to analyse an example from planning practice, demonstrating how taking social learning as a lens to understand planning practice can be useful.

3. Methodology

We propose to illustrate and analyse social learning with a story of co-creative planning (as a form of collaborative planning) by applying the proposed map to it. Scholars increasingly recognize the value of storytelling for the development of a meaningful and convincing narrative that speaks to theory as well as practice. Here, we provide further clarifications of this method and how our analysis is constructed from empirical data collected by the authors.

3.1. Why storytelling?

Storytelling based on empirical data is a valuable method in bridging the gap between planning research and practice (Allison 2014; de Neufville 1983; Flyvbjerg 2002; Forester 1999; Girard and Lambert 2007; Hoch 2009; Saija et al. 2017; Sandercock 2003; Schön 1982). It is used to clarify a multiplicity of perspectives or to make data more accessible, among other aims. Crucially, this method allows an empirical discussion of a very delicate research topic, in which highly personal data is processed, and which it is hard to anonymise since the data is derived from small-scale and unique projects, where subject recognition is highly probable. Next to anonymising the data, we are bounded by ethical considerations to minimise possible harm to their reputation, careers, or future endeavours. Therefore, we have adopted storytelling as a method.

3.2. Case selection

The case study is a typical case of co-creative and collaborative planning in the country of study, The Netherlands. It was selected for its relevance and potential for understanding social learning in planning. It involved a high level of interaction between a variety of stakeholders who came together in an unusual constellation. The progression of the case mirrors a consistent trend toward the use and propagation of co-creative, collaborative planning practices, as identified by various authors (Carlson 2017; Rooij and Frank 2016; Savini and Majoor 2014; URBAN NEXUS 2015). There were actors of various backgrounds involved and interacting, including from government, local communities and businesses. Particular challenges for collaboration and learning were present. Social learning was not an explicit aim of the project; rather, it exemplified collaborative planning by engaging with other goals, such as the financial health of an area, and issues of safety and social inclusion. Through their engagement with these aims, it was possible to understand how social learning impacted, positively and/or negatively, their aims.

Given the discussions on who learns, the unit of analysis used in this article is the individual. Within the case, it was important to identify individuals that played a key role in the project. This was achieved through the mapping of actors and stakeholders based on interviews and informal conversations with those involved in the project or who had studied it before, and through preliminary desktop research of various websites, policy documents and previous studies. For feasibility purposes, the chosen case was relatively small in terms of the amount of people involved, so that a proportionally large sample of involved individuals could be interviewed, comprising all involved types of actors (government, businesses and other participants). To allow for relative anonymity, we refrain from a further description of the selection of individuals. In addition, the case is praised as a success of new planning practices and was concluded recently under much scrutiny. Therefore, relatively recent and well documented secondary sources of data were accessible.

In the story below, we have altered some personal details (e.g. gender, age and names), and aggregated some actors into one, while separating others, to ensure anonymity and therefore avoid that any individuals might identify themselves or others in this article. Thus, some characters in the story are fictional, but representative amalgamations of individuals in the case. The alterations are, of course, only made when they do not infringe on analysis or findings.

3.3 Data collection

Data collection included multiple in-depth semi-structured interviews with seven key stakeholders, who were involved with the project in different ways. The selection of respondents was made through seeking mentions of key experts or gatekeepers in policy documents or previous research and subsequently through snowballing. Saturation was reached when no new actor was mentioned or found. Policy documents and various media produced by and about the project over its lifespan provided a reconstruction of the project history and timeline. The author also attended meetings and events and collected observations of various interactions. The project had an end date which impeded participation in further meetings. Some potential respondents refused to be interviewed because they thought they had given enough time to the project, and that it had been sufficiently researched. Certain respondents were adamant on complete anonymity due to their controversial opinions. Research was conducted close to the end of the project’s life-span, which had the advantage of providing information on prior and current time-periods, and on the social learning effects after the project. Therefore, some otherwise avoided limitations were considered acceptable.

3.4. Data analysis and processing

Data was analysed based on the theoretical discussion on who learns what from whom. All collected resources (interviews, documents, media) were qualitatively analysed with Atlas.ti. The systematic approach included applying the same codes to all resources to ensure internal validity, looking for the different types of learning, knowledge and interaction per individual and information on who and through what interaction they learned. Non-interactive (and thus non-social) forms of learning were disregarded unless they were connected (i.e. cognitive learning related to social learning, see section 2.1), in which case this was noted separately. The coding results were summarised in Excel. Secondary documents such as media coverage and previous academic studies of the project were used to validate the qualitative data analysis results. A basic social network analysis (whole network) (see Carrington and Scott 2011) was conducted to create an overview of which actors were connected and how.

Specific findings concerning each studied variable (content knowledge and process knowledge; individual characteristics; verbal- and non-verbal interaction; confirming, disconfirming and building knowledge and so on) structured which stories are presented. The stories are chosen based on how well they exemplify more general trends of social learning. They give examples of how the map of social learning as discussed can provide crucial insights for planning practice. Although they are not exaggerations, we do prioritise the stronger or more extreme examples (i.e. where conflicts or outcomes occur, and where surprising results in terms of positive as well as negative outcomes of social learning occur), as they convey the most interesting findings for this research.

4. Illustrating who learns what from whom in planning practice

4.1. The story: setting the scene

The setting of the story is a key redevelopment area close to the centre of an old industrial, medium-sized, western-European (Dutch) city. The general aim of the project was the urban transformation of a neglected brownfield site to increase the economic value of the surroundings. The site is one of the few remaining urban expansion sites within city boundaries. The redevelopment in question remained stalled for over ten years due to economic recession, resulting in decreasing social safety for the surroundings related to visible building deterioration and on-street drug use, among other things. This resulted in loss of clientele for surrounding businesses and avoidance of the area. This is phase 0 in the project.

In phase 1, Megan and George,³ who are business-owners living and working in the area, had the idea of co-creating a new mixed housing and leisure development in the old industrial buildings on the site (below we also call these actors the ‘initiators’; see Table 1 for an overview of all actors appearing in the story). They had specific knowledge about the area as residents and entrepreneurs. They felt they needed practical ideas and political connections to make their plan feasible. They pitched their idea at a local government meetup, starting the next phase.

Table 1. Overview of actors involved in the planning process (anonymised; overview by authors).

Actor	Core Background	Role	Phases involved
Megan	Commerce	Initiator	Phase 1 and 2; less in phases 3–5
George	Commerce	Initiator	Phase 1 and 2 mainly
Carl	Engineering	Early supporter	Phase 2 mainly
Tom	Art	Early supporter	Phase 2, 3, 4, less in 5
Linda	Planning	Government	Phases 1–5
Sjoerd	Planning	Government	Phases 1–5
Laura	Management	Remunerated implementer	Phases 4 and 5
Thijs	Planning	Implementer	Phases 4 and 5
Albert	Communications	Implementer	Phases 4 and 5
Melanie	Creative business management	Implementer	Phases 4 and 5

In phase 2, new actors joined the initiator group, including one engineer (Carl) and one artist (Tom). Knowledge was exchanged and discussed between the initiators and a few local government planners (Linda and Sjoerd). The planners, representing the city as the main government actors, were interested and saw this as a chance to solve the stalled development of the area. Additionally, the experimental nature of the proposed project could provide inspiration and spin-offs for similar stalled developments in the city. In this phase, then, the initiators mobilised their own social networks and local government via the planners to arrange funding to kick-start the redevelopment efforts. The funding was finally attained through various subsidies and grants from various governmental levels.

Subsequently, in phase 3, as funding options and plans became more concrete, management tasks became more complex. The initiators experienced challenges in implementation of their plans, operating in arenas relatively foreign to their own backgrounds and roles. The local government then chose to employ an external manager as implementer (Laura).

Laura’s role marks phase 4 of the project. She had career experience in redeveloping existing structures for alternative uses and had experience dealing with various local and regional governmental actors from previous jobs. She was considered a helpful addition for the project by the local government and one of the initiators. She was authorised to gather a team of her own choosing to implement the project. This was considered necessary because Megan and George had been pulling a lot of weight for the project and felt they needed to focus on other activities. The local government felt comfortable giving this kind of responsibility to the relatively well-known Laura. Laura then recruited Thijs, Albert, and Melanie as implementers. She received full-time remuneration from the projects’ funding. Thijs, Albert, and Melanie were paid on an hourly basis as and when needed. One of the main goals of this implementation group led by Laura, was to make the area attractive by sharing insights about the redevelopment process and collaboration experiences locally and with other cities nationally and internationally.

During phase 5, the wrap-up of the project and the life of the space after the project, shows that the space is now marketed as a novel way to redevelop an attractive and liveable mixed-use neighbourhood. Most of the temporary uses dreamt up by the initiators that gave the site its added value were eventually removed, and the originally contracted developers resumed their work in the area again, with different plans.

Overall, the project’s actors developed different perceptions of the level of success of the project. The quick sale of new residential units measured success to some. The initiators from phase 1 and 2 saw success in terms of increased land values, but were somewhat disappointed that the final development lacked creative stimulation. This meant fewer financial returns than they had hoped for. At least two of them felt it could have brought more contrast to ‘business-as-usual’ development in the local context. From the local government perspective, the national and international attention, and increases in land values made the project a great success. To Laura and her team, the project was a good addition to their career track record, seen as a good experience, and impacted their social networks mostly positively.

4.2. Who learns…?

The actors presented above were involved based on their motivations for the site. Most have not taken part in conventional planning processes other than as users. In a co-creative collaborative planning process, they lead as initiators, supporters or implementers. Phases 1 and 2 involved self-selected participants, who ascribed themselves their roles (see Table 1). Phases 3–5 involved more prescribed roles, defined by local government planners and by an external manager and implementer. These actors then each contributed from their individual realm to the shared social realm of the project (see Figure 2 and discussion in the next section for an example of an interaction between four of the individuals). The roles shown in Table 1 give an idea of the kinds of knowledge each individual brought in, although their backgrounds were more complex. For example, an expert in commerce also had a planning background, and a government planner had previous pedagogical training and experience. These background complexities, though not immediately relevant, did influence how these individuals understood the planning process, and the way they interacted with each other.

Figure 2. Map of social learning between actors in story, T2 of one moment of interaction.

(source: authors; refer also to Figure 1)

4.3. …what…?

Zooming in on the interactions and what they led to in terms of social learning – specifically, who learns what from whom – a key finding is that each group employed very different methods of knowledge exchange and management. First, the initiators Megan and George devised the project together and used their existing process and content knowledge in the small-scale business sector to build joint knowledge for a novel redevelopment plan involving art and temporary use. They also jointly figured out who to approach in government and where to get funding, what kind of redevelopment would be possible with which materials, etc. When they lacked expertise, they activated their social networks to gain the missing knowledge, such as involving Carl and Tom for creativity and practical know-how, and later Linda and Sjoerd for governmental collaboration. Social learning was especially fruitful in this example, as all actors gained new knowledge or connections for knowledge indexing.

Mapping one single moment of interaction (see Figure 2) shows other insights of social learning in this group of initiators, supporters and implementers. Please note that this moment is reconstructed based on a variety of insights from different respondents, and may carry subjective biases. Although not an exact replication of what happened, the multiple perspectives and views are triangulated.

Joining in a face-to-face meeting in the beginning of phase 4 – in which the project moved from ideation to implementation – Megan, Tom, Sjoerd and Laura discussed the practicalities involved to reach implementation. Laura, hired to implement, was confident that she knew what there was to know, and had discussed plans with Sjoerd and others at the government prior to the meeting. Allegedly, she leaned back throughout the meeting and listened with moderate interest to what the others were discussing. She observed Tom, and felt that the situation confirmed her perception about how artistically oriented people could not be taken seriously for business purposes. Tom, from his perspective, was keen on sharing his content knowledge about what he wanted to do on the site. He had alternative ideas about how the process should go, but was prepared to see how things would unfold, building his process knowledge along the way. He perceived Laura as arrogant and problematic, and felt this confirmed his previous (negatively laden) knowledge about ‘managers’. Sjoerd and Megan contributed both process and content knowledge from previous experiences in planning and commerce. They discussed practicalities (i.e. what kind of permits might be necessary, and who would be responsible for safety in the area) and were happy that Laura paid attention and seemed confident. For Tom, this interaction was unsatisfactory; he perceived it as the government clinging on to business-as-usual approaches and reverting to their usual methods, based on Sjoerd’s actions and Laura’s confirmation of expectations. Megan was more understanding in this regard, as she could empathise (through her own commercial activities) with the implementer’s and the government’s hesitation in the face of lack of predictability.

The starting points of each actor involved in this interaction differed greatly. This affected how they perceived each other, interacted, and eventually the outcome (plan). Although some building and activity experimentation were allowed, many of the formalities and the amount of involvement by government or actors hired through the government returned to business-as-usual models. For Tom and similar actors, this was a disappointment and a confirmation of negative expectations of government (and related) actors. His personal experiences had positioned government actors as adversaries. For Sjoerd, representing government actors, the project was considered quite experimental. Laura perceived the outcome as positive, since it was close to what she did in her previous work and conformed to the usual policy processes. Megan was satisfied with the outcome as a logical development from idea to implementation, that still gave her enough room for improving the area to an extent that benefitted her commercial activities.

Many other moments could be mapped just like Figure 2, and they would give a variety of insights. Nevertheless, the above is a representative example of the different positions that were taken, and the ways in which knowledge, skills and experiences were shared and developed through that interaction (i.e. the way social learning occurred). Another important finding in the project, however, is related to the impact of lack of interaction. Laura’s team of implementers, for example, worked mostly independently of one another as freelancers. Most of them kept face-to-face interaction with each other and the initiators and supporters to a minimum. Instead, they conducted most work from their own office despite being located at small distances within the same city. Knowledge was only exchanged when considered strictly necessary, which was infrequent. These freelance implementers ended up using social interactions to confirm their existing knowledge and were not looking to exchange or build knowledge. Reasons mentioned included lack of motivation to do so, lack of urgency, and focus on their freelance work that led them to want to develop more in their personal field than that of the project as a whole. This worked efficiently for the management of implementation, but did not generate especially creative solutions and did not contribute to building new knowledge at the individual level through social interaction. The implementers mentioned that what they learned from the project was mainly through their own experiences through action or through cognitive learning. Social learning among actors co-creating within this project led mainly to confirmation of knowledge or to the reinforcement of conflicts and tensions.

4.4. …from whom?

In this case study, each individual had different expectations of what the project should deliver in terms of knowledge, when and for whom. They brought with them assumptions about who they would learn what from. The initiators wanted to improve their own business through the improvement of the neighbourhood, and were open to learning about how to do this from anyone willing to act (e.g. creatives, government, builders, developers). Carl and Tom wanted to develop their knowledge through collaboration and experimentation, hoping to create a new commercial product. Laura expected payment for her knowledge and experience. The other implementers looked for experience through collaboration and experimentation, but especially expected the project to lead to a better image for the neighbourhood and city in the context of the country and internationally. They did not see interaction with other actors as part of their role. This culminated in a mismatch of expectations, seen if we compare those of the initiators, supporters, and implementers. These expectations were never made explicit or discussed, so this mismatch led to tensions between actors in some moments, and to the delegation of knowledge management in others (e.g. the freelancers not learning everything themselves but indexing their knowledge (see section 2.2.2.)). This means that limited interaction and therefore very little social learning took place between the initiators and implementers, for example – which they saw as particularly effective. Laura and Tom developed conflicting narratives about and with each other, leading to process knowledge with a negative connotation. They continued to interact but found whatever the other said inaccurate or useless. These are also forms of social learning.

5. Discussion

The map of social learning (see Figures 1 and 2) facilitates the disentangling and uncovering of who learns what from whom. This allows both positive and negative outcomes based on different social learning processes to be understood, nuanced, and potentially used to help achieve certain goals. It helps demonstrate that social learning is not always the key to what is perceived as a successful outcome. Through social learning, Tom for example begins to perceive what others celebrate as a successful development, as a negative experience and a disappointing outcome, through which his preconceptions about local government and managers were reinforced. His knowledge, expertise and personal characteristics were meaningful for how he perceived these interactions. This is exemplary for the ‘who learns’ element of social learning.

Furthermore, the story shows that using social learning as an analytical lens can help identify how expectations evolve and change, uncovering mismatches in expectations, and their influence on whether knowledge is exchanged between which individuals, and what that knowledge is. For example, Tom was less likely to reach his expectations when Laura held more power during implementation and could choose not to heed Tom’s demand for more alternative forms of development. Likewise, Tom’s negative perception of Laura and vice-versa also meant that neither would engage in constructive knowledge exchange with the other. The dissonance between Tom and Laura meant a breakdown of the potential for transferring both content and process knowledge, though this might have led to compromise or to a more inclusive outcome. This became significant for how the project reverted to more conventional development plans during its implementation and especially after its wrap-up. The lack of sharing or understanding for certain process knowledge – the ‘what’ and ‘from whom’ –, such as the impact of one’s own and others’ emotions and expectations, significantly affected the collaborative process and outcomes.

There are two possible ways to interpret this social learning process. The taken approach may have led the project to achieve conventional success (e.g. increasing land values in the area of the project), since the engagement of more alternative and experimental propositions from Carl and Tom could have led to riskier but more creatively valuable implementations, or no implementation at all. Alternatively, this might have limited the success or effect of the project for socio-economic improvement of the area for the creative sector. Conversely, the story also shows that significant parts of the project functioned through and benefited from non-social forms of learning. For example, the interactions between Laura and her implementing team in phases 4 and 5 show that it was efficient for them to focus less on social learning and rely instead on solitary cognitive learning. They reverted to this form as it had served them well in the past and they were not focused on creating social interactions or learning together. Their efforts were considered successful by the government and one of the initiators.

It is unlikely that an individual learns nothing at all through social interaction, as shown by the impact of the expectation mismatch between Laura and Tom, or the way in which Laura’s team learned to divide their tasks even though their focus was not on social learning. Here, one should be aware that when social learning is set as an explicit agenda, the process can become a self-fulfilling prophecy (social learning does happen when people are brought together) wherein superfluous interactions are encouraged to the detriment of the outcomes. Individuals will indeed learn, but what? For example, social learning can lead to increased understanding of other actors’ perspectives, but can also reinforce existing prejudices. Instead, if the focus is on what is learnt, and the planner and scholar observe the social learning process, this might help uncover which forms of social interaction and knowledge exchange might be best suited for a goal at hand. The case, as told through the story and mapping tools, confirms that ‘what’ one socially learns is dependent on ‘who learns’, and ‘from whom’ (linking back, for example, to Wolman and Page 2002, as well as to many authors from psychology discussed in section 2) and shows how this process can be better understood.

6. Conclusion

Unilateral planning practices have become virtually impossible to sustain. Therefore, social learning is a key process to understand planning practice. Within the planning discipline, social learning is commonly perceived as contributing to desirable outcomes. By unpacking how social learning functions at individual and small group levels, this article emphasises the importance of considering the possibility for both positive and negative outcomes. This provides an enlightening lens to analyse planning practice, with the aid of typologies and elements to consider when studying social learning.

Approaching social learning by asking ‘who learns’, ‘what’ and ‘from whom’ we propose a way to map moments of social learning and through that, a psychology-inspired methodology for studying it. We represent the individual and their realm through existing knowledge and personal characteristics (‘who learns’). Then, the type of knowledge exchanged and the types of social interactions and subtypes of learning (‘what’) are shown through the interactions and outcomes in the social realm. This view also allows tracing where a particular impact on knowledge originated (‘from whom’). Overall, findings highlight that while planning practice sees individuals based mostly on their primary roles, planners need to be mindful of individual backgrounds and motivations, and how combinations of these can lead to a large variety of outcomes in terms of the planning and learning outcomes.

Applying the map to a typical case of co-creative (as a form of collaborative) planning, where variety in actors is encouraged and expected, recommends social learning as a key lens through which to understand planning processes. Consciously untangling the interactions and moments at the level of individuals provides insights that might be missed if social learning was enforced via policy agendas. For example, that in later phases a lack of social learning allowed for very efficient implementation. By studying who brings what knowledge to a planning process, and who exchanges what with whom, we can uncover what makes certain projects ‘successful’ from whose perspective, and what can impede such ‘success’. This lens complements existing approaches to understand power structures, institutional change and learning. Contributions from psychology are key here. A crucial caveat is that such an approach does not work if social learning is understood as intrinsically ‘good’, as it reinforces a false image of the fruitfulness of, for example, collaboration, co-creation and incremental development – and obscures what can indeed be meaningful positive sides to these processes and to social learning.

This article makes a two-fold contribution by i) providing ways to map social learning and using it as a lens to understand collaborative and co-creative planning practices and ii) employing the storytelling method for dealing with sensitive cases where anonymity is important. The narration and abstraction from processes, actors and events helps to focus on the process and the significance of individuals and their interactions. It also makes unique cases and scientific analysis more accessible and relatable for practitioners, and makes it easier to show failure without shaming particular individuals or projects. Future research could test the application of this method further. We also propose that future research apply the provided map to further develop the understanding of social learning in planning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under the Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF) programme [438-15-159].

Notes

1. A term used in psychology to refer to the structural distinction between, for example, procedural and conceptual knowledge. It relates to the identifiable human tendency to organize information into patterns (see e.g. Day, Arthur, and Gettman 2001).

2. N is a representation of one individual, but indicating that there might be any number of additional individuals, each with their own social realm.

3. All names are fictitious for the sake of anonymity.