I. Introduction
Indicators are pieces of information that reflect some larger
system (although that "system" is often not explicitly considered
or defined). Their primary function is to communicate something
about that system to an audience (or audiences) that are unlikely
or unable (for a variety of reasons) to spend significant amounts
of time seeking comprehensive, detailed information about that
system. The number of communities seeking to develop and use
indicators has grown significantly over the past decade, becoming
a core tool for hundreds of community improvement processes
across the country (and world) and cutting across sustainability,
quality of life, healthy communities, and other frameworks for
organizing improvement efforts. At least one thing is common
across these various efforts – people presume that the development
and reporting of indicators will help create positive change
within their community.
For the past ten years, I have been working with a wide variety
of places, organizations and people to develop community indicators,
performance measurement systems, and information-based collaborative
processes to effect change. This paper, while drawing upon the
work, research and writings of others, is primarily an attempt
to reflect upon and synthesize my experiences and observations,
and to offer some propositions regarding how to more effectively
conceive of and integrate indicators within a larger framework
for building healthier, resilient and more sustainable communities.
Most people still seem to approach community information systems
as decision-support tools, the primary purpose of which is to
bring information to decision makers in ways that directly
inform particular decisions. For example, I have seen many people
and projects seeking to develop indicators as a way to provide
answers. Rarely, however, is there a case where participants
in these processes can point to a specific indicator or piece
of information and say with confidence "I changed my decision
based upon that."
Throughout my work, however, I have observed participants in
these community efforts
- Explore and create a better understanding among participants
about the different legitimate ways of viewing or defining
"the system" and how the system "works";
- Identify and come to agreement upon the various valued outcomes,
goals, visions community members have with regards to the
system;
- Engage each other in discussions about what information
should be collected and reported;
- Become more informed about where data/information resides,
who collects it and why, and how to access and interpret that
information;
- Come together to discuss what that information means for
the community;
- Develop new relationships and networks;
- Develop new understanding among community members of each
other and key issues affecting the community; and
- Discover new abilities among individual citizens and community
organizations.
It is this "learning and capacity-building" effect of indicator
development and use, often viewed as "secondary" or intangible,
that I believe to be the most significant and potentially powerful
effect of community information systems. From the simultaneous
development of shared meaning and stronger networks of caring
and trust, action has emerged and been sustained in ways nobody
in the project would have predicted.
This paper will explore some of the emerging lessons regarding
how indicators can be effective for promoting positive change
in communities. Following a brief review of these lessons, it
will review of the characteristics of communities that reflect
and learn as they engage in community development/action, and
then consider how the development and use of community indicators
can be part a larger system for "community learning."
II. What Makes Indicators Effective?
Why have communities, regions, organizations and networks expended
enormous quantities of financial and human resources to develop
sets of indicators? While indicators can be used for a wide
range of purposes, the most basic and universal answer is simple
– "They know they want the indicators to become part of a public
dialogue and somehow to help communities and regions become
better at self-management and more self-conscious about the
direction they are going. They want the indicators to be influential."
Over the past few years, there have been a number of gatherings
of indicator practitioners aimed in part at identifying the
various elements of both indicator development processes and
products that contribute to positive results. From my review
and synthesis of the results from these gatherings, there appears
to be some convergence among practitioners upon a set of emerging
propositions regarding when, how, and what makes indicators
effective. In general, these propositions tend to cluster around
three aspects: (a) the processes for selecting and developing
the indicators, (b) characteristics of the indicators themselves,
and (c) the systems and processes for using the indicators.
Indicators are more likely to be used and have an impact on
community decisions if, within and through the process of selecting
and developing the indicators:
- Participants develop agreement on:
- System scope and boundaries
- Project purpose, audiences, & desired outcomes
- The indicators are linked to desired outcomes (i.e., community
vision and goals). And, if these outcomes do not already exist,
community members take the time to articulate a vision or
set of goals for their community.
- Both the intended users as well as those with a "technical"
knowledge of the system are engaged in the selection of the
indicators.
- Project leadership or conveners view the process as a key
opportunity to build capacity and social capital among community
members (i.e., build trust and learning through the process).
- Individual & organizational (government, business, non-profit)
"champions" – change catalysts and implementers – are identified,
developed and nurtured.
- Opportunities are taken to engage and learn from organizations
& agencies with outcome-based management experience.
Indicators are more likely to be used and have an impact on
community decisions if, the indicator system includes:
- Indicators for important elements or relationships of the
system, as identified and defined by community members and,
specifically, the intended users
- A mix of indicator "types," including those that help identify
"root causes" of problems.
- Indicators that are clear and easy to understand or interpret
by their intended audience.
- Measures that are feasible (i.e., based upon data currently
available), but with the understanding that they will be improved
over time
- Sets of indicators that enable users to make comparisons
over time and/or across places, and associated narratives
that make the implications or "stories" more transparent.
And finally, indicators are more likely to be used and have
an impact on community decisions if, within and through the
process of using the indicators:
- Project leadership find or provide resources for specific
planned opportunities, processes, or events for the intended
audience to use the indicators and provide feedback on their
relevance and utility (i.e., don't assume that if you report
them they will be used).
- They are embedded within or linked to existing decision
& planning processes. Rather than having general, non-specific
discussions regarding what the indicators say and what should
be done, they are part of a more explicit and formalized "plan-do-check-adapt"
cycle with links to goals, targets, and specific decisions
or policies.
- Different reporting formats and processes are used which
are appropriate to the particular needs and timing of the
intended users.
- Networks of local organizations that are developing &
using measures are created or nurtured so that they can share
learning and resources and pursue opportunities for collaboration.
- Project and community leadership understand role that indicators
can help create change, but that other elements and capacities
also need to be in place; indicators are but one piece of
a larger "change model" for community improvement.
While these are all reasonable propositions, they remain aimed
primarily at the level of practice. This not meant as a criticism,
but rather as an observation that they need to be complemented
by some larger discussion of how indicators "fit" with and support
different models for promoting community efficacy and change.
As noted by two observers of past and present efforts to develop
indicators, "these efforts . . . have relied on unrealistic
expectations and a simplistic model of how information drives
policy and public action." Noting that indicators can and do
have influence on decision-making, Innes and Booher suggest
that:
The influence came through a much more complex and less
observable process than many recognize . . . . Indeed, it
was not really the indicators themselves or the reports
that mattered, but the learning and change that took place
during the course of their development and the way the learning
led to new shared meanings and changed discourses. This
learning and changes in practices, however, was highly contingent
on the way information was developed and who was involved.
Innes and Booher go on to describe eight lessons from past
research and review of indicator efforts that describe when
and how indicators have been influential, including:
- Indicators do not drive policy, but rather influence it
through a process of conversion and learning;
- Indicators primary impact occurs through and during the
process of developing and discussing them;
- Their influence is felt most through a "collaborative learning
process" as those who develop and use them jointly make sense
of why the indicators are important, what they mean, and their
implications for changes in actions and policies;
- The full range of anticipated users (i.e., those whose decisions
one hopes will be influenced by the indicators) must be involved
in the selection, development of and collaborative discussions
regarding the meaning of the indicators.
Their focus on indicators as catalysts for collective learning
leading to collaborative action is consistent with the more
specific propositions emerging from practitioners. It also provides
a link to another body of work looking at the capacities of
communities (and their members) that enable them to learn and
adapt as they engage in efforts to improve their well-being.
It is this notion of "community learning" that provides some
interesting possibilities for considering how indicators can
and do help create stronger, healthier, and more resilient communities.
III. Communities That Learn
"Learning is a complex process that goes beyond simple
acquisition or creation of new knowledge and skills. Newman
(1999, p. 85) suggests that learning has a transformative
aspect, which has to do with understanding values, ideas
and pressure from peers that constrain the way we think
and act. Learning interactions take place between individuals,
sometimes mediated by text or other media. Networks enable
people within a community to come together to share their
values and interests (Lane & Dorfman 1997) just as networks
operate at regional levels to allow collective learning."
Sue Kilpatrick Community Learning and Sustainability
(2000)
"An institution that learns while it acts – a reflective
institution – will necessarily look different from an institution
designed solely to act. In a reflective institution, monitoring
and evaluation of activities and projects is not so much
a discrete task as a way of thinking which must permeate
the structure, philosophy and practices of an institution."
Eric Dudley and Alejandro Imbach Reflective
Institutions (IUCN, 1997)
The idea of a "learning organization" has been with us for
long enough now that it has become part of the normal set of
terms we use to discuss the characteristics and capacities of
effective, high-performing private sector companies and public
sector agencies. Over the past five years, a few scholars and
practitioners have begun to combine the findings and propositions
from work in the areas of learning organizations, community
capacity, social capital, adult education and adaptive management,
and suggest how these have particular relevance for considering
why and how some communities seem to be more effective and "high-performing"
than others. Specifically, they have begun to identify an emerging
set of qualities and characteristics of communities that learn
and, as a result, are more effective at adapting to external
forces and in shaping their future development path.
Based upon an initial review and synthesis of this work, I
have identified nine characteristics of a community that learns,
including:
- Admitting incomplete knowledge
If one assumes that s/he already knows the answer or has
the best approach, or that the "experts" responsible for
crafting community policies and plans know how best do address
community needs and achieve community goals, learning is
unlikely to occur. (Or, the barriers to learning have been
raised significantly.) However, when we admit that our communities
are very complex systems and that none of us really know
the most effective way for achieving our collective well-being,
we open ourselves to a new approach to planning and action.
Hypotheses within project and strategic planning are made
explicit. Plans and strategies are seen as opportunities
to test these hypotheses, and to improve community knowledge
that can be used to improve future choices and actions.
- Value diversity, engage the whole community.
Once we admit that we do not have all the answers, and
that all of our decisions can affect the future of our community,
then it becomes more apparent that "[e]verybody has a role
in the learning and wisdom generating process." Communities
that learn create and sustain processes which engage a broad
and diverse range of community members, recognizing that
every member is both a source of knowledge as well as a
potential decision maker who will affect the community's
future. "They seek new information and different ideas to
add to the local mix of experience and wisdom" and "recognize
everyone for their contribution."
- Two-way feedback systems
For learning and change to occur, it is critical that there
is a continuous and valued two-way flow of information between
community members and community leaders (both formal and
informal). Noting that within communities there are thousands
of actors whose decisions can and do effect its character
and conditions – past, present and future – Innes and Booher
suggest that we use not the analogy of a machine but rather
an organism "which evolves and changes its direction in
response to external events and to its own internal dynamics."
Rather than attempt to direct change through a top-down
or comprehensive planning intervention, they propose another
approach:
Such a system is capable, however, of improving itself
in ways we could not predict, but which are more effective
that what the most sophisticated analysts could create.
Such self-improvement and adaptation however requires feedback
– various kinds of information – to flow among the players
who make the city what it is.
- Effective networks
There is much evidence that the presence and strength of
networks within communities is a key and perhaps necessary
ingredient for effective communities. In the case of community
learning, three types of networks all play important roles:
- "Strong ties" among group members (Intra-community)
- "Bridging ties" between groups and/or between communities
- "Linking ties" between public and private institutions
The presence of all three types of networks facilitates
the flow of information, resources and the formation of
a sense of connectedness and reciprocity among community
members that enable collaborative learning. In addition,
they enhance access to the wide range of internal resources
available to a community through its various community members,
local government and private organizations, as well as the
resources (knowledge, $, etc.) available from other "surrounding"
communities. As noted by Kilpatrick:
The presence of bridging (or 'weak') ties between groups
within a community and between communities, and linking
ties with public and private institutions, in addition
to bonding ties [i.e., intra-community networks], has
a positive impact on community sustainability. The right
mix of the three kinds of ties strengthens the social
capital of the community by giving it an external dimension.
This enables the community to deal with internal and external
problems or changes through access to a wide range of
internal and external knowledge, skills and resources.
- Collective vision of a desired future
The community has articulated an explicit vision or set
of desired outcomes for their future that continues to be
referred to and developed by members as they act. Without
such a collectively articulated vision, there is no foundation
or point of reference for people and organizations to come
together to answer the question "are we better off than
we were before?" Inherently, the discussion this question
initiates starts with another set of questions: "What does
better off mean for us? What do we want are community to
be, look and feel like in the future?" While individual
organizations and community members can and do learn as
they engage in their own improvement efforts, efforts to
move from individual to community-level learning requires
some agreement on answers to these types of questions.
- Holistic perspectives, specific actions
Community members seek to understand the interconnections
between their interests, issues and activities and the larger
community-level systems and desired outcomes (i.e., "the
big picture"), but not at the expense of identifying and
taking effective actions that address specific issues or
problems. Community learning occurs as people take action
and then collectively reflect upon how those actions impact
desired outcomes. As we often see in collaborative processes,
if the focus remains on the desired outcomes, there results
a wonderful vision for the community but with no activity
to achieve it (and no "text" for learning). Likewise, if
there is only action with no reference back to whether community
health and well-being is being improved, there is a lot
of heat being generated but not necessarily being translated
to energy that is moving the community in the desired direction.
- Culture of inquiry
In a recent evaluation of an effort to improve the capacity
of non-profit organizations through the development and
use of performance measurement systems, the reviewers concluded
that "establishing these systems alone was not enough. In
the end, the project's success had less to do with whether
measurement systems were developed and more to do with whether
the organizations were able to create a culture that valued
the process of self-evaluation." The same can be said for
communities as they attempt to develop data warehouses and
sophisticated systems for measuring performance. Unless
learning and reflection occurs throughout the community
– and not just as a "special planning project" or as the
responsibility of one agency – the use of the data will
be limited as will the resulting learning. As they take
action, individuals and organizations across the community
need to monitor their own results and share lessons with
other community members. Learning from action is valued
and rewarded. "Good or bad, learning communities share [and
systematically review] the results of projects, actions,
and events."
- Take time and make space for
collective reflection
As Meg Wheatley notes, "Thinking is the place where intelligent actions begin." Yet,
both individually and as a society, we are speeding up our
processes and giving ourselves less not more time to think
and reflect. Learning – individual, group and community
– requires that spaces for
reflection exist and that institutions and community members
reclaim the necessary time to talk, reflect and share their
experiences. "Discussion, dialogue, conflict, and reflection
are part of the learning process." Yet each one of these
processes, if they are to be positive community-building
experiences that facilitate collaborative learning, often
must move at a slower pace and within longer timeframes
than our current decision-making culture supports.
"If we feel we're changing in ways we don't like, or
seeing things in the world that make us feel sorrowful,
then we need time to think about this. We need time to think
about what we might do and where we might start to change
things. We need time to develop clarity and courage. If
we want our world to be different, our first act needs to
be reclaiming time to think. Nothing will change for the
better until we do that."
- Collaboration and group process skills
An essential component of community (as opposed to individual)
learning is "the capacity of individuals to come together
and share their knowledge and skills to solve local problems.
Partnerships and collaboration in communities mean a wider
range of skills are acquired by people, and this enhances
community capacity to manage change." If people and groups
are unable to bridge their diverse perspectives and experiences,
then it becomes more difficult to imagine how the communication
and joint action necessary for community learning will occur.
IV. Indicators and Community Learning
What is the relationship between developing and using indicators
and building the capacity for community learning? Perhaps there
does not need to be any. Certainly a community could develop
indicators without explicitly considering or building a fuller
system for community learning. Likewise, a community could seek
to build many of the above capacities associated with community
learning without developing an indicator system.
The synergy of the two systems, and activities to build those
systems, however, should not be ignored. In the case of indicators,
it appears that they have the greatest effect where they are
approached as tools for effectively raising questions,
providing the basis for people to deliberate, and to
help communities come together to develop shared meaning
about important issues. Clearly, to realize their full potential
the indicators are just one element of a larger set of capacities
for community change. They are one piece of a community learning
system.
As we consider the nine elements above that begin to describe
a learning community, an indicator system can play at least
one direct role – as a central part of a community feedback
systems (#3). At the simplest level, general outcome indicators
(those most often found in community-level reports) offer an
initial set of feedback to community members regarding whether
or not their community is moving towards or away from their
vision of a desired future. Increasingly, we are seeing communities
develop more sophisticated and detailed indicator systems with
measures that link back not only to community-level outcomes,
but also neighborhood conditions, program or organizational
outcomes, and even information that can be used in very short
timeframes by individual decision makers.
However, as we have noted throughout this paper, the value
and benefits of a system of indicators is often realized not
so much from the simple presence of the indicators, but through
the processes for developing and using them. For example,
- as participants in a community indicator effort develop
agreement on what the indicators should be and what sets of
decisions they hope the indicators will inform, the discussions
can help surface the partial knowledge each of us have (#1),
develop capacities for collaboration (#9), and begin the process
of taking time for reflection (#8);
- as community indicator efforts seek to engage and learn
from community members and local organizations with relevant
experiences in outcome measurement, new networks are developed
which broaden the flow of resources and information into and
through the community (#4);
- as indicators are used and linked to specific planning and
decision processes through some form of "plan-do-check-adapt"
cycle, this encourages a culture of inquiry (#8), exposes
incomplete knowledge regarding cause and effect relationships
(# 1), and reinforces connections between specific actions
and community outcomes (#6).
As we look at each of the "best practices" for indicator development
and use (Section II, above), we can identify how they support
one or more of the nine characteristics of community learning.
Similarly, we can go through the inverse exercise and see how
each of the nine community learning capacities facilitates more
effective development and use of indicators.
V. Pulling It Together (or, "Where Do We Go From Here?")
As noted in the beginning, the primary function of indicators
is to communicate information about complex systems (in this
case, community health or sustainability) in order to promote
decisions and actions that will improve those systems. As outlined
above, it appears that a primary mechanism for this is through
the learning – both individual and collective – that occurs
as community members engage with one another in the various
discussions and tasks necessary for selecting, building and
using the indicators. While the various characteristics of communities
that learn suggest the capacities necessary for community indicators
to have their full effect as tools for community improvement,
they do not lead us to any particular change process or model.
A recently released report from the Rockefeller Foundation
may provide another piece to the puzzle. In Communicating
for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process
and Its Outcomes, Figueroa et al offer the Integrated Model
of Communication for Social Change (IMCFSC) which "describes
an iterative process where 'community dialogue' and 'collective
action' work together to produce social change in a community
that improves the health and welfare of all of its members."
The model includes three main elements:
- The "catalyst" – some event, person, or information that
in turn leads to
- Community dialogue and collective action producing
- Individual and social change.
Within each one of these broader elements, the authors describe
a range of steps and activities that can occur to move people
and communities through the model (see Figure 1 below).
Without going into a fuller discussion of the model, it seems
to suggest at least three potentially useful areas for further
consideration and discussion among indicator and community change
practitioners.
First, whereas the nine capacities for community learning provide
a "structural" description, the IMCFSC begins to provide a dynamic
flow of events and activities leading to individual and social
change. While the concept of "learning" is not specifically
addressed or used within the IMCFSC, it seems not a step too
far both to link the capacities for community learning as the
characteristics that facilitate movement through the IMCFSC
and to view the mechanism by which all of this occurs as social
interactions that lead to learning – individual and social/community.
Second, the role of the catalyst is critical in initiating
the flow of activities through the model. While their discussion
of how some "stimulus" actually triggers the "community
dialogue – collective action" phase is relatively brief, it
is not hard to imagine (or observe in many communities across
the country!) community indicators as a catalyst for community
discussion. "Once this discussion is initiated it may unfold
in several directions: from simply creating a greater sense
of dissatisfaction, to inciting a community conflict or to cooperative
action that helps solve the problem." It seems the key question
is how and when do indicators as a catalyst lead down the latter
path (i.e., cooperative action). I would suggest as an initial
proposition that the presence of the nine elements for learning
communities would make it more likely that "indicators-as-catalysts"
would lead to cooperative action.
Third, the IMCFSC helps to focus our attention on the necessary
synergy between individual and social change (or, to use different
terminology, individual and collective learning). As Figueroa
et al observe, many individual behavior change programs in the
public health field typically are designed to achieve outcomes
associated with a single, specific aspect of health (e.g., condom
promotion for HIV/AIDS prevention). "As a consequence, some
individual behavior change may even be limited to a short duration
in time unless other measures are taken to ensure that such
changes are institutionalized or self-sustaining." On the other
hand, if the focus is only on "social change", the capacity
or potential for improvement may increase but there may
be little or no actual changes in the health and well-being
of individuals. In short, what is needed for sustained change
is both individual and collective learning.
It has been the intent of this paper to review and reflect
upon emerging lessons regarding how and when community indicators
can be effective tools for community improvement. In doing so,
it seemed necessary to look more broadly than just the community
indicators field itself and into broader discussions regarding
social communication, feedback and learning as a mechanism for
change, and capacities for community learning.
While it is not the intent of this paper to reach conclusions,
there does appear to be at least one theme worth including as
a concluding proposition. Given the complexity of how communities
function and the uncertainty regarding cause-and-effect relationships
in the problems they face, we need to design flexible, resilient
systems that seek to engage broader sets of people (a) in sharing
and making collective meaning with their knowledge and perspectives,
(b) in generating shared hypotheses or "best practices" regarding
community improvement strategies, (c) reflecting on and learning
from the results of those strategies and (d) adjusting their
plans, strategies and practices. While indicators are fundamental
components of these systems, we must look to create and sustain
the broader sets of capacities for community learning if indicators
are to be effective tools for community improvement.
![](img/article26.gif)
Figure 1
From Maria Elena Figueroa, D. Lawrence
Kincaid, Manju Rani, Gary Lewis; Communication for Social
Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its
Outcomes, Rockefeller Foundation (2002)
- Innes, J. E.
and Booher, D.E. Indicators for Sustainable Communities:
A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence.
Working Paper 99-04. Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
University of California at Berkeley. Sept. 1999, p.
5.
- - Proceedings
of the Colorado Forum on National and Community Indicators
(November 22-23, 1996); Community-Based Information and
Sustainable Community Development: Symposium Findings &
Final Report, Green Mountain Institute (October 17-19,
1999); Rocky Mountain Institute Indicators Workshop Proceedings,
Rocky Mountain Institute (May 2-4, 2001); Doing and Measuring:
Proceedings from the 2000 State-of-the-Fraser Basin Conference
(November 24-25, 2000); Proceedings of the California Community
Indicators Conference, Redefining Progress (December 3-5,
1998).
Also consulted
were "Presenting Community-Level Data in an ‘Outcomes and
Indicators’ Framework: Lessons from Vermont’s Experience."
David A. Murphey. Public Administration Review, v.
59 (Jan/Feb), 1999; "A Community Indicators Case Study:
Addressing the Quality of Life in Two Communities," Kate
Besleme, Elisa Maser, & Judith Silverstein (Redefining
Progress. March 1999); "Neighborhood Indicators: Taking
Advantage of the New Potential," G. Thomas Kingsley (National
Neighborhood Indicators Partnership, The Urban Institute.
October 1998).
- Innes and Booher
(Sept. 1999), p. 6.
- Innes and Booher,
p. 6
- Innes and Booher
are not the only authors who have sought to review and comment
upon those characteristics of past indicator efforts which
seem to lead to greater impact. For an introduction to and
review of the wider range of literature, see Randa Gahin and
Chris Paterson, "Community Indicators: Past, Present and Future,"
National Civic Review v. 90 (Winter 2001), pp. 347-361.
- This paper will
not seek to discuss the history nor principles embedded within
the idea of a learning organization. Although many people
have worked to develop this idea and its translation to practice,
the early work of Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline,
1990) remains the foundation for the field and is the referent
and point of departure for this discussion.
- The
following synthesis is based upon a review of the following:
- Ian Falk
and Lesley Harrison, "Community Learning and Social Capital:
‘just having a little chat’," Journal of Vocational
Education and Training, Vol 50 (1998): 609-627;
- Sue Kilpatrick,
"Community Learning and Sustainability: Practice and Policy,"
Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia
Discussion Paper D6/2000, University of Tasmania (2000);
- Allen B.
Moore and Rusty Brooks, "Learning Communities and Community
Development: Describing the Process," Learning Communities:
International Journal of Adult and Vocational Learning,
Issue 1 (November 2000); 1-15;
- Ron Faris
and Wayne Peterson, "Learning-Based Community Development:
Lessons Learned for British Columbia," Report to the Ministry
of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers,
Province of British Columbia, Canada (July 2000);
- Eric Dudley
and Alejandro Imbach, Reflective Institutions: Eight Characteristics
of Institutions that Encourage and Respond to Learning
by Doing," International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (1997), An Approach to
Assessing Progress Toward Sustainability – Tools and Training
Series;
- Michael Gurstein,
"Community Learning, Community Economic Development and
the New Economy (DRAFT)," Report to the Community Learning
Networks Secretariat, Office of Learning Technologies,
Human Resources Development Canada (2000);
- Shanna Ratner,
"Emerging Issues in Learning Communities," Yellow Wood
Associates, Inc. (1997);
- Denis
Ralph, "Learning Communities: The Return of Camelot?"
Presentation to the Australian National Training Authority
National Conference (2000). Accessed at http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/lifelong-learning/.
- Allen B. Moore
& Rusty Brooks, "Learning Communities and Community Development,"
Learning Communities: International Journal of Adult and Vocational
Learning, v. 1 (2000), p. 11
- Moore and Brooks,
p. 11
- Innes and Booher,
p. 6
- Innes and Booher,
pp. 6-7
- Brett Lane and
Diane Dorfman, "Strengthening Community Networks: The Basis
for Sustainable Community Renewal" (Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory; June 1997)
- Sue Kilpatrick,
"Community Learning and Sustainability: Practice and Policy,"
CRLRA Discussion Paper D6/2000 (2000), p. 4
- Georgiana Hernandez
and Mary Visher, Creating a Culture of Inquiry, James
Irvine Foundation (2001), p. 2
- Moore and Brooks,
p. 12
- Margaret
Wheatley, "Can We Reclaim Time to Think?" Shambhala Sun (September
2001). Accessed at http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/timetothink.html
- Moore and Brooks,
p. 11
- Margaret
Wheatley, "Can We Reclaim Time to Think?" Shambhala Sun (September
2001). Accessed at http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/timetothink.html
- Sue Kilpatrick,
"Community Learning and Sustainability: Practice and Policy,"
CRLRA Discussion Paper D6/2000 (2000), p. 4
- Maria Elena Figueroa,
D. Lawrence Kincaid, Manju Rani, Gary Lewis; Communication
for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process
and Its Outcomes, Rockefeller Foundation (2002), p. 5
- Figueroa, et
al, p. 8
- A related set
of capacities that may facilitate the transition from catalyst
to cooperative action are what the National Civic League refers
to the components of healthy civic infrastructure – the "formal
and informal processes and networks through which communities
make decisions and attempt to solve problems." For a further
description and discussion of these, see The Civic Index:
Measuring Your Community’s Civic Health, 2nd
edition, National Civic League (1999).
- Figueroa, et
al, p. 13
|