The CL method is powerful but demanding. To use its full potential, the practitioners have to learn the meaning of the tools, and the steps of the process. One identified problem was that practicioners tend to do not use the tools in the way that they were originally created. For example, the activity system triangle is a tool for analyzing the problems in a historical and systemic perspective. In a pressure to make the process of learning quicker and cheaper practitioners tend to eliminate steps of historical analysis, what making the model a way of classifying elements.
Other practical challenges is related to the unit of analysis for analyzing networks. As activities are becoming ever more networked, it become a challenge to represent the most relevant activities and how they are related. Moreover, it is also challenging to define who should participate. The interventionist is put in a contradictory position where including many actors increase diversity and challenge collaboration, and excluding them would lead to incomplete solutions. How to deal with networking character of interventions?
Another challenge is the increasing pressure from the "clients" to reduce costs of the intervention and their length. Practitioners want to learn quicker and invest as less as possible. Shortening the number of sessions make it difficult to go through the whole process of learning. Moreover, there is a huge pressure to standardize the tools used so that costs could be reduced.The standardization is in contradiction with the need to tailor the method for each case.
Being aware of the practical challenges of CL method is crucial to improve it and increase it impact and sustainability as a tool for learning. Thus, your feedback is crucial.
No comments:
Post a Comment