Analyzing trust, commitment, reframing, and reflexibility in regional networks

As the progression of the climate crisis highlights the need for networks of individuals to evoke sustainable change, the dynamics of those networks are imperative to consider. Three core regional networks under the Duurzaam Door initiative (in English, “moving forward sustainably”) in the Netherlands are discussed in this study. The specific vision of the Duurzaam Door initiative is to uphold the “three C's”: coalitions, co-creation, and co-financing to its supporting networks. The networks are composed of many actors (like educational institutions, government bodies, NGO's, citizens, and more) that aim to develop sustainable solutions. This study sought to understand what fosters social learning in these networks.

Social learning occurs when people are learning and working together to solve problems. It is when understanding extends beyond an individual and instead influences a wider network. Due to social learning, attitudes, behaviors, norms, trust, and respect can shift. The researchers of this study were interested in the social learning dynamics of these networks. Specifically, they wanted to know what role reflexivity (rethinking your beliefs based on new information, which can happen through group sharing), trust, commitment and reframing played in social learning in the networks and what the roles of the network actors were facilitating those constructs.

Researchers conducted the study from 2014 to 2016 on 3 of the 12 regional networks under the Duurzaam Door initiative. The three regional networks were Utrecht, Flevoland, and Limburg. To understand the dynamics of each network, three methods were used in this study: reflection discussions at workshops, surveys, and interviews. The reflection discussions happened in 2014 and 2016 at workshops with network participants. They were asked to reflect on the most significant changes they had experienced. The surveys were designed to understand the network actors, how they interacted, and what they were learning. In 2016, 10 statements were added to the survey that aimed to illuminate the network's success in trust, commitment, reframing, and reflexibility by asking participants to rate their network's performance on each on a scale from one to seven. The interviews took place with three actors from each network in 2016. They were asked about changes that occurred in the network and results were categorized under the categories of trust, commitment, learning, change, reflexivity, and reframing. All data was analyzed for common themes.

The Utrecht network had established three projects related to social entrepreneurship, increasing citizen participation, and energy savings. The researchers found that the network weakened over 2014 to 2016. Unclear expectations for partners, lack of trust and group learning, and administrative burden led to decreases in reframing, trust, and commitment. The Flevoland network focused on energy, food, and energy resources. The network started out strong in 2014 as actors already knew each other, however shortly after, they faced difficulties due to confusion and concern around funding. To solve their issues, they formed projects around themes which led to better network connections and relationships, and thus high trust, reframing, and commitment. In 2016, participants experienced better network connections and were able to improve on interpersonal relationships. The Limburg network focused on energy, circular economy, and economical energy. They faced a lack of trust in the network in 2014 due to conflicting project interests and characters, and reached higher levels of trust, commitment, reframing, and reflexibility through group reflections and integration of bottom-up procedures amongst participants in 2016.

Based on the three network case studies, the researchers found that reflexivity positively affects trust, commitment, and reframing, and consequently positively impacts social learning too. These constructs also appeared as a positive outcome of social learning. They also seemed to interact, such that networks with high trust also had high commitment. In regards to change agents, researchers found that they can influence the development of a network. Change agents facilitated reflexive interventions when trust and social learning was low that led to important and positive changes for the networks.

There were some limitations to this study. The amount of people surveyed, interviewed, or otherwise studied was a small sample size, lessening the generalizability of the results around social learning. The dynamics of governance networks may differ between the Netherlands and other countries, thus the results may not apply in other countries.

These results suggest that commitment and reframing can be signs of progress in social learning. Flexibility is particularly needed to foster social learning. The researchers suggest social learning can be beneficial to environmental and sustainability education.