Dear reader.... welcome!

In-keeping with the participatory principles of our Rural Leadership Programme, this document has been collaboratively created on-line to show, 'warts and all', our story of learning.

We didn't want to create a 'glossy' report; we were more interested in keeping the feel 'alive' even as we wrote our individual, and collective, stories. We wanted plenty of pictures, and to ensure as many voices as possible found their place.

We ask that you engage with this account in the spirit of mutual inquiry. As we share our story with wider and wider circles, we intend that something of the quality of our inquirying through 'head, hand and heart' might resonate with you.

And, please.... we'd love to hear your response. Was this inspiring? awful? confusing? clear? What can we learn from you to make another 'RLP' better? What have you learned from engaging with this document?

We want to include your responses within this document. Please send an email to Nick Wilding... and watch this space!


Rural Leadership Programme Evaluation 27th January 2008 Authors: Nick Wilding, Sibongile Pradhan with contributions from the RLP participants	includes external evaluator comments
Purpose of this evaluation document Building on the action research culture and focus of the RLP, to: Help participants and stakeholder make sense of, and communicate the story of, the Rural Leadership Programme 2006-2007 Learn lessons for future programmes on the design, facilitation and other factors which may contribute to an effective and value-full future Rural Leadership Programme Reflect on how the RLP ethos, culture and structure might be adapted/integrated into the on-going action-learning life of partner organisations (Falkland Centre for Stewardship and Communities on the Edge) Share the essence of the Rural Leadership Programme with external stakeholders, with an emphasis on 'appreciative inquiry' - what worked and how it might be built upon in the future, as well as shining a light on unhelpful patterns, dynamics or stucknesses which could be more awarely approached in a future programme Celebrate the achievement of the participants and co-creators of this programme over eighteen months (March 2006-November 2007)	*Creating our own indicators of success, RLP 1. These included: (need to get these in)*
Who is writing the report? The report has been primarily drafted by Nick Wilding (RLP Director) with Sibongile Pradhan (RLP Co-ordinator), with significant and transparent involvement from most RLP participants, our external evaluator, and other key stakeholders. How did we do it? We experimented with creating this report on 'Googledocs.com', and on-line, collaborative word-processor/web-page creator. We asked contributors to concurrently: 1) Read the column on the left - the narrative. Add to it, especially when your name is in brackets by a heading. This is about what we did, and what we learned. What is your own particular take? 2) Look at the right-hand column. Add your photos, sound recordings, video (youtube links?) and comments on the photos and other material ... alternative captions? 3) Record questions that come up for you as you read ... How is it circulated/distributed? It is intended that the document be primarily web-based, circulated electronically in Adobe PDF format (which allows web-links) as well as being a web-page.	What exactly can I do with Google Docs? Here's what you can do with documents: Upload Word documents, OpenOffice, RTF, HTML or text (or create documents from scratch). Use our simple WYSIWYG editor to format your documents, spell-check them, etc. Invite others (by email address) to edit or view your documents and spreadsheets. Edit documents online with whomever you choose. View your documents' and spreadsheets' revision history and roll back to any version. Publish documents online to the world, as web pages or post documents to your blog. Download documents to your desktop as Word, OpenOffice, RTF, PDF, HTML or zip files. Email your documents as attachments.
Structure of this report We think there is noticeable learning (and results) arising from the RLP programme in three areas: - for partner organisations - for participants - for the design and facilitation team This is the 'meat' of the report, and forms the basis of our second section. This section is for our participants as well as our host, the Falkland Centre for Stewardship, and our funders, Carnegie UK Trust Rural Action Research Programme and and Leader Plus. We continue with a brief story of the RLP process, including highlights along the way with pictures that seem to sum this up for us. We hope this offers a flavour of our journey that is accessible to folk who are reading about the RLP afresh. Mirroring our conviction that 'head' is as important as 'heart' and 'hand' in our journey (but is best when building on solid experience), we then reflect a bit deeper on RLP as informal adult learning by engaging with some literature on adult learning, leadership development, communities of practice, and community development. Finally, we offer some links to more material and useful websites that we have generated and come across over the past year.	Section 1: About the report Section 2: Overview: noticeable learning, outputs and outcomes from RLP Section 3: Story: a short narative of key elements of RLP emphasising the value and learning from RLP at each stage Section 4: Reflection: what emerging knowledge might our RLP experience contribute to theory on leadership and community development? Section 5: Links to resources
External evaluaton report We invited Dr. Geoff Mead, from Bath Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, to work as a 'critical friend' to us for the external evaluator role. Geoff is both distant enough to bring an 'outside' perspective, but also familiar enough with our approach to be able to tune in to our values and goals, to act as an external evaluator during December 2007. The text below (and right) is Geoff's final report to us; please read it in conjunction with our internal action research evaluation, in the following sections: 1. Introduction As part of the overall evaluation of the Rural Leadership Programme (including processes of continual self and peer review during the programme itself and a collaborative on-line evaluation you asked me to provide an external view. My terms of reference were as follows: 1. To be a “critical friend” – providing an external perspective, sympathetic to the aims and methods of the programme but with no vested interest. 2. To build on the existing evaluation of the programme by: • gathering views from wider range of stakeholders • reviewing and critiquing existing evaluation methods • providing an opportunity to speak with someone “outside the system” • looking for other possible learning opportunities within RLP • providing a fresh perspective (experience of other leadership programmes) 2. Method I visited Falkland on 10th December 2007 meeting with an evaluation group comprising several participants Elinor (COTE), Michael (Falkland), Ian (East Fife), Helen (Falkland), Ninian (Falkland); facilitators Nick and Sibongile; administrator Leslie; observer/researcher Massimo. As this is a small and self-selected group we cannot assume that their responses are necessarily representative of all those involved in the programme. However, a broadly consistent view of the programme was presented during the day with enough individual perspectives and cross-references in one-to-one interviews to be confident that valuable lessons can be learned from their input. Constellations At Nick’s suggestion the morning was devoted to looking at RLP through ‘organisational constellations’ - a systemic lens – by completing a systemic checklist and conducting two ‘blind’ constellations of issues raised by members of the group. Comments and insights from these activities were then generated individually and gathered together on a flip chart. Interviews Six members of the group were able to stay for one-to-one interviews during the afternoon; Elinor, Michael, Sibongile, Ninian, Helen and Nick. I subsequently interviewed Kate Braithwaite from Carnegie Trust, the main funders of RLP, by telephone. Ex-participants People who did not complete the RLP were also contacted at my request and invited to respond to some evaluative questions. Only one person replied - with a delightful and imaginative description of her ‘journey’. We should note the limited data available from ex-participants who are always difficult to interview after the event. Perhaps on any future programme, steps could be taken to gather such data at the time if participants leave prematurely. Data and confidentiality Contemporaneous notes were taken of all interviews and those with the evaluation group were recorded. Interviews and systemic checklists were completed on a confidential basis (though Kate Braithwaite gave permission for her responses to be quoted). The data derived from interviews and the systemic checklists have been collated and analysed by me to identify key learning points and opportunities for improvement. Data from the constellations themselves, generated in a public forum are attached to this report verbatim but not attributed to individuals.	3. Findings 3.1 Overall impression The first and perhaps the most important thing to say is that my findings support the generally very positive view of the programme expressed in the on-line evaluation. It has clearly been a significant learning experience for most participants (and perhaps for some, life-changing) and a rich and challenging process for facilitators. Both the host organisation (Centre for Stewardship) and the main funders (Carnegie Trust) believe it has served an important purpose and provided good value for money. As an external evaluator, I have focused my attention on the more muted concerns and areas for improvement that are less evident in the on-line collaborative evaluation as well as noting some of the specific elements of the programme that were particularly valued. 3.2 What was particularly valued and could be built upon? 1. Someone cares about us! Participants were pleased that their roles and work in rural communities was being valued by the provision of the RLP and universally appreciated the opportunity to take part 2. Extending networks and deepening relationships among community activists, community facilitators and work colleagues was highly valued and generally attributed to the time spent together at the convergences 3. The convergences generally were thought to be high quality events with a good mixture of input, activities and time for reflection. 4. Clarity of understanding, strong guidance and support (e.g. journaling) for a rigorous Action Research process within the voluntary CPD element of the programme 5. The value of personal 1:1 time with Nick and/or Sibongile was commented on by several participants – particularly those at CFS who had more access to them 6. The opportunity for and encouragement of a reflective approach to work and life generally was identified by many as a major benefit of the programme 7. Connecting the learning from RLP to the work of CFS in terms of improved team working, active leadership and projects such as The Big Tent were seen as important 8. RLP provided some people with opportunities to grow and take on more professional responsibility (in RLP, CFS and COTE) 9. Identifying ‘wicked questions’ and supporting ongoing inquiry through the ‘critical friend’ process at convergences was a particular highlight for some participants 10. Providing the right ‘pace and space’ for digesting and applying new material at convergences was important though occasionally (e.g. at first convergence) things got a bit rushed. 3.3 What concerns and possible areas for improvement were identified? 1. The balance between setting clear expectations and objectives for the programme and the emergence of individual understanding over time could be looked at. Several people expressed the view that objectives were not clear and shared and that this may have contributed to some people leaving the RLP prematurely. Although stated at the first convergence some additional reinforcement thereafter and ongoing inquiry into expectations and objectives would probably be useful. 2. Concern and sadness about ‘leavers’ was expressed by many respondents and a variety of explanations and measures suggested. Kate Braithwaite (q.v.) representing Carnegie Trust felt that some people “needed more ‘hand holding’ at the start, a gentler introduction to the personal work involved”. The dilemma to be managed here is between a shallower angle of entry in the hope that you can bring everyone with you (recognising that participants come with different expectations and needs) and a more rigorous process of recruitment and contracting to bring on board only those who are ready to hit the ground running. There is no simple answer to this; more attention could be paid to both aspects on a future programme. 3. This might also address what respondents saw as variable levels of commitment among participants, some of whom were encouraged to take part for professional reasons (COTE and CFS) while others joined in a personal capacity (East Fife). It is noticeable that most fallout was from the latter group who may have been more attracted by a programme with more concrete and directly applicable learning outcomes and less attracted to a more open and self-developmental programme. Careful thought needs to be given on any future programme to defining the target recruitment group more closely (in terms of need and aspiration, not necessarily in terms of role). 4. As a ‘free’ programme it may be that RLP was not valued highly by some participants. This is always a potential problem with ‘free goods’ and it is worth seriously considering asking potential participants on any future programme for a financial contribution (several respondents mentioned someone who left the RLP but kept on with another, paid-for course when pressed for time). 5. Whilst the convergences were generally seen as highly successful, some concerns were expressed about the design and facilitation of the three ‘clusters’. If there was one thing that might significantly heighten participants’ experience of RLP – and their ability to apply their learning in practice – it would be a greater emphasis on actively supporting and facilitating the clusters. We know from experience of many other action research/learning/inquiry programmes that it is easy to under-estimate the need for strong facilitation and guidance to create healthy containers for learning in small groups – what Bill Torbert calls the ‘paradox of the liberating structure’. This is both a design problem (resources, roles, educational processes etc.) and a leadership issue (supervising and supporting group facilitators). 6. Questions were raised about the extent to which participants really ‘got Action Research’ in terms both of understanding the principles and taking responsibility for their own on-going inquiries. The voluntary CPD element helped several people here and there may be some lessons to be learned from this. Taking inquiry outside the ‘classroom’ and into ‘real life’ is a key issue for any developmental programme and – as with the point above about clusters – generally needs more structure and support than anticipated. You might want to look at Palus and Drath here on notions of readiness for development and review any future intake in terms of their model. 7. Participants for RLP were recruited from three distinct constituencies; rural facilitators (COTE) individual activists (East Fife) and people connected with CFS (Falkland). One respondent felt that the needs of COTE participants had come to dominate the programme. Hence, issues of local stewardship such as authority, power and control of local estates were ‘skirted around’ rather than addressed head on and that this had been a missed opportunity. 8. The same respondent suggested that, on any future programme, there could usefully be a stronger focus on outcomes – with clear themes/tasks such as local transitional communities, changing land use, developing a local low carbon economy as the backbone of the curriculum and learning process. This goes to the heart of one of the educational dilemmas to be managed – between content and process – and suggests that future programme(s) might consider a different balance. Perhaps this might provide the basis for a follow-on programme for RLP ‘graduates’? 9. Despite expressing overall satisfaction with the balance of exchange of reward for effort as facilitators/tutors there were several indications that role boundaries were not entirely clear and that a considerable amount more work had been done than contracted for. Long-term sustainability of such programmes will require this to be addressed to avoid overload and falling into a pattern of ‘over-delivery’. 10. Finally (and placed here as point 10 partly for the sake of my slight obsession with symmetry) one respondent concluded the 1:1 interview by saying that the most important thing now was follow through at CFS with what they have learned together about a collaborative, reflective and inquiring approach to work. This is a real opportunity, close to home, to maximise the benefits of the programme. Geoff Mead, PhD January 2008

Section 2: Noticeable Learning, outputs and outcomes from RLP

2.0 RLP intended outcomes During the first 'convergence' workshop, we collectively discussed and agreed the following intentions for the programme as a whole: We intend that the programme will help us: become more effective in our work, understand more deeply what motivates and sustains us, deepen the trust, understanding and strategic vision of our groups, strengthen our networks of supportive people and organisations. We also discussed the commitments we would each make to the programme, in order that these learning goals be given the best chance to succeed: We ask that we are active locally, ideally with a few others who also want to come along are open to challenges and learning see a value in listening to others’ views are willing to share diverse experiences are interested in the bigger picture can commit to the whole programme As the programme evolved, we sought to keep track of these intentions, and checked back in with them periodically. The sections below, whilst not responding directly to these bullet points, expand on participant's sense of their learning and ability to make the commitment the design and facilitation team requested at the beginning.	*Both sides of the 'RLP postcard', used to launch RLP at Big Tent June 2006*
2.1 Participants' learning Introduction to this section As an RLP team, we have been evaluating the programme at every step. For example, the convergence design team (Nick, Sibongile and David (later John)) met to evaluate the previous convergence before meeting to plan the next. Each time participants met, we had a 'check in' and a 'check out', with explicit evaluation methods. Most convergences ended with a session where participants actively created and/or responded to peer-designed evaluation methods. The idea was that we could develop a culture of peer and self-evaluation. We wanted to both practice doing evaluation 'on the hoof', as well as to innovate methods that might work in local contexts. As a result, we generated a large amount of material, from pictures and poems to written feedback and audio recordings, and much of this material is available from links in the 'RLP Story' section below. There were also more significant outputs from this work, including the COTE team producing an '18 months of COTE' DVD in June 2007. This document is itself an example of an innovative, collaborative approach to on-line evaluation. During RLP 5 (and in interviews and conversations afterwards), we wanted to make sense of the whole journey(s) through the year. We decided to do this in two ways: creatively presenting the 'essence' of RLP through 'RLP dinners' interviews about key changes, learning, outputs and outcomes. We show each participant's responses to these two approaches below, across two columns.	'What is RLP?' audio interviews: These interviews were conducted by Michael, as part of RLP 2 convergence evaluation. Michael asked 'What is the Rural Leadership Programme'?, and some of the participants were happy for us to put their interview into this document. alison sonia ninian no.1 ninian no.2 helen
How have we changed? The following questions were, in part, inspired by our (limited) understanding of two evaluation methodologies which may be helpful to follow-up for participants beyond RLP. They are 'Most Significant Change' methodology as well as 'Learning History' approaches. Following RLP 5, Sibongile lead an interview process with some participants around the following questions: 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? We have included responses to these questions in the left-hand column. We will invite our external evaluator/critical friend to help us develop these questions in his interviews with us.	RLP Dinners (essence of RLP) A new evaluation tool: 'RLP Dinners' During RLP 5, participants co-developed a process to draw out key learning and recommendations arising from our experience of the Rural Leadership Programme as a whole. A spontaneous idea emerged (from Helen) of how best we would like to do this... which was to create an 'RLP Dinner'. Based on our observation that preparing and eating food together has been really important throughout RLP, we decided to each create a picture that used the metaphor of a dinner to communicate key elements of the RLP process. We recorded ourselves as we shared our 'RLP dinners', and the table below contains both a transcript of our introduction to our dinner, as well as the picture itself. Although these dinners are very rich in themselves, I suggest that our external evaluator help us to explore participants' experience in more depth through an interview with those who agree to this. In particular, this will be important for those who weren't able to be present for RLP 5. Sibongile: I loved the spontinaity of the dinners, they were very much an off-the-cuff representation of RLP. Working this way can often capture the essence of something.
Ian R 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs?	Starter of Leek and Oatmeal soup: RLP is a season for everything; about various stages. What stages are people in Yetholm are 'at': knowing what stage people are at is vital for knowing how work can progress in a community. Beef Bourgignon: The real case studies and practical advice Served with... mash: The fluffy, light-hearted banter, chat and the games that RLP is obviously quite famous for... Baby young carrots in butter (braised with Sherry): signifies RLP people at beginning as baby young carrots, ending up a little bit sophisticated... you are still a baby young carrot but you've got quite a few things there now (the tools) Green beens lightly cooked: Representation of RLP treatment of a set of problems - discuss issues lightly boiled strain through the group experience then give them back changed but not appearing to... Place mat: everything happens on the placemat: langholm, falkland etc. Champaigne moment: David Niven, sheep in the wind - up there funny for everyone Pinot Wine (Meaty wine): fuel for meaty conversations (it helps) Chocalate tart: for sweet things in life: shared things - meals, singing and laughter; serve with raspberries to add a little grit/contention to the conversation... then creme fraiche to soothe and balm anything that comes from the raspberries Espresso with a proper head: signifies the boost in energy from group work - it's short-lived, that's why we come back to groups. Fork - symbol of vital tool for the meal: how important it is to state something, to search out the simple things. How difficult that way of communicating is - like an editing process, starting with words you are comfortable with then you come down to the simplest word to describe - hard to get sustainability down to something simple - not patronising, just because in community development the audience is so wide - very important - everyone should communicate like this - without jargon and big words End with a desert wine - to sit and ponder and reflect upon the feast, which is what we are doing today...
Michael: 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? At the outset, I didn’t see personal development as an outcome, other than to increase my knowledge base; I agreed to join the RLP because I wanted to be more effective as a volunteer involved with practical conservation and interpretation on the Estate and RLP offered; the equivalent of ‘team meetings’ with individual FCS folk. a chance to learn about some of the drivers and influences on Ninian’ s philosophical approach to Stewardship and managing his Estate including NTS, the Centre for Human Ecology and these mysterious people at Chancefield ...... as a recent returnee to Scotland, an opportunity to plug into Scottish rural affairs by mixing with people involved at the sharp end. This was a less than whole-hearted commitment to RLP, at least early on, probably not helped as I’ve said elsewhere, by being unable to attend the first, crucial Gathering, which would have helped get the essence of the programme much earlier. Instead, I spent the first half of the RLP translating its the language and tools into the sort of management techniques that I was more familiar with and which had served me quite well, CCW being pretty progressive in its approach to staff training and involvement. Towards the end of RLP however, I would acknowledge that an old dog can learn some new tricks after all. I think I’m a better listener, though I wish my memory wasn’t wearing out quite so fast. Although I’ve understood and applied the principle of evaluation and feed back in site and project management, the conscious and systematic use of cycles of planning / acting and observing / reflecting / revised planning to other areas of one’s personal and professional life has been a revelation. One of my personal goals on hitting semi-retirement was to explore my creative side. As well as mixing with some truly creative people through RLP, I’ve been stimulated and gained confidence through the seriously fun exercises where we experimented and expressed ourselves through unfamiliar media. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? My three wicked questions were: My interpretation work, at Falkland and elsewhere is tied up with the tourism industry, but isn’t sustainable tourism an oxymoron? Will stewardship paradigms developed at this place have much relevance beyond comfortable middle class Falkland? Why are Fife towns and villages so tribal and what are the strengths and weaknesses of this phenomena for the communities? The first I resolved, not within RLP but by researching and reflecting on the issue for a course assignment. The act of asking the second question has encouraged me to look beyond the rich Victorian’s contribution to the landscape to that made by working people, but otherwise this question still rumbles away quietly in the background, as I construct a fuller appreciation of contemporary Scottish rural issues. Talking to the COTE folk, seeing their patches at first hand and speaking to some of the people they work with has been immensely valuable in this respect. Again, there has been synchronicity with my course, as one of my lecturers is a consultant, researcher and practitioner in rural community development. The third question, though interesting, seemed less important than trying to be an effective Chair of the Stewards and the problem of attracting and retaining volunteers for the Conservation Group. How to do the latter became my new wicked question. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? In addition to the couple of outcomes mentioned above, just learning what matters to my fellow cluster members, particularly the ones I work closely with, and often at an intensely personal level, has been of inestimable value. I ran a workshop on matching stewardship learning aims to programmes, projects and activities at Falkland, under the auspices of RLP. Nick provided valuable and helpful support before and on the day and he and the Falkland Cluster gave feed back later as helpful friends. Although the exercise was not completed, the information gathered, the act of getting a variety of people together to talk about this common interest and the seeding of way of looking at volunteers as individuals with needs rather than just a resource achieving tasks and projects, was regarded as being useful.	Michael Mine's a plain, ordinary everyday meal. Pasta, vegetables, garlic bread. Pasta: concrete examples of RLP themes: going to see places, people giving their own experience of things Vegetables: the different useful little techniques and tools that we've picked up - goldfish bowl, stewardship pepper, courgette role-play Salad: the food I love to eat; the lubricant that helps the meal through mouth and to where it ends up - the cuba film and learning about peak oil for the first time; nick and sibongile's practical examples from practice as well garlic bread moments: don't really like it - when I've failed to follow stuff; depressing moments when I've failed to follow what's going on... there were lots of these in the beginning and fewer and fewer as we've gone on ... I've become more comfortable with language and jargon... Cutlery: RLP 3 fork (where I really began to pick things up having missed RLP 1); Knife is cutting through the jargon (has evolved through the process, has come with background reading; I've not done any great study in between clusters but I've been intrigued to google things, read Nick's blog, read some of the stuff you're doing on the CPD unit, more recently relates to my course (MA interpretation) where I'm doing action research or 'gonzo' research) Pint of Beer: evening liner - meeting up, saying hello to people at the gathering Glass of wine: Conversations and discussions on walks and during sessions Glass of Southern Comfort/Whiskey: (spiritual/Spiritus reflection): what happens on the way home, and also on the way here - blooming good reflection even before the event in the car on the way up... it's another good reason for being somewhere else - we're all busy people and if you can get something out of the journey, all the better
Elinor: 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? Yes, both personally and professionally - although I am unsure how much of that is RLP, how much working in the role of animator and how much other aspects of my life, e.g. focus on spiritual and personal development, dealing with health issues. However, one change that is linked to all of the above and is very definitely due to RLP is a stronger sense than ever of how deeply all these aspects of my life weave together and are part of each other, which is now informing my working practice on a day to day basis. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? Yes and no. I found sticking to one 'wicked question' quite a challenge. Often I found holding a question in my work helpful in and of itself - e.g. 'what is leadership?' led me to be more mindful than ever of how I function in groups. In the end, though, my first question - 'what is my role?' - was the one that exercised me the most and is still alive for me, with much more helpful and more integrated answers to work with and test than I had before. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? My process through the RLP year has been one of losing confidence in my professional abilities, which has been very positive in outcome although extremely challenging to live and work through. I now have a much deeper sense of myself as a person in my work, rather than (just) as a 'professional' with a set of skills and experience that I bring to my work. This feels very exciting for me. I am also finding the regular practice of conscious, structured first person enquiry that I learned through RLP to be very helpful, and supportive of this change.	Elinor My meal is Roast chicken and vegetables Greens: fundamental - the fundamental human needs model you shared in RLP 4 (that's gone in my doggy bag for me to take away with me); Chicken: is the 'sitting in the U' learning-action model Carrots: is non-violent communication; Roast potatoes: solid and necessary - is the power and leadership modes; Gravy: is the struggles with organisations and different ideas within organisations Chutneys: - individuals bringing different perspectives, experiences and perceptions It's important to chew slowly to enjoy and digest the meal, which hasn't always happened on RLP, but more on RLP4 and RLP5 Wine (Cranberry juice): good company and connections Glass of Water: Clarity and space to focus - space away to get perspective, refreshment, clarity Chocolate Pudding: That's all the things that have been really wonderful added extras - Pillars, Dod Mill, unexpected links, being outdoors, Utensils: fork is taking risks (being honest, being real and group safety - all important); spoon is different environments (falkland, dod mill); knife (action-reflection cycle) has gone in my doggy-bag as well, along with U, fundamental human needs Pig trough: the only things that have gone in here are not to do with RLP, but my own health issues that have prevented me from getting as much as I could from RLP
Ninian 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? I have become more aware of myself in my role and of the way that power and authority is held and not held at Falkland estate. I behave (a little) differently as result but still have a long way to go ... 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? Yes they are alive and evolving from a general focus on my role of bringing this place into its own, I am now focusing on the act and art of stepping back and valuing/supporting others' contributions. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? The planting and nurturing of action-learning as a key way of learning in the centre. My deeper and stronger working relationship with the Development Manager. The growing contribution of volunteers on the estate. The growing capacity to manage volunteers and complexity. A toolkit to regularly draw from such as for the forthcoming meeting to review events.	Starter: Walks - in the different places we've been seeing, listening and responding to places; here at Dod Mill, at Falkland and in the Borders. The glass of water represents the clarity and sense making that we have been sourcing - albeit sometimes cloudy or polluted. Main course: getting to the heart of the matter: hearing rather than listening; ... touching, challenging; confronting power, authority, honesty and difference Cutlery: Tools to address real and practical situations - the revelations made on the Bridge at Falkland about Stewardship, although I struggled with this at the time, it was helpfully provocative... Knife: tough stuff - RLP4 – as we cut into deeper things The wine of estate and communities - The value of meeting, sharing and celebrating with folk from other places and communities - the COTE facilitators, the Buccleuch factor, Brian from Dundee and Ian from Kinghorn (?). Pudding: Companionship - I started off by writing the names of our cluster group because I realised these are the people I come back to even though they are not all here (lists names) - the sweet companions with whom I share the daily struggles of life ...
Nick 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? It's been a long project. I think I've learned most about just how complex it is for someone who is intending to 'help' to be active in their local community.... a majority of folk coming to RLP were in this situation and the scale of skill, courage, and resilience needed to be effective, year on year, is something I've grown more and more appreciative of when I have the chance to meet people in this situation. Working with the Centre for Stewardship has also helped me to understand much more deeply the complexities of evolving an approach to stewardship which can be meaningful, especially if I'm swimming about right in the middle of the system. The most 'edgy' times for me this year have been when my 'tenant' self, my 'community ownership advocate' self and my 'friend of the laird' self 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? I have been reflecting recently (since going to Be the Change conference in London November 2007 with its emphasis on impending climate catastrophe...) on what it would take to really effectively cultivate resilience - in myself, and with folk and organisations I work with. This is becoming a 'burning question' for me as I write this. I've started a new blog as a place to put thoughts as they emerge; I'm also wondering if there may be some way of reflecting back on RLP to understand to whether folk feel more or less resilient as a result of participating, and why. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? Lots! 1) The outputs described by this document as a whole 2) Some evolved thinking about how to approach the concept of 'stewardship', based on Wilber's 'four quadrant' model - click here to see a flash animation of an overview slideshow I offered to Centre for Stewardship Trustees on 7.12.07, including this stewardship model. 3) Greater sense of personal connection and commitment with many folk working in my village, including new initiatives such as Transition Falkland which are gestating 4) Affirmation that this approach to informal learning can work well for rural leadership development. 5) Good relationships with wider stakeholders, including investors in the programme and friends and trustees of Falkland Heritage Trust 6) Good learning about how to improve the design and facilitation of this kind of work, especially around the work necessary for effective cluster facilitation, with the help of our external evaluator.	My Place Mat: place things are important - pillars of hercules, stables, dod mill, langholm, douglas, walks, sun, rivers, rain, tasty home-cooked local organic bring and share food On my plate: spaghetti - many journeys, many needs, many moods, many ways to learn Rich tomato sauce on top of that (with cream stirred in): all the heart to heart conversation, soaked in through the spaghetti Crisp salad of learning: the different kinds of spaces we've had - one-ones, one-two, over the phone; I think I've spent half my time at RLP on one-ones, a knind of hidden story but an important one; the few cluster meetings I've been to (that I enjoyed) Fork of uplifting moments: got quite a few of those: singing, eating together, meeting visitors, enjoying the rough edges and how they spark great conversations... Glass of bubbly: glass at the end of a long journey - 'it worked!; 'it's good enough!' Under the mat: Did I support folk enough individually thorugh the process? Did I take on too much given my other commitments? Was the content really what was needed? Was I too nice (did I tend to say OK too much); might I have been more forceful, set more of a ...? 8/9 people at RLP 5 asking 'is that OK'... with a graph of attending decreasing as time went on ....my sense is that it is OK, stil have questions connected with that; Overall question (the whole thing, all the clusters, one-ones, convergences, all the things that have gone on in-between: does RLP add up to value for everyone who has been here as well as the funders who have invested in it? Feel that I need to look at that one quite hard now - having advocated this, see whether I feel I can stand up and say 'yeah, we should do something again like this'.. more questions to explore Doggy bag to take away: Question Is this something I should invite payment for - to request commitment in a more tangible form earlier on so the window is opened in the sense of 'yes I'm investing in this myself'; then about building up a sense of legitimacy.... communicating the value of what this is...we're in a different place now than before we started - we now understand more about what this is than before we started; Something to take away on 'yes, time away is good; opening space is good (really believe in that, still do)'; and how much I need good support and how much I appreciate the support I've had from everyone - Sibongile, Dave and John specifically
Sibongile 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? i have really valued the RLP year and a half. it was just the right thing at the right time. there are ways in which i would have liked to have changed more - to have become more adept at group facilitation, to have embeded action inquiry more into my work/life, but i am happy with what is. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? my questions proliferated. their aliveness waxed and waned. not sure if they evolved in a meaningful enough way. i did lots of reflection, but feel that i did not tie that down into deliberate enough cycles of action and reflection. although they were triggered by processes and events over the RLP year, they are mainly lifelong questions - so i expect to be with them awhile longer ..... 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? I am convinced this kind of work is important and want to work to become proficient at it. sometimes i think i might be better off working in a bank .. and then i think nah ... "Sibongile: I love the diversity of these dinners, and also notice so many common threads."	In great contrast to yours Ian, my meal wasn't planned. The ideas for the food emerged with the thoughts I wanted to express. My sunny-side-up moments were: seeing the changes in individuals over the year Spaghetti: working with Nick - times of feeling very alive, times of feeling very frustrated Good greens: informal conversations as well as more formal dialogues and small group work Emerging on the edge of my plate, potatoes perhaps: the goodness of being away together, of preparing meals and eating together Supportive structural fork: the convergence planning sessions, holding with love and open-ness My knife: about cutting through to somewhere a bit deeper - the trust, openness and willingness of participants; sense of the whole group going somewhere willingly together My sweetness: walks and the trees and times outside Memorable fizzy moment: Learning from the Heron on the rock My contribution to the pigs: Poor time-keeping; some things of integrity and some things of incompleteness, not being abe to go to depth; trying to fit in too much too complicatedly My take-away bag: My search for a comfortable place between order and chaos and another questions.
Helen 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? I would have to take RLP in conjunction with other things that I've done/attended over the year, specifically Be The Change and the Big Tent. Being on RLP got me to Be The Change (through you!) and that had a huge impact on my understanding about climate change, ecojustice etc. And the Big Tent was such a big undertaking that it has to be there too. So, taking all 3 into consideration, I would say that I am more reflective (or intend to be when time doesn't permit!), I'm far more conscious of being part of a greater community and not so insular. Consumerism plays a much lesser role in my life at the end of 2007 than in did say in 2005. My actions are also more reflective and I'll take time to think about their implication before I go ahead and do them - if you see what I mean. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? Question - how to convey stewardship to others in a way that they get it. Yes, still alive, still thinking about it but again, I'd like to think that both personal (smaller/insignificant practically) and organisational actions have helped people to understand this more and more. It is a long journey but I do feel that the message of stewardship is very much alive and gaining prominence (eg Ben's 'earth stewards' the other day). 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? Like what? Not sure. Some outputs - collaboration with other members of RLP eg Ian Beattie and the COTE group. Also, intend to put action learning cycle in to effect at team meetings - working with Ninian on this.	I'm on a weight-watchers diet Veg: no points here - vitamins for the meal: they help you to learn - the theory is there, the reflections that help to understand Potatoes here: starchy bit - a place to practice presentations - I wouldn't have been able to do this in other working life situations. I like what we did this morning - the place to be able to put issues to others and to get practical feedback My vegetarian meat: learning about action research and the opportunity to take time out doing; the recurrent theme for me the whole time is not having enough time My spoon yum-yum (not that I'll be able to have one - too many points): the energisers (pengiuns and flamingos in particular), walks - whether all together or alone, music Utensils to help along the way: without them it would be a very messy affair. Sibongile is my fork - a fork you rely on pretty much for every single meal. Not spoon feeding, but helping to create the programme. And when you're getting stuck, you call on the 'Nick knife', and also to maybe deepen things a bit more. My doggy bag - the theory - if you've had too much, theres unfinished business, yes, but you don't have to do it all here - you can take it home to finish later. You can take it home; action research; emails of everyoone Pig-trough: the role-play and my not being fully engaged while focussing on other things I'd save all my points for my wine: I don't care what type of wine - my glass would be half-full and my wine would be for continuing friendship
Annette: 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? Yes I have changed lots! I have made changes personally and professionally. I have gained huge confidence in my abilities and now have total confidence in my instincts. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? Again yes my question has been very alive and as it turned out a very apt one as in my role as an animator it was continually an issue. Did it evolve?....I got the answer! 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? [Nick: Thought through questions of enthusiasm and engagement with her work, and re-framed her approach to community development work as a result, unleashing lots of positive energy.] Yes some very positive concrete outcomes working with and supporting a group to make amazing changes to peoples lives....with two great potential other spin offs from it.......sadly or not no cats.	Annette Salmon, peas, asparagus and chunky chips My fillet of salmon which is fresh from the river in Langholm: is my substantial moments: perhaps the one I remember most is Dave's driving one which put clarity, when I needed to be spoken to in an immediate way at the beginning, it made sense as opposed to other things Chunky chips are the extra bits that I have thoroughly enjoyed - the two DVDs The green bits that need to be there - is the theory The nice greens - the asparagus - is the penguins and flamingoes The things that stick on my fork - that are the take-awayable things - are the goldfish bowl and the critical friends My slice of lemon - the bitter moments - are actually these things - when we have to do our creative things - because I can hear everyone else rushing off and scribbling and making play-things, and I just go blank... My nice pudding, sticky-toffee moments are meeting people who have become friends And that would be all washed down with a glass of Merlot, and that would be the good food, the good company and the nights of banter and drinks
John 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? It’s been a massive time of change for me over the past year. Alongside attending RLP, I’ve had the privilege and challenge of being able to take up post a s a community animator in the place I call home, the place I love dearly. I’ve changed lots in the space of these short twelve months, and attributing that change to anything specific would be really difficult. But yes, I’m sure I have changed through the year of RLP. I found RLP challenging in many ways. I often felt very young among a group predominantly composed of people significantly older than me. While I feel I relate well to people older than me, I certainly felt out of my depth at times and I’m sure age was a factor in this. While struggling with the challenges of a new job, and the steep learning curve that therefore ensued, RLP was at times a stretch too far. I often felt that I was operating on a different intellectual plane from much of the group. I appreciate that many of the feelings I experienced were due to a distinct lack of confidence. The one thing that I have noted in myself is a significant change in my levels of self confidence. My self esteem, sense of worth, confidence and capacity has increased tenfold and the change has almost been incomprehensible. My lack of confidence probably wasn’t helped when David left us in May and I took up his post as coordinator of the COTE project. I often leant on him for support, sometimes perhaps too much, and he leaving was a challenge for me in my role as animator, never mind as coordinator! The learning curve steepened and while my confidence was probably dented for a while, the situations I found myself thereafter actually required more it! I’ve always believed that informal learning is the most significant and lasting, and while hitting the ground running like that was a massive challenge, I valued the generous opportunity of being handed such responsibility. Similarly, I was challenged by and learnt lots from the RLP planning sessions which I became involved in, but still at times feeling that little bit under qualified! It’s only now that I’m able to see the true value in what RLP has offered me. The skills that I have picked up with regards to facilitation have been invaluable and I’m sure I apply many more of the techniques that I’m actually even aware of. In the space of a year I’ve gone from being a local person, to community animator to project coordinator. I’ve gone from feeling intimidated by groups of people to facilitating them and making presentations to community planners. The past year has been huge in so many ways. I have no doubt that RLP has contributed enormously. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? My wicked question was about harnessing the passion of local people and how to do that effectively, particularly when it often hides under layers of disadvantage, disappointment and other daily problems. It’s very much still alive for me – it’s my job to be doing this. It’s had baggage added to it along the way, and I’ve become more and more aware that it’s not a question which is as simple as it sounds. Passion lies where the heart is, and often hearts are broken, disappointed and sad. Breaking through that barrier will never be easy. It’s only in developing positive relationships with people that this will ever be possible. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? Concrete outputs are always difficult to pin down. I know I’ve learnt and grown through RLP, but it might be a long time, if ever, before I’m able to attribute any specifics to RLP. But of course there have been outcomes. RLP has been a part of my continuing journey of self discovery that is life. I’ve been inspired, challenged, and confused by it. The impact that has had on me will never be measurable. RLP affords people respect and enables them to grow. It trusts the individual to take what it can and give what it can to a process which is as open and honest as any I’ve ever experienced. I still feel out of my depth at times, I still lack confidence sometimes, but I’ve learnt to value myself, to respect and trust myself and that will stand me in good stead for whatever lies ahead.	dinner please!
George 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? yes i think so, despite it being a hard year for me personally. I have become more confident in the group, there has been a building up of genuine trust. It began in the clusters, but has really been useful in terms of work relations, feeling less isolated for example. I enjoyed the cluster meetings where we came together as equals, we were a good mix. I valued Sibongile and Nick being so genuine, right from the start. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? Yes I have kept focus on my question (it was around being a perfectionist and how that related to my work). At first it wasn't quite a question as Ninian pointed out. I spent a lot of thought on developing it. During a useful discussion in RLP2 Helen helped me focus on how I could address it. I feel I've found answers by the end. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? Yes, I've become more comfortable and confident in working in this way (RLP way, working together). I have become more able to speak out as an individual, both in the clusters and at the convergences. I have been able to become more outward.	Tea mug: a good cup of tea, comfort, assurance, Sibongile, Nick and the whole group . Knife: found a lot of stuff new, was sometimes frustrating, uncomfortable - the cluster meetings and other meetings helped clarify. Spoon: constructive criticism Doggie bag: my hopes for the future Pigs swill: personal things. Meal: i enjoy most meals, the likes of this I have occasionally, like at christmas A good steak pie make with good meat: the cluster meetings, the connection, preparing meals together, I took a lot from it, relaxing and enjoyable, not like other courses with lots of theory work. carrots: enjoy carrots and peas with a meal out, they are the good company. Potatoes: I had thought of chips, used to eat them a lot, but now enjoy a good new potato - Sibongile and Nick being mentors and guides; particularly Sibongile has been a support over the last year.
Ian Beattie 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? "Reflections on Ilsa Craig (CHECK) " by Ian Beattie	RLP - the 5 course meal.... Not a meal for the feint-hearted (or for those minimalists on a diet!) Plate's outside circle: holds everyone and represents the convergences, the holding of eveyone's energy and intention Plate's smaller circle: the local groups Heavy meat: - takes some digestion - the body of RLP Spuds: earthy, grounding - I envisaged roasted spuds - quite intense at times, need to watch not overdone at times Peas: chase them round the plate, lots of ideas and concepts from participants and leaders, at times difficult to pick up Gravy: all the juicy bits and emotional flow, without which can choke on it Spoon: necesary spoon feeding early on, input. liquid - flowing emotional energy Smaller knife and fork: for starters to get ideas of concepts involved - tools to use to understand how to deal with the information Big fork and knife: - the knife has teeth as you have to dig in to the content, and cut into yourself almost, cut into usable sizes - mental and emotional. The big fork has 4 prongs: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual - (in answer to a question as to whether they were equal lengthed - would have liked to have seen more physical and spiritual - towards the end (wasn't there RLP4 & 5) , not necessarily overtly) Ian: the cutlery feels like sentinals holding the group energies.
Sonia 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? yes, a lot infact. (It is difficult to separate what is as a result of RLP and what has come up through my own processing.) My confidence has grown, and I'm more confident in myself. I have become more tolerant. i am able to listen to others better, to pay them more attention. i am better able to read into others more (including body language) and sense how they are feeling. 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? They have been alive; they haven't changed but my attitude to them has changed. I was too anxious for answers. My patience has grown and i am able to step back and look wider. i have learnt to let them go and the answers come with their own time. They are still alive. 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs? A good working relationship with George. The school children's visit to the garden. George had input into this happening and he brought his experience to it. This event was a practical step in answering my questions. The volunteering meeting organised by micheal. I hope there will be follow-up, it was important and felt genuine. Learning to know people better, a good foundation for future relations. NW Made solid connections within the community; reflected deeply about her approach to change; practical outcomes on volunteering co-ordination.	yes food is very important to us! The bread: is for all that we shared, both in convergences and very much in the cluster. Lasagne: the layers of learning, built up slowly - a yummy dish. Pudding: is raspberries of laughter, the good times shared. Wine: is for relaxing and sharing what we have learnt together. Whiskey: to enjoy the company and the good times, to round it all off, a good feeling. Slow Food is the way.
Brian 1) Have I changed through the RLP year? 2) Have my wicked questions been alive for me?... have they evolved? 3) Have there been some concrete outcomes or outputs?	The plate: is Falkland RLP process that we have been given. The greens: good stuff, about green things, power, social justice - really rich kale. Pasta: is the process, rich, fills you up, lovely to eat, but half an hour later hungry for more. it's a morass, mess of stuff, don't try to untangle it, just digest. amongst it are the Meatballs: the stuff, they repeat, come up next day, bits stuck in your teeth to chew on later, but even then I still keep coming back to The spectacular garnish: of being in the clusters, eg the format, process, intent, fowk, .... Red wine: something in that moment, when you haven't got the words, but it is understood. This is what I feel we have been drinking from. The cutlery: acuity, sharpening up the mind - a lot of what's happened for me has been about recieving a set of tools with which to get through this platefull of life:eg nature of knowledge, consciousness etc. I've got a new set of cutlery, they're gorgeous and, really, dead sharp.
RLP folk who weren't there for the whole programme: Alison, Wilma, Jude and Roger	suggest informal conversation on reflections of contact with RLP SP think i have a couple of quotes form when they were around
COTE extra participants: Sarah, Helen and David Niven	suggest informal conversation on reflections of contact with RLP

2.2 Noticeable Learning, outputs and outcomes from RLP For Partner Organisations

1) for Centre for Stewardship

(drafted by Nick 27th September 2007); external evaluator might 'bounce this off' key folk at FCS (David, Ninian, Helen at least)

1) Rural Leadership Programme is the 'leading edge' where the concepts and practice of stewardship are critically engaged with.

The aspiration that CfS becomes a recognised and well-regarded 'brand' implies that such a process of reflexive learning is embedded within every aspect of the Centre's operation.

RLP is explicitly equipping CfS staff, volunteers and other stakeholders with the capacities to model leading-edge stewardship practice. Embedding action learning/research into the structures and culture of the organisation is beginning to pay dividends in unleashing creativity as well as beginning to build a body of evidence of what stewardship means in practice for Falkland Estate.

2) Connections: RLP is making healthy connections with communities beyond Falkland

A central intention of the development of RLP was to build and strengthen connections between the work of CfS in Falkland, and the communities and allied organisations working on Stewardship in Fife and beyond. This work is critical to CfS' claim to be 'Scotlands' Centre for Stewardship.

Practically speaking, RLP has strengthened CfS connections with key stakeholders: with funders (Leader and Carnegie UK Trust); with partner organisations (eg. Communities on the Edge and Southern Uplands Partnership); and with community 'change agents' from across Fife (from the East Neuk, Dundee, Kinghorn, Cupar etc.).

As a way of offering something to communities beyond Falkland, RLP is an innovative and pioneering response to critics who may claim that CfS is narrowly focussed on a traditional landowners' agenda of improved land management, rather than a wider agenda of sustainability that the concept of stewardship implies.

3) Attracting talent: RLP has attracted talent and energy to CfS
A third contribution RLP has made to CfS is by attracting volunteers and staff with high skill levels and much positive energy to contribute to the organisation. This is contributing to the development of a 'critical mass' of energy that will ultimately ensure CfS 'lifts off'.

4) Prestige: RLP as guarantor of quality at CfS
A central value for CfS is quality. As far as we are aware, there is not another comparable programme in Scotland at present (UK?). CfS is already benefitting from being associated and profiled in such a way, and this strength was echoed when HRH Prince Charles visited and was particularly interested to hear from the CfS and RLP teams.

Falkland Estate

2) For Communities on the Edge

(I'd like to invite John and Sarah to draft something here in collaboration with other COTE participants; external evaluator to also discuss with Pip Tabor and a member of Southern Uplands Partnership Board of Directors?)

Question: how to evidence learning/results from David Niven's time, such as the COTE DVD which he brought together?

Section 3: the RLP story - in brief

Introduction All the way through our journey together, we have been documenting, evaluating, and reflecting on each step. Every convergence was planned based on careful reflection on emerging 'hot topics' that participants called to be addressed in their 'cluster' meetings between convergences. At the end of every convergence we collaboratively explored and experimented with a range of approaches to evaluation, which included participants identifying indicators, interviewing each other on audio and video cameras; painting; writing; as well as engaging with photographs. For each convergence we explored different ways of recording the process such as 'RLP News' letters for RLP 1 and RLP 2, a 'talking wall' and an attempt at a collaborative report using 'GoogleDocs' for RLP 3. This section brings a small selection of material together to convey an 'essence' of our journey together. It also acts as a 'pointer' to this wider range of material which we have collated in a partner document of appendices. We wrote this section by pasting in quotes, photos, publicity material etc. into the right hand column which has 'energy' and points to the wider spirit of material from every stage of the programme. Then we wrote about this material, bringing in multiple perspectives where possible. Along the way we generated a huge amount of material, so please follow some of the links both throughout this document and at the end, to get a richer sense of what RLP was, and how it continues to live on.
Beginnings Falkland Centre for Stewardship successfully approached Carnegie UK Trust, and Leader Plus (East Fife), to pilot a 'Stewardship Education' programme in 2005. Some time elapsed between the initial scoping work undertaken to inform the bid, and the FCS being able to start the project. Nick was approached to do some limited work re-invigourating the proposal in early 2006, which resulted in his proposal to run a 'Rural Leadership Programme' under contract from the Centre for Stewardship. Nick sub-contracted some of this 'listening' work to Sibongile Pradhan, who successfully applied for the co-ordinator position later in the year. Nick's proposal involved several changes to the original funding applications, as a result of bringing his previous experience (see the section below) together with what he heard from the three months 'listening' to potential supporters and participants. In particular, the name changed, mostly based on Nick's hunch that, because few people identify themselves as stewards, it would be more challenging to recruit for the programme; there was a strong emphasis on action research at the core of the programme practically participants were asked to commit to attending all five multi-day residentials rather than creating a syllabus and then delivering it, the programme would be shaped and written up as it progressed, to include the learning priorities of participants in critical dialogue with larger concepts such as 'leadership' and 'stewardship' After the two funders - Leader Plus (East Fife) and Carnegie UK Trust - approved these changes, we launched RLP with a postcard that was distributed at Big Tent 2007 (see right), advertised and then appointed a programme co-ordinator (Sibongile Pradhan), and visited a number of prospective participants, inviting folk to 'taster' sessions. In July 206, Nick hosted a group of friends from an international network called 'Pioneers of Change' for a few days in Falkland, who helped us think through some of the potential for the programme.	*A creative photomontage by Michael Hughes... the best of RLP 2 at Falkland*
Recruitment and Tasters What did we do? We hoped to establish three 'clusters' for the programme. By July 2006 we were able to confirm that, alongside clusters focussed at the Centre for Stewardship and from East Fife more broadly, we would be joined by a group of community animators with the Communities on the Edge (COTE) project, based at the Southern Uplands Partnership (and also part-funded by Carnegie). One of the key learnings from the programme has been the success of developing the relationships between COTE and Falkland Centre for Stewardship; it was fortuitous that the timing of this programme coincided with an up-scaling of COTE work and therefore an opportunity to collaboratively shape RLP. Sibongile spent a lot of time early on chasing recruitment leads in East Fife and beyond. We held two half-day taster workshops which were attended by sixteen people in all, and aimed to offer a flavour of what to expect. Ultimately, the recruitment drive proved hard work. Several leads that the Centre for Stewardship believed would result in participant applications didn't bear fruit. About one quarter of the many one-one conversations Sibongile engaged in with potential participants resulted in folk signing up. There was an important process of discernment for both prospective participants as well as the course organisers: we wanted to be sure that everyone understood what was on offer, and what was expected in return. Sibongile reflected that "A lot of time was spent on people who in the event decided not to sign up", and wrote a recruitment poem about this time. Recruitment: what did we learn for next time? • Our original 'target participants' for the East Fife cluster were people who were already somewhat established in rural community development, and wanted a chance to connect with other practitioners to 'up their game' or to take time out to consider fresh approaches/reflect and learn from experience. In fact, we attracted folk at a much earlier stage in their projects, and this had important knock-on impacts which we didn't fully enough recognise at the time; folk with ideas they wanted to get going require different kinds of support and input than folk with existing projects. The latter tended to be so involved and busy that they felt they could not manage the time commitment (or were not sufficiently attracted by our marketing to understand the difference the programme could make). • We also learned that ideas for potential participants from friends or well-wishing allies rarely turned into actual participants; relying on promises of 'I know lots of folk who would go on that' isn't an effective enrollment strategy! • We were not quick enough to spot the implications of an 'East Fife cluster' which was infact several individuals who came together because of the RLP rather than an existing group(s). It petered away about half-way through the programme, probably both because people moved away from the area and we did not have the times/resources to invest in more than a minimum of group development. This experience raises important questions about how diverse a range of participants can be accommodated whilst maintaining the ethos/agenda of the programme; and whether a programme's guiding principles should change significantly to accommodate a different set of needs. Beyond this, the pressure we felt to recruit from East Fife (based on Leader Plus funding guidelines) undoubtedly influenced our judgment and complexified the recruitment picture. • We learned that having a commitment to attending full-time was an important move; and it may have been appropriate to hold mid-way evaluation conversations before, rather than after, RLP 3 in order to check-in with the value participants felt they were receiving, and their ability to commit futher.	*Part of our 'info pack' sent to prospective organisations and individuals*
RLP 1: Begining a journey The Stables, Falkland In brief - what happened? Pillars of Hercules site visit Stewardship dilemmas Falkland estate walk Introductions and getting to know each other Experiences of learning Listening Learning principles Action Inquiry introduction Focus on working with young people Community Development framework Critical friends/peer mentoring Participatory M&E Highs and Lows? *Highs:* Great, local food at an amazing local organic farm shop, bustling with folk... and good connections between people who'd never met before. After two days it felt as if we'd known each other for much, much longer. Input on action research was appreciated, as was the rainy walk around Falkland Estate... *Lows:* Was the design team too ambitious, given the wide variations in experience and motivation from participants? Especially in the improvised (and now infamous) 'role play' about involving young people in Douglas? This involved some spontaneous group work about how to engage young people in a rural community, in response to a request for relevance on this topic by a participant... in the event, this exercise was too rushed to do it justice; folk felt out of their comfort zones early on in the programme; and it wasn't followed up with sufficient debreifing/ input. More Resources To download the full RLP 1 report, see RLP News download Action Reaserch/Inquiry introduction Johari's window Four stages of Competence Learning Styles (activists, reflectors, theorists, pragmatists) Learning Cycle	*Our first meal together at Pillars of Hercules Organic Cafe* *A tour of Falkland Estate in the rain* *'RLP News' updates participants after the first convergence*
Clusters: what happened? John's comments on the COTE cluster [this a short piece to say how often met, what happened at meetings etc.; and reflections on the learning about clusters...] Sibongile's comments on East Fife and Falkland clusters (too long?) In the design phase it was envisaged that a cluster leader would play a facilitation role and represent the group during the convergence planning process. no one stepped up to do this in either group, but talked of sharing or rotating the role, knowing I would step in to nudge things back on track if appropriate. The East Fife cluster energy built up around a joint project rather than participants’ individual ones. Infact they only met as a whole/original group the once – an intense 4-hour meeting around a hot meal in a room on the harbour wall at Pittenweem; a meeting full of hope, energy, new beginnings, that quickly inspired the development of a joint project idea, and the first chapter of a story. They would not meet with out me contacting everyone to arrange a date etc.. Nick and I agreed that I continue this role a little longer as it was important that they meet, and we acknowledged that they were not an existing group. with unforeseen relocations, numbers soon dropped from 5 to 3. I had most phone contact with this group, checking in with them regularly, acutely aware of their geographical distance from each other, that RLP was a small part of their lives and the that the time between meetings was long. Some talked through their project ideas, but mostly it was about connection, about feeling part of some nebulous whole. Two remaining members who had developed strong links with Falkland over the year amalgamated with the Falkland cluster prior to RLP4. The Falkland group met regularly, roughly every 6 weeks, usually around a shared meal. More than once it seemed we got into the juicy/productive conversation after we were fed, relaxed and at least one had had to leave. The group developed a regular format of doing a quick round of where everyone was at with their question and then a focus on one person. Both the individual at the centre and the others around always commented on how valuable and appreciated the session had been. Yet I was aware that we did not dive into things, and were not critical friends around the questions, but more around their work areas in general. I accepted that it was their meeting to use as they wanted to and that they were satisfied. Michael took over the logistics of setting dates, reminding people and ‘chairing‘ the meetings, - rather than facilitating the group as it was very much about everyone taking responsibility. We could as a group have examined our facilitation, and more deliberately taken turns and heard critical feedback, if we chose this to be a forum for practicing facilitation, but then there were these feelings of it not being about ‘community development’ but about leadership and stewardship. And we didn’t have a conversation exploring whether it is all really the same thing. Some of the group were very aware of it not being ideal coming to the meeting without preparation, - the act of getting there was the achievement. Because of my two hats it often happened that I spoke last. I tried to model what I was looking for, and it often lead to a real conversation that went deeper. But it was often late in the evening by then. Sonia was often good at deepening the conversation in a different way, by bringing up potential conflict areas and allowing a conversation that led to mutual understanding and hence mending of rifts. People valued the forum for that. It has mainly been valued for a place (downloading and) for connection, deepening relationships and hence also more effective working relationships/partnerships, rather that individual personal and professional growth. I believe it would have been useful to reflect more often on ‘how RLP is going’, ‘how our role in it is going' and 'how the clusters are working'. Confusion and misunderstanding about my role in clusters - as facilitator, member, go-between, translator?? And about how much to push the action research or trust participants would imbibe it and deepen their understanding as the year progressed and to accept/support the group exactly where they were at.	*Guiding Principles Participants agreed for our work together, Workshop 1* Michael introduced this 'stewardship' circle later in the year, at a workshop at the Centre for Stewardship
RLP 2: Leadership focus The Stables, Falkland In brief - what happened? Gathering for lunch at Pillars Reconnection to people and place: Walk and activities to Stables Workshop The art of questioning Critical friends/peer mentoring Film: living without oil in Cuba Leadership -explored through creative expression, reflection, dialogue, mapping, steps to action Recording our journey preparation for next RLP monitoring and evaluation Highs and Lows Highs: Silly Penguins and Flamingos game; input on the amoeba systems model; and the Cuba film (urban agriculture, resilience of spirit); being creative, clay sculpting.... Lows: After RLP 2 and 3, we heard feedback to 'slow down' to 'go deeper' ... did we manage this effectively in RLP 4 and 5 on key topics of leadership, stewardship, Power? Were we too ambitious in early convergences, especially RLP1 and RLP2, meaning we didn't go slow enough to get into 'meat'? On the other hand, were we right to prioritise trust and relationship building at the expense of going 'deep' early (we dove deeper in RLP 4 and 5 especially)? More Resources To download the full RLP Convergence 2 report, Full RLP 2 report multiple ways of knowing amoeba	*'Leadership' clay sculptures, day 2 of RLP 2* 'tree of living leadership' *The 'Amoeba' model* *- a big 'theory' hit during RLP 2* *expressing our evaluation of RLP 2 creatively*
RLP 3: Stewardship focus The Stables, Falkland In brief - what happened? Pillars lunch at Stables Reconnection joint report writing RLP2 collective recording of RLP3 Stories from Clusters and AR cycling Film:learning from Ladakh stewardship codes Decoding Stewardship and power power and participation COTE DVD Highs and Lows Highs doing sessions outside Lows 'codes' not clear More Resources For download RLP3 Summary Report TfT decoding ICA decoding Participation ladder AR CPD module COTE DVD ?	*experimenting with what an effective 'code' for exploring Stewardship might be* *Planning participatory video... the COTE mid-term evaluation* Critically engaging with the concept of 'stewardship', we took a walk and did some theatre work on a bridge... ... and returned to create visual metaphors for our understanding of the practice of Stewardship
RLP 4: Going deeper Douglas and Langholm In brief - what happened? lunch and site visit at Douglas Community Garden Walk through estate , reconnect, exercises COTE presentation Carnegie impact on Falkland and COTE evening in Langholm Estate and community - Mark Oddy sustaining perdonal energy, understanding needs sustaining action:preventing burnout the U process letting go:opening to what arises planning next action steps Highs and Lows Highs new venue (away from home for some) outside input collectively debriefing interaction with MO going deeper giving reflective feedback evenings together Lows no time for yetham Resources C0TE powerpoint presentation ? U process: See Nick's blog and this short article: The U process - pathologies Max-Neef Non-violent Communitcation	*By the river in Langholm, hosted by our Communities on the Edge colleagues*
RLP 5: Consolidation , celebration, moving on Dod Mill, by Lauder In brief - what happened? reporting back walk sharing personal action inquiry process deepening leadership and power synthesising and presenting our story creatively evening of deepening reflection what next for clusters closing Elinor: the space of RLP - how to create it in COTE? Highs and Lows Highs the deepening the trust the evening of 'truthing' the venue Lows that not everyone was there ending Resources compilation of participant feedback (SP insert)
Action Research 'Continuing Professional Development' In his short essay, below, Nick gives some background about the design of RLP, including why action research was emphasised so strongly in convergences as well as on an optional day where eight participants gathered (August 2007) to deepen their understanding of action research approaches. This is some feedback from participants who took the optional CPD element: Elinor: As the RLP drew to a close, the CPD component - especially the presentation of first person enquiry - really helped me to draw together my reflections and learning from the whole of RLP, and has given me a practical way to put what I have learned during RLP into action in my work. Sibongile: I feel that the integration of the CPD module helped with clarity and brought real focus to participants including to those who hadn't signed up to it. Participants responded to the 'push' of it; could we have brought more rigorous action research practice into RLP? Action Research: next steps The assessment for the CPD certificate involves writing up a proposal to do some (more) action research. Ninian, Helen and Sibongile (from Centre for Stewardship) developed complementary proposals focussed on embedding an action research approach within the organisation, from first person inquiry on roles and holding authority, through to questions of how to embed action learning into the organisation's approach, mission statement and job descriptions of FCS staff. This work is continuing, and it could be said that RLP has effectively brought a culture of action learning into the work of FCS. John, Elinor, Annette and Ian worked up proposals for how to keep learning as a team, especially across diverse contexts and with many geographical miles between COTE staff.	*Connecting head, heart and hand... bringing more rigour and a grounding into our action research through a CPD certificate accredited by the University of Strathclyde*
Connections to 'wider society' stakeholders From the beginning, RLP focussed on three inter-connected spheres of action - at the personal, local, and wider society levels. The design of the programme sought therefore to achieve focus at each level, and we summarise from 'wider society' connections here: 'Wider Society' connections Nick invited key stakeholders from community planning partnerships, funders, local authority staff and trustees of Centre for Stewardship to a 'collaborative design' event in July, 2006. Also present were eight members of an international 'community of practice' called 'Pioneers of Change'; David Niven (co-ordinator of the 'Communities on the Edge' programme) invite Ingrid Berkitt (of the International Association of Community Development) to share her thinking on Assett-Based Community Development and Gandhian-inspired development practice in an event in Peebles in October 2006; Falkland Centre for Stewardship hosted two 'Big Tent' festivals in 2006 and 2007 where the Rural Leadership Programme was profiled, and RLP participants contributed as volunteers; Sibongie was engaged by the Centre for Stewardship to develop a 'Sustainable Falkland' programme, inspired by the transition towns movements and a workshop she attended called 'Change the Dream' Nick was invited by Carnegie UK Trust to facilitate elements of their annual convention (in Grantham in 2006 and Aviemore in 2007); Finally, publishing this document on the web and inviting stakeholder feedback (see below) is intended to continue the larger conversation.	*Participants at Carnegie UK Trust Rural Action Research Programme Convention, September 2007 (with Nick facilitating)* *Nick Wilding invited colleagues from a global network of facilitators, 'Pioneers of Change', to contribute insight into the* *design of RLP in July 2006*
Feedback on this document Tess Darwin, Advisory Officer at Scottish Natural Heritage and leader of 'Sharing Good Practice (SGP)' programme (and Falkland resident/cluster participant): "This is a very exciting approach to report writing, I can see huge potential for working like this - we could do reports of SGP events this way! Looking at it from the perspective of a funder, I'd feel it was genuinely collaborative and an honest reflection of the participants' experiences, as well as giving a great deal of information about the project and process. Ditto from a sharing good practice perspective. The content is fresh, inspiring and engaging, especially the use of images and people's own words (some spellchecking needed through!)."

Section 4: RLP design

(Nick drafting this)

4.1 What influences shaped the design of the Rural Leadership Programme?

In the 'taster' sessions for the Rural Leadership Programme, I outlined some of the background experience and thinking behind RLP. This included:

a popular education approach called 'Training for Transformation' where I learned a lot about working with people whose voices tend not to be heard by the 'mainstream'
experiences of living in rural Fife and getting involved with projects such as Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre, being a founder of WECAN! (which now has a successful local food project), and working with Falkland Centre for Stewardship.
my experience of co-running a Masters' Degree in Human Ecology, including some exciting thinking about leadership, systems change and personal authenticity.

I expand on each of these influences below, and finish by reflecting on 'where I'm at now', following RLP.

4.1.1 Training for Transformation (popular education/community development)

Training for Transformation is an approach to community development work inspired by Paulo Freire and the popular education tradition. I was introduced to the 'TfT' approach working with my colleague from the Centre for Human Ecology, Verene Nicolas, who has taken an intensive 'training for trainers' programme with Anne Hope and Sally Timmel, authors of the 'TfT' community worker handbooks, in South Africa in 2003.

This is a radical approach to community empowerment, focussed around consciousness-raising and building social-change movements, through four books of powerful experiential exercises that the authors intend be drawn upon by facilitators, according to context.

There are not that many 'TfT' practitioners in the UK, and this spurred Verene and I on to see how effective the approach, which emerged in Latin America then Africa, might be in a Scottish context.

We developed (in the early stages, alongside colleagues from the Action to Re:generate Trust), an approach paced over intensive workshops over several months, usually totaling twelve days. I learned the 'TfT' approach by doing; by being apprenticed to more experienced facilitators and co-facilitating several programmes between 2002 and 2004.

Each programme was different, but most involved learning-through-doing about:

- undertaking a 'listening survey' to identify community 'generative themes';
- building trust in a community group or organisation;
- understanding and working with different kinds of power;
- the inter-connectedness of social change work as involving personal, local and wider societal transformation simultaneously;
- experiential learning through simulations, games, exercises etc.
- creating and using 'codes' to help make visible 'generative themes' which are likely to inspire collective action in communities
- and a wide variety of complementary exercises to address skills, knowledge and themes such as structural analysis, environmental work, and gender in development.

The most recent evolution of this work before RLP was a programme that Verene and I worked on through the Centre for Human Ecology called 'Get Your Voice Heard'!. We were action-researching whether Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people in North Edinburgh and Leith could better ‘get their voice(s) heard’ in local democratic processes. We were also aiming to showcase a model cross-sectoral and cross-community group working on a complex issue together, helped by the TfT approach, comprising local residents from BME communities as well as officers from the Council, NHS and Police. For more on this, see this blog entry with full project reports.

The Rural Leadership Programme borrowed several elements from this work, particularly the emphasis on 'personal, local and wider society' consciousness and action and the emphasis on experiential learning.

During convergences 1 and 2, I introduced the concept of 'codes' (pictures, poems, songs... anything that helps to capture the essence of a 'live' theme) and how to 'de-code' with a group such that we collectively explore the root causes of community issues with the intention of creating more effective solutions.

4.1.2 Fife-nous

Since I lived at Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre in Kinghorn, from 1995-1998, I've been involved in setting up and supporting community development projects across Fife. These have included the Ecology Centre, and Working for Environmental Community Action Now! (WECAN!) and its 'Food for Fife' project which I developed in 2001. I've also worked for the Fife Environment Network as a freelance consultant, establishing a database of sustainability projects across the Kingdom. In ways that I'm not going to unpick here, all this experience has helped to inform the curriculum and approach of the RLP.

4.1.3 Borrowing 'head, heart and hands' approaches to transformative learning from the Centre for Human Ecology MSc in Human Ecology

(i) action research

At the same time as Verene and I were developing our Training for Transformation community-based work (2001-2005), we were also working together with other colleagues on a Masters' degree.

We were consciously evolving the degree, year on year, informed by our learning from Training for Transformation as well as from our experiences working at depth annually with 14-20 wonderful Human Ecology students.

I was excited to gradually discover that much of the work we were coming to resonated strongly with a range of participatory approaches to research that tend to go under the umbrella title 'action research' within academia. It made sense for me to pursue this connection and so I enrolled on a PhD programme at the Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice in 2004, where the depth and breadth of this fantastic field continues to keep me engaged and learning.

Believing that 'you teach what you most need to learn', I created an action research module for the Masters' degree which could also be offered to participants on other programmes, such as RLP.

Being a real passion, action research was embedded right in the heart of the design, ethos and practice of RLP, and several participants opted to do extra work to gain the CPD qualification. An early example of this was our emphasis on 'wicked questions' which participants were asked to reflect on as they applied for the programme. Taking a stance of curiosity through holding inquiring questions through cycles of action and reflection lies at the heart of an action research approach.

It's also worth noting that a key funder, the Carnegie UK Trust, agreed part-way to take the Rural Leadership Programme under its 'Rural Action Research Programme' wing.

ii) Theories of transformational learning: theory U ('presencing')

At the beginning of RLP, I introduced the idea of each convergence being designed as a 'diamond' (see diagramme, right), involving

coming together/catching up (or 'downloading')
expanding into inquiry around the convergence focus (for example, leadership)
focussing into action points for the next period

In RLP 4, I deepened this structure by introducing a piece of thinking about the stages that help innovation and transformation come about. It's drawn from Otto Scharma's book (an MIT professor), 'Theory U', and an earlier co-authored one called 'Presence'.

I see Theory U as being about how to design a learning process (or to catalyse a community of practice through a course like the Rural Leadership Programme) that is geared toward innovation and radical creativity; toward making connections to the best possible future as well as to learning from the past.

This involves going through several stages as a group, and the picture (right) shows them on a 'U' to suggest that each stage may sequentially enable a deepening of collective trust, empathy and potential to find genuinely new potential, which can then be 'crystallized' into an idea, which can be 'prototyped' before becoming embodied in new practices.

I am attracted to this theory because it resonates so closely with much of my experience, over several years, about what works as I have designed and led programmes where catalysing transformative learning is a key intent.

For example, the table below compares the Masters' degree in Human Ecology that I significantly re-designed when it was transferred into Strathclyde University in 2004, and RLP design, with 'U' process stages:

U Process	RLP	MSc Human Ecology
Co-initiating / observing	RLP 1 (3 days): building the 'container' for learning through deep listening of personal and collective intent for the journey	Workshop 1 (one week): building an effective 'learning' container that stresses listening and trust
Co-sensing (tuning into patterns)	RLP 1, 2, 3: eg 'goldfish bowl' exercises, making transparent existing patterns of leadership and stewardship	Workshop 1 & 2: repeatedly exploring Glasgow and themes in human ecology before presenting what's found to each other; inquiring into each others' experience
Co-presencing	RLP 4: going deeper (exercise by the river; input from 'change the dream' material; dialogue on spirituality, burnout; and throughout, walks and music together)	Workshop 3 (four days in Falkland): 'heart' process-oriented workshop which I convene in Falkland, which seeks to access 'heart' knowledge and the place of becoming present to our fullest potential as human beings (drawing on becoming authentic, 'finding our voice', through time in nature/deep ecology/meditation practices)
Co-creating	RLP 4, mid-term review (focus on emerging visions/outputs), and action research proposals (as CPD)	Workshop 4 (four day): called 'action for transformation', this workshop encourages people to start applying themselves, planting action-seeds for the dissertation [I run an 'action research' option timed to correspond to this 'co-creating' movement in the MSc year]; Workshop 5 (field trip to Eigg) amplifies this work, and is a mini-'U' process in itself...intended to deepen and consolidate the learning about human ecology, crystallising participants' intentions for their emerging vocation
Co-evolving	Post-RLP; the ways in which Communities on the Edge and Falkland Centre for Stewardship integrate and embody the learning from RLP (as supported through ongoing action research).	Workshop 6 and dissertations: a collaboratively created workshop focussed on embodying the themes and priorities of course participants, with a suggestion this leads into action research dissertation work in real-life contexts

I didn't approach the design of the Rural Leadership Programme with a particular model in mind, however the 'U' process has influenced some key decisions along the way with RLP design. At root, the best models for me are the ones that suggest that, given some excellent starting conditions and clarity of intent, that a group will find it's own way to fulfill its own potential.. and then help to clarify where a learning process is 'at', and where it may move next...

iii) two ideas from 'integral community development': quadrants and perspectives

The third useful piece of 'theory' is one I have borrowed from the work of Ken Wilber, and community development practitioners who have applied this to real-life contexts such as Gail Hochachka (it is her work on the right).

In RLP 2, I introduced Wilber's 'Four Quadrants' as a way of making sense of whole systems, organisations, or communities. The idea is that the quadrants help us to see different parts of what makes a community a community, and invites us to ensure that our work isn't missing any one perspective. The different perspectives are: personal and inter-personal (collective) 'subjective' experience (ie you can only know it from the 'inside'), and personal and collective 'objective' (ie you can see it from the outside) aspects of community development. For example, I live in Falkland and have a personal insight into what living here means both individually and as part of the community - as an outsider, you can't know how it feels to live here, unless I tell you (and even then, you'll never really know!). But both insiders and outsiders can see that Falkland is under a hill, has several pubs, and a large forest to walk in. You can also tell by just observing that I appear to be a healthy, white male living in a small cottage in a wood. The importance of separating out these perspectives is that it helps to get clearer about the skills we need to work on different elements of community development, including transforming the culture (inside-feeling) as well as the structures (outer appearance) of our places.

Basically, the lesson is to collaborate as much as possible to make sure you have as many perspectives as possible working together. We all see things differently.

But it doesn't stop there. In a powerful added insight, Wilber suggests that, as well as being sure to keep all four 'quadrants' in mind to see the whole picture, we need to bear in mind the values of people in communities. A good example of this is to think more about the idea of 'stewardship'. For example,

I may want to make sure that my community doesn't change too much, as it's serving me and my family OK at the moment. If asked about stewardship, I may see it as helping me keep Falkland beautiful, and conserving a place I enjoy walking in. You might say this perspective is self-centred, or ego-centric.
Alternatively, I may value innovation and the possibilities of bringing enterprise to modernise what I see as out-dated structures that frustrate the development of businesses. In this case, I may not be that attracted to the idea of 'stewardship' unless I can see it as a way of making money, for example through emerging 'green' markets such as organic agriculture or eco-product ranges (such as developing an 'estate' brand such as are strong with Buccleuch Estates). My motivation for starting the business may be to ensure a future for my friends, colleagues and family in the town that I feel a strong sense of pride in and belonging to. You might say this is a sociocentric perspective - I'm concerned about my own welfare, and also that of the wider community, and want to modernise the way things are done to be in tune with the way society is moving forward.
Or, I may value community-generated responses and be concerned about my children's futures given climate change, coming energy crunches etc. In this case, I may emphasise that we can create a 'new stewardship' that is about people taking responsibility, and becoming empowered, to create the sustainable communities of the future. You might call this a 'world-centric' perspective as I am engaged with thinking global, whilst acting local, and I care about future generations and justice for other people on the planet as well as my own security and health. This perspective will claim stewardship as about these underlying values.

The question that follows is that, is there a way of doing 'stewardship' that can keep all three perspectives happy? And is this desirable? And if a programme like RLP can help us to see from multiple perspectives like this, will it help our work? The diagramme opposite, from Gail Hochachka, is one approach to becoming clearer about which community development methods can be helpful in developing rural leadership.

Wilber's Four Quadrants

Spiral Dynamics is a map that suggests values
evolve in people and societies through multiple stages of transformation
(each one accompanied by time of chaotic transformation).
This suggests that 'stewardship' will appeal to different people
for different reasons, according to their underlying values.

4.2 Design/facilitation team learnings 'for another RLP'

This section summarises our key learnings emerging from a debrief meeting of Nick and Sibongile on November 23rd that could inform the development of a successor RLP, should the Centre for Stewardship or another organisation wish to develop one.

RLP Design

The structure for the course was sound, as were the principles of collaboratively evaluating and developing the programme as the course progressed;
We needed at least the number of meetings that we had - this included a two-day preparation meeting before each convergence, and de-brief 3-way phone conferences about two times between convergences;
The eclectic, participatory approach to evaluation as we went along - which included innovating new evaluation tools and trying them out at different convergences - had a dis-benefit in that there is no constant record (ie in the same format) across convergences that tracks original intentions alongside benchmarks; that said, we did liven up and effectively instill a sense of positive creativity into evaluation which wasn't there at the outset, and this document is rich with media and reflections from these diverse forms;
In the future, ensuring strong organisational buy-in, with appropriate time and value accorded to the value of the Rural Leadership Prorgamme, will be key ingredients for the success of a future programme.

RLP Roles: Co-ordinator

Sibongile really valued this opportunity to work with Nick and with FCS for a year and a half, learning all the way.
The model of an employed co-ordinator working within Centre for Stewardship as well as supported by an external Director had positives and negatives:
On the positive side, it was valuable having the co-ordinator as part of the FCS team as she was able to contribute to ongoing organisational development. her working with FCS team members who were also participants in this way also helped them with practical grounding in RLP.
Sibongile felt that more regular support from Nick would have been valuable. These meetings might have more intentionally integrated an action learning approach so that we modeled more rigerously what we hoped for from participants (often they turned into planning conversations rather than deeper personal/professional development work);
Connected with the point above, the co-ordinator role could be more specific about the facilitation required to catalyse effective cluster work, as well as requiring weekly development meetings with the Director (we met bi-weekly on average) [SP: this time was front loaded so infact there were subsequently periods of several weeks where we did not meet.]

RLP Roles: Director

On balance, Nick's experience of Directing the programme as an external consultant, supported strongly by the co-ordinator and CfS staff, worked well. He distance from the organisation helped with a 'critical friend' role that developed over the year, and helped to ensure that time boundaries were managed (although the programme took approximately 25% more time than was originally envisaged);
In addition to a clear focus on convergences, it would have helped if Nick had worked more closely with Sibongile to facilitate the first cluster sessions. This would have required more time and resources, but we feel that extra input at this stage may have helped the clusters into healthier functioning;
Much of the input, design and facilitation worked well; Nick also had feedback that he wasn't present enough for some participants;
Sibongile reported that most people experienced the convergences as where RLP 'happened', as opposed to the cluster meetings (which Nick had originally envisaged would be the ongoing work-places for RLP action research; see note above about support this better in future)
On balance, this is a structure that worked and could work again, with 25% additional time allocated for the Director.

RLP Roles: COTE cluster leader

There were many benefits to working closely with a 'cluster leader' from Communities on the Edge project, and the system worked well even across a transition as David Niven handed over the work to John Gold;
In some ways, this represented a system of apprenticeship as the design team worked together, some folk bringing grounded expectations of what was needed on the programme, others bringing more experience of how to address these needs;
It should be said that the priority given to this process by COTE was hugely helpful in ensuring the collaborative design and facilitation process worked well; this, under sometimes intense work pressures for COTE staff.

RLP Content & Facilitation

The programme was ambitious - covering practical skills in community development as well as beginning to explore the implications of stewardship skills, to an introduction to participatory action research, to input on big ideas like peak oil, systems change and values systems.
By and large, the convergences were successfully facilitated.
A down-side of packing so much in was that, especially in earlier convergences, people felt a bit breathless; later on we slowed down and did less in more time.
Also, having three agendas - action research, stewardship, and asset-based community development - meant that the programme was only a 'taster' for all three, rather than a thorough grounding in any one approach
The Action Research CPD element was worthwhile, as it focussed attention in this area; yet it may have been scheduled too late into the year as several folk only began to get a real grip of what this might involve towards the end of the programme (and few engaged in reading to deepen their understanding as encouraged)
Sibongile suggests for next time paying attention to 'bite-size chunks' at every convergence which are immediately practical and experimented with in cluster groups (note, this happened during convergences, but not sufficiently grounded to flow on into cluster groups)... in many ways, this was intended, but wasn't facilitated, partly due to role confusion as above.

picture of the RLP design-team debrief, with excerpts below

An excerpt from our RLP2 report, showing Nick introducing
principles for facilitation as well as our agreed 'ground rules'

4.3 What's next? the emerging 'Wicked Questions' ...

Nick:

1) How about a 'Transition Howe of Fife' RLP?

One of the outcomes of RLP has been a connection between the Centre for Stewardship and the rapidly emerging 'transition towns' initiative, where local people come together to plan an 'energy descent plan' for their community in response to the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil.

These subjects were integrated within the first Rural Leadership Programme; but it might now be time to build on the energy of a recent meeting to create a new programme explicitly working on transition initiatives... in the Howe of Fife? Wider?

2) Connecting into a wider Community of Practice that is being developed by Carnegie UK Trust

There's also a good opportunity to stay connected with other rural development practitioners as Carnegie UK Trust develops a Community of Practice for rural development practitioners.

3) Cultivating resilience

A central part of the 'transition towns' initiative in a focus on building local resilience...
Inspired by this, and reflecting on 'where next after RLP', I've decided to explore the concept of 'resilience' more deeply through a blog.
What is needed to help people, communities and organisations cultivate resilience?
How can some of the thinking that informed RLP - Otto Scharna's 'U' process; Ken Wilber's 'integral' lense; action research; transformational learning; 'Work that Reconnects' (Macy)...also add to this new inquiry?
What are the best ways to help cross-sector learning to happen - bringing folk from circles who would never usually talk together, but who all share a passion for innovation and creativity and rural development... ? Bringing them together in convivial settings like the ones we've created together on RLP would be a good start...

The header from a new blog Nick's started about 'resilience'

4.3 Responses to this document from RLP Funders

Carnegie UK Trust Rural Action Research Programme

(Invite Kate/Kirsty from RARP to write in some responses to this document)

Leader Plus

(invite Barbara to write some responses)

Section 5: Links to Resources

click for the RLP resource site on www.nickwilding.com	www.centreforstewardship.org.uk
Carnegie UK Trust Rural Action Research Programme	Southern Uplands Partnership

Dear reader.... welcome!

Rural Leadership Programme Evaluation

Purpose of this evaluation document

Who is writing the report?

Structure of this report

External evaluaton report

Section 2: Noticeable Learning, outputs and outcomes from RLP

2.0 RLP intended outcomes

2.1 Participants' learning

Introduction to this section

How have we changed?

RLP Dinners (essence of RLP)

2.2 Noticeable Learning, outputs and outcomes from RLP For Partner Organisations

1) for Centre for Stewardship

2) For Communities on the Edge

Section 3: the RLP story - in brief

Introduction

Beginnings

Recruitment and Tasters

RLP 1: Begining a journey

The Stables, Falkland

Clusters: what happened?

RLP 2: Leadership focus

The Stables, Falkland

RLP 3: Stewardship focus

The Stables, Falkland

RLP 4: Going deeper

Douglas and Langholm

Resources

RLP 5: Consolidation , celebration, moving on

Dod Mill, by Lauder

Action Research 'Continuing Professional Development'

Action Research: next steps

Connections to 'wider society' stakeholders

Section 4: RLP design

4.1 What influences shaped the design of the Rural Leadership Programme?

4.1.1 Training for Transformation (popular education/community development)

4.1.2 Fife-nous

4.1.3 Borrowing 'head, heart and hands' approaches to transformative learning from the Centre for Human Ecology MSc in Human Ecology

(i) action research

ii) Theories of transformational learning: theory U ('presencing')

iii) two ideas from 'integral community development': quadrants and perspectives

4.2 Design/facilitation team learnings 'for another RLP'

RLP Content & Facilitation

4.3 What's next? the emerging 'Wicked Questions' ...

4.3 Responses to this document from RLP Funders

Carnegie UK Trust Rural Action Research Programme

Leader Plus

Section 5: Links to Resources