The limitations of Collaborative Learning

Despite the strong value proposition and positive results of many Collaborative Learning Networks (CLNs), we know that Collaborative Learning does not always realize its full potential. This is often the case when one or more of the “10 essential ingredients” is de-prioritized or absent. We have also learned that CLNs do not work well in certain situations, including:

• When the CLN is primarily development partner- or funder-driven. A core principle of Collaborative Learning is that the learning agenda and activities of the network are demand-driven by the community of learners. CLNs need clear and transparent decision-making processes for setting the learning agenda and network priorities.
• When participant nomination for CLN opportunities is not strategic, inclusive, and objective. Another core principle of Collaborative Learning is that participants should have the authority, motivation, and ability to translate learning into action and drive local change.
• When learners do not have the requisite foundational knowledge or are not ready or willing to actively participate in learning, in which case instructional learning may be more appropriate. (SPARC, Collaborative Learning to Advance Knowledge and Implementation of Strategic Health Purchasing in Sub-Saharan Africa, Health Systems & Reform Journal (HSR), 2022)
• When political or resource constraints outside the control of the CLN or its in-country stakeholders impede the opportunity for participants to engage in network activities and adapt and apply the learning.
• When time and resources are not adequate to fully deliver. Collaborative Learning can be labor and resource intensive, requiring funds for management, facilitation, workshops, and knowledge and communications platforms.
• When measuring network performance, CLN evaluation efforts can be limited by short evaluative periods requested by funders, difficulty measuring the degree of ‘exposure’ among participants and the level of contribution of the network to systems-level change, and the field’s reliance on broad population-level indicators. (Woulfe J, Oliver TR, Zahner SJ, Siemering KQ. Multisector partnerships in population health improvement. Prev Chronic Dis 2010)