Question

article on inclusive management​

Answer 1

Answer:

hope it is helpful, mark me as brainliest plsssssssss

Explanation:

Social learning has been defined as a ‘process in which multiple stakeholders bring together their different knowledge, experiences, perspectives, values, and capacities for a process of communication and critical reflection as a means of jointly understanding and addressing shared issues, challenges, and potential options’ (McDougall et al. 2008, p. 30). Knowledge sharing – an important dimension of social learning – is premised on the diversity and complementarities of the knowledge of different social groups hold and the value of this diverse knowledge, when shared, for solving forest management and other problems (Maarleveld & Dangbégnon 1999). Social learning is considered essential if collaborative forest management arrangements are to provide socio-economic, environmental and cultural benefits to participant communities and the marginalized groups within them (Buck et al. 2001; McDougall et al. 2013).

McDougall et al. (2013) demonstrate how careful design of governance processes and arrangements can promote social inclusion, with elements such as social learning playing a central role in this inclusion.1 The authors call attention to the importance of creating socially acceptable ‘spaces’ wherein marginalized groups can engage in governance (and underlying social learning) processes. Others demonstrate the importance of platforms – metaphorical or ‘real’ places where stakeholders meet and learn – for facilitating social learning (Röling & Jiggins 1998; Buck et al. 2001). These platforms can vary in form, from elected committees and formally appointed boards to one-time meetings. Key issues in relation to these platforms include who participates, who these participants represent, and how to facilitate discussion among different actors who may hold different or contradictory positions on the issues of concern (Röling & Jiggins 1998).

Studies of ‘contact zones’ yield insight into what such spaces or platforms can be and their prospects for fostering social inclusion. The notion of contact zones draws from ‘contact theory’ (Allport 1954, 1958), which stipulates that in situations of discrimination (or conflict) inter-group relations can be improved through increased inter-group contact under predefined conditions. These conditions include an equal group status within the contact situation, inter-group cooperation, a shared goal, the support of authorities, law or customary norms (Allport 1954), personal acquaintance among members, and inter-group friendships (Dovidio et al. 2003). Contact zones, then, have been conceptualized as social spaces where different groups come together and interact, mutually transforming each other through ‘meaningful encounters’ (Pratt 1992; Barad 2007). Lau and Scales (2016, p. 139) explain that ‘boundaries between groups are often blurred and reproduced within the contact zone through an emphasis on certain collective aspects of identity.’ Hence, the shift from inter-actions to intra-actions as a new collective identity emerges through common practices and shared experiences. In this regard, authors refer to contact zones not only as a theory, but also as a method to create spaces where differently positioned groups can work together despite their power inequities, and in so doing, create more equitable inter-group relations (Torre et al. 2008). It is from this perspective of contact zones as both method and theory that we situate this study.