Learning through inquiries
How a ‘spirit of inquiry’ can transform grant giving – and the structures needed to enable ‘live learning’ along the way
By the Generative Journalism Alliance
In our attempts to answer the question, ‘What can we learn from the Lankelly Chase experience?’, we heard from dozens of people who had been in relationship with the foundation about a distinct approach to learning, specifically framing work around inquiries.
We’ve been exploring how an inquiry-led approach – rather than a problem-led or outcome-led approach – enables new kinds of relationships and field-building to emerge free from many of the burdens of traditional philanthropic grant-giving. With support from numerous ‘learning partners’, Lankelly Chase developed inquiries that enabled deep, long-term work to be undertaken without the need for grantees to prove impact from the outset, trusting that when conditions are tended to, good outcomes emerge.
Such inquiries, however, while liberating and possibility-filled for many, were sources of frustration and occasionally harm to partners when inquiries weren’t accompanied by appropriate learning-based structures and practices.
By weaving the stories from numerous partners of Lankelly Chase, we introduce here some of the elements that enable an inquiry-led and learning-focused approach to funding, the potential of such an approach when the elements align, as well as the critical need for structures that can support funders and partners to step into this new way of relating.
Funding within complex systems
Underpinning an inquiry-led and learning-focused approach is what many of our sources perceive to be a particular understanding of how systems change. If good outcomes require changes to a whole bunch of interconnected drivers, then single-point interventions are unlikely to cut it.
This understanding begs the question which Toby Lowe, who was a learning partner of Lankelly Chase as they were transitioning to become a systems change funder, was supporting a deeper exploration of early in this transition:
“If the outcomes that we desire in the world are complex – if they are created by complex systems – what does that look like in terms of how funding works?”
Such questions appeared to permeate the lives of people involved at all levels of the organisation, as former trustee Ollie Batchelor describes:
“More and more it was less about trying to fund projects and more about what we’re trying to learn … It was a spirit of inquiry, rather than a spirit of giving money out and being the ‘gracious benefactors’ … We were sitting with how much money we had and what difference we were making. What are we learning from the 10, 12, 15, projects we’re funding? What’s the big picture? What are we learning from that?”
The implications of this shift in understanding and focus can also be seen in the types of system interventions being made. One of these ways includes the tendency to pose questions rather than answers; initiating inquiries necessitates the asking of deeper questions, letting go of some degree of certainty, predictability and control which characterise traditional philanthropic relations.
Another includes holding a long-term view of systems change. Jo Howard, who was an advisor to Lankelly Chase on Systemic Action Research in Gateshead, shared what was “most remarkable from a research perspective” about the relationship she had during this process:
“Lankelly Chase invited and funded an open-ended action research process with communities. They didn’t want reports and indicators or logframes. They were happy to review and then fund a second phase, and they completely get that you can’t know where something’s going, that the nature of action research is that as it unfolds, it will take the direction that it takes.”
Like Jo, many of the people we spoke with, particularly grantees and others working closely to those on the ground, expressed a huge sense of relief not having to adhere to traditional forms of reporting on their ‘results’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘impact’.
While much has been written on this topic elsewhere, most notable in the context of learning is how this shift enables more honest conversations. In turn, we see a new relational dynamic emerge, one in which the people doing the work on the ground are being trusted to know their work and also communicate the learning that they, not funders, consider most relevant to that work. Rose Ssali, member of the core group of Greater Manchester Systems Changers, which was part of Lankelly Chase’s devolved decision-making strategy, shares what this shift meant for the way they worked together through that transition:
“Nothing ever goes according to plan. If somebody scrutinises you so much in the beginning, you have to make things look nicer than they actually are. But with Lankelly’s way of doing things, that participatory grantmaking … we’re able to go back and look at what didn’t work, and why. It promotes honesty.”
The challenges of ‘live learning’
While an inquiry-led approach can enable a fast growing theoretical understanding of new terrain, as well as the possibility to course-correct as better understandings emerge, we observed several challenges that arose for Lankelly Chase when attempting to follow this path, outlined here in order to understand what might be needed.
First, learning from the field isn’t easily integrated and, even when it is, the application of such learning doesn’t always reflect the field. In other words, a funding organisation that pivots in a way and at a pace that suits them doesn’t necessarily align with people on the ground.
Catherine Scott, who worked as a place-based associate with Lankelly Chase in York, at the intersection of the organisation and communities, reflects on this challenge while observing the processes unfold from both of these perspectives:
“The most frustrating thing is the missed opportunities, of how Lankelly Chase didn’t necessarily integrate learning into the work that they were doing, and learning from how things had developed in places and how funding and relationships had worked … They had this idea of what [their changing funding priorities] looked like to them, that I don’t think was well articulated or communicated in a way that was understood by the general public and people experiencing these things.”
This disconnect exposes the distance that so often exists between funders and the fields they seek to fund, a theme we explore in more depth in our commentary on relationality. Whether through misunderstanding, overcommitment or under-resourcing, learning that was at one point sought ended up falling short of having the impact it could have.
Although undoubtedly confronting, and particularly frustrating for those involved, we believe this challenge offers an invitation to other funders and partners who want to lead their work with inquiries, learn in real time with partners, and integrate and apply such learning towards systems interventions, to which we now turn our attention.
Building learning-based structures
Antidotes to the challenges of ‘live learning’ can be found in the types of structures built to support learning as ongoing, participatory and accountable processes.
Throughout the legacy stories, one can find numerous comments on, for example, the lack of “a more structured and rigidly imposed learning framework” (Catherine Scott), or “a plan for how [Lankelly Chase] were going to answer their questions … and an almost visceral kind of negative reaction to the idea of trying to codify what they had learned in terms of their own systems and processes” (Toby Lowe).
Lankelly Chase’s resistance to structuring learning in a more systematic way offers an important learning opportunity for funders and others pursuing an inquiry-led approach.
While being a funder – free from many of the usual constraints organisations face – can allow the boundaries of a field to be pushed, or even entirely new fields to emerge (which we explore further in our commentary on audacity), embracing an inquiry-led approach requires philanthropy to build the relational and processual infrastructure needed to sustain systemic change.
One of these structural elements is a clear accountability framework: one that holds funding organisations accountable to the people affected, and prioritises being in right relationship with partners over its own intellectual curiosity.
We found examples of such accountability in conversations with partners who are renegotiating the traditional terms of philanthropic funding. The types of structures we heard most about for supporting learning centred on robust participatory processes that enable knowledge to be co-produced by those closest to, and most affected by the work. As Max French, a learning partner to Lankelly Chase, notes:
“The people who are at the front end of this work, and are often at the lowest end of the pay scale, are generating the most interesting and useful insights.”
Lankelly Chase’s devolved decision making stepped in this direction, as a seemingly natural evolution of their longer transition towards becoming a systems change and inquiry-led funder. More specifically, where systemic changes were underway, such as in Gateshead, community members were being paid living wages to do community research, which Jo Howard reflects on:
“It really makes a difference if you’re paying community researchers a living wage to do the work that they’re doing. I think that is transformative. It’s taking people’s time and knowledge seriously.”
The other structural element relates to the ways in which a funding organisation commits to its own learning and evolution, aligning its words with its actions. In addition to building robust participatory processes, many of our sources emphasised the need for funders to be as committed to their own learning journeys as they are about the work they are funding. Learning is not just something for ‘out there’, but demands a radical transformation in the ways an organisation structures itself.
While encouraged by many, adopting an inquiry-led approach doesn’t address the fundamental power asymmetries within philanthropy, and in some cases may appear to transcend dynamics while actually masking deeper issues, as Yasmeen Akhtar, who was an advisor to Lankelly Chase’s governance transition, candidly puts it:
“While it’s a wonderful fantasy to be a transformative funder, I think we are not there, so we are confusing ourselves and the wider communities we are working alongside or in service of as funders, by not getting the pacing right in terms of, ‘What have I actually learned? And what have I actually done with that in terms of shifting the structures and the shape of this work and the behaviours in this organisation?”
Building these types of learning-based structures, both externally and internally, requires deep self-reflection, relational awareness and commitment over a long time horizon. Philanthropic organisations may have the privilege of experimenting with inquiry-led approaches and ‘live learning’, but to do so effectively requires robust participatory processes with communities and people working in the field.
The legacy stories offer insight, nuance and rich accounts from the people quoted here and many more whose experiences offer guidance to those seeking to build the types of structures and ways of being that support an inquiry-led approach to funding for systemic change.
To conclude with a call to those wish to pursue this deep, challenging and necessary transitionary work, in the words of Max French: