# 1. Collective Competencies and Ethical Foundations: Emerging Insights on Addressing Key Challenges in Social Innovation Education
At the Phyllis M. Taylor Center for Social Innovation and Design THinking at Tulane University, our programs seek to empower changemakers who are working and learning together in pursuit of a more just society. We define changemakers as “people who us their skills, expertise, gifts, and power in a way that creates positive social change.” As illustrated below, our proposed Changemaker competencies framework takes a multifaceted approach to supporting different learners in building these abilities. It attends to cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of learning by emphasizing skills in awareness, communication, agency, cooperation, and adaptability while incorporating mindsets of creativity, criticality, and complexity. Underpinning our entire framework is a focus on helping each Changemaker understand their own ethics and values.
In developing this emerging framework, our team identified two “sticky questions” about our strategy:
How do we build and assess Changemaker competencies at multiple levels? Our framework recognizes that transformative social change must happen at many scales, including structurally and culturally. It requires fostering capabilities for making change at internal, relational, organizational, societal and ecological levels. While individual skill-building and mindset shifts are necessary, they are not sufficient for systems change. Warren Nilsson argues that key social innovation capacities such as systems awareness, shared leadership, co-creation, and generative purpose and practiced relationally. As Bill Dayton do Ashoka posited, we need “teams of teams” that hold Changemaker competencies collectively. While this conversation has been emerging in our team for several years, we’ve been unsure how to operationalize a collective capacity-building strategy in our programming.
How do we help changemakers develop and articulate their ethics and values? We believe that Changemakers must learn not only how to make change but also contend with what makes that change truly “social”. However, this determination is difficult because social problems are socially constructed, meaning that what society defines as “bad” and “good” changes over time across cultures. Similarly, what constitutes an ethical strategy of outcome is contextual and negotiated. We realized that we could not force an ethical framework on our audiences, but that changemakers need to have their own foundational idea of what they think positive social change looks like in order to use their skills and mindsets for “social good”.
Grappling with these questions had profound implications on our work in 2023. One of the biggest changes that we made was pivoting towards a more intentional strategy of team-based learning through a new program called KREWE School. Inspired by Nilsson, we wanted to experiment with what he calls an “Org School” approach to social innovation education that engages entire organizational teams in a cohort-based learning experience. By embedding social innovation learning in the daily work and interactions of organizations, and facilitating peer learning between organizations, we hope to cultivate the kind of lasting, transformative impact that Nilsson describes.
We knew that we wanted to build our KREWE School curriculum around applied theory of change learning. Research has found that while social entrepreneurship courses frequently teach problem-solving skills, they place less emphasis on the deeper work of identifying social problems and envisioning pathways for social change. We believe it is essential to integrate this latter type of learning with more values-neutral methodologies often taught in social innovation education like design thinking and systems thinking. Having changemakers develop their own theories of change can train them to: think critically about what problems to solve and for whom; recognize and understand the complexity of social problems; examine how their actions align with their vision; and identify assumptions that can lead to unintended harm.
Piloting KREWE School also allowed us to develop a stand-alone Theory of Change workshop. This session provides an experiential introduction to developing emergent and dynamic illustrations of how an organization or project’s work contributes to desired social or environmental impact. Participants learn about various approaches to developing a theory of change and explore which visual framework might work for their organization, such as the widely-used linear logic model or the more relational “tree-based” version used by ABH Foundation in Brazil. We also propose questions (see graphic below) to help teams problematic their theory and identify their own “sticky questions” that need more attention, collaboration and creativity.
We hope that explicitly defining and grappling with the social dimensions of their work can equip changemakers with a process for de-constructing and re-constructing their own ethics and values. In the future, we expect to introduce additional reflection questions into our Theory of Change workshops that help participants explore connections between their organization’s theory of change and their individual and team belief systems.
We recognize that these new educational experiences offer only a partial answer to our sticky questions about Changemaker competencies. However, we are excited to iterate on KREWE School and build a research agenda to assess learning outcomes at the team level. Furthermore we see potential to embed theory of change learning across our various programs from design thinking training it venture accelerators. We anticipate that these programmatic experiments will yield rich insights about building collective and transformative change making competencies in social innovation education.
# 2. Using an Action Research Lens to Integrate Scholarship and Practice: Lessons from KREWE School’s Pilot Year
Throughout 2023 and 2024, the Phyllis M. Taylor Center for Social Innovation and Design Thinking implemented a new organizational learning program called KREWE School. The first cohort brought four campus-based teams together to explore how to creatively achieve their desired social impact. The pilot consisted of 6 half-day facilitated sessions (and inter session coaching) over the course of a year with activities focusing on key social innovation methodologies such as drafting organizational theories of change, creating complex systems maps, practicing new modes of collaboration, and testing prototypes to address teams’ own organizational challenges.
While we already had these core curricular pillars in mind, we were eager to learn with participants about how these approaches (and the KREWE School model as a whole) could foster collective capacities to make social change. We embraced an action research mindset to co-create the program and understand what was and wasn’t working about the experience for participants.
The What and Why of Action Research Action inquiry is a different paradigm for research than academics traditionally employ. A leading scholar in the field, Hilary Bradbury, offers this definition:
Action research is a democratic and participative orientation to knowledge creation. It brings together action and reflection, theory and practice, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern.
Action research isn’t about creating knowledge for knowledge’s sake (although that’s a worthy pursuit). It’s about co-producing knowledge that can be used. At its core, action research involves studying one’s own practice to improve it, often in collaboration with those impacted by that practice. Action research emphasizes problem-solving and learning-in-action through collaborative cycles of planning, experimentation, observation and reflection.
This approach aligned with our goals for three key reasons: First, it supports our center’s mission to advance knowledge about collaborative social innovation approaches that facilitate transformative learning. Second, it extends our center’s existing reflective practice, allowing us to test new strategies with key stakeholders. Third, it models the “learning-by-doing” philosophy we teach, applying the same action research methodologies to our own development that we encourage in participants.
Insights from the KREWE School Pilot For the pilot, we aimed to conduct internal learning rather than formal academic research or summarize evaluation (action research methodologies can be used in all these cases). We wanted to understand how teams experienced the program, what worked well, and where we could improve. We collected data on these experiences through multiple channels:
- Observational notes taken by research assistants during learning sessions
- Feedback surveys administered to participants after each session
- Documenting and analyzing session artifacts produced by teams (e.g., theory of change drafts, system maps)
- Individual exit interviews with participants from different teams
We analyzed data iteratively throughout the year through discussions with program facilitators and research assistants, making real-time adjustments to our curriculum and facilitation approach where possible.
The process helped us understand what was working. Participants highly valued the protected time and space for open-ended conversations about organizational challenges and found a playful environment conductive to fresh thinking. The framework introduced, such as theory of change and systems mapping, were generally well-received and thought-provoking. Structured cross-team interactions also provided valuable outside perspectives and knowledge exchange. Finally, participants appreciated a strong, flexible facilitation style that was responsive to feedback. For teams fully engaged in the process, the program catalyzed meaningful discussions and shifts in their organizational behaviors.
The data also pointed to areas of improvement. Participants questioned the connections between different activities and sessions, indicating a need for a clearer through line across the program. Some activities felt rushed and needed more time. Participants also struggled to complete homework assignments between sessions, suggesting a need to rethink these expectations. Additionally, while the open-ended nature of the program was valuable, some participants expressed a desire for clearer articulation of the program’s overall purpose and intended outcomes.
Next Steps for KREWE School Programming and Research These insights provided valuable directions for refining the KREWE School model for the future cohorts, which will expand to include community-based organizations. We decided to make the following changes to KREWE School for Cohort 2:
- Adjusting the workshop flow from bi-monthly sessions to a series of 2 to 3 day intensive, with more time between multi-day intensive for team integration.
- Introducing human-centered design prior to theory of change and re-allocating time to allow for up to 5 cycles of team prototyping to move from exploration to validation.
- Adapting inter session expectations by increasing coaching availability, eliminating readings, and integrating more reflection time into sessions.
- Tweaking facilitation guided to increase cross-team engagement and provide more context about each team’s work.
- Creating more program-specific templates that integrate all four curricular pillars rather than adapting templates that are missing key elements of the model.
- Clarifying the program’s purpose and flow upfront by using move visuals of the experience and examples of possible outcomes.
While making these changes, we recognize that the diversity of the teams who could enroll in KREWE School is likely to result in inherent tensions that we can never fully resolve. We anticipate making slight adjustments to implementation and coaching from year to year to adapt to the needs of unique cohorts and teams.
For our next cohort, we also plan to take a more structured approach to research while maintaining the flexibility and participatory nature of action research. Our plans include:
- Pre- and post-program assessments
- Brief feedback surveys after each session to track satisfaction, engagement, and learning over time
- Individual participant interviews and team discussions at the start, midpoint and end of the program
- Observational notes on team dynamics and challenges from workshops and coaching sessions
- Interviews with key stakeholders to gauge broader organizational impact
- Document review of team artifacts and outputs
- ”Member checking” sessions with participants to interpret and validate findings
By formalizing our research approach while maintaining an action research orientation, we aim to deepen our understanding of how organizational learning programs like KREWE School can foster collective social innovation capacities. We’re excited to continue learning alongside our participants as we work towards building more collaborative approaches to social change.
# 3. Org Schools and Social Learning: How KREWE School’s Approach Aligns with Transformative Social Innovation Theory
At the Phyllis M. Taylor Center for Social Innovation and Design Thinking, we’ve developed a unique approach to collective social innovation education education called “KREWE School”.
One of our main inspirations for this program was Warren Nilsson’s call for social innovation educators to shift away from individualized “Leadership Schools” towards “Org Schools” that focus on teams as the unit of learner. Though we have not yet found a strong evidence base for Org Schools, we felt confident enough in our experiences as practitioners to see the need for this type of program.
Starting with a cohort of four teams from campus-based units, we piloted KREWE School in 2023-2024 as roughly year-long learning journey. Teams participated in 6 half-day sessions with intersession coaching and design activities, using social innovation tools to tackle real organizational challenges and build collective social innovation capacities.
Throughout the pilot, action research approaches such as continuous testing, feedback, and iteration guided our learning. This process helped us identify aspects of the program to adjust for Cohort 2, such as increasing the number of sessions while tweaking their order and cadence. We also expanded enrollment to place-based, values-aligned organizations in the Greater New Orleans area.
We intended to formalize our action research agenda with an academic and evaluative study on learning process and outcomes for Cohort 2. Situating this inquiry within a specific theoretical framework will allow us to develop more rigorous, critical, and transferable insights around Org School models.
Applying Transformative Social Innovation Theory While we did not explicitly review their materials in developing KREWE School, team members integral to co-creating the program have been influenced by the TRANSIT research project’s theory of transformative social innovation (TSI) for several years. We noticed connections between Nilsson’s Org Schools model and TSI theory’s emphasis on collective abilities of group is as a key ingredient for remaking dominant institutions (i.e., systemic transformation).
Particularly, the concept of social learning for TSI, in which social innovation initiatives develop new collective knowledge and ways of relating, seemed highly applicable to our work. This framework, developed through empirical research and case studies on transnational networks like Slow Food, identified four social learning components and their characteristics learning environments types of learning methods and learning actors that contribute to social learning outcomes and wider societal impacts.
Therefore, at the end of the pilot year, several Taylor team members decided to analyze how KREWE School operationalizes social learning for TSI. This exploration allowed us to deepen insights from the pilot about how our program is designed to foster collective capacity-building for transformation. The resulting paper co-authored by Professors Máille Faughnan, Julia Lang and Rebecca Otten, Reseach Fellow Anna Monhartova, and Graduate Research Assistants Baris Alan and Eileen Tomczuk appears in the newest special edition of the Social Innovations Journal on Activating Changemaker Ecosystems Through Higher Education.
Social Learning Components in KREWE School We found that KREWE School demonstrates strong alignment with TRANSIT’s findings around the role of conductive learning environments, differentiated types of learning and experiential learning methods in social learning. However, we believe the KREWE School model builds on TRANSIT’s emphasis on individual learning actors in a way that reflects our unique structure for social learning and fits with TSI theory’s focus on collective capacity.
- Of different social learning environments identified by TRANSIT, KREWE School most resembles an institutionalized training program (as opposed to more informal social interactions). Our unique advantage is creating a place-based and highly relational series of face-to-face encounters with structured learning activities. Our facilitated sessions and coaching parallel TRANSIT’s observations on successful physical learning environments. We designed these interactions to nurture a collaborative and welcoming space for teams to develop new shared understandings and practices. In-person activities take place in a large, flexible space with creative facilitation supplies, which encourage engagement, experimentation, and playful learning.
- Similar to TRANSIT’s cases, the Taylor Center has always prioritized different types of learning such as emotional, relational, strategic, and cognitive. KREWE School draws on a wide range of activities to meet these learning objectives. The curriculum integrates common social innovation tools and concepts such as human-centered design, theory if change, systems thinking and multicultural competence. Throughout the program our teams use these methods iteratively to develop their visions and strategies and test emergent solutions. Our curriculum is designed to not only help participants understand and apply concepts (cognitive), but also to engage in personal development/affective changes (emotional), explore new modes of interpersonal engagement (relational), and connect with other individuals and teams in the room to build their networks (strategic).
- Likewise, the learning methods that KREWE School uses to balance these different types of learning draw on experiential and participatory pedagogies. The curriculum emphasizes reframing knowledge, self-oriented learning and collective experimentation, and facilitating deliberation through diverse expertise, reflective learning, creative brainstorming, solution testing, and participatory decision-making. A team of skilled facilitators balance guiding participants through the curriculum while adapting to each group’s specific needs and co-creating new possibilities when needed.
- TRANSIT’s model highlights the importance of individual learning actors as inspirational leaders and visionaries who disseminate ideas and build social movements. This defines the learning actor at the individual level. At the Taylor Center, we intentionally pivoted our “unit of change” to teams after years of observing how individual participants in our public workshops struggled to translate new mindsets and capacities to other environments despite high motivation. We also saw how engaging in our own team-based, multi-year learning had transformed our organizational culture and interpersonal behaviors. These experiences led us to envision a KREWE School cohort of pre-existing teams from purpose-driven organizations or collectives. We believe that this model will make it easier for teams to shift norms within their units and local networks through critical mass and gain access to more powerful ideas and strategic alliances within the cohort.
The purpose of this theoretical review of KREWE School is to inspire experimentation with social learning approaches in social innovation education. We identified core ports of the model that others can replicate and adapt to their specific contexts, such as team learning units, a cohort approach, skilled facilitation, a welcoming environment, and varied learning activities.
To learn more about KREWE School’s unique approach and these recommendations, we encourage you to read our full paper here. The paper’s authors are thrilled to contribute to this open access journal, which aligns with the Taylor Center’s commitment to lifelong learning and accessible scholarly research.
This work also sets us up to investigate social learning outcomes. Initial insights from our pilot suggests that KREWE School is helping teams develop some of those identified by TRANSIT such as new collective capacities , ways of relating, and approaches to complex challenges. However, more research is needed to evaluate our program and compare our findings to TSI theory. We plan to integrate TRANSIT frameworks more explicitly into our action research on Cohort 2, currently underway with a cohort of community-based organizations, to explore if and bow our Org School model can contribute to changes in collective transformative capacities.
If your organization is interested in learning more about Krewe School and applying to participate in a future cohort, email us at taylor@tulane.edu