Content uploaded by Megan Leah Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Megan Leah Smith on Nov 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Evaluating the relationship between community engagement and
collaborative networks in local communities: scoping the
effectiveness of the Art-of-Hosting (AOH) Framework
Megan Smith
A dissertation submitted for the degree of
Master of Economic and Regional Development
UNE Business School
University of New England
Armidale, NSW, Australia
December 2017
ii
Certification of Dissertation
I certify that the substance of this thesis has not already been submitted for any other degree
and is not currently being submitted for any degree.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, any help received in preparing this thesis, and all
sources used, have been acknowledged in this thesis.
Megan Smith
8th December 2017
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my very good friend and Core Hosting Team member, Verity Paterson
Executive Officer of Country Health, for her encouragement and faith. Other Core Hosting
Team Members Port Augusta Mayor Sam Johnson, and Far North Regional Development
Australia Chief Executive Officer Claire Wiseman, for their vision, support and practical
assistance in organizing the World Café event.
I am indebted to the town of Port Augusta and the participants who attended and participated
with whole-hearted generosity at the World Café event in August 2017.
I am extremely grateful to both my Principal Supervisor Associate Professor Renato (Rene)
Villano and Co-supervisor, Dr Stuart Mounter for their valuable guidance, advice and
encouragement.
I would like to thank all those who provided me with constructive comments on my thought
process and my final dissertation. I am especially grateful to yacht Pacific Haven and her crew
for providing valuable study space, proof-reading and editing services.
Finally, this work is dedicated to my family, with great thanks to my husband, Donald and my
son, Shay Douglas. Without whose support, this would never have been achievable.
In memory of my Grandmother, Ameada Mary, who always thought I could do more.
iv
Abstract
Globalisation presents Australian regional communities with structurally complex social and
economic challenges. Often falling to local councils to pursue local economic development
goals, local organizations require adaptable and easily implementable tools that empower
communities to leverage off individual knowledge and strengths in seeking innovative and
sustainable economic development solutions. This study explores the effectiveness of the
World Café (WC) method as one tool for supporting intentional conversation fostering
collaborative networks and strengthening collective efficacy as essential components integral
of creativity and innovative solutions.
Using three data collection methods to understand participant perspectives, core empirical
findings emerged: the impact of multitudinous losses experienced by community from stalled
comparative advantage; the restricting nature of bonding social capital on creativity and risk-
taking; and the need to articulate a shared vision with measurable goals. Relevant implications
for other communities suggests the WC supports diverse network linkages, fosters innovation
by connecting knowledge and provides a mechanism to leverage collective efficacy by
articulating a diverse community vision.
v
Table of Contents
Certification of Dissertation ...................................................................................................... ii!
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii!
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv!
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... viii!
Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1!
1.1!Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1!
1.2!Background to the Problem ....................................................................................... 1!
1.3!Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 2!
1.4!Situating the Study: Description of the Host Community ......................................... 2!
1.5!Study Rationale and Significance .............................................................................. 4!
1.6!Research Design ......................................................................................................... 5!
1.7!Thesis Structure ......................................................................................................... 5!
1.8!Key Terminology ....................................................................................................... 6!
Chapter Two: Introducing the World Café ................................................................................ 9
2.1!Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9!
2.2!Background ................................................................................................................ 9!
2.3!Process ..................................................................................................................... 11!
2.4!Examples .................................................................................................................. 13!
2.5!Limitations ............................................................................................................... 14!
2.6!Summary .................................................................................................................. 15!
Chapter Three: Literature Review ........................................................................................... 16!
3.1!Introduction .............................................................................................................. 16!
3.2!Key Concepts ........................................................................................................... 16!
3.2.1!Complexity and Collaboration ................................................................................. 16!
3.2.2!Regional Economic Development ........................................................................... 17!
3.2.3!Sustainable Community and Economic Development ............................................ 20!
3.2.4!Social Capital ........................................................................................................... 21!
3.2.5!Networks .................................................................................................................. 22!
3.2.6!Conversations, Collaboration and Complexity ........................................................ 23!
3.3 Linking Key Concepts, the World Café and Research Objectives .......................... 24
3.4!A Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 25!
vi
3.5!Summary .................................................................................................................. 27!
Chapter Four: Methodology ..................................................................................................... 28!
4.1!Introduction .............................................................................................................. 28!
4.2!Research Approach Rationale .................................................................................. 28!
4.2.1!Researcher Standpoint ............................................................................................. 28!
4.2.2!Rationale for Qualitative Research Paradigm .......................................................... 30!
4.2.3!Rationale for Case Study Design ............................................................................. 31!
4.3!Recruitment of Participants ...................................................................................... 32!
4.4!Summary of Information Required .......................................................................... 32!
4.5!Linking Research Design to Conceptual Framework .............................................. 33!
4.6 World Café Set-up ................................................................................................... 34
4.6.1!Core Hosting Team (CHT) ...................................................................................... 34!
4.6.2!Calling Question and Invite ..................................................................................... 35!
4.6.3 World Café Event .................................................................................................... 35
4.7!Data Collection Process and Interpretation Methods ............................................... 36!
4.7.1!Whole-of-Forum Questionnaire ............................................................................... 36!
4.7.2!Focus Groups (FG) .................................................................................................. 37!
4.7.3!Harvest ..................................................................................................................... 38!
4.8!Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................. 39!
4.9!Trustworthiness and Authenticity ............................................................................ 40!
4.10!Summary .................................................................................................................. 41!
Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion ........................................................................................ 42!
5.1!Introduction .............................................................................................................. 42!
5.2!Insights from the Data .............................................................................................. 42!
5.2.1!Understanding the local context ............................................................................... 46!
5.2.2!Collaboration ............................................................................................................ 47!
5.2.3!Collective Efficacy ................................................................................................... 49!
5.3!Effectiveness of the WC .......................................................................................... 50!
5.3.1!Self Efficacy ............................................................................................................. 53!
5.3.2!Collective Networks ................................................................................................. 55!
5.3.3!Collective Efficacy ................................................................................................... 56!
5.4. Limitations of the World Café ................................................................................. 57
5.4.1.!Harnessing broad participation ................................................................................ 57!
vii
5.4.2!Timeframe ................................................................................................................ 59!
5.5.!Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 59!
5.5.1!Port Augusta............................................................................................................. 59!
5.5.2!In Practice ................................................................................................................ 61!
5.6!Summary .................................................................................................................. 61!
Chapter Six: Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 62!
6.1!Introduction .............................................................................................................. 62!
6.2!Summary of findings ................................................................................................ 62!
6.3!Implications of Findings .......................................................................................... 64!
6.4!Future Research ....................................................................................................... 67!
6.5!Summary .................................................................................................................. 67!
References .................................................................................................................................... !
Appendix A: Core Hosting Team ................................................................................................ !
Appendix B: World Café Invite ...................................................................................................
Appendix C: World Café Round Questions .................................................................................
Appendix D: World Café Assumptions .......................................................................................
Appendix E: World Café Core Research Themes .......................................................................
Appendix F: Whole of Forum Questionnaire .............................................................................. !
Appendix G: World Café Questionnaire ......................................................................................
Appendix H: Focus Group Invite Email ...................................................................................... !
Appendix I: Focus Groups ........................................................................................................... !
Appendix J: Focus Group Consent Form..................................................................................... !
Appendix K: Focus Group Outline and Questions ...................................................................... !
Appendix L: Harvest .................................................................................................................... !
viii
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Harnessing Collective Intelligence ............................................................................. 9
Figure 2: Powerful Conversations ........................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Principles .................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: Physical Process ....................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: A Holistic Response to Complexity ......................................................................... 25
Figure 6: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 26
Figure 7: Distilling Researcher Standpoint .............................................................................. 29
Figure 8: Data Collection Process ............................................................................................ 33
Figure 9: Before FG Concept Map .......................................................................................... 43
Figure 10: After FG Concept Map ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 11: Harvest Concept Map ............................................................................................. 45
Figure 12: Negative Cycle ....................................................................................................... 47
Figure 13: Combined Data Concept Map ................................................................................ 52
Figure 14: Comparing before and after questionnaire responses ............................................. 54
Figure 15: Expanding Engagement .......................................................................................... 60
Figure 16: Summary of Empirical Findings ............................................................................ 63
Figure 17: SWOT ..................................................................................................................... 66
ix
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation
Term
ABC
Australian Broadcasting Commission
AoH
Art-of-Hosting
ASIB
Australian Social Inclusion Board
CED
Community Economic Development
CHT
Core Hosting Team
FG
Focus Group
FGP
Focus Group Participant
LGA
Local Government Association
PACC
Port Augusta City Council
PHIU
Public Health Information Development Unit
RDA
Regional Development Australia Far North
SES
Strategic Economic Solutions
WC
World Café
1
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Economic challenges facing developed world economies require innovative solutions, fully
participating citizens and inclusive societies. Where regions confront entrenched disadvantage
and economic irrelevancy, place-based community development frameworks might offer
community’s strategies that build local solutions.
A qualitative case study, this research explores the usefulness of community development
tools. Positioned within the interpretivist/ constructionist paradigms, the research seeks to
understand if the World Café (WC) as one Art-of-Hosting (AoH) method offers regional
communities a tool to structure intentional conversations that explore broad based solutions to
localized globalisation challenges. Modern regional economic and community development
learnings give evidence-based context to the research which, as an iterative journey, seeks to
understand one community’s experience of drawing upon endogenous strengths to
globalisation.
The objectives of this research are to explore through participant perspectives:
• economic and social challenges/ opportunities as defined by the host community;
• the effectiveness of the WC on enriching local collaborative networks;
• the effectiveness of the WC on supporting collective efficacy.
1.2 Background to the Problem
Australia requires different solutions to the twenty-first centuries economic challenges. In
December 2015, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull outlined his national vision of an “ideas
boom”, fuelled by a Federal government “innovation agenda”, repositioning Australia as a
modern and dynamic knowledge-economy (Borrello & Keany, 2015). At the heart of this
strategy the National Innovation and Science Agenda promotes resilient industries in creative
regional and rural communities that “embrace innovation and adapt and grow” (National
Innovation and Science Agenda, 2017).
2
Yet modern regional policy design must acknowledge the impact of global economic forces on
regional economies (Barca, McCann & Rodrıguez-Pose, 2012). The Australian Social
Inclusion Board (ASIB) (2009) argues for a resilient national economy, able to withstand
global challenges and leverage participation opportunities for all Australians. Compounding
negative economic and social drivers of exclusion include “poverty, low income and income
inequality, lack of access to the job market, poor educational outcomes, poor health, lack of
access to social supports and networks and discrimination” (ASIB, 2009, p. 5). The
interconnected nature of economic and social drivers compounds negatively on community
resilience and participation (ASIB 2009, p. 6). For some regional community’s globalisation
threatens a cyclical nature of compounding disadvantage.
Communities are challenged to maintain citizen engagement as a core economic driver of
opportunity. Building socially inclusive and economically robust communities requires rich
networks to effect local change. Networked approaches addressing entrenched disadvantage
by developing multi-layered and innovative partnerships ultimately builds stronger
communities (ASIB, 2009). Place-based economic development utilising collective action
allows solutions to emerge from within community networks (Barca et al., 2012). Hence the
inter-related drivers of, and solutions, to economic and social inclusion occur at the local level,
requiring adaptable tools that facilitate emerging collaborative solutions from within the local
context.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
Regional communities are challenged with re-inventing themselves as innovative and nimble
global competitors, but how communities achieve this is ill defined. This research explores a
host community perspective of the strength of the WC method to build collaborative networks
and support collective efficacy. A tool to engage and empower the community to author its
own solutions to contemporary challenges.
1.4 Situating the Study: Description of the Host Community
This research is positioned within a regional community grappling with the challenges of
economic transformation; attempting to reposition a traditional, comparative advantage
economic base to an innovative knowledge-based economy. A community experiencing the
3
social and cultural shocks associated with this transition, seeking tools to assist build social
inclusion and economic prosperity.
This case study was undertaken in collaboration with the town of Port Augusta as host
community. Understanding the historical, economic and social stories of the town provides a
rich backdrop to the challenges the community faces. Port Augusta is a regional city with
declining traditional industries, where a complex story of entrenched social disadvantage
(Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIU), 2013; Vinson, Rawsthorne, Beavis &
Ericson, 2015) and potential economic stagnation exists (Owen, 2017; Strategic Economic
Solutions, 2016). In the 1940s and 50s the neoliberal and Keysesian ideology of state
governments saw the state-owned Electricity Trust of South Australia build a 250km railway,
linking and fuelling Port Augusta’s two power stations with coal fields in the states north at
Leigh Creek (Linn, 2017; Flinders Power, 2017). Supplying 40% of the state’s energy
(Wadlata Outback Centre, 2017), power generation over many decades became a core industry
bringing wealth and employment to the town through a combination of comparative advantage
and exogenous investment. Increasingly ill equipped to compete with newer technologies of
gas and renewable energy production (Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), 2016) the
industries decade long decline detailed the Port Augusta Economic Growth and Investment
Strategy (Strategic Economic Solutions (SES), 2016) culminated in the end of power
generation in the region in 2016. This strategy also tracks declining employment in
accommodation, retail and wholesale industries; significant decline in the agricultural sector;
and falling mining investment regionally as a result of the Global Financial Crisis. Evidence
of compounding global pressures significantly impacting on the community economic
fortunes.
Alongside this sits a story of significant disadvantage. The Public Health Information
Development Unit’s (PHIDU) Population Health Profile (2013) outlines a number of areas of
entrenched disadvantage across the community. Compared to other non-metropolitan towns
Port Augusta has higher rates of general, long-term and youth unemployment, high numbers
of children living in low income/ welfare dependant households, lower levels of young people
attaining year 12 qualifications and higher non-participation rates in secondary schooling.
Health outcomes are also concerning: the town has higher rates of smoking during pregnancy
and across its adult population; increased levels of childhood obesity; and higher rates of metal
health problems for children and adults. Port Augusta has a large Aboriginal population
4
experiencing increased rates of disadvantage across all indicators, further compounding their
disadvantage in an already highly disadvantaged area (PHIDU, 2013).
But dominant stories of spiralling economic fortunes and increasing rates of disadvantage
overlook examples of social capital resources and local collective efficacy. Port Augusta has
stories of staunch advocacy including former Mayor Joy Baluch’s support of regional
communities (Vorrath, 2013), and the Repower Port Augusta community campaign (Alcorn,
2017; Jewell, 2017). Further the Port Augusta City Council (PACC) (2016) and Regional
Development Authority (RDA) (SES, 2016) maintain their commitment to creating an
inclusive community through collaborative reconciliation goals and recognise the importance
of both economic and social agendas.
1.5 Study Rationale and Significance
The case study rational stems from the researcher’s own interest, identifying ways of
supporting regional communities discover their own pathways out of economic stagnation and
social breakdown. As a former practicing Social Worker, a long-term regional Australian
resident and current student of regional economic development, the researcher’s motivation is
to explore the combination of community, economic development and place-based (Horlings,
2016) methods to assist towns.
This study aims through participants perspectives to understand community processes
supporting collaborative networks and collective efficacy in response to complex problems. As
locally based democratic collective action and social innovation processes are essential in
supporting emerging solutions to complexity (Connelly, Markey & Roseland, 2011). As
regions respond to nebulous economic challenges, understanding the experience of one
community’s use of the WC may provide some broad insight for other regional towns seeking
sustainable regional economic development.
The WC method and framework offers local government methods to engage community. The
Local Government Association’s (LGA) Statement on Economic Development (2015) outlines
core priorities for local councils in achieving economic development including development
of broad strategic visions from diverse community stakeholders, supporting innovation and
small business as “the engine rooms” (p. 13) and building place-making infrastructure as
catalysts for development. These priorities are consistent with the PACC (2016) and RDA
5
(SES, 2016), supporting innovation through building strong partnerships for a sustainable
future. The WC offers a method to undertake this work with minimal financial investment by
hosting purposeful and structured conversations. This method utilizes local resources and can
be adapted to varied economic and social questions. Hence the WC has appeal for local
governments.
Other methods to engage community in these discussions are available. Other AoH methods,
others such as Open Space and Appreciative Inquiry (AI) may be equally valuable. Other
frameworks to respond to complexity such as Collective Impact and Strategic Doing may also
offer regional communities tools to participate in finding solutions to complex economic and
social problems. It is however, outside the scope of this case study to explore alternative
methods.
1.6 Research Design
This qualitative research is situated within interpretivist/ constructionist paradigms. As a case
study, it intentionally explores the WC method through participant meaning. Prior to hosting
the WC discussions with the Core Hosting Team (CHT) positioned the method in the
community, giving local relevance and contextual credibility. A semi-structured questionnaire
provided individual perspectives. Focus group (FG) discussions allowed exploration of core
themes. Deepening FG themes the Harvest distils core learnings and ideas from WC table
discussions.
1.7 Thesis Structure
This study is organised in the following way:
Chapter Two: Introduces the WC concept; explaining theoretical underpinnings, workings and
outlining limitations.
Chapter Three: A literature Review; links issues of complexity to core concepts of
collaboration, social capital, networks and clusters, sustainable economic development and
place-based initiatives. Core concepts are linked to overall research objectives and a conceptual
framework is outlined.
6
Chapter Four: Methodology; positioning the research within its methodological framework.
Including rationale for guiding qualitative paradigm and case study approach, sampling
description, overview of research design, and explanation of the WC set up. Ethical
considerations are discussed and management of trustworthiness and authenticity challenges
explained.
Chapter Five: Findings and Discussion; outlines core themes of participant observations
emergent from the data. Key concepts from the literature review are used to interpret core
themes and explore meaning.
Chapter Six: Conclusion; key research learnings are shared and suggestions for community
adaptation and next-step research opportunities discussed.
1.8 Key Terminology
Art of Hosting (AoH)
A number of practices gathering group wisdom through
intentional and focused conversation, utilizing the self-organizing
capacity of groups. (AoH, 2017a)
Appreciative Inquiry
(AI)
A strength based approach and one AoH method (Carriere,
Freeman, Jetter, Nelson & Straub, 2012, pp 4-6).
Calling Question/
Invitation
Situated in the local context, this question invites curiosity and
engages participant interest. It forms the basis of the WC invite.
Collaborative networks
Interconnected groups working together.
Collective efficacy
The ability of a group of people working together to produce a
desired result.
Collective Impact
A framework facilitating large scale social change. (Collective
Impact, n.d.)
7
Core Hosting Team
(CHT)
A small, locally based group of individuals, invested in
sustainable regional economic development with local network
connections.
Endogenous Growth
“Long-run economic growth at a rate determined by forces that
are internal to the economic system, particularly those forces
governing the opportunities and incentives to create technological
knowledge” (Howitt, 2010, p. 1).
Harvest
The final stage of the WC process, where collective insights are
gathered into a coherent whole (Brown & Isaacs, 2005a;
Lorenzetti, Azulai & Walsh, 2016)
Open Space
An AoH method of facilitating intentional conversation (AoH,
2017b).
Place-Based Approaches
Provide “systematic understanding of the place- specific
connectivity between social–cultural, political- economic and
ecological processes that enable or hinder transformation toward
sustainability” (Horlings, 2016, p. 34).
Powerful questions
Deeply probing questions exploring wisdom and knowledge.
(Carriere, et al., 2012, pp 4-6).
Social Justice
A concept where society which ensures individuals and groups
equal and fair treatment (Ife, 2010).
Strategic Doing
A method of community collaboration (Strategic Doing, 2017).
8
Strengths based
approach
A collection of principals focused on empowering and
collaborative practice; assuming communities are full of
resources and opportunity exists with every challenge, adapted
from Saleebey (2009)
9
Chapter Two: Introducing the World Café
2.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the WC method of facilitating intentional conversation as the core
phenomena of this case study. The WC origins are summarized, workings of the method are
presented, recent examples of its use are given and limitations relevant to this case study
identified.
2.2 Background
Designed by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs the WC is a “self-organizing processes resulting
in a high degree of stakeholder involvement, an increased commitment to action, and more
creative problem solving, when compared with traditional meeting structures” Howard (2012,
p. 120). It is proactive rather than reactive (Tan & Brown, 2005), inviting intentional
conversation by capitalizing on widespread community engagement, linking conversations and
offering a structured response to complexity (Hurley & Brown, 2009). Holman (2010) asserts
difficult problems act as catalysts for transformative change and solutions emerge through
unexpected collaborations. Hence the WC method offers communities a constructive method
in which to engage with complexity
Figure 1: Harnessing Collective Intelligence
The World Café (2017)
(http://www.theworldcafe.com). Some rights reserved.
10
The WC is one AoH method. As an international community of practitioners and a practice
framework, the AoH framework ties core group hosting processes together (Sandfort & Quick,
2015). Based on the premise of participatory leadership as an appropriate response to
complexity, this community and framework seeks non-linear solutions based on co-developed
collective discoveries (AoH Field Guide, n.d.). Guided by core assumptions AoH practice
postulates: complex problems require stakeholder created new solutions; innovation occurs at
the edge of chaos; conversations make collective meaning; intentional conversation brings
purposeful outcomes; and communities are living systems that create individual solutions
(AoH Field Guide, n.d., pp. 5). Assumptions guiding AoH practice provide a useful framework
for communities looking to engage complex challenges.
Figure 2: Powerful Conversations
The World Café (2017)
(http://www.theworldcafe.com). Some rights reserved.
11
The WC is a strength-based approach. The method facilitates cross pollination of ideas and
perspectives, centering conversation as the core driver of innovation (Verhage & Jacobs, 2016).
The WC builds unity and shared purpose by focusing on the social construction of reality,
shifting focus from problem to solution (Howard, 2012). A process inviting dialogue and
encouraging listening, the WC moves interaction from convincing to understanding the
perspectives of others (Prewitt, 2011). For localized place-based solutions the WC empowers
community to chart a shared vision and explore solutions, motivating collective action
(Schieffer, Isaacs & Gyllenpalm, 2004). As a forum for hosting diverse discussion the WC
allows an intergenerational perspective (Brown, Issacs & Tan, 2008), connecting the past to
the present, the powerful to the less powerful (Tan & Brown, 2005). Hence the WC offers a
solutions perspective to challenges.
The WC fits with Howard’s (2012) description of self-organizing processes best suited to
respond to complexity. The WC allows a space for exploring common vision, an important
requirement for collaborative network functionality (Waterhouse & Keast, 2012). The WC
invites diversity and builds linkages, an advocated regional response that accesses knowledge
flows of large urban cities (Puga, 2010). The WC process supports permeable networks
boundaries, necessary for successful innovative ideas to reach fruition (Mangoyana & Collits,
2014). Where poverty disempowers dampening community efficacy attempts (Verhage &
Jacobs, 2016), the WC is a simple and inexpensive framework a community might utilize to
seek collaborative engagement and change.
2.3 Process
The WC has seven (7) underlying design principles. First setting the context by clarifying
parameters like purpose and themes. Two hosting a hospitable physical space. Three exploring
questions that matter, ones relevant to the situation. Four encouraging broad participation by
valuing everyone’s contribution. Five connecting diverse perspectives and intentionally linking
ideas. Six collectively listening for patters and insights. Seven collating and sharing learnings
through a collective harvest (Chang & Chen, 2015; Howard, 2012; Lorenzetti et al., 2016;
Schieffer et al., 2004; Tan & Brown, 2005). These principles provide an intentional framework
for the ensuing conversation.
12
Figure 3: Principles
The World Café (2017)
(http://www.theworldcafe.com). Some rights reserved.
The WC has a distinct process: 1) 4-5 participants are seated at small café style tables; 2)
progressive questions are posed through conversation ‘rounds’ of 20-30 minutes; 3)
participants are encouraged to document ideas and themes throughout discussions; 4) ‘table
hosts’ remain at the table, while other participants ‘travel’ to the next table; 5) ‘table hosts’
welcome new participants at each round; briefly sharing main ideas, themes and questions of
preceding conversations; 6) concluding with a harvest where, through a whole-of-group
conversation, collaborative knowledge is linked allowing opportunities for collective action to
emerge (The WC, 2015, n.p.). Allows participants to move through table conversations
emerging insights can travel from one conversation into the next, supporting table hosts to
share fundamental insights of previous conversations with each round (Verhage & Jacobs,
2016), weaving conversations into a broad a web (Thompson, Steier & Ostrenko, 2014). ‘Café
Etiquette’ principles encourage contributions, connect ideas, invite diverse perspectives, listen
for patterns and share collective discoveries (Howard, 2012). The WC is a physical and
intellectual process, mirroring linking and leveraging concepts by physically relocating
participants.
13
Figure 4: Physical Process
The World Café (2017)
(http://www.theworldcafe.com). Some rights reserved.
2.4 Examples
Many examples of the WC in use are evident in business or community settings. The WC has
been practised since its inception in 1995, (Brown & Isaacs, 2005b), from complex community
treaty negotiations of New Zealand (Brown & Isaacs, 2001), to the global business organization
Hewlett & Packard (Hurley & Brown, 2009). More recently the WC method has been
employed to brainstorm community perceptions of market mechanism as sustainable
community development tools in the United Kingdom (Hendrickson, Lindberg, Connelly &
Roseland, 2011), harvest community perceptions from highly disadvantaged London
communities (Bertotti, Adams-Eaton, Sheridan & Renton, 2012) and harness public insights in
the design of a science centre learning space (Thompson et al., 2014). The WC is an adaptable
process, capable of hosting varied conversations across different issues with diverse
stakeholders.
More in-depth critiques offer deeper insights into the method. Chang and Chen (2015) critically
reviewed their use of the WC method when assisting entrepreneurial strategic planning skill
development. This study, in partnership with the Taiwanese Government, engaged 120
14
business entrepreneurs, noting the WC “played a significant role in improving the strategic
planning capability of new entrepreneurs” (2015, p. 1288). Where the WC style of intentional
conversation increased collective wisdom, by encouraging discussion on the utilization of
shared knowledge. Gray and Jones (2016) explored collaborative organizational development
and learning programs for small and medium businesses in an economically disadvantaged
area of Wales. As part of establishing a business network they incorporated the WC into a
learning environment. Although the sample size was considered too small to provide
transferable insights by the study author’s, repeated collaboration across the network enabled
participants to develop their competitive edge. The WC was one forum where these creative
conversations occurred.
Building deliberative capacity within community was the focus of Sandfort and Quick’s (2015)
use of the WC. In November 2011, they hosted six adapted World Cafés, inviting diverse
stakeholders to review strategies aimed at redesigning government education services in
response to budget short falls. In a second example, they examined their use of the method to
facilitate sustainable economic development discussions for leaders across regional Minnesota
over an eighteen-month period. These processes generated community agency; where
community capacity to undertake considered, thoughtful and deliberative discussion around
complex issues was built. The WC engaged and empowered participants. Some participants
identified the process as providing structure for public conversations, allowing common ground
to be identified. The study acknowledged the WC’s inability to address underlying power which
risked the process being interpreted as disingenuous when participants actual ability to
influence decision-making was limited.
2.5 Limitations
Underlying assumptions of WC impartiality were critically reviewed by Lorenzetti et al.
(2016), who concluded the transformative potential of the WC is eroded when power dynamics
fail to be acknowledged. If inherent power structures are omitted or overlooked, then
emancipatory benefits of change are diminished. Recognizing the subjective natures of people
in shaping meaning and understanding through their own individual bias, Lorenzetti et al. noted
facilitators and table hosts can potentially manipulate or inadvertently shape conversation by
preferencing particular views, ideas and contributions over others. Howard (2012) further
explores participant bias, critiquing AI assumptions preferencing discussion of positive stories
15
as a subtle form of power. Hence the need to apply social justice rigor when establishing and
engaging participants in the WC process is important to ensure all parts of the community can
contribute to and benefit from.
2.6 Summary
Hence, as a tool for hosting intentional conversations exploring complex challenges the WC is
the focus of this case study. Where the WC has been utilized in other formats, this case study
is unique in its focus on one Australian regional town as a host community teasing out local
responses to economic challenges. Whilst the method brings a strengths-based perspective,
issues of power and access are potential limiters to any success.
16
Chapter Three: Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
This literature review merges key community, regional and economic development concepts
informing the research. Key concepts are then mapped to the research objectives. This chapter
concludes by outlining a conceptual framework aligning key concepts with the WC
phenomena.
3.2 Key Concepts
3.2.1 Complexity and Collaboration
Intertwined economic and social systems are increasingly complex. Seemingly intractable
external challenges including; globalisation, aging populations and declining traditional
agriculture and manufacturing sectors, are challenging economic and social landscapes across
regional Australian towns (McCall, 2010; Measham, Darbas, Williams, & Taylor, 2012;
Woodhouse, 2006). A common experience in developed economies (Lambe, 2008), these
contemporary challenges are too complex for one sector of the economy or community to
resolve (Keast & Mandell, 2014).
How complex challenges are viewed influences our response. It is tempting to view complexity
based on assumptions of “causality and predictability” (Corrigan, 2016, p. 30). These
challenges sit within community networks and economic systems that are layered, nuanced,
chaotic and often unpredictable (Sanger & Giddings, 2012). But dividing a complex situation
into its individual parts gives no insight into understanding the interactions of separate
components (Almedom, 2013). Applying linear reductive thinking to potential solutions to
modern challenges is limiting and Rogers et al., (2013) advocate viewpoints that acknowledge
complexity. Hence a linear viewpoint is unable to understand complexity.
Complex systems theory provides a broad lens through which to view complexity. Adapted
from the physical sciences, complex systems theory offers a systemic perspective to
understanding the dynamics of contemporary problems from which the interconnectedness of
system components can be better understood (Green & McDermott, 2010). In economics,
Foster (2005), proposes understanding complex system theory allows the value of networked
17
connections to be better understood, extending economic value beyond the component to
incorporating the relationships between components. From a community development
perspective, adopting a complex systems view acknowledging the many facets to challenges
when seeing solutions, enabling communities to define their goals in the face of complexity
(Nel & Stevenson, 2014). Understanding the interconnectedness of system parts offers insight
into complex systems.
Collaboration offers a response to complexity. Keast and Mandell (2014, pp. 10-11) define
collaboration as “reciprocal interdependence”, a process of diverse stakeholders across
community building “collaborative advantage” maximizing collective action, sharing
resources and knowledge to create “public value”. Collaboration contains key elements: dense
relationships, strategic vision and focused processes enabling emergent innovative solutions.
Economic collaboration, a crucial habit in successful regional economies, is a process of
participatory shared learning (Mangoyana & Collits, 2014). Collaboration builds “collective
decisions and actions to deal with social dilemmas” (Maru, McAlilister & Smith, 2007, p. 184).
With increased complex system interconnectedness, solutions to challenges require
collaboration.
3.2.2 Regional Economic Development
Neoliberalism
Traditional economics relied on market place comparative advantage. Neoliberal and
Keynesian frameworks viewed capital and labor as sole market forces and combined staples
theory with a dependency approach to leverage regional growth through the comparative
advantage in abundance of particular commodities (McCall, 2010). However, in the
contemporary economic climate, comparative advantage is no longer useful for towns
responding to exogenous factors driving change (Measham et al., 2012). New ways of
leveraging opportunities within markets are needed.
Diversification
The impact of geographic location on economic development is the basis of regional
development science exploring reasons why some regions fare better than others. Regional
development theory exists in two fundamental camps. One theory, advocated by Trendle
(2006), proposes broad diversification within regional economies brings economic stability,
18
allowing the ready absorption of market fluctuations and economic shocks. These ‘spatially-
blind’ people focused policies advocate highly mobile populations, boosting productivity when
knowledge and labour follow demand (Barca et al., 2012). But Trendle acknowledges this
approach most applicable to regions where large labour markets attract a diverse industrial
base.
Clusters
Conversely Porter (2000, p. 32) advocates a cluster view of regional economic development,
acknowledging the importance of geographical location to competitive advantage, advocating
knowledge-based economies in response to complex environments where “the most enduring
competitive advantages in a global economy seems to be local”. Porter defines clusters as
collections of closely situated business and key stakeholders who building collaborative
networks around shared visions and supporting internal innovation. Dabson (2011, p. 11) notes
clusters “promote knowledge sharing and innovation by providing ‘thick’ networks of formal
and informal relationships across organizations – the social structure of innovation”. Clusters
can incorporate broad economic, social, environmental and community systems; as the impact
of the context in which they sit is increasingly acknowledged as a factor of their success (Porter
& Kramer, 2011). Thus, cluster based regional development leverages off community network
strengths and incorporates the diverse stakeholders of a regional town.
Theories of Endogenous Growth
Economic theories attempt to understand factors influencing market growth. Endogenous
growth theories acknowledge the impact internal system factors have on driving long-run
economic growth (Howitt, 2010). A collection of theories concerned with the effect of
economic expansion through innovation, research and development; endogenous growth
theories are heavily influenced by the work of Paul Romer (Acocella, 2005). Recognizing the
impact networked connections and social capital have on developing and supporting economic
innovation (Roseta-Palma, Ferreira-Lopes & Sequeira, 2010; Sequeira & Ferreira-Lopes,
2011), social scientists increasing incorporate endogenous growth concepts into cluster based
regional development frameworks. So that place-based strategies leverage off the networked
impact of social and human capital on innovation (Huggins & Thompson, 2015; Plummer,
Tonts, & Martinus, 2014). Increasingly endogenous growth theories allow economic and
community development practice to find common ground.
19
Place-based Regional Development
Placed-based regional development empowers communities. Horlings (2016) defines ‘place’
as a node or network situated within a larger system of networks. Diverse localized responses
to complexity ensure dynamic adaptations (McCall, 2010) and empower communities to
discern realistic options for sustainable regional goals (Measham et al., 2012). Place-based
responses address free-rider practices, build local synergies, muster local assets, harness
localized knowledge spillovers and encourage innovation (Barca et al., 2012). As inclusive
responses, they nurture local social and environmental assets, connecting them to broad supply
chains (Dabson, 2011). Thus, community responses that are place-based best facilitate locally
crafted solutions to modern challenges.
Knowledge
Knowledge dissemination drives innovation and regional growth. In the modern economy
knowledge, innovation, and economic development are intertwined and complimentary
(Ghazinoory, Bitaab, & Lohrasbi, 2014; Huggins & Thompson, 2015). Structures that support
knowledge sharing build innovative capacity and result in competitive advantage (de
Dominicis, Florax & de Groot, 2013). In endogenous systems models of open innovation that
deliberately facilitate sharing of knowledge through collaborative networks exploit the
commercial benefits of innovation (Huang & Rice, 2013). Sharing and adapting knowledge
across a region becomes a driver of economic growth (Huggins & Thompson, 2015). Localized
clusters provide businesses opportunity for knowledge spillovers, aiding innovation (Chiu &
Lee, 2012). Hence methods that enable a community to share and connect its internal
knowledge, like collaborative networks supported through place-based cluster development,
are important assets integral to emerging economic success.
Innovation
Innovation, an outcome of knowledge sharing, is a networked endeavor. Innovation is a local
driver of economic growth, feeding entrepreneurial ingenuity (Atkinson, 2009). Innovation
turns knowledge into new products or services (Chiu & Lee 2012) giving economic shape to
cumulative human learning (Storper, 2010) and shaping modern business responses to short-
product cycle challenges, global markets and rapidly changing consumer wants (Kotey &
Sorenson, 2014, p. 407). Different to invention, innovation includes examining knowledge
20
from new perspectives, charting new possibilities and deconstructing old assumptions (Burkett,
2011). The intangible outcome of formal and informal interactions though social networks
(Doh & Acs, 2010), innovation requires locally embedded networks, and connected
communities to create and distribute knowledge (McCall, 2010). Thus, connecting knowledge
through networked clusters harnesses emerging innovation, providing an opportunity for
internally driven economic growth.
3.2.3 Sustainable Community and Economic Development
Community development knowledge brings social justice ethics and broadens stakeholder
descriptions to economic development discussions. The contribution of community
development know-how links silos within community, embedding social justice values in
market solutions to ensure inequality is not enshrined in emerging solutions (Burkett, 2011).
In a comprehensive study of small town development across the USA Lambe (2008) defines
Community Economic Development (CED) as capacity building community led processes,
crafting endogenous economic solutions to local challenges. Further outlining core principles
of CED: acknowledges community development as economic development; where community
vision is diverse and long-term; innovation is endogenous; risk is embraced; assets and
opportunities are broadly defined; and collaborative opportunity is fostered. Community
development brings a strengths-based perspective to place-based development.
Sustainable development adds a further dimension to CED. Lambe (2008) marries sustainable
and positive improvements to social and environmental conditions. Sustainable community
development “facilitates integrated planning, improves public participation and generates
creative and practical solutions to address shared economic, environmental and social
problems” (Markey, Connelly & Roseland, 2010, p. 2). Combined community and sustainable
economic development goals offer opportunities for small communities struggling to build
alternatives to the dominant problematic capitalist paradigm (Mayer & Knox, 2010). When
facing contemporary problems sustainable place-based responses deepen contextual
understanding of interrelated systemic dynamics; where sustainable practices give innovative
power to grassroots participants, grounding emerging solutions in local contexts and
repositioning economic opportunities (Horlings, 2016). By leveraging off endogenous assets
local communities drive sustainable regional development (Mangoyana & Collits, 2014).
Hence strategies that enable place-based sustainable community economic development drive
21
local ideas and leverage community assets to offer alternatives to smaller communities seeking
economic independence.
3.2.4 Social Capital
Social capital has many definitions. This case study uses Ansari’s definition of social capital
as a “stock of trust and norms of reciprocity embedded in social network, which facilitates
collective actions for mutual and individual benefits” (2013, p. 79). For Putnam (1993, p. 167)
social networks deriving from social capital with attributes including “trust, norms and
networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions”. This
case study is interested in the workings of the social capital of networks.
Social capital contributes to economic development through its impact on innovation,
knowledge sharing and risk taking. Robert Putnam articulated the link between social capital
and economic development (Killerby & Wallis, 2002; Roseta-Palma et al., 2010). The impact
of social capital on entrepreneurism, knowledge development and innovation is increasingly
acknowledged (Ghazinoory et al., 2014; Kapucu, 2011; Murphy, Huggins, & Thompson, 2016;
Woodhouse, 2006). Social capital drives collective action by clarifying communal norms and
sanctions (Kapucu, 2011; Maru et al., 2007). Social capital builds community co-operation and
collective action, facilitating shared vision and economic prosperity (Dinda, 2008). The
importance of social capital is evident in the networked interactions of economic activity
(Rutten & Boekema, 2007). Using an endogenous growth model social capital is a driver of
economic growth with knowledge accumulation and innovation its components (Akcomak and
ter Weel, 2009). Social capital contributes to innovation generation in a knowledge economy
(Doh & Acs, 2010); providing opportunity to merge complementarity knowledge and
strengthen radical innovation opportunities within networks (Perez-Luno, Cabello, Lavado &
Rodríguez, 2011). Communities with higher levels of social capital are more adaptable and less
risk averse (Woodhouse, 2006). Social capital is integral to regional adaptability enabling
communities to take advantage of opportunity (Doh & Acs, 2010). Thus, social capital because
of its ability to shape knowledge sharing and innovation is integral to leveraging economic
opportunities.
Social capital has two distinct forms. Bonding capital exists within homogenous groups of
people (Woodhouse, 2006), building internal cohesion, cooperation and trust (Neal, 2015;
Murphy et al., 2016). As the exclusive kinship ties within close-knit groups (Killerby & Wallis,
22
2002), nurturing bonding capital facilitates civic engagement which is fundamental to
collective efficacy (Collins, Neal & Neal, 2014). Where bonding capital is exclusive, bridging
capital is inclusive (Cooke, Clifton & Oleaga, 2005). Bridging capital links a community to
broader networks, resources and opportunities (Neal, 2015). Cutting across inter-community
or socio-economic division (Killerby & Wallis, 2002), bridging capital reduces individual rent
seeking behaviour and results in increased economic growth (Sequeira & Ferriera-Lopes,
2011). Social capital is both inward looking (bonding) and outward looking (bridging).
3.2.5 Networks
As evidenced in cluster and place-based ideas, networks are key to emergent solutions in
complex systems. Networks offer collaborative advantages to complex problems (Waterhouse
& Keast, 2012). Disadvantage, a complex issue facing regional towns, is best challenged
through cohesive and rich community networks, in turn building inclusive and resilient towns
(Gilchrist, 2009). Working collaboratively through networks allows a deliberative and strategic
approach to engaging with challenges (Keast & Mandell, 2014). As an evolution of clustered
approaches, networks are central to regional innovation systems (Eversole & McCall, 2014).
In a 2014 New Zealand study, individual towns with active local networks supporting local
entrepreneurs became the key drivers of economic and social development (Nel & Stevenson,
2014). The usefulness of collaborative networks is also evident in De Santo’s (2016)
description of management strategies for complex natural assets, where diverse stakeholder led
approaches, sourced through localized collaborative engagement, were more likely to bring
about positive outcomes. The ability of collaborative networks to leverage change becomes
evident.
Networks are important economic tools harnessing endogenous knowledge, supporting
creativity and connecting innovation to opportunity. Networked benefits of knowledge sharing
are widely observed (Huang & Rice, 2013). Regional networks generating external and internal
knowledge flows are integral sources of innovation and economic growth (Huggins &
Thompson, 2015). Collaborative networks “influence the ability to connect assets and
resources in more productive and innovative ways” (Mangoyana & Collits, 2014, p. 431).
Networks are dynamic innovative systems, supporting entrepreneurs in successful regional
economies (Huggins & Thompson, 2015). Through a process of repetitive learning, networks
create “venture growth” by extending individual capabilities and providing social platforms for
23
innovation (Anderson, Dodd & Jack, 2010, p. 129). Supportive networks build resilient,
engaged communities through participatory processes, improving economic opportunities
(Bertotti et al., 2012). Network investment is crucial to developing strategic relationships
enabling knowledge sharing, leveraging off existing network linkages and building
entrepreneurial opportunities. (Huggins & Thompson, 2015). Regions that recognize networks
as knowledge assets and understand the symbiotic relationship between markets and regional
economies will successfully transform their economies (Morrison, 2012). The economic value
of processes occurring within and across networks becomes evident.
Networks generate collective efficacy and community action. Bandura defined collective
efficacy as “the link between cohesion and shared expectation for action” (as cited in Wang &
Hu, 2012). Originating in concepts of self-efficacy, collective efficacy embeds resilience,
building cumulatively on successful experiences of innovative solutions to challenges
(Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2004; Collins et al., 2014). Collective efficacy emerges from within
networks mobilizing bridging social capital into action, building agency and affecting change;
a cyclical process emerges that strengthens networks and supports further innovative action
(Ling & Dale, 2013). How well communities utilize collective efficacy Collaborative networks
and collective efficacy support each other in a cyclical process based on successful action.
3.2.6 Conversations, Collaboration and Complexity
Collaborative networks benefit from intentional conversation as a strategy to respond to
complexity. Brown and Issac (1996), drawing from Webber (1993), note organizational
collaborative conversations are structures supporting learning. Open and participatory dialogue
moves conversation toward inquiry, joining core themes and building common understanding
(Brown & Bennett, 1995). In highly collaborative networks innovative solutions are found
through connecting shared purpose of members by conversation (Keast & Mandell 2014).
Keast (2011) suggests a culture of collective action requires well-facilitated and reflective
processes. The WC provides one method of building collective action by defining shared vision
through purposeful discussion.
Collaborative networks require frameworks. Conversations that evoke collective intelligence
and build solutions require frameworks to support them (Hurley & Brown, 2009). Failure to
purposefully build networks risks creating siloed approaches, ultimately inhibiting integrated
regional development (Mangoyana & Collits, 2014). Purposeful networked relationships
24
generate economic prosperity, responding to opportunity by leveraging collective knowledge
and allowing the rapid identification and alignment of assets (Morrison, 2012). Barca et al.,
(2012) advocate development strategies “focus on mechanisms which build on local
capabilities and promote innovative ideas through the interaction of local and general
knowledge”. The WC provides a framework for communities to connect and leverage their
internal collective wisdom.
3.3 Linking Key Concepts, the World Café and Research
Objectives
This literature review weaves together broad community and economic development themes.
However only perfunctory explanations and reviews of key concepts are within the scope of
this research piece. The overall objective of this case study is not to critique existing economic,
sociological or psychological theories. Thus, the depth of Endogenous Growth model
discussion and review of limitations is limited. A significant technical area of economics, a
review of individual concepts and quality in-depth discussion of theory lies outside the realm
of this piece. Further the exploration of the link between individual and collective efficacy is
only briefly explored and social capital is discussed only in terms of its relevance to the case
study.
Complex economic and social challenges impact on growth and stability of regional Australian
towns. This research assumes, from the lessons outlined in the literature review, that
opportunities to address economic challenges lie in developing local responses that leverage
existing collective wisdom and competitively embed local innovations into the global
knowledge economy. Complexity requires intentional conversation to nurture collaboration,
connect knowledge and support emergent innovation, fueling collective efficacy. Social capital
leverages internal knowledge, connects to opportunity and is the building block of
collaborative networks developing innovative economic outcomes. Sustainable community
economic development engages local towns in strategic dialogue, empowering community and
building agency. The need to develop locally engaged strategies in the face of increasingly
complex social and economic challenges is clearly evident, as is the potential to respond
through connected networks. The link between knowledge, networks and innovation is defined
and the scope of the WC method as a tool for engaging communities to build collaborative
networks and engage in collective efficacy is apparent. Hence the potential of the WC as a
25
holistic response to complexity (Figure 5) is the focus of this case study. In keeping with the
broader research positioning, the direction and scope of this literature review has evolved
through the process of exploring key concepts, clarifying the research questions and conducting
the WC case study in the town of Port Augusta, South Australia.
Figure 5: A Holistic Response to Complexity
3.4 A Conceptual Framework
An overview of the thinking behind the case study set up is outlined in the conceptual
framework (Figure 6). Key concepts, identified throughout the literature review, are
acknowledged as influences on (i.e. globalization and complexity), or shaping (i.e. economic
growth theories and social capital) the local context, they are interconnected in multifarious
and layered ways, sitting within broader historical and national agendas.
The hosting process of the case study is demonstrated through the connection of the host
community and intentional conversation through the WC method. Distilling collective insights
and wisdom through the WC by connecting networks allows collective efficacy to emerge. The
diagram demonstrates the intersection of the research objectives with the exploration of actual
place-based solutions for the town. The findings of this case study then meet the objectives of
the research piece and the goals of the WC participants in seeking solutions to their current
economic and social challenges.
Complexity and
Contemporary
Challenges
Engaged and
Empowered
Communities
Social Capital
Collaborative
Networks
The WC and
Intentional
Conversation
Innovation
and
Knowlege
Endogenous
Solutions
26
Figure 6: Conceptual Framework
Broad
Contextual
Influences
The
Hosting
Process
Distilling
Wisdom.
27
3.5 Summary
This chapter bought together key concepts from which to view the complex social and
economic challenges facing regional communities today. In recognising the interconnectedness
of many factors influencing the context in which this case study fits, it is an attempt to apply a
systemic framework under which these broad concepts might inform the particular case study
method.
28
Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 Introduction
Using the standpoint of participants and in the context of the host community, this case study
seeks to understand the usefulness of facilitated intentional conversations, such as the World
Café (WC) as tools for regional towns responding to complex economic and social challenges.
This chapter details the and decision making underpinning this study: research approach
rationale, description of research sample, overview of research design, WC set up, data
collection and interpretation methods, ethical considerations, trustworthiness and authenticity,
and concluding summary.
4.2 Research Approach Rationale
4.2.1 Researcher Standpoint
An understanding of underlying assumptions guiding research design choices is important to
establish research integrity (Cooksey & McDonald, 2011). This section outlines the influences
that shaped researcher curiosity. A long-term resident of regional Australia, the researcher is
personally invested in finding solutions to current economic and social challenges facing
regional towns. Urban development theory centres on large metropolitan city advantage,
ignoring the contributions of smaller cities (Jayne, Gibson, Waitt & Bell, 2010). Current
national economic debate centred on ‘innovation’ and ‘knowledge-based economies’ seems to
hold little for small towns on the economic periphery wrestling with the challenges of economic
sustainability. Measham et al., (2012) asks, in the face of stories of regional decline, what
opportunities do regions have to define their own future?
As an experienced Social Worker, the researcher acknowledges the influence of Social Work
theoretical perspectives in scoping this study’s direction. Positioned at the coal face of
intractable and complex social problems intrinsically linked to economic decisions, ecological
based Social Work theory provides a framework for understand complexity within a broader
systems context (Green & McDermott, 2010; Sanger & Giddings, 2012). Broad-lens
perspectives think beyond cause and effect explanations pathologizing people as the cause;
examining interactions for patterns between people and systems (Gitterman & Heller, 2011)
and acknowledging the reciprocal relationship between people and environment (Gitterman &
29
Germain, 1976). Adopting an ecological systems perspective allowed the researcher to attend
to the complexity existing in networked relationships, and the broad impact of systemic
economic challenges (O’Donoghue & Maidment, 2005).
Professional values contribute to researcher perspective. Core Social Work values bring an
ethical and social justice stance to the research, valuing self-determination and building
empowering practices, Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW, 2010). Gitterman
and Heller (2011) advocate Social Work perspectives; are grounded in empowering social
justice principles; place individual interactions within broader systems; are inclusive; and have
broad application. Social Work values invite understanding of the WC phenomena in this
research from participant and host community perspective.
As a student of Economics and Regional Development, theoretical frameworks detailed in the
Literature Review have deepened the researchers understanding of systemic and heterogeneous
challenges facing small communities. The research design is an attempt to distil this case study
through a multidisciplinary lens (Figure 7), combining ecological systems perspective, social
justice values, regional development frameworks and economic theory.
Figure 7: Distilling Researcher Standpoint
Research Design
Personal history and
investment in regional
communities
Social Work: Ecological
Systems Perspective and
core soical justice values
Theories of Regional
Economic Development
30
4.2.2 Rationale for Qualitative Research Paradigm
As this research privileges perspectives and meaning ascribed by participants in
understanding the ‘usefulness’ of the WC as a community development tool to the host
community, this study adopts a qualitative world view when exploring the WC phenomena
(Liamputtong, 2013). Qualitative research assumes meaning is relative and knowledge is
subjective to context defined by individuals experiencing the phenomenon (Cooksey &
McDonald, 2011; Bryman & Bell, 2011). These assumptions fit well with the AoH, WC and
Appreciative Inquiry assumptions privileging participant perspectives as integral to solution
finding. In working with the unpredictable and chaotic as defining complexity, a qualitative
paradigm allows a non-linear approach, moving away from a quantitative approach focused
cause-and-effect, to more nuanced appreciation of the relationships and connectedness of
different parts. Adopting a qualitative paradigm ensures the research; a) is an inductive
journey linking data to theory, and b) interprets meaning from data by exploring the
perspectives of those situated in the context of the research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Hence
the adoption of a qualitative paradigm appears a good fit when exploring a complex issue in
a diverse host community.
Epistemological considerations align this research with the interpretivist paradigm. Central
to epistemology questions is the nature and social context of knowledge (Liamputtong, 2013).
Bryman and Bell (2011) explain the interpretivist paradigm requires the researcher to
appreciate “the subjective meaning of social action” (p. 17) by empathically recognizing the
perspective of participants and acknowledging the influenced social and historical context in
which meaning is produced. Influenced by traditions of phenomenology, interpretivism seeks
to extract and interpret meaning within its situational context, in contrast to quantitative
perspectives that test theory or examine quantifiable relationships between variables
(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). Hence as an interpretive case study, this research explores the
usefulness of the WC for the host community as experienced by participants engaged in the
process and with first-hand knowledge of the challenges faced
The ontological positioning of the case study further aligns with a constructionist perspective.
Bryman and Bell (2011) explain constructionism as an ontological position that
acknowledges the organisation of culture as co-created by humans, where the influence of
language in defining collective meaning and experience is illustrated by continually evolving
31
shared social constructs. Specifically, the constructionist ontological perspective and
interpretivist epistemological positioning enable the research to uncover the significant
context of complex challenges faced by the host community, and explore the interconnectivity
of diverse perspectives from local players in their social world (Fawcett & Pockett, 2015).
The underlying assumptions of the WC, explored through the research, align well with the
qualitative research paradigm. As an ontological perspective, the WC is a method to construct
shared vision and shape meaning. Viewed from an epistemological position the WC empowers
community by privileging the interpretation of participants in defining challenges and seeking
solutions. Hence this research is a good fit for the paradigms chosen as it studies a phenomenon
seeking to empower the joint construction of meaning by understanding the experience from
those participants involved in the process itself.
4.2.3 Rationale for Case Study Design
This research was focused on the perceived usefulness of the WC by a host community, hence
a case study approach was adopted to analyse findings and interpret meaning. Grounded in
ecological psychology traditions interpreting meaning in context, this approach invited an
inductive and emergent analysis of data themes (Gillham, 2010). As a revelatory and embedded
case study this research provides an opportunity to explore the relevance of the WC as a method
‘in situ’, incorporating the interconnected perspectives of individual and group dynamics (Yin,
1994).
Qualitative case studies enable iterative processes of design and analysis. By weaving data and
theory, descriptions and understanding emerge that contribute evidence based knowledge to
best practice; generalizations gleaned from one example might contribute to broader discussion
(Yin, 2010). Bryman and Bell (2011) describe evidence-based management as linking
management theory choices to practice decision concepts: practitioner wisdom, contextual
evidence, existing research evidence, and participant perspectives. An inquisitive stance
explores the relationship between theory concepts and emerging data themes by using
participant accounts of the impact of the phenomena. Using a case study model allows themes
from one community’s use of the WC to engage intentional conversation around economic
development challenges to emerge that might offer insights and strategies relevant to other
regional communities. A case study allows these learnings to be harvested and shared,
contributing to evidence-based practise in the regional economic development field.
32
4.3 Recruitment of Participants
Three levels of participant recruitment to the WC occurred. First, the community of Port
Augusta was approached because of its ‘fit’ with contemporary challenges identified in the
literature review. Core documents (see key definitions, Chapter One) were reviewed that
illustrated the significant systemic social and economic development challenges faced by the
host community. Second, Core Hosting Team (CHT) members were intentionally invited to
form a WC planning group. Third as a qualitative research sampling process (Bryman & Bell,
2011) ‘snowballing’ was used to extend the invite reach through the networked contacts of the
CHT. Individuals then self-selected to attend based on their interest in the calling question
contained on the invite. This sampling method provided further insight into the networked
relationships of the local community and was consistent with WC design principles.
The ‘snowballing’ process fits well with aspects of theoretical sampling that build research
integrity outlined by Silverman (2013). First, sample choice was guided by the need to include
participants based on their relevance to the research question rather than a defined population,
hence participants attended based on their interest in the calling question. Second, the sample
process highlighted limitations of the WC in terms of who did not attend. Third, the nature of
the WC invite prevents knowing absolute participant numbers prior to the event, this sampling
method ensured variable participant numbers were manageable.
4.4 Summary of Information Required
This case study seeks to understanding the WC phenomena. Positioned within the host
community, the study explores participant perceptions of the WC to open intentional
community conversation. Core documents outlining the communities social and economic
context were reviewed (PHIDU, 2013; Vinson et al., 2016; PACC, 2016; SES, 2016). Seeking
to understand individual, group and community perspectives participants were asked to
complete questionnaires and participate in focus groups. The WC culminated in a harvest
document, providing further context to the community’s experience. Underlined by a
conceptual framework this information seeks to provide rich descriptions of participant
experiences of the WC as a method to respond to complex challenges.
33
Figure 8: Data Collection Process
4.5 Linking Research Design to Conceptual Framework
Sitting within a larger research idea, this study was distilled from a broader narrative analysis
in discussion with academic supervisors. Prior to approaching a possible regional community,
a broad review of literature was conducted to inform the conceptual framework guiding the
research design. The literature review including economic, regional and community
development theories; questions emerged detailing the practical application of useful
community engagement tools that supported communities to collaborative engage with
complexity and explore innovate responses. As outlined previously in the Conceptual
Framework then, this research sought to understand the WC’s impact on internal or endogenous
factors shaping innovation (collaboration and efficacy) from the view of the community.
Given the complexity of the case study, it is important to define both the WC and the data
collection processes (Figure 8). The WC, as a specific event, is the phenomenon being
investigated. The CHT is the driver of the WC. The Calling Question is the invitation to the
WC, its purpose is to engage potential participants with the topic, building curiosity and
momentum in the lead up to the WC event. The harvest as a physical summary of conversation
insights, is an outcome of the WC and a data collection method. Participant questionnaires and
Harvest
Focus Groups
Questionnaires
World!Café
Core!Hosting
Team
Principle
Themes
34
focus group are data collection methods only, part of a triangulation method building
authenticity.
4.6 World Café Set-up
This case study involved a number of steps to set-up the WC event and the data collection
processes. Below is a brief explanation of these components and how they interact. This was
an ongoing process of engagement leading up to, and the following the single WC event hosted.
4.6.1 Core Hosting Team (CHT)
Leveraging off local connections in the region, the researcher made first contact with Port
Augusta’s Mayor in January 2017, outlining the research purpose and potential benefit of
participation for the local community. In collaboration with the Mayor others were identified
to join the CHT based on their interest in regional economic development and links to local
networks. Ultimately the CHT comprised of the Mayor of Port Augusta, the Chief Executive
Officer of Regional Development Australia Far North, and the Executive Director of Country
Health South Australia, all long-time residents of Port Augusta and deeply embedded within
the community. Two groups invested in exploring local economic challenges, Business Port
Augusta and RePower Port Augusta, were invited to participate but did not engage in the CHT
process; one citing time commitments.
Fortnightly teleconferences were hosted from mid-April 2017 to early August 2017. Initially
outlining CHT expectations (Appendix A) and continuing to develop suitable calling, and
subsequent round questions through a loose action-research process led by the researcher. In
line with AoH assumptions the calling question was circulated through CHT members formal
and informal networks to promoting the event. As individual WC table hosts CHT members
focused table conversations on the round questions, modelling key café principles: identifying
themes, collaboration and inviting diversity.
The CHT process further embeds into the case study the underlying assumptions of the research
paradigm, the WC method and an ecological systems perspective. As a process to distil a
meaningful calling question, igniting host community interest, the CHT was formed to give
situational context, rather than present a linear and prescriptive invitation. This process
privileged the viewpoint of core participants as best understanding the issues within the context
35
they occurred (Green & McDermott, 2010). Hence an invite question was developed with
community representatives.
4.6.2 Calling Question and Invite
A meaningful calling question is pivotal to engaging community and hosting a successful WC.
The question asked is a provocative and powerful catalyst (Prewitt, 2011), opening up “the
context for new learning and discovery”, exploring innovative solutions through intentional
conversations (Brown, Isaacs, Vogt & Margulies, 2002 p. 2). Concise, powerful and
courageous questions provide a context for community engagement in collective learning
(Brown & Isaac, 1996). The CHT, with the assistance of the researcher, developed a
contextually relevant calling question to spark interest in the WC. ‘Port Augusta 2030. What
could it look like? How do we get there?’ was chosen for its language accessibility, future focus
and its sense of optimism. The relevance of the calling question was pivotal given the invitation
allowed potential participants to self-select to attend. The calling question was the centrepiece
of the WC invite (Appendix B), which was distributed four (4) weeks prior to the WC date and
asked individuals to register their intention to attend.
4.6.3 World Café Event
As the phenomena being explored, a WC was held in Port Augusta on the Tuesday 8th August
2017. Cafe questions are included in Appendix C. In setting up the WC, assumptions of
participation and process were explained to participants (Appendix D). In situating the WC in
the research context, core emerging themes supporting local economic development from the
literature review were presented to participants (Appendix E). The WC process was facilitated
by the researcher. Participants were invited to unpick each round question at a table of four. At
each round completion three participants (excluding table host) moved clockwise to unpick the
next round question at the subsequent table.
Table hosts were primarily drawn from CHT members, a fourth was recruited prior to the WC
based on their expressed interest in the process and research piece. Table hosts modelled core
assumptions, kept the group conversation focused on the questions, listened and recorded key
themes and patterns, and gave linking summaries through rounds which connected
conversations between participants.
36
4.7 Data Collection Process and Interpretation Methods
A WC was hosted in Port Augusta on Tuesday 8th August over a three-hour period, with the
researcher acting as facilitator and host. Data was collected on participant perceptions of three
core emergent themes from the literature review: (a) challenges the community faced, (b)
relevance of collaborative networks and collective efficacy as strategies to respond to
challenges, and (c) the WC’s ability to support these strategies. Three primary methods of data
collection were utilized: individual questionnaires, focus group responses and the harvest
document. Given paradigm assumptions underlying this research, these tools were chosen for
their ability to: a) explore participant stories and, b) position the data in the social and historical
context of the case study. The questionnaire explored individual experience, the focus groups
broadened social and historical context of the story from a group perspective, and the harvest
revealed potential solutions generated by the broader group.
As qualitative analysis, this research used an inductive process to map thematic descriptors to
research objectives and then explore meta-theme patterns and relationships. Bloomberg and
Volpe (2012) suggest understanding findings and interpreting meaning is both an analytic and
reflective process that incorporates organising, categorizing and identifying patterns within the
data. Questionnaire before and after responses are graphically compared. Concept maps
integrate themes into existing conceptual frameworks; giving definition to emerging patterns
(Dykeman & Mackenzie, 2012). In this case study concept maps reveal multifarious
connections of patterns and themes within each set of focus group and harvest data. As cited
in Liamputtong (2013), Flick’s basic questions to guide thematic coding were used to distil
themes across the findings, which are broadly represented in an overarching concept map.
Hence participant perspectives are explored individually and then combined in a final concept
mapping process.
4.7.1 Whole-of-Forum Questionnaire
Whole-for-forum questionnaires (Appendix F) asked participants to rank their commitment,
confidence and motivation toward collaborative networks and collective efficacy before and
after the WC. Questionnaires were physically handed out prior to the WC and included
information on the research process (Appendix G). Participants were asked to complete the
‘before’ section immediately prior to and the ‘after’ section directly following the WC.
37
Participants were asked to leave their folded questionnaire (completed or not) on a separate
table positioned by the exit as they left the WC venue. Of the seventeen (17) questionnaires
given to registered participants immediately prior to the WC, sixteen (16) were returned
completed immediately after the conclusion of the WC.
Given this study explores the usefulness of the WC method as a tool for regional communities,
the questionnaire design aimed to provide individual context to participant experiences of
phenomena process. Motivational Interviewing (MI) theory informed the questionnaire design.
Building on Carl Rogers’ client-centred framework, MI is described as “a client-centred,
directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002, p.
25). As a component of collective efficacy, self-efficacy provides insights into the WC process
at the individual level and MI shaped questions promote collaborative relationships,
positioning those within the ‘problem’ as having unique insights into the best solutions for its
resolution (Hohman, 2011). Hence MI questionnaire fits within the overall research paradigm
and provides insights into individual perspectives that contribute to a broader community
perspective.
4.7.2 Focus Groups (FG)
Once registered to attend the WC all participants were invited to two separate FGs (Appendix
H). Held the morning of the WC, four people attended the before FG and five the after.
Information outlining the research and focus group process was given to participants at the
beginning of each group (Appendix I) and a consent form signed (Appendix J). Focus groups
membership was a mixture of male and female participants and incorporated individuals from
government, economic development and industry. To preserve anonymity focus group
participants (FGP) have been allocated pseudonyms one (1) to four (4) before FG and five (5)
to nine (9) after FG. Both FG sessions were limited to 90 minutes.
Existing connections between participants personally and professionally was acknowledged at
the beginning of each FG and seen as a strength by participants. These pre-existing
relationships may have enhanced the group’s ability to explore shared meanings and build a
richer context (Bryman & Bell, 2011) and participant knowledge was valued as integral to
developing conversation (Fawcett & Pockett, 2015). Participants were observed to participate
fully in both FGs: freely sharing insights, seeking clarification, delving deep into themes, and
encouraging contributions of others. However participant dynamics were carefully managed
38
by the researcher during focus groups. Attention to group dynamics ensured balanced
conversation: participant views were respected whilst research themes explored (Bryman &
Bell 2011), and any propensity to conform and merge differing perspectives into a singular
story was managed (Rubin & Babbie, 2008). Hence the FG offered deep meaning to participant
experiences.
A series of broad, open-ended focus groups questions (Appendix K) was crafted to delve into
the shared experiences of participants as suggested by Bryman and Bell (2011). Questions
elicited dialectic observations from participants on key research themes from which a broad
community narrative could be woven and key insights drawn. Guiding questions aimed to add
richness and context to the whole-of-forum questionnaire information and harvest themes. In
line with paradigm assumptions, participants were encouraged to follow the flow of
conversations where appropriate. Aligning constructionist philosophy, this data collection
method afforded participants the opportunity to jointly construct meaning and shape key
themes (Bryman & Bell 2011).
4.7.3 Harvest
Where the WC method is a complex process of connecting table conversations into a nebulous
web, the harvest seeks to make emerging themes apparent. As the core outcome of the WC, the
harvest make knowledge visible (Corrigan, 2007). Often produced in different forms (e.g.
illustrated story) the CHT agreed their harvest would best serve the ongoing needs of the
community compiled in document form (Appendix L), allowing this conversation to contribute
to other discussions and processes within the community.
The harvest document is a summary of the insights, patterns and core themes as distilled from
table conversations and recorded, primarily by table hosts, through-out each discussion round
of the WC. In the final round of the WC these insights were shared by table hosts with
participants enabling further refinement of common threads. Compiled by the researcher from
these documented table discussions, the final document was approved for accuracy by table
hosts prior to being shared with all WC participants.
39
4.8 Ethical Considerations
Ethical principles are key components of quality research. This case study has ethical approval
from t the University of New England Number: HE17-082. Byrman and Bell (2011, p. 128)
outline four core ethical considerations: (1) harming participants, (2) informed consent, (3)
ensuring privacy and (4) deception. In establishing primary data collection methods, the
researcher has been careful to ensure participant anonymity. Consideration has been given to
potential negative implications of the data when interpreting meaning. To ensure themes
adequately reflect data supplied by participants, the researcher has triangulated themes. During
focus group facilitation core concepts and language were clarified with participants. The
harvest information has been transcribed exactly as recorded by table hosts and was reviewed
separately by table hosts to ensure the harvest document adequately represented their notes.
Risks of privacy were nullified by asking all respondents to self-select in the WC, questionnaire
and focus groups. In an effort to eliminate potential deception, an outline of the research and a
summary of core theoretical constructs emerging from the literature review was presented at
the introduction to the WC.
The research paradigm necessitates attention to issues of power in the research relationship.
Recent evaluations of the WC method (Lorenzetti et al., 2016) remind facilitators to attend to
issues of privilege and structural inequality in the context of community conversation. Power
and privilege was particularly relevant to this research as Port Augusta’s Aboriginal population
has a historical experience of disempowering assimilation and land loss. Advocated by Fawcett
and Pockett (2015), researchers need to mindfully ensure research process and evaluation
remains inclusive and participatory. These principles were addressed in establishment of the
CHT, focus groups and WC set-up, when detailing and encouraging adherence to WC
principles of diversity and respectfulness and requesting others be mindful of power in its many
forms. Further discussion and observations of the impacts of power in this research are
examined in Chapter Five.
Attention to ethical considerations is the core of quality Social Work practice and critical
reflection focused on themes of power and privilege are essential parts of community
collaboration. The Australian Association of Social Work (AASW, 2010) detail core
professional ethical responsibilities including: (a) respecting human dignity, (b) promoting
culturally sensitive practice, (c) building self-determination and community participation
40
through empowering fair social process and decision making, and (d) changing systems that
perpetuate inequality and injustice. Hence the researcher’s critical self-reflection throughout
the research journey was an attempt to ensure the process was not a superficial experience for
the community. The objectives of the research not only met the researcher agenda, but provided
a path into empowering community conversations that might assist Port Augusta address the
economic and social challenges it faces.
4.9 Trustworthiness and Authenticity
Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity of observations made is an important
consideration of this research. A qualitative paradigm acknowledges the ontological position
of the researcher as subjective to the research process (Liamputtong, 2013) as understanding
the influences bought by the researcher contribute to research integrity. Lincoln and Guba (in
Bryman & Bell, 2011) propose four criteria for trustworthiness; credibility, transferability,
dependability and confirmability. Bryman and Bell (2011) outline five criteria for authenticity;
fairness, ontological, educative, catalytic and tactical. It is within these guidelines the research
is examined.
Trustworthiness is established using a number of methods. Credibility was built using
respondent validation and triangulation methods (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Focus group
questions were designed to elicit thick descriptions centred on participant experiences of the
WC method. Meaning was clarified throughout focus group discussion by providing core
definitions and summarizing key themes. Triangulation, requiring three sources of data, was
used to build participant viewpoint. A questionnaire was administered, two focus group
sessions held and the harvest used to balance and corroborate core themes. The emergence of
this research has occurred over a period of years, recently in collaboration with experienced
supervisors to ensure decision making is apparent. Situating the design of the calling question/
invitation with the CHT was a further attempted to ensure the context for the WC discussion
reflected genuine community motivation.
Authenticity was built across the research in a number of ways. Chang and Chen (2015) outline
seven (7) design principles underpinning the WC, outlined in the literature review. These
further embed research legitimacy into the case study: encouraging the contributions of many
(fairness), exploring questions that matter (ontological authenticity), connecting diverse
41
perspectives (educative authenticity), listening for collective discoveries, insights and patterns
(tactical authenticity). Hence attention to WC overarching design principles further enriched
research authenticity.
The Researcher as WC host and CHT convener was clearly positioned within the context of
the research, potentially wielding considerable power to influence emerging themes (Cooksey
& McDonald, 2011). Whilst legitimate research themes evident in the literature review have
guided the data analysis process, using the CHT to position the researcher alongside the
community in forming WC invitation and questions was an attempt to privilege the voice of
participant. Further, in pursuing authenticity whilst focus group questions were theoretically
grounded along core research parameters, scope to pursue conversation threads of interest to,
or identified as relevant by participants was encouraged.
4.10 Summary
This chapter aimed to provide a concise outline of the study’s research methodology. Clarifying
the case studies positioning within broad ontological and epistemological perspectives and
detailing layered data collection and interpretation processes. Ethical considerations were
examined and attempts to build trust and authenticity acknowledged.
42
Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This study explores the relationship between community engagement and collaborative
networks, scoping the effectiveness of one method from the AoH framework, the World Café
(WC) as a tool to enrich local collaborative networks and generate collective efficacy. This
chapter describes and interprets the meaning of emerging core themes from the perspectives of
participants. The effectiveness of the WC is evaluated and limitations acknowledged.
5.2 Insights from the Data
Many insights on the efficacy of the WC have emerged, however, the scope of this research
only allows the exploration of limited themes. Core themes from concept mapping of before
(Figure 9) and after (Figure 10) FGs are; understanding local context, nurturing rich
collaborative networks and supporting community collective efficacy. Core themes emerging
from harvest (Figure 11) concept mapping are; endogenous opportunity, power of language,
and the significance of a common vision. Arrows within concept maps detail themes
interconnectedness with negative influences represented in red. Hence the nature of community
as a complex system becomes apparent and dynamics supporting or stifling innovation emerge.
43
Figure 9: Before FG Concept Map
44
Figure 10: After FG Concept Map
45
Figure 11: Harvest Concept Map
46
5.2.1 Understanding the local context
Dominant Stories of Loss
A strong story of multi-layered loss was primarily explored in ‘before’ FG discussions. “The
challenges are about loss at the moment” (FGP One). This includes loss of identity, with the
closure of significant industries that historically provided a sense of unique identity for the
town. Loss of employment, wealth and opportunity as a result of significant industry closure.
Loss of community as people left town to pursue career and employment opportunities. Loss
of resources, skills and services as greater needs were identified in other, growing,
communities.
It’s very easy to dent people’s business confidence. Which in part goes
back to that government or ‘someone will save us’ town. Where
traditionally its’s been thought that, if you get out in the media and talk
about how challenging everything is, then the government will fix it. The
squeaky wheel. However, the knock on from that is that it dents your local
confidence, if they are continually hearing that negative (FGP Four).
Closely connected to loss, falling local business confidence, depleted motivation, and
increasing fatigue levels left residents with a sense of disillusionment. Mayer and Knox (2010,
p. 1547) label this picture of economic decline and social malaise as a “legacy of the first
modernity”. This leaves creativity and innovation difficult to inspire.
Descriptions of enmeshed barriers conspiring against local success were identified by FG
discussions. Barriers included; insular connections, no common ground, parochialism, limited
definitions of assets, the “tall poppy” factor, fear of failure and a limited appreciation of
collaboration. These barriers, especially the “tall poppy” factor, were acknowledged to fuel
community division, failing to support new ideas, exhausting change-makers, depleting
motivation and contributing to a spiralling negative cycle that stifled local innovation (Figure
12). The debilitating effect of this negative cycle, termed a “blanket of negativity” by FGP’s, is
indicative of the relationship between poorly nurturing bonding capital and withering
collective efficacy described by Collins et al., (2014). This cycle is damaging because
innovation requires creativity and risk-taking, entrepreneurs and change makers need
assurance their support network will tolerate failure (de Dominicis et al., 2013). Thus, the
47
workings of internal community dynamics to harness innovation and support creativity appear
important contributors of endogenous driven economic growth.
Figure 12: Negative Cycle
According to FGPs this pattern contributed to strong community expectations of exogenous
solutions to the current economic crisis. “There’s a very strong head set about government and
big business is required to generate economic improvement” (FGP One) and a passive sense
of ‘waiting’ was acknowledged “like there is expectation that someone will come in and save
us, and give us an industry” (FGP Two). The risk for regional towns waiting for a single saviour
as an economic strategy is the often-disastrous consequences it brings; stagnant local economic
ecosystems or environmental damage that leave towns more vulnerable and powerless (Mayer
& Knox, 2010). Hence the compounding impacts of a negative cycle appear to disempower
the community, immobilising collective efficacy and deconstructing network connections.
5.2.2 Collaboration
Collaborative networks were described as “crucial” by FGPs to localised innovative economic
solutions. The importance of bonding and bridging social capital to achieve economic
outcomes for smaller communities is clear (Woodhouse, 2006). Huang and Rice’s (2013) detail
Stiffled
Innovation
Stories of
Loss
Parochialism
Tall Poppy
Effect
Fear of
Ridicule
48
the strategic benefits of leveraged knowledge ‘spillovers’ internally linked through local
clusters supporting endogenous innovation. These benefits were acknowledged by FGPs as
was the need to develop internal collaborative capacity for these ‘spillovers’ to occur.
Connections to broader network partnerships linking local innovation to wider opportunity
(Huggins & Thompson, 2015) was also acknowledged by FGPs for the town to achieve
sustainable and inclusive economic goals.
The only way to move forward for Port Augusta is integrated networks and
greater collaboration, because one feeds off the other and initially we need
to be thinking internally what we could achieve as this community, but then
also thinking involving Pirie and Whyalla (FGP Five).
Hence the value of internal linkages within the community and external relationships with
broader stakeholders became evident.
Bonding Social Capital
The strong influence of bonding social capital was apparent in FG descriptions of the town,
“Port Augusta people love Port Augusta” (FGP Four). The capacity of local sporting groups to
work together raising significant funds to support the town’s young people was one clear
example detailed by FGPs. Bonding capital can provide a sense of place, giving unity and pride
(Neal, 2015) as described by FGP Three, “It’s funny we’re pretty quick to take pot shots at
ourselves but you take a swipe at Port Augusta and all of a sudden you have 14000 people
standing together saying bring-it-on”. Ungenerous wider assumptions about the town and its
inhabitants (ABC, 2012) have potentially been key instigators in developing local unity in the
face of adversity “how everyone stood together against that ‘portaugutta’ thing, where people
were proud” (FGP Four). For communities feeling isolated and abandoned by broader national
debates, bonding capital can serve to support a sense of place.
But the restricting effects of bonding capital were evident. Described positively as a “tight
knit” community and negatively as “parochial”, the nature of connections was explored by
before FGPs who acknowledged the combination of the “tall poppy” effect, fear of public
failure and community ridicule “we eat our own” (FGP Four). Tall poppy syndrome,
parochialism and insular network connections appear to be negative manifestations of bonding
social capital, resulting in “a lack of risk taking” (FGP One). Entrenched negative bonding
capital, described by as a dependence-oriented culture by Eklinder-Frick et al. (2011) can
49
discourage innovation, stifle creativity, demand conformity, and limit attempts to build diverse
networks connections (Crescenzi et al., 2013; Lind & Dale, 2013). This dynamic was evident
during the WC when a significant negative comment appeared to derail the larger group’s
optimism.
Yes, but you can see some of the language impacting on others. And you
could see X’s comment at the end, after what I perceived as a fairly positive
day, to have the really negative comment at the end of the day was pretty
disappointing (FGP One).
However, whilst acknowledging this may have been the negative cycle (Figure 12) at work,
both Howard (2012) and Lorensetti et al., (2016) warn of the risks denying gloomy or
unpleasant opinions expressed within the WC because they do not sit with underlying strengths
based assumptions, can further disempower participant voices. Hence a fine balance presents
between disrupting a damaging and powerful negative cycle and silencing valid local stories.
Bridging Social Capital
The need for strong regional connections was emphasised by FGPs. Regional network
connections are key to connecting local knowledge to wider opportunities, providing scope to
scale up local innovation (Liu, 2012; Ling & Dale, 2013). However, parochial and insular
community dynamics stifled attempts to participate in broader regional networks, described by
FGP One as the town looking “inward and it doesn’t look outward”. Whilst examples of
regional collaboration were evident, FGPs acknowledged the town viewed its nearest regional
neighbours as competitors, “I don’t think people are looking at the opportunities we have for
external collaboration as well and they need to be outward facing” (FGP One). The importance
of maintaining an outward focus to networked possibilities is supported by Crescenzi et al.,
(2013). Thus, bridging capital connects innovative ideas to broader network opportunities and
an area the town needs to build upon.
5.2.3 Collective Efficacy
Building agency within the community to affect change was also acknowledged by FGPs as
“crucial” to economic success. However collective efficacy cannot exist in the absence of
strong social capital (Ansari, 2013; Collins et al., 2014), but requires both healthy internal
bonding and externally linked bridging capital (Neal 2015) for economic development
50
(Woodhouse 2006). Thus, for Port Augusta collective efficacy required to build and maintain
change is weakened by the negative cycle effecting local bonding capital.
Shared Vision
A shared vision was identified as a next step for the community within the WC harvest and
thought to be central to supporting collective efficacy by FGPs. A shared vision provides an
opportunity to convert social capital into agency for the community (Ling and Dale, 2013).
Enhancing civic engagement in developing a vision to support collective efficacy (Collins et
al., 2014) was described as by FGP Three as, “Having the plan. Having the buy-in from people
with their finger prints on it”. Thus, a united vision is seen as offering the community common
ground to work toward.
A shared vision needs to incorporate short achievable goals as well as long term aspirations.
Consistent with Lambe’ (2008) experience, community owned visions enable small towns to
adapt to modern economic challenges by also paying attention to small successes. This works
to support local change makers and maintain momentum “harnessing their energy and their
passion” (FGP Three), articulating measurable goals and identifying how seemingly different
parts of the work are connected. Hence a layered vision should provide a path forward and an
opportunity to map progress along the journey.
5.3 Effectiveness of the WC
Overall, questionnaire, harvest and FG participant feedback indicate the WC was considered a
useful tool for the Port Augusta Community. After FGPs described the energising impact of the
WC on participants, “I think the World Café style works really well, it was quite intimate. I
think it’s a tool and a method that we can implement for different things here in Port Augusta”
(FGP Six). The WC allowed deeper exploration of ideas, “when I got to other tables, there were
topics that came up that we hadn’t thought of that broadened the conversation from when we
were in the same group” (FGP Eight). The WC provided an opportunity to engage the
community differently, “you see people in different contexts – but you never have those
discussions that we had at the WC” (FGP Five). The WC was thought to bring purposeful
engagement “it’s not a talkfest”, (FGP Six) leading people to action. These statements support
Jorgenson and Steiner’s (2013) acknowledgement of the WC as a different to usual meeting
method. Further to this and in line with Keast and Mandell (2014), the WC provides an
51
opportunity to connect ideas within a network in response to a shared vision, the WC harvest
provides evidence of this occurring within the WC discussion. Themes from all three data tools
have been collated in an overarching concept map with negative connections pictured in red
(Figure 13). Hence complex and nuanced factors impacting on community economic
development are increasingly apparent.
52
Figure 13: Combined Data Concept Map
53
5.3.1 Self Efficacy
The positive impact of the WC, as reported by participant perspectives, is illustrated in Figure
14 comparing before and after questionnaire responses. First where connection is important to
building engagement (Miller & Rollnick, 2014) all respondents reported being at least
moderately connected to the community. After the WC event, all but one participant described
feeling more connected.
Second, important key descriptors of individual efficacy are evident. As outlined by Miller and
Rollnick (2002) commitment gives insight to intention (p. 24), confidence indicates self-belief
(p. 111) and motivation is internally driven (p.25). Before the WC all respondents reported
some degree of confidence and motivation in the community’s ability to respond to current
economic challenges; confidence in, and motivation to connect with community networks;
confidence in the community’s creative ideas; confidence in the community’s assets being
integral to solutions; and motivation to understand the perspective of others. All respondents
reported either moderate or definite increases in these responses after the WC.
Third, believing change is possible, hope, is an important predictor of change and indicator of
self-efficacy (Miller & Rollnick, 2014). Whilst all respondents reported some degree of hope
about their community’s ability to respond to the contemporary challenges prior to the WC, all
but one reported being more hopeful after the WC.
Hence participants reported a positive impact on their levels of connection, confidence,
motivation and hope after the WC. Whilst this may be an effect of the WC, it may also indicate
that participants who responded to the initial calling question were already highly optimistic
and motivated people. After FGPs did comment some table conversations were more hopeful
“it’s about having a room full of can do people” (FGP Nine) whilst others were less so as people
“kept coming back to the buts and the negatives” (FGP Six). So, whilst it seems the WC
positively influences individual efficacy, larger participant numbers or the opportunity to host
WC’s in different part of the community would enable this to be explored further.
54
Figure 14: Comparing before and after questionnaire responses
55
5.3.2 Collective Networks
The WC’s ability to nurture bonding social capital as a precursor to building collaborative
networks was evident. At the before FG and in-line with Lambe’ (2008) observations of small
communities successfully managing economic transitioning, FGPs indicated community
capacity-building enriching positive internal connections was needed, “until we can come
together as a collective and be united as a community, and even different parts of the
community, I don’t think we’ll be able to get past some of those things” (FGP Two). As a
place-based strategy harnessing local capabilities and knowledge (Barca et al., 2013) the WC
was observed building bonding capital, “There were some people there yesterday who I would
never come in contact with on a personal or professional level” (FGP Six). The attention to
language and listening for common perspectives to building shared understanding was valued
by FGPs, “it’s amazing how those common themes start coming out and those common threads
appear” (FGP nine). This is consistent with the opportunity to bring diverse perspectives and
was appreciated as it brought “different networks and that diversity to the table, because if
keep getting that same old sampled I can tell you the people who will rock up. Same old faces
same old background” (FGP Nine). The WC ability to build internal capacity by linking
community networks is evidence of its scope as a tool to support innovation by connecting
knowledge and ideas (Crescenzi et al., 2013; de Dominics et al., 2013; Huggins & Thompson,
2015). Thus, connecting local networks using the WC supported internal community capacity
and healthy bonding social capital.
The WC provides an opportunity to make local knowledge tangible as evidenced by the myriad
of assets, solutions and ideas present in the harvest document. The harvest details discussions
responding to questions of aspirations and opportunities, strengths and assets, providing
evidence of the WC as a platform enabling endogenous innovation. This process matches
Mayer and Knox (2010) suggestions globalization provides an opportunity for small towns to
innovate through collaborative grassroots networks that leverage off broad partnerships,
enabling local communities to develop sustainable economies not subjected to the ruthlessness
of exogenous market forces. By attending to the scope, calling question and recruitment of
participants, the WC provided an opportunity to link ideas to broader networks at the local
level. Manygoyana and Collits (2014, p. 431) acknowledge the importance of a community’s
ability to “link and leverage its endogenous asset and resources” as significant drivers of
economic development, but note few frameworks exits to achieve this. This case study
56
illustrates the WC’s effectiveness in facilitating collective learning by nurturing network
connections, linking diverse community assets and sharing knowledge. Hence the WC format
is both a tool to scope and build endogenous innovation and a mechanism to link those ideas
to exogenous opportunities.
5.3.3 Collective Efficacy
Generally, FGP described the WC as empowering, fostering local ownership.
I shouldn’t say it forces people to participate, but it almost does as opposed
to the old-fashioned town hall style meeting where you get the 10 down the
back who fire duffs at you and the other 90 say noting. In the WC everyone
participates (FGP Nine).
Principally FGP’s thought the WC method could be used to build a shared community vision
with broad ownership, uniting and harnessing passion. Strategic ‘buy in’ from diverse groups
within the community was seen as fundamental, “it’s important to have representation from a
diverse group of people and make sure no one left out of that, all different sectors of the
community need to be sitting around that table” (FGP Six). The value of building pathways for
diverse groups into these community conversations exploring ways to respond to economic
challenges is integral to building sustainable solutions (McCall, 2010; Measham et al., 2012)
A shared vision that allows both short and long-term goals, so that ‘wins’ could be
acknowledged was thought to important.
Yesterday one of the standout comments for me was we need to actually
create a united vision. So even though there was some common themes
identified we still don’t have a common vision, so I think a World Café around
developing a common vision would be a great idea” (FGP Six).
The harvest document (Appendix L) illustrates the varied but common threads of a local shared
vision, in table discussions detailing Aspirations and Opportunities. A shared vision was
clearly identified as the ‘next step’ for Port Augusta.
The need to map a shared vision is an important beginning for building collaborative
networked collective efficacy. As discussed by Keast and Mandell (2014) and supported by
Mangoyana and Collits (2014) for networks to resist becoming siloed they require purposed
57
relationships of which shared vision is a core binding ingredient. The harvest process of the
WC method allows for knowledge to be shared allowing innovative solutions to emerge,
further the journey of ideas and progress can be mapped and linked over cumulative WC
conversations. Hence the WC method fits with place-based strategies advocated by Barca et
al., (2012) intentionally building community capacity by linking and leveraging local
knowledge toward common purpose.
Currently the lack of a shared community vision may be both a contributing factor and result
of unhealthy bonding capital. This effect is described by Collins et al., (2014) as an outcome
of poorly nurtured bonding capital where collective efficacy is vulnerable to group perceptions
of stalling or failed achievements. Hence the need to ensure a broad vision has smaller
measurable goals to sustain momentum, build efficacy and shore up commitment “small and
achievable wins so people can actually see something happening. And then you sort of work
away on some of those bigger ones that are going to take 20 years” (FGP Four). The WC can
assists manage this risk by the use of questions exploring long and short-term goals and actions,
as evident in harvest. Thus, by utilising the WC method through round questions that facilitate
discussion, internal community capacity and community vision can be built to maintain
collective efficacy.
5.4. Limitations of the World Café
5.4.1. Harnessing broad participation
The snowballing technique used to recruit participants from the networked contacts of Core
Hosting Team (CHT) members was less successful than hoped in broadly recruiting
community members. This became evident after the WC when FGP voiced their dismay that
local Aboriginal and business groups were under represented at the discussion. Both groups
were thought pivotal to discussions identifying creative ideas and providing local leadership.
After the WC, the researcher was contacted by two business groups expressing their dismay at
not being involved in the WC. Confusingly business groups had been invited to participate the
CHT, and key contacts connected to these networks were part of the CHT and WC participants.
A similar dynamic was observed with Aboriginal community groups and the broader Health
and Community Services Sector, where information about, or connection to the WC invitation
was missing. Hence a comprehensive dissemination of the WC invite through CHT networks
was not as effective as assumed.
58
Given the WC invite was circulated across these networks, this failure to participate fully in
the WC suggests other dynamics at work. First following Lorsesetti et al., (2016) observations
on structural inequalities working to preference one view over others in WC discussions, the
failure of certain groups to participate in the WC may be evidence of locally held assumptions
in the community of who has ‘legitimacy’ to participate, where subtle dynamics of power
privilege certain groups as having expert knowledge. For example, whilst FGP and WC
participants expressed disappointed about absence of local business, attending social
enterprises were not acknowledged. Further community services were dismayed at having been
left out of the invite circle, yet others queried their contributions to a discussion on economic
development. Hence the community appears confused about the connection between economic
and community development.
Such assumptions limit diversity and fail to appreciate that for regional towns, community and
economic development is inextricably linked. Leveraging off the community’s unique
diversity, knowledge and assets is integral to seeking localized solutions, when diverse
community representatives are invited into discussions of economic development, non-
traditional assets can be identified (Lambe, 2008). Narrow definitions of assets devalue
community wealth, obstructing social inclusion and economic development goals (Dabson,
2011). This view was expressed by FGPs disappointed that traditional definitions of economic
assets failed to acknowledge the strengths of local Aboriginal culture, despite the town’s wider
reputation for hosting quality NAIDOC events.
But also the non-Aboriginal community (need) to recognise and to
acknowledge that we have got that vibrant, diverse Aboriginal community
and that’s a great asset to Port Augusta. And some of the, you know I
believe, future economic development opportunities (FGP Two).
Whilst harvest discussions acknowledged the towns rich Aboriginal culture as an asset,
viewing the Aboriginal community as an integral partner to ongoing economic transformation
needs to occur.
Secondly although the snowballing technique was assumed a useful strategy to extend the
calling question invite across a small population, the need to build connections within the local
community emerged through FG discussions. It seems within the host community smaller
circles of tightly bonded networks exist with few linkages across groups.
59
Thirdly, the unfamiliarity of the WC, the invite, the calling question, may have been subjected
to the negative consequences of bonding capital within the town. Jorgenson and Steier (2013)
note how the WC is framed impacts on assumptions and the fear of participating in something
unusual might have excluded certain groups from joining the discussion. As FGPs noted the
unfamiliarity of the WC left some resistant and suspicious of being asked to commit to action,
and FG discussion acknowledged a degree of frustration where people attended a conversation
on economic development but withheld personal agency. Thought to be linked to fatigue and
the size of the task by FGPs, it is further evidence of negative bonding capitals influence on
collective efficacy (Collins et al., 2014).
5.4.2 Timeframe
Both FGPs and the literature acknowledge conversations about sustainable economic
development are long-term “Not necessarily economic development as such, first step around
community development. Capacity. Attitude. Participation” (FGP Seven). Lambe (2008) is
clear that whilst this work is long term, equally small successes are acknowledged and
celebrated. In terms of building in resiliency and maintaining community support
acknowledging the short wins “where you can see traction” (FGP Eight) was appreciated by
the FGP and evident throughout the scope of both short term and broader ideas within the
harvest document.
Given the feedback from participants at the end of the WC and FGPs commitment to
undertaking more WC conversations to articulate both a broad vision and expand short term
goals, the need to engage this work over a longer time frame is evident. Hosting a single WC
event has been a significant limitation for both the community in pursuing their sustainable
economic development goals and for this research in understanding how the WC method might
impact across time on collaborative network connections and collective efficacy. Particularly
in light of the potentially limiting negative spirals fuelled by elements of corrosive bonding
capital, the need to explore the possibility of the WC in changing these dynamics remains.
5.5. Next Steps
5.5.1 Port Augusta
Some action has occurred as a result of the WC event. The harvest document has informed
subsequent economic development discussions for Business Port Augusta and the RDA.
60
However, Huggins and Thompson (2015) acknowledge without deliberate support diverse
internally driven development is unlikely. This barrier was identified in FG and harvest
discussions, where the need for a specific driver of the work to maintain momentum was clearly
identified. In following up FG suggested next steps and in line with the LGA’s (2015)
Economic Development priorities (2015) and the local Community Vision and Strategic Plan
(PACC, 2017), the PACC could engage citizens in shaping a broad community vision using
the WC method. In maximising potential opportunity and in response to the debilitating
impacts of the negative cycle stifling innovation and curbing creativity locally, the discussion
might be well placed to leverage off recent solar thermal industry investment announcement
(ABC, 2017). The WC method has the potential continue to expand engagement around
community sustainable economic development goals (Figure 15). The WC is a tool the
community could use to shape broad vision and invite community buy-in. Subsequent WC
events might explore local assets and knowledge, then extend ideas by linking to new partners
and industries to seek opportunity.
Figure 15: Expanding Engagement
Conversations+building+
bonding+social+captial.
Concerstations+scoping+
shared+vision,+common+
ground+and+diverse+
community+assets.
Conversations+
conneting+knowledge,+
exploring+creative+and+
innovative+ideas.
Conversations+
connecting+to+regional+
and+broader+partners,+
leveraging+opportunity.
61
5.5.2 In Practice
For practitioners engaged in regional economic development the AoH frameworks WC method
offers an opportunity to engage communities in intentional conversation focused on economic
goals. The WC allows practitioners to build collaborative partnerships with communities
seeking endogenous responses to complex sustainable economic challenges. The WC is a
deliberative strategy for engaging groups in intentional discussions, empowering community
wisdom to source solutions by connecting diverse knowledge. The WC offers a method for
scaling local connections and ideas to broader global networks from which further
opportunities can be leveraged. Hence whilst the advantages of globalisation appear to have
passed by regional towns, perhaps the answer relies on having different tools to engage with
the opportunities globalisation offers.
5.6 Summary
This chapter explored core themes emerging from the data. Interpreting meaning behind the
data was attempted, and limitations evident as a consequence of the research discussed. Finally,
next steps in the journey for both the town and exploring the effectiveness of the WC as a tool
for communities explored.
62
Chapter Six: Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
The aim of this case study has been to appreciate the economic and social challenges facing
the host community and to explore the effectiveness of the World Café (WC) as method
communities could use to enrich collaborative networks and empowering collective efficacy
in response to these challenges. This chapter provides a summary of emerging core themes
from the data. The implications of these findings for the host community, other communities
and broad policy are examined. Finally, avenues for future research emanating from this case
study are offered.
6.2 Summary of findings
Significant core themes have emerged from these findings. Importantly focus group (FG)
discussions illustrated how a dominant story of loss negatively influences bonding social
capital, limiting creativity and innovation by inhibiting risk taking in the community. Second
the need for supportive internally focused bonding links and outwardly focused bridging links
was acknowledged. Bonding social capital to support the community connect knowledge and
define assets useful to create a shared vision. Bridging social capital to assist the community
seek opportunities and link to global economic flows. Thus, providing opportunity to nurture
both internal collaborative networks and external network connections enables collective
efficacy within community to achieve shared goals.
The effectiveness of the WC as a community tool to assist achieving economic and social
development goals was apparent. Collaborative networks were strengthened by nurturing
bonding capital that was supportive of creativity and innovation. Further scope to use the WC
method to build connections to bridging networks was acknowledged. At the individual level
the WC positively influenced individual motivation, connection, confidence and hope amongst
participants. These elements are important factors of self-efficacy, in-turn supporting collective
efficacy. Further recognition of the WC method as a first step in harnessing collective efficacy
toward long term sustainable community and economic development goals for the town was
recognised. A Venn diagram (Figure 15) is used to illustrate these findings.
63
This case study suggests, from the perspective of participants, the WC method is a useful tool
for Port Augusta in pursuing sustainable and inclusive development objectives. Fitting with
core priorities of the PACC’s Community vision and Strategic Plan and the RDA FN’s
Economic Growth and Investment Strategy, the WC method provides a vehicle to explore and
achieve the collaborative networking and innovation priorities outlined. Given the PACC
Community Vision and Strategic Plan is on the cusp of expiration, the WC method provides a
model for council to explore the next phase of this process, bringing potential buy-in through
collective participation and allowing exploration of strengths and community assets through a
diversity of perspectives.
Figure 16: Summary of Empirical Findings
Focus Group
Dominant stories of loss
Exogenous solutions
Questionnaire
Role of Individual
Harvest
Understanding assets
Opportunities
Ideas
Connections
Common motivators.
Commitment to shared
vision.
Recognition of
individual contributions.
Alternative stories.
Endogenous solutions.
Networked connections.
Mentoring.
Diversity.
Leadership.
Enriched local
networks.
Shared vision.
Endogenous opportunity.
Hope. Motivation.
Confidence. Commitment.
64
6.3 Implications of Findings
The WC bought both strengths and weaknesses to the goal of engaging community
participation in Port Augusta. It provided a tool to challenge limited thinking, inviting creative
and action focused discussion. It provided a space to developed intentional and focused
conversations away from dominant problem saturated stories and invited participants to pay
attention to inclusive and respectful language. However, the limiting nature of structural power
and its assumptions require thought and management if a broad inclusion and engagement goal
is to be reached. Broadly WC strengths and weakness are summarized in Figure 17. Given the
case study incorporated only one WC it offers limited opportunity to provide detailed lessons
for other communities, however some broad learnings are evident.
For other regional towns grappling with the negative impacts of globalisation and trapped in
negative cycles of disenfranchisement, the lessons from this case study indicate the WC method
as one tool of the AoH framework, offers a strategy to balance community conversation. When
bonding social capital is overly negative, suspicious and even hostile as the result of ongoing
community loss, methods of intentional conversation can engage the community using
questions that are deliberately future focused and strengths based, inviting pathways into
solution focused empowering discussion. Further, the WC method offers a strategy for building
bridging capital for communities no longer able to leverage off old comparative advantage
opportunities. By providing a vehicle to invite regional partners into a solution focused
conversation, knowledge can be refined and opportunities connected, such that small
communities might leverage connections into global economic flows. However, this case study
also suggests, for communities or local governments considering utilizing the WC method to
engage participants in sustainable economic development, a broader and more detailed
engagement strategy is required. In acknowledging the long-term nature of development
processes, initial conversations may need to focus on questions that engage community
capacity-building processes before scoping shared visions and then extending discussions to
potential partners. Hence a number of WC’s may be held expanding outward in focus. Attention
to language and the use of a core hosting team to drive the process, may yield increasingly
empowering outcomes for communities.
65
These empirical findings suggest the WC method is a useful tool for local governments
pursuing sustainable and inclusive development objectives. The LGA’s Economic
Development Statement (2015) suggest local governments build strategic vision, support
opportunities to develop innovation and broaden networks, the WC method then is one vehicle
to undertake this work. The plan promotes the local infrastructure as a mechanism to build a
sense of place and as a catalyst for local economic development. Whilst the plan assumes such
infrastructure to be physical, insights from community and sustainable economic development
research suggests building opportunities for communities to engage in intentional conversation
is an intangible yet intrinsically important piece of community infrastructure, supporting
innovative communities to successfully engage in the global economy.
66
Figure 17: SWOT
67
6.4 Future Research
Whilst this case study provides insights into effectiveness of the WC method, other questions
outside the scope of this research worthy of further exploration have emerged. A broad mixed-
methods approach incorporating a series of WC events would provide deeper exploration of
the method. A suitable mixed methods research approach could provide a comprehensive study
of the WC. Participatory action research (PAR) could facilitate long-term community
engagement by contextualizing WC questions and linking a shared vision through networked
conversations. Combining social network analysis (SNA) allows a detailed scoping of the
impact on bonding and bridging social capital indicative of collaborative networking.
Incorporating a narrative perspective explores the effect of alternative stories on
entrepreneurialism and innovation as outcomes of collective efficacy. Analysis of new business
start-up data and achievement of shared vision milestones throughout the study timeframe plots
quantitative evidence of outcomes of WC discussions. Such a project would require a long-
term commitment from both researcher and community leaders to ensure long-term
sustainability.
6.5 Summary
In conclusion AoH frameworks, including the WC method, may offer communities tools in
which to seek endogenous opportunities to explore innovative ideas. They may also be
mechanisms to link this creativity to global markets through connecting collective networks,
creating examples of collective efficacy that works to build a positive cycle of creative
innovation.
References
Acocella, N. (2005). Economic policy in the age of globalisation. Cambridge University
Press.
Akçomak, I. S. & ter Weel, B. (2009). Social capital, innovation and growth: Evidence from
Europe. European Economic Review, 53(5), 544-567.
doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.10.001
Alcorn, Z. (2017). Five-year campaign to repower Port Augusta coming to fruition. Green
Left Weekly. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.une.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=7920674189
74759;res=IELHSS> ISSN: 1036-126X
Almedom, A. M. (2013). Resilience: Outcome, Process, Emergence, Narrative (OPEN)
theory. On the Horizon, 21(1), 15-23. doi:10.1108/10748121311297030
Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S, D., & Jack, S. (2010). Network practices and entrepreneurial
growth. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 121-133.
doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.01.005
Ansari, S. (2013). Social capital and collective efficacy: resource and operating tools of
community social control. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 5(2).
Art of Hosting (2017a). Retrieved from artofhosting.org website:
http://www.artofhosting.org/what-is-aoh/
Art of Hosting (2017b). Retrieved from artofhosting.org http://www.artofhosting.org/what-is-
aoh/methods/
Art of Hosting Field Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved from dialogicod.net website:
http://www.dialogicod.net/practitioner_papers/Corrigan%20%20Art%20of%20Hostin
g%20Fieldguide.pdf
Atkinson, D. (2009). Economic decline and gentrification in a small town: the business sector
in Aberdeen, Eastern Cape. Development Southern Africa, 26(2), 271-288.
doi:10.1080/03768350902899595
Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). (2010). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from
www.aasw.asn.au.
Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). (2012). Apology demanded from Channel Ten
over alleged racism. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-25/the-project-derogatory-to-
aborigines/4153098)
Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). (2016, May 10). Port Augusta's coal-fired
power station closes in South Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-09/port-augustas-coal-fired-power-station-
closes/7394854
Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). (2017, August 14). Solar thermal power plant
announced for Port Augusta 'biggest of its kind in the world. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-plant-announcement-for-
port-augusta/8804628.
Australian Social Inclusion Board (ASIB). (2009). A stronger, fairer Australia. Department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Retrieved from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/1391
Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodrıguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development
intervention: place-based versus place- neutral approaches. Journal of Regional
Science, 52, 134–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x
Bertotti, M., Adams-Eaton, F., Sheridan, K., & Renton A. (2012). Key barriers to community
cohesion: views from residents of 20 London deprived neighbourhoods. GeoJournal
77, 223-234. doi:10.1007/s10708-009-9326-1
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road
map from beginning to end. Sage Publications.
Borrello, E. & Keany, F. (2015, December 8). Innovation statement: PM Malcolm Turnbull
calls for 'ideas boom' as he unveils $1b vision for Australia's future. Australian
Broadcasting Commission (ABC). Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-
12-07/pm-malcolm-turnbull-unveils-$1-billion-innovation-program/7006952
Brown, J. & Bennett, S. (1995). Mindshift: Strategic dialogue for breakthrough thinking, in
S. Chawla & J. Renesch (Eds), Learning organisations: developing cultures for
tomorrow’s workplace. Productivity Press, Portland Oregon
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (1996). Conversation as a core business process. The Systems
Thinker, 7(10), Pegasus Communications.
Brown, J. & Issacs, D. (2001). The World Café: Living knowledge through conversations
that matter, The Systems Thinker, 12(5), Pegasus Communications.
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005a). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations
that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Brown, J., & Issacs, D. (2005b). Creating hospitable spaces: The World Café !. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Brown, J., Issacs, D., & Tan, S. (2008). Multi-generational collaboration: Shaping tomorrow,
together. Kosmos, 7(2), 32-33.
Brown, J., Isaacs, D., Vogt, E. & Margulies, M. (2002). Strategic Questioning: Engaging
peoples best thinking. The Systems Thinker, 13(9), Pegasus Communications.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.
Burkett, I. (2011). Organizing in the new marketplace: contradictions and opportunities for
community development organizations in the ashes of neoliberalism. Community
Development Journal, 46(2), 111-127. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsr002
Carriere, B., Freeman, E., Jetter, M., Nelson, C., & Straub, T. (2012) Cultivating the art of
hosting at the University of Minnesota, Presidents emerging leaders program 2011-
2012. Retrieved from
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/163335/ArtOfHostingAndHarves
tingIntegrationRpt.pdf;jsessionid=8A283215BC80C482F68897BC2EE2D44E?sequen
ce=1.
Chang, W. & Chen, S. (2015). The impact of World Café on entrepreneurial strategic
planning capability. The Journal of Business Research, 68, 1283-1290.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.020.
Chiu Y. H., Lee, T. (2012). Structural embeddedness and innovation performance:
Capitalizing on social brokerage in high-tech clusters. Journal of Innovation,
Organization & Management 14(3), 337-348. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.3.337
Collective Impact (n.d.). Retrieved from collectiveimpactaustralia.com website:
https://collectiveimpactaustralia.com/about/
Collins, C. R., Neal, J. W, & Neal, Z. P. (2014). Transforming individual civic engagement
into community collective efficacy: The role of bonding social capital. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3-4), 328-336.
doi:10.1007/s10464-014-9675-x.
Connelly, S., Markey, S, & Roseland, M. (2011). Bridging sustainability and the social
economy: Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives. Critical
Social Policy, 31(2), 308 - 324. doi:10.1177/0261018310396040
Cooke, P., Clifton, N., & Oleaga, M. (2005). Social capital, firm embeddedness and regional
development. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1065-1077.
Cooksey, R. W., & McDonald, G. M. (2011). Surviving and thriving in postgraduate
research. Tilde University Press.
Corrigan, C. (2007). Hosting in a hurry. Retrieved from www.chriscorrigan.com
Corrigan, C. (2016). Hosting dialogic containers. Organisational Development Practitioners,
48(2).
Crescenzi, R., Gagliardi, L., & Percoco, M. (2013). The ‘bright’ side of social capital: how
‘bridging’ makes Italian provinces more innovative. Geography, Institutions and
Regional Economic Performance, 143-164. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Dabson, B. (2011). Rural regional innovation: a response to metropolitan-framed place-based
thinking in the United States. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 17(1), 7.
De Dominicis, L., Florax, R. J., & de Groot, H. L. (2013). Regional clusters of innovative
activity in Europe: are social capital and geographical proximity key determinants?
Applied Economics, 45(17), 2325-2335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.663474
De Santo, E. M. (2016). Assessing public “participation” in environmental decision-making:
Lessons learned from the UK Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) site selection process.
Marine Policy, 64, 91-101. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.003
Dinda, S. (2008). Social capital in the creation of human capital and economic growth: A
productive consumption approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 2020-2033.
doi:10.1016/j.socec.2007.06.014
Doh, S., & Acs, Z. J. (2010). Innovation and social capital: a cross-country investigation.
Industry and Innovation, 17(3), 241-262. doi:10.1080/13662711003790569
Dykeman, M., & Mackenzie, J. (2012). Concept mapping. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos & E.
Wiebe (Eds), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 197-199). SAGE Publications,
Inc.. doi:10.4135/9781412957397
Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. & Hallén, L. (2011). Bridging and bonding forms of social
capital in a regional strategic network. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 994-
1003. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.040
Eversole, R., & McCall, T. (2014). Constructing advantage in the Cradle Coast region,
Tasmania: knowledge partnering as a regional development platform approach.
Regional Science Policy & Practice, 6, 251–263. doi:10.1111/rsp3.12038
Fawcett, B., & Pockett, R. (2015). Turning ideas into research: Theory, design and practice.
London, England: Sage publications Ltd.
Flinders Power. (2017). Leigh Creek railway. Retrieved from
http://flinderspower.com.au/leigh-creek-railway/
Foster, J. (2005). From simplistic to complex systems in economics. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 29(6), 873-892.
Ghazinoory, S., Bitaab, A., & Lohrasbi, A. (2014). Social capital and national innovation
system: a cross-country analysis. Cross Cultural Management, 21(4), 453-475.
doi:10.1108/CCM-10-2013-0154
Gilchrist, A. (2009). The well-connected community: A networking approach to community
development. Policy Press
Gillham, B. (2010). Case study research methods. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gitterman, A., & Germain, C. B. (1976). Social work practice: A life model, Social Service
Review, 50(4), 601-610. doi.org/10.1086/643430
Gitterman, A., & Heller, N. R. (2011). Integrating social work perspectives and models with
concepts, methods and skills with other professions’ specialized approaches. Journal
of Clinical Social Work, 39, 204-211. doi:10.1007/s10615-011-0340-7
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K, & Hoy A.W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher,
33(3), 3-13.
Gray, D., & Jones, K. F. (2016). Using organisational development and learning methods to
develop resilience for sustainable futures with SMEs and micro businesses: The case
of the “business alliance”. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
23(2), 474-494. doi:10.1108/JSBED-03-2015-0031
Green, D., & McDermott, F. (2010). Social work for inside and between complex systems:
Perspectives on person-in-environment for today’s social work. British Journal of
Social Work, 40, 2414-2430. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq05.
Hendrickson, D. J., Lindberg, C., Connelly, S., & Roseland, M. (2011). Pushing the
envelope: market mechanisms for sustainable community development. Journal of
Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4(2),
153-173. doi:10.1080/17549175.2011.596263
Hohman, M. (2011). Motivational interviewing in social work practice. The Guilford Press.
Holman, P. (2010). Engaging emergence: Turning upheaval into opportunity. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Horlings, L. G. (2016). Connecting people to place: sustainable place-shaping practices as
transformative power. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 32-40.
Howard, P. H. (2012). Increasing community participation with self-organizing meeting
processes. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 27(2), 118.
Howitt, P. (2010). Endogenous growth theory. In S. Durlauf & L. Blume (eds). Economic
Growth. Palgrave McMillian.
Huang, F. & Rice, J. (2013). Does open innovation work better in regional clusters?
Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 19(1), 85-120.
Huggins, R. & Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a
network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 103-128.
doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9643-3
Hurley, T. J., & Brown, J. (2009). Conversational leadership: thinking together for a change,
The Systems Thinker, 20(9), Pegasus Communications.
Ife, J. (2010). Human rights and social justice. In M. Gray & S. Webb (Eds), Ethics and value
perspectives in social work (pp. 148–159). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jayne, M., Gibson, C., Waitt, G., & Bell, D. (2010). The cultural economy of small cities.
Geography Compass 4(9), 1408-1417. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00380.x
Jewell, C. (2017). Port Augusta’s solar thermal dream comes through. The Fifth Estate.
Retrieved from https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/energy-lead/local-government-
energy-lead/port-augustas-solar-thermal-dream-comes-through/94522
Jorgenson, J., & Steier, F. (2013) Frames, framing, and designed conversation processes:
Lessons from the World Café. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(10).
doi: 10.1177/0021886313484511
Kapucu, N. (2011). Social capital and civic engagement. International Journal of Social
Inquiry, 4(1).
Keast, R. (2011). Joined-up governance in Australia: how the past can inform the future.
International Journal of Public Administration, 34(4), 221-231.
doi:10.1080/01900692.2010.549799
Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2014). The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and
gaining evidence. Journal of Management & Governance, 18(1), 9-28.
Killerby, P., & Wallis, J. (2002). Social capital and social economics. In Forum for Social
Economics, 32 (1), 21-32. Taylor & Francis Group.
Kotey, B., & Sorensen, A. (2014). Barriers to small business innovation in rural Australia.
Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 20(3), 405.
Lambe, W. (2008). Small towns big ideas: Case studies in small town community
Liamputtong, P. (2013). Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based
practice. (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Ling, C., & Dale, A. (2013). Agency and social capital: characteristics and dynamics.
Community Development Journal, 49(1), 4-20.
Linn, R. (2017). Electricity, SA history hub, history trust of South Australia. Retrieved from
http://sahistoryhub.com.au/subjects/electricity, accessed 30 July 2017.
Liu, C. (2011). The effects of innovation alliance on network structure and density of cluster.
Expert Systems with Applictions, 38, 299-305. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.064
Local Government Association (LGA). (2015). LGA Statement on economic development.
Local Government Association of South Australia
Lorenzetti, L., Azulai, A., & Walsh, C. A. (2016). Addressing power in conversation:
Enhancing the transformative learning capacities of the World Café. Journal of
Transformative Education, 14(3). doi: 10.1177/1541344616634889
McCall, T. (2010). What do we mean by regional development. Institute of Regional
Development, University of Tasmania. Retrieved from
www.utas.edu.au/__data/.../McCall,T.-2010,-What-is-Regional-Development.pdf
Mangoyana, R. B., & Collits, P. (2014). Collaboration for regional development: A case
study of Wide Bay Burnett. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 20(3), 430.
Markey, S., Connelly, S., & Roseland, M. (2010). ‘Back of the envelope’: Pragmatic
planning for sustainable rural community development. Planning Practice &
Research, 25(1), 1-23. doi:10.1080/02697451003625356
Maru, Y. T., McAllister, R. R., & Smith, M. S. (2007). Modelling community interactions
and social capital dynamics: the case of regional and rural communities of Australia.
Agricultural Systems, 92(1), 179-200. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2006.03.005
Mayer, H., & Knox, P. (2010). Small-town sustainability: Prospects in the second modernity.
European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1545-1565.
doi: 10.1080/09654313.2010.504336
Measham, T. G., Darbas, T., Williams, R., & Taylor, B. (2012). Rethinking rural futures:
Qualitative scenarios for reflexive regional development. Rural Society, 21(3), 176-
189. doi:10.5172/rsj.2012.21.3.176
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2014). Motivational Interviewing, third edition helping people
change (3rd ed). New York: Guildford Publications
Morrison, E. (2012). Network–based engagement for Universities: Leveraging the power of
open networks. Paper presented at the Prepared for the 10th PASCAL International
Observatory Conference: The Role of Higher Education in Local and Regional Social
and Economic Development.
Murphy, L., Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2016). Social capital and innovation: A
comparative analysis of regional policies. Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy, 34(6), 1025-1057.
National Innovation and Science Agenda. (2017). Innovation in agriculture and regional
areas. Retrieved from https://www.innovation.gov.au/page/innovation-agriculture-
and-regional-areas
Neal, Z. (2015). Making big communities small: Using network science to understand the
ecological and behavioural requirements for community social capital. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3-4), 369-380. doi:10.1007/s10464-015-9720-4
Nel, E., & Stevenson, T. (2014). The catalysts of small town economic development in a free
market economy: A case study of New Zealand. Local Economy, 29(4-5), 486-502.
O’Donoghue, K., & Maidment, J. (2005). The ecological systems metaphor in Australasia.
Social work theories in action, 1, 32-49.
Owen, M. (2017, February 28). Region in revolt: ring of despair in ‘iron triangle’. The
Australian. Retrieved from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/region-in-revolt-ring-of-despair-in-
iron-triangle/news-story/5127dbb6e748d82d936789ed9a1c9a46
Pérez-Luño, A., Cabello, C., Lavado, A. C., & Rodríguez, G. C. (2011). How social capital
and knowledge affect innovation. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1369-1376.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.014
Plummer, P., Tonts, M., & Martinus, K. (2014). Endogenous growth, local competitiveness
and regional development: Western Australia's regional cities, 2001-2011. Journal of
Economic and Social Policy, 16(1).
Port Augusta City Council (PACC). (2016) Community vision and strategic plan (3rd ed).
Retrieved from https://www.portaugusta.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/PACC_-
_STRAT_PLAN.pdf
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a
global economy, Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15-34, Sage Publications.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard
Business Review, 89(1), 2.
Prewitt, V. (2011). Working in the Cafe: Lessons in group dialogue, The Learning
Organisation, 18(3), 189-202. doi:10.1108/09696471111123252
Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU). (2013). Population health profile: of
the Port Augusta Local Government Area to assist in the preparation of the Regional
Public Health Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.atlasesaustralia.com.au/profile/Port_Augusta.pdf
Puga, D. (2010). The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. Journal of
Regional Science, 50(1), 203-219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00657.x
Putnam, R., (1993) Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton
University press.
Rogers, K., Luton, R., Biggs, H., Biggs, R. O., Blignaut, S., Choles, A., Palmer, C. G., &
Tangwe, P. (2013). Fostering complexity thinking in action research for change in
social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(2).
Roseta-Palma, C., Ferreira-Lopes, A., & Sequeira, T. N. (2010). Externalities in an
endogenous growth model with social and natural capital. Ecological Economics,
69(3), 603-612.
Rutten, R., & Boekema, F. (2007). Regional social capital: Embeddedness, innovation
networks and regional economic development. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 74(9), 1834-1846.
Saleebey, D. (2009). The strengths perspective in social work practice: extensions and
caustions, Social Work, 41(3):296-305.
Sandfort, J., & Quick, K. S. (2015). Building deliberative capacity to create public
value. Public Value and Public Administration, 39.
Sandfort, J., Stuber, N., & Quick, K. (2012). Practicing the art of hosting: Exploring what art
of hosting and harvesting workshop participants understand and do. University of
Minnesota’s Center for Integrative Leadership: Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sanger, M., & Giddings, M.G. (2012). A simple approach to complexity theory. Journal of
Social Work Education, 48(2), 369-376. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2012.201000025
Schieffer, A., Isaacs, D., & Gyllenpalm, B. (2004). The world café: Part one. World, 18(8), 1-
9.
Sequeira, T. N, & Ferreira-Lopes, A. (2011). An endogenous growth model with human and
social capital interactions. Review of Social Economy, 69(4), 465-493.
doi:10.1080/00346764.2011.592330
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (4th ed.). London:
Sage
Storper, M. (2010). Agglomeration, trade, and spatial development: Bringing dynamics back
in. Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 313-342.
Strategic Doing. (2017) Retrieved from strategicdoing.net website
http://strategicdoing.net/intro/
Strategic Economic Solutions (SES). (2016). Port Augusta Economic Growth and Investment
Strategy. Regional Development Australia Far North. Retrieved from
http://www.rdafn.com.au/_literature_215972/Port_Augusta_EGIS
Tan, S., & Brown, J. (2005). The world café in Singapore: Creating a learning culture
through dialogue. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(1), 83-90.
doi:10.1177/0021886304272851
Thompson, W. T., Steier, F., & Ostrenko, W. (2014). Designing communication process for
the design of an idea zone at a science center. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 42(2), 208-226. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.874570
Trendle, B. (2006). Regional economic instability: The role of industrial diversification and
spatial spillovers. The Annals of Regional Science, 40(4).
doi:10.1007/s00168-005-0055-1
Verhage, E. B., & Jacobs, S. (2016). Facilitating appreciative inquiry in combination with the
World Café method in a low socio-economic environment. Action Learning and Action
Research Journal, 22(1), 184.
Vinson, T., Rawsthorne, M., Beavis, A., & Ericson, M. (2015). Dropping off the edge. Jesuit
Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia, Melbourne.
Vorrath, S. (2013). Solar warrior, Port Augusta mayor Joy Baluch dies, age 80.
Reneweconomy. Retrieved from http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-warrior-port-
augusta-mayor-joy-baluch-dies-age-80-57352/
Wadlata Outback Centre. (2017). Port Augusta history. Retrieved from
http://www.wadlata.sa.gov.au/site/pages/port_augusta_history.php?resetbrand=1
Wang, M. & Hu, X. (2012). Agent-based modelling and simulation of community collective
efficacy. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(4), 463-487.
doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9107-0
Waterhouse, J., & Keast, R. (2012). Strategizing public sector human resource management:
The implications of working in networks. International Journal of Public
Administration, 35(8), 562-576. doi:10.1080/01900692.2012.662782
Webber (1993) What’s so new about the new economy? Harvard Business Review, 71(1), 24.
Woodhouse, A. (2006). Social capital and economic development in regional Australia.
Journal of Rural Studies 22, 83–94.
World Café. (2015). Café to go: A quick reference guide for hosting World Café. Retrieved
from theworldcafe.com website: http://www.theworldcafe.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/Cafe-To-Go-Revised.pdf
World Café. (2017). Image Bank. Retrieved from theworldcafe.com website
http://www.theworldcafe.com/tools-store/hosting-tool-kit/image-bank/book-images/
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Yin, R. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish (1st ed.). New York: Guilford
Publications.
Appendix A: Core Hosting Team
Information for Participants
My name is Megan Smith and I am conducting this research as part of my Masters in Economic
and Regional Development in the School of Business at the University of New England. My
supervisors are Associate Professor Rene Villano and Dr Stuart Mounter.
I wish to invite you to participate in my research project, described below.
Research Project
Evaluating the relationship between community engagement and
collaborative networks in local communities: scoping the
effectiveness of the Art-of-Hosting framework.
Aim of the research
This research aims to examine the relationship between community
engagement and collaborative networks and scoping the
effectiveness of the art-of-hosting forums in building and
strengthening collaborative networks in a local community.
What is the Core
Hosting Team?
The Core Hosting Team is a small group of people who are
interested in the topic of exploring how the community of Port
Augusta can respond to modern economic challenges.
Role of Core Hosting
Team
The primary focus of the Core Hosting Team is to:
• Work to identify suitable ‘calling questions’ for both the
World Café and Pro-Action Café events, through a series of
discussions facilitated by the researcher.
• Promote the World Café and Pro-Action Café events through
your own local networks to ensure a broad range of
participation by local community members.
• Participate in the World Café and Pro-Action Café events.
• Some Core Hosting Team members may also wish to jointly
host the World Café or Pro-Action Café with the researcher.
What is a calling
question?
The calling question is a question that has relevance to the topic of
local communities addressing modern economic challenges. It
forms the basis of our broad invitations to the community and its
aim is to get people interested in being a part of a local
conversation about solutions.
What is a World
Café?
A World Café is a facilitated series of conversations that allows
the community to explore questions that matter. The format
encourages diverse contributions from broad participants and
offers an opportunity to connect ideas together so that collective
knowledge becomes visible.
What does the
research involve?
The researcher will host two half day forums, a World Café and a
Pro-Action Café. Participants to both forums will be sourced from
the broad local networks of Core Hosting Team members.
Forum participants will then be invited to participate in the
research through a questionnaire or small focus groups.
Core Hosting Team members are invited to participate in the
small focus group and questionnaire activities as well as the
World Café and Pro-Action Café forums.
Participation is
Voluntary
Please understand that your involvement in the Core Hosting
Team is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time during this
process.
Approval
This project has been approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of New England (Approval
No………., Valid to ../../….).
Contact details
Feel free to contact me with any questions about this research by
email at msmit218@myune.edu.au.
You may also contact my supervisors.
My Principal supervisor, Associate Professor Rene Villano, can be
contacted by email at rvillan2@une.edu.au or by telephone on 02
6773 2027.
My Co-supervisor, Dr Stuart Mounter, can be contacted by email
at smounte2@une.edu.au or by telephone on 02 6773 3159.
Complaints
Should you have any complaints concerning the manner in which
this research is conducted, please contact:
Mrs Jo-Ann Sozou
Research Ethics Officer
Research Services
University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351
Tel: (02) 6773 3449
Email: ethics@une.edu.au
Thank you for anticipated cooperation.
Megan Smith
Appendix B: World Café Invite
Appendix C: World Café Round Questions
Appendix D: World Café Assumptions
What is a World Café?
It’s a conversation with purpose,
around atopic that matters.
The café is a provocative
metaphor that reflects the
broad conversations we have
throughout our lives and
communities.
Core Assumptions
•Each person’s contribution is
valuable.
•That you’re here because you
are interested in the question.
•The knowledge and wisdom
needed for solutions is in the
room right now.
What do I need from you?
•Be courageous.
•Foster possibility &feel the force.
•Be present.
•Listen.
•Look for the collective knowledge.
Core Assumptions
That collective knowledge,
intelligence and creative
solutions to complex problems
emerge as the ‘system’ connects
in new and different ways.
If collective insight evolves from
connecting ideas', then noticing
the unique contributions of all
those participating is important.
Appendix E: World Café Core Research Themes
A bit about my research
Adapting)business)development)concepts)to)a)community)setting,
because)in)regional)communities,)community)development)is)economic)development
From Smoke-stack
chasing to
Endogenous
Collaboration
From comparative to collaborative
advantage and competitive edge.
Small Towns -Big Ideas
•The language we use builds the community we live in.
•Risk and failure are part of the journey.
•Alternative perspectives are important, although not always
heard.
•Empowered communities, with acommon vision and along-
term plan, are more successful at adapting to the challenges
and opportunities of globalization.
•Regional towns can position themselves to be competitive,
taking advantage of technology and global market flows.
•The most powerful resource a small town has is its people.
•Innovation is a collaborative scaffolding of ideas and
knowledge
Appendix F: Whole of Forum Questionnaire
Before World Café Questionnaire
1. Based on my experience, I consider I am …………… to my local community.
a) Extremely connected
b) Very connected
c) Moderately connected
d) Slightly connected
e) Not at all connected
2. I am ……………. that a well-connected Port Augusta community, can respond to
modern economic challenges.
a) Extremely confident
b) Very confident
c) Moderately confident
d) Slightly confident
e) Not at all confident
3. I am …………… to connect with the local community to respond to modern
economic challenges.
a) Extremely motivated
b) Very motivated
c) Moderately motivated
d) Slightly motivated
e) Not at all motivated
4. I am …………… that creative ideas from this community are integral to how Port
Augusta responds to the economic challenges facing the town.
a) Extremely confident
b) Very confident
c) Moderately confident
d) Slightly confident
e) Not at all confident
5. I am …………… that the particular strengths of this community are integral to
how Port Augusta responds to the economic challenges facing the town.
a) Extremely confident
b) Very confident
c) Moderately confident
d) Slightly confident
e) Not at all confident
6. I am …………… that my community can work together to support creative ideas
in responding to the economic challenges facing Port Augusta.
a) Extremely confident
b) Very confident
c) Moderately confident
d) Slightly confident
e) Not at all confident
7. I am …………… to better understand the views of others in my community around
the issues facing this community.
a) Extremely motivated
b) Very motivated
c) Moderately motivated
d) Slightly motivated
e) Not at all motivated
8. I am …………… about Port Augusta’s ability to respond to modern economic
challenges.
a) Extremely hopeful
b) Very hopeful
c) Moderately hopeful
d) Slightly hopeful
e) Not at all hopeful
After World Café Questionnaire
1) The World Café has …………… increased how connected I am to my local
community.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
2) The World Café has ……………increased my confidence that a well-connected Port
Augusta community can respond to modern economic challenges.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
3) The World Café has …………… increased how motivated I am to connect with my
local community to respond to modern economic challenges.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
4) The World Café has …………… increased how confident I am that creative ideas
from this community are integral to our responses to economic challenges.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
5) The World Café has …………… increased how confident I am that the particular
strengths of this community are integral to how Port Augusta responds to the
economic challenges facing the town.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
6) The World Café has …………… increased how confident I am that my community
can work together to support creative ideas in responding to the economic challenges
facing Port Augusta.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
7) The World Café has ……………. increased how committed I am to working to
support creative ideas from this community in response to economic challenges.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
8) The World Café has ………. Increased my motivation to better understand the views
of others in my community around the issues facing this community.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
9) The World Café has …………… increased how hopeful I am that the community of
Port Augusta can respond to the economic challenges facing this community.
a. Definitely
b. Moderately
c. Not at all
Appendix G: World Café Questionnaire
Information Sheet for Participants
I wish to invite you to participate in my research project, described below.
My name is Megan Smith and I am conducting this research as part of my Masters in
Economic and Regional Development in the School of Business at the University of New
England. My supervisors are Associate Professor Rene Villano and Dr Stuart Mounter.
Research Project
Evaluating the relationship between community engagement
and collaborative networks in local communities: scoping the
effectiveness of the Art-of-Hosting (AOH) framework.
Aim of the research
This research aims to examine the relationship between
community engagement and collaborative networks and
scoping the effectiveness of the art-of-hosting forums in
building and strengthening collaborative networks in a local
community.
Questionnaire
As an attendee of the World Café you are invited to participate
in this research by circling the answer that best completes the
sentence.
The questionnaire will take approximately 10 minutes.
Please complete Section One of this Questionnaire
immediately before the commencement of the World Café.
Please complete Section Two of the Questionnaire
immediately after the World Café.
Please do not separate your responses to Section One or
Section Two of this questionnaire. It is important Section One
and Section Two responses be submitted together.
Please leave your completed questionnaire in the Drop Box
provided upon leaving today. If you choose not to participate
still leave your blank questionnaire in the Drop Box provided.
Confidentiality
This questionnaire is anonymous, please do not write your name
on the questionnaire.
Participation is
Voluntary
Please understand that your involvement in this study is
voluntary and I respect your right to withdraw from the study.
You may decide not to complete the questionnaire and this
will have no bearing on your ability to participate in this (or
subsequent) forums associated with this research.
Consent
By completing and returning the questionnaire you are giving
your consent for the data to be used as specified.
Use of information
I will use information from the interview as part of my Master’s
thesis, which I expect to complete in November of 2017.
Information from this questionnaire may also be used in
academic journal articles and conference presentations before
and after this date.
Storage of
information
Questionnaire hardcopies will be kept in my home office.
Interpretation of these questionnaires will be kept
electronically. Any electronic data will be kept on a password
protected computer in my home office or on cloud.une.edu.au
during the active term of the research. Only the research team
will have access to the data.
Disposal of
information
All the data collected in this research will be kept for a
minimum of five years after successful submission of my thesis,
after which it will be disposed of by deleting relevant computer
files, and destroying or shredding hardcopy materials.
Approval
This project has been approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of New England (Approval No:
HE17-08, Valid to 22/05/2018).
Contact details
Feel free to contact me with any questions about this research
by email at msmit218@myune.edu.au.
You may also contact my supervisors.
My Principal supervisor is Associate Professor Rene Villano,
he can be contacted by email at rvillan2@une.edu.au or by
telephone on 02 6773 2027.
My Co-supervisor is Dr Stuart Mounter, he can be contacted by
email at smounte2@une.edu.au or by telephone on 02 6773
3159.
Complaints
Should you have any complaints concerning the manner in
which this research is conducted, please contact:
Mrs Jo-Ann Sozou
Research Ethics Officer
Research Services
University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351
Tel: (02) 6773 3449
Email: ethics@une.edu.au
Thank you for anticipated cooperation.
Megan Smith
Appendix H: Focus Group Invite Email
Hello World Café participant,
Thank you for registering your intention to participate in the upcoming Port Augusta World
Café event.
Focus Groups
As part of my research into this topic I am looking for (a minimum of) 5 participants to
volunteer to be a part of two focus group discussions, one immediately before and a second the
day after, the World Café event.
It is anticipated each focus groups will take about 60 min, although they may go longer
dependant on participant interest and time commitments (but not longer than 90 min). The first
will occur the morning of the World Café (Tuesday 8th August) and the second the morning
after the World Café (Wednesday 9th August) - although I can be flexible about the date/ time
of the second cafe as required.
The focus groups will ask a set of questions exploring your experience of the World Café as a
style of facilitation and your thoughts about its potential to build or strengthen networks and
collective action.
There is no expectation for you to attend the focus groups and participation is completely
voluntary. You may wish to attend one or both of the focus groups.
If you are interested in participating in the focus group activities, as I drill down into participant
experience for my research, please reply to this email.
If the focus group component is not for you, I look forward to meeting you and hearing your
contribution to the topic at the World Café event.
On the day
Although this event will not be formally catered for, I am hoping to provide some cheese and
fruit platters to sustain participants energy and concentration.
Building momentum
I would appreciate if you could forward the attached invitation through to your networks as we
look to build broad participation at the World Café from across the community. Please feel free
also to talk about this to your colleagues and contacts in the community.
In the meantime, don't hesitate to contact me should you require any clarification about the
venue, topic or process.
Looking forward to working with you on the 8th,
Kind regards,
Megan Smithy
Appendix I: Focus Groups
Information sheet for participants
I wish to invite you to participate in my research project, described below.
My name is Megan Smith and I am conducting this research as part of my Masters in
Economic and Regional Development in the School of Business at the University of
New England. My supervisors are Associate Professor Rene Villano and Dr Stuart
Mounter.
Research
Project
Evaluating the relationship between community engagement and
collaborative networks in local communities: scoping the
effectiveness of the Art-of-Hosting framework.
Aim of the
research
This research aims to examine the relationship between community
engagement and collaborative networks and scoping the
effectiveness of the art-of-hosting forums in building and
strengthening collaborative networks in a local community.
strategies that might prove to be useful innovative ways the
community of Port Augusta can respond to local challenges.
Format
As an attendee to the World Café you are invited to be a part
of this research by participating in the focus group session.
The focus group will take approximately 70 minutes.
Participants will be asked to comment on a series of
questions. The conversation will be recorded and later
transcribed.
Group conventions, to be discussed further at the
introduction of the focus group, will guide our discussions.
These include:
• Confidentiality
• Speaking one at a time
• Everybody’s view is valid
• Open and respectful debate
Definitions
Collaborative Networks: interconnected groups working together.
Collective Efficacy: the ability of a group of people working
together to produce a desired result.
Confidentiality
and anonymity
Your personal insights and perspectives are integral to this research
process. I may, in the course of writing about or presenting insights
from this research, like to quote some of your responses to the focus
group questions.
During the focus group you will be assigned a number and your
responses grouped to that number. The identify of each number will
only be known by the research team.
Direct quotes used by the researcher will only be identifiable by
their assigned number.
Participation is
Voluntary
Please understand that your involvement in this focus group is
voluntary and I respect your right to withdraw from the study at any
time without consequence and without needing to provide an
explanation.
Use of
information
I will use information from the interview as part of my Masters
thesis, which I expect to complete in November of 2017.
Information from the interview may also be used in academic
journal articles and conference presentations before and after this
date. At all times, I will safeguard your identity by presenting the
information in a way that will not allow you to be identified.
Upsetting Issues
It is unlikely that this research will raise any personal or upsetting
issues, if it does you may wish to contact Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Storage of
information
I will keep all focus group hardcopy notes and recordings in a
locked cabinet in my home office. Any electronic data will be kept
on a password protected computer in the same location and on the
University of New England’s IT could storage system. Only the
research team will have access to the data.
Disposal of
information
All the data collected in this research will be kept for a minimum of
five years after successful submission of my thesis, after which it
will be disposed of by deleting relevant computer files, and
destroying or shredding hardcopy materials.
Approval
This project has been approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of New England (Approval
No………., Valid to ../../….).
Contact details
Please contact me at any time with questions about this research by
email at msmit218@myune.ed.au.
You may also contact my supervisors.
My Principal supervisor is Associate Professor Renato (Rene)
Villano, he can be contacted by email at rvillian2@une.edu.au or by
telephone on 02 6773 2027.
My Co-supervisor is Dr Stuart Mounter, he can be contacted by
email at smounte2@une.edu.au and or telephone on 02 6773 3159.
Complaints
Should you have any complaints concerning the manner in which
this research is conducted, please contact:
Mrs Jo-Ann Sozou
Research Ethics Officer
Research Services
University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351
Tel: (02) 6773 3449
Email: ethics@une.edu.au
Thank you,
Megan Smith
Appendix J: Focus Group Consent Form
Research Project: Evaluating the relationship between community engagement and
collaborative networks in local communities: scoping the effectiveness of the Art-of-Hosting
framework.
I, ……………………………………………………………………….., have read the
information contained in the Information Sheet for Participants and any questions I have asked
have been answered to my satisfaction.
Yes/No
I agree to participate in this activity, realizing that I may withdraw at any time.
Yes/No
I consent to being assigned a pseudonym by the researcher to protect my identity.
Yes/ No
I agree that in gathering research data for the study I may be quoted and published using this
pseudonym.
Yes/No
I am older than 18 years of age.
Yes/No
…………………………….. ………………………….
Participant Date
…………………………….. ………………………
Researcher Date
Appendix K: Focus Group Outline and Questions
Before Focus Group
Introduction (15 min)
§ Introduce the research
§ Aim and format of the focus group
§ Conventions
§ Anonymity of participants, assigning participants a label in transcribing
conversation (i.e. Frank = Participant One, Mary = Two, George +
Three, etc.)
§ Confidentiality
§ Speak one at a time
§ Recording
§ Everybody’s view is valid
§ Open and respectful debate
§ Generation of a report of proceedings
§ Definitions (derived from the Oxford English Dictionary online)
o Collaborative Networks: interconnected groups working
together.
o Collective Efficacy: the ability of a group of people working
together to produce a desired result.
§ Personal introduction of participants
Discussion Topics/ Questions (45 min)
a) What are the economic challenges facing this economy?
b) How important are collaborative networks to supporting local solutions
to these challenges?
c) What supports/ has supported collaboration in this community?
d) What thwarts/ has thwarted collaboration in this community?
e) How important is collective efficacy to finding solutions to these
challenges?
f) How might strong collaboration across local networks support local
collective efficacy.
Summary & Close (5 min)
After Focus Group
Introduction (15 min)
• Introduce the research
• Aim and format of the focus group
• Conventions
• Anonymity of participants, assigning participants a label in transcribing conversation
(i.e. Frank = Participant One, Mary = Two, George + Three, etc.)
• Confidentiality
• Speak one at a time
• Recording
• Everybody’s view is valid
• Open and respectful debate
• Generation of a report of proceedings
• Definitions (derived from the Oxford English Dictionary online)
o Collaborative Networks: interconnected groups working together.
o Collective Efficacy: the ability of a group of people working together to produce a
desired result.
• Personal introduction of participants
Discussion Topics/ Questions (45 min)
a) What was your experience of the World Café?
b) Have you made new network connections, or strengthened existing connections as a
result of your participation in the World Café? How and when did you notice this
occurring?
c) How might the World Café contribute to building or strengthening collaborative
network connections within or across this local community?
d) What examples of this did you see today?
e) How might strong collaboration across networks support local solutions to the
current economic challenges facing this community?
f) How might the World Café contribute to supporting emerging local solutions to
current economic challenges?
Summary & Close (5 min)
Appendix L: Harvest
Summary of Core Themes
Aspirations and Opportunities / Strengths and Assets
• Collaboration
• Sustainable renewables
• Diversification
o Economic
o Social
• Renewable energy
• Geographical location
• Aboriginal culture
• Tourism
Challenges/ Needs
• Changing community attitude
o Long term
o Moving to entrepreneurial thinking
o Linking
• Avenues to get ideas out
• Changing thinking
• Common ground/ motivation
• Needs a driver
Actions/ Next steps
• Community Shark Tank
o Mentoring
o Support
o Recording information in community friendly way
o Using infographics
• Facebook page of business ideas
o Pop-up discussions
• Community working together
o United vision
• Clear ideas
Individual Table Harvest
Table One - Summary
New Links
• Universities
• Big online business
• Kids, first adapters
• Re-imagine – business Port Augusta – think tank.
• Sustainable communities
o Solar
o NGO’s/ Charities
• What can the prison bring?
• Entrepreneurs!!
o Culture change
o Business re-invention
Vision
• Optimism
• Housing Stock
• Collaborative with Pirie and Whyalla
• Community connectedness
• Resilience
• Learning from the past – current – future
• Focus on experimental economics
• Enablers – education
Sharing our Wisdom
• Council
o Town manager/ CEO
o RDA, need a manager to manage the idea
• Media
o News
o Trans
• Social Media
• Finding the leaders, and supporting the leader.
Table One
Round One (hopes and opportunities)
Ø Cultural resources – cultural tourism hub.
• Tourism in Port Augusta
o Customer service
o Optimism
o The gulf
o The flinders
o Kayaking
o Environment
o Geology
o Arid lands (Sahara and Egypt)
Ø Most important is children and grandchildren
Ø It keeps going – adapting new technologies etc
o Opportunities to be world leaders
Ø Need a change of government – Port Augusta overlooked
o Opportunities
o Road management plan require transport & infrastructure
o Yorkey’s crossing
o Old/ new bridge
Ø Don’t lose the trust between ourselves
o Non-FIFO based here
Ø Using the rail-line to Leigh Creek and extend to Innaminca
o Use new technology to extract
Ø Combine tourism infrastructure to attract students in astronomy & geology
Ø Improved housing stock – not renewed
Ø Make Tequila or Gin!
Ø Community infrastructure maintained
o The jetty
o Old bridge
Ø There will be a job for everyone
Ø Schools that children want to attend
o Curriculum that meets board range of needs
o Use of technology
Ø Small businesses
o Medical marijuana
o Tequila
Ø Distribution hub – build on the technology available
Ø Shops all used (not exclusively retail)
Ø Wharf developed – tourism, heritage
Ø Fine food options
Ø Experiential tourism – food
Ø Solar farm – leaders in solar technology
Ø Optimism about the community, the state, the nation.
Ø Resilience of our individuals, families
Ø Has a strong voice politically and socially
Ø Continue beautification of the city in terms of infrastructure
Ø Working with Pirie and Whyalla to develop the region
Ø Positive relationships
Round Two (strengths and assets)
Ø Solar and wind energy
o Re-Power Port Augusta
o Sundrop
Ø Carapateena mining – smelter
Ø Sporting clubs
Ø Dance – 4 clubs – kids
Ø Good schools + a range of services
o TAFE
o Hospitals
o Tourism
Ø Council has a vision
o Education
o Arts (the platform & Yarta
Ø Aboriginal Community
o NAIDOC festival
Ø Port Augusta Racing Club
Ø Archers Table, the Western Hotel, The Pastoral
Ø Business owners – wisdom to change with the market
o Herveys
o MJ Geldhart
o Blue Mangrove
Ø Location, location, location
o Transport – roads, rails, port
Ø Build on the tripolis – yachts, cruising community
Ø Fishing – crabs, dinghy’s
Ø Aquatic clubs – kayaking, etc
Ø Sundrop – tomatoes
Ø Foreshore is a strength
Ø Proximity to Pirie and Whyalla
Ø ‘Beach’ – wheelchair access
Ø Community spirit – can develop
Ø ACEG – have now been around for a while – established
Ø Good social support
o NGO’s, Youth Centre etc,
o Restorative programs could be developed build resilience & skills
o Life skills, ADLs
Ø Adelaide Uni & Uni SA (Whyalla)
Ø Geology and clear skies (astronomy)
Ø Cultural – geological trails
Ø Cultana – military
Ø Woomera is very close
Ø Health Services
o NDIS
o New grads, constant connections to Unis, new information
o Aboriginal Health Services
o Tele-link
Round Three (challenges)
Ø Amazon – on-line businesses
Ø Retail distribution center
Ø Being less dependent on big business and government
Ø Use our own successful entrepreneurs
o Use other entrepreneurs
o Retirees & older people as mentors
Ø Philosophy – reinvention of business
Ø Geo-coaching – early adopters
o Using kids to identify the next ‘big thing’
Ø Have free things for locals – bring friends and relatives
Ø Gown attitude of entrepreneurship
Ø Business think tanks – can Business Port Augusta do this? Contribute ideas?
Ø Precincts – food, etc
Ø Using ‘poverty’
o Recycle – re-use
o Sustainable community
o No waste
o Oz harvest type cafes
o Link to housing renewal
o Link to arid lands
o Link to Pirie e-waste
Ø Universities
Ø More sessions around the value of collaboration
Ø National Policies – link with government
Ø Culture – internal ability
o Disband/ refresh Business Port Augusta
o Tourism group set up
o Industry group
o Clothing group
Ø Prison labor – what can we make in Port Augusta
Ø Would like help from entrepreneurs
Ø Social Media
Round Four (next steps)
Ø Collaboration – individuals, businesses
Ø Community Drivers
o Groups of people who assist
o Possibility – linkages person
o Community development officer
Ø Mentor – who can they speak to?
Ø Sustainability/ renewables/ water
o Eco-village
Ø Tourism
Ø Aboriginal cultural assets
Ø Diversity
o Refugees
o Immigrants
o New citizens
Ø World Heritage
Ø Possible to link together – but need motivated individuals and groups
What’s Next?
Ø Momentum – promote the sustainable community (solar)
Ø Marketing
o Pitch Port Augusta
o Promote the vision
o ‘see de-energy’
Ø is the motivating factor – reducing household and business costs
Ø Bringing related businesses together
Ø Use Business Port Augusta
o Regional Development Australia?
o Council?
o Social Media
Table Two
Round One (hopes and opportunities)
Ø Flourish – $$$ - Diversification – Globalization
Ø Community strength – common understanding
Ø Employment ® apprenticeship ® trades ® skilled workforce ® industry
Ø Innovators – manufacturers
Ø Multi-cultural/ arts
Ø De-centralization
Ø Making the regions (Port Augusta) A success
Ø ‘you don’t need to move to be successful!!!!’
Ø Change adaptation – new people/ new ideas
Ø Stagnant ® change ® reinvent ourselves
Ø Progressive
Ø ‘learn from the past. Live for the future’
Round Two (strengths and assets)
Ø Renewables
o Diverse
o Sustainable
o Maximize local employment
Ø Mining
Ø BHP
Ø Oz minerals
Ø Arrium
Ø Tourism
Ø Social Trends – lifestyle
Ø Resilient (self-critics)
Ø Passion – optimistic
Ø Location
Ø Water (gulf)
Round Three (challenges)
Ø Collective vision – a plan
o What ways can council engage citizens?
o Leadership and inspiration
Ø Avenue to get ideas out to broader community
o Communicating across
Ø What is the community engagement plan? How is it implemented?
Ø Strategy committee?
o Community consultation
Ø Vision ® Assessment ® community consultation
o Town Hall
o World Café distilled conversations
o Committees
Ø Who can you ask for help?
o Wide variety of participation
o business owners to work together
o development boards
o health boards
Ø Action and drivers (is that the council’s role?)
Ø Networked connections vs silos
Ø University links
Table Three
Round One (hopes and opportunities)
Ø 13 year’s time
Ø Renewable energy hub of Australia
o Encompass all (National)
Ø First nations/ hub for/ celebrating our diverse Aboriginal cultures
o Renowned/ known for
o embraced by whole of community
Ø Port Augusta is known for
o Oldest living culture in the world
o New opportunities
o Bridging old and new together
§ Weave together
§ Strong community
o Old aged tradition and modern ways bought together
Ø Making better use of resources and knowledge we already have locally
Eg Aboriginal knowledge and perspective
Ø Finding common ground and motivators
Ø Broad spectrum of opportunities of jobs
(choice not limited due to geography)
Ø Community Pride
Ø Be a place people want to stop – a proper crossroads/ tourist destination/ new fresh
identify/ statement
Ø Changing the face – re-development, get rid of ‘eye-sore’ spaces, old railways, etc
Ø Variety of options of things to do – different ages
o A community that embraces new experiences and advocates for things.
Ø Individuals recognizing their strengths, passions, what good we bring to the table,
working better together, getting the leaders eg council to value the people. People
make the town.
Core Themes
Ø Hub
Ø Embracing what we have
Ø Choice
o Jobs
o Social
Ø Weaving old and new together
Ø A place people want to come
Ø New identity – what is our statement?
Round Two (strengths and assets)
What advantages/ opportunities can you see on the horizon?
Ø Renewable energy – projects already in the pipeline (source resources locally)
Ø NBN – global connection
Ø Our growing diverse Aboriginal community
Ø Immigrants – growth
Ø Local production of resource for projects
Ø Sundrop farms – brings overseas people here who spend money here
Ø Hub for environmental leaders
o Recycled water
o Solar/ renewable energy
o Heritage
Ø Opportunities for people to sell their stuff
What strengths already exist within the community that you might need or draw upon?
Ø Tourism
Ø People, local champions, local knowledge
Ø Resilience
Ø Long-term residents
Ø Positive outlooks
Ø People who take risks in the face of diversity
Ø Community/ individuals who stand up for Port Augusta
What are the economic, social, cultural and environmental assets of this town?
Ø Location/ geographic – outback meets the sea, crossroads of Australia
Ø Spencer Gulf/ the water/ Flinders Ranges
Ø Diverse cultural population/ Languages
Ø Pichi Richi/ old train station/ Art Gallery/ Mama Lou’s
Ø Arid Lands
Ø Socially – sport culture
Ø New complex
Who in this community has already begun this work?
Ø PACC
Ø Established groups, volunteer groups: rotary, Lions, PAPA, Art Group, Music Club,
PTA Writers, Photographers, Dance Groups,
Ø Arts officer (PACC)
Ø Business Port Augusta
Ø RDA
Where in this community has the work already begun?
Ø Bungala Aboriginal Corporation (solar project)
Ø PACC
Ø Sundrop
Ø DSD/ state
Ø Commonwealth
Ø Independent MP’s
Ø RDA
Round Three (challenges)
What else is needed to create this broad vision?
Ø Turn around in thinking so people know they need to do something
Ø New thinking
Ø Less segregation, more cohesiveness, better relationships
Ø Strong leadership, new and different leadership that takes the whole community with
it
Ø As a community decide what the vision is, what it looks like and how we are going to
promote ourselves (belie in that vision)
Who can you ask for help? Whose help would you like?
Ø PACC
Ø Community People
Ø Tourism SA
Ø State Government
What connections/ networks/ contacts can be leveraged off as a community?
Ø Liberals get in then there will be networks to leverage. Change of government would
help.
Ø Native title groups
Ø Our own groups
Round Four (next steps)
What themes have become evident?
Ø Tourism
Ø Renewable energy
Ø Location
Ø Cultural diversity
Ø Retail market
Is it possible these themes can be connected to support the work already happening in the
community? Yes
What next steps can be identified?
Ø More committed to knowing what is happening in the community
Ø More knowledgeable
Ø Cross section of community involved
Ø Ongoing conversation and process
Ø Need a drive and committed people
How might this information be recorded, shared and progress toward this vision communicated
with the wider community?
Ø Media – different forms/ radio/ newspaper
Ø Groups – key established groups
Ø Recorded ‘community friendly’ pictorial
Ø Colorful poster
Ø Model
Table Four
Round One (hopes and opportunities)
Ø Strong retail
o Tourism links
o Retail hub
• Regional
• Not just shops
• Others experiences/ offerings
• Increased visits/ population
Ø Strong employment
o Continual growth
Ø Strong educational offerings
Ø Big Industry
Ø Proud Community
Ø Great place to live
o Lifestyle
Ø Our young people returning
Round Two (strengths and assets)
Ø Location
o Key advantage
o Tourism destination
o Renewables
Ø Cultural diversity
o Activation
Ø Staying Community
o Economic knowledge
Ø Our Story
o Proud to share/ tell
o Knowledge – skill/ asset
o Road/ rail
o Lots of sun, lots of wind, lots of land
Round Three
Ø Empowered community
Ø See action (visual)
Ø Community shark tank
Round Four (next steps)
Ø Need to change communities over number of years
Ø Need to bring community with us
Systems diagram detailed by Table Host, Table One