The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1366-5626.htm

Learning in
Learning in The World Café: an The World
empirical evaluation Café
Donald Ropes, Han van Kleef and Giovanni Douven
Business Research Centre, Inholland University of Applied Sciences,
Haarlem, The Netherlands 303
Received 24 October 2019
Revised 29 January 2020
Abstract Accepted 27 February 2020

Purpose – This study aims to evaluate The World Café (TWC) method as a social collaborative learning
environment. TWC is a widely used large-scale intervention for such things as organizational change and
development or community development programs.
Design/methodology/approach – Three World Cafés were organized as part of a university research
project on promoting sustainability-oriented innovation in the logistics sector. A total of 18 participants
representing public and commercial organizations were interviewed on their experiences.
Findings – Learning processes are linked to social and cognitive aspects that TWC intervention effectively
structures.
Practical implications – If a World Café is implemented according to the basic principles, it can be an
effective environment for organizing non-formal learning in organizations.
Originality/value – Although the gray literature on World Cafés is full of anecdotal evidence about its
effectiveness, there is a dearth of empirical research underpinning the claims.
Keywords Group learning, Knowledge sharing, Learning methods, Learning evaluation, The
World Café method
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The World Café (TWC) is a type of large-scale organizational development intervention
originally designed as a forum for open and creative discussion (Brown and Isaacs, 2005).
According to the founders of TWC, the defining characteristic of it is the way
communication is based on conversations structured as dialogue. Bohm and Weinberg
(2004) propose that dialogue is a way of freely conversing in groups, where meaning flows
between the participants, resulting in shared meanings and collective learning. World Cafés
are designed to be social learning environments that foster collective understandings,
produce innovative ideas and insights and stimulate “collective energy to identify and
embrace new possibilities” (Prewitt, 2011, p. 191). The design of TWC is meant to stimulate
interaction and structure processes that foster individuals to work together and construct
new knowledge.
In our literature review, we found that TWC and various variations on the theme
(knowledge cafés, technology cafés, conversational cafés) have been implemented for
numerous purposes such as community change programs (Tan and Brown, 2005),
organizational development initiatives (Fullarton and Palermo, 2008) and increasing
entrepreneurial strategic planning capability (Chang and Chen, 2015). We found
considerable anecdotal evidence underpinning the strength of TWC as a social collaborative Journal of Workplace Learning
learning environment but a dearth of peer-reviewed evaluation studies, and none that Vol. 32 No. 4, 2020
pp. 303-316
analyzed TWC from this learning perspective. Other authors support our findings (Chang © Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-5626
and Chen, 2015; Fullarton and Palermo, 2008; Lorenzetti et al., 2016; Partridge, 2015). DOI 10.1108/JWL-10-2019-0126
JWL Lorenzetti et al. (2016) concluded that most of the available publications on TWC focus on
32,4 one or more of the following areas:
 descriptions of its implementation in various settings;
 articulating best practice and lessons learned from the implementation of TWC;
 detailing the utilization of TWC to address specific goals such as leadership
development or organizational change; and
304
 showcasing the use of TWC in addressing inequalities in service provision.

Fullerton and Palermo (2008) compared the learning outcomes of TWC method to other
large-group facilitation techniques and found TWC to be more efficacious in several ways.
However, they did not analyze or compare either the structures or internal processes of the
two interventions. Lorenzetti et al. (2016) examined the transformative learning capacities of
TWC in academic and community settings but limited their focus to the concept of
reflexivity. Takahashi et al. (2014) investigated the dialogue processes occurring in TWC,
but not how they affected learning processes or learning outcomes.
Based on this, we argue that an evaluation of TWC as a social collaborative learning
environment is warranted and will serve to fill a gap in the research on workplace learning.
We also make a contribution to the field of workplace learning in regard to advancing our
understanding of organizational interventions grounded in social learning theory.
Furthermore, a theoretical grounding of TWC method from a learning theory perspective
has never been done and thus can contribute to our understanding of how structure can
influence learning. At the same time, our research contributes to practice by illustrating
critical success factors for organizing and implementing a World Café.
We look at three aspects of learning in TWC:
(1) what participants learned;
(2) what factors present in TWC method contributed to participant learning; and
(3) how these factors contributed to learning.

Based on these points, we developed the following research question:

RQ1. How does TWC design facilitate participant learning processes?

To answer our main research question, we propose the following sub-questions.

Q1. What types of learning outcomes can be ascribed to participation in TWC?

Q2. Do certain aspects of TWC design influence participant learning more than others?
We start the paper by defining the design principles of TWC, followed by a presentation of
the theoretical lens we use to underpin the method and understand the learning processes
occurring during the intervention. We then present the results of our empirical work.

Design principles of The World Café

From the various books and reports on TWC, we were able to establish a set of design
principles. We found that TWC has a typical setup where small groups of people sit around
a table and explore the topic at hand based on specific questions. There are three rounds of
discussions lasting about 30 minutes each. After each round, in which participants draw and
write on paper tablecloths, people are asked to change tables. A facilitator, or table host, sits
at the table and assures that new “table guests” are informed about what had been discussed
and any insights gained during the previous rounds. A plenary session follows the last Learning in
round of discussion and the findings or insights are presented to the larger group using the The World
writing on the tablecloths for focus.
According to the founders of the system, TWC is based on specific underlying principles
Café
that foster dialogue and collaborative learning that are stimulated by structuring TWC
according to the design principles shown in Table I, for the underlying reasons given in the
right-hand column (Brown, 2001; Brown and Isaacs, 2005).
The following section looks at the theoretical underpinning of TWC design from a 305
learning perspective.

Learning in The World Café system

For this research, we used a process understanding of learning and see it both as an
outcome, such as a change in behavior, but also as the experience of activities that leads to
individual understanding. Evidence of learning can be found in one’s head as well as in the
actual processes of social learning, for example during conversations in TWC. Our
perspective on learning leads us to use the theory of Illeris (2007) as the overarching
framework for our research. Illeris’ theory is a synthesis of several other learning theories
and works by other learning theorists. The basic outline of the model is founded on three
dimensions of learning shown in Figure 1.
The dimension “content” in the model relates to ability in the form of competence, which
is a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes. But it goes further by including insights,
understandings and meanings, which also help to strengthen one’s abilities. The dimension
“incentive” is associated with the motivation for learning and takes into account what drives
one to mobilize and expend the energy needed for learning. “Interaction” is a process that
takes place between a learner and the social environment in which they find themselves and

Basic design principle Underlying purpose for the principle

Set the context, which is a basic needs assessment. In
the invitation, give details about the topic of TWC as
well as pragmatic aspects of it. Important
stakeholders should be invited
Create a hospitable space. The physical space should
promote a safe and inviting atmosphere
Explore questions that matter. The World Café
should be guided by questions that reflect real-life
concerns of the group
Encourage everyone’s participation, but allow
passive participation as well
Connect diverse perspectives by having participants
move to different tables between rounds
Listen together for patterns and insights
Share collective discoveries
Giving the topic as well as explaining TWC briefly
is an important motivating factor. Inviting key
stakeholders helps assure different groups are
represented
A hospitable place is conducive to informal
knowledge sharing. A café setting is especially
important to the system as it sets an informal tone
This assures intrinsic motivation to take part in
the discussions
Linked to a hospitable place: not everyone is active
in these types of environments and allowing this
assures a feeling of safety for those who do not
This brings diversity of perspectives to the
discussion and enhances the complexity of the
discussions
Listening is a part of dialogue and considers that
through being open to other ideas, values and
meanings, patterns can be sensed and new insights
develop
This is how new knowledge and insights are Table I.
transferred from a discussion at a table to the Design principles of
larger collective the TWC
JWL
CONTENT Psychological Acquision INCENTIVE
32,4
Knowledge Movaon
Understandings Emoon
Skills Volion

306
Acon
Cooperaon
Communicaon

INTER-
ACTION

Figure 1.
The three dimensions
of learning
Source: Illeris (2002, 2007)

mediates the interplay between content and incentive. Learning occurs when the two
dimensions – interaction and acquisition – are activated. Illeris posits that all learning takes
place in a situated, social-historical context, which influences both the learning and the
learner. Through actions such as communication and cooperation, an individual learns
different things in different ways. At the same time, the individual is socialized in the
context in which the learning takes place (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
According to Illeris (2007), all learning involves each of the three dimensions and all three
must be considered for an adequate understanding or analysis of a learning situation.
Although Illeris considers that an individual interacts with their environment in some type
of learning situation, he does not explicitly describe exactly what this environment is, except
to stress it is always social in nature.
Illeris (2002, 2009) discusses how interaction is a process that takes place between an
individual and their environment, while acquisition is a psychological process during which
impulses from interaction are processed and linked to previous learning. Interaction is
determined by social and interpersonal factors and can change over time, while determinants of
acquisition are biological in nature, being linked to the brain and nervous system.
The two-way arrows in the model are meant to show the dynamic relationship each of
the dimensions has with each other. The model Illeris developed is, according to him,
representative of the breadth and diversity of learning in modern society, which Illeris
claims is ultimately about developing competence (Illeris, 2007, p. 28). We would reason that
if developing ability is the process of learning, then the outcome of learning is a change in
one’s ability. Illeris underpins this by stating, “[. . .] learning can be broadly defined as any
process that leads to permanent capacity change and which is not solely due to biological
maturation or ageing” (p. 3).

Interaction in The World Café

Sfard (1998) proposes that two metaphors can be used for understanding learning. The first
she calls an “acquisition metaphor,” which considers that the brain is a container that gets
filled with new information, ideas and knowledge in a process that is cognitive in nature. For Learning in
example, what occurs in the first plenary session of TWC where the participant is passive, The World
listening quietly to the experts speak. Illeris refers this to as “transmission,” where one
person transmits information to another. The second metaphor is “participation” and refers
Café
to an ongoing process of understanding that takes place during – and because of – social
interaction; for example, during discussions during the table sessions of TWC. In this case,
the learner is actively forming new meanings in a dynamic situation with others. Illeris calls
this “activity,” which he defines as goal-directed behavior within a certain context, such as 307
what occurs in the discussions during the table sessions.
According to Illeris, different forms of learning occur during different types of
interactions. In Table II below we map the different types of interaction onto the separate
sections of TWC.

The World Café as a social constructivist learning environment

According to Brown (2001), TWC is an open environment in which knowledge is socially
constructed during conversations among small groups of individuals. Social constructivist
learning environments (SCLEs) are considered potent in situations where outcomes are not
fixed, and problems are complex; just like in TWC. Furthermore, in SCLEs a facilitator or
teacher plays a role by collaborating with participants to shape the content and offer
resources and expertise (Will, 1997). TWC is typically positioned as an SCLE in the
literature (Brown and Isaacs, 2005; Prewitt, 2011; Tan and Brown, 2005) and, based on the
points given above, it is logical to do so. We found that collaborative learning is enabled by
environments based on social constructivist principles (Van den Bossche et al., 2006;
Johnson and Johnson, 1975; Palinscar, 1998) and for this reason, use the theory on SCLEs to
further explore the learning processes occurring within TWC.
According to constructivist learning theory, one needs to have a certain level of previous
knowledge on the topic of discussion because one’s existing knowledge works as a structure
for assimilating new knowledge. Individuals learn the most easily when there are organizing
schemas already present. Therefore, SCLEs need to be connected to the state of the
participants’ knowledge and provide a path into the subject for the learner based on that

Section of TWC Description of interaction taking place

Invitation Participants are approached via an e-mail invitation

Registration/check-in Individuals check-in and get a name badge and can get coffee, tea, etc. There is
some interaction among participants
Introduction to TWC In this plenary session, the host welcomes participants and describes the
background topic and workings of TWC
Expert presentations One or two experts on the theme or topic of TWC give a short (15-20 min)
(plenary) introduction. There is a short (5 min) question–answer session built in at the end of
the presentations
Table sessions Three rounds of discussions among five to six participants sitting together around
a table
Dinner Takes place between two of the table sessions and lasts about 30 min. People
remain in discussion, either about the topic or professional background, etc.
Wrap-up Plenary session where each table host reports on what was discussed
Drinks Drinks are available for about an hour after the wrap-up. People remain in Table II.
discussion, speaking about what they learned or heard about. Most people stay Sections of TWC and
between 30 and 45 min resulting types of
Follow-up report A short report done by the facilitators is mailed out within two weeks after TWC interaction
JWL learner’s previous knowledge (Resnick and Klopfer, 1989). The design of TWC tries to
32,4 assure this by asking participants to begin a conversation using their personal experiences,
ideas and perspectives as the starting point. TWC has more characteristics of SCLEs.
Jonassen (1999) developed a framework for the design of effective SCLEs. Here, we use the
framework to illustrate the shared characteristics between SCLEs and TWC design.
 SCLEs foster reflective practice. TWC has moments of individual and group
308 reflection built into it. For example, “connecting diverse perspectives” requires
reflection on what one has learned and experienced.
 SCLEs enable context- and content-dependent knowledge exchange and construction.
Setting the context and discussing issues that matter are specific design principles
of TWC.
 SCLEs support collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation
and not a competition among learners. Approaching discussion during the TWC as
a dialogue instead of argument is one way that TWC assures this.
 SCLEs are supported by case-based problems that have been derived from and
situated in the real world, with all of its uncertainty and complexity and based on
authentic real-life practice. TWC is focused on actual problems and issues that the
participants are facing.
 SCLEs assure understanding of its thinking process and problem-solving methods.
TWC is a reflexive environment that, under the guidance of the host, has moments
of explicit reflection on the processes.

In the next section, we aim to answer our two empirical research questions. We start by
explaining the methodology we used, followed by a presentation of the results.

Methodology
As part of a larger university research project on promoting sustainability-orientated
innovation, we organized three cafés over four months. The topic of each café focused on
how sustainability-oriented innovation could be developed in the logistics sector. Each café
was organized using the design principles found in the literature (Table III). On the left-hand
side of the table are the design principles and in the right-hand column we explain how we
implemented them in the cafés.
Each implementation of TWC followed the same process and was guided by the same
facilitators. Dialogue at the different tables was structured along with three questions relating
to the theme of TWC, in this case sustainability-orientated innovation in the logistics sector.

Data gathering
We employed a qualitative approach to data gathering because we were trying to answer
questions about experience, meaning and perspective from the standpoint of the individual.
A qualitative research approach lends itself better to this type of research because experience
and meaning are not easily quantifiable (Becker, 1996). To gather usable responses, we
organized the interview protocol along with the structure of the TWC (Appendix).
In total, 91 people representing 45 different organizations participated in the cafés, which
lasted about 3 hours each. Participants were asked at the end of each of the cafés if they
would be willing to be interviewed on the experiences; 18 people from 18 different
organizations volunteered. Five people had participated in the first café, eight in the second
and five in the third. None of the 18 had attended more than one café. Interviews lasted
between 45 and 60 min.
Basic design principles of a
World Café
Set the context
Create a hospitable space
Explore questions that matter
Encourage participation
Connect diverse perspectives
Listen together for patterns
and insights
Share collective discoveries
Learning in
Implementation in the three cafés The World
Café
Sustainability-orientated innovation is an important topic for the
logistics sector. Stakeholders who were involved directly with the
topic were approached by an invitation giving the theme of the café
and some background information on the program, the guest speakers
and the hosts 309
Each of cafés was held in an informal open space meant to promote
creativity, such as a business start-up incubator or in an actual café
The theme of each of TWCs was sustainability-orientated innovation,
namely how to achieve this in logistics. The sector has been struggling
with this topic and is an important issue in the region where the cafés
were held
The hosts explained the way TWC works. A slide called “café
etiquette” was also presented at each café. Part of the etiquette
concerns participation
Participants, who were from different professional backgrounds, were
encouraged to move around to different tables during the café
A brief explanation of Socratic dialogue (Paul and Elder, 2006)
Table III.
techniques was given as part of the café etiquette
A plenary wrap-up session during which each table’s insights were Design principles
shared with the group was held at the end of TWC. Also, a report on and their
the outcomes of the table sessions was written and mailed to implementation in
participants this research

We used a focused interview method (Hopf, 2004), which considers that the subject or social
situation the informant experienced is also known to the interviewer. We employed a semi-
structured approach in the interviews. This allowed interviewers room for follow-up
questions while assuring a degree of response uniformity between different researchers.
Hopf (2004) proposes that:
[. . .] focused interviews have a number of advantages, including the possibility of combining a
reserved, non-directive management of a conversation with an interest in very specific
information and the opportunity for an object-related explanation of meanings (p. 204).

Data analysis
Interviews were recorded and verbatim transcribed. Qualitative data software (MAXQDA)
was used to organize the data and structure the analysis. The analytical strategy we
employed was based on qualitative content analysis, because this approach is often used
when trying to gain knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon being researched
(Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Krippendorff, 2003).
The three researchers developed an extensive codebook based on the underlying
concepts of Illeris’ three dimensions of learning combined with the research questions.
These initial codes were first discussed among the researchers and then further defined
during discussions using concepts from Illeris’ theory as well as emergent concepts found in
the data. During the analysis, we were constantly alert to the intercoder agreement and we
checked our work regularly, writing memos and reflections as we progressed. The reliability
of the research outcomes is partially guarded by analyst triangulation (Patton, 2011); three
teachers/researchers from three different fields (human resource development, innovation
management and small business management) were involved in the analysis.
JWL Results
32,4 Our first empirical question was “what types of learning outcomes can be ascribed to
participation in TWC?” To answer this question, we start by presenting the different
learning outcomes as told by our informants. These are related to the “content” dimension of
Illeris’ model. Our second empirical research question was “do certain aspects of TWC
design influence participant learning more than others?” and considers the structures within
310 TWC focusing on the incentive and interaction dimensions of learning.

Content
We asked informants the question “What did you bring away with you from TWC?” Follow-
up questions asked about the benefit of TWC for them or their organization, if TWC helped
them to solve a problem they or their organization had and if they had gained any new
knowledge and specifically what. We also asked if they would do something different now
that they had participated in TWC.
The three World Cafés were on the subject of promoting sustainability-oriented
innovation in the logistics sector. We found people learned about the topic of sustainability-
oriented innovation in general as well as specifically in relation to logistics. Informants
discussed the complexity of sustainability as a concept and an issue that needs a
multidisciplinary approach. The realization that collaboration across organizations is a key
success factor was also stated. These types of learning outcomes we call “new perspectives.”
We found that all of the participants learned something about the topic of sustainability
in relation to that sector, especially how logistics plays a crucial facilitating role. MB stated:
We learned that there are two ways to look at sustainability and logistics, namely to make all
logistics firms sustainable in their processes, or to assure logistics is a way to achieve sustainable
development.
This type of learning outcome we called “new subject matter knowledge.”
Most individuals also learned how other organizations were dealing with sustainability-
related issues: what they had achieved and how, as well as their aspirations. One participant
realized the importance of implementing sustainability-oriented innovation in her firm after
listening to an expert during the introduction:
[. . .] if you see how far they are with sustainability-oriented innovation it is inspiring. There are
so many initiatives where sustainability-orientated innovation could be used – I think we need to
make sure we continue on this route.
Learning outcomes that dealt with understanding how others were promoting sustainability
and what they needed to go further we called “insight in others’” practice.
Several respondents discussed gaining insight into their level of learning about
sustainability-orientated innovation and a transition toward implementing it. They talked
about how TWC helped them to get a clearer understanding of what they already knew. For
example, CK told us that she:
[. . .] could bring much more into the conversations than I originally thought because you don’t see
yourself as an expert and at the same time you do know a lot and have big network. So it was nice
for myself to come to the realization that I’m further than I thought.
This we call “reflexivity.”
Another important outcome of the TWCs was that participants expanded their network.
When asked what she took away from TWC, EH replied, “A new network; the contacts that
I made there. And contact with the University. That is the most important as far as I am
concerned.” While this is not a learning outcome in the strict sense of the word, it is an Learning in
outcome of participation in TWC. We call this outcome “network extension.” The World
People learned about the process of TWC as well as the potential for use in their situation.
GD told us that TWC “[. . .] fits perfectly with what the city council aims for, namely inspiring
Café
people to share knowledge.” Others talked about organizing their café or a similar event, “We
want to organize something like this but in a Knowledge Café form. Maybe you can help us to
this,” said TD. Participants discussed their realization that standard workshop formats and 311
other types of events with little interaction “like a lecture” were less powerful environments for
knowledge exchange. We call this type of learning outcome “potentiality of TWC.”
Other participants spoke about actions or activities they would undertake as a result of
their participation in TWC. One respondent told about how she would “match people (she
met during TWC) up with her network.” And one respondent spoke about how she would
approach a group of citizens she heard about during TWC:
I heard that there were some people who were working on a sustainable development project in a
citizen initiative and I thought “I need to follow them, because if they are successful, we can use
their work in our programs.”
This outcome we call “incentive for future activity.”

Incentive
In the data, we found two types of incentives. One was related to motivation to attend TWC.
To find out about this, we asked respondents what motivated them to take part in TWC.
The second type of incentive we found was related to the learning processes occurring
during TWC itself. We start with the former.
We found that the majority of respondents came because sustainability-orientated
innovation was important for their organization. We call this “organizational interest”
because it is related to the fact that this was a professional gathering and individuals were
representing their organizations. Other reasons given in order of importance were:
 an interest in the topic of logistics;
 an interest in the specific topic of sustainability-orientated innovation;
 the possibility of speaking with new people; and
 curiosity about TWC intervention itself.

Another type of motivation reflects the setting of TWC itself and how this motivated
individuals to participate in the discussions. We found three main themes surrounding this
idea. The first we called “open setting.” EH told us:
It was really open (the setting). We didn’t really know anyone, maybe the names of a few people.
But that was not a barrier to joining in the discussions; everyone was just speaking to each other.
It went quite easy (the interaction) as far as I am concerned. I thought it an exceptionally
agreeable setting – very amenable.
The second theme we call “informal setting.” One informant’s (PS) reply to our question
about the setting was “there was an open atmosphere, an informal setting; no chairman, no
podiums, nothing like that, just down to earth. There was a really low threshold for
participation and everyone was active, people made contact easily.”
“Safety” was an idea we came across regularly and call this theme “safe setting.”
According to EH, TWC was:
JWL [. . .] a safe situation where everyone could do their own thing. There’s nobody that doesn’t dare to
speak to another person. It (TWC) is a very open and safe atmosphere for sharing knowledge.
32,4
Interaction
Informants were unanimous in their positive evaluation of the various forms of interaction
during TWC. People enjoyed the event as a whole and the separate parts of TWC were
312 appreciated too. We found individuals experienced TWC as a “logical set-up” that made it
an integrated whole, with each part playing a different, yet important role. We asked
respondents to talk about the different sections of TWC – how they experienced each one
and which ones they thought were the most important for their learning.
Every informant said the discussions at the tables were the most stimulating. These
small group sessions were experienced as the most enjoyable part of the evening and the
most crucial stimulus for learning. This theme we call “table sessions,” and LH’s quote
typifies the responses we got from informants “The table sessions were of course the best
part. Yeah, that’s where it happens.”
Presentations given by the experts are also important for learning because they set
context for the table discussions. New knowledge and insights were also gained during the
presentations, mostly through practical examples. One informant (YL) said that the expert
practitioners gave “[. . .]a nice perspective and it is really inspiring to see how someone else
does it.” This theme we named “expert plenary session” and see it as a type of interaction
based on an acquisition concept of learning.
Also related to an acquisition model of learning is the “plenary wrap-up.” This helped
people gain further understandings of the topic. And by hearing what conclusions others came
to at their table discussions, individuals were able to better reflect on their learning. We heard
that the wrap-up “closes the circle” and “opens new avenues for thought and ideas.”
Respondents also mentioned other parts of TWC in the interviews, but we could not find
any consensus as to their contribution to learning.

Summary of results
We summarize the results of our findings below by using Illeris’ model as a framework
(Figure 2).

Discussion
The goal of this research was to evaluate TWC as a learning environment. We were curious
to see how TWC system facilitated learning processes of individuals participating in the
intervention.

Learning outcomes Movaon to aend

• New subject maer knowledge • Organizaonal interest
• New perspecves • Topic interest (logiscs)
• Understandings Contents Incenves • Theme interest (SOI)
• Insight into others’ pracce • Possibility for networking
• Reflexivity • Curiosity about TWC system
Other outcomes Movaon to parcipate
• Network extension • Open seng
• Potenality of TWC system • Informal seng
• Incenve for future acvity • Safe seng
Interacons
Figure 2.
The three dimensions Acquision Parcipaon
of learning in TWC • Expert plenary session • Table sessions
• Wrap-up
After defining the different design principles using the literature, we turned to Illeris’ theory Learning in
on three dimensions of learning. We used this specific theory as a lens to look at the learning The World
processes in TWC because the complexity of it allows for dealing with the complex topic of
Café
learning in non-formal environments. We see that Illeris conceptualizes learning as a process
of psychological acquisition where interactions mediate the dynamic relationship between
incentives and content (Figure 1). Thus, this process depends on the social environment and
may vary as different types of interaction occur. We mapped out the different types of 313
interaction a typical World Café entails in Table II. However, Illeris’ model leaves out any
specific framework for learning and is in this sense incomplete for our purposes. While
Illeris mentions that learning takes place in a social environment, he does not discuss on
how specific types might trigger learning along the three dimensions he proposes. For this
reason, we turned to the theory on SCLEs, which from our perspective fits closely with the
literature on TWC as a learning environment.
Our first research sub-question was “What types of learning outcomes can be ascribed to
participation in TWC?” The two main types of learning outcomes we observed were related
to Illeris’ concepts of “knowledge” and “understanding,” which fall clearly under the
dimension of “content.” However, we would supplement Illeris’ model in two ways. First by
adding “new perspectives,” “insight into others’ practice” and “reflexivity.” Second, we
found outcomes of participation in TWC that form the basis for future action and possibly
future learning. For example, “network extension” is an outcome important for professionals
(Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999). “Potentiality of TWC system” relates to participants
considering how TWC could help their organization to tackle a complex problem in an
effective way and “incentive for future activity” describes activities individuals planned on
undertaking at a later moment, as a direct result of participation in TWC.
Our second sub-question (“do certain aspects of TWC design influence participant
learning more than others?”) looks at learning from a process perspective. We were seeking
to link different types of interaction to participant learning. We divided the results into
“participation” and “acquisition” and found that informants were unanimous in describing
the table sessions as the most important for their learning, followed by the expert
presentations and the wrap-up session.
Our main research question was “how does TWC design facilitate participant
learning processes?” Based on our findings we conclude that TWC system is a social
collaborative learning system that, if organized using the design principles found in the
literature, facilitates learning processes by activating the three dimensions of learning
proposed by Illeris. We found that the psychological learning process of acquisition did,
in fact, take place because of the continual interaction between content and incentive,
which was mediated by the different forms of activities taking place within TWC. For
this reason, we would adapt Illeris’ model to show TWC as the learning framework that
facilitates the three dimensions of learning. However, we are aware that the model
needs to be further grounded and tested.
The design principles we took from the literature were meant to assure that TWC is
structured as a social learning environment but were not grounded in theory. Hence, we
used Illeris’ model together with the theory on SCLEs to underpin the design principles. We
found later that they did seem to create an SCLE, which, in turn, facilitated the learning
processes of participants. We make this claim based on our systematic implementation of
the design principles in our World Cafés and the data we gathered in the interviews about
participants’ experiences. Participant responses also showed that we had, in fact, organized
our cafés according to the design principles.
JWL Conclusion
32,4 We found that Illeris’ model fits well with the concept of learning in TWC, but should be
supplemented by integrating the framework in which learning takes place, in other words, an
SCLE. Second, Illeris’ model was developed to illustrate an improvement in competence, which
we did not observe. This is most likely because participants in TWC are adults taking part in a
non-formal learning situation, which leads to new tacit knowledge and different learning
314 outcomes, some of which may not be observable until much later (Ropes, 2011). This quote
from GD illustrates what every informant said: “TWC helped me to gain new knowledge about
(logistics and sustainability-oriented innovation) but did not help in my daily work.”
However, the timing of the interviews might also be a factor affecting our findings. In non-
formal learning situation, which differs from training or development, the immediate
application of new knowledge is rare because it is tacit in nature. Maybe if we had interviewed
the informants at a later date, we might have found some change. Additionally, studies show it
is difficult for people to describe their learning unless it takes place in a formal situation such as
school or development training, where outcomes are typically explicated beforehand and
people can use these to reflect on (Billett, 2002; Ropes, 2010). Problems individuals often have
with describing non-formal learning are grounded in how we ask about it; our discourse is
based on propositional, codified knowledge and does not reflect the workplace-orientated
learning context such as TWC (Eraut, 2010). This also might have influenced our findings,
even though we avoided using the term “learning” in our interview questions. Also, considering
our interview questions, what we found could be related to the fact that informants could
imagine what they would have done without having attended TWC. Finally, we are aware that
the way we framed the interview questions might have resulted in finding that the table
sessions were experiences as the most important for participant learning.
The various reports and books on TWC system emphasize the need for an informal
setting. Evidence from our data backs this up. One informant said:
I found the setting to be important. One comes into a café setting, which creates a different feeling
than in a formal meeting situation. So a different atmosphere is created, one that makes it more
open. This means people feel more at ease in it. That is what I noticed.
Literature on learning settings for learning also shows how informality creates an open
atmosphere (Hein, 2009).
In our interviews, we were looking for insights into how the different sections of TWC
system interacted to form a whole as well as their relative importance. We found that each
informant emphasized participating in the discussions during the table sessions as the most
important. This finding is backed up by Takahashi et al. (2014), who found that the more an
attendee participates in conversation during TWC, the more positive their attitude was
toward both the method and the quality of the dialogue. They also found ensuing effects and
actions of individuals who had a high level of participation to be higher than those with low
participation. However, we did not differentiate between participants’ levels of participation.
Participation in TWC could theoretically facilitate transformative learning (Mezirow, 2009;
Piaget, 1964) as it emphasizes participation. However, we did not look specifically at different
levels of learning and future research should be done on this. Furthermore, more research needs
to be done to explore relationships between different parts of TWC system and different types
of learning outcomes.

Practical implications
This research can help practitioners to understand how TWC works and what kinds of
results to expect from implementing it. Context plays an important role here, as we were not
using the method as an organizational change or development intervention, which is often Learning in
the case. We did find that if followed, TWC design principles lead to different learning The World
outcomes. It then follows that modifying the sections slightly can be done according to the
context and desired goals for the implementation.
Café

References
Becker, H.S. (1996), “The epistemology of qualitative research”, in Jessor, R., Colby, A. and Shweder, R.A. 315
(Eds), Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry, the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Mental Health and Development, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Vol. 1, pp. 53-71.
Billett, S. (2002), “Critiquing workplace learning discourses: participation and continuity at work”,
Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 56-67.
Bohm, D. and Weinberg, R.A. (2004), On Dialogue, Routledge, New York, NY.
Brown, J. (2001), The World Café: Living Knowledge through Conversations That Matter, Fielding
Institute.
Brown, J. and Isaacs, D. (2005), World Café Community, the World Café–Shaping Our Futures through
Conversations That Matter, Berrett-Koelher, San Francisco.
Chang, W.-L. and Chen, S.-T. (2015), “The impact of world café on entrepreneurial strategic planning
capability”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 1283-1290.
Fullarton, C. and Palermo, J. (2008), “Evaluation of a large group method in an educational institution:
the world café versus large group facilitation”, Journal of Institutional Research, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 109-117.
Gulati, R. and Gargiulo, M. (1999), “Where do interorganizational networks come from?”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104 No. 5, pp. 1439-1493.
Hein, G. (2009), “Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits”, Museums
and Social Issues, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 113-124.
Hopf, C. (2004), “Qualitative interviews: an overview”, in Flick, U., von Kardoff, E. and Steinke, I. (Eds),
A Companion to Qualitative Research, Sage, London, pp. 203-208.
Hsieh, H.-F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative
Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.
Illeris, K. (2002), The Three Dimensions of Learning, Krieger, Malabar.
Illeris, K. (2007), How we Learn: Learning and Non-Learning in School and beyond, Routledge, London.
Illeris, K. (Ed.) (2009), Contemporary Theories of Learning: learning Theorists . . . in Their Own Words,
Routledge, London.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1975), Learning Together and Alone, Prentice, Hall, Englewood
Ciffs, NJ.
Jonassen, D. (1999), “Designing constructivist learning environments”, in Reigeluth, C. (Ed.),
Instructional Design Theories and Models, Routledge, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 215-239.
Krippendorff, K. (2003), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lorenzetti, L.A., Azulai, A. and Walsh, C.A. (2016), “Addressing power in conversation: enhancing the
transformative learning capacities of the world café”, Journal of Transformative Education,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 200-219.
Mezirow, J. (2009), “An overview on transformative learning”, in Illeris, K. (Ed.), Contemporary
Theories of Learning: learning Theorists. . . in Their Own Words, Routledge, London,
pp. 90-105.
JWL Palinscar, A.S. (1998), “Social constructavist perpectives on teaching and learning”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 345-375.
32,4
Partridge, M. (2015), “Evaluation Café – a review of literature concerning world cafe methodology used
as an evaluative tool in education”, Innovative Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 2.
Patton, C.L. (2011), “Induction, deduction and cyclical movement: a review of qualitative research
methods”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1421-1424.
316 Piaget, J. (1964), “Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning”, Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 176-186.
Prewitt, V. (2011), “Working in the café: lessons in group dialogue”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 189-202.
Resnick, L.B. and Klopfer, L.E. (1989), Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research.
1989 ASCD Yearbook, ERIC.
Ropes, D. (2010), “Organizing professional communities of practice”, Faculteit Der Maatschappij en
Gedragswetenschappen, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Ropes, D. (2011), “Measuring the impact of communities of practice: a conceptual model”, International
Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 94-107.
Sfard, A. (1998), “On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one”, Educational
Researcher, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 4-13.
Takahashi, M., Nemoto, K., Hayashi, N. and Horita, R. (2014), “The measurement of dialogue: from a
case study of the workshop using world café as a collective dialogue method”, Journal of
Information Processing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 88-95.
Tan, S. and Brown, J. (2005), “The world café in Singapore: creating a learning culture through
dialogue”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 83-90.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W.H. and Kirschner, P.A. (2006), “Social and cognitive factors driving
teamwork in collaborative learning environments”, Small Group Research, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 490-521.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England.
Will, A.M. (1997), “Group learning in workshops”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
Wiley Online Library, Vol. 1997 No. 76, pp. 33-40.

Appendix. Interview questions

 What is your position?
 Does your organization have any policies concerning sustainability-oriented innovation?
 Why did you decide to attend this World Café?
 What did you leave TWC with?
 How did you experience the interaction during TWC?
 Could you reflect on your experiences in the different sections of TWC?

Corresponding author
Donald Ropes can be contacted at: donald.ropes@inholland.nl

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com