Making Sense of Complexity Through Structured Learning

A use case about embedding structured learning in the Sudanese Civil Society Study

Why learning was built into the process

The GIZ Good Governance programme commissioned a comprehensive study to better understand Sudanese civil society and to identify concrete needs and entry points for future engagement. The study focused on three interrelated dimensions: the operational dynamics of Sudanese civil society, its engagement with the wider social and political context, and its capacity to adapt to post-2030 realities, including collaboration, polarisation dynamics, and influence on key actors.

Considering the current situation in Sudan, the relevance of the study increased further. It became clear that any meaningful engagement with civil society would require a re-conceptualisation of what constitutes the civic, civic actors, and civic space in a post-war context. This context made the study not only an analytical exercise, but also a process of continuous interpretation, sensemaking, and reflection.

For GIZ and the MEDEV/Reos study team, this raised a key question: how to ensure that insights emerging during the study were not only captured for the final report, but actively reflected upon, interpreted, and used to inform both the study itself and future programme decisions.

Three learning needs became particularly important. First, the need to collectively make sense of emerging findings, such as what fragmentation of civil society means in the Sudanese context and how different team members experienced it in practice. Second, the need to reflect on the study process itself, including what the team was learning about data collection, access, and community engagement under difficult conditions. Third, the need to translate insights into forward-looking considerations for the Good Governance programme.

A learning process cycle along the research process

To respond to these needs, the study was accompanied by a structured learning and reflection cycle that ran in parallel to the research process. Rather than being an add-on at the end, learning was embedded from the outset.

At the beginning of the process, a dedicated learning agenda session was held with the study and the project team. This session focused on identifying key knowledge gaps, surfacing assumptions, and formulating the questions the team genuinely wanted to explore throughout the study. These learning questions were not abstract. They were closely tied to the realities of working with Sudanese civil society and to the strategic questions facing the GIZ programme.

Once validated, the learning agenda became the central framework for the learning process and was entered into Propel. The learning questions then functioned as a guiding structure for capturing, organising, and revisiting insights over time. This approach framed the learning agenda as the backbone for systematic reflection, sensemaking, and knowledge use throughout the study.

How learning was practised during the process

Throughout the six-month study period, multiple data sources fed into the learning agenda. These included formal study outputs as well as more informal, experience-based reflections from the field.

During field visits, for example in Port Sudan, members of the study team held reflection moments focused explicitly on the learning questions. These reflections were often voice-recorded and centred on what the team was observing, struggling with, or reconsidering in real time. This included reflections on access, engagement with civil society actors, and the realities of conducting research in a highly fluid and fragmented context.

All study outputs and field reflections were fed into the dedicated Propel space. From there, insights were connected and organised according to learning questions, locations, and thematic areas. This allowed observations from different moments and places to be brought into conversation with one another, rather than remaining scattered across documents and individual notes.

In addition to ongoing capture, the process included monthly learning and reflection sessions. Ahead of each session, Propel was used to generate learning overview documents focused on specific topics the team wanted to explore more deeply. These overviews drew on all insights captured up to that point and made patterns and tensions visible.

Each learning session followed a consistent structure. Participants were first given time for individual exploration, using Propel to review existing insights and ask targeted questions through the chat, such as what had already been learned about a specific theme or dynamic. This was followed by a collective discussion in which team members shared their impressions, challenged interpretations, and related insights to their own experiences.

Each session concluded with a forward-looking conversation about what the emerging insights meant for upcoming project activities and decisions. The sessions themselves were recorded, and new reflections generated during these discussions were fed back into Propel, further enriching the learning base.

Over time, this created evolving learning stories for each learning question. Insights were not treated as fixed conclusions, but as knowledge that developed as the study progressed and as the team’s understanding deepened.

What this made possible by the end of the process

identify recurring patterns and key themes across the study. These were extracted into learning memos that synthesised the main insights without losing their connection to the underlying experiences and data.

These memos can now be shared beyond the immediate project team and used to inform broader discussions within GIZ and with partners. At the same time, the underlying knowledge remains available in Propel, where it can continue to be accessed, revisited, and built upon.

Rather than closing learning at the end of the study, the process established a foundation for ongoing use. The team can continue to draw on the knowledge captured, both to inform future actions and to support adaptive decision-making in a context where assumptions, actors, and conditions continue to shift.