It is intended to offer resources and explore ideas with the potential of purposefully directing the momentum needed for communities to create their own new community paradigms.
It seeks to help those interested in becoming active participants in the governance of their local communities rather than merely passive consumers of government service output. This blog seeks to assist individuals wanting to redefine their role in producing a more direct democratic form of governance by participating both in defining the political body and establishing the policies that will have an impact their community so that new paradigms for their community can be chosen rather than imposed.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
What then is the potential for expanding the concept of Virtual Systemic Inquiry into a larger community context and how could that be made to work? In this post we will look to the remaining elements of the VSI process and how they can start to be incorporated into a community context.
There has already been a great deal done to include the virtual into local institutions of government, with most cities having a webpage, and into systems of community governance, with the inclusion of Facebook pages and Twitter for many advocacy groups. The next step is incorporating systemic inquiry into the process. This, however, means reexamining not only how we work with virtual tools of community governance but how we engage in Virtual Collaboration.
The Internet and World Wide Web, provide much of the context in which we typically work today. How collaborators should go about effecting a meaningful result within such an environment is still a relevant question.
It is not merely having a set of tools with which we've developed a level of comfort or can be easily learned. The more traditional word processing and spreadsheets and even email will likely not suffice in the new context and will simply further overload any potential participants without also including changes as how they are to be used. It is also not a matter of having the latest apps freely available. Some examples are the changes brought about with the rise of data journalism, which not only incorporates new tools but also entirely new technical approaches to information with 'Big Data' and community engagement approaches with 'Open Data'. At the same time, the simple excel type spreadsheet can still be a very effective tool. More importantly, the underlying principles of journalism still apply.
It is a matter, as was asserted early on in this effort that one should run the technology; don't let the technology run you. It is a matter of how the tech tools are used by increasingly larger populated networks with correspondingly larger number of connections resulting in greater complexity and at least the potential for emergent attributes.
It is no longer likely that the essential participants at the various stages of the process are all going to be located so that traditional meetings will make logistical sense nor will the manner in which we usually communicate ideas work, either because, as mentioned before, geographical separateness, time schedule separateness or due to the size of the group or community involved.
So if within the context in which we operate, virtual collaboration is appropriate but the old tools and processes don't work effectively enough, what then are the options?
Discussion Groups are the standard first response to the question of collaboration, virtual or otherwise. It should be recognized though that there are important differences between discussion, dialogue and deliberation. We will use the term, 'means of discourse' or 'discourse' to cover all three.
Our community based discourse, including virtual discourse on web platforms such as LinkedIn, phpBB, etc. is too often stuck at the level of discussion. We need to find ways to evolve those discussions to the level of both dialogue and deliberation as envisioned together by the NCDD.
The expectation or hope seems to be that thoughts initiated in a discussion will lead to other thoughts in a reinforcing manner which finally lead to a better understanding of the situation as well as an approach for dealing with the situation. More often than not this turns out to be a fix that fails for structural reasons. Discussion groups seldom achieve consensus, particularly if it is perceived that there is little need for a consensus to be achieved. The unfolding of the content remains essentially linear although in truth is conceptually intertwined. It is very difficult for multiple participants to build on separate dimensions of understanding within this linear environment in any meaningful manner. It seems to be the basic nature of discussion groups to be divergent which is not a bad thing, from a design thinking perspective it is good thing. Because it is the nature of thoughts to provoke other thoughts though, it is this divergence that can wear people down and cause them to lose interest because of being pulled in multiple directions with some tangents seeming to be only slightly on topic, if at all. Keeping the discussion on track, from the perspective of those responsible for managing the collaboration, might seem as impossible as herding cats.
In the last post on the first set of steps in the VSI process, one step was Enabling Generative Interactions. In this set of steps we look to Integrating Interactions. If the stakeholders are seriously interested in understanding a situation as a basis for developing a project, program or a strategy to improve a particular situation then developing and working with models is essential. Allowing collaborators to keep track of the development and their contributions is essential. The component tools should be employed in a manner that glues things together.
The first thing that is created is a focus page. A wiki is one means used as the focus page because of the ease of multi-user updating allowing everyone involved in the collaboration to know that whatever aspect of the investigation they're looking for the appropriate links can be found on that focus page. Discourse can be initiated with a link to the Focus Page with multiple discussion threads focusing on particular aspects on the inquiry made possible.
Concept maps can be developed in Insight Maker and increasingly in Kumu. Once initiated a link to the concept map is also added to the wiki with thought exchanges on the concept map conducted though the discussions (at this phase it is discussion). Formal models have also been developed in Insight Maker and Kumu, again once initiated a link to the model is added to the wiki and exchanges on the model are conducted through discussions. Kumu is beginning to be seen as the best means of simplifying the architecture and integrating the multiple pieces of the puzzle, being Focus Page, Discourse, Concept Maps and Formal Models.
What is most essential is for stakeholders engaged in developing a strategy for dealing with a difficult or complex situation or wicked problem facing their community is to optimize their understanding of the situation by understanding the relevant relationships and the implications of those relationships.
The most viable approach to accomplishing this is for stakeholders to work together to understand the particular relationships by building their own models. In this way they not only develop a better understanding of the relationships, someone else doesn't have to later help explain the resultant model to them. They gain ownership of the issue and can instead help explain the model to others when it is presented to larger portions of the community through a process of community discourse that rises to dialogue and deliberation.
- ▼ 2014 (23)
- ► 2013 (29)
- ► August (7)