Discussion Notes

Then Beth Noveck (BSN) presented the background to and ideas underlying the Cairns Project. These slides were presented to the assembled group to serve as a basis for discussion. We talked about the importance of using new visual tools as a way to make the connections between different participatory practices visible.

The discussion began (and ended) with trying to address "what is the community of collaborative and participatory practice?"

Who is the intended audience? Participants talked about the emerging sense of shared practice among people in the their own fields. The question of what defines a "project" and whether it was necessary to further refine the definition, either of the inteded audience or of the type of project inteded to be captured was discussed with no consensus.

BSN clarified that while the tool was designed to facilitate and on-line community of practice, links to the "real world" and real world relationships should be fostered through the software. However, the Cairns tool is not designed to replicate existing tools or to duplicate the work done by other organizations on their own websites.

Dick Rowe suggested that we "ban the word free" from our discussion to avoid any confusion. While the tools will be open-source and made available without cost, he offered, "free" suggests without value.

Sandy Heierbacher and Ginny Strauss talked about the integration of the tool into the websites of other organizations as well as resident at Cairns.org, an idea that was embraced by all. The specification will be updated.

Andy Fluke, Dick Rowe and Vicky Schubert discussed the technical architecture and debated the merits of a fully distributed versus a centralized database structure. The importance of data integrity was emphasized. The pros and cons will be explored with our technical partners as we move forward.

Pat scully said that there are two kinds of users they encounter. One type is the "process shopper," people looking for ways of working and new methods. The second type are the "outcome seekers," or those trying to solve a particular problem or achieve a certain goal.

Some people know or want to know a process (e.g. Study Circles) by name. Others need to be able to name a set of desired principles and to find out the relevant process.

Pat further added that the tool should help local organizers get models and methods and evaluate those methods according to some sort of standard. They should be able to recognize best practices. Evaluation and rating metrics are necessary.

Patrick Field countered that if Cairns allows people to rate other people's projects this might create a disincentive to participation. Underfunded groups in need of foundation support cannot risk a (potentially false) negative review.

Tom Atlee proposed that a text field for evaluation be added and that we distinguish between subjective and objective evaluative criteria. By pointing out the difference, the risk will be reduced. That is to say, there should be objective metrics relating to the quality and level of participation as well as subjective evaluation of outcomes.

Sandy Heierbacher proposed that a feedback mechanism for organizations be integrated. For example, if you select Study Circles as the method used, a small questionnaire might pop up, the results of which would be transmitted back to Study Circles Resource Center. This might be an incentive to get organizations to participate in the project as upload data. They could create and integrate their own (private?) evaluations.

Nancy Thomas seconded the need for assessment tools and then went on to suggest that there be a template by which to ask and answer: "Under the following X,Y,Z circumstances, what model should I use?"

The aim should be to work collectively to help everyone in this community do what they want to do in a more participatory and legitimate way.

Also - said Nancy and Cathy Regan -- not everyone is trying to solve a problem. Some people have an aspiration or a dream.

They think less in terms of problem solving and more in terms of an aspiration. The system needs to reflect this.

Frankie Lappe emphasized the importance of connecting the virtual to the real. People should be able to "self-flag" as someone willing to talk to other people directly. It might be a part of the rules of engagement to be required to be contactable. If you play in this space, you have to be reachable.

Larry Derringer reminded all to "think beyond people in this room." Need to make some aspects "more human" and accessible to non-experts and non-practitioners of dialogue and deliberation.

Dick Rowe pointed out that the success of Meetup.com is that it is: simple and enables people to get together in real space.

Pat Scully (?) or Patrick Field (?) asked what happens if more than one person completes a Cairn for a given project. It would be useful to show all the Cairns for the same project and see how they do and do not line up. Where do people disagree? Do people have wildly differing views of the same experience?

Pat Wilson wants to know whether and how groups are evaluating themselves? What are the factors people are looking at when they evaluate their own work?

The group then began to move towards the idea of starting, not with the Cairn, but with the map interface. Let people explore pathways and build the Cairn gradually. The group returned to this idea at the end.

But next the discussion turned to how to initially seed the project? Pat Scully and others pointed out that the highest hurdle is to get the initial information and to overcome the "tragedy of the commons."

First, we need to describe the advantages more clearly, someone suggested.
Second, we should have a "challenge" to organizations --> if we get X more organizations to sign up, you will take 2 hours to complete a full Cairn or you will get 20 of your project leaders to complete Cairn for all projects.

Larry Derringer said there needs to be an organizing strategy. Identify intermediary organizations in various fields and mobilize those organizations.

Dick Rowe suggested building through chapters of local organizations with common interests. Build on commonalities among communities of common interest.

Ginny Strauss advocated for getting different types of organizations to achieve balance.

Pat Wilson emphasized the need for conservative as well as liberal organizations.

Taylor Willingham pointed out that Cairns could be "sold" as an excellent planning tool, rather than just a data gathering tool. Sell it as: "you can use it to plan your projects."

Set people up psychologically to participate, said Pat Wilson. As people enter the system log their needs. Find out what they want. At the end, ask people to log key areas in which they learned something.

Pat Wilson said. "Sell it as a learning tool -- learn by sharing experiences with others." share what have been the most rewarding and difficult moments in your project work. Find out who else is grappling with the same challenges. Create a sense of community of learning.

Nancy Thomas cited the example of the Wisdom Conference which produced a collaborative "reflective" document on 9/11. It would be interesting if Cairns could be used for collaborative processes like this. Suggests, perhaps, the importance of selling the self-analysis of the Cairns Project.

Perhaps there should be an option, said Tom Atlee, to participate in a "mutual learning society," and indicate a willingness to be evaluated by others.

Pat Chetkovich suggested that smaller communities might have their own data and evaluation sharing within particular sub-fields.

Frankie Lappe suggested selling the ability to get printed materials and other resources.

The group suggested using interns and grad students to call organizations and get them to participation.

Cairns' design should take account of the fact that not everyone using the tool will be just getting started. Many people are mid-way and get stalled and need help.

Finally, the tool should also allow those with a method or a tool to describe it independently of the existence of a project.

Taylor Willingham made another suggestion (after the meeting via e-mail) as follows: wouldn't it be great if people could collaborate to complete a Cairn? One person may know all about the curriculum involved but then needs to contact another person to complete the information about budget and financing, for example. The tool should support this.

Also - there should be a way to upload information about curricula as well as tools and methods.

We then moved to brainstorm on three topics, the notes of which are recorded on mindmaps:

The Taxonomy -- these suggestions focused on simplifying the language and capturing additional information
The Pathways between the Cairns -- these suggestions focused on making the tool more exploreable and allowing people to navigate around. It should be like the IRS and offer you the 1040EZ as well as the 1040 option, depending on your needs.
Next Steps -- this discussion centered around using real-life events and conferences as opportunities to get data loaded.