Planetary Dialogue SDDP on Rescuing the Enlightment: Difference between revisions

From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
(Updated the text about cluster)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SDD_Report                                         
  |acronym= SDDP ObamaVision                 
  |book_image= SDDP_Report_Image.jpg 
  |report_title= Flinders International Asia Pacific Institute
  |project= Flinders
  |Triggering_Question= "What factors will help significantly in rescuing the enlightenment from its failings?"
  |location=
  |dates= July 14-21, 2006
  |LeadFacilitator= [[Aleco Christakis]] <br> [[Yiannis Laouris]]
  |AsFacilitator=
  |author= [[Aleco Christakis]]<br> [[Yiannis Laouris]]
  |editor= [[Janet McIntyre]] 
  |total_duration= 1 week
  |stats=Participants=11 <br> Number of ideas=38 <br>Number of Clusters=9 <br> Ideas received 2+ Votes=14 <br> Ideas with 1 vote=11 <br> Spreadthink=58% <br> Ideas on MAP R=9
  |isbn=
  |link=
}}


==Executive Summary==
World history was made in a synchronous global interactive WebScope Dialogue facilitated by [[Aleco Christakis]] on the island of Crete, supported by [[Yiannis Laouris]] team located on the island of Cyprus on July 21, 2006 (www.loversofdemocracy.org). For the first time, the actual structuring phase of SDDP was implemented using virtual technologies with participants being geographically separated. A group of nine students of “Democracy and The Enlightenment” brought on from the Flinders International <ref>https://www.flinders.edu.au/international</ref>Asia Pacific Institute by [[Janet McIntyre]] in Adelaide, Australia, with other members of the Knowledge Management Team (KMT) spread over various locations in the USA ([[Ken Bausch]], an expert in systems sciences and Marie Kane, an expert in corporate marketing, located at Fayetteville, Georgia, Diane Conway, computer software and internet conference system operator, located at Paoli, Pennsylvania and [[Vigdor Schreibman]], reporter/observer from FINS in Washington DC).


==Triggering Question==
==Triggering Question==
What factors will help significantly in rescuing the enlightment from its failings?
What factors will help significantly in rescuing the Enlightenment from its failings?


==Clusters==
==Participants==
Cluster 1: CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
Rescuing the Enlightenment was designed as a Global Boundary-Spanning Dialogue, all together in the world of Cyberspace, at different local times and places. Eleven remote participants could view the same screen of the Cogniscope as those in the room using Claripoint, a special software that allows broadcasting a computer screen through the internet. Their virtual presence in the room was made possible using traditional telephone conferencing.
Cluster 2: AUTHENTICITY
Cluster 3: SENSITIVITY
Cluster 4: ACCOUNTABILITY
Cluster 5: HOSPITALITY
Cluster 6: METHODOLOGY
Cluster 7: INCLUSIVITY
Cluster 8: HUMAN NATURE
Cluster 9: MARGINALIZATION


==List of Ideas==
During the week of WebScope Dialogue, between July 14 and July 21, 2006, the KMT guided the student participants in their asynchronous
*Idea 1: IDENTIFY SUCCESS (Denise)
 
*Idea 2: TRUST (Denise)
==Process==
*Idea 3: USE PATTERNS OF FAILURE AND SUCCESS (Denise)
During the first six days, the students generated a set of 49 factors. They subsequently carefully clarified these factors so that everyone understood the meaning of each other’s ideas, using only their e-mail facilities. The factors were then classified into nine clusters and prioritised subjectively by relative importance. The KMT organised all the information efficiently and periodically returned pertinent KMT Reports to the student participants, who were the ‘content-experts’ of the group dialogue so that they could concentrate their attention on producing the content of the dialogue. Then, on the seventh day, the whole group engaged in a synchronous, focused and open dialogue via the WebScope for approximately three hours. At this session, the student group at Adelaide, Australia, guided by the lead facilitator in Crete, with the co-facilitating team in Nicosia, Cyprus and the KMT in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Washington DC, produced a Root-Cause Map (RCM), disclosing the influence tree among factors of higher relevant importance. The production of the RCM enabled the group to discover the root causes of the failures of “Democracy and The Enlightenment”, which could guide future collective, collaborative action.
*Idea 4: CONTACT WITH THOSE IN NEED (Geoff)
 
*Idea 5: TRANSPARENCY TO BUILD TRUST (Geoff)
The RCM disclosed three factors that must be addressed before the recovery of “Democracy and The Enlightenment” could be realised. These are considered the true drivers in the very complex issues the group addresses. The first of these root causes pointed to the '''extremes of either optimism or pessimism''' that guides public administration and political economy. This contrasts with research that shows the significant benefits of policy guidance, not by experts but by ordinary people (see, for example, Yankelovich and Harman, 1988). The second root cause disclosed the '''need for improving local governance by using local knowledge'''. And the third root cause disclosed the '''need to make room for the exercise of power by minorities'''.
*Idea 6: PROMISE KEEPING (Geoff)
 
*Idea 7: RELINQUISHING POWER (Geoff)
Overcoming these three root causes is the key to generating mutual respect and greater trust, which are essential elements of success of any community or society.
*Idea 8: HOSPITALITY (Geoff)
 
*Idea 9: EXPANDED NOTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY (Janet)
According to the final report, the global dialogue communications via telephone conferencing and internet connectivity were subject to local weather disturbances and power outages. These interruptions will require careful monitoring in future applications of the WebScope model to ensure best practices.
*Idea 10: RESPECTFUL COMMUNICATION (Janet)
 
*Idea 11: EXPANDING CONSCIOUNESS TO SEE CONNECTIONS ACROSS CONCEPTUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL AND SPATIAL BOUNDARIES (Janet)
In sum, the virtual co-laboratory produced results that the experts considered to be of highest quality and comparable to those that would have been produced in the context of a longer session taking place in a face-to-face physical setting.
*Idea 12: IMPROVING THE PROCESS OF RESEARCH AND MAKINGIT MORE DISCURSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN TO THE IDEAS OF OTHERS (Janet)
 
*Idea 13: IMPROVING THE CAPACITY OF POLICY MAKERS AND POLITICIANS TO BE INCLUSIVE (Janet)
 
*Idea 14: IMPROVING LOCAL GOVERNANCE USING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE (Jim)
==Visual Overview of Clusters==
*Idea 15: OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM (Jim)
The participants clustered the 38 ideas into 9 clusters. <br>
*Idea 16: HUMAN NATURE (Jim)
The List of Clusters: <br>
*Idea 17: METHODOLOGY (Jon)
Cluster 1: CLARIFICATION OF TERMS<br>
*Idea 18: COMMUNICATION (Jon)
Cluster 2: AUTHENTICITY<br>
*Idea 19: CAPACITY (Jon)
Cluster 3: SENSITIVITY<br>
*Idea 20: PARTNERSHIPS (Jon)
Cluster 4: ACCOUNTABILITY<br>
*Idea 21: RESPONSIBILITY (Jon)
Cluster 5: HOSPITALITY <br>
*Idea 22: MIND OPENING (Paisal)
Cluster 6: METHODOLOGY<br>
*Idea 23: BRAIN TRIGGERING (Paisal)
Cluster 7: INCLUSIVITY<br>
*Idea 24: LOOKING INSIDE (Paisal)
Cluster 8: HUMAN NATURE<br>
*Idea 25: ENABLING PEOPLE'S CAPACITY (Paisal)
Cluster 9: MARGINALIZATION<br>
*Idea 26: CORRECTING THE FAILINGS (Paisal)
 
*Idea 27: ENABLING STREET TRADERS TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE POLICY PERTAINING TO GOVERNANCE OF
[[File: Enlightment_Flinders_Clusters_MAP-Clusters.png |thumbnail|center|600px|alt=Clusters]]
INFORMAL STREET TRADERS (Sudarmo)
The diagram shows the clusters and the ideas that ended up in each category
*Idea 28: CORRUPTION AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN MANAGING THE DAILY TOLLS COLLECTED BY THE OFFICIAL FROM THE STREET TRADERS (Sudarmo)
<br>
*Idea 29: ADVOCACY TO SUPPORT THE STREET TRADERS (Sudarmo)
 
*Idea 30: MARGINALIZATION OF SOME TRADERS BECAUSE OF COMPETITION FOR SCARCE RESOURCES (Sudarmo)
==Visual Overview of Mapping==
*Idea 31: TOP DOWN PLANNING BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT FOCUSES ON CITY AESTHETICS OR BEAUTY AND NOT ON THE WELFARE OF THE STREET VENDORS (Sudarmo)
After voting the following ideas made it to the root of the tree: <br>
*Idea 32: USING RELEVANT LANGUAGE TO STAKEHOLDERS (Vu)
Idea 1: Identify success <br>
*Idea 33: PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS (Vu)
Idea 2: Trust <br>
*Idea 34: BEING RESPONSIVE TO STAKEHOLDERS TO AVOID FORMALISM CONSULTATIONS (Vu)
Idea 20: Partnerships <br>
*Idea 35: LEAVING OUT 'POWER ABUSED' ON THE DIALOGUE (Vu)
Idea 3: Use patterns of failure and success <br>
*Idea 36: CONDUCTING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (Vu)
Idea 5: Transparency to build trust <br>
*Idea 37: WE MUST BETTER DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY TWO KEY WORDS: 'ENLIGHTENMENT' and 'ITS FAILINGS' (John)
Idea 18: Communication  <br>
*Idea 38: WE WANT TO REFER TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND ITS FAILINGS (John)
Idea 7: Relinquishing power <br>
*Idea 39: SETTING AND OBSERVANCE OF RULES OF MUTUAL RESPECT, FOR OTHERS, OTHER VIEWS, NON-HUMAN CONSIDERATIONS AND FUTURE GENERATIONS (Rob)
Idea 14: Improving local governance using local knowledge <br>
*Idea 40: MORE INFORMED UNDERSTANDING OF AND COMMITMENT TO CIVIL SOCIETY, IE IN THIS CASE, THE NOTION THAT AS AN INDIVDUAL, ONE HAS BOTH RIGHTS TO BE HEARD AND OBLIGATIONS TO LISTEN AND ACCEPT THE VIEWS OF OTHERS, AND TO ACCEPT THAT SOME POLICY DECISIONS CANNOT FULFILL EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S NEEDS OR WANTS (Rob)
Idea 15: Optimism and pessimism <br>
*Idea 41: AN OBLIGATION ON ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN CONSULTATIVE PROCESSES TO BE FULLY (OR MORE) INFORMED, RATHER THAN 'COME AS YOU ARE' (Rob)
 
*Idea 42: FOCUS PARTICIPATIVE PROCESSES AROUND DIRECTIONS AND PRIORITIES IN RELATION TO 'CONUNDRUMS', RATHER THAN 'POPULAR VOTE ON SPECIFIC PROPOSITIONS' (Rob)
[[File:Enlightment_Flinders_2016_MAP.png|thumbnail|center|700px|alt=Influence MAP]]
*Idea 43: DEMONSTRATE ATTITUDES AND PROCESSES THAT REBUILD OR COUNTER-ACT THE (PERCEIVED) DECLINING TRUST IN GOVERNMENTS AS REPRESENTATIVE DECISION-MAKERS, AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTE DESPITE THEIR CYNICISM (Rob)
*Idea 44: NEED TO CHANGE ATTITUDE BOTH MEN AND WOMEN'S PART (Nadira)
*Idea 45: NEED TO AMEND THE EXISTING LAW (Nadira)
*Idea 46: COMPENSATION SHOULD BE MADE TO THE VICTIM (Nadira)
*Idea 47: A SUPPORT CENTRE SHOULD BE INTRODUCED TO DISTRIBUTE PROPERTY (Nadira)
*Idea 48: ENSURE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING LAW (Nadira)
*Idea 49: GENERAL COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS

Latest revision as of 23:12, 21 January 2024

SDDP ObamaVision
SDDP ObamaVision
Report Title Flinders International Asia Pacific Institute
Project Flinders
Triggering Question "What factors will help significantly in rescuing the enlightenment from its failings?"
Dates July 14-21, 2006
Lead Facilitator(s) Aleco Christakis
Yiannis Laouris
Author(s) Aleco Christakis
Yiannis Laouris
Editor(s) Janet McIntyre
Total Duration 1 week
Statistics Participants=11
Number of ideas=38
Number of Clusters=9
Ideas received 2+ Votes=14
Ideas with 1 vote=11
Spreadthink=58%
Ideas on MAP R=9



Executive Summary

World history was made in a synchronous global interactive WebScope Dialogue facilitated by Aleco Christakis on the island of Crete, supported by Yiannis Laouris team located on the island of Cyprus on July 21, 2006 (www.loversofdemocracy.org). For the first time, the actual structuring phase of SDDP was implemented using virtual technologies with participants being geographically separated. A group of nine students of “Democracy and The Enlightenment” brought on from the Flinders International [1]Asia Pacific Institute by Janet McIntyre in Adelaide, Australia, with other members of the Knowledge Management Team (KMT) spread over various locations in the USA (Ken Bausch, an expert in systems sciences and Marie Kane, an expert in corporate marketing, located at Fayetteville, Georgia, Diane Conway, computer software and internet conference system operator, located at Paoli, Pennsylvania and Vigdor Schreibman, reporter/observer from FINS in Washington DC).

Triggering Question

What factors will help significantly in rescuing the Enlightenment from its failings?

Participants

Rescuing the Enlightenment was designed as a Global Boundary-Spanning Dialogue, all together in the world of Cyberspace, at different local times and places. Eleven remote participants could view the same screen of the Cogniscope as those in the room using Claripoint, a special software that allows broadcasting a computer screen through the internet. Their virtual presence in the room was made possible using traditional telephone conferencing.

During the week of WebScope Dialogue, between July 14 and July 21, 2006, the KMT guided the student participants in their asynchronous

Process

During the first six days, the students generated a set of 49 factors. They subsequently carefully clarified these factors so that everyone understood the meaning of each other’s ideas, using only their e-mail facilities. The factors were then classified into nine clusters and prioritised subjectively by relative importance. The KMT organised all the information efficiently and periodically returned pertinent KMT Reports to the student participants, who were the ‘content-experts’ of the group dialogue so that they could concentrate their attention on producing the content of the dialogue. Then, on the seventh day, the whole group engaged in a synchronous, focused and open dialogue via the WebScope for approximately three hours. At this session, the student group at Adelaide, Australia, guided by the lead facilitator in Crete, with the co-facilitating team in Nicosia, Cyprus and the KMT in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Washington DC, produced a Root-Cause Map (RCM), disclosing the influence tree among factors of higher relevant importance. The production of the RCM enabled the group to discover the root causes of the failures of “Democracy and The Enlightenment”, which could guide future collective, collaborative action.

The RCM disclosed three factors that must be addressed before the recovery of “Democracy and The Enlightenment” could be realised. These are considered the true drivers in the very complex issues the group addresses. The first of these root causes pointed to the extremes of either optimism or pessimism that guides public administration and political economy. This contrasts with research that shows the significant benefits of policy guidance, not by experts but by ordinary people (see, for example, Yankelovich and Harman, 1988). The second root cause disclosed the need for improving local governance by using local knowledge. And the third root cause disclosed the need to make room for the exercise of power by minorities.

Overcoming these three root causes is the key to generating mutual respect and greater trust, which are essential elements of success of any community or society.

According to the final report, the global dialogue communications via telephone conferencing and internet connectivity were subject to local weather disturbances and power outages. These interruptions will require careful monitoring in future applications of the WebScope model to ensure best practices.

In sum, the virtual co-laboratory produced results that the experts considered to be of highest quality and comparable to those that would have been produced in the context of a longer session taking place in a face-to-face physical setting.


Visual Overview of Clusters

The participants clustered the 38 ideas into 9 clusters.
The List of Clusters:
Cluster 1: CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
Cluster 2: AUTHENTICITY
Cluster 3: SENSITIVITY
Cluster 4: ACCOUNTABILITY
Cluster 5: HOSPITALITY
Cluster 6: METHODOLOGY
Cluster 7: INCLUSIVITY
Cluster 8: HUMAN NATURE
Cluster 9: MARGINALIZATION

Clusters

The diagram shows the clusters and the ideas that ended up in each category

Visual Overview of Mapping

After voting the following ideas made it to the root of the tree:
Idea 1: Identify success
Idea 2: Trust
Idea 20: Partnerships
Idea 3: Use patterns of failure and success
Idea 5: Transparency to build trust
Idea 18: Communication
Idea 7: Relinquishing power
Idea 14: Improving local governance using local knowledge
Idea 15: Optimism and pessimism

Influence MAP