Luis and Gay and others with tools for groups thinking together.
I too like Luis' set of conditions for group thinking. They match our
experience in the Local Sustainability Project. There must be other tools
we can share.
We have been working with collective decision-making teams where scientists
are partners with individuals, community and government.
Our toolkit includes:
- Rules of dialogue,
- Spiral of experiential learning,
- Concept mapping,
- Sharing symbols of place,
- Asking commonsense questions,
- Collective advocacy
- A pattern language
Happy to talk more about any of them.
Does anyone else use them?
Valerie Brown
At 11:46 AM 4/03/2006, you wrote:
>Send IntSci mailing list submissions to
> IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
>http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/mailman/listinfo/intsci_learningforsustainability.net
>
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of IntSci digest..."
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Tools for team work and group thinking (Luis Gutierrez)
> 2. Re: Suggestion for thread + intro (Luis Gutierrez)
> 3. Re: Suggestion for thread + intro (Luis Gutierrez)
> 4. A "Real" Science (ZIMMERMAN Ken)
> 5. Melancholie. Genie und Wahnsinn in der Kunst (ZIMMERMAN Ken)
> 6. Re: Returning to "the need for a different kind of science"
> (Bob Dick)
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>From: Luis Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>References:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:01:36 -0500
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Subject: Re: [IntSci] Tools for team work and group thinking
>Message: 1
>
>Ashwani Vasishth wrote:
>
>>One product that I have used in the past and found very powerful for
>>iterative sorting and ranking activities, post-brainstorming and
>>strategy generation, is Concept Systems software, at:
>>http://www.conceptsystems.com/index.cfm
>
>Hello Ashwani,
>
>Thanks for the info. The Concept Systems software looks good, will look
>into it some more. There are two tools I have used with good results:
>
>1. The NxN matrix, which has been around for a long time under various
>names. I think the best supporting software is the one developed by Don
>Steward at Problematics (http://www.problematics.com). This tool is
>especially useful for design integration workshops, thus one of the names
>commonly used is DSM (Design Structure Matrix). The rows and columns of
>the matrix are the disciplines (e.g., engineering specialties). At any
>given point during the project, the cells are marked to indicate, for each
>discipline, the other disciplines that must provide information. Then, the
>software reorders the rows and columns trying to get a block-triangular
>matrix which shows both the interdisciplinary information flows that can
>be done sequentially and those that are tightly coupled and must be done
>by two or more disciplines working together as a group. In large R&D
>projects, it is usually necessary to have a number of these integration
>workshops as the project unfolds. They can last from one day to a week,
>and are often scheduled before the major design reviews, to make sure that
>all the disciplines are "on the same page." The NxN matrix gives a
>"snapshot" of the design at a given point in time. For more information
>on this method and supporting tools, see the DSM website,
>http://www.dsmweb.org/
>
>2. The causal loop diagram (CLD) is useful when understanding "behavior
>over time" of complex dynamic systems is required. CLDs were developed by
>Jay Forrester at MIT in the 1960s to support the design of "system
>dynamics" simulation models. I have done a few of these myself, but my
>experience is that the CLD is most useful when used with research teams
>seeking to (a)understand how is it that many different variables (e.g.,
>physical, chemical, biological, economic, social, ecological, etc.)
>interact over time so as to produce certain modes of dynamic behavior; and
>(b) how the interactions can be modified so as to improve system behavior
>according to some criteria. The trick here is that CLDs allow you to
>identify delays in causal relations. CLDs also allow the team to have
>both open-loop and closed-loop structures, and the flows can be either
>conserved (physical) or not conserved (information). Most often, the CLD
>reveals the loops and delays causing undesirable behavior, and there is no
>need to build a simulation model. CLDs are also very useful to identify
>information flows which are either missing, or redundant, or defective in
>content. There are a number of good tools to facilitate diagramming, and
>some of them facilitate the transition from diagram to simulation. The
>one I use is POWERSIM (www.powersim.no). For more information on this
>method and supporting tools, see the Ossimtz website,
>http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/~gossimit/linklist.php.
>
>Has anyone here used these tools? Are there other group thinking tools to
>be considered?
>
>Luis
>
>--
>Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D., P.E.
>Quality, Productivity, and Sustainability Consulting
>http://pelican-consulting.com
>Solidarity & Sustainability Research Newsletter
>http://pelican-consulting.com/solisust.html
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>From: Luis Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:21:50 -0500
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Subject: Re: [IntSci] Suggestion for thread + intro
>Message: 2
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I'm responding to Luis's post because he has done a good job of listing the
>>ingredients for bringing people together to work collaboratively
>>for change.
>>But I'd suggest that a truly interdisciplinary effort is to also invite
>>lay professionals and community members to join research scientists in
>>finding ways to address the complexity of the issues we are facing.
>
>Hello Gay:
>
>Excellent point! It is often the case that lay professionals have more
>*common sense* (which, as you know, is the least common of the senses)
>than the experts.
>
>>Here's one notion: The business sector has created entertaining scenario
>>role-playing games to help their people learn about decision making in the
>>complex and fast pace of real life. I've done several of these in
>>the process of learning skills for negotiating land
>>protection deals. Scenario role-plays can be utterly absorbing and
>>often deliver their lessons to the players with an impact felt at the
>>emotional and physical level ("ohmygod, we've collapsed the global
>>telecommunications markets through our greed!"). Could we give our
>>audience of decision makers a taste of the power of systems thinking
>>through the immersion experience of a role-playing
>>scenario? Illustrate how tweaking the feedback loops of a complex
>>system can bring unanticipated results?
>>Maybe a compelling experience that is felt at the deeper levels of
>>consciousness might inspire people to sit down and learn more about
>>systems together.
>
>As Tom Atlee has pointed out, "things are getting better and better, and
>worse and worse, faster and faster." These days, most people cannot
>afford to think beyond the next minute. One school of thought advocates
>starting with "system thinking" at the K12 level. Perhaps this is the
>only long term solution.
>
>Take care,
>Luis
>
>--
>Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D., P.E.
>Quality, Productivity, and Sustainability Consulting
>http://pelican-consulting.com
>Solidarity & Sustainability Research Newsletter
>http://pelican-consulting.com/solisust.html
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>From: Luis Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>References:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:11:13 -0500
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Subject: Re: [IntSci] Suggestion for thread + intro
>Message: 3
>
>Eozarth wrote:
>
>>Hi, just wondering why a restriction of 10 or less? Is it a case of too
>>many cooks spoiling the broth or is it something I'm missing altogether?
>
>Hello Andrea,
>
>Exactly. You surely have heard about "the magic number seven, plus or
>minus two." If you put too many fish in a pond, they eventually start
>biting each other, even though they are "egoless." When you are dealing
>with busy, highly capable humans who are not "egoless," the probability of
>too much noise obscuring the signal in the information channels increases
>very quickly.
>
>Now, when I say "10 or less" I am thinking about a face to face situation
>in which the team members are sitting around a table, trying to figure out
>who has to give what information to whom and when. I have facilitated
>many of these interdisciplinary integration meetings, and of course the
>feasible limit can be increased if the collaborative spirit of the group
>is exceptionally good. But let me tell you, more that 12 is madness; by
>the end of the day the participants are exhausted, the facilitator is
>barely alive, and nobody wants to come back the next day.
>
>In terms of the information and insights to be gained, I prefer seven to
>ten well chosen people with the required expertise, plus maybe one or two
>generalists who have a good grasp of the "big picture." It is generally
>better if people know each other and trust each other; else, people are
>unwilling to commit to giving such and such data to someone else by a
>certain date, because they fear that this commitment will show up in a
>plan and can be used against them if they cannot deliver. Even with
>groups where such concerns do not exist, I always try to avoid running the
>meetings as "planning meetings." Group dynamics and information exchange
>are much better when the meeting is designated as an "exercise in
>teamwork" (or something like that) which is done for the benefit of the
>participants, as opposed to trying to a planning meeting to build some
>schedule of deliverable items. Needless to say, the wisdom of higher
>management often dictates otherwise.
>
>The people who organized this excellent forum (BTW, congratulations!!!)
>obviously are looking for innovative ways to increase both the humber of
>participants and the effectiveness of the exchange. I look forward to see
>the results of this interesting experience.
>
>Luis
>
>--
>Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D., P.E.
>Quality, Productivity, and Sustainability Consulting
>http://pelican-consulting.com
>Solidarity & Sustainability Research Newsletter
>http://pelican-consulting.com/solisust.html
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>From: ZIMMERMAN Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Cc: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>To: 'Phil' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'David Waltner-Toews' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:22:19 -0800
>Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Subject: [IntSci] A "Real" Science
>Message: 4
>
>Hi to everyone. I'm Ken Zimmerman. My background is rather mixed up.
>That's why all this integration of disciplines and work across usual
>academic barriers sounds so comforting to me. Most of my working life (30
>years) has been spent as a policy and costs analyst in energy areas --
>natural gas, oil, electricity, etc. I hold degrees in mathematics, History,
>Literature, electrical engineering, psychology, philosophy, and finally
>sociology. I have also taught some, had a short stint at NASA, and worked
>as a clinical psychologist. So all this talk of crossing boundaries is not
>new to me and actually is quite comforting.
>
>I agree with much that has been said by many of the others on this list. I
>particularly support "learning by doing" through collaboration across usual
>boundaries. From my experience this is difficult especially because some
>involved will not see the same "problem" or any problem at all. What's kept
>me going in situations where participants saw different problems and some
>saw no problem is my "faith" in two things -- 1. that people had a right and
>desire to make decisions democratically. I don't mean simple voting but
>primarily the face-to-face as equals dialogue and tough negotiations on
>issues. 2. that people want to "live well" and want the same for all others
>in the world. By live well I mean people want the chance to follow their
>dreams and fulfill their potential within the limits of making a positive
>contribution and not harming others or the world. I also strongly support
>taking science and similar belief systems "off the top of the perch."
>Pragmatically science has much to offer humans. More satisfying and fuller
>lives through medicine and the electronic exchange of art/music are just two
>examples. But science is not truth, big or little "T". And this applies to
>social and physical sciences. Similarly with religion or any other
>encompassing belief system. And this brings me to my darker comment. While
>the two faiths I mention above kept me going they did not stop me from
>recognizing that like Fritz Perl, Ernest Becker, Dietrich Bonhoffer, etc.
>had pointed out people have the potential to be evil and thus harm
>themselves, other humans, and the world we all live in. Overcoming this
>potential is really a major task for any "new" or integrated way for
>addressing sustainability, environmental degradation, war, poverty, etc.
>The two beliefs that sustained me have also often let me down. People have
>not always been up to the mark, so to speak. Expecting people to be
>cooperative and to change with only the right information is not only
>foolish, its also counterproductive. People are a lot more complex than
>that. A biologist friend of mine suggests that only a near extinction event
>is sufficient to "frighten" people into changing, of overcoming their
>potential for evil. Is she correct? Or do we need to "force" people to
>change, for their own good? If so, how far does the force go and who gets
>to be in charge of the storm troopers? Annually about 400,000 in the US die
>as a result of cigarette smoking. This included my father and two close
>friends. How far should we go to stop people from smoking? The same
>question applies to all behaviors that harm humans (including oneself) and
>the earth? This needs to be in the mix as we consider new or integrated
>approaches to social problems.
>
>Ken
>
>Kenneth R. Zimmerman, Ph.D.
>Senior Analyst
>Oregon Public Utility Commission
>Electric and Natural Gas Division
>Resource and Market Analysis
>550 Capitol Street, NE
>Suite 215
>PO Box 2148
>Salem OR 97308-2148
>503.373.1583
>503.373.7752 (fax)
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/pipermail/intsci_learningforsustainability.net/attachments/20060303/8dee16e3/attachment.html
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>From: ZIMMERMAN Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:06:43 -0800
>Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Subject: [IntSci] Melancholie. Genie und Wahnsinn in der Kunst
>Message: 5
>
>There's a new exhibit at the New National Gallery in Berlin, Melancholie.
>Genie und Wahnsinn in der Kunst. Is this a source of inspiration for our
>work or another problem we need to cure? Our answers might say a lot about
>what we're about.
>
>You can read about the exhibit at http://www.neue-nationalgalerie.de/
>
>Ken Zimmerman, Ph.D.
>Senior Analyst
>Oregon Public Utility Commission
>Electric and Natural Gas Division
>Resource and Market Analysis
>550 Capitol Street, NE
>Suite 215
>PO Box 2148
>Salem OR 97308-2148
>503.373.1583
>503.373.7752 (fax)
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
>
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:56 AM
>To: 'David Waltner-Toews'
>Cc: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>Subject: Re: [IntSci] Returning to "the need for a different kind of
>science"
>
>I whole heartedly agree these are high stakes issues "of more than
>"academic" interest". My suggestion was not that scientists should be
>more modest and draw attention to the shortcomings of their models.
>That has some real merrit, but the point I was trying to make is that we
>should use our models to draw people's attentions away from the models
>entirely, toward the real things we're studying. Some people will
>imediately jump up and say, "but there's nothing we can know except our own
>models, the whole purpose of science is to create a separate universe of
>explanations and we should never admit to drawing attention to the world of
>the undefined realities we're trying to explain".
>Needless to say I think the purpose of science is the opposite. I
>think it's important to say that there is order in the universe, and we can
>understand it better if we use our imperfect models as a guide to observing
>the real thing, making direct sense of otherwise disperate
>events. People should be told why no scientific model ever fits any
>data point. It's because nature works differently than models, and
>relying on a model of complex systems working properly is particularly
>dangerous. =
>
>
>The economists are working with a model of our life support system, for
>example, that posits ever more rapidly accelerating change will always be
>beneficial. We need to take that model, growth, and note that indeed all
>complex systems do seem to begin with it, but that successful growth in
>natural systems has to do with whether and what kind of new steady state is
>achieved.
>
>
>Phil Henshaw =B8=B8=B8=B8.=B7=B4 =AF `=B7.=B8=B8=B8=B8
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>680 Ft. Washington Ave
>NY NY 10040 =
>
>tel: 212-795-4844 =
>
>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
>
>explorations: www.synapse9.com =
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
>Waltner-Toews
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:54 AM
>To: John Glass
>Cc: IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>Subject: Re: [IntSci] Returning to "the need for a different kind of
>science"
>
>
>Somewhat of a scattered input here between reading student theses:
>
>I agree that the public needs to be reminded of the uncertainties in
>science, but how do we do that without sabotaging the whole enterprise of
>trying to establish that there are some forms of knowledge that we might
>want to give more weight to in particular situations? George Busgh has quite
>rightly pointed out the uncertainties in climate science. His conclusion is
>that business as usual is as good as any other business.
>Is American Creationism just another form of legitimate scientific
>knowledge?
>
>When we have students critically review the epidemiological literature, they
>savage every article they find (every study has flaws). The upshot is that
>many don't believe ANY study has anything of value. We have gone from
>students who believe everything to students who believe nothing & are then
>open to "any opinion is as good as any other". I don't want to be
>negotiating epistemologies with an emergency room physician after an
>accident.
>
>How we handle these "post-normal" situations - high stakes, urgency to make
>a decision, ethical & epistemological conflicts and high systems
>uncertainties - are of more than "academic" interest.
>
>It is easy, and perhaps trivial, to do what E.O. Wilson suggestions -
>integrate the sciences and social sciences etc. In a forthcoming book I
>co-edited with James Kay, I asked Fikret Berkes to asnwer the question:
>how do you get a shaman to collaborate with a scientist?
>
>Much of this comes down to agreeing on process, points of reference, rules
>of engagement etc.
>
>
>Quoting John Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > quick comment on Phil's suggestion below...I agree with Phil and have =
>
> > wondered why we structure our research articles the way that we do. i =
>
> > suspect that the format is the same in most sciences; lit review, =
>
> > theoretical framework, methods, findings, analysis, =
>
> > conclusion...limitations.
> >
> > seems to me that one way that we can assist the general public (and =
>
> > remind ourselves) in understanding the inherent limitations of science
>
> > might be to list the limitations FIRST in articles. this would not be =
>
> > to detract from the findings; rather it would orient any reader to the
>
> > conditions and context within which the research was conducted; those =
>
> > things that those of us who have conducted research are intimately =
>
> > familar with.
> >
> > we find it important enough to include a discussion of limitations at =
>
> > the end of the article, almost as an afterthought, or a communal =
>
> > obligation, why not state it upfront?
> >
> > john
> >
> >
> > Phil writes:
> >
> > "Ashwani, I greatly sympathize with your feeling that simplifying
> > research results in a misleading way is unacceptable. I also think
> > it's inevitable. Most people just want the quick answer and move
> > on.
> > It also seems inherent in discussing complexity, where every model is =
>
> > demonstrably wrong, and listeners couldn't possibly immerse themselves
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Using our models to direct our attention to the real things, instead =
>
> > of to substitute for them, opposes the tendency of people to think =
>
> > their explanations are more real than the things being explained, and =
>
> > I think would greatly advance the teaching of complexity. "
> >
> > John E. Glass, Ph.D.
> > Professor of Sociology
> > Division of Social & Behavioral Sciences Colin County Community =
>
> > College Preston Ridge Campus 9700 Wade Boulevard Frisco, TX 75035
> > +1-972-377-1622
> > http://iws.ccccd.edu/jglass/
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Some bad karma is worth it"
> > Me
> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was =
>
> > scrubbed...
> > URL:
> >
>http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/pipermail/intsci_learningforsu
>stainability.net/attachments/20060303/f87bdf6f/attachment.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > IntSci mailing list
> > IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
> >
>http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/mailman/listinfo/intsci_learni
>ngforsustainability.net
> >
>
>
>D. Waltner-Toews, Professor
>Department of Population Medicine
>University of Guelph
>Guelph, Ontario, Canada
>www.ovcnet.uoguelph.ca/popmed/ecosys
>www.nesh.ca
>www.eccho.ca
>
>_______________________________________________
>IntSci mailing list
>IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/mailman/listinfo/intsci_learni
>ngforsustainability.net
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/pipermail/intsci_learningfor=
>sustainability.net/attachments/20060303/9b53be46/attachment.html
>
>From: Bob Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: IntSci List <IntSci@learningforsustainability.net>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:45:44 +1000
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Subject: Re: [IntSci] Returning to "the need for a different kind of science"
>Message: 6
>
>
>
>David Waltner-Toews doesn't "want to be negotiating epistemologies with an
>emergency room physician after an accident". Nor do I.
>
>I like the metaphor, David. It seems to me that most philosophical
>debates are for amusement rather than for practical value. So I take
>comfort in the following quote from pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty:
>
>"Scientists who agree with Kuhn are not about to do anything very
>different from what their colleagues who agree with [Steven] Weinberg do.
>Their disagreements come up only in after-hours chat, not during the daily
>grind in the lab. ... In the short term, philosophical differences just do
>not matter that much."
>
>This is from Rorty, Richard (1999) The phony science wars. [Review of]
>Hacking, Ian, The social construction of what? Harvard University
>Press. The Atlantic Monthly, 284(5), 120-122.
>
>Cheers -- Bob
>
>
>
>--
>
> +- Bob Dick ---------------------------------------------------+
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uqconnect.net/action_research/ |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IntSci mailing list
>IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
>http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/mailman/listinfo/intsci_learningforsustainability.net
Valerie A. Brown AO, BSc MEd PhD
Emeritus Professor, University of Western Sydney
Director, Local Sustainability Project,
School of Resources, Environment and Society
Australian National University, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph/Fax 61 (0)2 62958650
http://www.sustainability.org.au
_______________________________________________
IntSci mailing list
IntSci@learningforsustainability.net
http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/mailman/listinfo/intsci_learningforsustainability.net
