Notes from Jonny and Today's Meeting
As I promised during our phone call today, here are
my thoughts on the process and presentation elements of the special
issue we discussed. This document ended up a bit longer than I had
planned, but it gave me a chance to organize some thoughts that have
been rattling about half formed in my mind for some time. I leave it to
the rest of you to initiate the discussion on content.
I’m
taking the liberty of ccing Chris Tancock, EPP’s point of contact at
Elsevier. Cris has a keen interest in this topic, and may have some
ideas about how we should proceed. Chris – weigh in as you are so
inclined. Tarek – when you set up the planning blog, please include
Chris as a member.
My background
By
way of background, my thoughts on this topic result from a confluence
of various themes. First, I have long been interested in social
networking as a way of generating and sharing knowledge, and also as a
means of community building. I tried to do this, not very successfully,
at my last job, and equally unsuccessfully in getting our special issue
editors to experiment with a social networking dimension to their
efforts. Brian Yates is doing a special issue for us on Cost Inclusive
Evaluation, and it looks as if he will succeed. I’m hoping that our
present effort builds on that success. (I don’t know if Brian would be
willing, but I could ask him to act as an advisor for us.)
Second, I have been greatly influenced by two books on social networking. The first is Wiki Government, the story of using social networking to improve the operations of the United States Patent Office. The second is Too Big to Know.
The first made me appreciate how social networking needs to be
structured to further productive collaboration. The second helped me
understand some of the epistemological issues of knowledge in a
networked world, and the value of traditional “long form” thought (aka
books and articles) in a networked world.
Third,
as a journal editor, I have been thinking a lot about Elsevier’s
“article of the future” initiative and its implications for helping the
evaluation community.
Finally,
I have been involved in helping the U.S. Federal Railroad
Administration to implement and evaluate its new social networking
efforts. This has led me to learn about IBM’s jams and other similar activities.
Principles of action
Out of all the above has come a few principles that I think we should follow.
Coherent vision:
There needs to be a vision shared by a small group as to what this
special issue should be and what it should accomplish. This vision needs
to guide the entire process. Varied opinions are nice, but
collaboration does not mean that people can pull a project hither,
thither and yon. I’m not saying that what we begin with should be
written in stone, but I do think that changes should be made judiciously
by organizing group.
Expertise:
Larger groups of people have a greater amount of expertise and insight
than smaller groups. Anything we can do to expand the flow of ideas,the
better.
Diverse input:
The number of people notwithstanding, diversity of expertise and
background has its own valuable affect. Do a thought experiment. Do we
want 10 experts with a background in sociology; or two in sociology, two
in economics, two in political science, and two in public
administration, and two public health?
Collaboration in cyberspace cannot be assumed:
Visions of Wikipedia notwithstanding, it is not easy to elicit
collaboration in cyberspace. One problem is simply critical mass. Any
given topic may need only few active contributors and a few sometime
contributors, but I bet the size of that critical mass is very stable no
matter how big the population being drawn from. If 50 people are
needed, it is easier to find them in a population of 50,000 than in a
population of 500. (I have no doubt there is some good research on this
topic. If anyone knows where it is, send it my way.) This means that we
will probably have a hard time reaching enough motivated contributors.
This brings me to my second point. There are four ways we can get the
collaboration we seek. First is to make sure we are dealing with a hot
topic. (No problem there, we are.) Second we can lower the transaction
cost of getting involved. This means making it easy for people to
participate. Third, we can reward people, chiefly by encouraging them to
talk about what they are experts in. Forth, we need to do everything we
can to solicit advice from as large and diverse a population as
possible.
Spreading the word is good for business: Enough said.
Use model
The
final product will be a set of articles that look as if they are in
traditional form, but which are accompanied by a great deal of extra
material that is link to the text. This is easily enough done with
Elsevier’s functionality.
Note
the term “final product” in the above paragraph. We could think of what
we are doing as never being “final”, but rather as something with a
significant milestone, and continuing lower level activity after that.
If people think they won’t run out of steam we can think in these terms.
For now, let’s assume we will do something and finish.
Content
should be determined by a combination of our beliefs about what is
needed, and suggestions from the public. I see us constructing a short
blurb containing a short description of what we are planning and a draft
outline, and then disseminating it as widely as possible. Old fashioned
email would be fine. The electronic suggestion box would be open.
Between
our initial thinking and the suggestions, we will end up with a set of
topics and as set of authors. A small group will be responsible for each
topic, but all involved with have visibility into what the others are
doing.
As
topics are developed, the people doing the work will be charged with
identifying particular questions that they would like input on. I don’t
see us as saying to the world: “We are writing about why judgments on
best practice differ, what do you think?” I see us as saying something
like: “We are writing about why judgments on best practice differ. We
are wrestling with two questions. 1) Specific methodological expertise
notwithstanding, does hands-on service delivery experience affect
judgments about whether a recommended best practice is in fact a best
practice?” 2) Does subject matter affect judgments of the quality of
research? For instance, would people come to different conclusions if
the topic were child welfare, obesity prevention, conflict resolution,
or safety in industrial settings?” By directing questions like this we
will accomplish two objectives. First, we will force the topic
organizers to think about what they are doing. Second, we make it
interesting for people to participate because we are appealing to their
interests and intellectual proclivities.
As
the above proceeds, it seems likely that communities may form. For
instance, it’s not hard to imagine a group of people really interested
in the “hands-on” question. Whatever functionality we use, we need to
make it easy for these kinds of groups to self organize.
The
functionality I am describing will require a fairly sophisticated
social networking site and some able system administrators. I’m not sure
how to get all this, but I’m hoping the Claremont people can help.
There
are still many more ideas about this in my head, but they are still
half formed, I’m tired, and I have to pack to go off on a data
collection junket tomorrow. At least this is a start.
Jonny
Jonathan A. Morell Ph.D.
Director of Evaluation
Fulcrum Corporation
734 646-8622
jmorell@fulcrum-corp.com
Respect data. Trust judgment.
