OST & Scientific Method

Thu Nov 25 12:23:39 PST 2010

I could not say it better, Chris - about moving people from the  
abstract to the concrete.

And instead of talking about process (and I have found that most  
prospective clients or participants not only are not interested in  
process but are unsettled by hearing about process in advance of their  
sitting in the circle), but use the tool when it is the right fit to  
the task, and invite people to come based on task, deliverables (idea  
generation, knowledge sharing, understanding across disciplines,  
whatever).

No need to talk anybody into anything - just invite and welcome  
participants (and your intellectual friend, Juan Luis) to come and he  
either will or will not. I do not think that giving 'proof' will  
answer his concern, either.
Whenever it's the right time, he might enjoy coming for the sake of  
interest, not for scientific demonstration of anything.

And I am no expert on scientific measurement - I am just reflecting on  
my small amount of knowledge about one facet of measuring such things.
Some years ago I was given funding and training in a partnership  
between scientists and educators where the educators taught the  
scientists about their innovative HIV/AIDS community education  
projects and the scientists in turn taught us how to measure the  
impact of those projects on behavior change and communication.

In this project and others that followed it I learned that the kind of  
scientific measurement and evaluation that is typically done regarding  
behavior change (which is often how academics look at dialogue work  
and other such things) is very costly (data designers-gatherers- 
analysts, outreach to prospective participants and design of data  
collection materials, resources like phone and postage and travel  
time, engagement and commitment of the groups being studied) and  
requires following groups and individuals over time, measuring large  
enough groups against other similar groups, and so on.  And the idea  
is not to measure *intention to change* but actually measure if this  
one event / tool changed behavior (or efficacy or whatever).

Well then, when you look at the generally-used theory of behavior  
change, it is almost impossible to scientifically measure if *one*  
situation / intervention (such as the participant's having attended a  
fabulous, meaningful and productive Open Space event) was the thing  
that changed someone's behavior (including inspired them to action or  
change).  Because there are so many other influencers in that person's  
environment - outside events, things that happen in one's personal  
life, things that happen at work or in the world, how someone is  
feeling physically or emotionally, what their support system is, what  
their access is for the tools or information to support their change,  
what in their environment, peers' norms or way they navigate through  
the world supports / inhibits / delays that ability to change - and on  
and on.  So you can see the challenge of truly knowing if one in a  
series of things on one's life was 'the thing' that inspired-affected- 
supported-began change.

And it is not just something one measures at the end of a retreat or  
meeting (that is more about intention to change or ideas for action).  
Behavior change - and the impact of things - is typically measured  
over quite a long time after a catalyst event - noting everything else  
that is happening that may affect or inform the person and noting what  
was still true after a bit of time had passed.

So it's a very costly thing to do that can be very hard to do with our  
clients and communities in the contexts we work with them.

Of course it is also true that we need different ways of measuring.
I remember Larry and Peggy and others designing and inviting an  
appreciative interview process to gather narrative, reflective data  
about experiencing or being affected by an Open Space event.

And I have seen whole walls full of data that I could not read, but I  
could feel - in Open Space and other dialogue work I have done.
Some of you know that I am very interested in designing and exploring  
the use of participant self-documentation in dialogue work.
For example, I recall the feeling of seeing 800 graphic images created  
by 200 immigrant and refugee farmers, government and ngo  
representatives about their discoveries, hopes, challenges and  
imagined legacies as they reflected on farming and their connection to  
it.  Or 240 graphic images created by HIV/AIDS scientists and  
educators in Mozambique sharing learning about their own physical,  
spiritual, emotional and mental health and wellness.

So sure, you could measure that there were 40 images of tractors or  
100 images of family in those graphics - but I do not think measuring  
in terms of numbers is the only way we will know how to measure things  
in the future.
I am excited about the breakthroughs we will have in our thinking  
about new ways to measure - including non-linear and diverse  
modalities ways.
So excited.

Lisa

Lisa Heft
Consultant, Facilitator, Educator
Opening Space
lisaheft at openingspace.net

On Nov 25, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Chris Corrigan wrote:

> So I have used OST several times within academia as a way of  
> organizing gatherings.  I have worked with scientists (including  
> most recently some of the top brian scientists in the world looking  
> at early adverse childhood brain trauma), medical scientists,  
> business school folks, diversity departments, continuing education  
> people and many others.
>
> The trick to tthis ease of application is to focus on the work and  
> not on the process.  Academics, whether they are artists, social  
> scientists or scientists, love to think and debate ideas and  
> abstractions...that is what they are paid to do.  If you introduce  
> OST as an idea, they will immediately engage in it critically and my  
> experience is that they will either support it or oppose it, purely  
> on grounds of theory.  However, if you have a real business issue at  
> hand, then there is no need to discuss the idea of Open Space...you  
> simply need to to create the conditions for them to get down to  
> work.  In other words, no mess, no fuss, opening of space.
>
> Engage in the concrete, not the abstract.  people find it hard to be  
> opposed to actually doing work, but they will find a million  
> hypothetical and ideological reasons why your process will fail.   
> the easiest way to do tis is to open space without talking about  
> Open Space.  Skip all the interesting bits about how it's a self- 
> organizing meeting process that combines passion and responsibility  
> and works with high levels of complexity.  Forget all that.  Just  
> invite people to make their own conference complete with two plenary  
> sessions - at the beginning and end - and a series of concurrent  
> breakouts.  This goes for any group of people for whom ideas are  
> paramount: academics, politicians, activists, unions, philosophers,  
> lawyers...
>
> And as for scientific research and evaluation, I have recently  
> stumbled upon the discipline of "developmental evaluation" which is  
> a fantastic framework for understanding learning with in complex  
> adaptive systems.  Here are a few resources I have found and I  
> reccomend Michael Quinn Patton's book on the subject as well.  This  
> could be the academically acceptable theoretical framework we are  
> looking for.
>
> http://chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/?p=3001
>
> Chris
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20101125/904d5d07/attachment-0016.htm>