Joint Ventures
Reply
Monthly Archives: March 2014
Social capital and death of cocktail parties
An item in my newsfeed caught my attention this weekend – 9 Reasons To Bring Back Cocktail Parties by Brie Dyas in the Huffington Post.
The article itself is not that exciting. Spoiler alert: the author thinks cocktail parties should make a come back. But its opening lines seemed oddly reminiscent:
Your grandparents probably enjoyed one trend that has sadly since died a thousand deaths: The cocktail party. These gatherings dominated the 1950s and 1960s, then fell by the wayside for a variety of reasons. The hub of socialization shifted away from the living room and into bars…
I can practically hear a young, modern, hipster-style Robert Putnam bemoaning the death of social capital.
Citing a drop of about 30-40 percent in “entertaining friends at home,” Putnam argued in his 2002 article Community-Based Social Capital and Educational Performance:
Our use of leisure time has been substantially privatized, as we have shifted from doing to watching. Americans have silently withdraw from social intercourse of all sorts, not just from formal organizational life.
Putnam speaks more broadly than the death of cocktail parties – pointing to declines in going to bars, participating in sports, and, of course, bowling leagues.
But Dyas’ totally unscientific claim that “the hub of socialization shifted away from the living room and into bars,” invokes the spirit of social capital.
Going to a bar, as the article points out, is a totally different experience then entertaining in your home. There is, of course, a vast diversity of bars, all with different characters and ambiance. But, on the whole, bars are crowed, noisy, and more expensive.
You go to a bar to be seen and to meet new people. The later, of course, being somewhat ironic because it’s impossible to hear anything in a crowded bar.
Putnam talks about the decline of social capital as if it is universal to our experience. Once upon a time everyone was friendly and life was just swell. Then we all got sucked into our individual televisions and never spoke to another living soul again.
His data support this vision – there have been significant declines in organizational participation and other, informal, modes of socialization. But his video killed the radio star rhetoric always puts me over the edge. What if the story is more complex than that?
Perhaps it’s not our overall sense of society that has died, but just our time spent in small groups. Our time spent actually meeting new people – in venues where you can hear their name. And our time spent really getting to know someone by talking about their experiences of life, liberty, and pursuing happiness.
So perhaps the Huffington Post is right – it’s time to resurrect the in-home cocktail party. Putnam would surely want us to.
is science republican (with a little r)?
First, a puzzle about Sir Francis Bacon, one of the founders of science as we know it. He begins his Advancement of Learning (1605):
To the King. … Wherefore, representing your Majesty many times unto my mind, and beholding you … with the observant eye of duty and admiration, leaving aside the other parts of your virtue and fortune, I have been touched – yea, and possessed – with an extreme wonder at those your virtues and faculties, which the philosophers call intellectual; the largeness of your capacity, the faithfulness of your memory, the swiftness of your apprehension, the penetration of your judgment, and the facility and order of your elocution. …
Yet, just a few pages later, Bacon writes:
Neither is the modern dedication of books and writings, as to patrons, to be commended, for that books (such as are worthy the name of books) ought to have no patrons but truth and reason. And the ancient custom was to dedicate them only to private and equal friends, or to entitle the books with their names; or if to kings and great persons, it was to some such as the argument of the book was fit and proper for; but these and the like courses may deserve rather reprehension than defence.
Dedicating to the King a book in which you denounce dedications would appear to be a contradiction. Perhaps Bacon thought that the argument of his book was “fit and proper” for James I because it was the monarch’s job to support science; perhaps Bacon thought James uniquely deserving of praise (he certainly said so at great length); perhaps the future Lord Chancellor was just being an oily politician; or–most interestingly–perhaps he was deliberately subverting his monarch’s authority.
In any case, the second quotation raises an important issue. Bacon sees that the institution of science must not acknowledge or incorporate arbitrary power. A scientist must not be told: “Believe this because I tell you to.” A scientist must be asked to believe in a purported truth for reasons that she or he can freely accept.
Freedom from arbitrary power is not democracy. Although I see the appeal of writers like John Dewey who would expand “democracy” far beyond voting and majority rule, I prefer to reserve the word for institutions in which people make binding decisions on the basis of equality. Political equality is different from freedom, and it is not applicable in science. Bacon famously opposes democracy (“The Idols of the Marketplace”) as a guide to truth. In The New Organon, XCI, he writes that scientific progress “has not even the advantage of popular applause. For it is a greater matter than the generality of men can take in, and is apt to be overwhelmed and extinguished by the gales of popular opinions.”
Yet freedom from arbitrary power is essential to republicanism, as Phillip Pettit and others understand that tradition. A republic is a political order in which no one can simply say, “This is how it will be,” without giving reasons. Even a democratic and liberal society like Canada or Australia is not perfectly republican because the Queen, although almost completely stripped of power, holds her office and takes ceremonial actions without giving reasons–because of who she is. In a republic, no one may do that.
Bacon is republican about science in that way. It should have “no patrons but truth and reason”; relationships among scientists should be like those of “equal friends.” He is also republican in a second sense. A republic is a res publica, a “public thing,” better translated as the common good or the commonwealth. Republican virtue means devotion to the res publica. Knowledge is a public good if we give it away. This, of course, is a deeply Baconian theme, for scientists must “give a true account of their gift of reason to the benefit and use of men.”
The post is science republican (with a little r)? appeared first on Peter Levine.
Improving Public Engagement with Games
Public participation processes can often be boring, tedious things to participate in, and finding ways to make them more fun and engaging is a recurring issue. But that’s why a growing sector of our field and others have been turning to “gamification” as a model for making sure citizens get the most out of their participation and enjoy themselves, too.
Andrew Coulson wrote a great piece for commsgodigital about gamification and engagement that we encourage NCDD members to give a read. You can read the article below or find the original piece here.
Gamification in Community Engagement Part 1: Offline
One of the biggest franchises at the moment in both literature and film is the Hunger Games. The story of how a world, not to dissimilar to ours, pits its own young against each other as a way of sorting out an age old issue between communities.
OK, OK I’m adlibbing a bit and it has very tenuous ties to engaging the community… but I need an edge for the blog.
Many games use strategy (where to hide, what to take), team work (Katniss and Peeta) and problem management (How do we kill the others before they kill us?) to help the player achieve goals (survival in the Hunger Games), which, if used in Community Engagement opportunities, allows the right decision to be achieved through understanding barriers, working together, and setting joint achievable objects. We know gaming is not new, but Gamification in Community Engagement certainly seems to be on the rise and being used more and more in issue management and relationship building between communities and their councils.
From early use of established offline games to newly developed, all-whistles-blowing online options, games are now being used more and more in engaging the community or helping people understand and generally participate in having their say in the decision making process.
In true commsgodigital style, over 2 installments, we’re going list a number of on and offline Gamification offerings in the world of community engagement and communication in the hope you will like them and, in a spark of inspiration, look at them as options in the work you do during 2014.
(Warning: We are not advocating the use of the Hunger Games model as an option for community engagement… it just doesn’t cut the mustard with some stakeholders.)
Offline
When asking for examples using LinkedIn, a number of people shared their experiences with me on how they had used games, both traditional and newly developed, in engaging communities to do, it seems, 1 or all of 4 things.
- To engage
- To inform/build understanding
- To build relationships/teamwork
- Break the ice
Gwenda Johnson, a County Extension Agent for Family and Consumer Sciences, Kentucky, said, “I often use floor puzzles to demonstrate community and the role people play in building a strong community. Sometimes I reserve some pieces to start a conversation about people who don’t follow through with responsibility. The 48 piece floor puzzles works well in our small community. It’s a great inexpensive way to start conversation and build team work too.”
So a few of my favourite examples:
The Public Space Trading Cards by Learning from Barcelona
Do you remember as a kid those card games where some cards ranked higher than others and the object was to collect them all by outwitting your opponent with a card that scored higher than theirs? We called it “Top Trumps” in the UK.
Learning from Barcelona have developed a similar Trading Card game where neighbourhood kids are tasked with collecting sets of cards depicting places in their neighbourhood by answering questions on the back on how to improve the area. Once collected they can be played with and traded. Here’s a better description.
The game allows people to become a detective in the own residential area and look at the built environment in a different light as well as think how improvements can be made. This informs them on issues facing the area whilst the cards questions help the local authority/project management to collect useful insights for future development. The game also builds in a sense of ownership for the area.
Cards games are also popular with David Wilcox at socialreporter.com, London who, via LinkedIn, shared examples he had developed as well as others he had come across. Take a look at Useful Games and Ingredients and tool cards for examples.
I myself used the card option in a game format when supporting the engagement of a community around the renewal of a small reserve in Salisbury, South Australia. Using cards with potential options on for the renewal (trees, equipment, amenities, etc.) as well as a hypothetical budgetary value, we gave players a map, a budget, and a shopping list as well as a stack of cards. They then used the cards and map to plan what they would buy and then place in the reserve. Adding an element of role play encouraged discussions on the needs and wants of the community for this space. There was also a wild card that could be used if we had missed anything or they had a great idea they wanted added to the discussion.
The Game of Urban Renewal by Toronto visual artist Flavio Trevisan
This game builds on the traditional board game structure and is kind of a cross between Monopoly, a puzzle, and children’s favourite, Lego, and who doesn’t like that combination!
As a board game, it allows players to take on the role of those involved in a councils planning office making decisions on what to build and knock down in their local area to make the community a better place to live. Players use cards that depict tasks on developing areas with specific functions such as public spaces, schools, commercial buildings, and housing using a real satellite imaged map of the area and 3D blocks to represent urban development.
The game aims to get players discussing and visioning possible solutions to urban development and renewal. Find out more about the Game of Urban Renewal.
Via LinkedIn Paul Tucker, a Partner a GRIN SW, Exeter mentioned Boom Town from 1990 which seems to have similar feel. Here’s the games description:
“Famous rare game from Ian Livingstone’s company, players construct a 1950s English new town by laying tiles to show housing, shops, factories, etc. As parts of the suburbs are completed, scoring goes to the majority holder, but there are spoiler tiles, like the rubbish dump, which will reduce your score. There’s a strong element of mutual caution until somebody steps over the brink and lays those bad tiles.”
Whose Shoes? Toolkit, My Life, My Budget and the Last Straw!
These three board games/toolkits are personal favourites of mine and are used to help the player build an understanding/appreciation around a certain topic. Often these games don’t have outcomes (as in there is no individual winner at the end) but educate those playing through promoting discussion about the topic; building empathy and encouraging learning in a fun and supportive environment.
All three are based around the health and social care of people in the community and were born out the many changes happening around the world in social care due to ageing populations and the effect of the worldwide recession on social care resources.
My Life, My budget was also developed around the same time as Whose Shoes? in response to the Personalisation of care in the UK. The board game helps service users understand the concept and how personalised budgets work and can affect their lives. The game is no longer available but if you’re lucky and in the UK, your local council may have a copy.
The Last Straw! is a fun and exciting teaching tool on the social determinants of health developed by University of Toronto’s Dr. Kate Rossiter and Dr. Kate Reeve as part of a health promotion class. The website says, “Feedback consistently demonstrates that players gain a better understanding of the social determinants of health and the interplay between forces at individual and community levels.” Shared by Catherine Laska, a Community Developer, Ottawa via LinkedIn.
Final thoughts
Finally, I wanted to share this YouTube video that highlights the benefits in playing games to both break the ice with community members as well as build trust and teamwork both of which are important when engaging the community. The video come from Jackson Dionne a Program Manager at The Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of BC.
[Unfortunately, the link to the YouTube video was broken at the time of publication. Please check back at the original post later.]
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the discussion on games in Community Engagement on LinkedIn. I apologise for not being able to mention all the contributions, however, if you would like to follow the discussion and see some other examples, please visit http://linkd.in/1g1XKiD. There are also a number of other examples via my Innovative Community Engagement board on Pinterest, including the brilliant use of a ball pit by Soulpancake, Lego pieces by Intelligent Futures, and even some of my own concoctions, including the award winning Heyford Reserve community engagement project where we used a board game to help gather and develop ideas with local school kids for the renewal of a small reserve and playspace in the City of Salisbury, South Australia. See more on my innovative community engagement Pinterest board.
Any further examples or comments on Gamification in community engagement please leave in the box below… we love feedback but please, once again, do not use the Hunger Games as a model for community engagement.
Part Two: Online Community Engagement will be appearing on commsgodigital in February/March.
The original version of this post can be found at www.commsgodigital.com.au/2014/01/gamification-in-community-engagement-offline.
The FLOK Society Vision of a Post-Capitalist Economy
Michel Bawuens, Founder of the P2P Foundation, has recorded four short videos describing the FLOK Society’s pioneering research project in Ecuador. FLOK stands for “Free, Libre, Open Knowledge,” and the FLOK Society is a government-sponsored project to imagine how Ecuador might make a strategic transition to a workable post-capitalist knowledge economy. As Research Director of the project, Michel and his team are exploring the practical challenges of making commons-based peer production a widespread, feasible reality as a matter of national policy and law.
The four videos – each four to six minutes in length – are a model of succinct clarity. Here is a short summary of each one, which I hope will entice you to watch all of them (links are in the titles below):
Bauwens explains the significant of the FLOK Society project as “the first time in the history of mankind that a nation-state has asked for a transition proposal to a P2P economy.” He asks us to “imagine that for every human activity, there is a commons of knowledge that every citizen, business and public official can use.” This regime of open, shareable knowledge would move away from the idea of privatized knowledge accessible only to those with the money to pay for copyrighted and patented knowledge. The system could be adapted for education, science, medical research and civic life, among other areas.
The FLOK Society project is actively looking for what it calls the “feeding mechanisms” to enable and empower commons-based peer production. For open education, for example, open textbooks and open educational resources would help people enter into this alternative regime. However, there are both material and immaterial conditions that must be addressed as well.
One material condition is proprietary hardware, for example. If open systems could replace the existing lock-down of proprietary systems, all users could spend one-eighth of what they are currently paying, on average. Moreover, eight times more students could participate in creating and sharing, said Bauwens, which itself would yield enormous gains. As for "immaterial conditions" that need to change, innovations like “open certification” are needed to recognize the skills of those who learn outside of traditional institutions, as in hacker communities.