"Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems" is a relatively recent book (2005) on dialogue and wicked problems by Jeff Conklin. You can read the first chapter of the book here. Jeff is part of the CogNexus Instititute.
I'm not sure I agree with Conklin's take on wicked problems. He seems to want to strip the social complexity out of them. He says: "... while wickedness is a property of the problem/solution space ... social complexity is a property of the social network that is engaging with the problem". I'm not sure these things are so easily teased apart. Expecially since Rittel's original paper (as Conklin acknowledges elsewhere) sees one of the contributors to "wickedness" being the various views of the "publics" and "sub-publics" affected. I can see why Conklin might want to separate out social complexity - to get some clarity - but I'm not sure if it is helpful.
Showing posts with label conversation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conversation. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday, November 8, 2007
"The Magic of Dialogue" (2)
The first chapter of Yankelovich's book offers a definition of dialogue - straight from Webster's dictionary: "seeking mutual understanding and harmony". Although Yankelovich then goes on to downplay the harmony bit and says he'd be happy to settle just for understanding. Interestingly, he quotes Martin Buber ("I and Thou") who draws a distinction between "ordinary conversation" and dialogue. It seems the key thing with dialogue is the willingness to suspend judgement and just to listen to the other person. You don't have to agree - but you do have to listen so as to understand (pp14 - 15).
The chapter gets really interesting when Yankelovich quotes physicist David Bohm as saying that "world class" physicists get their best ideas in dialogue with other physicists and not sitting at their desks. He then extends this link between dialogue and thought by talking about how the American public does democracy. The American public doesn't reach decisions based on expert analysis - rather it reaches decisions using dialogue. And in so doing it is "harking back to prescientific ways of knowing" (p26).
To drive home this point - that dialogue is a "way of knowing" - a way of arriving at decisions - Yankelovich gives the example of ETS (p28). This is a non-profit organisation that administers the SAT and other college tests. Yankelovich's summary is worth quoting here:
"Plenty of information exists about the strengths and limitations of standardised tests. ETS's board takes these facts into account. But the facts do not reveal to the Board what its vision for the future should be or the best strategy for achieving it. Only high quality dialogue among its diverse members and professional staff can yield this kind of understanding and judgement." (p28)
Of course this reminds me of Aristotle's two roads to truth - logic and rhetoric. Both of which are strictly "prescientific". And of course, Cicero's observation that governing Carthage isn't going to be successful if all we do is take the "facts into account". How we decide to govern Carthage will only be worked out in "high quality dialogue".
The chapter gets really interesting when Yankelovich quotes physicist David Bohm as saying that "world class" physicists get their best ideas in dialogue with other physicists and not sitting at their desks. He then extends this link between dialogue and thought by talking about how the American public does democracy. The American public doesn't reach decisions based on expert analysis - rather it reaches decisions using dialogue. And in so doing it is "harking back to prescientific ways of knowing" (p26).
To drive home this point - that dialogue is a "way of knowing" - a way of arriving at decisions - Yankelovich gives the example of ETS (p28). This is a non-profit organisation that administers the SAT and other college tests. Yankelovich's summary is worth quoting here:
"Plenty of information exists about the strengths and limitations of standardised tests. ETS's board takes these facts into account. But the facts do not reveal to the Board what its vision for the future should be or the best strategy for achieving it. Only high quality dialogue among its diverse members and professional staff can yield this kind of understanding and judgement." (p28)
Of course this reminds me of Aristotle's two roads to truth - logic and rhetoric. Both of which are strictly "prescientific". And of course, Cicero's observation that governing Carthage isn't going to be successful if all we do is take the "facts into account". How we decide to govern Carthage will only be worked out in "high quality dialogue".
"The Magic of Dialogue" (1)
I've just started reading Daniel Yankelovich's "The Magic of Dialogue" (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001). This book was recommended by a friend of mine with a keen interest in reconciliation and the uses of dialogue in those very difficult situations. However, this book aims to give "special attention" (p14) to the use of dialogue in businesses and organisations with similar structures to businesses.
Like Gaul, the book is divided into three parts:
Like Gaul, the book is divided into three parts:
- Why dialogue's necessary.
- How to do it.
- Where else to do it (including an intriguingly named final chapter about the "struggle for the soul of America").
Watch this space.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Lessons from 9/11: How conversations can galvanize others to act
This is an interesting piece from Knowledge@Emory about an article submitted to the journal Organisational Science , by Monica Worline and Ryan Quinn. The article describes how conversations can create a space for people to take courageous action - and even overcome the "Kitty Genovese effect". The key conclusion is: "people do things in conversations with others that create psychological resources that allow them to act in difficult situations".
The article looks at the behaviour of passengers aboard Flight 93, and what spurred them to take action. The authors point out that it was in fact unusual for the passengers to take any action at all - because up until then passengers in a hijacked aircraft were just seen as passive "pawns". The critical factor in the passengers taking action was their engagement in conversation beforehand. The article contends that one of the main ways conversation helped the passengers was to make the uncertainty of the situation manageable:
"In the end, it is not entirely clear that everyone knew or believed the plane was going down. There was debate aboard the plane about whether it was a suicide hijacking or not. The passengers ultimately decided that it was worth an attempt to take control of the plane and try to land it, despite the uncertainty, notes Worline. “In the Kitty Genovese case there also was uncertainty about what exactly was happening, which tended to paralyze people and stop them from taking action to address the situation. In our paper, we show that interpersonal dynamics and conversational resources made the uncertainty manageable enough so that the passengers could act.""
The article looks at the behaviour of passengers aboard Flight 93, and what spurred them to take action. The authors point out that it was in fact unusual for the passengers to take any action at all - because up until then passengers in a hijacked aircraft were just seen as passive "pawns". The critical factor in the passengers taking action was their engagement in conversation beforehand. The article contends that one of the main ways conversation helped the passengers was to make the uncertainty of the situation manageable:
"In the end, it is not entirely clear that everyone knew or believed the plane was going down. There was debate aboard the plane about whether it was a suicide hijacking or not. The passengers ultimately decided that it was worth an attempt to take control of the plane and try to land it, despite the uncertainty, notes Worline. “In the Kitty Genovese case there also was uncertainty about what exactly was happening, which tended to paralyze people and stop them from taking action to address the situation. In our paper, we show that interpersonal dynamics and conversational resources made the uncertainty manageable enough so that the passengers could act.""
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
