Evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process: Difference between revisions

From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process (view source)

Revision as of 02:20, 12 September 2022

1,153 bytes added ,  12 September 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


[[John N. Warfield]] developed the methodology in the seventies <ref>Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.</ref> He used the [[Nominal Group Technique]] (NGT) in connection with the [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]] algorithm<ref>Warfield, J. N. (1982). “Interpretive Structural Modeling”. In S.A. Olsen (Ed.), Group Planning and Problem-solving Methods in Engineering (pp. 155-201). New York: Wiley.</ref> to define a process he called [[Interactive Management]]<ref>Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.</ref>. While the [[Benjamin Broome]] group continues to use the term [[Interactive Management]], most others now use the terms [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]], or [[ Structured Design Process]] or simply [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process| Structured Democratic Dialogue]]. Since its inception in the early seventies, the methodology has evolved. The [[Future Worlds Center]] group proposed a generational classification scheme<ref>Laouris, Y., Dye, K. (2023). Multi-stakeholder structured dialogues: Five Generations of Evolution of Dialogic Design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.</ref> consisting of five stages based primarily on whether some or all stages of the process were implemented synchronously or asynchronously and whether the participants’ presence was physical or virtual. Other aspects such as modifications in the stages of the process, the evolution of the software, domains of applications, file management, methods of collecting or recording contributions, votes, and clarifications, preparation of reports, and key players are also considered and reported within the context of the primary scheme. The figure below depicts five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process along a timeline. The key actors and the predominant technologies used are also included in the diagram.


 
[[File:4G_Illustrations-Periods.png|600px|center|alt=Five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]]
 
The figure below depicts five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process along a timeline. The key actors and the predominant technologies used are also included in the diagram.
 
[[File:4G_Illustrations-Periods.png|800px|center|alt=Five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]]




====Generation I====
====Generation I====
The methodology was developed by Warfield in the seventies <ref>Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.</ref> He used the [[Nominal Group Technique]] (NGT) in connection with the [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]] algorithm<ref>Warfield, J. N. (1982). “Interpretive Structural Modeling”. In S.A. Olsen (Ed.), Group Planning and Problem-solving Methods in Engineering (pp. 155-201). New York: Wiley.</ref> to define a process he called [[Interactive Management]]<ref>Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.</ref>. Interactive Management was validated between 1970-1974 mostly in Lab environments, using experimental Algorithms, which culminated to the release of the ISM DOS (Warfield). Fitz <ref>Fitz, R. (1974, November). Reflections on interpretive structural modeling as technology of social learning. In 1974 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the 13th Symposium on Adaptive Processes (pp. 693-696). IEEE.</ref> called his applications [[Technology of social learning]]. Broome and Christakis are credited for taking the methodology outside of the USA and conducting important socio-technical applications. [[Benjamin Broome|Broome]]'s applications in Cyprus (1994-1999)<ref>Broome, Benjamin J. (1995). Designing the Future of Peace-Building Efforts in Cyprus. Report of Design Workshops held during Fall 1994 and Spring of 1995 with Conflict Resolution Trainers and Project Leaders. Cyprus Fulbright Commission. [[media:Broome_Cyprus_Bi-communal_Trainers_Workshkops_1994-95_Report.pdf]]</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (1997). Designing a collective approach to peace: Interactive design and problem-solving workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities in Cyprus. International Negotiation, 2(3), 381-407.</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (1998). Overview of conflict resolution activities in Cyprus: Their contribution to the peace process. Cyprus Review, 10(1), 47-66.</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (2002). Participatory planning and design in a protracted conflict situation: applications with citizen peace‐building groups in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 19(4), 313-321.</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (2004). Reaching across the dividing line: Building a collective vision for peace in Cyprus. Journal of Peace Research, 41(2), 191-209.</ref>, and later in Ireland and globally<ref>Hogan, M. J., Johnston, H., Broome, B., McMoreland, C., Walsh, J., Smale, B., ... & Groarke, A. M. (2015). Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: lessons from a systems science application. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 857-877.</ref> <ref>McHugh, P., Domegan, C., Mazzonetto, M., Duane, S., Joyce, J., Devaney, M., ... & Piwowarczyk, J. (2017). Seas of energy: Using a systems research approach for a wicked problem. In Social Marketing (pp. 329-338). Routledge.</ref> <ref>Ma, J., Hogan, M. J., Eyre, E. L., Lander, N., Barnett, L. M., & Duncan, M. J. (2021). Enhancing the implementation and sustainability of fundamental movement skill interventions in the UK and Ireland: lessons from collective intelligence engagement with stakeholders. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), 1-17.</ref> <ref>Hogan, M., Harney, O., & Broome, B. (2015). Catalyzing collaborative learning and collective action for positive social change through systems science education. In The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 465-480). Routledge.</ref> were conducted in strict compliance with IM Process and are thus viewed as a late phase of GI. Because [[Aleco Christakis|Christakis]] has made modifications to the methodology and developed his own software, his contributions are considered as GII.
[[Interactive Management]] was validated between 1970-1974 mostly in Lab environments, using experimental Algorithms, which culminated to the release of the ISM DOS (Warfield). Fitz <ref>Fitz, R. (1974, November). Reflections on interpretive structural modeling as technology of social learning. In 1974 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the 13th Symposium on Adaptive Processes (pp. 693-696). IEEE.</ref> called his applications [[Technology of social learning]]. Broome and Christakis are credited for taking the methodology outside of the USA and conducting important socio-technical applications. [[Benjamin Broome|Broome]]'s applications in Cyprus (1994-1999)<ref>Broome, Benjamin J. (1995). Designing the Future of Peace-Building Efforts in Cyprus. Report of Design Workshops held during Fall 1994 and Spring of 1995 with Conflict Resolution Trainers and Project Leaders. Cyprus Fulbright Commission. [[media:Broome_Cyprus_Bi-communal_Trainers_Workshkops_1994-95_Report.pdf]]</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (1997). Designing a collective approach to peace: Interactive design and problem-solving workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities in Cyprus. International Negotiation, 2(3), 381-407.</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (1998). Overview of conflict resolution activities in Cyprus: Their contribution to the peace process. Cyprus Review, 10(1), 47-66.</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (2002). Participatory planning and design in a protracted conflict situation: applications with citizen peace‐building groups in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 19(4), 313-321.</ref> <ref>Broome, B. J. (2004). Reaching across the dividing line: Building a collective vision for peace in Cyprus. Journal of Peace Research, 41(2), 191-209.</ref>, and later in Ireland and globally<ref>Hogan, M. J., Johnston, H., Broome, B., McMoreland, C., Walsh, J., Smale, B., ... & Groarke, A. M. (2015). Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: lessons from a systems science application. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 857-877.</ref> <ref>McHugh, P., Domegan, C., Mazzonetto, M., Duane, S., Joyce, J., Devaney, M., ... & Piwowarczyk, J. (2017). Seas of energy: Using a systems research approach for a wicked problem. In Social Marketing (pp. 329-338). Routledge.</ref> <ref>Ma, J., Hogan, M. J., Eyre, E. L., Lander, N., Barnett, L. M., & Duncan, M. J. (2021). Enhancing the implementation and sustainability of fundamental movement skill interventions in the UK and Ireland: lessons from collective intelligence engagement with stakeholders. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), 1-17.</ref> <ref>Hogan, M., Harney, O., & Broome, B. (2015). Catalyzing collaborative learning and collective action for positive social change through systems science education. In The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 465-480). Routledge.</ref> were conducted in strict compliance with IM Process and are thus viewed as a late phase of GI. Because [[Aleco Christakis|Christakis]] has made modifications to the methodology and developed his own software, his contributions are considered as GII.


====Generation II====
====Generation II====
Line 20: Line 17:
# [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]]
# [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]]


They called their process: [[Dialogic Design Process]] (DSP). They have also developed more advanced software applications to support the implementation (Root Cause Mapping, [[Cogniscope 1]], [[Cogniscope 2]]). They sometimes called the process itself'''Cogni System''', using the name of their software. Applications conducted between 1987-20005, in strict compliance with DSP have been classified as early applications of GII. Applications conducted by the extended Agoras group (i.e., [[Yiannis Laouris]], [[Jeff Diedrich]]), mostly referred to as [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]](and the underlying methodology: [[Dialogic Design Science]], including hybrid (2005-today) are classified as a late wing of GII. These applications use ne software, such as [[Cogniscope 3]], [[IdeaPrism]], [[Concertina]], and [[Logosofia]]. Most applications were conducted f2f, but some were hybrid (examples: Projected data on walls, i.e., [[Reinvent Democracy]] projects). During this period, other innovations included early voting machines used by ([[Cliff Sanders]]) and multi-scoring the ideas that made it to MAP for impact, feasibility, and probability of happening without intervention.
They called their process: [[Structured Design Process]] (SDP). They have also developed more advanced software applications to support the implementation ([[Root Cause Mapping]], [[Cogniscope 1]], [[Cogniscope 2]]). They sometimes called the process itself'''Cogni System''', using the name of their software. Applications conducted between 1987-20005, in strict compliance with DSP have been classified as early applications of GII. Applications conducted by the extended Agoras group (i.e., [[Yiannis Laouris]], [[Jeff Diedrich]]), mostly referred to as [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]](and the underlying methodology: [[Dialogic Design Science]], including hybrid (2005-today) are classified as a late wing of GII. These applications use ne software, such as [[Cogniscope 3]], [[IdeaPrism]], [[Concertina]], and [[Logosofia]]. Most applications were conducted f2f, but some were hybrid (examples: Projected data on walls, i.e., [[Reinvent Democracy]] projects). During this period, other innovations included early voting machines used by ([[Cliff Sanders]]) and multi-scoring the ideas that made it to MAP for impact, feasibility, and probability of happening without intervention.




Chief ed
Ninja, Ninla, Bots, Bureaucrats, recentchangescleanup, Administrators
4,970

edits

Retrieved from "https://futureworlds.eu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/26293...26313"

Navigation menu