Evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process: Difference between revisions

From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: 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]](and the underlying methodology: [[Structured Dialogic Design]], 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: [[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.




Revision as of 23:26, 11 September 2022



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.

Generation I

The methodology was developed by Warfield in the seventies [1] He used the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in connection with the Interpretive Structural Modeling algorithm[2] to define a process he called Interactive Management[3]. 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 [4] 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. Broome's applications in Cyprus (1994-1999)[5] [6] [7] [8] [9], and later in Ireland and globally[10] [11] [12] [13] were conducted in strict compliance with IM Process and are thus viewed as a late phase of GI. Because Christakis has made modifications to the methodology and developed his own software, his contributions are considered as GII.

Generation II

Christakis, together with Kevin Dye, Ken Bausch, Tom Flanagan, LaDonna Harris, and Reynaldo Treviño-Cisneros have developed a more comprehensive model in which the Interpretive Structural Modeling algorithm has been embedded within an ordered series of steps:

  1. Formulation of a Triggering Question
  2. Idea Generation
  3. Idea Clarification
  4. Clustering
  5. Voting
  6. 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 itselfCogni 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.



Citations

  1. ↑ Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ 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
  6. ↑ 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.
  7. ↑ Broome, B. J. (1998). Overview of conflict resolution activities in Cyprus: Their contribution to the peace process. Cyprus Review, 10(1), 47-66.
  8. ↑ 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.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ 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.



Other Warfield References

  • Warfield, J. N. (1973a). Intent structures. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3(2), 133–140.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1973b). Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 441–449.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1973c). Assault on complexity. Battelle Monograph, 3 April. Battelle Memorial Inst., Columbus, OH.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1973d). On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 121–132.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1974a). Structuring complex systems. Battelle monograph. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Inst. 4.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1974b). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (1), 81-87.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1974c). Towards Interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-4(5), 405–417.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning. Policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.
  • Warfield, J. (1979). History and Applications of Interpretive Structural Modeling. In Canadian Operational Research Society, Annual Meeting, May (Vol. 23).
  • Warfield, J.N. (1989) ISM software history. Notes by Rose: https://mars.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/3204/Warfield_24_33_A1b.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
  • Warfield, J. (1995). " A Compressed History of the Development of: Interpretive Structural Modeling, The Science of Complexity, The Science of Generic Design, and Interactive Management," August 1995.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1999). Twenty laws of complexity: Science applicable in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(1), 3–40.
  • Warfield, J. N. (2003). The mathematics of structure. Palam Harbor, FL: Ajar Publishing Company.
Retrieved from "https://futureworlds.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Evolution_of_the_Structured_Democratic_Dialogue_Process&oldid=26288"