Core concepts proposal
Dear @Noemi , @Federico Moro. @Alberto and all,
I see the discussion is going on and we are converging: very good!
For the next days I propose to concentrate our discussion on the abstract, and work on its writing, in order to be sure to conclude this activity in the meeting we will have in Rome the 3rd February.
In this perspective, my contribution is on three points: (1) Main question and working hypotheses, (2) Theoretical background, (3) What could make this paper unique?
(1) Main question and working hypotheses
In the abstract I proposed, the core question was drafted in this way:
- This article moves from these conversations-in-their-environment and discusses when and how an initial trigger (such as a post presenting an idea or a story) generates an online conversation that, in turn, may evolve and become – in our case- an in-situ care-related activity.
@Federico Monaco, reformulated it, and proposed:
- How do we mobilize to obtain a change of the processes of caring thanks to the web and why fostering open practices (commons) it can make the difference.
I like this question too. But I find that it is more general than mine. And that my one can be seen as a step forwards in the line indicated by the Federico’s one.
In fact: the Federico’s question “How do we mobilize to obtain a change of the processes of caring thanks to the web…”, could already have an answer in the way my question is formulated and in the working hypothesis on which it is based (and that, in my view, are also the OpenCare working hypotheses).
In short, if the general question would: “how do we mobilize to obtain a change of the processes of caring thanks to the web”, we could state that our paper (and the whole OpenCare research) has been developed on the basis of 2 +1 working hypothesis:
- (first hypothesis): it is possible to create a (care-oriented) digital space of possibilities where different kinds of self-organized (care-oriented) conversations can emerge and evolve towards (care-oriented) conversations for action.
- (second hypothesis): it is possible to embed in the digital space of possibilities some specific affordances, thanks to which (care-oriented) conversations have higher probabilities to emerge and evolve towards conversations for action.
- (third hypothesis): the experiences in open systems and the hackers approach, considered in a radical way, offer innovative guidelines also when the care issue is concerned.
Given these hypotheses, and given the prototype of care-oriented space of possibilities OpenCare realized, the paper core research specific question is: What can we learn from the first months of experience? Are the 2+1 hypotheses verified?
In order to do answer this question, OpenCare team observes how full scale prototype od space of possibilities worked, considering: (1) the dynamic of the conversations and (2) the role of the space of possibilities and its affordance in making that dynamic happen.
The paper presents these observations and verify the the assumed hypotheses validity.
What do you think?
Theoretical background
This one, in my view, is the most difficult point. We must be (and to show to be) interdisciplinary. But, at the same time, every paper should have a theoretical core and utilize a set of theoretically grounded conceptual tools. Therefore, where could our theoretical background be?
Ethnography. Could ethnography be our main theoretical background (as, I think, it is for the whole Open Care research)? Have we possibility to use it at this scale of observatons? Could we refer to both the digital ethnography and the traditional “physical” one? Who could take the lead on that?
Language/action perspective. Writing the abstract I used the notions of “conversations” and, implicitly, of “conversation typologies”. I think that this language could work. But: I started to use them 30 years ago, having learnt them from Winograd, his language/action perspective, and the idea of a society as a mesh of conversations. Now, I must admit that I always used these terms as conceptual tools, in a rather colloquial way. And that my knowledge on how this thread of research evolved and on the bibliography it generate, are far from being up-dated. What to do? If we will use it, there is someone theoretically stronger than me on this point?
Other proposals (on the main theoretical background)?
What could make this paper unique?
- Does somebody know how many other researches are exploring the same/ a similar issue?
I don’t know. But I am quite sure that no one aims at adopting such radical positions, in terms of openness and hacker-oriented approach as OpenCare does. Maybe, we should make this uniqueness more visible in order to give the paper not only more consistency, but also a kind of “special flavor”. Is it possible? What could it mean in practical terms?
- The OpenCare proposal, seen in general terms (i.e. how to set up spaces of possibilities for triggering and supporting self-organized collaborative events) could easily converge with other discussions on politics and democracy in the age of connectivity and hybrid spaces.
This could be another original contribution of our work. What do you think? If you agree, we should urgently start a discussion on this point …