I guess
Set up a Skype/Hangout and exchange ideas about where to go. One thing that you will decide in the call is who is going to do what towards submission. For example, one way would be to open a Google Doc and use it to write the abstract. In my experience it is best when someone takes the lead to be the main writer, while others can make edits and comments.
If the abstract is accepted, then we’ll act accordingly.
Question to @Federico_Monaco : is the journal Open Access?
is it Open Access?
@Alberto i agree on what you say. Google doc fiat!
yes, is OA http://reset.revues.org/?page=informations
Happy to contribute
Agree with @Noemi and @melancon that the second track is most promising. I’ve got a lot on my plate until January 20, but after that I will be free to contribute more fully. An abstract of 500 words by end of Feb is definitely manageable.
suggestion@
Hi @Noemi, and all, this is a first contribution moving from your proposal.
But a premise is needed: I am interested to participate to the making of this paper, and if useful, I can take some responsibilities in it. But, given that my background is not ethnography as you and @melancon asked (but it is design theory and practice), and given that my presence and role in, and knowledge of, Opencare is marginal, I don’t know if it is possible for me to propose myself as team leader or co-leader.
Given that, and starting form practicalities and moving to contens:
1. Roadmap. Given that the deadline is at the end of February and that we have to write only a 500 words abstract, I think that we can spend 2 weeks for a conversation, via mail and, at a given point via skype, aiming to clarify what we want to do and who is going to really contribute to the writing.
2. Track and theme. @Noemi proposed to go for the “Doing together” track, and “to use the preliminary data we have to say something about how collective capacity can be sustained, indeed with a vehicle like opencare and digital networks”. @melancon openly agreed with Noemi. I agree with Noemi too and my present contribution intends to move in this same direction.
3. My way of dealing with this theme. In my understanding and moving from my background, the question “how collective capacity -in the field of care- can be sustained” can be situated in a thread of studies and experiences grounded on the three notions: infrastructuring and designing coalitions. I don’t know if you are familiar with these terms (the space of knowledge is so large!), in any case, shortly:
* S. L. Star and K. Ruhleder, “Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces,” Information System Research 7 (1996), 111–134; S. L. Star and G. C. Bowker, “How to Infrastructure,” in L. A. Lievrouw and S. L. Livingstone, eds., The Handbook of New Media (London: Sage, 2006).
It comes that the infrastructuring activity can be seen as an open-ended ‘horizontal’ project, where different coalitions that aggregate around specific matters of concern may start and enhance a diversity of specific ‘vertical’ projects. (in realty, things are more complex than this, but, for the moment, let’s keep it simple, adopting this dualistic, horizontal/vertical, duality).
Using this background and this language, the original Noemi’s question, “how can collective capacity be sustained?”, could become, and be articulated in, something like that:
To answer these general questions, some first steps should be done, considering and analysing the nature of both the Opencare’s infrastructuring activity and the specific conversations and activities that happened thanks it.
3. My personal interest in this theme. One of the topic I am presently working on relates to the design contribution to (1) “the politics of everyday” and, consequently, to (2) a democracy where individual and collaborative projects of life can exist and thrive.
Given that, I think that me motivation of my interest on if and how an infrastructuring activity as the Opencare one can become a favorable environment for different kinds of projects, is self-evident.
Of course, this motivation would be the core of the paper if I had to do it alone. I am curious to read what are you yours. And to start a conversation on them …
My early thoughts
Thanks @Ezio_Manzini for the initial ideas,
I read the first paper you recommended on infrastructure (couldn’t find the other ones) and I liked the approach of infrastructure as defining work relationships… Let’s see if during the next weeks we can find more recent/ suited frameworks to use? I would especially look for something that incorporates the social infrastructure - the open community building part which is definitory in opencare.
It is in your second part “Which are the lectures we can learn from what has been done until now?” where I see various steps to analyse deeper the opencare early results and future impact. How do we break down this idea of collective capacity, from a network perspective…?
To me, this distinction between team/non-team, as blurred as it can be is needed when looking at capacity, it explains the different resources, incentives that are in the network…
I am not sure we can put design lenses on all examples above… but I am far from an expert. Maybe a section led by Ezio can be constructed as a series of deeper reflections for overcoming limits and better fostering opportunities in a number of very concrete cases of collaboration?
…reading now.
Dear @Ezio_Manzini
your post is definitely already well structured and concrete. I answered to different posts in this thread about some ideas and proposals.
My background is STS (Science, Technology & Society). I’m already confident with scholars such as Star, Bowker and user and infrastructure studies. Mainly i’m researching how users (especially professionals) may adopt the web as a learning infrastructure …(not so much still). So my problem and goal is to explain to professionals what patients, makers and laypeople do by the web about care. That’s it.
early thoughts
Hi @Noemi, in general terms I agree with your early thoughts!
Of course, being for me the beginning of a conversation, some points are still not very clear, sorry for that… Given that, here I am with some feedbacks, questions and proposals.
1. The concepts and language I proposed in my previous mail (based on the notions of infrastructuring, matters of concern and designing coalitions) represent my present vocabulary. But of course, I will be more than happy to find a new and, may be, more appropriate language …
2. You write: “How do we break down this idea of collective capacity, from a network perspective…?” and you indicates different possibilities:
All this is correct and should be done. But, in my view, to choose the criteria to be used to analyze whatever complex issue (in our case the “collective capacity” Opencare is collaborating to produce) requires to indicate the goal (what we want to get with this specific research) and the methodology (how we can get that goal).
Probably these points have been presented in Opencare research program, and therefore are crystal clear for you. But I think it would be wise to indicate them, considering also that now we are not discussing the whole research, but a specific paper to be done in the next few months. What do you think?
3. Regarding the discussion on the issue of distinguishing, or not, between team/non-team examples, I think we can consider that distinction. But I would propose some other criteria too (utilizing the model I proposed in my previous mail).
For me, Opencare is a prototype of an “open care infrastructure” and what we want to do is to verify, and discuss, if and how it works. That is, to verify the number and quality of the matters of concern that, thanks to it, have emerged. And, therefore, the goal-oriented conversations andt he designing coalitions that have been created.
If you would agree, it comes that the first distinction to be done is between (1) the actions done by who (mainly) work in the open-ended project of infrastructuring, and (2) the ones done by who promotes/is involved in goal-oriented conversations.
On this basis, we should analyze:
If we have the energy and the time to do it, both (1) and (2) should be analyzed also with ethnographic tools, as you propose.
Other criteria that should be defined and used should be related to:
I think that these are crucial points: the ones that could make the difference between our paper and the others …
some ideas for the paper …
Hi @Federico Monaco, nice to meet you!
@Federico Monaco, @Noemi and all,
Another small, personal contribution. Up to you to decide if and how it coldl be pertinent with what the whole team intends to do.
Premise
In the OpenCare program is written: “OpenCare prototypes a community-driven model of addressing social and health care, and explore its implications at scale” and then: “OpenCare orchestrates an open-to-all, community-driven process for addressing care issues, recruiting its participants from existing communities innovating at the edge of society “
If this is the OpenCare definition and main goal, what we have to do is to answer two questions:
(1) what could be this paper specific (and viable) goal? (considering that the paper is written at half of the OpenCare journey)
(2) in which this paper specific goal is coherent with the RESET call-for-paper? (and, in particular, with the thread “Mobilizations in the era of “doing together” and the commons” ?)
Paper goals
(1) To offer a qualitative outline of the care issues that the OpenCare existence has, until now, generated. In particular, the focus is on different kinds of collaborative actions (as, for instance: to conversations aiming at exchanging and/or elaborating information; developing non-material projects; developing and enhancing projects requiring presence in physical space).
(2) To prove that these (open)care-related activities are, or could be seen as, part of the “collaborative culture” the call-for-papers refers to. In particular, their existence, and the our reflections on them, we will some meaningful answers to questions as: “How are these digital commons defined by the actors themselves? To what extent are the public/private borders recomposed? What kind of values do they carry?” (RESTET, Call-for-paper, 2016)
Paper methodology
In the framework of the whole OpenCare research methodology, the specifc steps to be done to write this specific paper we could be:
examples of collaborative actions
Very useful ideas, Ezio and the rest…!
I see from our exchange that we agree that we need to look at the data we have so far and structure, analyze or parse it for collaborative actions. I doubt we will be able to collect new data points just for the purpose of this paper.
I’m lacking expertise on how to superimpose a typology for conversations - in the first steps you mention. I will leave this to you and Federico to lead… and I could try to support it by detailing my observations on the actions emerging as we speak (Point 1).
Ezio: My question is: I imagine you mean examples of “actions” that happened/are happening thanks to the existence of Opencare: correct? How many of these actions do we have until now? (what Pop-up villages are?). Correct! I don’t know how many actions we have because I don’t know what constitutes action - clearly the strongest is OpenandChange, the collective application. The Pop Up Care Village is a concept for the opencare final project event and many conversations these months will be encouraging community members and openandchange partners to co-create it, so this is something we can expect to grow. I will give you more examples on ongoing community collaborations:
There might be more, I would need to look deeper. What do you think? We have more or less detailed threads for each. But anyhow they are early in their lives, many might not lead to concrete collective actions. Which is why typologies might not make a whole lot of sense. What does make more sense, in my opinion, is looking at their quality.
Which brings me to Objective 2) - why this is collaborative culture and how it manifests itself: I imagined we would rely on ethnographic codes to describe in detail the participants and how those conversations unfold. The data we have about specific projects shows collaborative culture is (to some extent, or we can hypothhesize this) ingrained in the participants values or worldviews - even before they engage in opencare, someone solving a health problem in community already has some experience of collaboration, connecting with others. So self-selection to participate in a project that is about sharing and collaboration is part of what makes possible action. Also, shared interests is another - we see this in the network of co-occurences, how new meanings are discovered together, much more so than individually. This can go on, but I have a feeling it’s too early.
My point is: keep in mind that we have more data on the conditions for collaboration and creating opportunities than about the actual life of the collaborations (with the exception of openandchange!).
In short, yes to the structure, in so far as we keep certain flexibility with regard to points 1-4?
standing by
Hi everybody,
i’m following the conversation and reading with the proper attention all the comments, precious food for thought. I just need some time to focus on and come back to you with some tuned ideas.
Seconding this
When I get a moment to come up for air 
plenty to discuss here.
examples
Hi @Noemi and @Federico Monaco, and all.
Noemi, thanks for your interesting and useful contribution.
I understand that whatever we will write in this paper will have to be based on the “actions”, or better on the care-oriented conversations which took place thanks to the OpneCare existence.
I agree and propose to start our discussions exactly from these examples: once all of us will have a clear overview on them, the discussion on what to do will, for sure, become clearer. In particular, it will become clearer the evaluation criteria issue. That is, given our examples, it will be easier to discuss which kind of analysis will be possible and useful to do. For instance: which kind of conversations are they? Which kind of qualities characterizes them?
Therefore, my proposal is the following:
(1) If possible, Noemi shares with all of us the links with the examples done in the last text.
(2) All of us, in the next 3 days, look at these examples of care-oriented conversations and make some observations, at two levels:
(3) To collect and compare these observations and, on this basis: to discuss the consistency of what we have in our hands and how we could analyze it (in order to “extract” the better from it, considering also what the call-for-papers is asking us).
In terms of timing, I think we should do (1) and (2) next week (16-20 January), then to draft our observations (3), in the 23-27 January week, and to have a discussion in Rome the 1 or 2 or 3 February.
Beyond that, in my view, there is something else to be done:
(A) We should set the basis for a similar analysis and discussion on the infrastructuring activities done by the team. I.e. what the OpenCare team did to create the conditions to make the conversations happen.
(B) to attentively read the call for paper and to discuss how to present our contents in order to fit in the call-for-paper scope. Given that, to discuss the paper interdisciplinary (i.e. the role of different disciplines in it), the main bibliographic references and the language to be used.
Final note: from the 12 February on, until the beginning of March, I will be travelling (and quite busy). Therefore, for me, whatever I would have to do, has to be finished before that date.
Let me know what you think
100% signing off on your plan, Ezio
Thank you for taking the lead on this! Sounds more than reasonable.
While I put together the links and general details about the context of each of these incipient collaborative actions over the weekend, I would like to ask @Federico_Monaco again to set up a working folder in order to be able to react faster to info we are each contributing and not jam the OpenCare research group. Thanks!
examples
thanks, I will wait for your news!
googledoc and “team work” as focus of research
Hi there,
i did create a googledoc with a structure, but no content yet as it is still brainstorming time.
To get access to the editing version e-mail me (monaco.federico[at]gmail.com) , anyway i’m sending invitation to the e-mails i have already and whom of you interested in.
I apologize i haven’t concretely replied during this week, but i needed sometime to reflect on what is at hand and where to go.
I find what @Ezio_Manzini wrote “(A) We should set the basis for a similar analysis and discussion on the infrastructuring activities done by the team. I.e. what the OpenCare team did to create the conditions to make the conversations happen.” definitely inspiring. The team is midway between participants and the EU project, it is a example of how people collaborate, where does mobilization come from infrastructurally speaking and how participants are re-configured by it and contribute to produce the infrastructure itself.
For the paper, on my opinion, i would only focus on such aspect which i find very interesting and apparently out of range, but expressing the interoperability among different localities, disciplines, people, standards and possibily to lead the way to understand how to process of all the data and narrations of OP3NCARE at large happen: the team activity as infrastructuring the project, negotiating, standardizing, problem solving and of course constructing the ground for online mobilization and the production and sharing of stories of care. I think if we understand the ghost we can understand the machine 
I agree also on the schedule presented by Ezio.
work to be done
@FedericoMonaco, thanks for the comment. If I well understand you propose to focus only on the “second pillar” (i.e. analysis and discussion on the infrastructuring activities done by the team). I can agree that this part could be interesting to be done, and I am sure we will do it. Nevertheless, I will not drop the “first pillar” i.e. (analysis and discussion on the examples of care oriented conversation generated bu OpenCare). Even though this may be might not be, per se, the most original content, I would find difficult to work on the the infrastructuring activity without having (ourselves), and giving the readers, an idea of what has happened until now in terms of conversations for action.
Therefore my proposal is to maintain, as a first step, a collective reading and commenting the examples Noemy kindly promised to prepare during this weekend.
What do you think?
First short overviews of each example
@Federico_Monaco @Ezio_Manzini I agree that focusing on the methodology is lower priority, it’s also what I suggested in the beginning of this thread.
Please see my structuring and additions made to the document initiated by Federico here, and a go through each example, in short. They all have references to the conversations. Let me know if it’s something we can depart from. Thanks!
First round on the googledoc
Hi there,
thank you @Noemi
to whom likes to be involved: please comment and add in the shared document (especially what you think be relevant as literature to be considered in the references) your ideas about the content and approach.
Don’t forget to add yourself as author!
Next week we could move to shape collectively the core of the paper in order to understand the aim of the abstract needed.
Thanks for bringing your collaboration and inspiration
Sure
Dear @Ezio_Manzini ,
sure. You are right. Here is a final part from the lead of the call: “We invite the authors to come up with concrete examples of the collective action methods and the mobilizations implemented by these social movements and citizens structured around this “collaborative culture”. It will be necessary to investigate what these new practices surrounding these immaterial goods do to the experience of “producing together”. How do different collectives experiment, today, new forms of mobilization, combining collaborative actions and practices? How do they manage the material goods and the knowledge they collectively produce?”.
Maybe we could have a comparative analysis of 3 examples of OP3NCARE stories and 3 examples of the team work production (the infrastructure itself in terms of design, management, communication strategies…) to describe and research what is in common and what not and how the infrastructure and the different roles (“cultures”) interact.
Just asking.
I would give the proper attention to how care is infrastructured (and designed) as common by the collaboration of transdisciplinar and heterogeneous team, therefore there are aspects from the team work i’d like to research on.
Although we are still in a brainstorming phase i have sketched some ideas to start to shape and organize the paper so we can all have a concrete ground of discussion (i mean what i wrote in is just a weak start and not unerasable statements, so free to comment and change: be critical and challenging).
I’ve just sent the link of the googledoc with editing option to your @polimi.it email account.