First OpenCare paper production canvas

Workspaces OpenCare
, , ,
1

Heaven would be to arrive in Geneva with a shared view on who likes to do what and how to make the best out of the time available there. If we have a afternoon session on the 13th we can do even more perhaps (findings?), or leave to Master of Networks more room.

Session on March 14th at CERN

14:30 – 17:30 How digital spaces and online interaction foster action 

I. Introduction and recap of analytical work 15’ (Federico Monaco): presenting a synthesis/patchwork of our online conversation, key concepts in consideration, hypotheses, expectations regarding the paper

II. What constitutes action in opencare: scenario building 15’ (Noemi Salantiu): presenting case studies from the community and fitness for analysis

  • Present conversations for actions | A. for understanding & sharing info, B. for doing things together 
  • How do we detect emergent action in OpenCare?

III. Scientific framework for analysis: a design proposal informed by expost criteria for types of interactions 20’ (Ezio Manzini)

IV. Q&A and open discussion: exploring new threads of research and future publications (all)

Here is a Paper production canvas with authors ( @Alberto @Amelia @Ezio_Manzini @Noemi and Federico) and sections: i tried to figure out by adding X who could do what, but it’s just to start…so please change whatever you like.

Authors/Sections

Amelia

Alberto

Ezio

Federico

Noemi

notes

introduction

x

x

research question

x

x

methodology

x

x

x

theoretical framework

x

x

x

x

x

Core concepts

x

x

findings

x

x

x

x

x

…

conclusions

x

x

x

bibliography

x

x

2

Why editing work?

Hi @Federico_Monaco . I took the liberty to move this into a new wiki as the Abstract is finalized and that discussion finished. New slate :slight_smile:

I am reluctant to make the discussion in Geneva about writing the paper, but more about the core concepts, proposals (your SECTION ONE) and considerations (SECTION THREE). With the editing work, did you have in mind working out a plan already for writing it? That I think we can do amongst the authors and would require a working session, less a public facing meeting like the one we will be having. For the agenda in Geneva I had suggested this, have a look? Each part is led by one author so that we each have time to prepare and lead the discussions. With some improvements, it could look like this maybe?

I. Introduction and recap of analytical work 15’ (Federico Monaco): presenting a synthesis/patchwork of our online conversation, key concepts in consideration, hypotheses, expectations regarding the paper

II. What constitutes action in opencare: scenario building 15’ (Noemi Salantiu): presenting case studies from the community and fitness for analysis (eg conversations for actions A. for understanding & sharing info and B. for doing things together)

III. Scientific framework for analysis: a design proposal informed by expost criteria for types of interactions 20’ (Ezio Manzini)

IV. Q&A and open discussion: exploring new threads of research and future publications (all)

1 Like
3

just patchworking the past comments and concepts about the paper

Dear @Noemi ,

thank you.

My idea about SECTION TWO was to co-harvest the comments about the paper and use the best highlighting contents for the paper. I can do it for the presentation then.

Let’s see if there are other suggestions about possibile changes and improvements.

4

Move on

I agree with @Noemi . The process of co-writing the abstract was exciting, but it’s probably time to move on for the paper proper. As lead author, @Federico_Monaco is the historical memory of the process. If something in there is exciting to him, he can ask us to develop it and we’ll try to accommodate.

I would add something after Noemi’s III. That something might be called “Evidence for new action in OpenCare”. Once we know what action is, we should try to identify evidence for some of it developing in the context of the OpenCare conversation/community (the two things are almost synonimous in my mind at this point). Ideally, we would find its traces in the primary data (posts/comments) via ethno codes.

I would like to add this: “what constitutes action in OpenCare” (item II) should ideally emerge from the conversation. Of course it’s OK to have an a priori definition of “action”, but I can imagine that, it we look at the data in the right way, some unexpected connection will emerge. For example, regulation (explained here) has been problematised, with connection both positive like safety and negative like bureaucracy or cultural barriers.

1 Like
5

“what constitutes action in OpenCare”

Great! i will do my best before monday to collect the relevant parts from what has been written and thought around the paper production.

@Alberto about detecting action emerging from conversation it is a core issue, i agree. We must agree on the concept of action. For instance, according to the theorem of Thomas “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas & Thomas 1928:572). What are the effects by such actions? Are they related to contexts? Can happen online? Do individuals can bootstrap such actions, or it is a peculiarly collective matter? Do we have/are (human/systems) collectors for such actions? I’m asking to myself.

Maybe action can be understood as change in the practice/community, on local or networked level… Still mumbling and shaping ideas on some hypothesis.

6

From our meeting with Federico and Ezio in Rome

My understanding is that for the purpose of the paper, we will need to explain how to use best the material in opencare, starting from that which already exists; this allows us to develop a methodology, even if stretched. For example, we already see conversation for actions:

  •  taking at least two forms: A. for understanding & sharing info (most opencare stories) and B.  for doing things together (OpenInsulin collaboration; Collaborative scientific paper writing).
  • other classifications we explored previously: A. Sharing a story [of open care] | B. Online conversation aimed at processing information; C. Online conversation aimed at common action

Ezio mentioned that in the ecosystem of opencare these “events” (to use the language from the abstract) will be “living entities” evolving on a continuum, they are fluid, as he explained previously here, and at any moment in time we can only have captures of those actions. They can change, and change is dynamic.

Emergence seems like a good concept to explain this change, thanks for pointing it out Alberto.

So while our analysis for the existing data will have ex-post criteria, the way we develop this should explain emergent actions. At least this is how it is in my head right now, someone confirm or refute please :slight_smile:

7

… back home!

Dear all, finally I am back and I can also re-open the Open Care file.  For me what you wrote until now is ok. I hope to add something in the next days. Now I must urgently solve some logistic issues …

8

the patchwork

Hi there,

here is my contribution (a creative one) for the 15’ presentation considering the conversations about the paper. I have chosen the most relevant and inspiring comments i could find from the group interested in the paper discussion.

My proposal is that each of us might pick up the favourite ones (let’s say 2 or 3) from the patchwork i did and we can discuss all together during the session. Then i will edit a shorter patchwork book with the chosen ones (i hope we agree on the same ones mostly) and a short conclusion as report of the group decision…

1 Like
9

Here are mine

  1. N2  – which is the same as E8 and, largely, also of E6, although the latter is more specific.
  2. E7.
  3. A4 (this is kind of trivial, just reaffirming basics).

@Federico_Monaco : this is really great work. Thanks!

1 Like
10

My quotes

  1. E8

  2. A2

  3. F5

1 Like
11

at the very last moment …

Dear all, this is a very late contribution to the final fine-tuning of the 14th March meeting.

When this discussion started, @Federico wrote: “Heaven would be to arrive in Geneva with a shared view on who likes to do what and how to make the best out of the time available there”. I think we are near to this point. Therefore:  well done!

Given that,  @Noemi perfectly summarized what emerged: “we will need to explain how to use best the material in opencare, starting from that which already exists; this allows us to develop a methodology, even if stretched… Emergence seems like a good concept”.

I like this description because it proposes to focus our session on what, for me, is really the main point to be discussed. This “ material in opencare … which already exists” should – of course- be better defined. But, if we will not have a clearer idea of what we already have (and what reasonably we could have in the next months) we will never succeed in, as

@Alberto and @Federico wrote, “… detecting action emerging from conversation”.  By the way, this one for me, is a short but effective description of what, at the end of the day, we should obtain from this discussion and, maybe, for the whole research).

In order to do that, I think we should:

  • propose a loose definitions of conversation and action
  • look at “what already exists”
  • arrive to the needed “emerging definitions and characterizations”.

I think that, the opportunity of having several OpneCare participants in the same room is a unique opportunity to make substantial steps onwards in clarifying these points. The implications, in my view, are:

  • the central session is the second one (What constitutes action in opencare)
  • We should avoid discussions on what, in theory, OpenCare could do, and, adopting a critical/proactive approach on what our prototype really is, how it really works and what it is really producing..

On my side, as agreed, I will introduce the session III, doing my best to be light and use this session to introduce concepts usable in the core discussion on what” already exists”. And: what are its characters;  how they appeared and evolved; what has been designed to make it happen.

See you soon.

1 Like
12

Agreed!

Nicely put, @Ezio_Manzini . I agree with everything you say. Let me attempt rephrasing your final point, which could save a lot of time all around:

“We are writing a positive paper, not a normative one. We are interested in describing the reality as is, and not some ideal or (more weakly) desirable state.”

13

Good point!

Thanks @Alberto for your feed about my patchwork.

Thanks @Ezio_Manzini

I see we are converging to consider a clear approach in describing how designing a context may/can bring people to take action in this distributed and open ecosystem.

Just a problem of understanding what connections and where they are.

Dawn here: packing now for departure.