From talk to action paper: last call

Workspaces OpenCare
,
1

What follows is the result of a discussion between @ezio_manzini, @noemi and myself earlier in the day, and by another one with @markomanka yesterday. It is a last-ditch attempt to save the “From talk to action” OpenCare paper, that has run into several problems. I still believe it is a good idea, and would love to read it. So, we are proposing a road map to other people in the team. If everybody agrees to it, we can still deliver the paper. If not, we will abandon it.

It seems to me we have all the materials for this paper. Those we do not have already, we soon will, because they are being prepared as part of various activities scattered across the project.

Why bother?

  • Because this is the paper everybody wants to read. It vindicates the CAPS approach; of sinks it, if its results are negative.
  • Because it’s good for project impact
  • Because it’s good for across-consortium collaboration, which reviewers asked of us (it involves researchers from ER, WeMake and ScImpulse).

Co-authors

This comes first, because it is the call to arms. If you do not respond, or respond negatively, the paper will not happen. Of course, we will respect your reasons. The co-authors are to be:

@amelia has declined to co-author. However, she is still important to the paper, since it will re-use and cite her OpenCare ethno report. Noemi and I take responsibility for “interpreting” the report in terms of the paper.

Title

I propose “From talk to action? Digital platforms as enablers of communities of care: a service design approach”

Background

  • the crisis of all the traditional ways of thinking and practicing care
  • the challenge of facing the care issue using open models (and hacking approaches)
  • social forms and service encounters in care empowering ecosystems

Hypothesis

Hypothesis background: Open care is based on an ecosystem of social forms and technical infrastructures. They are its dynamic cultural socio-technical infrastructure.
Open care requires a variety of social forms. Some of them are the traditional ones (as: families, care-related institutions, business, and NGOs) some of them are newer ones, specifically supporting the open care open nature and practice. They are: (1) dedicated result-oriented communities and (2) communities of interest.

Specific hypothesis: Result-oriented communities practice collaboration to actually deliver care. Communities of interest practice collaboration that cuts across result-oriented communities. This collaboration results on sensemaking and strategising, and helps result-oriented communities to thrive and evolve in the most promising direction (avoiding the traps of the neo-liberal thinking and practicing).

Aims

To verify the previous hypotheses with a focus on: how a community of interest can be set up, kept alive and become a space of possibilities for different kinds of conversations, capable to trigger, sustain and orient a multiplicity result-oriented communities. In particular, the paper tracks and discusses how information and calls to action percolates from one type of community to the other.

Architecture

The paper consists of:

  1. A model that resulted over the past years from Ezio looking at OpenCare from the perspective of a service designer.

  2. Evidence on OpenCare itself as a community of interest. This results from the observations of all of us, and particularly from @amelia’s ethno work.

  3. Three stories of action that intersected OpenCare. These are: collaboration in the physical WeMake space; Open Insulin; and Open&Change.

The main idea is that the model is applied to the stories to falsify the specific hypothesis. In other words: do the stories confirm the idea that collective intelligence platforms (communities of interest) contribute to the work of the result oriented communities of care?

Rough table of contents

  1. Understanding open care (many example, introduce OpenCare etc.) - care of @ezio_manzini and @noemi

  2. Modelling open care (Ezio’s matrix) – care of Ezio and Noemi

  3. Story one: WeMake, collaboration in a makerspace – care of @federico_monaco

  4. Story two: Open Insulin, distributed collaboration across several spaces – care of @winnieponcelet

  5. Story three: Open&Change, interaction rules to foster common action – care of @markomanka

  6. Discussion and conclusions – care of Ezio and Noemi. Everyone else welcome to step in.

Timeline

A draft of everything except the conclusions should be ready by November 15th. Conclusions and final editing will happen 15 November-15 December.

Are you in? Or do we drop it? Please answer by Monday 9th October.

2

ok, grazie,

A presto

Ezio

3

As @nadia knows, I suffer from a “white page vertigo” of sort… is there a shared document somewhere that I can start pondering upon, to edit my contribution into? O:-)

cc @ezio_manzini @alberto

4

@markomanka you are looking at it. Nothing else is written that I know of.

I think your section should initially be a story. “Someone got the idea to… and then this happened… seeing this, someone else made that other move…”. You know what, in the story, interests you. Your goal is to make others see it as you do. After the story is written, you could add 3-4 paragraphs of reflection, emphasizing (as you told me on the phone) how the “plumbing” laid out for the collaboration elicited common action, mutual support, commoning of strategic resources among the groups involved.

5

hmmm… am I ending up wearing the provoker’s hat?
…OK, let me focus on the pending deliverable to amend, and I hope I can get something out of it to trigger this other process… fingers crossed

6

Not at all! Unless you want to do it. When you told me your point of view, it did not seem like a provocation. It seemed like an intelligent, thought-provoking extrapolation from something you witnessed firsthand.

1 Like
7

I’m up for writing about Open Insulin. I have not been following this in detail so I would need to be briefed on what is expected specifically.

8

Roger that. We expect a story (see my reply to @markomanka above).

Still missing word from @federico_monaco.

9

count me in.
I can provide useful insights and some outcomes already about the ethnography at WeMake and the short but fruitful collaboration with @melancon on dynamic visualizations of opencare data.

10

Great. Given the time constraints, do co-authors accept to delegate @noemi and myself to set up a workflow? I suggest the tried-and-true Google Docs. Since we are unsure of where to submit (decision care of @ezio_manzini, but probably in the design academic space), there are few benefits in using Overleaf, which is what @melancon and I have been using.

2 Likes
11

That’s good to hear. Let me know if you need to tweak the viz.

12

Reading your thoghts on LaTeX versus GDoc, I went to have a look at the journal we intend to submit at https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/social-science-computer-review/journal200948

and I read: “Social Science Computer Review requires electronic submission of manuscripts in Word .doc format” :slight_smile:

1 Like
13

That works. I’ve not been in academia long enough to master LaTeX but I’m up for learning if the learning curve is doable.

14

Dear authors @ezio_manzini @noemi @federico_monaco @markomanka @winnieponcelet, I prepared a shared document that encodes what we have been discussing (table of contents and instructions for fleshing it out) and assigns tasks as agreed. It’s here.

A first draft is completed when all the different parts are completed. Then, we will move on to tightening the screws – this will be mostly care of Ezio and Noemi. Don’t wait for others, start writing. We have arranged this so that you all can write your part more or less independently from others. We will polish the style in the second pass. Please do this by Monday 13th November. We want to have a submission of this paper before the end of 2017. Looking forward to reading you!

4 Likes
15

I took a shot at it this morning. Looking forward to feedback.

16

Thanks @winnieponcelet!

17

Hei, I took a first shot at the sections assigned to me. I guess until @ezio_manzini fills in his parts there is little I can do - no point in editing too much now.

Looking forward to see it come together!

1 Like
18

Well done, No. Me too, looking forward.

1 Like
20

Hi @amer

onion does not contain insulin. Its peel is rich in a flavonoid subclass (quercetin derivatives), which is beneficial to blood pressure control, and insulin resistance ( = it does not substitute insulin’s activity, it somehow makes the tissue more responsive to insulin itself).

However, it is not a viable answer to diabetes mellitus type 1.

Many behavioural and dietary tweaks can be recommended in early stages type2 diabetes (e.g.: high intensity interval training, ketogenic diet, …among many, many others) and the choice mostly depend on evaluation of the patient, and her/his resilience+commitment+goals+fears… Some recommendations may not be well received due to social impact (e.g. in this specific case, the lingering smell), others due to the interference with a priority in the person’s life, etc… and because none is a silver bullet, things may be less commonly used than it would make sense to a single one of us, because maybe we do not represent the average weltanschauung in our populations of origin :wink:

I hope my reply makes sense to you.

…anyway, just one quick question: why is this posted in this thread?

2 Likes
21

Where do I attach my section?

1 Like