Collaborative problem solving in the 21st century and related ideas

Wow. The ideas have been flowing like mad, and it is time to properly write (some of) them down!

One idea that emerged out of the CBI practice session last Friday is the need to write a book about "Collaborative Problem Solving in the 21st Century." As Innes and Booher (2010) write in their "Planning with Complexity Book" and as many of us well recognize, the trends of the 21st century present some interesting, complex problems for collaborative/collective problem solving. With mass communications and the internet, we have more information at our finger tips than ever before, and while this can be good and can help support informed decisions, it often leads to misinformation and polarization instead. Similarly, while technology can be used to educate, engage, and connect people, it is often instead a source of isolation, misinformation, or disconnect. There are more people in the world and we are more connected than ever, but the forces of globalization have often led to ongoing disparity and divides. Trust in government is at a considerable low, at least in the U.S., and people are over involved and under committed. Social capital is arguably declining with increased connectivity. Etc. What does all of this mean for collaborative problem solving in the 21st century? I want to write this book with my colleagues in the field, since I think we seriously need to think about this. We need to be "foxes," ready to adapt to the changes that are happening in the world, rather than being hedgehogs that stick to our same old approaches. That is one idea.

Another related idea that came to mind during the practice session is the need to do some serious research and writing about the role of technology in collaborative problem solving and participatory planning. For example, we have key pad polling and poll everywhere, GIS-based systems that allow people to input data into planning processes, tracking systems, geodesign programs, mediated modeling approaches, etc that can all--at least in theory--lead to better planning and greater participation in planning. However, I argue that these technologies cannot replace dialogue. Nor do they inherently enhance it. I think these technologies, at least some of them, can be powerful tools, but we have to be very careful to use them as part of well thought out processes, we can't overly rely on them, and we have to be wary of them taking away from the overall intent of our approaches. Lots of research to be done, along the lines of mini-NECAPs (PAR like experimental research looking at uses of different tools for different purposes). This could be a huge line of inquiry for the future. I am trying to get my CBI colleagues to work with me on an article about this general idea of technology as a tool for collaborative problem solving, what we know, and what we need to know.

Finally, and related in some ways as well, I have been thinking about how we need to teach the skills of collaborative problem solving and adaptability (along the lines of what Caroline and Allegra are trying to teach through improv) to all young people. What if we all grew up knowing how to actively listen? What if thinking about different interests and how to reconcile them--and to create value!--was part of our every moment consciousness? With this in mind, I want to spend some time in the future integrating role-plays and other experiential exercises into primary and secondary schools as a way to teach kids about the core concepts that underpin collaborative problem solving, adaptability, and mutual gains. When I/we start our Institute in Montana, this might be one of the threads. We can work with adults to solve the world's problems and work with kids to prevent future problems and to build a society of natural collaborative problem solvers!

Nothing here is immediately actionable, but that is what I am thinking about right now.

Braindump done...for now.

The Planner as a Fox. How can planners learn to embrace uncertainty.

Two years ago I gave a presentation at a scenario planning retreat on San Juan Island. The keynote speaker was Chantel IIbury from South Africa who wrote a book entitled 'mind of a fox'. I spoke quite a bit with Chantel over the weekend retreat, and learned to appreciate the kind of work she has been doing, mostly in the business community. The basic premise of her (and Cle Sunter's) book stems from an essay by Isaiah Berlin or perhaps earlier by the Greek poet Archilochus who wrote 'the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.' If we think about future conditions in multiple, the way scenario planners do, than it is not about adapting to a probable future condition, for example the downscaled impacts of a high emissions scenario, but rather to plausible future conditions (emphasis on the <s>). This alternative approach has been brought up frequently by several academics and practitioners alongside the challenges of decision making under uncertainty in response to climate change. Planners however, have historically been very good hedgehogs - in fact the entire concept of a master plan, or zoning regulations, are characteristically 'hedgehog-like'.

the question i have is how can planners train to be more 'fox-like'? I don't just mean what types of tools (i.e. adaptive management) are out there - I believe it is something deeper, its in how we think about the future. I am thinking of outlining a paper that follows the prescriptions of 'Susskind, Lawrence and Connie Ozawa (1984). Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as Mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4(1). Pp. 5-15.' but instead focuses on The Planner as a Fox. and explores some of the implicit training of a planner and alternative models (in other disciplines) that are more geared towards 'improvisation'. And if you think this blog has something to do with Wheeler's coming to class to do - yes, I was re-inspired by Embracing Chaos. Though I must admit that this research idea was one of my earliest ideas coming into the program. I want to interview professors in different schools and ask them about how their discipline treats uncertainty. But I was thinking about this in the past as more theoretical, and now I actually think I want to focus on the curricula itself.

- what do you think, is this interesting to you?

Is venting blogging?

This morning we had our weekly IGERT colloquium. Two of my cohort people presented. The first presentation was clearly well prepared . The person knows a lot about the subject and has some potentially very profitable ideas. Essentially he wants to create a decision supprt software to make remote sensed data from drones accessibly to precision farmers. The thing is, it isn't academic. His question is essentially how can we

'make big data usable to farmers?' and his answer is -with software. Why does this bother me, you might ask? Because at the end of his presentation, Shafik, who was nearly falling out of his chair exclaimed that 'this is what will define our generation'. That he sees the analysis of big data as the key. And then he offered up that  'That no, it isn't academic, it's actionable, and that's what we need'. How lame am I- I want academic. I came here for academic. If I wanted to design cool software  i wouldn't spend 5 years with nearly no income here. I want deep,  interesting, and currently relevant questions - I want peer critique and rigorous methods. I am trying hard to hang on, but want to scream! It isn't that there aren't great and intelligent people all around me, it's that I feel like a boat without a rudder, floating out...

-ok. I feel better now. Thanks blog world.

Flooding and alternative forms for risk assessment

So over the last series of blogs I have written down nearly a dozen ideas for what we can discuss, research and write about. This is one I am really serious about- I see it as the core of my research- but I don't know what it looks like really- just a jumble of ideas. 

As you may know one component of my research interest is to show that there is a mismatch between actual and 'expert defined' flood risks. By that I mean, as an example, fema's flood plain maps. My interest is not in 'updating' the models to get a more accurate fit, but rather integrating a plurality of 'assessments' or conceptual models of risk that are more 1) inclusive (of heterogenous perspectives) 2) dynamic (update or adapt based on new knowledge) and 3) owned (again, just a jumble if ideas, but here I am thinking of both active choice, or consensus building, or even par in that people have an active voice in decision making and have 'agreed'(committed) and that the decision is context specific, relevant, or fit. The (big!) question I have is how I can design a process for developing this alternative measure of flood risk?

Harvard risk symposium day 1

Panel 1. Cox and wang

This panel had both intensly over complicated presentation (almost textbook examples of how not to present) and fantastically relevant ideas to collective risk management under high levels uncertainty. Cox is someone who it might be very interesting to talk to further. His motto was Discover, don't guess what works best. While not directly talking about collaborative adaptive managent he alluded to two important dimensions- how when risks are highly uncertain, a voting majority will often result in suboptimal decision making. And two, that experimentation and revision is key to responding to uncertain outcomes- we must continually learn from our previous decisions. The other speak whose presentation was highly relevant was yang - he came from the marketing world - he asserted that in situation of high vulnerability, individuals rely more heavily on anecdotal evidence that analytics (statistics). During the break I talked to him a fair bit to see if -1) these relationships (or trends) might be consistent in collective decisions and 2) what the role of social capital or network might play in tempering these affects. 

There was a third presenter from Finland who was difficult to understand and had highly complex slides - but I think his article would be very useful to take a closer look at- he talks about ideals of decision making - respond more to theory than practice. 

Panel 2. Issues of omission 

Again, two presenters stood out - bansback  talked about testing the impact the including imprecision measures has on public opinion (stated preferences for treatment). It was shown that the exclusion of precision was more effective than quantitative inclusion. Falzer discussed how treatments generally fall into three categories - recommend (white area), don't recommend (black area) and everything else (grey area). He discussed alternative methods for making decisions within the grey area, including aleatory decisions, judgment, and epistemic analysis. He explained how the traditional model relies only in epistemic analysis which does not necessarily reflect the gap in findings that needs to be addressed- In other words, the treatment passes the test, but it's the wrong test to apply. During the discussion section we discussed the importance of changing the cultural expectation around precision and certainty. Teaching patients to expect adjustments and to question implications. 

Panel 3. The last session I attended focused on transportation and occupational hazards - one of the speakers was Sadiq, the rest, whole interesting were not highly televant to my thinking.  During his talk he discussed the benefit of risk managers for institutions. I actually found issue with his method and results, but found his work very relevant and hope to look further into his article. Afterwards we spoke for a while, about everything from scenario planning to adaptive management and improvisation. I have his card and I want I plan to contact him for some follow up questions about strategies he sees for coping with uncertainty (I'll expand more on this idea in another blog)

Lastly, I sat next to michael hand from the usfs - actually from Missoula! So your neck of the woods ;) we talked a bit about this idea of scales, resilience and adaptation - we used the example of fire suppression to discuss how scales of intervention and risk perception can have Unintended consequences. We discussed the problem of 'selection bias' (I put this in quotes because it isn't quite this, so that term is just my place holder) but the idea that with large scale events, you are usually wrong much more often than you are right - and more to the point, very rarely right when you need to be. And that this has implictions on adaptation vs mitigation interventions. 

PAR tinkerings

I am writing an article for the Carolina Planning Journal special issue on "Innovative Collaborations" about NECAP that emphasizes the potential for participatory action research to build the capacity of communities to prepare for and manage climate change risks. While I had initially planned to steer away from PAR as a frame and to instead focus on "collaborative action research" (since I don't know if NECAP fits the mold of PAR as put forth by Flyvbjerg et al), Larry kiboshed this, saying I couldn't just go out and coin my own term, but that I need to connect my ideas and work to existing bodies of literature. Of course, I fought this, and of course (after thinking about it long and hard) I decided he is right.

Now, I am trying to revise my article to explain how NECAP is PAR. I have come around to see NECAP as fitting with the mold of PAR, at least in accord with to the Greenwood and Levin (2007) conception of action research, which they argue, must be participatory. But I am finding it challenging to draw lessons from NECAP that should inform people trying to do PAR. I think that NECAP is an excellent example of action research, I think it is a great example of what I am calling "research as capacity building," but I suck at inferring lessons and key ideas from the experience. What about NECAP should be broadcast to the world of academics and local stakeholders in terms of 1) you should do this kind of action research to help support local adaptation (and progress on other tricky planning issues) and 2) here are some guidelines to help you do it? There's so much there, but I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY!

This ties into a bigger problem I am having right now, which is not being able to see the forest for the trees: I feel like the ideas and information in my head are such a mash up that I can make sense of anything any more. What should my dissertation focus on? I have all of these ideas I want to get at and include, and I have all of this research data to draw on, but I don't know what the heck to focus on and what is worth saying to the world. How does one go from lots of crazy bits and pieces floating around in one's brain to saying something meaningful to the academic and professional world?

An interesting thought popped into my head while writing this: I am a dialogic rationality person; I need to talk through the ideas floating around in my head and my perceptions and concerns to help make sense of them. Hence, why I love that we have our PhD thought blog and that I have a partner in PhD thinking. May we help each other overcome writers block when it hits, make sense of ideas when they appear, and generally move forward in our academic and professional pursuits!

PS: I left a comment on your last blog!

Feedbacks in risk frameworks

Risk is generally defined as threat times vulnerability, where sometimes vulnerability includes exposure and sensitivity, and some add adaptive capacity inside our outside vulnerability. And, adaptation options attempt to reduce vulnerability - which is more locally focused and short term, while mitigation points at threat, which is more global/regional and longer term. (Ie the Srex diagram). A frequent assumption (need to cite) is that vulnerability and resilience are two sides to the same coin - when you reduce vulnerability, you increase resilience (or vice a versa) but as we discussed before, and as taleb describes, in complex systems that depend on finer scale shocks, you can unintentionally reduce the resilience at a higher scale when you reduce vulnerability. Simply put, by reducing a local community's flood vulnerability you may be decreasing a region's resilience to flooding. This conception implies a feedback between adaptation and mitigation that is critical to consider when dealing with complex emergent patterns - do we need to consider an adaptation options' mitigative power? How does this cost/benefit play into the framework and ultimately the assessment?