Thank you for the fascinating response to my post earlier this week asking if we are seeing a new participation paradigm emerging called Creative/Collaborative.
Having read the post you may or may not be persuaded that perhaps something new is going on? Perhaps you have noticed some ideas and projects that don’t fit into the more mature paradigms…
To follow on I wanted to outline a bit more detail about what I think some of the strengths and vulnerabilities of Creative/Collaborative might be.
Strengths
The evidence is mounting that connected communities with active and involved citizen have wide ranging and important human effects – increasing protective factors through clever social means and secondary effects. These individual research projects (example below on unemployment) are painting a picture where we can begin to see that a higher density of coordinated and strategic activity at local level might produce secondary effects that no linear organisational service delivery would hope to achieve.
One example of how local government and citizens are working together is the Reading Council project where parents with older children are mentoring families with young children – called Expert Mums. It is more than an idea about how to deliver services more efficiently – it is about doing things better through creative thinking and collaboration. Having spent time with the remarkable team, led by Melani Oliver, who have been developing Expert Mums it is obvious that this project is totally collaborative – both in its co-design with the parents – right through to the training ... in fact creativity and collaboration are completely woven into the idea's design.
Vulnerabilities
1. Because it is still emerging we don’t understand it fully yet
Myself and others at Social Spaces have been studying this phenomenon for a few years now. It is emergent and so we need to be constantly watching and analysing… as well as discussing and arguing. It is both exciting and demanding work. We have been trying to do two things at once – learning from communities that are being successful - and seeing how to spread this emergent knowledge to others. By taking a positive deviance approach, studying what key factors are making local projects successful, we have been able to make some significant headway in understanding new ways of working in this new paradigm. But it is ongoing work and we need many many clever people to take this emergent knowledge to the maturity needed.
2. It is difficult
Working in this new way is more difficult – no question about that. But less about the work being difficult in itself - but more because it is different. It requires a whole new set of methods and ideas – drawn from a whole host of disciplines. It also requires a deep understanding of how change might be designed – not with last year's methods, but right now. The communities we visit are ambitious – they don’t want help to start a project, or write a funding bid… they want to transform their communities. They want their neighbourhoods to be good places to raise their children – drug and violence free. They want people to feel welcome and appreciated – not lonely or depressed or poor. And they want to be involved in making that happen – they have a real conviction that they can make change.
But making change is not so easy. In organisations, where employees are paid to change, the statistic for successfully achieving any type of transformational change is believed to be around 25%. In the Charity or Challenge paradigms making change is much easier – one using compassion and the other pressure. Using your ingenuity to make change is difficult enough – but to do this collaboratively – with other living humans – is tough stuff.
3. Patchy and ineffectual
The more we work in this paradigm we see that being inspired is part of the story - it is motivating and exciting. Having one's imagination captured, having a collective vision of a more positive future - one that you might be able to make happen through the contribution of your own efforts - is essential. But we think it is going to take more than that to have real impact. It will take new knowledge and facilitation (from government and other professionals). It will also require new structures of funding. We are seeing examples where wrong sums of money injected at the wrong time can kill this type of work easier at times than no money.
So failure to have collective impact, failure to co-ordinate, collaborate and build on small initial steps .... wrong, or less sophisticated types of evaluation ... over time this could all add up to people losing confidence in its potential.
4. It might threaten other paradigms
As described in this article by Philip Colligan “Equipping citizens with the skills and knowledge to help themselves and each other is clearly a good investment. But running through many of these innovations is a more radical idea that challenges the nature of professionalism and expertise.”
Additionally there are many professionals working in communities who work only in particular paradigms that are currently not that compatible with Creative/Collaborative.
But that isn't the full story by any means. Professionals have valuable expertise to offer citizens - as citizens are increasingly creating knowledge themselves. This exchange needs to become two-way, open and collaborative. If we think it is right (and ultimately effective) for citizens to take the lead on making and shaping their communities - what sort of new professional practices need to evolve to facilitate and support this new type of activity?
The Challenge – The Opportunity – The Invitation
In summary, I believe that there is a new paradigm emerging that requires intense study, investment and sheer hard work. I believe it has the real potential to change how the world works. Over the last year I feel personally that some progress has been made in understanding how it all might work - our work is improving every week.
But, unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you want to look at it, I also believe that the only way to make some significant progress in surfacing, understanding, growing and spreading this new knowledge is – you probably guessed already – collaboratively. And creatively.
At this moment in time you cannot sign up to do a degree course in the new Creative/Collaborative paradigm. But there are university projects which are working on bits of it. I estimate that there are 30-50 university projects world wide currently working at the intersection of localism – either through environment/design/social/art/tech/philosophy/policy and so on. These projects are very important – but equally important are the hundreds of projects emerging at community level which are creative and collaborative. While we may in the past have labelled these projects ‘practice’… I don’t believe this is true. These projects are generating valuable knowledge. You could consider that these grassroots projects are in fact conducting action research – but currently much of this knowledge isn’t being gathered.
Howard Gardner once suggested that it took 10 years for educational research generated at university level to reach schools widely. This knowledge is far too important and timely to wait for traditional methods of gathering and dissemination.
To demonstrate the speed of emergence I can point to Hand Made. Last year it was difficult to find 28 projects or commentary that fell into this type of thinking. Now we have 40 volunteer editors gathering local stories of making change in a Creative/Collaborative way for what has become the Community Lover's Guide to the Universe. This is significant enough to call a 'surge' in new types of activity.
Historically we have often regarded grassroots activity in a political context – often focusing on ‘voice’ and opinion. If we regarded communities as makers and designers – generators of new knowledge and solvers of problems as well then we cannot rely on old ways of doing things. If we also regard that academics, theorists, policy makers and professionals have a rich and indispensible contribution to make to this landscape in understanding, gathering, applying valuable existing theories and knowledge.... we are left with a big challenge which I put to you.
How do we collaboratively create a transdisciplinary approach to people powered change?
‘[t]rans-disciplinarity emerges through a fusion and bridging of disciplines, not merely the bundling of multiple disciplines” Koizumi 1999
How do develop new methodologies of knowledge creation and dissemination which are faster and better? This is one discipline which isn't going to be developed in the office or in the field alone....
How do we generate new knowledge in such a way that we can make this knowledge open-source to communities - rather than proprietorial or commercial?
Is this the Big Society 'curriculum' that Matthew Taylor described in his post yesterday?
UPDATES:
Brilliant post be Jocelyn Cunningham of the RSA about their experiences on the Peterbough project working in the Creative/Collaborative way...
Fascinating critic from David Wilcox on how the different models play out at the funding end of things....


Recent Comments