For the context of this post see: Metamorphosis!
In doing an evaluation of the literature on food security and food systems I’m wondering if the actual focus of the questions being asked should be local vs. global, or alternative vs. mainstream. It would appear to me that such reification could seriously constrain the research. And while I’m not going to fault those who have taken this stance in the past, but there is so much overlap that by creating such a dichotomy between these paradigms one runs the risk of presenting an oversimplification. Now, I do agree that there are clear differences, but is this research really about the debate between the mainstream industrial system versus local eco based food system(s) or is it about optimal solutions to support food access, sustainability and stability? I mean, what are we after here?
The real goal is to address food insecurity, and simultaneously identify patterns of sustainable and resilient food systems in the wake of climate change. This means our food systems need to be environmentally sustainable in the sense that they lessen the negative environmental impacts of agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption. This includes reducing the carbon waste that is generated and pumped into the atmosphere, this means addressing the usage of and over-dependence upon inorganic fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate water ways and strip soils of essential nutrients. This also means addressing the global reach of food distribution and fossil fuels used to ship these products world-wide as well as the energy consumption and creation of waste products associated with the processing and subsequent consumption of these food goods. With these issues in mind it is hoped that we as a society can drastically cut these impacts and thereby minimize the potential for catastrophic climate change.
However, most scientists are in agreement that climate change is upon us and that the damage has been done. Right now, our job is to avert an all out biotic collapse. So if we are constructing food systems to minimize the effects of food production (etc) on our climate, then we will also need to understand how these methods fair when confronted with the types of climatic shifts that most are warning us of. With the types of shifts expected our way in the next 50 to 100 years, it is necessary for us to assess whether the types of solutions we decide to implement within the food systems of the world will be able to withstand the shock of regional adverse weather, soil degradation, rising sea levels and subsequent massive population migrations away from coastal cities. According to most scientists the effects of climate change will be more severe depending upon the region, which would suggest that regional variations in the configuration of food systems would be most appropriate. This means certain regions will be more dependent upon global imports of food and it might be necessary for these regions to begin identifying alternative means for generating the type of capital needed to feed themselves in a volatile world.
Yet, coupled with these issues is the persistent need to maintain our work to eradicate food insecurity and chronic hunger. Forget climate change for a second, we still have nearly 2 billion people who are food insecure at any given time throughout the year and according to the Food and Agricultural Organization we have roughly 10 million people dying annually from hunger. That kind of death toll is more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined! So we have a tripartite problem to address. One, we need to minimize the carbon leak (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere, our practice of food production need to become more ecologically aware, meaning we need a global adoption of agro-ecological principles for food production. Second, we need to construct systems that include practices, trade and networks that support adaptive and flexible systems that can withstand shocks and disturbances brought on by climate shifts (which are already happening). And third, we need a system that is configured in such a way that it provides a level of food equity that ensures that ALL people have their nutritional needs met, in a healthy and just way. This doesn’t mean tons of canned vegetable that processed with massive amounts of sodium and calcium chloride for preservatives, or access to a McDonalds on every street corner, but rather healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate foods.
Now the hypothesis is that a mixture of global and local food system configurations is going to be needed to address these issues in the future, but with an emphasis upon the local eco based system. But what is that ratio for say the Sahel or the Negev, meaning what percentage of food consumption could take place within the region of origin compared to the percentage of food imported from around the world and still minimize the greenhouse gases, ensure food access for all and provide a stable and resilient food system?
To accomplish this task and fully engage this question I still think it will be appropriate to include the discussion on mainstream versus alternative, but this discussion is more of a means to provide a basis for understanding the impacts of climate change on food security, or the environmental impacts of food production (eg the climate) and each opposing side could be assessed in relation to either one’s ability to provide healthy access to food. This would suggest the need to generate two generic models indicative of each of these two paradigms followed by place-based models that allow for mix-up of these different paradigms in order to identify the optimal configuration for each region in the study.
Showing posts with label Natural Resource Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Resource Management. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Patterns - a Structured Link to the Conept of "Policy"
Reference Previous Post for Context: Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks?
So I am seriously beside myself. Yes, I should be preparing for DIAC right now, but I was taking a break and reading over this book again, The Policy Process. The more I delve into it, the more I feel like I'm reading a book about a pattern language dedicated to the policy development process. It is actually frightening. Again, this is only furthering my own assumptions that patterns themselves can be conceptualized as policies themselves.
In fact if one were to "patternize" Clark's framework it is very possible one could decode a pattern language devoted to the process of community problem solving, perhaps even similar to the process designed by the London Knowledge Lab to uncover patterns in practice related to Learning and Teaching.
If this is true then the question then becomes, "what do patterns and pattern languages provide that might be missing from Clark's thesis?" Also, "what might Clark's insights tell us about ways to advance the concepts and theories associated with patterns and pattern languages?"
Now, just from this initial reading I can identify a few possible areas where patterns and pattern thinking might be able to accentuate Clark's description of the Policy Process Framework:
Yet, even here patterns seem to address this. Civic Intelligence in particular comes to mind when looking at Clark's socio-political dimensions of complex problem solving. However, Clark's nuanced discussion about context, systemization, guides for conceptualizing issues, and so on speaks volumes to the possibility to merge patterns with current work related to policy development, codification and possible reuse.
In reiterating #2, Clark also emphasizes the dynamic nature of the policy development process. Now as I would assert even the policies themselves are dynamic and subject to feedback as insights emerge. While he hasn't explicitly stated this I would suggest that his overarching principles would be very much in line with such thinking and thereby intrinsically linked.
To give a better representation of Clark’s work I have added some rather long, but revealing excerpt from his book.
So I am seriously beside myself. Yes, I should be preparing for DIAC right now, but I was taking a break and reading over this book again, The Policy Process. The more I delve into it, the more I feel like I'm reading a book about a pattern language dedicated to the policy development process. It is actually frightening. Again, this is only furthering my own assumptions that patterns themselves can be conceptualized as policies themselves.
In fact if one were to "patternize" Clark's framework it is very possible one could decode a pattern language devoted to the process of community problem solving, perhaps even similar to the process designed by the London Knowledge Lab to uncover patterns in practice related to Learning and Teaching.
If this is true then the question then becomes, "what do patterns and pattern languages provide that might be missing from Clark's thesis?" Also, "what might Clark's insights tell us about ways to advance the concepts and theories associated with patterns and pattern languages?"
Now, just from this initial reading I can identify a few possible areas where patterns and pattern thinking might be able to accentuate Clark's description of the Policy Process Framework:
- 1.) Patterns possess a structure that explicitly requires one to codify a general context in which it is applied.
- 2.) Patterns are meant to be linked as a system, so they are holistic by design. In this way it’s not only the process that represents a dynamic system as stated by Clark, the system of policies or patterns themselves are dynamic and morphological.
- 3.) Patterns and Pattern Languages can be transferred across multiple domains, which might also be the case with Clark’s process.
- 4.) The structure of patterns lend themselves codification in a variety of environments, particularly within online environments where users can search/traverse lists of solutions associated with specific problems within specific contexts.
Yet, even here patterns seem to address this. Civic Intelligence in particular comes to mind when looking at Clark's socio-political dimensions of complex problem solving. However, Clark's nuanced discussion about context, systemization, guides for conceptualizing issues, and so on speaks volumes to the possibility to merge patterns with current work related to policy development, codification and possible reuse.
In reiterating #2, Clark also emphasizes the dynamic nature of the policy development process. Now as I would assert even the policies themselves are dynamic and subject to feedback as insights emerge. While he hasn't explicitly stated this I would suggest that his overarching principles would be very much in line with such thinking and thereby intrinsically linked.
To give a better representation of Clark’s work I have added some rather long, but revealing excerpt from his book.
The policy process is abstracted in a framework consisting of a logically complete set of mapping categories that can help us understand and resolve any policy problem. It is a practical means of organizing our thinking, our knowledge, and our problem-solving efforts, thus allowing us to define a problem and understand its context.Hmmm, sounds very familiar… Again, he says,
The framework is primarily an effort to systemize the major variables with which social scientists grapple in all political and policy inquiry. The founders of the policy sciences wanted to devise a theory whose interrelated concepts and categories would be “dependable, appropriately selective, creative and economic,” (Lasswell and McDougal 1992, 4; Brunner 1996a).This little block of text again reveals direct similarities in thinking with Alexander’s pattern language and perhaps more directly with Liberating Voices and the Conservation Economy pattern languages. Yet, one thing that is revealed that is somewhat lacking in these pattern languages is the necessity to understand our own roles and standpoints. Yet, this is not completely true, again, the Civic Intelligence model being developed by Doug Schuler attempts to address this shortcoming in the pattern language as it represents the central pattern in the pattern language itself. However, I would suggest that Clark’s synthesis of past work could prove both beneficial to socially oriented pattern languages and vice versa, particularly Schuler’s
The framework does just that, serving as both a theory and a procedure for decision-making, for inquiry into the policy process, for orientating ourselves to problems in context, and for understanding our own roles and standpoints in all of these situations (Moore 1968).
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks?
I was having a discussion the other day with Ray (the Chair for my PhD committee) about what "patterns" are in the context of Alexander's vision and conception for his pattern language. Now, we have had numerous conversations on this topic as he is still attempting to grasp what it is we are talking about, but he has heard enough to engage with me on this topic.
Anyway, I proposed that in the context of pattern languages that address issues within some sort of social domain, the patterns themselves could be best understood as policies. Now, based upon our previous conversation Ray dismissed this analogy, and yet, as I have pondered this for a while I've begun to wonder if this is not so far from the truth. Adding some validity to this particular conception of what a pattern represents I was hit with a set of definitions that attempts to define a range of meanings associated with the word, policy.
In reading the book, The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals by Tim W. Clark, I came a across a definition that breaks the term up into 10 distinct units for understanding. According the Hogwood and Gunn (1986, 13-19) the term policy is commonly used to describe:
Now, I'm not going to sit here and argue that this is the right way to think about patterns, but it does show that my own conception is unclear. And I would invite a conversation into this, because if we can envision patterns as policies and pattern languages as a the framework in which these policies are embedded, then it is possible to perceive Alexander's construct as a highly transferable model to a range of social domains that seek to address policy problems.
This is also important when considering the inherent difficulty in attempting to explain what a pattern or pattern language is. All to often it seems that people have a difficult time in making the leap from past concept of patterns to the one defined by Alexander.
So the question goes can we think of patterns as policies, and if so, can we co-construct useful frameworks (pattern languages) to address systemic problems often encountered within complex social situations?
I would argue yes, and if one looks into the current practice of environmental conflict resolution one would find that the sets of solutions developed among some of these extremely contested processes, it is possible to see them as representative of specific patterns. Now, I know some would immediately jump on this and argue back citing the thinking that these patterns are meant to be perennial solutions, not failures, and so many of these resource management decisions generated out of local level negotiations are anything but solutions.
In response to such a hypothetical argument I would have to counter that the patterns defined in these process are not necessarily the right one for the situation, yet they are models that possess particular assumptions and that intend to solve specific problems. Unfortunately, these patterns are generated out of situations where competing visions and interests collide, and thus potentially more effective policies get pushed aside due to political constraints involved within the process.
Also, according to Tim W. Clark, many of these miscalculations are the result of misunderstandings or complete oversight of the contexts in which these policies are being developed. This is interesting as this shows how patterns depart from traditional notions of policy. For one, patterns have a specific structure that includes: problem statement, description, solution, examples of implementation, and of course, a context in which it can be applied. So right off the bat, patterns assert the need to understand the context or set of forces that are at work when constructing a system of solutions. To me this would suggest that patterns can not only be seen in terms of policy, but the structure that patterns represent fill in gaps left out in traditional problem solving ventures.
Anyway, these are some thoughts and I would really enjoy comments, clarifications based upon other people's conception of what a pattern really is and what a pattern language really is once the model is removed from its original domain.
Anyway, I proposed that in the context of pattern languages that address issues within some sort of social domain, the patterns themselves could be best understood as policies. Now, based upon our previous conversation Ray dismissed this analogy, and yet, as I have pondered this for a while I've begun to wonder if this is not so far from the truth. Adding some validity to this particular conception of what a pattern represents I was hit with a set of definitions that attempts to define a range of meanings associated with the word, policy.
In reading the book, The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals by Tim W. Clark, I came a across a definition that breaks the term up into 10 distinct units for understanding. According the Hogwood and Gunn (1986, 13-19) the term policy is commonly used to describe:
"(1) a field of study, such as wildlife policy, (2) an expression of general purpose or desired state of affairs, (3) a specific proposal, (4) a decision of government, (5) formal authorization, such as the Endangered Species Act, (6) a program, (7) output of what government delivers, (8) outcome of what is actually achieved, (9) a theory or model, such as "assumptions about cause and effect relationships" about a problem and how it should be solved, and (10) a process, as of complexities unfolding over time."Following this set of meanings for the term I immediately recognize where the concept of patterns intersects with the term policy, the most obvious of which is #9. Certainly patterns represent a particular model, and as Alexander himself describes, "a patter is a perennial solution to a reoccurring problem." This sounds to me like both a model with a set of assumptions of how best to solve a specific problem. Likewise, #2 as more broad conception of the term policy relates to the overall nature of a pattern language itself, which is essentially a normative vision for solving a system of problems in ways that address underlying structures. And since we are talking about social systems and not architectural design we would think of these underlying structures as persistent problems of social inequity, environmental degradation, economic insecurity and marginalization. One could also assert that #10 represents an inherent principle within a pattern language itself, especially within dynamic social situations. In this way one could perceive patterns and the pattern language itself as an evolving and dynamic model, a process.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and argue that this is the right way to think about patterns, but it does show that my own conception is unclear. And I would invite a conversation into this, because if we can envision patterns as policies and pattern languages as a the framework in which these policies are embedded, then it is possible to perceive Alexander's construct as a highly transferable model to a range of social domains that seek to address policy problems.
This is also important when considering the inherent difficulty in attempting to explain what a pattern or pattern language is. All to often it seems that people have a difficult time in making the leap from past concept of patterns to the one defined by Alexander.
So the question goes can we think of patterns as policies, and if so, can we co-construct useful frameworks (pattern languages) to address systemic problems often encountered within complex social situations?
I would argue yes, and if one looks into the current practice of environmental conflict resolution one would find that the sets of solutions developed among some of these extremely contested processes, it is possible to see them as representative of specific patterns. Now, I know some would immediately jump on this and argue back citing the thinking that these patterns are meant to be perennial solutions, not failures, and so many of these resource management decisions generated out of local level negotiations are anything but solutions.
In response to such a hypothetical argument I would have to counter that the patterns defined in these process are not necessarily the right one for the situation, yet they are models that possess particular assumptions and that intend to solve specific problems. Unfortunately, these patterns are generated out of situations where competing visions and interests collide, and thus potentially more effective policies get pushed aside due to political constraints involved within the process.
Also, according to Tim W. Clark, many of these miscalculations are the result of misunderstandings or complete oversight of the contexts in which these policies are being developed. This is interesting as this shows how patterns depart from traditional notions of policy. For one, patterns have a specific structure that includes: problem statement, description, solution, examples of implementation, and of course, a context in which it can be applied. So right off the bat, patterns assert the need to understand the context or set of forces that are at work when constructing a system of solutions. To me this would suggest that patterns can not only be seen in terms of policy, but the structure that patterns represent fill in gaps left out in traditional problem solving ventures.
Anyway, these are some thoughts and I would really enjoy comments, clarifications based upon other people's conception of what a pattern really is and what a pattern language really is once the model is removed from its original domain.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
More Questions, Less Answers!
Theoretical Questions:
Can the integration of systems-thinking, pattern languages and process monitoring as iterative approaches to sustainability lead to more effective development planning, implementation and outcomes?
Evidence has shown that each approach can contribute to effective policy construction and useful outcomes aimed at supporting sustainability.
However, each approach is inherently complex, often times requiring and generating masses of information needed to properly understand socio-environmental issues and corresponding solutions. This data is often presented in the form of GIS, System Dynamics Models, Influence Diagrams, Case Study Reports, Patterns as "Best Practices" and Transcripts of Actor Interactions, just to name few.
Considering the complexity of these models and the reliance on iterative processes of problem definitions, solution construction, feedback and adaptation, the research seeks to answer a parallel question; can ICTs structured to incorporate these models effectively enable better practice, information retention, community memory and overall facilitate in the application of collaborative use of these models?
Rationale:
No explicit integration of these models has been attempted despite their relevance to each other. Similarly, little effort has been pursued to enable these practices within collaborative spaces online (except for perhaps process monitoring).
Can the integration of systems-thinking, pattern languages and process monitoring as iterative approaches to sustainability lead to more effective development planning, implementation and outcomes?
Evidence has shown that each approach can contribute to effective policy construction and useful outcomes aimed at supporting sustainability.
However, each approach is inherently complex, often times requiring and generating masses of information needed to properly understand socio-environmental issues and corresponding solutions. This data is often presented in the form of GIS, System Dynamics Models, Influence Diagrams, Case Study Reports, Patterns as "Best Practices" and Transcripts of Actor Interactions, just to name few.
Considering the complexity of these models and the reliance on iterative processes of problem definitions, solution construction, feedback and adaptation, the research seeks to answer a parallel question; can ICTs structured to incorporate these models effectively enable better practice, information retention, community memory and overall facilitate in the application of collaborative use of these models?
Rationale:
No explicit integration of these models has been attempted despite their relevance to each other. Similarly, little effort has been pursued to enable these practices within collaborative spaces online (except for perhaps process monitoring).
Friday, April 4, 2008
Personal Brainstorming Session
About two nights ago I got a wild hair and walked to the office late at night and began going at it on the white-board. During this process I clarified several things.
1.) Defined an assumption about ICT's need to reflect community praxis, rather than ICT redefining praxis in haphazard ways.
2.) Articulated the components that make up the theory and practice of the work I'm focusing on.
3.) Wrote out a preliminary model for the architecture of the system I'm working on to support this work.
The images below reflect the evening's work.
This summer, is going to be devoted to building the base application, along with coordinating with potential case-study participants. Busy times...
1.) Defined an assumption about ICT's need to reflect community praxis, rather than ICT redefining praxis in haphazard ways.
2.) Articulated the components that make up the theory and practice of the work I'm focusing on.
3.) Wrote out a preliminary model for the architecture of the system I'm working on to support this work.
The images below reflect the evening's work.
This summer, is going to be devoted to building the base application, along with coordinating with potential case-study participants. Busy times...
Drupal Module versus Standalone App
Ok, I have found some interesting resources within the Drupal community regarding SVG. In fact, there what appears to be a full feature SVG API for Drupal. Now, even though I'm working with Drupal to develop my prototype app for community natural resource management, I'm wondering if I should adopt the SVG API, or write a standalone app and create a list of functions so the app can interface with Drupal.
I think for the sake of ease it would be better to go the Drupal route, but thinking long-term, I want the app to work in any environment that supports PHP. Surely, I could build the Drupal module first and then begin to think about extending the app, but I'm one of those coders that HATES to repeat my work.
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on this it would be great.
If you are new to my blog check out this post to get an idea of what I'm doing with SVG: Need to build some software..., and The process of visualizing complex environments.
I think for the sake of ease it would be better to go the Drupal route, but thinking long-term, I want the app to work in any environment that supports PHP. Surely, I could build the Drupal module first and then begin to think about extending the app, but I'm one of those coders that HATES to repeat my work.
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on this it would be great.
If you are new to my blog check out this post to get an idea of what I'm doing with SVG: Need to build some software..., and The process of visualizing complex environments.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Envisioning the Ideal Case
So I have been given a little exercise to try out over the next few days; I need to construct an 'ideal' hypothetical case for applying patterns and systems thinking. It needs to emphasize community level problem solving and environmental sustainability.
Issues of interest are: land rights, community energy solutions (wind, bio, hydro, solar, methane farming) community forestry, marketing and protection of non-timber forest resources (such as dyes, resins, fungi and other ethnobotanicals used as medicines, nutrition and so forth). Perhaps, all in one.
Along with these issues, I'm looking for cases that exemplify community attempts at autonomous decision making, planning, implementation within the context of globalizing world and external pressures from government, business, oppositional civil society, etc.
The case also needs some transnational linkages (i.e. NGOs, MNCs, etc.), yet this can be several degrees removed. Various levels of information literacy and communicative capacity are also needed.
Once this idealized situation (or situations) is developed, a few of us are going to begin the tedious task of looking for potential candidates for empirical study.
Issues of interest are: land rights, community energy solutions (wind, bio, hydro, solar, methane farming) community forestry, marketing and protection of non-timber forest resources (such as dyes, resins, fungi and other ethnobotanicals used as medicines, nutrition and so forth). Perhaps, all in one.
Along with these issues, I'm looking for cases that exemplify community attempts at autonomous decision making, planning, implementation within the context of globalizing world and external pressures from government, business, oppositional civil society, etc.
The case also needs some transnational linkages (i.e. NGOs, MNCs, etc.), yet this can be several degrees removed. Various levels of information literacy and communicative capacity are also needed.
Once this idealized situation (or situations) is developed, a few of us are going to begin the tedious task of looking for potential candidates for empirical study.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
(More) Interesting Links on BioFuels
Here they are (note these are for my reference, but anyone can benefit if the emerging biofuel economy and its implications are of interest).
Friday, January 18, 2008
DIAC - 2008 (Thinking and Research for Paper)
So I’m currently engaged in an extensive review of ICT for NRM projects (I will post references later). There are a number of programs that focus upon the utilization of ICTs for dynamic systems modeling or for predictive modeling needed for early warning systems in a number of natural resource based industries. However, many of these systems (at least as far as I can tell) ignore some of the more qualitative information that is directly connected to the human dimension of NRM. For example, there seems to be little that deals with community-centered knowledge, culture, local politics and local information. This prompted a question: What about systems that enable community participants to interact or to record their knowledge in relation to their community of place?
Continuing along, I have become increasingly concerned that current programs seem to be out of date, or do not seem to address some very important elements of NRM within a community based context. For the most part a lot of the things I see are connected more to big agro-business, and global commodity systems rather than with locally based development and NRM. To me this is a serious shortcoming considering the number of people who are living in poverty and the fact that many poor persons are the ones dependent up natural resources for livelihoods. As a result, I would think that this population would be the most central human dimension to the NRM ideal.
Now this probably isn’t indicative of the entire scope of NRM focused ICT projects as there are a number of geo-spatial based programs out there that seek to integrate indigenous knowledge, yet even these seem to be geared almost exclusively to the trained “expert” rather than providing content or access to the so-called non-expert. In this sense the systems of knowledge are directed towards the experts and not the actual people these systems are meant to support and benefit.
Perhaps I’m miss reading a number of these projects, but they nonetheless appear lacking. If anything, these programs present an opportunity for further investigation that emphasize community, collaboration and local knowledge. Based upon this standpoint one might consider the use of knowledge management systems and local knowledge mapping as a potential application for evaluation within a local/rural community context. In this way it might be possible to create a useful dialog between the so-called development expert and the actual community participants that these NRM based development programs are meant to address.
From this perspective I think my current research project makes perfect sense as it intends to address the types of information and knowledge archived within a system as well as the ability of local groups to make sense of this knowledge. For the purposes of this project I hypothesize that pattern based thinking could perhaps make an important contribution in the area of qualitative and heuristic based knowledge, especially for community centered adaptive planning and development.
Now, this paper is just a “think-piece” of sorts that will highlight the shortcomings of current systems, yet it will present a model that could be empirically tested and evaluated. The trick then is to develop a model that can be tested.
So the current focus of my work is to develop a system and model that utilize patterns as central content components which reference other pieces of knowledge to develop a holistic model that utilizes a broad scope of tools to support community planning and NRM focuses eco-design.
Continuing along, I have become increasingly concerned that current programs seem to be out of date, or do not seem to address some very important elements of NRM within a community based context. For the most part a lot of the things I see are connected more to big agro-business, and global commodity systems rather than with locally based development and NRM. To me this is a serious shortcoming considering the number of people who are living in poverty and the fact that many poor persons are the ones dependent up natural resources for livelihoods. As a result, I would think that this population would be the most central human dimension to the NRM ideal.
Now this probably isn’t indicative of the entire scope of NRM focused ICT projects as there are a number of geo-spatial based programs out there that seek to integrate indigenous knowledge, yet even these seem to be geared almost exclusively to the trained “expert” rather than providing content or access to the so-called non-expert. In this sense the systems of knowledge are directed towards the experts and not the actual people these systems are meant to support and benefit.
Perhaps I’m miss reading a number of these projects, but they nonetheless appear lacking. If anything, these programs present an opportunity for further investigation that emphasize community, collaboration and local knowledge. Based upon this standpoint one might consider the use of knowledge management systems and local knowledge mapping as a potential application for evaluation within a local/rural community context. In this way it might be possible to create a useful dialog between the so-called development expert and the actual community participants that these NRM based development programs are meant to address.
From this perspective I think my current research project makes perfect sense as it intends to address the types of information and knowledge archived within a system as well as the ability of local groups to make sense of this knowledge. For the purposes of this project I hypothesize that pattern based thinking could perhaps make an important contribution in the area of qualitative and heuristic based knowledge, especially for community centered adaptive planning and development.
Now, this paper is just a “think-piece” of sorts that will highlight the shortcomings of current systems, yet it will present a model that could be empirically tested and evaluated. The trick then is to develop a model that can be tested.
So the current focus of my work is to develop a system and model that utilize patterns as central content components which reference other pieces of knowledge to develop a holistic model that utilizes a broad scope of tools to support community planning and NRM focuses eco-design.
Interesting article on BioFuels...
Source, International Herald Tribune....
Here is the link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/opinion/edholt.php
Here is the link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/opinion/edholt.php
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Proposal for DIAC-2008
Patterns, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Decision-Making in Community-Based Natural Resource Management
ABSTRACT:
Knowledge management (KM) tools have become an important feature in the organizational and decision-making apparatus within governments, industries of finance, banking and software. Recently, natural resource managers and international development practitioners have sought to apply these tools in the service of sustainable development and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). However, current implementations have been arguably weak in relation to target audience, access to 'knowledge' and the types of content served by these systems. As an alternative approach to the configuration, development of content and semantic relation building of knowledge within such systems, this paper proposes the adoption of patterns and pattern languages as principle components of content, as well as a model for the overall structure of knowledge within these systems. With patterns serving as the primary model for content structure, it is possible further develop the knowledge base through the linkage to other forms of content such as spatial data, case-study reports and other information as needed.
ABSTRACT:
Knowledge management (KM) tools have become an important feature in the organizational and decision-making apparatus within governments, industries of finance, banking and software. Recently, natural resource managers and international development practitioners have sought to apply these tools in the service of sustainable development and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). However, current implementations have been arguably weak in relation to target audience, access to 'knowledge' and the types of content served by these systems. As an alternative approach to the configuration, development of content and semantic relation building of knowledge within such systems, this paper proposes the adoption of patterns and pattern languages as principle components of content, as well as a model for the overall structure of knowledge within these systems. With patterns serving as the primary model for content structure, it is possible further develop the knowledge base through the linkage to other forms of content such as spatial data, case-study reports and other information as needed.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Extending, Clarifying and Redirecting the Previous Post
After reading over my long, yet free thought exercise on expanding my research questions, I have had some time to think and reflect.
What do I think about this?
While I generated a lot of interesting ideas, but I think I really lost sight of the original research questions that drove me to investigate patterns.
Actually, much of my emphasis on patterns is based upon specific questions. Although these questions are not specifically centered upon particular environmental or sustainability issues, rather these questions are centered upon the use and application of patterns in relation to the work they are intended to support.
While patterns have become a central piece to a number of approaches to ecological design, the ways in which patterns are used seems ambiguous, similarly, how do outsiders who want to integrate pattern thinking into their work utilize past knowledge, or append their own insights into existing languages.
While environmental managers and eco-consultants make greater use of communication technologies to support their work, many of the systems that these people use seem inadequate. For instance, knowledge management systems that are geared towards the development of an evolving knowledge bank resemble nothing more than document repositories listing cases of past work (Take a look at CBNRM.net or FRAME). Now this isn’t necessarily the case among major business entities, but for the most part content even here retrieving knowledge seems difficult.
When reviewing these cases it seems difficult for outsiders to glean the central principles that make these projects successful. It would also seem difficult for even a long-time user to know where to look when attempting to integrate patterns that may have not been used by the designer, or when ongoing projects require a designer or community collaborates to identify alternative solutions to emergent forces.
For pattern users, the way they have sought to solve this problem has been to produce a number of pattern repositories that serve as a collection of acquired knowledge, either from other pattern repositories, research or personal design experience. Yet, even these systems feel lacking. For instance, take a look at the Liberating Voices project or Hillside.net, with hundreds of patterns it seems difficult to know where to start.
Furthermore, once patterns are identified and applied, how do we monitor their usage? If forces dictate that a pattern be adapted, then how do we capture that knowledge? Perhaps, these adaptations imply the need for other patterns to be added to a design language, yet how do we capture this process? This would seem important to any future work, as these are elements of a language that must be acknowledged.
Based upon this emphasis it would seem that my research questions might ought to reflect shortcomings in the usage of patterns, the systems we use to preserve, adapt and share patterns; as well as how communities and eco-managers collect and record patterns in order to generate their own pattern languages.
In a very generic way the list below represents a set of useful question to help orient this work, with patterns and pattern languages representing just one part of a series of possible solutions.
Now, as one could see these questions are very broad, yet by contextualizing the questions in relation to current efforts to employ KM and other ICT based tools in the work of ecological design and natural resource management, these questions do seem to take on a more specific character.
If we are taking a KM approach then new question emerge as additional considerations must be taken into account:
These questions can go on and on. Yet, they all seem relevant to the work. However, along with the questions what are the assumptions underlying the orientation of these questions? Though a discerning reader might get this I need to make at least five of these clearly explicit for my own reference
Of course these are just some of the assumptions, but these correspond to the larger more general assumptions driving the research in the direction of KM, patterns and community collaboration for ecological design and natural resource management. Out of this understanding it is possible to assess these assumptions and ask the questions listed above within a more specific context as connected to a specific problem area among resource mangers and community actors.
For this I will refer back to one of the primary questions put forth in the previous post:
While the question addresses an environmental issue the implications touch upon both human and environmental systems. It spans a number of problem domains, such as economic livelihoods, potential political forces, cultural connections to land, the communication, planning and maintenance of natural resource based economies under threat from a multitude of human and environmental forces.
What do I think about this?
While I generated a lot of interesting ideas, but I think I really lost sight of the original research questions that drove me to investigate patterns.
Actually, much of my emphasis on patterns is based upon specific questions. Although these questions are not specifically centered upon particular environmental or sustainability issues, rather these questions are centered upon the use and application of patterns in relation to the work they are intended to support.
While patterns have become a central piece to a number of approaches to ecological design, the ways in which patterns are used seems ambiguous, similarly, how do outsiders who want to integrate pattern thinking into their work utilize past knowledge, or append their own insights into existing languages.
While environmental managers and eco-consultants make greater use of communication technologies to support their work, many of the systems that these people use seem inadequate. For instance, knowledge management systems that are geared towards the development of an evolving knowledge bank resemble nothing more than document repositories listing cases of past work (Take a look at CBNRM.net or FRAME). Now this isn’t necessarily the case among major business entities, but for the most part content even here retrieving knowledge seems difficult.
When reviewing these cases it seems difficult for outsiders to glean the central principles that make these projects successful. It would also seem difficult for even a long-time user to know where to look when attempting to integrate patterns that may have not been used by the designer, or when ongoing projects require a designer or community collaborates to identify alternative solutions to emergent forces.
For pattern users, the way they have sought to solve this problem has been to produce a number of pattern repositories that serve as a collection of acquired knowledge, either from other pattern repositories, research or personal design experience. Yet, even these systems feel lacking. For instance, take a look at the Liberating Voices project or Hillside.net, with hundreds of patterns it seems difficult to know where to start.
Furthermore, once patterns are identified and applied, how do we monitor their usage? If forces dictate that a pattern be adapted, then how do we capture that knowledge? Perhaps, these adaptations imply the need for other patterns to be added to a design language, yet how do we capture this process? This would seem important to any future work, as these are elements of a language that must be acknowledged.
Based upon this emphasis it would seem that my research questions might ought to reflect shortcomings in the usage of patterns, the systems we use to preserve, adapt and share patterns; as well as how communities and eco-managers collect and record patterns in order to generate their own pattern languages.
In a very generic way the list below represents a set of useful question to help orient this work, with patterns and pattern languages representing just one part of a series of possible solutions.
- How do we support the development and retention of environmental literacy among communities?
- How do we retain community knowledge that spans across multiple domains to include the environment, politics, culture, communications and economy?
- How do we communicate this community knowledge to resource managers and development practitioners in coherent ways?
- How do we adapt this knowledge over time, based upon feedback?
- How do we connect this knowledge in ways that make it useful for complex, holistic decision-making?
Now, as one could see these questions are very broad, yet by contextualizing the questions in relation to current efforts to employ KM and other ICT based tools in the work of ecological design and natural resource management, these questions do seem to take on a more specific character.
If we are taking a KM approach then new question emerge as additional considerations must be taken into account:
- How do patterns help in structuring KM solutions?
- How do we support the viewing and searching of knowledge that exists across multiple dimensions?
- Which approaches to pattern co-construction serve to build the greatest level of community centered environmental literacy?
- With an emphasis on patterns and KM, what role might community ontologies play in usability?
- What might be the best way to visually represent patterns as interconnected pieces of knowledge? Mind-maps? Concept Maps? Casual-loop diagrams (perhaps with explicit semantic relationships)?
These questions can go on and on. Yet, they all seem relevant to the work. However, along with the questions what are the assumptions underlying the orientation of these questions? Though a discerning reader might get this I need to make at least five of these clearly explicit for my own reference
- Why KM systems? To support the growth and development of civic and networked intelligence for collaborative problem solving.
- The task of supporting sustainability is a global issue requiring not only global action, but networks of individuals and community actors collaborating and working together.
- The internet provides an effective medium to supplement face-to-face interactions for planning, monitoring and knowledge transfer.
- Patterns coupled with the use of community ontologies within KM systems represents a possible approach to knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and knowledge retention.
- Patterns represent an effective design paradigm for community based ecological design and resource management.
Of course these are just some of the assumptions, but these correspond to the larger more general assumptions driving the research in the direction of KM, patterns and community collaboration for ecological design and natural resource management. Out of this understanding it is possible to assess these assumptions and ask the questions listed above within a more specific context as connected to a specific problem area among resource mangers and community actors.
For this I will refer back to one of the primary questions put forth in the previous post:
How do (can) we sustain and support communities dependent upon non-timber forest products in the wake of degraded forests caused by commercial logging, invasive plant diseases, loss of biodiversity, alternating weather patterns and the intensified harvesting of non-timber products due to growing demand for such resources?
While the question addresses an environmental issue the implications touch upon both human and environmental systems. It spans a number of problem domains, such as economic livelihoods, potential political forces, cultural connections to land, the communication, planning and maintenance of natural resource based economies under threat from a multitude of human and environmental forces.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Expanding horizons and forumulating new questions
While I have been heavily involved in the usage of patterns and pattern languages I have attempted a different approach to the formulation of my research goals by emphasizing specific questions, rather than specific theories. While I'm interested to see how patterns and pattern principles could be applied in more unique and useful ways, I think it is first appropriate to ask some specific question before making the theoretical leap, as it is possible that other alternatives might be better suited to answer my basic questions.
The questions address topics from issues of how to support more effective sustainable development practices, to how knowledge management systems could be structured for more effective use among forest managers and community development practitioners.
One question that emerged out of my masters thesis, and has driven much of my subsequent interest derives from the usage from process documentation as an approach to support adaptive planning in development projects. The idea of process documentation emphasizes the need for adaptive planning that utilizes these process-oriented products as tools to provide feedback on development decision-making. Among the central problems identified was the ability to capture knowledge and provide timely feedback on this knowledge and thereby apply adaptations to this knowledge in the field. From this basic idea came the thought of using knowledge management systems to support community decision making as these systems could provide a way for groups to capture and retain past design decision and ultimately enable them to refer back to these decisions on a reoccurring basis to assess and evaluate actual outcomes.
Patterns seem a useful model for these systems as they represent structured knowledge that could be linked to specific case studies or documents describing the usage of patterns for particular decisions. Likewise the adaptive approach could support pattern refinement as feedback generated in the field could further inform our application of patterns and thereby uncover forces at work thereby requiring the utilization of new or alternative patterns.
While this wasn’t a question per se but a hypothetical solution to a stated problem in the literature on process-oriented development, the idea of finding a specific problem to solve is the theme that should be directing the work, rather than theory itself (at least for now).
Other questions have centered upon whether systems modeling could be an effective learning and assessment tool for permaculture designs or for pattern based ecological designs. This is based on te question whether certain patterns utilized in permaculture design are actually the most effective in promoting sustainability. System Dynamics modeling provides yet another mechanism for uncovering possible unforeseen forces at work within environmental systems and could therefore be useful in supporting more effective permaculture projects or projects utilizing principles derived from permaculture practices.
The point of all these questions is to move away from solving problems with pattern methodology per se and to begin addressing specific problems faced by communities and natural resource managers working in the field.
For instance, How do (can) we sustain and support communities dependent upon non-timber forest products in the wake of degraded forests caused by commercial logging, invasive plant diseases, loss of biodiversity, alternating weather patterns and the intensified harvesting of non-timber products due to growing demand for such resources?
Some answers to this question have been pursued using a variety of mechanisms and ecological design practices such as principles from permaculture design, practices of collaborative community forestry, intensive environmental literacy programs and so on
Yet, do these approaches recognize the political and cultural dimensions often at odds with one another? And do these approaches need to be mutually exclusive paradigms?
From my interpretation patterns and pattern languages represents an approach to incorporating these elements by capturing the knowledge successes possessed by all of these paradigms. In a sense, patterns can help inform us as to the types approaches most suitable for particular contexts.
Other elements come into play here as well, such as the notion of soft-systems modeling and the application of pattern knowledge for social and ecological problem solving. Overall, the point of this post is to capture some of the very intense thinking that has been going on throughout the past few weeks.
Interestingly, this is only a fraction and I will be posting various musings, assumptions and hypothetical solutions that could perhaps serve as useful research projects, academic articles and so forth.
The questions address topics from issues of how to support more effective sustainable development practices, to how knowledge management systems could be structured for more effective use among forest managers and community development practitioners.
One question that emerged out of my masters thesis, and has driven much of my subsequent interest derives from the usage from process documentation as an approach to support adaptive planning in development projects. The idea of process documentation emphasizes the need for adaptive planning that utilizes these process-oriented products as tools to provide feedback on development decision-making. Among the central problems identified was the ability to capture knowledge and provide timely feedback on this knowledge and thereby apply adaptations to this knowledge in the field. From this basic idea came the thought of using knowledge management systems to support community decision making as these systems could provide a way for groups to capture and retain past design decision and ultimately enable them to refer back to these decisions on a reoccurring basis to assess and evaluate actual outcomes.
Patterns seem a useful model for these systems as they represent structured knowledge that could be linked to specific case studies or documents describing the usage of patterns for particular decisions. Likewise the adaptive approach could support pattern refinement as feedback generated in the field could further inform our application of patterns and thereby uncover forces at work thereby requiring the utilization of new or alternative patterns.
While this wasn’t a question per se but a hypothetical solution to a stated problem in the literature on process-oriented development, the idea of finding a specific problem to solve is the theme that should be directing the work, rather than theory itself (at least for now).
Other questions have centered upon whether systems modeling could be an effective learning and assessment tool for permaculture designs or for pattern based ecological designs. This is based on te question whether certain patterns utilized in permaculture design are actually the most effective in promoting sustainability. System Dynamics modeling provides yet another mechanism for uncovering possible unforeseen forces at work within environmental systems and could therefore be useful in supporting more effective permaculture projects or projects utilizing principles derived from permaculture practices.
The point of all these questions is to move away from solving problems with pattern methodology per se and to begin addressing specific problems faced by communities and natural resource managers working in the field.
For instance, How do (can) we sustain and support communities dependent upon non-timber forest products in the wake of degraded forests caused by commercial logging, invasive plant diseases, loss of biodiversity, alternating weather patterns and the intensified harvesting of non-timber products due to growing demand for such resources?
Some answers to this question have been pursued using a variety of mechanisms and ecological design practices such as principles from permaculture design, practices of collaborative community forestry, intensive environmental literacy programs and so on
Yet, do these approaches recognize the political and cultural dimensions often at odds with one another? And do these approaches need to be mutually exclusive paradigms?
From my interpretation patterns and pattern languages represents an approach to incorporating these elements by capturing the knowledge successes possessed by all of these paradigms. In a sense, patterns can help inform us as to the types approaches most suitable for particular contexts.
Other elements come into play here as well, such as the notion of soft-systems modeling and the application of pattern knowledge for social and ecological problem solving. Overall, the point of this post is to capture some of the very intense thinking that has been going on throughout the past few weeks.
Interestingly, this is only a fraction and I will be posting various musings, assumptions and hypothetical solutions that could perhaps serve as useful research projects, academic articles and so forth.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Economic Patterns: Constructing a Pattern Language for NRM
So I had written a previous post about my desire not to use Drupal and more specifically PHP for my research project. However, I have done some further in-depth analysis of the requirements for the proposed project and I think that considering the needs for a full featured system along with the ability to extend the system to meet some very specific needs, Drupal presents the best option. Like I said previously, it is cheap to host, the coding quality is much better than comparable PHP based systems and I actually do like the templating system they have developed.
Plus, I think Django will just be too much work to build and get up to speed for this project, and Plone is too expensive to host for the groups I’m working with.
I mean, it is a no-brainer. I don’t despise PHP as a language. It’s more that I prefer Python. In that sense I’m not a complete Python Nazi as some out there are.
In all honesty, PHP 5 is actually a pretty good language, it is easy and when compared to Python, PHP is definitely a much better language for the web, so why not use it? Plus, PHP and Flex work well together which provides greater opportunities for integration with the types of systems I’m focused on developing.
In continuing the search for relevant patterns for NRM this next section deals with issue of economics. This is undoubtedly an important element to supporting an effective and livable community. The pattern list drawn from the Liberating Voices! pattern repository follows as:
Again, these patterns were difficult to weed through. However, each of these patterns represent important elements to community empowerment and perhaps more importantly to the research of interest. Each of these are worth consideration. Yet, I would say that it is still important for us to begin thinking about meta-data or semantic annotations for accessing more patterns as contextually related to the work of Community-Based NRM.
Plus, I think Django will just be too much work to build and get up to speed for this project, and Plone is too expensive to host for the groups I’m working with.
I mean, it is a no-brainer. I don’t despise PHP as a language. It’s more that I prefer Python. In that sense I’m not a complete Python Nazi as some out there are.
In all honesty, PHP 5 is actually a pretty good language, it is easy and when compared to Python, PHP is definitely a much better language for the web, so why not use it? Plus, PHP and Flex work well together which provides greater opportunities for integration with the types of systems I’m focused on developing.
In continuing the search for relevant patterns for NRM this next section deals with issue of economics. This is undoubtedly an important element to supporting an effective and livable community. The pattern list drawn from the Liberating Voices! pattern repository follows as:
- Opportunity Spaces
- Community Networks for Developing Countries
- Whole Cost
- Networked Economies
- Restoring Balance to Intellectual Property Rules
- Change The Flow of Financial Information
- The Commons
- Participatory Budgeting
- "Dematerialization in the Banking Industry"
- Follow The Money
- Dematerialization
- Fair Trade
- Community Currencies
- Alternative Progress Indices
- Labor Visions
- Durable Assets
- Economic Conversion
- Self-help Groups
- Transaction Tax
- Open Source Everything
Again, these patterns were difficult to weed through. However, each of these patterns represent important elements to community empowerment and perhaps more importantly to the research of interest. Each of these are worth consideration. Yet, I would say that it is still important for us to begin thinking about meta-data or semantic annotations for accessing more patterns as contextually related to the work of Community-Based NRM.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Generating Tag Fields for Individual Patterns: Networking our Patterns
After my evening walk of contemplation I began considering more deeply the idea of tags and providing more powerful ways to express interconnected meta-data as related to the Liberating Voices patterns.
Currently, the L.V. system uses a sort of quasi-tagging approach that defines categories and topics. For the most part these “tags” serve their proposed purpose. However, from my perspective it seems that the lack of dynamic capabilities minimizes the potential for filtering and organizing patterns. Instead, perhaps we should be thinking about ways to enable dynamic tagging where users can generate a folksonomy surrounding patterns.
This doesn’t mean we should get rid of what is already there, but rather we should extend the functionality of the system. It seems that the current terms being used are very high-level and generic. By keeping these more generic terms we can perhaps help frame the types of more user specific tags.
However, rather than merely providing a pathway to develop a folksonomy for the patterns, we must remember patterns exist in an often different way than a lot of content. For instance, patterns are keys or building blocks that exist with a multi-dimensional structure. In this way patterns possess relationships along a vertical as well as horizontal axis.
With this in mind perhaps we would instead want to start defining the levels of abstraction that patterns have by numerically describing the various levels. In this way a cluster of patterns would exist at a certain level. Now, L.V. has already categorized or clustered patterns but I do not think this is an explicit field in the database model. I think we need to add it!
To make this usable from a users standpoint, maybe a radio button describing the levels/categories and then some ajax call to the database would pull up all the tags related to a certain level, perhaps you could then define your own tag for the level within the hierarchy. Maybe we want to be able to annotate our tags and discuss the reasoning behind the categorization of the data in such a way. This annotation could in a sense point to related cases where the pattern was used and likewise show the relevance of the tag.
Why is this important to me? Well, because I am in the process of developing a listing of patterns related to my work, but that correlate directly to a previous post. I'm right now looking at education patterns as related to increasing information literacy and knowledge for natural resource management. An alternative and more tag friendly environment as well as way to search and filter through these tags would be great.
Fortunately, we have something like this in its infancy, but I think it will become a priority of mine in the near future as I attempt to build systems and processes to construct pattern languages based upon the L.V. repository.
Wow, I’m not sure if that made any sense, so I think it is worth a use case/interaction diagram at least.
Currently, the L.V. system uses a sort of quasi-tagging approach that defines categories and topics. For the most part these “tags” serve their proposed purpose. However, from my perspective it seems that the lack of dynamic capabilities minimizes the potential for filtering and organizing patterns. Instead, perhaps we should be thinking about ways to enable dynamic tagging where users can generate a folksonomy surrounding patterns.
This doesn’t mean we should get rid of what is already there, but rather we should extend the functionality of the system. It seems that the current terms being used are very high-level and generic. By keeping these more generic terms we can perhaps help frame the types of more user specific tags.
However, rather than merely providing a pathway to develop a folksonomy for the patterns, we must remember patterns exist in an often different way than a lot of content. For instance, patterns are keys or building blocks that exist with a multi-dimensional structure. In this way patterns possess relationships along a vertical as well as horizontal axis.
With this in mind perhaps we would instead want to start defining the levels of abstraction that patterns have by numerically describing the various levels. In this way a cluster of patterns would exist at a certain level. Now, L.V. has already categorized or clustered patterns but I do not think this is an explicit field in the database model. I think we need to add it!
To make this usable from a users standpoint, maybe a radio button describing the levels/categories and then some ajax call to the database would pull up all the tags related to a certain level, perhaps you could then define your own tag for the level within the hierarchy. Maybe we want to be able to annotate our tags and discuss the reasoning behind the categorization of the data in such a way. This annotation could in a sense point to related cases where the pattern was used and likewise show the relevance of the tag.
Why is this important to me? Well, because I am in the process of developing a listing of patterns related to my work, but that correlate directly to a previous post. I'm right now looking at education patterns as related to increasing information literacy and knowledge for natural resource management. An alternative and more tag friendly environment as well as way to search and filter through these tags would be great.
Fortunately, we have something like this in its infancy, but I think it will become a priority of mine in the near future as I attempt to build systems and processes to construct pattern languages based upon the L.V. repository.
Wow, I’m not sure if that made any sense, so I think it is worth a use case/interaction diagram at least.
Monday, October 22, 2007
World Bank Recommits to Environmental Sustainability
Following Wolfowitz's departure as head of the World Bank a new sheriff is in town, Robert B. Zoellick. According to a report I was listening to on NPR this morning there was a discussion on the absence of language affirming the need to address climate change. Instead, the report asserted that World Bank language tended to focus upon clean energy and so on, yet never attributed a rationale for this clean energy need.
Now, with Zoellick in charge there is a renewed appreciation of the climatic issues the planet faces and particular focus has been placed upon addressing the ways in which development can alleviate poverty while simultaneously deal with climate change.
This is an interesting statement. But in reading his speech to the World Bank meetings in DC I take issue with some of his thinking. For one, the statement that, "Poverty breeds instability, disease, devastation of common resources and the environment" is somewhat misleading.
Now, I don't disagree with the observation that poverty and instability are connected, but the idea that poverty some how increases the destruction of natural resources seems a bit off. After all if we take a look at map representing our global footprint we can see that the richest nations all consume the overwhelming majority of resources.
Likewise, if we want to get real specific on the destruction of forests and other natural resources in developing countries, we can find that many of these projects are being funded, supported and driven not by individual users of resources, but of larger corporations that utilize these raw commodities.
Unfortunately, regulating what the affluent do to the planet is not the domain of the World Bank, but perhaps before calling poverty the cause of destruction we should remember that the last 150 years of the Industrial Revolution is what has gotten us where we are today. That is what development has meant.
Yet, I won't fault Zoellick for this misstatement too much, after all the remainder of his address touch on some very critical issues and present the idea that development in the context of the 21st century must find an alternative path to that pursued by the West in the past century and a half. So at least here we are in agreement.
Anyway, interesting statement and definitely worth the read if global poverty and social justice are topics that inspire or infuriate you.
Now, with Zoellick in charge there is a renewed appreciation of the climatic issues the planet faces and particular focus has been placed upon addressing the ways in which development can alleviate poverty while simultaneously deal with climate change.
This is an interesting statement. But in reading his speech to the World Bank meetings in DC I take issue with some of his thinking. For one, the statement that, "Poverty breeds instability, disease, devastation of common resources and the environment" is somewhat misleading.
Now, I don't disagree with the observation that poverty and instability are connected, but the idea that poverty some how increases the destruction of natural resources seems a bit off. After all if we take a look at map representing our global footprint we can see that the richest nations all consume the overwhelming majority of resources.
Likewise, if we want to get real specific on the destruction of forests and other natural resources in developing countries, we can find that many of these projects are being funded, supported and driven not by individual users of resources, but of larger corporations that utilize these raw commodities.
Unfortunately, regulating what the affluent do to the planet is not the domain of the World Bank, but perhaps before calling poverty the cause of destruction we should remember that the last 150 years of the Industrial Revolution is what has gotten us where we are today. That is what development has meant.
Yet, I won't fault Zoellick for this misstatement too much, after all the remainder of his address touch on some very critical issues and present the idea that development in the context of the 21st century must find an alternative path to that pursued by the West in the past century and a half. So at least here we are in agreement.
Anyway, interesting statement and definitely worth the read if global poverty and social justice are topics that inspire or infuriate you.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Interesting PowerPoint in PDF:
See the discussion on Transdisciplinarity and Natural Resources Management
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Is Environmental Informatics, GIS?
When doing a literature review on Environmental Informatics I find nearly every article or journal publication emphasizing the application of GIS type technologies. While I don't discount the usage of these technologies in a collaborate environment, my concern is that the literature seems to miss a very large piece of the human-centered and communicative aspect of information systems for NRM.
As my primary interest is in developing collaborative web-based systems, it seems that there really does need to be a discussion on the ways in which content is managed, developed, maintained and consumed. How about when seemingly oppositional groups seek to collaborate? In what ways do current IS models fall short in protecting privacy but help maintain a collaborative space?
While the mapping technology is important it appears that the dialog that these products promote is what we want to be enabling. Yet, the field appears so focused on the mapping product.
What about how information is shared to other groups that might benefit from previous work?
In some ways, the integration of GIS is only one element of the equation. This parallels the concept of a pattern language. For instance, a single pattern in of itself provides value, yet the power of patterns is more fully realized in relation to one another and in this way we might find that addressing and evaluating the ways our larger technological systems support the theory, vision, language, education process and work practices necessary for successful community centered NRM.
I guess anytime an emerging field is predominately focused upon a single application or niche, makes me think that the scholars involved might be missing other opportunities for relevant and even critical questioning and investigation.
As my primary interest is in developing collaborative web-based systems, it seems that there really does need to be a discussion on the ways in which content is managed, developed, maintained and consumed. How about when seemingly oppositional groups seek to collaborate? In what ways do current IS models fall short in protecting privacy but help maintain a collaborative space?
While the mapping technology is important it appears that the dialog that these products promote is what we want to be enabling. Yet, the field appears so focused on the mapping product.
What about how information is shared to other groups that might benefit from previous work?
In some ways, the integration of GIS is only one element of the equation. This parallels the concept of a pattern language. For instance, a single pattern in of itself provides value, yet the power of patterns is more fully realized in relation to one another and in this way we might find that addressing and evaluating the ways our larger technological systems support the theory, vision, language, education process and work practices necessary for successful community centered NRM.
I guess anytime an emerging field is predominately focused upon a single application or niche, makes me think that the scholars involved might be missing other opportunities for relevant and even critical questioning and investigation.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Becoming more specific
Now, it is obvious that the proposed dissertation topic is somewhat abstract. After all, it could mean many things to different people; so let me attempt to clarify.
Short Disclaimer: This blog is not meant to show how topsy-turvy my brain is or that I can't commit to one project. Rather this blog is a way for me to voice interests, research ideas and document the process of refining my research objectives.
Ok, now that is out of the way (BTW, I'm certifiable! LOL!).
While the last post was abstract it pertains specifically to the original proposal I submitted to my dissertation chair and to the ES/RP program. The focus of this proposal was to emphasize the development and evaluation of effective community information systems for sustainable development, not just in the use of patterns to support NRM. So perhaps it is time to re-focus and as the topic of this post suggests, be more specific.
Anyway, going back to the topic community information systems (CIS), as the ideas of community memory and process-oriented development become increasingly important topics, the ability of groups to effectively enable these elements in their work becomes central.
Unfortunately, the capacity of groups to retain the emergent information glut coming out of these differing research agendas, projects and interests is undermined. Community Information Systems represent an interesting opportunity to address this problem. Likewise, with the growth of web enable services and tools it is becoming easier to integrate services such as GIS, conceptual mapping tools, complex simulation software and a number of other relevant applications into the mix of these CIS apps. This of course is in addition to the traditional tools such as blogs, message boards and chat services that have already been integrated into sites renamed as "social networking sites."
While CIS has been implemented for NRM before, it appears that many of the tools and case studies showing the use or problems associated with these tools is often confined to experts using the applications. There seems little use for actual community members (not to say it isn’t happening). Likewise, there is little information related to the participatory design process of these applications.
But CIS are much more interesting in that beyond their potential application for NRM, they can be useful in more integrated approaches to development. This means, as we have seen already in the field of informatics is that these tools can be used in literacy campaigns, provide locally relevant health information, disaster preparedness information, links to buyers and sellers of good within the local districts of a developing community and provide access to governance related information.
From my perspective CIS for NRM is just one function.
Anyway, the opportunities and problems I have seen have prompted an interest in CIS for supporting effective NRM and poverty alleviation that is at its very core interested in participation, memory and process.
Now, the patterns developed for L.V. are directly related to this issue in many ways and represent a core component to the effective design and implementation of systems that at their core support values of participation, social leveling, community and sustainability.
But do we know this for sure? We assume, and what do researchers like to do with assumptions? We like to test them!
With this in mind it is possible to begin thinking of how to test this. We can begin by describing the patterns we think link directly with enabling the types of information systems we want to develop. These patterns can then guide our development process. Of course, the research is again confronted with the issue of how to use these patterns in a coherent manner. This brings up the need for useful methods for understanding user requirements, not just of the system, but of the fundamental work they seek to accomplish. Through these methodologies as well as enabling systems to support the construction of a context specific pattern language we can then hope to develop something useful.
To evaluate, this can then be broken into three distinct levels; one the development of a context specific pattern language derived from the L.V. system (or larger system of patterns where the L.V. represents a part), two the evaluation of the system as it relates to the patterns that guided the design, and three, the actual use and effect in the community. What if any patterns did we miss, what patterns if any might help improve the system or its usefulness and so on.
Short Disclaimer: This blog is not meant to show how topsy-turvy my brain is or that I can't commit to one project. Rather this blog is a way for me to voice interests, research ideas and document the process of refining my research objectives.
Ok, now that is out of the way (BTW, I'm certifiable! LOL!).
While the last post was abstract it pertains specifically to the original proposal I submitted to my dissertation chair and to the ES/RP program. The focus of this proposal was to emphasize the development and evaluation of effective community information systems for sustainable development, not just in the use of patterns to support NRM. So perhaps it is time to re-focus and as the topic of this post suggests, be more specific.
Anyway, going back to the topic community information systems (CIS), as the ideas of community memory and process-oriented development become increasingly important topics, the ability of groups to effectively enable these elements in their work becomes central.
Unfortunately, the capacity of groups to retain the emergent information glut coming out of these differing research agendas, projects and interests is undermined. Community Information Systems represent an interesting opportunity to address this problem. Likewise, with the growth of web enable services and tools it is becoming easier to integrate services such as GIS, conceptual mapping tools, complex simulation software and a number of other relevant applications into the mix of these CIS apps. This of course is in addition to the traditional tools such as blogs, message boards and chat services that have already been integrated into sites renamed as "social networking sites."
While CIS has been implemented for NRM before, it appears that many of the tools and case studies showing the use or problems associated with these tools is often confined to experts using the applications. There seems little use for actual community members (not to say it isn’t happening). Likewise, there is little information related to the participatory design process of these applications.
But CIS are much more interesting in that beyond their potential application for NRM, they can be useful in more integrated approaches to development. This means, as we have seen already in the field of informatics is that these tools can be used in literacy campaigns, provide locally relevant health information, disaster preparedness information, links to buyers and sellers of good within the local districts of a developing community and provide access to governance related information.
From my perspective CIS for NRM is just one function.
Anyway, the opportunities and problems I have seen have prompted an interest in CIS for supporting effective NRM and poverty alleviation that is at its very core interested in participation, memory and process.
Now, the patterns developed for L.V. are directly related to this issue in many ways and represent a core component to the effective design and implementation of systems that at their core support values of participation, social leveling, community and sustainability.
But do we know this for sure? We assume, and what do researchers like to do with assumptions? We like to test them!
With this in mind it is possible to begin thinking of how to test this. We can begin by describing the patterns we think link directly with enabling the types of information systems we want to develop. These patterns can then guide our development process. Of course, the research is again confronted with the issue of how to use these patterns in a coherent manner. This brings up the need for useful methods for understanding user requirements, not just of the system, but of the fundamental work they seek to accomplish. Through these methodologies as well as enabling systems to support the construction of a context specific pattern language we can then hope to develop something useful.
To evaluate, this can then be broken into three distinct levels; one the development of a context specific pattern language derived from the L.V. system (or larger system of patterns where the L.V. represents a part), two the evaluation of the system as it relates to the patterns that guided the design, and three, the actual use and effect in the community. What if any patterns did we miss, what patterns if any might help improve the system or its usefulness and so on.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
NRM and Poverty Alleviation, and a rant into Meta-Languages:
In doing a short lit review of some interesting case examples dealing with NRM activities aimed at poverty reduction and mitigating desertification, I came across a number of documents addressing the role of participatory communication, indigenous knowledge, and adaptive process which address the negotiation and re-negotiation of community interests over time to construct effective NRM based development programs.
It is interesting that in reviewing the papers I noticed connections between a few of the patterns that have been listed by Liberating Voices and what has been described in these reports. I also noticed that some of the pieces discussed in the case studies touch upon patterns that represent placeholders in the L.V. project.
Here is the list of placeholders that might prove to be of special significance to this work (I don’t provide links because there is nothing in there):
Social Insurance
Networks of Learning
Civic Mobilization
Community Barter and Exchange Systems
Long View
Ecological Economics
Green Labor
Meaningful Evaluation
Linking Modern and Traditional Knowledge
Feminist Economics
Inter-Community Networks
Entrepreneurship
Knowledge System Diversity
Social Learning
Perhaps, it is time to revisit a number of these patterns to ensure the growth and applicability of Liberating Voices to this work. Unfortunately, this will need to wait a week or two as the L.V. project is currently in the process of moving to new server with a new a web address: http://www.publicsphereproject.org. To get to the patterns just go to http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns.
Anyway, once the move is complete (next two weeks), we can start the process of updating and perhaps filling in some of these blanks.
However, in thinking more deeply about these topics and the application of patterns it seems that we are beginning to need this meta-language that, Doug, Yishay and others have been considering. Perhaps the idea of this meta-language represents the focus of Alexander's Nature of Order.
Without going down each of these tracks in too much detail, perhaps this meta-language would be a language of values and goals. The idea is that these meta-patterns could serve as a compass for the types of actions that development practitioners take as well as how communities negotiate their own development in the absence of so-called experts. Such a meta-language would include principles of "Do-no-harm," "Supportive of Spiritual Wellness," "Commitment to Beauty," "Inclusion of Multiple Voices," and so forth.
But some might ask how would these meta-patterns inform development practice. Well, the idea of development is to support livelihoods in the generic sense. How people go about achieving this has been problematic and has included a dirty history of displacement, colonial style exploitation, famine induced through structural adjustment and so on. It was known that these policies of development would harm many, but the idea was that these approaches were acceptable for whatever reasons seemed to be good at the moment.
However, these exploitations have meant destruction of the environment and rape of people’s spiritual sensibilities, specifically within communities fundamentally rooted to their land and place. The lack of voice, the loss of beauty the forgetfulness of spiritual values and the utilitarian ethic so prevalent in Western Society has been an incredible source of pain for so many, and perhaps the end has not justified the means. Perhaps, the journey is just as important as the destination?
It is interesting that in reviewing the papers I noticed connections between a few of the patterns that have been listed by Liberating Voices and what has been described in these reports. I also noticed that some of the pieces discussed in the case studies touch upon patterns that represent placeholders in the L.V. project.
Here is the list of placeholders that might prove to be of special significance to this work (I don’t provide links because there is nothing in there):
Social Insurance
Networks of Learning
Civic Mobilization
Community Barter and Exchange Systems
Long View
Ecological Economics
Green Labor
Meaningful Evaluation
Linking Modern and Traditional Knowledge
Feminist Economics
Inter-Community Networks
Entrepreneurship
Knowledge System Diversity
Social Learning
Perhaps, it is time to revisit a number of these patterns to ensure the growth and applicability of Liberating Voices to this work. Unfortunately, this will need to wait a week or two as the L.V. project is currently in the process of moving to new server with a new a web address: http://www.publicsphereproject.org. To get to the patterns just go to http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns.
Anyway, once the move is complete (next two weeks), we can start the process of updating and perhaps filling in some of these blanks.
However, in thinking more deeply about these topics and the application of patterns it seems that we are beginning to need this meta-language that, Doug, Yishay and others have been considering. Perhaps the idea of this meta-language represents the focus of Alexander's Nature of Order.
Without going down each of these tracks in too much detail, perhaps this meta-language would be a language of values and goals. The idea is that these meta-patterns could serve as a compass for the types of actions that development practitioners take as well as how communities negotiate their own development in the absence of so-called experts. Such a meta-language would include principles of "Do-no-harm," "Supportive of Spiritual Wellness," "Commitment to Beauty," "Inclusion of Multiple Voices," and so forth.
But some might ask how would these meta-patterns inform development practice. Well, the idea of development is to support livelihoods in the generic sense. How people go about achieving this has been problematic and has included a dirty history of displacement, colonial style exploitation, famine induced through structural adjustment and so on. It was known that these policies of development would harm many, but the idea was that these approaches were acceptable for whatever reasons seemed to be good at the moment.
However, these exploitations have meant destruction of the environment and rape of people’s spiritual sensibilities, specifically within communities fundamentally rooted to their land and place. The lack of voice, the loss of beauty the forgetfulness of spiritual values and the utilitarian ethic so prevalent in Western Society has been an incredible source of pain for so many, and perhaps the end has not justified the means. Perhaps, the journey is just as important as the destination?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)