One More Post Related to Pattern Mapping

While I have launched into this project, it is important to note the rationale... The reason for this pursuit rests in the research result from my masters work. I have attached a link to the concluding remarks from the research report that addresses some of the issues, and potential areas for new research in the direction of patterns, their use in community empowerment, and civic intelligence in general.

Some of the issues that the conclusion touches upon include: problems with pattern complexity, adaptability of the pattern language, lack of tools for retrieval and visualization, need for additional processes for collaboration, the potential for process monitoring methods for supporting adaptability of programs/projects using patterns and pattern languages.

Here is the doc: Final Conclusions from Research on LV - Research Completed May of 2007

Quick Note Regarding Previous Post...

In the last post, "Restarting my pattern mapping project..." I reiterated my focus on further developing the methods and software tools for using patterns in planning and decision-making among community and civil society groups.

I would however, like to add that this method and the corresponding software is not directly dependent upon the use of patterns. In fact, I think it is possible that collaborative conceptualization of a problem space and set of proposed responses as semantically linked concepts could be similarly powerful for supporting deliberation, visualization and adaptive planning.

It would be interesting to see if patterns provide some greater degree of use in cultivating a group's civic intelligence, or if patterns actually hinder the process... Or it may make no difference, and the patterns may simply be a useful way of structuring group knowledge for future reuse, but without supporting the actual collaborative act of planning.

Restarting my pattern mapping project...

So at the end of last summer I postponed my pattern mapping project. However, now that the summer is back I'm trying to jump start this project again. One of the big problems I got from my PhD committee was the lack of theory contained with my original proposal.

Well, as I have moved along in my program I have identified some theory. The two primary theories I'm drawing from is Douglas Schuler's civic intelligence and Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action. The other theory (perhaps hypothesis) is that development and planning is a complex on-going adaptive process, there is no end to the process, but a continuous becoming, representing the shared understandings, value, and interests of the community.

With these ideas in mind, the software and methods project is aimed at increasing a group or community's civic intelligence through collaborative visualization of patterns for conceptualizing community problems and potential initiatives for addressing those problems. This system will follow in line with concept maps with the addition of semantic linkages that help to clarify the relationship between community issues, and/or patterns.

In addition to the visualization aspect of the software, there is an added dimension that emphasizes process-monitoring and the evolution of problem/solution conceptualization over the life-span of a community directed initiative. This requires an ongoing process of informational feedback for adaptive planning and action. This will require a versioning system for pattern maps, annotation of maps and patterns, as well as system for attaching case examples, problems with implementation, and scoring pattern relevance. Along with these pieces, there is probable need for integration with a mapping system that will allow for placing patterns (or any proposed solution) within a geographic or spatial context.

Unfortunately, there are very few tools out there that support community use of patterns for planning and collective problem-solving. Furthermore, the number of patterns for community development and planning are large enough to make use of patterns cumbersome... This is especially apparent when considering the shortcomings with pattern retrieval, and understanding how patterns are linked to support one another. Additionally, it is probable that not all relevant patterns have been articulated across the various pattern langauges that exist, this means that users may need to amend the pattern language and add their own pieces in order to fit with their specific context. In other situations, a community may need to articulate an alternate pattern language and this system should support this development. This will hopefully support the evolution and refinement of our current pattern languages, as well as spawn new ones.

As a recap of the project, here are some old posts.

• This is one I wrote for the patternlanguagenetwork.org


• Model for Evaluation/Analysis/Diagnostic for Community Problem Solving (Excerpt from Thesis)


• Visual Pattern Mapping


• Patterns and an Intelligent Web


• Personal Brainstorming Session (Notes on the software)

Now, these posts don't represent everything I have written on this subject, but these I think are some of the most important elements, and reiterate the focus on: visualization, semantic links, deliberation around pattern maps, annotation and case-reports, geographic information, versioning, and the ability to search patterns, update or add patterns, and rate patterns... Now, a lot of this has been carried out by the work of those on the patternlanguagenetwork.org, but not all. One of the things that I'm doing slightly different is the addition of geographic information, semantic cognitive mapping, versus mind-mapping, and the ability to describe a problem space as a network of reinforcing problems that generate a "wicked-problem" space, through the process of problematization we can then begin searching patterns that correspond to the various issues defined by the group, as well creating new ones. For a more detailed description of the problem space concept check out the Methodology/Analysis section of my thesis research.

The Public Sphere Project

I just wanted to let everyone know that the Public Sphere Project is now officially a federally recognized non-profit in the US! After 5-plus years of work we finally got this thing official.

Check out the site, a couple of great people at the Evergreen State College are working to develop the site and a set of web applications to help build civic intelligence and promote the use of the Liberating Voices pattern language.

To check out the patterns please go to: Liberating Voices Online.

Yeah!

Thinking out loud - notes on Civic Intelligence

Well the semester is over and I'm moving forward with putting together my qualifying exams, and finalizing my research proposal. I'm moving forward with the civic intelligence model, but in the context of development practice. I spoke with my chair today and gave him my little rap, and for the first time since I have been working with him I got a thumbs up.

Using Schuler's civic intelligence model, my work is going to look at how civic intelligence functions along with the factors that limit its successful utilization in development practice. I'm going to be doing four case studies focused on urban and peri-urban agriculture as a politically and environmentally sensitive food security strategy and the ways in which community groups and civil society perceive, interpret, deliberate and act to develop and protect these efforts.

The case studies will be using Johnathan Barker's political settings method, with a slight modification that emphasizes the networked nature of these settings as spaces in which participants actively perceive, deliberate and act. It is my thinking that through a focus on these settings and the activities that occur in specific spaces and time, it will give us an insight into the ways in which civic intelligence emerges, is used and how it is ultimately successful or not in the context of urban development activities.

In many ways this work represents a full-circle from where I started my program with patterns. To me civic intelligence and patterns are in many ways related and the Liberating Voices patterns themselves are an example of civic intelligence.

The overarching argument here is that development, if it is to be sustainable must consider the political dimensions of decision making. All too often development schemes are left up to the experts whos knowledge excludes those people in which development is focused on helping. Although great work has been done in the area of participation, practices that promote participation do so only in the context of specific programs and the capacity for self-defined development is often not included, and the ability of peoples to adapt and protect their interests in the face of more powerful actors is left lacking. This is believed to be a central problem in the durability of development interventions where marginalized peoples are supported as long as funds are available, but once an NGO actor withdraws, people become vulnerable once again.

It is my assumption that at its core development theory and praxis at the community level is fundamentally about self-reliance and building autonomy that promotes social equity, environmental sustainability, and economic freedom. Yet, as Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze note, the capability for adversarial politics is often central to all of these. I would go further and suggest that merely possessing the capability is not enough (India - Economic Development and Social Opportunity, 1999). This is where civic intelligence comes into play... Civic intelligence is about both the capability to act, as well as the action itself that seeks to promote emancipatory transformation.

Civic intelligence is iterative and additive in that as it is employed, people become more effective at its utilization for solving problems of common concern. Yet, the outcomes of civic intelligence that promotes autonomy as well as interdependence among actors seeking a just and sustainable society, suggests that it should represent a central focus in all development schemes.

The problem here is, "how does it emerge?" How does it function and what limits its utilization? By understanding these dimensions we become better able at pursuing civic intelligence as both a means to development, and as an outcome itself.

It is also my feeling that as the work is pursued, the Liberating Voices pattern language will be further validated. Patterns such as Social Dominance Attenuation, Citizen Science, Grassroots Public Policy Development, Shared Vision and Opportunity Spaces will come to represent both the pathways and outcomes of effective development practice and ultimately an increased civic intelligence among a community and its supporters.

Liberating Voices and MIT - Check IT -The Book is Coming!

Liberating Voices: A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution
By Douglas Schuler (and a whole bunch of other people!)

(Click for link to MIT Press)

In recent decades we have witnessed the creation of a communication system that promises unparalleled connectedness. And yet the optimistic dreams of Internet-enabled engagement and empowerment have faded in the face of widespread Internet commercialization. In Liberating Voices, Douglas Schuler urges us to unleash our collective creativity--social as well as technological--and develop the communication systems that are truly needed.

Inspired by the vision and framework outlined in Christopher Alexander's classic 1977 book, A Pattern Language, Schuler presents a pattern language containing 136 patterns designed to meet these challenges. Using this approach, Schuler proposes a new model of social change that integrates theory and practice by showing how information and communication (whether face-to-face, broadcast, or Internet-based) can be used to address urgent social and environmental problems collaboratively.

Each of the patterns that form the pattern language (which was developed collaboratively with nearly 100 contributors) is presented consistently; each describes a problem and its context, a discussion, and a solution. The pattern language begins with the most general patterns ("Theory") and proceeds to the most specific ("Tactics"). Each pattern is a template for research as well as action and is linked to other patterns, thus forming a single coherent whole. Readers will find Liberating Voices an intriguing and informative catalog of contemporary intellectual, social, and technological innovations, a practical manual for citizen activism, and a compelling manifesto for creating a more intelligent, sustainable, and equitable world.


About the Author
Douglas Schuler is a member of the faculty at The Evergreen State College, former Chair of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), and a founding member of the Seattle Community Network (SCN). He is coeditor of several books, including Shaping the Network Society: The New Role of Civic Society in Cyberspace (MIT Press, 2004) and the author of New Community Networks: Wired for Change.

Endorsements
"In this wide-ranging analysis of the role of information in society, Doug Schuler proposes a grand theory that weaves together disparate information and communication activities into an organized, synergistic fabric. He taps into the collective wisdom of citizens--both theorists and advocates--to develop a pattern language that can be used as a framework for rethinking how we build community and create a more humane, equitable future."
--Nancy Kranich, Former President, American Library Association, author of Libraries & Democracy

Thoughts on DIAC-08

Well, it has been a week since DIAC convened in Berkeley, CA and I have had some time to process a bit of the incredible things I saw. The presentations I attended and almost every paper within the proceedings contained some gem of knowledge and inspiration for me.

Yet, what was perhaps the biggest inspiration was the opportunity to talk with a few of the presenters outside of the conference. Of note Peter Day and Andy Dearden were extremely supportive, gave great feedback, showcased the cool things they are up to, and well, just plain fun to hang out with.

It was also a great opportunity for me to showcase some of my completed research and present what I'm working on presently. While I got a pretty warm reception for my research paper presentation, I think it was my exploratory paper and new research interests related to food systems, system dynamics and patterns (as policies) that got the most questions and excited responses.

Though I have been working heavily with patterns and pattern languages for the past few years now, it was interesting to hear people suggest that I leave patterns to pursue this system dynamics/food-system analysis stuff. Granted I have been thinking about this for a while, but to have several different people mention essentially the same thing causes one to pause and think for a minute.

Now, I'm not going to abandon what I have been working on or the projects I already have in the works, but the feedback I got basically reaffirmed the new direction I have been taking.

The issue I have is the committee that I have put together are perhaps better geared towards enabling me to pursue a research program focused on patterns, and now to change in mid-stream when I have already submitted a proposal of study could rock a boat I don't want to rock.

And yet, I have broached the topic with my chair and he seems pretty interested. So we'll see.

The point is I feel like shifting gears.

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:

• 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.

Now, there may be more ways in which patterns might accentuate Clark's vision, but these are the most obvious. So what things might Clark's discussion provide to the community of pattern adopters? Well, the most obvious is the need to understand the political and social dimensions of the process itself. So if one were to use patterns to construct a set of policies then Clark's assertion to recognize these troubling dimensions becomes critical to the development of any sort of holistic design solution.

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).

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).

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

Revision to Previous Post - Write-Up

So Yishay made a great observation in the write-up that I previously posted. I responded to his comment, but it so apt that I think it warrants a posting unto itself.

Here is the comment and my response below:

Yishay -

all good, EXCEPT - I would start with f. First, get a system up and running with the minimal set of features you need to do a. Then add the features you need to do b, etc.

If you want to get people to buy into your plan, you need to show them something that moves. Then they'll tell you what's missing, and you can add it. People don't do well in abstract (unless they're mathematicians, computer scientists or theoretical physicists). They need an object to talk with.

Justin -

Thanks Yishay for this reminder as you are exactly correct in my opinion. Unfrotunately, I didn't articulate this point in the write up . But I did initiate the project in this manner.

After our discussion about ning as a platform for this project I went ahead and started site: MyCSA Network.

This served as the showcase piece that I sent to the decision maker on this project. After reviewing the site along with a few ideas driving the site, he told me to go ahead and produce a quick project proposal that addresses the rationale, the approach for building and maintaining the site.

So, going back to your comment, this just shows the need to be more methodical in recognizing the process of practice!

This is certainly important and underscores the need to effectively "enroll" potential users by showcasing something that can serve as a guide or reference for helping people conceptualize the types of things one hopes to accomplish. We all need to see or have something tangible to provide concrete evidence to our abstract ideas.

So here is the revision on Methodology Portion of the write-up to reflect this VERY important insight, informed by a pattern nonetheless!:

Methods for Design and Development:

• After defining an initial problem (see: rationale), build a base site with general functionality as a showcase.


• Extend Problem Definition (Interviews, Literature Review, Survey of Potential Stakeholders).


• Identify Specific Patterns linked to the Problem Definition (use: Liberating Voices, Learning Patterns, Conservation Economy.


• Adapt identified pattern to address specific program goals.


• Merge with Web 2.0 principles to guide decisions on final platform choice and subsequent implementation.


• Identify useful patterns for promoting and building user interactions on the final site, i.e viral marketing, mass mailers/e-mails, print media, word of mouth, blogging, etc...


• Iterate based upon user feedback to address potential emergent issues.

I would like to annotate my comment regarding the need to provide objects to talk with. Yes, it is critical, but simultaneously, it is just as critical to first understand what problems you are attempting to solve. So in looking at my own process it was the identification of a specific issue that initiated the idea to create a CSA focused social network. However, in the context of building any sort of participatory program the use of the pattern cited by Yishay becomes central as it can be used as a talking point to frame the rationale, purpose and eventuate an enrollment of potential users.

Quick Write-Up for a Pet Project...

Using Community-Change Patterns to Develop a CSA focused Social Network

Project Proposal #1:

Justin Smith

6/16/2008

Introduction and Rationale:

No longer is the web solely comprised of basic web pages made up of text based HTML, nowadays we have streaming video, audio and desktop application you can use through your favorite web browser. Along with the proliferation of these uses and software, a second wave has come along labeled Web 2.0. This marks an era defined by an explosion of social interactions and user generated content. People no longer have to be tech wizards to navigate and harness the power of this technology. These days all it takes is a few mouse click and one can have a full featured web site and be connected to old high school friends or publish an academic journal. These days a certain level of articifical intelligence is embedded within this massive brain we call the Internet. This makes it easy to aggregate content from various places that match and link individuals together based upon shared preferences, interests and activities. As a result of all of this, we can see that new ways of thinking and acting within this virtual environment are changing thinking and acting in the "world-of-the-real."

However, despite the opportunities afforded by Web 2.0 and social networking technologies, many are still left out and have not yet harnessed the possibilities. Of particular interest are the range of groups spread out across the US focused on building community through a reorientation of the production and consumption practices associated with the modern agri-food system. Though these groups have been able to foment a movement based upon ideals of sustainability and community interconnectedness, there is little evidence to suggest that their efforts are anywhere close to replacing the current system. And though these communities have begun to recognize the utility of the web, it seems they have not yet grasped the underlying opportunities for building greater connectivity among food producers, consumers and retailers on not only a local scale, but national, and even international scales. All one has to do to recognize the opportunities is to see how far the "Fair Trade Movement" has come by using information technologies that links producers, sellers, retailers and consumers in a global market place. This suggests opportunities for similar actions among locally focused groups that can both link people together to meet food needs, but also link people through the free-flow exhange of ideas, practices, problems and successes.

According to Thomas Lyson in his book Civic Agriculture, "CSAs are an important part of civic agriculture. They strengthen the local food economy and preserve farm land. A web of connected and cooperatively organized CSAs could represent a real and viable alternative to the mass-produced, homogeneous, imported produce found in most supermarkets today." Unfortunately, when one does a simple search on CSAs or CSA networks one finds a relatively small number of connected and cooperatively operated ventures that not only provide alternatives but that work to promote a full fledged food movement. That is not to say that locally-focused global networks do not exist, but rather they appear to be few and far between. Thus it seems that there needs to be a concerted effort on building up the necessary connections between one another to help foment a "true movement."

The question then becomes: How do we build vibrant networks that connect to both local relations, while supporting a global movement towards integrated efforts that enhance the role of local food producers and access to these production systems among local community members? Following developments in the use of systems thinking and the codification of knowledge related to the design, development and strategic use of these social technologies it can be argued that we have potential answers to these questions through the adoption of patterns and pattern languages. Essentially a pattern represents a general solution to a persistent problem and these pattern langauges represent a network of patterns that interact and reinforce one another to construct an effective and sustainable system. Based upon this work it is argued that "Liberating Voices" serve as the model for supporting the advance of the local food movement online.

Overall, "Liberating Voices" represents a pattern language for democratic communication, which proposes a set of social, communicative and design principles specifically geared towards confronting these challenges from both local and global perspectives. Using these sets of patterns it is thought that we as a movement of concerned citizens can effectively define the problems we seek to solve and then map out the technological solutions to address these problems. That is not to say that we will eliminate all problems, but rather it is possible that these efforts can provide a greater support network so that communities can eventually come together to tackle the range of other issues confronting the complex relationships between people and their food.

Vision:

Using the principles behind Web 2.0 thinking and patterns for communicative engagement articulated by "Liberating Voices" this project will work to develop technologies and practices tools that can be easily used by people with varying degrees of technical competence. Along with creating usable systems these technologies will fill in a gap in capacity and action among locally distributed and previously unconnected groups across the country and beyond. Together with these tools and the orientation towards supporting greater levels of interaction, there will be a special emphasis on Community-Supported Agriculture and the presentation of one soltuion to a range of issues that need to be confronted from within and outside the movement for a "civic agriculture."

Methods for Design and Development:

a.) Outline Problem Definition (Interviews, Literature Review, Survey of Potential Stakeholders)

b.) Identify Specific Patterns linked to the Problem Definition

c.) Adapt identified pattern to address specific program goals

d.) Merge with Web 2.0 princinples to guide deciisions on final platform choice and subsequent implmentation

e.) Identify useful patterns for promoting and building user interactions on the final site, i.e viral marketing, mass mailers/e-mails, print media, word of mouth, blogging, etc...

f.) Support an iterative design process that embraces user feedback and continual revision for an up-to-date system

Despite the methods presented above, it is clear that certain peices will fundamentally need to be in place. Such as a system to generate interest or location based groups, individual user pages, whether consumers, producers or unaffilitated supporters of a general movement. There will also need to be a way for users to locate geographically CSAs, as well as tools to help current CSAs who already have website generate more traffic through integrating these systems without complex programming skills. Likewise, there is a need for tools that can interface with current social networking platforms such as Facebook or MySpace as this will support future marketing, visibility and make navigation to and from a user's most popular websites easy and seemless.

Project Deliverables:

One social networking website and an associated research paper of journal quality that presents rationale, methodology, evaluation and conclusions for continual refinement of the technologies and practices of interactions used both on site and in face-to-face interactions. Provide on-going support to the development and maintance of additional services as suggested by users or emegent tools created out the community of Web 2.0 developers.

For more information on the methods, technologies and thinking behind the project please look at these resources:

What is Web 2.0? Web 2.0 as described on wikipedia (This is actually a great and easy to understand conversation)

What is Liberating Voices? A Pattern Language for Social Change

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:

"(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.

Preparing for DIAC - 08

DIAC -08 is coming up quick and I'm working to get all of my things in order for the trip and the two presentations I'm putting together for the conference. Currently I have two papers accepted, one research paper and one exploratory paper. So I'm scrambling to get everything set.

I have uploaded my papers for public view and hopefully we can increase the visibility of the conference. With that in mind, if you are in Berkeley June 26-29 check out the Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing.

Ok, without further ado, here are the papers:
Research Paper - “Liberating Voices” in South Asia: Case Study of Networked Resistance in Jharkhand

ABSTRACT:
In 2006, a study was conducted to analyze the relevance of Liberating Voices, a project emphasizing the use of pattern languages as a method of supporting ‘civic communication.’ The study sought to evaluate whether effective networks exhibit the elements defined within the Liberating Voices database, which claims to have amassed a number of archetypical patterns for effective communication and political transformation. The results of this study revealed that while the Liberating Voices project is not yet complete, various pattern configurations can be observed among effective instances of networked advocacy. This points to both legitimacy of the pattern language while opening up opportunities to further study these patterns as approaches to capacity building for ineffective networks struggling to influence political discourse at local and global spheres of policy making.

Exploratory Paper - Patterns, Process and Systems-Thinking: Putting Social Pattern Languages to Work

ABSTRACT
Following a 2006 study aimed at evaluating the validity of pattern languages within the context of civic communication and social change, a number of insights emerged connected to the field of system dynamics and the practice of process monitoring. The study revealed that both system dynamics and process monitoring provide a number of opportunities for further grounding pattern thinking, as well as in supporting adaptive approaches to pattern based capacity building among community networks. Based upon these initial findings it would appear that further investigation is necessary to better understand how patterns, systems and process can be integrated for ever more effective planning and capacity building among civil society, community networks and social change advocates.

Software for Pattern Language Development and a Cool Intership Opportunity

So Yishay notified me yesterday that the base system for the collaborative pattern language development site is up and working. Pretty cool stuff! Here is the link to the new site: http://patternlanguagenetwork.myxwiki.org/

If we can get the pieces we want in the system I think this tool could become extremely useful upon completion. I posted some of these wants in posting on the Planet site already but if you missed that please go back and take a look.

The pattern language network project (Planet, http://patternlanguagenetwork.org/) is developing a system for collaborative authoring of pattern languages, based on the XWiki platform. We're having our own "summer of code", offering one or two intern opportunities for students of computer science or related fields.

Interns will contribute to the exploration of novel forms of knowledge representation, organization and visualization in this domain. A solid knowledge of a high level programming language (e.g. Java) is essential, as is a creative approach to web development.

Please note that this is not a paid position.

If anyone is interested get in contact with Yishay.

One more Iron in the Fire...

Even though I have been ill the past couple of weeks I have had a lot of time to continue thinking about the food crisis. Of course my thinking has led to more questions than answers, but out of these questions I have begun to notice the emergence of another, perhaps even complementary research agenda that is linked to patterns and pattern thinking.

As a result, I have been putting together some thoughts to paper. Of particular interest is the differing impacts that policy orientations regarding global versus regional food systems will have on achieving long-term sustainability. I'm interested in looking at the patterns of failure and success of each and how the range of social, environmental and economic variables will effect or be effected by these patterns. Likewise, I'm interested in the application of agroecological/permaculture principles as pattern based systems thinking in constructing sustainable food systems. This of course would be a huge departure from the compartmentalized approach that appears to dominate traditional ag sciences.

Considering the dynamic nature of these systems it seems apparent that effective information systems are needed in tracking changes in data and thereby shifts in the functioning of systems as elements within the systems will shift over time and across spatial dimensions. Will I build this? No, I will not, but there are tools out there that can be useful in analyzing some of these questions and the work Yishay is doing on the PlaNet software project for patterns could be a great integrator.

I'm still trying to figure out if I can manage yet another area of interest at this time, but in some ways I can see the benefit of pursuing three parallel tracks in that each feeds into the other and in some ways provides an integrated perspective on the application patterns in the realm of system dynamics.

Guest Post on Patternlanguagenetwork.org

So there is an interesting group working in London called the Pattern Language Network. They are currently developing a pattern system called PlaNet, similar to what I have been envisioning for a while now, and it looks like a great group to collaborate with.

Anyway, Yishay and I have been in cahoots and discussing elements of the "PlaNet" system and I have posted some thoughts on their site to help initiate further discussion for building the system.

Check out the site and the post!

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).

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...

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.

The process of visualizing complex environments

In order to make patterns an effective approach to any community empowerment project it is necessary that planners, community members and other stakeholders understand the social, political, economic and environmental context in which they are working within. This perhaps the case in any situation regardless of whether patterns are the model you use or not. Questions must obviously arise to help understand power relations within the system, as well as the nature of information and communicative influences among actors within the system. Likewise it is necessary to evaluate the influence of resources, such as money, access to technology, levels of social capital.

The list below shows areas where project planners, social analysts and community members might want to consider in the construction of a visual model that represents the current context and forces associated within a community system. Though it is not exhaustive it does represent some important considerations.


Trust
Cooperation
Natural and Human Resources
Information – Production and Consumption
Health of Environment (Ecology)
Economic Capacity


Education – Literacy
Political Influence
Social Capital – Affiliations
Health
Technology


Along with this list it is also perhaps necessary to define the nature of these influences by structuring this model to include different levels of analysis.

• Global-Level Forces, e.g. influence of FDI, multinational corporations (MNCs), International Norms and Treaties, influence from adversarial or cooperative nation-states, transnational advocacy networks (TANs)
  


• 
  State-Level Forces, e.g. nature of governance (political opportunity structure), presence of corruption, oppositional policies, media propaganda, elites,
  


• 
  Community Level Forces, e.g. community divisions, resources, education, cooperation vs. fragmentation, gender relations, effectiveness of leaders (see list above)
  

Once a list has been generated among participants, the next task is to begin understanding how each of these elements link to each other to construct the context. There are several ways in which this can be done. For instance, Joanne Tippett from the University of Manchester uses a modified version of mind-mapping to elicit insights into the contextual nature of a community system (yet with an emphasis on design). Others use concept mapping or interaction diagrams borrowed from the UML, popular among software developers.

However, it is felt that simple influence diagrams can be much more revealing in showing multiple interactions across multiple dimensions. One can define the elements in the system, how they influence one another, as well as define the boundaries of the system. Users can also identify elements from outside the defined system, which can be useful in understanding the potential effects of second or third-order influences on a system. An example of one these influences might be the role of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, for framing grievances against state abuses of a particular population.

(Source: UK Open Systems Society)
Yet, despite the potentials, influence diagrams lack the visual appeal of mind-maps. Though it is unclear whether this is a problem, it is possible that developers could extend the influence diagram model to include pictures or other images in order to pull these diagrams out of the antiseptic feel they currently possess. Nevertheless, these models do provide a tidy methodology and visualization approach that can be useful in understanding complex social environments and thereby perhaps useful in the construction of pattern languages as responses to these environments.

While this has yet to be tested with patterns as central to the overall process, the use of influence diagrams have been relied upon heavily in the application of qualitative system dynamics and therefore have a history of success. The question then becomes, can we use influence diagrams in configuring pattern languages and can these models be useful in non-expert contexts where multiple stakeholders with varying levels of literacy can in fact make sense and use of these tools.

This of course requires further investigation

Exploratory Paper - Patterns, Process and Systems-Thinking: Putting Social Pattern Languages to Work

ABSTRACT
Following a 2006 study aimed at evaluating the validity of pattern languages within the context of civic communication and social change, a number of insights emerged connected to the field of system dynamics and the practice of process monitoring. The study revealed that both system dynamics and process monitoring provide a number of opportunities for further grounding pattern thinking, as well as in supporting adaptive approaches to pattern based capacity building among community networks. Based upon these initial findings it would appear that further investigation is necessary to better understand how patterns, systems and process can be integrated for ever more effective planning and capacity building among civil society, community networks and social change advocates.

KEYWORDS: Pattern Languages, System Dynamics, Process Monitoring, Community Networks

Patterns and Systems
In 2006 a study of the Liberating Voices project was carried out, which aimed at evaluating the validity of pattern languages within the context of civic communication and social change. Following from Christopher Alexander’s conception of design patterns (1977; 1979), the L.V. project has been an attempt to utilize Alexander’s model for constructing effective civic communicative systems (Schuler, 2002). And just as Alexander envisioned multiple applications for designing buildings and towns, the Liberating Voices project perceives patterns as useful constructs for community empowerment, as well as supportive for an overall re-conceptualization of the ways in which communities and a networked civil society think and engage in social change (Schuler, 2001; Smith, 2007). The study, reiterated past research on advocacy networks, showing that these networks possess a very real potential for influencing social policies within local, as well as in global contexts. Similarly, the study also showed that these successes are often mitigated by any number of internal and external forces that can be difficult to perceive and address (Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Rodrigues, 2004; Smith, 2007). This of course has led to some serious problems in the capacity of networks to achieve intended outcomes, and points to the need to perceive the shifting socio-political landscape these networks function within (Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Rodrigues, 2003).

With the dynamic nature of social landscapes in mind, the L.V. patterns represent yet another approach to the ways networks can construct dynamic solutions to the internal and external forces that act as blockages to success. However, before such pattern configurations can occur, it is often appropriate to understand the interaction among forces within a system a group is working within. Based upon this need for effective models to perceive complex environments it is suggested that the use of system dynamics represents a useful addition to the process of perceiving dynamic environments common among shifting social landscapes. In fact, there are numerous parallels between the literature of system dynamics and pattern languages. For instance, though Alexander emphasized the use of patterns as elements of design (1979), the structure of patterns and its parallels to system archetypes found within the literature of system dynamics (Senge, 1990) suggests the opportunity to use patterns as a structured model connected to the methodologies within systems thinking in order to better understand a social environment along with the various forces influencing a system.

Similarly, critical systems theory proposes an alternative to traditional social planning. Rather than reducing problems into manageable pieces seeking solutions to each, and thereby solving the problem piece-by-piece to address larger issues, systems designers argue that getting rid of the pieces does not necessarily produce what is desired (Banathy, 2000). In sharp contrast with this traditional model, systems thinking proposes that people seek to understand the problem situation as a system of interconnected, interdependent and interacting problems, and therefore construct a response as a system of interconnected, interdependent, and interacting solutions (ibid, 2000). This is not unlike the conceptions of use for patterns put forth by Alexander in describing the process of constructing ‘living buildings and towns’ (1977).

Further more, both Jay W. Forrester (noted as the father of system dynamics) and Christopher Alexander (the father of pattern languages) place a great deal of emphasis upon the ideal of structure. For Alexander, the pattern language possesses a structure that enables good design across multiple dimensions of abstraction, from high-level patterns to more specific patterns. The idea behind this structure is the ability to more readily share knowledge within the domain of architecture and environmental planning. Tignor (2001) also recognizes the linkage between system dynamics and pattern languages through the common emphasis on structure. For example, he highlights several points made by Forrester, where Forrester argues that, “without an organizing structure, knowledge is a mere collection of observations, practices and conflicting incidents” (Forrester, 1990). At the core of the pattern language Alexander and his colleagues attempt to produce a structured collection of knowledge pieces moving along a hierarchical path. For instance, the beginning patterns in A Pattern Language (1977) start out as large elements such as The Distribution of Towns (2). Now as one moves down through the hierarchy, patterns such as Pedestrian Street (100) and Columns at the Corners (212) appear. By integrating both fields it is thought that each paradigm can be enhanced, and together provide an effective extension into the domain of analysis and action for enabling civic communication, networked advocacy and ameliorative social change in general.

This idea of an inherent linkage between both fields was advanced within the study of an advocacy network in South Asia, where the information obtained was visually configured in order to represent the interactions and influences between forces effecting a community and subsequent network. These visual representations closely followed the model and method for qualitative systems modeling presented by influence diagrams, which are popular among scholars working in qualitative system dynamics (Coyle, 1999; See Appendix). Through this modeling process and the linking of central elements present within a particular socio-political context, a conceptual window emerged into the shortcomings, highlighting areas where the network could strengthen its capacity to engage, as well as where specific patterns might be effectively applied (Kummer & Schlange, 1997; Smith, 2000; Smith, 2007). Overall, this processes of highlighting relationships enabled a clearer understanding of how the issues within the case were interdependent, thus creating a complex and difficult environment for political representation, responsive governance and empowering vs. debilitating social policies.

However, this study was not specifically focused on the integration of system dynamics and pattern languages, and therefore necessitates further more focused engagement in order to further understand the potential implications and opportunities afforded by such a marriage. For instance, linked to the process of modeling community context, there is a need to focus on similar approaches to visually representing patterns and the ways in which they are configured to solve specific community problems. In keeping with the spirit of L.V. it would be interesting to see collaborative modeling applications connected to pattern language configuration become a part of the project’s application suite. Together with conducting a more extensive literature review to better perceive where both strains of thought might intersect, providing a collaborative application to model influences of forces and patterns could support further empirical examples of the potential possibilities associated with linking system dynamics and pattern languages.

Patterns, Systems and Process
Along with the ability of system dynamics to support processes of modeling complex social environments, the practice of process monitoring provides yet another layer to pattern application that enables feedback from peoples experiences to be used to adapt these models over time as networked interventions affect these systems. Recalling the adaptive nature of social systems that can produce any number of outcomes based upon these internal and external problems requires a way in which groups can respond rapidly to feedback that is distributed through information channels maintained by members of these networks. Similarly, the L.V. pattern language is attempting to serve as a transformative construct within a dynamic and inherently transformative and responsive social system that necessitates an ongoing process of evaluation and adaptation to meet the changing context as the social dynamics of power, resources and thinking shift (Smith, 2007).

As a result, pattern development and approaches to systems-thinking in general could be strengthened through an adoption of process monitoring as an iterative, structured and multi-source exercise for gauging and increasing the effectiveness of a pattern language. This might be an important piece in furthering the power of qualitative system dynamics, as well as in pattern language usage. This process could also provide a useful mechanism for enabling the development of adaptive pattern constructs designed to fit these transformative social realities. The features of the process monitoring methodology include an open communicative processes aimed at supporting participatory evaluations and enable collaborative responses based upon the related characteristics between the patterns and the actual problems or responses identified by the group. Together with providing methods for evaluation and consistent interaction for further refinement these constructs could be made more applicable in the context of structured organizational ventures that seek to address a range of socio-political and economic issues.

Though process monitoring has been primarily applied within businesses and more recently within the development field, the idea of providing timely feedback to enable group adaptation fits appropriately with the continued constructing and refinement of relevant patterns and pattern languages. Fortunately, there are a range of methods associated with process monitoring that emphasizes participatory and collaborative methods (similar to what is found within the pattern language) such as field reports, diaries, online reflection among participants, blogs, open-flows for research development and feedback, as well as continuous practices of information development and distribution among community members, stakeholders and facilitators (Mosse, 2001; Schuler, 2007). All of these methods could prove critical to maintaining open and responsive channels of communication.

The orientation towards ongoing exchanges of information feedback refer back to some of the initial assertions of the Liberating Voices project that already recognizes the relevance in developing newer, yet more appropriate and inclusive information systems. In this case these technologies could be designed specifically for channeling feedback, and for coordinating rapid responses by groups working on the ground, or those working directly with the policy makers. In this sense, we might not only use patterns for systems based design and analysis, but the L.V. application itself could be infused with a fundamental orientation towards an open dynamic system itself. This could include a versioning system connected to real world case studies presented on the application of particular patterns or sets of patterns.

While these sorts of systems exist within the business world, their adoption and development within the context of civil society and for communities in general are still needed. Certainly, community portals such as IndyMedia and OneWorld.net provide an outlet for some of these needs; however, problems of access, knowledge of technology and the inability of tightly linked organizations to monitor their internal communications within these online systems means that there is still room for more specific or so-called appropriate technologies and programs aimed at individual groups and their associated networks.

Likewise, in acknowledging issues surrounding lack of access to these communicative systems as well as the technological capacity to harness peoples potential, parallel programs must be pursued to successfully develop and enable the types of rapid feedback proposed by a process monitoring exercise. Through coordinated efforts to build relationships with appropriate local facilitators, as well as through links to larger networks and structures, issues of access could be mitigated. Similarly, by addressing technological and organizational know-how these networks can encourage the building of mutual capabilities. The point is inclusion and responsiveness among the groups and individuals seeking to transform non-responsive systems of political and economic power, and a hope that as many people as possible could be active participants in defining the social change they seek, whether that be political, economic, cultural or all of the above.

L.V. participants, potential pattern users and current civic networks have an opportunity to further their efforts through the application of systems approaches to planning, implementation and monitoring of the work they do. As a result, the merging of these fields to support better responses to complex systems possess a potential value yet to be realized, except through further research and real-world application.

References:
Alexander, C. (1979). A Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. A. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. (also see: http://www.patternlanguage.com)

Banathy, B. (2001). “The Evolution of Systems Inquiry.” In The Primer Project. International Society for the Systems Science. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.isss.org/primer/003evsys.htm

Coyle, G. (1999). Qualitative Modeling in System Dynamics or What are the wise limits of quantification? Keynote Address to the Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Wellington, New Zealand.

Forrester, J.W. (1990). Principles of Systems. Productivity Press; Portland, OR.

Keck, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Pp. 1-37.

Kummer, S. & Schlange, L. (1997). Strengthening the Bridge between Qualitative and Quantitative Modeling: Contributions to the toolbox for analyzing qualitative models. Presented at the System Dynamics Conference. Accessed at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1997/paper039.htm.

Mosse, D., Farrington, J. & Rew, A. (2001). Development as Process: Concepts and methods for working with complexity. Indian Research Press. New Delhi, India. P. 3-27.

Schuler, D. (2001). “Cultivating Society’s Civic Intelligence: Patterns for a New ‘World Brain’”. In Information, Communication and Society. Routledge Press. London, UK. 4:2, p. 157-181.

_____. (2002). A Pattern Language for Living Communication: Global Participatory Project. Presented at the Participatory Design Conference; Malmo Sweden. CPSR. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.scn.org/sphere/patterns/pdc-02.html.

Senge, P. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday; New York, NY.

Smith, J. (2007). Patterns, Systems and Advocacy Networks: Heuristics for Civic Empowerment in Jharkhand. Masters Thesis, St. Mary’s Press; San Antonio, TX

Smith, N. (2000). Introducing Formal Qualitative Reasoning Techniques to System Dynamics Modeling and Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), pp. 839-848.

Tignor, W.W. (2001). Design Pattern Languages and System Dynamics Components. Accessed at: www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2001/papers/Tignor_1.pdf