A small problem with awareness raising!

I used to work at a busy youth hostel. In that job I was required to communicate with a lot of people who did not have a good command of English. It could be a stressful struggling to communicate and I never quite stopped trying to speak louder to the person opposite me or to try to say the same thing in different ways.

One evening, my Japanese counterpart answered the phone. The caller from another hostel spoke fast in English and when he asked her to repeat it, she spoke increasingly louder until eventually my colleague finally handed me the phone. He didn’t need her to speak louder. He needed her to speak slower and to repeat exactly what she said so that he could put more of it together to understand it. Instead she phrased her request differently which only gave him more work to do to understand her.

My observations are that although this may be obvious, it is not easy to put into practice. The first thing that most of us do when we are not understood or not heard is to assume that we need only to speak louder and the problem will be solved. Alas, speaking louder can actually prevent your message going across at all in the wrong situation! It can be useful to speak loudly to a deaf person or to speak slowly to them. To someone who speaks a different language, slower will make a difference, louder won’t. In a crowd of noisy people, speaking may not be the best way to communicate although observations indicate that most of us just try to yell louder than everyone else. In a crowd of foreigners, it may be most effective to hire the services of a translator and to use a completely different language. It is often as effective to say less rather than more. As I found when I was teaching, better to get a small amount across well than to put lots across badly.

This seems all self evident and yet it is clear that people are great at filtering information before it gets anywhere near our brain if it is irrelevant or just perceived as noise. Rather unfortunately, that noise can stop the useful information getting through!

As Bickerstaff and Walker (2002: 2175) note, “there is now a myriad of awareness raising campaigns urging members of the public to take responsibility for improving their environment.” As they note, these campaigns have not been very successful. Such campaigns assume that people will passively soak up information and then become actively responsible for simple changing their own behaviour in line with that information. At best this is somewhat contradictory! At worst it misses completely the complexity even of making relatively simple changes.

New Scientist article on economic growth

I spoke to an economist at the conference last week and asked him about steady state economies. He (and he is an economist who works in the same environmental science institution as me so I found this pretty depressing) dismissed the idea - positing the idea that we can grow the economy through the knowledge sector.

I"m not so sure and even less sure now, given the New Scientist (18th Oct. 2008) article I've just read called 'Beyond Growth'. In the end the basis of our economy is consumption and actually from the point of view of the sustainability of our society in a world that has shown time and again that it has limits, consumption is something we have to cut.

I suppose from a positive point of view the economic crisis that looms might offer some ways for us to look hard our our economic system (after all, it has already made governments throw out the idea of not intervening in the market!) and to find some new ways of providing for our needs. Or of course, it might not.

What of holidays in a post peak oil world?

I"ve just returned from a tourism research conference up in Hanmer Springs. Overall I enjoyed the conference - it gave me the opportunity to meet and talk with some very interesting people.
One of them was Ian Yeoman a futurologist with a tourism focus, who, as he put it, gets paid to "make stuff up" - although it does appear that there is quite a lot of interesting thinking behind the er ... stuff! It struck me that "futuring" is something that really benefits from integrating the information and knowledge from a very wide range of stakeholders.

I guess as someone who spends quite a lot of time thinking of the future in terms of environmental sustainability and who has a head full of books/ information like Jared Diamond's "Collapse," Rob Hopkins' "Transition Handbook" and of course Chris Martenson's Crash course, (amongst others) I would say Dr Yeoman is perhaps more positive about the future of tourism than I am ... (although to be fair he talks in terms of scenarios but I do note that people travelling a lot less did not seem to be one of them!).

I would hope, for example, that we don't have space tourism because something like that would indicate to me (and this is just an opinion here!) the likelihood of a an unstable society in which the gap between rich and poor is just massive (when in my opinion it is already too big).

Personally I'd much prefer to live in a stable and happy society in which people know and appreciate each other and there is a more even spread of opportunity across the population of the world. Such a society could work together constructively to cope with the changes that face them - whether they be positive or negative. And , I suppose, to those ends I remain interested in the question of how we create the positive futures we want.

Looking at this I guess I could seem like a bit of a grump who doesn't want to to create fantastic tourism futures. I suppose I would prefer to work toward seeing a more even spread of opportunity across the population rather than preparing for amazing opportunities for a priviledged few. In the end, like any decision or use of intuitive processes, it's all a matter of what and how you prioritise information and principles.

;-) CH

Could a recession be good?

Well maybe.

Nicholas Stern has suggested that recession is a good time to build a low carbon future in this article although he doesn't seem to be suggesting that perhaps we should be looking at how to reach some kind of steady state economy. I suppose that I still think it is a bit of a mistake to think only in terms of climate change which I think may be what Stern is doing. Still, he may be right that a time of crisis can actually make it easier to change.

But what should I do about all this? I keep coming back to the need to work at community level to build whatever I can to support and develop resilience so that when people do change it is more likely to be constructive rather than destructive. To me resilience means knowing where to locate skills and resources, being able to work with the people who can supply those things to make things happen. And when I look at this I see with some surprise that it implies that we need to foster strong "service" leadership at different levels.

:-)

Londoner with a tiny carbon footprint

Now here is someone a little different - I guess you could call her an integrated scientist - practicing what she preaches - the ultimate urban sustainable living. And of course right now we'd have to worry about what it would do the world economy if we all lived this way - but then that's another story.

New Government, Economic Recession, New Directions?

Well we have a new government here in New Zealand. More right wing if we are to judge by coalition partners although it is good to see the Maori party in there to - to maybe temper the influence of ACT!

Still, it's got me thinking because all the talk is now about fostering economic growth (admittedly not something I think that would have been any different if a more left wing government had got in). I wonder about that. How will promoting more consumption (because that is what economic growth relies on) help us meet the challenges of peak oil, the increasing gap between rich and poor, food security, climate change and diminishing resources that are all symptoms of a finite world?

Where is the work on fostering our capacity to change and adjust to meeting the limits of our lifestyles? Where is the work on developing community resilience? The whole focus is on our economic system and on short term fixes, which, it seems possible are only going to make the situation worse further down the track! What of the work around moving towards a steady state economy? Where are the people that really care about the lives of their children and grandchildren?

Could this economic recession be an opportunity for fostering some change in approach here? How might we as a nation and as a number of communities tap into that opportunity?

The Jevons paradox

What is the Jevons paradox you ask? Well, its the observation that (I guess) someone called Jevon's made, that increasingly efficient technology does not lead to more the use of fewer resources. Quite the opposite in fact!

In fact, as efficiency increases, resource use also increases. For example according to this video, increasingly efficient cars means that the money people save by using more efficient cars then is sloshing around looking for something to do and gets spent (in this example) on more trips. This of course leads to an increased consumption of oil. We've seen the same effect with heat pumps in New Zealand. Installing heat pumps has led to an increase in electricity consumption because people can heat their homes better for less cost. The video points out that the only way to counter this is to increase leisure rather than increasing productivity. Looked at this way, going part time or taking more holidays is doing the planet a favour because we need to produce and consume less stuff if we are going to become sustainable. Any other ploys simply increase consumption, which is not the point.

So slow down, work less, enjoy more of the flowers, become more physically active and spend more time with those important others in your lives. Working long and hard is not sustainable and as others have pointed out, not many people regret that they haven't spent more time at work when they are on their deathbed!

The joys of connecting sciences etc.

I"ve just been away at an interesting conference on making connections across science and between science and other forms of knowledge. It was great. Perhaps the talks that stood out for me most (they made me laugh with considerable relief at the time too) was the difficulty that people experience as scientists trying to do work that spans disciplines and professional boundaries.

As Hugh Campbell put it, you have to get used to reviewers hating your papers, to feeling like an idiot rather than an expert.

On top of that you don't have such great outputs because building the relationships necessary takes a huge amount of time since it takes heaps to work out how to engage with other scientists and most of these kinds of projects also require researchers to engage meaningfully with research "subjects" and with other stakeholders.

And on top of that most science institutions have no idea of the difficulties and tend to view people involved in these kinds of projects as abject failures!

Oh dear!

Leadership - what is it exactly?

Leadership is one of those things that keeps raising its head in my life. Apparently I'm a leader - something that I've never aspired to be. Interestingly tho I do want to change the world - or at least improve it - that's why I do what I do. So I guess that means I do need to lead. But what exactly does that mean?

I've had the privilege of watching Joe and Joanna Doherty of Ngaputahi in Te Urewera (see below!) leading their community through some significant changes in what seemed like a remarkably short time and they have taught me a lot.

Their leadership involves listening, learning about people around them, working hard on projects of benefit to the community, facilitating discussion about the future and the way forward, supporting and encouraging others in their endeavours where they can, passing on a wealth of knowledge and understanding where it is needed quietly and efficiently (but not where it is not!), and maintained their networks out from the community and where appropriate have shared their understanding of those networks so that others in the community can tap into them too.

It seems to me that leadership, in this context at least, is about supporting and fostering the skills and interests of others and creating some sense of common purpose to draw those skills together. It is also about sheer hard and sustained work, and locating all the necessary skills and capacities. It helps of course if those leading do actually have those skills and capacities, or that they know what they lack and are able to work with others that have them.

hei kona mai

Chrys

Conceptual vs concrete

I watched a meeting some years ago in which there was a major mismatch in communication between 2 planners and a group of 3-4 community members all trying to work together to develop a district plan.

The planners would put out a question with some background and then the group of community people would sit there and try and work out what it meant in terms that would help them answer. This was a complex task - they had to listen to the question, work out what it meant by finding concrete examples of what it might mean, gauge the reactions of the planners to see uf they were on the right track, and then think about what they should do in their plan.


The planners were frustrated that the community group had to 'go round in circles' before they could come up with what, to the planners seemed like a simple answer. As an outside observer, I guess I was able to see what was happening - the planners were conceptual thinkers who worked across a range of communities. The community group were much more grounded in the local area and as such were more concrete thinkers.

I got the opportunity to point this out to the planners over lunch and they were immediately able to try to communicate using concrete examples up front which made life much easier for all concerned (so they told me).

This , I think, was part of what was going on the other night (see my last post). What I found difficult was providing relevant concrete examples of new ways of doing things. I realise now that its relatively easy if you can give examples of what exists now but coming up with relevant, credible ideas that provide options for new ways of doing things is more difficult. I need to ponder this too, because there are some other issues here about the way I see participatory research which might be intervening here.

Relevance and irrelevance

I was in a meeting the other night with a community group to whom we had come to deliver some research results. From where I stood it was frustrating, so it has been occupying my thoughts recently.

Relevance is a funny thing. From my own experience as a receiver of information, one wee statement can suddenly make a whole lot of information suddenly much more personally relevant than it was a few seconds before.

As a giver of information, working out how to frame what I"m saying so that if is relevant is a matter of listening really carefully to the people I am are talking with. I guess part of my frustration the other night, was that I was finding it incredibly difficult to understand where they were in the conversation. Perhaps also my team and I were so bound up in the idea of delivering the research results we had prepared that we couldn't easily listen in a connected way to our audience?

More later.

Chrys

Networks networks networks

I picked up a paper the other day by Nardi, Whittaker & Schwarz (2002) about networkers and their activity in intensional networks.

I guess that for me as I read it, it began to ring bells of recognition. They talked about the work that goes into building, using and maintaining networks associated with project based work. This includes activities such as remembering/ recalling people (including keeping databases), communicating with them during projects and keeping in touch between projects. Added to this are managing relationships between organisational insiders and outsiders (short term contractors), "feeding" relationships by making sure to know things about people's personal circumstances, keeping track of who they know, and ensuring that appropriate language is used with different people in the network. It made me realise that my work managing a research programme looking at Maori tourism development has involved a great deal of networking work - work that is not really recognised as work per se and certainly not accounted for well in this system.

I was particularly interested in the questions that the authors raised about the distinction between strong and weak ties (as Granovetter coined them), because this work highlights a more gradual continuum that is likely to be time bounded. ie your weak tie today may become tomorrow strong tie as that person is brought in closer for a particular project.

ka kite ano

Chrys

A Crash Course(?)

Terry Thomsen from The Inside Story sent me a really interesting link last night: Chris Martenson's Blog.

I started watching his "Crash Course" last evening. It began with an outline of the basis of the US (and world) economic system and provided some fascinating insights about recent bank collapses and the property market bubble. He then provided some very clear and chilling analysis of the effects of climate change, peak oil, the aging population and currrent human resource use. The course is a series of short lectures that take about 2-3 hours to watch/ listen to, but once I'd started I found them just riveting and well put together. I think they are REALLY important.

Chris's descriptions of what is happening right now reminded me strongly of the descriptions that Jared Diamond provided in his book "Collapse" about societies which .... well ... collapsed, although I feel as if I may be lapsing into the rhetoric of "I have a nightmare" which, as my last post implies, may not be productive.

What I particularly liked about Chris's articles were his own attitude that this is a really exciting time to be living and that we really need to be thinking about and planning for the things that are coming. We need a vision of how the world might look in the future! As Chris points out, we will have to lead more simple lives and we'll have a more simple society with lower standards of living, out of necessity but that could well mean a better quality of life!

I recommend you have a look at this site and in particular at the crash course.

I have a dream!

I read a great paper today given to me by Simon Lambert of Lincoln University. In it Katherine Gibson and Julie Graham (I think) discuss building and acknowledging "new", or perhaps unrecognised, forms of economy. It's quite heavy going, but it made me feel that perhaps I am a real social scientist after all.

Trouble with me is that I'm always being criticised for not being critical enough. But I don't always want to be critical, because to find new ways forward you have to be open and interested in the possibilities, not busy shutting them down. In effect then critique can be too limiting. But then again some critiques do interest me because they can offer new ways of looking at the world I'm focused on.

What excited me about Gibson and Graham was their argument that academics can help foster new forms of economy by focusing on interesting things that are going on already and illuminating them for others to see. Their argument is that we often get stuck on seeing the bad, but we need to find ways to find and highlight the good.

This reminds me of a conversation that I had with Marie McEntee of Auckland Uni. today, who pointed out that Martin Luther King was looking forward to what could be when he said "I have a dream", whereas all we hear environmentalists talking about is "we have a nightmare". Its easier for people to respond to the positive than the negative. Its a bit like the idea that when you are driving or mountain biking, you need to look hard at where it is you want to go (the space!) and not to focus on that which you want to avoid (the lampost, or the steep bank below!).

What then are our dreams for a better economic system or a better environment or a better society?

What's happening to our brains?

I"m intrigued by a number articles I've read and conversations that I've had recently that allude to our propensity to live faster and faster.

Richard Shaw of Massey University drew my attention to an article by Nicholas Carr at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google which suggests a number of changes in the way we read and think as a result of the internet and the way in which we engage with it. He suggests that we are becoming "pancake people" flattening out our intelligence until it is wide flat and perhaps scattered. As he puts it at the end of his article " as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence." Despite all this he does point out that this may not be the only interpretation. In reflecting on the reactions of intellectuals to the advent of technologies such as hand writing and the printing press, it is difficult to know what our "pancakeness" might mean for our own future thinking and learning processes.

The second article seems to me to be somehow linked. Written by Christine Rosen, and sent to me by Stella Belliss, the article can be found here. It looks at the way our brains respond to doing many things at once, and the fact that doing this many not be particularly conducive to learning given what we understand about the neuroscience of multitasking.

My wondering here is how are we affecting our own abilities to learn and enjoy life, given that many people can relate to feeling overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available to them and the need to move quickly between projects just to keep up. In a world of increasing connection, and demands that we work together more, how should we best manage our time and our connections? Interestingly, I think that Kevin Shadix is asking something similar in a recent post on his Shady Learning blog.

Online or off line interactions

As someone relatively new to Web 2 and all that it entails, I"m still experimenting. I"m also uncertain as yet of the benefits of spending time on the Web relative to spending time with more direct forms of communication (face to face, telephone, and even email). As someone with an interest in the social processes around learning and change, I'm wondering about generational differences, gender differences, workstyle differences and cultural differences.

I want to reflect on the art/sci project mentioned in a recent post. Project group members were geographically dispersed and we had very little money for travel, so we developed our own online workspace. It became clear that contributions in the workspace were strongly linked to face to face interaction - so the group would meet, and then there would be a flurry of online discussion. Or one or two members of the group would talk by telephone or over the tea table and then put something up. We weren't that good at just keeping online conversations going. What might happen with a group of younger people? Was this something to do with our ages, our project, our own personal characteristics or even our wider work environment?

Three meanings of management

I read a paper this morning (by David Waltner Toews et al (2006))that outlined 3 different ways in which we use the word "manage".

I was fascinated because I recognised them all, and yet I hadn't really thought about it before.

First, there is the idea of command and control. This meaning is linked to the latin manus which means hand and is linked to the Italian word for training and breaking in horses!
Second, is the idea of stewardship, or caring for" and this, they argue is linked to menager which is French for "to use carefully;" and
Third, is the idea of coping as in "we're just managing to keep our head above water!"

"Of course!" I thought, "This is why I"m often at odds with some of the people I work with."

I generally use the term management to imply stewardship, caring or support, while others (like some senior managers I know) are using it in the sense of command and control which implies the idea of manipulating people and making them do what you want. Change in this view is about force at worst or manipulation at best.

Most, if not all of my work, is based on the idea of helping people to decide on the changes they want to make and then supporting them through the process of making them. Personally, I think this works better in terms of long term and meaningful outcomes. I must admit to that as someone who is managed - while it has been and unusuaul event- when I've actually had a manager with this supporting philosophy I've been much more inclined to do the very best I can for them!

Are you a lumper or a splitter?

I"m a lumper!
Tell me a few stories and I'll get excited by the linkages and the similarities. It's amazing how different disciplines give different names to the same phenomena. Geographers for example talk about liminality, whilst psychologists talk about anomie - both describe a sense of normlessness which can either result in a feeling of being lost or of being free of the normal constraints of everyday life. I'm amazed how often I hear different terms for very similar ideas related to the experience of being human.

Splitters on the other had always see the differences between theories and are anxious to point out the differences. From where I stand splitters can be really annoying. From where they stand, lumpers probably are! This is important because I reckon it helps to realise what is going on when the annoyance begins to arise, and to find ways to make use of the different skills involved in both activities.

Mixing Art, Science and Social Science to Learn about a River

I've been reflecting back on an amazing experience that I had a few years ago when I worked on a project aimed at mixing art and science. Two artists, two scientists and two social scientists worked together over a year or two to learn about our different perspectives and to apply our learning to a project centred around the Motueka River and its associated community in New Zealand. Check out the information about the project at: the project website.

There were a number of outputs from the project. The most obvious was an installation that brought together stories and images from artists scientists and community members. There was also a book containing some of the conversations that the group had through the process of getting to know each other and an evaluation of the collaboration process that drew out the learning we all did about working with people from such radically different perspectives - all available from the website above.

For me personally, this project opened up some new ways of thinking and engaging with people and the environment. It also reinforced my interest in learning from those in other areas of endeavour and with different experiences, and helping them to do the same.

I'd like to be doing something more with this experience and I haven't quite worked out how but I am thinking that perhaps it cannot be done working from within the limitations of the New Zealand Science system and or perhaps within the organisational framework within which I work.

Interconnections and problem solving

I"ve been away to meet with a group of social scientists from around New Zealand to talk about social science in New Zealand and how to raise its profile. One of the things that we discussed was interconnection in science which at the time translated into working across boundaries - disciplinary, cultural, social and professional usually to 'solve' complex /wicked problems.

We assumed that this is quite a difficult thing to do, but many people I encounter assume this is easy. I suppose that to some extent it might be when two people, who like each other and have some overlap in their backgrounds, sit down to work together particularly if they are both interested in the perspective of the other and are willing to listen. It gets significantly more difficult when there are multiple people with different perspectives, particularly if those perspectives have a different philsophical, epistemological or ontological bases. In such a case the social learning that needs to happen is greatly multiplied, while the likelihood that every perpective will be met with respect is greatly reduced!

The thing that gets in the way is an assumption that in fact everyone has, and should have, the same basic idea of what is going on when in fact nothing may be further from the truth!

C

The wonders of modern science

Science is a pretty amazing thing, really and every now and again I'm struck by how fast things are moving. The machines that go 'ping', the wonders of modern medicine and dentistry which I have to say really do make our lives (in the west at least) a great deal more comfortable.

And yet it seems that we are a long way of being able to work collectively to manage many of the modern problems that face us. I suppose given the success of modern science and engineering, it is natural to think that the answer lies in a technical fix, but even then, what if the technical "fix" that we need has to come from a mixture of different knowledges and experiences?

Why also do we assume that mixing up these different ways of knowing should be easy? In our science system here in New Zealand there is the implicit assumption that 'solving' complex problems is all terribly straightforward despite masses of evidence to the contrary!

There's an interesting looking conference on just this topic at: http://www.runninghot.org.nz/

C

Spring is here

I know this because for the first time this season, I got dive bombed by magpies today. One of them was pretty persistent despite my flailing arms and ducking head - he hit my helmet 3-4 times before flying off to watch for the next cyclist. It's times like these that I"m glad I wear a helmet!

Still its nothing on bears as the news item below mentions....

http://news.yahoo.com/s//ap/20080910/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bicyclist_vs_bear

although it sounds awfully like this is a pretty rare occurrence when compared with the frequency of Magpie attacks. (http://austinbikeblog.org/)

C

What of New Zealand Energy Policy?

They want to dam another wild river and understandably, I guess, another set of "they" want to fight it. The same goes for wind turbines, coal fired power stations etc. Well, I don't want to see a wild river dammed, but I"m wondering what we are balancing this up against? If we don't dam this river what are our options for managing our energy needs and who would do this?

It is asking for trouble to keep dealing with electricity supply in this way - on a case by case basis with little thought about how to manage New Zealand's energy needs. It may be for example that we can achieve a great deal by putting solar water heating in all homes in New Zealand or by fostering power saving behaviours, but this is not something the private sector is likely to do without some kind of policy support to drive it. Likewise, if we say no to this power scheme, how do we know whether it is better or worse than the last one. Will we back ourselves into a corner by refusing scheme after scheme until in desperation we get something that we are even more unhappy with because there is no other choice available?

We really need some strong policy process to help New Zealanders think through their options in the longer term and to decide what is overall the best way forward for the country.

C

Biofuels, oil and food security

I've just been looking at an interesting world bank report from the Guardian Website.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF

There are many claims and counterclaims about the effects of biofuels on food prices and availability which highlights the need to do some serious thinking about our direction.

I continue to be amazed at the ongoing head-in-the-sand idea that biofuels are going to allow us to continue with life as usual in the west. As I see it, there is simply no way we can keep consuming energy at the same rate as we currently do (let alone a faster rate, as we seem to bve heading towards) using a renewable resource.

I guess I have a bit of a bias here but when I look hard at the technological solutions that many people are suggesting I"m left thinking ... actually we need to be working on fostering social change and helping people live within the limits. most technological solutions seem to be offered as a way for us to keep mindlessly consuming which in turn seems to making us even more intent on consuming more in search of some kind of elusive satisfaction. This seems like a bit of a vicious cycle to me!

C

Christchurch Science Fair

I had the privilege of judging the science projects of many Christchurch School children last Sunday. There were some great projects and excellent ideas. I was struck particularly by the project of one lad from Lincoln High school that tested some social psychological theory. His was the only real social science that I saw at the entire fair!

I was judging to give out an environmental award and decided that perhaps we give our school children the understanding that environmental problems will only be solved by science when in fact it seems to me that the causes and many of the cures for environmental problems will lie at least partially in the social sphere.

There is clearly some work to be done helping others to understand the importance of social science in helping to "solve" the worlds greatest problems!