[This does not come out very well in blog format. For an easy-to-read version, see the Word version in Dropbox http://db.tt/LkrN76MI ]
System 1: The Research Process - the WHAT SSM(p)
PQR: a system to design and carry out a project into COP praxis in the context of AWARD alumnae in order to complete a Master's in Systems Thinking in Practice by critical reading on COP theory and practice, on alumnae schemes and on research skills, by discussion with colleagues, tutor, experts and student peers, and by researching needs and wants of select AWARD fellows.
CATWOE
Customer: the ultimate, prime customer is me
Actors: Me, fellows, tutor, colleagues, (authors, experts)
Transformation: no Master's --> Master's
Worldview: that this will be a personally and professionally enriching experience which is worth the sacrifice by myself, friends and family and the Open University can help me deliver it
Owner: Me, Open University (also Director, family but less so.)
Environment (constraints taken as given): I have the intellectual resources to do this, I will find time to do it, experts and fellows will contribute and engage, I can get hold of relevant material
Critical Systems Heuristics - boundaries of project as process
|
Sources of influence |
Social roles (stakeholders) |
Specific concerns (stakes) |
Key problems (stakeholding issues) |
|
Sources of motivation
|
1. Beneficiary Me |
2. Purpose To get me a Master's |
3. Improvement Success looks like: I have a Master's in STiP |
|
Sources of control |
4. Decision-maker Me |
5. Resources Time Money for books Organization skills Open University course |
6. Decision Environment Evaluation of project |
|
Sources of knowledge |
7. Expert CoP theorists and practitioners People with experience in running alumnae schemes Fellows Colleagues Tutor Peer learning group Experts in this kind of research |
8. Expertise I need new knowledge and skills in: Research skills Knowledge re alumnae services Knowledge re COP praxis |
9. Guarantor Past positive experiences of Open University courses |
|
Sources of legitimacy (those affected but not involved) |
10. Witness Family Friends
|
11. Emancipation The negatively affected are getting a bum deal. They can express their frustration and displeasure through conversations, but basically I expect them to be understanding |
12. World view I do make trade-offs in order to accommodate their needs too. |
Comment:
1. I would like nobly to say that success is getting deeper expertise in and knowledge of Communities of Practice. However, if I don't get that Master's I shall feel like I have failed.
2. Where is Systems in all this? If this is a Master's in Systems Thinking in Practice, how is that reflected in the above? The simple fact of taking this approach to scoping it? Needs something more explicit in content of research?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
System 2: The Research Content - the WHY SSM(c)
PQR: a system to develop one or more models of alumnae initiatives in the context of AWARD post-fellowship based on high potential design principles for successful COPs in order to continue and expand the benefits of the AWARD Fellowships by conducting desk research into COP praxis, and alumnae services, and through interviews with select fellows.
CATWOE
Customers: Fellows, other non-AWARD African women in ARD?, Mentors (women and men?),
Actors: Me, fellows, colleagues
Transformation: No alumnae services --> potential models for alumnae services
Worldview: Alumnae services in some form would be useful for the greater aim of continuing the AWARD fellows' empowerment trajectories after the end of the fellowship and drawing in other non-AWARD women into generating a critical mass of empowered, visible, skilled women in the African ARD landscape
Owner: Director, fellows, me
Environment: Fellows' time and desire to contribute, goodwill in AWARD team and donors, my own technical and intellectual skills or access to other people's, my time, Open University course deadlines and approach will enable not constrain
Critical Systems Heuristics - boundaries of project as process
|
Sources of influence |
Social roles (stakeholders) |
Specific concerns (stakes) |
Key problems (stakeholding issues) |
|
Sources of motivation
|
1. Beneficiary Fellows and Alumnae Other African women in ARD? Female mentors Male mentors? |
2. Purpose To continue AWARD Fellows' empowerment trajectories after the end of the fellowship and draw in and nurture other non AWARD women in African ARD. |
3. Improvement Success looks like: a model for a self-generating, self-organising community of practice which is considered to be both desirable and feasible by beneficiaries. |
|
Sources of control |
4. Decision-maker Fellows (AWARD?) |
5. Resources Time Online space Social capital (trust, networking capacity) Human capital (IT skills) |
6. Decision Environment What conditions of success are /ought to be outside the control of the Decision-maker? ?? |
|
Sources of knowledge |
7. Expert Fellows - expert in own situation, environment and needs ICT experts - to design interface around needs Networking/COP experts to support/kickstart good practice AWARD team - experts in institutional landscape |
8. Expertise Networking skills Peer mentoring Online engagement Alumnae self-help
|
9. Guarantor Based on best available 'evidence' Based on select fellows' needs and wants Based on other's experiences of success and failure AWARD to assure support and resources Fellows are willing and able to engage in an online environment |
|
Sources of legitimacy (those affected but not involved) |
10. Witness There are several potential 'witnesses': 1. Depending how the fellows and alumnae decide to draw the boundaries, the following may not be involved: -Male mentors -Men in African ARD generally -African women in ARD who are not in AWARD - AWARD fellows who are not interested in COPs or not interested in/able to engage online 2. Eventually, in my view, we should strive to move AWARD to this category
|
11. Emancipation - Results are shared widely and discussion is encouraged - there is an online space where absolutely anyone can leave their views - while under AWARD control or influence, periodic reflection on membership is encouraged |
12. World view If the COP is successful, then it will enable the continued development of fellows' empowerment trajectories through peer support and other activities and contribute to the vision of a critical mass of visible, empowered, skilled women. How to reconcile that view with others? |
Comment:
1. one main tension I anticipate is that AWARD would like to use alumnae services as a way of tracking fellows in the period post-fellowship, possibly by offering them services and events and asking for M&E data in return. That is not the way I feel the alumnae scheme should go - at this point, pre-research I see it ideally as part of the sustainability effect of AWARD - creating a self-organizing system in which fellows, mentors and whoever they decide should be inside the boundaries, continue to develop their empowerment trajectories (power within themselves, over resources and obstacles, to collaborate and take joint action, and to do better science). Instrumental purposes of the scheme I think risk clouding the purpose and hence the set-up.
2. About Witness: there is a temptation to include everyone but deep reflection is needed to make useful boundaries. A CoP implies that some people are in and some people are out, if everyone is in, the COP can have no shared identity, meaning and purpose. There may be a role however for boundary people, brokers, who have access and can contribute to COP but cannot be in the core (sympathetic men for example).