Social Network for RSA Fellows

Collaborating towards a more fully networked RSA

In summary: if we want a better networked RSA, with more chances to connect and benefit from its many activities, we can’t just jump to a solution. We need a Fellow-led exploration of what’s possible, some experiments, and a chance to help shape new content strategies and networking activities.

Over the past four years there’s been enormous progress in improving communication between Fellows, staff and Fellows, and the wider constituency of the RSA. We have a dedicated staff team on the job, Fellowship council, working groups, Catalyst projects, videos, online platforms - and more.

Matthew Taylor rightly celebrated that in his blog post this week: Spread the news, we’re getting engaged

But if you follow discussion on Linkedin, or this site, Fellows still find it difficult to connect … many interest groups are dead … while the sheer volume of content produced on the main site and various social media channels by staff can be overwhelming.

The results of the Fellowship Survey show a strong demand for greater engagement, and recommendations to achieve this (see below). Networking with other Fellows was rated second only to being associated with the RSA, its values and work, in the important aspects of being a Fellow.

So is this another moan: Something Needs To Be Done (by Them)?

No - because I think the next stage of development will only succeed if there is more action by Fellows to complement - and collaborate with - the work of staff, and to help shape the use of the next online platform developments. From Matthew’s post, that would certainly be welcomed.

The diagram above is not one that’s specific to RSA. It‘s goes with the oft-heard story … “we are too hierarchical at the moment, with a few clusters. We want to move from ‘join us and get a newsletter’, beyond some groups that are themselves hierarchical, towards a network where people doing more connecting for themselves”.

But how to do that? I’ve put some links at the end of this piece referencing earlier discussions and attempts over the past few years.

It isn’t easy, particularly in the RSA. The RSA’s great strength is diversity of Fellowship, and breadth of vision … but that means there isn’t one focus of interest. It has a lot of traditions and a culture developed over 250 years. It isn’t a classic membership organisation, where staff are there to serve those paying the subs … or a crowd of volunteers expecting to do things for themselves with some support. It is a puzzling mix … and so a great place to experiment in the changes that are needed more widely in society.

My suggestion is that we collaborate in an exploration. It’s an idea developed from recent discussions about the role of regional digital champions and social reporters. Earlier still, the first ideas for a fully networked RSA were developed among North East Fellows in the Virtual Coffee House group back in 2005-2007. That’s worth reading as a vision of what might be possible - update version from Peter Churchill linked below

While the RSA's new technology strategy will provide further tools for Fellows and staff, experience shows these will not be enough on their own to promote more networking. And while Fellowship staff, council members and regional groups are active in developing better communications, networks only operate effectively when network members have the skills and motivation to participate, using their preferred methods.

The exploration will provide a way to try some small-scale experiments, research experience elsewhere, and develop an optimistic view of opportunities for the future. In practice the explorers may:

highlight existing good network building within RSA
find out from Fellows what greater networking they would welcome
report on what is planned by RSA staff and build on existing collaborations with staff
look at examples elsewhere
help build a core network of digital champions and network builders
map some networks to find the existing strong connections, and gaps
Start experimenting

As part of the process we will run some design workshops, inspired by one run by Fellows and staff in 2009.

The format for this exploration draws on experience of others run by social reporters for Big Lottery Fund, Nominet Trust, and other organisations - but we will develop our own approach as we go.

There’s an open Google doc with these idea here http://bit.ly/L8wCNV

We already have a core group of explorers. If you are interested, please add your name as a comment below, or in the Google doc. You’ll find on the doc that I have also added the idea that we might here have the base for a wider exploration of the role of networks and networking in society, if anyone else is interested. That reflects the ethos of the RSA: it isn’t just for our benefit, it is for social change.

First explorers

Dave Briggs dave@kindofdigital.com @davebriggs
Peter Churchill roundhay125@googlemail.com @roundhay125
Jemima Gibbons jemimag@gmail.com @jemimag
John Oakley john@wingonline.com @dauwkuk
Roxanne Persaud roxanne@commutiny.org.uk @commutiny
David Wilcox david@socialreporter.com @davidwilcox

Previous discussions and resources

Early RSA networks developments at OpenRSA
Workshop in 2009
Tessy Britton 2010: How could a network look after itself
Don Pinchbeck 2012: A ramble through the history of the Virtual Coffee House - and the ...
David Wilcox 2012: What might digital champions and reporters do to animate RSA networks
Peter Churchill: VCH Vision 2010
Results of Fellowship Survey

Recommendations from the survey

Here’s some of the survey recommendations that we might help with

Ensure uniformly high standard of intellectual debate and address identified areas for improvement; online communities may require more moderation and quality assurance
Involve parts of the Fellowship as an extended expert group for staff- and Fellow-led Projects
Leverage the existing high usage of social media by Fellows, particularly Linked-In and Facebook, to encourage more intra-Fellowship networking and collaboration
Encourage retired Fellows to be more engaged in a way that matches their retired lifestyles and make Fellowship more personally relevant
Tap into the intersection of Fellows’ interest to network, and the RSA mission, by shaping online and offline platforms accordingly
Provide clearer and more tailored paths to engagement, e.g. how can a Fellow engage with only little time at hand?

I've posted these ideas first in this RSAde group forum, but will promote more widely once people here have a chance to comment or contribute.

What do you think? Is this worth Fellows-led action? Do you wish to contribute ... and if so, where's the best opportunities to show what's possible?

Update: new post with further developments Next steps towards a networked RSA

Tags: networks

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr Graham Wilson on May 27, 2012 at 0:17

OK... Now I am officially confused....

Do we have a case of initiative overload here?

I have just discovered the item about the launch of Digital Champions... isn't this rather pre-empting the outcomes from the workshops that John is proposing?

Who are these 20 people? I don't think I've seen twenty people active on here, so how can they be championing this facility?

Can anybody enlighten me?

Thanks, Graham

Permalink Reply by John Oakley on May 27, 2012 at 1:39

But Graham, first of all the RSA is an international Society with members from around the world. Indeed one of the founders was an American, Benjamin Franklin. It is a Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce that has a Royal Charter, not an English or British Society. I myself joined the Society from the US where I live a large part of the time. I have actually attended more events in North America than in the UK mainly in Vancouver, CA, because is just 45 minutes from where I live.

Secondly, neither forum is policed well. rsafellowship.org can't be because it only can rely on the honour system as to the status of the registrant as the moderators are not JAS staff and therefore don't have access to the list of Fellows and their Fellowship numbers. Linkedin was set up by RSA staff and only staff can manage it... but they don't seem to have the time to check for applicant status.

This is one of the major items that I brought up with RSA staff, including Matthew Taylor, this week when I visited the House. I also am concerned that none of the fora are moderated so extreme views just sit there and fester poisoning whatever reputation the RSA has.

As a direct result of my complaints to Matthew Taylor I witnessed that he demanded of his staff that this situation be fixed.

Incidentally, its less of a problem than it might seen because the number active is probably around 10% of the membership of the forums.

And I never said we should not have social media networking... just that there has to be some control - to your example, limiting certain areas to Fellows is one area - but weeding out extreme views, unsubstantiated rants and ad hominem attacks but sometimes a physical meeting is required. I have had marginally better results with that than you obviously have because perhaps my attendees have been better behaved or managed.

But to your point that we would not be having this chat without social media is mainly true but I do remember enjoying the banter from "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" et al. in the Times ( or as I now normally have to refer to it as The London Times). It is certainly easier for me to "pen" this at 2:30am with this medium.

But if you read A History of the Royal Society of Arts by Sir Henry Truman Woods you will see several examples of extreme views being published in the press. It is a long tradition.

Permalink Reply by Dr Graham Wilson on May 27, 2012 at 2:22

David: "For example, the byelaws say you shouldn't use "FRSA" for business purposes - so it should not be on your business card, I guess."

ByeLaws 2009:13.14: "Any Fellow is authorised to use the style or title of ‘Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts’ or to use after their name the initials ‘FRSA’ to indicate such membership but not for business professional or advertising purposes."

I couldn't download the latest, the file is broken, but the 2009 have a similar statement. That is very interesting. I can't help wondering if this isn't something that has been transcribed from some legal context and doesn't quite convey what is intended.

Business, Professional and Advertising purposes covers ALL work really - including all those "social entrepreneurs". I am hard pressed to think of any situation where you would therefore actually want to use them.

I checked on LinkedIN and found 2100 people with FRSA in their profiles and since hardly anyone is on LI for anything other than professional purposes, that's a lot of rule breakers!

Once I've got through all my websites making them cookie-law compliant, I'll go through them again eradicating FRSAs!

Cheers, Graham

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 27, 2012 at 9:03

Hi John, Graham ... catching up! Here's a recap on why I started the discussion, and where I see it going ... emphasising it is an exploration so may take a few turns. These are entirely personal views and others in this group may have a different perspective.

Context.

I think all of this has been aired publicly over the past five years ... and if I'm off track I hope others will correct me.

1 The key issue for me - and all of us I guess - is purpose, with methods later. What are we trying to achieve? Should the focus be Manufacture, Arts, Industry ... or moved towards a rather different emphasis on social and civic innovation (however that may be defined). What is 21st century enlightenment? What's the balance between personal gain through networking, and advancing the aims of RSA (if we know what they are)?

2 What constraints does the charitable status of RSA bring? As I understand it, only some 10% of fees collected can be spent on member benefits otherwise gift aid is invalidated (this would need checking, but came from a reliable source initially). If this is the case, it explains why there are limitations on use of facilities. As the FAQ says, it is a donation. It is not an entitlement to services. Very different from ecademy on that front, picking up an earlier point.

3 Are the members there to serve the Society or the other way around (as in most membership organisations)? Are we customers or volunteers? Probably a bit of both ... but it isn't clear.

4 Does FRSA mean anything, or can anyone join? It used to be a mark of recognition, but I don't think there are really any constraints on recruitment (see FAQ) ... so it is probably more useful (if at all) as a mark of aspiration towards some shared purpose and set of values. But see 1.

5 Is the external purpose of the RSA to be achieved mainly by staff-led projects, or Fellow-led? The aim is to move towards more Fellow-led - hence the Catalyst awards. But can Fellows get involved in staff-led projects? Not much in the past, but there is change there.

6 What's the point of being a Fellow if there are limited benefits and services, FRSA doesn't really mean much, and it isn't clear where we are going? That's why we need an exploration: there isn't an easy answer on purpose, organisation, methods.

A few years back I found all this uncertainty immensely frustrating ... but I now see it is a condensed reflection of fairly common social and organisational challenges, with layers of complexity developed over 250 years. It is a puzzling heap ... but one with an enormous diversity of talent, a powerful brand, and a hugely energetic and (I think) capable and charismatic CEO.

There was a lot of effort a few years back around a Fellowship Charter to clarify some of the issues, but most of the links seem broken on that now. I did find this sample of discussion http://bit.ly/KUanj5 I've copied the final version below.

We are on a third or fourth attempt at a technology platform, and the current focus is mostly on organisational requirements rather than networking for Fellows. That means there is going to be a year or two for us to explore what we need, and come up with some interim solutions.

There is a huge amount of content generated by RSA, but insufficient staff resources (as I understand it) to curate and facilitate - even if we had a better technology platform.

What can be done to make the most of the potential?

I think there are some things only staff can do; some things Fellows could do; and some things where we could achieve a lot by collaboration.

I have personally found it difficult to achieve much by suggesting what staff should do to fix things, except of course where there is some structured consultation. That's where the Fellowship Council should come in. There was a big row a year or so back about direction of RSA, but I don't think it changed anything.

Staff-Fellow collaboration is challenging on the bigger picture, but is now developing very well (in my view) around specific projects and events. This is very important to achieve a climate of trust ... although changes will probably be small scale and incremental.

While there is a lot that could be improved on top-level content management and information systems, it is beyond the scope of volunteer Fellows. I personally think there should be a content strategy before a technology strategy, but that's a Trustee level decision, I guess.

As part of the content and communication improvements, we do need, as John emphasises, rationalisation of systems and some developments.

I'm taking networking and network building as a focus because:

It is rated highly in the recent survey of Fellows
It can meet both personal, group, RSA and wider needs and interests
It is at the heart of the Charter.
It is something that Fellows can develop on their own, with some staff assistance where necessary
It is a route into some manageable improvements in content and comms, and social media

Workshops

In order to design the workshops I suggest we need

Some shared understanding of the realities of the context - hence my recap above
Some agreed purpose and realistic focus for our ambitions
The challenges and opportunities that arise from that ... and some ideas for action
Methods that might be used to achieve the ideas in practice
Resources, roles, action plan

If we agree on the purpose and focus, I can come up with suggestions for next steps. E.g. if the focus is to develop a more networked RSA to meet the needs of Fellows and help fulfil the Charter, we could crowdsource some challenges, opportunities and ideas before the workshop ... and work through how to implement at the workshop.

Does this make sense?

Here's an example of a workshop I ran with Drew Mackie recently on how community enablers (network builders) could use social tech in a fictitious scenario. I'm not saying we use the same format, but the principles might be the same, this time for real.

Should this discussion be in public?

Over the past few years, these discussions have taken place on this site. As you say, many of the members are not FRSA ... and it is publicly searchable. Should we move to a more private space?

The Fellowship Charter

http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/apply/uk

The Fellowship Charter explains what being part of the RSA means in the contemporary world. It sets out how the RSA and the Fellowship aim to work together to achieve the principles in our founding Charter; and re-affirms the central importance of a Fellow's role in achieving them.

‘Undertakings for the Public Good’

We were founded in 1754 for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Today the RSA operates on a local, national, regional and international scale to turn optimistic thinking into positive action. We form a unique combination of committed people and diverse ways of working in our efforts to find innovative practical solutions to pressing social problems.

‘Members from all Ranks, Professions and Trades’

We are a global network of individuals from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines. Recognising that together we are greater than the sum of our parts, we have confidence in our collective ability to effect change. We share a commitment to working in a way that realises both our own untapped potential and that of others, encourages human empathy and a respect for difference, and has ethical consideration for the implications of our actions.

‘Discoveries, Inventions and Improvements’

We inspire innovative thinking by promoting new ideas, and being open-minded and creative in our approach. We enable positive change by leading, contributing or encouraging pioneering initiatives and being generous in sharing resources and skills. We support each other by working collaboratively and creating an enlightened space in which to tackle the challenges of the 21st century.

Permalink Reply by John Oakley on May 27, 2012 at 9:58

David, thanks for the excellent context definition. I am 100% in agreement with your points.

As I stated before this public debate is detrimental to the aims and brand of the RSA. As before we could continue in a moderated environment where we can control the invitations. It distresses me greatly that this should be an option we are even considering but I learned long ago that unbridled passion, or even genuine concerns, when aired in public can cause alarm and despondency amongst those who are comfortable with the status quo. I'd sooner we got our act together as consenting adults.

As I am talking technology (bad John!) in the short term we could set up several LinkedIn Groups e.g. "This is the RSA" a moderated group for anyone, a closed group "RSA Fellows", moderated and restricted to Fellows and "RSA Networking" a closed group for this discussion but as trusted and invited members totally unmoderated. ( All titles negotiable).

My previous security concerns with LinkedIn have now been resolved but we could resurrect the ultra-secure Yammer account that we used before if we really want to stay under the radar.

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 27, 2012 at 10:30

Thanks John - I hoped you would pick up on this! I agree with your suggestions ... if I understand:

RSA Networking is a smallish closed group to move the development process forward ... but would report progressand engage with a wider FRSA, and would accept people who wished to contribute positively and actively
RSA Fellows is for any FRSAs, with agreed terms of engagement and such moderation/facilitation as needed
This is the RSA - open to anyone, and aiming to show RSA at its best. For network development purposes this could be a place to showcase existing examples of innovative activity. We would probably need a blog or some other outward-facing platform ... maybe as well as a Linkedin group.

I guess a first step would be to review existing Linkedin group function and membership. Would it become 2?

Is it easy enough to set up 1. on Linkedin?

Then group 1. could review how to implement 3?

I'm assuming we would need to recruit some volunteer moderator/facilitators to wok with staff, who are pretty hard-pressed on this front. I would be glad to help.

Permalink Reply by Dr Graham Wilson on May 27, 2012 at 11:21

Is Matthew M involved in this discussion? I'm conscious that ideas are being put forward that may seem to trample over his area of work and hos support/engagement/leadership could be beneficial.

The idea of all these groups etc is a little daunting to me.

Given that it takes time to build up membership of any online group, I wonder if it would be easier to purge the existing RSAFELLOWSHIP.COM forum of non-Fellows and to tighten new memberships? This would then be your #2 group.

I am not convinced that people who are exploring what the RSA is about, with a view to future membership, are going to engage in much discussion. They tend to watch (and then usually for a relatively short time) before taking action (or not as most will simply no longer visit).

Best

Graham

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 27, 2012 at 11:37

Thanks Graham - and yes, Matthew is involved and can pitch in any time. I hope that he will give us a steer if we are at odds with staff-led initiatives. Although we are looking at this from the perspective of what Fellows can move forward, we are very much doing that in a spirit of collaboration with staff, and there have been quite a few chats.

I'll leave John to come back on possible forums. Just on a personal basis, I like the wide functionality of this site, but you can't participate via email - which people like - and there isn't a link to substantial personal profiles ... which people do keep up to date on Linkedin. In addition, we don't know how long this site will be maintained.

Thanks again for such useful input.

Permalink Reply by Dr Graham Wilson on May 27, 2012 at 12:31

Thanks David: "I like the wide functionality of this site, but you can't participate via email - which people like - and there isn't a link to substantial personal profiles ... which people do keep up to date on Linkedin. In addition, we don't know how long this site will be maintained."

It's certainly one of the less cluttered spaces around. However, some features don't work at all (eg Huddle Workspaces), and some are hardly used at all (eg Videos and Notes), so I guess wide functionality isn't particularly critical.

I keep coming back to this, but there's too much complexity for most people to cope with - let's get some of these forums closed and options removed (eg the profiles option on Ning), promote them like crazy in the Journal and start encouraging the 1000 or so who are already signed up on the Ning forum to participate more.

I'm less concerned about an 'in depth' profile like the ones on LinkedIN as a searchable facility for the Ning ones - I'd like to make contact with Fellows within so many miles of wherever I enter, who have interests in subjects that I choose - this is easily achievable simply by providing people with a free form profile space and Google search on the site.

Cheers

Graham

Permalink Reply by Peter Churchill on May 27, 2012 at 14:24

Permalink Reply by John Oakley on May 27, 2012 at 15:28

I keep coming back to this, but there's too much complexity for most people to cope with - let's get some of these forums closed and options removed (eg the profiles option on Ning), promote them like crazy in the Journal and start encouraging the 1000 or so who are already signed up on the Ning forum to participate more.

Graham, I'm in agreement with the complexity issue. I've been banging on about this for some time. However, I don't thing the Ning based solution is right for a medium or long term solution. From the survey it is obvious that it is the poor child of the discussion facilities and lacks a number of desirable features, such as email submission, effective moderation etc. and the future of the Ning facility is in some doubt. Firstly because it currently is a fee-based service, currently picked up by JAS I believe and secondly it is losing in the battle of the discussion sites and I think could well be the next one to close its doors.

JAS are investigating other possible solutions and piloting two, Huddle and Basecamp, both hosted solutions with some significant functionality and maybe well suited to the JAS environment and possibly the Fellowship as well... but JAS have of necessity a long and careful road to follow to get all the pieces and place and integrated and I don't want to interfere with their implementation of what seems to me to be a very well thought out strategy.

With the discussions we have had so far, with Fellows and with JAS staff, we have agreed that bringing in another interim solution makes no sense anyway. But what we can do is to leverage and configure some of the existing capabilities to better meet the needs - and in the process perhaps surface other requirements that the JAS Technology group may have to consider.

Hence my suggestion of using the one platform that most - I admit not all - Fellows already use; LinkedIn.

Other than the ability to strongly brand it does provide all the facilities that the Ning sites really use, provides granular access, can be open, closed, moderated, unmoderated, global or local searchable. It also allows command and control by a number of people so the workload e.g. registration and moderation, can be shared between JAS staff and a small band of volunteer Fellows. I am more concerned about the reputation hit on lurkers than I am by vociferous contributors. The lurker problem is one that will not be solved by cleaning out the Nings of non-Fellows as the posts have already been indexed by search engines and, although Ning provides at some level the ability to delete comments it only deletes its own index entries so Google search will still find all the original posts. Then there is the issue of the people who are genuinely interested in becoming Fellows. If we just drop them we will lose them. Remember the business rule of thumb, it is 10 times more difficult to get a new customer than convert an existing one.

As the current rsafellows.org is open and searchable it's function can be taken by the existing JAS-established LinkedIn group with the addition of a Group rules section ( "No ad hominem attacks" etc.), and a change to the moderation rules. This is what I described as the "This is the RSA" LinkedIn group.

We can set up a NEW closed group, The RSA Fellows Group, with similar rules and configuration but requiring real time validation of the registrant's current Fellowship status.

And for this discussion we can set up a closed subgroup of the RSA Fellows Group. i.e. You can only join it if you are already a member of the RSA Fellows Group and are Invited to join. This will be monitored for Group rule compliance but will allow frank and meaningful discussion because all the invited members will be expected not to broadcast discussions and will not foment unrest. Invitations will include selected JAS staff.

All other communication channels should be phased out at some convenient time as the market leader system LinkedIn is going to be around for some considerable time in a productive and supported environment.

I have a non-RSA branded Group already set up if you would like to try it for functionality. Just send me a private message and I will send an invite.

This will simplify the whole communication landscape AND provide the professional management and control we need if we are to present ourselves as professional and in control.

i.e. People with an interest, Fellows or not, can lurk or contribute in the "This is the RSA" Group...

Fellows who want to discuss RSA business, and perhaps criticize, can use the closed, moderated "RSA Fellows" Group.

Fellows who want to work with the JAS Staff in a cooperative way and are prepared to obey the rules in a trusted environment can use the closed, unmoderated Group. This discussion would transfer there.

Well Peter, you started this discussion so say the word and we can continue this discussion in an electronic smoke filled room.

Permalink Reply by Peter Churchill on May 27, 2012 at 16:03

Try doing it on VCH.

Dr Graham Wilson said:

I'm less concerned about an 'in depth' profile like the ones on LinkedIN as a searchable facility for the Ning ones - I'd like to make contact with Fellows within so many miles of wherever I enter, who have interests in subjects that I choose - this is easily achievable simply by providing people with a free form profile space and Google search on the site.

RSS

Welcome to
RSA Fellowship Social Network

Sign Up
or Sign In

Review of RSA Fellowship nings, social networks

Over the next few months the RSAde Group will be consolidating regional social networks and nings. The aim will be to improve connectivity for Fellows, improve communication and reduce fragmentation.

Therefore there will be an increase of regional and thematic groups over the next few months.

If you would like further information on these changes please contact the RSAde team via the Digital Engagement group on this network.

RSA Vision

Redesigning Education: Shaping Learning Systems around the Globe

A One Nation Schools System

Edmund Burke: Philosopher, Politician, Prophet

The Signal and the Noise

The State of England

More…

About the RSA

RSA: Purpose, Vision and Strategy
RSA: Governance
RSA Projects
RSA: Impact Report
RSA Contact List
RSA Fellowship

RSA Events

Does Population Matter?

One of the world’s leading geographers Professor Danny Dorling visits the RSA to argue that our concerns over population growth may be overblown.

The Power of Vulnerability

Influential author and speaker Dr Brené Brown tackles the myth that vulnerability is a weakness. Instead, she argues, it is the clearest path to courage and meaningful connection, and has the power to transform the way we engage and educate.

NHS at 65: rejuvenate or retire?

The NHS turns 65 this year at a time of significant change and unprecedented financial challenge. A panel of influential thinkers from the health sector and beyond debate whether it is time for the NHS to be retired off or whether there is scope for reinvention.