Digital Engagement

Add a Comment

Comment by Andy Williamson on July 5, 2012 at 16:45

True, don't think there's a single value but there will be a number of common ones and I think, from them, common purpose can emerge

Comment by Matthew Kálmán Mezey on July 5, 2012 at 16:41

I'm not certain a single shared understanding is possible - for example, cultural change pioneer Fellows want one thing, career networkers want something different...

Aren't both valid? We may have a preference about which values we prefer, but if we alienate another segment of values by ignoring them, thousands might leave...?

Matthew

PS I'm perhaps slightly happier discussing these topic on the relative backwater of the de group, as it were, rather than right in the election spotlight - but happy to shift over, if others want to...

Comment by David Wilcox on July 5, 2012 at 16:21

Thanks Jemima - I agree about the comment wall limitation. Checking - what's the focus for a forum topic?

I think the analysis around values is fascinating: but do we also need metaphors that people might identify with? When someone says, I'm thinking of joining RSA, what's it like ... what do you say? Bearing in mind there are really two RSAs, staff and Fellows.

• Someone said to me it could be like a free University.
• Others see Fellowship as Friends of the Think (and Do) Tank
• Matthew Taylor has said we are an emergency service for civil society
• Some see it as a market place for their skills, with FRSA as a bit extra for the business card

Unless we have some shared understanding of what we are, and what we are trying to achieve, how can we figure what sort of comms we need?

So is the topic What sort of RSA do you wish for - and how can we achieve that?

We could then invite some people across from the Linkedin group on Why did you join the RSAm and what would you like to see http://linkd.in/M1NxYG

Comment by Andy Williamson on July 5, 2012 at 16:21

Hi Matthew, not aware of a book on that, I know Richard's got a new book coming out soon (already out on e-book) on values and democracy so it could be in the pipeline now that's finished.

Yes, the ideas you mention for the survey would have been interesting, pity they didn't get done. The national values surveys I'm familiar with have a representative sample but not sure that all do.

Perhaps we don't need to be quite so positivst about the data though :-) Let's be radical and take a more indcuvtive approach (easy for a grounded theorist to say, of course... but it can scare the horses)...lets start with the data we have (remembering that everything is data!)...

1) we can (at least anecdotally) observe that there's a mis-match between the two value sets. At this stage we don't know quite how (because only one has been in any way assessed and this only briefly, but we know there's a different)

2) there is resonance with David's idea of the criticality of the importance of shared purpose

3) a feeling expressed that Fellows are consulted too late and too little (acatually, you could nicely bring in Habermas here to argue that 'management' is operating as a steering media within the sphericule of the RSA... but that's a whole dfferent and slightly tangential conversation!)

4) there is an already engaged sub-group that can bridge the two 'sides' (yep, that's us!)

So, taking this back to the original question, maybe the way to engage is to build shared values and, through these, create a sense of ownership and purpose. The question then becomes how to do this... and I think that comes back to needing to understand values on both sides, look for points of connectivity, engage in two-sided discourse to find points of engagement (which I imagine should be relatively easy!) and then to widen that debate out, slowly but surely across the networks. It will take time, can be digital and analogue and probably would work best if it's grassroots led (we tend to trust and therefore listen to people who are like us and who we know).

OK, long ramble and I'd better stop procrastinating over work I have to do!

Andy

Comment by Jemima Gibbons on July 5, 2012 at 16:14

Dear Matthew, Andy, David, Jeff and all,

This is a really interesting and important debate - but I'm worried it will get lost on this comments wall - does anyone fancy taking it into a new discussion on the At large candidates group (the closest we have to an election/ issues forum).

Many thanks,

Jemima

Comment by Matthew Kálmán Mezey on July 5, 2012 at 16:05

Hi Andy,

Did Barrett do a whole book based on his national samples results? He was going to. I think I saw a presentation about it all - after he came in. (Still not sure if they are weighted, representative national samples - or whatever it is).

The values maps have a big dip in their 5th columns, which kind of suggests - I'm told - that the individual behaviours that are required as a foundation for the 'Global Vision', aren't really in place. (In those two documents anyway.)

Values Modes has all been correlated with the 60 or 70 countries that Shalom Schwartz has done, I think.

I did try to encourage the Fellowship Survey to include a quantifiable set of values/motivations questions - so we'd know what was going on, and have less need to speculate, or develop our own bespoke segmentation - that risks being an isolated pot of data that can't be compared with national benchmarks, which could enable strategic planning.

There's various bits of work going on here in the areas of personas and segmentations - I'm not directly involved in them.

Interestingly, Values Modes are used (by the Campaign Company) in some of the projects it's doing with RSA Projects. Must check whether I missed any final reports. I saw various Campaign Company staff in here inputting data, but can't remember seeing the results yet.

They were even going to do something linking Values Modes and social network analysis - very innovative and interesting IMHO.

Matt

Comment by Andy Williamson on July 5, 2012 at 15:48

Thanks Matthew... sounds like the wagons are circling just not all at the same time :-)

Values Center have certainly done national samples, I know them through the Swedish National Values Survey but they have done many others too (eg Latvia, Iceland - which is fascinating!) and they are hoping to do similar in the UK soon (discussions underway!). The national level stuff is useful to give us a benchmark but I think intra-organisations is sufficient too, particularly when you have two discinct groups of stakeholders as the RSA.

The link is interesting, altohugh it only maps internal thinking (I note the observation that the values demonstrated don't map to enlightenment thinking, indeed they seem to reflect as much a bureaucratic/managerial approach as anything else - accepting that it's a bit unfair to draw too many conclusions from two sources of course ;-) )... would be fascinating to find a way to map the Fellows too as a comparison!

Comment by Matthew Kálmán Mezey on July 5, 2012 at 15:39

Hi Andy (and all),

One of Richard Barrett's people came in to meet Matthew Taylor (and others?) a little while back. I wish I'd known about it, and could have invited myself along.

But I can't see that anything has emerged from it. I have advocated using the Values Modes model to get a comprehensive idea of the kind of things Fellows value. But Barrett's approach would do something similar (not sure it links in to behaviours quite so well, or into nationally representative samples etc).

By the way, here is a colourful values map of two RSA documents: http://bit.ly/9WiMDQ - using the Hall-Tonna values model, which seems to have so impressed Richard that he came up with his own model.

I really like Richard's book on 'whole systems change', or whatever he called it. We should be using some of his techniques here, perhaps.

We already collect motivational statements from Fellows.

Matthew

---

Comment by Andy Williamson on July 5, 2012 at 15:23

Hi David, well put and taking a point from this and your last post I think it all becomes clear:

"the issue is not digital engagement,or even engagement. I think is how to get some shared sense of purpose."

Yes, I totally agree. Unfortunately...

"...we will be consulted late [in] the day on options that don't meet our needs."

Explains it succinctly. It points to the need for a fresh view of the relationships within and across the RSA. I had hoped to see something useful come out of the Fellow's survey but it didn't massively enlighten. Perhaps a much better question or angle of attack would be to ask about values (Fellows/RSA; Present/Desired; Shared/Diverging)... the work of Richard Barrett, for example, might be useful here (as he is a Fellow).

Comment by David Wilcox on July 5, 2012 at 15:16

I <a href="http://rsafellowship.com/group/rsa-elections-at-large-candidates">just posted this</a> in the Elections group, in response to Barbara Anderson, who is a candidate for the London regional chair.

Barbara wrote: 

"Hi Dave. Thank you. I certainly think Fellows should have input into system design; we are, after all, key stakeholders. I'm not 100% sure what the plan is in this respect although I know there is a project underway and you would imagine that there will be some sort of Fellowship consultation involved. I will try to find out.

Regarding controlling the systems I think under the current operating structure systems are for Matthew and team to sign off on and manage. However, as you point out, if we can influence this and either adopt or amend for our region's communication purposes then that could be helpful. It is also an interesting discussion point, because of course it gets right at the heart of the distinction or otherwise between executive and members. Onwards...!"

I responded

Thanks Barbara ... and others interested in online systems. There is a technology development strategy, and staff have been very helpful in briefing me and others in the digital engagement group on that. The current focus is on organisational requirements, with Fellowship systems like this one further down the track. This will be, I believe, the fourth attempt since 2007.

Issues that must be on the agenda are whether to close this site, and other regional sites; whether to move everything to Linkedin; whether to have Fellowship-only systems (this one is open to non-FRSAs); whether to integrate with staff communications.

My concerns are two-fold (based on past failures):

• Systems will be designed to meet staff-organisational needs, but not those of Fellows. Or they will be based on assumptions about what Fellows "should" do online.
• As a result of that, we will be consulted late on the day on options that don't meet our needs.

Systems for Fellows will only work if Fellows populate and animate them ... so I think we need a co-design and not just a consultation process. In saying this I'm not being critical in any way of staff involved, who are hugely helpful. We just seem to be stuck in an (old) RSA culture of doing things for Fellows, not with them, and no-one knows how to escape from it for fear of ... not quite sure.

How about London offers to provide a test-bed to explore what's needed in more depth than has been possible so far; run a co-design workshop, and maybe trial some systems?

And/or would any of the other candidates be interested in digging a bit deeper into this issue?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page