Beyond indifference to knowers

In The Social Life of Information, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid called for caring about the individual knower.

... the information economy, like the industrial economy, shows a marked indifference to people. The industrial economy, for example, treated them en masse as interchangeable parts - the factory "hands" of the nineteenth century. The information economy threatens to treat them as more or less interchangeable consumers and processors of information. Attending to knowledge, by contrast, returns attention to people, what they know, how they come to know it, and how they differ. The importance of people as creators and carriers of knowledge is forcing organizations to realize that knowledge is less in its databases than in its people. (p. 121).

When attention has not been returned to individual knowers, corporate or institutional attention is preoccupied with:

• managing the brand name, brand equity and brand narrative
• preventing unwanted exposure, buzz or speculation
• increasing productivity, efficiency and outputs
• monitoring consistency, compliance and conformity
• reducing the costly losses from deviance, defiance and departures
• increasing revenue growth, quarterly earnings and profits

Individuals in organizations experiencing the "marked indifference to people" would have no incentive to adopt Web 2.0 tools. The benefits would escape them and the dangers would grab their attention. Their experiences would have them knowing:

• to not expect to be valued for what they know
• to not get cared for in ways that support them knowing more
• to not share what they know with those who can use it against them
• to not care about knowing more that could jeopardize their fit within the indifferent system

Brown and Duguid continue:

So while the modern world often appears increasingly impersonal, in those areas where knowledge really counts, people count more than ever. In this way, a true knowledge economy should distinguish itself not only from the industrial economy, but also from an information economy.

I offer these insights, not as information, but as my way of developing a context for caring about what you know.

Contexts of independence

With today being Independence Day in the U.S., I've been wondering if there are contexts of independence we can create in our lives?
Most talk of independence occurs in a context of captivity, oppression and the abuse of power. The desire for independence is counter-dependent. It depends on rebellion, defiance and resistance to exist. If there is nothing to counter-act, there's no experience of "independence". It embodies a lurking desire to be opposed and confined which maintains the context of oppression. That's evident in most school systems, corporations and government agencies in this "land of the free" where we "let freedom ring".

What does the inter-dependence within complex networks, ecologies and multi-cellular organisms show us about contexts of independence?
On one hand, it frames independence as isolation, going off the grid, or getting abandoned by the web of support systems. On the other hand, it pictures independence as autonomy from external controls and freedom to self-select among choices, self-evaluate resulting feedback and self-direct subsequent initiatives. Independence goes hand-in-hand with inter-dependence. That's evident in all these emergent communities on the web that span the globe.

Are contexts of independence something we can develop intentionally?
It happens in the realm of counseling psychology by the creation of "healthy boundaries". When people are enmeshed in co-dependent relationships, they get taken hostage by other's insatiable neediness. They cannot feel their own feelings or know what they really want. They are identified with "being the drug for the addict" or "filling the other's bottomless pit". When these people "just say no" to further entanglements, they create a context of independence. They stand on their own two feet, take responsibility for the actions, feel their own feelings and make choices based on what they find within themselves. They maintain a healthy boundary from expecting others to make them happy and from answering the call to satisfying other's clinging dependency.

How does the complimentary inter-dependence play into living with healthy boundaries?
Whenever we begin to feel our feelings and learn what we really want for ourselves, we become aware of complexity within us. We are not single minded or basking in internal harmony. We embody countless conflicts like those between "head and heart", logic and emotion, or self-control and spontaneity. Cognitive neuroscience tells us our limbic system is inter-dependent with our more evolved neo-cortex while the right and left halves of the neo-cortex respond to each other and the limbic system with different approaches. When we stop people-pleasing or living in our past, we face an opportunity to "get it together". We can be extremely resourceful right now. We feel (limbic system) congruent, serene and energized. Our thinking (left brain) is clear, untroubled and sharp. Our imagination (right brain) becomes inspired, creative and holistic. We get into a flow state where our sense of the right thing to do is "right on". One good thing after another comes along in our minds and in our world.

Image from www.grucci.com/Liberty2.jpeg

Entries, transitions and initiations

With so many contexts functioning in self-reinforcing ways, I'm wondering how it's ever possible to develop a new context?
There are often temporary contexts which serve as entries into these robust, self-perpetuating contexts that appear to defy change. Rather than simply join into a current context, there are phases of initiation to make the transition successfully.

Do those transitions have to be painful like a fraternity hazing, getting tagged as a newbie or being assigned to a special group of inept recruits?
Initiations sometimes begin uncomfortably in order to shake up the preconceptions, break the clinging to the past and disrupt any over-confidence of those in process. Once that purpose is accomplished, transitions are orienting and challenging. The process helps people realize they can do things they've never done before. They discover new abilities to recognize, understand or respond to situations that they could not have foreseen in themselves. They acquire new ways to feel confident enough to take more risks, test their limits and explore unknowns.

Does everyone succeed that goes through a well designed initiation?
No, that's not the intention. It's meant to be a test of individual commitment and endurance. Those that fall out during the process we're kidding themselves, doing it to impress others or trying to be someone they're not. Initiations are crap detectors that work really well. Those that get through it respect the ordeal and each other for what's been revealed in each of them.

What's the most overlook concern in creating contexts for initiation into other contexts?
Timing issues. Herding everyone through the transition at the same time defeats the purpose. Individuals are getting tested before they are ready to face it without making excuses. The initiation generates false evidence about who has got the right stuff and who cannot hack it. When each individual comes through a transition when the time is right, each can be challenged by the obstacles and confident in the outcome. This intermediary context has the right effect.

Social media usage

Are there contexts where there's lots of satisfying usage of social media?
Of course the obvious example is contexts of users, sometimes also known as communities of practice. To be an insider, one needs to be making enough use of the tools to be having questions about fine points, to be discovering tips to share with others and to be using others as sounding boards for other possible approaches. The use of social media is mutually reinforcing. It pays to join in, contribute and be included in the spinoffs.

How does the Internet make user groups different from F2F contexts?
Connections to online users does free us of the physical constraints of being in the same place at the same time. Yet there is still the insider/outsider dynamic rewarding those active users. Insiders subscribe to each others' RSS feeds, bookmark their content, and contribute comments to the content they're generating. That happens pretty much the same regardless of whether the social media in use is blogs, wiki, Twitter, so-net sites like Facebook, or archived uploads like YouTube. Everyone becomes more agile, fluent and resourceful together. The advancements are contagious like the monkeys that catch on to washing the sand off their bananas before eating them. They didn't catch the memo on banana washing but got on board anyhow.

Can a satisfying user context be created or is it something that emerges only when the conditions are ripe?
There's lots of evidence that says they cannot be created by non-users, outsiders or expert users. It works to simply begin acting like an insider with genuine needs to interact with other users. The authentic involvement is prone to mutual reinforcement. Givers gain from their generosity and there's no end to the benefits from sharing, contributing and responding to others.

Is there potential for a contrived context to be become authentic, satisfying and self-reinforcing?
In situations involving physical proximity, it may be possible. The daily contact in time and space provokes interactions that could become more mutually beneficial. Online, there's no exposure to obligatory confinement, recurring contacts or casual encounters. Everyone is choosing what they subscribe to, visit, read, bookmark and contribute to. The self-directed freedom we're all experiencing online makes the imposition of policy changes or regulated contexts seem archaic and destined to fail.

A clash of contexts?

Isn't there always a clash of contexts between the expert and the apprentice wanting different things?
Contexts are usually shared. There's an implicit agreement between the adversaries to make it mutual. When Donald Trump abuses the people on The Apprentice, they are agreeing to getting pressured, put down and positioned against each other. They all buy into a context of battling each other, gaining power over others, taking positions and defending their stances.

When the context of the user gets understood, isn't that compromising to the authority figure's different context?
If there is a show of making a big sacrifice, condescending to relate to the low-lifes or losing ground to handle others' concerns, there is still a shared context. There is agreement to abuse and get abused. It takes two to create suffering, who each thing it only takes the one they blame.

What's the shared context when everyone appears disheartened, bored and forced to be there?
That can be called a pity party with a punch bowl of woe and cocktail conversations about victim stories. Those with the expertise don't want to know what effects they're having, what impressions they're making or what signals they're sending to their audiences. Those who feel the effects, get the impressions and see the signals -- don't want to say anything, act like they care or proceed with self-respect. Both agree to make each other miserable, complain about it later and dread the next encounter. They share a context of "don't wanna, don't make me".

What's the point of context development if the context is already held in common and maintaining itself ad-infinitum?
There's always a default context like the default settings in word processing software for margins, fonts and displayed menus. It's possible to change the settings before beginning to deliver content. Seeing context as an opportunity to be more effective takes advantage of how the context is usually shared. Everybody wins or everybody loses. There's no escaping the agreement to be equally miserable, ambitious, considerate or collaborative. There's simply a change to something better held in common.

Taken out of context

What's it like to be taken out of context?
We may think to ourselves "Gee, I must not be here - I might as well act like I'm invisible". We might wonder "maybe this is not really intended for me to hear?". We may realize "this is being said for the benefit of that ego-tripping mouth, but not for my eyes and ears". We can even get cynical and decide "this will never apply to my situation or be useful to me in this lifetime".

What's it like to be addressed in context?
We may think to ourselves "this person gets me and where I'm coming from, I'll get understand if I explore my confusion with her/him". We might wonder "maybe this expertise understands me better than I understand myself and can help me use my abilities more effectively". We may realize "this is being said for my benefit and deserves my full attention". We may even get inspired and decide "this calls for some reflective practice to tie this into what I already understand and into my situations where it appears useful to apply it".

What's the awful context that emerges when we are being taken out of context?
There are many ways to characterize the context where learning is very unlikely. It's a compliance context where submission to authorities is expected and rewarded. It's a survival context where it makes sense to minimize exposure to the dangers, threats and enemies present. It's a lose/lose context where there is no way to win and everyone appears to be acting like a loser. It's an adversarial context where people are acting like they have nothing in common and are standing to lose ground if the other succeeds. It's a power struggle where each is using their power to control the other, rather than to advance common objectives or shared interests.

Where does that awful context come from?
It can come from the "products of schooling" who expect to be indoctrinated, dominated and judged unfairly. It can come from the offspring of dysfunctional families which cannot handle the hidden talents, diverse outlooks and range of emotional responses of the family members. It can come from the "factory system" that delivers the content without concern for the diverse customers. The awful context can be produced by learning in the immediate situation that it's not possible to get understood, respected or shown adequate consideration.

Changing contexts instead

When we're creating problems for ourselves by imposing changes with our coercive tactics, we're in a context of controlling and opposing others. When we change to a context of understanding and relating to others, changes fall into place.

When we find that people are not learning from our instructional designs, we're in a context of "teaching by the book". When we change to a context of "learning from the learners", we utilize any misunderstanding to create "teachable moments" and "immediate object lessons".

When we're tormenting ourselves about not making sense to others, we're in a context of isolation and alienation. When we change to a context of connection and empathy, we first make sense of others and then relate to their sense of themselves.

When we're caught up the in the curse of knowledge that tempts us to be too informative, we're in a context of superior authority over others. When we change to a context of equality and collaborative creativity, we bring out new possibilities in others.

When we're escalating conflicts, arguments and differences, we're in a context of judgmental distance. When we change to a context of appreciative inquiry, our fascination with their contribution reveals common ground and inventive uses for the diversity of outlooks.

When we're imagining that changes occur by making progress in a straight line, we're in a context of mechanisms, factories and heroics. When we change to a context of organic cycles, we realize changes as they naturally grow, evolve and adapt to our presence.

When we think we're observing factual evidence, we're in a context of self-delusion and conceit. When we change to a context of seeing ourselves in a mirror, we take responsibility for what shows up and change ourselves to change the reflection in the mirror.

Discerning the context in use

Wendy Wickham has furthered our thinking about "learner generated contexts" yesterday in: Processing and Context:

So the next questions in my mind are:
- How do you encourage GROUPS of people to develop individual context and process information in a way that is useful and personal? Especially within the limited time / high-pressure context of most "courses"
- How do you encourage context development asynchronously - without the give and take of real-time conversation?
- How can you intrinsically motivate another to process and develop context for the material at hand?

It occurred to me that learners bring a context with them to any opportunity to learn. It's obvious in a classroom setting where the "eager beavers" sit expectantly in the front row and the "hostile cynics" sit in the back room with arms folded across their chests. There are learners who appear to be there to "show off how smart they already are" and others who are "just looking before they buy". There are learners who seem overly-dependent on authority figures to tell them what to think. They are those who defy authority figures and look for ways to "stick it to the man".

If we can discern the learners' default context at the start, we can get where the learners are coming from and speak their minds. We can give them an experience of feeling understood from us before expecting them to be understanding with us. The learners will find intrinsic motivation to process the content in the atmosphere this empathy creates. They will process the experience in a way that remains congruent with the context they bring to the experience.

When we're dealing with the delivery of content, design of instruction and outcomes of the offering, we're inclined to consider the contexts I explored in Synching up with the learners. If we're less concerned with issues about how we come across, we can be more concerned with where the learners are at. Here are four other contexts I discern as I'm mentoring one on one:

• Context of a painful past history: The entrepreneurs I mentor often sabotage their learning with unconscious urges to avoid another traumatic episode. They're assuming the new approach is familiar danger or a set up to get hurt again. They're experiencing the new possibility as pushing an old hot button.
• Context of personal responsibility: When my proteges are on top of their game, they bring a context to the table that takes charge of learning. They own their experience, create their choices and make things happen to get results. They value the structure I provide to make better decisions without depending on me to "get it right for them".
• Context of collegiality: When these entrepreneurs are secure enough to open to new realizations, they realize they cannot get to a new place alone. We join together in exploring an issue, compare our viewpoints and resolve our differences. The diversity of outlooks is essential to get out of opinionated insistence on "one right answer".
• Context of freedom: When my proteges have processed our reciprocal learning deeply, they lose their sense of desperation. They bring "perpetual processing" to the table. Their calm minds stop assuming what has to be done or what's next. Their minds open to serendipity and flow. They get a sense of balance, direction and timing by reflecting on happenstance in their outer and inner worlds.

It seems to me that these contexts are not limited to one on one conversations. They can used asynchronously to get groups to process what they are learning. These contexts can be presented as different characters who have difficulty and success with the new content. They can be offered as "use cases" that require more than procedural compliance to realize full benefit from the approach. They can be incorporated into a change model where the next step in the journey will depend on where each learner is at.

Usually we want the learners to change contexts to be more open and reflective. I suspect we have to start with the learners' default contexts before changing to a more reflective context. If we structure a process for each learner to self-identify their context in use, they may demonstrate more intrinsic motivation to process the input. They may even come to realizations like:

• how this applies to their job, relationships or effects on others
• how this makes it easy to their change approach that was causing problems
• how this makes sense of a pattern that has been troubling them
• how this supports something they've already been aspiring to do

Technorati tags: reflection, context, empathy, instructional design

Context developers get it right

A context developer has something different in mind from a content developer. This different frame of reference sees the customers (learners, students, subscribers, trainees, audience, enrollment) differently and starts from a different premise. Here are some ways that a context developer differs from less effective content developers.

• Content developers think about what they do and how good the product is. Context developers dwell on what the customers do with the product and how the process is good for them.
• Content developers act like inventors who fail to penetrate their market with their "better mousetrap". Context developers are like inventors "with a hit on their hands" who gave customers a way out of their dilemma, freedom from an adversity or a change in their routine.
• Content developers think like media buyers who cannot respect the customers or seek their permission to deliver information. Context developers think like consultants who help the customer get past "what they are buying" to consider "why buy it?", "how to use it?", "what it compares to?" and "how much it will cost in the long run?".
• Content developers act like hostile negotiators who take a positional stance, intimidate the opposition and create a legacy of resentment for future dealings. Context developers de-escalate the adversarial context, establish common ground, and explore the customer's secondary objectives.
• Content developers speak like propagandists who seek conformity and silence dissent. Context developers speak like advocates who open up community membership, validate diversity of outlooks and welcome dissenting viewpoints.
• Content developers spin the features and package their deal to get impulse purchases. Context developers nurture the conversations and pose the questions to get loyalty, buzz and further explorations.
• Content developers sour the deal with requirements, restrictions and penalties. Context developers sweeten the deal with respect, choices and guarantees.
• Content developers give the customers finished products. Context developers give the customers pictures of different uses, processes to reach a good decision and protection from potential pitfalls.

Technorati tags: content developers, permission marketing, innovating