Effective engagement is a learning process

I'm very interested in the debate that has started around Mick's first blog on how the RSA should be engaging Fellows, particularly in the process of organisational change that's being undertaken at the moment. I'm one of the people working on the RSA Networks project - it's something I do for a couple of days a week - the rest of my time is spent working with a local council, and with the Innovation Forum for local government. You can read more about my take on the current love-affair with engagement and participation here - but for now, let me share some reflections about the RSA's own project to put its Fellows at the heart of the organisation.

The point David and Mark make about ways of engaging Fellows is a good one. In all the conversations I've had so far with Fellows I have asked 'what is it that the RSA could do for you?' and almost without exception, the immediate response is that more could be done to enable Fellows to 'see' the fellowship - finding other kindred spirits, hearing about projects and initiatives that others are involved in, and making new connections with people who you wouldn't otherwise meet.

As a Fellow myself I recognise this - and have also felt the frustration of how hard it has been in the past to connect meaningfully with the RSA.That's why we have prioritised the building of a much more interactive online platform for fellows to connect with one another (as Anshuman outlines in his comment). It seems to me that this is an absolutely essential part of the ambition to put fellows centre stage in this membership organisation.

But it's not just the platform itself that's important to me - it's the way we go about building it. The open source software movement has a motto - 'many eyes make bugs shallow' and it is this principle that will drive our development process. We are starting a co-design process with Fellows as soon as we've cleared up the contract with our social media people - working through the OpenRSA group, as well as with some less technologically savvy Fellows to see what works for them.

If you'd like to be involved in that process, do drop myself or Anshuman a line - me here, or Anshuman here.

So, I hope we can see this blog as one part of a wider approach to engaging the Fellows. We are learning a great deal, very fast. But I know that to really learn, we will need to work on this collaboratively, rather than creating a 'them and us' dynamic. That's why I'm happy to see this discussion taking place. But I hope we can continue it in the spirit of learning together about what the RSA can and should do (and of course, what it shouldn't do...)

Finally, I have two questions, which I don't think we'll know the answer to until we have made a bit more progress on this journey.

The first is the extent to which we as the Fellows are up for this - by which I mean Matthew's vision of turning the Fellowship into a 'network for civic innovation'. How many of us will find the time and energy and commitment to work together in new ways? My hope and aspiration is that enough of us want to do it to really begin to make a difference. What do others think?

At this point, my thoughts are that this project is not about turning every single Fellow into a civic innovator. It is about giving people multiple 'ways in' to their organisation. For some, that will be finding other like-minded Fellows. For others, it will be about coming together in a local area to change something. We must find better ways of enabling these kinds of connections between Fellows. But it is also true that the RSA cannot directly support every single initiative that Fellows begin.

And that leads to my second question - how does the RSA decide in an open and transparent way which projects it should put serious resources behind? I feel strongly that the Fellows themselves should be involved in this process - but the question is how this happens: how can Fellows themselves shape the agenda that the RSA sets through its large-scale projects?

I will be writing more about this in a short paper that we will send out to people before the event on the 22nd - where I hope I can also begin to reflect back to everyone the conversations and responses we've had so far. But I'd welcome people's comments on these questions before then too, so do get in touch, or continue this dialogue here on the blog.

Comments

[Mark]

I said earlier that I'd shut up on this topic, but I can't help trying to be positive. Here are some thoughts scribbled down last on a train journey.

For some time now I’ve been calling in a variety of places for some more concrete sense of what this vision of an RSA as a ‘network for civic innovation’ actually means. I can’t, for all the pages of blogs, columns of the Journal or emails from the RSA discern what it is we are being offered as an alternative model for our Society. I keep hearing that Fellows will steer this through consultation – but consultation on what, precisely?

Instead of grumbling I thought I’d try to get the ball rolling by suggesting what I would like to see if – as I’m told is the case – there is a desperate desire among the Fellowship to turn itself into something different. What I’ll present below is my version of what such a network might be. It is not complete, not the final word – but it is a model on which one can reasonably expect others to have opinions and thereby (through discussion, challenge and improvement) shape a better model.

1. The ‘core’

For me, the RSA remains a great network of individuals – individuals connected with and interested in the historic themes of the Society. There are things we may not agree on (for example now that the executive of the Society has deemed that we are ‘working to remove the barriers to social progress’, many of us will have different views of what that little word ‘progress’ means. That broad church, unaligned, multidisciplinary network has real advantages and, at the core of my model, the scope for individual discussion, the generation of new ideas, sharing of best practice and the facilitation of debate remain as key elements. I want these to be supported by the RSA directly – but I recognise that this is the hardest element of my model to put in place. After all, while the RSA might use indirect means of ‘pairing’ off interested Fellows (using a more detailed version of the current Directory to match those with interests and invite them to meet each other at John Adam Street) it can hardly force them to engage in purposeful individual discussion, let alone take that one-on-one meeting to the point of promoting ‘civic innovation’, whatever that might mean. I think that this core of the RSA’s activities needs to be thought about with the Fellowship, but with some concrete options. Here are some of mine for the core:

(a) ‘One-on-one meetings’ as an obligation of Fellowship – to keep your Fellowship you have to make contact with at least one (more?) other Fellows and together propose an activity to an activity ‘pool’.
(b) A seminar (not lecture) programme that fits with the reality of the Fellowships structure – that more Fellows don’t get to John Adam Street than do. That means more non face-to-face meetings facilitated by other means. Webcasting of seminars which would be of shorter length; fewer discussants, and more time for Fellows to exchange thoughts online or by other means (even post, with the results posted on the website after).
(c) A means of disseminating best practice by means of an annual conference – with expert summaries of the evidence for what works in areas related to RSA projects. I am not suggesting here a series of ‘talking heads’ meetings so much as an annual practitioners meeting in which, for example, we review what actually seems to work (globally, based on best evidence) in the area of enabling a capable population. The more refined, focused and purposeful the topic the better.
(d) Open debates based on extensions to the RSA Fellows Forum, which is underused. Methods of improving usage include – better external links to it; more use of the Forum to hold documents from RSA projects and to carry comments on them from Fellows; more project work groups to be offered space on the Forum for open discussion of their projects; more use of the Forum (possibly, but not sure about this) for RSA-affiliated projects to conduct their work and discuss their activities.

I could add a lot more here (slide galleries for PP slides from seminars; data sets from projects; white papers from organisations working with the RSA….) but in essence the ‘core’ element of the model is there to facilitate exchange and discussion. It supports the traditional purpose of the RSA – that is, to network people involved in the development of the arts, commerce and manufacture and the relationship of these themes to the trajectory of society.

(b) the ‘satellite’ activities
I envisage four ‘satellite’ activities of this core – the spokes of what will inevitably be seen as a ‘hub and spoke’ model. My spokes here are four in number. Each extends work in the core but does so in greater depth and with specific tools and audiences. They are,

(i) An exchange/’trading’ facility for organisations engaged in activities related to the themes of the RSA

The RSA would create an (electronic) ‘market place’ to enable organisations and individual Fellows to ‘gift’, share, swap or (in effect) sell services that would enable specific projects to get off the ground. There could be, in my view, no room here for commercial sales (although I could be persuaded otherwise) but the sort of exchange I am thinking of would certainly support Fellow A in Winchester who wanted access to data on the number of house-bound disabled pensioners in Hampshire in order to make a case for funding by publicising her need and getting Fellows who knew where such data was to provide it. Equally, though, Fellow A’s charity might be in need of some tax advice on a particular point, which it might be willing to ‘swap’ for some redundant office equipment; it might also offer the skills of its staff for hire at the margin. Clearly there is much to be thought about here, but the idea of a purposeful exchange facility is one that would, in the most concrete way imaginable, support projects, individuals and agencies interested in work in the theme areas of the RSA. The facility might, for example, allow charities or community groups to come together to co-purchase equipment or services and secure discounts thereby.

(ii) A ‘best practice bank’

Modelled on the Cochrane Collaboration and related programmes for the codification of best evidence and systematic review of the evidence of what works, the RSA could work – possibly with the Cabinet Office which has been developing work along these lines for the public sector – to create for 3rd sector organisations and public sector organisations as library of best practice evidence. This would NOT – I repeat not – consist of project reports from every RSA related project, but commissioned and researched (maybe even borrowed?) systematic reviews of the best evidence in themed areas. For example, what seems to work in raising school attendance? What seems to work in encouraging better design in small and medium sized businesses? The range of areas covered would need some definition, but that should be shaped by the Fellows and (very importantly) external collaborators. The venue for discussion of the evidence would be back in the ‘core’ area of the RSA.

(iii) A ‘matching service’ for new projects

The ‘exchange’ facility above would support projects and activities that are in play, but what about the support of new ventures? The need for some sort of match-making service, ferreting out the scope for partnership between individuals, agencies, public and third sector bodies and business to pursue practical projects would enhance the role of the RSA. Such a matching service could begin by asking for Fellows/organisations to commit to ‘clusters’ of activity, and to provide information about their particular skills, resources and capabilities. The ‘service’ would consist of the active and human (i.e. not computer-generated) winnowing of this information and the negotiation of, and support for, projects or project areas. The RSA could then help and assist from the same team by providing information on funding sources, legal and procedural requirements and advice – or call on that from the ‘exchange’ service.

(iv) Solution clinics

The RSA can assist the development, and the longevity, of Fellows’ projects by sponsoring what is in effect a set of face-to-face, online, virtual world or other (posted newsletter?) ‘solution clinics’. For example, my hypothetical Fellow in Bournemouth is now well on her way to providing services to the house-bound elderly disabled in Hampshire, but she has encountered a problem: how does she deal with getting parking restrictions relaxed for her vehicles? She could post/mail/ask such a question and the Fellowship could supply solutions. The solutions would have to be quality assured and checked – and that would be another role for the RSA executive team

Four ‘spokes’ and a ‘core’. The model aims to provide support for all stages of the development of innovative projects – whether they are to design better housing, provide services for disadvantaged teenagers, improve the aesthetic pleasure of urban streets, or network isolated cottagers in the rural highlands.

This is not a complete model, and certainly not the best. But it is a start.

Challenges to it, and better still suggestions on concrete ways to improve it and make it more certain are welcome.

Mark

[PeterC]

Sopia/Mick

Having been enthused by Matthew's visit and talk in Durham I find myself a bit in the dark. I suppose I am looking for something I can bite on (really before trekking down for the 22nd). This is at two levels.

First process. I think (judging from the column inches even I have seen) there has been an expectation amongst some stakeholders (perhaps due to their nature and relationship with their organisation, perhaps partly due to the theme of the project - participation - and the engaging way it was launched) that they would have a clear picture of the process, and of what is achieved as it goes along. Please could you explain the planned project process, including where we are now and how the 22nd fits into that?

Secondly product: what the vision looks like at each stage to engage positive interest and encourage constructive debate (eg in anticipation of formal consultation which can then be better informed). Initially the vision may be a sketchy design brief, which then fleshes out and becomes a concrete (if evolving) proposal. Could you share something on this?

All of this could perhaps helpfully be posted and periodically updated on an ongoing basis as a project "front page", to reduce the risk of speculation, misinformation, and misinterpretation.

ps The OpenRSA Wiki http://openrsa.wikispaces.com/ has a paper (Virtual Coffee House - quite independent group who David W kindly invited to participate in OpenRSA) that illustrates the point I am trying to make - a hopefully lucid and understandable snapshot of a related (helpful???) idea at one point in its development.

[Mark]

Thanks to Fiona for her proper corrective to my 'passion' on this. I'm getting hot under the collar, not with the intention of being provoking and annoying for its own sake, but because this is a venerable institution for good and, as with all such institutions, you change the character at your peril without looking first. You are right about my not knowing for certain - any more than any of us - what the majority of Fellows want. But that is not an argument for NOT taking time to consult based on a clear brief. In fact, the polar opposite. What I think I really want to see is less 'fog' on this topic, not more wide ranging, and pretty aimless ,discussion. What I am after is some leadership, I suppose, from the RSA is proposing more rounded, detailed and concrete models of how this proposal might work, with leadership of the discussion that will shape that proposal for the better. At the moment, despite a high level of activity, I don't see that at all.

By the way, my references to Sophia's views was, I thought, wholly dialectic; even in these sensitive times I don't think I crossed any boundaries or regarded her comments as those of an 'enemy', but we'll only get to some sense of what we want through a frank discussion based on models we put up, analyse and shape collectively for the better. There is lots I can agree with Sophia about (i.e. the things I didn't challenge from her post) but lots I disagree with.

On your point that I may be assuming that we must choose between networked projects and networks of project activists - you ask 'do we have to choose? Can't we do both?' - you are right. We can do both - but that doesn't invalidate my point that we don't know what the 'civic innovation network' will be at all, and we haven't looked to develop that network of activists yet either. My concern is mainly with HOW the civic innovation bit gets constructed.

Finally you suggest that seeing the RSA executive as the 'big guys taking over the shop' is wrong. Frankly, that's how I feel about the process I'm afraid. When I see the mission of the RSA as stated opposite the contents page of the Journal changed without consultation; when I see a note of advice to Fellows on how to prepare to vote in our recent elections, which suggests the context for that vote is the Chief Executives 'vision'; most of all when I read comments from all of us suggesting that none of us have a clear picture of where the Chief Executive wants to take us, I am concerned. The concern is that this is a great voluntary, non-partisan, broad church of a society, whose members are far from being 'unengaged' in social and other change. They deserve a more concrete model to shape and mould themselves.

Having said all of that I will now shut up on this topic. Thanks Fiona for your patient comments. I think we may simply have to disagree.

[Tessy Britton]

Fiona, I admire the way you have shared your perspective enormously and agree with your view that forums (including this blog) should be seeking common ground and to be 'safe spaces' for everyone to share their opinions. By making the evolution of this agenda as inclusive as the RSA is doing, there seems little reason for polarisation - the opportunities for the fellows themselves to help shape a more open, collaborative and socially effective Society are now widespread.

The agenda for change has emerged from within the fellowship itself, with many expressing a desire for increased levels of active participation and I am sure that everyone will benefit from the review, whatever individual needs are, or aren't, at a particular time.

The 'wider good' that Mark mentions at the end of his comment seems to be an ambition that a great many people/fellows share. This has to be an excellent place to start in ensuring that the RSA works well for everyone.

[Fiona Coffey]

Mark, I've read your comments on the Forum as well as your contribution here, and there is a large part of me that enjoys the passion, frustration and 'stirring up' energy that comes through your posts. And I don't think you're alone in wanting to see more concreteness in the proposals for the civic innovation network, and how it would work in practice.

But I am not so keen on what I see as a polarising stance, exemplified by your constant referral to Sophia as 'she' (as in 'she says this, she says that.') I imagine Sophia doesn't need me or anyone else to defend her, but what it made me think is, hang on a minute, Sophia is not the opposition, she is a fellow Fellow, who is exploring, along with everyone else what this new direction might mean for RSA and what we could create together.

I don't think anyone of us can speak for the Fellowship as a whole. Neither you nor I know what 'many of us' or 'most of us' want. From where I'm sitting, I don't feel that I'm being seen as someone in the 'wasteland of an undedicated life'. I feel at any time I choose whether or not to engage with this project, and at this point I'm curious, interested and wondering how and where to support the process of clarification that is necessary to help everyone find their place in RSA.

I heartily agree that there is nothing wrong with people using RSA networks to pool and share experiences of social action outside RSA, and we could do an awful lot more to faciliate this. But I am wondering why you want to present this as the alternative to engaging on RSA led projects? What's wrong with both/and?

To me RSA has a distinctive brand as an impartial, independent, multidisciplinary, deliberative organisation, with the power to connect to the great and good - ie. a degree of clout. I think it's great that its potential to do more is being explored, and I'm personally interested in finding out what it would be like to be a part of that, which includes contributing to a project.

My sense is that you, I and others could easily project far too much power onto 'the Centre' if we see it as their job to come up with something we can all chew on and spit out if necessary. What's being offered here (it seems to me) is an opportunity to build something together - which means that those of us who want to contribute - Executive and Fellows - are all learning, offering ideas, trying things out. This for me, means that everyone involved should enjoy a degree of 'safety' in doing so. It won't happen if we approach the conversation assuming that Matthew and the team at 'the Centre' are the big guys who are taking over the shop and the only choices we have are to submit or oppose!

With all good wishes, Fiona

[Mark]

There is so much in Sophia's post that rmeinds me of earlier contributions to the debate from me that I found myself ticking them off!

On the question of enabling, she says the RSA executive has "...prioritised the building of a much more interactive online platform for fellows to connect with one another [because] It seems to me that this is an absolutely essential part of the ambition to put fellows centre stage in this membership organisation". I've said before in emails to Matthew and on the RSA Fellows forum that this assumes that Fellows are waiting for connections to enable social action. Actually for many of us (most of us?) we are already engaged in plenty of social action, and we joined the RSA to network about the experience - not to engage in new social action. Is that so wrong? Is it wrong that a business executive wants to talk about and share the experience of her involvement in encouraging technology education among 18 year olds not in work, education or training on a west Midlands estate WITHOUT having to commit to work on some national project with a vaguely related purpose? The one thing that good, effective, networks can achieve quickly is a solid evidence base for what works, the networking of like-minded with a view to experience gathering, and the creation of good quality synthesis of successful social action. But the Taylor projects wants to do more than that without the agreement of Fellows. Can't we take the first step - well, a purposefully, with the right IT support - first and then ask whether further engagement through joint projects is wanted?

She goes on to say that "...it's not just the platform itself that's important to me - it's the way we go about building it". I;d agree, but the approach seems to be to see open source and involvement of 'less technology savvy Fellows' as the solution. It isn't. The solution to getting the technology right is proper, informed, consultation - as in my earlier post to this blog.

Finally, she gets to the nub of the issue for me by asking about "...the extent to which we as the Fellows are up for this - by which I mean Matthew's vision of turning the Fellowship into a 'network for civic innovation'". The key point for me is that the whole project is a strange game of chicken. In effect the RSA Executive is saying to Fellows 'We dare you NOT to agree with the proposition that the RSA should act as an network for civic innovation' - and of course with such a bland, 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiment we would all agree...well some would. MY problem is that I am still - after emails, pieces in the Journal, discussions on the Forum and here - STILL not sure what that means exactly. I want a proposition that I can turn over in my mind, play with, respond to: in short, I want a concrete 'first go' at a model for this activity (whatever it is) with the purpose of our shaping and improving it. Not voting it down as the only and final option, but shaping it into a better project. But we HAVE to start with something less trite and more comprehensible.

My final thought is that many Fellows I have talked to about this say they don't object so much to the imposition from above as much as the presumption that, in the wasteland of their undedicated lives, they are crying out for opportunities to serve that could only be aided by the RSA. They are not. I joined the RSA Fellowship precisely because the Fellowship IS committed - albeit to individual projects, causes and purposes. The TRUE value of the RSA for me - which has never been realised - is to gran that experience and use it for a wider good.

[Tessy Britton]

Your point about multiple 'ways in' is extremely relevant and my experience with the regional committee is that respect for existing RSA activities, particularly out of London, is of utmost importance. There is a great deal of energy around being civically active too and it seems the RSA is teeming with social innovators of one kind or another . . so the possibilities are really exciting. Creating comfortable space for everyone's desired involvement level is probably one of the challenges. As is being 'relaxed' enough to embrace an evolutionary process which is going at some speed . . . while ensuring everyone feels respected, included and heard.

Some kind of structure or channel for helping support Fellow initiated projects would be very welcome - to include funding and connecting expertise.

Dialogue, the genuine kind, usually leads to solutions, and there seems to be lots of that planned for later this month :)

[David Wilcox]

Mick - thanks for another lesson in the art of gracious hosting. I'll add that one to my blogger kit, if I may. And Sophia - apologies for a testy response. Time for me to pause in the pedalling:-)

[Mick Fealty]

David,

This discussion put me in mind of this wee gem from Washington Post blogger Joel Achenbach, just a few months after setting up his first blog in 2005:

"Let's cut to the chase: The blog ignores me.

"I am constantly having to post something new just to make the blog interested in me again. My contribution to the blog is what I call the "Kit." The commenters' part is called the "Kaboodle." Some of the everyday Kaboodlers make references to "our blog," as though they're co-proprietors.

"It's obvious at this point that the Kaboodle is trying to take over the blog. And it won't stop with me: I can picture the Kaboodle rambling across the countryside, panting heavily, stomping through people's gardens, tinkling on little kids' tricycles, etc.

"The general trend in blogs seems to be the diminution of the blogger and the elevation of the commentariat. There may come a day when even the human components of the blog will begin to be overshadowed by automatic features.

"You can imagine a TiVo-like blog: The blogging software knows automatically what the blogger and the commenters would say on any given topic. Already, many political blogs are so predictable and formulaic it's hard to tell whether the author is a person or a machine.

"A thousand years from now, blogs will have explored the universe, telling alien races about the human beings who used to be masters of the blogs but, because of irrational and stupid blog postings, had to be exterminated."

[David Wilcox]

Sophia - you write:
"I feel strongly that the Fellows themselves should be involved in this process - but the question is how this happens: how can Fellows themselves shape the agenda that the RSA sets through its large-scale projects?"
First step - give us posting rights to this blog instead of the subsidiary role of commenting on your posts.
Technically trivial, so we know it is a control thing:-) Read Mark's comment. Just do it.