Things are just getting going around here. Most of the action is currently happening on our Discussion page.
We are currently experimenting with a Discussion on WealthOfNetworks, where we collectively read and discuss the Yochai Benkler book.
Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Back to:
My core question here is: “What is a realistic scenario I can imagine of how OrganizedInquiry can work?”
I’v actually participated in and facilitated something quite similar to OrganizedInquiry in different WebAssistant TeleCommunity projects. Although, these efforts were strucutured a little differently than what is proposed in Community:OrganizedInquiry, some similarities existed.
So, a a group of 7 people are discussing the topic of GIS data on a wiki (or it could be a forum or mailing list for that matter).
A series of questions related to the discussion emerges from the discussion. questions like:
One of the group members suggests “Let’s do an OrganizedInquiry into these questions!”
Group members all agree, and they use a template that the originators of OrganizedInquiry created to plan and split up tasks in the inquiry.
They also decide to use activeCollab project managemnt software, just to keep track of who is doing what, and what is done, what needs doing, and how long is estimated to do it. (They could just as easily manually create these plans, project roles and time lines on a wiki page and skip activeCollab)
The OrganizedInquiry template basically asks them to list the questions they are looking to answer, and then put the names of a person or people interested in answering it. When two people are answering the same question, it is recommended that they keep their work transparent to each other. So this is what they do.
The OrganizedInquiry template also has a space to list the types of output that the answers will be in.
In this case. the group chooses to create both a text/written report, and a set of screenshots for each application, plus a “screencast” of certain features of each application, that demonstrate the pros and cons covered in the inquiry. (It turns out that the group found a unversity willing to fund this OrganizedInquiry, so that gave them the extra time they needed to make the output multi-media). A bibliography of source material is also included.
The research method that they use is to collect links with a tagging service (let’s say they choose to download and install Unalog), and they decide upon tags to use so that their tagging is findable among the group. Tags could be related to specific questions. This can allow participants who are not answering a particular question to still help out those who are, by tagging relevant info with a tag that refers to a specfic question in the inquiry. The group also researches in traditional print libraries for relevant material. The group also lists people they deem worthwhile to interview on the subject, and contacts them to set up recorded interviews.
The group then pours through the tagged info, the notes from print, and the interviews with people, and summarizes it based on the focus of the questions they are answering. They choose to post these summaries to wiki pages. They choose a wiki engine that allows for easy transfer of material to actual print, such as MoinMoin, DokuWiki, or MediaWiki. These wiki engines allow print-like layout, and export to pdf, which can then allow PrintOnDemand services to easily print the materials. (Screenshots are included in the pages, and screencasts are served via embedded flash movie on the pages).
The group also creates a bibliography for the report.
The report is structured with the questions, and small PlainTalk one paragraph summaries of the more in-depth answers to the questions, plus bibliographies of source material. The in-depth answers include an actual essay-anser from each participant in their own words. Each sections of “answers” also includes somewhere a description of the methods used to research and formulate the answer.
The group also opens the whole thing up for PeerReview among people online, once published.
The above assumes that the fictional group is comfortable and familiar with one another to a certain degree
The inquiry process can be extended by actively engaging and inviting other groups to collectively answer questions in ways that befit the particular group. So, a debate group may debate about the question in a certain way. An interest group may comb their archives and help add to the initial research. A tagging community may tag for a while. A set of bloggers may all be invited to write their answer to a question over the course of a few, or many days. A wiki community may discuss and then generate a page about part fo the inquiry. A conference call may be held to explore the question. etc etc etc.