Hello all...

I hear the sentiments expressed by Theresa regularly. I think there are some
points to be made here that reflect the early discussions we had on Click4hp
about the relationship between the virtual workspace and the literal work
places and communities we participate in.

First, let me say as a relatively new computer user myself I remember
vividly the cold sweat I felt the first time I posted to a public
space...and the first time I sent a personal email to a whole list when it
was clearly intended for one person...oops ;-) Sound familiar?

I have learned to gather new skills as I go and to trust that when I make a
mistake someone will undoubtedly let me know and it has been my experience
that this is done in a respectful way. I choose to participate in online
spaces where I know I will be assisted or can assist others as they learn.
Click4hp is just such a respectful place. I know many of the members here
have demonstrated mentoring, assistance and advice. At any one time we will
have people brand new to the internet and to listservs, old hands and lots
of people somewhere in the middle.


At 08:34 PM 2/27/97 -0500, theresa schumilas wrote:
> In my paid work, I'm one of the senior management people
>in the establishment who ...<snip> (is)... "really trying to get
>it - amid chaos, confusion and crisis".

Whether you are a manager or not, as people we are learning new ways of
working - transforming our work skills and venues and learning as we go. We
all learn in different ways - working in communities, we watch for these
varying styles among participants and, to be as inclusive as possible, we
try to vary the tools we use to reflect this diversity. For example some
prefer a popular education approach versus those who may prefer  more formal
training. We try to modify our work, to accommodate differences and to build
on existing strengths.

Theresa said:
>I try to remember and submerge
>myself in the grounded community work as often as I can (in between fighting
>for people's jobs) because this activity reminds me of the principles that
>underlie all my actions.
>
When I first went online as a facilitator for Growing Up Healthy Downtown
(guhd.net) here in Toronto and tried to visualize what an online facilitator
might do, all I had to draw on was my experience of facilitating community
meetings, workshops, etc. I rolled out these skills online very easily and
learned what worked and what didn't.

Some things require an immediate response but for those things that were not
time sensitive (and there are many) I realized I could treat the online
space like a continuous social workspace with people coming and going at
their own pace. My job was one of creating a well defined environment -
drawing out norms and accepted practice among the members and reflecting
this back to generate a sense of safety among the group members - so people
would know what was expected of them.

Secondly I began to pace things - to post with suggested guidelines for
responding for example, and to listen to the silence in ways that tried not
to assume a lot. Each online space I now facilitate has a different pace
based on the norms each group establishes.

Thirdly as we moved into a phase where most people had been online for a
period of time (two years) we encountered the need to include new people, to
maintain the space as a lively and reliable source of information, and to
not undermine the online venue as the *first* source of information for the
project.

Recently in a focus group for evaluating the partnership for the project -
the online workspace was described as part of the "glue" which holds the
collaborative partnership together in healthy ways.

Theresa reflected:
> I had
>NOT established these projects with a vision of long term sustainability.  I
>had foolishly placed myself "in control" of key processes, rather than
>taking my role "out of the loop".  So, under the guise of empowerment, I had
>created dependency.    Its an easy mistake to make - especially when one
>works daily within a system that has a diffuse intelligence to perpetuate
>status quo.
>
I have been struck - profoundly at times - by the qualities of the online
space and  the influence it has on social process - the very qualities of
the online venue work to ensure the qualities you refer to here, as
important to healthy inter-dependant relationships and distributed
responsibility, are present. It is not a matter of being "in control" or
"out of the loop" but rather to understand your role within the group and to
generate the processes by which people recognize their responsibilities to
contribute and share and work together.

What you describe above feels like a "hub" model of collaboration - what we
have found is the natural progression to moving the person (or group) who
may have assumed this role to the side on a equal footing with other
participants and to use the online venue as the place where we gather,
encourage initiative and distributed leadership.
Instead - I as the coordinator assume the role of online facilitator and
modify my role to animate the discussion, to start new topics, to move the
group along if they are getting stuck. Even with all our experience we still
have some members who are more active online than others, some who are
struggling with learning the skills they need. This will be ongoing and we
have begun to develop strategies to meet these needs as they arise. It is
not perfect but despite these problems people are all keen and willing and
open to try.

On the need for cultural interpreters...Theresa noted:

>Its that person who can understand both
>cultures.   I think we need that kind of person with this internet stuff.

It is for this reason we have begun to use a facilitated approach to online
venues - to pay attention to the social process needs of the members of the
group - for some  the reading and lurking will assist them - for those who
want more the ability to be mentored, to try things in a place where people
will be supportive, to generate lessons we can share with each other are all
important aspects to how I have learned.
I also think taking the leap and jumping in to be responsible for a space
(with help from my mentors) lead me to develop a sense of confidence where I
was not deferring to technical expertise but instead challenging the
"techies" to work with me to build the most accessible and friendly
environments with us.

On learnign the ropes Theres noted in her effort to join an online discussion:
>It returned with some error - but so far I have not let my
>bumbling stupidity halt me -  I'll try again.

In fact it is not "bumbling stupidity" at all - it is your effort to try on
your own to learn these skills which may be perceived (assumed ? ;-)to be so
easy for others - we all have been there and remember the frustration - in
training people I remind them - *there are no stupid questions* - by asking,
you learn and no doubt your question is a burning issue for many others -
the online venues are a place to learn as you need to know - each of us will
learn at our own pace and we can all commit to assist each other to feel
competent and confident in our efforts.


>I'm ignorant about the technology - but I have a lot of (maybe too much)
>"inside" experience with bureaucracy, and I know how it works.  One of the
>barriers within institutions at the moment, I think, is that everything is
>ends oriented.  Process is secondary. We have to continually fight (and
>sometimes lie) to continue community development work - because this
>requires "faith" that people are solutions - not problems.

We have recently completed an outcome evaluation of community development as
an approach to promoting child and family health at Growing Up Healthy
Downtown. The results are very encouraging. We will be preparing the final
report and making it available online and in the communities where we work
and sharing our tools and materials at the end of March. How we reach our
outcomes is the *process* and we work with the tension between the process
and the content of what we do as a source of creativity, adaptability and
the generator of relevance and local capacity building in the seven distinct
communities where we work.


>Institutions are
>not big on faith in people.

We need to shift our mind set away from distinct training and skill
aquisition to support online skill development over time. We have found
people need some basic up front training: making the connection, developing
a familiarity with the landscape, getting their bearings. After this they
need access to mentors or champions who will be ready to respond on demand
to questions, who will be open to the new ways of working those learning are
dreaming about, who will assist them to capture their dreams and aspirations
and make them a reality. It is not a first this then then that experience -
it is immersive and inclusive of the venue itself as an ongoing source of
learning.

I will from time to time make provocative statements to people like:

"I will not accept a job offer if I can not have internet access."

Why?
Because they(the employer) are simply not getting their money's worth - by
working online I have instant access to a rich world of expertise and
knowledge and, and, and...to ask me to work in isolation means I will
reinvent the wheel, I will duplicate efforts, I will waste resources. Power
and control issues become central - there is a paradox I can see between
what Theresa describes as:

>I see the electronic workspace as a similar
>problem.  In an environment where short term efficiency rules - its
>difficult even for us "champions" to argue for strategies where the "up
>front" learning curve and investment is great - and the short term outcomes
>are questionable.
There is a strong relationship between how power and control are exercised
and the use (or lack of use) of the electronic venues. Understanding and
capturing the attributes of transparency and accountability inherent in the
online venues does transform our literal work places. In our project we have
seen a change in management practice to reflect the characteristics of
community development we are measuring in the communities we are working in.
What is good for the goose...;-)

The online venues become the territories where the transparency becomes
visible - the accountability becomes measurable and as a result the
partnership is trusting, allows for mistakes but corrects them with support
and learning, and is inclusive of the many voices involved from parents to
executive directors to funders and politicians.

Finally Theresa asked:
>So, don't judge me please - understand my environment,
>and help me make the case.

What is the case for Click4hp we might ask? Our partners in Growing Up
Healthy Downtown would not give up the online conference we have for our
project - but what is the case? To date we have seen a concentration of
evaluation being placed on the *technical interface* or the frequency of
contributions. This is not unlike the type of evaluation we have done for
years which counts the beans...so what? These evaluations have done little
to build the case.

EvNet (sp?) is a new effort under the Centres of Excellence program here in
Canada to explore this area. I am very optimistic we will begin to see
effective evaluations of how people are using the online venues to transform
their work. Sam can tell us more about this.

So here is a first start at coninuing the dialogue...others?

Cheers,

Liz Rykert
<[log in to unmask]>