Envisioning Feedback – John Backwell - 20 April 2007
Initial Envisioning group discussions
1 - How did the Envisioning group approach the definition of data?
We began with our individual understanding of data. We reviewed encounters with data in a broad range of contexts and sought features, characteristics that might construct definition. Discussion occasionally strayed into the realms of information and knowledge and this was used to aid and refine definitions of data, i.e. acknowledging when such 'trespass' occurred began to suggest boundaries even if blurred. Participants brought ideas and the beginnings of a definition to the event and the ensuing debate became a little overlong and somewhat dominant.
Definitions were:
Alma Tischler Wood:
Data is what is observed and falls within your own experience. Also it is defined by its purpose.
Duncan Kramer:
Data is that which can be measured and/or observed and considered ‘a fact’. It is more than the crude technical label from computing parlance.
John Backwell:
I believe data has two states before it might be termed information:
1 – Raw or naked data: the ‘as is’ component of a fact or concept that simply exists
2 – Pre-information data: raw data that has acquired a label to facilitate communication of its existence to others
2 - Was it useful to bring specific examples of data-sharing synergies?
The examples weren’t strongly defined but gave access points to the discussion. This was indeed useful – it helped ground much of the discussion by allowing personal exemplars to permeate the generic debate.
It was difficult to isolate data specifically without it emerging as information and this in itself was useful. It allowed us to hover above the ‘labelling’ and consider what the discussion brought to the fore, whether it be data, information or even knowledge. We could then better view the boundary areas.
3 - How did the specific examples inform the discussion about data and data-sharing?
It provided the means to toss ‘seeding’ comments into the arena. All in the group felt data needed a better press! The majority of public perceptions were believed to be negative and usually associated with ‘technology’ of sorts:
• data corruption (database inaccuracy/ambiguity leading to misinformation)
• data protection (threatened personal security, erosion of privacy)
• data abuse (misplaced or misappropriated data (particularly where deliberate))
:4 - What was the Envisioning group's specific definition or approach to data and data-sharing synergies?
• Much time was used to move toward consensus on data-meaning which evolved into something along the lines of:
An observable, possibly measurable concept or fact that may be described by it’s location, value or purpose.
• Simply discussing examples of ‘data’ usually rendered them as information. This meant that our definition oscillated between some of the features listed above. I felt this was to be expected of an Envisioning group seeking a ‘bigger picture’ perspective upon an extremely complex and often individualised term.
Preserving a ‘data form’ but changing it’s location or purpose was thought to be one way of allowing data-synergy to emerge where this led to a positive or auspicious outcome.
Groups’ synergies
1 - In your view, was the other groups’ approach to data and data-sharing relevant to their specific cognitive style?
The New Knowing Group adopted a similar starting point to Envisioning but resolved it sooner. The Pushing & Doing and Languaging Groups accepted the difficulties with defining data specifically and moved directly toward data-sharing. This was indeed in keeping with the expected cognitive styles of these domains and provided a testing ground for the interface between each.
2 - How did each groups’ specific view inform yours?
• Pushing & Doing:
- Sought the useful and considered the not useful. Allowed the attribute of ‘Magic’ to surface and be a feature of true data-sharing synergy. This discussion had an instant positive feel to it.
- Envisioning believed data-sharing synergies had to be worked at and may be missed if ‘left to chance’. Pushing & Doing felt the data environment should be accepted in situ and exploited/developed in this spirit.
• Languaging:
- Difficult to see synergy at this interface. This was more a recounting of our ‘main points’ and less about integration.
- Earlier contact may have established clearer channels for communication with additional contact to map where this moved to.
• New Knowing
- Brief recounting process by each of our groups was time consuming but somewhat reassuring in this first workshop.
- Points of similarity relating to process and identifying data forms. Crystalised thoughts on data archiving, tagging, seeking/finding, time transparency etc. Interesting synergetic processing derived from this.
3 - Was there any significant value in meeting the other groups as whole groups, or would it be better, next time, to send representative from each group to meet the other groups?
I believe the ‘agent’ method of interfacing/cross-fertilising would be more effective. Removing the need for the whole group to keep restating its identity, loosening the ‘natural group loyalty’ that emerged and allowing for reseeding of the discussion would significantly raise the dynamic of the workshop. It would also further enrich outcomes from the separate groups and provide a stronger ‘full circle’ endnote.
Re-integration with the group
1 - In your discussion back with the group, how did you evaluate the synergies that took place?
• We tried to establish a stance/identity for each group and the impact this may have had upon our own earlier discussion.
• We also looked at possibilities of similarities and differences regarding data and data-sharing definitions. We felt we needed more time and opportunity to explore the data-sharing element in order to capitalise on synergies that may have been possible.
• We also felt a bit ‘talked out’ at this stage
2 - Did the synergies cause you to re-define your own group’s approach to data and data-sharing?
• Only inasmuch that in hindsight we would have guillotined the data-defining debate in favour of exploring data-sharing opportunities
• We held onto our underpinning thoughts and felt these had been enhanced by the joint-group debate. It helped consolidate our view of data in the many forms we had considered (visual, numerical, textual, conceptual etc) and how value might be attributed and how such value may be changed by synergetic consequence or relocation, reapplication.
• The concept of devising, imagining, conceiving a data naming and retrieval tool to assist future synergies complemented the directions we had explored.
Overall evaluation
1 - Did the workshop change the way you view your group’s role within the four groups’ cognitive model?
• It consolidated my positive view of the group role and of the model.
• The multiple roles I played as co-ordinator/facilitator/note-taker and participant meant I was able to perform one of those roles well at any one time but at the expense of the other roles. Changing the approach to this would strengthen the overall group role by allowing all group members to contribute fully as participants.
2 - How do think the definition of data and data-sharing synergies can inform the four-orders of synergy model (data-information-knowledge-wisdom)?
Development of a model that summarises the individual group, inter/intra group relationships (similarities and differences) and combined group position that is topologically equivalent to the tetrahedral visualisation of the process. This might be engineered as a distillation of a complex space into ‘influential parameters’ detailed as connected vectors and/or a compound matrix from which the whole and the parts are able to be perceived with equal clarity.
return to Main m21 Page
return / go to Contact Details
return / go to m21 Events Calendar
return / go to MAIN HOME PAGE