An Evaluation of Tool no. 1

How effective the m21 team found the use of the tetrahedral logic tool

What Were the Research Questions?

• We were looking for a smart topological schema to 'chunk' complex systems into a mnemonic form
• Most keywords are explained (or linked to explanations) within the team

How Successful / Effective Was this Tool?

• Buckminster Fuller detailed its breadth of importance - but it is difficult to evaluate, practically.
• We have described it as 'auspicious' (branded by Attainable Utopias as Auspicious) because:
  • Four is a helpfully small number (mnemonically)
  • Four is six times better than two
  • Using it to map key players in a system therefore offers a small, but significant number of (hidden) opportunities.

Particular questions:

• Participants using the tetrahedron (in workshops) may not notice its benefits.
• At a practical level, this tool seems in conflict with the need for an odd number of players.
• What were the similarities and differences in how the tool worked between the two teams?
  • (This may be difficult because of the level of information for Team 1)
• What were the reasons behind the similarities and differences respectively?
• To what extent was the tool accessible, usable, useful in the context of the work, and applicable externally, i.e. portable?
• To what extent did the tool embody, promote, bring out the values implied by sustainability
  (e.g. environmental and ethical soundness)
• What did the tool bring to meta-design?

Emergent themes:

• This aspect of Fuller's work (Constant Relative Abundance) brings the possibility of a mathematician-mapped mathematics closer (JW's ambition - see

Research questions for the whole event

• How well did the tools work as a sequence?
• What was their relative significance and role in the workshop as a whole?
• What did the tools bring to metadesign?
• And lots more

Emerging themes:

• What other insights did the evaluation of the workshop generate?

Division of the analysis work

• Four-fold Integrative Framework - Hannah and John W
• Rhythm Tool? - Julia
• Cultural Props? - Mathilda
• Consensual Parametres - Anette
• Story-telling? - Julia
• Scenario thinking, making and doing? - Mathilda
• Positioning and metaphors? - John B

Data to be considered

• A) Transcriptions from follow up interviews
• B) Scribes' Notes
• C) Data ports from the days (all drawing and writing that the participants produced in the respective activities)
• D) Notes from us processing the days through the Story-telling tool.
• E) Film footage (only to be used as secondary data, when we identify an ‘itchy’ patch to dig deeper into) Archive of Pines Calyx film footage

Analysis process

Step 1 - All data in one place

• Refer to: -
• follow up interviews Transcriptions
• Scribes' Notes
• Footage in digital format
• Make accessible to everybody analysing

Step 2 - Data presentation

• Pull together the data from the various sources into one document and organise in appropriate categories.
• This can mean putting together everything that has been said about the particular tool.
  (In the scribes’ notes, in the interview transcripts.) **Make sure you include a reference, ideally person, page number, date.
  Some references will be straightforward whereas other are more subtle.

Step 3 - Data evaluation

• Research questions to answer
  • Overarching question:
  • How successful was the tool in terms of prompting synergy? (See suggested template below from Julia's definitions.)

Particular questions:

First impressions
How did the participants experience the tool?
How did we experience working with the tool?

Process
How well did the tool work in practical terms? (E.g. were the space and resources appropriate, the right amount of time allocated)
How well did the tool meet its particular brief/s? (I.e. what we say that it can achieve on the wiki)
How did the tool operate in terms of divergent and convergent processes?
To what extent was the tool accessible, usable, useful in the context of the work, and applicable externally, portable?

Learning and exchange
Which cognitive styles did the tool draw out?
What was the level of exchange between the participants?

Group dynamics
How well did the tool engage all participants?
What were the similarities and differences in how the tool worked between the two teams?
What were the reasons behind the similarities and differences respectively?
Here it might be useful to cross-reference everybody’s experience of the tools. See tables above.
(By external commentator, I mean somebody else who sat in… Team 2 continues with participant 3 etc.)

Synergy
Levels (vertical) and modes (horizontal) of synergy

Metadesign

• What did the tool bring to meta-design?
• To what extent did the tool embody, promote, bring out the values implied by sustainability (e.g. environmental and ethical soundness)
• We might use this model to process the data and write up the findings.

Emerging themes:

• What other insights did the evaluation of the tool generate?
• Draw out metadata – i.e. overarching themes from the findings as a whole.

Overview of whole event

• Research questions to answer:
  • How well did the workshop manage to achieve synergy and how do we know?
  • How well did the tools work as a sequence?
  • And lots more

C.f. Ring of Fire model

Step 4 – Report

• 3-4 pages per tool
• Answers to research questions
• Emerging themes
• Key findings
• Recommendations

return / go to m21 meetings ACTIONS
return / go to m21 meetings AGENDAS
return / go to Other AU Research