I'm not sure if Chris is saying that using tools like IBIS is inherently a
matter of semi-automating dialog or implies an attempt to reach clockwork
precision. But in case he is (and others have said such things, in any
case), here are some thoughts. (01)
To me IBIS is nothing more than a helpful set of abstractions that can be
of use in some situations -- like any other 'modeling framework' (e.g.
system dynamics, soft systems methodology, and a thousand others).
Sometimes people benefit from applying some rigor and structure to their
discourse. Paradoxically, doing so sometimes results in greater
communicative and expressive freedom and effectiveness than is possible
with 'normal', unconstrained discourse. To me this has always been a
paradox because I came out of the humanities, and the a priori idea that a
structured system could afford better/deeper communication and sensemaking
was an affront to me at first. But this is an idea with a long and
widespread pedigree. Consider this passage from Madeline L'Engle's A
Wrinkle in Time(a children's book that I first read in elementary school,
but that has stuck with me): (02)
"In your language you have a form of poetry called a sonnet... It's a
very strict form of poetry... there are fourteen lines... all in
iambic pentameter. That's a very strict rhythm or meter... and each
line has to end with a rigid rhyme pattern. And if the poet does not
do it exactly this way, it is not a sonnet... But within this strict
form the poet has complete freedom to say whatever he wants..." (03)
"You mean you're comparing our lives to a sonnet? A strict form, but
freedom within it?" (04)
Yes... You're given the form, but you have to write the sonnet
yourself. What you say is completely up to you."
Madeline L'Engle, A Wrinkle in Time (Garden City: Junior Deluxe
Editions, 1962), p. 203. (05)
IBIS, used appropriately, is an excellent scaffolding mechanism, a great
way to use an objective framework and structure to help people understand
each other by clearly representing statements and their relationships to
each other. Using the framework can help draw people's attention to nuance
and meaning. It is not the only way to do so, but it is a very effective
way, and is simple enough to be used in a variety of tools. (06)
What we have done in the Compendium toolset and methodology is provide
additional leverage to the structuring conventions in IBIS that *can* allow
automated repurposing of discourse represented in IBIS (or other
structuring forms), but doesn't force or demand this. Said differently,
there is enough structure in IBIS to make such automation relatively easy,
without imposing so much 'coercive metadata' on the represented discourse
that no one but specialists can understand it. But (and here we have
diverged from IBIS purists in some ways) there is no demand that you have
to use strict IBIS conventions in every node and link. For example, in our
work with groups like the Center for Creative Leadership, who are
non-technologists concerned with deep emotional and communicative issues
pertaining to leadership development in workshops, we have incorporated all
sorts of techniques into Compendium that go quite far from the rigidities
implied by terms like "semi-automating" and "clockwork precision", and also
do not require an explicit understanding or application of IBIS (though it
is there as a resource to be used at any time). (07)
To summarize, sometimes (but not always) people (especially in groups
working under pressure, which most of our Compendium work has concerned)
need help in speaking/articulating clearly, understanding each other, and
making sense of their situation. To me that is where IBIS and other such
frameworks can provide a lot of help, if used appropriately. (08)
Al (09)
Subject: [yak@collab] Re: Dangling Threads 2003-03-17 (010)
This is a more general version of, or related to, the formal
argumentation versus "conversation" dichotomy that I think we see
play out between the people who want to semi-automate dialog with
tools like IBIS and the people who react poorly to such ideas. (011)
I'm in the latter camp. (012)
I think the poor reaction has to do with, perhaps unfortunately,
rather fundamental philosophical differences which may create a
chasm that cannot be crossed (and thus must be considered an
opportunity for bridge building rather than a disappointment). (013)
Consider this: if we are using or creating systems that have, use
or expect "clockwork" precision we implicitly make the assumption
that understanding is something that already exists that is to be
discovered through our work. If, instead, we are expecting
emergence we implicitly make the assumption that understanding is
something we create (together). (014)
--
This message is archived at: (015)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=OF761F986A.EC9BD7C0-ON85256CF1.004FB975@core.verizon.com (016)
|