After a hiatus I am back. It is November, and I have made some progress on what I am going to examine about collaboratives. But first, I want to introduce my overhaul of the writing process. November is Academic Writing Month. Academic writers all over the world are making pledges to produce a certain quantity of academic writing this month in hopes of boosting productivity, practicing writing more diligently, and avoiding the slog of winter break writing and the promise of long breaks to produce that do not happen. One major component of this is to make goals and progress public. Well, here are my goals world!
For AcWriMo, I am setting the goal of 30,000 words.
This will include all forms of writing, outlining, pre-writing and drafting. Beyond this number goal, the form the words will take will include:
- A new draft of my collaboratives and fire mitigation grant and dissertation proposal, this time focusing on collective learning
- A paper on the failure of the voluntary sector and collaborative partnerships between nonprofits and the government sector
- Three answers to past comprehensive exam questions from my major area, Public Policy
- Not word-count specific, but I also intend to get my Water Mangers Use of Weather Data paper submitted at the AZ Law School Environmental Journal
I am tracking my writing in terms of time spent and words written on a google spreadsheet, linked here. I plan on updating my progress here. I will post a link to each blog post on facebook for accountability. Thanks Brandy for the idea from the poem a day posts she did in October for that idea.
I want to share a book I learned about on The Thesis Whisperer called How to Write a Lot by Paul Silvia. Silvia talks about making writing a mundane task, one that you engage in daily just like teaching or showing up to a meeting. He breaks down some barriers commonly used to avoid writing and describes a simple process for just doing it. The trick? Set a schedule. Write during that time, and do everything that you would normally do to prepare for and research writing during that time as well. As with most goals, starting small makes sense. I am scheduling an hour a day to do nothing but write no matter what. Those times are Monday, Wednesday and Friday 11-noon, and Tuesday and Thursday 9:30-10:30. Hopefully those blocks of time will grow. I will not read for class, meet with students, wander and think or have the TV, radio or podcasts on in the background during those times. I will not be checking email, my phone, or playing with the dogs during those times. I will be writing or preparing to write at those times. And when the time is over and I am out of ideas or momentum, I am free to do whatever else needs to be done. The promise of the book is that most people are surprised at the volume that emerges when as little as 4 hours a week are blocked out in this way. Well, here's a test of that promise.
So here's to AcWriMo and productivity!
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Networks and Collaboratives
I will return to why I am doing this later. As I wrap up an online class I am teaching these posts will be less frequent.
Networks are a big deal in Public Administration, Policy, Sociology and Management studies these days. The informal, social connections among individuals and among organizations can create some interesting emergent qualities at the local, regional and network-wide scales. When speaking about collaboratives it is important to distinguish them from networks and understand how studying each can inform the other area.
Networks, as I just noted, represent a set of actors (either individuals or organizations functioning monolithically) and the connections between them. Initially the study of networks emerged as an attempt to go beyond simple two-actor relationships. A lot of research has been conducted in the field of organizational theory on inter-organizational behavior. This addressed questions regarding when and why organizations link together, share information, cooperate, or engage in joint ventures. This investigation was limited to direct connections between pairs of organizations. Beginning a few decades ago the research expanded to looking at weak links between organizations, or links created when two organizations are not tied directly to one another but are both linked to a third organization. Thus began the expansion of interorganizational research into how the overall patterns of links between actors influences individual actor behavior. In the area of public administration it was found that some network structures deliver services to the community better than others.
There are some key characteristics of networks I want to point out. First, they are informal. Networks are not built as a whole with an overarching agreement placing each actor in a specific position. The links between individual actors may be formal (like a contract) or informal (they are willing to share information with each other). The entire network structure emerges from these individual choices and actions. This leads to the second quality. The structure of a network, unlike an organization or contracted arrangement, is unintentional. There is no entity designing networks. Imagine if Zuckerberg picked your friends on facebook for you in order to maximize your social life. That isn't how it works. No one has a picture of a network in their head and then attempts to create it. If some third actors could mandate links between two other actors to influence the overall structure then this might eventually be possible. Connections between others is possible, but it requires that the third party be connected to the other two. It is like getting your significant other to connect to your friend's significant other on a social network. You can possibly make that happen through your existing connection to these people. The emergent pattern is not designed. It all happens one link at a time.
Collaboratives are very different than networks, specifically along the lines mentioned above. All actors who are involved in a collaborative share something with all the others. That is part of participating. The people involved may have other links but the collaborative brings all parties together to try and connect them all to each other. They are intentional. This group of actors are all present for a reason, and they build a structure of interaction with an end in mind. If you are on a community sports team you may be connected to each other informally through social connections. But this coming together on a team is intentional. There is a game to win. Each player may be involved for different reasons and have different levels of commitment to winning the game. There is a known, intentional connection between the actors and the roles that actors play within the group are in some way defined (formalized). The emergent pattern is designed and intended, much like building an organization or establishing a contract.
There is a lot of potential overlap in these concepts. Collaboratives could be studied as networks, focusing on specific types of links or ties between the actors involved. Individuals may be trying to build a network that benefits their position, recruiting and formalizing relationships with some intentional outcome. But conceptually they are distinct. This allows for an understanding of how informal, unintentional patterns of connectivity can result in different actors joining and engaging in a collaborative institutional arrangement. It also allows for an investigation into how intentional collaborative arrangements influence aggregate networks beyond those participating.
I am curious how network theorists imagine the application of what they research. The government can create incentives for some actors to connect with others, influencing network patterns. They cannot dictate the actual result. It is challenging enough to try and influence individual action let alone the aggregate behavior of a class of actors to a point that an intentional pattern of linked actors emerges.
Regardless, networks of actors can be a very important component of understanding collaborative institutional arrangements. I will be delving into much more of this during the upcoming semester and will follow up with what I learn.
Networks are a big deal in Public Administration, Policy, Sociology and Management studies these days. The informal, social connections among individuals and among organizations can create some interesting emergent qualities at the local, regional and network-wide scales. When speaking about collaboratives it is important to distinguish them from networks and understand how studying each can inform the other area.
Networks, as I just noted, represent a set of actors (either individuals or organizations functioning monolithically) and the connections between them. Initially the study of networks emerged as an attempt to go beyond simple two-actor relationships. A lot of research has been conducted in the field of organizational theory on inter-organizational behavior. This addressed questions regarding when and why organizations link together, share information, cooperate, or engage in joint ventures. This investigation was limited to direct connections between pairs of organizations. Beginning a few decades ago the research expanded to looking at weak links between organizations, or links created when two organizations are not tied directly to one another but are both linked to a third organization. Thus began the expansion of interorganizational research into how the overall patterns of links between actors influences individual actor behavior. In the area of public administration it was found that some network structures deliver services to the community better than others.
There are some key characteristics of networks I want to point out. First, they are informal. Networks are not built as a whole with an overarching agreement placing each actor in a specific position. The links between individual actors may be formal (like a contract) or informal (they are willing to share information with each other). The entire network structure emerges from these individual choices and actions. This leads to the second quality. The structure of a network, unlike an organization or contracted arrangement, is unintentional. There is no entity designing networks. Imagine if Zuckerberg picked your friends on facebook for you in order to maximize your social life. That isn't how it works. No one has a picture of a network in their head and then attempts to create it. If some third actors could mandate links between two other actors to influence the overall structure then this might eventually be possible. Connections between others is possible, but it requires that the third party be connected to the other two. It is like getting your significant other to connect to your friend's significant other on a social network. You can possibly make that happen through your existing connection to these people. The emergent pattern is not designed. It all happens one link at a time.
Collaboratives are very different than networks, specifically along the lines mentioned above. All actors who are involved in a collaborative share something with all the others. That is part of participating. The people involved may have other links but the collaborative brings all parties together to try and connect them all to each other. They are intentional. This group of actors are all present for a reason, and they build a structure of interaction with an end in mind. If you are on a community sports team you may be connected to each other informally through social connections. But this coming together on a team is intentional. There is a game to win. Each player may be involved for different reasons and have different levels of commitment to winning the game. There is a known, intentional connection between the actors and the roles that actors play within the group are in some way defined (formalized). The emergent pattern is designed and intended, much like building an organization or establishing a contract.
There is a lot of potential overlap in these concepts. Collaboratives could be studied as networks, focusing on specific types of links or ties between the actors involved. Individuals may be trying to build a network that benefits their position, recruiting and formalizing relationships with some intentional outcome. But conceptually they are distinct. This allows for an understanding of how informal, unintentional patterns of connectivity can result in different actors joining and engaging in a collaborative institutional arrangement. It also allows for an investigation into how intentional collaborative arrangements influence aggregate networks beyond those participating.
I am curious how network theorists imagine the application of what they research. The government can create incentives for some actors to connect with others, influencing network patterns. They cannot dictate the actual result. It is challenging enough to try and influence individual action let alone the aggregate behavior of a class of actors to a point that an intentional pattern of linked actors emerges.
Regardless, networks of actors can be a very important component of understanding collaborative institutional arrangements. I will be delving into much more of this during the upcoming semester and will follow up with what I learn.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Why am I doing this?
I thought it might be valuable for me to work out why and how I ended up interested in forest plans and collaboration. It is a not-too-windy road, but I wanted to get it down somewhere for two reasons. First, I just wanted to work it out myself. Second, it might be a valuable bit on information for grant applications and proposals, a "why this" answer for job interviews down the line. We asked a number of faculty position applicants why and how they ended up studying what they did. If I know the answer clearly it might improve my chances later on. Who knows?
It is strange that growing up in Southern California, deep in the middle of LA County, I would have a love of the outdoors.I can attribute that to my parents. We were frequent campers and hikers even while living in a very urban setting. I can distinctly remember my first backpacking adventure in the Sierras. I was around 9 years old. We hiked up to a lake and caught our dinner. There is still a part of me that always craves rainbow trout cooked in a skillet over a single burner stove. Nothing could ever possibly taste so good.
I was a Tiger, Cub and then Boy Scout. It didn't seem to matter to me that I was these things, but I did gain a lot of skills in orienteering, backpacking, canoes, pioneering (this one was the knot tying merit badge) as well as first aid before I was in Junior High. It was just what I did in my free time and it didn't really matter whether I did it or not. I just could do these things and was regularly exposed to the wilderness.
Then we moved to the mountains of Arizona. I was not a big fan of leaving the city, though at the time I didn't realize the opportunity I had. Rather than driving hours to get to the forest I only had to cross the street. There were thousands of uninterrupted acres of forest right behind my house. I biked to school on a path that now would be considered amazing single-track trail. My new scout troop hiked the grand canyon every few months. Still, it was just what I did, not something I sought out or ever considered to be a job or career.
I became an Eagle Scout at the last possible minute after five years as the next to highest rank. It didn't interest me terribly and I knew I had time. I went to college for physics and astronomy, looking far away from the forest I lived in. I ended up with a degree in Political Science because policy and government interested me more than particles and stars. And that made me a great waiter. Then I found out I could get a job working in the forests I used to hike in, and joined a conservation corps. This was my first inkling that I might be able to combine what was always an important, yet regularly dismissed, part of my life with a career.
It is strange that growing up in Southern California, deep in the middle of LA County, I would have a love of the outdoors.I can attribute that to my parents. We were frequent campers and hikers even while living in a very urban setting. I can distinctly remember my first backpacking adventure in the Sierras. I was around 9 years old. We hiked up to a lake and caught our dinner. There is still a part of me that always craves rainbow trout cooked in a skillet over a single burner stove. Nothing could ever possibly taste so good.
I was a Tiger, Cub and then Boy Scout. It didn't seem to matter to me that I was these things, but I did gain a lot of skills in orienteering, backpacking, canoes, pioneering (this one was the knot tying merit badge) as well as first aid before I was in Junior High. It was just what I did in my free time and it didn't really matter whether I did it or not. I just could do these things and was regularly exposed to the wilderness.
Then we moved to the mountains of Arizona. I was not a big fan of leaving the city, though at the time I didn't realize the opportunity I had. Rather than driving hours to get to the forest I only had to cross the street. There were thousands of uninterrupted acres of forest right behind my house. I biked to school on a path that now would be considered amazing single-track trail. My new scout troop hiked the grand canyon every few months. Still, it was just what I did, not something I sought out or ever considered to be a job or career.
I became an Eagle Scout at the last possible minute after five years as the next to highest rank. It didn't interest me terribly and I knew I had time. I went to college for physics and astronomy, looking far away from the forest I lived in. I ended up with a degree in Political Science because policy and government interested me more than particles and stars. And that made me a great waiter. Then I found out I could get a job working in the forests I used to hike in, and joined a conservation corps. This was my first inkling that I might be able to combine what was always an important, yet regularly dismissed, part of my life with a career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)