Based on my last post (found here) asking for ideas on how to run Research Area Reviews, I'd like to share two different model ideas, one in which the Review is done by someone who spearheads the project and work, and another where the tasks are broken down and can be done by anyone.
In the first idea, someone would "claim" an area to review. This person would then manage the process which could include activities such as:
Gardening and updating the wiki:
- Going through posts on areas
- Doing keyword searches through the website and email groups to find stray content
- Doing an internet search to round up related work not in Public Lab
Suming-up and hosting real-time convening:
- Writing a provisional synthesis to present at a meeting (like open call?)
- Inviting all contributors to come to a meeting and host, (synchronous meet-up)
- Writing a post up about the outcome of the meeting (which becomes somehow the top of the wiki or tag page for that research area?)
Identifying and sharing the latest challenges:
- Finding and boost community questions
- Highlighting gaps and challenges
- Planning/scheduling next steps - when could next check-in happen?
The advantages of this could be that the Review has someone who leads it and takes it through the process. The drawbacks I see are that there are fewer moments for collaboration and involving others. It also is a lot of work, and probably something we'd need to think through supporting someone to do which could be a lot because, well we have a lot of topic areas, and we'd probably need to run sort of schedule to regularly do them.
In this second model, the Research Area Review could be done by a distributed group. For example, we could break the process down into three phases:
- Phase 1: Information Gathering
- Phase 2: Conveining
- Phase 3: Synthesizing
Each phase has tasks people could "sign up" to do. It could look something like this:
|Phase||Task Type||Who can do this||Difficulty||Task||I'll do this!|
|1||Garden||Anyone||Easy||Go through posts in the area and make sure they are properly tagged||LINK|
|1||Share||Anyone||Easy||Post questions on the topic area you have, or that you’re not able to find answers to on Public Lab.||LINK|
|1||Garden||One person||Medium||Make sure the wiki page has clear format||LINK|
|1||Research||Anyone||Hard||Help find answers to unanswered questions||LINK|
|2||Share||Anyone||Easy||Attend the open topic call and collaborate||LINK|
|2||Facilitate||One person||Medium||Host the public online meeting for group to collaborate to: Highlighting findings, ID gaps in available resources, highlight challenges in this research area||LINK|
|3||Synthesize||Anyone||Hard||Review existing material and call summary and write an update post on it with materials gathered||LINK|
|3||Research||One person||Hard||Follow up on gaps identified from the group and post materials to help support information around those gaps.||LINK|
I see the advantages of a process like this are that obviously, a lot of people can be involved. This could also be a challenge. I think we would still need to have someone make sure the processes are moving along, and things are getting done.
What do you think??