The Emporium of Dangerous Ideas

Screen Shot 2015-06-08 at 16.27.20

The Emporium of Dangerous Ideas is a future-orientated festival that aims to re-establish the importance of dangerous ideas as agents of change – to shift the axis of what is possible! The 2015 Emporium will take place all over Scotland from 9th to 19th June.

Further details of the events are available here:

http://www.collegedevelopmentnetwork.ac.uk/fodi/festival-of-dangerous-ideas

 

The view from here: analysis

TV4mH_web-logo

Analysis

We were delighted with the wealth of data received from those participating in the project. This, however, made knowing where to start with analysis a little tricky!

After much deliberation, we decided to start our analysis with the ‘reflection points’ (at the end of the recording week, we had asked participants to add a colour coded sticker next to text or diagrams that reflected: one thing they were proud of, one thing that stood out for them (good or bad), one thing they wished they could change and one thing that they wanted to tell their manager). It seemed apt to start with these reflections as these were the points that the participants themselves had identified as being most important after reflecting on their week.

In order to analyse this data, we firstly transcribed each of the indicated quotations and then pulled out relevant themes. We then checked the internal validity of these themes by having another team member sense-check them according to their interpretation. We were then able to discuss any differences of opinion as well as settling on the best ‘term’ for the themes that we thought were emerging. This analysis was then used as a frame for a sense-checking event we ran directly with participating practitioners (checking external validity) on 11th March.

Sense checking event

Everyone who had taken part in the project was invited to come along to a session to help us make sense of the data received. Those who had participated in the work came from far and wide across Scotland, and so we were pleased that approximately a quarter of participants were able to come along on the day. We encouraged participants to bring any curious managers along with them on the day, although only a few took up this option.

The aims of the day were to:

  • give an overview of the early findings from the project
  • provide the opportunity to talk and share with others who participated in the project
  • get to know each other better
  • work together to sense-check the findings so far
  • generate ideas about what to do with the data
  • generate ideas about what to do next

After giving a broad overview and introduction to the day, we got straight into understanding the themes from the data.

In order to facilitate discussion around this, for each ‘reflection point’ we pulled out quotes relating to each of the pre-identified themes and had them available for participants to read and interpret. We discussed these quotes as a group and finally asked participants to:

  1. choose the quote that resonated most with their experience
  2. to write a note about why this was the case
  3. rate on a scale from ‘way off’ to ‘spot on’ how much the data resounded with their overall experience of delivering care and support.

IMG_5755

An overview of the conversations that emerged is outlined below.

One thing that you are proud of

Our analysis:

Overwhelmingly we felt that that the data indicated that key pride-inducing moments were centred around working with the people they support and seeing improvement or building relationships.  We broke this down into two key areas (1) seeing service user progression/ surpassing expectations and (2) building relationships (this involved elements such as building trust and open dialogue).

Although it was clear that many practitioners were trying to do their best to support people, and that many were moving towards outcomes, there definitely still seemed to be a focus on tasks (things that practitioners do) and activities (things that people who are supported do), rather than outcomes.  We were interested to tease this out at the event to see if practitioners made the same distinction.

At the event:

All in all, as you might imagine, people really enjoyed talking about this subject!  However, it was continually repeated that practitioners felt like they had to rely on personal pride to know that they are doing a good job. There was discussion that praise is often focused on tasks achieved/ undertaken rather than being focused on relationship building.

Themes that emerged and that corroborated our initial analysis included:

  • Importance of rapport

The issue of building strong relationships was most frequently shared. There was a general consensus that it takes to establish a trusting relationship with a person. Practitioners felt there was a direct relationship between developing a strong rapport with a person and that person’s general well-being, progress and quality of life.

  • ‘Being’ and ‘doing’

In terms of the distinction we’d made in our analysis around ‘outcomes’ and ‘activities’ practitioners at the event highlighted that often there was a disconnect between the outcomes that had been set and the activities that they undertook with the person (this was particularly true for the administration of medication). They felt that this might be due to the fact that often the outcomes are set were negotiated by people other than those who deliver the care.

Practitioners also interpreted the difference between ‘outcomes’ and ‘activities’ differently from us. Instead, they referred to the difference between ‘being’ and ‘doing’ and stated that often they were praised by managers for the activities and concrete actions that they did with people – rather than the simply ‘being’ and establishing connections with people. There was consensus by the group that the ‘being with’ (acting like family member / developing trust / establishing rapport) is harder to achieve, but it is the underpinning work that enables outcomes to be reached.

IMG_5752

One thing you wish you could change

Our analysis:

We felt that there were three key strands emerging from the data on this topic, these included: (1) the emotional impact of the job, (2) concern for circumstances of people supported by services and (3) practical things that would make the job better.

At the event:

Helpfully, the conversation relating to this topic validated the themes we’d initially identified, with some additions and links we possibly hadn’t made. The main discussions always came back to emotional impact of the job, and the group in general used emotive language.

  • Emotional impact of the job

This was the strongest theme in this category. Participants added descriptors of emotions including ‘helplessness’, ‘feeling like you could never do enough’ and ‘feeling like you were sinking’. The group always came back to these feelings. They also talked about this being a reflection of caring about people.

  • Concern for circumstances of service users

This was another strong theme. People spoke more widely about policy and changes broader than their organisation and the ways that impacted on their job. This was linked back to emotional impact and feeling personally responsible/guilty. People also talked in the groups about relationships – knowing the person really well and that being an asset, but also a challenge as they maybe weren’t heard in their role, or because they had become ‘indispensable’ (a reliance they weren’t comfortable with).

  • Practical things that would make the job easier/better

The group didn’t actually speak about terms and conditions (a code that we’d used) – but did discuss working hours a lot. People generally felt ‘staffing’ was a key issue, more than it appeared in the original data. In fact, they felt that staffing was often the route of other issues – like excessive working hours, excessive paperwork.

Another issue that emerged was the challenging relationship with GPs and health professionals, who the practitioners at the event felt had different value bases, and didn’t listen or respect their views. Issues around collaboration appeared more strongly at the event than in the data.

IMG_5754

One thing you would like to tell your manager

Our analysis:

This data was difficult to synthesise due to the very personal nature of issues that people wanted to address with their managers. It was also clear from the data that people had varied relationships with management. That said, key themes included: (1) the emotional impact of the job (which were almost equally balanced between negative/positive emotions that they wanted to talk about) (2) wider systems issues that need to be addressed (including very small practical changes that need to be addressed) (3) feeling undervalued by colleagues and managers.

At the event:

It was clear that the themes identified in the pre-analysis were relevant to the group with almost all practitioners thinking that they were ‘spot on’. It was clear from the discussion that the relationship the practitioners have with their managers is one of the defining features of whether or not they are happy in their work. These practitioners thought that the theme that came out most strongly was that of ‘value’ and ‘communication’.

  • Value/ communication

Practitioners felt that ‘not feeling listened to’ or ‘valued’ was a theme that seemed to cross-cut many of the quotes that were provided. In three of the four discussions, practitioners highlighted an awareness of how hard everyone in the sector works, but they felt that managers seemed to forget what it is like to be on the frontline and the type of pressure this work provokes.

Similarly, those who were in attendance frequently sited the disconnect between the pay and conditions that they are offered and how valued they feel. There was an articulated gap between what it is expected that frontline staff will deliver and how they are recompensed for this work. It was felt that frontline workers in social care are generally lower paid than those in other sectors, with terms and conditions that are rarely as good.

  • Sector challenges

More than any other ‘station’ the wider issues affecting health and social care were highlighted here through discussion. Many of the practitioners picked on a particular theme around the sector needing an ‘overhaul’ and highlighting that issues such as funding ( a ‘race to the bottom’) and capacity being at the root of many of the issues that staff present to managers. Again communication was clearly an issue here with the majority of practitioners stating that a lack of communication and honesty around cuts, changes to services, policies make it particularly difficult for them to support people to deliver outcomes. There was the feeling that as there is so much change in the sector it could often be difficult to be clear and consistent with people who are supported.

IMG_5756

One thing that stood out the most for you

Our analysis:

Positive reflections

The majority of reflections centred around having quality time with people supported by services and working with them to work towards outcomes. Respondents noted how rewarding this particular element of their work is. Another key positive reflection coming through strongly was the personal achievements of practitioners – this could be anything from seeing progress, to setting up a new service to supporting colleagues well.

Negative reflections

The majority of negative reflections centred around worry or concern for service users. Key to note here that there were quite a few participants (9) who highlighted serious incidents that had happened during the week (such as death or illness). Another significant negative reflection was the amount of paperwork that has to be completed. This seemed to stand out particularly for participants.

Overall, we felt that there was another common theme which focused on ‘attachment’ and ‘professional and personal boundaries’. The data showed many instances of practitioners becoming connected to the people they support, not wanting to ‘hand a case over’, and forming friendships. This, to us, was interpreted as being about how personally invested practitioners were in people’s lives.

At the event:

The most frequently selected quote and recurring theme was that of relationships. Most people felt that they have a relationship with the people they support but that it is one-sided. It was clear that everyone really cared about the people they supported, however, many talked about how they often feel like a ‘fraud’ who pretends to be someone’s friend but doesn’t share the connection. The need for professional boundaries wasn’t discussed, the focus was instead on how it feels to act like someone’s friend but then tell them you aren’t their friend when they cross an invisible boundary. The frustration and emotion around this was clear in the groups.

Most people said that they had experienced death in their role. There was a general feeling that there is little time to be person-centred at the end of someones life, due to the fact that practitioners often had to juggle the person’s emotions, the families’ emotions as well as their own emotions. Practitioners often felt that although necessarily their own emotions often came last, that this could be hard to deal with particularly when they have a deep connection with the people they care for.

_____________

IMG_5752

The Process

As well as supporting us to make sense of the data, the event was used as an opportunity to check-out how practitioners had felt about taking part in the project, so that we could better understand its impact on them. Overwhelmingly, practitioners felt that it had been a useful exercise to support them to reflect on their work and although most people generally found it hard to fit doing this work into their day, they did so because they were motivated to share their voice/views.

Here are some of the thoughts from those who attended:

Reflecting on self: “You forget about yourself in this job, this project provided me with time to reflect about myself”, “Feedback about your work stops after your probationary period, you don’t get a chance to reflect on your work anymore. This project gave me the chance to do this again.”

Reflecting on the amount and type of work that they do: “my god, what do I do in a day”, “it’s full on”, “difficult to get a break”, “great job, the day goes so quick”

Reflecting on what they value: “Made me appreciate, I like my job and I have autonomy and a passion for it”, “Highlighted my time management: where I am wasting time’ and ‘how much I travel compared to face to face time”

Overall, the majority of people said that their experience of this project was cathartic. In terms of the impact of the project on personal practice, practitioners were generally positive. The majority felt that this should be the sort of reflective process that all practitioners should undertake – two people said they were continuing to use a diary to reflect on their practice – one person said that the prompt cards had prompted reflection on their career trajectory (something they hadn’t thought of before), many others said that they’d generally learned a lot about themselves.

At the sense-making event some practitioners gave us their reflections on The View from Here project.

 What next?

For the last part of the session (before nibbles and networking) we asked practitioners what they’d like to see us do with the wealth of data that we’ve collected and how they’d like the data to be displayed.

There were loads of ideas shared on the day, but a key few were flagged up by the majority:

  1. develop a reflective practice tool
  2. use the data from the diary entries to create something (perhaps a storybook) that tells the tale of frontline practice – (audience: other frontline practitioners)
  3. create a report with infographics to highlight the data visually/accessibiliy. This should enable practitioners and managers, and people more broadly, to understand the experiences of those working closest with those supported by services. (audience: national, managers, policy).

We’ll be taking forward these actions in 2015. Keep in touch for progress!

Update October 2015

The View from Here website is now available.

The View from Here – overview of respondents

TV4mH_web-logo

About the project

At IRISS, we want to better understand the experiences of staff working closest with people supported by services – those who are supporting people everyday in their homes, in a homely context or in the community.

This project asked people, over one week, to record their experiences of delivering care and support using qualitative, creative methods (sometimes these methods are called ‘cultural probes‘).

Cultural Probe pack

We chose this method because:

  1.  we know that frontline practitioners won’t be at a computer all of the time (and are more likely to be in and out of people’s houses or in the community) so electronic surveys and observation won’t work as well.
  2.  we know that frontline practitioners do a lot of travelling from place to place, so talking to them on the phone was likely to be tough.
  3. we wanted to understand experiences, so qualitative methods are better than quantitative
  4. we wanted to take a ‘deep dive’ into a select number of  cases, rather than take a broad brush overview of a larger sample
  5. this technique allows people to self-report and allows for an element of creativity not possible in standard surveys or interviews.

Overall, 120 people applied to participate and packs were distributed. We received 74 packs back. Here is an overview of the makeup of the group of people who were involved.

sectorgender

Top 5 jobsclient groups

We were really pleased to have almost equal representation from the private, voluntary and public sector – and the spread of the types of support that these practitioners provide is also quite evenly spaced.

The wealth of rich data we received has been overwhelming. We had no idea that participants would warm so well to their task and be able to provide quite as much detail as they did in their diaries and timesheets – for which we are truly grateful.

The data includes:

  • 9 x 74 pieces of information from ‘prompt cards’ – designed to elicit responses on specific topics ranging from ‘work/life balance’ to ‘Support and Supervision’.
  • 74 diaries – designed to give people the luxury of recording anything that they wished
  • 74 timesheets – hourly data on the types of activities that people undertook each day
  • 74 x 24 photographs (and associated ‘tags’ to explain the photographs) designed to encourage people to creatively record the story of their experience
  • 74 x 4 reflection points – in each pack we asked participants to reflect back on their week and to use a sticker to identify: one thing that they were proud of, one thing that stood out for them (good or bad), one thing that they wished they could change, and one thing that they wanted to tell their manager.

We are currently in the early stages of analysis which will involve comparison between responses from each of the sectors, as well as across the different themes that are emerging. After an initial eyeball of the data, we’ve been particularly struck by the complexity of the long-term challenges facing frontline practitioners, as well as their knowledge, tenacity and resilience.

At IRISS, we aspire to being as participatory as possible which is why we have chosen to begin analysis with the reflection points submitted by each of the participants themselves. In essence, we felt that this was using their own identification of important factors from their week as a starting point. We worked together with participants to make sense of this data at an event in March – more coming on this very soon.

Update October 2015

The View from Here website is now available.

Contemporary Coproduction: theory policy and practice (guest blog: Dr Stuart Muirhead)

Contemporary Coproduction: theory policy and practice

Wednesday 18th March, Iris Murdoch Building, University of Stirling

A reflection on the day

The day started well for me with a morning walk through the rather picturesque grounds of the Stirling University Campus. It sits in a prime location at the bottom of the Ochil Hills, and it looked particularly nice on a crisp, sunny morning. This stroll was followed by arrival and a welcome hot coffee, while happily bumping into Claire Lightowler of the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice on the way into the room.

Richard Simmons introduced the day as we got settled and we went straight into a couple of presentations by folk from the University of Birmingham. Catherine Needham explored what we consider as evidence, reminding us of the importance and value of lived experience and practice wisdom, as well as the more formalised evidence we are all perhaps more familiar with. Two things really hit home to me here. Firstly, coproduction must be additive and not substitutive. In other words – we must add value from coproducing, we can’t just fill gaps. Secondly, processes and ways of coproduction can’t just be copied from context to context. These processes shouldn’t be replicated but they should be assimilated into different places.

Next up was Tony ‘Tornado’ Bovaird from INLOGOV and Governance International. He gave a fantastic overview of where value sits in our society – is this in the formalised economy, or is it in the informal and social interactions that we take part in every day? We must re-balance service outcomes, personal outcomes and social capital outcomes. He also highlighted that we have a rich resource base in this country and it is not a lack of resources that we suffer from but a resource matching problem. We need to work with who is up for working together and not ignore the real strengths that exist.

After the break, when I had the chance to talk to Claire Brynner of What Works Scotland, we had two more presentations around the theme of ‘disrupting coproduction’. The first from Julie Christie who is exploring dementia in resilience in her PhD project. She ended with point that really seemed to resonate with the room – is coproduction done with active citizens or does coproduction help in activating citizens? Do the loudest voices get heard? Are these the white middle classes with loudspeakers and a voice this is disproportionately heard by those in power (a point highlighted by Peter Matthews)? Julia Fitzpatrick from Horizon Housing Association was our final speaker of the day and made some extremely pertinent points. The one that hit home with me was that we must not  “equate a place at a table with involvement” – there are always power issues being played out and we must recognise these, and address them. In the following discussion, power came out as a central theme, and there was a reminder given that coproduction should be about increasing social justice and equality – just as public services should be.

After our impressive lunch of bento boxes and fruit we started enacting a bit more coproduction during the day. We went into a World Cafe with groups moving about the room. Each group started with a question and the discussion was recorded by a scribe. As the groups moved round every ten minutes, the scribe stayed put. Every time the group did move on, they left a provocative question for the incoming group. I scribed and you can see the direction of the discussion below:

 

Questions          Broad discussion journey…
Group 1 – Opening questionCan coproduction allow for resources to be redistributed to create more equitable outcomes?
  • Can we make communities more equitable by having a more unequal distribution of services?
  • Why do people get involved in causes – anger, passion, love
  • Is politicisation useful – start with something small and mobilise from there
Group 2 – Prompt questionDoes coproduction help people frame and influence issues that are important to them?
  • People are too easily marginalised from certain areas and backgrounds – too easy for them to go from being a person with a problem, to a problem person

  • We should strive towards an even playing field
  • There is disproportionate middle-class voice
  • Coproduction should be a power to break these barriers and inequalities down – this should be through building confidence and self belief
  • We have became too individualistic as a society
Group 3 – prompt questionCan we use coproduction to become a more caring society, increase empathy, and to understand each others problems and perspectives?
  • Coproduction should be underpinned by respect – do good services respect people?
  • Should be more linked in with implicit democracy
  • Move people out of comfort zones
  • Understand motivations for why people take part in coproduction
Final question

How do you address different perspectives, motivations and values in coproduction?

After hearing from the other group scribes we had a quick break followed by different engaging activities designed to prompt discussion and group cohesion. My own group had a wide discussion around coproduction and began to build up a mini-lego community (see below). We actually started this hour session by getting to know each other and exploring what each other had to say, as opposed to beginning with a specific question. I found having the lego in front of us, and building our own little projects, meant there was more time for us to sit in comfortable silences and take time in our interactions. It was only in the last ten minutes that we started physically putting all our creations on the board and linking these up with lego pathways. We praised and prodded each others creations, ranging from an allotment/garden (top right), to the oriental/ MC Escher building (top middle), to the unicorn towers (middle left – unicorn is unfortunately hidden), to the burrowing octopus of cause/effect tentacles (bottom left), to the rather prosaic co-prod letters (which was my own stilted creation!) IMG_0867

We then heard what the other groups had been up to, with one using a circle to subvert the Brooks Newmark quote: “The important thing charities should be doing is sticking to their knitting and doing the best they can to promote their agenda, which should be about helping others.” Experienced knitters and complete novices came together to chat and support each other to produce a wonderful collage of squares (see below).

Screen Shot 2015-03-19 at 17.11.07

In the following discussion we started to explore themes of creativity, improvisation, innovation and support that had really exemplified some of the aspects that were coming through this final session.

Thanks to everyone there on the day, Stirling Uni, and especially Peter Matthews (@urbaneprofessor) for organising the day – let’s keep on prodding each other to work in more effective and thought provoking ways.

Cheers,
Stuart Muirhead, IRISS

Guest blog: Claire Carpenter, Managing Director, The Melting Pot

What’s the creation story behind every social innovation?

Social innovators are often the disrupters, the ones who swim against the tide and question the status quo. We may find them uncomfortable and challenging but these people are also inspiring, determined and resilient.

Take the Social Innovator personality test. How many of these needed core skills and qualities do you have? Making connections, causing disruptions, having persistence and a critical mindset, clarity of vision, courage of your convictions, an ability to learn and reflect, to take risks and experiment, question results, have focus but also openness, and of course – the ability to “sell”.

During 2014 The Melting Pot initiated a collaborative enquiry process into social innovation and how it might flourish in Scotland.

Gatherings took place from Inverness to Edinburgh. Using ‘The Art of Hosting’ participatory processes, we dived into understanding the cultural conditions that help or hinder people, communities and organisations of all sizes who have a passion for creating solutions to our pressing eco-social challenges.

You can read more about our findings here. For fun, here are the recommendations turned on their head.

How to kill social innovation in 5 easy steps!

First – spot those disrupters and put them down – go on, tell them their mad ideas won’t work. These non-conformers who wish to do something different are a nuisance with their radical notions. Their dreams are too big, too complex. They don’t know what they’re doing and it will certainly never make any money!

Second – don’t assist those disruptors, or offer them a chance to collaborate. Keep yourself to yourself. Don’t move out of your comfort zone, talk to, or, help anyone! Don’t go out of your way to make connections or introductions, you might catch something – like a scary new proposition…

Third – seek out the answers to our societal problems from another place, somewhere like London, New York or Shanghai. Those disruptive ideas under your nose, on your doorstep, the ones that take account of the cultural fit can’t be any good can they? And anyway, it’s more fun to go on international jollies (sorry I mean learning journeys).

Forth – never accept anyone else’s wisdom, or seek to learn form them. What do they know anyway? There’s no point taking time out of your busy schedule to reflect on your learning – you’ve just got to keep doing – at all costs.

Fifth – work from your bedroom, alone – you can’t afford anywhere nice and professional to work anyway, not on what is invested into the social innovation pipeline. Yes we need jobs, but they can only be produced form companies that focus on economic growth not social capital.

Now forget all that. For social innovation to thrive in Scotland, we must create a culture to:

  1. Encourage – literally lend courage and support to – those seeking to address inequality, those who are questioning the status quo, creating disruption and taking risks.
  2. Foster connections, creativity and the generation of ideas amongst innovators in all sectors.  Enabling genuine participation and collaboration across sectors releases socially innovative ideas.
  3. Cultivate local solutions where social innovators can work with communities to define and co-design solutions within their community context.
  4. Create safe places and spaces for learning, reflection and sharing all the stories: the successes, the tricky moments, the failures, the highs the lows of experience.
  5. Invest in social innovation – provide the physical resources to enable social innovators to work with focus, purpose, determination and persistence.

The Melting Pot would like to thank the Scottish Government for commissioning this work, so that our policy makers can better harness our people’s talents, energy and ideas to make Scotland flourish.

Find out more about The Melting Pot, Scotland’s Centre for Social Innovation, and our Social Innovation Incubation Award programme (all disrupters PLEASE APPLY!).

http://themeltingpotedinburgh.org.uk/how-can-we-put-social-innovation-work-people-scotland-collaborative-enquiry

 

Super curious

shutterstock_190549466

A couple of weekends ago, I popped along to TEDx Glasgow. I loved every minute.

One of the talks really caught my attention – Will Mitchell’s ‘super curious’. Will is a Design Director of 4C Design Ltd, a graduate from The Glasgow School of Art and has spent 15 years working in a wide range of industries as a specialist engineer.

Will’s message was to stop ‘do-ing’ and to stop looking for ‘solutions’. This was difficult message for me to hear. In my day to day work I attend a lot of meetings and am often itching to get out and go get things done, or to support others to get things done.

Listening closer, though, there was a subtly in his message. He focused on learning through constant questioning – in essence, continuing to be ‘super curious’ about the challenges and issues that present in our day to day lives. He explained that in order to move forward and achieve your goals you have to constantly question everything that you encounter.  He explained that no matter how much you think that you understand about the issue or challenge that you face there is always something new that you can learn. He suggested that getting to know a problem well enough, is in itself an achievement.

Now this, I can relate to.

It got me thinking about the application of this idea in practice – particularly for social services. I think we know broadly what the challenges are. But we are unable to be specific enough. This is because we don’t face problems. We face dilemmas.

Problems can be solved, but dilemmas only managed – this means the problems that we face are not clear cut with cookie cutter ‘solutions’, the dilemmas facing social services instead have grey areas and require responses that will support the issue to change in that particular context.  This means that the closer we look and the more specific we become in our analysis – the more the ‘problem’ or ‘issue’ will change and become clearer. Lets also not forget to be ‘super curious’ about what is working too. Understanding what makes something a positive experience or service is just as important as focusing on the negatives.

In a different context (energy), the RSA (Royal Society of the Arts) have also been looking at the power of curiosity.  Their research found that modern lifestyles could put the curiosity we need to drive innovation at risk. It highlights that modern technology is having an impact on our curiosity as it encourages short-term curiosity about a wide variety of topics, but doesn’t promote focus. The RSA argue that both types of curiosity are necessary to stimulate innovation.

In response to the findings, the RSA champion three key recommendations for learners of all ages to cultivate curiosity by:

  • Teaching for competencies like curiosity, as explicit educational goals, rather than as beneficial off-shoots of knowledge-based learning.
  • Encouraging forms of mental attention, including mindfulness, that make people reflect on things that might not have been noticed.
  • Having the opportunity to learn something in considerable depth.

Can we make the space for these kinds of activities in our sector?

 

 

Another tool in the toolbox

Toolbox

At IRISS, we are always talking about service design. We think it can provide a useful participatory methodology to help people think differently. We use service design methodologies in the majority of our innovation and improvement projects.

One thing we sometimes get a little bit troubled with, is, however, the focus on tools. We don’t think its necessarily the tools that make the difference (although they do help!), it is the atmosphere that is created and it is the underlying principles we ascribe to that makes our work unique.

But we often spend a lot of time explaining or designing tools that fit the purposes of our workshops/the needs of the people we work with. For instance, last year, we produced a set of cards designed to help facilitate difficult discussions

We were delighted to hear that NESTA have produced this beautiful design thinking toolkit with a range of tools and methodologies for people to use. Check it out and see what might be useful for you!

http://diytoolkit.org/tools/

Reviving the art of practical wisdom

 

 

I read ‘the tyranny of recipes’, an article in Prospect magazine the other day that really resonated with me. In the article, the author explains how our increased reliance on recipes has impaired the intrinsic development of judgment – he argues, that we’ve lost trust in our own ability to understand and know what is working in the kitchen – and I think this analogy transcends this particular context.

The author writes 
 “Our tendency to describe courses of action as “recipes” or “formulas” suggests we believe problems are best solved by following step-by-step procedures that lead to guaranteed results. I think there is something deeply problematic in this 
.”

I tend to agree with him – and it got me thinking about my own work in social services. We see ourselves [at IRISS] as facilitators of others’ creativity; we try to create safe and reflective spaces to encourage people to try things out, to have a go, and to see what happens. Time and time again we come up across the same old barriers in that people want to know what the outcome will be, by when and for whom. When we work together to co-design or co-produce the outcomes much of this cannot be known at the outset – because we are not following a prescriptive path. We do use a variety of processes (of course!) but these tend to be very flexible to allow for what might emerge in conversation and practice.

So, how can we revive the art of practical wisdom? It will likely demand that people who are supported by services, practitioners and those in senior management have a certain type of mindset which is comfortable with ambiguity (i.e. there is not a set ‘way’ to do things) and that is not afraid of failure  (i.e. we will get things wrong, but in the process of figuring things out, we’ll try to minimize this risk by working alongside you).

This speaks nicely to another article I read recently about ‘Generation Flux’ – the new generation of workers whose underpinning values are creativity, impulsiveness and willingness to experiment.  This is a generation of people who are learning to occupy unknown space and navigate through (negative capability) – and it’s the idea that any body of any age can operate in this way (i.e. it is not a demographic).

I’ve heard it said that innovation is based on wisdom – and wisdom comes from information synthesis (from your practical experience as well as things you’ve read and written etc). So we shouldn’t blindly follow process, we should embrace our hunches and the practical wisdom that we accumulate!

Do you follow your hunches? Are you comfortable in a generation of flux?

Incubating ideas

shutterstock_176084129

An underpinning principle of the Innovation and Improvement’s strategy is the emphasis on creating spaces for innovation to happen.  We believe that we have a role in supporting the incubation of ideas, and are trying to understand what that role might look like in the future.

To explore this further, we had the pleasure of attending the Innovate conference in San Sebastian (or Donostia, in Basque) last week. The conference was designed to share practice across a range of European countries about the focus on social innovation for economic development.

Our contribution to the conference was based on our experiences of supporting a social entrepreneur, Alison Urie, to develop a social enterprise, Vox Liminis. Happily, Alison was able to attend the conference to share her learning and experience directly with the audience.

In the short time that was available for the presentation, Alison explained that 9 months ago, IRISS provided time space and a small amount of funding to help her on her way to developing Vox Liminis. This support, alongside that of many others (Fergus McNeill (Criminologist from Glasgow University, The Melting Pot etc.) has helped Alison’s idea become reality.

Alison’s passionate and articulate presentation seemed to give the audience plenty of food for thought regarding the link between research and practice – as well as the elements which are necessary in order to encourage start-ups to grow and flourish. She noted that her journey hasn’t always been smooth, but that the links between practice, academia and being based within an agency (like IRISS) which bridges all these worlds had made her work possible. If we’ve been marginally helpful to Alison then we are glad – but ultimately, the success is down to her skills, networks and determination to make her social enterprise a success. We are sure she’ll continue to go from strength to strength.

At IRISS, this experiment has reminded us of the need to have a mixture of diverse perspectives to keep ideas flowing – we have gained huge amounts from having Alison’s input and her influence is clear in our organisation.

To read more about Alison’s journey, please visit her blog: www.voxliminis.co.uk,

To find out more about the Innovate project, see one of the ongoing outputs, the Social Innovation Network, an online facility that allows users to access information, participate in research, debate and discussion, and co-ordinate collaborative ventures with other stakeholders

Evidence and Innovation explored

ID-100145052

Our project exploring the links between evidence and innovation is now complete.

This project has bridged two of the core work streams at IRISS; evidence-informed practice and innovation and improvement.  Ahead of the final report, this blog provides an overview of the key findings and highlights how this work will feed into the broader work and priorities of IRISS.

This project has used theoretical, empirical and practice literature and case studies to reflect on the links between evidence and innovation in the context of Scotland’s social services.  It has been exploratory in nature.  This exploratory approach has been necessary due to the lack of existing work that considers evidence and innovation side-by-side.  Given the nature of this approach, and the topic itself, definitive conclusions are unrealistic.  However, the report has served to highlight the following points in relation to this project, which would benefit from further exploration in future work.

Summary of Key Findings:

  1. Evidence and innovation are potentially complementary or antagonistic reform agendas depending on how these words are defined, conceptualised and mobilised.  This topic is therefore complex and dynamic.
  2. How evidence and innovation are defined, conceptualised and mobilised can have important implications for practice, particularly in relation to issues of implementation, risk and scale.
  3. It is likely that the meanings of, and relationships between, these terms varies and evolves during the process of implementing a new policy, and in the process of everyday practice.
  4. What counts as good or useful evidence is likely to be highly contextual, varying according to the immediate requirements of those involved at different stages of the innovation process.  This means that quite different types of evidence may become useful at different points during the implementation of a new policy.
  5. The case studies reviewed as part of this project emphasised the view of evidence as an integrating vehicle for disparate types of knowledge and expertise.  This includes theoretical and empirical research, practitioner wisdom and views, and the views and ideas of those who use services.
  6. We need individuals and organisations to share more, and to share in an honest, detailed way.  There is a gap in the evidence-base concerning the links between evidence and innovation.  In part this is a gap at the theoretical level: these concepts have rarely been discussed together in the academic arena.  However, this is not helped by another gap in the evidence-base; a gap in the documenting of innovations by the social service workforce, and by people who use services.  Where this is done it tends towards a rose-tinted view and a rather thin documentation of how evidence is used and why.  Instead we need more thorough documentations of the innovation process, including its set-backs and complexities, and the role evidence plays.

The forthcoming report will feed into business development discussions at IRISS about how we are supporting evidence-use and innovation across the social services, and whether our current organisational structure best facilitates this.