What is the purpose?

It seems to me that most often, in communication, we are trying to drive home a message from one person or group to another. It seems the purpose of which is to get that other person or group to do something they might otherwise not do. A keyword to describe this would be “persuasion”.

I have heard it said that leadership is the art of persuading others to do what you want them to do while believing it is what they want to do. This would seem to define “effective communication” very specifically as having persuaded the “other”. Personally I think this is a failed definition or at the very least “weak” in terms of “real/authentic” communication as tied to “Leadership”. Again, here is where worldview and philosophical foundations play into what one calls “effective”. While there could be times where this type of communication is essential, leadership that depends on this method does seem weak to me. This type of leadership takes an “us vs them” and the “enemy is out there” approach to human interaction. It misses the connectedness of all and misses that we can be our own worst enemy.

Bohm Dialogue
I was introduced to David Bohm through the writings of Peter Senge (Fifth Discipline) and Joe Jaworski (Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership). I have not purchased Bohm’s book, “Dialogue”, but have reviewed a number of websites, including Wikipedia. The editors of the Wikipedia entry encapsulate four principles of Bohm Dialogue:
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation.
2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation.
3. As these individuals “suspend judgement” they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible.
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals’ ideas in the conversation.

We can see glimpses of this in brainstorming sessions. The most satisfying brainstorming sessions in which I have participated are free from decisions and judgements; no one holds back their best contributions; and one thought often builds on another.

For Bohm (david-bohm.net/dialogue/) dialogue is sharing of thoughts. “Thought”, to his thinking is more than “mere” intellect or intellect’s output. Thought includes our fullness/wholeness: thoughts; emotions; feelings; etc. In this way we do not simply send a message. In dialogue we send ourselves, open and vulnerable. Additionally, Bohm’s dialogue has no apparent agenda (“Why Dialogue” paragraph 3).

Two paragraphs later, Bohm says that dialogue “is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behavior nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal.” I can think of various experiences of “dialogue” where there was a “Hidden” agenda behind the “dialogue” and other times a much closer experience to Bohm’s Dialogue. The experience of the hidden agenda is felt by participants and it changes participation (at least it did in me). I am left with wondering why we bothered to “do” the activity. When I questioned the person in charge once, than answer I got was basically, “I want every one to know they have been heard.” But the person’s mind was already made up and I am not sure he achieved that which he thought he had achieved. There were many discontented murmurings after the meeting.

On the other hand I have had very positive experiences in dialogue. While there was still an agenda of making a decision eventually, the decision surfaced through the contributions of all participants. The decision reflected the input and was seen in the outcomes.

I am reminded of Peter Jarvis’ thoughts on Human Learning (see my post of Sept 30, 2009). With this in mind, when we enter into Bohm Dialogue we bring all of our knowledge and learning as well as an openness to new learning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html

Communication tools

When it comes to the tools of communication I can’t help but think of “Methods” as well. Tools would be completely neutral to effective or ineffective communication. Methods – well, I’m still thinking about methods.

On first thought “face to face” is a method, not a tool. Where as any form of telephone is a tool. In any case I will brainstorm some of the tools and methods. I use/have used for communicating with others:

Telephone (cell; VoIP, etc)
video conference equipment (iChat, Skype, Polycom, etc)
Screen sharing (built-in to the OS [Mac/Windows], web-based,
convergence: GoToMeeting, breeze, etc
Letters, email, fax
Art: paintings of all sorts, photography, poetry, etc
Text (books, magazines, newspapers etc)

As I see these items in front of me, I begin to see how “letters” may be a method, where “Pen” and “paper” are tools. The Gutenberg press would be a tool where as a document using the press would be a method. Often I have heard it said to use the media as a tool to “get the word out”. But to be nit-picky this would be “Method” rather than “tool” in my worldview. The “Media” itself is multi-modal methods and tools: print; audio; visual; as well as the people and events created and used as “media events”. Thus we have multiple methods and tools being used with and sometimes without the impact for which they were purposed and designed.

I hope that makes sense. If not I trust you’ll post a comment below.

Communication: a basic definition

From the Sereno and Mortensen text comes this definition of communication:
“a process by which senders and receivers of messages interact in given social contexts.” (p 5)

It was in my M.Ed program that I really began to probe the concept of complex adaptive systems. The individual human is a complex adaptive system. When combining any number of humans complexity isn’t reduced.

Communication therefore cannot, by definition, ever be “simple”. “Communicative events involve the whole person… perceptions, learning, drives, emotions, attitudes, beliefs, values, decoding-encoding, meaning, messages, and social situations.” (Sereno p 4).

It would seem that with each added human, the complexity is increased. The “ladder of inference” is a play here as well.

A couple of communication games come to mind: There is one where you whisper a statement to a person and they, in turn whisper to their neighbor and so on around a circle, to where the person who started the process is the last to receive the message back. Another, is where everyone writes a statement on a piece of paper (each person has a stack of paper). Everyone then hands the stack of paper with the statement on top the person on their left who then draws a picture of the statement on the next sheet of paper in the stack, sending the statement to the bottom. Again, everyone hands their picture to the person on their left, who then writes a statement of the picture on the next blank sheet, sending the drawing to the bottom. This continues until each person receives the stack they started.

Besides being a hilariously fun experience, rarely is the message received at the end the same message sent.

Now when it comes to “message” the method(s) we choose to deliver will influence the reception of the message itself. This will be “customized” based on the individual receiver. While this is my own thinking and makes sense to me based on being complex adaptive systems (we humans), there are, of course, models (and models in models) that cover this: Ladder of Inference (Senge et al 1990) and the Transactional Model of Communication (Barnlund – as seen in Sereno text 1970 p 83-102), just to locate two in my limited time.

We have face to face methods which we generally trust the most. Not only do we have a verbal message we receive, by sight, nonverbal cues. I gave a sermon the other day and had a single message sent to the congregation. My single message, based on who I am and all my worldview, assumptions, etc was conveyed to all those present. I too, received immediate feedback with both verbal and nonverbal cues from the congregation.

Some did not seem to receive it well, while others were inspired and encouraged. Some walked out, some slept, others laughed heartily, some chuckled; some said loud “Amens”, some clapped. In all there was two-way communication. The sermon was recorded. It will be available as an audio file and a video/audio file. No longer will I receive immediate feedback.

Effective Communication

In my morning walk with Trixy (my wife) and Jordan (our dog), I was reflecting on basic communication: message sent; message received; and a feedback loop. That was the message I sent to Trixy and she received my words and gave me feedback – that of affirmation and examples; which I in turn affirmed in my own words back to her.

My Bachelor degree is in Mass Media with emphasis in Radio/TV Broadcasting and Radio/TV/Film production. I have with me as a resource “Foundations of Communication Theory” Sereno and Mortensen; 1970. I also recently picked up “International Communications Strategy” Cambie and Ooi; 2009.

Before cracking the books, I think I need to think a bit more about where I have been and where I am going.

As mentioned, I hold a BA in Mass Media. My M.Ed, while focused on Global Leadership looked at Communication. Now, for my PhD I am digging deeper still. Each experience has specific foci: Mass Media communication; Educational leadership/teaching communication; and now, I want to recapture the big picture and focus on my future: inter/cross cultural communication.

My career is steeped in communication. I critiqued scripts and needed to communicate (succinctly) pros and cons of a given script. As a grunt on sets or in the post production suite communication was essential to survival. Networking fails without positive communication. As a distribution (junior) executive I needed good relationships internal and external from my companies. As a writer/director/producer of TV programs to finish on time and close to budget requires good (effective) communication. To work as a freelancer and retain clients requires effective communication. To collaborate with faculty and administrators in building up an online program; to facilitate student learning outcomes, requires effective communication. Marriage has probably been the most demanding on my communication skills.

Communication builds relationships, relationships build networks. Thus the message communicated isn’t only what we want or need, but the essence of one’s self. Thus, “Leadership”, as defined as entering into relationship and having influence, communication must be assumed, for without effective communication one cannot have influence.

Now, the question is this: what is effective communication? The easy is answer is: that is what I am studying right now! Yet there remains for me a basic flexibility in the word “effective”. Even before digging into studies and texts “effective”, for me, isn’t a definitive list of “dos and don’ts”.

Learning and Human Development

Jarvis puts forward that there are four “types” of learning.  All of which are based on either “harmony” or a state of disharmony, or what he calls “disjuncture”.  

What are the influences on learning?  And are these influences bi-directional?

There are a number of pictures we can draw to depict the learning process.  Jarvis has two which are, in his view integrated (p 20 & 23).  The first is the working of the individual’s “inner” process.  The second is that process in context.

We must recognize that it is the person who learns.  This is in contrast to “learning organizations” or even “Learning societies”.  Noting that organizations and societies only change through people who are willing to learn (open to change and adaptation).

Like wise “Learning and human development” is related to other of my programs competencies:

Philosophical foundations – the basis of our beliefs shape our perspectives and either enhances or limits our capacity to learn; Our ethics at once influence and are influenced by our learning and development; ethics in turn relate directly to community and organizational structures and change (also bi-discretional); Mentoring is an active and engaged form of teaching and being a protege is being a student.  As I think about learning and development in association with our competencies and “leadership” – learning is bi-directionally apparent and intertwined/linked to each competency.

Give me some time and I will try to find examples…

Human Learning

Human Learning

I am now reading Peter Jarvis’ book “Human Learning”.  I am trying to remember why I chose this book, but I can’t remember.  I do know the reviews on Amazon.com stirred my interest as I reviewed dozens of titles.  I also picked up his companion book “Globalisation, Lifelong Learning and the Learning Society: Sociological Perspectives”.

Jarvis describes his growth and transformation over his 20+ years of research, practice, and reflection around “Learning”.  His definition has transformed along the way and he now defines “human learning” in this way:  ”the combination of processes whereby the whole person – body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions, beliefs and senses): experiences a social situation, the perceived content of which is then transformed cognitively, emotively, or practically (or through any combination) and integrated into the person’s individual biography resulting in a changed (or more experienced) person.” (p 13)

I would like to sit down with him and pick his brain (so I hope that as I read the rest of the book I will feel like I have).  I like his move towards a comprehensive definition – it fits well with my personal “whole person” approach.

Personal Learning Inventories

How do I learn?

One of the thoughts that comes to me is how do I learn?  What are my preferred modalities and strategies?  Well, to look at this I went to some common learning “tests” or inventories:  (Unless otherwise noted these inventories were taken at the start of my Leadership program)

Gregorc style delineator:  Abstract Random

VARK:  You have a multimodal (VARK) learning preference.

• Visual: 10
• Aural: 11
• Read/Write: 11
• Kinesthetic: 13

Kolb Cycle:

Concrete Experience: 43

Abstract Conceptualization:  35

Active Experimentation:  28

Reflective Observation: 14

Index of Learning Styles (taken September 28, 2009)

Results for: Bill Colwell Jr.

ACT                  X                                REF

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<– –>

SEN                                              X    INT

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<– –>

VIS      X                                            VRB

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<– –>

SEQ                                              X    GLO

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<– –>

http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html

Temperament: ENFP (Extraverted; iNtuitive; Feeling; Perception/Probing) as defined by Myers-Briggs.

I also want to surface my “Strengths finder 2.0″ results.  My reasoning here is that my Leadership PhD program suggests that a leader is always learning and growing (I quite agree).  Thus a leader’s strengths should somehow factor in to the individual’s learning and development cycle.

My top five strengths are:

Connectedness: People who have faith in the links between all things.  They believe there are few coincidences and that almost every event has a reason.

Futuristic: People who are inspired by the future and what could be.  they inspire others with their visions of the future.

Adaptability: People who  prefer to “go with the flow”.  They tend to be “now” people who take things as they come and discover the future one day at a time.

Input: People who have a craving to know more.  Often they like to collect and archive all kinds of information.

Strategic: People who create alternative ways to proceed.  Faced with any given scenario, they can quickly spot the relevant patterns and issues.

The inventories above are self described.  They reflect point in time preferences (which overtime can be generally confirmed).  However, it is important to remember these are not absolutes.  I do find these results of mine to be generally true as my preferred styles.  What is important to note is that if any of the “weaker” items were completely absent or unavailable, I would struggle to learn.

I may be more visual than verbal.  But I find that I need to verbalize (even more than writing) in order to “cement” ideas.  But then I grasp even more when I can play with the concepts verbally with others, using drawing tools to capture the ideas visually.  One reinforces the other.  While I am clearly a global learner and desperately need the big picture if there isn’t sequence, (either embedded or developed by me) learning is not as complete.

Thus I admit that I find linear scales to be problematic in fully describing my learning process.  Additionally, most of these inventories are (seemingly) purposed around formal learning programs.  Do these play out in human growth and development external to formal education?  I believe they do.  I believe the theorists also support this idea.

Nature, Art, Systems, and Connectionism

Nature II:  Telematic Culture and Artificial Life

Roy Ascott

Convergence 1995; 1; 23

terms and definitions:

• telematic(s):  computer-mediated communications networking which is the result of the convergence of telecommunications and data processing systems. (note 1 p 29)
• cybernetics: “the study of control and communication in living and artificial systems” (p 25)
• 2nd order cybernetics:  “included the observer of a system as part of the system.” (p 25)
• connectionism (in art); and connectivist in science
• Consciousness:  our sense of presence in the world and our relationship to reality.

Ascott essentially starts out with exploring the essence of nature: as metaphor and as interpreted reality – that whatever nature is, “it is the first virtual reality in which the pure data of an undifferentiated wholeness is programmed, shaped and categorised according to our language, fears and desires.” (p 24)

Nature is a “virtual” reality for us humans, perhaps for no other reason than that we cannot fully experience because of who we are.  In the same way you are a virtual reality to me.  I can only experience what you do through story and metaphor as described above.

Nature II is not Nature, but a second order Nature.  According to Ascott an “emergent nature… a new creativity whose ‘engines of creation’ will embrace artificial life.” (p 24)  This nature is seen and interpreted through technology and any other observers.

Ascott recognizes that the observer brings with her all expectations, beliefs, paradigms, etc and that these influence observed reality.  That the observer is indeed part of the system and cannot be objectively separate from the observed.

And here is where my interest is piqued:  “Second-order cybernetics and Nature II share in what can be called the connectivist paradigm, which holds that everything is connected, everything interacts with and effects everything else.” (p 26).

Ascott ties the connectivist paradigm to “microstructures of cognition” (neural networks of the brain and the way in which we conduct parallel distributed processing).  By doing so he rejects the limited linear only processes (non-linear processing can include linear processes, but is not limited to such).

In looking for how Ascott defines “virtual reality” it is how we experience that which is external to ourselves.  When describing “telematic systems of global networking” he seems to slide back into traditional thought of “virtual reality”.   “… often without our knowledge or awareness of where we are being encountered or by whom, at which interface or communications node” we can be “encountered”.  While he puts this in the term “telematically”, we have been able to do this via the old technology of Guttenberg.  Without question our ability to be instantly available around the world is a much more recent experience.  Perhaps that is his purpose in describing art – as art has been around much longer.  Come to think of it as long as there has been a written form of communication we have had “virtual reality” which transcends time and space.

Ascott does acknowledge ancient forms of writing and information storage.  He is correct in that now we are able to access these and more via current digital technologies.

What does this mean to me?

For three years I worked full-time for a school of public health.  I would be considered a “virtual” employee, a telecommuter, remote worker.  I lived and worked from South Bend Indiana to a school in southern California.  My faculty, while mostly located at the school, were also distributed – around North America and as far away as Japan and Australia.  Likewise students were well dispersed, though most were located on campus.  I met both in real-time through VoIP and/or telephone; screen sharing technologies; instant messaging; and video conference tools.  I worked asynchronously through course management and social networking systems; email; voice messaging; Fax machines; and so on.

I have experienced real meetings in real time with others across the USA and Canada, and in: Australia; Kenya; Ethiopia; Rwanda; Cameroon; Malawi (text chat only); Austria; Germany; Japan; Mexico; China; Hong Kong, India; and the Philippines.  Add to that mix asynchronous methods and the list grows significantly.

I read paper based journals, books, and magazines.  I also rely on digital versions of journals, magazines, news, encyclopedias, etc.  I recognized years ago that personal memory and recall is not sufficient in the modern world.  In working with public health, nursing, and medical students it is clear that the load of information required to be proficient cannot be fully memorized.  Rather one must learn to be proficient in accessing information storage devices.  These devices are changing over time.  Clearly early storage mediums were charcoal and rock, giving way to ink forms and papyrus.  These intern gave way to other media forms.  Today we have digital forms – who knows what media we will use in the future.

I personally resist using the term “virtual” to describe real meetings.  I do recognize that many people use “virtual” to describe computer-mediated methods.  I do find however that many people view “virtual” workers as not real, or less than fully engaged employees.  As if working from a different location makes one less than complete.  My personal experience is that those who hold this view – even when they state this is a reality and “the future”, limit the contribution of remote knowledge contributors.  On the other hand I have had some experience where some were openly skeptical but open to the experience, finding new ways of leveraging technology to bridge distance, building relationships with people who could not have participated in any other practical “in person” manner.  This includes researchers in different cities, states, and/or countries, meeting both in real-time and asynchronously.  These experiences, move the mind from “virtual” to “real”.

Learning and human development has a basis of “openness”.  If one is not genuinely open to new possibilities and methods, learning and development is also limited.  Perhaps a better way to state it is that we are limited in our learning and development to the level (capacity) of which we are open.

Connectivism

My friend and colleague, Janine Lim, introduced me to the learning theory/paradigm of “connectivism” (Siemens and Downes).  It immediately sparked my curiosity.  Wikipedia provides a basic synopsis.  Suffice to say the promoters of the theory consider it a “Learning theory for the digital age.”  I have to agree with some of the criticism of the theory as being more a pedagogical model than learning theory – at least as presented in Wikipedia and in Janine’s presentation to me.

However, connectivism has been around longer than the world wide web.  Henry Janzen (1981) discussed connectivism as a learning strategy for recall/remembering.  Janzen describes it this way: “The concept of connectivism, the relationship between prior and present learning, involves the use of codes.”  This reminds me of the way people have described how they remember names when meeting new people.  They hear the name, making connections of the name with prior knowledge in their own personal “coding system”.  This is an individualized internal process.  Again, Janzen’s work (like Siemens and Downes) is not so much a learning theory (like behavior, cognitive, or constructivist), but a strategy.  However, connectivism does seem to come very close to constructivist in that the individual is required to make connections beyond the “raw data”.

An interesting side note is that Janzen suggests we have knowledge (due to input) that we can either recall (remember) or not (as in “I learned that but don’t recall).  I must question – on a philosophical basis – if we cannot recall something is that something actually knowledge?

Ladder of Inference

On reflection of my first posting I think I need to be a bit more clear:  We use our entire “self” in the learning cycle.

We take information IN through our senses.  We process through the rest of “who we are”: personality; prior “knowledge”/experience; context; emotions; etc.  The “ladder of inference” comes to mind (most recently see here: http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm).  Knowledge in this sense can not be “absolute”, rather inferred.  Even concrete experiences/raw data is interpreted and processed by our beliefs and biases.  But this isn’t the point.  The point I am looking at is how we learn and develop.  The “Ladder of Inference” is an attempt to be a holistic model.