|09-04-2011, 11:47 AM||#1|
1. decide for stakeholders
2. decide with for other stakeholders
3. enable stakeholders to decide
• Deciding for: When the systems practitioner takes control of the situation and uses their expertise to tell, or recommend to stakeholders what they should do. In this situation the systems practitioner would have the most potential for learning about issue and about their own practice. The disadvantage of “deciding for” is that however much we might try to put ourselves in the shoes of another, or acknowledge other perspectives, it is never the same as having these stakeholders participate
• “Deciding for” is often needed in case such as:
a. where stakeholders are not human
b. where stakeholders cannot be involved with decision making either because they have:
No capacity, where capacity might be determined by time constraints as well as bio physical restraints.
No desire to be involved
Not yet been identified
• Deciding with: When the systems practitioner acts as a facilitator for other stakeholders in the situation and participates in decision making with other stakeholders. They systems practitioner could facilitate and involve other stakeholders in using the systems approach but he/she may do so in a way that protects their specialist knowledge and skills. In this case the outcome may be owned jointly by the participants but the process to achieve the outcome would not. In the longer term this scenario would be less sustainable because learning about the process has been limited to the 'expert' rather than residing in what Wenger describes as a 'community of practice'. Alternatively a systems practitioner as facilitator may go out of their way to 'give away' the particular systems approach they are using to those involved so that the participants may use it themselves in some future situation. Or they may explain what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of a particular method in a given context so that the stakeholders could choose for creating an enabling process for stakeholders to decide.
• Creating an enabling process for deciding: When the systems practitioner explain to stakeholders what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of a particular method in a given context so that the stakeholders could choose for themselves. In this situation, there is the potential for the systems practitioner and stakeholders to become co learners or co-inquirers. Each of these 3 situations requires a different set of skills for effective practice and will result in different capacities and potentials for learning. Why is the question of “who learns what?” important and why is it relevant to this block? Because aware practitioners, using systems approaches are able to orchestrate a process of action re****** in which the key systems ideas of connectivity, emergence, communication and control are appreciated and in which multiple perspectives are valued.
• Using the phrase action re****** mean also action learning, as re****** and learning can be seen as the same process:
When you get engaged in a situation – either as a consultant or as a stakeholder – then putting yourself in someone else’s position is much harder. This is because; your own beliefs, values and history will be determining your cognitive processes.
It is only by becoming aware of your own perspective that you can create a mental space from which to construct a version of someone else’s perspective.
• Decide who learns: Why is the question of “who learns what?” important? The question of who participates in a learning process affects their capacity to be responsible to be able to respond purposefully. Also it is helpful for practitioner to become more aware of different ways of managing their systems practice in relation to the question: Who learns? The following scheme is helpful in addressing the question of who learns what:
1. All systems practice requires the practitioner to be concerned with his own learning.
2. Using systems thinking to formulate systems of interest can help us to improve a situation for ourselves, a client or clients. This often results in “deciding for”.
3. In order for changes to be more sustainable, it might make sense to “design “our practice in a way that involves “giving away” or (or embedding) systems thinking and practice skills so that the stakeholders in the situation can use them in an on-going action-learning manner. This could be “deciding with” or “enabling to decide”
4. In some cases it may make sense to design the practice in a way that enables the stakeholders to give away their systems thinking and practice to others. This is a further elaboration of “enabling deciding by”
• Design an inquiry system for: When the systems practitioner takes control of the situation and uses their expertise to tell, or recommend to stakeholders what they should do. Then there will be a focused on here on developing practice through a process of designing purposeful inquiry (Inquiry: is an activity which produces knowledge). When practicing in a “decide with” or “enabling deciding by” mode it is helpful for both the practitioner and these stakeholders who become involved to have a route map of the process they are beginning.
؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟احد يفهمني اياه
|09-04-2011, 06:30 PM||#2|
رد: ممكن شرح
this will help u :
|مواقع النشر (المفضلة)|
|انواع عرض الموضوع|