The Green Kangaroo

So, this has been a difficult couple of weeks. No tragedies in my personal life -- but definitely a much of muchness. My daughter came home from graduate school at the term's end and left for a summer of research (geology) in northern Greece. My son, stationed in Iraq, is due back to his home base for a couple of weeks of rest before heading back. At the same time, there has been very heavy traffic on some of my greenroo paths.

Over at the ALAL2 project there have been controversies -- and also a lot of good, collaborative work and critical thinking. A meeting in Michigan provided an opportunity to talk about the importance of libraries in communities. These paths need more thought -- and separate posts. As annual conference approaches, you can feel the tension level in the building rise. The hallways are filled with trunks, slowing being packed with committee and board files, brochures, handouts and other stuff. Each day brings its new opportunities, new controversies, new problems to resolve.

There have been losses, too -- Henriette Avram a few weeks ago, Mary Jane Anderson earlier this week, and, just today, Susan Kallenbach. These were people who, in very different ways, were part of the fabric of my professional life. I was feeling stretched, tired -- and a little more irritable than usual.

Then, I got home Wednesday night to a beautifully-packed box of heirloom tomatoes from a supplier in New Jersey. It was what I needed. Unpacking heirloom tomato varieties developed in far-flung parts of the world offers a certain perspective. Wikipedia tells me that "tomato" derives from the Nahuatl language. A quick check in Clifford Wright's fascinating history text with recipes -- or cookbook with history, take your pick -- reminded me of just how long it took for the tomato to become an essential element in cuisines throughout the Mediterranean. (Clifford A. Wright, A Mediterranean Feast, 1999). These heirloom varieties were developed in places across Asia, Europe and North America. There's perspective there.

So, now that I've taken a deep breath, I'll pass along a few things that crossed my paths -- before going home to plant tomatoes.

Councilor Diedre Conkling pointed us to a blog focused on library law, which features a number of contributors including Mary Minow. (blog.librarylaw.com)

The recent Time magazine focus issue on kids in the 2.0 world has been widely mentioned in blogs. An awkward plane connection gave me the time to read though a "Special Report on New Media" in the April 22-28th, 2006, issue of The Economist, focusing on "participatory media."

The concept of "the long tail" from an October 2004 article by Chris Anderson has been widely discussed in "biblioblogs" and at library-related conferences. Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, will be speaking at the New Orleans conference, on Monday morning. He was invited by the Information Commons Membership Initiative Group. Anderson's new book on "The Long Tail" is due out soon from Hyperion.

OK. I admit it. I like footnotes and bibliographies. In preparation for a meeting next week, I just finished reading a new book by the meeting facilitator -- master mediator Mark Gerzon. (Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportunities) Sometimes a book slides right into the middle of a number of things you're working on -- and this was one of those times.

One of the trails I've marked in my greenroo space is the whole area of civic engagement/community dialogue/deliberative democracy -- whatever words you want to use -- and the role of libraries, including maybe particularly "2.0 libraries," in fostering it. Conflict -- between priorities, between individuals, between perspectives -- is always a part of my space, and yours too. Another of those trails through my space is the whole "2.0" concept itself.

Looking beyond technology, communication seems very much at the core of "2.0" concepts. Gerzon makes a strong case for "conscious conversation," for being "mindful" of the way we choose to speak and to listen. He focuses a lot on listening. "True listening involves entering into the perspective of another human being. For this reason, it can be frightening because it is a step into the unknown. It is much easier to listen defensively, particularly when there is conflict, than to listen with an open heart."

Focusing on listening caused me to step sideways to another of my trails -- storytelling -- and to a powerful experience at the ASAE (the association of association execs)conference last summer. I attended a session on storytelling. We were working in pairs, alternating between telling a story and listening. As listeners, we were specifically charged to do nothing except listen with 100% of our attention. No critiquing. No thinking about your response, your dinner plans, your email. Just listening with your whole attention. We were asked later to comment on the experience. Many of us went immediately "under cover" and said something that sounded "appropriate." One brave person just laid it out. She said she had never before had that experience of true attention -- of being listened to, being heard. Her quiet comment came with a force that hurt.

I've thought of that statement many times since then. This seems to me to be one of the real challenges in this 2.0 world and one of the factors in "radical trust." We all want to be heard. That sense is palpable in daily interactions, in a read of almost any day's blog postings, in the media. But even in a 2.0 world, there are still only 24 hours in a day, only 7 days in a week. At the end of the day, who did I fail to really hear, with full attention and an "open heart," because I was also trying to work on my reply, keep up with another conversation or think about another problem? If I read your post, but don't take the time to think through a thoughtful comment, how do you know I "heard" you? How do I know I've really, deeply "heard"? I don't have any answers here -- in case you're waiting -- but only a need to move this up higher on my "work on this" list.

But, I started this post with footnotes. Buried in the footnotes for this book is a lengthy quote from Hal Saunders of the Kettering Foundation, writing about the distinction between negotiation and dialogue: "...The aim of dialogue is a changed relationship....The outcome of dialogue is to create new human and political capacities to solve problems....Dialogue may change relationships in ways that create new grounds for mutual respect and collaboration." So, there we are, back at 2.0 concepts. Sounds like a foundation for "radical trust," perhaps.

Oh yes, and the bibliography is rich, too. Good bibliographies, footnotes, references shared in blogs....these are all among the reasons my "stuff to read" list grows faster than my "have read" list.

A couple days ago I was in the audience for the taping of A Public Voice 2006 at the National Press Club. This public television series was developed in cooperation with the National Issues Forums Institute (http://www.nifi.org). Each one-hour program -- produced annually -- examines how we, collectively, are approaching major public issues. They build on public forums held around the country during the preceding year on a particular issue, in this case "Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role."

The one-hour program, moderated by Frank Sesno, brings together elected officials, journalists and scholars to view taped clips from public forums and respond to the issues raised by people participating. The audience included middle-school students from Maryland, people who had participated in the public forums taped as background, board members from both NIFI and the Kettering Foundation (which provides much of the research muscle behind the background materials prepared for the public forums -- see www.kettering.org)and others, including a group from Russia.

So, why was I there? That brings back to that incredible array of paths that crisscross through my "greenroo" space.

Several years ago in a very late night conversation, Nancy Kranich, then ALA's immediate past president, pointed me to a workshop at the College of DuPage -- near Chicago -- on moderating public forums. She was attending a similar workshop at the University of Alabama. I talked Satia Orange, director of ALA's Office of Literacy and Outreach Services, into joining me in the venture into something new -- and got a powerful learning experience in return.

The "forums" movement makes the assumption that complex and contentious issues can be framed in a way that recognizes that reasonable people may have significantly different perspectives but, with information and deliberative tools, can find common ground on which to build. Nancy began identifying libraries and library staff across the country who were connecting with their communities through forums. That gets us to the "member initiative group" part of this story.

A little-known piece of ALA's organizational structure is the member initiative group, shortened to MIG. One hundred members petitioned ALA Council to form a MIG on "Libraries Fostering Civic Engagement" -- not too catchy, but descriptive. Now, MIGs don't charge dues, don't elect officers or take on the permanent organizational status of round tables or divisions. They have a three-year life. They do announce to the Association that a group of members has an area they want to explore -- and they do claim some small measure of staff and organizational support to facilitate that exploration.

So, bringing this full circle -- At the New Orleans conference, the MIG will hold a Forum on Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role, Saturday, June 24, 1:30-3:30pm in the Morial Convention Center, room 260. You'll be able to participate in a deliberative forum -- and meet an interesting group of missionary librarians and educators. You can download the brief discussion guide on the issue at the nifi site (www.nifi.org/discussion_guides/index.aspx)

The Forum will be moderated by Nancy Kranich and Taylor Willingham (TexasForums) -- who are both participating in the ALA Libraries 2.0 prototype course currently being facilitated by Michael Stephens and Jenny Levine, through Kathleen Gilroy's Otter Group. The combination of people passionate about engaging communities and 2.0 concepts should take us down some interesting paths. There is a discussion list (send a message to listproc@ala.org with subscribe DELIBERATE your name) -- and expect a blog to appear soon.

Sometimes things I run into in the wider association world -- or wider library world -- seem to have particular relevance to ALA. Sometimes I see a clear way to bring that concept or idea into ALA -- and sometimes I don't and, if I'm interested enough, things sit in my "interesting possibilities" stack waiting for an opportunity. Open Space Technology has been in my "interesting possibilities" stack since 2003. Then, in the last six weeks, I have heard two OST mentions in library space.

ALA's DC-based Office for Information Technology Policy pulled together a planning session at the O'Hare Hilton a few weeks ago. Dropping in for dinner and catching up with old friends and colleagues, I discovered that they had used Open Space Technology to shape the meeting -- and been pleased with their experience. Then, just this past Monday, Ed Vielmetti, the SuperPatron, was speaking at the Metropolitan Library System's Patron Day program. In his fascinating presentation, which Jenny Levine has already blogged, he discussed the Library Camp he organized at Ann Arbor District Library -- using Open Space Technology.

So what is this -- and how did it end up in my "possibilities" queue? Open Space Technology is a method of self-organizing which allows the participants to create and manage their own working sessions. The "about" page(www.openspaceworld.org) says that "Open Space works best when the work to be done is complex, the people and ideas involved are diverse, the passion for resolution (and potential for conflict) are high, and the time to get it done was yesterday." Sounds good.

Twice in 2003 I participated in meetings "built" by the participants using Open Space Technology. On return, I wrote up notes and passed them along to ALA staff -- my version of throwing a handful of seeds up into the air. Then, I put this into my "interesting possibiities" bank and went on to other work.

Here is what I can tell you about the basic process -- based on my own observation and participation.

-The group begins in a circle -- whether it's 35 or 350 people, or more. It felt to me like starting with unity in our intent to work together.
-Participants self-identify topics for discussion -- literally. You stand up, announce your name and topic to the group and write it on a flip chart page. You thereby take responsibility for convening the discussion -- nothing more, nothing less.
-You attach your page to the wall (or the bulletin board or whatever's available).
-When all the topics are on the wall, all participants enter the "marketplace." You express your interest in one or more (no limit) topics by signing your name to that page. There tends to be some consolidation during this phase as conveners with similar or overlapping topics agree to consolidate -- or not.
-The next step is a self-scheduling process. A "matrix of opportunities" was pre-created (in my experience made up of "post-its" stuck on a schedule board)-- essentially a matrix of available meeting places and available meeting times. Conveners filled the matrix with their topics -- and, again, there was some negotiation as conveners tried to satisfy participants who discovered that the three topics of most interest to them were all being scheduled at the same time.

(Now, this may sound cumbersome, but my experience was that it took about an hour to get from circle to a fully-scheduled array of concurrent sessions.)

-After that, groups meet as scheduled. The person who identified the topic convenes. Someone agrees to take notes.
-The "rules" are few. One of the "rules" is that "whoever comes is the right people." (Yes, that is how it's expressed, so please don't call in the ALA grammar police.) The "one law" is the "law of two feet" or "law of personal mobility" (applicable in any number of situations): If you discover you aren't learning or contributing, use your two feet and move on. Try another topic, another session.

(Another observation from my two experiences with this was that discussions were hard to "bound." Often an interesting "side topic" would be raised. If most of the group found the side topic interesting, the group detoured. Often these detours were, to me, both fruitful and valuable.)

There are a number of books available. I have Expanding Our Now: The Story of Open Space Technology, by Harrison Owen. You might also check out Open Space Technology: A User's Guide (also Harrison Owen).

While this is self-organizing, it is organizing. Both times, there was unobtrusive (which means really good) facilitation. There is an Open Space "Guarantee," that the issues of real concern of those participating will be discussed, that a written record will be created, that immediate next steps will be identified and, to the extent possible, responsibility for those next steps will be assigned. Sort of association-like, don't you think?

Why mention this now? Well, I'm asking if you'd be interested. I'm not suggesting that we run an entire ALA Annual Conference this way. There are members in divisions, round tables, committees and other groups all over the association who will plan wonderful programs and discussions. But -- IF we were to block out a flexible space within the conference campus next year for some on-the-spot, self-organized discussions, would you be interested in trying this? Talk to me -- please.