In LO2534, Dave Buffenbarger said:
<Wouldn't anonymous input work okay for developing an
understanding of high level patterns? How do the people
recording learning histories capture the input? If the goal
is to understand patterns or pattern changes, seems to
me it should work.>
I've been doing "Learning Histories" for Organizational Learning Center
companies and, along with other external and internal "historians," have
had to deal with the issue of anonymity and confidentiality. It's
especially difficult for us, because as Argyris says, "the data is in the
words." We try to capture the story by quoting people's comments in the
meetings (this pertains especially to dialogue initiatives) or from
participants' retrospective reports of the experience. For internal
distribution of these reports, anyone who knows the participants is
probably going to be able to recognize the speaker even if we do not use
names. This has presented a stumbling block for disseminating the
reports--some people have been concerned about the stark reality of their
words in print going to everyone in their company. For those readers who
have not shared the experience of building trust and mutual respect, these
words lose much of the meaning and understanding that was created in the
group. They appear more dangerous out of the group context.
Furthermore, there are plans to disseminate Learning Histories outside of
the companies, so that others might learn from the experience. We're
still in the process of learning about how to tell the real story (the
tough stuff and the glory) publicly and provide the confidentiality that
people deserve. George Roth at MIT's OLC and Art Kleiner have given this
a great deal of thought as they have formed their new company called
Reflection Learning Associates, which provides both research and writing
services and training in developing learning histories. (E-mail George for
info at Groth@MIT.edu)
One way is what Dave mentions--looking at things at the level of patterns
and system dynamics. In one-on-one interviews with client company
personnel, I can promise confidentiality because what we are looking for
is patterns across the organizational system. In these cases, it is the
patterns I share with others--not any one person's comments.
Note: For those of you who noted my dislike for anonymous group processes
provided by technology and might question my use of anonymity here... I'm
distinguishing between what I see as vitally important trust and openness
withIN a workgroup that anonymous systems allow a group to avoid, and the
deserved respect and confidentiality due when one's words are moved
outside of the workgroup or organization. Does that make sense to others?
-- Diane Weston DMWeston@aol.com