Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Debate 2.0 -- From Peer Review to Crowd Review


Published on

So-called “prosumers” in today’s web 2.0 mindset will increasingly expect companies as well as research institutions to open up for a true dialogue with the public. The demand for transparency and a direct, unmediated discourse is fundamentally changing the way enterprises and organizations communicate about science and innovation. As much as social media might shake the business foundations of the publishing industry to the core and as much as it may alter journalism as we know it, there is also a high potential of bringing the society back into science and innovation. Especially when it comes to potentially controversial technological developments, the right public discourse may create transparency and thus build up trust in innovation, promote general readiness for technological change and accordingly accelerate the diffusion of new products in the market. Since media images of public debates tend to be afflicted by a high degree of complexity, new visualization methods and new journalistic skills are needed. Therefore the author suggests an interaction model for future innovation communication that addresses the demand for public discourse in all four stages of the value chain: science, ideation, innovation and diffusion.

Published in: Business, Technology, Education

Debate 2.0 -- From Peer Review to Crowd Review

  1. 1. 7th Conference on Innovation Journalism (Academic Track), Stanford University, June 2010<br />Alexander Gerber-CrawfordManaging Partner, innocomm<br />Head of Marketing Communications, Fraunhofer ICT Group<br />Editor-in-chief, InnoVisions Magazine<br />@InnoVisions / #InJo7 / #Innovation<br />Debate 2.0From Peer Review to Crowd Review<br /><br />
  2. 2. So-called Prosumers…<br />…expect a true dialogue with companies / research institutions.<br />…demand transparency and an unmediated discourse.<br /><br />
  3. 3. Social Media puts…<br />…the public back into PR, the society back into science and <br />…users back into innovation<br />Potentially controversial technological developments require the right public discourse.<br />Different approach from BP trying to “control” public debate by buying masses of search terms (ca. $10,000 / day).<br /> /<br />
  4. 4. Debate Nowadays is Beyond Control<br />Connections between people using "oil spill" on Twitter.<br />As analyzed by Marc Smith from ConnectedActionin May 2010, there is not real 'center' of discussion yet.<br /><br />
  5. 5. Companies seek Transparency…<br />…to build up trust in innovation, promote readiness for change<br />…accelerate the diffusion of new products in the market<br />© Jim Borgman, 2008<br />How can they do that?<br />What is the journalist’s role?<br />
  6. 6. The Challenge Lies in the Complexity<br />Interactive innovation communication has to address the demand for public discourse in all stages of the value chain.<br />INNOVATION<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />
  7. 7. The Relevance of Science in the Media<br />INNOVATION<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />Study: Prime-time news in European television<br /><ul><li>increase in number and airtime of science stories (x 4 since 1989)
  8. 8. 45 Sci-Tech topics among the 2676 news stories (< 2 %)</li></li></ul><li>The Relevance of Science in Society<br />INNOVATION<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />Study: Eurobarometer<br /><ul><li>1 out of 4 Europeans believes, that only genetically modified tomatoes contain genes, whereas non-GM tomatoes do not.
  9. 9. Almost every second European believes that human genes function differently from those in animals.</li></li></ul><li>The Relevance of Science in Politics<br />INNOVATION<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />Innokomm Trend Study: General elections in Germany 2009 <br /><ul><li>1 out of 9 people believed that the relevance of science during the campaign had increased (compared to the previous election).</li></li></ul><li>How do Governments React?<br />INNOVATION<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />Example: U.S. Science Debate 2008<br />171 TV interviews<br />2975 questions<br />6 questions about “climate change”<br />3 questions about "UFOs"<br />>> „Reason why“<br />
  10. 10. How do Governments React?<br />INNOVATION<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />Further Examples<br /><ul><li>Association of German Science Writers (“TELI”) / European Union of Science Journalists' Associations (“EUSJA”) >> science debate in 2009
  11. 11. EU >> “Your Voice in Europe” (
  12. 12. WiD >> idea contest within the national “Year of Energy Research”
  13. 13. ESF >> plans for a transnational science debate.</li></li></ul><li>The Objective of Such Initiatives is to…<br /><ul><li>involve a much wider public in the process of defining the main issues and challenges of science in order to empower the so-called prosumers almost at eye-level with experts and political decision-makers.</li></ul>>> Build up a Scientific Citizenship and increase the social impact on science!<br /><ul><li>reveal the conflicting viewpoints towards controversial subjects in science and technology.</li></ul>>> Make the process of creating knowledge more open and transparent!<br /><ul><li>increase the societal feedback to industrial research, development, innovation and new technologies in general, as well as to the plans within national regulation policies leading to an interactive value creation and...</li></ul>>> Foster public readiness for change by building trust!<br />
  14. 14. Again: The Challenge is the Complexity<br />Uncertainty cannot be an excuse for ignoring knowledge. Debates are threatened to become victims of their own success.<br />
  15. 15. Again: The Challenge is the Complexity<br />Debates are threatened to become victims of their own success.<br /><ul><li>How can many people discuss complex issues? How can large -scale online deliberation be accomplished?
  16. 16. How can hundreds of people engage in a debate and still find their way and orientation within the thread? How can they intuitively explore a highly complex subject in depth?</li></ul>>> new collaboration and visualization technologies<br /><ul><li>Who is qualified to neutrally conduct and moderate such a discourse, manage the sub-communities, research, validate and contrast certain facts, put these into the right context, initiate new discussions, activate, approach and interview important players?</li></ul>>> new line of action for science and innovation journalists!<br />“Science into Society” >> “Society into Science”<br />
  17. 17. Overview About Deliberation Tools<br />People gets access to dispersed knowledge.<br />The entire trial and error process becomes transparent.<br /><ul><li>Mind Mapping: Freemind family /commercial brothers and sisters, Mindmeister / Xmind
  18. 18. Compendium: Dialogue-Mapping, open-source, from Open University
  19. 19. Cohere: Open University, Argumentation and Web-Annotation
  20. 20. BCisive and Rationale: Argument Mapping
  21. 21. Debategraph: Debate-Mapping: not open-source, but free = not being commercial</li></li></ul><li>Overview About Deliberation Tools<br />Differences:<br /><ul><li>online/offline
  22. 22. for profit/non profit
  23. 23. interactive
  24. 24. Collaboration</li></ul>Usecases:<br /><ul><li>personal knowledge management
  25. 25. education and learning
  26. 26. visual tool for moderation of group-discussion
  27. 27. open debate</li></ul>Argument maps do for deliberation what a chess board does for chess. Deliberation without one is like playing chess without the help of a reference tracking chess board. <br />Martin Hilbert, Annenberg School of Communication, University of Southern California<br />
  28. 28. Example: Copenhagen Coverage<br />The Independent applied “Debategraph” to deal with the<br />Complexityoftheissueofclimatechange<br /><br />
  29. 29. Theoretical Background<br />The applicationofdeliberation in thecontextofinnovationis an interdisciplinarychallenge.<br />Media Democracy<br />DecentralizingDecision Making<br />Veld<br />E-Collaboration<br />E-Democracy<br />CSCW<br />Deliberative Democracy<br />Trust Creation<br />Luhmann<br />Collaborative Innovation Networks<br />Malone<br />Gloor<br />Friedmann<br />Norris<br />Hilbert<br />Davies / Gangadharan<br />Noveck<br />Market Diffusion<br />Open Innovation<br />Rogers<br />Symbolic Interactionism<br />Chesbrough Howe Hippel<br />Blumer<br />
  30. 30. Deliberation for Joint Ideation<br />INNOVATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />IDEATION<br />Brainstorming: collect >> vote >> select ideas<br />Example:<br /><ul><li>People publiclysuggestsubjects online; otheruserscommentandvote
  31. 31. Journalists pick upsuggestionsandpubliclyoffertheirexposés (incl. Productioncosts)
  32. 32. Users contributemoneyuntilthearticleisbudgeted
  33. 33. The journalistgoesandresearchesandwriteshispiece
  34. 34. reviewsthetextandseesthatitisgoingtobepublished
  35. 35. The usersmayget a shareoftheroyalty</li></li></ul><li>Deliberation for Joint Ideation<br />INNOVATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />IDEATION<br />Further examples:<br /><ul><li> e-participation / e-democracy
  36. 36. exchangeandtradeideas</li></li></ul><li>Deliberation for Joint Ideation<br />INNOVATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />IDEATION<br />Further examples:<br /><ul><li> share, store and rate ideas
  37. 37. intelligence and knowledge management</li></li></ul><li>Deliberation for Joint Ideation<br />INNOVATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />IDEATION<br />And of course the established crowdsourcing platforms:<br /><ul><li>
  38. 38.</li></ul>Theory: IBIS Grammar (definition of elements / icons and their linking) of tools like Compendium or Debategraph has been explicitly developed for such planning discourses.<br />
  39. 39. What will the Journalist’s Role be?<br /> A “new line of action” could compensate the decreasing demand for innovation journalists.<br /><ul><li>Embed / validate / check / contrast / contextualize facts
  40. 40. Moderate the discourse
  41. 41. Research pros and cons
  42. 42. Manage sub-communities / networks
  43. 43. Initiate new discussions
  44. 44. Activate, approach and interview important players</li></ul>As demanded by the World Economic Forum, journalism has to move from gatekeeping to a networked model, “where journalists […] bring sources and audience closer to each other, facilitating constructive interaction in society” (Nordfors 2009).<br />
  45. 45. Deliberation for Joint Innovation<br />Match-making of R&D with entrepreneuers, lead users, customers and end users<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />SCIENCE<br />INNOVATION<br /><ul><li>Customer feedback through debates >> Improve the fit-to-market of future products
  46. 46. Support / optimize innovation processes within organizations / institutions / open innovation networks through discourse technologies
  47. 47. Debate tools for knowledge management</li></ul>Example: Peer-to-Patent<br />Posted patent applications are publicly reviewed.<br />(Porf. Beth Noveck, New York Law School)<br />
  48. 48. Deliberation for Joint Innovation<br />Involvement of potential opponents helps reducing resistance. <br />Change<br />Transparency<br />Trust<br />Diffusion<br />INNOVATION<br />SCIENCE<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br /><ul><li>Interaction gives additional credibility and creates transparency.
  49. 49. Transparency builds trust in new developments.
  50. 50. Trust promotes people’s readiness for change or even an “appetite for risk”.
  51. 51. Readyness for change fosters the diffusion of these technologies in the market.</li></li></ul><li>Deliberation for Joint Innovation<br />Involvement of potential opponents helps reducing resistance. <br />New line of action for innovation journalists<br />INNOVATION<br />SCIENCE<br />IDEATION<br />DIFFUSION<br />In addition to objectifying and widening the public discourse, such debates should also facilitate direct responses by industries to governmental research and regulatory strategies and programs, thus improving technology transfer and market-orientation of publicly funded R&D.<br /><ul><li>Public debates as part of marketing campaigns.
  52. 52. Neutrally hosted debates will inevitably attract lobbyists and pressure groups, who will possibly feel tempted to exploit, manipulate or even instrumentalize the discourse. </li></ul>Debate 2.0<br />
  53. 53.
  54. 54. Alexander Gerber-Crawford<br />Managing Partner, innocomm<br />Head of Marketing Communications, Fraunhofer ICT Group<br />Editor-in-chief, InnoVisions Magazine<br /><br />+49 (0)30 - 577 076 - 141 Skype: InnoVisions<br />Blog:<br />Nature Network: alex_gerber<br />Twitter: InnoVisions<br />Slideshare: AlexanderGerber<br />Delicious: InnoComm<br />Linked-in: alexandergerberFacebook: AlexanderGerberXing: Alexander_Gerber3<br />Competence Site: Alexander-Gerber<br />ResearchGate: Alexander_Gerber<br />