Dear all,
I am getting confused over here.
Dr Salustri states that CoCreation is a marketing thing, not a design thing but Professor Sless says it has a formal history, even going back to the 1930s.
Can someone enlighten me?
/Lars
.........................................................................
LARS ALBINSSON
+46 (0) 70 592 70 45
[log in to unmask]
AFFILIATIONS:
MAESTRO MANAGEMENT AB
CALISTOGA SPRINGS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
.........................................................................
2 dec 2011 kl. 12:43 skrev [log in to unmask]:
Hi Andrew,
Wonderful. You beat me to it! I was in the middle of writing a blog on the same lines. The provisional title was 'Co-creation: cult or craft?'
Here is as far as I got in my first draft:
===
As a research institute it’s our job to look at new ideas as they appear and evaluate their practical value on behalf of our members.
Sometimes new terms come into use and we welcome them as a way of reshaping our craft, or as ways of providing us with useful distinctions which enhance our craft. But sometimes terms become mantras in a cult and are repeated over and over, as if the term itself rather than its careful usage carries its power.
I think co-creation is in danger of slipping from craft into cult. This would be sad as there is much of value in the ideas around co-creation.
As new minds discover the joys and thrill of co-creation and the enthusiasm which it engenders, it’s worth reflecting on some of its limitations. To the newly enthused this may seem anathema. After all, co-creation is about suspending collective critical judgement in order to generate new ideas for enriching our lives and transforming our world. But, all is not as it seems.
As researchers into the practical crafts of communication, we ask 6 questions of any ‘new’ idea that people claim will change or enhance our craft:
1. What are its antecedents?
2. How rigorously is it defined?
3. What is the evidence in terms of before and after results, outcomes, and unexpected consequences?
4. Is the evidence replicable in a variety of contexts?
5. Where does the money trail go: who pays, who gets paid, who benefits financially from the outcome?
6. Who gains and who loses power and control?
Here are our answers to date on co-creation:
1. The antecedents
Like many ideas, co-creation, is not new. It has a formal history that can be traced back to the 1930s at least, and there was a gathering momentum of interest in the USA after the launch of the first Satalite—Sputnik—by the Russians, leaving America to wonder how the Russians got there first. Among the wondering was a resurgent interest in the ideas around creativity. Also, alongside this there were a whole series of economic and social changes: the emergence of democracy as a powerful social force and the rise of a consumer society. These led many to look for new ways to involve ordinary people in the creative process of generating new products, processes and institutions. Out of this mix came ideas of co-creation, and a exploration of the processes that might facilitate it.
--
Ha! The joys of co-creation!
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
On 02/12/2011, at 7:58 PM, Andrew J King wrote:
> Well, here's to grumpy old, out of touch, 'don't get it' academics!
>
> By insisting on a few of the basics of academic life (share nicely, don't mess with terminology without good reason, use clear definitions, back up claims with argument and evidence etc etc) the members of Phd Design seem to have provoked you, Mr VanPlatter, into a most revealing statement. I have seldom been privileged to witness such a collection of cultic language-games and passive/aggressive dominance strategies outside of say, scientology or NLP.
>
> All the old favourites are there:
>
> Inventing or co-opting terminology and then using it as a gatekeeper/shibboleth. (Eg: use our language to discuss things or its evidence that you 'don't get it')
>
> Making implied claims to esoteric wisdom that can only be revealed to participants in cult rituals ('Get your ass into a co-creation seminar').
>
> Implying that said wisdom is too refined and subtle for the cruder methods of cruder minds to understand, and which must therefore only be judged by the criteria defined by those who hold it.
>
> Implications of exclusiveness, that in turn are designed to imply the quality of whatever is accessible within the 'magic circle of consent' operated by the cult. ("We made an exception for Gunnar")
>
> Patronising the uninitiated and 'unenlightened'.
>
> Ad hominem attacks on those who dare to criticise.
>
>
> . . . It's a weary old list of hoary and ancient weapons against shared understanding.
>
> It's why we have academic rigour, and critical thinking, and standards of transparency in the presentation of arguments and sources. Yes academic critical thinking is a language game too, but it is one designed to guard against exactly the list of (excuse my language, but I follow your example Mr VanPlatten,) 'mind-fucks' given above.
>
> Now I do not mean to imply that the content of the esoteric wisdom of cults is necessarily without value, simply because it is presented in the cultic gift-wrap. I have, on rare occasions found the odd useful snippet in both Scientology and NLP, although it is usually the case that claims for originality are doubtful and that these things can also be found elsewhere. So I welcome heartily the collection of links to 'scripture' presented at the end of the post.
>
> It may be a while before I get time to give these my proper attention, as I am myself the busy leader of a very important and world changing cult (membership exactly one - nobody else is cool enough to join :-). When I do however, I will be looking with interest to see whether the cultic language patterns are continued, and whether there is something genuinely useful concealed therein.
>
> It may be that it is all solid gold stuff, but after reading your post MrVanPlatten, my woo-meter is set to maximum gain. Frankly, if you really are influential in guiding change in my world, then regardless of the quality of your ideas, its you I want fired and damn quickly too, as you appear to have, by the language of your post, a bad case of high priesthood.
>
> And yes, I play hardball with cults.
>
> Andrew J King
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "We are cool, you are not"
>
> "We are the future, we matter, you are out of date and out of touch
|