Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- resilients:bohemian_salon [2012-04-29 10:46] – nik
+++ resilients:bohemian_salon [2012-05-08 15:21] (current) – maja
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 === Evaluation & discussion ===
 on 20120427 we (maja, nik, rasa, peter and (remote) shell) prehersed this scenario at FoAM;
+Notes from the debrief on 20120507
+== Preparation of the prehearsal ==
+  * Question assumptions: both yours and other people's. If something is unclear, or you don't agree - ask until it is clear for everyone. (This is related to a misunderstanding about starting the day with or without the meeting)
+  * If one of us takes initiative to design and lead the prehearsal, that person should be allowed to lead and also take responsibility for all aspects of the prehearsal. if someone disagrees - listen and adapt - before prehearsal starts. once it starts, best not to get out of character.
+  * Best to clarify the roles beforehand. it might be more useful to experiment with being yourself (with perhaps accentuating different aspects of your behaviour), rather than assuming a completely fictional role
+  * Framing beforehand: For most people it is helpful to have clear guidelines (both for participants and non participants), however we should be aware that some people enjoy ambiguity and confusion - there should be space for them too.
+  * Some roles might have to be played by actors (amateur or professional) to facilitate and enhance credibility of a scenario (in this case - hostess, barman...)
+  * There needs to be time between design of the prehearsal and the actual prehearsal, to have time to produce it properly and invite people who should be a part of it. How much time depends on the size and complexity of the prehearsal
+== During prehearsal: ==
+  * focus on your experience, behaviour and responses to situations. take notes if necessary, notice patterns, reactions... that are resilient and others that are fragile or need to be changed for you to survive and thrive in a given scenario
+  * avoid stepping out of character, or be aware that you're going to do it and then do it consciously
+  * it's good to have remote connections, although the technology still doesn't allow for a 'sharing of atmosphere'
+  * for the bohemian salon scenario to work, a critical mass of diverse people with overlapping interests is needed
+  * lack of clarity about process and guidelines causes confusion for some people
+== After prehearsal ==
+ * Listening circle is a good way to ask 'how was it for you', but a 'talking piece' would be good to use so everyone knows who should speak and when the circle ends. It's good to speak only about your own experience, rather than offering opinions or giving advice.
+  * It might be good to separate evaluation of methods / experience / content (impact of scenario on the question)
+== FoAM patterns uncovered ==
+  * for FoAM to function as a bohemian salon, there have to be more and more diverse people involved (otherwise insufficient overlap of interests, no broadening of networks, no challenging/inspiring...)
+  * We do not question our assumptions often enough - we should all dare asking questions until we're comfortable that we know enough of what's going on
+  * When the founders spend time together, some collaborators feel excluded and feel that they've missed a lot (causes frustration)
+  * There is an overwhelming load of logistics, admin and other non-content demands on the two founders on a daily basis, so the scenario felt liberating for them
+  * We should have more moments of sharing with remote FoAM people - having skype open might be enough, or having a guided tour of what they're up to...
+  * (other findings see maja's summary below)
 === Maja's notes from the prehearsal ===