I hate writing literature reviews, although I do see the need to situate one's own work within a larger picture. I really liked Scholarpedia when it started up (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page) although it hasn't taken off like I hoped it would. If I had my own way, the literature review section in my article would be a list of URLs.
Do you have any thoughts on what form a literature review might take in a couple of decades from now?
Nice post! I feel that frustration with debates that don't ever start in common ground, and really like the idea of having info tools like argument maps that help collectively reach that ground. I've also been pretty interested in techniques for solving the 'human' part of this problem -- building trust and collaborative engagement on emotionally and politically charged issue-- convergent facilitation is one of the tools I've heard a lot about, which focuses on establishing not just common ground in 'facts' but also in 'needs/values' (see. e.g. http://efficientcollaboration.org/wp-content/uploads/MinnesotaCaseStudy.pdf). One of the complaints about these kinds of processes is the slowness and pain of reaching common ground and moving back up from there, and it's interesting to think how collaboration tech like Roam can help with this. I'm imagining building up a network of info from many different convergent facilitation processes, and using this as a resource to develop a vocabulary of shared values that stretch across many different problem domains (rather than reinventing the wheel each time or relying on the mediator's background).
I hate writing literature reviews, although I do see the need to situate one's own work within a larger picture. I really liked Scholarpedia when it started up (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page) although it hasn't taken off like I hoped it would. If I had my own way, the literature review section in my article would be a list of URLs.
Do you have any thoughts on what form a literature review might take in a couple of decades from now?
Nice post! I feel that frustration with debates that don't ever start in common ground, and really like the idea of having info tools like argument maps that help collectively reach that ground. I've also been pretty interested in techniques for solving the 'human' part of this problem -- building trust and collaborative engagement on emotionally and politically charged issue-- convergent facilitation is one of the tools I've heard a lot about, which focuses on establishing not just common ground in 'facts' but also in 'needs/values' (see. e.g. http://efficientcollaboration.org/wp-content/uploads/MinnesotaCaseStudy.pdf). One of the complaints about these kinds of processes is the slowness and pain of reaching common ground and moving back up from there, and it's interesting to think how collaboration tech like Roam can help with this. I'm imagining building up a network of info from many different convergent facilitation processes, and using this as a resource to develop a vocabulary of shared values that stretch across many different problem domains (rather than reinventing the wheel each time or relying on the mediator's background).