Il lancio della campagna per l’aumento delle tesi di archeologia in provincia di Grosseto (#ioRestoaCosa) non è stato vano. Grazie al sistema di trasferimento delle menti, è stato intercettato da alcuni amici sardi che hanno una stazione di ascolto a Capo Marrargiu. Solo che nella trasmissione è saltato qualche bit, e quindi loro hanno recepito “io resto a Bosa“.
E’ un po’ che non ci passo, e chissà se dopo il ponte,a destra scendendo verso, sud c’è sempre “La Farmacia dei sani” (un’enoteca).
Mauro Tirannosauro si è unito da poco alla rete pibinko.org e sta suggerendo prospettive inedite per la Fase Bue, su cui si sta documentando. Per esempio, diceva che, anche se ci saranno alcune opzioni in più, sarà importante restare il più possibile a Cosa, e ha lanciato lo hashtag corrispondente. Perplessità sull’uso del camelcase…comunque: si prevede un’escalation di tesi di archeologia nella sessione invernale di lauree di quest’anno. Intanto Mauro T è al lavoro con altre analisi. Estote parati.
This is the elaboration of a draft presented live at Noisy-Champs, France, in February 2019. This “live poster” was proposed as a way to formalize a method to share the perception of credibility in participatory investigation.
A full report of the workshop where this poster was presented is here. The report includes the poster, but it might help to add that it was part of the discussion on “trajectories of participatory investigation”. The poster was drafted in about 15 minutes, while other working table rapporteurs were presenting the results of other sub-groups.
The method presented in this poster was considered original and innovative by the participants who provided feedback (in a group of about 25 people, with various roles in research and management of organisations working if the cultural or in the scientific sector).
The full poster is visible in the header of this article, and it is re-pasted at then end. Below we review its various parts.
please note: Examples made in the article are fictional, but inspired by various cases observed working in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder projects since 1994. The article has been beer reviewed by various collaborators of the pibinko.org network, and has been accepted for publication on the pibinko.org blog on April 27, 2020.
Acknowledged authors are Andrea Giacomelli (info@pibinko.org), C. Van Reeth, A. Vargiu, N. Zimmermann. The sketch on the right indicates seats at the discussion table during the last of three break-out sessions. CG is Claudia Goebel, the facilitator.
Let us also assume that investigation and participation ability are “orthogonal” (i.e. the perfect investigator is the worse “participator”).
Let us identify two actors. An investigator (I) and a “participator” (P).
Typical investigators are researchers, academics, etc.
Typical “participators” are people who are able to engage other people in coordinated activities. Could be the creator of a rock band, the coach of a village sports union, or the manager of a large event (e.g. an international summit).
We can represent the magnitude of their capability on an axis. The orientation of the axes and the intersection point is to be confirmed (rotate the screen as you see fit)
Examples of “capability” on P and I axes:
a “zero” Investigator: somebody who does not have a clue about the topic of the investigation
Investigators with increasing capability: they work on it. At their maximum, they will become Nobel prizes, or have equivalent recognition in their field.
a “zero” participator : someboedy ho never even invited two friends for a drink
High-level participators: all greato politicians, Hugh Hefner, etc.
We may also decide if these axes should have an origin on zero, or if negative values should be allowed. If not, how could we represent investigation activities which after years have not produced tangible results at any level of society? And how should we position subjects who discourage relations among people?
We introduce the concept of credibility.
Credibility must be referred to somebody who perceives it. CP is the credibility perceived by the “participator”; CI is the credibility perceived by the investigator.
The credibility perceived by someone needs to be about something. CP(P) is the credibility of the participator as perceived by him/herself. CP(I) is the credibility of the investigator as perceived by the participator. etc. for CI(I) and CI(P).
Examples:
There is an outreach meeting where researchers propose a participatory investigation activity to be launched in new region. The researchers are explaining the rationale of this effort, and providing some introductory background.
CI(I): I work for a big research institution. Hence, I am a good researcher. I will enlighten this community with my knowledge. They need us.
CP(I): These guys should spend more time working at construction sites. I can’t understand a work they are saying.
CP(I): Hey, these guys come from a university. They must be professors. I will do anything they say because I am a farmer and I don’t have a degree. (while in fact they are PhD candidates on their second year, replacing the actual professor because he had an schedule conflict with a tennis game with his pal).
CP(P): My father and my grandfather have been on this land, taking water from that stream. We know how it works. Why do we need a “hydrogeologic model” (did I spell it right?)
These statements are fictional…but not far from reality (based on 25 years of attending events with different stakeholder groups in the same room).
There are of course a lot of cases which are less negative, and very much reasonable. But it helps to highlight the “bad cases”.
Having introduced these concepts…. A prerequisite condition is that there needs to be a will to start a participatory investigation effort. In absence of this, no need to go further.
Assuming there is a will to start a PI activity, before anything else P and I need to agree on the perception of credibility in its combinations: CP(P) needs to reasonably match CI(P) and CP(I) needs to reasonably match CI(I)
The matching process needs to happen…
…in a finite time (and using a finite amount of resources)
…with time and resources on a magnitude order lower than the expected joint effort.
Examples of “perception matching” efforts environments of different magnitude: an aperitif (to decide where we should have a pizza for dinner), a half-day meeting (before launching a utility survey involving subcontractors for two months)…etc.
At the end of our credibility perception matching phase…will P&I agree?
NO. IF P and I do not agree, i.e. CP(I) and CI(I) and/or CP(P) and CI(P) are very different, two two scenarios are possible: (1) the “reasonable path” and (2) the “You’ve got it comin'”.
The “reasonable path”. P&I can agree that when they met was not a good moment and/or setting to trigger a joint effort. They might want to wait and try again in the future. Or they might decide that they have no mutual interest to collaborate in the future. There will be a “no go” by at least one of the two parties (and, as in every relationship, there will always be one with a stronger “no go”). This can be declared more or less graciously.
Gracious “no go”:
[Rainy day – Living room – Franco Califano is on TV. Joe is casually flipping the pages of “Participatory Investigation and Country” Magazine. Phone rings. Joe answers]
Jane: Hi Joe Joe: Hey Jane, what’s up? Jane: Remember you invited me to go to the movies to see The Revenge of the Killer Chihuahua and of the Zombies? Joe: Yep, I got two tickets already. Pick you up at 8…right…? Jane: Well…you know…I got a really bad headache…maybe next week, ok? Joe: Jane…that’s fine Epilogue: Jane goes out with Jack, to see the Palla a 21 from Tuscany to Chicago documentary, and Joe stays at home, watching repeats of Space 1999.
…there can also be the case that, in spite of no matching of credibility perception, P&I decide to proceed anyway with the participatory investigation effort. Examples of considerations :
Hey, we got the funds, anyway.
Well, I’m not really sure these guys can develop this app, but Roger who is the CTO of a large company told me they’re ok, so they must be ok
In this case, the participator and the investigator have it coming, and they have a shared responsibility in one of these possible situations
The investigation starts. Things will go smooth until they go smooth. But, as in any human activity, issues are bound to happen. At this point, in absence of shared credibility perception, other factors will come into play
hope (the conclusions of the meeting were not really convincing, let’s hope next time it’s going to be more productive, and that it doesn’t rain during the social dinner)
re-enforced hierarchy (I am the project coordinator and I have two PhDs and I am the chair of a committe of an international organization, so you do what I say)
amplified prejudice + trust breach (I remember this guy didn’t feel like he was a good surveyor…well, surely he cooks really bad as well)
when hope fails… faith (Oh mighty Belushandir, lord of all participatory investigation activities, please make our report be delivered on time)
Hopefully, instead, the Participator and the Investigator will find a joint credibility perception condition.
How can this be confirmed? Well…it may not be simple to define it analytically, but there are lots of proxies: emails being answered within 48 hours (rather than 4.8 weeks), capability of greeting your counterparts with a good feeling, willingness to meet again, etc.
At this point, the joint participatory investigation effort should be started ASAP.
The credibility perception should also be conveyed to other stakeholders: issue a joint press release in all languages involved by your project; write a four-hand article (but not for a journal requiring one year for the review process); write it on the walls.
The whole thing should be re-assessed periodically, especially for PI efforts spanning over six months.
While the preparation of the milestone event for our little participatory lithology exercise [1] is under way….
..music is flowing, both in the form of our Lithobags, and thanks to Pietro “Raman” Crivelli from Piloni (Southern Tuscany). Peter is sending us before sunset either a song or a painting (e does both), asking to republish them and spread around to wish the universe a good night (see this link). Then:
20.4.2007, Scalvaia (SI)
Monday 20:
We started to publish the names of some of the analyzed samples (see article).
The Jug Band Colline Metallifere published its first track on Bandcamp.com (see article).
The Jug Band Colline Metallifere was invited to do something at a May 1st celebration event. More details will follow.
13th anniversary fo the first fundraiser for the palla a 21 to Chicago mission. In Scalvaia. i finanziamento della missione della palla a 21 a Chicago. A Scalvaia. More photos found on another external HDD (just kidding…it was the same one). Yet more memories emerge, for those who were there, and yet more incredibly strange characters appear, for those who were not there: see article, with the same note as above for non-Italian-reading folks.
Thursday 23: In the vault of New York’s Natural History Museum a portrait of teenage Mauro Tirannosauro was found. The shot is just after he had is first scooter. You can tell from the light in his eyes…this was around 70 million years ago: see the article. The portrait is also on sale by Tattistampa (same link)…Ben Stiller ordered ten copies.
To receive directly the weekly-or-so newsletter on Participatory Lithology, plus other initiatives by the pibinko.org network + Jug Band Colline Metallifere, please write to info@pibinko.org asking to be added to the mailing list.
Welcome to the home page of the International Lark Ski Association (ILSA). The association was created to promote and protect the discipline of skiing with larks around the world.
We are in the process of transferring contents from our old web site (now off-line) to the pibinko.org network web site.
In the meantime, for more information about ILSA, its activities, how to join, etc., please write to micalosapevo@pibinko.org specifying ILSA in subject of your message (together with any other information you would like to convey).
Right now it is not so relevant to expose the differentiation of participant roles. We can say that there are about 30 folks spread across seven Italian regions. For more information and booking: micalosapevo@pibinko.org.
If you don’t know who is the character in the background, please follow this link.
This was initially sent via our mailing list distribution and is being reposted here.
Hello, I hope you are well.
In Tatti (Southern Tuscany) the sun is shining and a lot of music is spinning around. We just published the daily Lithobag, and [CUUUUT…TOO MUCH INFORMATION].
Some of you may have seen updates via social media, but I like the idea of a weekly summary for our project, at least in these first stages.
Concerning the household collections: several sample photos are arriving, mostly from outside Tatti, and out of Tuscany. In addition, other families from Tatti who didn’t know about the project at first have expressed their interest to join. To avoid overloading the system, we have adopted some basic queue management strategies, but if you sent a sample photo over the past two weeks please be assured that it will be examined. In parallel, we had other classifiers raising their hand to help. Some from Cagliari, Sardinia, some from Sterzing/Vipiteno, South Tyrol. These are people that we have never met in person, so we are seeing a familiar pattern.
Interaction #1 ‘This story is really cool, I’m in!’. Interaction #2. …takes a bit of time to be triggered and actually operate in the project.
On one hand this is easily motivated by everybody’s daily business and worries. On the other hand, there may be second thoughts (These guys are out of their mind!). With the pibinko.org we have been living in projects like this since 2006, so we are comforted by the fact that it could be no different, and we “keep on keeping on”…
In the meantime, Cristian from Torino, one of the classifiers since day 1, has conducted his review of over 90% of the current samples (some 200 items), and others will follow. The developments in the entertainerment team have been very good. Last Thursday we published a geojazz tune featuring Liliana Cafiero: Tatti and its stones. We are working on a third song, and we have received the first response to the Metalliferous Hills Jug Band call for an English mother-tongue vocalist. This came from South Africa, and we are now brainstorming in the team to see how we may collaborate.
Last, but not least, we remind you that it is possible to support the Participatory Lithology project in various ways, as explained in the page for prospective sponsors.
To understand what Participatory Lithology is, and how we are proposing it, we encourage you to read the summary of the project’s first week (March 21-27, 2020).
To consider the effort involved in the project, you may review what the different roles are expected to do (follow the links above), and how we communicate it, in Italian and English. On the pibinko.org site we have post with the PELP tag, and on jugbandcm.it we have the daily Lithobag posts, by the Metalliferous Hills Jug Band and other entertainers. All the posts appearing in these sites are then circulated to a wide list of direct contacts (several thousands of people), in addition to being re-posted to social media and thematic mailing lists.
Let us now see what sponsors can do, with different levels of commitment.
What we figure is that the collectors will have a direct return from the project, since the classifiers are helping them to make sense of their collections, so they are ok. On the other hand, classifiers and entertainers are in fact providing a service: so it would be great to give them some real recognition, be it in goods, services, or remuneration (if this cannot be replaced by products or services they may need). Enter the sponsors, with four possible levels briefly presented below. To get more practical details on how to support the project, please write to micalosapevo@pibinko.org
Level 0. Moral Support
The more, the better, but this is never enough to make the project work on its own. Proceed to the next level.
Jack O’Malley from the Metalliferous Hills Jug Band (R), running the lithobag” article series for Participatory Lithology, explaining BuioMetria Partecipativa (Participatory Night Sky Quality Monitoring) to Salvo Sottile (L), on “Prima dell’Alba” (RAI 3 Mar. 26, 2018)
Level 1. Communication
From word of mouth, to interviews, reports and other forms of storytelling, anything goes. With “palla 21” in Chicago, in 2007, we were also covered by Comcast Sports News, and in the following years most projects by the pibinko.org network have received frequent media coverage. For some reason, this is never enough to explain what we are doing…possibly because it sounds strange that our team, generally working out of a bar in a rural area, can manage what we manage. Alas.
Level 2a. Products
Simone and Dario (first and third from the left) from the Metalliferous Hills Jug Band at a farm producing yummy products in Southern Tuscany.
We have consolidated relations with several small producers in Southern Tuscany. If you would like to join this list, please write to micalosapevo@pibinko.org.
Participatory Lithology was launched from Southern Tuscany, so -even though we work to engage other territories- we like the idea of sending to the classifiers and the entertainers who will turn out to be more in tune with our project some enticing products from our home region.
Level 2b. Services
At present we have received support by professional photographers, graphic designers, and video editors. Eventually, we may appreciate help from other hands and heads.
Also, sooner or later we will be sending some “rewards” to the most “participatory participants”. At that point we will need support by transporters (or, worst case scenario, to cover shipping costs we will need money, which brings us to Level 3).
Level 3. Monetary support
In addition to covering shipping costs for typical products for the coolest classifiers and entertainers, we can make use of monetary support for two purposes: (1) to compensate part of the time required to run the project, and (2) to create a reserve for initiatives to further promote the results of the project once this is completed. At present we are considering a first phase reaching the end of April/beginning of May, and the possibility of continuing with a “phase 2” if conditions allow.
Expected return for the sponsors
Sponsors will receive visibility through all communication activities related to the project. Please write to micalosapevo@pibinko.org for more information.
Who is the character in the header image for this article?T
This is Mauro il Tirannosauro, i.e. Mauro, the T-Rex. He has a cover role as the mascot for Participatory Lithology. In fact, Mauro is the mastermind behind the whole story. You may check what Mauro has been up to following his tag on the pibinko.org blog: http://www.pibinko.org/tag/maurotrex-en/
We might not be starting a weekly reporting of this initiative, but we want to make sure we can remember the first seven days.
We had the possibility of experiencing a series of events which proved to be interesting, curious, and at times genuinely entertaining. All this in the midst of an extremely severe situation, which we do not ignore. On one side, we could say we are “Between a rock and a hard place“, but the feeling we had starting participatory lithology was like being “Between a rock and a hard phase” [1].
As an opening act…a new title track, performed by Matti delle Giuncaie’s Francesco Ceri, with lyrics by the Metalliferous Hills Jug Band (a translation of the lyrics is provided here):
With this, we might say we e more or less explained all about our project, but please read on…
Project presentations
We were invited to give presentations of the project by two radio shows. One was on March 24 for Caterpillar, RAI Radio 2. This is one of the main radio shows in Italy and we were proud of having this as our first public sortie. The second one was for Radio Popolare Milano, which has more of a local FM coverage (some 100 km around Milan, plus web streaming). Since 2007 they have covered many of the projects we launched, and allowed a lot of air time to detail what we are doing and give more context and interconnections with our other projects. Based on feedback we received from several people, this interview was a sort of “eye opener” on a lot of aspects of the pibinko.org network’s operations.
Finally, Il Tirreno, one of the two main newspapers in Tuscany, published on March 27 a very long article about “Stone Collectors meeting on the Web“.
If you don’t speak Italian, you may still check the links above since they include additional links to English versions of various topics presented.
If you like to follow the project step by step, you can look for the PELP tag on pibinko.org (PELP stand for Piccolo Esercizio di Litologia Partecipativa ….our little participatory lithology exercise). Click here: http://www.pibinko.org/tag/pelp-en/
Some facts about the project…but please remember that this is not a competition (while not being a game)
Collectors: 4 as of March 21. 6 as of March 27. Overall we have received photos of 182 samples from Tatti (our home base), Vallerotana, close to Grosseto, Southern Tuscany, and Florence.
Some of the samples photographed this week, under Mauro Tirannosauro’s supervision.
Classifiers: four as of March 21, seven as of March 27. Active classifiers four (from Turin, Rome, Busto Arsizio, Pavia)…with 57 comments [4].
Entertainers: Eight in the creation of the “lithoplaylist” (songs mentioning rocks, minerals, or stones). Two on performances (plus one in the process of finalizing a third song)….stay -literally- tuned for updates
Sponsor: As of March 21, two. Three as of March 27.
What next?
In our second week we will continue along all four lines of activity (1) looking for more “forgotten rock collections”, (2) identifying samples thanks to our chartered classifiers, (3) proposing “lithomusic” à go go, and (4) the research of more sponsors to improve the rewards for the most active participants, and to cover at least part of our operational efforts on the project.
To have a part in this project or for information on how to support it, please write to micalosapevo@pibinko.org or contact + 393317539228 (if you don’t get an answer this may be because mobile coverage in Tatti is a bit shaky…so please send an SMS or a Whatsapp message).
Acknowledgements
We got to this point as a result of brainstorming and coordination of energies with (in alphabetical order by first name): Alberico Mattei, Amos Unfer, Carolina Cortesi, Cristian Carlone, Francesco Ceri, Guido Bendinelli, Jack O’Malley, Liliana Cafiero, Loriano Bartoli, Martina Busonero, Mauro Tirannosauro, Valeria Trumpy, Wolfgang Scheibe, and other folks you will learn about as their activities unfold.
Note
[1] Italians don’t say literally “Between a rock and a hard place”…an equivalent expression is “Tra l’incudine e il martello” (i.e. between an anvil and a hammer)…but a lot of people know the Stones so we are using “Between a rock and a hard phase” also in our Italian articles.
Header image: Tatti and the land to the South (Mount Argentation is at the centre of the horizon).
