Debate 2.0 -- From Peer Review to Crowd Review
•
6 likes•1,544 views
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.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
Similar to Debate 2.0 -- From Peer Review to Crowd Review
Similar to Debate 2.0 -- From Peer Review to Crowd Review (20)
More from Prof. Alexander Gerber
More from Prof. Alexander Gerber (16)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Debate 2.0 -- From Peer Review to Crowd Review
- 1. 7th Conference on Innovation Journalism (Academic Track), Stanford University, June 2010 Alexander Gerber-CrawfordManaging Partner, innocomm Head of Marketing Communications, Fraunhofer ICT Group Editor-in-chief, InnoVisions Magazine @InnoVisions / #InJo7 / #Innovation Debate 2.0From Peer Review to Crowd Review http://www.slideshare.net/AlexanderGerber/Debate-Stanford
- 2. So-called Prosumers… …expect a true dialogue with companies / research institutions. …demand transparency and an unmediated discourse. http://www.myspace.com/hungryjesper
- 3. Social Media puts… …the public back into PR, the society back into science and …users back into innovation Potentially controversial technological developments require the right public discourse. Different approach from BP trying to “control” public debate by buying masses of search terms (ca. $10,000 / day). Goredearth.com / thechillingeffect.org
- 4. Debate Nowadays is Beyond Control Connections between people using "oil spill" on Twitter. As analyzed by Marc Smith from ConnectedActionin May 2010, there is not real 'center' of discussion yet. http://tinyurl.com/innokomm18
- 5. Companies seek Transparency… …to build up trust in innovation, promote readiness for change …accelerate the diffusion of new products in the market © Jim Borgman, 2008 How can they do that? What is the journalist’s role?
- 6. The Challenge Lies in the Complexity Interactive innovation communication has to address the demand for public discourse in all stages of the value chain. INNOVATION IDEATION DIFFUSION SCIENCE
- 11. EU >> “Your Voice in Europe” (ec.europa.eu/yourvoice)
- 12. WiD >> idea contest within the national “Year of Energy Research”
- 14. Again: The Challenge is the Complexity Uncertainty cannot be an excuse for ignoring knowledge. Debates are threatened to become victims of their own success.
- 18. Compendium: Dialogue-Mapping, open-source, from Open University
- 19. Cohere: Open University, Argumentation and Web-Annotation
- 20. BCisive and Rationale: Argument Mapping
- 23. interactive
- 26. visual tool for moderation of group-discussion
- 27. open debateArgument 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. Martin Hilbert, Annenberg School of Communication, University of Southern California
- 28. Example: Copenhagen Coverage The Independent applied “Debategraph” to deal with the Complexityoftheissueofclimatechange http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/debategraph-copenhagen--whats-happening-1835880.html
- 29. Theoretical Background The applicationofdeliberation in thecontextofinnovationis an interdisciplinarychallenge. Media Democracy DecentralizingDecision Making Veld E-Collaboration E-Democracy CSCW Deliberative Democracy Trust Creation Luhmann Collaborative Innovation Networks Malone Gloor Friedmann Norris Hilbert Davies / Gangadharan Noveck Market Diffusion Open Innovation Rogers Symbolic Interactionism Chesbrough Howe Hippel Blumer
- 31. Journalists pick upsuggestionsandpubliclyoffertheirexposés (incl. Productioncosts)
- 38. innocentive.comTheory: IBIS Grammar (definition of elements / icons and their linking) of tools like Compendium or Debategraph has been explicitly developed for such planning discourses.
- 41. Research pros and cons
- 42. Manage sub-communities / networks
- 44. Activate, approach and interview important playersAs 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).
- 46. Support / optimize innovation processes within organizations / institutions / open innovation networks through discourse technologies
- 47. Debate tools for knowledge managementExample: Peer-to-Patent Posted patent applications are publicly reviewed. (Porf. Beth Noveck, New York Law School)
- 49. Transparency builds trust in new developments.
- 50. Trust promotes people’s readiness for change or even an “appetite for risk”.
- 52. Neutrally hosted debates will inevitably attract lobbyists and pressure groups, who will possibly feel tempted to exploit, manipulate or even instrumentalize the discourse. Debate 2.0
- 54. Alexander Gerber-Crawford Managing Partner, innocomm Head of Marketing Communications, Fraunhofer ICT Group Editor-in-chief, InnoVisions Magazine a.gerber@innokomm.eu +49 (0)30 - 577 076 - 141 Skype: InnoVisions Blog: scienceblogs.de/sic Nature Network: alex_gerber Twitter: InnoVisions Slideshare: AlexanderGerber Delicious: InnoComm Linked-in: alexandergerberFacebook: AlexanderGerberXing: Alexander_Gerber3 Competence Site: Alexander-Gerber ResearchGate: Alexander_Gerber