Method to integrate asynchronously produced individual influence maps into an extrapolated population influence map following the face‐to‐face stage of a structured democratic dialogue

Abstract

We present a method that broadens the application of structured democratic dialogue (SDD). After completing the final stage of the SDD process, during which the participants explore collectively and synchronously possible influence relations between ideas using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) algorithm, they continue the ISM process individually and asynchronously. Their respective adjacency matrices (AM) are integrated into a population AM (pAM) that reflects their least agreement denominator. The pAM is sent back to them in a few iterations, asking them to explore influence relations between additional ideas. This procedure eventually produces a model, which depicts their ‘extrapolated’ or ‘computed’ collective wisdom. The method has been applied in two projects. Participants who responded to a requested assessment (via a Likert scale) indicated that the extrapolated influence maps created asynchronously made sense.

Multi‐stakeholder structured dialogues: Five generations of evolution of dialogic design

“…Deviations 6 and 7 refer to the cases where all or some participants complete the clustering (Case 6) or extend the structuring (Case 7) individually asynchronously, and their individual products are merged into one (e.g. examples reported in Laouris, 2022aLaouris, , 2022b.…”

“…Cases 9 and 10 are deviations of Case 8 with ideas pre-collected asynchronous AND/OR preference votes submitted asynchronously (Case 9), or clustering or structuring is extended AND/OR conducted entirely by a subgroup, AND/OR using multi scoring to improve road maps (Case 10). Case 11 marks a situation where the process can be scaled up to engage large numbers of participants (Laouris et al, 2014, p. 179;Laouris & Romm, 2022a, 2022b, p. 1084) by conducting the clustering AND structuring individually and asynchronously. Finally, Cases 12 to 14 are equivalent to those above, but instead of teleconferencing /video conferencing, the process takes place in immersive reality environments such as SecondLife™ or the emerging Metaverse.…”

“…For example, around 2005, practitioners started experimenting with pre-collecting ideas via email (e.g. Laouris et al, 2017, p. 249) or collecting votes by email (Laouris, 2022a(Laouris, , 2022b in-between sessions. The corresponding applications were referred to as hybrid.…”

“…In both situations, the whole group conducted about half or more of the clustering or mapping stage. It has been argued that after the participants cluster about half of the ideas or structure about 10-12 ideas, they begin to offer more specific pro-Yes or pro-No arguments based on what has already been discussed before (see discussion in Laouris, 2022aLaouris, , 2022b. The authors have hypothesised that participants gradually develop a 'shared mental model', which subconsciously helps them make decisions that are almost predictable.…”

“…The aim of a large-scale process is to support the group in developing shared understanding and shared vision and ultimately to generate collaborative action towards a desired future. Laouris (2022aLaouris ( , 2022b presented two models of large-scale interventions. In the first model, the same type of intervention is delivered more or less synchronously to multiple distributed groups.…”