I have to comment on my open source blog I wrote back in February because after reading Ali Fisher’s article, “Music for the Jilted Generation: Open-Source Public Diplomacy”, I feel that I should tie in my ideas to his article.
Fisher calls for using open source philosophy as a framework for PD. Obviously I agree with this, as it was the topic of my posting on February 24th, 2011.
His article highlights four aspects of open source philosophy as a framework for PD. I am using his framework for a paper looking at some new programs at the State Department and how they fit into this structure. The four attributes he pulls out of the open source approach are: Direct involvement (users as co-developers), resonance (peers no outsiders), history (don’t reinvent the code) and transparency (share your work, make it available), and interest (involve enthusiasts at the planning stage and let their interest be a relevance test). All four of these categories have some overlap, but are essential to a new PD approach based on ideas instead of image.
I find it interesting that a lot of these ideas about a “new” PD echo literature in the development communication literature, where new development work moves away from the modernization top-down paradigm into emphasizing participation and collaboration from the communities where programs are in place. The effect seems to be a more sustainable approach, where if communities can take ownership of an initiative, that they will then be more likely to continue it.
Fisher’s article looks at how development should be done in an open and based on the community that it hopes to serve and its needs. He also emphasizes that in this form of PD that other people will “advocate your needs (not because they are yours, but because they are also their ideas.” (p. 13) This seems to be central to achieving effective PD. If you try to push ideas out onto people, they are not going to take those ideas in unless they are in line with their own ideas and needs. While this seems obvious as I write it, the actual PD programs and policy actions of the US have not seemed to take this into account. (Bush era pushing out of US agenda in the Middle East for example).
All of these ideas also relate to Cull’s article “Lessons from the Past”, where he looks at how the “new” PD in the UK emphasized ideas rather than ownership.
It is lovely to think of how people can share ideas and build networks of trust in which they feel inspired to share because of how efforts are multiplied. I hope that this kind of attitude can be fostered and grown in not only the structures of PD programs, but also in the minds of politicians and policy decision makers.
No comments:
Post a Comment