Unit 5 Reviewing discussion objects

Introduction

Show description|Hide description

A group of people working on a collective task around a table.

It is important when looking at Evidence Cafés within the context of migration that we understand that the interpretation of any evidence is shaped by both formal and informal practices. Communication of this understanding can be supported by ‘objects’ in a joint ‘meaning making’ exercise. Social scientists and technologists have termed these ‘boundary objects’, as they help to create joint understanding between stakeholders. One important characteristic of a boundary object is that it supports communication and collaboration by acting as a link between the boundaries of different contexts and areas of understanding (Star and Griesemer, 1989). However, these objects can also produce barriers to understanding if they are not designed appropriately and contain local jargon, informal practices and unfamiliar behaviour. Boundary objects also cover a wider spectrum of technologies and approaches for sharing understanding which tends to rely upon a one-way supply of evidence. Evidence Cafés have built their understanding of boundary objects into the ‘two-way’ equitable sharing and co-creation of evidence that depict ‘discussion objects’. So, in an Evidence Café, a boundary object that supports one-way sharing across boundaries becomes a two-way discussion object. In short, boundary objects are for one-way sharing of understanding across different contexts and discussion objects are a two-way co-creation of understanding across different contexts.

5.1 Tailoring discussion objects to Evidence Cafés

Evidence Cafés use discussion objects, to enable two-way sharing between context boundaries. They are tailored to the research topic, that trigger meaning making, and they allow the equitable sharing of evidence between different contexts and ways of understanding the world. This is particularly valuable for us, as it allows us to break down challenges and competing motivations/bias within migration. Discussion objects, if well designed, can allow every voice to be heard and ensure that there are contributions from all perspectives, regardless of perceptions of status and rank.

Activity 5.1 Personal experiences of discussion objects

Timing: Allow 10 minutes

Read the discussion section on discussion and boundary objects (pp. 236–237) in Evidence Cafés: Overcoming conflicting motivations and timings. Think about your ownexperiences of sharing evidence and how you supported the sharing and engagement with that evidence. If you cannot think of any experiences, try searching online for examples of your, local resources how sharing is being supported, and how they invite your contribution to understanding these resources, such as through commenting.

Make some notes in the box below about your understanding of discussion object in your experiences or your local contexts.

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Discussion

Below are two examples of discussion objects (presented in Unit 1) that have been used in an Evidence Café. You can see in these images how the object has supported sharing understanding. The images also show how different stakeholders have contributed to and commented within the discussion object using ‘post-it notes’ adding in connecting ‘arrows’ supporting a joint co-creation of understanding:

You can see in these photos from Evidence Cafés that a discussion object involves the participants in discussion and in the active engagement with writing on the discussion object through post-it notes, drawing lines between the notes, etc. Frequently participants stand up to engage with the object and discuss it around the table. This is not a passive process.

5.2 Evidence Pyramid as a discussion object

The Evidence Pyramid can support adding in evidence at different levels of analysis: data, information or knowledge. Previous activities have supported you interacting with this discussion object. In a migration Evidence Café, different participants discuss the level of evidence they have and often realise how little we are focused on translating our data into valuable knowledge.

Figure 5.1 The Evidence Pyramid

Show description|Hide description

A pyramid diagram showing the relationship between data, information and knowledge. At the bottom of the pyramid, in the largest segment is ‘data’, in the middle is ‘information’, and at the top of the pyramid, indicating the smallest proportion, is ‘knowledge’. This represents the levels of analysis that evidence is taken through where data has less analysis and complexity than information or knowledge. This also reveals why there is more data (at the bottom of the pyramid) than there is knowledge at the top.

Figure 5.1 The Evidence Pyramid

The evidence typology is another discussion object that can be used in a migration Evidence Café after the Evidence Pyramid to help stakeholders realise that we all have valuable evidence to contribute at different levels of analysis. The evidence typology builds upon the Evidence Pyramid and represents different types of evidence from different types of stakeholders with rigour in the evidence collection and analysis usually originating from; public stories, expert reports, institutional and governmental policies and procedures, academic and institutional research.

5.3 Evidence typology as a discussion object

Another example of a discussion object is the evidence typology which can be seen in Table 5.1. It displays findings from a migration study that the Migration for Inclusive African Growth (MIAG) network completed.

This project used the evidence typology as a discussion object for each group of six to eight stakeholders.

The stakeholders proceeded to fill out the blank discussion object (evidence typology) with support and guidance, helping them to focus on the evidence they knew of in response to the question ‘What contribution do migrants bring to Kenya?

Figure 5.3 is an example of the discussion object completed in Kenya. You will notice that the stakeholders were inspired to include the links between the different types and levels of evidence. The colours added denoted if there was a flow (black) or if there was not a clear flow (red).

Workshop discussion object example

Maximise

Figure 5.2 An Evidence Café discussion object

Show description|Hide description

An example of a filled in Evidence Café discussion object. There are four columns: experiential evidence (stories), Interpretive (opinions/reports), Policies/procedures and Empirical/research. Each of these columns is broken down into Data, Information and Knowledge. Experiential data: employment creation (link to socialisation - mutual gain). Experiential information: contributions migrants bring to Kenya, newspaper reports, government reports, research reports; Stories, Chinese migrants pushing Kenyans out of the informal sector; media; parliamentary report. Experiential knowledge: Reponsible media reporting; Acculturation and assimilation; Socialisation (link to employment creation - mutual gain), good things people don't forget, bad things people don't forgive; media stories. Interpretive data: opinions, Kenyans consider some migrants as interfering with their system of business, Immigrants bringing foreign and unwelcome cultures, Refugees, UNHCR. Interpretive information: UNHCR report refugee affairs secretariat, 10m. Interpretive knowledge: rare publication of reports - no access. Policies/procedures data: Lack of competence, lack of integrated data management systems, data dissipated, foreign direct investment, increase in foreign investment, work permits, technology transfer/immigration department, KenInvest, registrar of companies. Policies/procedures information: planning documents for e.g. voting, GOK laws. Policies/procedures knowledge: government staff, knowledge of how to use information for migrants. Empirical research dataL Data on remittances from the disapora, proper source of migrant place origin, Kenya mission abroad, Diplomatic mission accredited to Kenya, Crimes data (immigration pieces system, interpol, other security agencies e.g. police, KWS, ATPU), National crimes research centre. Empirical research information: Dissemination of research findings, data analysis and reports, need for crime info sharing across agencies. Empirical research knowledge: rare skills in research brought to Kenya by migrants.

Figure 5.2 An Evidence Café discussion object

There were many findings from this Evidence Café, but one finding was that the discussion objects (when collated together) had identified that previous discussions had focused on individual areas of expertise; that is, particular stakeholders did not really look outside of their groups for evidence. By contrast, the Evidence Café (and this discussion object) enabled discussions between different areas of expertise. For example, one participant noted:

Another identified that there is an issue with previous gaps between evidence bases:

5.4 Redeveloping a discussion object

It is important to understand how a discussion object will be used and worked with in a face-to-face or online activity. When you have used a discussion object with stakeholders this provides you with an opportunity to reflect upon what did and did not work with these stakeholders. The equitable interaction with the object can exclude or enable interaction. The evidence typology (Figure 5.4) was itself designed so that it required different stakeholders to contribute to completing the table. Experiences (from data to knowledge) required migrants’ personal stories to complete these sections. The empirical research evidence required academic research evidence to complete. The procedural process sections required policy makers. The interpretive expert accounts required those people who had completed migration reviews, including media specialists.

Figure 5.3 A blank evidence typology table

However, as you can see from the table in Figure 5.4, when used in an Evidence Café it enabled only one side of the table to have preferential access to the object. This inspired the creation of an equitably designed evidence typology that could enable different stakeholders to sit around and access the object with equal access. It also focuses the participants on finding links between the different sides of the typology so that the joint ‘cloud’ focus is reached.

In Figure 5.4, you will see there are four pyramids (each an Evidence Pyramid) joined together from different angles. This allows people to sit around a table and contribute their own perspective/evidence to the whole. These could be, for example:

• a researcher adding in research knowledge
• a migrant giving their own experiences as story data
• an immigration officer giving information about Visa processes
• a government official providing expert informational accounts on decision making for policies.

This representation of the evidence typology discussion object allows participants to link findings between the different forms of evidence. For example, it supports stakeholders connect research knowledge with the migrants’ experiences, with the immigration officers’ visa processes or with the government officials’ decision making?

Maximise

Figure 5.4 The evidence typology

Show description|Hide description

A four-sided square pyramid viewed from above has been disassembled into four triangles representing each side of the pyramid. In the middle is a thought cloud. The four triangles are labelled Stories, Research, Expert Accounts and Processes to represent different possible types of evidence. Each of these triangles represents four ‘evidence pyramids’ (see previous image long description) with each triangle being sub-divded into three levels of analysis, moving from data at the outside, to information and finally knowledge closest to the centre.

Figure 5.4 The evidence typology

There are four types of evidence in the evidence typology:

• Empirical research: in-depth studies – e.g. local business surveys or academic migrant study.
• Experiential (stories): relevant situations and experiences – e.g. local entrepreneurs’ experiences of working with foreign companies.
• Procedural processes: processes, methods, ‘know-how’ – e.g. Kenyan immigration processes for capturing and categorising migrants.
• Expert interpretive analysis: how analysts interpret data, assign purpose and produce judgments – e.g. understanding migrant flows in the context of Kenya’s changing economic strategy.

Summary

When stakeholders share their understanding and evidence, it is important to support them in relating this to others’ perspectives and evidence bases. This Unit has supported you in understanding the valuable role and application of discussion objects to support equitable knowledge exchange during an Evidence Café. Done correctly, this creates a collaborative process for understanding migration issues and creating solutions. In particular, the use of discussion objects should help to connect different types and levels of evidence, and identify where the gaps are. In doing this, it ensures that future activities can fill gaps in our evidence, rather than repeating past research. This should help stakeholders to collectively identify ways to answer migration questions with appropriate evidence to underpin their answers.

Unit learning outcomes:

• This Unit has developed your understanding of discussion objects and the evidence typology tool for knowledge exchange.
• You now have an understanding of different types as well as levels of evidence to support migration knowledge exchange.
• Using the evidence typology has helped you critically analyse the levels and types of stakeholder evidence associated with a particular issue, and through an Evidence Café to support communication and collaboration with those stakeholders.
• You have been introduced to how you can use the evidence typology as a discussion object within an Evidence Café to communicate with migration stakeholders.
• You have practically reflected upon the construction and role of a discussion object.
• You have also adapted the evidence typology for your specific migration needs along with identifying other discussion objects that could be valuable for you to apply within an Evidence Café for you own specific professional context.

In Unit 6 Understanding Evidence Cafés, you will learn how to apply the concepts of discussion objects and migration evidence exchange into a practical context, through the setting up and running of a migration Evidence Café. This will enable you to apply these processes to support equitable exchange that allows all perspectives and voices to be heard and valued.