Ashoka Discovery Frameworks Interview
InCommons is currently partnering with Ashoka on a project to better understand how leaders unleash and sustain problem-solving communities. As a part of their exploratory research project, I was asked to participate in an interview. I’ve included some description of their project and process below.
*The Knowledge Path (also known as the Discovery Process) is the Changemakers method of capturing information from social entrepreneurs and experts, and then incorporating it into learning products (like the Discovery Framework) and tools. This process applies the unique Ashoka and Changemakers lens of innovation, social impact, and sustainability, exploring where the field is stuck to determine new opportunities for innovation and impact.
**The Changemakers Discovery Framework (DF) is an analysis tool designed to better understand the nature of social innovation. It uncovers patterns of what works in the field, what solutions are missing, and it illuminates ideas about how change is happening. The Changemakers approach is a unique vision that reflects Ashoka’s three decades of work with social entrepreneurs around the world. Rather than searching for a silver bullet, we rely on understanding how solutions work together within a global context to effect change. It takes into consideration the actionable components of a problem (which we call barriers) and the varied solutions (which we call design principles) required to maximize social impact and galvanize innovation.
Here are some of my reflections from my interview:
ONE
I really appreciate the approach this project is taking. While deductive methods traditionally begin with a hypothesis and then seek examples that prove or disprove it, the Changemakers Discovery process begins with the work of innovators and practitioners, exploring actual solutions to social problems in the world. Using these real world examples, the analysis examines why they succeed and how cross-cutting patterns can then drive new innovations and sector-transformation. This approach is a different way of thinking about systems change —one that values practice over theory and on-the-ground invention over academic analysis.
TWO
In many ways the approach they are using, is a bit similar to how I see the work of my Bush Fellowship. I am in some ways starting with a hypothesis, in that I firmly believe that building social capital can lead to building stronger, healthier, more equitable communities. And while I am spending these first few months in the world of books and research, my main thrust will be later on as I explore “real world models” of where and how communities are building social capital as a strategy to strengthen neighborhood revitalization efforts.
THREE
Through my interview I became aware of where I currently feel strong in my knowledge and where I feel weak. I think the time I’ve spent researching social capital theory has been valuable and important. I’ve developed new language, understanding and expertise about this field of study and practice. At the same time I am aware of my need to dig back “down” into community and learn from the actual solutions and strategies practitioners are implementing locally and nationally. I have a few more books to read, notes to take and blogs to write at the theory level, but my interview today excited me about the on the ground work left to be done.
FOUR
Near the end of our conversation I had a bit of a revelation in my own head. I’m not sure I have fully thought it out yet, but it goes something like this…
A good solution to the wrong problem is a bit of a waste of time.
How we define a problem, or our belief about what causes a problem, shapes our approach to solving it.
For example, what if I told you that 3 out of 5 African American Men between the ages of 18-35 are currently connected to some form of our judicial/criminal justice system (I made this stat up). If you were tasked with “solving” this problem, I’m sure there are many approaches you might take, but at the minimum part of your analysis would have to be looking at the ‘system’ that is grabbing so many young men of color, and the people themselves. Where you put your emphasis might say something about how you see the problem.
What I’m saying is this, and I know it is obvious, but how you define a problem is directly related to the strategies you put in place to solve them. Right?
All of this to say, that when it comes to the work that I do, and looking at my own community of North Minneapolis, I think it would be worthwhile to engage people in a serious conversation about how we, as a community, got to where we are right now. And in this process, I think we need to take account and responsibility for the intentional racialized decisions and policies that were put in place decades ago that continues to impact our community today. I guess I’m wondering if had a more shared analysis of where we’ve been, and how we got here, it might help us in developing solutions that can effectively take us into a new future.
Does that make sense? Maybe I’ll have to explore this more somehow in a later post.
Filed under: Neeraj | 2 Comments
“How we define a problem, or our belief about what causes a problem, shapes our approach to solving it.”
Great perspective. This is perhaps why we need to move beyond theoretical-based deductive analysis into a discovery through praxis. We need to find solutions through shared learning of processes.