Hi everyone,
I've been thinking for some time about how to get ever more participation from community members--we have so many passive onlookers. I get it: I'm often a passive onlooker in other such communities. But if this is a community, how can we offer more opportunities for contribution and interaction by the members themselves and not only opps coming from the "top" of the pyramid? (i.e. US!) Also, how can we continue to grow the value of being a member of the community?
One think I've been thinking about for a long time is the concept of "Community Education." Probably most of you are familiar with it in the "real" world--often affiliated with some educational organization in a local community, community members who have something to teach can offer it up and other community members who want to learn can attend without formal acceptance into a college or university and typically without pre-requisites.
You've probably noticed I've started calling the Study Groups we're now doing (with Robert Bosnak and the upcoming one with Genpo Merzel on Zen and Jungian thought). However, these take a tremendous amount of my time (and probably eventually some of yours! :)--organizing the agreement with presenters or partners, finalizing the details, setting up web pages and groups, and promoting it in many various ways (Event page, newsletter, message broadcast, social media, etc.)
I think most of you know I'm hoping to be able to back off significantly in the time I've been investing (40-60 hours a week at least) and let members take on more of the burden on behalf of themselves.... Maybe they would have more of a vested interest in the community itself as well.
The way I think it could work in the Alliance is that we could open up the opportunity to everyone and offer them free use of the tools they would require to set up, promote, and deliver their lecture or course by teleseminar or webinar. I'm already paying almost $50 a month for a service that I don't use all that often. It wouldn't be that hard for me to create a slide show depicting HOW to use the console and they already have the capacity to create an Event and promote via the Forum, etc. I picture various members just deciding they want to offer something and go set it up and deliver it themselves! I could (we all could) also promote these when we have the easy opp on social media or elsewhere to help them get exposure as we can. I envision there could be several of these taking place each month totally independent of any effort on my (OUR) part. Maybe some members who have engaged here in discussion would even be able to pair up and offer a lecture or course together even if they've never met in the real world! Maybe some people would want to tell everyone to go to a link on a site somewhere and read something or watch a certain movie and then invite everyone to show up and discuss it via teleseminar.
What do you all think?
IS it risky because we don't know the quality of what people will or can deliver? OR do we trust that if people are willing to make the effort to put themselves out there, they have something to offer? I know MANY of our members offer lectures, workshops, or courses in the real world so presumably these are the first/best people who would step up and take advantage of such an offer.
There is a way to charge for registration and access info for the event--so that's a possibility, but I'm actually tempted to just keep all the Community Ed courses of this type free as a general rule and then presenters could always get "paid in publicity" by offering some of their material for the Community Ed program and then inviting attendees to further paying lectures or courses they would do on their own later.
I know this is a long post-- and might be a new idea you need to wrap your head around--I wanted to bring it up here in advance of our Board Meeting so we can at least touch on it then. If you have immediate thoughts, please feel free to respond below so we can start letting the idea make it's way into form.
Thanks for your time to read this! It sounds...FUN...doesn't i? :)
Replies
Thanks, Esther. I think if we want to mitigate it, it would definitely be a "safer" choice to vet presenters with proposals before.
A couple of things that come to mind for me: it WILL then take someone's time to review the proposal, interact with the presenter (i.e communicate "yes" or "no") as well as make the decision. One issue to note: the best proposal may not reflect a terrible presenter....:) so we still run a risk there.
If we do go this route, maybe we could have a committee made up of a few board members dedicated to this who have time and interest in doing it....
Bonnie, I think this may be something to consider into the future. I think it presupposes a level of computer competency that most of us do not have and many would not do. I also think a few wild cards could turn significant numbers of people away from the site.
However, I want to acknowledge that you are putting way too much time in for your own good, and this is not sustainable. I think we need to work for balance and sustainability. I do think this is something to take up as a Board.
I realize that my own involvement has been seriously diminished do to personal circumstances as well as "growing into" Depth Psychology Alliance and online work. That will change in a more organic way over time.
Hi Patricia. Love the new photo. I've been thinking of you and I hope things are going a little more smoothly for you: I know it's been challenging and it doesn't usually get magically better overnight. I know you are doing what you need to do and that's all good.
Meanwhile, I really appreciate your comments and want to acknowledge the introduction of the "organic" aspect :).
I will say that what I'm envisioning for the teleseminars could be as simple as going to a web site, choosing a time and day, and then dialing a phone number on that time and day to deliver the content---so that aspect is certainly do-able by anyone.
Also, just to bring the other side--while many members might be technically challenged, I'd say there is also a good percentage who are early adopters of technology and spend a lot of time using it to promote their work through social media, blogs, webinars, Constant Contact (and other) email vehicles, etc. and these may indeed be the ones looking for such an opportunity.
I think I'm imagining this WOULD be an initiative that would grow organically as those who have content and would like to share it could "plug into" a turn key system where there is a ready and waiting audience and the "way" to do the teleseminar is ready and waiting (they don't have to research and set it up for themselves)....AND best, I (nor any of us) would have to put time into it (unless we wanted to to support or help the presenters).
These are not reasons to vote YES for the idea per se, but just aspects I see and would want to keep on the table as we move further into discussion...
Hi Everyone,
I would like to support any initiative to develop these ideas around more open community education, more study groups, and more availability for members to launch their own presentations of material.
For the lack of a better term, I do think we will want a gatekeeper of sort in place. This could be as simple as a request form submitted by potential speakers/presenters and approved by at least two board members. I am reminded of my days running a community bookstore. We want to celebrate and give voice to the diversity of perspectives walking through the doorway, but we want to avoid creating a noisy room with too many people that just want to hear their own voice or would be better served, or heard in another venue. Without a simple screening process at the bookstore, oy vey, I can not tell you how wildly chaotic the space would have become. Certainly no guiding vision would have come through. Everyone had a book they wanted to pitch or artwork they thought would go well on our walls.
The above said, I too am eager to hear more "Outsider" voices of deep experience and authenticity that could contribute so much to the ongoing discussion of depth psychology's vision, future, and roots.
Then Ed's question and concern regarding the soma of psyche in this virtual community is of keen interest and constant concern to me when travelling on these airwaves online. I think attending to this potential shadow in our midst needs airing and maybe a discussion group of its own.
Finally, like Patricia, I suspect we all, as inaugural members of this board share some sense of mission to help Bonnie carry this baby into a more self-sustaining stage of life. I don't think I am stepping on Bonnie's maternal toes when I say that she may well be ready for lots of aunts and uncles to step into the circle of support for this growing--adolescent? And as Bonnie has suggested through this thread's topic, there is the hope that there are ways to allow this young one to move more independently in the world. At least that's what I'm hearing.
All for now, see you on Sunday,
Mark
Mark-- Thanks so much for your input. Your comments really resonate with me and I like the term "gatekeeper." It speaks to the process of the initiate (who wants to present) having to take on the initiatory process in order to gain access :). A form might be just the thing.
Meanwhile, I really appreciate you bringing back Ed's concerns about if and how we can do "depth" online or on the phone. I think about this literally EVERY single day from morning to night. I meant to address it in response to Ed's note but my response to the first question was so long, I elected to stop and "forgot" to get back to it. It is indeed an elusive and shadowy question. Part of it is about the intention, of course--but there's so much more.
I will say I think the Red Book group has been connecting in a really lovely way and they are "only" doing it online in the discussion forum, with no voice interaction at all so far.
Finally--aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, neighbors, teachers, friends, babysitters!!---YES! What an awesome metaphor. I'm in!
Thanks, Mark!
I like the idea that under the auspices of the Alliance there would be educational opportunities offered to the membership. Just a few thoughts and questions:
1) I also have some concerns as to the "sponsoring" of members that would then be seen as representing the best the Alliance has to offer. We would need to make sure that those who are to present would be willing to tell everyone what their background/certification/degrees are to make them uphold the "brand" of the Alliance (set quite high, thankfully, by what Bonnie has done so far). I know many of our members offer presentations but do we know whether anyone showed up or left early? Is the Alliance willing and ready to set up some type of credentialing as a means to make sure the Alliance name is not diminished in the depth psychology world? Some means of evaluation?
2) Is a teleseminar or webinar the best way to present depth concepts in a manner that respects the intimacy that is potentially present during such teachings? I remember my cohort finding it hard to believe that depth courses would be taught on-line, so much of humanity would be missed. Good for numbers, but good for the field of depth psychology? I'm old school and community doesn't feel like real community through a small screen. Am I suggesting classes in various cities across the country/world? I really don't know and would enjoy a discussion along these lines, maybe at some later date.
I definitely think it is well worth a conversation. I remember going to some conferences where there was a rating system that told the conferees whether a presentation was a beginners class or an advanced class. Anyway, I am down for continuing the conversation and planning.
Ed
Thanks, Ed, for your thoughtful insights. I think we should all consider them carefully as they are important.
On my end, I will say that one of my hopes for the Alliance (all the more reason for us to develop the vision and mission statements so we have a better guideline we all agree on) is to help make depth psychology more widely available to the masses--and to bypass the at-times cliquishness or elitism I have occasionally felt from other groups that have been around for a long time, or that are based on achieving high levels of training or education.
I know there can be an appeal in trying to control content and certification and degrees can be one way to attempt to do that---but I also think there are people out there without degrees that have a whole lot of wisdom and something meaningful to teach or share.
You may (all) know I've thought of starting regional chapters in various parts of the country or world. One member approached me and was ready to start one. He had already begun interacting with other members in his area and was already planning a meeting. However, he wanted to make it "therapists only". In the end, I wished him well but I just couldn't bless him using the Depth Alliance name and eschewing people who were not therapists. This has been done, is being done, and he can certainly do it--I just didn't feel it's what the Alliance is trying to do.
One reason I decided to use the word "Alliance" in the title is because is uses the word "All" in it.
The last thing I'd say about that also is that in Community Education (at least in my experience), everyone knows it's being offered by other community members and while it's assumed they know the topic they're teaching about, it's not like an educational institution who hires instructors and thus takes the brunt of the responsibility for the quality of people: Community ed is more about peers teaching peers which is what I think could be very powerful--AND could make the Alliance unique because I don't really know of other organizations (in this space especially) who are doing it.
Let's keep this discussion going. I'd love to hear back from others on this too.....