Feedback loop(s) for mutual learning

OVERVIEW

Mutual learning has been explicitly stated as a core tenet in the canon of participatory design, socially engaged art and other community-oriented and -driven “making” processes.¹ Yet, what is mutual learning and how does it concretize in the world? There is no one-size-fits-all to mutual learning and in a simplistic reduction, it involves at least two separate communities engaging in feedback loops of exchange for the purposes of developing a shared understanding in order to produce a beneficial outcome. That outcome could be as simple and straightforward as the sharing of ideas, or it could be more complex and include the creation of a new public asset like an open-source online library or a place-based community garden.

What follows is a set of steps intended to operate as flexible feedback loops for mutual learning.

Much like any design process, this process is meant to serve as a starting point, to be iterated upon, molded, bent, twisted, and inverted depending on the desired intent.

The order of these steps is by no means meant to be prescriptive, it is only a suggestion. Each step can be seen as a holonic entity; however, the sum of one or more of these holonic steps is often greater than its parts.

How might these feedback loops be used in practice? Lean into existing and emerging technologies within each step. In a simple manifestation, you could invite others to engage in video-based platforms for the purposes of creating an online wiki about a cause of your choosing. Or you could consider more ephemeral AR-enhanced sharing platforms to engage in exchange for the creation of a community-based digital artwork. Consider inviting non-human collaborators (e.g., GPT-3) as part of your exchange in the creation of new narratives that can be shared and further iterated on, or even non-human actors/entities like the smart contracts core to DAOs to help facilitate some of these steps. Through embracing new mediums, playfully exploring constraints and subverting platforms of their intended use, you can make the process an aesthetic experience unto itself.

STEPS

A. IDENTIFY GOAL(S)

With any initiative, identification of goals is a desirable milestone. More often than not, that tends to be the first step before engaging in cross-cultural exchange. As facilitator(s), you must have a vague idea as to why you chose to engage in mutual learning. The question then ensues: what do you hope to learn? Design is often goal-directed;² however, the notion of anti-goals can be a goal in itself. In other words, how might the identification of goals be an emergent part of a co-creative feedback loop?

B. FORMULATE QUESTION(S)

Framing can help direct an inquiry, whether that’s aesthetic or functional. There’s a continuum to play with here: broad vs. narrow. Consider these as ontological boundaries, a creative and intellectual playground devised for mutual learning. Questions can be framed scientifically and/or creatively. The former might employ specific examples and chart a more structured path; whereas the latter might employ material analogies, which may keep things fluid, open-ended and exploratory.

C. INVITE OTHER(S)

Cast a wide net. Embrace the affordances of whatever medium you choose, especially those of digital technologies. The consideration of community is a complex topic, and in a peri-pandemic age, we have witnessed an expansion of community where geographic constraints and increased digital access have shifted the definition increasingly in the direction of shared identities and interests. Traditionally local hubs have been forced to leverage digital tools to cultivate relationships. We’re increasingly in a post site-specific era, and as a result, our sense of community can extend beyond the confines of geographic barriers. The potential for global inclusivity is easier now than ever before.

D. CHOOSE A SPACE

The notion of ‘set and setting’ should not reside solely in the psychedelic canon.³ Cultivating mutual learning relies on the conscious consideration of the space, whether physical or digital. It’s important to consider the psychodynamics and composition of a space. As you coalesce, check your senses and notice what’s being (un)said, (un)seen, (un)heard, (un)smelled, (un)tasted, (un)felt. Virtual meetings often exhibit greater dimensionality than their physical counterparts—they require a participant to both be cognizant of their physical space and aware of their assumed perception of the physical space of others mediated through a digital layer. This presents an added layer of complexity and nuance that requires careful consideration.

E. CIRCLE

From Paolo Freire to bell hooks, discourse around critical pedagogy seeks to dismantle power relations both in and out of the classroom.⁴ How might we engage one another in a dialectical process and cultivate a sense of belonging? In online spaces, we are often confined to boxes, restricted by the dimensionality of a grid. Grids have a time and place; however, what they gain in form and order, they lose in relationality and the balance of power dynamics in a group. When convening, there are many ways to “circle” and much of this practice stems from its origins in restorative justice.⁵ When convening through a digital platform, consider how to circle starting with a moment of mindfulness to allow participants to check in with themselves in order to check in with others and both express needs and the manners in which participants prefer to engage. Despite being confined to virtual boxes, opening up can lay a solid foundation to facilitate mutual learning.

F. TELL STORIES

Storytelling is a fundamental part of cultural exchange. The cultural soil in which a group of participants coexist will impact the stories that are told. Communication theory tells us there will almost always be noise when a signal transmits to a receiver.⁶ In other words, a story may be lost in translation. Not only can cultural and language barriers impinge on a story’s reception, but also the signal chain in a digital platform can present significant challenges. Putting aside the technical difficulties (e.g., “Can you hear me now?”, “Can you see my screen?”), social cues are not as easily transmissible, especially when we strip away modalities (video call → audio call → text exchange). These effects can compound and lead to mutual misunderstandings. While leaning into misunderstandings can serve as fruitful aesthetic material, be cognizant of their potential to arise. Bear these challenges in mind when sharing stories, as well as the cultural fabric of the group itself. Try sharing before circling and then circling before sharing. Notice the change in both content and reception.

G. PROBE

A probe is a method that can catalyze creative inquiry. The crux of it includes the inclusion of a provocative artifact (e.g., an object, a map, a textual passage) coupled with a set of actions (e.g., reflect, consider, play) and a (set of) prompts that encourage participants to record and/or reflect on those actions. Originally conceived as a design method to open up a space,⁷ generate ideas and facilitate dreaming, it has evolved and mutated in countless ways based on the containers of content and context. Depending on the length of an engagement, a probe could be presented synchronously and discussed collectively, or it could be sent and reported on asynchronously to encourage greater reflection and solitude. The type of probe, its spatial and temporal modalities, will affect the experiential flavor of both the participant and the group of observers.

H. MAKE

Describing how to make in the context of mutual learning and cultural exchange is paradoxical. On the one hand, the act of making is itself the most concrete of any of these steps, yet describing “how to make” is perhaps the most open-ended of these steps, since it is abstract and capable of many different interpretations. Asking to define how a group engages in making is akin to asking “what is art?” and “what constitutes an artistic practice?” For these reasons, this step is intended to be left open-ended; however, what is paramount is that a group engages in making. This could be any number of things (e.g., writing, cooking, designing), and similar to the step on probes, occurrences can be either asynchronous or synchronous. Especially when conducted digitally, consider making with augmented tools. What kinds of technologies can be introduced to add layers of experimentation? How might generative tools enhance or detract from the process? How might computational collaborators be additive in the making process? Consider these opportunities that digital platforms afford while being aware of their limitations.

I. EMBRACE EMERGENCE

Emergence has many different definitions, but can be pithily described in the axiom: “the sum is greater than its parts”. To elaborate, emergence happens when individual-level actions result in unpredictable collective actions, ideas that couldn’t be predicted from those individual actions alone.⁸

To embrace emergence can often mean leaning into creative tensions between differing perspectives. The space between agreement and disagreement can often lead to unexpected and desirable spaces for mutual learning.

J. SHIFT LENSES

Consider the predominant worldview of the participants. What assumptions are you making? What is your internal reference point? Shifting lenses means employing other ways of looking at an object/experience/space/relationship. If you hadn’t incorporated the role of the non-human, imagine the feedback loops that might play out. Try positing scenarios wherein the conversation evolves differently. If you’ve convened from one location interfacing with others who have also been stationary, incorporate movement. Open up the box, remove constraints, put on a different set of lenses and play out other scenarios.

K. ARCHIVE

Records allow future generations to learn from historical knowledge. One can equate an archive to a foundation that can be built upon, especially in the context of techne.⁹ By creating an archive, we become stewards of multi-generational mutual learning. And by creating a digital archive, we tap into borderless potential, which can serve as fodder for others co-located and distributed. Be mindful of the platforms this archive is hosted on, and look for wiki-based, open-source options to allow for optimal flexibility. An archive serves as a form of asynchronous dialogue, one that can ideally embody pluriversal learning with communities distributed both spatially and temporally.¹⁰

L. SHARE

Sharing is embedded within the very idea of mutual learning.¹¹ It should be an aspect of every step, where participants share ideas, art, stories, etc. Yet, as a step in a feedback loop, it can be more prescriptive. In this existing order, ‘sharing’ can be immediately applicable to the creation of an archive. It is one thing to archive, it is another thing to share that archive. Carefully reflect on the order in which this step is positioned in a feedback loop. As with all systems, the order of component parts matters and leads to different outcomes. That said, the act of sharing is both an intra- and inter-related step in a feedback loop for mutual learning.

ITERATING FURTHER

The aforementioned components serve as just a starting point.

To engage in mutual learning means to engage in co-creation. By engaging in co-creation, we open up opportunities to co-imagine and co-design feedback loops.

Consider reversing the order of the outlined steps. Mix-and-match 3-5 of them. Change the duration of a step in a feedback loop. Duplicate a step, and place the duplicate in an unexpected position. Introduce arbitrary constraints (e.g., temporal, spatial, sensory). Lean into mediums. And, most importantly, notice what happens. What variant of a feedback loop for mutual learning produces the most compelling outcome(s)? And, if an outcome doesn’t appear compelling on the surface, reflect on your own personal journey in relation to the process and how your position in that journey affects your perception of the outcome.

Footnotes

1
Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. United Kingdom: Routledge, 2013. Helguera, Pablo. Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials and Techniques Handbook. Norway: Jorge Pinto Books, 2011.
2
Redström, Johan. Making Design Theory. United Kingdom: MIT Press, 2017.
3
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/freshwater-crisis
4
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press, 1970. hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. United Kingdom: Routledge, 1994.
5
Coates, Roberts, Mark Umbreit, and Betty Vos. “Restorative justice circles: An exploratory study.” Contemporary Justice Review 6, no. 3 (2003): 265-278.
6
Shannon, Claude E., Weaver, Warren. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. United Kingdom: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
7
Gaver, Bill, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. “Design: cultural probes.” interactions 6, no. 1 (1999): 21-29.
8
Holland, John H.. Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Greece: Oxford University Press, 2000.
9
Heidegger, Martin. “The question concerning technology.” New York 214 (1977).
10
Mbembe, Achille. “Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive.” (2015).
11
Binder, Thomas, Giorgio De Michelis, Pelle Ehn, Giulio Jacucci, and Per Linde. Design things . MIT press, 2011.