Accept that it is human to have dialogues in small groups and monologues in bigger ones. If you want to get 100 people together to have a conversation, you need to structure it so that the inevitability of monologue is balanced by the opportunity for dialogue.

Knowing that, establish groups of 5 or less to chew over the content of the monologues Maybe use the big group to deliver the challenges, spark controversy, open the gates for divergent points of view then find ways to make those converge more closely without ever expecting them to unify. (Yeah, I have no idea how you do that either)

OK, big storm last night, got to check the coos and the water system. Have a good one in the garden.

Having been a pastor this matches the historic notions of spiritual formation via an acted out liturgy. Learning in the church was for centuries embodied.

And it makes me think of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of office liturgies...like "sitting relatively still" during meetings.

Always value your generous sharing of your learning.

Keep creating...with everything you've got,
Mike

And there is a fair bit of bunkum around it too. Not that I take wikipedia as gospel, but it's coverage of design thinking has a section on ideation that really repeats some old, largely discredited myths about brainstorming. The trouble with all these grand ideas is that they provide cover for all sorts of stuff much of which may be fine in one context and not another.

I agree with Nussbaum's critique that it becomes exclusive. And I agree with your "meh" on CQ as some kind of replacement.

I'd agree there's potential for babies getting thrown out with the bathwater. Terms like "design thinking" cover all sorts of activities and there won't be a consensus about what they are.

For me the difficulty with any model that says things are done in 5 steps is if it gets taken literally so that everything must be done in a certain order or it doesn't count. This post from way back explores that.

There is also a fine line between language that helps us to understand how something works, and language that alienates people. It's the classic issue with jargon: it may be genuinely helpful to insiders but it easily creates an unhelpful barrier to outsiders. I wrote a post a while back about some interesting stuff by John Clippinger in this area. (The post itself manifests some of the jargon it questions.)

If he's attacking a kind of emerging dogma or over-promising by consultants - well, hurrah. We hate dogma and over-promising, don't we.

As you point out, Nussbaum has a stake in a new system: CQ. Fair enough, but also, meh...

http://askfortheworld.net/2013/01/15/youtube-the-novice-line-v1-0/