Data Cartomancy

As you may know, I am currently enrolled in a science and technology policy master’s degree program at Arizona State University. I took a Policy Informatics intensive with Dr. Erik Johnston earlier this year. It was a fantastic course that I highly recommend. We talked a lot about informatics and data literacy in projects that require public engagement. For my final project, I developed a short exercise to build a base of informatics literacy for public engagement efforts.

The project is called Data Cartomancy. I chose to write up the exercise in the style of the Knowledge Exchange for Resilience Playbook, a book of plays and tools for community engagement. Since then, I have run the exercise a few times and presented it to various audiences. It’s still a work in progress, but I am happy to share what I have so far. If you run the exercise (or expand upon it), I would love to hear about your experience.

Here is the exercise:

Data Cartomancy

What it is and why it matters…

In policy informatics, there are informatics experts, and there are experts in the specific problem space or context. How can these two groups come together to generate situated knowledge? How can informatics help people discover their potential impact in a situation? 

This card game exercise can help bridge the gap by growing data literacy. What do participants already know about their situation? How can they use informatics to relate better to their own lived experience? 

Keep reading if…

If you are trying to use informatics, data visualizations, or data models to illuminate the lived experience of people without a high degree of data literacy, this play may help those people access and describe their intuitions and knowledge about a given situation while also beginning to develop some contextualized data literacy. 

Definition and purpose

The Data Cartomancy exercise aims to surface what participants already know or suspect about a situation based on their lived experiences through the lens of data and informatics. During the exercise, participants will surface potential metrics and data to investigate or even commonly accepted statistics to question. 

In addition to building a bridge between data experts and lived experience of the situation, this exercise also begins to build some basic data literacy skills in the participants. They may also become aware of biases they hold that might be relevant to the situation. 

Time and timing 

The Data Cartomancy exercise will likely be most helpful in the Initiation and Planning phases. However, it could easily be used in any phase to generate feedback and insights from constituents. The exercise is helpful after you have gathered the right people in the room. Data Cartomancy might be a good exercise if you have all the right people gathered but are unsure how to tap into the knowledge and experience those folks bring to the table. 

The exercise is adjustable in length. In its most basic form, it takes about 30-45 minutes, depending on the group size during the readout. 

Applicable conditions 

This exercise exists on a spectrum from totally individual to group. As described in the Procedure section, the exercise starts with participants working individually and finishes with a group readout. 

The exercise is ideal for participants who are rich in the lived experience of the situation or problem space but light on data literacy skills. 

Procedure 

Preparation: Print the card deck. Separate the graphics-only cards and the graphics + prompts cards. The cards are formatted to 3x5 in portrait orientation. You may also use the digital card grid, but keep in mind that participants may choose the same card.

1. Generate a question. Have each participant consider a question or concern related to the project or engagement. The participants should be encouraged to jot down notes or feelings as they attempt to generate a question. 

2. Select a card. Have each participant draw a graphic card and place it in front of them face down. When all participants have a card, instruct the participants to flip the cards face up. 

3. Generate first reactions. Participants should look at their cards and interpret what they might mean relating to their questions. Participants should generate a story or explanation for the card in their context. They may want to write down their initial reactions. As the participants generate their initial reactions, distribute the corresponding graphic + prompt card and place it beside the participant face down. Instruct the participants not to flip the new card until instructed. 

4. Generate second reactions. Have the participants flip their second cards and read the prompts and facts. In light of the new information, participants should generate a new story or revise their original story. 

5. Read out. Participants share their insights or stories with each other and with the project team. 

Alternative procedures 

This exercise can be easily modified. Here are some possible modifications: 

• Individual play: Draw a card when you feel stuck on a data visualization or modeling project. 

• Past, present, and future play: Draw three cards: representing past, present, and future. Place them all face down. Reveal them individually and attempt to develop a past story for the card, a present story, and a future story. Note: This is similar to a very basic tarot card reading. 

• Small group play: Participants work in duos or trios to generate a question and story. Small group play works great with the past, present, and future three-card approach. 

Evaluation 

The exercise has been successful if: 

• Metrics have been identified for investigation, 

• New questions and lines of investigation have been generated, or

• The participants have gained a new vocabulary to relate to and describe their lived experiences. 

Related Plays and Tools 

Created Data Analytics and Visualizations for Shared Understanding 

Resources

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition. Bloomsbury Academic. 

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: the Power and Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press. 

Grossardt, V. (2021). “The Church of Work”. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/511165052 

Perera, D. (2021, Nov). “questions concerning transition imaginaries towards a post-work society and the use of second-order design fictions as frames that resist consensus”. RSD10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357118013_Dulmini_Perera_2021_After_work_questions_concerning_transition_imaginaries_towards_a_post-work_society_and_the_use_of_second-order_design_fictions_as_frames_that_resist_consensus_In_Proceedings_of_Rel 

Tygel, A.F., Kirsch, R. (2016). “Contributions of Paulo Freire to critical data literacy: a popular education approach.” The Journal of Community Informatics, 12(3), 108-121. 

Access the card deck here: http://bit.ly/3HdbwCE 

If you want to add additional cards, please request edit access or email cswetel@asu.edu. 

Happy Birthday to Me

Tomorrow is my birthday, and I love celebrating! A few days ago, my husband and I were playing a game, and he asked me what would be my ideal gift. As I have said many times, I think the most precious gift you can give another human being is time, and I think the most meaningful way you can spend that time is by exchanging experiences and seeking to understand another’s worldviews. For me, worldview means the frames through which we see the world, rather than where we fall on any one issue. 

If you would like to get me a gift this year for my birthday, I invite you to learn about my worldview. Here are some resources I think capture some of the ways I think about the world. I tried to pick resources that are broadly accessible. In other words, you don’t need a bunch of deep knowledge of feminist theory or a philosophy 101 course in order to understand them. If you check out any of these resources, I would very much like to hear your reactions (and let you know that I am so thankful for your time and curiosity). 

Reproductive Rights

Yep, this topic has been in the news a lot lately. I think my frame for reproductive rights has one major difference from the dominant frames. I believe that you can hold a set of moral beliefs and a different set of political beliefs. Both sets of beliefs are incredibly important. Here is an episode of the Man Enough podcast, a podcast on masculinity and being a man, that captures that view well. Two of the hosts, Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath, are deeply religious, and their religion says that abortion is morally wrong. The guest, masculinity scholar Jackson Katz, explains that moral and political beliefs are distinct and can be different. 

(Side note: this episode covers some other distinctions I find valuable e.g. calling out versus calling in.) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNABI3LZHOs

Feminism 

My feminist filter of the world has changed a lot through the years. In my view, what makes me a feminist is that I seek a world where all people to flourish. This means I explicitly reject the extractive paradigm under which we currently operate. I do not believe that the only way for one person to flourish is to extract from (and therefore lack mutual connection with) others. 

The book Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett includes a chapter on Power. https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Administration-Collected-Papers-Follett/dp/1614274770

I also blogged about power, but it’s nowhere near as genius as MPF: https://catswetel.com/blog/2021/5/4/an-extended-subtweet-on-power

It may seem odd, but I think Billy Beane’s approach to the Oakland A’s embodies a lot of the way I think about feminism. It’s not about getting the best individual people and extracting all we can from them, it’s about winning together. Both the movie and the book about Beane’s approach are worth it! Here is a link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393324818 

Update: Someone asked me to recommend a book that is explicitly about feminism. I think I would choose The Will to Change by bell hooks. The main point is that all of us (not just men) need to be willing to change in order to recognize a more generative and equitable future. https://www.amazon.com/Will-Change-Men-Masculinity-Love/dp/0743456084

The 21st Century, Big Tech, and Polarization 

The most common frames I see for regulating Big Tech and mitigating polarization: 

• Protect free speech: social media, podcasts, etc are free speech regardless of who owns the platform or the content. They need to be protected from censorship by anyone, the government or corporations. Through the free exchange of ideas, we will arrive at a more reasonable future. 

• Protect decency: we need to ban harmful content online. Platforms need to be held responsible for the harmful content they host. Through preventing harmful content, we will prevent polarization and produce a more fair and equitable future. 

I don’t agree with either of these frames. I believe we need to hold sacred the right to privacy. Centering privacy will protect people from highly extractive business models like the surveillance capitalism practiced by Facebook and Twitter. Regulating content (either by protecting speech or protecting decency) does not address the underlying broken model that is based on companies silently and maliciously surveilling their users in an effort to invisibly affect future behavior. If we regulate the underlying business models (which are based on severely and continuously violating privacy), then it will no longer be profitable for companies to promote extreme positions to drive engagement. Humans have not magically gotten more radical and extreme over the past 30 years. Extremism has just become profitable because it is engaging and keeps people online. 

Shoshana Zuboff is the Harvard professor who defined the term surveillance capitalism. See a video of her speaking on the topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw

Here’s a transcript of an interview with her:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-professor-says-surveillance-capitalism-is-undermining-democracy/

For a view of both the promise and the potential danger of the digital age, one of my favorite books, All Things Shining by Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly:

https://www.amazon.com/All-Things-Shining-Reading-Classics/dp/1416596151 (If you’re a sports fan, you’ll probably like this one.) 

Thanks!

Even if you don’t check out the resources I’ve listed, I am still so thankful that you took the time to read this and learn a little bit more about how I see the world. Remember that we are all in this together, whether we like it or not. There is no instruction manual for how to be a human in times like these. We are figuring it out together. 

I leave you with my favorite lines from one of my favorite poems, “Caminante, No Hay Camino” by Antonio Machado (translated from Spanish to English): “Walker, there is no path. The path is made by walking.” 

The trouble with twitter: Protect yourself from being radicalized

I love asking people where they get their news. Increasingly, Twitter is the top response. People say, “I don’t watch the news. I have Twitter!” Why is this dangerous? In many cases, your local news station or newspaper must craft content that will be broadly appealing. Most of the topics covered will need to be relevant to a large group of people. Twitter is the exact opposite. Twitter’s business model is based on creating a hyper-individualized experience just for you that drives your engagement in the site. Most people think that engagement means replying, retweeting, or liking tweets, but engagement has a much broader meaning on Twitter. Engagement can mean: 

• Clicking on a tweet or link in a tweet 

• Scrolling through replies to a tweet 

• Visiting a user’s profile

• …and much more 

Twitter makes money not only by selling ad space on your timeline in the form of promoted tweets but also by collecting your behavioral data and selling it. Everything you do on Twitter, even if just passively taking in content, is data. 

Twitter wants more data on you, so they make every effort to put content in front of you that will keep you engaged on the platform. Unlike Amazon, which will suggest for you twenty garbage cans after you already buy a garbage can, Twitter does not try to drive engagement by simply serving you more of the same. Once you show interest in a topic or stance, Twitter will attempt to show you tweets that are even more engaging (and often this means more extreme). Engaging does not mean informative. A tweet with thousands of quote tweets debunking it is considered very engaging. Because the model is built on engagement, you will end up being presented with increasingly polarized views, i.e., the views that drive engagement. 

So what can you actually do to avoid being slowly pushed towards more extreme views? Here are three tips: 

1. Change your Home feed from the default Top Tweets to Latest Tweets. “Top Tweets” just means most engaging tweets, whether from accounts you follow or not, and regardless of when they were tweeted. Remember, engaging does not mean informative! It simply means most likely to drive you to continue to engage on the platform.
   
   “Latest Tweets” puts your Home feed in chronological order, regardless of engagement. You will see tweets from accounts you follow and replies between accounts you follow. This gives you more control over the content you are consuming.

2. Don’t follow topics. It might seem harmless and even attractive to follow a topic. It’s a perfect way to replace watching the news or reading a newspaper, right? Wrong. Again, topics are meant to drive engagement rather than keep you informed. This means the hottest takes, not the most relevant information will be displayed prominently in the topic. The other day, someone remarked to me, “Why is there so much drama in [TOPIC]? There are always people feuding. I can’t take it!” Is there really so much drama? Even though this topic is associated with a community in which I am regularly engaged, I had heard nothing of the drama being highlighted in the Twitter topic. The drama was manufactured to drive engagement on Twitter and was not really relevant to the work being done in the space.
   
   If you really feel the need to check out a topic, you can always navigate to the Search or Discover tab to scroll through tweets from your suggested topics.

3. Get curious about how Twitter views you. How can you tell in which directions Twitter is attempting to push you in terms of engagement (and therefore content)?
   
   First, check out which topics Twitter suggests for you. You can see the whole list by going to Settings then Topics. Are there any topics there that surprise you? Do you have an emotional reaction to any of the topics?
   
   Next, check out the people who influence you. Which accounts do you really like? Which account’s tweets do you always read as you scroll through your feed? Which accounts do you find most interesting? Visit those profile pages and check out which accounts and topics are recommended to you on that profile page. Are those accounts and topics aligned with your values? Are any of them surprising? Let’s imagine an example. You are trying to reduce the amount of sugar you eat, but you constantly feel you are failing. You visit the profile of a Twitter account you really like. All the recommended accounts and topics are about desserts. The direction Twitter is pushing you is away from your goals.
   
   After doing a bit of an audit on Twitter’s influence, you can revisit the list of accounts you follow and do some revisions. You can also consider this information when you are making a decision on which accounts to follow in the future. 

4. Remember that very few issues have only two sides. Unfortunately, us versus them arguments drive a lot of engagement. If you are engaging in a Twitter thread or some trending topic and the conversation is being framed as a simple us versus them with only two sides, try to find at least one additional perspective. Do not just accept one of the two defaults. There are potentially infinite perspectives. 

I hope these tips illustrate how it is possible to be driven to an extreme position even by simply lurking on Twitter. I also hope these tips illustrate the downsides of automated personalization. Through automated personalization, our worlds become smaller and more polarized. We are not presented with a variety of perspectives because nuance does not drive maximum engagement. The key to a happy and healthy Twitter experience is not simply going where the platform is leading but making active choices about the content you consume (and create, but that’s a story for another day). 

UPDATE: If you would like to explore this topic with me, I will be leading a Wardley Mapping session at Map Camp UK this year. You can use the code Cat20 for 20% off registration.

An extended subtweet on power

Last week I delivered a keynote about power and ethics in tech. During the Q&A, someone asked how a leader espousing liberal values could do something like implode their own company by publishing a public blog prohibiting employees from speaking about societal issues and concerns. To answer this question, I find it helpful to consider the three types of power commonly discussed in management theory: power-over, power-with, and power-to. These three types of power were first identified by the Mother of Modern Management, Mary Parker Follett. You may also recognize her as the person who coined the term “win-win.” Here are the three types of power: 

• Power-over is extractive. Power-over is extracted from other people, the natural world, etc. Power-over means getting more of the pie. 

• Power-with is gained when we work together, i.e, collective action. Power-with means making the pie bigger as a result of all of us making pie together.

• Power-to is productive and generative. Power-to is the power we have to create new things. Power-to means making the pie bigger in some new way or even making a new and different pie.

Through the lens of these three types of power, we can see It is perfectly possible (and indeed quite common) to espouse liberal values while still aligning with power-over. A combination of liberalism and power-over looks like teaching everyone to reach their fullest possible potential within the game...rather than changing the rules of the game to benefit all people. 

Are you, like me, a woman who has been sent to executive presence training that taught you to lean in and act more like a man? You’ve experienced liberal ideologies combined with power-over. This means we do not fix the system to be more equitable. Instead we “fix the women” to excel in the current system (Harquail 2019). When liberal ideologies are combined with power-over, everyone is encouraged to be the best they can be...within the existing (extractive) structure. 

While power-with and power-to play pretty nicely with each other, power-over is threatened by the other types of power. If, for example, you were an executive aligned with power-over and your employees decided to organize together into a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) council, this would be a very threatening situation. In that situation, the power-over executive(s) would likely be willing to watch their company implode rather than yielding any power. People aligned with power-over will not be able to recognize a power-with or power-to effort for what it is, an effort to grow the total amount of power available rather than a grab for a greater percentage of a fixed power pool. 

If we truly want to fix the system, we must let go of power-over. We must use collective action  to bring something new into being. If for example, an executive shut down an employee-led DEI effort and had a complete meltdown via blogs and Twitter, it might feel really good to call out that executive. But rejecting power-over is only (a small) part of creating change. In that situation, it would be of primary importance to validate the lived experience of those people who were victimized and/or marginalized. It would be important to let those marginalized folks know that their critique of power-over is valid and not an overreaction. We must imagine, “What kind of system would help all people flourish today?” 

Turn on versus turn towards

Yesterday in a discussion of psychological safety, someone posed a thought-provoking question, “Is it possible that there are situations where it is not possible to create safety? Is it possible that there are situations where competition prevents safety?” The questioner offered an example that has become all too common in the COVID era, during layoffs or furloughs, doesn’t competition rule and prevent establishing safety with colleagues? 

My answer? Definitely not. 

When word (or rumor) of layoffs reaches you, you can perceive the threat and switch to competition mode, eagerly seeking ways to demonstrate that you are more valuable than your colleagues and deserve to be retained. 

Alternatively, you may choose to lead with care, both for yourself and others. You don’t know what might happen. You don’t know what criteria might be used to make the tough decisions. Might it make sense to prepare everyone for layoffs? What might that look like? 

I don’t have to imagine. Many of my friends at a previous employer faced this situation last year. When I heard the rumors of multiple rounds of layoffs, my heart went out to them. I immediately reached out to a good friend who was still working there to see what assistance I might offer. She and I organized some resume/LinkedIn profile review sessions to prepare folks for job searching. These sessions had the desired effect of helping people feel prepared for whatever outcome. They also had an unintended effect. We all learned more about each other by reviewing resumes and LinkedIn profiles. Learning about each other helped us all work together to connect job seekers to new jobs. When someone would hear through their network about an interesting role, they could send it to the former colleague with the appropriate skills and interests. Folks also started online spaces for everyone to keep in touch and support each other. 

It became very clear very quickly that there were still many jobs available out in the market. As offers started to roll in for some job seekers, we kept the conversation going with chats about interacting with recruiters and negotiating offers. An especially lovely moment was when one junior developer called me for help deciding between multiple offers she had received. 

Ultimately, I think this collective, caring action left all the group members in a better place. Everyone could feel more prepared to weather the storm of uncertainty and volatility in the market. Everyone could also feel at peace with their actions in such trying times. Even though the facts of the situation remained unchanged, i.e. some folks were indeed let go, the group resisted the capitalist conditioning to turn on each other and instead decided to turn towards each other. I am so grateful I was able to be part of that. 

193 Simple Steps to DevOpsing Your Monolith

Recently, I’ve been giving a talk called “193 Simple Steps to DevOpsing Your Monolith.” Here are the resources I’ve been using to navigate my way through devopsing a legacy monolith (and preparing for my talk). Enjoy!

• Nonprogrammers Can Build Important Parts of Prototypes by Mel Conway

  • Mel Conway has such an interesting and easily understood perspective on the history and the future of the software and computing economy.

  • Notice at the very end of this pdf, there are links to a recording of one of his talks and some annotated slides. I think the slides are wonderful. You may want to skip to the end of this pdf and start with the video and slides.

• 7 Rules for Positive Productive Change by Esther Derby

  • Excellent tips for inspiring change through respect for history

• Designing Delivery: Rethinking IT in the Digital Service Economy by Jeff Sussna

  • A solid overview of how the industry is shifting from transactions to relationships

• “How I built a toaster from scratch” TED talk from Thomas Thwaites

  • Illustrates why evolving components is incredibly important for the forward movement of technology ecosystems

• Wardley Maps book by Simon Wardley

  • How do you identify and select moves to make in your technology ecosystem?

  • How are you treating the components of your ecosystem versus how the rest of the industry is treating those same components? eg for compute are you using individually named servers vs public cloud?

• Wardley Mapping Miro template from Ben Moisor

  • Walks through mapping the evolution of a technology ecosystem step by step with lots of helpful hints.

• An Introduction to Cybernetics by W Ross Ashby

  • More on variety

• Scale by Geoffrey West

  • More on metabolism vs maintenance, how organizations scale, and why organizations/organisms die

  • The Santa Fe Institute produces some interesting content around complex systems

• The Phoenix Project by Gene Kim, Kevin Behr, and George Spafford

• Mapping Meaning by Chris McDermott

  • I first learned about social practice theory through Chris. I am inspired by the work he is doing to map social practice in technology organizations and ecosystems.

• The Dynamics of Social Practice by Elizabeth Shove

• The Social Engagement of Social Sciences

  • This is a collection of essays is from the Tavistock Group. This is it folks, this is where the term “sociotechnical” was coined.

Spark the Change Toronto recap

Earlier this month I was lucky enough to attend and speak at Spark the Change Toronto. The theme for this year’s event was “Constructive Connection – Building a Resilient Organization through Networking.” This conference definitely got me out of my comfort zone. I was able to see every talk, because the conference was single track. Over the course of the two days, I was struck by two major themes: respect for lived experience and being the change.

I typically participate in technology conferences. These are analytical environments where speakers are encouraged to present facts and figures. Spark the Change Toronto was completely different. Speakers presented their unique experiences as stories instead of facts. Many talks included questions from the speakers encouraging the attendees to consider the speaker’s points in the context of their own lives, both professional and personal. During and after each talk, attendees generously showed their gratitude for the speaker’s story. Because each talk was centered on stories and lived experience, the Q&A was never a debate. How could I seek to refute the lived experience of another?I may have a different story, a contradictory set of experience, but in now way does that invalidate the lived experience of another. This mutual respect made the environment feel very open and generative. When I first submitted to speak at the conference, I paid a lot of attention to the second phrase of the theme, “Building Resilient Organization through Networking,” but by the end of the event, I realized the importance of “Constructive Connection,” the far greater benefit we receive from sharing and respecting stories rather than asserting individual experience as universally applicable fact.

The second theme I observed was around building resilient organizations through creating space for individual change, i.e. being the change rather than seeking to change others. There was little to no talk of “scaling.” But there was much talk of understanding your own motivation for change, and helping others find their own personal motivations for change. The references to transformation were scant, but there was much talk about finding your place in a change much bigger than any individual and respecting the unique roles of individuals in the change of large organizations, groups, or even societies. While you can model change for others, you cannot actually change anyone but yourself. Maybe that’s enough…

As I reflect on my experience at Spark the Change, I am struck by the value of cross pollination between communities, especially communities with similar or complementary goals. I look forward to bringing a respect for lived experience and a focus on individual change to the technology focused events I attend in the future.