The Copenhagen Project

1. Jens Hofman Hansen

   Very interesting project that I will keep an eye on!

   One thing that I would like to hear more about is the method you will use for analyzing the material. That is, translating interviews into conclusions.

   In a few qualitative studies (e.g. http://statsbiblioteket.dk/brugbarhed/feltstudier/ ), I have used “affinity diagramming” because we had several interviews and observations that several people should analyze in cooperation. You basically cut up all the data in small pieces and mix it together. The statements form new groups representing themes that you want to know something about.

   So are you planning to use a specific method?

   Jul 4th, 2007

2. Jeppe Kabell

   @Jens: The Copenhagen Project is not so much an academic project as it is a project of activism. We feel a need for something to be done, something activating progress in the field of keeping up to date and making sense of the messy and unclear picture of the world that our current tools and services provide.

   On the basis of our project description thousands of academic research projects could be formed. We can’t answer all the questions we ask in a scientific context - but hopefully the project will inspire academics to research these issues further.

   Our approach is loosely summed up here. One could say that our method consists of activism, blogging, starting conversations, collecting perspectives, joining existing research and trying to catalyze innovation. See it as an ongoing conference on the Internet.

   As for the interviews - we have yet to decide the exact approach (You found us before public launch, and things around here isn’t completely finished). It’s probably gonna be a mix of finding out how these people personally keep up to date, which tools they use, how they reflect on it and create meaning. And of course what future perspectives they see in this area.

   Suggestions is very much welcome, and I’ll definitely look into affinity diagramming for inspiration. Maybe I can drop you a mail with a couple of questions, if needed?

   Jul 5th, 2007

3. Jens Hofman Hansen

   Feel free to drop me a mail. I actually thought you went public this monday :-) I was very close to submitting a blog post about the project - so please tell me when you go on air :-)

   Jul 5th, 2007

4. Simon Engelbrecht

   Take a look at http://www.informationarchitects.jp/the-future-of-news-how-to-survive-the-new-media-shift and other posts from Oliver Reichenstein. I think it could be interesting to have him on the list of interviews.

   Jul 23rd, 2007

5. Kåre Mulvad

   I’d suggest looking at brainreactions.net (and brainreactions.com)
   The guy behind it is Anand Chhatpar, I might be able to get you an interview if you’d like.

   Jul 24th, 2007

6. Katrine Dahl

   Came over via http://nadjasreflexioner.net and it all looks hugely interesting and very worthwhile. Being a slow inventionist, I’ll need to ponder for some time to come up with ideas that you might be able to put to use. Being a rhetorician, I really ought to be able to think of some good stuff for you.

   So, I am sorry that my first comment is a question rather than a contribution. But I just HAVE to say this or it will be on my mind forever: The almost complete absence of women on your interview list is striking. Is there any other common denominator among the list of interviewees, apart from their gender, which excludes women? Things they do or work with? Opinions?

   Being one myself, I guess. :-)

   Jul 24th, 2007

7. Jeppe Kabell

   Simon and Kåre, Thanks - I’ll look into your suggestions.

   Katrine: I can guarantee you that the list of people haven’t been chosen on the basis of gender, but on the basis of which person’s knowledge we find relevant and whether we have some kind of connection to them beforehand. Feel free to suggest interesting women, especially if you can help us with an introduction :)

   And yes, rhetorics isn’t really something we have thought much about in the process until now, but I could see it as very relevant, especially in reflections on objectivity and advocacy journalism (and who knows, why not gonzo and the like? I guess it’s the extreme of personal meaning creation and communication?)

   Jul 24th, 2007

8. Katrine

   Alrajt. I just had to say Wot, no girls? I should think there are loads that would be interesting to talk to. Their absence still makes me think that you need to think outside the box, but then it is still unclear to me what the box is, that is, what “relevant knowledge” covers?

   A few points, though, which go to show that I am chewing on this thing. Seeing as I don’t know many of the names (which gives you an idea of how uninformed I am on your subject, I am SO out of the box, ;-)), it occurred to me that the dimension of practice is important to cover. I am guessing that many are ‘experts’. We tend to always ask the experts, that is, the ones who have theoretical knowledge of the things we want to dig into. But I am guessing that sensemaking is a practical knowledge (what Aristotle would call a techne), i.e. a knowledge that is developed in practice, through experience and as such can only really be understood in practice. So, what I am saying is that you should talk to some of the people that are sensemaking right now. Bloggers are the obvious starting point, since many of them do exactly that, try to make sense out of chaos. I think you should talk to them in that capacity. My interest is in writing, and I firmly believe that writing is knowledge producing, that is, we invent as we write. Blogging, I would say is sensemaking in writing. Prose. Linking. Blogrolling. Moderating comments.

   Also, I am thinking that sensemaking is a collaborative endeavour. I think we do it in communities, and I think that that is what the internet is all about. No doubt, someone has said that before me, and better.

   And a final point, true to my humanities self. I am not sure that sensemaking is really about tools as in certain kinds of reporting or a style of linking. It’s collaborative, social, practical, ethical. But one strategy of sensemaking that is fairly obvious on the internet is sensemaking through ideology. We group up in blogrolls and preferred content providers according to ideology. Left and rightwing ideologies are dominant, but a huge variety of subideologies exist too. Another example from the media world is the new self declared liberal Danish internet newspaper, the name of which eludes me right now. Their point is of course rhetorical to the core: Objectivity is an illusion, we ALL try to persuade. Read us and feel safe that we at least told you what we believe in.

   Which sort of brings me nicely to a last point before the end of my rambling: My colleague Christine Isager is the person to ask about gonzo. She is newly based at Syddansk Universitet. It’s outside the box, not only genderwise, but also in terms of media (although I know you don’t like the word) and perhaps direct relevance, but she’s ever so clever, and I’d be happy to introduce… Or you can check it out on http://firstpersoninprint.blogspot.com.

   Jul 24th, 2007

9. Jeppe Kabell

   Katrine, thanks for taking the time to post.

   We are planning to touch upon a lot of the elements you mention, and there’s new ideas that we’ll take into account. I’ll look into Christine’s blog.

   Interesting how you see writing as a process of sensemaking. This project is basically also a process of sensemaking through blogging, writing and discussion, I guess.

   Most of the people on the list of people to interview are actually bloggers already, I’ll put a link on their names in the near future so you and others can explore.

   And btw - I agree on the point about the illusion of objectivity.

   Jul 26th, 2007

Reply to “To-do list”