FLAWSe at OxfordJam - session summary and fast feedback
0 likes1,708 views
Flawse is a forum aimed at fostering critical discussion among social enterprise practitioners regarding the mistakes and challenges they face, highlighted in a discussion paper by Nathaniel Smith and Steve Miller. Participants explored five key questions related to their work and the broader impacts of these challenges, emphasizing the need for acknowledgement of flaws and the role of reflection in social entrepreneurship. The session culminated in shared learning points and insights on how to overcome barriers to critical reflective practice.
FLAWSe at OxfordJam - session summary and fast feedback
- 1. FLAWSe @OxfordJam: summary Overview The purpose of FLAWSe is to provide a forum for critical discussion and reflection for social enterprise practitioners, stimulated by the discussion paper by Nathaniel Smith and Steve Miller. Other core FLAWSe contributors are Roxanne Persaud (event design and engagement) and Jess Nugent (visual design and animation). The fundamental assumption we are making is that we are all making mistakes which are holding us back, and we are not paying sufficient attention to them. FLAWSe is an attempt to address this assumption directly. The key challenges set out in the discussion paper were briefly introduced and we heard responses from guest provocateurs Ben Metz, Alex Nicholls and David Floyd. After that, participants formed groups to consider each challenge in a bit more depth, guided by 5 big questions. 1. What kind of challenge is this when I encounter it in my work? (descriptive/categories) 2. How is it affecting my own work or my whole organisation? 3. What should I care? 4. What can I do? 5. What’s holding us back (i.e. blocking our critical reflective practice)? The session concluded with everyone sharing their key learning point – “what will you take away?” Fast feedback Participants described the session in 5 words.
- 2. Details from the table discussions The key challenges Participant responses @OJ 1. Understanding the problem we want to address a. inadequate research b. narrow approaches to the problem, losing sight of the big picture Quality control Join something that already exists – don’t build something that isn’t necessary Purity of intention o Do you have a cause? o Do you really have the experience? 2. Tackling the problem a. top-down, insufficiently participative approaches b. narrow choice of available methods Counter involvement (??) bring the SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP down to earth Do legal structures encourage social entrepreneurs to scale and seek finance before they’re ready? Are we too impatient about seeing large scale change? 3. Critical reflection a. taking responsibility (acknowledging our part in what’s holding us back) b. addressing our flaws Should I do social good or just make money? Who’s going to pay for what you do? Not enough critical reflection, opportunities to think about what things mean Having time to learn
- 3. The key challenges Participant responses @OJ Talking about failure is seen as a bad thing o funding model doesn’t allow people to talk about failure o grant funders least tolerant of failure (compared to Venture Capitalists) o Solutions: someone should do a PhD on it (failure) Conferences where people can learn from failure – a safe place Accepting the social entrepreneurs work in market failure Awards for best failure Failure leadership – from senior managers 4. What’s holding us back? Since when are social entrepreneurs only here for social investors? o Who/what are they? (corporate hijack?) o Who tells who the terms of the deal? o Fashion? o Commoncapital.org Vanity projects, “hubris” Open creativity over targeted innovation Are social entrepreneurs looking for problems or looking for need to respond to? Check out the #FLAWSe tweets on storify https://storify.com/commutiny/flawse-oxfordjam Tell us more! https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YCZQTZ8