Deep Dive

Before you came to this room, did you think of your work as “civic tech”?

Laurenellen McCannApril 21, 2015

On April 4th, as part of the Experimental Modes project, we gathered together 30 technology practitioners in a one-day convening to discuss the strategies they use to make civic tech—though very few attendees would call it such.

Artists, journalists, developers, moms, community organizers, students, entrepreneurs (and often, some combination of the above), the practitioners in the room represented diverse parts of the civic ecosystem and the words we each used to talk about the work that we do reflected that.

Below, we’ve rounded up thoughts from each participant in answer to the question:

Before you came into this room did you think of your work as “civic tech”? If you didn’t, how would you describe your work?

The answers provide an important window into the limits and potentials of “civic technology”: who feels invited into this latest iteration of the “tech for good” space and who doesn’t (or who rejects it) and why.

(What follows are a slightly cleaned up version of the live notes taken during our conversations. You can read the original, unedited documentation of this conversation here.)

Attendees of the Experimental Modes Convening. April 4, 2015. Photo by Daniel O’Neil.

Marisa Jahn (The NannyVan App): At first we called our work public art, but then we identified as civic tech because the White House called us.

Maegan Ortiz (Mobile Voices): I identified the work as civic tech because I was told that what I do is civic tech, though with the populations I work with, civic engagement has a particular meaning.

Geoff Hing (Chicago Tribune): If you owned the language, what language would you use to describe your work?

Maegan Ortiz: Great question — for me, we have meetings and make media. We’re putting ourselves out there in different ways.

Marisa Jahn: We code switch a lot. Communications, civic media.

Asiaha Butler (Large Lots Program): We’re open to being as “googleicious” as possible. What we do is community.

Geoff Hing: I call my work journalism/journalistic.

Greta Byrum (Open Technology Institute): “Training”.

Stefanie Milovic (Hidden Valley Nature Lab): I’d call it “civic tech”. The21 only people who get involved are people who are looking to learn.

Jeremy Hay (EPANow): I’d call it civic tech depending on the grant. Otherwise, “Community journalism”

Tiana Epps-Johnson (Center for Technology and Civic Life): Skills training and civic tech.

Naheem Morris (Red Hook Digital Stewards): Training.

Laura Walker McDonald (Social Impact Lab): For FrontlineSMS, I’d say m-gov, m-health, etc. Digital Diplomacy. Civic tech. But the term I like the most is “inclusive technology”, which baffles people because we made it up.

Robert Smith (Red Hook Digital Stewards): Training, skill building. Not tied into government, so “civic” may not apply. Community building. “Independent”. “Tied in to building the Red Hook community”.

Jennifer Brandel (Curious Nation): Well, now I’m going to start using “civic tech” for grants. Usually, though, we call our work “public-powered journalism”. Sometimes I think about our work in terms of psychogeography: “a whole toy box full of playful, inventive strategies for exploring cities… just about anything that takes pedestrians off their predictable paths and jolts them into a new awareness of the urban landscape”. (“A New Way of Walking”)

Demond Drummer (Large Lots Program): I only started using “civic tech” about 6 months ago. Usually I refer to the work of tech organizers as “digital literacy” and “digital leadership”, in the mode of the literacy trainings from the Mississippi Freedom Movement. Now I think of what I do as the “full stack of civic tech”.

Josh Kalov (Smart Chicago Collaborative): Open data and website stuff. “Everything I do is civic tech though I hate the term”.

Anca Matioc (AbreLatAm): I work with a foundation in Chile, similar to Sunlight Foundation. Building platforms to inform people about voting, political issues. I hate the term “civic tech”. It’s missing “a lot of what you guys [in the room] have”, missing the communities part, the engaging grassroots part. People from civic tech need more of that. Impressed with R.A.G.E. (Asiaha’s organization), their structure and constituent funding (and therefore their constituent accountability). Maybe that’s why organizations like R.A.G.E. don’t immediately identify as civic tech, because they don’t have to adopt language for funders.

Allan Gomez (The Prometheus Radio Project): I don’t use the term civic tech, but our work does fall under it. I’d call it “participatory democracy”. Having a voice (through radio) is a civic ambition. Electoral politics is not the full range of civic participation. What about non-citizens? People who don’t vote can be politically engaged in a really deep way, more so than people who only vote and that’s it.

Sanjay Jolly (The Prometheus Radio Project): Our work falls into civic technology frames – and that can be important, useful. For a long time Prometheus was a “media justice organization” (to tell funders “what we are”). Now nobody call themselves media justice anymore. What makes sense to people is to say that “we’re building a radio station so people can have a voice in their community”.

Whitney May (Center for Technology and Civic Life): Our work fits pretty squarely with civic tech language because we’re building tools for government. But it’s also skills training, so I’d also call it “technically civic”.

Sabrina Raaf (School of Art and Design at University of Illinois at Chicago): I’d call it open source culture. Documenting new tech. Teaching new tech. Bridging between academia and maker culture (two cultures that are biased against each other). “Sharing knowledge”, documenting knowledge, workshopping knowledge.

Daniel O’Neil (Smart Chicago Collaborative): I work in civic tech, and I find the people in civic tech deeply boring.

Sonja Marziano (Civic User Testing Group, Smart Chicago Collaborative): “Civic” is a really important word to what I do every day.

Maritza Bandera (On The Table, Chicago Community Trust): I never thought of what I did as “civic tech” before. Conversation. Community-building. Organizing.

Adam Horowitz (US Department of Arts & Culture): Social imagination, cultural organizing, building connective tissue in social fabric.

Danielle Coates-Connor (GoBoston2030): Something I haven’t seen in the civic tech space is about the interior condition of leaders…the visionary elements.

Diana Nucera (Allied Media Projects): I think of civic tech more as product than process. It’s hard to hear people wanting to take the term and use it because it takes several processes to create a product that can scale to the size of civic tech—beyond a neighborhood, something that can cover a whole area. Taking over the term civic tech de-legitimizes the history of social organizing. When we use blanket terms we have to start from scratch. What I do is “media-based organizing”. The work is heavy in process, not products. The products are civic tech. So, I discourage people from using words civic technology to get grants, and so on. We actually need more diversity in processes—that’s what can make civic tech valuable.

Laurenellen McCann (Smart Chicago Collaborative): This is something I’ve been struggling with as I’ve been exploring the modes of civic engagement in civic tech—it’s a study of processes people use to create civic tech…but I’ve been wrestling with whether and how things that identify as “civic tech” count.

Diana Nucera: What you’ve shown us is that community organizing, media making, public art, all have a place within civic tech. And what I find helpful is to understand how people are approaching it: “Civic tech” or “Community tech”.

Show Your Work: Submit a Civic Tech Case Study

Laurenellen McCannApril 10, 2015

Through the Experimental Modes project, I’ve been researching and analyzing methods for community-controlled civic tech. These “modes” of civic engagement in civic tech were distilled through a process of evaluation, research, and interviews.

Now, we’re inviting you to tell your own story as part of our Civic Tech Case Study Sprint. This documentation project (inspired by bookprints and Beautiful Trouble) was set in motion at our practitioner convening last Saturday.

In the afternoon, I led an exercise on storytelling and documentation. After presenting on the 5 Modes of Civic Engagement in Civic Tech, we discussed additional strategies and tactics used in our work. We also discussed this sprint and what we, as practitioners, would like to see in documentation of our work, and adjusted the form based on based on this feedback.

Digging into documentation and civic tech at the Experimental Modes Convening on April 4, 2015.

The case studies produced as part of this exercise will be published on the Smart Chicago website and will be spread as far and wide as we can. To contribute to the sprint, all you have to do is fill out this form. We are open to examples from within the United States as well as abroad and don’t care whether the examples are 10 years or 10 minutes old.

After completing your DIY Case Study, you will get a copy of your submission immediately by email. Everything Smart Chicago publishes is Creative Commons 4.0.

Once we have all of the case studies in from everyone who attended our convening, I will compile of the responses into a document that reviews quantitative info (number of times a particular mode was used, prevalence of specific tactics, etc.) along with an analysis of trends & insights from your narratives. (The Smart Chicago CUTGroup Final Reports are good examples of this type of analysis.)

Submit your case study before Sunday, April 19, 2015 to be included in this report. All of these outputs, including the raw form data (example) will be housed shared on the Experimental Modes project page, where we’ll also post and link to the case studies as individual PDFs.

Questions? Comments? . Otherwise, get cracking!

Tomorrow: Convening on Experimental Modes

Smart ChicagoApril 3, 2015

Tomorrow Smart Chicago is hosting a convening at The Chicago Community Trust as part of our Experimental Modes of Civic Engagement in Civic Tech Project.

The gathering, led by consultant Laurenellen McCann, brings together people who provide community leadership in the creation of technology. Each participant works in different contexts, with radically different types of technology, but what unites us is the degree to which our work is done with, not for, the communities we serve.

Here’s all of the research and synthesis that led us to this meeting in one handy PDF:

Experimental Modes of Civic Engagement in Civic Tech from Smart Chicago Collaborative

Here’s live meeting notes— follow along starting at 9AM Saturday, April 4, Central time.

Here’s the form we’ll be using in our Case Study Sprint: https://smartchicago2012.wufoo.com/forms/diy-case-study-civic-engagement-in-civic-tech. Fill it out!

All are welcome to participate in the meeting notes, to complete your own case studies, and to hang out of Twitter— @SmartChicago and @elle_mccann are good places to start.

The Chicago Community Trust

Mode #5: Distribute Power

Laurenellen McCannMarch 30, 2015

This is the final piece in a five-part series exploring how to develop civic technology with, not for communities. Each entry in this series reviews a different strategy (“mode”) of civic engagement in civic tech along with common tactics for implementation that have been effectively utilized in the field by a variety of practitioners. The modes were identified based on research I conducted with Smart Chicago as part of the Knight Community Information Challenge. You can read more about the criteria used and review all of the 5 modes identified here.

MODE: Distribute Power

The art of leading a collaborative process is the art of getting out of the way. You can follow best practices — building your work through public commons, rooting your projects in the existing social and technical practices of a community, and teaching new technical skills while listening — but if you can’t get out of the way, you can’t run a community-driven development process.

Getting out of the way means sharing project control with the group. Below are four essential tactics for sharing and releasing power that have been applied in the creation of civic technology:

Treat Volunteers as Members

Another title for this tactic could be: value your participants equally. Put everyone on the same level. No matter their status — whether or not a person contributes once to project or 50 times, whether they lead a process or follow along, whether they’re paid staff or high school students — treat the folks who participate in your project as equals, and use titles for participants that make this status explicitly.

Facebook journalism outlet, Jersey Shore Hurricane News, considers anyone who submits a photo, an event, a story, or a tip to be a “contributor.”
Although technically a non-profit, Public Lab, the DIY citizen science group, identifies all participants (folks who contribute to the listservs, wiki, in-person events around the world, etc) as part of Public Lab itself (see the org chart below) and has created structures (like working groups) for community input on decision-making.
Free Geek is a non-profit works with communities to transform old technology into new electronics made available to those in need. Free Geek runs on human power and uses community service as a currency. However, it makes little distinction between roles as all are essential. So, whether you’re learning how to refurbish technology, building computers in the shop, teaching a class, sorting donations, or helping to keep the facility clean, you’re a “volunteer” and you are essential.

Public Lab’s organizational chart demonstrates how to include a variety of participants with equitable footing.

This is a foot-in-the-door technique to build trust and a way of demonstrating that any contributions a person offers as part of the co-development process will be valued — an important message to send if you want actually want a diverse group of community members to feel invested and free to drive a project.

Teach Students to Become Teachers

Handing off control and treating people as equals doesn’t mean removing structure or leadership. Projects that sustain community development are those that enable participants to expand their skills and responsibilities as they’re interested in doing so, with specific tracks for leadership that are accessible to everyone from the onset.

As noted above, by default, all participants in Public Lab are identified as part of Public Lab. But for those participants who are interested or active in coordinating projects or contributing to the Lab at a different scale (from helping with communications to moderating community discussion lists), Public Lab has an open call for community leaders called “organizers” which anyone can join.
Digital Stewards programs often enable graduates to mentor, if not fully teach, the next group of stewards, further developing the technical skills individuals pick-up from the program and deepening the communal history and relationship with the wireless networks the stewards oversee.
Mobile Voices (or VozMob) is a content and technology creation platform built for, by, and with immigrant and low-wage workers in Los Angeles. VozMob has a few mechanisms for individual and group-level leadership, including a tier of “Affiliates”, peer organizations and groups active in sharing stories through the platform who decision-making.

White-label Your Approach

“White-labeling” means putting a product, service, or program model out into the world in such a way that anyone can rebrand it as though they made it.

An illustration of the Digital Stewards approach. Image via OTI.

For example, several times throughout this series we’ve looked at a program called “Digital Stewards” in both Detroit and Red Hook, Brooklyn. Although these two programs use the same language (“Digital Stewards”) in reference to a training program to help design, build, and maintain community wireless networks, the programs are not one and the same, nor are they “chapters” or the expression of a single brand.

Rather, each Digital Stewards program is an imprints of a white-labeled training course on digital stewardship developed by the Open Technology Institute (OTI) at New America in conjunction with Allied Media Projects (AMP) that is available for anyone to adopt and use. OTI identifies its role in the creation of Digital Stewards not as the parent or owners, but as a “resource center”, adding to the Digital Stewardship materials over time and responding to requests from communities (like Red Hook, Brooklyn) for support in training. Neither OTI nor AMP exerts copyright or brand control over how the program exists in the world and neither identifies as “owning” the program.

Removing “ownership” is a direct expression of the open ethos that drives civic tech and way of ensuring that communities get genuine ownership over a technology or other civic project, even if the development of this project is guided by an external organization.

Other examples:

DiscoTechs (short for “Discovering Technology”) are a model of collaborative events for creating and exploring community technologies. The DiscoTech model was developed by the Detroit Digital Justice Coalition (DDJC), but DiscoTechs maintain no branding affiliation or ties to DDJC, allowing communities all over the country and the world to customize, remix, and implement as they see fit.
Although the CUTGroup (where “CUT” is short for “Civic User Testing”) was designed by Smart Chicago as a way for residents in Chicago to use civic apps and give feedback to developers, Smart Chicago released the nuts and bolts of the program as an online guide so that others can utilize and riff on the model. Note that the branding is not specific to Chicago or Smart Chicago and that the model is available for use without explicit consent from or identification with Smart Chicago.

Be a Participant

Ultimately, you can’t marshal a community’s energy unless you’re part of that community. To share experiences and engage in the wants, needs, and interests of the people your civic project is meant to serve.

Participation is a mindset shift. Instead of leading, you as a practitioner, are listening. (Much like the two-way teaching style talked about in Mode #3.) Whether you’re an individual doing work close to home or an organization supporting distant activity, to be a participant is to allot time and space to others and to seek opportunities to support work that supports them.

Laura Amico, a crime reporter and co-creator of HomicideWatch, a platform for following murder cases in Washington, DC, struggled to find information about the murder cases she cared about. After watching her neighbors and how victims’ and suspects’ family and family were haphazardly monitoring information on an individual level, Laura and her husband, Chris, began to design a platform that would allow for collaborative coverage, with more data sources and opportunities for communication. HomicideWatch is the product of innovation, yes, but also shared grief and shared struggle.

Public Lab’s paid staff directly coordinates with and wields a number of communications platforms to listen to its extended community and brings together its network in an annual meeting (called a “barnraising”) to build relationships, tinker with tech, make big decisions, and break bread.
EPANow is an ongoing experiment in youth-driven hyperlocal news co-founded by Stanford University Knight Journalism Fellow Jeremy Hay with residents of East Palo Alto, California. Jeremy is not an East Palo Alto (EPA) native, but is helping to steward the project after local community activists asked for his help. Hay started with a defined vision of what the news platform would be, but has since slowed his approach, both directly in response to community challenge and in response to his own revelations and experiences working with (and, increasingly as part of) the EPA community.

“While I am not superfluous to the process, and what I bring to it is important, I am of necessity secondary.”

(More about Jeremy’s journey participating in EPA as an outsider is documented here.)

Mode #4: Lead From Shared Spaces

Laurenellen McCannMarch 27, 2015

This is the fourth piece in a five-part series exploring how to develop civic technology with, not for communities. Each entry in this series reviews a different strategy (“mode”) of civic engagement in civic tech along with common tactics for implementation that have been effectively utilized in the field by a variety of practitioners. The modes were identified based on research I conducted with Smart Chicago as part of the Knight Community Information Challenge. You can read more about the criteria used and review all of the 5 modes identified here.

MODE: Lead from Shared Spaces

Communities are built around commons— collaboratively owned and maintained spaces that people use for sharing, learning, and hanging out. Commons are the foundation upon which all community infrastructure (social, technical, etc) is built and are often leveraged by multiple overlapping and independent communities.

Although often thought of as semi-permanent physical spaces, like parks or town centers, commons can also be digital (i.e. online forums, email lists, and wikis), temporary (like pop-ups or weekend flea markets), or a variety of other set-ups beyond and in-between.

A commons is a resource, offering tools, news, and know-how that both community insiders and outsiders can wield. Tapping into a commons not only helps identify social and technical infrastructure, it provides a key opportunity to listen and learn about what matters most to a community. The following two tactics look at how civic tech practitioners can not only use commons for collaborative work, but can contribute to their stewardship, as well.

Leverage Existing Knowledge Bases

Knowledge commons are spaces where people collect and access information, be it archival info (like one would get from a library) or news (like one gets from a neighborhood listserv).

Depending on the circumstances and the folks behind the wheel, the creation of a knowledge commons can itself be a form of civic technology— a tool for a community to use for its own benefit.

DavisWiki is a hub for both hyperlocal history and current events in Davis, California. Launched in 2004, DavisWiki started as an experiment in collaboratively surfacing and capturing unique local knowledge that was otherwise locked in the heads of neighbors or lost in search engines. The site gained popularity by coordinating with existing social infrastructure, such as the university system in Davis and the local business community, and within a few years residents had contributed over 17,000 pages.

As more residents use DavisWiki, the platform’s role has changed. In addition to being a popular catalog, knowing that DavisWiki was available as a knowledge commons has enabled residents to leverage the platform for additional civic ends over time. For example, the wiki was part of coordination of the public response (and record-breaking rally) to a police officer pepper-spraying a student on the UC Davis campus in 2011 and has been used to explore, discuss, and collaborate with government a number of local planning initiatives.

Public Lab is a different sort of knowledge-based community: although many of the folks who participate in Public Lab (via their wiki, email listservs, in-person meetings, and other forums) work in their own local contexts, the community associated with Public Lab is international in scope, bringing together citizen scientists from around the globe who are researching and crafting inexpensive DIY tools for environmental science that anyone can use.

In this way, Public Lab plays the role of a bridge, connecting many knowledge commons together in one great public-facing resource that can boost local work by giving it a broader audience and more data inputs.

Community meeting. Image via Public Lab.

Leverage Common Physical Spaces

Although the network model of Public Lab enables a high degree of exposure for local work, nothing says “free PR” quite like door-knocking or standing on your neighbor’s roof to install an Internet router. Both the Detroit and Red Hook Digital Stewards instances lead with this idea, leveraging common spaces in their communities (neighborhoods and city districts) to plug into existing social infrastructure and get community members on board and involved.

Approaching technology development with an eye towards the physical world also enables an additional dimension of sustainability. While both Digital Stewards instances are ultimately about developing digital commons, by tapping into physical resources and the social structures that maintain them, the Stewards extend the communal care and maintenance to include the new technology over time.

Up next: Mode #5: Distribute Power.

Mode #3: Create Two-Way Educational Environments

Laurenellen McCannMarch 24, 2015

This is the third piece in a five-part series exploring how to develop civic technology with, not for communities. Each entry in this series reviews a different strategy (“mode”) of civic engagement in civic tech along with common tactics for implementation that have been effectively utilized in the field by a variety of practitioners. The modes were identified based on research I conducted with Smart Chicago as part of the Knight Community Information Challenge. You can read more about the criteria used and review all of the 5 modes identified here.

MODE: Create Two-Way Educational Environments

The first two modes encompass strategies and tactics for starting civic technology projects within existing community contexts, both in terms of social infrastructure and technical infrastructure. The next three modes will address ways to affect these structures.

Adding new technology into the infrastructure of a community is more complicated than simply teaching community members how to use the new tech. For the skills and tech-use to stick, communities have to have the opportunity to integrate the new tools and new skills into their lives on their own terms. In an educational setting, this translates to allowing community members to tinker— to play and feel ownership and figure out how they relate to the tech (or don’t).

It also means creating environments where the teacher is actively listening and responding to the ideas and stick-points offered by participants. Rather than pushing on the development of a single skill, a teacher in a two-way educational environment treats every training as an opportunity to listen as well as be heard.

As people learn, they tend to express wants and needs that are particular to the tool they’re using as well as how that tool could relate to their lives. Two-way teachers keep their ears perked for both, and seize opportunities where issue overlap allows for skills development to translate into community-driven tech development.

Start with Digital/Media Skills Training

Many community-driven civic technologies are the product of training in foundational media and digital skills that open up immediate and long-term opportunities for co-development.

Hidden Valley Nature Lab, a student-run experiment in place-based learning using QR codes, came from digital skills training at a public high school. Teachers gave students the chance to develop an idea inspired, but not directly taught, during class and the lab and associated work developed as a direct result.

The impact of digital training is not always so immediate, however. For example, LargeLots.org, a web platform for purchasing city-owned vacant lots, was made possible through paid support for a digital literacy instructor (“tech organizer”) at a local community organization. This trainer’s job was explicitly to teach, listen, and find opportunities to connect the needs of community groups with appropriate technological solutions — something residents were able to capitalize on during the development of the Large Lots Program.

Similarly, The NannyVan’s Domestic Worker Alliance App was also the product of a longer-tail two-way educational initiative. The app, a phone hotline structured around a fictional, educational show, was developed in coordination with a hyperlocal partner and the domestic worker community in New York. The NannyVan developed a relationship with this community through a media production training. Later, when an advocacy opportunity arose, the local partner turned to The NannyVan team to co-develop a tool that would best fit their social and technical needs, trusting The NannyVan’s approach based on their previous experience.

One of the longer-tail impressions of this tactic is seen in the creation of Detroit Future Media, an intensive digital literacy program crafted to support Detroit’s revitalization, created by the Detroit Digital Justice Coalition. In 2009, fueled by a grant from the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), the Allied Media Projects (AMP) had an opportunity to expand broadband Internet adoption in Detroit’s underserved communities — communities that were already reaching out to AMP looking for digital and media skills trainings. As AMP notes in a later report, as they approached the idea of expanding not just how the Internet could be physically accessed, but how digital technologies could be sustainably leveraged by communities for their own needs, they encountered an unavoidable capacity gap.

“…there were few people in [Detroit] had the special combinations of technical skill, teaching experience in non-academic settings, community connectedness and desire to use media for community revitalization.”

So, AMP had an idea: what if the BTOP grant could be used to train trainers — folks who were already acting as teachers, connectors, and leaders in the context of Detroit’s many communities? To pull this off, AMP joined with 12 other community organizations to create the Detroit Digital Justice Coalition, which applied for BTOP funds to create the Detroit Future trainings along with a few other programs.

Detroit Future Media’s Digital Literacy Guide

Approaching technology training from this relational perspective allowed the impact of teaching one individual to be immediately amplified and interconnected through social infrastructure — and created new structures that support continued development at both hyperlocal and city-wide scales. One outcome was the creation of a Digital Stewards program to create and maintain community wireless networks across Detroit.

Co-Construct New Infrastructure

On-site learning can also be two-way. Between 2002 and 2010, the Prometheus Radio Project worked with over 12 communities around the country and the world on barnraisings — a method of rapid construction for community radio stations. With an explicit nod to the Amish tradition, radio barnraisings bring together locals (through the stewardship and organizing capacity of a local community group (see parallels to Mode #1 here)) and radio experts and advocates from around the region to go from idea to live on the air over the course of three days. In addition to literally co-creating new technical infrastructure, volunteer facilitators lead workshops throughout the barnraising to get community members up to speed on federal regulation, radio engineering, programming and the lobbying and advocacy needed to keep their stations on the air over time.

A crowd waits for a world premiere broadcast after the Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste Barnraising in Woodburn, OR. Photo credit: The Prometheus Radio Project.

Although Prometheus aided in the format of the event and the literal construction, in every instance, the process of education and development that occurred over the course of the barnraising was shaped by the input of the convening community group and all the participants in the event.

Installing new technical infrastructure through collaborative educational processes that instill community ownership is also readily present in the work of:

Red Hook Wifi: a community wireless network in Brooklyn that is maintained by the Digital Stewards, an educational program for young adults)
Free Geek: which provides access to free computers built by a community for a community)
Public Lab: an international community of citizen scientists who develop and share tools and techniques to aid in each others’ distributed research

***

Up next is Mode #4: Lead from Shared Spaces.