Please describe your proposed solution.

The basic foundational research around the formation and workings of decentralised and technology-based networks/communities from a traditional sociological and organisational theory viewpoint is mostly lacking. The research in the Blockchain space currently revolves around Governance- and Law-related questions. But this misses a key aspect of humans coming together in communities, forming organisations and solving problems together in a democratised manner, namely ‘how do humans solve problems together’? There is an assumption that human collaboration happens by itself and goal-driven processes have no theoretical background, and are in no need of a methodological framework. Additionally at this point, no Blockchain-ecosystem spent energy on the sociological research regarding humans coming together to solve issues democratically within a decentralised system and organisation, e.g. IOGs own research library is currently (close to entirely) empty for the search terms “social”, “participatory”, “collaboration” or “DAO”.

Cardano has to stay true to its core idea of being research driven by providing a solid scientific framework on how decentralised communities can build and work together. It needs to be investigated how open, problem- and consensus-forming practices and frameworks, such as Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues and Consensus Conferences, can be leveraged through a truly decentralised technological infrastructure.

Our research will offer a foundation and outline the possible transferability of sociological and organisational theory frameworks and methods that can be helpful when projects around community-building lack the foundational knowledge to democratise a problem-solving and consensus-generating process, e.g. using the technological infrastructure of projects such as Consenz and/or selfdriven Apps.

How does your proposed solution address the challenge and what benefits will this bring to the Cardano ecosystem?

• It brings an explicit research-advantage to the Cardano ecosystem
• It brings a sociological framework for current and future community projects
• It provides a methodological framework for organisational development in regards to DAOs
• It provides the opportunity for the Cardano community and ecosystem to actively participate in first steps of a #DeSci initiative (i.e. decentralised, community research funding being a key factor within #DeSci)

How do you intend to measure the success of your project?

Success can be measured in two ways, that are somewhat interconnected:

1. The theoretical methodology and framework move forward the understanding regarding the field of organisational theory, especially when it comes to organisational development in the internet-age through technological infrastructure and a decentralised manner of working and functioning.
2. The theoretical methodology and framework can be empirically tested right away in actual self-driven learning communities, where similarly the methodology and framework can be scrutinised after working through them with communities.

Please describe your plans to share the outputs and results of your project?

• Everything is shared as CC0 (Public Domain).
• <https://github.com/selfdriven-foundation/research>

What is your capability to deliver your project with high levels of trust and accountability?

The selfdriven team supporting the projects have a wealth of experience in education and technology.

The selfdriven Foundation was founded in 2019 and the team is highly engaged within the Cardano community. It has a robust organisational structure.

Mark Byers (Initiator & Co-founder) is a qualified Engineer and has 30+ years experience delivering internet based high-grade solutions to market, including the vision to co-found the entityOS.cloud service in 2000.

Bence Lukacs (Co-Founder) is a former sports trainer and teacher and brings experience in school development, as well as teacher education projects and Media Education research.

Benjamin Heurich (Co-Founder) is a university lecturer and researcher in the departments of Sociology and Educational Sciences with a focus on digital education, educational equity and internationalisation.

Diverse advisory team with over 100+ years experience

Advisory team includes Mario Altimari (Co-Founder) eLearningDAO.

About The Team

About The Organisation

--

We are conceptualising and building our self-driven learning communities through the selfdriven Foundation, and we are generally on a mission to improve education and learning through a research-driven methodology.

Below a brief list of the relevant research (personal, current field research etc.

Personal research into participatory organisational development:

Personal research into participatory organisational development

• Helbig, C., Hofhues, S., & Lukács, B. (2021). Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues as Instrument for Design and Qualitative Research in Educational Organisations. In Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations (pp. 23–40). Springer, Cham.
• Helbig, C., & Lukács, B. (2019). Openness as a principle of organisational development in educational contexts: Work report on participation-oriented dialogue formats in the OERlabs project.. Zeitschrift Für Hochschulentwicklung, 14(2), 109–122. <https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-14-02/06>

Latest personal research the Blockchain and Openness-space

• (accepted in peer-review) Heurich, B., Lukács, B. & Weidener, L., Science-on-Chain: Can We Trust Science Again?
• (accepted in peer-review) Heurich, B. & Lukács, B., Are we close(d)? Debating the openness paradox in science.
• (in print) Heurich, B., Lukács, B. & Weidener, L., Opportunities and Limitations of Decentralization in Decentralized Science.

Relevant research for participatory organisational development

• Andersen, I.-E., & Jaeger, B. (1999). Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331–340. <https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782301>
• Dendler, L. (2022). Participatory Science Communication Through Consensus Conferences: Legitimacy Evaluations of a German Consensus Conference on Genome Editing. Science Communication, 44(5), 621–655. <https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221133130>
• Dodds, F., & Benson, E. (2013). Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue. Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. Johannesburg: Civicus.
• Horst, M. (2012). Deliberation, Dialogue or Dissemination: Changing Objectives in the Communication of Science and Technology in Denmark. In B. Schiele, M. Claessens, & S. Shi (Eds.), Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends (pp. 95–108). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_6
• Joss, S. (1998). Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy, 25(1), 2–22. <https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/25.1.2>
• Technology, I. of M. (US) C. on H. C., Goodman, C., & Baratz, S. R. (1990). Profile of the Consensus Development Program in Denmark: The Danish Medical Research Council and The Danish Hospital Institute. In Improving Consensus Development for Health Technology Assessment: An International Perspective. National Academies Press (US). <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235816/>
• Webb, H., Koene, A., Patel, M., & Vallejos, E. P. (2018). Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue for Policy Recommendations on Algorithmic Fairness. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society, 395–399. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3217804.3217952>
• Veldhuizen, M., Blok, V., & Dentoni, D. (2013). Organisational drivers of capabilities for multi-stakeholder dialogue and knowledge integration. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 13(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2013.1002

What are the main goals for the project and how will you validate if your approach is feasible?

The output can be characterised as a research paper. The framework and methodology to be researched can either simultaneously be empirically researched (through practically building and organising a learning community), or used as a basis for empirical work after publication. This would mean that there are two types of research papers possible:

• Theoretical work to develop and research methodology and design a framework
• Methodology and Framework research, empirically tested in (a) learning community(ies)

Please provide a detailed breakdown of your project’s milestones and each of the main tasks or activities to reach the milestone plus the expected timeline for the delivery.

The milestones and task areas are guided by the scientific research method. Generally the milestones and tasks for a research assignment can be broken down as follows:

• Abstract
• Outline
• Empirical work (and first draft)
• Review/Feedback
• Final Submission

Please describe the deliverables, outputs and intended outcomes of each milestone.

The milestones and task areas are guided by the scientific research method. Generally the milestones and tasks for a research assignment can be broken down as follows:

• Abstract: Formulate a concise problem-definition and outline the following research.

• Outline: Conceptualising a detailed overview of the research paper, i.e. chapter titles, flow-structure of the paper with arguments, outline of the literature review, outline of the frameworks discussed etc.

• Empirical work (and first draft): This is where the largest part of the research work is done, and consists of literature review, outlining the frameworks and methodologies in detail, outlining the transferability into decentralised technological systems, description of possible proposal of extended frameworks for a learning community that is internet-based and decentralised.

• Review/Feedback: After finishing the rough draft the paper can be peer-reviewed by fellow researchers and the community

• Final Submission: After working through the feedback from the community, the final adjustments to the paper can be made, and the paper can be published.

Please provide a detailed budget breakdown of the proposed work and resources.

Breakdown: Generally a research work can be broken down into various phases, which in this case would correspond with the milestones, i.e.:

• Abstract (500 ADA)
• Outline (2500 ADA)
• Empirical Work (and first draft) (10k ADA)
• Review/Feedback (2000 ADA)
• Final Submission (15k ADA)

Who is in the project team and what are their roles?

• Bence Lukacs (Lead Researcher)
• Benjamin Heurich (Assistant Researcher)

How does the cost of the project represent value for money for the Cardano ecosystem?

Providing a theoretical framework that can serve as a foundation for further scientific but also practice-oriented work, has an immense value for further development and growth of the Cardano community. Both in the short and long term, robust frameworks can be created, tested, and integrated into the community through studies and peer-review processes.

The frameworks and methodologies researched will can be integrated and iterated at all times by the entire community. This decentralised scientific process can ensure further adoption and improvement of the frameworks and methodologies through empirical testing done by the community.