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, around the theme of ‘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, no Blockchain-ecosystem spent energy on the sociological and organisational theory 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.

Please define the positive impact your project will have on the wider Cardano community.

• 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)

What is your capability to deliver your project with high levels of trust and accountability? How do you intend to validate if your approach is feasible?

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 organisational development, as well as teacher education projects and digital 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

• 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?
• Heurich, B., & Lukács, B. (2023). Are we close(d)? Debating the openness paradox in science. Distance Education, 44(4). DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2023.2267482
• Heurich, B., Lukács, B., & Weidener, L. (2023). Opportunities and Limitations of Decentralization in Decentralized Science. Scientific Track Der Blockchain Autumn School 2023, 2, 6. DOI: 10.48446/opus-14635

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

–

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)

What are the key milestones you need to achieve in order to complete your project successfully?

Abstract: Formulate a concise problem-definition and outline the following research. The milestones and task areas are guided by the scientific research method. The first step is formulating an abstract and a research agenda. Based on the agenda an outline for the research paper will be formulated that will guide the empirical work/literature review and the structuring of the paper.

>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. This entails collecting and reviewing connected literature, formulating relevant concepts based on the literature, e.g. the transfer methodology into the internet/decentralised web space, such as theorising how Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues and Consensus Conferences can work online, as compared to their traditional offline methodologies. Formulating possibles theories and methodology after working through the literature and preparing the main body of the text.

>Review/Feedback: The first draft of the research paper will be published and put into the research-community for peer-review and feedback, while constantly being worked on and developed further.

>Preparation final paper, incorporation of feedback: Peer-review and feedback from the research-community will be collected and incorporated into the main text and final corrections and additions to the main body and the conclusion and discussion will be made.

>Final Submission: Before publishing the research paper a final copy-editing of the text will be done, so the quality assurance of rigorous research and correct structure is kept. Finally the open source pre-print version will be made public and published in a repository.

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

Bence Lukács (Lead Researcher)

Will be in charge of the organisation and management of the research, as well as the first author of the paper. Responsible for the empirical work/literature review and the writing and developing of the paper.

Benjamin Heurich (Assistant Researcher)

Will be the first contact for feedback and reviewing the paper as an academic consultant, and supporting in incorporation and adjustment of the final submission after general feedback has been collected.

Please provide a cost 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)

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.