Meeting 3 Notes

Co-ordinator = Neil Stewart

PARTICIPANTS

• There is a risk that there is nothing in our outcome resolve that is 'doable' (rather than being just a wish list). Perhaps we can take one or a small number of things that are doable within July 2002. We could choose three diverse case examples and test how they are in our view regulated.
• Notice that if we have to include all nations, we will have to change our analysis because some cases will be very specific for Britain. So, perhaps we can concentrate on the case of individuals in the west.
• There is a truth in this statement that applies to all nations in the developed country. Regulation has become an increasingly complex problem. How can we simplify regulation and release creativity?
• One area of interest could be how creativity can be released at the neighbourhood and private level? What happens to this creativity? Communities themselves have resources to bring to this while national level institutions are ignoring it. How can creativity at the neighbourhood level be transformed to a voice at the national level? We are taking about a creativity that enables new resources (solutions / voices) to evolve at the local level and go through all the other structural levels. However, we do not have a theory for this yet. What are the characteristics of these levels? Can we simulate practice through the levels?

CRITICS

• Notice that if you have the chance to do this analysis at each level you will see that it is not a recursive theory that you need because the structure at each level is different. 

PARTICIPANTS

• Notice that Colombia has some relevant experience on creativity, for example on anti-virus software, but regulation and social control is questionable. In fact, I don't think there is any control at all.
• Could we use the Microsoft discussion as a case study?

CRITICS

• Could you use the three-dimensional framework you prepared? This grid can also pick up on recursivity, in fact it could be a way to ensure recursivity.
• Notice that regulation is different at each level of recursion. We could exploit these different characteristics both for creativity and regulation and by looking at the transition at each level we can work out some regularities for them.

PARTICIPANTS

• Clive has agreed on to write a short paper (about 1000 words) reflecting what we have already discussed about the grid. Then we can use this an initial document for discussion in order to transform it in a document of about 5000 words that could be the base for a chapter on a book or even a research proposal. The next step could be to test also improves the validity of the framework. Perhaps we need to do an ethnographic research.
• One point still under discussion is what makes sense to regulate only at a national level? 
• I think we can take cases from UK and Colombia. For example, if we look at local area networks in Columbia, how they interface with international networks and how this is regulated is a key issue.
• I think there is a distinction between regulation, which is a property, and Regulation - with a capital R - which is something done by political body in order to shape something. 
• My interest is in the first notion of regulation, first to understand it and then seeing how the second version of regulation impacts on that. This is in part an exploration because what we want is a light touch on capital R regulation, but effective. These are parts of research questions?
• I think our model could explore, from a systems perspective, how regulation exists and how regulation, with capital R, can be placed in order to create positive outcomes.