…that your sense of time is warped; your awareness of the bottom line, null.
Ironically, one of the questions that came up at our session (echoed below in a comment from Neil Beam) was “Do you need a Ph.D. to heed [our] advice on going beyond buzz. Can a practitioner go it alone?” (paraphrased)
My answer: No you don’t; Yes you can!
By no means do I want to downplay my own background or denigrate the blood, sweat, tears, qualifying exams, torturous peer review process, or any other aspect of the training involved in earning a Ph.D., but in the same way you don’t need an MBA to be a CEO, or ‘do strategy’, a Ph.D. isn’t necessary to analyze a conversation.
You need a framework (a sound foundation), an open mind (open to letting the data speak), and a willingness to explore the depth of data.
As we discussed in our presentation, analyzing a conversation is about appreciating the context – realizing that there are several layers (As Marc would say, micro-meso-macro) to analyze for a comprehensive understanding:
- Signal – Finding the right means of detecting relevance
- Person – Digging deep into attributes/orientation of the individual producing the signal
- Role – Identifying, through patterns of communication, which role an individual plays in a community
- Ecosystem – Cultivating the appropriate balance of relationships, which form the structure of your network(s)
I would love to hear others and am open to feedback on this one. One area we toyed with including spoke more to the flow or dynamic of a conversation- a different take on the interaction between person and environment (now Role). I know Lithium has an impressive, empirical approach to Community Health in which they assess Liveliness within a community - this might fit in here.