tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post698559746054072377..comments2024-03-28T03:11:22.839-07:00Comments on PHILANTHROPY 2173: Field building part twoLucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-1773425175877154772009-02-20T06:23:00.000-08:002009-02-20T06:23:00.000-08:00I have a basic sense that what we might have "buil...I have a basic sense that what we might have "built" our field upon is so obviously different today than it was even a year or two ago. For example, the $40 trillion transfer of wealth which was such a rallying cry a short time ago, now seems sort of silly--given Madoff and the general economic calamities we now face. So, the forces that move the field (or the forces that are both fixing and disrupting) a field are always in play. Another example: the use of "business" standards (measurement, return on investment, mgt practices, sound fiscal mgt) for philanthropy (and the NP sector) now seem pretty hollow, when just a few years ago, we might have based our field's standards on the notion that we needed to be run more like a business. This doesn't mean the field doesn't exist, it just means a roadmap with a navigable and static destination is not exactly the right frame. Where are we right now? What matters? And why? are more powerful (and political) questions to me, then: By X time, we must get HERE.<BR/> <BR/>Now, what I am still trying to think through, is the ramifications of such instability (but, one might argue, a more creative and politically charged) on an actual field of practice. It would indeed be easier if there was a "field-building roadmap" that we could just plug our variables into and be done with it. But, I just don't think that's how knowledge, innovation and real practice happens<BR/> <BR/>I would also make sure to add, just because our "field" (and all fields) are always in the process of becoming, this does not argue that our efforts to say and do something about the field are useless or "overly professionalized" (as others might argue). To the contrary, the stakes are raised on every move the "field" makes, as meaning and field building are always happening, everywhere. <BR/> <BR/>Ok, so that's what I am thinking about field building.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-5350216587073107522009-02-19T08:39:00.000-08:002009-02-19T08:39:00.000-08:00Hi Lucy,Thank you for your blog. I always learn f...Hi Lucy,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your blog. I always learn from it. <BR/><BR/>As I finish my MPP at Cal, I’ve been thinking a lot about cross-sector partnerships and the networks that you reference in your post as well as the promise of building something “better”. I am currently doing research around public-private partnerships and their role as intermediaries in society in general and in workforce development specifically. I see much opportunity to use innovation as a catalyst for systems improvement. I wonder what role foundations and other funders have in spurring innovation, and, dare I say, competition. Innovation can lead to effective intermediaries, better systems infrastructure design, and effective intermediaries designing better systems (and implementing them). I’ve seen it, at least in part, in the workforce development realm. But I can’t help but think that there is more opportunity to incentivize innovation across sectors, and to devise strategies to effectively incentivize such innovation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16039109657587272409noreply@blogger.com