C. BEZZI 153
Starting with brainstorming second phase, the analysis is per-
formed by the very group producing the ideas, according to
completely different rules, which must be explained to the par-
ticipants.
Because the goal of evaluational brainstorming is the induc-
tive construction of an indicator set for the explored concept,
the group needs to be guided toward specific cognitive active-
ties, in order to reflect on the possible groupings, by homoge-
neous classes, of the collected strings. Classification—brain-
storming second phase—is implicitly associated to the concept
dimensions, and must be achieved by inductive processes. In-
stead of establishing classes in order to assign strings to them, it
is paramount to work on the strings, massing them together
until the group judges that the emerging classes are coherent. It
is a true work of meaning’s construction, avoiding as much as
possible the burden of past ideas about and upon the concept.
The group is focused on the individual strings (see below) and
mediates their semantic and pragmatic values by pairing them
more and more in larger clades, which only afterward show
their inner coherence as classes (dimensions) both homogene-
ous and characterized.
When the first phase is considered completed, the facilitator
invites the group to review its output and, starting with the first
string, suggests: “Now, our task is to assemble or put together
strings that appear to have some elements in common, no mat-
ter the reason. To this effect, if this is the first string, I’ll read
those following and you’ll tell me which ones have something
in common with the first. I’ll place a marker (e.g.: a red triangle)
next to the strings you select as similar or coherent to the first.
Then we’ll repeat the process with another string, using a dif-
ferent marker (for instance, a blue square), and we’ll continue
until we will analyze all of them.”
This task presents the following facets:
It requires the creation of homogeneous groups (also classes,
sets, categories or families, as long as the participants un-
derstand the concept), containing strings linked by semantic
affinities. He nce the “classification” phase label.
If conceptually more abstract, a string can be marked by
several symbols, because it shares diverse elements with
many other strings, thus belonging to more than one class.
When they are too abstract, strings can produce the so-
called “omnibus” classes, containing a large quantity of
broad-spectrum strings that are both generic and somewhat
useless in terms of further processing. If the facilitator sus-
pects such a classification, s/he should express his/her con-
cern, guiding the analysis toward other classification crite-
ria.
Classes should have as much as possible a limited semantic
extension, without assuming too abstract a feature;
The classification phase is based upon an additive method,
because it requires the analysis of one string at a time,
judging whether it can be associated to the reference string.
In this way the group does not immediately perceive the
emerging classes, but simply defines the logical nexus
linking a string to othe r s.
As a result, different classes are formed, each marked by a
different symbol.
These classes can be immediately named. This is much easier
when the meaning of each class is finite and the participants
recognize by themselves that they are dealing with a class as
such. In some cases, though, a strong connotation is absent (e.g.:
because the class is too abstract, see above.)
Nevertheless, to conceptually define the meaning of these
classes is a task reserved to the third, synthetic phase. In the
current phase, the group discussion may focus on whether it is
appropriate to include a given string in one class or another.
This approach encourages the expression of the links between
concepts (or strings). By the same token, because in this second
phase the group builds reality representation criteria (thru clas-
sification), it is quite likely that—at some point—the group
expresses diverging visions. In reality, whether to include or
not a string in a given class is not a purely logical operation, but
impinges upon the string interpretation offered by each indi-
vidual actor. Thus, this interpretation shares to a fair degree the
semantic plane (pertaining to words’ meaning), and is quite
convergent to the pragmatic level (pertaining to words’ usage).
Obviously, the first phase rules (do not censor, do not criti-
cize) do not apply any longer. Even better, it is inevitable and
often useful, to have a discussion clarifying and mediating the
shared framework of meanings.
Synthetic Phase
The third phase is dedicated to indicators.
It is preceded by a break during which the participants can
relax and the facilitator can transcribe all of the strings on
separate sheets, one for the strings with the red triangle (which
by now could have been named by the group), another for the
strings with the blue square, etc.
The group will work class by class (or dimension by dimen-
sion), without the confusing interference of page after page of
strings decked with different symbols, and will have the oppor-
tunity to observe the whole picture and—deductively—catching
its essential elements that lead to the indicators.
The facilitator starts: “Please note that the strings are organ-
ized according to the previous classification. Now we should
revisit the strings order to find further subgroups within them.
Observe the first sheet and tell me if you can find new string
groupings within this class, based on their common elements”.
At this point, the following can happen:
No further groupings emerge within a class. This happens
when the class contains a few strings very coherent and se-
mantically close. In this case, the participants can only at-
tribute a name to the class, if it doesn’t have one already;
Several groupings emerge within a class. These groups
clearly refer to elements, processes, objects, concepts that
can be differentiated even within a class already defined as
homogeneous. In this case, the facilitator marks with the
same symbol, (e.g., a number) the strings that cam be
grouped within that class, asking the participants to name
the sub-class thus formed. The work continues for all
strings within the class.
The third phase goals can be summarized as follows::
Recognition of the classes built during phase 2.
Definition of sub-classes within said classes and their de-
nomination.
Attribution of meaning to the work done so far, ordering
what was disorganized.
The final result of the third phase is the individuation of in-
dicators of the explored concept. In the same way in which
classes were related to the concept dimensions, its specific ele-
ments are referred to indicators.
Generally speaking, in reality the group is never confronted
with ideas such as concepts, dimensions and indicators. In fact,
this approach generates inductive group thinking, linked to a
communication pragmatics process, fostering the group’s stipu-
lation of reality’s particular meaning within the context of the
explored concept.
