Assessing the public interest depends not only taking the broad, as opposed to narrow, perspective. It also requires defining the time and spatial domain it all takes place
One of the great things about using this blog, and the NaBloPoMo challenge, to push myself to write out my ideas is that it tests my own understanding of them. Einstein once said that if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough yourself, so being able to write about them this much fifteen days straight with plenty of distractions has been very encouraging.
What I found was interesting today was that, in laying out the Scope dimension category, there is a tweak that could be made to the model that could help broaden its perspective as well. Pardon me while I try to work through this path of logic and contemplate its impacts. If you’re not interested, go ahead and look at the not-yet comprehensive list of dimensional scales I’ve listed for Scope at the bottom of this post.
Scope represents breadth or width in the Four Dimension categories. This is since in any thorough evaluation of an issue, the setting in all of its facets must be properly established. Not just spatial, but also temporal and the range of those who could be affected. Do we consider how an issue just affects people or do we also factor in wildlife and the environment, especially when it comes to industry and development?
Assessing conduct also matters when it comes to determining how broadly applicable it is beyond the immediate issue. Going past factors like culture or the situation involved to determine if a sustaining public interest is being served.
But the tweak to consider for my model concerns how homo-centric (concerning just people) I make it. The current form is focused on people. As the continuum list further below show, other Scope factors like wildlife and the environment, are considered, but are secondary. All of the continuums themselves, as I had been using them so far, are scaled on how much you consider the welfare of others in your conduct, at least in the group size of people.
However, if you scale the continuums on a more general rating score (still open ended at the progressive side) and place people as one of those continuums on the Scope category, then the model could be applicable beyond just people and assess the big picture through a little less human-biased lens. And as I said in the NaBloPoMo day 6 post, the validity of a theory is based not only on its logic, but also on how broadly it can be applied.
Something for me to think about as I continue to develop the model. At least it provides me with another variation, but I’m late with this post already (and if this all doesn’t make sense to you, I don’t blame you. Sometimes, to me, the purpose of writing pieces like this is just trying to make sense of it all myself).
As for the list of continuum below, by narrow versus broad-based, I mean whether fewer or many of the sub-category involved are considered for the subject at hand. E.g. is the matter in question culture specific or does it apply to many cultures. The list of continuum used in the model varies with the situation, recognizing that some don’t apply to every scenario.