Practical Implementation

Status:

Alpha - we have some commentary in here. This is under review by our team and not to be considered peer-reviewed or complete by any means. References have not even been added yet - that will change things quite a bit.

Precautions:

Partial Approach:

Partial Implementations of successful approaches to social network health have beek known to be unpredictable at best and typically harmful. Without implementing all of the key action findings in social network health, it is likely that a net negative outcome for community health will result. All of the key action findings are necessary but insufficient on their own.

For example, if a community implements a preventative mental health program that is not ecologically valid, then even with all nine other key action findings correctly implemented, the program is unlikely to see success. That would be a net negative outcome leading to lost resources and potentially cynicism that could stand in the way of future efforts.

Expertise:

At all levels of approach implementation, it is necessary to enter in with expert knowledge of training. Without a master-level trainer in the room, it is entirely possible to incorrectly sequence approach scaffolding or an individual activity, such that a negative outcome is experienced.

A negative training cascade can also occur when an expert trainer trains a less experienced trainer, and that less experienced trainer is then allowed to train other trainers before they themselves are experts. This is a common problem often associated with "voltage drop".

Scope of Implementation:

Consistency is a key finding in Social Network Health - that and the precaution of partial implementation are a stark reality check to anyone looking for a quick fix.

From the implementations that members of this project have successfully participated in, it has been observed that a program can begin to have a positive effect right away, but it typically takes years and sometimes hundreds of practical group sessions before the community becomes expert in it's own co-created processes.

History of Practice:

Here we will attempt to consider important historical phases of development of approaches.

The fact is that a lot of Social Network Health findings are described in traditional knowledge systems. In a very real way, the history of Social Network Health goes back form millennia, and one could easily argue that oral history likely passed this knowledge on pre-history.

What we are seeing today is that over the last few decades modern research has provided evidence for prioritization of Social Network Health approaches, which were less formally described at the start of the 20th century, but as individual achievement became the sole focus in almost all areas of modern society, non-ironically to the detriment of both individual achievement, and collective health and productivity.

SEL and the resource trap

SEL is a real event in sociological application to education that has, in the last 50 years, taken de-facto form without a standardization body.

In the parlance of Social Emotional Learning in US schools there Tiers - Tier 1 (prevention-based) comes before Tier 3 (isolation-based) because it is, colloquially, terrible to have to isolate people - generally, Tier 1 is the success case and Tier 3 is the last line of defense for individuals who need it. This is appropriate prioritization from the perspective of a social network health approach. In practical implementation, however, far fewer communities put as many resources into effective Tier 1 programming as Tier 3. This is often due to prioritization of individual achievement metrics, which often severely backfires, and a focus on diagnosis, isolation, and treatment as per the medical model of care, which is much closer to a Tier 3 model.

Fundamental Principles of Practice:

Co-Creation:

The most basic level of understanding of the Key Findings in Social Network Health tell us that programs developed outside of communities are unlikely to have a positive effect.