Explanation of enquiry types: RegenCHOICE

A shorter version of this appears on my wiki

Explanation of enquiry types in RegenCHOICE

There are several motivations for dividing the enquiry space into different areas of life.

Some kinds of questions have legal regulations. This is particularly true of recruitment/employment enquiries, where several questions will typically be prohibited, depending on jurisdiction.
Different default questions are appropriate for different enquiry types.
The different kinds of relationship that are central to participant understanding need to be made very clear.

Different perspectives

So, trying to see this system from a participant's point of view, we can outline various dimensions of a possible enquiry. These are not fully independent dimensions.

The kinds of actors involved, and how they want to relate

peers two (or more) people relating as equal in status, without power dynamic

one role for both: person

one person helping another, with difference of knowledge, skill, or other resource

roles: helper; helpee

membership between an individual and an existing group — roles:

roles: admitter; admittee

a company or other legal entity, and an individual employed

roles: employer; employee

several players playing the same or different roles, outwith existing organisations

roles: varied, depending on the game; for some games, just “player”

Value exchange

with a legal contract, for extended value exchange, e.g. money for labour
commerce: people buying or selling goods or services, often short term
access: someone stewarding or gatekeeping for a group or organisation gives access to their membership or resources, in return for money, labour, or other compensation
mutual fulfillment, pleasure, fun; money not being central to the exchange

Engagement: the aspect of time and commitment

short term or “ephemeral”: no commitment or foreseen continuing engagement
occasional: engagement may recur; no fixed commitment
ongoing: commitment for a period of time, definite or indefinite
long term: deliberate long-term commitment

Areas of life touched on

close personal relationship, e.g.: family; intimacy; romance
learning, education, training; skills and competences
living together in ongoing social relationship
working life, including employment
enjoyment: sports, hobbies, pastimes, games, play

These could potentially mix together in various ways.

The seven types of enquiry

There are many possible combinations of the distinction made above, but we want to keep the number to a minimum, for simplicity. It is vital, if possible, to avoid confusion between two kinds of enquiry. Here are the seven types that currently appear to be the minimum number to distinguish the different kinds of enquiry that are potentially envisaged. Many of the theoretically possible combinations of the above dimensions make little sense, and are omitted.

Sharing: interests, activities, personal relationships: This is likely to be a common enquiry type for many people.; The assumption is that both parties have equal status in the friendship, relationship, activity, or interest. There are many motives and reasons why people should want to relate with someone else, and many different kinds of relationship. This is an open enquiry type that does not assume the presence or absence of any feature of a personal relationship, and therefore is well suited for the very common “would like to meet” kind of enquiry. It covers shared interests, activities and learning as well, as equal partners.; In some cases, a shared interest between individuals could lead to the formation of an established group, which could then use the joining enquiry type to find more people to join the group.; Asking a question about potential intimacy should serve to separate those looking for no more than sharing interests, activities or “just friendship” from those explicitly seeking an intimate or couple relationship. The point of putting these different possibilities together recognises that there are no strict dividing lines between these categories.; Money would not be explicitly involved in the relationship – if money were involved, the helping type should be used.; Features: learning, life; no money; low to high commitment; Roles: Parties relate as individuals of equal status: each one is a “person”; Compulsory questions: desired/acceptable degree of closeness/intimacy
Collaborating in business partnership, collective, venture, etc.: The parties have equal status and power, but may have different qualities, attributes, skills or competences. People are looking for others with similar ambitions, and typically complementary abilities, to act as a team. Alternatively, people's skills may be similar, and the people could be coming together to share common services, or to present a shared public face.; This enquiry type is fine for finding more equal partners in a business or organisation, but if it's employees that are wanted, with a commitment different from the existing partners, then the employment enquiry type would be preferred.; The assumption is that the people are coming together to create or develop a self-sustaining entity that provides or contributes towards making a living. There is no assumption about where or how the different people live.; Features: work, with learning; money or benefits; high commitment; Roles: Parties mainly relate symmetrically – partners and members can just go as “person” – though there may also be limited asymmetry between existing partners or members and new ones, or between partners with different defined roles — the vocabulary for such roles will need to evolve; Compulsory questions: jurisdiction; legal framework
Living arrangements: communities, communes, co-housing projects, etc.: It may be a case of individuals searching for others with similar values and norms, with compatible behaviour, and who may bring different resources or abilities, to share the practical everyday matters of living.; People who want to share living may also be looking for an established place.; The assumption is that the people are coming together to provide for or to contribute towards their better living. This may be shorter term, as in younger individuals sharing flats or houses; or may be longer term, as intentional communities. There is no assumption that people will share business activities, income in intimacy, though these may naturally develop.; Features: life, learning; money or resources; high commitment; Roles: Parties mainly relate symmetrically – housemate, member, neighbour can all be called “person” – there may also be asymmetric roles of admitter (communities looking for people) and admittee (people looking for community); Compulsory questions: desired location; type of living arrangement
Individuals helping other individuals: One individual wants some help, or wants something doing, or wants a resource by the other; the other has the ability to help with it or to do it, or has the resource. In contrast with employment, with this enquiry type, no contract of employment is envisaged, though there may be a contract for a particular service. There is no ongoing obligation beyond the completion of the work. This category ranges from, on the one hand, simply doing some work for someone, to, on the other hand, helping the other do something, as in tuition, training, advice, or mentoring. There may not be a clear dividing line. Counselling, therapy and the like are included here.; This is not an enquiry type for corporate offerings, as the point is that the person helped may want to specify characteristics of the person they want as a helper, or vice versa.; The help given could be in the context of a trade or profession, and be paid; but could also potentially be voluntary or free. The currency involved may be alternative/complementary rather than state-backed fiat.; Features: work, learning; some kind of exchange or money; low commitment; Roles: Parties relate asymmetrically: helper and helpee are both individuals; Compulsory questions: duration and availability time window
People joining groups, such as clubs, associations or religious organisations: This is the enquiry type where people can find existing clubs and societies, for any kind of activity. The two separate roles are the association, and the member. An association may have conditions of membership that are required of prospective members. The individuals may have requirements about which criteria are used or not used, as well as about the nature of the association, its ethics and rules. Both parties may have an interest in the activity or meeting timetable, which will typically be relatively stable, as the association's members will be making arrangements around that timetable. The association may or may not have joining or membership fees; it may have rules or codes of practice; it may have particular standards or codes of ethics.; This enquiry type can also be used for crowdfunding. There is no clear dividing line between a club set up for the benefit of its members, and an association setting out to support a new business.; There will be some way of having membership status confirmed centrally, so that people can specify that they want to meet members of the association. Obviously that's only useful for large associations where one doesn't generally know people.; Features: learning, life; maybe money; medium commitment; Roles: Parties relate asymmetrically: the association is the “admitter”; the prospective individual member is the “admittee”; Compulsory questions: none
People playing informally with each other: This enquiry type complements “joining”, as joining is for individuals and existing groups, while here, “playing” is for groups which have not been formalised. For example, a tennis or chess club exists to facilitate playing a particular game, and will probably have formal, or at least clear, roles defined and understood by all the members.; Here, in contrast, there is no existing organisation. This makes the relationship inherently much more open.; But to consent to play in an informed manner, the rules need to be clear, and people need to know them.; Features: learning, life; short-term commitment; Roles: Parties relate according to role: for some games everyone is equally a “player”, other games will need to be structured with their specific roles; Compulsory questions: depends on the game
Employment of people in organisations: Here there are two different roles: employer and employee. Both parties are looking for a contract of employment. The employer is offering money; the employee labour. The employer wants an employee with particular characteristics, skills, experience, attitude, availability, etc. The employee may be looking for terms and conditions; timescale; location; timetable; nature of work; colleague characteristics. For the CHOICE, the employer role is operated by an individual representing recruitment, personnel, HR, or similar function. Note that some discriminatory questions may be illegal, and will be prohibited in this enquiry type of CHOICE.; The assumption is that the employer will pay the employee. The employer will also pay for the use of this service.; Features: work, with learning; money or benefits; high commitment; Roles: Parties relate asymmetrically: on the one hand, the employer, which is corporate; on the other hand, the employee (trainee, apprentice, etc.), who is individual; Compulsory questions: weekly hours commitment; duration of contract; pay; location (at least the jurisdiction, and usually also work location)

A table to correlate dimensions and enquiry types

	sharing	collaborating	living	helping	joining	playing	employment
The kinds of actors involved, and how they want to relate
peers	✓	✓	✓			✓
helping				✓
membership			✓		✓
company							✓
players		✓				✓
Possible roles for these actors
	person	person; various	person; admitter – admittee	helper – helpee	admitter – admittee	player; various	employer – employee
Value exchange
contract			✓	✓	✓		✓
commerce				✓	✓		✓
access			✓		✓
mutual	✓	✓	✓			✓
Engagement: the aspect of time and commitment
short term	✓			✓		✓
occasional	✓	✓		✓	✓		✓
ongoing	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
long term	✓		✓		✓
Areas of life touched on
personal	✓		✓		✓	✓
learning	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
living	✓		✓			✓
working		✓		✓			✓
enjoyment	✓		✓		✓	✓
	sharing	collaborating	living	helping	joining	playing	employment

Guide to choosing a type

The following summary helps to choose between the types, based on the characteristics of symmetry of relationship, whether money is likely to be involved, and the level of commitment.

If there are just two individuals involved, then, if they relate as equal in status, with no money likely to be involved, it is a case of sharing. The intention may vary from low to high commitment.
There are three clear reasons why individuals might get together, relating as equals, but with money being implicated somewhere, along with relatively high commitment. First, to join in doing business and potentially earning money (collaborating); second, for sharing living arrangements, and third, to share resources that are brought in by one party (helping). The same enquiry type of sharing living arrangements also applies to the asymmetric situation of individuals and established living groups looking for each other.
If individuals relate asymmetrically, and there may or may not be money involved, and typically they will have low or short-term commitment. If money or work is involved, it comes under helping; if not, then playing.
If the potential relationship is between individual and an organisation, and clearly therefore asymmetrical, then if the organisation is an employer, the relationship is well-known as employment, with high legally defined commitments; but if the organisation is not an employer, then it is most likely to be joining some other kind of club, association, or other grouping, with a wide range of degrees of commitment.
But if the organisation is specifically about living, use sharing living arrangements.

The main category of relationships that are not supported by RegenCHOICE (see below) is commercial relations between organisations and individuals, which is a dominant form of relationship in our current society.

Areas of life not covered

At first sight it may not be clear what is left out of the above categories, so here it is spelled out which areas of life are not envisaged being covered by enquiry types (which include much of our present economy), why these are not currently suitable for RegenCHOICE, and how they could start to be brought within its scope.

Existing business market to consumer (rather: richer regenerative marketplaces)

A prevalent aspect of life in contemporary society is businesses selling goods or services to an individual, generally through a market mechanism. However, the market mechanism effectively destroys or hides the kind of information that is central to the operation of RegenCHOICE. The individual has no easy means of choice on ethical issues — whether goods or services are regenerative or degenerative.

For example, many retail chains have questionable ethics. In most cases, the business is run on capitalist lines, making money for shareholders, typically contributing to, not reducing the problems of inequality, with little or no regard to regeneration.

A start towards RegenCHOICE for retail operations would be to have retailers commiting to answer all questions asked by consumers about provenance and ethics. This would begin with the existing ethical retail practices (Fairtrade, organic, cruelty free, etc.), going on to build an increasingly rich platform for individual ethical or regenerative choice in consumption. In effect, this would amount to building in transparency and regenerative choice centrally into the market mechanisms.

Traditional courses of training or education (rather: a wider concept of learning)

In our current society, most courses other than compulsory education are provided by organisations run on business principles (even if they are technically charities, as universities and many schools are), and the market for these services is similar to other business markets. For similar reasons to the "business market to consumer" category above, this is problematic for RegenCHOICE.

RegenCHOICE can facilitate six approaches to learning, rather than trying to box all learning up in a separate category.

Learning is expected in the workplace as a natural and expected consequence of most work, including collaborating and employment.
People can form peer-to-peer relationships around sharing learning activities, which may be a natural extension of sharing interest, or may choose to come together to share their following of a (traditionally provided) course.
Individuals may offer or receive tuition: this comes under helping.
People could consider joining a club, society or other group, set up expressly for the learning and development of its members. Like any club, this can have criteria for membership, and these criteria could include interest in specific kinds of learning, or perhaps certain pre-requisite achievements that are necessary for the level of learning envisaged.
Sharing living arrangements can naturally lead to more wide and diverse learning than normally happens in the context of a nuclear family, specially around personal and interpersonal issues.
Learning through playing is considered normal for young children, and what has been called “gamification” has been much talked about in education at all levels for some years.

Existing business to business transactions (rather: ethical supply chains)

Most business to business transactions are generally constrained by the rules of operation of the respective businesses and the markets in which they participate. As with most business-to-consumer operations, there are great pressures to squeeze ethics out of the system, and to base transactions solely on profitability.

If an ethical business-to-consumer market place were to develop, the thinking (above) about applying RegenCHOICE to business to consumer relationships could be developed to apply here as well.

Existing investment and banking (rather: targeted lending and sharing of resources)

Most current investment is done through investment or banking intermediaries who exclude almost all ethics out of investment decisions. Even the current "ethical investment" funds do little more than bias towards, or more usually away from, particular business areas – their bluntness calls into question the value of supporting them.