Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-07-10 15:14] – [Review of the experiments] nik
+++ marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-09-15 09:26] – [Techniques in detail] nik
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==== Review of the experiments ====
-We reviewed the progress and conclusions from three experiments; **[[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]]** and blue divestment, [[plastic_pollution_experiment|Plastic pollution]] from a systems change perspective and [[game_on_experiment|Game On!]].
+We reviewed the progress and conclusions from three experiments; [[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]] and blue divestment, [[plastic_pollution_experiment|Plastic pollution]] from a systems change perspective and [[game_on_experiment|Game On!]].
 ===Transparency of Marine Industries===
-The [[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]] initiative sought to test the ideas around using transparency as a tool to improve the marine environment. The focus was on mapping existing initiatives, checking the availability of data sources & looking at what data may be required for informed decision making. What information is available? an overwhelming amount, making it practically impossible to look at everything. reducing the scope to include available shipping & fisheries data, the conclusion was that info is available, there are still significant gaps since technology is not always good enough to identify illegal fishing (for example). If data is available, it may not always used or discrepancies followed up. shipping data is patchy in places
+The **[[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]]** initiative sought to test the ideas around using transparency as a tool to improve the marine environment. The focus was on mapping existing initiatives, checking the availability of data sources & looking at what data may be required for informed decision making. What information is available? an overwhelming amount, making it practically impossible to look at everything. reducing the scope to include available shipping & fisheries data, the conclusion was that info is available, there are still significant gaps since technology is not always good enough to identify illegal fishing (for example). If data is available, it may not always used or discrepancies followed up. shipping data is patchy in places
 The group is optimistic, but still somewhat confused about the scope and depth of the issues. Divestment in seafood companies with poor environmental and legal commitments is seen as viable (especially via pension funds) and there are several ideas about using financial sector as lever. While there are groups currently involved in  divestment programmes, there is a concern that it may not be systemic enough, various initiatives could be brought together. There are good signs for financing opportunities as several investment companies are interested in fisheries reform (fisheries reform report. ref. heather). Scope for open data experiments. does open data, access & hacking a public API lead to new & unexpected results?
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
+===Game On!===
+The **[[game_on_experiment|Game on]]** experiment is looking at way to get the public more involved in influencing decision making process, in particular habitats directive. The experiment involves developing a game (board or computer game) to test the ideas.
+The intitial conclusion is that it probably wouldn't help that much with specific issues, which led to a new hypothesis;
+  * some kind of simulation for NGOs to help decision making wrt. campaigning could improve quality of outcomes.
+  * an advocacy training tool to help NGOs understand legislative process, stakeholder analysis, negotiations
+  * a game aimed at wider public, interested in involved in marine issues would need to be more 'general'
+**Method**
+  * various discussions with young gamers (n=10~15 age ~10yrs) were held
+  * discussions with existing stakeholders were held (internal)
+  * simple example games described
+**Conclusion**
+  * general ocean education game could be interesting
+  * "social innovation exchange" as possible venue for further development -> half day workshop perhaps?
+**questions & comments**
+  * tie in with existing BBC projects, perhaps with new Ocean documentaries
+  * other existing opportunities?
+  * campaign / advocacy game sounds like a good idea (perhaps w. book "How to Campaign" as a basis)
+  * existing game from 'seaworld' (? ask nicola) for advocacy and training
+  * that games could be kept simple for training
+==== Evaluation and Feedback about the experiments====
+(...)
+==== Evaluation and Feedback about the Marine CoLAB so far===
+The participants value above all else the collaboration with everyone involved. They appreciate that the workshops gave them time to get to know each other, to learn about which expertise exist in the group and hear about people’s current work that can lead to interesting contributions to Marine CoLAB. New opportunities emerged for the group as a whole, as well as smaller (bilateral) collaborations. It was useful to spend enough time and several cycles of working on the "big picture", then finding out how to translate it in practical experiments. This translation was not always easy, particularly when the participants’ ambitions are bigger than the time available to implement the ideas in between the workshops. The more concrete the experiments become and more closely related to existing work, the easier it would be to commit time and resources to their development. The themes that emerged from the workshops are interesting, although some of the participants doubt whether they are the best ones for longer term initiatives. The group found it challenging to find the right balance between the lab-approach (i.e. iterative experiments) and the NGO approach of long-term and high-impact campaigns. The facilitated process was valued as a catalyst and a way to challenge and probe the ideas from different perspectives.
+For the future, the participants are wondering how to create initiatives that are greater than the sum of the work they already do as individual organisations. More work on stakeholder engagement is needed, as is finding the right balance of inward and outward focused work. Another concern is whether Marine CoLAB should focus on one or more initiatives. Having one initiative would have the benefit of everyone’s contribution, but it isn’t sure whether the whole group should work on a single issue. Even the participants decide to continue working on existing experiments, they would like to have a way to collect new ideas and a place to discuss and possibly develop them. Towards the end of the scoping phase, as the experiments developed, the participants expressed a need for more open-ended conversations and smaller working groups for specific issues. Time (in between the workshops) and focus (of experiments) seem to have been and will continue to the biggest challenges for Marine CoLAB.
 ==== Retrocasting and Extrapolation ====
@@ Line 93: / Line 126: @@
 ====Techniques in detail====
-  * Retrocasting & Extrapolation.
+  * Retrocasting & Extrapolation. (ref. http://lib.fo.am/futurist_fieldguide/retrocasting)
   * Outcome Pathways Design.
-  * Evaluation. (what, so what, now what?)
+  * Evaluation. (what?, so what?, now what?)
-  * critical thinking (6 hats).
+  * six ways of thinking