| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-08-19 10:44] – nik | marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-09-15 09:26] – [Techniques in detail] nik |
|---|
| ===Game On!=== | ===Game On!=== |
| |
| The **[[game_on_experiment|Game on]]** experiment in 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 **[[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; | The intitial conclusion is that it probably wouldn't help that much with specific issues, which led to a new hypothesis; |
| |
| ==== Evaluation and Feedback about the Marine CoLAB so far=== | ==== 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 ==== | ==== Retrocasting and Extrapolation ==== |
| * Retrocasting & Extrapolation. (ref. http://lib.fo.am/futurist_fieldguide/retrocasting) | * Retrocasting & Extrapolation. (ref. http://lib.fo.am/futurist_fieldguide/retrocasting) |
| * Outcome Pathways Design. | * Outcome Pathways Design. |
| * Evaluation. (what, so what, now what?) | * Evaluation. (what?, so what?, now what?) |
| * six ways of thinking | * six ways of thinking |
| |
nik