Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-11-27 11:02] – maja | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 11:26] – [Game On!] maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Facilitators: | Facilitators: | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is the last workshop of the first year of [[start|Marine CoLAB]]. Louisa Hooper compared it to standing at the seashore at low tide, with rocks and mud emerging under water, so we can begin to see the peaks, as well as what underlies them. One of the biggest challenges for this workshop and the coming year is how to do less with game-changing effectiveness. It is important to look at the big picture as well well as the practicalities of the months and year(s) to come. | ||
Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
==== Framing ==== | ==== Framing ==== | ||
- | |||
- | This is the last workshop of the first year of Marine CoLAB. Louisa Hooper compared it to standing at the seashore at low tide, with rocks and mud emerging under water, so we can begin to see the peaks, as well as what underlies them. One of the biggest challenges for this workshop and the coming year is how to do less with game-changing effectiveness. It is important to look at the big picture as well well as the practicalities of the months and year(s) to come. | ||
Maja Kuzmanovic looked back over the notes of the past year and distilled a few points from previous discussions on the future of Marine CoLAB, that can be used as a starting point or a point of discussion, when looking forward to 2016 and beyond. Marine CoLAB participants are keen to seize opportunities to reframe challenges and refresh whole systems. They do this by being a part of trusted collaborations and networks. After a year of working together, the facilitators added that the participants are very keen to and good at designing and working on projects. | Maja Kuzmanovic looked back over the notes of the past year and distilled a few points from previous discussions on the future of Marine CoLAB, that can be used as a starting point or a point of discussion, when looking forward to 2016 and beyond. Marine CoLAB participants are keen to seize opportunities to reframe challenges and refresh whole systems. They do this by being a part of trusted collaborations and networks. After a year of working together, the facilitators added that the participants are very keen to and good at designing and working on projects. | ||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Over the course of several workshops, a range of challenges for Marine CoLAB were identified, including systemic change, public engagement, valuing (cultural dimensions) of oceans, perception of marine conservation, | Over the course of several workshops, a range of challenges for Marine CoLAB were identified, including systemic change, public engagement, valuing (cultural dimensions) of oceans, perception of marine conservation, | ||
- | Finally, before delving into the futures, mission, values and a range of experiments, | + | Finally, before delving into the futures, mission, values and a range of experiments, |
+ | |||
+ | ==== Agenda ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the morning the participants focused om **Marine CoLAB as a whole**. Beginning with reflecting on //Marine CoLAB so far//: what worked and what needs more work. Grounded in this experience they moved into a visioning process lead by Giles to clarify the overall Marine CoLAB //vision and mission//. At the end of the morning Sue took the group through a beautiful presentation and discussion of the //values based approach//, as a lens that can be used to shape and evaluate projects, experiments and the initiative itself. In the afternoon, the focus was on **Marine CoLAB project incubator**, | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
Line 107: | Line 113: | ||
* Creative communications - communicating complex concepts, training… | * Creative communications - communicating complex concepts, training… | ||
- | == Organisational buy-in | + | == Connect to organisations |
* Dedicated staff | * Dedicated staff | ||
Line 113: | Line 119: | ||
* Us as individuals in CoLAB vs us as organisation; | * Us as individuals in CoLAB vs us as organisation; | ||
* Understanding how to manage and maximise positive feedback into participating organisations | * Understanding how to manage and maximise positive feedback into participating organisations | ||
+ | |||
+ | === What can we improve? === | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Get better at knowing "who we are, where we go and how we do it" | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Organisational buy-in == | ||
+ | * Engage not just individuals, | ||
+ | * Clarifying the strategic lines of work of Marine CoLAB (3 lines?) | ||
+ | * Offering value add (e.g. building effective collaborations) | ||
+ | * Try to find a common agenda that all organisations would be interested in | ||
+ | * If Marine CoLAB activities can fit into day-to-day agendas of existing work in the participating organisations, | ||
+ | * Think about the structure of the collaboration and how it could overlap with organisational missions, activities and strategies. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Sustainability == | ||
+ | * innovation | ||
+ | * collaboration | ||
+ | * projects | ||
+ | * Core funding is likely to be needed for Marine CoLAB as a whole, as some of the organisations are only funded on a project basis, so do not have the capacity to offer people’s time. While it is important to get Marine CoLAB projects funded, the benefit of the collaboration needs the CoLAB as a whole funded as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Communication == | ||
+ | |||
+ | (within organisations, | ||
+ | * Focus outwards | ||
+ | * Create a thought piece explaining something like "this is the benefit of 12 months of Marine CoLAB", | ||
====Future of Marine CoLAB==== | ====Future of Marine CoLAB==== | ||
+ | {{> | ||
+ | The visions of Marine CoLAB in 2021 | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Value is at heart of Marine CoLAB, connecting the public with oceans and increasing the environmental benefit. Value is also a challenge for Marine CoLAB, defining the rules of the game. The CoLAB is a framework that feeds the organisations involved with game-changing ideas and projects. It isn’t quite clear what the size of its pond is, but it is likely that its purpose is to think, or perhaps think and implement, more likely to connect and spawn initiatives rather than do everything itself. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Marine CoLAB perpetuates change in three areas: governmental/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Clarity about the added value of Marine CoLAB, for the organisations and the world. There is a clear articulation of strategy in three strands: | ||
+ | * Actual experiments that show change; including learning from the process, replicating and adapting experiments to other areas, developing metrics, etc. | ||
+ | * Good internal and external communication reaching broad audiences | ||
+ | * Values shift | ||
====Mission / MIX==== | ====Mission / MIX==== | ||
- | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ | + | < |
+ | |||
+ | * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the ' | ||
+ | * Recognising existing values, rather than changing or creating ' | ||
+ | * What is the timeframe? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Glue: values based → USP → what is the BIGGER SHIFT the lab wants to focus on (e.g. climate change, fossil fuels and oceans - a big goal to strive towards)? What are the relevant values for this goal? As a lab, how do we experiment with strategies? | ||
+ | |||
+ | When talking about a values based approach, there could be two possibilities: | ||
+ | * Recognising and amplifying values: the CoLAB needs clearer ideas for methods to ' | ||
+ | * Changing values: a more pro-active process, although perhaps an impossibility - possibly better to focus on changing behaviours instead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http://www.campaignstrategy.org/|Chris Rose]] and also NEF’s approaches. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ( cross reference w. Giles' notes ) | ||
+ | |||
====Values based approach==== | ====Values based approach==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Presentation by Sue Ranger == | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a need to find a language all Marine CoLAB participants understand, paying attention to jargon. There is a difference between the term " | ||
+ | |||
+ | In order to uncover deeper values, we need to start with basic connectedness (of people and places, different disciplines, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * developing a shared language based around values we can use to communicate within the group | ||
+ | * ' | ||
+ | * uncovering existing values, aligning values | ||
+ | * issue based theory of change -> value based | ||
+ | * bringing various voices, with various values into discussion | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Discussion == | ||
+ | |||
+ | The values based approach is the hallmark of Marine CoLAB, a prism or lens through which the LAB and its activities are designed and assessed. Filling the gap between the values of humans and the value of oceans. The value of oceans tends to be misunderstood and needs to be communicated differently. An **iconic campaign** might help, as well as focusing on issues by describing the value of oceans, such as the plastics project and other **values based experiments**, | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are different methods to approach values, depending on the theory of change applied. Should Marine CoLAB have one or more theory of change? Is there a generic TOC or a range of context specific theories that can mobilise new voices and gather evidence? Is the uniqueness of Marine CoLAB’s TOC important? Would it not be more relevant to focus on adding value? | ||
+ | |||
+ | What are the values of Marine CoLAB? Could **shared values** be Marine CoLAB’s focus at all times and across all projects? | ||
+ | |||
+ | How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**: | ||
+ | * invite speakers | ||
+ | * share readings | ||
+ | * personal exercises (akin to Sue’s values presentation) | ||
+ | * incorporating it in projects | ||
+ | * values a part of all Marine CoLAB communication | ||
====Project Incubator==== | ====Project Incubator==== | ||
Line 130: | Line 219: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | (cross reference with Aniol' | + | Mapping existing and emerging projects by organisations as a way to identify strategic lines of work for Marine CoLAB |
- | * ways to identify strategic lines of work | + | The participants identified |
- | * list of relevant projects | + | |
- | * marine safe | + | |
- | * coastal partnership network | + | |
- | * Thames river academy (educational projects) | + | |
- | * beach watch | + | |
- | * capturing the value of our coast (citizen science, data collection) | + | |
- | * capacity building at FFI (new educational programmes, masters, adult ed. etc) | + | |
- | * strengthening NGO capacity in Portugal (aniol) | + | |
- | * common ground (community voice project followup, biz case for marine resource mgmt) | + | |
- | * MPA programme (increase in capacity for creating marine protected areas) | + | |
- | * (FFI co-management approach) | + | |
- | * sustainable seafood in Portugal (MCS & Client Earth - reducing unlawful fishing) | + | |
- | * ocean schools (ocean awareness as part of general knowledge, general education) | + | |
- | * # | + | |
- | * Blue New Deal | + | |
- | * diverting EU marine funding to 'good things' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * three main groupings | + | |
* opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | * opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | ||
* schools, training & educational projects | * schools, training & educational projects | ||
* exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | * exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | ||
- | * (global wave conference) | ||
- | * capturing the value of our coast -> possible focus for various experiments, | ||
- | * rethinking projects in terms of value lens, changes of impact with contributions from other partners | ||
- | * time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies....) | ||
- | | + | List of relevant projects |
- | * find specific ways for marine | + | |
- | * write up value space for each project | + | == MPAs and marine planning == |
- | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week | + | |
- | * edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | + | * Common ground: [[http:// |
+ | * MPA campaign/ | ||
+ | * Sustainable seafood in Portugal, Spain and EU (NEF, MCS & Client Earth - reducing unlawful fishing; scoping, looking at minimal standards for the seafood industry; including different stakeholders (policy, communities, | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Education and communication== | ||
+ | * Thames river academy (educational | ||
+ | * Ocean schools: ocean awareness | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Capacity building== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * Capacity building at FFI: new educational programmes, scholarships, | ||
+ | * (FFI co-management approach) | ||
+ | * Related: strengthening NGO capacity in Portugal (Aniol) | ||
+ | * Diverting EU marine funding to 'good things' | ||
+ | * http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Next steps == | ||
+ | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week, make a [[Project Incubator Form]] | ||
+ | * Edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | ||
+ | * (cross reference these notes with Aniol' | ||
+ | * Next workshop: | ||
+ | * Find specific ways for Marine CoLAB to inform or engage with existing and new projects (e.g. advisers) | ||
+ | * Write up value space for each project -> further mapping | ||
+ | * Rethink projects in terms of value lens, changes of impact with contributions from other partners, possibly create a time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies....) | ||
====Game On!==== | ====Game On!==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | Ocean Engagement: gaming approaches | ||
- | * (cross reference with Sandy's notes) | + | "We're close to a tipping point on ocean experience games" |
- | * ideas that have surfaced | + | |
- | * challenge; how/when to engage the pubic to change rules / process | + | Challenge: "how can we change perception of the value of oceans through digital media?" |
- | * concluded that the first experiment | + | GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis |
- | * perhaps | + | |
- | * two main options | + | Several ides have surfaced, all with challenges and opportunities. The common |
- | * " | + | |
- | * influence exiting | + | The first [[game on experiment]] focused on public engagement with rules related to oceans, which might be less game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool. Instead, it might be better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness' |
- | | + | * __Develop |
- | * coached | + | * __Influence |
- | * develop | + | |
- | * develop | + | If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible: |
- | * BBC docos, google ocean, natgeo, etc | + | * **Coached |
- | * mainstream marine conservation game (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?) | + | * Develop **add-ons to existing games** |
- | * games can also be used as fund-raising vehicles | + | * Develop |
- | * simple experiments | + | * Develop a full-blown |
- | * possible direction | + | |
- | -> sim city like versions | + | |
- | | + | Out of these directions, the group distilled |
- | * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | + | |
- | * advantage; | + | == Small Lab Games== |
- | * disadvantage; | + | |
- | * full on game | + | * Disadvantages: |
- | * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper | + | |
- | * disadvantage; | + | ==Marine Conservation Game== |
- | * questions; target audience? SIM-MPA? | + | * Advantages: Making such a game would connect digital and conservation worlds; There is possibly large impact and educational opportunities, |
- | * marine game/film leadership | + | * Disadvantages |
- | * advantage; | + | |
- | good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | + | ==Influencing Game Developers== |
- | * disadvantage; 'Nemo effect' | + | * Advantages |
- | * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, | + | * Disadvantages: |
- | * interest | + | |
- | * giles, testing assumptions, | + | |
- | * heather, perhaps as a masters project for students {Exeter uni, Chagos project) | + | Next steps; |
- | * mirella, perhaps | + | * more preliminary research to see which option is most promising |
- | * MSC, existing contacts (octonauts) potential test audience. | + | * Sandy, Sue & Heather: Potential |
- | * next steps; | + | * Heather: connect this experiment to the ZSL project on virtual Chagos (British, controversial, |
- | * potential | + | * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience. |
- | * sandy, sue & heather | + | |
| | ||
+ | (cross reference with Sandy' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
====Plastics project==== | ====Plastics project==== |