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 [2015-12-03 10:08] – [Mission / MIX] maja | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 12:02] – [Plastics project] maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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==== | ||
- | Marine CoLAB is a network focused on values based solutions to protect and restore the ocean. We exist because a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the ocean and drive change. We aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health. We tackle these issues by collaborating, | + | < |
* Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the ' | * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the ' | ||
Line 167: | Line 178: | ||
To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http:// | To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Next steps== | ||
+ | * Giles to compile a proposal for a mission statement based on these reflections and the materials from Lisbon. | ||
Line 177: | Line 191: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | There is a need to find a language all Marine CoLAB participants understand, paying attention to jargon. There is a difference between the term " | + | == 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, | In order to uncover deeper values, we need to start with basic connectedness (of people and places, different disciplines, | ||
Line 186: | Line 202: | ||
* issue based theory of change -> value based | * issue based theory of change -> value based | ||
* bringing various voices, with various values into discussion | * 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**! | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Next steps == | ||
+ | * 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 236: | Line 269: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | 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==== | ||
Line 282: | Line 319: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | | + | |
- | * mayoral election in may 2016 | + | Working session of the now fully funded (CGF & OAK Foundation) Marine CoLAB project: campaign to make London free of Single Use Plastic Bottles. |
- | * focus as a marine project rather than just about ' | + | |
- | * " | + | Three topics to touch on: |
- | | + | |
- | * required; project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas) | + | * Reality check (commitments, |
- | * collaborative | + | |
- | * 2 ppl full time - project mgmt at ZSL (via Project Oceans), narrative & communication TEP | + | |
- | * FF interns | + | ==Values== |
- | * governance? overview committee, advisory group | + | |
- | * connections with existing NGOs working in ' | + | What will make individuals change behaviour (intrinsic, economic…)? |
- | * Emma Cunningham re. stakeholder interviews, industry, NGOs, etc | + | |
- | * how to ensure 'best advice' | + | * How to avoid industry backlash? |
- | * strategy for mayoral candidates | + | * How to make it sustainable? |
- | * establish | + | * Focus as a marine project rather than just about ' |
- | * any upcoming 'big things' | + | * Have to have a closer look at what has failed |
- | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles | + | * how to ensure 'best advice' |
- | * potential case studies (selfridges, | + | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles |
- | * how do we explicitly test values based research? | + | * Design campaign to include values as an essential part of it: continue discussion at the brainstorming meeting in December. |
+ | * How to explicitly test values based research? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Reality Check == | ||
+ | |||
+ | The funding proposal was successful: now a few urgent things to do: | ||
+ | * By 11 December 2015, All: Re:read the proposal, agree on commitments and/or adapt if needed. | ||
+ | * ASAP: Heather, Steve, Louisa: paperwork | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Collaborative | ||
+ | * Project management | ||
+ | * Governance: overview committee, advisory group - needs to be finalised | ||
+ | * Recruiting: By 16 December: Heather | ||
+ | * January: interview applicants | ||
+ | * Compile a project team ASAP | ||
+ | * Giles/FF: has staff for research & background, active mapping process. Connect FF’s interns to work on researching case studies (Bristol (tap friendly, public fountains…) Selfridges, ZSL, etc), C40, cities as chanpions, COP, tourism, Blue Bell… | ||
+ | * (Longer term): Form advisory group with different stakeholders (Sue has ideas) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Implementation plan | ||
+ | * 16 December: Initial startup meeting: Heather, Mirella, Amy, Giles, Louisa | ||
+ | * 12 January (from 2pm) Full planning meeting with other experts from organisations | ||
+ | * After January plan at least one meeting per month | ||
+ | * Short term focus: Mayoral election in May 2016: need strategy for mayoral candidates - Campaigns are written NOW (Louisa has a few people who should be engaged in this): | ||
+ | * How to get a meeting? Exploratory conversations to identify what is the opportunity for the candidates. | ||
+ | * Offer solutions/ | ||
+ | * Longer term: Systems Mapping exercise and stakeholder conversations (linked to advisory group) | ||
+ | * Identify target groups (from systems mapping) | ||
+ | * Outsource research: to e.g. frameworks research - additional funding will be available for this research from CGF. Which questions need asking? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Link to related initiatives, | ||
+ | * Research | ||
+ | |||
====Planning 2016==== | ====Planning 2016==== |