| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 10:32] – [Mission / MIX] maja | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 11:28] – [Values based approach] maja |
|---|
| | |
| To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http://www.campaignstrategy.org/|Chris Rose]] and also NEF’s approaches. | To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http://www.campaignstrategy.org/|Chris Rose]] and also NEF’s approaches. |
| | |
| | ==Next steps== |
| | * Giles to compile a proposal for a mission statement based on these reflections and the materials from Lisbon. |
| |
| |
| What are the values of Marine CoLAB? Could **shared values** be Marine CoLAB’s focus at all times and across all projects? Is there a spectrum of existing values that are shared (instrinsic/extrinsic, economic & cultural, individual & collective, etc.)? By working with a range of different values this approach can focus on whichever value catalyses different target groups - starting from their existing values, connecting them to oceans and each other, making the values collective and shared. | What are the values of Marine CoLAB? Could **shared values** be Marine CoLAB’s focus at all times and across all projects? Is there a spectrum of existing values that are shared (instrinsic/extrinsic, economic & cultural, individual & collective, etc.)? By working with a range of different values this approach can focus on whichever value catalyses different target groups - starting from their existing values, connecting them to oceans and each other, making the values collective and shared. |
| |
| How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**: | How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**! |
| | |
| | ==Next steps == |
| * invite speakers | * invite speakers |
| * share readings | * share readings |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23331193605/}}\\ | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23331193605/}}\\ |
| | 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 / developed | |
| * 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 was not so game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool | GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis that it is possible to do this by developing games or influencing game developers. |
| * perhaps better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness' | |
| * two main options | Several ides have surfaced, all with challenges and opportunities. The common challenge for all is deciding how and when to engage the pubic in the process, and who the target audience is (children, gamers, game developers…). It remains interesting to look at ways to make conservation games more mainstream, while at the same time focusing on awareness and education. There are many possible partners, but the CoLAB needs specific contacts and entry points to the games industry. |
| * "we're close to a tipping point on ocean experience games, imagery is swamped in action games" | |
| * influence exiting game devs or filmmakers / ocean 'consultants' / best practice guide | 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'. So far it looks like there are two main possible directions: |
| * current strands | * __Develop a game__ (see below) |
| * coached lab space to develop game(s) and/or app(s) | * __Influence game developers__: develop best practice guides, become a "one stop shop" or "think tank" for film makers and game developers… This approach would encourage leadership in design communities related to connecting transmedia stories to the value of oceans. |
| * develop add ons to existing games | |
| * develop games as tie ins to other games/films/etc | If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible: |
| * BBC docos, google ocean, natgeo, etc | * **Coached lab session** or "challenge workshop" to develop (mini) game(s) and/or app(s) and add-ons to games, with different stakeholders. There is a possibility to conduct this experiment at ZSL, similar to 'fish hackathons'. The focus is on the process (journey) and education of diverse participants. Through the journey of a lab development session the participants create simple experiments to test the ideas and if successful, find ways to scale them. |
| * 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 games as **tie-ins** to other games/films/etc (add to transmedia stories including BBC documentaries, Google Ocean, Natural Geographic programmes, etc) |
| * simple experiments to test ides -> scale | * Develop a full-blown mainstream **marine conservation game**, e.g. a ’simcity-like’ versions of initial scenarios (from [[http://lib.fo.am/marine_colab/workshop_201501|Workshop 1]], or SIM_MPA (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?). The interesting aspects of this approach is to enhance both digital games with marine content and experiences of oceans for the gaming community (e.g. using augmented reality). |
| * possible direction | |
| -> sim city like versions of initial scenarios (workshop 1) | |
| * three existing options for progress / requiring feedback | Out of these directions, the group distilled three most promising options for progress and looked at their advantages and disadvantages: |
| * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | |
| * advantage; existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, process based learning | == Small Lab Games== |
| * disadvantage; does a game actually 'work' as a way to develop connections to the oceans?, hackathon outcomes can be lacklustre. potentially limited impact. | * Advantages: existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, practice-based learning of values; connecting environmental and technological challenges |
| * full on game | * Disadvantages: does developing a mini game in a lab actually 'work' as a way to develop connections to the oceans? Hackathon process can be too technology focused, the outcomes can be lacklustre, with limited audience impact. |
| * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper & easier to create, existing research from BBC on AR in education, potentially wide audience, amplification. | |
| * disadvantage; high expectations, cost of development, educational games are usually boring, competitive | ==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, potentially reaching wide audiences, and amplification of Marine CoLAB messages. Augmented Reality (AR) tech becoming cheaper, easier to create and access (see existing research from BBC on AR in education). Added advantage: experiencing remote places without having to travel there (e.g. Galapagos with ZSL) |
| * marine game/film leadership | * Disadvantages high expectations, competitive market, difficult to create impact, cost of development is high, educational games are perceived as boring |
| * advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/agenda based) consulting, | |
| good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | ==Influencing Game Developers== |
| * disadvantage; 'Nemo effect' (clown fish), Disney often difficult to work with, span of control is extended, possible dilution. | * Advantages might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/agenda based) consulting where Marine CoLAB can add positive messages, influence through others; connection points to value of oceans through different media; broader impact than developing a single game - potential for driving systemic change, for example by connecting to games bloggers and journalists |
| * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, inaccessible. | * Disadvantages: Hard to reach and connect this target group for mutual benefit (though this is slowly changing); Nemo effect' (clown fish), Disney often difficult to work with, span of control is extended, possible dilution. |
| * interest | |
| * giles, testing assumptions, experiments | |
| * 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 | * more preliminary research to see which option is most promising |
| * MSC, existing contacts (octonauts) potential test audience. | * Sandy, Sue & Heather: Potential research questions, masters topics for students of Exeter University: "next week" to draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. Envisaged results: a "research think piece" |
| * next steps; | * Heather: connect this experiment to the ZSL project on virtual Chagos (British, controversial, inaccessible), funding during 2016 for a workshop/lab/hackathon. This can be used as a test case for the "small lab games" approach |
| * potential research questions, masters topics. | * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience. |
| * sandy, sue & heather draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. "next week" | |
| | |
| | (cross reference with Sandy's notes) |
| | |
| | |
| |
| ====Plastics project==== | ====Plastics project==== |
nik