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_201507 [2015-07-10 15:16] – [Techniques in detail] nik | marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-09-14 17:00] – [Evaluation and Feedback about the Marine CoLAB so far] maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==== Review of the experiments ==== | ==== Review of the experiments ==== | ||
- | We reviewed the progress and conclusions from three experiments; | + | We reviewed the progress and conclusions from three experiments; |
===Transparency of Marine Industries=== | ===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, | + | 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, |
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? | 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' | ||
+ | * 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 ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **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 | ||
+ | * " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **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" | ||
+ | * existing game from ' | ||
+ | * 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", | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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, | ||
==== Retrocasting and Extrapolation ==== | ==== Retrocasting and Extrapolation ==== | ||
Line 93: | Line 126: | ||
====Techniques in detail==== | ====Techniques in detail==== | ||
- | * Retrocasting & Extrapolation. | + | * Retrocasting & Extrapolation. |
* 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 | ||