© Saulius Aliukonis
Learning Tools
My Favourite Story
- Category: artists, institutional carers, Learning Tools, project managers, Research, target groups
Name of the tool:
MY FAVOURITE STORY
What the result will look like:
A collection of stories, ranked and interpreted
Description of the tool:
This method focuses around a group discussion where participants discuss and rank stories, to find the favourite story of the group that best illustrates a certain theme.
The facilitator leading this activity firstly collects and edits stories that can illustrate notable moments (i.e. “the positive effects of clowning on older people or children”). Then, a group reviews the set of “special moments” narratives, each participant chooses a favourite story. In the end, as a group, they come to a consensus about their favourite story overall and describe the reasons why.
The group discussion can take 90 minutes to two hours and is organised in six parts:
1. Introduction: Facilitators welcome participants, obtain informed consent, and lead an icebreaker for participants to introduce themselves.
2. Discussion of Stories: Participants identify which story they had chosen as their favourite and why, and react to others. They discuss why and how the effect described in the story is relevant and share their own experiences.
3. Group Vote and Debate: The participants are asked to pick only one story as a group. Debate is facilitated to decide between the two top voted stories.
4. Final Vote: If consensus isn’t naturally reached, participants will vote on their final selection out of the two top stories voted by the group
5. Participant Reflection and Conclusion: Participants share how this activity helped them reach a deeper understanding.
6. Closing
When it can be used:
It can be used to explore shared values among a diverse group and gain an understanding of shared experiences.
Who it’s useful for:
The project team / organisation can use this method to evaluate the impact of the intervention, to identify promising practices and to incorporate different perspectives into implementation. Some stories can be used in raising awareness activities (keep in mind that you need to have consent for this).
Length of process:
It is a short-term process, involving activities to collect and edit stories, a 2 hour session and additional time for follow-up.
Main features - advantages:
The use of stories unearths new and deeper perspectives.
Beginning by talking about someone else’s experience is a useful entry point for discussing own experiences. Participants usually speake openly and freely about their own sensitive experiences after they had developed rapport with each other by talking about the common stories.
Main features - disadvantages:
It can be time consuming.
A clear understanding of the tool is necessary for the facilitator, especially in choosing the stories so they spark debate.
Guidelines for implementation:
Initial story selection matters.
All stories should be at the same level so that they could be plausibly chosen by any participant. In practice, this is difficult to do, and some stories can outshine the others. It is useful to review the stories or potentially pre-test them to see that they illuminate different perspectives.
Don’t forget about the editing.
Remove any identifying information. Edit the stories to be of similar length and detail.
Decide if the discussion will be online or in a face to face setting.
During the ClowNexus project, participants joined by online video conference and viewed a virtual whiteboard at the same time. Two facilitators led the session, with the evaluator observing. The first facilitator had overall leadership for managing the discussion, while the second took notes and organized the virtual white board.
Voting and debate is one way to spark discussion, but not the only option.
Holding a two-round runoff vote for the group’s favourite story is planned to spark deeper discussion and help participants understand and adopt new perspectives. This typically works well in cultural contexts where such competitive debate is welcomed, and if the facilitator keeps the session light and fun. Other methods to encourage discussion include a wider set of discussion questions, exploration of the second-favourite stories, and exploration of the last favourite stories.
Tool in practice:
In ClowNexus, the tool concentrated around stories of ‘special moments’ that described the positive effects of clowning for old people, to uncover what are the perceptions of different stakeholders about healthcare clowning and the impact it can generate at the level of the target group.
Attachments / Images:
Origin of the tool:
This is an adaptation of the Most Significant Change method, which is a qualitative method used for group learning and adaptation. Most Significant Change is a narrative-based tool that generates stories from frontline stakeholders on changes in their lives, organizations, and contexts. Most Significant Change is traditionally used to help program managers understand which parts of the interventions had the desired effect, what other results have emerged, and why and how change occurred. The process of collecting, analyzing, and prioritizing stories through this method provides insight into what an organization values. By repeating the activity over time, the method supports continual learning and adaptation, as well as early identification of successes and failures.
How change happens
- Category: artists, family carers, institutional carers, Learning Tools, project managers, Research
Name of the tool:
HOW CHANGE HAPPENS
What the result will look like:
A map of factors generating change, their effects and the relationships between them
Description of the tool:
This method refers to a facilitated discussion useful in exploring diverse and complex perspectives around a given theme. Participants generate ideas on different factors that influence a change and then they create a visual map of the relationship among different factors: what causes what and how they interact to create change.
The session starts with a short introduction to welcome participants, obtain informed consent, and allow participants to introduce themselves through an icebreaker. Then, using a guiding question (i.e. “What happens during a clown visit?”), participants share their experiences related to the issue discussed. Each individual idea or factor is captured by a second facilitator on sticky notes on a board, and grouped together with similar themes.
While participants take a short break, facilitators check in with each other to reflect on the session so far, as well as continued to organize the stick notes thematically on the board.
After the brake, facilitators help the group to draw connections between sticky notes, drawing arrows between ‘causes’ and the ‘effects’ and create a final moment for reflection and closing.
When it can be used:
It is a method useful to collect and analyse data about the current needs of audiences.
It can serve as a foundation for collaboration. This method helps different individuals explore and understand how others view a specific issue. It uncovers not only perceptions of how the world is, but also what are the driving forces behind it. Systems mapping is often used to explore and shape “mental models,” which are the deep-rooted beliefs that capture how an individual makes sense of the world. The How Change Happens pilot specifically sought to bring together individuals with different perspectives, and this was considered to be a major component of its success. In the future, this activity could be a useful starting point for stakeholders who will be working collaboratively
Who it’s useful for:
The project team / organisation can use the map to understand the point of view of different stakeholders.
The clowns can use the process to create the basis of meaningful collaboration at the start of a co-creation process.
Length of process:
It is one activity, involving a 2 hour session and additional time for preparations and follow-up.
Main features - advantages:
It helps to understand the programme theory of change from frontline stakeholders’ perspectives – which can be different from the programme planners’ perspective.
Main features - disadvantages:
It can be difficult to explain at the onset and may feel intimidating or very different from what is typically done.
Planning and managing this discussion successfully requires a highly skilled facilitator. It is also useful to have a second facilitator assist with the white board.
Guidelines for implementation:
Choose your guiding question
A general framing question results in ample discussion but less depth. Part of a systems mapping activity is to define the boundaries of the system that will be mapped. For the first piloting of the activity, it was considered useful to have a broad question (the system boundary) to ensure there would be sufficient content to discuss. With more experience and planning, in the future similar activities could focus in on areas of particular interest.
Decide if you will do it online or offline.
Systems mapping can be done virtually, with limitations.
Limit the session to 2 hours.
The session should be limited to 2 hours, as it is considered that this was the maximum time that participants would be willing to spend and able to pay attention. Typical systems mapping activities require significantly more time for participants. In addition, due to the limited time and the desire to avoid technical difficulties, the second facilitator took the responsibility of writing sticky notes on the white board and drawing connections, but the method is originally intended for participants to take the lead on these activities.
Tool in practice:
During the ClowNexus project, “How change happens” took the form of an online 2-hour workshop facilitated in the local language to generate ideas on the different factors that influence a change during or after a clowning visit. This provided insight into the potential benefits and impact of healthcare clowning.
Attachments / Images:
Origin of the tool:
This is an adaptation of Systems Mapping. Systems mapping can take a range of formats, from causal loop diagrams that show relational dynamics and systems change across a large number of interconnected factors, to influence mapping that shows the relationships between proximal causes and effects.
