Shift Lab 2.0 Final Report

LEARNINGS FROM S H I F T L A B 2 .0

Proudly supported by:

What is Shift Lab? ................................................................................................. 3 Thank-you............................................................................................................... 4 Shift Lab Bios......................................................................................................... 6 Our Context............................................................................................................10 Theory of Change and Methods...........................................................................12 Shift Lab 1.0 to Shift Lab 2.0.................................................................................16 Discovery Phase.................................................................................................... 20 Challenge Scope................................................................................................... 26 The Sleepy Middle................................................................................................. 28 Our Triple Helix......................................................................................................30 Indigenous Epistemologies............................................................................31 Design Thinking.............................................................................................. 32 Systems Thinking........................................................................................... 34 Going Deeper......................................................................................................... 36 The Shift Lab 2.0 Journey..................................................................................... 42 What Emerged from Shift Lab 2.0?................................................................... 44 Exploring Wahkohtowin ................................................................................46 Reflection Pool App........................................................................................50 You Need This Box.......................................................................................... 54 The De-Escalators........................................................................................... 58 Reflections on Centering Indigenous Knowledge............................................. 62 Tensions and Shared Key Stewardship Learning .............................................. 70 Shift Lab 2.0: Evaluation......................................................................................88 Now What, So What, What’s Next?................................................................... 106 Appendices:.......................................................................................................... 108 1. Core Shift Lab 2.0 Activities, Outputs, Outcomes..................................... 109 2. General Tools................................................................................................... 113 3. Behaviour Change Cards............................................................................... 114 4. Call to Join Shift Lab 2.0................................................................................ 119 5. Lab Challenge Briefs......................................................................................122 6. Shift Lab Innovation Manager Contract Description................................. 130

1

Our work is rooted in social innovation theory, where labs are the practice and process of uncovering promising solutions. But our work is also rooted in Indigenous worldviews. Social innovation is a lens we can look through to clearly see the systems that have harmed Indigenous peoples and continue to harm us. If we’re going to imagine solutions, co-creating ways to move forward to heal, to build successful economies and education systems, social innovation is a tool to leverage. It won’t do everything, it can’t do everything, but it certainly supports us in the big work we have ahead of us.

Everything is rooted in relationships.

“ piko kîkway ehohcimahkak wâhkohtowinihk ohci”

Nothing is more important than our relationship with each other, with the land, with the animals and with the spirit beings; we must remember how to live in relation to one another.

“ namakîkway ayiwâk iteyihtakwan iyikohk kâhisiwâhkôhtoyahk, kâhisiwâhkôhtamahk askiy, asci pisiskiwak, ekwa nistameyimâkanak, piko kakiskiskiyahk ta’nsi kesi miyowâhkôhtoyahk”

Honour that peace and friendship Treaty and live as relatives.

2

“ kisteyihtetān ewako wehtaskewin ekwa miyo-otôtemitowin asotâmâkêwin ekwa wâhkôhtotân” - Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse

WHAT IS SHIFT LAB? The Edmonton Shift Lab is an action-oriented exploration of anti-racism in our city. The Lab is a partnership between the Edmonton Community Foundation and the Skills Society Action Lab. We build on great work focussed on anti-racism in Edmonton and elsewhere. We choose to approach this through a Social Innovation lab. A Social Innovation lab allows for community-based prototyping and testing of pathways that strive to enact behavioural change. As of April 2020, we have completed two cycles of the Shift Lab — what we affectionately call Shift Lab 1.0 and 2.0. To learn more about Shift Lab 1.0 please visit edmontonshiftlab.ca for the first-year report.

The Edmonton Shift Lab is based in amiskwaciwâskahikan on Treaty 6 territory, the traditional meeting grounds for the Cree, Saulteaux, Blackfoot, Dene, Nakota Sioux, Métis, and Inuit.

3

THANK-YOU The Edmonton Shift Lab is honoured to express our deep gratitude to all the folks that helped along the way. This includes those who have contributed over the years to social innovation and anti-racism work anonymously, unnamed and unheard. We see you, and are grateful for your help in getting us to where we are at today.

4

Indigenous Elders, Knowledge Keepers, Researchers, Academics and Advisors • Grand Chief of Confederacy of Treaty Six Billy Morin • Charlie and Martha Letendre from Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation • Newday Letendre from Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation • Uncle Willard and Aunty Marilyn from Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, for their hospitality and invitation to the lodge • Gilman Cardinal from Bigstone Cree Nation, for launching us in a good way when Shift Lab started • Jacquelyn Cardinal from Sucker Creek First Nation • Hunter Cardinal from Sucker Creek First Nation • Lewis Cardinal from Sucker Creek First Nation • Josh Littlechild from Ermineskin Cree Nation, Maskwacis • Colette Arcand from Alexander First Nation • Darcy Lindberg from Maskwacis and the Faculty of Law, at the University of Alberta • Ron Lameman, Bilateral Treaty Coordinator, Treaty 6 Confederacy • Elliot Young from Maskwacis, Indigenous Community Engagement Advisor Norquest College • Dorothy Thunder from Little Pine Cree Nation and the Faculty of Native Studies, at the University of Alberta • Sara Cardinal, Indigenous Career Advisor, Norquest College • Melissa Purcell Executive Staff Officer, Indigenous Education, Alberta Teachers Association • James Knibb-Lamouthe, Director of Innovation & Research, Indigenous Knowledge & Wisdom Centre • Tasha Power from Saddle Lake Cree Nation • Indigenous Knowledge and Wisdom Centre • Yellowhead Tribal Council • Confederacy of Treaty 6 • Yellowhead Indigenous Education Foundation

Partners & Funders: • Edmonton Community Foundation (funder) • Skills Society Action Lab Evaluators: • Mark Cabaj, Developmental Evaluation/ Guidance and Mentorship • Paige Reeves, Interviews, surveys and synthesis of evaluation Research: • Gladys Rowe, Behaviour Change • Naheyawin, Indigenous Research Methods and Praxis • Centre for Race and Culture, Anti-Racism Initiatives: A Rapid Review • Rhonda Gladue, Treaty and Aboriginal Resource Rights • Megan Auger, Researcher/Interviewer • Shayna Arcand, Researcher/Resource Developer • Cara Peacock, Researcher/Resource Developer • Roberta Taylor, Board Game Designer • More than 30 community members who provided live feedback on Shift Lab 2.0 questions

International Speakers: • Shelly Tochluk • Daryl Davis • Trevor Phillips • Antionette D Carroll Designers • Jaime Calayo • Melissa Bui • Alex Keays • Iwona Faferek Writing, Editing and Publishing Support • Tim Querengesser Consulting

Interviews with Social Innovation Practitioners and Friends: • Dianne Roussin, Winnipeg Boldness Project • Angela Pugh, Roller Strategies • Frances Westley, Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resiliency • Gina Rembe, inSpiral • Joshua Cubista, Author • Lauren Morgan, Recent Business and Design grad • Nathan Heintz, Grove 3457 • David Prodan, e4c • Tad Hardgrave • Mark Holmgren, Edmonton Community Development Company • Lori Campbell, Norquest College • Zaid Hassan, Roller Strategies • Sam Rye, Social Labs Community • Alex Ryan, MaRs Solutions Lab

5

Shift Lab Stewards

SHIFT LAB BIOS Terms: Lab Stewards This term describes a group of five people (Jodi, Ashley, Ben, Sam, Aleeya) who were responsible for the development of lab design and the processes used, the coordinating activities, adapting and responding to feedback, and organizing the logistics of the lab.

Terms: ‘Core Teams’ This term describes the Core Lab teams at the heart of the Shift Lab. These teams were the driving force behind developing the prototypes that emerged. Striving to be a diverse representation of the system being explored, the Core Lab teams did sense-making of the key challenge. They also did scrappy and rapid research, made sense of insights, came up with possibilities, as well as prototyped and tested solutions. In Shift Lab 2.0 there were four teams of around six to nine people each. The Core Team came from a variety of academic, nonprofit, and public sector backgrounds. Core Team members living directly in or near poverty also participated and contributed greatly to this work.

While greater participation from all of these communities was possible, we were confident that the Core Team represented a true crosssection of Edmontonians affected by racism.

6

Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse is the Executive Director of the Yellowhead Indigenous Education Foundation. She spent many years at the University of Alberta, serving in faculty development, advancement, recruitment, community relations, and as reconciliation advisor. During her time at the U of A she helped found the Wahkohtowin Law & Governance Lodge with the Faculty of Law. In 2021, Jodi was appointed to serve on Edmonton’s Police Commission. Jodi also worked with former Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner Chief Wilton Littlechild in bringing the 2nd World Indigenous Nations Games to Edmonton in 2017. Jodi’s graduate research focused on Indigenous women’s experience of waterways downstream from the Alberta oil sands. Aside from academics, Jodi’s passion is media and community building. She has won multiple awards for her film productions and radio show production.

Ashley Dryburgh is an anti-racist feminist who has committed her personal and professional development to learning and talking about racism, with a particular focus on engaging her fellow white folks. In previous work, Ashley pursued graduate research with a focus on whiteness in Canadian queer communities and was the Executive Director of the Facilitating Inclusion Cooperative, which provided community-based research training and services for immigrant and Indigenous women. In her role at ECF, she explored the development of targeted granting opportunities that will support the broader Edmonton community.

Ben Weinlick is the Executive Director of Skills Society, a nonprofit that is one of the largest disability rights and service organizations in Edmonton. Ben helped create and launch the Skills Society Action Lab which stewards social innovation alongside community to tackle complex challenges and make systems change where it matters most.

Aleeya Velji brings systems change to the policy space by designing labs and infusing new thinking into public sector organizations. She developed her understanding of complex systems by working as an educator, taking on a fellowship with ABSI connect, and by supporting systems change through various intrapreneurship roles within the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government. She is stellar to collaborate with as she brings a spirit of play and kindness to all the work she does.

Sameer Singh melds journalism and design thinking with public engagement in Edmonton. He holds an MBA from the Rotman School of Business and an MJ from Carleton University. He is passionate about community development, stitching great ideas together, and getting projects off the ground.

Core Team Members Nicole Jones-Abad (she/her) is a community organizer doing work with Shades of Colour, a grassroots LGBTQ advocacy group in Edmonton. During the pre-lab research phase of Shift Lab 2.0, Nicole coordinated Shift Lab 2.0 and filmed the speaker’s series.

Tamreen Arif, MPA, is a public-policy expert who worked on a range of issues from mining in South America to economic development in rural Alberta. Above all, she is passionate about creating meaningfully inclusive spaces and centring the voices of marginalised communities.

Iwona Faferek is an interdisciplinary designer who is passionate about engaging local communities in collaborative problem solving. She loves the challenge of turning complex ideas into a compelling story and strategy, adapting her approach to engage diverse audiences and stakeholder groups.

Toni Fastlightning is the Director of Education of the Alexis Board of Education. She is currently on maternity leave raising her son, Sitoza Wapta, on Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. Toni has a Bachelor of Native Studies and a Graduate Degree in Phys Ed and Recreation from the University of Alberta.

Jaime Calayo is a graduate of the Strategic Foresight and Innovation Master’s program at the Ontario College of Art and Design. His exploratory approach to strategic communications and public engagement pushes him to communicate socially complex issues in innovative and emotionally impactful ways.

Ilene Fleming is Director of Strategic Initiatives at United Way of the Alberta Capital Region. Her work focuses on breaking the cycle of poverty through early child development and making sure children and youth have the community support they need to succeed in school.

Rebecca Craver is a pastor who works with the Edmonton Moravian Church. She is active in interfaith work, has been an advocate for hotel and airport workers, and has a strong desire to engage in deep and transformative work in herself and in relationships with others.

Dr. Carla Hilario is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta. Her area of research addresses youth mental health, including access to and experiences of care, protective factors for mental health, and youth-engaged research methods.

Darryl de Dios is a first-generation immigrant settler from the Philippines and works as a Youth Engagement Coordinator at Volunteer Alberta, where he co-designs the Youth @ the Table program, which matches youth to nonprofit boards across the province.

Alex Keays is a freelance graphic designer and design educator based in Edmonton. Her work focuses on research and participatory processes.

Kevin Drinkwater believes in bringing curiosity, creativity, and courage to the teams and projects he is privileged to be a part of. He is an entrepreneur and partner in J5, a design and innovation consultancy, and co-founder of The Social Impact Lab, a partnership between J5 and United Way. Eileen Edwards is driven by a love of learning and a vision of community where everyone has a place and value. These have led her to a PhD in Clinical and School Psychology, an MDiv, and a career that has encompassed psychology, teaching, ordination in the Moravian Church, starting a community cafe, and her current work serving in the Anglican Church.

Johnny Lee has been a social and environmental justice advocate for seven years and an off-the-wall social media presence. His work has evolved from reconciliation to decolonization to try and shift the conversation from symptoms, and management, to societal woes, to root causes and just, sustainable solutions.

Avery Letendre is an administrator for the Indigenous Governance and Partnership Program and Wahkohtowin Law and Governance Lodge at the University of Alberta. She is committed to working toward decolonization in Canada and is keen to join projects that build bridges, interconnections, stronger relationships, and knowledge toward those ends.

7

Derek Jagodzinsky is a designer/artist with Indigenous heritage whose works have been featured in the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian and Canada’s Juno Awards. He obtained his Master’s degree in Industrial Design from the University of Alberta, researching how perceptions about Aboriginal culture can be positively impacted and redefined through design in a modern way.

Naureen Mumtaz is an academic researcher and a design educator, whose work involves teaching and learning through participatory design thinking. Mumtaz’s interdisciplinary PhD at the University of Alberta explored participatory design-based research methods to inform intercultural understanding amongst marginalized youth.

Rabia Naseer is currently working in public-sector research.

She has contributed to discussions and initiatives in women leadership, anti-racism and human rights through working with various community organizations.

Annand Ollivierre is a Strategic Foresight Analyst with the City of Edmonton. His experiences have shaped his capacity to be a bridge-builder and through his work, he uses a holistic perspective that encourages collaboration and empowers organizations to apply new frameworks, methods, and tools for greater impact.

Paz Orellana-Fitzgerald is a design and user researcher who understands that a human-centred approach is the key to innovation and meaningful change. Paz’s research has informed and inspired projects in a wide range of industries and sectors — from the experience of buying eyewear to how nurses relate to technology in the workplace.

8

Helen Rusich is curious, passionate about community, and believes asking important questions is crucial to community development. Helen is a Project Manager with REACH Edmonton, working with newcomer communities in collaboration with organizations and systems to prevent family violence in a cultural context.

Rosanne Tollenar has supported the capacity needs of organizations and the community throughout her career in the nonprofit/voluntary sector, working primarily with social service, health, education, and cultural organizations. She is with the Community Engagement Branch of the Ministry of Culture, Multiculturalism and Status of Women at the Government of Alberta .

Essi Salokangas is a clinical pharmacist with a passion for improving health outcomes in vulnerable populations using evidence-based practice, empathy, and humor. Essi is a passionate advocate who believes in social equity, being trauma informed, and challenging systems to ensure they work for those who need them.

Lisa Zhu supports newcomers at an immigration and settlement agency. She holds a degree from the University of Alberta in Education and a diploma in Digital Media and IT from NAIT. She is a strong believer in social equity and taking an active role in social issues.

Jodi CalahooStonehouse

Ashley Dryburgh

Ben Weinlick

Aleeya Velji

Sameer Singh

Nicole JonesAbad

Tamreen Arif

Jaime Calayo

Rebecca Craver

Darryl de Dios

Kevin Drinkwater

Eileen Edwards

Iwona Faferek

Toni Fastlightning

Ilene Fleming

Dr. Carla Hilario

Alex Keays

Johnny Lee

Avery Letendre

Derek Jagodzinsky

Naureen Mumtaz

Rabia Naseer

Annand Ollivierre

Paz OrellanaFitzgerald

Helen Rusich

Rosanne Tollenar

Essi Salokangas

Lisa Zhu

Keeping Power and Privilege In Check In creating teams for both Shift Lab 1.0 and 2.0, we aimed for diversity, lived experience, and expertise.

With enthusiastic support from the Edmonton Community Foundation, our funder, we equitably compensated people for their time and expertise. Core Teams created their own charters of how to respect each other and keep power in check. Developmental evaluation helped Stewards ensure they were listening and adapting the process to the real-time feedback provided by individuals, teams, and the community.

The power was really in the honest feedback community stakeholders offered. If there was positive feedback to keep moving forward with a prototype, then Core Teams would move towards piloting the intervention at a broader scale. No process can ever fully account for all the ways power and privilege manifest themselves in a collective effort. Still, we are confident that our processes respected and understood the privileges, perspectives, biases and limitations that we each bring to this work.

“ A social innovation can be a product, process, or technology, but it can also be a principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or some combination of them.”

— Stanford Social Innovation Review

9

OUR CONTEXT The world changed in 2020. First, the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus brought most of the planet to a halt in the spring. Then, in May, the Minneapolis Police Department killed George Floyd, a Black man. This sparked a global wave of protests that brought Black Lives Matter and anti-racism issues to the forefront in a way that had never been seen before. The work of Shift Lab 2.0, including this report, took place during these events and was directly affected by both of them. For example, the Anti-Racism Subscription Box was launched two weeks after Floyd’s death. Subscriptions skyrocketed from the 30 we anticipated to more than 1,000, with another 500 people signed up on the waiting list.

But rather than opportunistically scrambling to meet this newfound attention to fight racism, the Shift Lab continued its work— researching, developing, and testing the prototypes it has designed to combat racism and wake up the “Sleepy Middle” in the Treaty 6/Canadian context. As a result, our processes, perspectives, and conclusions may not satisfy everyone in the expanding anti-racism space. However, we hope you will read this report and strive to understand the work to combat racism that a diverse group of community leaders undertook from 2017 to 2020.

10

11

What is Social Innovation?

A process that leads to relevant social innovation involves listening, learning, and co-creating promising solutions to complex problems that defy easy answers. We call these “wicked” problems. Wicked problems are full of tensions and defy simplistic answers. They are characterized by a low level of agreement on what the root of the problem is and often entail contradicting perspectives on what might be the best way to address it.

THEORY OF CHANGE AND METHODS

TYPOLOGY OF PROBLEMS HUMANS TEND TO TACKLE

Simple

Complicated

Complex

adapted from Cynefin Framework

Simple problem: baking a cake (follow the recipe and you’ll arrive at the same solution every time) Complicated problem: sending a rocket to the moon (work the problem long enough, break down the component parts, and complicated solutions can be found) Complex problem: raising a well-rounded human (no two babies are the same way, despite being raised the same).

Recipes, equations, and formulas won’t cut it with a complex challenge.

12

Tackling wicked and complex problems is emotional, messy work. It defies definition and is filled with uncertainty. Once prototypes have been tested, a solution only becomes a true social innovation when it spreads and scales at a systemic level. This is a point of debate in the social innovation practitioner community. Often, local solutions won’t scale and their strength remains local. Tactically, social innovation solutions strive to tackle problems at their root. Social innovators are open to experimenting with new pathways and possibilities. Good social innovators don’t only go after the new; they look at traditions and what is already working, as well as question status-quo assumptions. As Canadian social innovator Al Etmanski says, “Innovation is a mix of the old and the new with a dash of surprise.”

What are Social Innovation Labs?

If social innovation is the theory, labs are the practice and process of uncovering promising solutions. The central principle is that solutions are not known at the outset of the process but emerge through engaging multiple stakeholders, and therefore have potential for deeper systemic impact.

Another key principle is not simply talking about ideas and possibilities, but making ideas tangible and testable. This helps uncover assumptions. By the time a prototype is ready for a pilot, it has been vetted and tested by people for whom a solution is meant to support or serve.

Is Social Innovation Just A Trendy New Fad? Nope. Social innovation may be new in some ways but it is also a form of problem solving that is deeply rooted in ancient traditions around the world. As it involves broadening the view of a current problem and what possible solutions may be, social innovation can be considered non-linear, holistic, and unconventional by traditional STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) problem-solving standards.

Social innovation recognizes that a single individual is not the cause of complex challenges nor the only source of a promising intervention. In many ways, collective problem solving in Indigenous communities has been around for thousands of years, striving to meet all the challenges that might affect the community. Indigenous communities think and act in systems, and recognize the interconnectedness of land, water, people, the winged and four-legged ones.

The Shift Lab strove to ethically centre, and authentically engage, Indigenous knowledge and problem-solving systems with other social innovation ways of finding solutions. This “two-eyed-seeing” (a term brought forward by Mi’kmaw Elder Albert Marshall) approach helped inform all aspects of the process and prototypes.

The tools and methods of social innovation, such as design thinking and co-creation, are increasingly employed by the government and non-profit sectors in Canada. Social innovation often involves win-wins: for example, think of a recycling program which addresses littering, material waste, and income generation all in a single “blue box.” Social innovation can also involve remixing existing ideas to achieve new results. Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, for instance, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for pioneering the concept of “microcredit,” which helps impoverished entrepreneurs looking for financing. Social innovation can be used to convey emotional experiences as well. The Kairos Blanket Exercise is a powerful method to explain the broad strokes of Indigenous history in Canada through a unique exercise that involves shifting blankets and physical positions.

13

Shift Lab 2.0 Theory of Change 1. We wanted to create interactive processes that motivate people to change (covertly and overtly) racist behaviours that contribute to racialized outcomes.

2. We focused on the Sleepy Middle (see description on page 28): those who may exhibit unconscious or indirect racist ideas and behaviours, rather than overt and direct ones.

That leads to...

WELL-BEING

in order to...

Trying to increase...

3. We were committed to our approach of weaving together Indigenous processes, systems change, and design thinking to uncover promising pathways forward. We called this our Triple Helix approach (see page 30 for more).

REDUCE RACIST BEHAVIOURS

CAPACITY

MOTIVATION

OPPORTUNITY

How might we reimagine what it means to be a Treaty person?

Focussed on...

How might we create an interactive empathy experience that strives to reduce racist behaviour over time?

How might we create encouraging pathways that help potential allies for racial justice overcome white fragility?

How might we design intervention(s) that de-escalate public displays of overt racist behaviour?

Employing...

14

SYSTEMS THINKING

DESIGN THINKING

INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES

Shaped by political, economic, social and environmental factors

Tackling Racism in an Edmonton Context Through a Social Innovation Lab

Why Use Social Innovation Approaches to Address Racism?

If anything can be considered a wicked problem, it is racism.

Can racism be “solved” in Canada? Perhaps — but the burden of racism carries with it political, economic, cultural, legal, and social dimensions, all of which require society-wide responses.

The number of ways racism can manifest is only limited by how we as human beings choose to treat one another. These tensions revealed themselves early on in the Shift Lab as we moved to explore, understand, and unpack this topic.

As Stewards of the Shift Lab, we saw promise in a social innovation lab approach because it nudges participants to go beyond talking about ideas, policies and systems and into making ideas tangible and testable. Good social innovation labs are rooted in community, keep assumptions in check and engage in deeply participatory approaches to tackle tough challenges. We thought this approach would be promising to explore with a diverse group of Edmontonians living in Treaty 6 Territory. Our Core Team participants were all Edmonton residents but each had different roots here in amiskwaciwâskahikan (the original name for Edmonton, which translates as “Beaver Hills House” in Cree). They brought their various identities to this work and shared personal insights with one another during the lab sessions.

While there is no prescriptive response to fight racism, having a diverse collective tackling the issue better ensured the complexity of the challenge was being worked on from many perspectives. From this experience, we surmise that scaling anti-racism work to influence systems and policy in other parts of Canada or beyond will likely require a deep understanding of the local context.

We acknowledge a long history of grassroots work that preceded us in Edmonton, as well as a slew of new voices contributing to this ongoing dialog. Combatting racism is hard work, and we are grateful for those who have sacrificed their time, energy, and lives for this cause. As best we can, we are attuned to feedback from these folks and from other communities.

Because of the complexity with racism and anti-racism, we are skeptical of formulas, prescriptions and one-size-fitsall approaches. An approach that works for one particular community or for one complex system may not work in another. For example, anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism in Canada can be seen in the over-representation of Black and Indigenous people in the criminal justice system, as noted by journalist Desmond Cole and others.

Redress for both communities might take the form of similar measures (de-policing, restorative/alternative forms of justice etc.). However, if we look at another systemic issue, such as the achievement gaps in primary education for both communities, we would see different reasons for those gaps: the legacy of the Indian residential school system on Indigenous communities on the one hand, and underresourced urban schools serving primarily Black students on the other. We could conclude that different solutions, tailored to each community, would be required to close those gaps.

15

SHIFT LAB 1.0 TO SHIFT LAB 2.0: HOW THE LAB EVOLVED

Incorporating Indigenous epistemologies: land-based practices, ceremony, deep listening, asking elders for guidance, storytelling, relationship-building practices

Inspirations from other lab practitioners and gratitude towards them

Behaviour-change Science: relying on best practices and research across fields

16

There is no single way to design and lead a social innovation lab. A lab for us is less about beakers and Bunsen burners, and more about creating an experimental safe zone — a space to dig deep, build trust, remove fear, be bold, and find meaningful pathways forward as a collective. As there are many approaches, lab design and methodologies need to be tailored to the context of the particular lab. We drew on the following key approaches and practices.

Design thinking process: employing a “scrappy” humancentred design process to co-create solutions with community

Ethnography: searning and listening to people affected by the issue by hanging out with them in context, deep canvassing, capturing the environment with audio and visual tools

Whole-systems thinking: bridging experiences across public + private + non-profit + communitybased sectors

The story of Shift Lab is one of evolution. In Shift Lab 1.0 we learned early on that we had a tension around scope. The intersection of racism and poverty is massively complex, and within the context of Edmonton it manifests differently depending on culture, on neighbourhood, on what government happens to be in power, and a hundred other factors. A requirement of an effective social innovation lab is a decently focussed problem area that can be worked with. However, early community consultations in Shift Lab 1.0 told us that the focus couldn’t be developed by a diverse Stewardship team alone — it had to come from the community.

Terms: Anti-Racist, White Fragility The Edmonton Shift Lab does not use one term to describe its design efforts to combat racism. While “anti-racism” is an appropriate term, it is also one associated with a specific school of thought, best epitomized by Ibram X Kendi’s How To Be An AntiRacist. Similarly, while we use “white fragility” we are not directly referring to the book White Fragility

by Robin DiAngelo. We consider “anti-racism” and “white fragility” as umbrella terms that are not limited to the way they are used in these and other books.

We listened and acted on that feedback. Once we recruited our first Core Team of diverse community members, their first task was to pick a focus area. Through a variety of methods, the Shift Lab 1.0 core team landed on housing as the intervention point to tackle racism. Some promising prototypes emerged — one of which is currently being piloted.

After Shift Lab 1.0 was completed, the Stewardship team began reflecting on feedback, tensions and what had been learned.

Terms: Lab Sprints This term describes a practice in the work. Five weekend workshops with all Core Teams and Stewards were what we referred to as ‘sprints’.

The sprints were where everyone from Shift Lab 2.0 got together, learned, built relationships and applied Indigenous, design- and systems-thinking approaches to tackling racism together.

A theme that emerged was the challenge around scope. This led to our first big “A-Ha!” moment that helped shape version 2.0. We realized that we needed to simplify and drop the intersecting part of the problem (in this case, poverty) and focus on addressing racism more specifically.

To sharpen the focus and discover where there was demand for hard work around addressing racism, we initiated a research discovery phase that lasted about eight months.

Check out the tools section for more of the processes and tools we used in Shift Lab 1.0 and 2.0 https://www.edmontonshiftlab.ca/tools/ Read our Shift Lab 1.0 report here www.edmontonshiftlab.ca/learning-from-our-f irst-year/

17

SHIFT LAB 2.0 TIMELINE 2017

2018

November December Steward retreat: Evaluating feedback and Shift Lab 2.0 planning

January

February

Interviews with community embers and anti-racism and m social innovation experts

LAB SEASON

March

April

May

Expert Literature Review Indigenous Research Methods, Worldviews, and Praxis: Naheyawin Behavioural Insights: Gladys Rowe Anti-Racism Initiatives: Edmonton Centre for Race and Culture

In Shift Lab 2.0, the Core Lab team came together as a group over the course of four intensive weekend sprints and c oncluded with a Prototype Showcase.

Individual prototype teams met between sprints to work on their projects.

2019

January

February

Core Lab team recruitment

March

April

May

Sprint 1 March 1 – 3 ECF/ Action Lab Opening feast.

Building relationships and group agreements.

Orientation to Shift Lab. Ethnographic research preparation.

Sprint 2 April 5 – 7 Action Lab Speaker Panel about Treaty, whiteness, and hate crimes.

Ethnographic research share back.

The shadow side of innovation.

Sprint 3: May 31 – June 2 Action Lab Elder circle.

Behaviour change theory.

Ideation.

Developmental evaluation.

Prototype pitches.

Ethnographic research

18

Ethnographic research deep dive

June

July Sprint 4: July 12 – 14 Yorath House Sharing circle.

Learning from the land. Power, privilege, and antiracism insights.

Perfecting the pitch.

Prototype development

June

July

August

Research synthesis. Development of principles, focus area, and guiding question

September

September

Prototype refinement and testing

October

November December

Design, design, design

September 27 Shelley Tochluk “Witnessing Whiteness: The Need to Talk about Race and How to Do It.”

August

October

October 17 Daryl Davis “Klan We Talk?”

November December

Prototype Showcase October 25 Norquest College Shared latest stages of prototypes with community and celebrated our journey.

A Shift Lab Special Presentation: October 7 Antionette D. Carroll “The Future of Leadership: The Roles of Identity, Power & Equity.”

November 27: Trevor Phillips “Equality & Integration: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail.”

2020 Hire three Prototype Managers to steward the further development and testing of the four prototypes.

Evaluation.

Continue to develop new tools, relationships, and insights.

October 8 Creative Reaction Lab “Leaders for Community Action & Equity” workshop.

19

DISCOVERY PHASE Literature Reviews and Expert Perspectives In the discovery phase of Shift Lab 2.0 we reviewed four literature areas: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Indigenous Ways of Knowing Racism Myths Anti-Racism Insights Behaviour-Change Science

IYINIW KISKEYIHTAMOWIN INDIGENOUS WAYS OF KNOWING

RACISM MYTHS

ewako iyiniw kiskinohamâkewitipahikestamâkewin/ nîkânîwin anita wîtatoskemitowak, omâmînomiwewak, ekwa mâmawinitowin owîtatoskemitowak kwayask kanisitohtahkik pakwâtitowin ôta amiskwacîwâskahikanihk/kihcihasotamâtowin nikotwâsik askiy.

“If only people would just _____.” This presumes people will act differently if they knew better. On the surface the sentiment is understandable. But it’s a tautology; people do as they are conditioned to and won’t “just” shift their behaviour at will.

We centred Indigenous scholarship/leadership in the stewardship team, advisors, and community core team members to better understand the context of racism in Edmonton/Treaty 6 Territory.

“Racism is a product of ignorance.” People who commit racist acts or hold racist beliefs are often highly educated.

Today, nearly everyone has access to information to dispel ignorant beliefs, yet racism still persists. Knowledge and information alone do not prevent racism.

mihcet kîkwaya kâhisihayisinihkâtamak nehiyawihtwâwin ôta kitatoskewininaw namoya kwayask epimohtâtamihk, mâka înîsiwin kâhohcipayik ohci isihtwâwin kiskeyihtamowin namoya asime iteyihtahkwan.

Many of the ways we centered Indigneous knowledge in the lab can’t be captured in steps and linear processes, but the wisdom that emerges is critical in informing how the Lab might engage with a) land-based practice b) ceremony and c) elder stories, all of which is essential to our triple helix methodology. We learned the importance of place and land-based practices and did our best to incorporate this into the Shift Lab. We centred Indigenous scholarship/leadership in the stewardship team, advisors, and community core team members to better understand the context of racism in Edmonton/Treaty 6 Territory. kikiskeyihtenaw ehispihteyihtakwak ayâwin êkwa askiy isihtwâwina ekwa kitahkameyihtenaw ôta kahastâyahk Shift Lab. We learned the importance of place and land-based practices and did our best to incorporate this into the Shift Lab.

20

We hired research experts in each area to gather insights from relevant literature and data to find leverage points.

This evidence helped us design Shift Lab 2.0 and identify features required to tackle racism. We recognized the need to synthesize insights from the literature review into digestible chunks so future Core Teams could use them.

“Reverse racism is real.” Not really. Racism is predicated on power relations within a society. While white people can be individually discriminated against, as a group, white people in Canada generally do not suffer the repercussions of decades of policies, actions, attitudes, systems, and media portrayals that disrespect their humanity. That said, anti-racist policies should avoid privileging racialized Canadians at the expense of white Canadians.

“Anti-racism is a “zero-sum game.” Here, the idea is that one person’s benefit is to another’s detriment. Racial quotas in hiring are often raised as evidence of this. Anti-racism praxis is, ideally, based on equity and human rights, and sees the elimination of “race” (and related factors such as ethnicity, skin colour) as any kind of determinant in a person’s fortune.

ANTI-RACISM INSIGHTS

BEHAVIOUR-CHANGE SCIENCE

A clear working definition of racism is difficult to land on, and there are many valid definitions in use today. For example, author Shelly Tochluk’s framework addresses four levels of racism (internal, interpersonal, structural, systemic) but there is less agreement about what distinguishes the latter two.

Understanding that individuals respond differently to cues and incentives, we learned that people are more likely to change behaviour if they have agency to identify what they want to change within themselves.

Indicators of what a reduction in racist behaviour at multiple levels of scale looks like is hard to agree upon.

Blanket approaches that treat all communities the same are ineffective compared to more specific, targeted approaches.

Opposing racism is not easy or comfortable — nor is it meant to be! Undoing the legacy of racism embedded in systems is a process that sometimes involves overcoming paradoxes and recognizing tensions. It leaves us vulnerable and open to criticism. And that’s okay.

Intensive one-off workshops or training (known as “shower” campaigns) are less effective than “drip” campaigns, where engagement and information is dispersed periodically over time.

We learned that Western societies typically focus on three main approaches to effecting social change. They involve some level of: 1) incentives; 2) threats; or 3) reasoned debate. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin (founder of what is now known as sensitivity training) asked a different question that intrigued us: “Why aren’t people going to the right change on their own?” That motivated us to ask, “How can we remove barriers for people to adopt the change that we want to see in the world?”

Existing diversity training and other corporate-based approaches to reducing racism have been proven to be of limited use and can even be counterproductive.

21

Discovery Through Interviews and Community Consultation Workshops To go deep or broad?

During the eight month Discovery Phase, we explored whether Shift Lab 2.0 should focus more deeply on a system/ sector/organization that wanted to make progress on racism, or whether to go broad to tackle racism as it exists and shows up in Edmonton. Some lab theories believe that going deeper in a specific system (for example, education or healthcare) can help uncover more powerful insights and lead to richer interventions.

The challenge of going down this route is that the possible solutions generated for a specific system may only work in that context and cannot be scaled to other domains or sectors. On the other hand, the drawback to tackling racism more broadly is that it increases complexity and it is just as challenging to have multiple systems adopt the interventions that emerge from a lab process.

To explore whether Shift Lab 2.0 needed to go deep into one system or stay more broad, the Stewards interviewed leaders in various systems to see if there was appetite for working with a community-based team to tackle a specific racismrelated challenge. We also held two community workshops to explore what community members, anti-racism experts, and systems-change leaders thought might be the best approach for Shift Lab 2.0.

Interestingly, from the quantitative and qualitative information that came from these interviews and workshops, we could see that community members were torn. Half wanted a deeper approach and half wanted a broad approach, despite its limitations.

22

Essence of what we learned from this part of the Discovery Phase • People in organizations want to progress and reduce racism in the organization’s practices and structures.

However, this requires a very delicate approach; these same organizations are sensitive to risk and bad publicity if something goes awry, and therefore leery of engaging. • There was a divide between anti-racism experts wanting to tackle deep racism in systems and community members wanting to stop racial harassment happening on the street.

Discovery Through International Speaker Series Research While we were in the eight month pre-lab phase, we simultaneously ran an international speaker’s series to share with Edmontonians expert insights and ideas on racism. The series was called “How to Have Difficult Conversations About Race” and brought four speakers that had tackled racism in unique and transformative ways in the United States and the United Kingdom. These speakers were chosen not because they had “solved” racism, but because they could bring outside ideas on challenging and eliminating racism that could work in Edmonton. So far, the series has only featured White and Black speakers. They were chosen partially based on the perspectives they could bring to our audience as well as expediency. While the series has not yet featured Indigenous speakers, we are planning to include these perspectives in future iterations.

The series was open to the community. It attracted people working in this space and people who were curious from around the city. During the series we also surveyed attendees before and after the talks to get their sense of racism and asked what they felt was important to focus on. The views of the experts on practices that were working outside of Canada and survey results from lecture participants also contributed to help us formulate our direction for Shift Lab 2.0.

Thanks to local documentary filmmaker and Shift Lab 2.0 coordinator Nicole Jones-Abad, you can view videos of each lecture at https://www.edmontonshiftlab.ca/tools/

23

Key Insights from the Speaker Series: • The need to meet people where they are at: Not everyone will become an anti-racist activist overnight. Shelly Tochluk’s analogy of the ‘Racial Justice Freeway,’ in her book, Witnessing Whiteness, and in her lecture, was intriguing. It recognized different approaches can lead to the same destination. According to this analogy, a onesize-fits-all approach is not useful and may create further polarization. People rarely go from ignorant to anti-racist based on a single interaction, call out, or diversity training workshop.

• The uniquely personal and relational nature of racism: Addressing racism through calm conversations, deep listening, and relationship building at an interpersonal level is hard. But people are less likely to “other” and hurt one another if they know a person in a relational way. Deep relationship building, as musician Daryl Davis demonstrates with members of the Ku Klux Klan, may be the quickest way to stop racism even in extreme contexts. It can be deeply draining to many racialized persons, however, and is difficult to grow these interactions to a public scale.

• Conventional anti-racist practises may backfire even with the best of intentions, as we learned from Trevor Phillips.

Some messaging may not work the way it is intended to, and may in fact create polarization and intolerance.

Additionally, the consensus agreement on what racism is and isn’t is fracturing, calling into question the efficacy of public responses such as “naming and shaming” as a corrective to racial discrimination.

• Narratives depend on the language used to construct and frame them. As Antionette D. Carroll with the Creative Reaction Lab explains, creativity, humility, and even humour can become powerful tools for marginalized communities mobilizing to fight for equity and against racism. Agreement on language-setting is a key step towards establishing goals for anti-racist actions.

The graphic above was part of an anti-racism campaign in the UK for the Commission for Racial Equality. Trevor Phillips shared in the speaker series that the graphic actually backfired when tested and may have contributed to more racist views being developed.

24

Posters for the speaker series

25

CHALLENGE SCOPE After eight months of head scratching, going out on to the land, and holding paradoxes — as well as learning from the multiple research modalities listed above and the community feedback we received in the pre-lab phase — we landed on the scope and direction for Shift Lab 2.0.

The research showed we needed a grounding question that linked everyone involved. The overarching question was:

How might we create anti-racism interventions that acknowledge everyone’s humanity and create behaviour change?

We further narrowed the scope based on consultation with lab mentors and Indigenous elders, and landed on four questions that our teams assembled around: • How might we reimagine what it means to be a Treaty person?

• How might we create an interactive empathy experience that strives to reduce racist behaviour over time?

• How might we create encouraging pathways that help potential allies for racial justice overcome white fragility?

• How might we design intervention(s) that de-escalate public displays of overt racist behaviour?

26

Our Working Definition of Racism Conventional wisdom frames racism as a product of ignorance. According to this framing, the solution is education. While this may be true in some cases, it has been the experience of the Shift Lab participants that this is incomplete and frames the problem as a personal one, rather than as an issue with historic, systemic, cultural, and institutional roots. Additionally, at a time when Canadians are more highly-educated than ever before, racism has metastasized rather than faded away.

We define racism as the individual and systemic manifestation of the uneven distribution of power and prejudice related to culturally-defined ideas of “race,” which is itself a social construction with no grounding in science or biology. We acknowledge that racism is a hotly debated topic — one that is highly political, emotional, deeply individual, but also systemic, anecdotal, and historic. One of the confounding things about racism is that widespread agreement on what it is may differ from how it looked in a particular place and time or how it will look tomorrow. Within Edmonton, the nature of racism is broadly illustrative of racism in Canada and other Western settler-colonial societies generally.

Types of Racism Author, activist and educator Shelly Tochluk has written extensively about how racism is framed for a majority-white audience. This includes defining racism in four discrete but sometimes overlapping frameworks:

INTERNALIZED RACISM

INTERPERSONAL RACISM

• Lies within individuals, can result in self-hatred or selfabnegation.

• O ccurs between individuals, can be random and anecdotal in nature.

• Private beliefs and biases about race and racism, influenced by culture.

• B iases that occur when individuals interact with others and their private racial beliefs affect their public interactions.

• May be unconscious or psychologically rooted. Often reflects historic, intergenerational trauma.

• M ost “visible” form of racism that gets noticed.

• Example: self-loathing or hatred of one’s own culture.

• E xample: one stranger saying or doing something racist to another.

INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

STRUCTURAL RACISM

• Occurs within organizations, institutions and systems of power.

• R acial bias among institutions and across society.

• Unfair policies and discriminatory practices of institutions and systems (schools, workplaces, the criminal justice system, etc.) that routinely produce racially inequitable outcomes for people of color and advantages for white people.

• C umulative and compounding effects of an array of societal factors including the history, culture, ideology, and interactions of institutions and policies.

• Examples: The Indian Act. “Redlining.”

• Example: Segregated workplaces.

Adapted from Shelly Tochluk

27

THE SLEEPY MIDDLE

The “Sleepy Middle” is an archetype that emerged in the research development of Shift Lab 2.0. Picture a continuum of racism: On one end are the tiki torch-carrying, KKKsupporting racists who care only for people who look like them; on the other are Critical Race Theory activists, who seek equity through direct, sometimes polarizing methods. The Sleepy Middle is somewhere between these two poles. People in this middle may think of themselves as good people who “don’t see colour.” They disapprove of racist jokes but are also unaware of what residential schools were, or think that police brutality is the result of a few “bad apples.” They have varying levels of understanding of what racism is, whether it still exists, and why it’s important to work to end it. Determining skillful ways to engage the Sleepy Middle and create within them allies for positive change was identified as a powerful leverage point for systems change.

Why the Sleepy Middle?

The reason we focussed on the Sleepy Middle was not to coddle or shelter the privileged. What emerged from our research was that if the Sleepy Middle could become better allies for racial justice, then they could become powerful systems-change agents — because the Sleepy Middle is connected with and even commands many systems.

What Shift Lab 2.0 had to explore was what approaches and interventions could truly shift the Sleepy Middle to change, become allies and avoid further polarization. We recognized from the outset that this was experimental and unconventional compared to some current practices.

Additionally, a key learning was that it is not appropriate to default to racialized persons to explain to the Sleepy Middle that racism still exists, how it manifests, and why it’s so painful. Our intention was to be strategic, question any and all practices presumed to be working to reduce racism, and do our best to carve out effective pathways forward that make a difference.

28

“Who is the sleep middle? From my perspective, the sleepy middle could be defined as the so-called helpers, whether they are government officials, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, social workers, etc.

They all come with their own belief systems, their own ideas on how to ‘fix the Indian problem’ and it is often these folks with good intentions who embody systemic racism; they are the gears that move systemic racism.

They are the sleepy middle.”

— Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse

Top: Core Team in action Bottom: Tool used in the lab showcase behaviour change principles

29

OUR TRIPLE HELIX IND

IGE

NOU

S EP

DES

S YS

IND

IGE

30

THI

IST

IGN

TEM

EMO

NKI

S TH

S EP

DES

S YS

IGN

TEM

NOU

IST

INK

NKI

S TH

IES

NG

EMO

THI

LO G

ING

LO G

NG

INK

ING

IES

Addressing a wicked problem like racism requires thinking and acting in creative ways. It means drawing on what’s already working, questioning assumptions, and experimenting with pathways to move forward. The design and facilitation of a lab allows people to deeply think about and understand the problem. In Shift Lab 1.0, the process mainly adopted Human Centred Design (HCD), and Systems Thinking. Along the way, we recognized that Indigenous methodologies have startling similarities with design and systems thinking. In Shift Lab 2.0, guided by Indigenous thought leaders, we tried to weave these three processes into a ‘Triple Helix’. We modelled our process as an example of what working together as good treaty people looks like in action. We believe it demonstrates respect for traditions, viewpoints, and approaches without privileging one worldview over another.

WHY INDIGENOUS EPISTEMOLOGIES? Why Indigenous Epistemologies?

Our worldviews influence our belief systems, our decision making, and our modes of problem solving. A worldview helps determine an epistemology. An epistemology, simple stated, is how a culture generates knowledge. How one creates knowledge determines morals, values, and ethics.

For example, dominant Western epistemologies are based on linear, hierarchical, and discrete modes of thinking.

These modes of thinking are the roots of such problems like scientific racism and colonization and leads to worldviews based in domination and competition.

On the other hand, many Indigenous epistemologies are based on holistic, universal, and de-centralized modes of thinking. Indigenous world views have been rooted in systems perspectives for thousands of years. For example, in the Cree worldview, the human is not the centre of the system; the Cree recognize the interconnection of the four-legged beings, the winged ones, the water, the air, the cosmos, and the land with us, the two-legged.

What Indigenous epistemologies look like in action

While the Indigenous epistemological theory we engaged with was primarily Cree, it was not exclusively so. Edmonton is an urban centre with a long history of multiple nations co-existing. Our theory is rooted in Cree perspectives and our lab practical application explored Nakota Sioux practices and relationships, creating a rich engagement with multiple Indigenous worldviews. Therefore, our exploration is based on mutual shared knowledge and relationships. This knowledge is not owned by us, it cannot be replicated, and it most certainly is not meant to be applied wholesale to any other context.

Engaging in multiple Indigenous epistemologies was enabled by relationships and as a consequence our methodology was grounded in relational accountability. For Indigenous worldviews, this means being accountable to all our relations and for the Shift Lab, this was a deep dive into discovering the relationship of being treaty relatives.

Indigenous epistemologies are based in: • Story-telling • Land-based practices • Customary law • Ceremonies • Languages • Connections to land, water, and cosmos Questions Indigenous epistemologies ask: • What relationships are existing here?

• What are my obligations and responsibilities?

• How is this problem connected to the world around us?

• What legal traditions provide precedent here?

• Whose territory am I on?

• What languages are spoken here?

• Who are all my relatives in this territory (two-leggeds, four-leggeds, winged ones) • What are the existing treaties in this territory?

31

DESIGN THINKING We are all designers. When we try to figure out solutions to challenges that pop up personally, at an organizational level, or at the community level, we enter a mode of problemsolving where we design solutions. But we too often design solutions based on our own experiences. This is a problem when we are trying to find solutions for other people who live on the margins or experience a system differently.

Human-Centred Design (HCD) or Design Thinking is a creative process to problem solving that starts with striving to deeply listen, see and empathize with what people/systems need.

It is a highly experimental, thought-provoking, and action orientated approach.

* tâpiskohc aya, iyiniw kesiwâpahtahk, ayisiyiniw anima namoy wiya tâwâyihk ehapit nehiyaw nistaweyihtam ehisiwâhkomâcik newikâtêw ayisiyin, kâpimihâcik, nipiy. kâyehyehtamihk, ekwa askiy ohci nîsokâtak (ayisiyiniwak).

What Design Thinking Looks Like in Action Design thinkers: • take “deep dives” into what motivates people to use a product or service • use ethnography or field studies of people using the product or service • brainstorm ideas that may be unconventional, unorthodox and radical • make sense from personal and sometimes emotional insights • react quickly and use a rapid iteration process to develop prototypes rather than get bogged down in details

Why Design Thinking?

Design Thinking emphasizes the good over the perfect and allows for rapid iterations of a prototype to be possible through quick edits and changes on the fly. From different ways of listening and learning, sense-making insights are generated that identify these needs as well as challenges, and key things to consider when designing a potential solution. A design approach strives to co-create tangible prototypes that can be tested by its users to ensure the proposed solutions will actually work in the real world.

32

Questions design thinkers ask: • How does this idea make people feel and think?

• What is deeply needed and why?

• Is there an analogous situation that we can learn from?

• How would this work if we changed a key assumption about the people who might use it?

• How will this impact users on the margins of this service?

• Are people reacting differently to this solution than what they are telling us?

• What if we work backwards from the solution to the problem?

Stories Ethnographic Research Sense Making System Mapping

1

empathy Checking the prototypes with community/with user groups the prototypes are for

5

2

test

Choosing ideas that could meet needs Making prototypes of what a service, policy innovation could look like

define

HUMAN CENTRED LAB PROCESS

4

3

prototype

ideate

Making sense of needs and insights from stories “How Might We�

Questions

Brainstorming Getting ideas from other fields Co-designing with community Building on ideas of others

33

SYSTEMS THINKING Why Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking is a holistic way to step back and look at the parts that make up a complex challenge and explore what biases, assumptions, and structures that might be keeping a system operating the way it does.

“A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something (function or purpose).”

— Donella Meadows

34

There is a tricky tension to navigate when trying to enact deep, positive change around a complex issue. It’s the tension between focusing too much on helping make change at an individual level versus the need to step back and look at the big picture. It’s a bit like an out-of-control patch of poison ivy at a children’s playground: you can cut the leaves back to prevent children from being stung, or you can attack the roots so it doesn’t come back. Systems thinking helps people to look at things that have happened, structures, and assumptions that might be causing a problem like racism to continue to exist.

What Systems Thinking Looks Like in Action System thinkers: • Strive to be keenly aware of their biases and assumptions • Seek to acknowledge that an improvement in one area of a system can adversely affect another area of the system • Look at what root causes might be contributing to a problem • Ask questions and wonder why something happens • See the interconnections within the physical environment of the land, water, beings, values Questions systems thinkers ask: • Has this problem occurred in the past?

• What structures may be causing this problem?

• What change is needed?

• Why is this change needed?

• How will this change affect other parts of the system?

• How do we increase people’s understanding of the issue in a way that integrates the richness of diverse perspectives with the simplicity required to act?

hat structures W may be causing this problem?

Adapted from: Systems Thinking For Social Change, by David Peter Stroh

35

GOING DEEPER In Shift Lab 1.0 we learned from feedback that we might have fostered too much of a polite atmosphere, which hindered going deeper and sparking personal transformation. In Shift Lab 2.0 there were a number of tools we used to go deeper.

Indigenous Traditions iyiniw ihtwâwina One of the important ways for going deeper was through Shift Lab steward Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse sharing Indigenous traditions. This included sitting together, listening more deeply to each other, feasting together and strengthening relationships. There was no set tool or method to follow for this, but we made space and centred these moments throughout the lab. Jodi also introduced the lab participants to going out on the land to recognize the interconnections in systems, pick berries together and carry questions together.

i spihteyihtakwan kakiskisihk ekwa kahâhkameyihtamihk kâkînakatamakoyahkik aniki kitaniskotapaninawak.

*It is important to remember and practice the ways

of our ancestors.

36

Theory U Another way we explored supporting teams going deeper was through the Theory U framework, developed by Otto Scharmer. This framework describes the journey of changemakers as working through multiple phases of discovery, beginning with “downloading� their own mental models of a complex situation and then gaining increasing insight through conversations, experiences and research with others. This (ideally) results in an openness to the emergence of new ideas about how to address the challenge.

Downloading Past Patterns

Performing Scaling and Internalizing

Seeing with Fresh Eyes

Prototyping Experimenting with the New

OPEN MIND Sensing from the Field

Letting Go

O P E N H E A RT

OPEN WILL

Presencing

Crystallizing Vision and Intention

Letting Come

2.0 Lab t f i Sh

connecting to source

Adapted from Otto Scharmer

37

4 Types of Conversations Tool We utilized Otto Scharmer’s four types of conversations that support how we talk together to create deeper understanding and cultivate richer insights. The four types of conversations framework creates the conditions for this by structuring dialogue accordingly. We endeavored to weave these ways of going deeper throughout the process.

We Sought Behaviour Change, Not Nice Transformational Experiences

How might we create anti-racism interventions that acknowledge everyone’s humanity and create behaviour change?

38

Generative Dialogue • presencing, flow • time: slowing down • space: boundaries collapse • listening from one’s Future Self • rule-generating

Reflexive Dialogue • inquiry • I can change my view • empathic listening (from within the other self) • other = you • rule-reflecting

Talking Nice

Talking Tough

• downloading • polite, cautious • listening = projecting • rule-reenacting

• debate, clash • I am my point of view • listening = reloading • other = target • rule-revealing

From our overarching question, you can see that we wanted to move the needle to making an actual impact. Ideally, we all want system behaviours to change at the root. But along the way we at least wanted to work towards ways people, groups, and organizations could more easily learn how they can change behaviours to be less racist. A common thing we heard in our early research was that one-off transformational diversity or anti-racism training is great, but too often people snap back to their “normal” modes and don’t shift behaviour over the long term. We wondered and wanted to experiment with how we might improve that, or at least uncover principles that can improve lasting behaviour change.

BIL

C APA

Au to m

ati c

Physical

MO en

t

T I V AT I O N Training

on

em

Incentivisat ion

cal

UNIT Y

Env

RT

ysi

n asio rsu Pe

OP

Y

PO

Restironm ruc en tur ta ing l

Educa tion

Ph

bl

a

Motivation is defined as all those brain processes that energize and direct behaviour, not just goals and conscious decision-making. It includes habitual processes, emotional responding as well as analytical decision-making. The Behaviour Change Wheel breaks motivation down into reflective and automatic categories.

IT

Psychological

En

Capability is defined as the individual’s psychological and physical capacity to engage in the activity concerned. It includes having the necessary knowledge and skills to act.

M o d e lli n g

We used the COM-B model of behaviour change, which is based on a synthesis of 19+ public health behaviour change models summarized by Michie, Atkins and West in the book, The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. This UK-based approach proposes that the direction, depth and pace of any kind of behaviour change — whether it’s quitting smoking, wearing seatbelts or recycling more — is shaped by three factors: capability, motivation and opportunity.

tions stric e R

So cia l

The COM-B Model of Behaviour Change

C

r oe

ci

Mayne, John. 2018. The COM-B Theory of Change Model. A Working Paper.

Opportunity is defined as all the factors that lie outside the individual that make the behaviour possible or prompt it. It is primarily broken down into physical and social categories.

The participants of Shift Lab 2.0 were introduced to this framework, and then asked to consider how all three factors might be integrated into their behaviour-change interventions. Many also used it to manage expectations about the direction, depth and pace of behaviour change and the extent to which we are able to effectively address all three factors (e.g., an intervention that focuses only on capability will only be useful in situations where motivation and opportunity already exist).

39

Behaviour-Change Nudging We also explored how we might remix behaviour-change nudging into the prototypes to help with positive behaviour change. In the process, we created a deck of prompt cards (called our Shift Lab Behaviour Change card deck) with principles from behaviour change science. Teams used the cards to see how they might design ethical behaviour-change nudging into possible prototypes.

Types of nudges “Nudges� are small changes in the environment or interactions that are easy and inexpensive to implement.

These nudges are gleaned from the worlds of social psychology and marketing. Several different techniques exist for nudging, including defaults, social proof heuristics, and increasing the salience of the desired option.

A default option is the option an individual automatically receives if he or she does nothing. People are more likely to choose a particular option if it is the default option. For example, Daniel Pichert & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos noted in the Journal of Environmental Psychology that a greater number of people chose the renewable energy option for electricity when it was offered as the default option.

Steward Sameer Singh sharing insights on behaviour change science

40

A social proof heuristic refers to the tendency for individuals to look at the behaviour of other people to help guide their own behaviour. Studies have found some success in using social proof heuristics to nudge individuals to make healthier food choices. When an individual’s attention is drawn towards a particular option, that option will become more salient to the individual, and he or she will be more likely to choose that option. As an example, in snack shops at train stations in the Netherlands, consumers purchased more fruit and healthy snack options when they were relocated next to the cash register.

“The words ‘If people would just…’ are never a part of an effective social innovation. If your goal is to create social change through behaviour change, strong arguments will rarely suffice. You must also understand people’s behaviour and design solutions that disrupt their habits.”

— Ben Weinlick on the MyCompass Planning Social Innovation

“A nudge, as we will use the term, is something that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not.”

— Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness_ by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein

41

THE SHIFT LAB 2.0 JOURNEY We chose to conduct the lab over several weekend intervals, known as sprints, for a number of reasons, including feasibility, participation, and logistics. Transportation and childcare were also factored in to enable broader participation.

Sprints were structured as three-day intensive working sessions, starting on Friday evenings with relationship building activities and a shared meal and finishing by Sunday afternoon with a debriefing session to allow participants to close the weekend.

The Triple Helix In Action: The Sprints Each design sprint started with a grounding activity, typically Indigenous focussed, to intellectually and emotionally centre the participants. The opportunity to Indigenize the design sprints was essential to their effectiveness. Indeed, it’s what grounds the work of the Shift Lab in Edmonton and Treaty 6 Territory. Under Jodi’s tutelage, each sprint featured Indigenous-themed activities, foods and speakers, including local/regional elders and wisdom keepers, political representatives, educators, activists, drummers and business people.

This was followed by sharing food and relationship building. A participant observer (witness) was invited to provide feedback on group dynamics throughout each weekend, and invited to share anonymous feedback with the team. Feedback from each sprint was considered and iterated into each successive sprint.

42

While no sprint is identical, each followed a similar structure, combining three elements from Shift Lab 1.0: Grounding Days, Workshops and Campfires (see below). As much as possible, each design sprint embodied our Triple Helix of Design Thinking, Systems Thinking and Indigenous Epistemologies.

• Grounding Days made space to think deeply about the topic at hand, usually started by an Indigenous custom, practice or observation as assisted by Jodi and Elders.

• Workshops reflecting an exploration of the humancentred design process from a solutions-oriented narrative.

• Campfire exercises provided emotional on- and offramps into the topic, with often deeply emotional experiences shared alongside problem-oriented analyses.

Sprint 1: March 1-3, 2019

ECF and Skills Action Lab

Getting to know one another; relationship building; Indigenous practices of locating ourselves, which includes the sharing of where we come from, who our ancestors are, and our purpose; setting up the team for ethnographic research to explore their Challenge Briefs.

Sprint 2: April 5-7, 2019

Skills Action Lab

Indigenous speaker panel about Treaty; ethnographic research shareback; adaptive cycle/nemesis; open space for team members to share their skills and insights to support our work together.

Sprint 3: May 31-June 2, 2019

Skills Action Lab

Elder circle; cultural teachings and medicine wheel; COM-B; evaluation; ideation; landing on prototype ideas.

Sprint 4: July 12-14, 2019

Yorath House

Berry picking; land-based practices; circle work exploring power relations; getting ready for field testing; prototype presentations/pitches.

September 15-16, 2019

Banff Centre

Stewards sifted through Core Team feedback, envisioned how prototypes could be launched and determined future aspects of the Lab. Started to develop an indigenous evaluation tool.

October 25, 2019

Norquest

Each team presented their prototypes to potential partners and funders from the community.

43

WHAT EMERGED FROM SHIFT LAB 2.0?

PROTOTYPES, TRANSFORMATION, ACTION

Prototyping can be the most exciting part of the social innovation process, but also the messiest. Prototyping involves taking knowledge, observations, and insights from the field, and translating them into actionable ideas that can be replicated and scaled to other users or communities. It is a highly creative, physical, and non-linear process. It frequently challenges status-quo assumptions. The “a-ha!” moments are only limited by the duration and resources of the lab.

In addition to the above, prototyping to fight racism brings a mix of experiences, perspectives, histories and learnings to bear onto a “wicked problem.” Responding to racism as it manifests at the institutional and social level can invoke painful, powerful emotions. Tears were shed during prototyping sessions. This is particularly true for racialized participants, who were asked to draw on their own experiences of discrimination at the hands of another person, organization or system. In contrast to prototyping a mobile app, or a new flavour of toothpaste, this is unfiltered, uncomfortable work. But it is only through an intense visioning of what the future could look like that we can arrive there.

Uncertainty / Patterns / Insights

Research

Clarity / Focus

Concept

The Process of Design Squiggle by Damien Newman

44

Core Team members practicing pitching prototypes

45

Exploring Wahkohtowin The Challenge How might we reimagine what it means to be a Treaty person?

Derek Jagodzinsky

Carla Hilario

Rebecca Craver

Avery Letendre

Iwona Faferek

Eileen Edwards

Rabia Naseer

The Idea To understand what it means to be a Treaty person, it is important to understand what is treaty. To build upon this idea, we developed an historical board game to serve as an entry point for people to begin to learn and experience how Treaty is understood from an Indigenous perspective. The aim is to inspire people to consider what they can do to walk together better on this land as a Treaty 6 person and understand the obligations we have living on Treaty land.

Tried and True There will be multiple copies of the board game prototype (including the debriefing guide) created to give to a diverse group of people (e.g. Sleepy Middle, families, educators, Indigenous communities) to play-test and provide feedback. This will provide us the opportunity to learn and reflect on how the board game engages with people and what areas we can further refine.

46

Coffee Sleeves Inspired by the Treaty 6 flag and coin, we designed an emblem as a visual symbol to increase Treaty 6 awareness. Coffee sleeves are one method of increasing visibility and also educating the public about Treaty 6. The sleeves could be distributed throughout participating local coffee shops and cafes of public institutions. These have the opportunity to act as conversation starters and to educate the public with quick facts while enjoying a warm beverage.

We have purchased the domain wearealltreatypeople.com to use on the sleeves that would direct people to existing online treaty resources.

Treaty 6 Board Game A board game offers a unique and light opportunity to engage in Indigenous knowledges and ways of doing, as well as to understand the complexities of treaty and our relationship to it. The game can be played with children and youth that are at a critical age where they can objectively participate with treaty learnings and form their identity in relation to treaty. This can potentially cause a ripple effect wherein older generations may be impacted positively as well. The above is just a render as the game content and curation needs to be developed by Indigenous groups for appropriate learning and representation.

47

Public Spaces Stickers The emblem has the potential to become a universal symbol for positive treaty relations. As a window sticker/ decal, it can be placed in storefronts of local businesses and public organizations alongside pride flag stickers and other community building mechanisms, and act as an acknowledgment of Treaty 6.

48

What We’ve Learned We have learned to adapt to new environments by continually improvising on how to reach our goals in challenging times. Throughout the whole process of working through our idea and understanding our role as a Treaty people, it has been pivotal to understand the role, space, power and privilege which we are navigating in. It is important to centre Indigenous people in decisionmaking roles and position ourselves to listen to learn as we move through the process. From the conception, design, content development and marketing phases, having the guidance and leadership of the Indigenous community leaders and knowledge keepers has helped to highlight important pieces to bettering our relationship and understanding.

Next Steps The next step is to refine the prototypes according to the feedback we will receive from the game play testing groups and create our final prototype. The final prototype will be presented to a group of local community leaders and educators to strategize on how to launch the game into the mainstream.

Top: Prototype materials on display at the community showcase Bottom: Close up of public space stickers

49

Reflection Pool App The Challenge

Naureen Mumtaz

Lisa Zhu

Essi Salokangas

How might we create an interactive empathy experience that strives to reduce racist behaviour over time?

The Idea

Ilene Fleming

Jaime Calayo

Rosanne Tollenar

Reflection Pool is a learn-by-doing digital and in-person experience to learn about our own biases and how we can identify ways to positively shift our interactions in relationships and systems we are part of. It aims to take diversity training to the next level with multiple learning interactions over time and behaviour-change nudging.

Tried and True A digital wireframe is being developed for testing by a number of potential user organizations.

50

Left: Prototype website screenshots Right: Prototype video screenshots

51

Who It Is For This app is for anyone wanting to conduct social awareness/ diversity training in contexts where traditional training methods may not be as effective.

• Large Organizations • Academic Institutions • Training Agencies • Frontline Workers • City & Government Depts • Therapists & Counsellors • Health & Wellness Experts

How it works: • Spark behaviour change through curated content that aims to not only educate but inspires behaviour change.

• Develop a routine for personal reflection that works for you.

• Take your learning and reflection beyond the app with supplemental resources and content • Set actionable behaviour change goals and a timeline that works for you.

• Engage and be a part of a community invested in behaviour change and reflection • Keep a record of your behaviour cange journey to assess personal growth

52

“ If it is strictly an app then we would be asking staff to use their own devices which can be tricky (can we require that? What if they don’t have devices?)” “ Decision-makers would want to know what the value proposition is that they couldn’t get from a non-tech solution.”

What We’ve Learned From our research it was recognized that one-off training workshops often don’t yield sustained behaviour change.

Multiple nudges and learning modalities are needed over time. This app combines digital and face-to-face interactions with colleagues to uncover behaviour changes that shift towards authentic inclusion and antiracist practice in the workplace. Furthermore, a number of public organizations have expressed interest to learn more about this app.

Next Steps The team received feedback demonstrating positive proof of concept. HR departments in particular are interested. Currently, the team is looking for partners to build the prototype, support the creation of learning missions and pilot the app over a six-month period.

“ The trainer (H.R) should be able to see your progress, however others around the office don’t need to know the progress of each other unless that individual feels comfortable with that.”

53

You Need This Box: The Anti-Racism Subscription Box

The Challenge

Tamreen Arif

Kevin Drinkwater

Toni Fastlightning

How might we create encouraging pathways that help potential allies for racial justice overcome white fragility?

The Idea

Paz OrellanaFitzgerald

Annand Ollivierre

“You Need This Box” is a subscription service that helps the Sleepy Middle work through their own fragility and create on-ramps to racial and social justice. Users receive physical items in a box delivered to them to encourage them on this transformational journey.

Tried and True We recently launched a test to gauge the public’s interest in 1) doing anti-racism work, and 2) this kind of service.

We did this by creating a landing page and promoting the site through social media posts (Instagram and Twitter) as well as local radio and television.

54

User feedback from the first recipients of the anti- racism subscription box “ A friend and I are going to connect weekly to discuss the activities from the box. Probably virtually but maybe social distance outside. We set a goal to start this weekend!” “ Had a racial unity park gathering with friends where we brought quotes and excerpts about racism and race to discuss as a group. This was the follow up activity” “ For the most part I do it alone but it really brings conversations out with other people” “ It has provided a platform to explore those topics with others in a non-judgmental way.” “ I am not done ‘doing the box’ yet...but I am learning that it is about ongoing and continual reflection. Going back and doing it again. Letting go of the guilt. Finding new ways to engage others.” “ Up until this point my anti-racism work has been global (for lack of a better word). Everything has happened online or in books or webinars, mostly American focussed, this is the first locally focussed learning I have done. My biggest take away is understanding impact here in my city.” “ I was already familiar with many of the issues brought up by the box, but what I appreciated was being given the tools to organize my thoughts on the issues. I often struggle to articulate my thoughts on these matters, as much as I want to be a good and effective ally. The materials in the box will help frame more compelling responses when faced with bigotry and ignorance from family/peers.” “ Thank you for putting this together! It’s a fantastic resource for everyone beginning this important work, or to revive the work. I also appreciate it is not screenbased so it allows deeper exploration.”

55

Prototype website The high-fidelity stage in this prototype included the development of a website where the public could sign up to receive boxes.

56

Spreading the word Social media proved to be a powerful tool in spreading awareness of the prototype. Majority of subscriptions were sparked this way.

Next Steps Now that the first 1,000 boxes have been shipped, the next step is to gather user insights with the box, so that we can begin to formulate a clearer vision of who the Sleepy Middle is, what their needs and goals are, and what the shape of this service/experience needs to be.

This feedback will inform the contents of the second box and future boxes.

57

The De-Escalators The Challenge

Johnny Lee

Darryl de Dios

Alex Keays

Helen Rusich

How might we design interventions that de-escalate public displays of overt racist behaviour?

The Idea A digital resource/campaign that uses illustration and the power of story to not only describe what overt racism looks, sounds, and feels like in Edmonton, but that also (and primarily) serves as a place one can go to in order to learn how to react when witnessing an act of overt racism in a public place, such as a train station or on a bus.

Tried and True Testing will include: 1) presenting the stories/illustrations to target users, including youth; 2) getting feedback from stakeholders on content/approach; 3) promoting the landing page and Instagram account on social media, and through stakeholder websites.

58

What We’ve Learned We hope to gain insight into: 1) whether or not this design is effective (does it actually teach people and help them feel more confident to act when witnessing an overt act of racism?); 2) is there interest in this format; 3) whether this format (a digital resource) is accessible to people when they need it.

Next Steps Post-test activities will involve development and implementation of a business model/plan for this initiative.

Screenshots from the field prototype testing video

59

Left & Right: Excerpts from the De-Escalators Handbook

60

61

REFLECTIONS ON CENTERING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE

nitisiyihkâson Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse niya ohci Michel First Nation ôta asotamâtowin nikotwâsik askiy, niyanân Mohawk ekwa nehiyawak. anskac nimosômak ekîpecimecik ohci Kahanawake ekwa ekîhotaskânecik ôta cîki amiskwacîwâskahikanihk. nicâpan Johnny Calahoo wiya nistam owiyasiwew/okimâw iyiniw Association ohci Alberta, nitâniskakamâkewin tipiyaw ôta askiy ekwa ninisaweyihten kahahkameyihtamân kâkînakatamâkoyâhk nicâpan ekwa nikahâhkameyihten ewako ôma atoskewin wiya ekwa mihcet kotakak kâkîhatoskâtahkik. ewako anima kanîpawistamawâcik kâhisipaminihcik iyiniw awâsisak ekwa, kanîpawistamâwâcik ohci kiskinohamâkosiwin ohci iyiniw awâsisak ekwa kwayask kapaminihcik ohci iyiniwak anita môniyânâhk. kâhisihispihteyihtamân nikâpimitisahen awa nicâpan kâkîhitatoskâtak kâkîhisipimohtâtahk ekwa niwîsakiskâkon kawâpamakik nitayisînîmak ekitimahihcik ekwa namoya pîtos kîkway anohc ehisipimpayitahk.

My name is Jodi Calahoo–Stonehouse. I am from the Michel First Nation in Treaty 6 Territory. We are Mohawk and Cree peoples. My forefathers paddled the rivers from Kahanawake and settled here near Edmonton. My Chapan (great grandfather) Johnny Calahoo was the first President of the Indian Association of Alberta. My roots are deep in this land and I am blessed to continue the legacy of my Chapan and continue the work he and many others set out to do, which is fight for the welfare of Indian children, to fight for good education for Indian children and to fight for fair treatment of the Indian by the white man. As honoured as I am to follow my Chapans footsteps it also hurts my heart greatly to see Indigenous people suffering and that things have not changed very much.

62

I am blessed to have been given a Cree name by my adopted grandfather. It translates in English as ‘The woman who walks on the Earth until her hair turns grey.’ With a name comes obligations and responsibilities. My work, my name, and my responsibility are around children and water in my territory.

Throughout my life I’ve been blessed to be invited to participate in ceremonies. Each nation has a different way to honour and uplift their legal traditions, cultural practices and language groups. In all of the territories, ceremonies or sacred events I’ve been invited to, there’s an acknowledgment of our intimate relationship with the land.

ninanâskomon enahipayik ôta kâwîcihitâsoyân, ôma kahatoskâtamân, kawihtamâtakok niya niteyihcikewin kahkiyaw ohci kiyawâw I give thanks for the opportunity to be here, to do this work and to share my thoughts with each of you.

sâkihitowin ahcahkowan.

In the spirit of love.

e pewîtatoskemakik ôki, ewako ehatoskâtamân ekwa nikiskeyihten ewako tân’si kesîhiyinihkâtamân ekwa tân’si ôma kesinakinikâtehk pakwâtitowin. nitapohkeyihten kakîmînwâscikâtew kîkway, nitapohkeyihten pakwâtitôwin kâkînakinikâtew, ekwa kâkîmiyowihcetonânaw ekwa miyohotôtemihtonaw kâkîhitâstehk anita kihci asotamâtowinihk.

I joined this team, and did this work and learned about social innovation and how it might be used to stop racism. I believe that change is possible, I believe racism can be stopped and that we can live in peace and friendship as the treaty intended us to do.

We’re here to imagine how social innovation might be used as a tool to support Indigenous systems. I would like to invite you to a space where we imagine how we might co-create a different future between Indigenous peoples, settlers and immigrant peoples in Canada. This space is sacred. Wherever our feet touch the ground, that land is sacred. Wherever we sing songs, that air is sacred. Whenever our hearts and minds come together to think and work, that work becomes sacred.

Berry picking during the fourth sprint

63

kihcihasotamâtowin ekwa kesiwâhkohtamihk anita nehiyâwiwin Canada is continually negotiating nation-to-nation agreements with Indigenous peoples. In 2020, as we observe what is happening in Nova Scotia in the Mi’kma’ki or with the hereditary chiefs in the Wet’suwet’en territories, now is the time for Indigenous peoples to prepare, plan, and execute sovereignty, but this is also a time for non-Indigenous peoples to reflect upon their relationships and their obligations to each other and to the treaties.

Fittingly, the guiding question that grounded Shift Lab 2.0 reflects treaties and relationships: How might we create antiracism interventions that acknowledge everyone’s humanity and create behaviour change?

The context is also racism.

After listening to Shelly Tochluk, it is evident that Indigenous realities in Canada are embedded in structural, individual, institutional, and systemic racism.

Racism is the thread that binds us in relation, tying us up in harmful and unhealthy ways. There is no one way to unravel this harm. What’s important is we start to untangle the systems. For example, we must pull apart pieces of the Indian Act and the legacy it left on how we are governed today, including our relationship with the Crown. Rebuilding these relationships has to be a holistic, participatory exercise, not one defined by courts, lawyers, legislation and policy. The question is how we can untie this but also create new bonds of respect, reciprocity, and wellbeing so that we can thrive in relation with one another. The answer has to be a lived experience for all of us.

64

Presentations from Indigenous community leaders

Enter Shift Lab 2.0

Social Innovation for Indigenous People

Shift Lab committed to learning from local Elders, storytellers, and Treaty 6 knowledge keepers. It meant allocating time to exploring the treaty bundle and its relationship to the land and this place. Furthermore, it also meant researching the history of Treaty 6. Part of our decolonial practice was honouring oral traditions over written ones and learning specifically about Treaty through Indigenous processes, protocols, stories, and histories. It brought me great joy to witness the Shift Lab collective immerse themselves in Indigenous pedagogy and demonstrated it is absolutely possible for a committed group of settlers and immigrants to learn news ways of understanding the world. It was really beautiful and profound to watch people bring their hearts and minds to this good work.

Given the impacts, the residue and the reality of surviving genocide, I see social innovation as an important tool in the reparation of our customary laws, our languages, our kinship practices, and our cultural traditions. Social innovation is a process that is accessible, it’s safe, and it’s smart, it makes sense.

So many of the practices and foundations of social innovation align with indigenous epistemologies. Social innovation is a practice that is flexible, adaptable and a change-making process that in many ways will support our communities’ and nations’ needs. As we untangle complex issues such as child and family services, or address nations’s needs like constitution building, or ask ourselves how might we create a fully immersive school system rooted in the land, a social innovation lab is a way in which we could come together and explore the magnitude of where we are now, how we got here, and what we will need to move forward.

That said, good work is not easy. Shift Lab 2.0 contains many tensions because Western and Indigenous epistemologies frequently collide. Social innovation is not a tool that comes from an Indigenous cultural group; it’s a communitydriven application of a mostly Western philosophy for making systems change. Social innovation is a lens we can look through to clearly see the systems that have and continue to cause harm to Indigenous peoples. It is a tool to leverage systemic change. It won’t do everything, it can’t do everything, but it certainly supports us in the big work ahead. This commitment to exploring where these divergent worldviews intersect forms the foundation of our Triple Helix methodology.

So many of the practices and foundations of social innovation align with indigenous epistemologies. Social innovation is a practice that is flexible, adaptable and a change-making process that in many ways will support our communities’ and nations’ needs. As we untangle complex issues such as child and family services, or address the needs of nations like constitution building, or ask ourselves how might we create a fully immersive school system rooted in the land, a social innovation lab is a way in which we could come together and explore the magnitude of where we are now, how we got here, and what we will need to move forward.

65

Guiding Principles Make the Space ohcitaw ispihteyihtakwan kanitotamak kawîcihikawiyahk kîspin ispayin ita emâkweimoyahk ekwa namoya nân’taw anima, kawîcihikawiyahk.

Part of the work of running Shift Lab was creating both a safe space to detoxify racism as well as processes to release it.

What was observed in our Lab is the need for familiar cultural items that create an ambiance of safety. We called these mnemonic devices that remind folks of who they are and where they come from. They are visual cues from Indigenous epistemologies. Indigenous people are surrounded by Western visual cues everywhere; by disrupting these tacit colonial symbols, we created a balance of power.

Whether we’re doing work in a lodge, a big house, a longhouse, in a tipi, a classroom, an Action Lab, or by the riverbank, it’s important we all feel safe and have identifiers to remind us we belong there. How can we create a lab space that supports Indigenous nationhood, the feeling of cultural safety, the complexity of our nations and our spirituality? It’s really important to know the people in the lab, where they come from, symbols of safety for them and how can we put those symbols up in a way that’s honorable, respectful, with authenticity, that doesn’t take away from the intent of that actual object. So, it’s a bit of a juggling act. You need to be practical, but it’s about being mindful of each person who we’re going to do work with so that we can create a healthy, nourishing space that allows folks to do the heavy work that they’re going to do.

For example, to begin our Lab we feasted together and engaged in Indigenous protocol of self-location. This meant every individual disclosed where they come from, who their relatives are, and what their obligations and responsibilities are. Following this, we divided the collective into four teams.

These four teams explored how they might create a charter to show up, create a safe space, and have the ability to challenge and disagree with respect and kindness. On top of the team charters, we co-created principles for the whole lab.

We also had guiding circles that centred Indigenous wisdom and had conversations around race, dynamics and trauma that lab work can uncover or trigger.

66

To My Relatives ekîpemayitôtâkawiyahk ekwa namoya nân’taw kîspin kotak awiyak kawâpahtahk ehisiĥayimiyahk ekwa kâkîcihikoyahk kesi pasikôyahk.

To care for one another in this space, we have to understand some things. Indigenous peoples are on a continuum of perpetual grieving. Our lives are embedded in racism. Part of the Indigenous reality is that our world, our understanding of it and relation to it, is often very different to those who visit us in it. There is also the legacy of Indian residential schools in our communities, particularly in Alberta where we had more schools than any other province.

This has created a legacy of intergenerational trauma. In this space it is important to listen to our own bodies but also be mindful of the folks we were sitting with and to watch their bodies, too. Our bodies physiologically respond to what we’re feeling, emotionally. When we see our colleagues start to shut down or become hostile or emotional, we need to allow for that process of grieving. Because of the horrific trauma experienced by many of our relations, talking about, being a part of groups working on issues such as racism can be incredibly triggering and make our wounds feel raw and exposed — as well as remind us of our painful childhoods and family. So, we as Indigenous people have to be cognizant of our own shit. We have to know ourselves, intimately accept ourselves, and be willing to move with our woundedness with gentleness, with kindness, with compassion. It’s okay that we have deep sadness, anger, frustration. It’s okay we feel hopeless. So much of our reality is all of those things.

This reality of surviving genocide is a painful one. Many of us, since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, are starting to unravel the legacy of the impacts on our families, our parents and within ourselves. However, we are the answers to our ancestor’s prayers. We are living miracles. Working from a harm reduction model is the most important thing we can do with our young people because of this history, trauma and pain. Part of that is also community care. What are the ways we are caring for our elders? Caring for our young people?

How do we create community care so that we’re part of a circle, so that we belong, and so that reciprocity of giving love and accepting love becomes a common practice in our lives?

It’s also important to recognize if we bring in elders or guest speakers or folks who are experts in the area, on the flip side, what are images that are triggering and might remind us of the Indian Residential School particularly, so that we are not causing more harm to folks. Always keeping peoples’ wellbeing and safety at the forefront. Having conversations with people before bringing them in. Is there anything that you need to feel safe? How can I make this space supportive of your journey as we walk together through some horrific things. Generally, people will tell you, but we have to make the time to ask and then do the things that people have asked us to do for them.

67

Recognize Expertise

Fill the Cup

* k amamihceyihtamak kimekosiwininawa ekwa kamâtinamâkeyahk ekwa ohcitaw piko kwayask katipahamakawiyahk ewako ohci.

Each one of my colleagues took on the burden of extra work of mine. They would create drafts and other things. They were aware my reading and writing skills are low. They would take the time to have a conversation about how to support. They were always doing the background work. They listened and then wrote my parts and we would talk it through to get it right. If it was a presentation, I would have a co-presenter to co-steward. It was managing the responsibilities. A lot of my workload was going onto them because I was managing the kinship obligations. Because the Shift Lab came to the reserve and invited people in, my colleagues also got to see my kinship responsibilities.

Indigenous peoples need to be brought along as equals.

We can’t co-create solutions if we’re not there talking about the solutions together with you. We have a history of folks creating policy, programs, for us and about us as Indigenous people to solve our problems without us being a part of articulating what is the actual problem we’re trying to solve.

So, it was my colleagues and the Indigenous experts that we brought in and who shared their expertise that helped formulate and guide the direction in which our collective would move forward. As part of running a lab, it’s critical that you draw on community experts who are already making systemic change, who are already leading initiatives from an Indigenous worldview and paradigm. They are the lead changemakers doing the work in the trenches. Make sure you’re honouring and lifting their work, their way of doing things, to co-create something together.

Indigenous advisors and knowledge sharers

68

Being a relative is like trying to live two worlds at once. If wood needs to be cut, if feast food needs to be made, if someone needs transportation, you have to do it. The burden of the work in our communities is very heavy because the social ills are prominent. My time and energy go to supporting many people. The big idea is to fill my cup so that I can come to do this work with room to give. Others were able to explain the settler perspective to settlers, rather than me. That lifted my burden. My colleagues gave me the space to explore with my family what it might be that we were missing. My colleagues were used to having a very organized, formalized approach; I was like ‘We need a pipe ceremony’. They supported my intuition, my Indigenous wisdom. They didn’t know that I would know berry picking would help people. Berry picking is an intentional exercise of kinship responsibilities and it is part of property rights and entitlement, governance, and connection to the land. On one of our retreats in my community, I suggested berry picking as a way to emotionally ground everyone and connect.

In many of our worlds we often have very clear, linear lines around our colleagues. You go through 9-5, you talk through email. In our worldview, though, you become a relative. My colleagues adapted and became a relative. They cared for me like a relative.

Get in There For non-Indigenous people, part of the work is being able to physically connect with each other’s worldviews. We’re rooted in one way of being. Taking the time to explain and experience a non-Western worldview was game-changing for us. You have to go out to a reserve and experience a sweat lodge.

We talked and talked theory. But when my non-Indigenous colleagues sat in the sweat lodge, it clicked. It was this profound moment that this is actually different. That was paramount. The place and space. It’s not just theoretical. It’s immersive. kinwes kanohcihtânaw , sâkihitowin, ekwa miywâyawin kâwe kwayask kesipimâcihoyahk ewako anima miyohayâwin asci.

It’s going to take us a lot of time, love, and energy to get us into a place of living together in a better place.

ispihteyihtakwan ohcitaw kâpacihtâyahk kipîkiskwewininawa.

Using languages is important

Top and bottom: Berry picking during the fourth lab sprint

69

A Word About Process

TENSIONS AND SHARED KEY STEWARDSHIP LEARNING

70

In a successful social innovation lab, participants move from rigid mental models to an increasing ability to hold tensions as they carve out action-oriented pathways forward. This meant participants had to be aware of their own biases, beliefs, wishes and interests as they supported their teammates’ differing journeys; they also had to balance that with occasionally conflicting feedback from the community.

In developing prototype interventions to reduce racism, participants also had to be willing to go on a personal and transformational journey, engaging deeply in counter-cultural ways of being, reflecting, problem-solving and working together as good Treaty people. As well, participants were expected to try new approaches (we are a lab experimenting with ways to reduce racism). Not everything worked and we had to boldly go against the grain in many cases. We embraced this challenge. From the continual feedback we Stewards received on the process and outcomes, we want to share our learning, tensions, and some guiding principles we uncovered that might help in future action-oriented lab explorations and anti-racism initiatives.

It Really Is About Relationships A problem we noticed early after we launched Shift Lab four years ago was that if someone offered another person a harsh critique — but the two had no pre-existing relationship — the critique would not be taken and reflected upon, and behaviour would not change as a result.

We saw that without a relationship, a person’s wellintentioned critique, or call out, would be dismissed and people would further fall into a polarized, adversarial view.

Relationships are central

Jodi and Derek evaluating a tool used in the lab

71

This was one reason we landed on the overarching question of Shift Lab 2.0, and the specific core question of how to compel “people of privilege” to overcome white fragility to become better allies and dismantlers of systemic racism. At times in Shift Lab 1.0 and 2.0, we honestly explored whether it’s possible to shame individuals and systems into having healthy relationships and to be less racist. We learned that this approach, over the long-term, would result in relationships rooted in fear, power struggles, and pain.

That said, no one wakes up to their own complicity in systemic racism without some shame, learning, fear, and pain. But people need to come to this themselves for there to be lasting and deep behaviour change. The catalyst for the transformation can come from a jarring external experience, but unfortunately it seems to only create meaningful reflection and behaviour change if it comes from someone a person is in a trusting relationship with.

This became clear through Darryl Davis’s work, which he shared with the Shift Lab in our international Speaker’s Series.

Darryl shared the way he has influenced KKK members to renounce the organization through long-term relationship building. As a Black man, he obviously doesn’t agree with them but does the extremely tough work of trying to listen and see the human in the person. His approach is very effective, but also very intensive and risky. We recognized this approach is not the answer for everyone nor is it easy to spread and scale. Still, it illustrates how important relationship building is for change.

On the other hand, we felt we can’t be asking racialized persons to do the tough work of deep relationship building and explaining racism — only to experience the pain it causes, over and over again. This reality is a paradox in effectively tackling racism, and one that requires social innovation. We don’t think we have solved it, but we learned a few things over the last four years in stewarding Shift Lab 1.0 and 2.0.

In particular, we felt that as Canadians we could navigate this paradox in a new and novel way through learning from Indigenous perspectives on relationships as that has been a long-ignored view.

72

It is difficult to adequately capture the breadth and depth owed to them, but in Indigenous epistemologies, relationships are key to mental, physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being. Not just relationships between humans, but relationships between interconnected systems and beings.

In the Western world, social innovation, design and systemsthinking approaches to community problem solving have emerged, however the attention on relationships is often missed. Design and systems approaches can lean towards breaking down problems into their component parts and determine the core needs in problems to be solved. In good systems-thinking practice, relationships between parts in a system and how power and forces move between them is explored; however it is more often from an analytical place and can tend to devalue emotional, spiritual and land-based perspectives.

As Stewards, we strove to not privilege one worldview more than another. We didn’t want to fall into the trap of “tolerating” worldviews, but actually learn and “go deep” together as treaty relatives in good relations with one another.

We felt that if we were going to steward community solutions to racism, then we needed to work on relationships, our own anti-racism journeys, acknowledge mistakes, admit biases and be bold enough not to settle for surface-level pleasantries, but really dig into this wickedly complex issue.

Going deep is required for a tough challenge like reducing racism and to do that, high levels of trust and honesty are required for transformational change. As stewards of a process that we guided with diverse community members, we had to constantly check our own journeys at the same time as do our best to safely support the journeys of individuals, four prototype teams, the lab group as a whole, and our work in the community. All of this required doing our best to steward good relationships. This did not mean everyone had to agree and be nice to each other, but instead meant strengthening relationships by digging deep and sharing honestly.

Learning and Suggestions For Centring Good Relationships in Social Innovation Labs • “Nothing about us, without us”: Do alongside Indigenous, Black or racialized people, not to, or for.

• If you are white, own it and accept. These conversations will not centre your voice or your feelings. It may be uncomfortable at times, but it’s worth it.

• Act on showing you value people in relationships in a social innovation lab. Compensate them equitably and provide for transportation, childcare and other necessities to support their participation.

• Take as much time as required to get relationships right.

• Bring in people’s unique gifts and expertise.

• Act on and model being true treaty relatives. True reconciliation requires it.

• Humans are not the centre of everything!

Relationships to land, water, spirit, animals are key; be open to it. Learn from Indigenous perspectives in this area.

• Try to see the humanity in all people while at the same time setting clear boundaries and not allowing disrespect or dehumanizing behaviour.

Create the lab team’s rules of engagement together.

• Don’t convene Stewards or Core Teams that all think alike. The magic happens in fostering a safe experimental zone of healthy relationships where true diverse perspectives can make the whole better • Be careful of falling into the trap of black-andwhite thinking patterns. Be willing to be wrong.

• Check your privilege.

• Don’t ask racialized persons to have to explain to white people why racism is so painful, kills people and still is a systemic problem. Direct people to educational resources first.

• Look out for each other.

73

The “Sleepy Middle” Archetype Is Controversial Working to effectively shift the “Sleepy Middle” was identified in the research as a powerful leverage point for addressing systemic racism. This was often misinterpreted as coddling the privileged rather than seeing it’s about figuring out how to more effectively wake up the Sleepy Middle who are keeping systemic injustice in place covertly or unconsciously.

Martin Luther King Jr. identified the challenge with white moderates, or what we called the “Sleepy Middle”:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a ‘more convenient season.

A few years earlier, in 1958, activist and researcher Gerry Gambill (also known as Rarihokwats, meaning “He writes” in the Mohawk language) made similar observations at a conference in Tobique, Manitoba, in a speech titled ‘On the Art of Stealing Human Rights’:

“ Convince the Indian that he should be patient, that these things take time. Tell him that we are making progress, and that progress takes time.”

More recently, CNN broadcaster Van Jones commented on a New York City event, where Amy Cooper, a white woman called the police on Chris Cooper, a Black man, in the midst of a bird watching incident in May 2020:

74

“ It’s not the racist white person who’s in the Ku Klux Klan that we have to worry about,’ the former Obama adviser said. ‘It’s the white, liberal Hillary Clinton supporter walking her dog in Central Park.”

There are many well-intentioned, unconscious and “asleep” moderate people who are unaware of the systemic racism they are complicit in upholding.

We wanted to explore what effectively “awakens” the Sleepy Middle — not to give more power and privilege to them, but so they become better allies, make space and contribute to a more equitable world that everyone deserves. We wanted to research what mechanisms could activate the Sleepy Middle.

We looked at whether shaming, aggression, and threats could truly awaken the Sleepy Middle or whether it might be creating further polarization and possibly more overt acts of racism.

Even though we Stewards came from activist backgrounds and often wanted to burn unconscious systems of oppression down to the ground, we also wanted to look closely at what works to shift the Sleepy Middle. We recognized it’s likely a mix. To be clear we recognize space needs to be made for strong direct action. There is a place for it in addressing overt systemic racism and injustice. Working on the Sleepy Middle is not glorious; it’s a little boring and not as fiery as activist approaches we were used to. This never meant we were less committed to addressing racism and by choosing to work on shifting the Sleepy Middle we knew we were going to be criticized by our colleagues for not being radical enough.

However, if we could contribute to waking up the Sleepy Middle, then this could be a contribution to systems change alongside our direct action colleagues.

One of the tensions to navigate when trying to shift the Sleepy Middle is knowing when and how to provoke effective discomfort and cognitive dissonance, which can elicit deeper reflection on biases and complicity in unconscious systemic racism. We also recognized it’s inappropriate to keep asking and tasking racialized persons to explain racism.

People who have experienced racism are hurt, in pain, angry and rightfully tired of explaining it. To not burden racialized persons, the team working on countering white fragility decided to not have racialized people on their team help with testing prototypes with folks from the Sleepy Middle.

Instead, white allies on the team did the heavy lifting with the Sleepy Middle when explaining and testing the white fragility subscription box prototype. We learned from the core team’s leadership that this was a good example of a diverse team stepping up in the right contexts and not expecting everyone to contribute in the exact same ways.

We feel there is still lots to explore with shifting the Sleepy Middle effectively and there are delicate tensions to navigate.

More white people from the Sleepy Middle also need to stand up and not look away from injustice. Racialized voices need to be centred and listened to, but the Sleepy Middle can’t keep asking what they should do to become better allies, and less racist. There are many tensions and paradoxes to navigate, and it will be messy — and people need change now. This will take some tough reflections, tough conversations and it won’t all be pleasant, but it can’t be avoided any longer.

One of the tensions to navigate when trying to shift the Sleepy Middle is knowing when and how to provoke effective discomfort.

75

An Example Of The Sleepy Middle Waking Up Following the global Black Lives Matters protests, sparked by the police killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the cultural mainstream (i.e., white folks) seemed to understand the prevalence of racism today. At least, they said so, in an unprecedented groundswell of support for anti-racist issues. At the time of this report, it is too early to judge the effectiveness of this massive cultural pivot. While the issue

is rife with bland corporate pronouncements of solidarity with little to no action promised, there are good examples of the Sleepy Middle waking up and using their platforms to be anti-racist, as illustrated by an Instagram post by Chicago Blackhawks Captain Jonathan Toews, who was born and raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

I can’t pretend for a second that I know what it feels like to walk in a black man’s shoes. However, seeing the video of George Floyd’s death and the violent reaction across the country moved me to tears. It has pushed me to think, how much pain are black people and other minorities really feeling? What have Native American people dealt with in both Canada and US? What is it really like to grow up in their world? Where am I ignorant about the privileges that I may have that others don’t?

Compassion to me is at least trying to FEEL and UNDERSTAND what someone else is going through. For just a moment maybe I can try to see the world through their eyes. COVID has been rough but it has given us the opportunity to be much less preoccupied with our busy lives. We can no longer distract ourselves from the truth of what is going on.

My message isn’t for black people and what they should do going forward. My message is to white people to open our eyes and our hearts. That’s the only choice we have, otherwise this will continue.

Let’s choose to fight hate and fear with love and awareness. Ask not what can you do for me, but what can I do for you? Be the one to make the first move. In the end, love conquers all.

76

Learning and suggestions for future labs • Don’t expect racialized persons to keep explaining to the Sleepy Middle why racism is still a problem.

• Don’t expect a single person to represent or be responsible for the entire views of a community.

• Ask who are you trying to shift and what might be effective.

• Challenge everything you think you know. Question whether tactics/interventions/prototypes are working to shift the way they are intended. Do tests to keep assumptions in check.

• Diversity, unconscious bias and anti-racism training that is one-off, rather than ongoing, doesn’t seem to lead to lasting systems change. However there is some promise in integrating drip campaigns and behaviour nudging to wake the Sleepy Middle up and not going back to old patterns.

• Working on shifting the Sleepy Middle is innovative, controversial and counter-cultural in activist circles.

It will likely be interpreted as not radical enough or another covert way of upholding systemic racism and white supremacy. Don’t shut down radical perspectives that push back on this, make space as there are many different approaches required.

• Remember the importance of relationship-building for sustained change.

77

No One Is Ever Outside The System We often grappled with whether the lab exploration was for the 25 Core Team members to undergo a transformational experience, or whether it was for the members to go into the community, learn, and design solutions within the Edmonton context to end racism.

This tension is felt in most labs but can depend on the approach; whether the lab is more inward- or outwardoriented. We felt we had to mix both because you can’t work on racism outside without working on yourself and those you collaborate with. Put plainly, racism isn’t something anyone can solve with an “objective” perspective. Often, in design and systems challenges, stewards of a problem-solving process approach the issue thinking they are the experts in an “objective process.” This is not the case, especially given how wicked the challenge of racism is.

For this reason, the lab journey has to have individual reflections, balanced with ways to explore externally for larger community/systems change. This tension and balance is not easy to navigate. It requires thoughtful planning for both.

We strove to steward both individual reflection and external

78

explorations in systems through hosting longer lab sprints, building in time for deeper reflection together and supporting the four prototype teams between sprints. Jodi, in particular, guided the Indigenous ways of reflecting together and listening, so that participants could strengthen relationships and confront bias to learn and move forward positively.

Reflecting on racism and lived experiences is triggering, especially for racialized persons, and there needs to be deeper trust and the support of team members in place to not burden people and give space and support when needed.

We were not perfect at navigating this tension. The strength, empathy, and maturity of the Core Team members to support each other was the real gem of Shift Lab 2.0. We recognized that as Stewards we didn’t always need to step in, but strove to create a safe space for deeper exploration. We had to steward hard conversations and address elephants in the room as it would have been inappropriate to leave Core Team members on their own. All of us are never outside systems of power, relationships, biases, emotions, our own stories, and how our stories rub up against other people’s stories.

Learning and Suggestions For Future Labs • Build in time for individual reflection, provocations, team discussion and deeper ways of listening.

You’ll likely always feel there isn’t enough time and will need to balance what is reasonable to ask of people’s time (compensate them well too) and the process to lead discovery.

• Centring Indigenous knowledge systems around listening, reflecting and relationship building is very helpful for seeing connections between people and systems. Beware of doing this in a tokenistic way. Do it for real and this takes time and relationship building and following proper protocols.

• Recognize and build in time to reflect on bias.

• Have a witness who isn’t a steward of a lab but part of a core team to witness and share at the end of a lab sprint, or workshop on what they observed with how the lab was living up to the espoused values, biases that got in the way and improvements for next time.

• Build in developmental evaluation to keep the stewardship team responding to emergent feedback and adapting to needs of individuals, teams and community.

• Bring in the strengths of core team members to share their knowledge. Don’t fall into the trap thinking that the Stewards need to know it all and have all the answers.

• A lab around a deeply complex issue shouldn’t be about ensuring everyone is nice to each other all the time. If the conversations become heated and emotional, run with it rather than try to squelch it.

This is a difficult, but necessary step if the lab is to uncover previously unearthed insights.

Top and bottom: Core Teams working in the lab

79

What We Learned Together From Our Triple Helix process We intentionally centred Indigenous knowledge in the social innovation lab process, and it was woven together with design- and systems-thinking approaches. This meant one worldview wasn’t more important than another. It all required decolonizing practices. Our stewardship team has diverse identities, and brought unique expertise and experiences to ensure our Triple Helix approach wasn’t just an intellectual exercise. We were all learning, creating, and adapting as we journeyed together.

We wanted our lab to be an example of how diverse groups could show up and be good treaty relatives together. We wanted to not just tolerate each other from a distance, but to bring out the best in each other and support each other. To start this with our Triple Helix, we recognized we had to have strong relationships in order to disagree, question ideas, and still have deep respect and friendship. A weave of thread is very strong. Relationships were the weave in the helix.

Indigenous ways of relationship building were key. So, too, were some practical pieces like making the length of a sprint a whole weekend rather than just a day or half day. Working to be bold enough to end racism, we grew strong together. We needed our different perspectives to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. We sometimes wondered that, if we all want to be better true treaty relatives, perhaps it might take getting together in collectives and working together on something important and in relationship. In other words, the act of working together in a healthy relationship is part of the goal of being better treaty people. If we had more of that in Edmonton, there might be stronger relationships, equity, and a move towards authentic reconciliation.

80

In other words, the act of working together in a healthy relationship is part of the goal of being better treaty people

What Is Ethical To Combine In The Triple Helix?

In creative problem-solving practices like design thinking, a common practice is to remix and combine disparate ideas.

Often, innovations emerge from combining seemingly unrelated things in a novel way. To enhance innovation, the Western practice is often to increase collisions and combinations between diverse, often unrelated ideas. For example, the inventor of Velcro saw how plant burrs attached to fur when walking through the forest and remixed this for clothing. Eureka moments often come from these jarring collisions. But in some contexts, there’s a problem with this.

Cultural appropriation, especially by Western cultures, raises ethical concerns. The Stewards made a conscious effort to encourage the team to engage ethically with Indigenous knowledge and not to decontextualize Indigenous ideology and apply it to any situation as they saw fit. There needed to be relationships built, protocols followed, and communication with Elders and advisors in order for there to be authenticity.

We worked to not add to the historical legacy of researchers extracting knowledge and practices from Indigenous peoples.

The Indigenous knowledge keepers, Elders, and participants bridged the worldviews, pointing out where there may be similarities and also points where things could not be combined and needed to be left on their own. We also were keenly aware that there is no such thing as “pan-Indigenous.”

There is a tremendous amount of diversity in teachings, worldviews, and traditions just within Indigeous Treaty 6 peoples, let alone the rest of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island (North America). The key in ethically weaving the Triple Helix was having Indigenous leadership as an equal part of the decision making and stewardship of the lab.

Ashley sharing on keeping power and privilege in check when designing social innovation prototypes

81

Tension Between Processes A deeply ingrained Western worldview is how arguments are built, debated, and judged as true or not. There is an urge for simplicity, reason, a thesis, and key evidence that supports the thesis. This attempts to control, or give the illusion of control, laying things out logically. In design thinking, there are generally five stages you move through, with clear activities and steps at each stage. In systems thinking, there are steps to look at systems, and tools to uncover structures and question biases in a system.

But in Indigenous worldviews and problem-solving processes, there aren’t five steps, a thesis, bullet points. Indigenous worldviews are instead rooted in complex systems, landbased practices, customary laws, languages, and ceremony.

Humans aren’t the centre of these relational systems. Indeed, there is a spiritual dimension that weaves throughout and can’t always be explained step by step. A clear tension is the risk of decontextualizing Indigenous practice: these practices cannot be removed from the larger epistemological framework in which they exits. When this happens, misappropriation occurs.

We wondered: Is the end state we want one where everyone is respected to do their own thing, alone, or is it where traditions mix and complement each other so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? It’s likely we want a mix of both — some mixing of ideas and traditions and some ideas best left within their own contexts and traditions. With our Triple Helix approach and striving to * model being good treaty relatives we tried to honor this complexity. * kawâpahtihweyahk esi miyowâhkôhtoyahk ekwa ekakwekisteyihtamahk ôma anohc iyikohk ehâyimak.

It was liberating and helpful when we gave up trying to fit everything Indigenous into a logical view or flow. There needed to be trust to dive in, and to have trust there needed to be relationships. It really is all about relationships. That’s the braid.

82

“ Indigenous people often feel they have to put their ancient traditions into packages for Western understanding and this takes away from authenticity and biases systems towards Western ones”

Learning and Suggestions for Future Labs • When including Indigenous knowledge, it is imperative to include an Indigenous leader to guide this work.

• Take turns leading the work of bringing together multiple worldviews.

• kakiskinohtahikoyahk iyiniw enîkânîstahk tân’si ki’kway kesi-isiyinihkâtamihk kesi-mâmawiâpahcihtahk pâpîtos isihtwâwina • Build and strengthen relationships through ceremony and working together on an important initiative as true treaty relatives.

• Don’t privilege one worldview over another.

• Learn about decolonizing practices.

• Don’t make Indigenous people try to package their traditions in Western frameworks.

• Don’t hope for a set of bullet point.

• To hold our traditions/cultures in high regards as they were given to us by the Creator to use here on Turtle Island/mother earth.

• Kwayask ka-ispihteyihtamihk anima mâmawwiyohtâmîmaw kâki-iyinamâkweyahk nistam ôta kâ-ahikoyahk ministik/kikâwinaw otaskiy.

83

Improve Prototype Implementation One learning from Shift Lab 1.0 that we used in Shift Lab 2.0 was the need to improve the implementation of prototypes.

Specifically, we saw how prototypes from 1.0 struggled to launch because none had a “home” or resources for sustained support. In fact, as of July 2020, a prototype from Shift Lab 1.0 has just found a home and funding with a community partner — three years after it was created (and a ton of volunteer work of Shift Lab 1.0 Core Team and Stewardship members).

Social innovation labs throughout the world struggle with implementation. Some lab practitioners feel labs should create a portfolio of ideas co-designed with affected stakeholders. Implementation is very different, in this thinking, from a lab process and should be kept separate.

Other lab practitioners, like ourselves, feel there should be a mix of both. If we can’t figure out pathways to implementation, we feel we have let the community we worked alongside down.

From the outset of Shift Lab 2.0, we worked toward launching good ideas from a lab environment into the world. One way was striving in our Shift Lab 2.0 research to garner demandside interest from host organizations and systems. The concept of demand-side and supply-side labs was introduced to us by Mark Cabaj, who was the core developmental evaluator.

Supply- Vs. Demand-side labs One way to categorize labs is whether they work from the “demand” side of things or the “supply” side. Do these potential prototypes already have a home (demand) or does the lab have to hunt for their home after they have been produced (supply)? The Winnipeg Boldness Project is an example of a demand-side lab: there is a specific context, location, and community that the prototypes are intended to support. The Shift Lab, on the other hand, stayed a supply-side lab. We are developing prototypes that address a particular issue that can be applied in multiple contexts, locations, and communities.

84

“ The Shift Lab turned out to be a supply-side lab: we are developing prototypes that address a particular issue that could be applied in multiple contexts, locations, and communities.”

The challenge of supply-side labs There is a strong need for external partners to get prototypes off the ground. This requires hunting for a place to support the work of the lab and the prototypes it produces.

This entails finding not just an organization with the skills, tools, and resources to implement the prototype, but also one with the right cultural fit, desire, and intentions. This element can be time-consuming.

Secondly, once things are rolling and the prototypes are designed there can be a struggle when it comes to handing off the work from the designer(s) to the implementer. In addition to governance and ownership, issues of ability, trust, communication, and the right intention must be answered before a handoff can be made.

Finally, a very specific skillset is required to implement and incubate prototypes. It takes dedicated project managers, grant writers, stellar communicators, and the ability to keep iterating and adapting to ensure the pilot responds to needs.

Shift Lab 2.0 remained a supply-side lab but we got better at incubating and launching ideas We tried for eight months to find demand for Shift Lab in specific organizations and systems. We tried within HR departments and large institutions, but each wanted to see what would be created first. In addition, none wanted to allow a community team to come into their organization to work on systemic racism and prototype interventions. After lots of attempts, we got comfortable with the limitations of a supply-side lab and honed our strategy to increase our impact with implementation. As of July 2020, our strategy seems to be working much better, as ideas are getting off the ground quicker.

85

Below are the strategies we engaged to get better at implementation with a supply-side lab • Seek a great funder that gets social innovation: We partnered with one of the most innovative funders in the country, the Edmonton Community Foundation. We’re not just saying that. ECF is doing very innovative work around granting and funding social innovation. (See Ashley’s report on funding social innovation labs from our previous Shift Lab 1.0 report in 2017) •

cope challenge areas well before a lab to have S greater impact later: Another reason there was better success with implementation was because we learned from Shift Lab 1.0 about the challenge of scope. We did the research (eight months pre lab) and convened four stellar teams around four challenge areas that Edmonton and Treaty 6 area are really wanting change around. This meant there was naturally more desire for interventions and outcomes at the end.

• Embedded granting Innovation: We had an embedded funder with Ashley from ECF on our stewardship team.

This was not in any way an oversight role, but a broker and bridging role between the lab’s needs and the funder. This allowed for better responsiveness from our funder as learning in the lab emerged and changed overtime. Ashley also has deep anti-racism theory and practice knowledge and deep lab knowledge developed over four years of co-stewarding the Shift Lab. This was a very unique role for a funder and as far as we know unprecedented in social Innovation labs in Canada. It is very delicate to do this right and the deep relationship building, trust and dedication of resources from ECF was key.

• Make small films of what happened in the lab: This one may seem out of step with implementation, but having a couple of short films that explains what happens in a lab and what testing of prototypes looked like in action was helpful for pitching and credibility of the core team’s amazing work.

86

• Special prototype grant stream just for Shift Lab: This creative relationship with our funder allowed for the creation of a special grant stream to continue funding Shift Lab prototypes after the lab was completed. This grant stream has few strings attached, is nimble and has feedback loops to ensure good stewardship of funds and deliverables. These grants are in $10,000 packages for each prototype, and teams can keep applying in $10,000 increments after the completion of deliverables. This has allowed for continued work on prototypes after the lab workshops concluded.

• Prototype showcase event: After the lab workshops closed, we hosted a prototype showcase and invited potential allies, supporters, collaborators to see the community prototypes and have opportunities to get involved. This led to some collaborations with for instance DevFacto exploring development of the HR reflection pool app prototype.

• Prototype manager role: Post lab we hired contract prototype managers (3) with the specific skill set to continue refining and developing the prototypes. Over six months after the lab, it was their responsibility to oversee the prototype’s continual development, develop budgets for next steps, work plans, and write the $10,000 grants to ECF. They also had to sustain the right relationships and links between the previous core team working on the prototypes and continued iteration. This role was a major game changer for ensuring prototypes kept moving because a dedicated person was assigned the role. See the appendix for the job description and deliverables of a prototype manager.

As prototypes evolve, timing can be everything. What’s happening in the system around the lab creates leverage points for prototypes to be desirable, feasible, and viable. For example, the team working on addressing how to help the Sleepy Middle face white fragility launched their anti-racism subscription box (You Need This Box) at the time many white people looked themselves in the mirror after the police killing of George Floyd. As a result, in 48 hours, more than 1,000 requests for the box came in.

The team had planned for 30 boxes.

In less than a week, ECF once again stepped up and funded the creation of the first 2,300 boxes. The demand for this prototype was partially due to circumstances in the ecosystem, but also because we had a prototype manager assigned.

87

SHIFT LAB 2.0: EVALUATION Overview Shift Lab 2.0 adopted a Developmental Evaluation (DE) approach. DE allows social innovators to obtain real-time feedback on the design and implementation of the work so that they can respond and adjust to new learnings and insights.

Note Though many of our informal evaluation techniques were based in our Triple Helix methodology, we were not able to fully realize braiding formal Developmental Evaluation with Indigenous evaluative methods. We are currently developing and testing a “two-eyed seeing” evaluation tool that attempts this braid. Stay tuned to our website for updates!

Evaluators • Paige Reeves, Lead Evaluator, Skills Society Action Lab • Mark Cabaj, Advisor, Here to There Consulting Inc.

Interested in learning more about Developmental Evaluation? See http://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/ approach/developmental_evaluation

88

Core team members taking an opportunity to better know one another

The evaluation was organized to answer the following broad questions: • • • • •

hat is working well and not so well in the lab? How can W we improve the lab?

What are we learning about racism, the Sleepy Middle, and anti-racism approaches?

What is the likely feasibility, effectiveness and support for the prototypes that emerge out of the lab?

What are implications for future efforts to address racism in Edmonton?

What are implications for other social innovators tackling complex social challenges?

The evaluation was carried out continuously throughout the lab and included: • • • •

The evaluation feedback was useful in two ways. First, it supported the Stewardship Team in being responsive to emergent learning throughout the lab. Second, it surfaced learning and reflection thought to be useful for both the social innovation community and others working to tackle racism.

Shift Lab 2.0 resulted in four promising prototypes, as well as learning and change amongst Core Team members. In addition to these results, several key insights surrounding lab methodology, racism, and changing the behaviour of the Sleepy Middle also emerged. Broadly speaking, Shift Lab 2.0 and the learning that occurred within it, makes significant contributions for the broader community, others working to tackle racism, and the social innovation community.

This part of the report is organized into two main sections: (1) results and (2) key insights.

egular meetings between Evaluators and the R Stewardship Team Surveys distributed to Core Team members after each sprint and at the conclusion of the lab Core Team summaries of feedback from prototype testing Focus group and one on one interviews with Stewardship Team members

89

Results This lab resulted in four promising prototypes as well as learning and change among Core Team members.

The Prototypes A key contribution of Shift Lab 2.0 are the four anti-racism prototypes generated. Each holds great promise to contribute to addressing racism in Edmonton and beyond.

Prototyping involves a continuous iteration process, often in the form of sketches, diagrams, paper models, sticky notes, and other rudimentary materials. The goal is to have each prototype ready for pilot testing with a community partner

organization(s). It is a fast, risk-free, inexpensive, messy, and creative process to test promising ideas. At each stage of the prototype’s development, feedback is sought (both internally, amongst the prototype teams and Shift Lab Stewards as well as externally with stakeholders, funders, and partners), considered and evaluated to strengthen elements of the prototype that may be lacking.

The Prototyping Process Courtesy of Mark Cabaj

Keep testing?

Keep testing?

Pilot

Evolve The Idea

Prototype 1.1

Keep testing?

Pilot

Test

Pilot

Evolve Prototype 1.2

Discard

Discard: the prototype is unlikely to be effective, feasible and/ or supported, so should no longer be pursued.

Test: we don’t feel we have received enough feedback from people on our prototype; we need more feedback from other people.

Evolve: the basic idea is good, but we need to further develop and adapt prototype to reflect the changes recommended from others. Then we should test the new version

90

Scale

Spin -off

Test

Spin -off

Test

Scale

Spin -off

Scale

Prototype 1.3

Discard

Discard

Pilot: the feedback on the prototype is good enough to warrant a more formal pilot project and evaluation.

Adopt or scale: The feedback on the prototype is so good that we don’t need to test it further – it’s ready for implementation.

This includes everything from the initial value proposition of the prototype (Who will use it and how does it benefit them?) to the design and execution of it (Does the prototype do what we want it to do? Is it feasible, reliable, valid?) to the evaluation, communications and distribution plan of the prototype. Similar to prototyping in the technology space, rapid iterations allow for proof of concept as well as other insights to crystallize from an emergent process. This allows for insightful a-ha! moments to happen. However, not every realization gets added on: the prototyping process allows teams to refine and discard elements deemed redundant, counterproductive or out-of-scope. Importantly, this is not considered a failure or limitation. Rather, it is a way of establishing a clearer, more concise vision of what the prototype is supposed to do.

On pages 44-61 of this report find a description of each prototype, the challenge they respond to, how they were tested and what was learned from testing, as well as plans for next steps.

91

Core Team Member Learning and Change Core Team members were motivated to participate by a desire to combat racism and effect social change as well as an interest in learning about social innovation, design thinking and centering Indigenous knowledge in the lab. Many Core Team members spoke of the rich learning and, at times, personal transformation that occurred for them through participation in the lab process.

Core Team members experienced an increase in commitment to, and confidence in, addressing racism in their communities.

The majority of Core Team survey respondents felt: •

heir insight and empathy into the general experience of T racism stayed the same or increased over the course of the lab

•

heir understanding of their own experience and/or T interaction with racism stayed the same or increased over the course of the lab

•

heir understanding of what they could do to address T racism increased over the course of the lab

•

heir commitment to addressing racism increased over T the course of the lab

•

n increase in confidence in their ability to help address A racism over the course of the lab

•

purred to take actions to address racism beyond the S specific prototype they were a part of (see Q28 in survey)

This learning is an important outcome of the lab to recognize as it is thought to have ripple effects for tackling racism. Core Team members, even after the end of the lab, will carry this knowledge forward, share it with others and incorporate it into their own personal, work, and community lives.

92

“Learning about and addressing racism is an ongoing, every day commitment. Still so much learning to do and so much opportunity to take action.”

— Core Team Member

“New connections and perspectives that I did not have previously. My understanding of cultural celebrations and Indigenous epistemology through the explanations of design lab processes and story. That was a highlight of my learning and makes me want more.”

— Core Team Member

“The modality and values that the Shift Lab operates under — humanness, kindness, care - will stay with me.”

— Core Team Member

Being mindful of lab principles is key

Reflections on Lab Methodology The following insights related to lab methodology emerged as part of Stewardship and Core Team member reflections: A balanced approach: both planned and emergent

KEY INSIGHTS In addition to the results previously outlined, a number of key insights related to lab methodology, racism, and changing the behaviour of the Sleepy Middle emerged out of this lab. See these insights expanded upon in the sections that follow.

Reconciling the tensions of racism Supporting ‘going deeper’ Highlights of participant feedback on the process The need for focussing on more than innovation Tensions in evaluating prototypes that tackle complex social issues Reflections on supply-side vs demand-side innovation Building capacity within the social innovation ecosystem

93

A Balanced Approach: Both Planned and Emergent

Reconciling the Tensions of Racism

Stewards strove to strike a balance between ‘planned’ and ‘emergent’ in their overall approach — both serving important purposes and contributing to the overall success of the lab.

This balance was baked into the Triple Helix approach that wove together Indigenous, design, and systems worldviews.

The Indigenous worldview tended towards the ‘emergent’ side of things with a focus on relationships, being present in the moment, and a reliance on guiding principles rather than rules. The design and systems worldviews tended to lean towards the ‘planned’ side of things with a focus on structure, processes, and tools. Together they provided a ‘roughly right’ mix of structure and emergence.

Few contemporary issues are as charged as racism. Early on in the process, each member of the Core Team was made aware that this was the raison d’etre of the lab. Within the confines of the lab, the realities of experiencing racism and the toll it takes surfaced periodically in various ways: • Through the sharing of deeply personal and emotional experiences, particularly from Indigenous and Muslim members of the team • From group discussions and lectures to the Core Team • Collecting and relaying observations from the field during prototype team work

“Throw out the plan, be in the moment, be present, be in relationship with people … this draws on Indigenous ways of knowing.” — Steward “I hold onto the ideas of openness and curiosity - to ask myself and others, “when was the last time you changed your mind about something?” — Core Team Member

Indigenous advisors

94

Some of these tensions arose not through direct conflict or provocation but inadvertently: a telling point about racism is the covert as well as overt nature of its expressions. While virtually everyone had fairly deep academic, professional — and, for BIPOC individuals, firsthand experience — this tension still felt jarring every time it arose. At times, Stewards and Core Team members would suggest de-escalating, and relationship building practices to allow the group to process these feelings.

Supporting ‘Going Deeper’ One of the biggest insights from Shift Lab 1.0 was the importance of creating a space and process for lab participants to ‘dig deeper’ into the challenge - exploring their own experiences and the stories of others in order to expand their understandings. In Shift Lab 1.0, participants did not always feel safe - nor felt there was time and space — to engage in deeper reflexive and generative dialogues about racism.

In Shift Lab 2.0, the Stewardship team prioritized creating safe spaces and processes for deeper exploration. Outlined below are some of the strategies, tools, and practices the Stewardship team employed in Shift Lab 2.0 in an attempt to facilitate deeper exploration in Core Teams.

• Time Spent Together: Allowing time to unfold was a big piece! Creating space for going deeper takes time and cannot be rushed. Sprints were intentionally designed to be two and a half days in length and the entire lab process over 18 months long to support this.

“ I don’t know exactly what will come of them but the relationships that were started have shaped me in ways that I can see and I believe in ways I cannot even begin to understand yet.” - Core Team Member

•

pportunities to share feedback: Formal (e.g. surveys) O and informal (e.g. conversations) opportunities for team members to share feedback on their experiences in the process were provided. Feedback was then incorporated into practices moving forward. This contributed to teams feeling heard and understood.

•

onstructive conflict: Space was created for teams C to feel as though they could openly disagree with one another and strategies were provided on how to navigate this in constructive ways. Conflict allowed for learning and growth in the teams.

• Otto Scharmer’s “Four Types of Conversation” framework: A formal tool used to help teach Core Team members about different levels of conversation.

• Indigenous epistemologies: Indigenous (primarily but not exclusively Cree) epistemologies, forming one third of the Triple Helix approach, were woven throughout the entirety of the lab approach. Grounded in relationship and reciprocity, these epistemologies contributed to team members’ ability to ‘go deeper’ and build relationships with one another.

“Indigenous epistemologies helped us go deeper and be present … if we didn’t incorporate them I don’t think we would have gotten as deep.” — Steward • Built in shared experiences: Curated experiences such as ceremony, berry picking on the land, and a medicine wheel exercise, provided opportunities for teams to bond over shared experience, be vulnerable with one another, and ultimately build stronger relationships and establish trust.

“It was powerful learning to see the incorporation of people from many different backgrounds, realities, and experiences coming together, without glossing over difficult conversations or power imbalances, but trying to work with and against them.” — Core Team Member

The above tools, strategies, and practices enabled the formation of deeper relationships amongst team members.

This depth of relationship was critical in enabling teams to go deeper in their grappling with the issue of racism and ultimately strengthened the prototypes.

“ If people feel safe and free to share a counter cultural idea this creates a fertile ground for those kinds of ideas to emerge. Fear is a creativity killer … a lot of what you’re trying to do when drawing out creativity is … create a safe zone so people can question — what about this wild idea?”

— Steward

“ The feeling of community and of family within this group.”

— Core Team Member, Sprint 3

95

Highlights of Participant Feedback on Shift Lab Process

“ I appreciated the process that combined learning, action, and interaction among the larger group and smaller teams. The way that the sprints were organized and conducted fostered personal growth for participants, new outlooks, and prepared teams to do the work in between sprints.” — Core Team member

Lab Structure/Governance

96

Strengths

Limitations

Core Teams

•

iverse mix of engaged, D committed, courageous, and curious people

•

aving multiple teams working on H differently scoped challenge areas meant there were differences in group processes and at times inconsistencies in process; some found this confusing and challenging at times

Stewardship

•

trong facilitation skills, diverse S perspectives, solid team dynamics, distributed leadership model

•

istributed leadership and highly shared D decision-making processes can mean it takes longer to get things done

•

“ In each of our weaknesses, the others had strength” — Steward

Lab Activities Strengths

Limitations

Upfront Research

• Provided strong knowledge foundation for teams

• Required considerable time and expertise to pull together in meaningful and accessible ways

Stewardship

• Led to rich learning on part of Stewardship and Core Teams that permeated later aspects of the lab process • Provided opportunity to engage broader community in conversations about racism • Raised the profile of the lab

• Required additional funds, time, and energy to coordinate

Field Research

• Enabled real and meaningful connection with community members with wealth of knowledge and/or experience to contribute

• New experience for many led to feelings of uncertainty — some felt more support could have been offered

Prototype Testing

• Exciting opportunity to get real time feedback on prototypes

• New experience for many led to feelings of uncertainty — some felt more support could have been offered

Community Showcase

• Great way to showcase the work of Core Teams and the prototypes that emerged from the lab in a public way

• Public nature and fact that not all core team members could attend led to some core team members feeling a lack of closure with the process

97

Logistics/Implementation

98

Strengths

Limitations

Project Length

• Provided time for relationships to form and a depth of exploration of the issue

• Project ended up taking longer than expected

Sprint Length

• Longer length contributed to deeper relationships being formed, greater introspection

• Some wished sprints could be even longer to allow for greater depth of relationship/trust and more time to dive deeper into the issue • Sprints were a considerable time commitment and took away from family life for some as they occurred on the weekend

Funding

• Huge asset to have a funder that was comfortable with the emergent properties of the lab

• Pressure to produce tangible, measurable outcomes on timeline and within a budget

Sprint Spacing

• Allowed for work in between sessions that could happen on core team terms - greater flexibility was a plus • Provided space for emotional decompression and further reflection

Sprint Location

• Action Lab was an excellent space for out-of-box thinking

• Tricky to find a meeting space that accommodates everyone’s needs

Logistics/Implementation Strengths

Limitations

Sprint Format/ Content

• Design successfully enabled depth of relationship amongst participants. Some participants reported this increased their sense of accountability to one another and created space for people to tackle/explore their own racism and assumptions • Small and large group work enabled learning from others • Skilled lab facilitators enhanced the experience • Mix of stories, interaction, and formal learning • Indigenous ceremony was grounding, centring • Opportunity to get outdoors in some sprints was welcomed

• Depth and intensity of content was mentally and emotionally exhausting at times • Not all exercises/attempts worked well!

An attempt at role playing for example was a bust but enabled rich conversation amongst groups in a debrief

Evaluation

• Evaluation points built in throughout the process enabled Stewards to be responsive to group needs

• A more embedded model could have yielded deeper insights and strengthened Stewards capacity to incorporate real time changes

99

The Need to Focus on More Than Innovation The Shift Lab aims to help people develop innovative responses to racism in Edmonton. The case for the focus on innovation is compelling: there are already plenty of resources out there that touch on the topic of racism, with general recommendations on how to do so, but there is comparatively little in Edmonton to help people come up with concrete and novel ways to make it happen. The Shift Lab is a part of filling this gap alongside anti-racism colleagues working in the space.

• Spurred to take tangible action: Participants reported they might take the following tangible actions to reduce racism after attending the session:

• Reading further literature and seek out other public speaking engagements on racism

• Initiating and continuing conversations on race

• Share knowledge and practice skills with others including taking learnings back to their workplaces

• Approach conversations differently

Yet, while developing, testing, and (if appropriate), scaling innovations is a necessary part of addressing racism, it is not enough on its own. A similar insight was discussed in the Shift Lab 1.0 report where it was noted that a social innovation process should complement, rather than replace, other approaches to tackling racism and poverty.

• Deeper understanding of racism: Participants in the speaker series felt the talks helped them better understand racism and prompted the emergence of a series of significant insights and questions for participants. Insights about:

• The systemic nature of racism

• Strategies and approaches for talking about and tackling racism including (‘both/and” and “yes/and”)

• The different types of racism

Although Shift Lab 2.0 was primarily focussed on supporting niche innovations, it also contributed to shifting awareness and culture. One of the ways it did this was through the implementation of an international speaker series targeted to the general public.

International speaker series The speaker series had an impact on shifting awareness and culture in the following ways: • Participants more willing to act: Participants in the speaker series reported feeling more willing to act to help reduce racism in some way (Shelly’s talk):

100

“ I feel a bit more ready to take a first step, to learn, and to listen.” — Attendee at Shelly’s talk

“ It added more tools to the toolkit and pushed back the fear of a contentious topic.” — Attendee at Shelly’s talk

he speaker series also positively affected the design and T development of the lab process. Many members of the Stewardship and Core Teams attended the speaker series and key learnings were woven throughout the lab process.

The different speakers provided tangible frameworks, strategies, and reference points for team members to draw on throughout the lab and in the development of their prototypes.

Overall it was felt that the speaker series was well worth the extra time, energy, and money it took to pull it off as it enriched both broader community and Shift Lab 2.0 team member learning. “[Racism] … its roots are deep. It has become so normalized. It’s going to take incredible breadth and depth of work to manifest through systemic change; incredible investment to make big change within our cities, provinces, countries.” — Steward

Tensions in Evaluating Prototypes That Address Complex Social Issues The use and development of prototypes is foundational to a design approach. This is meant to expand the set of solutions generated by encouraging multiple, low cost, low risk experiments. In a design approach, most prototypes are not meant to make it to adoption and even fewer to scaling.

Important learning about developing and testing prototypes that address complex social issues occurred within this lab. These insights are important for improving prototype evaluation in future iterations of the lab as well as for contributing to the development of the broader social innovation ecosystem.

Evaluating prototypes Prototype evaluation involves inviting would be users, beneficiaries, funders and partners to provide feedback on the strengths and limitations of the idea. In the early phases of prototyping, social innovators present their prototypes to would-be users and partners and get feedback through openended questions. For example:

As innovators expand on their ideas and refine the details, the prototypes become more fully developed. As a consequence, questions become more focussed: • Is the prototyped idea coherent? (Do people understand it?)

• Is it plausible? (Is it likely to work?)

• Is the prototype idea feasible? (Do we have the capacity to do it?)

• Is it viable? (Would it be supported by key stakeholders?)

If and when the group feels confident enough to test its idea in a formal pilot project, a more fulsome evaluation design can be developed, involving a more sophisticated approach to measuring outcomes. This will enable the group to decide whether or not the idea is worthy of widespread adoption in the community.

• Tell me more about…[e.g. How someone would access this service]?

• Why did you choose to…[e.g. Include that organization]?

• Have you thought about/have you considered... [e.g.

Charging a fee]?

Tricky Tensions That Emerged Related To Testing in 2.0

On the One Hand

Tension

On the Other Hand

Design Considerations

Testing prototypes is a core component of a design approach

Test freely and vigorously vs test modestly and mindfully

Testing prototypes on sensitive issues such as racism has the potential to elicit uncomfortable and potentially harmful feelings/responses

What safeguards need to be in place to mitigate harm during prototype testing?

It’s a natural human thing to feel attached to ideas you develop commitment bias

Pursue many prototypes vs Let only a few prototypes survive

Design approaches are built on the ‘letting go’ of ideas with only a few surviving

How do you support teams in overcoming commitment bias and being comfortable with letting go of ideas?

101

Reflections on Supply-Side vs Demand-Side Innovation An honest effort to employ demand-side innovation In the beginning of Shift Lab 2.0, the Stewardship Team sought out organizations who were both interested in addressing racism in their organization or work, and also in partnering with the lab to develop innovations. This was done in an effort to organize the lab process and prototypes to: 1) sharpen the lab’s focus on concrete design challenges and 2) develop and test ideas that had a higher probability of being ‘adopted’ by an institution after the early experimental work in the lab Despite significant effort, the team was unsuccessful in finalizing such a partnership and instead pivoted to incorporate a supply-side approach.

Some of the perceived barriers to organizations participating as demand-side partners •

ime: In order to partner it seemed like organizations T would require more time than we had to offer (eight months) to prepare for the partnership • How could additional time be built into the lab process to provide partners with the space they require to ‘get set up’ for commitment?

•

rocess uncertainty: Although we could provide them P with a rough sketch of what the lab was all about and how it would unfold, we also needed to be honest in sharing that it would be an iterative and emergent process.

• What are some ways a social innovation process, which may be new and unknown territory for a project partner, be shared that build understanding and feelings of security on the part of the partner?

•

‘ New Kid on the Block’ perception of Shift Lab: When we were approaching possible partners, the Shift Lab was not as established (only two years old by this point) and we felt we were often perceived as the ‘new kid on the block’. There was not the time required to build relationships and trust with project partners.

• How can time and funds be built into the social innovation process to create space for relationships and trust to be built with possible partners?

Pivoting to supply-side innovation In the pivot, the Stewardship Team opted to focus on four diverse design challenges that seemed relevant to the Edmonton context. They then worked to seek out possible ‘adopters’ of the prototypes that emerged using two strategies: 1) a community showcase event; and 2) building out an Innovation Manager role.

Community showcase event In late October 2019, we held a community showcase event in the last cycle of Shift Lab 2.0 at Norquest College. At this event, Core Teams had the opportunity to showcase their prototypes and get feedback from community members.

More than 50 community members, including representatives from municipal and provincial governments, educational, technology, faith and non-profit sectors were in attendance.

•

eliverable uncertainty: Although we could give some D general guidelines as to what a partner could expect in terms of deliverables (promising prototypes to be scaled), we could not give specifics.

• How can project partners be supported in ‘taking a leap of faith’ and embarking on a social innovation process without knowledge of exact deliverables?

Prototype showcase at Norquest College

102

Innovation manager role Three innovation managers were hired in the last cycle of Shift Lab 2.0. Their role was to assist with the ‘implementation’ side of the prototypes that emerged from the process.

Implementation involves further refining, testing, and adapting prototypes to prepare them for piloting and eventually adoption. Essentially, innovation managers help prototypes move from ideas to minimum viable pilots.

Implementation managers were responsible for exploring the following questions: • What minimum resources are required to pilot an intervention?

• Who might be best to implement?

• What are the readiness factors for organizations piloting an intervention?

• How much more iteration is required?

• What lean start-up principles and tools can be used to support implementation?

Questions that emerged • How true to the original prototype form does the pilot have to be? Who has the authority to make decisions around this?

• How do we navigate ownership of the prototypes when they do scale? How do we honor the role of the Core Teams who built the original ideas and may or may not continue to be involved in implementation?

• Is the extra time, effort, and cost associated with the implementation manager role worth it? Or is it simply another ‘patch’ to address the deeper flaws in supply-side innovation approaches (i.e. Why don’t people pick up our ideas?)?

“I don’t know that doing a supply-side innovation is holding us back. The innovation manager is going well … and has been an innovation in and of itself. Although doing a supply-side lab is often perceived as a problem, for us it is not really seeming like a problem!”

— Shift Lab Steward

This role seems to hold great promise in supporting supplyside innovations and so far seems to have allowed the prototypes from Shift Lab 2.0 to move much further and faster than the prototypes in Shift Lab 1.0. Additionally, learnings from this innovation make an important contribution to the broader social innovation ecosystem.

We have already heard of other lab practitioners planning to incorporate a similar approach in labs they steward.

Key things that have made this role successful • Securing additional funding to support innovation managers to continue their work of scaling prototypes even after the lab process had ended • Finding the right people to do the job — people who are highly organized, excellent communicators, persistent, and have a balance of vision and a process mindset on how to get there • Trust in people: The innovation managers, who all had human-services experience, were trusted to be sensitive to the cultural context of the process, the perspectives shared and the outcomes.

Prototype showcase at Norquest College

103

Building Capacity Within The Social Innovation Ecosystem The immense contribution this lab makes to the broader social innovation ecosystem cannot be undervalued. The structure of the lab methodology lends well to building capacity within the local social innovation ecosystem in Edmonton. Both Core Team and Stewardship members expressed learning a great deal about using social innovation processes to tackle complex social challenges.

• Members of the Stewardship Team gained experience implementing a social innovation process and are now even more prepared and better equipped to harness that to design and implement future social innovation processes • The majority of Core Team members reported participation in the lab process increased both their understanding of a design approach to change and their ability to apply design skills This knowledge has, and will continue to, be shared widely within the local, provincial, and national social innovation ecosystems. Publications and tools created throughout the lab process are available on the Shift Lab website and used regularly by others working in the ecosystem. Additionally, members of the Stewardship Team have been invited to speak across the country about their work, what they’ve learned, and the unique methodology employed.

amiskwaciywaskahikan

104

Evaluating Behavior Change, Racism, and The Sleepy Middle One of the core objectives of Shift Lab 2.0 was for lab participants to better understand approaches to behavior change, racism, and the Sleepy Middle in an effort to design solutions that support less racist behaviours. In addition to drawing on their personal experiences, the lab participants explored these subject areas in a variety of ways including small and large group work during sprints, reading research on the topics, sharing stories, and conducting their own “scrappy” research. Below is a summary of (some) of the key insights that emerged from Core Team members. Other insights from Stewards are woven throughout the report.

Practices that support behavior change Core Team members discussed gaining insights on behaviour change through participation in the sprints. They had an opportunity to take in content, explore behavior change frameworks, and reflect on their own experiences related to behaviour change. They also had an opportunity to ‘try out’ what they were learning within their groups — reflecting on how it went, adjusting their practices, and then trying again.

This iterative, reflective learning process appeared to be rich and enjoyable for participants, yielding new insights and revelations they could incorporate into their personal and work lives.

The following emerged as key practices thought to support behaviour change in the Sleepy Middle related to racism:

•

mpathy: A critical component in building mutual E understanding across difference. Important to seek to understand the ‘other’ — who they are, their values, their environment, what ‘safe space’ is for them. Relationship is key.

• Nourishment: Take care of yourself and others, being mindful of what you and they need to do the work well

“Nourish your spirit, heart, and mind continuously” — Core Team Member

“My awareness of my need to listen more than speak and negotiating that balance” — Core Team Member

“They don’t know they are sleepy, waking up is the most ‘sensitive’ experience” — Core Team Member

“It doesn’t matter how much you disagree with someone’s ideology, you have to recognize them as a human being. It’s the only way.” — Steward

•

•

•

ractice: Change takes effort, time, and is non linear.

P Repetition builds anti-racist “muscle memory” that participants can draw upon in the future.

“Behaviour change is about practice and not one-off disruptions” — Core Team Member, Sprint 2 “Change isn’t always linear. The journey to change is just as important sometimes” — Core Team Member • Reflexivity: “Turning your gaze inwards,” checking your own biases, building self-awareness and open mindedness, understanding your own reactions, checking privilege, and learning along the way by reading, exploring and talking to other people.

atience: Meeting people where they are at and having P compassion for others regardless of where they are at.

“Everyone is in a different place in their learning journey” — Core Team Member “I need to be okay that where I am at right now is not where I will end up - and feel no blame” — Core Team Member eek Positive Approaches: Shame doesn’t teach!

S Creating safe spaces for conversation is key. Humour can be used as an entry point to something deeper.

“It can’t be too serious or accusatory, need to ensure their safety to open up and learn” — Core Team Member • Keep it Simple and Subtle: A promising approach that uses gentle nudges, removes barriers, and attempts to make it easy to ‘try something new’. Drip campaigns seem to hold promise.

“Meet them where they are at’ means making it easy and having multiple on ramps for [different] levels of wokeness.” — Core Team Member

“Being mindful of how your power can unintentionally take away from other’s power” — Core Team Member

105

NOW WHAT, SO WHAT, WHAT’S NEXT? By this report’s publication date (late 2020), several Shift Lab-driven prototypes will be in various stages of execution, including: • The Anti-Racism Box, the first of which will have been received by more than 1,000 subscribers. ECF funded another 1,000 in August and so 2,000 boxes will be out in Alberta and beyond by the fall. Plans are underway for three more boxes as part of the continuous learning subscription.

• The Treaty 6 awareness game, “Exploring Wahkotowin,” which will have completed an initial round of play-testing • The De-Escalators brochure, will be distributed to at least one participating Edmonton public high school in the fall • The Reflection Pool App, which will move from wireframe to development status All four will join “Diversity Certified”, a prototype from Shift Lab 1.0, which will be in piloting stage in 2020, due to a grant from the Alberta Real Estate Foundation and a partnership with E4C, a local housing, community and social services organization in Edmonton.

Each prototype will require support (financial, organizational, promotional) from community partners to move them towards successful piloting and scaling.

Top and bottom: Core Teams presenting prototype concepts to one another

106

Will There Be a Shift Lab 3.0?

We have been on the Shift Lab journey for more than five years now. If there will be a Shift Lab 3.0, a number of considerations, decisions and partnerships will have to be made to answer this question.

We are holding and exploring questions like: • Is another lab with community Core Teams creating new prototypes needed at present?

• Should Shift Lab leaders focus on building capacity to help organizations and communities with stewarding their own labs around complex issues?

• What mechanisms, roles and systems are required to ensure there is continued support of prototypes and ability to access the required funding?

• Should Shift Lab become a non-profit or a charity to be able to continue incubating prototypes?

• What roles and funding is required to keep prototypes from Shift Lab 1.0 and 2.0 moving?

• How can we continue to share our learning around centring Indigenous knowledge authentically in social

innovation?

• Should each prototype become their own organization or should the prototypes get absorbed in other organizations with capacity to keep moving them forward?

• With support, should we continue the international anti-racism speaker’s series?

We welcome ideas and support around these options, as we know from the teams testing the prototypes that they have merit for anti-racism systems change — and we all want to see them grow their impact.

Please follow us at www.edmontonshiftlab.ca and on social media — @yegshiftlab on Twitter and Instagram, and Shift Lab on Facebook. Get in touch if you know someone or an organization looking to support innovative, community based anti-racism interventions.

Core Team designing during the fourth lab sprint

107

APPENDICES

108

APPENDIX 1: CORE SHIFT LAB 2.0 ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES Post-Shift Lab 1.0 (discovery and design phase for Shift Lab 2.0) Research activities: Hired three consultants to do literature reviews: • Gladys Rowe, Behaviour Change • Naheyawin, Indigenous Research Methods and Praxis • Centre for Race and Culture, Anti-Racism Initiatives: A Rapid Review In-person research and testing activities: • March 12, 2018: Live option testing sessions with community (30 people) • Live option testing with individuals in community and organizations Interviews with social innovation practitioners: • Angela Pugh (Roller Strategies) • Frances Westley (Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resiliency) • Gina Rembe (inSpiral) • Joshua Cubista (author) • Lauren Morgan (recent Business and Design grad) • Nathan Heintz (Grove 3457) • David Prodan (e4c)

109

Shift Lab Speaker’s Series: How To Have Difficult Conversations About Race September 27: Shelly Tochluk “Witnessing Whiteness: The Need to Talk about Race and How to Do it” • Tickets sold: 67 • Media coverage:

• CBC Edmonton AM: (https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1330740291755)

• Well-Endowed Podcast: (https://www.thewellendowedpodcast.com/ episodes/episode-27-lets-talk-about-racism/) October 17: Daryl Davis “Klan We Talk” • Tickets sold: 105 • Media coverage:

• CBC News: (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/daryldavis-klan-race-relations-edmonton-1.4866741)

• Well-Endowed Podcast: https://www. thewellendowedpodcast.com/episodes/episode-30daryl-davis/ November 29: Trevor Phillips “Equality and Integration: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail” • Tickets sold: 95 • Media coverage:

• CBC Radio-Active

• Well-Endowed Podcast:

(https://www.thewellendowedpodcast.com/ episodes/episode-34-trevor-phillips/) October 7: Antionette D. Carroll “The Future of Leadership: The Roles of Identity, Power & Equity” • Tickets sold: 40 • Media coverage:

• CBC Radio-Active October 8: Antionette D. Carroll & Hilary Sedovic/Creative Reaction Lab workshop: “Leaders for Community Action & Equity,” • Tickets sold: 20, Norquest College

110

Core Shift Lab 2.0 Activities Sprint 1: March 1-3 • Research activities between Sprints Sprint 2: April 5-7 • Research activities between Sprints Sprint 3: May 31-June 2 • Prototype refinement between Sprints Sprint 4: July 12-14 • Testing Prototypes with community Prototype Showcase: October 25, Norquest College

Shift Lab Presentations: November 25-29, 2019 “Innovator-in-Residence: Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse” Concordia Shift Centre for Social Transformation (Montreal)

November 3, 2017 “Promising Practices for Systems Change” SDX 10 (Systemic Design Exchange) (Edmonton)

October 18-19, 2018 “Baking Failure into a Process Doesn’t Mean You Have a Good Cake: Lessons From a Social Innovation Lab” FailSafe Conference (Edmonton)

November 1, 2017 “Introduction to Edmonton Shift Lab” City of Edmonton Youth Council (Ashley, Aleeya, Sam)

September 13, 2018 “Playing Both Sides: Lessons From an Embedded Funder” Social R&D Practice Gathering (Ottawa) June 27-28, 2018 “Reconciliation and Lab Practise: Centring Indigenous Wisdom and Weaving Multiple Worldviews” Converge Canadian Lab Practitioners Exchange (Vancouver, B.C.) February 28, 2018 “Collective Impact and the Edmonton Shift Lab” Collective Impact 3.0 Summit (Edmonton) (All Stewards)

May 1-2, 2017 “Design/systems-thinking approach to research and prototyping potential solutions to address issues of racism and low-income marginalized tenants” C2U Expo 2017 Community Jam (Surrey, BC) April 27, 2017

“Edmonton Shift Lab, Social Innovation, and Sustainability” International Society for Sustainability Professionals, Edmonton Chapter (Edmonton) February 16, 2017

“Challenges and Opportunities for Funding Social Innovation” Funders Liaison Network (Edmonton)

November 27-28, 2017

“5 Things We Need to Get Better At Around Social Innovation in Canada” Spark! Canadian Social Innovation Exchange (Toronto) (All Stewards)

Shift Lab Stewards on a planning retreat

111

Post Lab: • Prototype Managers hired and prototypes continued developed with support from stewardship team • Developmental evaluation with core team and stewardship team • Report written • Two short mini documentaries created • Website updated with tools and reports on prototypes from Shift Lab

Social Innovation Institutes and collectives the Shift Lab is part of:

Social Labs Community

Core Teams working in the lab

112

APPENDIX 2: GENERAL TOOLS Shift Lab tools have been developed over the years to help us do the social innovation work we do. They range from a variety of mediums and contexts. See the list below for tools we have available online.

Shiflt Lab Theories of Change Tools • Shift Lab 1.0 booklet final July 2016 • Shift Lab 1.0 Learning From our First Year • Shift Lab 2.0 Primer • Theory of change graphic • Shift Lab Principles and Team challenges • Shift Lab Triple Loop Learning Social Innovation • Think Jar Collective Social Innovation Lab Field guide Shift Lab International Speaker Series Videos • Shelley Tochluk - How to Talk About Race • Daryl Davis - How to Have Difficult Conversations

About Race • Treveor Phillips - How to Have Difficult Conversations

About Race • Antoinette Carol - Design for Equity

Ethnographic Research and Sense Making Tools • Exploring the challenge and creating Interview questions • Summarizing insights from interviews • Summarizing insights from media, are article reviews • Insight Bucketing poster to sort insights from research • Personal Shift Mapping tool • Shift Lab 2.0 Insight Cards • Empathy Mapping Testing and Prototyping Evaluation Tools • Testing and evaluation cards • Testing a Shift Lab Prototype in Action

Systems Thinking Tools • Shift Lab 2.0 types of racism • What has and hasn’t worked • Iceberg Model Poster • Theory U and 4 Levels of Conversations Posters • Systems Wheel Poster Behaviour Change • COM-B model of Behaviour Change • Behaviour Change Insight Cards

Download our tools at edmontonshiftlab.ca/tools

113

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE CARDS

114

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE CARDS

115

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE CARDS

116

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE CARDS

117

BEHAVIOUR CHANGE CARDS

118

CALL TO JOIN SHIFT LAB 2.0 COME JOIN THE SHIFT LAB!

About the Shift Lab A partnership between Edmonton Community Foundation and Skills Society Action Lab, the Edmonton Shift Lab is an action-oriented exploration of racism in our city. We are building on the great work done in Edmonton and approaching these challenges through a Social Innovation lab to steward an exploration that can provide us with insights and prototypes into how we can make change. We have completed one cycle of the lab (what we affectionately call Shift Lab 1.0) and are currently recruiting for people to join us for our next cycle -- Shift Lab 2.0!

What is a Social Innovation lab?

A Social Innovation lab draws on the strengths, empathy, creativity, and wisdom of a collective to explore new ways of making progress on a complex challenge. The lab will have several stages and will begin by making sense of the problem at hand by learning and listening to stories and reflections from the community. These insights help generate empathy and ideas for prototypes. These prototypes are tested and vetted by the community multiple times: even if an idea doesn’t work, they will incorporate the learning into a new prototype. When they find ideas that work, the Shift Lab will help them grow, but by the very same nature, these ideas can be messy, divergent and provocative to work through.

What is Shift Lab 2.0?

The guiding question for Shift Lab 2.0 is this: How might we create better anti-racism interventions that acknowledge everyone’s humanity and create behaviour change? Three key components are in this question.

Firstly, there are many anti-racism interventions in the world.

Some of them are very effective. Some of them are less so.

Can we build on what is already working and upgrade it?

What can we learn from other sectors that might help?

Secondly, racism is partly a process of dehumanization so beginning from a place of humanity is important. But using humanity as a starting place to engage with folks who don’t suffer the consequences of racism is also important: Daryl Davis, a black musician from the US who builds relationships with members of the KKK, talks about the importance of respecting the humanity of Klan members while challenging their ideas. Humanity, to different degrees and in different ways, is key.

Finally, interventions have to be grounded in behaviour change, they can’t just be about awareness or empathy building. Both of these things are important, but awareness isn’t action.

To learn more about Social Innovation labs or Shift Lab 1.0, check out our report.

119

Call to Join Shift Lab 2.0 (cont.)

What does a Core Lab team do?

Striving to be a diverse representation of the system being explored, the Core Lab teams do sense-making of the key challenge; do scrappy, rapid research; make sense of insights; come up with possibilities; and prototype and test solutions.

Who are we looking for?

We’re looking to build teams (4 teams of 7-9 people each) of stellar listeners and doers, with a mix of domain expertise, fresh perspectives, and lived experience – teams who can easily collaborate across backgrounds.

Guided by a human-centered design and systems thinking process, they contribute their own skills, knowledge, and ideas to the challenge area and lab process. Core Lab team members will at times be facilitators in community and lab sessions, create learning experiences in community, and cocreate prototypes. Each team will be supported by a prototype coach and have support to help coordinate logistics.

We need people who are thoughtful and help bring out the best ideas from the team they are working with. We’re looking for critical and empathic thinkers, those that strive to understand needs from an individual level and can put into perspective from a bigger picture level. We’re looking for people with an ability to work in complexity and uncertainty, people willing to take risks and learn from others, and creative thinkers who will make ideas happen. In particular, we are looking for designers, data lovers, educators, story-tellers, policy makers, behaviour change specialists, peace-makers, and rabble-rousers. Past experience with social innovation is not required!

“Prototyping is a rapid, low-cost, low-risk, learning-rich approach to surface and test promising responses to tough challenges. Prototyping precedes, rather than replaces, conventional pilot projects. Unlike pilots, where a promising intervention is “fixed” for a longer period of time and assessed through thorough evaluative techniques, prototyping can be used to quickly and inexpensively develop and test ideas that may warrant eventual pilot testing.” - Mark Cabaj By the end of the lab process there will be a portfolio of tested prototypes ready to expand into the community. There are financial resources available to help this process.

Why get involved?

The Core Lab team is the heart of the Shift Lab and is the driving force behind developing the prototypes that will emerge. You will learn from others, engage in a process that will support the creation of innovative pathways, and promote engagement within a complex issue. Whether this is an area you’ve been working in professionally for years, part of your lived experience, or an issue you’ve always wanted to explore, this is an opportunity to dig deep into an meaningful issue in our community.

120

Lab Team Challenge Brief Each Core Lab team member will be a part of one of four prototype teams. Each team has a challenge brief which includes an initial question, some context for that problem area, and questions to consider. The briefs are meant to be a starting place and will change and evolve with the prototype.

The four teams are: • How might we reimagine what it means to be a treaty person?

• How might we create an interactive empathy experience that strives to reduce racist behaviour over time?

• How might we create “ on-ramps for racial justice” that help overcome White fragility?

• How might we design an intervention to de-escalate public displays of racist behaviour?

Call to Join Shift Lab 2.0 (cont.)

What is the “Sleepy Middle?”

The Sleepy Middle is an archetype that has emerged in the development of Shift Lab 2.0. Imagine a continuum: on one end, there are torch-carrying racists. On the other, there are passionate anti-racist activists.The Sleepy Middle is between these two poles. They think of themselves as good people.

They would be shocked by a racist joke but might also be unaware of how systemic is infused in everyday life. They have varying levels of understanding of what racism is, whether it still exists, and why it’s important to work to end it.

Core Lab Team Honoraria We want to value contributions and time commitments of all participants, and therefore have numerous options to honour this. This can be in the form of direct compensation to an individual (for those who are self-employed or underemployed/not working); organizational support to offset work hours (for those coming from an agency/organization); or a donation to the prototype work (for those who do not need compensation). Details will be discussed with applicants.

How do I apply?

Time Commitment The Lab will commence in March and run until September 2019. The Core Lab team will meet for five “sprints” as a complete group during this period: • • • • •

Sprint 1: March 1-3 Sprint 2: April 5-7 Sprint 3: May 31-June 2 Sprint 4: July 12-14 Sprint 5: September 14

The first four sprints include a Friday evening (roughly 5pm9pm), a Saturday (roughly 9am-4pm) and a Sunday morning (roughly 9am-12pm). The September sprint will be a single day from 9am-4pm. Support for childcare costs is available if needed.

Individual prototype teams will meet between these formal sessions; the timing, duration, and frequency of these smaller meetings will be determined by the prototype teams and might require daytime, evening, or weekend work. We anticipate an average time commitment of 25 hours a month, with some months being lighter or heavier.

Each applicant should submit the following by February 4, 2019: A short (one page maximum) answer to the following questions: • Why do you want to be involved with the Shift lab?

• What strengths, skills, gifts, or insights can you bring to this project?

• If you were to imagine the absolute worst kind of project team to work with, what would it look like? Describe what would make it so terrible for you (e.g. the people involved, the way it was run, the kind of project, etc).

• Something that shows your life/work experience. This could be a resume, a piece of art, a story or poem -whatever is your preferred method.

• A confirmation that you are available for the majority of workshop dates and project work • A brief statement (3 sentences max) detailing which team(s) you’d like to be a part of and why.

If you are interested, please send your completed application to us at info@edmontonshiftlab.ca by February 4, 2019. Have any questions? Feel free to email us or check out our website (www.edmontonshiftlab.ca).

Sincerely, The Shift Lab Stewardship Team

121

LAB TEAM #1 CHALLENGE BRIEF Problem Statement

How might we re-imagine what it means to be a treaty person?

Challenge Overview Truth and Reconciliation has become a big part of our national conversation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has 96 calls to action. In 2016, Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Across the country, momentum is building on how we can shift the conversation on respecting and learning about Indigenous ways of knowing. Governments are slowly responding: the Province of Alberta has committed to implementing UNDRIP in every Ministry across the government. Edmonton’s mayor Don Iveson repeatedly tells audiences that “we are all treaty people.” But what does it mean to be a treaty person in practice, particularly for nonIndigenous people?

What does it mean to be an active person/relative in relation with Indigenous peoples and their territories? What does it mean to authentically show up and fulfil your obligations and responsibilities as a treaty person? At their heart, treaties are about relationships. Part of the work of being a treaty person has to begin by building relationships. This also means exposing the trauma, racism and the impacts of colonialism without getting stuck in guilt but rather, in the words of Harold Cardinal, reimagining possible futures that are sustainable and where the quality of life is uplifted for all peoples/citizens.

The Challenge: How can we begin to redefine and engage with what it means to be a treaty person/relative? Our intention is to explore strategies, concepts and practices that support conversations in meaningful ways on how we practice in our everyday lives being treaty people living in Treaty 6 territory.

122

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 45th Call to Action asks the Government of Canada to “renew or establish Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.” How might everyday citizens embody these same principles?

Vision Edmontonians engage meaningfully and help people/ relatives understand and connect with their treaty relations, obligations, and responsibilities.

Framing Questions Below are several questions developed to help the lab team frame their inquiry into the challenge area. It is the aim of the lab to further develop and then answer these questions through the design lab process. Other questions may emerge during the process; these are a merely starting place: • How can we use nudge and drip interventions to spark behaviour change around racism towards Indigenous peoples?

• In what ways can experience transform our biases and re-inform our knowledge on what it means to be a treaty person?

• How can the utilization of art, stories, songs, and ceremonies play a role in the identity of a treaty person?

• Will the intervention have interpersonal, internal, institutional, or systemic impact?

• Will the same intervention work for settlers that have been here for generations vs. settlers who are recently arrived?

Criteria to Consider When Prototyping • Protocol and practice of the Treaty 6 Signatories (Nakota Sioux, Iroquois, Dene, Cree, Saulteaux/Anishinaabe and others) • Target audience is the “Sleepy Middle” • Be aware of the unintended consequences of the prototype -- these may surprise you. Who is carrying the burden of reconciliation? What kind of trauma is being resurfaced?

• Are there other projects that we can learn from or be inspired by? (e.g. Elder in the Making, First Contact) • Drip campaigns, digital experiences, stories • Primary source data, population stats

123

LAB TEAM #2 CHALLENGE BRIEF Problem Statement

How might we create an interactive empathy experience that strives to reduce racist behaviour over time?

Challenge Overview Empathy built through stories and experiences can be a powerful motivator and change agent. Interventions frequently use empathy as a starting place to elicit change.

Two well-known examples are the KAIROS Blanket Exercise and the United Way’s Poverty Simulation. Both of these exercises ground participants in experiences, perspectives, and histories that they may not have been familiar with. Often, the reaction to these exercises is very emotional.

However, empathy experiences -- even the most powerful -- don’t necessarily mean that people shift their behaviour.

Likewise, single-point interventions, whether they use empathy or not, are also shown to be an ineffective means to solicit behaviour change. Finally, interventions that sound like, “If only people would just... [insert hoped for behaviour]” almost never work. What would it take to get people to take the next step, to transform empathy and insight into tangible change?

Interventions to solicit behaviour change exist in many different domains. There are interventions to get people to stop smoking, to eat better, to be more tidy. Some of the most effective behaviour change campaigns now seem utterly mundane because the impact has been so far-reaching: most of us wear seatbelts. Most of us don’t drink and drive. In the digital space, new theories like gamification are becoming a more popular tool to inspire behaviour change. What lessons can we learn from these campaigns that can apply to racism?

Building on the success and popularity of interventions like the Blanket Exercise or the Poverty Simulation, how might we leverage empathy-immersive experiences with insights from behaviour change science? How can an intervention result in effective follow-up and calls-to-action? What would a “drip campaign” of slow-and-steady intervention points look like?

124

Empathy and Behaviour Nudging: Research shows that for more lasting behaviour change, people need a variety of experiences over time.

Experiential empathy immersions augmented with consistent behaviour nudging are showing promise for shifting behaviour

Vision A tool, toolkit or interaction with digital and in-person components that helps people to empathize and develop behaviour-based habits that reduce racist behaviours over time.

Framing Questions Below are several questions developed to help the lab team frame their inquiry into the challenge area. It is the aim of the lab to further develop and then answer these questions through the lab process. Other questions may emerge during the process; these are merely a starting place:

Criteria to Consider When Prototyping • A specific racialized context for empathy building may be more powerful than a general one • Digital and in-person interventions can dovetail and reinforce each other • Should strive for an intervention that targets the “Sleepy Middle” • Can’t be a one-off experience. There needs to be follow up and specific calls to action • Design with geographical considerations in mind: Edmonton and beyond etc.

• What empathy experiences trigger shifts in people?

• What elements of behaviour change science can be built into interactions and follow-up campaigns?

• What would convince folks (especially the “Sleepy Middle”) to engage with the interaction? What is the behaviour change of the Sleepy Middle we want to see?

• What can be drawn from gamification theory and design?

• People will also need to come up with their own behaviour changes i.e “here’s what I would expect to see of myself; here’s what I would like to see in myself; here’s what I would love to see in myself.”

125

LAB TEAM #3 CHALLENGE BRIEF Problem Statement

How might we create encouraging pathways that help potential allies for racial justice overcome White fragility?

Challenge Overview “I’m not a racist-I’m a good person!” “I was taught to respect everyone, regardless of skin colour: White, black, brown, or polka-dotted!” “I went to a multicultural school; lots of my friends are people of colour.” More likely than not, you have heard someone express sentiments similar to these; perhaps you have even said them yourself. These expressions invariably reflect the perspective of a well-meaning White person.

These sentiments are the products of what sociologist Robin DiAngelo calls “white fragility:” the defensiveness that “good” White folks display when their ideas about race and racism are challenged and, more importantly, when they feel they are being implicated in White supremacy. DiAngelo, a white woman herself, notes that these reactions -- which can manifest as anger, tears, or dismissal -- are what makes it so hard for white people to have difficult conversations about race and ultimately serve to reinforce racism.

Finding a way to move past white fragility is an important step in the efforts to reduce racism. But even mentioning the term “white fragility” can activate defensiveness and dismissiveness, which means talking about the issue requires tact and patience. Shelly Tochluk uses a metaphor of different lanes on the “racial justice freeway” to describe this work and refers to needing many “on-ramps to racial justice” for white folks. There are fast lanes, slow lanes, and merging lanes: all have value and are important in the the path towards racial justice. However, getting on the freeway first requires understanding and confronting white fragility.

126

“First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the white Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 2010, Racism Free Edmonton sparked a backlash by using the term “white privilege” in a campaign. The outcry, which said the term itself was racist, led to the organization deleting all references to white privilege from their website and replacing it with systemic and institutional racism. Almost a decade later, is the term “white privilege” still a triggering one?

The Challenge: There are many people who consider themselves non-racist but whose participation in conversations about racism are limited by white fragility.

How can we design interventions for the “Sleepy Middle” that reduce white fragility and facilitate difficult conversations about race? How do we do this in a way that doesn’t trigger white fragility and attracts people who might not already be on the “racial justice freeway”?

Vision More people have tools, strategies, and/or principles to overcome white fragility, which in turn facilitates more difficult conversations about race and white allies on the “racial justice freeway.”

Framing Questions Below are several questions developed to help the lab team frame their inquiry into the challenge area. It is the aim of the lab to further develop and then answer these questions through the design lab process. Other questions may emerge during the process; these are merely a starting place:

Criteria to Consider When Prototyping • One-time interventions are not effective to reduce behaviour change • Is the scale of the idea feasible?

• Is the intervention a personal one (“this is how I overcome my own white fragility”) or a social one (“this is how I intervene when I see white fragility happening”)?

• What other effective “on-ramps” currently exist (i.e.

AWARE-LA, Calgary Anti-Racism Education (CARED), Stop Racism and Hate Collective)? Can these models work in Edmonton?

• What would convince someone to work on their white fragility?

• What is the behaviour change we’d like to see?

• How do we deal with the paradox that talking about white fragility often activates it?

127

LAB TEAM #4 CHALLENGE BRIEF Problem Statement

How might we design intervention(s) that de-escalate public displays of overt racist behaviour?

Challenge Overview A racist incident can happen anytime, anywhere. When it does, what should you do? Often, when we see something wrong happening in a public setting, we choose to do nothing, hoping that someone else will step in and make things right (commonly known as the “bystander effect.”) Waiting for others to act can allow the situation to continue unabated.

In fact, the more people that are around, the less likely they will step in to help. So what should you do if you want to take action and intervene in a safe manner?

This question can be harder than it seems. Would intervening be potentially dangerous...or would it prevent further danger?

What’s really at stake in this moment?

Knowing when and how to intervene in a public situation between strangers can be tricky. This also requires understanding of the situation, and what makes it a “racist” situation. Certainly, it can be uncomfortable, especially if you don’t want to appear intrusive. When emotions are running high, a situation can escalate quickly and even become dangerous (at this point, calling 911 is the right answer). Yet not every situation escalates into violence, and everyday moments of racist acts are part of the background fabric of our community: hateful obscenities are muttered at a man of colour on a crowded bus; someone calls a Muslim woman wearing a hijab a terrorist on the LRT; a store employee is suspicious of an Indigenous teenager with a backpack out shopping.

Here are some questions an intervener would need to consider: How do you assess the situation? Is the person targeted for harassment some kind of threat, physically or otherwise? Is the person or people being harrassed able to leave of their own accord? Is the aggressor calm or agitated?

Can you record audio or video of the situation on your cell phone? Are other people in the space taking notice? Have the authorities been notified?

128

The Challenge: How can we create a series of positive behaviours, actions, responses, verbal cues and other techniques to confront racist rants/behaviours in public settings?

Vision A mental toolbox of actions and responses a person can take to defuse a potentially volatile display of racism or racist behaviour in a public setting.

Framing Questions Below are several questions developed to help the lab team frame their inquiry into the challenge area. It is the aim of the lab to further develop and then answer these questions through the design lab process. Other questions may emerge during the process; these are a starting place:

Criteria to Consider When Prototyping • Existing anti-racist bystander interventions such as this cartoon, Hollaback and Edmonton’s own Do Not Be A Bystander and Make It Awkward movements • Unsatisfactory interventions considered “virtue signalling” such as the safety pin movement • Legal definitions and understandings of what is considered “harassing” or unwanted behaviour

• What does racist behaviour look like? Does it take a different form than other kinds of harassment?

• How do you balance the desire to intervene without denying the agency of the person being targeted?

• How can we build on or upgrade existing interventions?

• How might an aggressor respond to your anti-racist challenge in a public setting?

• What is the point of the intervention: to assist the person being targeted? To change the mind of the aggressor?

• How will this intervention overcome the bystander effect,on behalf of the person wanting to intervene and others in the immediate vicinity?

129

SHIFT LAB INNOVATION PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACT DESCRIPTION Why are we seeking a Shift Lab Innovation Project Manager and What is it?

At present many Social Innovation labs in the world struggle with the ‘implementation side’ of interventions that emerge from lab processes. The implementation side involves further refining, testing, and adapting a prototype to get it ready for pilot and eventually adoption. The Edmonton Shift Lab is purposefully investing in implementation by creating this innovation manager role. A manager facilitates the implementation to emerge. As innovation manager you will be responsible for helping ensure prototypes move from ideas to action of minimum viable pilots.

Things you will need to consider as a Shift Lab Innovation Project Manager: What minimum resources are required to pilot an intervention?

Some prototype teams will want to only implement if a large and fully developed pilot is possible. This will be an obstacle to navigate. Very often a way forward is to come up with a minimum viable implementation that considers the integrity of the core ideas of the prototype and doesn’t get held back by thinking you need a very complex and expensive roll out.

Who might be best to implement?

It is often assumed that Social Innovation lab collectives will also implement promising prototypes, pilots or interventions that emerge from a lab process. Keep in mind that labs implementing a pilot is not always the best way forward, as often a lab team is not necessarily the right group to implement an intervention. They may not be best to implement because an intervention might be best hosted and managed by a group whom the lab team is not directly connected with. Consider who the intervention serves, and who in the challenge domain ecosystem might be good champions to steward a pilot. You might want to consider that a couple people from the lab team be a part of helping steward the transition between the lab and implementation hosts.

130

What are the readiness factors for organizations piloting an intervention?

If an organization is deemed to be the best steward of a pilot, the lab team will need to consider the culture and readiness of the organization to adopt and roll out an intervention.

Consider how the intervention will disrupt business as usual approaches of the organization and what is needed to safeguard the implementation process.

How much more iteration is required?

You will still need to be tweaking, gaining feedback and adapting a pilot or intervention. Remember that all innovations/interventions have a life cycle.

What lean startup principles and tools can be used to support implementation?

Lean startup principles and tools can sometimes be useful at the implementation stage for honing interventions coming out of Design Labs and Social Innovation Labs. Tools from lean startup methodologies that might be used at this stage to help clarify “asks” and cases for support might be: • Business model canvas • Value Proposition Design • Minimum Viable Product

Contract Role: Shift Lab Innovation Project Manager This contract role reports to the Edmonton Shift Lab Stewardship Team or Designate.

Contract Description: Under the advisement of the Edmonton Shift Lab Stewardship Team or designate, this contract position is responsible for planning implementation, solidifying partnerships, securing host organizations and funding mechanisms for the ‘implementation side’ of interventions that emerge from the lab process. This may involve continued refining, testing, and adapting of the prototype to move it from prototype to pilot to adoption.

This role requires both strong relationship-building/ communications skills as well as strong project management and administrative skills to problem solve, act quickly and design actionable pathways for implementation.

Contractor Responsibilities: 1) Implementation Strategy Development: • Working in concert with Shift Lab Stewards or designate the contractor will contribute to developing a goal oriented implementation strategy for the specific prototype assigned to the contractor within the 6 month time frame allotted.

• Refine, define and create a clear 1 to 2 page description of the minimum viable prototype to be funded and implemented • Develop and present to stewards a 6 month timeline of goals, milestones and strategies for implementation • Monthly send a short email report to stewards of what has been accomplished and areas where support may be required • Summarize and develop a final thematic blog post report for the Shift Lab website of learning gathered from implementation and where the intervention is at, and what is needed next at the time of the end of the 6 month contract.

2) Coordination of elements that communicate the key ideas of the plan: The contractor will work with an assigned designer if any visual, or communication materials are required for pitching and communicating with prospects about the what and how of implementation 3) Coordination of meetings & leads: Building on the strategy, the contractor will set up strategic meetings with key prospects for funding and/or organizations that have a high probability of success with implementing a particular prototype. The contractor will be required to clearly communicate the prototype idea and key asks to stakeholders and prospects 4) Writing Small Grant applications: A requirement within the first month of the contract will be to write the Shift Lab ECF grant application after establishing the minimum viable implementation plan. There may also be other grant applications required to be written as well.

5) Respectfully following Indigenous protocols: If working with, or consulting Elders or Indigenous people and groups, the contractor will ask what protocol is required. Shift Lab has some funds for gifts, tobacco, and protocol to ensure appropriate engagement.

131