An Evaluation of JC MaD Social Lab - Report of Findings and Recommendations

AN EVALUATION OF JOCKEY CLUB MAKE A DIFFERENCE SOCIAL LAB REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Authors Prof. Leung Tse Fong, Terry Mr. Lam Chak Lung, Barry Ms. Chyu Pui Yung, Esther

1

Table of Contents The MaD Social Lab – Social participation in public service innovation .............................................. 2 Participatory evaluation of the Market Lab ............................................................................................ 2 Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 3 The quantitative data........................................................................................................................... 3 The qualitative data............................................................................................................................. 3 Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 4 More motivated to act for social change and clearer vision for change in a cohesive team ............... 4 Enhanced understanding of system operation through immersion in the site and direct interaction with stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 6 Emerging ideas for improving market service from enhanced knowledge and exposure to international experiences .................................................................................................................... 8 Valuing small moves amidst institutional constraints......................................................................... 9 Groundwork laid for developing the general ability of empathetic understanding........................... 11 Interplay between logical induction and intuition in community problem solving .......................... 12 A show case of community problem solving and a platform for community networking to the community partners .......................................................................................................................... 15 Mixed feelings about bottom-up community engagement among lab fellows from government offices................................................................................................................................................ 16 Struggles of the lab organizers in performing their roles.................................................................. 18 Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................................................................ 19 Group dynamics supporting a cohesive team for collaborative learning and co-creation ................ 21 Continual engagement of civil servants as lab fellows ..................................................................... 21 Sustaining the participatory and experimentation approach in community level ............................. 22 Facilitating the dynamic interplay between logical induction and intuition ..................................... 22 The optimal Social Lab duration....................................................................................................... 23 Appendix 1

Questionnaire for the survey....................................................................................... 24

Appendix 2

The qualitative data..................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 3

Semi-structured protocol for interviews and focus groups ......................................... 28

Post-Evaluation Reflections by Make A Difference Institute ............................................................... 30

2

The MaD Social Lab – Social participation in public service innovation The Social Lab project by Make A Difference Institute is a “public service innovation lab” that engages young change agents, civil servants and community stakeholders in a process of active communication and experimentation, in order to drive improvements in public services.

The Social Lab uses the following methods to achieve its purpose: 1. Facilitating cross-sector collaboration to make change 2. Enabling community deep-dive and story-telling to facilitate cross-sector empathetic understanding 3. Providing a safe space for active experimentation of ideas for change 4. Supporting collective learning to generate system insights Spanning over a period of three years, the Social Lab project comprises 4 social labs, namely, the LIBoratory Project (from September 2016 to January 2017), the Park Lab (from April to September 2017), the Healthy Street Lab (from March to July 2018) and the Market Lab (from March to July, 2019).

Participatory evaluation of the Market Lab The Institute for User Participation (IUP) came on board as evaluation partner of the Social Lab project in March 2018, at a time when the Healthy Street Lab was in progress. In order for a comprehensive understanding of the social lab process from start to end, we took the Market Lab (operated after the Healthy Street Lab from March to July 2019) as the main site for evaluating the Social Lab project. Being the last in the series, the Market Lab has incorporated the organizers’ learning in action from the preceding social labs, and therefore is a suitable evaluation site for summary review of the social lab initiative.

Decision over what questions to answer determine how evaluation should be approached.

In evaluating the Market Lab, the evaluation questions evolved from six co-creation sessions held between September and December 2018. Six lab organizers and nine lab fellows from the completed social labs participated in these co-creation sessions, to share their understanding of the Social Lab project, and exchange views on what questions that this evaluation of the Market Lab should address. This participatory approach is expected to incorporate multiple viewpoints of the stakeholders into the design and planning of the evaluation, so as to collect credible and actionable evidence for fostering program improvement. The evaluation questions so derived from the co-creation sessions are as follows.

1. To what extent was the Market Lab process effective in achieving the following change outcomes?

1.1. Cultivating change-makers 1.2. Encouraging empathetic understanding among participants 1.3. Garnering system insights among participants 1.4. Obtaining support from government and community partners for the social lab approach of user engagement and experimentation to improve public services 2. What were the practices and supports that enabled achievement of the desired change outcomes?

3. Roles and functions 3.1. How did the lab organizers play out their roles and functions?

3.2. What kinds of support were useful for facilitating the lab organizers to perform their roles and functions?

3 4. What can be learnt from the Market Lab for continual development of the social lab model in Hong Kong?

Methodology This evaluation employs the qualitative methodology as the main approach in answering the evaluation questions. Meanwhile, a quantitative instrument (Appendix 1) was used before and after the Market Lab process to assess individual change outcomes among the participants.

The non-experimental before-and-after test design in the quantitative part of the evaluation is not meant to be conclusive about the extent of individual change through Market Lab. Apart from being an indication of plausible changes, the quantitative findings were presented to informants in qualitative interviews to stimulate interrogation of the participants’ experience and observations in the Market Lab process.

The quantitative data In accordance to the expected individual change outcomes stated in above, the quantitative instrument set out to measure change in the followings among the Market Lab participants: 1. Attitude towards change-making for social good 2. Ability in empathetic understanding 3. Ability in garnering system insights 19 lab fellows and 8 lab organizers (n=27) completed the pre-test questionnaire, whilst 15 lab fellows and 7 lab organizers (n=22) completed the post-test questionnaire. Among the respondents, 19 of them can be matched in the pre-test and the post-test. Wilcoxon SignedRank Test was carried out for these 19 matched pairs to compare their responses before and after the Market Lab process. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test is a non-parametric statistical test used to compare two matched samples to assess if their mean ranks differ. As a rule of thumb, the difference is significant if the p value is smaller than 0.05.

The qualitative data Qualitative data collected from the following methods was used to gain in-depth understanding of the Market Lab process: 1. Direct observation of 14 Market Lab events (the events under observation are listed in Appendix 2) 2. Six focus groups of lab fellows and community partners (composition of the focus groups is stated in Appendix 2) 3. Seven individual interviews of lab organizers, and one individual interview of community partner.

All the interviews followed a semi-structured protocol as attached in Appendix 3. Major findings from the before-and-after test were presented in focus groups and individual interviews to stimulate the informants’ recall of experience and observations from the Market Lab process. Critical incidents identified from direct observation of the Market Lab events were also brought up in the focus groups and individual interviewers to invite reflection of the informants.

4

Findings In order to provide an integrated discussion of the evaluation findings, the quantitative and qualitative data are presented under relevant themes as appropriate for illustrating and supporting our arguments.

More motivated to act for social change and clearer vision for change in a cohesive team The before-and-after test finds that after going through the Market Lab, the respondents were more likely to devote time and effort for solving social problems or making changes for social good (Table 1, item 5, 6, 7). The respondents were also more assured of the availability of solution for social problems (Table 1, item 11) and had a more open attitude towards failure and differences (Table 1, item 16, 21) after they have participated in the Market Lab. Table 1 Rating Rating No increased decreased change

No.

Total

Z*

p†

5

I am willing to contribute time to help solving social problems

9

1

9

19

-2.50

0.01

6

I am willing to continuously improve the society.

13

0

6

19

-3.35

<0.005

7

I am willing to contribute time to change the status quo of the society.

8

1

10

19

-2.31

0.02

11

I have methods to help solving social problems.

10

3

6

19

-2.31

0.02

16

I can honestly face failure.

9

0

10

19

-2.81

<0.005

21

I can accept different opinions.

7

1

11

19

-1.89

0.03

From focus groups and individual interviews, we are able to have greater understanding of the ways that the Market Lab process made these change outcomes plausible.

The qualitative data reveals that social connection in a team of like-minded persons has boosted the motivation to act for social change.

“I think we have similar mindsets—like to make social change, so we all did not want to give up.” (Lab fellow H, focus group) Notably, the lab fellow recruitment method in the Market Lab played a significant part in assembling young change makers who were prepared to contribute time and effort for social change. Applicants for fellowship in the Market Lab were required to conduct either a field Z-score is the testing statistic of Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The closer the value to zero, the less pre-post difference is observed. † If p value is smaller than 0.05, pre-post difference of the sample can be regarded as significant (i.e. real difference likely exists in population). If p value is equal to or larger than 0.05, the observed pre-post difference in the sample cannot be regarded as reflecting the existence of difference in population. *

5 research (interviewing a market tenant or owner of a local shop) or an internet research (identifying an innovative overseas case on market and explaining how it is human-centered) for inclusion in the application within limited time. Those who were less ready to devote time and effort for a social cause would likely be screened out by this application requirement. The team so formed was homogeneous in terms of members’ commitment to exploring measures for improving public services. The strength of interpersonal connection in a team of likeminded persons helped to sustain their motivation in working further for social change.

“It was quite often in my experience of volunteering work, people were not showing up. I often had to work alone…This was a problem. I often had doubt on myself, whether I was doing something right. But after I joined Market Lab, I met many committed people.” (Lab fellow G, focus group) “This Market Lab…I am grateful that we were all standing with each other. I think the team mix was very good.” (Lab fellow D, focus group) Meanwhile, hands-on experience in the Market Lab process provided an opportunity for the lab fellows to try out the social lab model in community problem solving. Following the structured procedure laid down, lab fellows took collective actions to engage the community, gather stories, understand pain points, generate creative ideas, prototype solutions and develop relevant suggestions to the government.

Engagement session with community members

(Source: Official Medium Blog of Market Lab) Shadowing market users’ shopping experience

(Source: Official Medium Blog of Market Lab)

6

Analyzing data collected from stakeholders

(Photo credit: IUP evaluation team) The solid efforts and hands-on experience in exploring and tackling social issues paid off when the lab fellows recognized changes they brought to the community and community members.

“I saw some changes (in Market Lab). In the beginning I had no idea, not knowing where we were moving to…. I mean they (the market tenants) were pessimistic, seemed like they were thinking ‘what’s the point doing this?’. However, at the end I saw big changes—probably they were still pessimistic, but at least they agreed with what we did.

They thought we were trying to do something good together. Their attitude were much better, which was very encouraging for me, because I didn’t expect such big changes.” (Lab Fellow E, focus group) Whilst satisfaction derived from witnessing change supported their confidence in finding solution for social problems, greater reception of differences and possible frustration in the change process could have helped nurturing a positive attitude conducive to resilience from difficulties and challenges in their continual contribution to change-making.

Enhanced understanding of system operation through immersion in the site and direct interaction with stakeholders The before-and-after test identifies that after going through the Market Lab process, the respondents had significant change in their perceived understanding about Aldrich Bay Market (the operation site of the Market Lab; Table 2, item 38).

Table 2 shows that the respondents had higher ratings on perceived understanding of policies governing the management of public markets (item 37), and of the difficulties government officers had in carrying out their management duties (item 39, 42, 43, 44, 45).

They also proclaimed better understanding of the situations confronting tenants in the market and their ensuing needs (item 40, 41), and were more ready to appreciate the situation and needs of the market users (item 46, 47).

7

Table 2 No.

Rating increased

Rating decreased

No change

Total

Z

p

37

I understand policies about market management.

13

2

4

19

-2.86

<0.005

38

I understand the current situation about Aldrich Bay Market.

15

1

3

19

-3.36

<0.005

39

I understand difficulties of managing Aldrich Bay Market.

16

1

2

19

-3.46

<0.005

40

I understand the situation of tenants of Aldrich Bay Market.

15

0

4

19

-3.45

<0.005

41

I understand the needs of tenants of Aldrich Bay Market.

16

0

3

19

-3.57

<0.005

42

I understand the situation of FEHD forntline staff responsible for Aldrich Bay Market.

17

2

0

19

-3.40

<0.005

43

I understand the needs of FEHD forntline staff responsible for Aldrich Bay Market.

16

1

2

19

-3.45

<0.005

44

I understand the situation of FEHD management staff responsible for Aldrich Bay Market.

14

1

4

19

-3.25

<0.005

45

I understand the needs of FEHD management staff responsible for Aldrich Bay Market.

14

1

3

18

-3.23

<0.005

46

I understand the situation of users of Aldrich Bay Market.

11

1

7

19

-2.83

<0.005

47

I understand the needs of users of Aldrich Bay Market.

11

2

6

19

-2.77

0.01

The lab fellows relayed in the focus groups that many of them were not everyday market users. Over a period of four months, they conversed with the market tenants and users, collected experiential stories from them, shadowed their activities, and worked with civil servants from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) in testing the prototypes they developed. Such opportunities for immersion in the site and direct interaction with the key

8 stakeholders enabled enhanced understanding of the daily operation of the Aldrich Bay Market and experiences of stakeholders therein.

Emerging ideas for improving market service from enhanced knowledge and exposure to international experiences Simultaneously, the before-and-after test indicates that the respondents were more capable of identifying direction for change to improve market service after the social lab process (Table 3, item 49). However, they did not have corresponding confidence in alleviating current problems of market service (Table 3, item 48), nor improving the market situation under the current system (Table 3, item 50).

Table 3 Rating increased

Rating decreased

No change

Total

Z

p

48

I think the current problems of market service can be alleviated.

6

3

10

19

-0.92

0.36

49

I have found the direction for improving market service.

12

2

5

19

-2.95

<0.005

50

Under the current system, there is chance to improve the current situation of markets.

5

5

9

19

-0.05

0.96

No.

The subsequent focus groups of lab fellows revealed that insight for change to improve market service was stimulated by critical reflection of the lab participants during the Market Lab process. At the start of the Market Lab, pain point of service in the Aldrich Bay Market was defined as insufficient customers and poor business. This initial definition positioned market as a platform for economic activities. Critical reflection from deeper understanding of user experience engendered a reconstruction of value for market service that went beyond its economic function.

“Near the end (of Market Lab), (we found that) a market is not a place for buy-and-sell only. It can build relationships between persons. It can be a place for education. It can be a platform for grassroots to start their business, or work. That’s why we have to do these.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) The lab participants began to see market as a public space that could be revitalized through community building. It was this reconstruction of value for market service that stimulated various prototype ideas like the “community living room”.

9

(Source: Official webpage of Market Lab) Meanwhile, exposure to international experiences also played a part in providing food for thought to stimulate ideas for change. Before the Market Lab ever started, attention of the lab fellows has been drawn to the international scene, as some of them located innovative overseas cases on market service on the internet to fulfill the fellowship application requirement. In the course of the Market Lab, six lab fellows had the opportunity to go to a sponsored study tour to Korea to learn about its innovative practices on market service. Such exposure was useful for stimulating a vision for change that could go beyond local imagination.

Nonetheless, the insight for change generated from the Market Lab process did not boost their confidence in bringing about actual change to alleviate current problems of market service.

Institutional constraints to improving the prevalent problems were clearly felt under the current service system.

Valuing small moves amidst institutional constraints Beyond market service, Table 4 indicates that the sense of competence of respondents in mobilizing resources for tackling social problems and effecting actual social improvements did not have significant change after the Market Lab process. None of the items in Table 4 indicates significant change among the respondents after the Market Lab. Table 4 No.

Rating increased

Rating decreased

No change

Total

Z

p

8

I am capable to help improve the status quo of the society.

6

5

8

19

-0.05

0.96

9

I am capable to help solving social problems.

4

4

11

19

-0.30

0.76

10

I find my actions have chance to make concrete impact.

8

3

8

19

-1.71

0.09

12

I have resources to help solving social problems.

9

4

6

19

-1.86

0.06

10 In focus groups and individual interviews, the informants concurred with the before-andafter test findings that they were not sure of their ability to effect actual changes to improve the social situation, despite enhanced insights for the possibilities of change within the system. The institutional constraints they encountered in the Market Lab process reminded them that change making in rule-driven bureaucracy has never been an easy mission. One instance in which the lab participants clearly felt the administrative constraint was the premature termination of a prototype testing upon discovery that they could not get through some licensing regulations.

The lab fellows expressed their frustration at the setback in the focus groups.

“We couldn’t use the empty store…Near the time of setup ….. We thought that the empty store could be used for a month, and we could run it beyond the prototype week…. I thought business start-up was allowed for the young people there. But what came out? It (the plan) was banned, because of some fundamental problems…the problem of rental contract.” (Lab fellow H, focus group) Frustration of the lab fellows was compounded by their inability to conceive the rationale behind the regulations that contributed to failure of the prototype testing. They expected some regulatory flexibility in testing new ways to handle old problems, when the government claimed to support innovative practices in solving community problems.

“These things are supposed to be temporary, so they should have more tolerance, or they could flexibly adjust…we are talking about experiments. In the very beginning, we had said we were doing experiments. Experiments are probably something new, not the things they normally have.” (Lab fellow C, focus group) “We wanted to do many things, but were banned. Don’t know why our ‘living room’ had to be fenced with rope. I don’t think it had to be... Not sure if that was due to management of rented venues or other things...

We had a call time (for events in ‘living room’). Before the call time, the old ladies were waiting near the entrance. Wasn’t that funny? The living room was supposed to be free to use. Why wait for the living room to open?”(Lab fellow H, focus group) However, the frustrating experience from institutional constraints did not necessarily defeat the lab participants’ passion for change-making. Many lab fellows have learnt an attitude of cherishing small and concrete actions they could take, when major structural changes on which they could not have direct influence were not achieved overnight.

“Truly I don’t think we should ‘wait for things to happen’…. Actually I can start myself, even if there are only a few people, no problem. If it is right and I can make it, naturally it will attract people to join...Changes don’t happen overnight, but at least I have done something.” (Lab fellow D, focus group) “Quite often I thought, ‘social problems are very big and structural, what can we do? How can I possibly achieve something alone?’ But I don’t think so pessimistically (now). Maybe something small in the start.

You don’t know how big it can become... Maybe our position, age, occupational rank, cannot influence the big picture. But I don’t think that is a big problem. Something small can be done. By observation, and empathy... discovering (social problems) is already very important.”

(Lab fellow E, focus group)

11 “Small changes are good. Don’t be too greedy, because small changes can lead to big changes.” (Lab fellow F, focus group) When the evaluation was conducted in June and July of 2019, there were massive protests in Hong Kong against the Extradition Bill that the Hong Kong Government tried to enact.

Whilst the lab fellows expressed a sense of powerlessness in changing the political situation, many of them at the same time articulated their stronger determination to play a part in other small change-making moves, conceiving change-making as a mission and duty of their generation.

Groundwork laid for developing the general ability of empathetic understanding The capacity to look beyond own perspective to understand other people’s views and feelings defines the general ability of empathetic understanding (Carré et al, 2013; Gerdes et al, 2011; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006).‡ The pre-post survey indicates that the lab participants perceived themselves to be more able to relate to other people’s happiness after participation in the Market Lab (Table 5, item 34); but there was limited change in their perceived ability to relate to other people’s worries, frustrations and anxiety (Table 5, item 32, 33, 35, 36). The survey also does not confirm significant change among the lab participants in their perceived ability to take the perspectives of other people who were different from themselves (Table 5, item 28, 29, 30, 31).

Table 5 No.

Rating decreased

No change

Total

Z

p

4

4

11

19

-0.30

0.76

4

4

11

19

-0.29

0.77

7

2

10

19

-1.81

0.07

5

4

10

19

-0.58

0.56

2

5

12

19

-0.63

0.53

4

2

13

19

-0.82

0.41

8

1

10

19

-2.31

0.02

34

I can understand other people’s point of view.

If I have opinions different from someone, I can understand his/her point of view.

If I am dissatisfied with someone, I can put myself into his/her shoes.

I believe when we are tackling social problems, we should understand different people’s point of view.

I can relate to others’ worries.

I can relate to others’ helplessness.

I can relate to others’ happiness.

35

I can relate to others’ frustration.

3

3

13

19

-0.33

0.74

36

I can relate to others’ anxiety.

3

4

12

19

-0.38

0.71

28 29 30

31 32 33

‡

Rating increased

Carré, A. et al (2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A): Factor Structure of a Revised Form. Psychological Assessment 25(3), 679-691.

Gerdes, K. E., Lietz, C. A., & Segal, E. A. (2011). Measuring empathy in the 21st century: Development of an empathy index rooted in social cognitive neuroscience and social justice. Social Work Research 35, 83–93.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence 29, 589–611.

12 As a matter of fact, most lab fellows did not live in the area where Aldrich Bay Market was located. Many of them also had a background different from that of the market tenants and the market users, such that it required some conscientious effort for them to connect with these stakeholders of the Aldrich Bay Market.

“I can more easily understand people with similar profile as mine- why going or not going to markets, maybe working people, or young couples... Still I don’t know what old people do in markets... I may see them killing time there, but I don’t know the reason, and I don’t know what they feel.” (Lab fellow L, focus group) Heedful of the complexity of the experiences that the market stakeholders might have, the lab fellows were hesitant to claim that they understood their plights, especially those of the market tenants. Some of them reflected that the more they understood the situation of the market tenants, the greater caution they would have in claiming knowledge of their concerns or feelings.

“The more I know, the less I can say I understand, I mean their real worries… We can state in abstract terms ‘probably they think about having no customer’, but do we feel that? Do we share the worries? We probably have to take that to another level.” (Lab Fellow E, focus group) The lab fellows exhibited a careful attitude in claiming knowledge about other people.

This careful attitude was illustrative of their respect for the complexity of human experience, which was facilitated by the exposure to various life stories of multiple stakeholders in the Market Lab process. The community deep dive that the lab participants had did not substantially boost their confidence in understanding other people’s mental states, thoughts and emotions beyond their own perspectives and life experiences. Nonetheless, as they stepped outside their comfort zone in the community deep dive, they acquired a humble attitude and were more ready to appreciate the complexity of life. Humility is an enabler of empathetic understanding as it allows productive conversations across differences even when we cannot imagine ourselves as the other (Johnson, 2019)§.

Interplay between logical induction and intuition in community problem solving Pre-post analysis of the survey identifies that the Market Lab process has not produced significant change in the lab participants’ attitude about new ventures and risk taking in problem solving. (

§

Johnson, C.R. (2019). Intellectual Humility and Empathy by Analogy. Topoi 38, 221–228.

1 Table 6 No. 24 25 26 27

I am willing to explore possibilities to find more effective ways to solve problems.

Exploring new methods is important for solving problems.

I will take risk to test new ways of solving problems.

I will learn new ways to solve problems.

Rating Rating No Total increased decreased change

Z

p

8

3

8

19

-1.30

0.19

5

3

11

19

-0.90

0.37

5

2

12

19

-1.13

0.26

4

1

14

19

-1.34

0.18

Readiness to take risk and exploring new possibilities has always been considered an attitude conducive to innovation. Some lab organizers relayed that the limited statistical change in attitude towards risk taking and trying new things could be resulted from the high baseline among respondents.

“I think we have recruited a group of fellows who are already willing to take risk and try new methods, this is some sort of selection effect. Hence, the change in this area is not drastic” (Lab organizer E, individual interview) Ostensibly, instead of a reserved attitude towards new ventures and risk-taking, some lab fellows expressed in the subsequent focus group interviews their yearning for innovative and groundbreaking outputs, which they could not claim for the prototypes they tested in the Market Lab. “Maybe for the tenants, these elements are new, but are these really new? I can tell for sure, no. Because they were already in Taiwan, Australia… From the oversea cases we studied, borrowed some useful ideas, localized them, or made them more close to the community. And we added something ourselves into them. As a result, prototypes were formed. Therefore I think we were not creating new things.” (Lab fellow C, focus group) Expecting novelty and originality, lab fellows did not consider prototype ideas that were inspired by international experience and adapted to the local context as truly new and creative.

According to some lab fellows, time was one of the factors that could limit originality of the solutions they derived in the Market Lab process.

“We had a busy life, and the lab had time limit. So freely creating new things was difficult to me. The most efficient way was to see what were being done in other places.” (Lab fellow C, focus group) “We actually didn’t know how to deconstruct and rebuild, because we knew that would spend lots of time and resources. In some moment, we felt the risk: ‘we have done so much thing. If we start over, there is no time, only a month left.’” (Lab fellow B, focus group) The Market Lab process was considered too short for providing an adequate temporal space to generate truly original ideas. Ostensibly, the amount of time available has always been a critical factor enabling new ideas to flourish. Exploration of new ideas needs time; and haste can produce an emotional block to creativity.

1 Apart from the time factor, some lab fellows described Market Lab as a “step-by-step”, “systematic”, and “logical” research process, which might not be the most conducive for producing creative insights.

“It was very logical…like doing research…. trying hard to clarify the problems, then decide the next step of action…I think it was step-bystep, logical development process more than innovation. Let’s say we collected the data, then like reeling silk from a cocoon to find out several issues, what were the pain points. Then based on these pain points, democratically raised hands to express which the more significant issue was. From this issue, lead to what prototypes would be made… (if it is) innovative problem solving, I feel like the steps don’t need to be that logical.” (Lab fellow A, focus group) Influenced by the ethnographic research methodology, the social lab method emphasizes community deep-dive to gain empathetic insights about people using the public service, so as to stimulate innovative solutions to service problems. In this research logic, ideas for change should be induced from the stories collected, and validated by their connection to the user experiences revealed in the stories. Some lab fellows opined that the logical procedure that the Market Lab has adopted might have limited their capacity to think out of the box.

Notwithstanding, although this logical research process might not be the most useful in generating prototype ideas that were novel and original, it was considered necessary for making responsible suggestions that responded to the needs of the stakeholders.

“I think logical (process) was a responsible way, because we had to be accountable for users… I agree that it was a responsible way.” (Lab fellow A, focus group) A lab organizer also pointed out that the lab fellows could be lost in the Market Lab process, if they did not have a guiding framework to govern the fuzzy data analysis and ideation process.

“We had a framework to help analyzing the stories…there was a dilemma. We wanted to be open (for any idea). When there was a framework, we were doomed to be bounded… lack of creativity…My thought is, we need framework as a basis, and treat it with an open mind…Creativity should not be the excuse for not thinking systematically… the fellows have pinpointed that they were lost without a framework.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) Despite that the Market Lab process was guided by a logical inductive procedure, the evaluation team observed that insight and intuition still played a significant part in instigating some prototype ideas. For instance, the initial idea of “pop-up markets” was not generated systematically through the inductive process, but was proposed by an organiser who had experience in public policy making. Being built up from latent experiences, instincts and senses, intuition is not an antithesis of logic. Through active reflection, logic on the conscious and rational side of people’s mind could identify the meaningful patterns of latent data behind the intuitive primal responses.

“At the moment (action week for testing prototypes), I suddenly understood why we were doing pop-up (stores). Markets were the place supporting grassroots to work or start their business, as public services.

Inside a market, many small stores are supporting a diversified

1 economy, or employment of grassroots. Pop-up is only an extension of this.” (Lab organizer C, individual interview) In another example, prototype ideas to enhance the social function of the market emerged from frustrating moments when the lab fellows noticed that their original prototypes were not well received.

“As on that day (in second action week) very few people were coming, we (lab team) were just sitting there. Very few people coming, but we had prepared much. We were thinking, ‘what are we doing?’.

Sometimes there was some confusion.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) Whilst highly structured process could provide a sense of certainty and manageable progress, frustrating moments have stimulated reflexive discussion in which yearnings and meanings were explored. Although the organisers regarded this experience as representing failure in prototype testing, the evaluation team saw it as an opportune break from the structural framework to enable a creative-reflexive process that allows logic to interact with intuition.

Some lab fellows called for a greater role for intuition in the ideation process to encourage innovations. Naming it as a “cyclical process”, the alternative pathway they proposed for the ideation process would accommodate intuitive ideas that did not emerge from conscious reasoning from the collected stories. Prototypes developed from the intuitive idea would be tested quickly and reiteratively on a small scale, so that repeated modifications could be made to improve the prototype.

“I know there are different ways of working in IT industry…One is called waterfall (model)… Actually we were using waterfall (in Market Lab). Beginning with research…linearly, step-by-step…then we designed prototypes, and then did the first prototype (testing). But there is another way, which likes cyclical…Google uses this method a lot. It starts with a little bit research…followed quickly by a prototype, then get the feedback, and then research, prototype, feedback. There can be many cycles. The initial prototype could be very crude and useless…but by keeping on getting feedback, research, and improving, continuously tuning the direction…continuous trial and error…if the so-called creativity or originality was really wanted, maybe that kind of cyclical method is needed.” (Lab fellow B, focus group) We may call this a kind of “forward legitimation”, whereby an idea is examined, rigorously analyzed and connected to the data in the course of repeated experimentation. In fact, this reiterative experimentation approach is part and parcel of the design-thinking methodology that the Social Lab project adopted. The interplay between logical induction and intuition in the “design-led approach” of Social Lab is an area for further interrogation.

A show case of community problem solving and a platform for community networking to the community partners To facilitate the Market Lab process, the lab organizers solicited support of three nongovernmental organizations in Shau Kei Wan to connect with community members in story collection and to mobilize community participation in action week activities. The community partners also supported the Market Lab by sharing community information in workshops for

1 the lab fellows, and providing venues and logistic backing for lab events. Unlike in Healthy Street Lab where social workers of partner organizations in the community took part as lab fellows, staff of partner organizations in the Market Lab had limited role in the social lab process, apart from serving as resource and contact persons to liaise with community members.

Focus group was held with the contact persons of these local organizations to understand their perception of the Market Lab. Although contact staff of the partner organizations did not play an active role in the Market Lab process, they were impressed by the social lab methodology and caliber of the lab fellows.

“Many fellows were professionals. They could deliver the service independently with strong abilities…they had clear principles to direct their operation.” (Informant N, focus group) Apart from being inspired by the high caliber and conscientiousness of the lab fellows, the informants from the partner organizations also pointed out in the focus groups that the Market Lab was a showcase to them on how to generate solutions to community problems using design thinking methods.

Meanwhile, the Market Lab has also provided opportunities for networking among the community organizations.

“If networking could be done earlier, there might be greater chance of sustaining the project...We don’t know each other before…we might start thinking how we could follow up after the social lab team has left…the Market Lab has helped connecting us to the FEHD too.”

(Informant O, focus group) Sustaining local initiatives by establishing community networks was in fact an initial plan of the Market Lab organizers. Despite that staff from the partner organizations cherished the exposure to the social lab methods and the opportunity for networking, they were unable to join the market lab as lab fellows due to their tight work schedule. As we observed, the momentum was not great enough for any further action plan in the community at the time when we conducted the evaluation.

Mixed feelings about bottom-up community engagement among lab fellows from government offices As an endeavor to introduce change within the public service system, the social lab project in Hong Kong has been inviting civil servants of relevant government departments to join as lab fellows since the first phase of social lab, the LIBoratory Project. Five civil servants from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and Policy Innovation and Coordination Office (PICO) joined the Market Lab as lab fellows, to partner with young people in the community engagement and experimentation process. Focus groups were held with these lab fellows from government offices to understand their experience in the Market Lab and their support of the social lab principle and methodology.

Unanimously, lab fellows from government offices did not see community engagement or user participation a novel principle in government practices. For example, the FEHD used to consult tenants of market stalls on matters like regular repairs and maintenance of market facilities. Notwithstanding, lab fellows from FEHD observed a remarkable difference between “regular participation” of the market tenants and their participation in the Market Lab. The tenants had higher participation in the Market Lab than in events launched by our promotion team…The process was longer (in the

1 Market Lab)…the tenants were impressed that what they said was taken seriously and materialized by the social lab team…It was like a routinized practice when we asked for their opinions. But the social lab was tailored made to engage them. (Lab fellow H, focus group) The informant recognized that the market stall tenants were appreciative of the engagement process in Market Lab, when they saw participation not as mere ritual but sincere endeavor to hear from them and respond to their voices.

The Market Lab experience also convinced the lab fellows from government offices that the public service users were able to contribute to public policy making. Expert knowledge that the government used to depend on in public policy making could not substitute the knowledge generated from users’ personal experience of service use.

“I did have a major change in my attitude towards citizen participation.

I used to think that the general citizens did not know much… they were not well aware of what was happening in the outside world… only concerned about their personal welfare… they could not contribute much to policy making. After the Market Lab, I become aware that there are well-intentioned citizens in Hong Kong who have their views about polices. In arena that they have immediate concern, they are able to provide suggestions that neither book theories nor experts can give...

The market users were able to give us ideas for improvement that government officials and lawmakers in the Legislative Council could not think of.” (Lab fellow J, focus group) Despite the government’s acknowledgement of the value of users’ voices, rules and regulations were very often the better guidance to action in operating public services. Civil servants working within the government system were accustomed to a rule-abiding culture that encouraged ready acceptance of limitations in work. The Market Lab has exposed the lab fellows from government offices to a new attitude towards limitations in work. In the Market Lab process, lab fellows from government offices witnessed that the negotiation process that citizen participation instigated was able to bring about unanticipated change on the ground.

“In our usual understanding, the policy does not allow the sale of food in public markets… To operate a pop-up food stall in the foyer of the market was unprecedented and not possible… But after a process of negotiation with the lab team, the licensing office issued a food license for the pop-up stall in action week 1 and 2.” (Lab fellow K, focus group) Such positive experience in witnessing how active participation and constructive negotiation worked to produce results would be beneficial to developing a “can do” mind set among civil servants.

Although the Market Lab experience confirmed the general principle of user participation and expanded the repertoire of ways in community engagement for collecting users’ views, some lab fellows from government offices were still hesitant about citizen participation in the government decision making process. A mixed feeling about bottom-up community engagement prevailed.

“It would be good if the policy making branch can accept opinions of stakeholders from bottom-up… instead of confining their views to a topdown policy framework… We might be detached from the ground, having engaged in the government system for a long time… But I am not sure if the government has the time to go from bottom up in every

1 policy plan. This bottom-up approach really consumed a lot of time and resources.” (Lab fellow J, focus group) “Time spent in getting acquainted with the community members might be useful for engaging them in the prototyping stage… the longer time spent in talking to community members might help with more discovery about their experience… But it is a trade-off… there is a question of worth in spending ten hours to identify one single point.” (Lab fellow L, focus group) Necessarily, a bottom-up decision making approach consumes much time and energy in getting acquainted with the community, listening to stories of community members, understanding their experiences, and relating their experiences to the making of public policies.

There was no ready consensus on the bottom-up community engagement approach among lab fellows from government offices, amidst the efficiency discourse common in public policy making.

Another concern about bottom-up community engagement in public policy making was the extent that the collected views could represent views of those who have not participated.

“We came to understand the user habits from those who were willing to participate…I don’t think these personal views are very representative. (Lab fellow M, focus group) The cost benefit of bottom-up community engagement was further undermined as validity of the collected views was questioned in terms of representativeness. A way that some lab fellows from government offices proposed to resolve the mixed feeling about the bottom-up approach in public policy making was to delegate the community engagement task to a third party that was not directly related to service operation.

“We represent the landlord to enforce management rules in the market… We are the rule enforcers… I have been thinking if the tenants might be more ready to speak their mind if the engagement is done by a third party” (Lab fellow H, focus group) As listening to the users and responding to their needs might conflict with the civil servants’ role as rule enforcers, an impartial third party was considered more appropriate to fulfill the community engagement functions for feeding back to policy makers.

Struggles of the lab organizers in performing their roles “Bottom-up” was also ethos of the social lab project. Nonetheless, organizers in the Market Lab recognized that it was more complicated than it seemed to realize the “bottom-up” approach in the Market Lab process. Constantly, they had to balance between leading and cocreating when they played out their role as facilitator.

“In the first place we want to be someone leading people to the shared goal, the one holding the flag, but it didn’t mean we could decide everything, as we very much treasure co-creation, and very much believe that every fellow has his/her own background, their own strength to contribute to the lab. At the same time, our roles were facilitators, triggering the potential, doing things together.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) The lab organizers also had to mediate between different parties in the Market Lab process to reconcile their different expectations and concerns.

“Fellows had many ideas. As they were not the one directly communicating with FEHD, we (organizers) were doing it, we had a wider perspective, and understand more about the concern of FEHD. There was tension when what fellows wanted to do bothered the FEHD… and we wanted to innovate…but we also wanted to build trust with the government. We shouldn’t just want to innovate and not care about them (FEHD). That’s why it was hard for us to avoid telling the fellows, ‘how about this time we first consider their view…this meant ‘couldn’t make it’ to them (lab fellows). This kind of tension happened.”

(Lab organizer D, individual interview) Tension also prevailed between the lab organizers and the lab fellows, amidst different expectations they had on policy impact of the Market Lab. “Our team (organizers) also had what we thought as right, while fellows happily doing things they thought as right (laugh)…these were the conflicts…we (organizers) wanted the prototypes to have influence at the policy level. Sometimes…we hoped after the prototypes were done, they were not one-off, but the government could adopt, and then maybe sustain in other markets, or finding other people to do it in this market…Sometimes we wanted to do something that created big impact, but fellows might not get that.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) Different lab organizers positioned their role differently in handling these tensions, across a spectrum between mentorship and partnership.

“There were different thoughts in the (organizers) team… A thought that she was a member in the lab team… she spoke her opinions as a lab member. It was up to the lab fellows to accept or not. She was the most liberal… I am prone to the liberal side of the spectrum, but I would evaluate what could give social lab the greatest impact… I also wanted to convince them (lab fellows) this was very important… For B, I think she was prone to the other side of the spectrum.” (Lab organizer C, individual interview) In partnership, the lab organizers regarded themselves as equal members in the lab team, sharing equal power and rights in decision making as the lab fellows. In mentorship, the lab organizers took up the role of a coach to guide and influence the lab fellows towards a designated direction. Whilst none of the lab organizers we interviewed was comfortable with the role of a directive leader, they were constantly struggling to find a right place for themselves between partnership and mentorship in their relationship with the lab fellows.

Conclusion and recommendations As exemplified in the Market Lab, the Social Lab project has successfully assembled a group of social-minded young people and prepared them to be better change makers. A cohesive team of like-minded people sustained their motivation to act, amidst the incessant institutional constraints that frustrated them. Immersion in the site enabled the young lab fellows to understand the operation of market service, so as to obtain insights for change within the service system. Deep-dive in the community exposed them to the different life stories of multiple stakeholders of market service, which stimulated their respect for the complexity of human experience, and engendered a humble attitude in claiming knowledge about other

2 people. Such humility is helpful for developing empathetic understanding by enabling productive conversations across differences. Using the guiding principles and structured procedure that the Social Lab model provided and informed by international experiences, young people in the Market Lab obtained insights for formulating vision of change in tackling community issues and solving social problems. Witnessing small changes in the community and among community members also supported their confidence in locating room for change within the service system. Of course, change has never been an easy achievement in rule-driven bureaucracy. Amidst all the institutional constraints that the lab fellows encountered in prototype testing, they were not sure of their ability to effect actual changes for social improvement. The Market Lab process did not manage to enhance their subjective sense of competence as a change maker. However, they have become more receptive to differences and prepared for possible frustration in continual change-making efforts, and came to realize the importance of small moves before big changes could be achieved. Invariably, the Market Lab has provided a platform for nurturing change makers, and has been a learning ground for the young change makers to gather knowledge about the service system and garner insights for plausible changes within the system.

The lab organizers played a very important, and yet difficult role as facilitators of the social lab process to nurture change makers through a collaborative learning process. In the course of the Market Lab, the lab organizers have been working hard to strike the sensitive balance between intuition and logical induction in ideating for change solutions. The interplay between logical induction and intuition in producing innovative ideas for change has been a subject of discussion in the focus groups and individual interviews. Being built up from latent experiences, instincts and senses, intuition is not antithetical to logic. How intuition and the inductive logic can complement each other in the Social Lab process is an area for further interrogation. The lab organizers also had constant struggle in mediating between different expectations of multiple stakeholders in the Market Lab, and in finding the right place between mentorship and partnership in their relationship with the lab fellows. There is no simple answer on how to sort out these dilemmas in playing out their facilitator role. The answer lies in a team of reflexive facilitators who are sensitive to their struggles and bewilderment, able to share their doubts and fears, and have the courage to challenge their own values and assumptions in creating a conducive environment for supporting change-making in future Social Labs.

Set out to introduce change within the public service system, the Social Lab project has deliberately enlisted the participation of community organizations and civil servants from relevant government departments to obtain their buy-in for bottom-up community engagement and the experimentation approach in finding new solutions to old problems. Whilst lab fellows from government offices unanimously endorsed the principle of community engagement in public policy making, the Market Lab process has demonstrated to them that active participation and constructive negotiation could work to produce unexpected changes in the system. However, they remained ambivalent about the practicability of this bottom-up approach in terms of its “cost-effectiveness”. Meanwhile, the community partners did not play an active role in the Market Lab, apart from serving as resource and contact persons to liaise with community members. They expressed that they were inspired by the conscientious lab fellows and the Social Lab model, and appreciated the opportunity for networking with other community organizations through the Market Lab process. It remains to be seen if the exposure can instigate related action plan in community level.

Concluding from the evaluation findings, we suggest the lab organizers to build on the merits they have achieved and consider the followings in future Social Lab projects.

2

Group dynamics supporting a cohesive team for collaborative learning and co-creation As a social group in which group dynamics can influence decision making, interpersonal interactions and group effectiveness, the group dynamics in the Social Lab team can affect the experience of the lab fellows therein, and influence the individual outcomes for them through the Social Lab process. Invariably, much skill and tact is required to facilitate collaborative learning and co-creation in teamwork. In projects for social good, it is also necessary to create a supportive milieu for dealing with the likely setbacks and frustrations arising from attempts to enact change amidst institutional constraints.

Group composition is an important factor determining if positive group dynamics that is conducive to collaborative learning and co-creation can be facilitated. Design of the Market Lab recruitment process was a success factor in creating a team of like-minded people to support the lab fellows in tackling challenges in the Social Lab process. Having a clear idea of the desirable mix of characteristics in the team of lab fellows will help the lab organizers to design the appropriate ways to locate and recruit the suitable candidates for future Social Lab projects. There is also a role for the veteran lab fellows, who can involve as mentors in new Social Lab team to help strengthening group cohesion and maintaining the group culture.

It has not been an easy task facilitating a team of lab fellows in the Social Lab process.

The lab organizers have had a lot of bewilderment and struggles regarding how they could play out their role effectively. Whilst they are rendering support to the lab fellows, how the team of lab organizers can be supported is an area for attention in future Social Labs. We suggest maintaining reflexive interactions among the lab organizers for clarifying their values and assumptions, sharing their doubts and fears, and examining the influence their personal experiences may have on their judgment. A team of reflexive facilitators is important for creating a nurturing group process imperative to collaborative learning and co-creation in future Social Lab teams.

Continual engagement of civil servants as lab fellows Some similar initiatives in other parts of the world are located within the government or have clear government support, for example, social innovation initiatives by the Seoul Metropolitan Government**, MindLab in Denmark†† and the Public Policy Lab in New York City ‡‡ . As a pioneering endeavor, the Social Lab project in Hong Kong has lobbied three Government departments for support to the participatory and experimentation approach in community problem solving and public policy making. Despite popularity of the community participation and social innovation discourse within the government, efficiency concern fuels skepticism among civil servants towards bottom-up community engagement in public policy making.

Meanwhile, the Market Lab experience demonstrated to the lab fellows from government offices that community members had the requisite knowledge and insights from life experiences to inform solutions for community problems. Through the Market Lab process, they were also able to witness how active participation and constructive negotiation worked to produce unexpected changes in the system. Enhanced engagement of civil servants as lab fellows in future Social Labs will help engendering a “can do” attitude by providing them a safe space for collective experimentation with a diverse group of community members. ** †† ‡‡

http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/key-policies/city-initiatives/4-social-innovation/ https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/mindlab-2-0-denmark-establishes-its-next-generation-innovation-lab http://publicpolicylab.org/our-work/

2 Social Labs “focus on testing ideas through the development of prototypes, but are not usually concerned with how innovations are implemented or deployed at scale” (Sigaloff, 2019, p.11)§§. Yet, it is desirable if policy implications can be extracted from the prototypes to sustain their impact. Should this be a long term vision of the Social Lab project in Hong Kong, lab fellows from government offices are suitable informants about the policy context and the policy change process to realize the vision.

Sustaining the participatory and experimentation approach in community level Social Labs take part in communities with community partners and stakeholders.

Organizational partners in the community play an important part in providing community information, mobilizing community participants and rendering logistic support to Social Lab events. However, Social Labs as part of a movement to build up the participatory and proinnovation culture in community problem solving, the role of the community partners should not be limited to these short term functions. In order for the Social Labs to have a legacy in the communities to sustain the participatory and experimentation culture in the community level, it is necessary to enlist the active participation of community partners in the Social Lab process.

Previous Social Labs like the Healthy Street Lab had staff of organizational partners participating as lab fellows. This practice was identified as helpful both in supporting group dynamics in the Social Lab team, and in sustaining the Social Lab impact. Measures can be taken in future Social Labs to enable the community partners to play a more active role in the Social Lab process. For example, future Social Labs can consider early liaison with potential community partners, selecting partners that espouse the participatory mission, and involving the community partners in early planning. Follow up actions can also be taken to support the community partners in advancing the participatory and experimentation approach in community problem solving after termination of the Social Lab in the community, with a view to build up an alliance of change makers in community level.

Facilitating the dynamic interplay between logical induction and intuition The crust of the Social Lab methodology is to “make use of participatory, de-expertised research methods to drive public sector innovation” (Jockey Club MaD Social Lab Proposal, 2016, p.6). Leveraging on ethnographic research methods, the inductive research logic has been the backbone of the Social Lab methodology. In community problem solving, careful induction from stories collected through community deep-dive is an act of responsibility, to ensure that the proposed solutions to problems are responding to the voices and needs of the stakeholders.

The logical inductive procedure also provides a framework for the lab fellows to navigate through the fuzzy data analysis and ideation process. At the same time, the Social Lab project also rode on the design-thinking approach that emphasizes reiterative experimentation for innovative solutions. The design-led approach accommodates instinctive understanding and intuitive primal responses, which also define the Social Lab methodology. Social innovation that the Social Lab project destines to advance works through a dynamic interplay between logical induction and intuition.

The Market Lab experience indicates that although ethnographic inductive analysis remained the major methodology, intuitive insights did play a part in stimulating innovative Sigaloff, C. (2019). Social Labs: Beyond experimentation, towards a new model for public participation in Hong Kong. Retrieved at http://mad.asia/programmes/mad-social-lab/526

§§

2 solutions to old problems. Recognizing that intuition is built up from latent experiences and subtle observations, future Social Labs can allow a greater role for intuitive understanding and primal responses of the lab fellows. Intuitive ideas not directly derived from conscious induction from the collected stories can be captured and put forth for small scale experimentation, after which analytic data from the collected stories can be put back to evaluate the experiment. Occasional break from the inductive framework can unleash the lab fellows from the structural boundary that may restrain creativity.

The optimal Social Lab duration The Market Lab lasted for four months from March to July in 2019, during which the lab fellows went through the trajectory from acquainting with the Social Lab methodology to delivering the prototypes and formulating recommendations to the government office concerned. For the voluntary lab fellows who had simultaneous work or study engagement, the four-month process was compact and tight, to the effect that they did not find adequate temporal space to truly empathize with the stakeholders, and generate authentically innovative ideas through repeated experimentation.

Extending the duration of future Social Labs to allow thoughtful implementation of the various Social Lab methods can help evading the emotional block to creativity that time pressure can create. However, momentum of the Social Lab team may not carry if prolonged participation in the Social Lab interferes with the other personal engagements of the lab fellows.

An alternative is identifying the suitable time niche for specific population to enable fullfledged participation during the Social Lab period. For example, students may be more available during the summer. As an action process for nurturing young change makers, future Social Labs may consider targeting the student population.

2

Appendix 1

Questionnaire for the survey 賽馬會「創不同」社會創新實驗室 街市實驗室＠愛秩序灣街市

問卷將由培力學苑（Institute For User Participation，IUP）進行分析，以瞭解街市實驗室 項目對於主要持份者的影響。問卷所得的詳細資料只限培力學苑研究存取，並會以匿 名方式進行研究。 問卷答案沒有好壞之分，請閣下依照自己的真實情況及想法去回答。 ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝ 1.

你在「街市實驗室」的角色（可多選）：

□1 籌劃人員 Organizer □2 實驗室團隊成員 Lab Fellow □3 常駐小組Intensive Working Team □4 其他，請註明＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ 請問你同意以下對你的描述嗎？請圈上適合的數字（分數越高，同意程度越高）。 非 常 不 同 意

不 同 意

稍 為 不 同 意

稍 為 同 意

同 意

非 常 同 意

2.

我會對社會其他群體的遭遇感同身受。

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.

我希望社會環境比現在更好。

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.

我希望自己可以改善社會的現況。

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.

我願意付出時間，協助解決社會問題。

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.

我願意不斷嘗試去改善社會。

1

2

3

4

5

6

7.

我願意付出時間，改變社會的現況。

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.

我覺得自己可以協助改進社會現況。

1

2

3

4

5

6

9.

我有能力可以協助解決社會問題。

1

2

3

4

5

6

10. 我認為自己的行動有機會產生實質的影響。

1

2

3

4

5

6

11. 我有方法可以協助解決社會問題。

1

2

3

4

5

6

12. 我有資源可以協助解決社會問題。

1

2

3

4

5

6

2 請問你同意以下對你的描述嗎？請圈上適合的數字（分數越高，同意程度越高）。 非 常 不 同 意

不 同 意

稍 為 不 同 意

稍 為 同 意

同 意

非 常 同 意

13. 如果我想的話，我能夠堅持不懈地做同一件事。

1

2

3

4

5

6

14. 假如面對挫敗，我也不易放棄。

1

2

3

4

5

6

15. 如果要有實質的改變，是需要長年累月的行動。

1

2

3

4

5

6

16. 我可以坦誠地面對挫敗。

1

2

3

4

5

6

17. 我能承受失敗的經驗。

1

2

3

4

5

6

18. 我可以接受挫敗。

1

2

3

4

5

6

19. 我能夠承認自己的錯誤。

1

2

3

4

5

6

20. 如果事情的發展不如預期，我會接受事實。

1

2

3

4

5

6

21. 我會接受不同的意見。

1

2

3

4

5

6

22. 我會嘗試理解不同人的觀點角度。

1

2

3

4

5

6

23. 只靠一個人去判斷事情往往會有盲點。

1

2

3

4

5

6

24. 我願意探索不同的可能性，以找出更有效的方法去 解決問題。

1

2

3

4

5

6

25. 探索新的方法，對於解決問題是重要的。

1

2

3

4

5

6

26. 我會冒險去試驗新的解難方案。

1

2

3

4

5

6

27. 我會學習新的方法去解決問題。

1

2

3

4

5

6

28. 我能理解他人看事情的角度。

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

29. 如果與他人有不同意見時，我能夠理解對方的角度 。 30. 如果我對他人感到不滿時，我可以設身處地去想像 對方的情況。 31. 我相信處理問題時，需要理解不同人的角度。

2 請問你同意以下對你的描述嗎？請圈上適合的數字（分數越高，同意程度越高）。 非 常 不 同 意

不 同 意

稍 為 不 同 意

稍 為 同 意

同 意

非 常 同 意

32. 我能夠感同身受他人的煩惱。

1

2

3

4

5

6

33. 我能夠感同身受他人的無奈。

1

2

3

4

5

6

34. 我能夠感同身受他人的愉快。

1

2

3

4

5

6

35. 我能夠感同身受他人的挫敗。

1

2

3

4

5

6

36. 我能夠感同身受他人的憂慮。

1

2

3

4

5

6

37. 我瞭解與街市管理有關的政策。

1

2

3

4

5

6

38. 我瞭解有關愛秩序灣街市的現實情況。

1

2

3

4

5

6

39. 我瞭解管理愛秩序灣街市的實際困難。

1

2

3

4

5

6

40. 我理解愛秩序灣街市檔主的處境。

1

2

3

4

5

6

41. 我理解愛秩序灣街市檔主的需要。

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

46. 我理解街市用家的處境。

1

2

3

4

5

6

47. 我理解街市用家的需要。

1

2

3

4

5

6

48. 我認為街巿現時的問題有機會可以改善。

1

2

3

4

5

6

49. 我找到了改善街巿的方向。

1

2

3

4

5

6

50. 在現時的制度下，街巿的現況是有機會可以改善的 。

1

2

3

4

5

6

42. 我理解負責愛秩序灣街市的食環署前線職員的處境 。 43. 我理解負責愛秩序灣街市的食環署前線職員的需要 。 44. 我理解負責愛秩序灣街市的食環署管理層職員的處 境。 45. 我理解負責愛秩序灣街市的食環署管理層職員的需 要。

為了方便配對前測與後測的問卷，請閣下填上簡單個人資料： 51. 生日日期：＿＿＿＿月＿＿＿＿＿日 52. 性別：

□1 男

□2 女

2

Appendix 2

The qualitative data

List of events observed by the evaluation team Date

Events

2019-03-02

Introductory Workshop, pretest

2019-03-09

Market Deep Dive Workshop (Team building & Orientation training)

2019-03-16

Launch Event (Public Event)

2019-03-30

Community Engagement Meeting (Youth)

2019-04-02

Intensive Working Team meeting - Data Consolidation

2019-04-06

Issue Identification Workshop

2019-04-14

Lab Team Discussion on Issue selection and Idea

2019-05-11

Community Engagement meeting, practitioner pitching

2019-05-21

Engagement meeting with homemaker

2019-05-26

Action week 1, VIP tour

2019-06-25

Action week 2

2019-06-29

Wrap up session

2019-07-06

Workshop for preparing Finale

2019-07-13

Finale

Composition of the focus groups Informants

No. of groups

Total no. of participants

Lab fellows (openly recruited)

3

9

Lab fellows from government partners

2

5

Lab fellows from community partners

1

3

2

Appendix 3 groups

Semi-structured protocol for interviews and focus

For community partners: ● Key questions ○ Buy-in of the social lab model ● How did they get involved in the Market lab? ● What was the purpose of their service units to join Market Lab? ● How did they understand their roles in Market lab? ● Important experiences during the process ● How did they compare the market lab project to other projects they did? ● What are the impacts of the Market Lab they have seen or foresee? ○ Feedback from the kaifongs or users For lab fellows from government offices ● Key questions ○ Buy-in of the social lab model ○ Impact on themselves ● How did they get involved in the Market Lab? ● What was the original purpose of their departments to join Market Lab? ● How did they understand their roles in Market lab? ● Presenting the survey results, and asking their feedback ○ Any other impacts besides those on the survey? ● Important experience in the Market Lab ● How did they compare their roles to other openly recruited lab fellows? ● Is it feasible for FEHD or PICO to adopt social lab method again? ○ Any benefits? ○ Any obstacle?

For openly recruited lab fellows ● Key questions ○ Impact on themselves ● How did they get involved in the Market lab? ● How did they understand their roles in Market lab? ● Presenting the survey results, and asking their feedback ○ Any other impacts besides those on the survey? ● What were the personal impacts on them?

● Important experience in the Market Lab For organizers: ● Key questions ○ their understanding of the social lab strategy ○ their perceived role and functions ○ difficulties and concerns ○ their learning trajectory ● For those having experience of previous labs, what are the major changes in Market Lab? ○ Why would these changes occur? ○ How did they feel about the effect of these changes? ● How did they understand their roles and functions in Market lab? ○ Did they have any adjustment on roles and functions during Market Lab? How did it happen? ● Presenting the survey results, and asking their feedback ○ As an organizer, how did they understand the patterns on the survey? Any related experience? ● What were the difficulties they experienced in playing out their role? ● What were the support received or expected in tackling their difficulties? ● Any abilities or knowledge needed for performing their roles? How did they acquire these abilities?

30

Jockey Club Make a Difference Social Lab Post-Evaluation Reflections

by Make A Difference Institute

Since the launch of the Jockey Club Make A Difference Social Lab (JC MaD Social Lab) in 2016, the Social Lab team completed the first phase of 4 social labs with the generous support of the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, many passionate young changemakers who joined us on this innovation journey and 3 government departments willing to co-create with the community. It has been our pleasure to see ordinary citizens (especially young people) delighted to participate in public service innovation, and the small seeds of change we have sown along the way.

In the 4th social lab carried out in the first part of 2019, Market Lab@Aldrich Bay Market, we invited Institute for User Participation (IUP) to be our critical partner. They observed our lab dynamics, understood our expectations as well as those of the lab participants, and observed our excitement, frustrations, and takeaways. The participatory approach of the IUP evaluation helped us to understand our strengths and limitations.

After reading the IUP report, we would like to share our reflections in this quick response.

What should the “success” of social labs look like?

A social lab is an experimental process towards social innovation. The spirit of experimentation is not practiced as often in the social sphere, as compared to the medical and technology fields, where “success” of their experiments could be better defined, say, in coming up with a new vaccine or discovering new technologies.

As organisers, we are often asked: what should the success of social innovation using a social lab process look like? What were we, as a small non-profit creative platform, able to implement or were not able to do, given the limited time and capacity, and how could we strengthen this model for more scalability and effective outcomes?

Our team’s learning is that: we must accept social labs as experiments which need iterative trial and error to evolve. The experiments are grounded on the needs and pain points of the community, which we (together with young labbers) must first identify and empathise with.

During the experimentation process (such as testing prototypes and understanding the system), many values, skills and competencies are strengthened, including gaining empathy, and problem solving and analytical skills in collaborating with a diverse group of people.

Another important learning is building resilience and accepting failure, while continuing to experiment and pivot. This is probably the hardest part and can shake the confidence of young people in their comfort zones. Only when participants are able to acknowledge their frustrations

31

could they become confident changemakers in the future. We note some labbers have continued to embark on different social innovation projects after completion of a short social lab.

This warrants further study and might perhaps be defined as one dimension of “success” of this social lab programme.

At the end of the day, JC MaD Social Lab’s intent is to empower more young people as empathetic changemakers, having commitment to support positive social change in their respective roles in the community.

How should “social innovation” be defined?

The impact of social labs lies in the testing of innovative ideas and solutions to respond to complex and wicked problems. To us, innovations could be on the system level, but must start small. Innovations can also mean ideas already practiced in other fields, but new to another sector or a community. We note labbers might define “innovations” differently. Some believe innovations must be big, novel and groundbreaking, while others think it is simply a better solution to resolve a community issue.

The diversity in perception could make communication difficult, and the lab team has reflected on ways to bridge the gap and align labbers’ thinking so that they can join hands to carry out humble, and nevertheless innovative ideas.

No matter the “size” of an innovative idea, it is important to reinforce the “evidence-based” dimension of a social innovation and this has been good for value alignment. For example, the design of The Market Lab prototypes was derived from issues identified in our “community understanding” phase of the lab.

The design of the lab process will also affect its outcome and hence impact of the “innovation”.

We thank the IUP team for highlighting to us the effectiveness of a quicker cyclical approach, which we have subsequently used in the Local Tourism Lab (Jan to July 2021). A 3-cycle experience of looping community understanding, ideation and prototyping was carried out, allowing for empathy and network building, gradual immersion into the community and constant testing and combination of ideas. We together with labbers found the cyclical process beneficial as it enhances the experimental mindset.

To answer our question above, social innovation is not just defined in accordance with scale and magnitude but, through meaningful co-creation in lab processes, also rope together cross sector enthusiasts to identify the salient issues and collaborate, with a view to arrive at powerful solutions.

32

Finally, how could small prototypes evolve into sustainable models?

We sow seeds on the idea of experiments and co-creation in civil society and government.

During the lab process, we have not spent too much time pondering sustainability.

Without opportunities to prototype, pivot and improve, it is too early yet to discuss sustainability.

We find that changes often happen in unexpected ways after we have completed our social labs as public sector innovations take time and need a myriad of conditions including visionary leadership to ferment and grow.

Two years after the end of Healthy Street Lab, the Transport Department approached us to collaborate in what has become Healthy Street Lab 2.0 to co-create safe and enjoyable streets in a school zone in Sham Shui Po. Three years following The LIBoratory Project, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department commissioned MaD to carry out a year-long project called Pick-a-Booket to better curate children's books in public libraries for families with children aged 3-8. These two labs emerged from the first stage prototypes explored in The LIBoratory Project as well as Healthy Street Lab 1.0, and we had the valuable opportunity to further develop those ideas together with committed civil servants.

After the end of The Market Lab, a few keen labbers were eager to continue with their prototypes and deepened their ideas as a mini-social lab. By collaborating with academics and community organisations, they ran a six-month project to explore pop-up markets on vacant sites to foster community-based economy. They co-created a regular Pop-up Market Design & Planning Toolkit and implemented a real pop-up market in Sham Shui Po. When bigger changes are yet to happen, cross sector champions can continue to test small innovations using their creativity. We will continue to be a catalyst to facilitate young people with motivation, knowhow and resources to make positive change and that in itself will contribute to the sustainability of the social innovation movement.

We thank the IUP team once again, and also the hundreds of labbers and collaborators who supported the social lab process in the last 5 years. Your views and insights are not only valuable to JC MaD Social Lab’s future development but will inform more labs and social experiments to come.