Mixed feelings about bottom-up community engagement among lab fellows from government offices

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.

Althoughcontactstaffofthepartnerorganizations didnotplayanactiveroleinthe 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 forany 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 endeavorto introducechangewithin thepublicservicesystem, thesocial labproject 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 thecommunityengagement 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

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