Theory of Change Exercise
- We'll begin an exercise to imagine some potential outcomes of our working model and identify the assumptions underlying those outcomes.
Meeting Summary
Decisions Made (pending approval from absent partners)
- Dissolution of the Launch Event Working Group.
- Approved a modified version of the recommendation around activities and decisionmaking. Modified version includes a decision-making role for the full CEC in identifying high-level goals for this quarter’s activities.
A full written version of both recommendations can be viewed here:
UPDATED Recommendations for April 8 CEC Meeting.docx
Next Steps:
- Activity leads will continue convening working groups/task groups to work on landscape analysis + keep developing listening sessions
- Openfields will follow up with those who were not present at meeting to record their votes on both recommendations
- Openfields will circulate a draft document of high-level goals for activities, for input by CEC representatives, to be followed by a vote at the April 22 meeting
- Openfields to set up a future meeting to continue to developing the Theory of Change hypotheses
Meeting Discussion
Discussion around recommendations
- There are a number of core partners not present today. Those who aren’t in attendance today, we will follow up with to get their vote and/or see if they have any reservations moving forward with decisions made.
- Molly emailed Blessing and was able to view and approves recommendations.
- Chris also approves recommendations.
Rec 1: Dissolve the Launch Event Working Group
Fist-to-Five vote initiated. APPROVED to dissolve the launch event work group.
Rec 2: Decision-making roles within working groups
Jessi: struggling with be informed groups not having any power in decision-making. Fine with day-to-day decisions but with the high-level decisions do we all need to be on the same page with the overarching goals of the work.
Amy: We could add a potential clause around if high-level goals change that the group needs to be informed.
Jessi: Mostly just the relationship mapping, systems mapping, and landscape analysis. We have had some conversations but we haven’t really discussed more in-depth the goals around each of those activities.
Kelli, Blessing: Agrees. It may be more difficult to get further down the road and then realize that there wasn’t alignment.
Proposed modification to Recommendation 2: The Executive Committee will have the decision-making power to approve goals for the activity before leads are then given the decision-making power to proceed with designing it. This full recommendation will hold for the current quarter (April-June) and be reevaluated after.
Fist-to-Five vote initiated. APPROVED. We will still need to follow up with those absent to get their votes on modifications to recommendation.
Theory of Change (TOC) discussion:
MCFR TOC Hypotheses.docx
“If MCFR does [activity], it will lead to [outcome] because……”
- Education/Readiness: If we increase awareness on the importance, need for, value of community-driven research, then we begin to create buy-in communities and researchers to engage.
- Skill building can be a part of this same statement too.
- If we build skills, we will see more community and researcher engagement in CEnR, because they will be more “bought in” to CEnR as an approach.
- If MCFR does collaboration and influence, then there will be outcome 1. Because, researchers will learn the needs and experiences among community stakeholders and community stakeholders can see what have been done or how researchers can be helpful in what way. ( Thinking about listening sessions and potential activities following up with that)
- Collaboration: If we provide space, time, resources, support, funding for researchers and communities to engage and build relationships then it will lead to more collaborations