Since I last wrote, things have been rocking and rolling here in Portland.  Mainly, I’ve been spending my time going back and forth, and back and forth again, about the re-messaging process I am leading. It’s been a somewhat arduous task, to be honest, mainly because there are many voices which need to be heard and who need to be on board with the direction we take. Coordination of that often-disagreeing input has been quite a challenge. Nonetheless, I am happy to report that we have made a decision as a group and I am now in the implementation process. Introducing…

After hearing initial input from the leadership and core teams about desired messaging, I put together three “alternative messaging packages” to present during a focus group to end users made of project partners. The alternatives included a name, tagline, and pitch, plus a vision board of sorts of understand the desired personality of the project. On the surface, they were all very similar, but there were intentional nuances in word choice to try and tease out the true tone and voice. I wrote one alternative, for example, using project jargon to understand how far to “agency-speak” we could go.

We had about 15 people phone in for the digital focus group, and we had a lively discussion about their reactions to the alternatives. I also presented an infographic I created which attempts to explain the high-level intention of the project. The infographic below is refined to include feedback from the participants. This is meant to be used at events to introduce the CCLC without getting bogged down in details or technical lingo.

Based on what I heard in the focus group, along with the ongoing conversations with the leadership team, we eventually came to the voting portion of the process. It took quite a bit of conversation to decide the actual name, a dilemma which actually highlighted the core messaging issues we originally started with. There was not total consensus about the “Cascades to Coast” part, for example, because technically, the project is not operating in the Willamette Valley between the Oregon Cascades and Coast. So, the name in that one section of the geographic area would be false. This opened a much larger can of worms about the intended versus actual geographic scope. Similarly, whether to include Landscape or Conservation before Collaborative was really very split, and this further highlights a philosophical discussion about the audiences we are hoping to engage. Some felt that Conservation would turn off foresters and other landowners (because sometimes conservation has a connotation that it is off-limits), whereas others felt strongly that foresters thought of themselves as conservationists, so we should include it. This went back and forth for days. Ultimately, a democratic vote happened, and Landscape won out.

I recruited and worked with a local graphic designer to create the logo, which was meant to “convey connectivity.” Even though it may be a simple image which some may look past, I think these kind of visual cues signal to the observer whether they want to spend any more time or energy with it. At this point, with just a week and half left of my placement, I am putting the clarified personality of this organization together into outreach materials like a refined website and informational handouts. We have a webinar next week with 80 registrants giving an update to the project, and then an in-person workshop the following week where we will put these items to the test. I’m making several infographics to translate complex Open Standards-Miradi conceptual models into digestible visuals, and have been very vocal with my colleagues about how to communicate with their desired audiences.

In addition to these outputs, I am creating a “Partner Engagement Guide” for the team, which will include three components: a refined communications strategy (last updated in 2016), a style guide (with things like typography, color scheme, and photography usage), and also programmatic and outreach structure suggestions. These pages will include suggestions and structure (and a literature review and resources where appropriate) for the existing and future programs the CCLC is leading. These events are all in an effort to bring people together to collaborate on regional conservation, but so far, in the words of my supervisor Tom, it has been an ad-hoc jazz show, and this structure will help to make it more of an organized symphony.

The topics I will address in this guide (in brief 1/2-1 page sections) include suggestions for the:

• Sub-regional structure, or breaking the larger region into four sub-regions, which will help to engage citizens more locally
• Use of Open Standards, a step-by-step process of sorts recommending the ways they might utilize Miradi and the OS to understand outcomes of workshop discussions, decide which programs align with overall targets, and track progress and effectiveness based on results chains
• Protocol for sub-regional workshops and speaker series, the in-person events they hold throughout the region to bring together partners
• Social Network Analysis usage, focusing on following up on the data they gathered in 2017 and also considering how they might use data to better understand their network of partners
• Staffing Structure, mainly to emphasize that they sorely need someone focused on outreach or program management, because they are clearly at a point of growth and will likely not have the capacity to engage people consistently without this focused effort
• Funding opportunities, as this is a main concern for the item above, and the federal government budget which originally created this project is fragile.

Some Surprises Along the Way

• We attended a day-long meeting in Olympia which, to the surprise of the organizers, ended up focusing mainly on citizen science as a key way to engage the public, as well as how we might shift the messaging around environmental issues in our larger society. Needless to say, I was very much into this meeting and chimed in quite a bit from my “social science” hat.
• This summer experience has been an unpaid experience, until my awesome supervisor Tom found a way to grant an “award” to help with my summer expenses. What a gift!
• (More of a reminder, really) Everyone has an opinion, and everyone likes to have the last word. In so many conversations this summer, I have been reminded that presence in a conversation is key. Acknowledging someone’s input goes a long way to make them feel included and heard. People disagree and that is okay. Most people keep it professional. Sometimes levity is welcome.
• The SNA that I thought would be a main focus of my work has actually turned out to not be as useful as we thought. There was a desire to figure out what we could do with the data, but beyond creating the organized spreadsheet I talked about last blog, Tom and I have discovered that it is time to move on from that investment. I spoke with a few SNA experts, who echoed the data analysis I already did. Basically, I learned that a SNA is a snapshot in time, and the data we gathered in 2017 answered our questions at the time. But, the network has expanded and goals shifted, so to do anything more with that data at this point would be mid-guided.

Overall, this summer has clarified for me that my strengths lie in both big-picture strategy and implementation details. I like to do the exact process I did this summer – and in hindsight have done in many other experiences – take something a little unorganized, listen and understand it, identify its structure, and flesh out its process and implementation. That’s just what I did this summer, and it brings me much joy to think that this project will be much more successful because of the clarification they now have. Clarification about their core principles, external messaging, program structure, and assessment process.

 

P.S. In other news, I’ve accepted a job post-grad! I will be returning home to New Orleans to work as a Coastal Scientist with the USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center. Yahoo!