5.4 Redeveloping a discussion object

It is important to understand how a discussion object will be used and worked with in a face-to-face or online activity. When you have used a discussion object with stakeholders this provides you with an opportunity to reflect upon what did and did not work with these stakeholders. The equitable interaction with the object can exclude or enable interaction. The evidence typology (Figure 5.4) was itself designed so that it required different stakeholders to contribute to completing the table. Experiences (from data to knowledge) required migrants’ personal stories to complete these sections. The empirical research evidence required academic research evidence to complete. The procedural process sections required policy makers. The interpretive expert accounts required those people who had completed migration reviews, including media specialists.

Figure 5.3 A blank evidence typology table

However, as you can see from the table in Figure 5.4, when used in an Evidence Café it enabled only one side of the table to have preferential access to the object. This inspired the creation of an equitably designed evidence typology that could enable different stakeholders to sit around and access the object with equal access. It also focuses the participants on finding links between the different sides of the typology so that the joint ‘cloud’ focus is reached.

In Figure 5.4, you will see there are four pyramids (each an Evidence Pyramid) joined together from different angles. This allows people to sit around a table and contribute their own perspective/evidence to the whole. These could be, for example:

• a researcher adding in research knowledge
• a migrant giving their own experiences as story data
• an immigration officer giving information about Visa processes
• a government official providing expert informational accounts on decision making for policies.

This representation of the evidence typology discussion object allows participants to link findings between the different forms of evidence. For example, it supports stakeholders connect research knowledge with the migrants’ experiences, with the immigration officers’ visa processes or with the government officials’ decision making?

Maximise

Figure 5.4 The evidence typology

Show description|Hide description

A four-sided square pyramid viewed from above has been disassembled into four triangles representing each side of the pyramid. In the middle is a thought cloud. The four triangles are labelled Stories, Research, Expert Accounts and Processes to represent different possible types of evidence. Each of these triangles represents four ‘evidence pyramids’ (see previous image long description) with each triangle being sub-divded into three levels of analysis, moving from data at the outside, to information and finally knowledge closest to the centre.

Figure 5.4 The evidence typology

There are four types of evidence in the evidence typology:

• Empirical research: in-depth studies – e.g. local business surveys or academic migrant study.
• Experiential (stories): relevant situations and experiences – e.g. local entrepreneurs’ experiences of working with foreign companies.
• Procedural processes: processes, methods, ‘know-how’ – e.g. Kenyan immigration processes for capturing and categorising migrants.
• Expert interpretive analysis: how analysts interpret data, assign purpose and produce judgments – e.g. understanding migrant flows in the context of Kenya’s changing economic strategy.