What is the right way to come up with a campaign strategy?: Difference between revisions
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height: 195px;" | {| class="wikitable" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height: 195px;" | ||
|- style="height: 195px;" | |- style="height: 195px;" | ||
| style="width: 22.4903%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(187, 145, 183);" | Emily Thiessen (Climate Justice Victoria and Our Time Vancouver) <br> | | style="width: 22.4903%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(187, 145, 183);" | <span style="font-family: "times new roman", times;" >Emily Thiessen (Climate Justice Victoria and Our Time Vancouver) </span><br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| style="width: 77.5097%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" | | | style="width: 77.5097%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" | | ||
'' | <span style="font-family: "times new roman", times;" >'' | ||
<span>"When we did [our strategy process], we ended up just skipping Theory of Change entirely because we had to cut something (and it was fine) but if we did do it the plan was to set goals for the year first and then come up with a theory of change *for* each goal. I've found before that things get mushy and vague when we've *started* with Theory of Change. We did: | <span>"When we did [our strategy process], we ended up just skipping Theory of Change entirely because we had to cut something (and it was fine) but if we did do it the plan was to set goals for the year first and then come up with a theory of change *for* each goal. I've found before that things get mushy and vague when we've *started* with Theory of Change. We did: | ||
1. agree on the process | 1. agree on the process | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
3. power mapping | 3. power mapping | ||
4. campaign goals | 4. campaign goals | ||
5. timeline."</span>'''' | 5. timeline."</span>''''</span> | ||
|} | |} | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height: 195px;" | {| class="wikitable" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height: 195px;" | ||
|- style="height: 195px;" | |- style="height: 195px;" | ||
| style="width: 22.4903%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(187, 145, 183);" | Caitlin Chan (Climate Justice Montreal) <br> | | style="width: 22.4903%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(187, 145, 183);" | <span style="font-family: "times new roman", times;" >Caitlin Chan (Climate Justice Montreal) </span><br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| style="width: 77.5097%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" | | | style="width: 77.5097%; height: 195px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" | | ||
<span>"The general strategy for Theory of Change first is that filtering out is easier than adding in after. Perhaps, depending on the group situation, maybe starting in a specific root (goal) and sprouting out makes more sense."</span> | <span style="font-family: "times new roman", times;" >"The general strategy for Theory of Change first is that filtering out is easier than adding in after. Perhaps, depending on the group situation, maybe starting in a specific root (goal) and sprouting out makes more sense."</span> | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 21:04, 3 June 2022
A theory of change''' is "a strategic process by which we identify a winning approach to achieving positive change, and the specific milestones and tactics that are required to effect that change." - Ella Baker School of Organizing
If we put public pressure on the banks
then they will be forced to divest from fossil fuels
because they care what customers, especially young ones, think and their reputation will be threatened.
Asset mapping is "the general process of identifying and providing information about a community [or group's] assets, or the status, condition, behavior, knowledge, or skills that a person, group, or entity possesses, which serves as a support, resource, or source of strength to one’s self and others in the community [or group]." - Healthy City
Examples of questions that could be asked when developing an asset map are:
- How much time do we have?
- How many people are ready to move with us?
- How much money or other resources do we have?
- Relationships to leverage to get to influencers-decision makers? (journalists, politicians, community leaders etc.)
So which should come first?
If you're just starting off as a new group, or are starting from scratch in your strategic direction, we recommend starting with your theory of change first. This will ensure you know what you want to achieve before you dig into what you'll need and what's available to achieve it. Of course, you can always go back and revisit your theory of change if it's unrealistic based on your asset map. Typically, a theory of change should serve as a vision for your goals, where an asset map helps to build the objectives which describe how exactly change can be achieved.
Hub Community Responses
Emily Thiessen (Climate Justice Victoria and Our Time Vancouver)
|
"When we did [our strategy process], we ended up just skipping Theory of Change entirely because we had to cut something (and it was fine) but if we did do it the plan was to set goals for the year first and then come up with a theory of change *for* each goal. I've found before that things get mushy and vague when we've *started* with Theory of Change. We did: 1. agree on the process 2. asset mapping 3. power mapping 4. campaign goals 5. timeline."' |
Caitlin Chan (Climate Justice Montreal)
|
"The general strategy for Theory of Change first is that filtering out is easier than adding in after. Perhaps, depending on the group situation, maybe starting in a specific root (goal) and sprouting out makes more sense." |