Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbs200y [2016/07/20 11:36] – balleyne | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbs200y [2019/02/28 21:34] – balleyne | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | p====== PBS200Y: Towards a Theory of Change: Pro-Life Strategy FTW ====== | + | ====== PBS200Y: Towards a Theory of Change ====== |
- | ===== 1. The Problem: Widespread Acceptance of Abortion | + | FIXME post updated version of presentation? |
- | From [[http:// | + | ===== Introduction: A Forest Fire ===== |
- | * Abortion Statistics: widespread acceptance and wounds | + | {{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:deerfire_high_res_edit.jpg?300|}} |
- | * Public Opinion polls: while most Canadians support //some// restrictions on abortion, very few Canadians are opposed to //all// abortions -- most are in the mushy middle | + | |
- | * Fence-sitters: | + | |
- | * The Pro-Abortion Movement: | + | |
- | * Effective at framing the issue as a matter of choice and a woman' | + | |
- | * Bubble zones, vandalism, disrupting events, censorship, club status, etc. | + | |
- | * institutional support: governments, | + | |
- | * Funding: even Morgentaler brought in an estimate $11 million one year, or Warren Buffet donated $21 million to pro-abortion groups another year; most pro-lifers are unpaid volunteers | + | |
- | ===== 2. An Analysis of Pro-life Responses ===== | + | We know the problem.(([[http:// |
+ | |||
+ | Abortion advocates frame the issue using choice and women' | ||
+ | |||
+ | We're facing a forest fire. How should we respond? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== A Goal ===== | ||
+ | When facing a forest fire, what's the goal? To put out the fire, and keep everyone you can safe in the meantime. Not to build a memorial while the fire is still raging. Not to raise awareness about the need to fight forest fires. Not to raise awareness about the harmful effects of smoke inhalation. Not to hold a fire-fighting volleyball tournament. Or to make the presence of the firefighters known, so people know there are some of us that fight fires. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The goal should be to put the fire out. And to save anyone who's in danger in the meantime. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * http:// | ||
+ | * Volleyball tournaments | ||
+ | * a pro-life club doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | We need to be goal-oriented. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Theory of Action vs Theory of Change ===== | ||
+ | ==== Theory of Action ==== | ||
+ | // Video that explains theory of change and uses the analogy of building a wardrobe without a manual: https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Our pro-life efforts too often have a theory of action. We look around us and think, what //actions// can we do to accomplish our goals? What can we do that could abolish abortion? Let’s recriminalize abortion, just change the law back. Write your MP, write a blog post, go on social media, march, hold a sign, hand out some pamphlets, hold a conference, host a speaker, put some posters or ads up. These are all actions we can do as we look around us. Some of these actions might reach people and change their minds, or even save lives. None of these scattered actions will fundamentally change anything. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Problems === | ||
+ | |||
+ | :?: **Question: | ||
+ | |||
+ | A theory of action works forwards, to pick from immediate actions available to see if you can move forward to the goal, but without tracing a clear path to the goal: | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME //why// is a theory of action insufficient? | ||
+ | * no clear path to goal | ||
+ | * no solid way of evaluating where our actions fit into the vision | ||
+ | |||
+ | > By having a clear plan, pro-life organizations are vision-driven instead of crisis-driven. By having a clear plan, prolifers can frame the debate and map out a winning strategy to make abortion unthinkable. By having a clear plan, pro-life organizations are able to properly evaluate how certain activities fit into that bigger picture((CCBR Handbook p. 17)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME transition | ||
+ | |||
+ | Well, that’s because we’re outnumbered, | ||
+ | |||
+ | No amount of spitting into the ocean will cause a sea-change. | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME cargo cult copying | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Theory of Change ==== | ||
+ | We don't need a better theory of action; a theory of action isn't good enough. We need a theory of change. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A theory of action works // | ||
+ | |||
+ | A theory of change works // | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME theory of action says "what can I do?" whereas theory of change says "what do I need to do?" | ||
+ | Some rough skeletal (simplifying, | ||
+ | * Goal: An abortion-free Canada | ||
+ | * **CCBR:** make abortion unthinkable, | ||
+ | * make people more horrified by abortion than by its alternatives | ||
+ | * make the injustice of abortion visible | ||
+ | * show people photos of abortion victims | ||
+ | * __action:__ use " | ||
+ | * __action:__ deliver postcards to student houses | ||
+ | * __action:__ use abortion victim photography in presentations | ||
+ | * convince people through dialogue that abortion is an injustice | ||
+ | * discover the most effective dialogue strategies and arguments | ||
+ | * make a case that abortion is a human rights violation | ||
+ | * __action:__ run seminars and workshops to equip volunteers with pro-life apologetics | ||
+ | * __action:__ have practice dialogue | ||
+ | * __action:__ debrief after conversations to help each other improve and share new ideas | ||
+ | * make abortion illegal, so people can't choose it | ||
+ | * pro-life legislation needs to be passed | ||
+ | * pro-life legisation needs to be proposed | ||
+ | * **We Need A Law**: we need to lobby for pro-life public policy that's supported by the public | ||
+ | * propose ideas to legislators | ||
+ | * identify what pro-life laws would have public support | ||
+ | * __action:__ polling | ||
+ | * __action:__ SimpleMail to let politicians know | ||
+ | * find legislators who might be willing | ||
+ | * __action:__ talking to legislators | ||
+ | * **Right Now**: pro-life politicians need to be elected FIXME https:// | ||
+ | * nominate pro-life politicians | ||
+ | * join local riding association boards | ||
+ | * identify pro-lifers in each riding | ||
+ | * __action:__ door-knocking | ||
+ | * make abortion unnecessary, | ||
+ | * provide material support to those facing difficult pregnancies | ||
+ | * FIXME CPC | ||
+ | * alleviate the economic pressures that lead people to choose abortion | ||
+ | * fund more social programs? | ||
+ | * convince parties to put these social programs in their platforms | ||
+ | * convince candidates/ | ||
+ | * pass policies at party conventions | ||
+ | * get more pro-lifers registered and active with parties | ||
+ | |||
+ | If you're fighting a forest fire, you need a plan. You need a vision of how you'd going to bring it under control and put it you. Trying to end abortion with a scattered pro-life theory of action is like trying to put out a forest fire with a watergun. We need a real plan with a path to success, a plan that might actually work. | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME ETK plan summary | ||
+ | FIXME post-CLC pro-life politics summary | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME http:// | ||
+ | * importance of balance between a clear, structured vision/ | ||
+ | * or 300-level strategy seminar? ("this is not a charitable cause" | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== An Analysis of Pro-life Responses ===== | ||
Three approaches: | Three approaches: | ||
- __Pastoral (Service): | - __Pastoral (Service): | ||
Line 19: | Line 116: | ||
All three approaches are necessary, but the success of the first two depends on the success of the third. If public opinion doesn' | All three approaches are necessary, but the success of the first two depends on the success of the third. If public opinion doesn' | ||
- | > Imagine there is a building on fire with people trapped inside. The most obvious need is for firefighters to put out the fire and rescue those in harm's way. But when their job ends, many other jobs are just beginning: paramedics need to provide on scene care; physicians need to diagnose and treat the wounded; nurses need to implement the required care; law enforcement officers need to investigate the origins of the fire and respond to any foul play; parents and educators need to teach children the dangers of playing with fire. All approaches are necessary and no one would criticize firefighters, | + | > Imagine there is a [forest |
- | Is any one of these approaches more central than the others? When there' | + | :?: **Question: |
> The success of one approach very much depends on the success of another: if firefighters do not rescue people, the medical care at a hospital’s burn unit will go unused -- no matter how impressive it is. | > The success of one approach very much depends on the success of another: if firefighters do not rescue people, the medical care at a hospital’s burn unit will go unused -- no matter how impressive it is. | ||
Line 39: | Line 136: | ||
* More effective political action is needed | * More effective political action is needed | ||
* incrementalism | * incrementalism | ||
- | * reversing direction: illegal > regulated > unregulated | + | * [[https:// |
+ | * illegal > regulated > decriminalized | ||
+ | * decriminalized | ||
* broad political coalitions, less idea bundling | * broad political coalitions, less idea bundling | ||
- | * e.g. compare Right Now and WNAL to CLC and AFLO | + | * new political |
- | * Could do a whole critical analysis of the political | + | |
- | * Instead, take a look at what WNAL or Right Now are doing, | + | |
==== The Prophetic Approach ==== | ==== The Prophetic Approach ==== | ||
- | > Within the specific task of firefighting, there are different ways to put out a fire. Some methods (firehoses) are more effective than others (ice cream buckets). In the same way, while it is important to respond to abortion from a number of ways (pastoral, political, prophetic), within each approach, there are more effective and less effective activities. Prophetic activists, just like firefighters, | + | > Within the specific task of [fighting a forest fire], there are different ways to put out a fire. Some methods ([waterbombers]) are more effective than others ([waterguns]). In the same way, while it is important to respond to abortion from a number of ways (pastoral, political, prophetic), within each approach, there are more effective and less effective activities. Prophetic activists, just like firefighters, |
The goal is not to just "do something, do anything." | The goal is not to just "do something, do anything." | ||
Line 69: | Line 166: | ||
* Media | * Media | ||
* An ad: The ad shows a split screen where two seeds are planted. On one side the seed is dug up, and thus destroyed; on the other side the seed grows into a flower, with pictures of babies and children and the simple words, " | * An ad: The ad shows a split screen where two seeds are planted. On one side the seed is dug up, and thus destroyed; on the other side the seed grows into a flower, with pictures of babies and children and the simple words, " | ||
- | * Pro-life leader said: this "show the truth about abortion" | + | * Pro-life leader said: this "shows the truth about abortion" |
* Removing a seed from soil doesn’t even come close to conveying abortion’s destructiveness. [...] If we were trying to convey to an indifferent public that butchering Tutsis in Rwanda was wrong, would we show pictures of smiling Tutsis on one side of a screen while on the other a seed was removed from soil? Or what if we lived during the time of the Holocaust? If we wanted to show the truth about the Holocaust would we show people a seed removed from soil or a Jew killed by Nazis? | * Removing a seed from soil doesn’t even come close to conveying abortion’s destructiveness. [...] If we were trying to convey to an indifferent public that butchering Tutsis in Rwanda was wrong, would we show pictures of smiling Tutsis on one side of a screen while on the other a seed was removed from soil? Or what if we lived during the time of the Holocaust? If we wanted to show the truth about the Holocaust would we show people a seed removed from soil or a Jew killed by Nazis? | ||
- __Idea Bundling:__ If we are blending a number of moral issues in our campaign, is that helping or hindering our ability to win converts? | - __Idea Bundling:__ If we are blending a number of moral issues in our campaign, is that helping or hindering our ability to win converts? | ||
Line 75: | Line 172: | ||
* You had one problem... now you have like eight | * You had one problem... now you have like eight | ||
* e.g. Campaign Life Coalition "Other Issues" | * e.g. Campaign Life Coalition "Other Issues" | ||
- | * e.g. PLAGAL and the US March for Life | + | * e.g. PLAGAL and the US March for Life((http:// |
- __Frequency: | - __Frequency: | ||
- | * A lot of pro-life activities are annual. If we were in Nazi Germany, would an annual protest against the Holocaust be an effective way of offering opposition? Or would our actions support or undermine our claims to observers, would they really believe that we believe what we say we believe based on our actions? | + | * A lot of pro-life activities are annual. If we were in Nazi Germany, would an annual |
- __Proactive Responses: | - __Proactive Responses: | ||
* If abortion advocates hold a rally or conference, pro-lifers will protest it. If abortion advocates advance pro-abortion legislation, | * If abortion advocates hold a rally or conference, pro-lifers will protest it. If abortion advocates advance pro-abortion legislation, | ||
* e.g. frequent AFLO or EPC emails | * e.g. frequent AFLO or EPC emails | ||
- | * Who's setting the agenda? Pro-lifers need a //clear plan//, not just a series of reactions to current events or move from abortion advocates | + | * Who's setting the agenda? Pro-lifers need a //clear plan//, not just a series of reactions to current events or move from abortion advocates. Chasing online polls isn't going to change the culture. |
* We need to be // | * We need to be // | ||
* Plus, we need to be focused on those who are persuadable -- often times reactive moves are targeted about abortion advocates, who are far less likely to be persuaded anyways, versus pro-actively targeted the mushy middle or mobilizing latent pro-lifers | * Plus, we need to be focused on those who are persuadable -- often times reactive moves are targeted about abortion advocates, who are far less likely to be persuaded anyways, versus pro-actively targeted the mushy middle or mobilizing latent pro-lifers | ||
- | * FIXME Students for Choice Dec 2015 example | + | * FIXME Students for Choice Dec 2015 or Sept 2016 RSU examples |
+ | * FIXME Briarpatch article(( " | ||
- __Cost-Effectiveness: | - __Cost-Effectiveness: | ||
* e.g. RTL newsletters, | * e.g. RTL newsletters, | ||
Line 98: | Line 196: | ||
* spending huge amounts of money is still important, e.g. delivering 1 million postcards | * spending huge amounts of money is still important, e.g. delivering 1 million postcards | ||
- | ===== 3. Towards a Theory of Change | + | ===== Discussion |
- | Too much pro-life activity is based on a theory of action; we just do whatever we can think of doing, without much though to how it will accomplish our goals, whether or not it will be effective, or even what our goals are. | + | Compare |
- | + | * Pro-Life ads | |
- | Pro-life political campaign to spend $10,000 printing posters | + | * {{: |
- | * Who's the target audience? The general public, who need to be converted? Or the already-converted, who need to be activated and motivated to contact their MP? //Nobody// in the mushy middle is going to see a poster and suddenly feel compelled to talk to their MP about a contentious issue like abortion. | + | * {{: |
- | * What's the messaging, and who is it designed to appeal to? | + | * Pro-Life Postcards |
- | * What's the distribution plan? How do we know how much money to spend and material to print? | + | * Guelph Right to Life: http://www.guelphforlife.com/blog/?p=304 |
- | * Do any of these groups have experience with these projects? | + | * Ultrasound but no AVP; mostly irrelevant born children |
- | * Do we have any operations guidance, or are we just giving them materials and hoping they can effective manage volunteers, look up information on by-laws, train volunteers for dialogue, handle media requests, etc.? | + | * Weak argument |
- | * Nevermind the website and blacklisting and awkwardness and unprofessional approach... | + | * Addressed |
- | + | * CCBR | |
- | ==== Theory of Change ==== | + | * AVP, before/ |
- | We don't need a better theory of action; we need a theory of // | + | * human rights |
- | * Theory of action: you work forwards by looking around at the things you know how to do and picking one that might accomplish your goal | + | * delivered to homes across |
- | * let's march | + | * Outreach Activities |
- | * let's hold signs, write clever slogans | + | * Life Chain / " |
- | * let's write newsletters, | + | * 40 Days for Life |
- | * let's print thousands of posters and send them out organizations | + | * Postcarding |
- | * let's poll people to see what they think about a smattering of vague questions related to life issues | + | FIXME "**If (insert activity) saves even 1 life, isn't it worth it?**" |
- | * even worse is cargo cult copying... | + | * We're all in agreement that the saving |
- | * Theory of change: work // | + | * Blaise (re: HUSH but applies |
- | * goal: to abolish abortion (long-term), | + | |
- | * make abortion unthinkable, so people won't choose it | + | |
- | * make people more horrified by abortion than by its alternatives | + | |
- | * make the injustice of abortion visible | + | |
- | * show people photos of abortion victims | + | |
- | * use " | + | |
- | * use the truck to bring photos to drivers | + | |
- | * use victim imagery in presentations | + | |
- | * have conversations about the morality of abortion with people to convince them its a human rights violation | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * make the humanity | + | |
- | * implement ultrasound laws and waiting periods | + | |
- | * make abortion | + | |
- | * are there any legislative initiatives | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * make abortion inaccessible, | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * alleviate the economic pressures | + | |
- | * fund more social programs? | + | |
- | * convince parties to put these social programs | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * get more pro-lifers registered and active with parties | + | |
- | * prevent more unwanted pregnancies | + | |
- | * better sex education? | + | |
- | * improve medical technology so pregnancy is easier, or so there are non-life-ending ways to end pregnancy | + | |
- | * too science fiction, no short-term leads here, but maybe long-term scientific research opportunities | + | |
- | ==== A Better Approach ==== | + | * That any given action has the potential |
- | FIXME is this a good example? Confusing with election outcomes? Hard to go through in detail? | + | |
- | FIXME UTSFL CC example? As local implementation of ETK plan? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | The #No2Trudeau campaign.((Here' | + | |
- | - "we wanted to expose Justin Trudeau’s position on freedom of conscience because we genuinely believe that a lot of traditional Liberal voters are pro-life and they need to be alerted to the fact that the Liberals are not only not pro-life, but that they now disallow pro-life members from their caucus. Which is something most people are unaware of outside of the Ottawa bubble. Our target audience are the enormous numbers of Canadians who haven’t been exposed to abortion, who have no idea what’s going on and furthermore were not aware of the fact that if they vote Liberal they are de facto voting | + | |
- | - "The second goal was to show Canadian citizens the reality of abortion and what abortion does to the victims and we accomplished that to the tune of one million Canadians. So the goal was political and educational." | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Then, think about the media coverage they earned. It didn' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | > One million households received these anti-abortion flyers with this information on the back. Lot’s of earned media was produced, but most of the stories from the blitz resulted in “outrage at the images” angles like this one on Global television. Volunteers worked incredibly hard to reach their goal of delivering these brochures before the writ was dropped and third-party advertising laws dropped into place. They garnered even more earned media with Canada Post refusing to deliver the last of the bunch as the election started. Amongst all the media noise, the main purpose of the campaign was forgotten by reporters: criticising the Liberal position and informing the electorate about abortion. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Also, at a // | + | |
- | > "We have internal polling that shows that people in the ridings that receive the postcards are tremendously impacted on the issue of abortion. We tested this project multiple times before we took it to this big of a scale. We delivered just shy of 500,000 postcards between 2012-2014. Pre and post campaign polling showed that 42.3% of people who received the postcards found their view of abortion had been negatively affected. Because of the success we saw on a small scale we were able to take it to the biggest scale that we were capable of with the resources we had at our disposal." | + | |
- | + | ||
- | This project was developed strategically using a theory of change, not a theory of action. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | How can every pro-life project be given the same strategic consideration? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ====== PBS201H: The Problem and an Analysis of Pro-Life Response ====== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | FIXME main points from CCBR strategy document | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Compare and critique strengths and weaknesses: | + | |
- | * {{: | + | |
- | * {{: | + |