Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change. Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns: they led to political change 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests.

Why is it important to make sure that emerging media and communications technologies are created by people from a wide variety of backgrounds and identities? The media we consume has an enormous impact on our perception of reality. With this toolkit, we are trying to achieve something that humans have not yet achieved in the history of mass media — fair and equitable representation of the world’s stories and images.

Forward-thinking public health professionals are reaching across sectors to build healthier communities. Recognizing that effective collaboration advances everyone’s mission, Public Health Reaching Across Sectors (PHRASES) supports an “all-hands-on-deck” approach with tools to build communication skills and strategies designed for success.

Launching and sustaining effective collaborations and networks requires that we pay constant attention to five activities: Clarifying purpose Convening the right people Cultivating trust Coordinating existing activities Collaborating for systems impact

Collection of thinking tools and frameworks to help you solve problems, make decisions and understand systems.

To maximize the impact of Zika prevention programming efforts, a prioritization process for social and behavior change programming was developed based on a combination of research evidence and programmatic experience. Prioritized behaviors were: application of mosquito repellent, use of condoms, removing unintentional standing water, covering and scrubbing walls of water storage containers, seeking prenatal care, and seeking counseling on family planning if not planning to get pregnant.

At BehaviourWorks, we often prioritise behaviours using the Impact-Likelihood Matrix (figure below). In this approach, behaviours are prioritised by mapping them based on: The impact they have on the problem they are intended to address. The likelihood of the target audience adopting the behaviour.

MeasureD is a resource for anyone wanting to understand, measure, and scale the impact of social design in order to strengthen society and create the conditions for equitable human health. It is intended to represent the highest level of practice and help organizations and practitioners understand where, when, and how social design is most effective. includes case studies

To maximize the impact of Zika prevention programming efforts, a prioritization process for social and behavior change programming was developed based on a combination of research evidence and programmatic experience. Prioritized behaviors were: application of mosquito repellent, use of condoms, removing unintentional standing water, covering and scrubbing walls of water storage containers, seeking prenatal care, and seeking counseling on family planning if not planning to get pregnant.

We realized we were using insider language to describe innovation (as exemplified by internal blog post titles like “Using GIS Technology to Map Shelter Allocation in Azraq Refugee Camp”), rather than communicating what innovation looks like and the benefits it would bring to UNHCR staff (for example, “How UNHCR Used Creativity to Improve Journalistic Accuracy and Collaboration, One Step at a Time”). So, we hit the reset button and asked ourselves these four questions before crafting our internal communications strategy: What do we want to change? What do we want to be true that isn’t true right now? Whose behavior change is necessary to making that happen? Who has to do something (or stop doing something) they’re not doing now for us to achieve that goal? (This is about targeting a narrowly defined audience whose action or behavioral change is fundamental to your goal.) What would that individual or group believe if they took that action? In other words, what does that narrowly defined audience care about most, and how can we include that in our messages? How will we get that message in front of them? Where are their eyes?

Context analysis helps you to understand the elements of an environment and a group of potential users so that you can design a better technology project. It should involve key stakeholders, including implementing partners, donors, local and national authorities, and community members. We suggest five key lines of inquiry that context analyses should consider: People: Levels of education and literacy, information habits and needs, access to disposable income for equipment, electrical power to charge devices, and airtime and data to run them, and network access; Community: How membership of specific groups may affect access to technology and communications habits. For example, a nomadic clan may have attributable characteristics shared by its members, and variations in levels of access and freedom within the clan differentiated by gender and age. Market environment: An understanding of the key players, legal and regulatory issues, the mobile market, including both cost and distribution of agent networks, and the infrastructure, including commercial mobile infrastructure such as the availability of short-codes and APIs are all critical to making good design decisions. Political environment: understanding governance and control of, and access to, communications infrastructure by government and other actors Implementing organization: Many interventions have failed because staff were not able to maintain technology, because power or access to internet were not strong enough, because staff capacity was low or went away, or because the intervention was not supported by a broader culture of innovation and adaptive learning.

Well, if we want to sway other people to our “correct“ vision of things, we are most likely to do that by having a strong relationship with them. Ironically, it is through carefully and compassionately listening to others that we are more likely to sway their views.

In part four, we looked at the difference between hierarchical and collaborative conversations. Now we bring it all together and ask, “What can we do?” The answer is, a lot. There are, as it turns out, many solutions to how we can do a better job of talking to each other, and any one of these are approaches you can try in your own lives or organizations.

original “jobs to be done“ article from 2008