Piece by piece: Collaborative mosaic-making for inclusive policy development
Creators: name: Watson, Chloe
name: Trust, The Wellcome
Publisher: name: F1000 Research Limited
Year: 2024

description: <i>This report sets out the findings from one of four projects commissioned by Wellcome Policy Lab to pilot creative approaches to policy development. In this project, Scientia Scripta led a coalition of partners to trial collaborative mosaic-making to help visualise policy challenges and problems in more creative ways.  <br>
<br>
<b>Report content</b></i><br>
<br>
This report was prepared as part of a project undertaken in response to a Request for Proposals in February 2023 from the Wellcome Trust’s Policy Lab. The competitive funding call was to prototype an ambitious, creative and experimental tool, method or approach that supports policy work. This report was written by Scientia Scripta, with contributions from Manchester Metropolitan University, Policy Connect and University College London (UCL).<br>
<br>
<b>Executive Summary</b><br>
<br>
Mosaics for Policy Development uses collaborative mosaic-making with sustainable materials. The method creates an open, safe and unintimidating environment where diverse voices can share their lived experiences, expertise and ideas. Instead of the conventional policy engagement formats such as roundtables, workshop attendees explore a topic by building mosaics together, selecting pieces that represent their stories and perspectives. The technique encourages people to share and listen to each other’s perspectives, explore similarities and differences, connect ideas and find new solutions.<br>
<br>
To evaluate the role and impact of collaborative mosaic-making in policy development, Scientia Scripta collaborated with Manchester Metropolitan University, Policy Connect and UCL, who each convened a workshop in different policy domains.<br>
<br>
We took an agile, iterative approach to the collaborative mosaic-making method, with four distinct learning cycles between September and November 2023. Each cycle involved planning and delivering a workshop followed by rapid evaluation and iteration of the technique and supporting materials.<br>
<br>
We used mixed methods evaluation to understand in which contexts, types of questions, projects or people the mosaic making process works best to produce novel insights to support policy development.<br>
<br>
Our evaluation drew from participant surveys and interviews, team retrospectives and journals, a learning log and semi-structured interviews. Our analysis showed that the mosaic-making process was most successful at:

 bringing people together to listen to each other’s perspectives, especially at the start of a project for early scoping and as “a good team building method”
 finding common ground and creating a shared vision of why and what action is needed on a particular topic or policy area
 encouraging people to connect on a personal level, forming the foundations for future collaboration • uncovering powerful metaphors and first-person testimony of the lived experience or practical realities of current or future scenarios.

The mosaic-making method encouraged behaviours such as being present (being focussed on and engaged in the here and now), active listening, feeling confident to share experiences, and collaboration. It enabled diverse groups of people to identify as individuals while working towards a common goal.<br>
<br>
Our evaluation also provided a wealth of insight on how to design and deliver effective Mosaics for Policy Development workshops. We provide advice on how to get the best out of collaborative mosaic-making at the end of this report.<br>
<br>
<b>Box: Generating a different kind of insight</b><br>
Compared to other techniques, we found it generated a different kind of policy insight. We found the method encouraged a focus on stakeholder relationships – how people could work better together and learn from each other and why this is important. It also made people reflect on their personal responsibility – not just looking at what needs to change in the wider system, but what they needed to do differently. The process elicited powerful metaphors to describe lived experiences, people’s working lives, and opportunities and challenges. Language was more concrete, with people talking about how things feel (e.g. like being hit by a brick) rather than using the abstract language usually associated with policy discussions.<br>
<br>
<b>What is Mosaics for Policy Development?</b><br>
Mosaics for Policy Development uses collaborative mosaic-making to create an open, safe and inclusive environment where diverse voices can share their lived experiences, expertise and ideas. It is derived from MetaMosaics®, a novel and inclusive workshop format that uses elements of serious play and embodied cognition. As an in-person, embodied technique, it helps people to be present and attentive as they handle mosaic pieces, responding to their texture, weight, shapes and history.<br>
<br>
The method uses serious play techniques, which Kenneth Gergen described as “a style of communicating that explores similarities and differences, not by deconstructing the other’s point of view, but by playfully exploring new combinations of perspectives for something fresh and useful” (summarised by Palus &amp; Horth, The Leader’s Edge). This ‘yes, and’ approach, combined with inclusive facilitation techniques, allows people to share half-formed ideas which others can build on.<br>
<br>
It is self-contained and can be adapted for diverse participants across ages, ethnicities, lived experiences, and abilities. In this pilot, the method was used to surface insights and ideas in a variety of policy topics.<br>
<br>
<b>Workshop elements</b><br>
The workshop elements used depended on the purpose and length of the workshop, but included the following:<br>
<br>
<b>Welcome and introductions</b><br>
We opened the session by inviting everyone to choose one mosaic piece and use it to introduce themselves in response to a question, e.g. where do you sit in relation to central government? In our pilot, people chose pieces for many reasons, such as colour, size, texture, shape, memories or feelings evoked. They used distance/proximity/orientation to describe relationships. For example, in one workshop, the facilitator used a piece of sea glass to describe how their role was to bring clarity to the question. In another, a tiny fragment of tile was used to denote how small a stake the person’s role currently had in the management of the problem and how far away they were from central government.<br>
<br>
<b>Workshop values </b><br>
We co-created a set of workshop values to govern the workshop, e.g. being respectful, being non-judgemental.<br>
<br>
<b>Individual mosaic making</b><br>
People were invited to build mini mosaics by themselves to answer a policy question (e.g. What does the landscape for indoor air quality currently look like?). There was no right or wrong way to do this – some people used pieces to represent different stakeholders, others to visualise a metaphor (e.g. a bridge to represent building connections between roles or a speech bubble to highlight the importance of dialogue) or to set out different stages in a process.<br>
<br>
<b>Small group mosaic-making</b><br>
2-4 people discussed their individual mosaics and combined their ideas to create a mosaic that visually conveyed their shared understanding of the policy question.<br>
<br>
<b>Whole group mosaic-making</b><br>
The whole group worked on a shared mosaic, taking elements from the small group mosaics to look at the same policy question or starting afresh and building a new mosaic to address key issues that surfaced in earlier parts of the workshop.<br>
<br>
<b>Key takeaways</b><br>
Each person chose a mosaic piece to represent an insight or action they would take away from the meeting. The method was most powerful when people remembered the meaning someone else in the group had ascribed to a particular piece, calling back to it and integrating it into a new mosaic. It showed that people had seen and heard what was important to that person.<br>
<br>
Synthesising across all our evaluation and observations, we noted how handling the sustainable mosaic pieces taps into senses, memories and other associations. These memories and emotions help people to connect on a more personal level. This shared humanity can establish common ground that forms the foundations for collaboration.<br>
<br>
<b>Project methodology</b><br>
<br>
<i><b>Project team and goal </b></i><br>
To develop and test the methodology, Scientia Scripta collaborated with Manchester Met, Policy Connect and UCL, who each convened a workshop (see page 19 for more details on the team) in different policy areas.<br>
<br>
Our project goal was to evaluate the role and impact of collaborative mosaic-making in policy development. We used mixed methods evaluation to understand in which contexts, types of questions, projects or people the mosaic-making process works best to produce novel insights to support policy development.<br>
<br>
We took an agile, iterative approach to the collaborative mosaic-making method, with four distinct learning cycles between September and November 2023. Each one involved workshop planning and delivery, rapid evaluation and iteration of the technique and supporting materials.<br>
<br>
All team members were committed to continuous improvement of the method by observing workshops and taking an active role in contributing to retrospectives and journaling. We also used an agile comms approach, with different team members blogging/posting on social media about the approach.<br>
<br>
<b>Box 1: A principled approach</b><br>
Developing and evaluating a new approach meant pushing ourselves out of our comfort zones and taking risks, but we didn’t want to do this at the expense of workshop attendees, whose wellbeing was our highest priority. As a team, we agreed to hold each other to account, making sure we followed two principles:

 We will have a high tolerance for risk in terms of how we approach and deliver the project 
 We will have a low tolerance for risk when it comes to the wellbeing of our workshop attendees

Team members captured how they pushed beyond their comfort zones in personal journal entries. Although we didn’t explicitly measure wellbeing, we sought to understand how included workshop participants felt in our feedback forms and follow-up (see p 10). We used inclusive facilitation techniques to create an environment where attendees felt safe and supported.<br>
<br>
<b>Box: Supporting materials</b>


 Interactive visual guide to the technique (Microsoft Sway) sent to participants in advance 
 Prototype video introduction to the technique shown at the start of the session
 Playbook that captures how to run a workshop
 Meeting checklists
 Resources such as invite emails, surveys, thank you postcards featuring a group mosaic

<b>Where the pilots took place</b><br>
We evaluated use of the method at different stages of the policy development process and on different policy issues [see PDF for full details]

 <b>Scientia Scripta 19 Sep 23</b> To familiarise team with technique and explore how it could be used in upcoming workshops
 <b>UCL 3 Oct 23</b> To break down silos and build connections between research and policy across climate and health disciplines
 <b>Policy Connect 19 Oct 23 </b>To understand the issues and policy solutions in the management of indoor air quality (IAQ)
 <b>Manchester Metropolitan University 9 Nov 23</b> To identify I-ASC project implementation policies and supporting materials benefitting young people and their families who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

<b>Measuring outcomes</b><br>
We used mixed methods to evaluate operational aspects of Mosaics for Policy Development workshop delivery, and workshop outcomes, such as the utility of mosaic-making to generate new policy insights and to foster inclusivity. Our evaluation approach is summarised in the table below. We used findings and insights from each workshop to iterate the approach, delivery and supporting materials for the subsequent learning cycle. [see PDF report for full details on elements below]

 Participant questionnaire
 Workshop observers
 Team member journals (all project team members)
 Semi-structured policy-maker interviews
 Retrospective (all project team members)
 Post workshop feedback form for all project team

<b>What we found</b><br>
The mosaics workshop felt more inclusive, supportive, and enjoyable than standard workshops Based on data from pre- and post-workshop Likert scores from surveys.<br>
<br>
Common themes emerged from participant surveys<br>
<br>
<b>Most-mentioned phrases in free-text responses (showing phrases mentioned 3 times or more in each question).</b><br>
<i><b>What new insights did you gain?</b></i><br>
Different perspectives; personal experiences; visual aspects provoked discussion<br>
<b><i>How did the workshop compare to others?</i></b><br>
Fun; Inclusive; Calm<br>
<b><i>What worked well?</i></b><br>
Equity of contributions; Time to Reflect<br>
<b><i>What could be better?</i></b><br>
More practical outcomes; Difficulty with larger group<br>
<br>
<b>Summary of high-level findings</b><br>
The visual aspect of the mosaic-making provoked discussion, allowing people to share their experiences and personal stories and to understand different perspectives.<br>
<br>
Our analysis shows that this technique was successful at:

 bringing people together to listen to each other’s perspectives, especially at the start of a project for scoping and as “a good team building method”
 finding common ground and creating a shared vision of why action is needed
 encouraging people to connect on a personal level, forming the foundations for collaboration
 uncovering powerful metaphors and first-person testimony.

In this limited pilot, we found the method was less successful at steering decision making, helping to narrow down multiple ideas, or creating a shared vision for action. Further work is needed to test the method for these scenarios (see Unanswered questions, p 17).<br>
<br>
Smaller workshop sizes worked better than larger ones. Our observations and participant feedback suggested that the group mosaic making was harder for people than individual or small group work, likely for the following reasons:

 larger group sizes make it difficult to remember the meanings given by attendees to their individual mosaic pieces – labels were helpful to keep track of meanings and metaphors, and to identify key themes
 larger group work occurred at the end of workshops when people were tired
 the question being answered in the group session was too broad
 decision-makers or people with agency to take or fund action were not present in room 
 participants had to get to grips with a new technique, use it to generate ideas, then switching to a more decisive mode, placing a large cognitive burden on attendees – dot voting on labels helped, but we did not always have space in the session for this step
 room configuration meant not everyone could see or reach the group mosaic
 reluctance to take apart other people’s mosaics.

Group mosaic-making was most successful in configuring a coalition of actors to inform further, specific policies (for example see: Addressing the hazy landscape of indoor air quality governance | Policy Connect).<br>
<br>
<b>Behaviours encouraged by the technique</b><br>
Analysis shows that the method promoted a range of behaviours among workshop attendees.<br>
<br>
<b>Active listening</b><br>
As shown by the pre-workshop Likert scores (p 11), many people feel that they are not fully listened to in workshops. This was further confirmed in workshops that included a short section to co-create workshop values; respectful listening was a key theme. In post-workshop surveys, 95% of respondents strongly agreed that they felt listened to in the mosaics workshops.<br>
<br>
The method was most powerful when people remembered the meaning someone had ascribed to a particular piece, referencing this meaning and integrating it into subsequent mosaics. This assured the originator that others had seen and heard their idea and recognised its importance to that person.<br>
<br>
<b>Feeling confident to share experiences and contribute fully</b><br>
The pre- and post-workshop Likert scores show that the technique helped people feel more confident to share experiences and that they could contribute fully. The inclusive facilitation techniques we used, for example making sure all voices were heard in the room at the start of the session, supported this sense of full contribution. All workshops started with a simple exercise in which people were invited to introduce themselves using a piece of mosaic. This was a particularly powerful way of generating more personal introductions.<br>
<br>
The openness and candour generated also allowed people to express things they might have been reluctant to acknowledge.<br>
<br>
<b>Working together towards a shared purpose</b><br>
The Likert scores show that the mosaics method helps the group work well together and fosters a sense of shared purpose. Attendees felt that the workshops were more democratic and participation more equal, partly because no one is an expert mosaic maker.<br>
<br>
This was picked up by workshop observers too, especially in the workshop involving an MP, where it was noted that the power dynamic was different. At a traditional round table event people tend to look at the MP chairing the session, whereas in mosaics workshops people look at each other.<br>
<br>
Being present The Likert scores and qualitative analysis show that people found the mosaics workshop more enjoyable than standard workshops. While the novelty of the method played a part in making it memorable and enjoyable, people responded well to the embodied nature of the exercises.<br>
<br>
The creative and tactile approach allowed people to be present.<br>
<br>
<b>Box 2: Opening up a personal dimension</b><br>
Opening up a personal dimension “[It] reconfirmed a lot of the points brought out by more traditional methods [but] it also brought in a different dimension. The practical and creative nature lowers inhibitions, and the fact that people were standing and moving helped people be more present. [This] opened up a personal dimension, and surfaced ideas such as individual political capital, how to make climate and health part of personal practice and what does it mean to me as an individual as part of my job rather than broader system questions. It also brought out the importance of relationships and networks. Some of the next steps arising from the workshop are to further develop the organisational relationships established in the workshop, and to develop opportunities to network for the attendees.”<br>
Katherine Welch, UCL<br>
See also Next steps for silo busting in climate change and health | by UCL Public Policy | Nov, 2023 | Medium<br>
<br>
<b>How the quality and type of outputs differed from standard formats<br>
<br>
Generating new ideas/insights</b><br>
When attendees shared their individual mosaics, the most common reaction was surprise at so many different responses to the same question. This then allowed the group to explore similarities and differences between their pieces. The survey responses suggest that the technique was better at generating new ideas than traditional methods, although it must be noted that there was one person who did not agree. The key output for the workshop they joined was building connections and foundations for future work, rather than generating new ideas, which may have contributed to the differing response.<br>
<br>
Since multiple perspectives are generated and the technique ensures all voices are heard, discussions are not framed by the first person to speak. One participant noted that the approach is more fluid and less permanent than other play approaches, so it is easier to build from and combine ideas from others. Observers also noted that people were more willing and confident to put halfformed ideas on the table, further evidence of the method’s inclusive and generative nature.<br>
<br>
In one workshop we successfully used mosaic pieces to vote, narrowing down ideas, and in another we used labels to group key themes. However, we often found that the highly generative nature of the technique made it harder to come to a clear prioritised set of actions (see Unanswered questions, p 17).<br>
<br>
<b>Box 3: Focusing on relationships and the part we play as individuals</b><br>
“There was a greater focus on stakeholder relations [than in more traditional formats, so] the discussion was steered into the more novel territory of the configuration of stakeholders, the coordination and collaboration between stakeholders and how that was represented by disconnectedness of the mosaic pieces, but also … how it ought to be governed. Participants also highlighted the importance of personal leadership in government and how there should be individual responsibility... and that’s an insight I don’t necessarily always see in standard policy roundtables.”<br>
Gaelan Komen, Policy Connect<br>
<br>
<b>Describing policy impact in metaphors that can resonate with policymakers</b><br>
The physical nature of the exercise meant that the language used was often more concrete, for example allowing people to express how it feels being on the receiving end of badly designed policy. Large pieces of mosaic were used to express “being hit by a brick”; stepped pieces showed how one person affected by policy felt they often took one step forward and two steps back. Metaphors like this can be used to create powerful personal testimony to share with policymakers.<br>
<br>
The pilot showed that the method empowers individuals to bring their emotions and stories into the discussion while at the same time removing conflict and emotion from the debate as people are focussing on objects not people.<br>
<br>
Talking about issues through objects also helped depersonalise people’s contributions, which led to people saying that the workshops felt calmer and more constructive.<br>
<br>
<b>Box 4: Enabling open and candid discussions</b><br>
“What stopped me in my tracks was the initial sense of how meaningless much of the policy documentation was [so] one of the novel insights was the sense that policy can be as much of a block as it can be a facilitator. [T]he comment about [policy being like] ‘being hit by a brick’ raised the challenge of how individual needs are accommodated within a policy that is made for a range of needs… the tension between individual needs and service delivery needs...This method allowed people to talk about it more overtly. The context allowed for openness and candour … because people were focusing on things on the table [which] people weren’t then polarized in response to. I think that [this polarisation] would have been more likely in a more traditional roundtable discussion.”<br>
Janice Murray, Manchester Metropolitan University<br>
<br>
<b>Unanswered questions</b><br>
A workshop is part of a process, not the process itself (A Pocket Guide to Effective Workshops, Alison Coward), and one workshop can’t solve everything. The nature of the six-month pilot and evaluation meant that we were unable to test the methodology in all policy scenarios. Further scenarios for testing include:

 Using mosaics to support technical discussions and systems thinking.
 Using mosaics as part of a longer multi-format workshop or a series of workshops: 
 
 Including time in the agenda for people to deconstruct their own mosaics to get more familiar with making, unmaking and reinventing.
 Having time and space to revisit ideas generated before prioritisation and action setting.
 Taking themes from ideas generated in one workshop, presenting as text, and building a new mosaic from these themes.
 
 

<b>How to run an effective session</b><br>
<br>
<i><b>Question</b></i><br>
Focus on a single question. Make sure the question is clear and specific e.g. What would an effective coalition to manage indoor air quality look like? Refer to it repeatedly during the session and make sure it is always visible to attendees.<br>
<br>
<i><b>Sub-questions</b></i><br>
Underneath the overarching question include sub-questions that can be answered in different parts of the workshop, e.g. What does the current landscape for managing indoor air quality look like? Who is missing from the picture? Number of people 6-8 people per workshop is best. Encourage people to interact with each other’s mosaics. Ensure there are decision-makers and people with agency to take action in the room.<br>
<br>
<i><b>Time</b></i><br>
Allow plenty of time for people to get familiar with the method and each other – between 2-3 hours for a workshop. Allow an additional hour for set up and 30 mins to tidy the room.<br>
<br>
<i><b>Space configuration</b></i><br>
Hold meetings in a large bright accessible space with light tables and wheelie flipcharts to allow easy reconfiguration of the room so people can move between making stations with no bottlenecks. Make sure the tables are big enough for people to make mosaics collaboratively but consider the reach of participants so no-one is inadvertently excluded. Have a big table for a group lunch. Plan in a site visit before booking the room.<br>
<br>
<i><b>Session design</b></i><br>
Start with simple mosaics and move to more complicated mosaics e.g. individual, small group, group. Make sure each mosaic is answering a clear subquestion. Co-create meeting values at the start of the session. Avoid having too many making sessions in a workshop. To help switch from generative to decisive working methods, consider swapping between mosaic-making and more traditional formats e.g. sticky notes or dot voting.<br>
<br>
<b>Co-facilitation</b><br>
The method works best when a policy subject matter expert and a Mosaics for Policy Development method facilitator codesign the session. The highly generative, inclusive and democratic approach means that strong subject knowledge and method experience and expertise are needed to drive consensus to action. Barriers to running a similar workshop outside the pilot were around confidence in facilitating.<br>
<br>
<b>Lead by example </b><br>
The method facilitator should model listening and inclusivity throughout. It is helpful if the facilitator and other meeting organisers demonstrate mosaic-making for each section. These demonstrations need to be carefully planned so they don’t influence the room too much e.g. one blue sky concept, one business-as-usual concept.<br>
<br>
<b>Breaks</b><br>
The technique calls for people to be present, listen actively and move around more than for typical desk work. This, combined with getting to grips with a new technique, can place a high cognitive load on some workshop attendees. Include breaks every 60- 90 minutes of at least 15 minutes and insert extra breaks/ energisers if needed.<br>
<br>
<b>Mosaics for Policy Development team</b><br>
The project team brought together a wealth of skills, expertise and infrastructure in creative participatory practice, social science methodology and knowledge mobilisation and brokerage between research and policy at national and local levels. The workshop conveners (Manchester Metropolitan University, Policy Connect and UCL) were responsible for the logistics and invite list for the workshops, and codesigned and cofacilitated the sessions in partnership with Scientia Scripta. All team members captured learnings and reviewed materials throughout the project and contributed to the development of this report.