CHAPTER 8: RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION
8.5 Overall experience of running the simulations
Suggestions
Recommendations were made that the fishers and fishing communities work together, and protect the resources and take action against drugs/alcohol. There was also a suggestion that they organise themselves better and especially that there were too many splinter groups and conflict within the communities. Some felt that they needed Government assistance but not necessarily only from MCM, whereas others stated that the fishers had to respect the resources and understand that it belonged to everyone, and that issues of sustainability had to be comprehended.
Proposals for MCM included the urgent need to try as best as possible to assist, and engage people more. Open communication internally and externally with all stakeholders, as well as the need to initiate processes in good time to avoid challenges, were highlighted. Some mentioned that MCM had to understand that there were certain pressures exerted on all in the fishing industry sector. The need for improved management from the top, all the way down was emphasised. Certain comments also highlighted the necessity of bringing in people with skills to communicate with stakeholders, e.g. social scientists.
Recommendations for the commercial sector were centred on the importance of them voicing their opinions and being specific in complaints. Some argued though that they had to think about poor people and not have an attitude that they owned everything in the sea. Someone also felt that the recreational sector had to think of others.
It was challenging to wait for people to arrive and then to start late, with the risk of insufficient time to conduct all phases of the simulation. It was therefore disruptive dealing with latecomers or having people leave early. Preparation, adaptability and quick thinking from a facilitator are critical. I also think that having refreshments during the simulations made a difference.
The debriefing phase definitely is critical and is really the chance to make a difference, as mentioned by Thiagarajan (2003), but it does vary tremendously depending on the audience.
This was illustrated by the fact that not all of the participants could understand what was happening in other areas, and also that some participants, e.g. the community leaders had more exposure to the different areas, whereas the fishers were mostly to do with fishing. Furthermore, some roles provided more exposure to understanding the whole, e.g. the Executives, Government, and Media in particular could get an overview of everything, whereas the workers only knew what was happening in their immediate vicinity. The Executives, through having to purchase raw materials could thus make the link to the real world where the commercial sector took out loans. This is thus an area that needs some work, as to how precisely to provide all participants with an overview of the whole, considering their specific roles in the simulation and real world backgrounds.
It was very rewarding and a huge relief when people started to make connections during the debriefing phase. This was synonymous to the ‘aha’ moments described by many authors (Jackson 2004; Villegas et al. 1996; Fannon 2003). There was so much that could have been said; sufficient time must therefore be dedicated to the debriefing phase. The facilitator must have enough practice to become skilled at facilitating this phase, and must be flexible and know when to make judgment calls. Long after the simulation was over, questions still arose about how the debriefing went and what else could have been added.
A way to deal with the initial fears on my side when looking at blank faces was to remember that there was order in disorder (Leigh 2004). Things fell into place, and no one simulation was identical to another because the people were different. Even myself, as the facilitator too was different, as I became more experienced and discerning. It was a journey of sense-making for both facilitator and participant alike. This was illustrated by the many people, who expressed how nervous they were in the beginning, but that things made sense later and that they soon fell into role. It is thus critical that the facilitator be prepared, yet flexible (Le Roux & Steyn 2007;
Leigh 2004).
As Feld (1997) noted, simulations can be particularly useful for observations that can be made.
It may be useful however to have co-facilitators to assist with the running of the simulations and observations.
I also realised that people do indeed want to play. I could see the intensity as they were cutting away and assembling, and how proud they were when they produced a cage, and transferred the cages to the Government. This sort of play clearly opened the door for some learning. The simulation was thus successful in providing the sort of learning environment described by Leigh (2004).
I think that much existing theory may be sufficient but that ordinary people struggle to digest the heavy academic writings. Furthermore, people may find more meaning when they can draw their own conclusions. This can be facilitated by researchers who have insight into the theory as well as familiarity with the context. Simulations can thus be used for theory testing and building (Dooley 2002).
I think that the simulation made a small difference, especially to the confidence of the fishers.
They were able to contribute towards providing ideas, and were able to communicate and participate in a meaningful manner (Lane 1995; Geurts et al 2007).
It was good to have had a chance to talk about the theory, but in a meaningfully yet non- threatening way which utilised experiences in the simulation. I would definitely argue that the simulation, which was based on change management theory, provided a valuable learning opportunity.
The specific objectives of the simulation were met and this was attested by my observations, as well as discussions in the debriefing phase and data from the evaluation forms. The interviews and secondary data made the simulation relevant to the learners and their specific needs (Leigh 2004).
It was reassuring to see a diversity of participants with varying levels of education work through the simulation. This means that the simulation may have had the desired outward simplicity, yet inner complexity, considered critical by Borodozicz (2004). The simulation also became more user-friendly after incorporations from the trial run, and this was demonstrated by the fact that no-one mentioned experiencing any difficulties in such regard. This was particularly the case with the briefing phase, which Leigh (2004) points out is critical to captivating the interest of participants.
I feel that this simulation was a start to dealing with the complex issues involving the many stakeholders in the fisheries context in the Western Cape. Furthermore participants could see how interconnected the various issues were (Pivec et al. 2003). As Lane (1995) mentioned, simulations are rich due to the various issues that are dealt with. Scientists could thus see how their work and the decisions that they made had impacts on other spheres. Fishers on the other hand could perhaps see how their own actions were of relevance to the whole. Participants also had an opportunity to question assumptions that they may have had (Leigh 2004; Enciso 2001).
The phases in the simulation were critical in illustrating the consequences of decisions made in minimal time (Jackson 2004). The emergence of a union in the one simulation, as a result of not communicating with workers is an example.
The fact that there were diverse roles in the simulation, which were later unpacked and related to the real world roles definitely facilitated learning and allowed participants to see the other stakeholders’ perceptions and mental models (Enciso 2001). Participants could thus see a holistic view (Geurts et al. 2007) but I am not sure whether or not the simulation allowed them to be proactive. The need to have had more senior staff in the simulation could have facilitated this. Furthermore, it would have been useful to have had more stakeholders playing different roles (Pivec et al. 2003). This would probably have required more skill on the part of the facilitator though.
I felt quite privileged to have had this opportunity to meaningfully engage with such a diverse audience, ranging from very practical, mature fishers to younger scientists. The simulation despite having focused on rabbits, was successful in bring across critical learning for the real world. The simulation in particular was thus an important way of interacting with adult learners (Jackson 2004). It was gratifying to have interviewed people to discover the issues, and then to have designed something around those issues. I could actually go to the very people and interact with them.
Although the simulation was a start towards activating certain critical processes in the minds of participants, perhaps other continued measures to encourage learning could be useful to ensure the continued learning of all involved.