1. Conference Report
Organizational Conference
Oxford University • St Johnʼs College MCR • July 10th, 2011

2. Dear
friends
of
Spark
Canada,
It’s
hard
to
believe
that
it’s
already
been
almost
three
months
since
the
inaugural
‘SparkCanada’
conference.
We
here
at
the
organizing
commiAee
hope
that
this
intervening
Bme
has
been
both
posiBve
and
producBve
and
that
this
note
finds
you
happy
and
well.
As
it’s
been
awhile
since
the
conference,
we
thought
that
you
might
appreciate
a
quick
update
on
how
things
are
progressing.
With
this
purpose
in
mind,
we’ve
put
together
this
document
which
has
three
main
purposes:
first,
for
those
of
you
who
aAended
the
conference
we
wanted
to
officially
thank
you
for
doing
so.
We
found
the
conference
inspiring
in
many
different
ways,
but
especially
in
the
quality
of
the
insights
and
feedback
we
received,
the
enthusiasm
of
the
parBcipants,
and
the
simple
fun
and
enjoyment
that
came
out
of
our
discussions.
We
hope
that
your
experience
was
similarly
posiBve.
Second,
we
thought
it
might
be
useful
to
summarize
the
highlights
and
lessons
learned
during
the
various
sessions
that
took
place
at
the
conference.
To
that
end,
we’ve
summarized
each
session
in
the
pages
below.
Please
have
a
read
and
let
us
know
if
you
think
we’ve
missed
something
important.
For
those
of
you
who
were
unable
to
aAend
the
conference,
we
hope
that
this
document
gives
you
a
sense
of
what
was
discussed
and
an
access
point
for
entering
the
conversaBon
should
you
so
desire.
Third,
the
organizing
commiAee
has
spent
much
of
our
Bme
since
the
conference
reflecBng
on
the
ideas
that
emerged
from
the
conference
and,
and
while
this
process
of
reflecBon
is
certainly
not
concluded,
we
are
also
now
beginning
to
move
into
an
acBon
phase.
Indeed,
we’ve
idenBfied
three
primary
tasks
which
we
will
be
tackling
in
the
weeks
and
months
ahead:
(1)
officially
incorporaBng
as
a
non-­‐profit
organizaBon
in
Canada;
(2)
developing
a
‘minimum
viable
product’
for
use
in
piloBng,
largely
based
on
the
ideas
and
suggesBons
generated
at
the
conference;
and
(3)
iniBaBng
one
or
two
pilot
projects
focussed
on
specific
groups,
likely
high
school
or
undergraduate
university
students.
We
hope
that
many
of
you
will
be
able
to
take
part
and
help
shape
these
iniBaBves
and
we
will
be
in
touch
for
this
purpose
shortly.
Importantly,
if
you
have
not
yet
indicated
that
you
are
interested
in
becoming
involved,
or
have
some
new
ideas
that
you
want
to
add
to
the
mix,
please
do
not
hesitate
to
be
in
touch.
Clearly,
we
sBll
have
a
lot
to
think
about.
And
indeed,
this
may
at
first
seem
a
daunBng
task.
But
the
wealth
of
ideas
and
insights
provided
by
the
conference,
to
say
nothing
of
the
high
quality,
originality,
and
simple
awesomeness
of
everyone’s
contribuBons
not
only
makes
this
task
seem
a
liAle
less
inBmidaBng,
but
also
guarantees
that
the
journey
is
going
to
be
an
exhilaraBng,
meaningful,
and
exciBng
one
to
take.
It
won’t
be
easy,
but
with
the
conBnuing
parBcipaBon
and
input
from
people
such
as
you,
it’s
preAy
clear
that
we
can
make
a
significant
and
posiBve
contribuBon.
So
thanks
again
for
a
great
conference;
I
hope
that
you
enjoyed
yourself
as
much
as
we
did.
With
any
luck
the
discussions
and
conversaBons
that
your
took
part
in
a
month
ago
represent
but
the
first
few
steps
on
a
much
longer
and
even
more
fulfilling
collaboraBon.
UnBl
soon,
The
Organizing
Commi/ee
2

3. Designing the Platform
The
plaYorm
design
break-­‐out
session
really
set
the
tone
for
the
enBre
day,
not
just
in
terms
of
the
great
ideas
and
fruiYul
discussions
that
it
comprised,
but
also
because
of
the
way
that
design
ideas
conBnued
to
pop
up
throughout
the
rest
of
the
day’s
sessions.
There
were
many
great
ideas,
which
have
already
helped
the
design
team
tremendously,
but
from
our
discussion
it
was
immediately
apparent
that
our
prioriBes
need
to
be:
• Figuring
out
nature
and
the
role
of
the
user’s
profile,
and
the
extent
to
which
the
user’s
experience
will
be
personalized
to
their
specific
aAributes
(such
as
geographical
locaBon).
How
much
informaBon
will
users
need
to
provide
about
themselves
and
to
what
extent
and
in
what
ways
will
their
acBvity
accumulate
and
generate
a
‘thick’
profile?
Some
exciBng
features
that
were
suggested
included
the
ability
to
track
one’s
own
acBvity
on
the
site
over
Bme
to
see
how
one’s
views
and
parBcipaBon
had
evolved,
as
well
as
the
possibility
of
forming
geographically-­‐based
communiBes
hosted
or
enabled
in
some
way
by
the
plaYorm.
• Determining
how
narrowly
we
want
to
target
our
audience
and
how
we
ensure
that
the
site
is
interesBng
and
accessible
to
all
the
different
classes
of
potenBal
users
that
would
exist
within
this
targeted
grouping.
• Figuring
out
how
we
want
the
network
of
moderators
to
interact
with
a
discussion
once
it
has
started.
To
what
extent
do
we
want
conversaBons
to
develop
organically
and
to
what
extent
do
we
want
the
network
to
shape,
guide,
and
moderate
these
discussions?
One
idea
that
consensus
seemed
to
coalesce
around
had
moderators
helping
to
guide
the
conversaBon
at
various
intervals
by
providing
summaries
of
the
discussion
up
to
that
point
and
suggesBng
new
dimensions
along
which
the
discussion
could
conBnue.
• Ensuring
that
the
plaYorm
is
fun
and
the
interface
is
gripping,
even
exciBng.
People
were
keen
for
the
plaYorm
to
support
a
variety
of
media,
from
pictures,
to
interacBve
infographics,
to
videos,
to
audio,
to
‘games’
such
as
a
tax
calculator
that
would
calculate
how
much
tax
you
would
need
to
pay
to
sustain
certain
policy
choices.
Example
of
designed
mockup
plaYorm
3

4. Building the Network
One
idea
that
emerged
from
the
discussion
of
the
nature
and
role
of
the
network
and
which
seemed
to
command
a
strong
consensus
concerned
how
the
network,
o^en
idenBfied
funcBonally
as
the
plaYorm
moderators,
should
not
be
conceptualized
as
a
group
that
was
walled-­‐off
from
the
general
community
of
users.
Rather,
conferees
seemed
to
support
the
idea
that
moderators
would
simply
represent
the
highest
level
of
a
graduated
scheme
for
parBcipaBon
that
was
open
and
permeable
according
to
clearly
idenBfied
levels
of
involvement
and
demonstrated
merit.
Other
key
take-­‐away
points
were
as
follows:
• At
its
best,
many
conferees
saw
the
network
as
acBng
as
a
contact
bank
of
high
quality
and
interesBng
people
that
could
be
drawn
upon
if
anyone
in
the
network
required
expert
assistance
in
a
parBcular
area.
This
assistance
could
take
many
forms,
from
finding
an
expert
in
an
unfamiliar
field,
to
assistance
in
reviewing
an
academic
paper,
to
help
finding
a
job.
• May
felt
that
the
network
should
not
only
include
puang
things
into
the
project,
such
as
helping
to
provide
content,
but
should
also
help
enrich
the
lives
of
its
members.
One
idea
that
was
popular
was
the
possibility
of
professional
development
acBviBes
such
as
decentralized
region-­‐specific
weekend
retreats
for
members
of
the
network
that
would
both
allow
members
to
improve
their
skill
sets,
but
also
provide
opportuniBes
to
socialize
and
network.
• A
strong
consensus
also
formed
around
the
idea
that
in
addiBon
to
providing
benefits
to
the
membership,
the
network
also
needed
to
provide
members
with
opportuniBes
for
meaningful
parBcipaBon
in
the
project
and
the
ability
to
point
to
an
output
that
people
could
be
proud
of
having
parBcipated
in
creaBng.
4

5. Starting the Conversation
In
the
a^ernoon,
the
conferees
divided
into
three
groups
to
engage
in
substanBve
discussions
focused
on
iniBaBng
the
content
generaBon
aspect
of
the
project.
In
addiBon
to
the
large
amount
of
substanBve
output
from
these
sessions,
the
large
number
of
high
quality,
generalizable
ideas
concerning
how
the
types
of
posiBve
conversaBons
we
are
interested
in
fostering
might
be
built
were
also
produced.
Home
or
Hospital?
We
asked
the
quesBon:
Should
health
care
be
more
in
the
home
or
the
hospital?
The
key
points
that
emerged
from
our
conversaBons
were
as
follows:
• In
order
for
a
useful
and
posiBve
conversaBon
to
take
place,
the
quesBon
needs
to
be
clear
and
specific;
this
quesBon
is
probably
too
broad
to
support
a
good
conversaBon
on
its
own,
and
would
likely
require
further
specificaBon
through
addiBonal
sub-­‐quesBons.
For
example:
‘Should
family
doctors
make
house
calls
again?’;
or
‘What
role
can
telemedicine
play
in
promoBng
health
care
closer
to
people’s
homes?’
would
probably
serve
as
beAer
conversaBon
sparks.
• The
moBvaBon
for
the
quesBon
is
also
essenBal:
we
need
to
be
able
to
provide
a
jusBficaBon
for
why
we
think
that
this
issue
is
worth
talking
about,
that
is
we
need
to
link
it
to
the
wider
world.
• Figuring
out
how
experts
and
non-­‐experts
are
going
to
be
involved
in
the
conversaBon,
and
what
the
differences
between
these
involvements
should
be,
is
going
to
be
a
key
quesBon
that
we
need
to
answer.
In
terms
of
preparing/structuring
the
conversaBon,
having
people
in
the
room
who
are
experts
is
crucial,
but
figuring
out
how
they
can
parBcipate
without
turning-­‐off
non-­‐
experts
in
the
actual
conversaBon
as
it
develops
is
going
to
be
an
important
challenge.
• Perhaps
due
to
the
high
level
of
issue
experBse
present
in
this
discussion
group,
the
level
of
actual
conversaBon
planning
was
probably
the
most
advanced
with
the
following
conversaBon
plan
being
the
result:
o Begin
with
a
basic
set
of
definiBons
of
terms
on
which
to
base
the
discussion,
but
also
provide
space
for
those
who
are
interested
to
drill
down
further.
o Follow
this
with
a
contextualizaBon
of
home
care
in
the
larger
health
system
through
the
use
of
an
infographic
depicBng
all
of
the
places
healthcare
is
delivered,
with
size
being
used
to
depict
differences
in
expenditure
or
number
of
paBent
visits,
for
example.
o Provide
some
historical
context
that
helps
to
show
why
things
are
the
way
they
currently
are,
thereby
providing
a
foundaBon
for
discussion
of
reform
and
the
future.
5

6. o Also
provide
a
simple
and
easily
accessible
comparison
-­‐
perhaps
in
a
table
-­‐
of
the
ways
in
which
care
is
delivered
at
home
vs.
in
a
hospital.
o Describe
currently
exisBng
policies
and
iniBaBves;
this
would
probably
have
to
be
regional
in
nature.
o Provide
differenBated
explanaBons
for
why
this
quesBon
is
important
pitched
at
the
various
affected
groups
(differenBated
by
age
for
example).
o Provide
a
glossary
of
commonly
used
terms.
Aboriginals
and
Poverty
We
asked
the
quesBon:
Aboriginal
Canadians
are,
on
average,
poorer
than
the
average
Canadian.
What,
if
anything,
should
be
done
to
help
ameliorate
this
disparity?
The
key
points
that
emerged
from
this
conversaBon,
and
which
were
not
already
described
above,
were
as
follows:
• The
need
for
well
presented,
well
researched,
basic
background
informaBon
that
can
equip
someone
who
knows
nothing
specific
about
the
issue
with
the
tools
they
need
to
feel
comfortable
becoming
involved
in
the
discussion.
For
example,
when
we
say
that
aboriginals
tend
to
be
poorer
than
the
average
Canadian,
what
does
this
mean
in
actual
numbers;
how
much
poorer?
Are
there
important
differences
between
groups
within
the
‘aboriginal’
community?
Having
a
set
of
standardized
conversaBon
components,
like
‘DefiniBons’
which
users
can
depend
on
will
likely
be
very
helpful
and
provide
unity
across
the
plaYorm.
• The
need
to
idenBfy
the
key
actors,
terms,
concepts,
debates,
and
controversies
that
exist
in
this
parBcular
discussion
and
present
them
succinctly
and
clearly
so
that
people
can
quickly
feel
well
and
comfortably
situated
in
the
discussion.
For
example,
what
does
the
term
‘status
Indian’
mean?
What
are
some
of
the
answers
that
already
exist
as
to
why
aboriginals
tend
to
be
poorer?
Are
there
disagreements
on
this?
What
are
they?
• The
need
to
take
a
global
view
of
these
quesBons
as
well
as
a
local/Canadian
one.
Are
there
analogous
situaBons
in
other
countries?
To
what
extent
do
they
resemble
what
is
happening
in
Canada?
How
are
they
similar
and
how
are
they
different,
and
what
can
we
learn
from
these
situaBons
that
might
be
useful
for
our
discussions
here?
• Is
this
even
the
right
quesBon
to
be
asking?
Are
there
other
ways
of
phrasing
the
quesBon
that
captures
the
same
essence
but
provides
a
different
focus?
How
can
these
other
possible
6

7. quesBons
help
us
to
situate
our
discussion
of
this
quesBon
and
its
implicaBons
in
a
wider
discussion?
For
example,
is
income
the
right
metric
to
be
worried
about
when
discussing
the
disadvantaged
status
of
aboriginal
peoples
in
Canada?
Would
access
to
educaBon
or
health
care
be
beAer?
• In
this
case,
it
is
especially
important
to
be
aware
of
the
need
to
take
account
of
the
perspecBves
of
those
individuals
and
groups
who
are
the
subject
of
the
discussion.
How
would
aboriginals
answer
this
quesBon?
Would
it
even
be
an
important
quesBon
to
them,
or
would
they
have
other
prioriBes?
More
generally,
we
need
to
think
about
how
we
can
incorporate
the
perspecBves
of
stakeholders
without
becoming
beholden/dominated
by
their
perspecBves.
Canada
Among
Na8ons
We
asked
the
quesBon:
What
should
be
Canada’s
role
in
internaConal
poliCcs?
What
changes,
if
any,
do
we
need
to
make
in
order
to
be
able
to
perform
this
role?
The
key
points
that
emerged
from
this
conversaBon,
and
which
were
not
already
described
above,
were
as
follows:
• In
order
to
draw
people
into
a
conversaBon,
it
needs
an
easily
understandable,
enBcing,
interesBng,
and
possibly
controversial
‘hook’.
For
example,
in
the
case
of
this
quesBon,
a
less
general
sub-­‐quesBon
such
as
Should
Canada
Cghten
its
immigraCon
policy,
might
be
a
good
way
of
making
this
topic
more
immediately
interesBng
and
gripping.
At
the
same
Bme,
such
a
framing
exercise
necessarily
biases
a
conversaBon
and
we
need
to
be
careful
in
how
we
do
so.
• We
need
to
be
cognizant
that
conversaBons
take
place
along
a
number
of
different
dimensions.
Some
conversaBons
are
factual
ones
in
which
informaBon
is
exchanged,
explained,
quesBoned,
understood,
taken
apart
and
put
back
together.
In
other
cases,
conversaBons
are
normaBve
exchanges
in
which
a
parBcular
opinion
about
the
way
the
world
should
be
is
debated
and
potenBally
counterpoised
with
another.
Recognizing
this
difference
is
a
key
way
of
helping
foster
good
examples
of
both
types
of
conversaBons.
• In
the
case
of
quesBons
about
immigraBon
policy,
we
should
try
and
provide
as
much
baseline
factual
informaBon
as
possible
to
help
enrich
the
opportuniBes
for
individuals
to
learn
and
build
their
conversaBons.
Providing
informaBon
on
what
Canada’s
current
immigraBon
policy
is,
and
where
it
has
come
from,
are
the
types
of
informaBon
we
want
to
provide.
• Similarly,
for
normaBve
conversaBons,
it
is
important
that
we
provide
users
with
the
various
different
proposals
that
exist
already
in
the
world,
and
background
informaBon
about
how
these
proposals
are
jusBfied,
where
they
come
from,
and
what
assumpBons
and
informaBon
have
inspired
them.
In
both
normaBve
and
factual
cases,
it
is
probably
a
good
idea
to
make
the
7

8. accumulaBon
and
ediBng
of
this
informaBon
at
least
parBally
a
user-­‐generated
project
in
which
members
can
take
part
to
extents
that
are
perhaps
dependent
on
their
level
of
involvement.
• Making
the
plaYorm
responsive
to
the
user
community
was
idenBfied
as
being
a
key
design
feature,
but
it
is
also
important
to
recognize
that
this
only
works
if
users
are
involved.
As
a
group
we
need
to
answer
the
quesBon:
What
would
it
take
to
get
you
to
do
the
things
we
are
hoping
that
these
potenBal
users
will
do.
Answering
this
quesBon
will
be
key
to
our
success.
Some
ideas
on
potenBal
answers
include
building
a
person’s
public
and
professional
profile,
being
involved
in
a
project
that
produces
posiBve
change,
and
potenBally
encouraging,
supporBng
individuals
who
become
inspired
on
the
plaYorm
to
start
their
own
iniBaBves
in
the
real
world.
Spark
Canada
2011
Conference
A/endants.
LeJ
to
right:
Peter
Gill,
Nicholas
Chesterley,
Kayli
Johnson,
Gillian
Langor,
Lise/e
Yorke,
Emma
Preston,
Annick
Routhier-­‐Labadie,
Ryan
Hogarth,
Michael
Urban,
Nithum
Thain,
Erik
Eastaugh,
Soushiant
Zanganehpour,
ChrisCne
Cheng,
Amanda
Clarke,
Amol
Verma,
and
Liliane
Chamas.
Not
in
picture:
Jaspreet
Khangura,
Ramya
Ravishankar,
Zinta
Zommers
8