“Fellows had many ideas. As they were not the one directly communicating with FEHD, we (organizers) were doing it, we had a wider perspective, and understand more about the concern of FEHD. There was tension when what fellows wanted to do bothered the FEHD… and we wanted to innovate…but we also wanted to build trust with the government. We shouldn’t just want to innovate and not care about them (FEHD). That’s why it was hard for us to avoid telling the fellows, ‘how about this time we first consider their view…this meant ‘couldn’t make it’ to them (lab fellows). This kind of tension happened.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) Tension also prevailed between the lab organizers and the lab fellows, amidst different expectations they had on policy impact of the Market Lab. “Our team (organizers) also had what we thought as right, while fellows happily doing things they thought as right (laugh)…these were the conflicts…we (organizers) wanted the prototypes to have influence at the policy level. Sometimes…we hoped after the prototypes were done, they were not one-off, but the government could adopt, and then maybe sustain in other markets, or finding other people to do it in this market…Sometimes we wanted to do something that created big impact, but fellows might not get that.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview) Different lab organizers positioned their role differently in handling these tensions, across a spectrum between mentorship and partnership. “There were different thoughts in the (organizers) team… A thought that she was a member in the lab team… she spoke her opinions as a lab member. It was up to the lab fellows to accept or not. She was the most liberal… I am prone to the liberal side of the spectrum, but I would evaluate what could give social lab the greatest impact… I also wanted to convince them (lab fellows) this was very important… For B, I think she was prone to the other side of the spectrum.” (Lab organizer C, individual interview) In partnership, the lab organizers regarded themselves as equal members in the lab team, sharing equal power and rights in decision making as the lab fellows. In mentorship, the lab organizers took up the role of a coach to guide and influence the lab fellows towards a designated direction. Whilst none of the lab organizers we interviewed was comfortable with the role of a directive leader, they were constantly struggling to find a right place for themselves between partnership and mentorship in their relationship with the lab fellows.
Conclusion and recommendations As exemplified in the Market Lab, the Social Lab project has successfully assembled a group of social-minded young people and prepared them to be better change makers. A cohesive team of like-minded people sustained their motivation to act, amidst the incessant institutional constraints that frustrated them. Immersion in the site enabled the young lab fellows to understand the operation of market service, so as to obtain insights for change within the service system. Deep-dive in the community exposed them to the different life stories of multiple stakeholders of market service, which stimulated their respect for the complexity of human experience, and engendered a humble attitude in claiming knowledge about other
