35 influence exchanges’ directions. Overall, only two partner relationships were clearly
noticeable and concerned the oldest participants P2, P9 which requested support from one of their colleagues respectively P1, P8.
Structure of exchanges in time. During the workshop, four types of exchanges’ times could be distinguished: the game initiations, the plays, the collective debriefings
and a set of informal times such as the break intervals, the sessions’ interval and the transportation intervals. Separation of the game period was strikingly noticed by confused
and collective exchanges during the first years while the rest of the plays were dominated by individual behaviours. Informal intermissions remained mainly out of observations.
However, the way back in van on the second day led to multiple exchanges between Miss Kunsook and Thaclang villagers about their feedbacks on this experience.
6.2. Stakeholders’ perceptions from individual interviews’ analysis.
Appendix 6 presents an analysis of participants’ answers to individual game questionnaires. Five elements can be enlightened:
A good transposition by stakeholders of their reality into the game. Players found the game’s representation realistic and accepted it, some of them suggesting to add new
elements such as boats or specific landscape references. Moreover, the genuine nature of fishermen behaviours was noticed by Miss Kunsook and by our facilitator in Klongklud .
A common recognition of the playful atmosphere and of the exchanges’ quality. Conversations were judged easy. Moreover, if the exchanges with other participants were
firstly let aside in players’ comments; aspects related to communication took more importance the second day and it was their main remembering few weeks after the
workshop. Recognition of others and of their thinking came back several times in observations. However, the acknowledgment of a group influence on players decisions
during the game remained moderated. A small increase of conventional knowledge. Scientific learning appeared limited
as participants were not curious to question game indicators. Though, it was not our aim and five participants perceived their meeting with others as a source of knowledge.
A slight approval of its usefulness. All participants found the workshop useful to stimulate thinking and common recognition of individual representations. However, they
remained divided on its impact in reality, notably to promote cooperation.
36 A keen interest for a little while. The workshop ended with renewed discussions
of several projects such as the crab bank experimentation in Thaclang and the setting up of its management group, or the use of individual baskets as personal crab banks in
Klongklud. The two following weeks, participants continued to discuss about these intentions and their experience; mainly with their close relatives. However, after one
month and a half, no concrete projects had emerged and discussions seemed closed.
CHAPTER 7. DISCUSSION
