# data[].attributes.body
Adria mentioned how we needed to be careful about how we give weight to different outcomes/changes. Next time, we can 1) do more to show how many Fellows talked about a kind of change; and 2) potentially ask the Fellows to rate how important the change was to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Maybe we should have started sharing Fellow stories with the COfP as they were finalized? It might have inspired others to engage more in co-authoring. Otherwise, I don't know if they saw the value of co-authoring even if we told them we would be sharing them with other Fellows.

# data[].attributes.body
We shared two learning briefs that drew on the Storytelling interviews + the sway report and learning interests all at the same time. Then we only had 1.5 hours to reflect on it all together. It was exhausting for us and too much to digest for IIE/Ford. We need to be better at sharing incremental learning along the way.

# data[].attributes.body
There were missed opportunities to reflect on and analyze the Fellow stories as a team along the way. Also, some confusion over what to analyze in excel vs. dedoose vs. Miro. I wonder if we should 1) start by coding in Dedoose; 2) export excerpts to Miro; and 3) do sorting and memoing in Dedoose together?

# data[].attributes.body
We initially tried to do this in google sheets, but I ultimately tried to transfer it to Monday.com... felt Monday.com worked better but we ended up tracking things differently/person and ultimately relying a lot on Teams to give updates to others. I'm not sure how to make the significant follow up with fellows we had to do more visible for IIE/FF w/o a lot of burden on us with tracking

# data[].attributes.body
It was hard for me initially to figure out what were trying to produce. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/reporting-vs-storytelling-2/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In November 2014, Greenbook released a blog post related to an addendum study conducted among market research professionals about their latest market

# data[].attributes.body
Wondering if for future iterations it would make sense for the author of the stories ( or even the Fellows) to highlight what they thought was the most important part/quote to be pulled out/highlighted in the final product.

# data[].attributes.body
For me it was confusing at times whether we were only using information gathered from the interviews about changes over the course of the fellowship or using the information that we had gathered over (in the pre-read and in Dedoose). I opted to incorporate examples outside of the interview as my understanding was that we were reporting on changes over the las 18 months and not just changes as reported by Fellows in the interview. I could have been wrong. I think that the next iteration this should be stated from the onset

# data[].attributes.body
Wondering if we should have started using whatsapp/text and email from the very beginning. Although to be honest some Fellows still ignored messages whether it was via email or text.

# data[].attributes.body
My approach was from my very first interview to download a copy of the template which I then used/edited as appropriate for the interviews. While I didnt change the main questions depending on the interview I used different probes. So before each interview I would become acquainted with the information in the preread then highlight the probes that I might be appropriate for that interview.

# data[].attributes.body
Not sure if translation was offered but it may be beneficial as some Fellows were uncomfortable communicating in English. Not saying it has to be used but wondering if Fellows would be more comfortable.
I also translated some of my stories before sending them. Not sure if it made a difference.

# data[].attributes.body
2 weeks from interview to sharing story was very tough for me with a few stories due to competing priorities/asks from Adria

# data[].attributes.body
Only two Fellows made edits outside of their bios. I am not sure why.
I think one experiment for the next iteration could be to ask Fellows to write their stories (or highlights) before the interview. So may the prompt could be "If you had to write your story of the Fellowship over the last year" what would be 3 things you would include" or something like that. That information could be incorporated data from the interview to create their stories

# data[].attributes.headline
Fellows only really offered edits on bios or grammar

# data[].attributes.subject
Fellows only really offered edits on bios or grammar

# data[].attributes.body
No Fellows I worked with on this had substantive edits. Most were adding/editing bio or small grammar edits in the body.

# data[].attributes.body
At one point the template for the protocol in Google doc was altered & I didn't realize til I had started the interview and was going thru the script - need to figure out a better way to make sure that doesn't happen again with a doc multiple folks are using

# data[].attributes.body
Putting into practice a data collection activity that served multiple purposes was a first real demonstration to the FGF Partner team how integration of L&E activities into the rhythm of the program might look like

# data[].attributes.body
One of our experiments in re purposing Sita's designs/getting her thoughts on style to make the individual story products "feel like the program"

# data[].attributes.body
Sharing back Miro styled versions prompted fellows who had been non-responsive to respond. Maybe limited their perception of co-authoring to see a "final product". Wondering if sharing a "mock up" could have supported both

# data[].attributes.body
I was pretty confused from the start about our intended product/output of these and it felt like it remained confusing for a very long time. I wonder how much trying a bunch of different ways contributed to that vs evolving requests from Adria. Or how we tried to divide and conquer vs work together. Lots potentially contributed to feeling generally lost.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm unsure how useful the templates and scripts were for all of us to use - I ended up changing things for later fellows and not follow that as closely

# data[].attributes.headline
Different methods worked for diff Fellows

# data[].attributes.subject
Different methods worked for diff Fellows

# data[].attributes.body
As example, it was impossible to get Teresa to respond to an email so WhatsApp worked well. Other Fellows had exec assistants to go thru that would have been helpful to loop in from the start.

# data[].attributes.body
She was super helpful in initial brainstorming and doing some initial outreach pieces and helping think thru language

# data[].attributes.body
The pre-reads were effective. Several Fellows shared how they'd read their applications and how things had changed since then. It was a good reflection prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
How could we capture these changes on an ongoing basis? How can we bring back and adapt the Learning Log? I think it would work if coaches incorporated it into their sessions. They are already providing Fellows with reflection tools. I imagine it would be opt-in only and we could offer different journalling methods, frequency, platforms (e.g., video/audio journalling, drawing, writing, other).

# data[].attributes.headline
Why were some Fellows better able to provide detailed examples of changes and the Fellowship's contributions?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why were some Fellows better able to provide detailed examples of changes and the Fellowship's contributions?

# data[].attributes.body
Desmond, Monica, and Chaima all provided very detailed examples and explanations. Was it because they had more examples of changes they'd experienced and/or are good communicators? Is it because they value and practice reflection more? Something else?

# data[].attributes.body
We didn't get any information on how grants are being used by Fellows. Our question prompts may not be right to surface this type of reflection. However, I also wonder if Fellows are less likely to talk about how they've used their grant money with other Fellows? Is talking about money sensitive?

# data[].attributes.body
It's sometimes hard to know how much the Fellowship contributed to a change. In the future, we should consider having Fellow's rate the Fellowship's contribution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stories don't capture full range of changes + they are a snap shot

# data[].attributes.subject
Stories don't capture full range of changes + they are a snap shot

# data[].attributes.body
We describe this is the Story of their fellowship experience but there are other changes that we have seen in other data collection that don't come up during interviews. How do we incorporate other data sources?

# data[].attributes.body
How can we make sure we create space for Fellows to share negative experiences or negative outcomes of the Fellowship?

# data[].attributes.body
How can we better prepare for conversations with Fellows experiencing high levels of stress and trauma? How might reflection prompts inadvertently trigger more stress?