Co-designing transformation research: lessons learned from research on deliberate practices for transformation

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Volumn 20, Issue , 2016, Pages 86-92

  Page, Glenn G ^a   Wise, Russell M ^b   Lindenfeld, Laura ^c   Moug, Peter ^d   Hodgson, Anthony ^a   Wyborn, Carina ^e   Fazey, Ioan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

^c STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA CAMPUS   (Malaysia)

^e Luc Hoffmann Institute WWF International   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN METHOD; FUTURE PROSPECT; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEM; RESEARCH WORK; SOCIAL CHANGE; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 85007560106     PISSN: 18773435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.09.001     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. 1 Future Earth, Future Earth Strategic Research Agenda. 2014.
2. 2 O'Brien, K., Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog Hum Geogr 36 (2012), 667–676.
3. 3 Hackmann, H., St. Clair, A.L., Transformative cornerstones of social science research for global change. International Social Science Council, 2011, 117–152.
4. 4 O'Brien, K., Sygna L:, Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation [Internet]. O'Brien, K., Sygna, L., (eds.) Transformation in a Changing Climate, 2013, University of Oslo, 16–23.
5. 5 Cornell, S., Berkhout, F., Tuinstra, W., Tàbara, J.D., Jäger, J., Chabay, I., de Wit, B., Langlais, R., Mills, D., Moll, P., et al. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change [Internet]. Environ Sci Policy 28 (2013), 60–70.
6. 6 Jasanoff, S., Science and citizenship: a new synergy. Sci Publ Pol 31 (2004), 90–94.
7. 7• Kläy, A., Zimmermann, A.B., Schneider, F., Rethinking science for sustainable development: Reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation. Futures 65 (2015), 72–85 Assuming the need for societal transformation, the authors propose that science as an institution needs a corresponding paradigm transformation aligning it to the idea of sustainable development and enhancing public accountability. A transdisciplinary ‘thought collective’ is proposed as a way towards this transformation.
8. 8 Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B.S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., Moore, H., Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5 (2013), 420–431.
9. 9 Lemos, M.C., Morehouse, B.J., The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Chang 15 (2005), 57–68.
10. 10 Jasanoff S:, Ordering knowledge, ordering society. Jasanoff, S., (eds.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, 2004, Routledge.
11. 11 Wyborn, C., Connectivity conservation: boundary objects, science narratives and the co-production of science and practice. Environ Sci Policy August 51 (2015), 292–303.
12. 12 Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Judith, J., Harms, B., Leeuwis, C., New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci Public Policy 40 (2013), 354–365.
13. 13 Aufenvenne, P., Egner, H., Von Elverfeldt, K., On climate change research, the crisis of science and second-order science. Constr Found 10 (2014), 120–129.
14. 14 Fazey, I., Evely, A.C., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Kruijsen, J., White, P.C.L., Newsham, A., Jin, L., Cortazzi, M., Phillipson, J., et al. Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management [Internet]. Environ Conserv 40 (2013), 1–18.
15. 15 Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Fazey, I., Evely, A.C., Kruijsen, J.H.J., Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manage 146 (2014), 337–345.
16. 16 Future Earth, Future Earth Initial Design: Report of the Transition Team [Internet]., 2013.
17. 17 Leach, M., Rockström, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A.C., Smith, A., Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Ely, A., Arond, E., et al. Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecol Soc, 2012, 17.
18. 18 Vaara, E., Whittington, R., Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously. Acad Manag Ann, 2012, 10.1080/19416520.2012.672039.
19. 19 Reckwitz, A., Basic elements of a theory of social practices: a perspective in social theory. Z Soziol 32 (2003), 282–301.
20. 20 Frame, B., Brown, J., Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecol Econ 65 (2008), 225–241.
21. 21 Sharpe, B., Hodgson, A., Leicester, G., Lyon, A., Fazey, I., Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation. Ecol Soc, 21, 2016, 47.
22. 22 Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics. 2004, Penguin Books.
23. 23 Reason P, Bradbury H (Eds): The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage; [date unknown].
24. 24 Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Fazey, D.M.A., Learning more effectively from experience. Ecol Soc, 2005, 10.
25. 25 Fazey, I., Kesby, M., Evely, A., Latham, I., Wagatora, D., Hagasua, J.E., Reed, M.S., Christie, M., A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessment in the Solomon Islands. Glob Environ Chang 20 (2010), 713–728.
26. 26 Clark, W.C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., Gallopin, G.C., Crafting useable knowledge for sustainable development’. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113 (2016), 4570–4578.
27. 27 Williamson, G.R., Prosser, S., Action research: politics, ethics and participation. J Adv Nurs 40 (2002), 587–593.
28. 28 Gulari, M.N., Fremantle, C., Are design-led innovation approaches applicable to SMEs? [Internet]. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Great Expectations: Design Teaching, Research and Enterprise, E and PDE, 2015, 556–561.
29. 29 Prager, K., Local and regional partnerships in natural resource management: the challenge of bridging institutional levels. Environ Manage 46 (2010), 711–724.
30. 30•• Patton, M.Q., What is essential in developmental evaluation? On integrity, fidelity, adultery, abstinence, impotence, long-term commitment, integrity, and sensitivity in implementing evaluation models. Am J Eval, 2016, 37 The author presents eight essential principles of Developmental Evaluation which serve as guides to be interpreted and applied contextually acting as navigational aids in complex, dynamic contexts. Fidelity to all eight principles is essential to support development of new approaches to intractable problems and thus a much better fit in sustainability science versus more traditional forms of formative–summative types of evaluation that fit best with stable contexts.
31. 31 Fazey, I., Resilience and higher order thinking. Ecol Soc, 2010, 15.
32. 32 Woodland, R.H., Hutton, M.S., Evaluating organizational collaborations: suggested entry points and strategies. Am J Eval 33 (2012), 366–383.
33. 33 Parker, J.N., Hackett, E.J., Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. Am Sociol Rev 77 (2012), 21–44.
34. 34 Rhoten, D., O'Connor, E., Hackett, E.J., The act of collaborative creation and the art of integrative creativity: originality, disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Thesis Elev 96 (2009), 83–108.
35. 35 Augsburg, T., Becoming transdisciplinary: the emergence of the transdisciplinary individual [Internet]. World Fut 70 (2014), 233–247.
36. 36 O'Brien, K., The courage to change: adaptation from the inside out. Successful Adaptation: Linking Science and Policy in a Rapidly Changing World, 2013, Routledge.
37. 37•• Tschakert, P., Tuana, N., Westskog, H., Koelle, B., Afrika, A., TCHANGE: the role of values and visioning in transformation science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20 (2016), 21–25 Creative and co-produced learning environments are important aspects of co-design. Those involved in co-design should be willing participants, open to a co-evolving and flexible process. Co-design processes should acknowledge and value the multifarious types of knowledge, the variety of forms of expression, the importance of listening and debating, and the flexibility and patience on the part of participants.
38. 38 Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A.C., Lambert, E., Hastings, E., Morris, S., Reed, M.S., Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research [Internet]. Glob Environ Chang 25 (2014), 204–220.
39. 39 Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S., Ritter, F., Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—an analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landsc Urban Plan 105 (2012), 106–117.
40. 40 Lacey, J., Howden, S.M., Cvitanovic, C., Dowd, A.M., Informed adaptation: ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Glob Environ Chang 32 (2015), 200–210.
41. 41• Sanders, L., Stappers, P.J., From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: three slices in time. Interactions 21 (2014), 24–33 The authors survey the last 30 years of design: co-design is an emerging, evolving concept and practice. The authors also speculate about the future development of co-design highlighting its potency in harnessing peoples’ collective creativity.
42. 42 Follett, G., Rogers, J., Articulating co-creation for economic and cultural value [Internet]. 2016, Humanities Research Council.
43. 43 Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B., Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100 (2003), 8086–8091.
44. 44•• National Research Council, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. 2015, The National Academies Press, 10.17226/19007 The authors examine both individual factors and team dynamics that influence the effectiveness and productivity of team science. They examine management approaches and leadership styles, incentives and other factors that influence the productivity and effectiveness of collaborative science. Organizational factors such as human resource policies and practices and cyber infrastructure are examined with specific recommendations for organizational structures, policies, practices, and resources that are needed to promote effective team science.