d ()$&+,-, ./'0&+, 1$!,2$3!1/0, '04!(),...

RECOMMEND—ATIONS &

GUIDELINES FOR POWERFUL

DELIBERATE PRACTICES

D5.1

making-sense.eu

of 30

DELIVERABLE

PROJECT ACRONYM GRANT AGREEMENT # PROJECT TITLE

Making Sense 688620 Making Sense

DELIVERABLE REFERENCE NUMBER AND TITLE

D5.1 Recommendations and Guidelines for Engaging Communities with Agencies and Policy Bodies Using Powerful Deliberate Practices

Revision: v1.0

AUTHORS

Mel Woods Ioan Fazey Drew Hemment

(UNIVERSTY OF DUNDEE)

(UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE)

(UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE)

Project co-funded by the European Commision within the Call H2020 ICT2015 Research and Innovation action

DISSEMINATION LEVEL

✔ P Public

C Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services

making-sense.eu

of 30

REVISION HISTORY

REVISION DATE AUTHOR ORG... DESCRIPTION

v0.1 18-04-2016 Mel Woods DUNDEE Outline template

v0.2 21-04-2016 Drew Hemment DUNDEE First draft for Section 2 Social Innovation

v0.3 05/05/2016 Ioan Fazey DUNDEE Draft of Section 3 Powerful Deliberate Practices (PDP)

v0.4 05/05/2016 Mel Woods DUNDEE Reworking PDP adding Design capabilities and competencies.

v0.6 27/05/2016 Mel Woods DUNDEE Final integration of the contributions

v0.8 30/05/2016 Mel Woods DUNDEE Final Edit

v0.9 03/06/2016 Gui Seiz IAAC Template formatting

v1.0 08/06/2016 Mel Woods DUNDEE Template integration and proofing

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated

otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others

has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

making-sense.eu

of 30

INDEX

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1 . Towards Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1 Defining Societal Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 Challenges for Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

1.2.1 Engaging with the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

1.2.2 Knowledge and Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

1.2.3 Practical Knowledge for Tranformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2 . Social Change, Social Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 Defining Social Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 The Potential of Design for Social Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 Making Sense of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4 Guidelines for Enabling Conditions and Approaches in Making Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.1 Mobilising Collective Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.2 Accessible Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.3 Open Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.4 Co-creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.5 Collaborative networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4.6 Issues, and a Common Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.7 Social Storytelling and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.8 Data and Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.9 Futures Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 . Introducing Powerful Deliberate Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1 Powerful Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2 An Outline of Supporting EC Competancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3 A Guide and methods for Deliberate Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4 . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

making-sense.eu

of 30

PREFACE

This report constitutes the first of a series of deliverables which focus on moving from awareness and knowledge of environmental

issues, to action for change and transformation.

There are key challenges that need to be overcome for research to meaningfully contribute to

the vision of social change and social innovation in Collective Awareness Platforms.

We propose a definition of Powerful Deliberate Practices (PDP) can begin to articulate the tools, activities, and processes used by change makers that stand out from the many other approaches.

These approaches are particularly useful for facilitating social innovation or social change

as transformative rather than marginal. PDP can provide an as yet untapped opportunity for

transdisciplinary teams to engage more directly in facilitating the kinds of innovations that

may radically influence the fundamental systems on which we depend.

making-sense.eu

of 30

INTRODUCTIONMaking Sense envisions a world of collective sensemaking for

sustainable social action and aims to enable people to develop a

more active relationship with each other and the world around them.

The vision is to leverage open hardware open software, open design and open data alongside data literacy and maker culture to empower individuals, collectives and policy makers to understand their world and make better-informed decisions, leading to collective awareness, social change and social innovation. Social innovation is very different to the kind of innovation we are more familiar with in products and services. At its most fundamental it can

lead to systemic innovation, which as the title suggests requires change across many sectors, and includes concepts to mindsets, economic to power holders, it is in short transformative.

This report explores our approach from a theoretical position and proposes guidelines as well

as some practical methods, in relation to realising the potential for action, social change and/or social innovation and it’s impact. We aim to encourage new thinking within the Making

Sense project and its role in contributing more rapidly and extensively to deliberate societal

transformation. In addition, give encouragement to others to move towards addresses social innovation at a systemic level, not only the methods and approaches for practices that can be utilised by an individual in day to day life, but also for distributed teams, communities and locales.

The examples we provide are situated within a wider research base and linked to broader

theoretical and practical disciplines in order for its potential contribution to be realised, It is however important to note the Making Sense project from the basis of which this report

emerges is tackling this in part by employing design methods as underlaying principals e.g.

participatory design and co-creation. Furthermore the authors own backgrounds are centred

in creativity, design, social science and environmental science.

Section 1 articulates the background and context as well as recommendations and

guidelines for the use of approaches we define as transformative.

Section 2 describes ‘Social Innovation’ and broadly outlines the approach of Making

Sense using Design.

Section 3 proposes the concept ‘Powerful Deliberate Practices’ as well as a selection

of the tools, activities, and processes used by change makers that stand out as being particularly useful for facilitating social innovation.

making-sense.eu

of 30

1TOWARDS

TRANSFORMATIONSignificant societal transformation is needed on personal,

institutional, structural and political levels in order to address the systemic causes of unprecedented contemporary societal and

global environmental problems.

These problems include climate change, environmental degradation, and economic systems that are based on infinite growth paradigms (Jackson 2011, Hanlon et al. 2012). Recognition is growing that ‘business as usual’ is no longer an option. Yet while societal transformations

have occurred throughout history and there are numerous theories about transformation

(Feola 2014) we still know little about how to deliberately achieve transformations at

significant scales (O’Brien 2012, Feola 2014).

1.1 DefiningSocietalTransformationIn this context, we take societal transformation to be a marked, qualitative change beyond purely technological solutions (ISSC 2012).

This involves profound changes in individuals, institutions, and cultures through fundamental alterations to existing feedbacks and power relations and in thinking, values, consciousness, and the questioning of key assumptions that underpin contemporary societies and economic systems (Bassett and Fogelman 2013, Wise et al. 2014).

Transformations has a greater emphasis on “wider innovations in social practices as well as

technologies… involving diverse, emergent… political re-alignments that challenge incumbent structures” (Stirling 2014 p13).

Social Innovation at its most transformative is therefore underpinned by the assumption

that addressing contemporary challenges requires a reorganisation of society itself, and not just finding ways to reduce the impacts of the symptoms of particular patterns in the way

making-sense.eu

of 30

things are done in that society. A critical aspect of such reorganisation is the way in which

knowledge is produced and used.

1.2 ThreeChallengesFor TransformationTo contribute rapidly and more directly to deliberate transformation, we needs to overcome three significant challenges that require fundamentally different methods of research and practice.

1.2.1 EngagingWithTheFuture

Firstly, we need to advance how we engage with the future.

Although Sanders (2013) suggests we can understand the future better by employing

design prototyping, most research naturally focuses on the past through the materials and technologies here now, or collecting evidence to help make decisions about the future. Both of these assume that meaningful predictions can be made about the future, or that the future will be like the past.

Even future oriented approaches, such as scenario planning and complex systems modelling, are often based on past data, or at least about what can be imagined based on what has already occurred. While much more could be done to improve how we learn from previous

events (Fazey et al. 2015), the past is increasingly becoming a poor analogy for informing the future given the rapidly accelerating global changes occurring through trade, human consumption, environmental impacts and technological advances (Steffen et al. 2004).

New ways of conducting future oriented research are therefore required, including through better understanding of how current framings of time shape thinking and action (Hodgson

2013), research to help develop practices to work better with the future, and new ways of thinking about how research can contribute to future oriented, decision-making.

making-sense.eu

of 30

1.2.2 Knowledge and Decision-Making

Second, we need to contribute to current decision-making and action in ways beyond just providing more and better knowledge.

Most research is based on the assumption that providing more and better knowledge will

lead to better decisions and action. Yet contemporary challenges cannot be addressed

by scientific advances alone (Hanlon et al. 2012). In addition to considering what is ‘true’, consideration of what is ‘good’ and ‘just’ (ethics) or ‘beautiful’ (aesthetics) needs to be

included in research, action, decisions, and intent (Hanlon et al. 2012).

Failure to acknowledge the normative component of research can lead to ignorance, as has occurred in the given examples cigarettes, asbestos, and climate change (Proctor and Schiebinger 2008). Normative aspects of research have, for example, been explicitly integrated into the British Permaculture Association’s research strategy, where researchers trained in formal research working with and within the permaculture movement conform to

three permaculture ethics (earth care, people care, fair shares). This in turn has significantly changed the aims, processes and outcomes of their research (Henfrey 2014).

Overall, this highlights the need for both research to be explicit about its normative dimensions and research to specifically focus on enhancing the ways in which decisions and actions work with those normative dimensions, rather than only describing what those normative dimensions might be (Gorddard et al. Under Review).

1.2.3PracticalKnowledgeforTransformation

Third, there is a need for us to engage more directly with the practiceof doing transformation.

This includes providing and assisting the development of practical forms of knowledge.

A fundamental problem, however, is that academia mostly involves developing epistemic knowledge, which is abstracted, generalised and ‘teachable’ (Aristotle 2004), including ‘principles’ about how to do transformation in practice.

Teaching such principles does not on its own enable someone to work effectively: the practitioner /citizen still has to develop ‘practical’ kinds of knowledge. Practical knowledge

includes both techne (knowing how to do something) and phronesis, which is knowing how to decide the best course of action (wisdom)(Aristotle 2004).

making-sense.eu

of 30

Both forms of practical knowledge are embodied and ‘internally’ held, are often context specific, and may only become apparent through the activities of practice (Nonaka et al. 2000). Practical knowledge is difficult to observe and disseminate while episteme may have limited value for citizens because it can be difficult to interpret, is rarely situation specific and does not help people develop the kind of experiential knowledge they need to engage in

action (Rolfe 1998).

The extensive emphasis in research on epistemic forms of knowledge as opposed to practical

forms of knowledge contributes to and reinforces:

(1) The separation of research from practice; from lab based and ‘research in the wild’

(2) The limited acceptance of what counts as research (e.g. lack of appreciation of

action forms of research);

(3) The notion that knowledge is something discrete to be passed on to others in inert

form, rather than recognised as being formulated in more complex and social ways (Greenhalgh and Sietsewieringa 2011).

Overall, this has resulted in a perceived gap between theory and practice (Van De Ven and Johnson 2006), a continued search for better or more refined theories that do not translate well into practice (Rolfe 1998), and either limited funding for long-term reflexive and action oriented research, or pressures to deliver sustainability or commercialisation of outcomes.

making-sense.eu

of 30

2SOCIAL CHANGE,

SOCIAL INNOVATION

2.1 DefiningSocialInnovationSocial Innovation is one way to create an environment for change and empower people to become agents of that change.

There are many definitions of Social Innovation, The Young Foundation describe it as: ‘new approaches to addressing social needs. They are social in their means and in their ends. They

engage and mobilise the beneficiaries and help to transform social relations by improving beneficiaries’ access to power and resources’.

Here, we consider social innovation or transformation is with purpose, to realise together a more sustainable world. However social change and social innovation like other definitions of innovation, can take many forms. Futhermore is it contingent on peoples behaviour and triggers for change (Fogg 2009). As described systemic innovation is one aspect of social

innovation in its most impactful form.

2.2ThePotentialofDesignforSocialInnovationandTransformation

The term “transformation design” was first proposed by Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, and Winhall (2006), a call to action stemming from the RED project, initiated by the Design Council UK to “tackle social and economic issues through design-led innovation”.

making-sense.eu

of 30

Whilst Burns et al layed early foundations for linkages between design and social innovation, the new discipline has not gained the traction in the form that the authors initially outlined.

However, Sangiorgi (2011) since made a more radical proposal and forged links between design and other methodologies and disciplines that are concerned with social change, innovation and ultimately with transformation.

Since then, the potential of Transformation Design has been further articulated, however Sangiorgi (2011) and many others have warned against the danger of holding Design, the designer, and any singular method or tool as the panecea for complex societal issues. Usefully instead Sangiorgi (2011) suggests seven key principles, listed below, that could draw together transformative practices across the disciplines of design, organisational development and community action research. These are described below.

[1] Active Citizens: transforming services requires the active participation of citizen users, who become designers and producers working in partnership with professionals;

[2] Intervention at Community Scale: using community centred approaches and

community-based solutions, so that communities become the site for interventions if the focus is large-scale, transformative change;

[3] Building Capacities and Project Partnerships: recognising that for transformation

to be sustainable requires the building of trust, on-going dialogues and the creation of a culture of participation. This requires involving people as partners in the change process and continuous reciprocal learning cycles;

[4] Redistributing Power: understanding that participation in a design process

requires a redistribution of power in relation to decisions, directions and production;

[5] Building Infrastructure and Enabling Platforms: recognising that participation

doesn’t just happen automatically because we want it to! Both the design process and the outcomes need to consider how participation can be enabled – what the structures

and the platforms are that will support participation and help to maintain and develop it

over time.

[6] Enhancing Imagination and Hope: enhancing a capacity to imagine possibilities, building new shared visions and designing ways to work towards these visions is

fundamental to transformation design;

[7] Evaluating Success and Impact: measuring the long-term impact and legacy of

making-sense.eu

of 30

design processes and interventions.

2.3 MakingSenseofIssues

In order to step towards any far-reaching ambition, we have to turn awareness and understanding into action, to move towards change.

Making Sense is rolling out environmental monitoring pilots across the European cities of

Amsterdam, Barcelona and Kosovo. The first of the pilots in Amsterdam commenced in April 2016, and focused on monitoring of air quality. What became clear from the first pilot for Making Sense in Amsterdam is that there is intense interest in environmental issues that

affect everyday life. Furthermore there is substantial know-how and sustained grassroots and community momentum, on the other hand, scientists, academics, government and other agencies have knowledge, the capacity, and a growing willingness to engage.

During one of the first kick off meetings in Amsterdam a questionnaire was issued to participants. Its purpose was to provide an initial record of participant’s issues and concerns, as well as record any actions or changes people had made in the past in relation to their

concerns. Whilst the full results of this questionnaire will be explored in a further paper, a high level summary of findings with regards issues towards action and change is useful to outline here. Altogether 13 participants took part in a semi structured, anonymised questionnaire, the following high level results were observed. A number of environmental issues were

proposed, with 54% listing air quality (both indoor and out) as a their primary concern, other concerns such as water quality (flooding and pollution), sound and light disturbance, waste and tourism were also recorded. Whilst all participants suggested possible solutions to their

primary concern, and all had either ‘often’ or ‘always’ read, listened to, or sought information about their concern, substantially less had more actively engaged in areas such as writing, presenting, or sharing information, taking up educational opportunities, joining an action group or network, amongst others. Furthermore, only 3 out of 13 people responded that they often or always undertook actions and changes for example, making changes to a daily routine, suggesting changes to another person, taken action to protect the environment, complained or tried to influence decision makers. Finally, all but one respondent reported that in their opinion their action or change had not been effective at all, or that is was hard to tell. Whilst these results are a summary, they provide a clear indication that whilst citizens have issues and concerns, and have ideas about potential solutions, they are not always successful in taking action and when they do, on the whole they do not know or doubt the effectiveness of those actions.

Therefore, pilots are working in an inclusive manner with a number of citizens and organisations from the community, as well as scientists, academics, grassroots activists, hackers, social entrepreneurs, students, and civil society organisations.

making-sense.eu

of 30

2.4 Enabling Conditions and ApproachesinMakingSenseWe map below emerging competencies and elements that are supported within Making Sense alongside seven principals for transformative practices.

The Making Sense project encompasses the principals outlined in 2.2. Specifically it proposes that ‘open source hardware, open source software and open design involve the development

of technologies and systems (for social change, innovation or another purpose) through the

use of publicly shared design and technical information. Central to this is co-creation and

design by users, rather than final services and products designed by a private company or government agency. As such, it is about adopting an active, social and responsible mode of

sensing, being and acting in the world.’

2.4.1 Mobilising Collective KnowledgeThe last decades have seen the emergence of open source platforms and development

environments created and maintained by communities of users, from Processing, a programming language for visual interaction, to Arduino, an open hardware microcontroller. [Redistributing Power]

2.4.2 Accessible TechnologyWe see the uptake of low cost technology, open hardware and open software, gaining traction. Latterly low cost sensors and environmental monitoring devices such as Smart

Citizen Toolkit (SCK) are becoming more commonplace, with technology innovations they themselves are innovating fast. [Building Infrastructure and Enabling Platforms]

2.4.3 Open ScienceIn the last 10 years Citizen Science has been defined, although having volunteers contribute to science has a long tradition, only recently has the term citizen science been used to describe a plethora of activities that whose broad vision is to open science. Open science also

builds on the principals of participatory sensing (Goldman et al 2009) sometimes known as

Citizen Sensing, and civic/community science (Haklay 2015). [Redistributing Power]

2.4.4 Co-creationAlongside the vision for open science, the dominant top down approach to citizen science has begun to shift, and although the majority of projects are contributory there is a visionary move to collaborative and co-created approaches (Bonney et al 2009). [Redistributing Power]

making-sense.eu

of 30

2.4.5 Collaborative networksCollaborative networks take many forms but are associated with grassroots activity, and those seeking education, action or change. However the sheer number of initiatives that now exist, be they, individual or small special interest groups, Fablab or Hacklabs, and funded research projects make this emerging movement resist easy definition and measurement. [Building Capacities and Project Partnerships]

2.4.6 Issues, and a Common AgendaCitizens are at the centre of concerns in their locale and community, and are more aware than ever before about environmental issues. Having an active community of citizens identifying

issues at the very start of a process is essential. Citizens also have a role in defining processes and protocols, gathering data, analysing, understanding and making use of the results in order to take action around the issues they care about. [Active Citizens] [Intervention at Community Scale].

2.4.7 Social Storytelling and CommunicationDigital media has enabled people to create, tell and share stories, as well as read, response and distribute those generated by others. Well-crafted stories, that demonstrate social good and innovation are designed to be shared and can go viral; these are commonplace on social

media. [Active Citizens]

2.4.8 Data and IndicatorsDigital Citizens are aware of the potential power and value of data, even if they do not fully comprehend or understand it’s impact in their everyday lives. Citizens are also far more aware

of the role that evidence plays and consider not only measurements, but also their stories, as powerful tools to communicate with. Community level indicators, those arrived at and agreed with the citizens and stakeholders involved, allow for individual and collective soft data gathering and recording by communities themselves. [Evaluating Success and Impact].

2.4.9 Futures ApproachesThat include novel futures orientated approaches and design for social experience, service, innovation, transformation and sustainability (Sanders 2013), toolkits exemplified by DIY Toolkit (NESTA 2014) and a manual for those looking for a new way to tackle social and policy

issues aka social design (Kimbell and Julier, 2012). The theory positioning this pertinent to social innovation and complex issues is Tranformation Design (Sangiorgi, 2011). [Enhancing Imagination and Hope]

Finally, the challenges and opportunities that can inhibit or propel the impact of these elements and their interaction in the world include technology, calibration and accuracy, ownership and trust, social interactions, diversity, governance, data issues and transdisciplinarity.

making-sense.eu

of 30

By bringing communities of practice and interest together we aim to promote and support an active community by empowering people with networks, pathways and tools to effect change.

All of the about are examined in depth in Making Sense Deliverable D6.2+D4.1 Mapping

Participatory Sensing and Community-led Environmental Monitoring initiatives.

making-sense.eu

of 30

3INTRODUCING

POWERFUL DELIBERATE PRACTICES

A highly promising focus are the deliberate practices used by those

trying to instigate systemic change through social innovation.

Intentional practices are used in all sectors in society, such as mechanics when fixing a car, nurses caring for patients, or

professional facilitators when managing group dynamics.

Actors of different identities and roles (practitioners) use tools and different methods (practices) applied through some kind of process (praxis) (Vaara and Whittington 2012)

(hereafter referred to collectively as ‘practices’). These practices are not applied in isolation, however, and are embedded in and influenced by everyday less conscious social practices and contexts of application (Reckwitz 2003).

Similarly, change makers use different practices to try to create change. Much of the sustainability arena involves individuals who develop and apply various implicit and explicit

change-oriented practices. Examples include facilitators or practitioners who are working

within new Design domains (Sanders 2009) sometimes described as Design 3.0 and 4.0, non-government organisations and public service, who work in international development, planning, sustainability, health, education, biodiversity conservation, business, water, transport and energy sectors.

In all of these, while not always made explicit, some aspect of change is a core focus (Vaara and Whittington 2012). In many cases change is seen as a managerial operation or in

incremental terms. In others, deliberate practices are used with more transformative changes in mind (Hanlon et al. 2012, Sharpe 2013). Such practices include those for developing technologies and tools, new models for business, changing mind-sets, working with conflict, incorporating ethics and aesthetics in decisions, creating new ways of thinking, enhancing environmental consciousness, generating creativity, imagination and innovation, or those used to disrupt the status quo or empower groups for action (Vaara and Whittington 2012).

making-sense.eu

of 30

Use of the word ‘deliberate’ as opposed to ‘intentional’ is important here, the notion of ‘deliberate practice’ is intended to refer to both:

(1) Practices undertaken by people who are living their lives ‘deliberately’ (e.g. engaging

with openness, ethics and aesthetics in addition to knowledge) to help shape change;

(2) Where there is an intention to help others live differently through directing or facilitating deliberate transformative practices.

Deliberate practices used by change-makers may have significant impacts well beyond improving understanding of a situation (which is usually the main goal of theory) such as

enhancing the agency of those involved in enacting change.

3.1 Powerful practicesThis leads to the concept of ‘powerful’, deliberate practices.

This is an extension of the notion of ‘powerful ideas’, which are used to assist understanding of complex issues (Newell 2012) and which are based on the premise that human understanding

is determined by the way our minds have evolved to work with and make sense of a complex

world (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Certain concepts or ideas are therefore more likely to be considered useful because they fit better with the way we think (Anderson 2001). This includes ideas that are simple, tell a story, are portable or are metaphorical (Newell 2012).

Examples are the metaphor of bathtubs to help explain the complex concept of stocks

and flows or the ball in the bowl metaphor to explain the concept of multiple stable states, thresholds, resilience and regime shifts (Newell 2012, Dyball and Newell 2015). Simple metaphors such as these can act as powerful ideas to explain complex phenomena and help

develop shared understandings, provided that the metaphors adequately map onto the issue that needs to be understood (Newell 2012).

While powerful ideas are about assisting understanding, PDPs are about the tools, activities and processes to assist agency and change. As with powerful ideas, however, the underlying assumption of PDPs is that certain kinds of practices will be more useful in generating high

degrees of agency and change because they are simple to use or are applicable across

different circumstances or cultures. This is analogous to the notion of appropriate technologies in international development that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s (Kaplinsky 2011).

making-sense.eu

of 30

The concept of appropriate technology recognised that complicated and expensive

technologies (e.g. a tractor for agriculture) were not always helpful because they relied on

unavailable technical skills and resources to maintain or use compared to other, more locally appropriate, cheaper and/or simpler technologies.

Similarly, many existing processes used to help encourage dialogue or to work with contemporary challenges (often produced by researchers) are complex, requiring sophisticated systems modelling or extensive datasets. This can prevent inclusivity or

transparency and disenfranchises certain kinds of knowledge. The notion of a ‘powerful’

practice therefore emphasises the need to develop practices that help users deal with

complex issues in a way that is appropriate to the skills, knowledge and tools available to those using them.

Examples of the possible domains for application of PDP’s to help facilitate transformative

change can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Domains of Application for Deliberate Practices.

making-sense.eu

of 30

3.2 AnOutlineofECSupportive Competencies Social innovation requires movement and creative energy in the ecosystem from the actors and their connections, as well as enabling factors from the administrative, economic and legal environment.

The European Commission has outlined the competencies to create the ‘natural environment’

for social innovation to flourish. These main components include supportive policies, adequate governance, innovative finance. Next, a variety of capacity building and recognition tools, such as incubators, hubs, forums and prizes. Finally, research in methodologies focuses on evidence in the form of benchmarking and impact measurement. We suggest that in

order to build capacity for innovation and transformation, individual initiatives and projects, hubs and networks may consider incorporating some of these enabling factors as suggested

above.

3.3 A Guide to Deliberate Practices for Facilitating Change and Transformation

As we have discussed, promoting profound, systemic change is complex and requires a fundamental shift in individuals and institutions alike. This is of vital importance at a time

when urgent change is needed in our behaviours, businesses and institutions to meet 2020 sustainability targets.

Our final section outlines a guide by domain of deliberate practices for facilitating change and transformation. Table 1 (below) presents practices and methods by domain for facilitating

change and transformation.

making-sense.eu

of 30

Domain Title Aims and Description Key reference/website

Design The guerrilla

blue plaque

method

A method to help people to reflect on future cities.

It concerns the co-creation of shared stories

to communicate and understand peoples’ and

communities’ future hopes, needs and goals. It involves

‘performative tours’ of a series of pre-designed ‘blue

plaques’ commemorating real and imagined events,

people, and values. Participants in the tours are then

given opportunities to create their own plaques.

(Woods and Maxwell

2015)

DIY Toolkit The Development Impact and You toolkit has been

specially designed for practitioners to dive straight into

action. Yet the tools presented here are grounded in

existing theories and practices of innovation, design,

and business development. They are specifically

orientated towards Social Innovation

diytoolkit.org

Citizen

Campaigns

A coordinated pilot leveraging open hardware, open

data and open design focused on the monitoring

of environmental issues adaopted in.Making Sense.

Campaigns engage citizens, scientists, policy makers

and other bodies with issues that matter through the

use of collaborative-inquiry and design, and move

from awareness to sensing in order to support better

environmental decision making and action. Campaigns

are aimed at social innovation or change.

(Woods, Hemment

and Fazey 2015)

The Social

Design

Methods

Menu/Service

Innovation

Handbook

Provides an introduction and manual for those looking

for a new way to tackle social and policy issues. The

Service Innovation Handbook helps to understand how

designing innovative services is distinct from other

kinds of innovation and designing. It also outlines the

key activities can be undertaken at an early stage of an

innovation process to support collective action when

ambiguity is high, the impact of changes is significant

and investment is low.

serviceinnovation

handbook.org

The Convivial

Toolbox

Generative design research is an approach to bring the

people we serve through design directly into the design

process to ensure that we can meet their needs and

dreams for the future. The book covers the underlying

principles of generative design research, the second

part presents cases and the third part is the how to

section. Through out the book are 50 contributions

from people all around the world that show generative

design research in action.

maketools.com

making-sense.eu

of 30

Re-

evaluating

lives

Metasaga A technique to facilitate deep reflexion, applicable to a

range of fields including work, school, and businesses.

Metasaga is a walk-based technique designed to

let participants explore their environments where

participants are encouraged to create reflexive

questions and metaphors based on artefacts

encountered in the walk to help them reconsider

aspects of their lives.

metasaga.

wikispaces.com

Capacity for

consensus

‘Dark Days’ An overnight ‘camp’ in the Gallery of Modern Art

(GoMA), Glasgow, February 2015 involving one hundred

people that collectively decide how to spend the

night using facilitated ‘consensus decision-making’

techniques, and then to act on the decisions.

vimeo.

com/121878202

Innovations

for

democracy

Deliberative

micro-forums

Attempts to put ideas of deliberative democracy into

practice (e.g. political equality and inclusion, altered

power relations, focusing on the common good over

entrenched interests, reflection, discussion etc).

Independent professional facilitators are used to assure

fairness and evidence may be provided by experts who

can be questioned by participants who then deliberate

on the specific issue before arriving at a decision.

Examples include: citizens’ juries; planning cells;

consensuses conferences; deliberative polls.

core.ac.uk/

download/pdf/30511.

pdf

Popular

assemblies

Institutions where citizens engage in face-to-face

decision-making. Usually confined to small-scale

contexts. Can take a number of forms, for example,

participatory budgeting - developed in Porto Alegre,

Brazil in the late 1980s involving a combination of

popular assemblies (neighbourhood and city region

levels) and representative forums (city and region level)

through which the spending of a significant portion of

the city’s budget is decided. The aim is to encourage

transparent decision making involving excluded groups

(e.g. the poor).

core.ac.uk/

download/pdf/30511.

pdf

E-democracy America Speaks, 21st Century Town Meetings

integrates ICT and deliberation across scales. A

variation of the traditional New England town meeting

involving between 500 and 5000 people in one day

events. Issues covered include planning, resource

allocation and policy formulation. Involves combining

small group face-to-face deliberations with large-scale

ICT-enabled interactions and decision-making, e.g.

‘Listening to the City: Rebuilding Lower Manhattan’

concerning the redevelopment of the World Trade

Centre site after 9/11.

core.ac.uk/

download/pdf/30511.

pdf

making-sense.eu

of 30

Futures

thinking

Three

Horizons

A facilitated dialogue for groups focused around a

simple framework that involves exploring changes

in patterns over time. The approach allows for the

exploration of those aspects in society that are no

longer working and are declining (e.g. cultures, forms

of management, or technologies), consideration of

visionary new patterns that will emerge over the longer

term, and those aspects needed in the medium term to

disrupt the status quo and facilitate new, more radical

change. It also involves exploring the ‘pockets of the

new future’ in the present, resulting in a greater sense

of agency and hope.

Imagining the

Future game

Groups use four scenarios of the future as a strategic

tool to reappraise their plans, particularly around

integration and personalisation agendas. It involves a

game to help groups work with new possibilities of the

future. Four teams are immersed in one of four worlds

set in Scotland, in 2025: ‘Post Welfare World’, ‘New

Normal’ World, ‘Yesterday is Another World’ and ‘Fully

Integrated World’.

content.iriss.org.

uk/2025/

Personal

change

Theory U The approach views profound change in how people

regard themselves, other humans and the world as

being essential for genuine transformative change.

It can be used for change management in diverse

settings to progressively support the letting-go of

established habits, look towards future possibilities,

and to enhance individual and collective purpose and

optimism.

www.presencing.

com/theoryu

Facilitating

change in

complex

systems

Ecosystem

Governance

Baselines

This works with complex social and ecological issues

and is a way to help determine key baselines of what

is required to help govern change. A baseline of

governance response to ecosystem change is the

foundation for the practice of adaptive governance

that responds to changes in the condition and

functioning of the ecosystems of concern, changes

in the governance system and to the program’s own

learning. It encourages reflexive learning over time,

identifying key goals and actions in a realistic way. An

example in Ghana: helping direct multi-stakeholder

engagement to manage environmental change.

loicz.org/imperia/

md/content/loicz/

print/rsreports/34_

the_analysis_

of_governance_

responses_to_

ecosystem_change.

pdf

making-sense.eu

of 30

Working with

more than

knowledge

to facilitate

change

Values,

Rules and

Knowledge

(VRK)

The approach aims to catalyse changes in the way

people think and frame adaptation and sustainability

problems, by revealing the systemic barriers to

choosing and implementing options and highlighting

the need to focus on societal change that shifts

the ark of decision contexts. It involves considering

the values and informal/formal institutional rules, in

addition to the new knowledge that is required, in order

to implement adaptation and change. It catalyses

changes in the way people think and frame problems,

and it can be incorporated into research and decision-

making processes to initiate change decision contexts.

(Gorddard et al.

Under Review)

Promoting

holistic

thinking

World Game The IFF World Game is based around an interconnected

representational model of the global socio-ecological

system, designed to promote holistic and trans

disciplinary conversations across twelve dimensions

relevant to resilient communities. As a game it enables

groups to generate integrative strategies upon which

transformative actions can be based.

internationalfutures

forum.com/world-

game

Managing

carbon

budgets

The Climate

Adventure

Game

The game helps participants work in tangible ways with

the ethical issues of Climate Change. The object of the

game is to ‘keep carbon in balance during an adventure

through the atmosphere’. The team that has the same

amount of carbon it had at the beginning of the game,

wins. Teams seem to be of any number but each team

must select members to be a Leader and a Pawn.

de Sousa, J., Cunha,

J., Prado, M. “Our

Common Future

under climate

change Conference”,

7-10 July 2015 Paris,

France

Communica-

tive process

Super

Syntegration

A communicative and participative process

conducted over 3½ days. It is aimed at businesses and

organisations in which rapid and thorough change is

desired and for working quickly with complex problems

and tasks (e.g. multi-party dialogue and negotiation).

malik-mzsg.ch/en/

syntegration

Promoting

‘network

thinking’

Ecopolicy A computer-based approach in which people learn

about ‘network thinking’. It is a computer simulation

game played by a team involving decision-making and

consequences pertaining to a fantasy country.

www.frederic-vester.

de/eng/ecopolicy

Working

with power

relations

Powercube The ‘Powercube’ is designed as an accessible synthesis

and development of some of the more recent theorising

on the meaning and nature of power. It is orientated

towards being a practical tool of analysis, learning,

action and change. The key claim made by advocates

of the Powercube is that it enables an ‘aligning’ of

analysis and strategies for action across the three

dimensions of the cube making the difficult shift to a

‘real transformation of power more likely to occur’.

powercube.net/

analyse-power/

what-is-the-

powercube

making-sense.eu

of 30

Unlearning

and re-

learning

‘Backwards

Brain Bike’

An activity designed to highlight how difficult it is to

change, or to re-learn (in this case riding a bicycle).

A bicycle has been adapted so that the front wheel

moves in the opposite direction of the handlebars, i.e. if

the handlebar is turned left, the wheel turns right. The

rider has to relearn how to ride this bike. It highlights

how the human deals with change – successfully,

given time and determination.

viewpure.com/

MFzDaBzBlL0?ref=bkmk

Promoting

behavioural

change

The Behaviour

Wizard

A method for matching target behaviors with solutions

for achieving those behaviors. This method first classifies

behavior change targets into one of 15 types. Later

stages focus on triggers for the target behaviors and on

relevant theories and techniques. This is an approach to

persuasive design, as well as the terminology that can

lead to insights into the patterns of behavior change.

The Behavior Wizard can also increase success rates in

academic studies and commercial products.

www.

BehaviorWizard.org

ISM Tool The Individual, Social and Material tool is a practical

device for decision makers aiming to bring about

social change. It provides a framework for planning

social change work by considering the individual

context (e.g. values, attitudes and skills, personal

evaluations of costs and benefits); social context (e.g.

social norms and the meanings attached to particular

activities, networks and relationships, and institutions

that influence how groups behave); and the material

context (e.g. ‘hard’ infrastructures, technologies and

regulations, time and schedules of everyday life).

gov.scot/

Resource/0042/

00423531.pdf

making-sense.eu

of 30

4

SUMMARYThe approach outlined in this report addresses key challenges facing

transformation research in five key ways.

1) First, by taking a broad view of deliberate practices as combinations of tools, actions, praxis and practitioners embedded within wider systems of social practice, simplistic approaches are avoided that assume linear causal relationships between specific interventions and their impacts. This enables exploration of diverse change processes and identification of those aspects that are context specific or more widely generalizable.

2) Second, focusing on ‘deliberate’ practices directs attention to: (a) learning about ‘doing’ transformation with the intent to create new, or challenge existing, structures and processes; and (b) the onus/responsibility of the change-makers (researchers or practitioners)

themselves to be deeply reflexive and living their lives ‘deliberately’ and ethically. The focus on deliberate practices, in combination with examining practices that specifically focus on futures, can also help changemakers orient towards new, more ethical and empathetic ways of engaging and thinking about relationships between the present and the future.

3) Third, the emphasis on ‘practice’ provides a platform for change-makers to learn collaboratively about change processes, and hence acts as an interface between episteme and practical forms of knowledge. It also highlights the important distinction between techne

and phronesis, allowing greater consideration of ethical and aesthetic issues in producing and using knowledge, which are critical components of facilitating appropriate forms of change.

4) Fourth, the focus on understanding what makes practices ‘powerful’ in the way described in this paper directs attention to identifying which qualities of practices are most likely to generate conditions conducive for transformative. It also helps orient research towards

developing the right kinds of new practices needed for new circumstances that more

effectively take into account how humans think and act, and thus the extent to which they are likely to be imitated and taken up by others.

5) Finally the different research strategies allow for a pluralistic approach to integrate strengths of different kinds of transfrormation research. The approach is sufficiently wide to take into account other diverse aspects that have not yet received deep attention in this

paper, such as philosophy, psychotherapy, anthropology and ethnology of rituals, ethics, theories of political action.

making-sense.eu

of 30

REFERENCESSimon, J., Millard, J., René, J., Lauritzen, K., Carpenter, G., Schimpf, G. and Leszek, P. (2014) DOING SOCIAL INNOVATION A guide for practitioners. Available at: http://youngfoundation.org/

wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Practitioner-Report_FINAL-FOR-WEB.pdf (Accessed: 1 May 2016).

Saunders, T. and Baeck, P. (2015) RETHINKING SMART CITIES FROM THE GROUND UP. Available at: https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/rethinking_smart_cities_from_the_ground_up_2015.pdf (Accessed: 31 May 2016).

Jackson, T. (2011) Societal transformations for a sustainable economy. Natural Resources Forum 35:155-164.

Hanlon, P., S. Carlisle, M. Hannah, A. Lyon, and D. Reilly. 2012. A perspective on the future public health: An integrative and ecological framework. Perspectives in Public Health 132:313-

319

Feola, G. (2014) Societal Transformation in Response to Global Environmental Change: A Review of the Evidence. Ambio

O’Brien, K. (2012) Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography 36:667-676

ISSC. (2012) Transformative cornerstones of social science research for global change.

International Social Science Council, Paris.

Bassett, T. J., and C. Fogelman. 2013. Déjà vu or something new? The adaptation concept in the climate change literature. Geoforum 48:42-53

Wise, R. M., I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S. E. Park, H. C. Eakin, E. R. M. Archer Van Garderen, and B. Campbell. 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change 28:325 - 336.

Stirling, A. (2014) Emancipating transformations: From controlling ‘the transition’ to culturing plural radical progress. STEPS Centre, Brighton

Sanders, E.B.-N. (2013) Prototyping for the Design Spaces of the Future. In Valentine, L. (Editor) Prototype: Design and Craft in the 21st Century, Bloomsbury.

Fazey, I., R. M. Wise, C. Lyon, C. Câmpeanu, P. Moug, and T. E. Davies. (2015) Past and future

making-sense.eu

of 30

adaptation pathways. Climate and Development

Steffen, W., A. Sanderson, P. D. Tyson, J. Jäger, P. A. Matson, B. Moore III, F. Oldfield, K. Richardson, H.-J. Schellnhuber, B. L. Turner II, and R. J. Wasson. 2004. Global change and the Earth System: A planet under pressure. Springer, Berlin.

Hodgson, A. 2013. Towards an ontology of the present moment. On the Horizon 21:24-38.

Hanlon, P., S. Carlisle, M. Hannah, A. Lyon, and D. Reilly. (2012). A perspective on the future public health: An integrative and ecological framework. Perspectives in Public Health 132:313-

319.

Proctor, R., and L. Schiebinger. 2008. Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press

Henfrey, T. (2014). Edge, Empowerment and Sustainability: Para-Academic Practice as Applied Permaculture Design.in A. Wardrop and D. Withers, editors. The Para-Academic Handbook: A Toolkit for making-learning-creating-acting. HammerOn Press, London

Aristotle. 2004. The Nicomachean ethics (Translated by J. A. K. Thomson). Penguin Books, London

Nonaka, I., R. Toyama, and N. Konno. 2000. SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 33:5-34

Rolfe, G. 1998. The theory-practice gap in nursing: From research-based practice to practitioner-based research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28:672-67

Greenhalgh, T., and S. Sietsewieringa. 2011. Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 104:501-509

Van De Ven, A. H., and P. E. Johnson. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review 31:802-821

Vaara, E., and R. Whittington. 2012. Strategy-as-Practice: Taking Social Practices Seriously. Academy of Management Annals 6:285-336

Sharpe, B. 2013. Three horizons: Patterning of hope. Triarchy Press, Axminster, Devon, UK

Newell, B. 2012. Simple models, powerful ideas: Towards effective integrative practice. Global Environmental Change 22:776-783

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

making-sense.eu

of 30

Anderson, J. L. 2001. Stone age minds at work on 20th century science: how can cognitive psychology inform conservation biology. Conservation biology in Practice 2:20-27

Dyball, r., and B. Newell. 2015. Understanding human ecology: A systems approach to sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon

Kaplinsky, R. 2011. Schumacher meets schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar. Research Policy 40:193-203

Goldman, J., Shilton, K., Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., Ramanathan, N., Reddy, S.,Samanta, V., Srivastava, M., & West, R. (2009), ‘Participatory sensing: A citizen-powered approach to illuminating the patterns that shape our world,’ Technical Report, Woodrow Wilson Int. Center,http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/participatory_sensing.pdf (Accessed: 26 May 2016).

Haklay, M. (2015) Citizen science and policy: A European perspective. Available at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Citizen_Science_Policy_European_Perspective_Haklay.pdf (Accessed: 26 May 2016).

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., Wilderman, C.C. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing its Potential for Informal Science Education, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. Available at: http://informalscience.org/images/research/PublicParticipationinScientificResearch.pdf (Accessed: 18 April 2016).

Nesta (2014) Development impact and you. Available at: http://diytoolkit.org/ (Accessed: 4

May 2016).

Kimbell, L. and Julier, J. (2012) THE SOCIAL DESIGN METHODS MENU in perpetual beta. Available at: http://www.lucykimbell.com/stuff/Fieldstudio_SocialDesignMethodsMenu.pdf (Accessed: 4 May 2016).

AcknowledgmentsThe term ‘Powerful Deliberate Practices’ was developed as a result of funding by ISSC seed

grant under the Transformations to Sustainability research programme, for which the authors Fazey led and Woods contributed.

making-sense.eu

d ()*$&+,-, ./*'0*&+, 1$!,2$3!1/0, '0*4!(),...

Documents

d ()$&+,-, ./'0&+, 1$!,2$3!1/0, '04!(),...