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

Page, Glenn G.; Wise, Russell M.; Lindenfeld, Laura; Moug, Peter; Hodgson, Anthony; Wyborn, Carina; Fazey, Ioan

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.09.001

Cited by 53 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In doing so, an ecosystem can be established enabling the co-creation and co-production of knowledge between entrepreneurship researchers and the practitioner community (Bansal et al, 2012). Clearly, co-production and co-creation of new knowledge enhances open and integrative research processes in social and natural sciences and across research/science, practice and policy interrelationships (Page et al, 2016). Such integrative knowledge production processes allow academic researchers and practitioners to work collaboratively to develop solutions to problems in the world of practice, thereby creating insights for the world of theory (Beech et al, 2010;Chen et al, 2013;Van de Ven, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaged scholarship

Simba

Ojöng

2017

JSBED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Abstract PurposeThis article introduces a multi-layered theoretical framework to enable engaged scholarship to develop as a practice in entrepreneurship and small business research. To do so, it illuminates the salient features of engaged scholarship, collaborative learning and actor-network theory. Design/Methodology/ApproachThe article follows a narrative or traditional literature review design. Specifically, it adopts a thematic approach for summarising and synthesising a body of literature on engaged scholarship, collaborative learning and actor-network theory with the view to developing a new multi-layered theoretical framework.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaged scholarship

Simba

Ojöng

2017

JSBED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss3/art16/ The codesign process took place over 10 months in 2014-2015 and incorporated input from relevant stakeholders and scientists through an iterative process that combined workshops, semistructured interviews, and open-ended conversations. This approach is reflective of other codesign applications reported on in the literature (e.g., Mauser et al 2013, Binder et al 2015, Reyers et al 2015, Iwaniec et al 2016, Page et al 2016. Codesign activities were conducted as part of implementing the broader S 3 RCN program and aimed to inform both the scenario development process and to help establish a shared problem framing and research objectives for the NE-LFP.…”

Section: Codesign Of the Scenario Development Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And because participants directly involved in the codesign process appeared to have a stronger grasp of how scenarios could be eventually applied than those not directly involved, it appears that collaborative design may be particularly useful as a platform through which to establish the utility of foresight knowledge, enhancing its ability to generate actionable science in support of sustainable futures (Page et al 2016).…”

Section: Improving the Process Of Codesign: Critical Reflections On Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The stakeholder feedback described across these 23 case studies revealed many commonalities with that received for the NE-LFP. For example, the most frequently cited concerns for the NE-LFP are common across participatory processes and not specific to our case study, such as the time required and the difficulties in compacting engagement processes into a one-day framework (e.g., Oteros-Rozas et al 2015, Polk 2015, Cockburn et al 2016, Page et al 2016. Similarly, for feedback received about the lack of diversity among stakeholders, there is a tendency for certain stakeholder groups, such as industry representatives, to remain underrepresented in transdisciplinary research programs Evidence of process limitations: "More specifics on how to use this tool in my own organization on a day to day basis.…”

Section: Benefits Of Codesign For Informing Scenario Process Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign

McBride¹,

Lambert²,

Huff³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign. ABSTRACT. Developing scenarios to explore possible environmental futures is a widely used tool in social-ecological research. Scenario planners working in environmental systems increasingly enlist stakeholders to help develop scenarios, but effectively integrating stakeholder participation with scenario analyses and modeling remains a challenge. Using the New England Landscape Futures project as a case study, we explore how a method for codesigning a scenario elicitation process can be used to help balance the needs of both stakeholders and scientists. To illustrate the design process, we document eight influential decisions made with stakeholder input, describe the competing demands that we negotiated, and outline the rationale for the selected approach. We find that three priorities drove most of our decisions: maximizing stakeholder involvement in the scenario development process, efficient use of stakeholder time, and research needs. The outcome was a robust, intense, and highly structured one-day scenario development protocol that engaged stakeholders in the full scenario development process from initial orientation and identification of driving forces through to fleshedout scenarios narratives and quantitative inputs able to inform land-use simulations. Its deployment in six state-specific workshops was successful in eliciting divergent scenarios that stakeholders perceived as being plausible and relevant. Stakeholder responses to the process were positive, though also reflected the compromises made during the codesign process. Research needs were largely met, though initial expectations likely exceeded what could reasonably be elicited from a stakeholder group in one day. Our experiences highlight the importance of process design and how selection of scenario development techniques should follow from the project objectives, problem context, and stakeholder preferences for engagement activities. The use of a codesign framework that recognizes the challenges involved and engages stakeholders in the design process can act as a shared learning experience and contribute to greater effectiveness and impact for participatory social-ecological scenario processes.

show abstract

“…However, there are examples, such as those reported by Kahane (2012), which suggest that it is possible to develop truly transformative processes. Further, recent literature on codesign suggests that despite the constraints of time and resources, transformative processes need to embrace more explicitly less clearly defined outcomes of personal transformations; e.g., changes in mental models and narratives, in order to develop, in the long run, the basis for larger institutional change (Tàbara and Ilhan 2008, Wiek et al 2012, Page et al 2016). …”

Section: Key Insights For Designing Processes For Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation

Galafassi¹,

Daw²,

Thyresson³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Transformations in social-ecological systems to overturn poverty and ecosystem degradation require approaches to knowledge synthesis that are inclusive and open to creative innovation. We draw on interviews with participants and in-depth process observation of an iterative knowledge cocreation process in Kenya and Mozambique that brought together scientists, community representatives, government representatives, and practitioners who had expertise or experience in poverty and/or coastal natural resource use and management. We analyze the communicative spaces opened by techniques of system diagrams and future scenarios, and provide a rich account of the emergent process of developing a "shared conceptual repertoire" as a basis for effective communication and knowledge synthesis. Our results highlight the difficulties of challenging dominant narratives and the creative potential that exists in reflecting on their underpinning assumptions. In our analysis, stories and lived experiences emerged as key means shaping the construction of shared concepts and ideas. We conclude by outlining the implications of designing knowledge cocreation processes that support the task of devising systemic interventions that are robust for a range of future scenarios. This includes embracing the role of stories in generating shared meanings and opening up spaces for exploration of knowledge assumptions that are embedded in intervention narratives.

show abstract

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

Cited by 53 publications

References 34 publications

Engaged scholarship

Engaged scholarship

Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign

Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About