Session 6.4
Unraveling Configurations of Participatory Collectives: A Literature Review on Effective and Meaningful Academic and Non-Academic Knowledge Integration
Durwin Lynch, Valentina Vodopivec, Eduardo Muniz Pereira Urias, Dirk Essink, Marjolein Zweekhorst
Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
To address societal challenges in a meaningful and inclusive way, effective and meaningful knowledge integration between academic and non-academic actors is needed. However, this remains a persistent challenge due to all sorts of barriers. There is a growing need for ‘good participation’ practices. This paper aims to gather and critically analyze processes of knowledge integration between academic and non-academic knowledge-holders. We suggest that this requires a constructivist science and technology studies [STS] perspective, where close attention is paid to the construction, performance, productive dimensions and effects of what we will refer to as ‘collectives of participation’.
Approaching participation from an STS perspective, we conducted a literature review and applied a relational and coproductionist analytical framework to explore the orchestration and productive dimensions of participatory collectives, and better understand processes of knowledge flows, spillovers, exclusions and integrations. Our search in three databases [Scopus, ERIC and Web of Science] resulted in 119 articles for full-text screening, and final 31 articles. These were considered to have as a starting point an explicit recognition of the complexity of knowledge integration between academic and non-academic stakeholders, and while taking this into account, presented a novel methodology or analytical lens that enabled reflection on how effective and meaningful knowledge integration can come about.
Analyzing the studies we discovered a number of variations and configurations of participatory collectives. There is no single all-encompassing route to effective and meaningful knowledge integration. Multiple models of participation can co-exist within one participatory collective. Since various types of knowledge integration barriers can be present, various strategies - in the form of diverse tools, formats, procedures, negotiations and behaviours - can be implemented within a participatory collective to address these. Our results highlight archetypal configurations that were found in the articles. These configurations become powerful when visualised, as they trigger and stimulate reflexivity and mutual learning. Through these visualisations, gaps in knowledge flows can be discovered. Reflexivity, on the role of the researcher in particular, flexibility and 'time' seem to be two crucial aspects that can address asymmetrical interactions and epistemological pluralism.
Our analysis offers a new perspective on, and appreciation for, the effective and productive dimensions of participatory collectives in general, and the resulting knowledge integration in particular. Awareness about the varying degrees by which configurations of participatory collectives can come about, provides the consciousness to design, implement and evaluate participation endeavours while keeping a close eye on effective and meaningful knowledge integration between academic and non-academic actors. This offers a different (constructive) way of exploring ‘valid knowledge’ dynamics and politics, and which goes beyond elements of procedural justice and normative principles, that predominantly have determined what constitutes good deliberation and participation.
We aim to contribute to a more nuanced and integral interpretation of ‘effective and meaningful participation’ when addressing societal challenges. This requires appropriate experimentation with participatory research in general and transdisciplinarity in particular— an approach that takes time, provides room for contemplation, creativity and reflexivity, and that stimulates curiosity and appreciation toward the distinctiveness of non-academic knowledge and how this could substantially contribute to addressing complex societal challenges. By focusing on the latter, we will be able to develop technologies and policies that are not only inclusive, but also responsive toward society.
Participative modelling as method for transdisciplinary integration in the planning of urban futures
Gabriela Michelini, Diego Dametto, Daniel Klaperski, Antje Michel, Tobias Schröder, Anne Tauch, Roy Popiolek
Institute Urban Futures, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Germany
Motivation and purpose:
This short video tackles the question about how to use and build on knowledge integration to contribute to the envisioning and co-production of alternative futures through the implementation of social simulations. Drawing on the partial results of the transdisciplinary research project SmartUpLab, it examines concepts and methodologies of integrative transdisciplinary research combining participatory methods and simulation tools to deal with urban mobility planning. Our aim is to discuss participatory modelling as a transdisciplinary method for the integration of expertise from multiple fields of knowledge, and as a tool to enable strategy development by supporting the creation of a common vision in sustainable urban planning processes.
Conceptual approach:
Participatory modelling is an actionable learning process that engages implicit and explicit knowledge to create formalised and shared representations of urban issues, by integrating stakeholder involvement and social simulation. In the context of our case study, the transdisciplinary research design involves the joint knowledge production between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds and stakeholders, engaging a) the existing knowledge – in form of data – about urban issues, b) different mobility concepts, and c) the procedural knowledge about planning as a communicative, learning-oriented process that combines different forms of local expertise, political opportunities and constraints together with broad urban-regional dynamics.
Methods:
We combine Agent Based Modelling, a computer simulation technique which represents actors and infrastructure as artificial agents embedded in a geographically explicit environment, with participative methods to 1) co-create the model and, by interacting with the model, 2) integrate different perspectives into the strategic envisioning phase of a sustainable mobility planning process. In order to set the ground for co-developing our participatory modelling approach, we have applied transdisciplinary methods for disciplinary integration within the project and to identify the needs and requirements of our stakeholders.
Results:
The video portrays not only the methods but also the criteria and considerations that we have taken into account to use social simulations as means to support transdisciplinary integration in the sustainable planning. We introduce the viewers to a transdisciplinary workshop format involving agile iterations of scenario development and model processing by presenting the application examples in the context of the envisioning of innovative urban mobility concepts. The interaction of stakeholders with the model is mediated by a dashboard that visualises the data and supports the comparison of results. Early stakeholder involvement has been a key element to bring interests, perceptions, knowledge bases and goals of the non-scientific actors involved into the research process, resulting in the co-production of outputs that are simultaneously credible, transparent and comprehensible to trigger the discussion and the envisioning process.
Conclusion:
This contribution highlights the possibilities of participatory modelling as a method for integrative transdisciplinary research when co-producing alternative futures. We highlight the role of the comprehensibility of visualisations and validity of the model as key elements to support stakeholders in imagining urban futures. By bringing different kinds of knowledge together and comparing perspectives, this method is more akin to facilitating communication and generating collective understanding of complex issues necessary for policy coordination in the urban planning.
Serious Games as a tool for transdisciplinary communities of practice
Ulrike Zeshan
University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom
When integrating skills, knowledge, perspectives and action from different disciplines, the first step is meaningful communication and interaction. Gaps are caused by multiple factors including cultural norms, in-group jargon, lack of shared context and psychological barriers. Using Serious Games (i.e. games played for reasons other than mere entertainment) is a way to bridge such gaps and collaborate more effectively.
I report on the development of a dozen Serious Games for co-creative facilitation over a four-year period. Originating from my research with deaf communities in the Global South, extensions of this work have shown that games easily transfer to other contexts.
The game design methodology followed these steps:
- Identifying the overall design principles, in this case with a focus on face-to-face games in low-resource contexts.
- Designing each game according to its purpose, e.g. brainstorming, timeline planning, sharing perspectives, creating project teams.
- Repetitive prototyping to improve the design and gain experience with playing each game.
- Extensions to other contexts, including sequences of several games in events and online versions of games.
Observations indicated that Serious Games have inter-personal effects on communication and interaction in a non-threatening environment, cognitive effects such as emotional memory enhancement, and tangible outcomes from game sessions. In this contribution, I provide examples of how a visual shared context (provided by the game props) and a choreography of turn-taking (provided by the game rules) enhance group interactions.
The “Turntable” game is playable both offline and online, with pen and paper or a shared screen. This is a generic brainstorming game where players respond to a theme or question. As each response is uncovered, it is discussed between a random member of the group and the originator of the idea. “Turntable” is particularly useful in very diverse groups because it prompts a lively exchange between different perspectives. The game process generates a visual record of discussions.
The “Agenda mapping” game supports professionals from different disciplines or work areas to find points of contact or overlap between multiple domains. Each group provides a list of keywords that characterise their domain, from which the game process generates discussion and mapping. As the game unfolds, players co-create a diagram that reveals potential leverage points for collaboration.
Serious Games are particularly useful at junctures in project cycles. At the beginning of a transdisciplinary project, games support flexible perspective-taking and group bonding, both of which are essential to build common ground. Serious Games are also impactful at the point when discussions have matured enough for ideas to be turned into actions because the prevalence of visual representations helps groups imagine future scenarios.
The effectiveness of Serious Games is based on enhancing human capacities such as creativity, empathy, imagination, and collective will. They make a unique contribution in contexts that are otherwise dominated by the intellect, in particular research and other academic settings, and regular gaming contributes to the institutional culture of transdisciplinary groups. On the other hand, these benefits only materialise if participants are ready to engage with the game process open-mindedly in the first place. Cross-culturally, games are associated with different value judgements, and this can be a barrier to their acceptance. Another limitation is that many Serious Games work well in small groups but are more difficult to implement in larger groups.
I argue that Serious Games have great potential as an essential tool in transdisciplinary communities of practice. Rather than being mere icebreakers or mood enhancers, well-designed games achieve tangible outcomes (e.g. project planning, prioritisation of actions, domain mapping), alongside building relationships and human capacities beyond the intellect that are essential for effective collaboration in diverse teams.
Observing transdisciplinary-processes through Social-Network Analysis
Leonhard Späth 1 & 2, Pius Krütli 1, Murat Sartas 3 & 4, Marc Schut 4 & 5, Johan Six 2, Benjamin Wilde 2, Rea Pärli 6
1 ETH Zürich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Transdisciplinarity Lab, Switzerland; 2 ETH Zürich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Sustainable Agroecosystems, Switzerland; 3 Wageningen University, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Unit, the Netherlands; 4 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Central Africa Hub, Kigali, Rwanda; 5 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, CGIAR System Organization, Montpellier, France; 6 ETH Zürich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Natural Resource Policy Group, Switzerland
Transdisciplinary approaches have fostered project-collaboration between a broad spectrum of actors to solve complex problems. While scholars described in detail how transdisciplinarity develops in a project, most of the transdisciplinary-project evaluations happen ex post. There are few attempts to show how transdisciplinarity “happens”, i.e. what are the overall structures that influence the transdisciplinary relationships between the actors, and how specifically different actors behave, collaborate and integrate knowledge in such projects. Therefore, we propose a complementary approach to observe what happens in a transdisciplinary process by using social-network analysis (SNA). SNA can be defined as the study of connections between different actors, as well as their patterns and distribution of the ties they form together (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Through this method, we aim to uncover the role of the relationship structures and the evolution of a transdisciplinary project by mapping the different connections between the involved actors through transdisciplinary concepts. Additionally, we aim to explore the positioning of the different actors in the networks and how the positions and structures change over time.
SNA makes it possible to observe how transdisciplinary concepts are expressed and disseminated in a given project. In this study, we operationalized three main concepts relevant to transdisciplinary processes (see Pohl et al., 2017): (1) three different types of knowledge (ProClim, 1997), (2) three different levels of involvement (Rowe & Frewer, 2005), and (3) three rationales of involvement (Fiorino, 1990). This enables us to display how the different actors involved in a transdisciplinary project exchange across disciplines and societal sectors, for instance for the production of system-, target- and procedural knowledge.
We collected the data in a transdisciplinary development-project happening in a similar way in four different countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda and South Africa. In this project, “RUNRES - Establishing a nutrient-based circular economy to improve city region food system resilience”, we aim to implement technologies to circulate nutrients from organic and human waste from urban areas, back to agriculture in rural peripheral areas. The project takes a transdisciplinary approach to co-design and co-implement nutrient recycling innovations. Our preliminary results show very different patterns, both within and between countries. The results of this study have threefold implications: (1) they align the fields of transdisciplinary research and project-evaluation with a state-of-the-art use of SNA, (2) they reveal existing structures and relations and may guide interventions that focus on strengthening such structures and networks, taking into account socio-political and sectoral factors, and (3) they pave the way for an evaluation of transdisciplinary projects by using SNA in regular intervals. For this latter point, we aim to carry out the same project evaluation through an SNA each year to see how the different actors come together, or get apart, and link this behavior with the way the project works. In this way, we can follow the transdisciplinary collaboration over time, observing how transdisciplinary collaboration shapes the project progress and how this relates to the success of the project.