scholarly journals Entangling and Elevating Creativity and Criticality in Participatory Futuring Engagements

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas A. Balcom Raleigh ◽  
Sirkka Heinonen

This article proposes that creativity and criticality not only can but should be entangled and elevated in participatory futuring engagements. Selected concepts from creativity theory and critical futures studies are applied to develop a set of futuring games through action research. We claim that participatory processes designed to entangle and elevate creativity and criticality produce more novel and varied ideas that better fit the purposes of futures studies. This article offers four arguments for combining creativity and criticality in participatory futuring engagements. First, due to complexity and uncertainty, the future is ultimately unknowable and requires tools to probe the unknown. Second, novelty is difficult to achieve in practice while creativity and criticality can help overcome these challenges. Third, discontinuities are the main sources of futures that are most radically different from the present and will have the biggest impact. Fourth, creativity and criticality support the rigorous imagining required for exploring and discovering new possible futures. This article analyzes three experimentations in entangling and elevating creativity and criticality in game-based futuring, stemming from Causal Layered Analysis. Based on these examples, we demonstrate that creativity and criticality, when combined, help people break through the limitations of current understanding, reveal approaching tipping points, and find the “unvisited cavities” through rhizomatic knowledge creation. However, there remain challenges in evaluating how well various participatory designs support creativity and criticality in practice. Context-sensitive evaluation tools and open sharing of outcomes are needed to develop participation design principles capable of supporting creativity and criticality in participatory futuring.

Futures ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 639-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Ramos

Author(s):  
Melida D Busch ◽  
Elizabeth Jean-Baptiste ◽  
Pamela F. Person ◽  
Lisa M Vaughn

Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Macintyre ◽  
Tatiana Monroy ◽  
David Coral ◽  
Margarita Zethelius ◽  
Valentina Tassone ◽  
...  

This paper addresses the call for more action-based narratives of grassroot resistance to runaway climate change. At a time when deep changes in society are needed in order to respond to climate change and related sustainability issues, there are calls for greater connectivity between science and society, and for more inclusive and disruptive forms of knowledge creation and engagement. The contention of this paper is that the forces and structures that create a disconnect between science and society must be ‘transgressed’. This paper introduces a concept of Transgressive Action Research as a methodological innovation that enables the co-creation of counter hegemonic pathways towards sustainability. Through the method of the Living Spiral Framework, fieldwork reflexions from the Colombian case study of the international T-Learning project were elicited, uncovering and explicating the transgressive learning qualities needed to respond to climate change. As part of a larger action–research project, this paper combines the arts with the social sciences, demonstrating how the concept of ‘Transgressive Action Research’ can enable co-researchers to engage in disruptive and transformative processes, meeting the need for more radical approaches to addressing the urgent challenges of climate change.


SAGE Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824401990017
Author(s):  
Mogens Sparre

This study explains how participatory action research has been used to create a new intersubjective awareness of the phenomenon of organizational culture. The question of creating voluntary democratic participation has been crucial for all stakeholders in this case. Through this two-and-a-half-year study including more than 30 workshops, in a marine industry, we have managed to create new beliefs about being part of and responsible for creating the organizational culture. With these new understandings of the culture, which has been dramatically changed, the participants have created new personal knowledge about themselves and working in an organization like this. The management group have discovered that they are responsible for their own knowledge creation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 147675032110333
Author(s):  
Julie Borup Jensen

This article addresses the importance of action research to provide approaches to emphasizing and acknowledging artful aspects of professional practice in public sector organizations. The article introduces the philosophical works of Knud Ejler Løgstrup and Kari Martinsen as perspectives on artful aspects of professional practices and knowing. In order to concentrate on artful aspects of the research process, empirical material from two arts-involving workshops with teachers are presented as the concrete methodological expression of the participatory ideas of action research. The article addresses embodied dimensions of practice, the role of sensory awareness in professional knowing in organizations, which are some of the main preconditions for contributing to creative, social change, and scholarly weight. Thus, the article contributes with ways to regard action research as artful, participatory processes and practices that enable creation of organizational and public knowledge on the artful aspects of professional practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document