Haley Fitzpatrick1,2 and Tobias Luthe1,2,3
The Oslo School of Architecture and Design (1) | MonViso Institute (2) | ETH Zurich (3)
Artificial boundaries continue to disconnect us from our inner selves, each other, and the broader biosphere we inhabit. One example of this inability to transcend boundaries is highlighted by sustainability science researchers: the conundrum in current transdisciplinary research on the overemphasis of complex problems themselves rather than the collaborative processes needed to address them. The systemic design offers promising co-creative methodologies to better design such complex collaboration processes and reimagine boundaries as zones of connection rather than separation. However, despite the broad, transdisciplinary focus of the systemic design, greater integration of diverse methods and practices that stem from different ways of knowing and being is needed. Therefore, this presentation demonstrates how a proposed process of elastic toggling between diverse worldviews, methods, practices, and contexts can be operationalized for broadening awareness and participation in sustainability transformations. As part of on-going PhD research in systems-oriented design, initial findings will be presented on how the process is being iterated and applied across three international mountain communities. The process uses different practices and approaches (including co-creative gigamapping, synthesis maps, social network analysis, resilience assessment, land use analysis and immersive place-based experience) in the attempt to weave together design, science and transformative praxis. Throughout the PhD research thus far, the elastic toggling process has allowed for iteration and adjustment between each of these approaches in an emergent and structured manner and to adapt to the ever-changing contexts and increasing complexities of engaging in real-world communities. Along these lines, this contribution aims to expand the discussion around systemic design methodologies by unpacking the boundaries around the usage of primary vs secondary data, different knowledge types, qualitative vs quantitative methods and the co-creative vs individual data collection and analysis processes. The hope is that such critical dialogue around these topics can help mobilise greater synergies across different ways of knowing and being to activate more inclusivity and interconnectedness in collective sustainability transformations.
KEYWORDS: knowledge systems, mountain communities, narrative, complexity, social-ecological systems, sustainability science, immersive experience
