erdogan Öztekin, elif ; gaziulusoy, idil designing ... · designing transitions bottom-up: the...

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.

Erdogan Öztekin, Elif ; Gaziulusoy, IdilDesigning Transitions Bottom-up: The agency of design in formation and proliferation of nichepractices

Published in:The Design Journal

DOI:10.1080/14606925.2019.1594999

Published: 01/04/2019

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Please cite the original version:Erdogan Öztekin, E., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2019). Designing Transitions Bottom-up: The agency of design information and proliferation of niche practices. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1659-1674.https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594999

https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594999

https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594999

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdj20

The Design JournalAn International Journal for All Aspects of Design

ISSN: 1460-6925 (Print) 1756-3062 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdj20

Designing Transitions Bottom-up: The agency ofdesign in formation and proliferation of nichepractices

Elif Erdoğan Öztekin & A. İdil Gaziulusoy

To cite this article: Elif Erdoğan Öztekin & A. İdil Gaziulusoy (2019) Designing Transitions Bottom-up: The agency of design in formation and proliferation of niche practices, The Design Journal,22:sup1, 1659-1674, DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1594999

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594999

Published online: 31 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 41

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Running with Scissors, 13th International Conference of the EAD, University of Dundee, 10-12 April 2019

Copyright © 2019. The copyright of each paper in this conference proceedings is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses please contact the author(s).

Designing Transitions Bottom-up. The agency of design in formation and proliferation of niche practices

Elif Erdoğan Öztekin*a, A. İdil Gaziulusoya

aNODUS Sustainable Design Research Group, Department of Design, School of Art, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland *Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Sustainability transitions are generating comprehensive learning spaces, which yield substantial reconfigurations not only in our practices and actions, socio-technical systems, but also in our cognitive constructs. This article tackles the agency of design in transitions, by particularly focusing on bottom-up and emergent learning processes at niches. An overview on common lines of inquiry from (1) design theory, (2) multi-level perspective (MLP) of system innovations and (3) practice theory (PT),which commonly address the agencies of design and learning in transitions, ispresented. Consequently, we propose an integrative analytic-theoretical framework,and describe it with an exemplary analysis of a community-led transition project.

Keywords: sustainability transitions, design theory, practice theory, multi-level perspective, learning space.

1. IntroductionAdverse environmental consequences of society’s established ways of living are increasingly evident

in daily patterns and experiences. Environmental, social, economic and technological dimensions of

our society are coupled with each other in complex, dynamic and continuously evolving relationships

in sustainability problems. Consequently, the problem space continues to grow, and needs to be

urgently intervened at multiple levels of socio-technical systems if we are to avoid irreversible

trajectories of unsustainability. In this growing problem space, global reports underline the urgency

and timeliness of collective action to tackle mitigation of and adaptation to climate change (IPCC,

2018). Moreover, research indicates the necessity for deliberating essential reconfigurations in our

institutions, economies, technologies, values, behaviours and practices (Steffen et al., 2018).

Consequently, a common ground arises for reconsidering the socio-technical systems that meet

societal needs and the patterns they generate and pursue. Therein lies an opportunity for us to

revisit our philosophies of being with and within, to rediscover our relationships with environment

and our organizations at material and non-material levels.

Persistent and wicked sustainability problems generate a comprehensive learning space which is

situated at the intersection of problem framing and solution formation (Jonassen, 2000; Jones,

ELIF ERDOĞAN ÖZTEKİN, A. İDIL GAZİULUSOY

1660

2014). Design has long been operating in such learning space, where solutions to wicked problems

are sought for (Buchanan, 1992; Cross, 1990; Jones, 2014). Buchanan (1998) interprets design as a

culture of learning, operating neither in a sole problem or solution space but in a third space, where

knowledge is built by means of systematic, creative and experimental thinking. Sustainability

transitions inhabits a similar space of learning, where neither one but both problems and solutions

are to be rediscovered.

In this paper, we explore the learning spaces interrelated to design and sustainability transitions with

the aim of developing an integrative, analytic-theoretical framework. We start our exploration by

weaving together two diverse approaches towards transitions i.e. multi-level perspective (MLP) on

socio-technical system innovations and social practice theory (PT). MLP prioritizes niche socio-

technical experiments and configurations as drivers of change, which are triggered by learning and

networking (Geels, 2010; Geels & Schot, 2007). On the other hand, PT scrutinizes elements,

dynamics, processes and connectivities that emerge practices and shape systems (Reckwitz, 2002;

Røpke, 2009; Schatzki, 2001; Shove et al., 2012).

Although they seem to be controversial and disparate approaches to transitions, both MLP and PT

address ‘learning’ as fundamental processes of transitions. They both allocate agency to the quasi-

objects of design in assisting societal transformations. However, the material conceptions of design

in the literature need to be revisited by reinterpreting design as a process and that of learning. In line

with our aim for building an integrative understanding on learning in Design for Transitions, we

identify and analyse the concepts and processes signified in design theories, PT and MLP.

Consequently, we theorise the agency of design in the formation and proliferation of niche practices

with focus on learning; and, finally, we present an integrative analytic-theoretical framework with an

ongoing case study as an example.

2. Learning Space of Design and TransitionsAs a ‘discipline of integration’ and a ‘culture of learning’ (Buchanan, 1992, 1998, 2001), design holds

the potential to undertake a pivotal role in transitions. Dealing with working solutions for particular

situations in complex real-world contexts, design has discovered unconventional approaches of

knowing the structure and dynamics of problems and deliver tailored solutions (Cross, 2006).

Working with complexity, design pursues non-linear, multi-dimensional and experimental modes of

thinking and knowing. The scope of design in the context of sustainability has encompassed an

evolution from efficiency-oriented product development to service systems reconfiguring production

and consumption patterns, to interventions aiming social innovation and behavioural change, while

recently expanding its matter of subject to sustainability transitions (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016).

Design has started to address structural and systemic transformations (Gaziulusoy & Brezet, 2015;

Gaziulusoy & Ryan, 2017) built on holistic understandings of our life systems (Irwin, 2015; Kossoff,

2015). In this emerging field of designing for transitions, the complexity of systemic design is further

increased by integrating a time aspect, consequently considering dynamics evolving within and

contingencies between socio-technical systems (Ceschin, 2014; Gaziulusoy & Erdoğan Öztekin, 2018;

Irwin, Tonkinwise, & Kossoff, 2015; Vezzoli, Ceschin, & Kemp, 2008).

From PT perspective, building effective responses against climate change in sustainability transitions

requires profound changes in our social practices (Shove & Walker, 2007). Accordingly, interpretation

of technology as the ultimate driver of change is inadequate to capture the complexity of transitions.

Rather the connections, relations and the co-evolutionary dynamics between various material

systems and everyday life practices should be brought to the focus of transitions (Cass, Schwanen, &

Designing Transitions Bottom-Up: The agency of design in formation and proliferation of niche practices

1661

Shove, 2018). Depending on this understanding, PT researches for building a deeper understanding

of what constitutes practices, how they form, relate and change.

PT acknowledges the inseparable entanglements behind practices by recognizing the agency in

designed infrastructures, devices and artefacts (Shove et al., 2007), and the agency in practices as

they transpire material arrangements of spaces, fields, environments (Schatzki, 2002; Hui, Schatzki &

Shove, 2017). Shove, Pantzar and Watson (2012) define practices as networks of social and material

arrangements; and they identify three fundamental elements constituting practices as (i) material,

(ii) competence, and (iii) meaning. Practices are carried out once these elements are accessible and

their links are established. Practices do complement and compete with each other in multiple

dynamics, and eventually form ‘bundles and complexes’, systematically giving directions to lifestyles

(Shove et al., 2012).

On the other hand, MLP provides a macro understanding of path dependencies and complex

dynamics with a focus on socio-technical system transitions. Taking technology as a crucial

constituent of transitions, MLP recognises three levels in global socio-technical systems i.e. (1)

landscape, (2) regime, (3) niche. The model proposes that accumulated niche practices of social,

economic, technological innovations are initiators of transformation in established socio-technical

regimes (Geels & Schot, 2007). Furthermore, Deuten (2003), Deuten and Rip (2000), and Geels and

Deuten (2006) integrate a socio-cognitive perspective on MLP, looking into learning within and

across niches at early and later phases of transitions. MLP concentrates on the dynamics between

local niches while building their links to large-scale and long-term transitions. In MLP, niches are

mainly framed as institutional test fields, which support and subsidise incubation, development and

diffusion of innovative sustainable technologies. However, niches also arise from bottom-up,

community-led initiatives that experiment with alternative sustainable lifestyles (Longhurst, 2015;

Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012; Smith & Raven, 2012).

Although PT and MLP handle multiple scales in their case studies to derive empirical findings, they

both assign agency to the designed such as objects, technologies, infrastructures, environments

either in generating niche practices or in premediating path dependencies. Both acknowledge that

transitions are coupled with learning processes between niche practices, technologies and actors,

which enable formation and proliferation of niches. Their common inquiry is into replacements of

practices and/or socio-technical systems, and their processes of change and emergence. At the

intersection of transitions, social practice and design theories, we have encountered parallel

concepts of learning, which emphasize the associations between action and abstract thinking,

between meaning and purpose, in embedded complexities of societal and systemic contexts.

2.1 Action (contextual) and Code/Logic (abstract) Ill-defined, urgent and complex nature of current sustainability problems have initiated a search for

reconsidering our knowledge construction patterns and learning modes. Complex systems thinking

has offered new understandings on how information unfolds and how knowledge is constructed.

Morin (2008) introduces the concepts of “intellectual complexity” and “lived complexity”, and refers

to their complementary roles in knowledge construction. An enhanced understanding of our

sustainability problems will potentially emerge from the junction of practical experiences and

intellectual framings, where intellectual complexity and lived complexity are both embraced (Rogers

et al., 2013).

Design research, PT and MLP take similar positions in the way that they conceptualise the

associations between the action and theory, particular and general, contextualized and codified.


1662

Operating within the particularity of situations and contexts, design seeks for alternatives by

exploring reconfigurations of practical and theoretical relations, material and immaterial matters of

subject. Buchanan (1992, 1998) argues that design activity requires a conception of its subject matter

both at the levels of general (abstract) and particular (contextual) (Figure 1). While the ‘working

hypothesis’ of the design idea operates at the level of general, the specific solutions and action on-

ground constitute the level of the particular (Buchanan, 1992). Moreover, general and particular co-

constitute and shape each other during the process of design in such a way that design exploration

turns into a means for learning both at the level of general and particular.

Figure 1. Levels of subject matter in design (Schematized by the authors from Buchanan, 1992)

Figure 2. Migration of know-how. (Schematized by the authors from Shove et al., 2012)

Figure 3. Aggregation of knowledge (Schematized by the authors from Geels & Deuten, 2006)

For practices, cognitive (abstract) know-how and physical (contextual) know-how are essential in

their formation and proliferation. Shove, Pantzar and Watson (2012) define abstraction and reversal

as central cognitive processes enabling migration of competences from one practice, context, or

actor to another i.e. Abstraction refers to decontextualizing knowledge of know-how, while reversal

refers to the process of recontextualizing this knowledge in distinct settings and/or practices (Figure

2). Parallel to migration, MLP studies connote aggregation as the process of transforming local

(contextual) knowledge from the niches into generic ‘learning trajectories’ (Deuten, 2003; Grin,

Rotmans, & Schot, 2010). Through aggregation, tacit knowledge built in niches gains capability to

‘travel between different practices’ (Geels & Deuten, 2006), while its experience-driven and context-

specific properties are abstracted into codified and generic knowledge.

With a specific focus on learning, van Mierlo and Beers (2018) enounce reflective action and

discursive interaction as the shared processes encountered in transitions. In reflective practice,

“iterative process of action and reflection involves activities of planning, action, and evaluation,

which may give rise to the emergence of changing practices” (p.12). Reflective action is a learning

approach where learning takes place with full commitment to action and within a long timeframe

enabling use of feedbacks between local experiences and theoretical constructs (Beers & van Mierlo,

2017; van Mierlo & Beers, 2018). Since therefore, niche learning does not only serve as ‘learning

trajectories’ for applicable policies, but it is a means for establishing emergent and evolving practices

while providing diffusion in terms of both ‘scaling-out’ and ‘scaling-up’.


1663

2.2 Meaning (making) and Purpose (seeking) As discussed in the previous sections, we interpret design as a process of learning and the enabler of

expanding learning spaces for sustainability transitions. In words of Buchanan (1998), design

cultivates a culture for learning and plurality through an “ongoing search for values and

understanding” by means of deliberate action. Hence, design is furthermore a discursive activity

besides being a solution-oriented practice, where replacements and reconfigurations are coupled

with an exploration into meanings and purposes:

Categories have fixed meanings that are accepted within the framework of a theory or a philosophy, and serve as the basis for analysing what already exists. Placements have boundaries to shape and constrain meaning, but are not rigidly fixed and determinate. The boundary of a placement gives a context or orientation to thinking, but the application to a specific situation can generate a new perception of that situation and, hence, a new possibility to be tested. (Buchanan, 1992, pp. 12-13)

Therefore, the learning space of design emerges not only around building new material and

immaterial configurations in the contextual and abstract but also around meaning-making processes

and consequently around designating purposes of design action. Jones (2014) differentiates between

purposeful and purpose-seeking processes in systemic design. While purpose-seeking design action

implies rather an open path towards a clearer vision and ideal, purposeful design action refers to

fixed ends and flexible means. It is noteworthy to remind here that in wicked problems such as

climate change neither the problem framing nor the solution is definite. Hence, designing of

sustainability transitions gets intertwined with an exploration into learning which corresponds to

both meaning making and purpose seeking (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Defining subject matter of design (Schematized by the authors from Buchanan, 1992)

Figure 5. Migration of practices in virtue of commonalities (Schematized by the authors from Shove et al., 2012)

Figure 6. Discursive Interaction juxtaposition of Discursive Interaction (Schematized by the authors from van Mierlo & Beers, 2018)

Discourse in PT addresses meaning and motivation as a backbone of practices (Shove et. al, 2012;

Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 2001). Schatzki (2001) defines practices as sets of actions, which are

conveyed by sense-making. He suggests the concept of ‘teleoaffectivity’ underlying practices, which

refers to “the mental phenomena of teleology and affectivity, by orientations toward ends and by

how things matter” (Schatzki, 1996; 2001, p. 55). Thus, beyond yielding contextual action and


1664

abstract understandings, practices yield framings about their meanings and purposes within the time

and space where they take place.

Building on the concept of migration elaborated in the previous section, Shove, Pantzar and Watson

(2012) highlight the crucial function of setting commonalities “at the level of ideas and discourses

before related forms of know-how could be transferred” (2012, p. 52). They acknowledge most social

and symbolic associations such as emotions, motivations and values; and they coin it as “meaning” -

one of the three fundamental elements of practices (Figure 5). Outstanding from other elements,

meanings have flexibility to co-evolve with existing and changing practices, plus ability to move far

and fast from one context to another. Thus, meaning-making carries a potential to accelerate

diffusion of practices with its tendency for mobility and its inferences for collectivity.

In MLP, interactions and learning processes between niches are of particular concern, since they are

interpreted as catalysers of change in the established regime of technologies, policies, science,

market, culture and industry (Geels & Schot, 2007; Schot & Geels, 2008). However, besides their role

in ‘learning trajectories’ as reviewed in previous section, there has been limited research into the

essence of interactions and learning processes taking place at the niche level. On the other hand,

MLP acknowledges social inertia as one major counter dynamic hindering transitions (Li & Strachan,

2017) in addition to the lock-in of socio-cognitive patterns (Farla, Markard, Raven, & Coenen, 2012;

Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998; Longhurst, 2015), and puts forward social alignment plus user

preferences, practices and lifestyles as constituents of transitions. Therefore, MLP implies that

purposes, values, beliefs, and feelings are matters of transition processes; and yet the scale of MLP

stays inadequate as a theoretical lens to discuss how these get shaped and accompanied in niche

learning and interactions.

As mentioned, van Mierlo and Beers (2018) suggest discursive interaction as one other main mode of

learning accompanying reflective action (Figure 6):

Learning in this sense can be seen as predominantly cognitive, while being informed by diverse knowledge, values, and interests, in a process of meaning making. At times, this may result in convergent problem orientations and common ground. At other times, discussion partners may gain a better view of the grounds upon which their opinions differ. In both cases, the result is a shared cognitive basis. (van Mierlo and Beers, 2018, p.12)

As they argue, reflective practice and discursive interaction inseparably co-evolve through transitions

by generating both the ‘cognitive’ and ‘relational’ capitals effective in directing radical system

changes (van Mierlo & Beers, 2018). Hence, the social understandings built through discourse and

dialogue could open up a learning space to re-associate meanings, values and purposes to ways of

doing things (Mezirow, 1997), but they also may create cultural lock-in situations where orientations

towards transitions get congested.

In conclusion, all three fields of inquiry i.e. design theory, PT and MLP acknowledge purpose

orientation and meaning association as continuous and fundamental processes to in learning and

building understanding about new practices or new lifestyles shaped around the designed. These

processes expand our conceptualization of a ‘learning space’ by enhancing its complexity and adding

another line of framing, which integrates purpose and meaning to actions and codes by embracing

the role of changing values, beliefs, and feelings in building revised interpretations, understandings,

and reframings of the whole phenomena.


1665

2.3 Embedded Situatedness Following the shared understandings on the dynamics driving change and learning from design

theory, PT and MLP, we are proposing four anchor points of thinking correlated in the learning space

of Design for Transitions:

1. the particular action taken in the specifics of a context;

2. the code/logic that builds an abstract understanding of systemic relationships

tangled in the particular;

3. the meanings where feelings, emotions, values are associated to the action;

4. the purpose that is decisive on setting priorities, process orientation, and decision-

making.

Design theory, particularly the discourse on design for sustainability and transitions, acknowledges

the iterative and explorative processes leading design processes. The pathways towards solutions are

defined as co-evolutionary and holistic (Irwin, Tonkinwise & Kossoff, 2015), recurrent and spiral

(Wahl & Baxter, 2008). Correspondingly, we adopt a multidimensional understanding of learning,

especially when transitions are the matter of concern. Transitions facilitate multiple iterations to

reframe actions, code/logic, meanings, and purposes before, during and after the design takes place,

resulting with enhanced understandings. However, we would like to integrate one more aspect

related to design and learning; and that would be their situational nature and contextual

embeddedness. Young (2007) suggests an embedded understanding of content and context

regarding three levels and their interconnectivity:

• Design in context, which refers to the conventional world of design of artefacts,

components and products, operating at the level of product configuration and

detailing;

• Designing context, which refers to the design of systems and services at the level of

systems thinking;

• Design of context, which refers to the creation of meaning and purpose, at the level of

policy.

This interpretation suggests that design activity operates throughout micro to macro scales, outlining

tangible as well as intangible contexts (Young, 2008). Linking back to our discussion, Young’s model

suggests that meaning and purpose constitutes the overarching context, which orients cognitive

constructs and subsequently to concrete actions and products. We suggest that this embedded

configuration is helpful in unpacking the complexities of transition processes, with improvements in

order to better grasp the full complexity of transitions and their embedded situatedness.

2.4 Integrative Framework of the Learning Space The three research fields we have overviewed signify parallel dynamics and processes about learning

processes in transitions: (1) design theory by looking into the processes of designing anew within ill-

defined problems, (2) PT by taking emergence and disappearance of practices as its unit of analysis,

(3) MLP by specifically investigating socio-technical system transitions. They have a commonality

around how (i) they associate agency to the quasi-object of design in the way that the designed

triggers transitions by forming practices and building new understandings, as well the way that (ii)

they notify agency to the process of designing in the way that its open-ended, continuous and

iterative nature becomes a means to discover unexplored relationships and possibilities leading to

transitions.


1666

Figure 7. Learning Space of Sustainability Transitions, with its elements that correspond to each category

Design theory addresses change in the relationships that we construct both concretely and in

abstract, and places actual doing and systematic experimentation at the core of this change. PT

points to change in the practices linked to meanings, competences, materials. It locates participation

for building competence, dialogic interaction for sense-making and accessibility to material

arrangement as generators of such change. On the other hand, MLP tackles change in the socio-

technical systems and regimes, while it highlights networked learning and discursive interactions

between niche experiments as drivers of change. This multiplicity of addressing change sheds light

onto the learning space that humanity travels through sustainability transitions.

When these approaches are integrated together, they signify an enriched understanding of what the

processes and dynamics of forming new placements/practices/socio-technical systems are, and how

transitions to re-placements/practices/socio-technical systems do occur. When integrated, they do

not only illustrate how change in thoughts, practices, systems occur in and around design, but also,

they build an understanding of how design has multiple agencies in transitions for its local to global,

individual to societal, and from its pragmatic to cognitive implications.

We have encountered similar lines of inquiry around learning emerging in all three fields: one of

them is affiliated around the socio-cultural aspects and situatedness of learning, which is

underpinned by discursive and dialogic meaning making and purpose seeking processes; the other is


1667

affiliated around learning-by-doing and cognitive learning, which is underpinned by the correlations

between contextual and codified, tacit and explicit, lived and intellectual interpretations. Although

these two lines are tackled in distinction, they are majorly interpreted as co-evolutionary, non-

hierarchical and adaptive to each other.

Succeeding this understanding, we distribute these four anchors of learning i.e. (1) action, (2)

code/logic, (3) meaning, (4) purpose as equally distanced, equally connected, and equally accessible

cornerstones of the learning space of transitions. Furthermore, we propose a spatial layout which

juxtaposes the embeddedness of context, which has been conceptualized in design theory (i.

Designing in, ii. Designing, iii. Designing of). Towards the outskirts of this embedded learning space

we foresee a less-explored and challenging area where learning yields substantial reframings of (1)

action, (2) code/logic, (3) meaning, (4) purpose. At the core of this embedded learning space, we

placed the designed as the actual solution, which has the potential to proliferate and evolve if the

context it is located gets reframed (Figure 7). By this analytic-theoretical framework, we aim to

facilitate holistic understandings of learning dynamics, patterns and processes which lead transitions

and form subject matters of Design for Transitions inquiries.

3. Testing the Framework with an Exemplary Case:Community-led Holistic Water ManagementTransitions

In this section we present a preliminary analysis of an on-going case study to exemplify the use of the

proposed analytic-theoretical framework. Through this process, we also reflect on the theoretical

basis of the framework and identify empirically-informed improvement points.

3.1 Methodology and Methods The data for this study has been collected at the eco-settlement Tamera Research and Education

Centre. For the purposes of this article, we focus on a particular community-led transition project -

water retention landscape and water management of Tamera. We followed a qualitative case study

methodology (Yin, 2003) to analyse data composed of (1) participant observations from (a) a 9-day

seminar course, (b) a 4-hour open event, (c) daily community practices and events, and (2)

documents from (d) recorded thematic speeches, (e) semi-structured interviews, (f) community

publications.

3.2 Findings and Discussion Initial phases of Tamera (est. in 1995 in Portugal) went under isolation and resource shortage, which

accelerated a search in the community for a deeper understanding and systematization of natural

resources and land management. Since 2007, targeting self-sufficiency, the settlement went through

successive change while its systems of water, energy, food and waste got restructured and relinked

with contributions from invited experts, consultants and volunteers. In this process, the settlement

became an experimental test field and learning platform for holistic settlement design,

implementation of regenerative design principles, and alternative lifestyles. Due to such dynamic

exploration into environmental, social, and technological dimensions of sustainability, Tamera

attracted interest from individual actors, communities, institutions, local and regional authorities.

From the very beginning, Tamera settlement has been established to build a model for decentralized

and autonomous community life. By experimenting and learning alternative ways of living, Tamera

community has intended to demonstrate possibilities for self-sufficiency, sustainable management of


1668

local resources, and empowerment of social life serving to the community vision of global peace.

When the first group settled to the temperate climate of Portugal from mid-Europe, Tamera

landscape was interpreted as “desert-like”. In the following years, inadequate water supply grew to

be a vital community concern. The problem oriented the community towards alternative water

management approaches. Taking consultancy from Sepp Holzer -a permaculture and water retention

expert, local patterns of rain and the rain water catchment capacity of the land were assessed; and

then, it has been revealed that Tamera’s unbalanced yet plenteous rainfall per year is actually as

much as mid-Europe. Since then, there has been a realization that it was not the climate “desert-like”

conditions on land but the way that water resources was not managed.

Figure 8. Tamera’s holistic water management transition and the learning space it generated

The initial water retention landscape has started with 10 lakes for water collection at the lowest

points, swales throughout the land to ‘Slow, Spread and Sink’ water, and multiple land-terraces

scattered around the topography for agriculture (Holzer, 2015). In 2007, community constructed the

plan, which then has started to support rainwater catchment, raise ground-water levels, cultivate

natural vegetation. Consequently, local water resources and soil started to restore supporting

environmental comfort and well-being in community and environment. Eventually, Tamera has

experienced immense improvement in the environmental conditions on its land. According to the


1669

narratives of the community, biodiversity has been regenerating. Birds “has come back” reaching

over 65 species. Cultivated fish have adapted well to the lake fauna, even emerging an

overpopulation problem at the moment. And land has grown “lush”, equipping a fertile base for

agriculture.

Figure 9. Process of learning space generation, in time and by experience.

Water management transitions of Tamera could be interpreted as a smooth transition process, since

it has followed a designated path rather than an experimental one. Nevertheless, we have

encountered indications of how this specific project has triggered learning and building reframings

related to codes, actions, meanings, and purposes. The mediated processes of groundwater

generation, water maturation/purification and ‘green water’ released by plants got integrated in the

water cycle understanding of community. Moreover, such a complete understanding of how water

travels, delivered conscious decisions for avoiding water and soil contamination, restricting chemicals

in food production and agriculture, avoiding black water by using dry toilets and hot compost

systems, and only utilizing biodegradable products in grey water systems. In other words, water


1670

management transitions arouse shifts in community practices and consumption patterns as well as

reconfigurations in parallel systems such as waste and food.

Experiencing water transitions has even stimulated meta-level reframings (Figure 9). Community has

begun building deeper interpretations on complex adaptive systems underlying the water cycles, and

their interwoven role in “the webs of life”. This has resulted in deep transformations in the

community vision, where sustainability transitions and whole systems change got integrated with

social innovation. Consequently, a research has opened up for the community in this expanded

learning space to improve their settlement technologies and community practices by experimentally

exploring for multiple transitions in mutual systems.

Hence, by experience, the water management transitions has leaded the community (1 – code/logic)

to reframe their understandings related to the roles of water in living systems, (2 – meaning) to

associate new meanings, values, feelings about water for its potential to restore, heal, and supply

life, (3 – action) to plan the integration of supportive settlement systems and redefine community

practices, (4 – purpose) to research models for decentralized and autonomous communities by

focusing on sustainability transitions and systems change (Figure 5). By living through this transition,

Tamera has expanded its focus on social cooperation in community living and redefined cooperation

as with all beings - human and non-human, environmental processes and living systems. Since 2009,

solar village test field has been experimenting with renewable (solar and biogas) energy systems

integrated to its pilot solar kitchen and greenhouse, while exploring new community practices.

Recently, Tamera has set its targets to self-sufficiency in local food, and continues to strive for this

goal by increasing its local food production and expanding its collaborative networks in the region.

Such emerging community-led endeavours for transitions are building on the learning space, which

was initially evoked by water management transitions.

Design for Transitions, as an iterative, expanding and long-term process, provides implications for

reframing (1 -code) how things work, (2 -meaning) what things mean in relation to one another, (3 -

action) how to act and do, (4 - purpose) what to strive for - all in all leading to radically different

reframings and understandings of the sustainability problems themselves and the solutions to be

tailored. Thus, the agency of design is not limited to the actions, practices, and lifestyles that it can

generate. The agency of design is mostly latent in its power to generate reflections and feedbacks

throughout ‘of context’ and ‘in context’, and thus to generate learnings and new discoveries for

understanding transitions in its integrity by taking its social, technological, cultural, and cognitive

dimensions into consideration.

5. Reflections on the Framework and Future Research

In the previous section, we have exemplified the use of the proposed analytic-theoretical framework

by illustrating a preliminary analysis of an on-going case study. Depending on our experiences, we

present our reflections on the framework in order to provide insights for improvements and give

direction to potential future research.

5.1 Reflections on the structure: Through the test analysis, we have discovered that elements of transitions tend to relate to multiple

categories at a time. Such that, as we get closer to the applications and practices in context, the

elements referring to codes, purposes and actions pursue immense interactive relationships with

each other. The interlaced nature of connections indicates that a consistent learning space has been

succeeded. In such cases, connections achieve to be bounded and mutually supportive, and thus


1671

learning towards transitions are accelerated. Similarly, at the level of designing of context, when we

look into the meta-level drivers of transitions, we can encounter a strong link between codes and

meanings. Mindsets and philosophies are coupled with global associations, where fundamental

meanings and values are formed. The structure of the framework provides a basis to recognize these

connections and relationships between categories. However, at the moment, the two-dimensionality

of the framework does not provide further possibilities for analysing deeper into such multi-

dimensional networks of relationships. Future research should improve the structure of framework

in order to increase its representative and analytical capabilities. If the multi-dimensional character

of the learning space could be deliberated in the framework, it would enable a richer comprehension

of the networks and interconnections underpinning transitions.

5.2 Reflections on the capacity of complexity: In the framework, embedded levels of context are structured equally around the learning space.

Conversely, we have figured out that boundaries between contexts are actually not behaving

asymmetrically and distinctly for actions, code/logic, meanings and purposes. For instance, it has

been relatively straightforward to distinguish different levels of purposes, whereas it has been

challenging to affiliate levels of context to meanings. Meanings intend to follow a floating behaviour

throughout all levels of context. In the light of our data, we have identified and applied additional

categories in order to pursue analysis in an organized manner. Therefore, this framework integrates

distinctive elements of learning within an umbrella logic, but it should not be approached as a tool

for reductionist thinking. Forming a basis for integrative analysis, it would necessitate further

elaboration and modifications depending on the information and complexity that each case carries.

In order to better understand the limitations and possibilities of the framework, a diversity of cases

should be applied including transition cases which might be in their preliminary phases,

indeterminant, experiential, or unsuccessful. Further inquiry might even advance the framework for

analysing mutually evolving (more than one) transition cases by focusing on their interactive

dynamics and relationships.

6. ConclusionsLearning processes, which would carry our society towards sustainability transitions, are being

researched by multiple fields. Design has a central role in transitions for the alternative experiences,

practices, and configurations it delivers, and the learning processes it triggers. On the other hand,

designing for transitions requires a complete understanding of the elements and dynamics

underlying change processes. With the aim of building integrative understandings, we have

researched into three research fields, which acknowledge active and complex processes of

transitions are actuated by design and designed. Subsequently, we have developed an analytic-

theoretical framework co-constituted (1) by interpretations from theory and (2) by reflections on the

framework. Depending on theoretical insights from design theory, PT and MLP of system

innovations, we have suggested fundamental lines of learning in transitions as: (1) the actions, which

are decisive on our concrete interventions, (2) the codes/logics, which build abstract and theoretical

understandings, (3) meanings, which constitute the associated values, feelings, and (4) purposes,

which form priorities and orient transitions. The learning expanding around design is highly dynamic

and can even stretch across contexts, scales and places. The framework intends to facilitate holistic

investigations into such expanding learning spaces of transitions with a perspective from design.


1672

References

Beers, P. J., & van Mierlo, B. (2017). Reflexivity and Learning in System Innovation Processes. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(3), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12179

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637

Buchanan, R. (1998). Branzi’s Dilemma: Design in Contemporary Culture. Design Issues, 14(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511825

Buchanan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056

Cass, N., Schwanen, T., & Shove, E. (2018). Infrastructures, intersections and societal transformations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (in print, available online) Retrieved 23 November, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.039

Ceschin, F. (2014). How the design of socio-technical experiments can enable radical changes for sustainability. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 1-21.

Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118-163. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002

Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(90)90002-T

Cross, N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. New York: Springer.

Deuten, J. J. (2003). Cosmopolitanising Technologies: A Study of Four Emerging Regimes. Den Haag: Twente University Press.

Deuten, J. J., Rip, A. (2000). Narrative Infrastructure in Product Creation Processes. Organization. 7(1), 69-93.

Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001

Gaziulusoy, A. I., & Brezet, H. (2015). Design for System Innovations and Transitions: A Conceptual Framework Integrating Insights from Sustainability Science and Theories of System Innovations and Transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 558-568. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.066

Gaziulusoy, A. İ., & Ryan, C. (2017). Shifting Conversations for Sustainability Transitions Using Participatory Design Visioning. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1916-S1926. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1352709

Gaziulusoy, A. İ., & Erdoğan Öztekin, E. (2018). Design as a Catalyst for Sustainability Transitions. In Design Research Society 2018 Conference. University of Limerick, Ireland.

Geels, F., & Deuten, J. J. (2006). Aggregation Activities: local and global dynamics in technological development - a socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete, Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 265–275.

Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003

Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge.


1673

Holzer, S. (2015). Tamera at the Lake. In L. Dregger (Ed.) Tamera: A Model for the Future (Second Edition). Bad Belzig: Verlag Meiga.

Hui, A., Schatzki, T. R. & Shove, E. (Eds). (2017). The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations and practitioners. New York: Routledge.

IPCC (2018). Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15). Retrieved November 23, 2018, from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/.

Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and Research, Design and Culture, 7:2, https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829

Irwin, T., Tonkinwise, C., & Kossoff, G. (2015). Transition Design: An Educational Framework for Advancing the Study and Design of Sustainable Transitions. In 6th International Sustainability Transitions Conference. University of Sussex, UK.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500

Jones, P. H. (2014). Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems. In G. S. Metcalf (Ed.) Social Systems and Design, 91–128. Springer.

Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310

Kossoff, G. (2015). Holism and the reconstitution of everyday life: a framework for transition to a sustainable society. Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14487136.2015.1085698

Li, F. G. N., & Strachan, N. (2017). Modelling energy transitions for climate targets under landscape and actor inertia. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 106–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.08.002

Longhurst, N. (2015). Towards an “alternative” geography of innovation: Alternative milieu, socio-cognitive protection and sustainability experimentation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.12.001

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice, New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education (74), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401

Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity (7th ed.). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Reckwitz. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices; a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.

Rogers, K. H., Luton, R., Biggs, H., Biggs, R. O., Blignaut, S., Choles, A. G., & Carolyn, G. (2013). Fostering Complexity Thinking in Action Research for Change in Social – Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 18(2): 31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05330-180231

Røpke, I. (2009). Theories of practice - New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2490–2497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015

Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambride. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice Mind-ed Orders. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, E. v. Savigny (Eds). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University Press. Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys :

theory , findings , research agenda , and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Strategic niche management, 20(5), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651


1674

Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Los Angeles: Sage.

Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39(4), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39310

Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M. and Ingram, J. (2007) The Design of Everyday Life. Oxford, New York, Berg.

Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., … Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

van Mierlo, B., & Beers, P. J. (2018). Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, (in print, available online) Retrieved 23 November, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.002

Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., & Kemp, R. (2008). Designing transition paths for the diffusion of sustainable system innovations A new potential role for design in transition management? In Cipolla C, Peruccio PP (eds) Changing the change. Design, visions, proposals and tools. Changing the change conference, Turin.

Wahl, D. C., & Baxter, S. (2008). The Designer’s Role in Facilitating Sustainable Solutions. Design Issues, 24(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.2.72

Young, R. A. (2008). An integrated model of designing to aid understanding of the complexity paradigm in design practice. Futures, 40(6), 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.11.005

About the Authors:

Elif Erdoğan Öztekin is a PhD researcher in NODUS Sustainable Design Research Group at Aalto University, Finland. Her research looks at sustainable communities as niche innovations in sustainability transitions. She holds her bachelor and master degrees in architectural design.

A. İdil Gaziulusoy is Assistant Professor of Sustainable Design in the School of Arts, Designand Architecture of Aalto University and leader of NODUS Sustainable Design ResearchGroup. She holds a MSc in Industrial Design and a PhD in Sustainability Science.

Acknowledgements: This research has been partially funded by Nessling Foundation.

erdogan Öztekin, elif ; gaziulusoy, idil designing ... · designing transitions bottom-up: the...

Documents