The Emerging Transition Design Approach
Resumo
Este trabalho descreve um enfoque emergente do Design para a Transição para abordar problemas perversos ou intrincados (wicked problems: mudança climática, perda de biodiversidade, criminalidade, contaminação, etc) e catalisar transições sociais até futuros mais sustentáveis e desejáveis. Os problemas perversos são os “problemas dos sistemas” que requerem um novo enfoque de resolução de problemas. O marco do Design para a Transição reúne um conjunto de práticas de evolução que podem ser utilizadas para: a) visualizar e mapear problemas complexos e suas interconexões e interdependências; b) situar os problemas em grandes contextos espaço - temporais; c) identificar e criar pontes para os conflitos das partes interessadas;
Referências
Amatullo, M. (Ed.). (2016). LEAP dialogues: Career pathways in design for social innovation. Pasadena, CA: Designmatters at Art Center College of Design.
Amplifying Creative Communities (2010). Retrieved from Parsons DESIS Lab website: http://www.amplifyingcreativecommunities.org/#p1b
Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Commonwealth of Australia.
Bardwell, L. (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management, 15, 603-612.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Baur, V., Elteren, A., Nierse, C., & Abma, T. (2010). Dealing with distrust and power dynamics: Asymmetric relations among stakeholders in responsive evaluation. Evaluation, 16, 233-248.
Bloch, E. (1995). The principal of hope (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Block, P. (2008). Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Bohling, K. (2011). The multi-stakeholder approach in the United Nations: Unprecedented perhaps, but not unexpected. Presented at Transnational Private Regulation in the Areas of Health, Environment, Social and Labor Rights. Retrieved from Technische Universitat Munchen, Lehrstuhl fur Wald- und Umweltpolitik: https://www.wup.wi.tum.de/fileadmin/w00beh/www/Files/Boehling_TransReg_2011.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1991). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 392-415.
Brand, S. (1999). The clock of the long now: Time and responsibility. New York: Basic.
Buchanan, R. (1995). Wicked problems in design thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The idea of design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Candy, S., & Dunagan, J. (2017). Designing an experiential scenario: The people who vanished. Futures, 86, 136-153. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Capra, F., & Luisi, L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Dreborg, K., Moll, H., & Padovan, D. (2008). Participative backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning. Futures, 40, pp 34-46.
Chatterton, P., Fuller, D., Routledge, P. (2007). Relating action to activism: Theoretical and methodological reflections. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.
Clarke, M. (2002). In search of human nature. New York: Routledge.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1667-1676.
Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26, 5-17.
Debord, G. (2002). Perspectives for alterations in everyday life. In B. Highmore (Ed.), The everyday life reader. London: Routledge.
Dentoni, D., & Bitzer, V. (2015). The role of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multi-stakeholder initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 68-78.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2006). The rise of the global left: The world social forum and beyond. London: Zed Books.
Dreborg, K. (1996). Essence of backcasting. Futures, 28, 813-828.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design fiction and social dreaming. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Forrester, J., Swartling, A., & Lonsdale, K. (2008). Stakeholder engagement and the work of SEI: An empirical study. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.
FSG. (2017). Guide to actor mapping. Retrieved from: http://www.fsg.org/tools-andresources/guide-actor-mapping
Gaziulusoy, 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.
Geels, F. (2006). Major system change through stepwise reconfiguration: A multi-level analysis of the transformation of American factory production. Technology in Society, 28, 445-476.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC). (2015). Multi-stakeholder processes for conflict prevention & peacebuilding: A manual.
Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55, 173-193.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Conceptual framework for analzying transitions. In Transition to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge.
Helmerich, N., & Malets, O. (2011). The multi-stakeholder approach in the United Nations: Unprecedented perhaps, but not unexpected. Presented at Transnational Private Regulation in the Areas of Health, Environment, Social and Labor Rights conference. Retrieved from the Technische Universitat Munchen website: https://www.wup.wi.tum.de/fileadmin/w00beh/www/Files/Boehling_TransReg_2011.pdf
Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: Beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan Publications, London.
Hughes, L., & Steffen, W. (2013). The critical decade: Climate change science, risks and responses. Climate Commission Secretariat, Australia.
Irwin, T. (2011a). Design for a sustainable future. In J. Hershauer, G. Basile, & S. McNall (Eds.), The business of sustainability: Trends, policies, practices and stories of success, (pp. 41-60). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Irwin, T. (2011b). Wicked problems and the relationship triad. In S. Harding (Ed.), Grow small, think beautiful. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study and research. Design and Culture Journal, 7, 229-246.
Irwin, T., Tonkinwise, C., & Kossoff, G. (2015). Transition Design: An educational framework for advancing the study and design of sustainable transitions. Presented at the STRN Conference, University of Sussex. Available on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/15283122/Transition_Design_An_Educational_Framework_for_Advancing_the_Study_and_Design_of_Sustainable_Transitions_presented_at_the_STRN_conference_2015_Sussex_
Irwin, T. (2017). Mapping Ojai’s water shortage: A workshop. Unpublished report, retrieved from Academia.edu website: https://www.academia.edu/30968737/Mapping_Ojais_Water_Shortage_The_First_Workshop_January_2017
Jana, R. (2010, March). IDEO’s Tim Brown on using design to change behavior. The Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/03/design-to-change-behavior-tips
Jensen, L. (Ed.). (2017). The sustainable development goals report 2017. New York, NY: United Nations.
Kearney, M. (1984). Worldview. Novator: Chandler & Sharp.
Klein, J. (1993). Blurring, cracking, and crossing: Permeation and the fraction of discipline. In
E. Messer-Davidow, D. Shumway, & D. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity. Charlottesville, NC: University Press of Virginia.
Kossoff, G. (2011). Holism and the reconstruction of everyday life: A framework for transition to a sustainable society. In S. Harding (Ed.), Grow small, think beautiful. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Kossoff, G., Tonkinwise, C., & Irwin, T. (2015). The importance of everyday life and lifestyles as a leverage point for sustainability transitions. Presented at the STRN Conference, University of Sussex. Available on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/15403946/Transition_Design_The_Importance_of_Everyday_Life_and_Lifestyles_as_a_Leverage_Point_for_Sustainability_Transitions_presented_at_the_STRN_Conference_2015_Sussex_
Kravcik, M., & Lambert, J. (2015). Introductory summary: United States action plan for the restoration of natural water cycles and climate. Unpublished paper. New Water Paradigm Management, LLC.
Kravcik, M., & Lambert, J. (2016). A global action plan for the restoration of natural water cycles and climate. Unpublished paper. New Water Paradigm Management, LLC. Retrieved from the Bio4Climate website: https://bio4climate.org/downloads/Kravcik_Global_Action_Plan.pdf
Kravcik, M., Pokorny, J., Kohutiar, J., Kovac, E., & Toth, E. (2016). Water for the recovery of the climate - A new water paradigm. Retrieved from New Water Paradigm website: http://www.waterparadigm.org/download/Water_for_the_Recovery_of_the_Climate_A_New_Water_Paradigm.pdf
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuijer, L., & de Jong, A. (2011). Practice theory and human-centered design: A sustainable bathing example. In Proceedings Nordic Design Research Conference (NORDES). Helsinki: Aalto University.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Lent, J. (2017, May). A house on shaky ground: Eight structural flaws of the Western worldview. Retrieved from Tikkun website: http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/a-house-on-shakyground-eight-structural-flaws-of-the-western-worldview.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). Critique of everyday life: Foundations for a sociology of the everyday (Vol. 1). London: Verso.
Loew, P. (2014). Seventh generation Earth ethics. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society Press.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Cain, R., Stanton, N., & Jennings, P. (2013). Exploring problemframing through behavioral heuristics. International Journal of Design, 7, 37-53.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mason, S., & Rychard, S. (2005). Conflict analysis tools. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC. Retrieved from the SDC website: http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/Conflict-AnalysisTools.pdf
Max-Neef, M. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. New York, NY: Apex. Retrieved from http://www.wtf.tw/ref/max-neef.pdf.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Norman, D., & Stappers, P. (2016). DesignX: Complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 1, 83-106. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.002
Orr, D. (2002). The nature of design: Ecology, culture and human intention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Penin, L. (2010). Amplifying creative communities in New York City. Cumulus Proceedings, Cumulus Shanghai Conference. Retrieved from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30857482/Cumulus_Proceedings_Shanghai.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503862148&Signature=q4nPD9Alh53zTYwlpwyIKq3rRIc%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D2010_Designing_sustainable_sanitation_th.pdf#page=447
Polak, F. (1973). The image of the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Porritt, J. (2013). The world we made: Alex McKay’s story from 2050. New York: Phaidon.
Quist, J., & Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38, 1027-1045.
Rawolle, M., Schultheiss, O., Strasser, A., & Kehr, H. (2016). The motivating power of visionary images: Effects on motivation, affect and behavior. Journal of Personality, 85, 769-781.
Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N.,…Stringer, C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933-1949.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
obinson, J. (1982). Energy backcasting: A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Policy, 10, 337-344.
Rotmans, J., & Kemp, R. (2003). Managing societal transitions: Dilemmas and Uncertainties: The Dutch energy case study. Report from an OECD Workshop on the Benefits of Climate Policy: Improving Information for Policy Makers. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/netherlands/2483769.pdf
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4, 5-18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.
Scott, K., Bakker, C., & Quist, J. (2011). Designing change by living change. Design Studies Journal, 33, 279-297.
Schatzki, T. (2010). Timespace and human activity: On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Latham, MD: Lexington Books.
Sharpe, B. (2013). Three horizons: The patterning of hope. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.
Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39, 471-476.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Simon M., & Rychard, S. (2005). Conflict analysis tools. Retrieved from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) website http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/Conflict-Analysis-Tools.pdf
SPREAD. (2012a). Sustainable lifestyles: Today’s facts & tomorrow’s trends. Report funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme. Retrieved from http://www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu/fileadmin/images/content/D1.1_Baseline_Report.pdf
SPREAD. (2012b). EU sustainable lifestyles roadmap and action plan 2050. Report funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme. Retrieved from http://www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu/fileadmin/images/content/Roadmap.pdf
SPREAD. (2012c). Scenarios for sustainable lifestyles 2050: From global champions to local loops. Report funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme. Retrieved from http://www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu/fileadmin/images/content/D4.1_FourFutureScenarios.pdf
Trist, E., & Murray, H. (Eds.) (1993). The social engagement of social science (Vol. 2). The Socio-Technical Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wageningen University. (2017). Needs-fears mapping. Retrieved from Wageningen University website: http://www.managingforimpact.org/tool/needs-fears-mapping
Wheatley, M., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A simpler way. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers.
Winterhouse Institute. (2017). Social design pathways. Retrieved from http://winterhouseinstitute.squarespace.com/pathways/
Woodhouse, M. (1996). Paradigm wars: Worldviews for a new age. Berkeley: Frog.
Los autores/as que publiquen en esta revista ceden los derechos de autor y de publicación a "Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Diseño y Comunicación", Aceptando el registro de su trabajo bajo una licencia de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que de el crédito pertinente a los autores y a esta revista.
