Latest contribution
Why research needs complexity entrepreneurs
By Gabriele Bammer and Jean Boulton.
2. Jean Boulton (biography)
What is required to improve the understanding of research teams about the complexity encountered when investigating real life situations? How can they effectively embrace the paradoxical, elusive dance―the irreconcilable, intrinsic tension―between order and disorder, form and formlessness, and certainty and uncertainty? What is involved in research better supporting those intent on, or tasked with, acting skilfully in this complex world? Would a new research role―that of complexity entrepreneur―help?
We have coined the term “complexity entrepreneur” as a shorthand way to describe the attributes required to respond effectively in a world that is complex: ie., systemic, patterned and particular to context, and where newness often emerges in ways that cannot be predicted.
In this i2Insights contribution, we outline the key attributes of a complexity entrepreneur, based on Jean’s work. We then briefly describe the contributions of complexity entrepreneurs to research teams tackling complex problems, combining Gabriele’s and Jean’s work. Our aim is to test the water to see if others would also find benefit in distinguishing this newly-coined role of complexity entrepreneur.
Recent contributions
Three pillars for inclusive stakeholder engagement in participatory modeling
By Victoria Herbig, Stephanie Briers, and Bianca Vienni-Baptista.
2. Stephanie Briers (biography)
3. Bianca Vienni-Baptista (biography)
How can we ensure that technically sophisticated models represent diverse stakeholder perspectives, knowledge, and interests? More specifically, how can we improve:
- who is included to represent stakeholders,
- engagement dynamics and stakeholder empowerment, and
- genuine deliberation that embeds stakeholder contributions in the model?
Drawing on participatory modeling and transdisciplinary research, we have identified a framework of three interlinked pillars for inclusive stakeholder engagement:
- stakeholder representation (who is included?),
- engagement dynamics (how are the stakeholders included?), and
- collective decision-making (how is their knowledge included?).
Participatory storytelling
By Marion Jay, Gonzalo Cortés Capano, Laura Kmoch and Tobias Plieninger.
2. Gonzalo Cortés Capano (biography)
3. Laura Kmoch (biography)
4. Tobias Plieninger (biography)
How can studies make use of the unique potential of participatory storytelling to explore the complex interrelations between people and places? How can researchers and local communities co-create rich, place-based narratives in dynamic and inclusive ways?
Participatory storytelling is a collaborative approach in which participants are co-creators of both their stories and the research results. As both a research method and a space for dialogue, participatory storytelling helps bridge knowledge and action while supporting more reflexive and transformative practices. By focusing on the lived experiences and voices of diverse actors, it reveals the values, emotions, and power dynamics that shape social-ecological systems.
Here we provide practical guidance for undertaking participatory storytelling. While our focus is on place-based narratives, the guidance is more widely applicable.
Participatory countermapping
By Moné Vasquez Ladron de Guevara and Pablo Mansilla Quiñones.
2. Pablo Mansilla Quiñones (biography)
How can Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant and peasant communities, as well as others, co-create maps that capture their memories, practices, and territorial knowledge, especially in contexts marked by territorial or environmental conflict, and in histories and geographies shaped by coloniality? How can territorial representations and the spatial organization imposed by extractivist processes that dispossess people of their land be challenged? How can the scientific-technical rationality underlying conventional mapmaking―rationality that often erases multiple, subaltern forms of territoriality and knowledge embedded in these territories―be questioned?
Countermapping can also be considered to be a participatory action research process that supports territorial struggles through the production of maps grounded in local knowledge.
Transdisciplinary learning as U-shaped learning
By Gemma O’Sullivan.
What is involved in transdisciplinary learning?
The transdisciplinary learning process can be seen as the development of two capacities: knowledge integration and actionable knowledge (closing the knowledge-action gap).
Integration capacity refers to the ability to integrate knowledge from different disciplines, epistemologies, cultures, communities and individuals across society to collectively achieve a greater understanding of, and solutions for, complex problems.
Actionable knowledge capacity refers to the ability to create knowledge that leads to action.
The two capacities―integration capacity and actionable knowledge capacity―are connected and enabled by a ballast of interpersonal, intrapersonal and cognitive competencies.
Highlighted contributions
Using archetypes as a systemic lens to understand the complexity of sustainable development
By Hossein Hosseini, Enayat A. Moallemi, Sibel Eker, Edoardo Bertone and Katrina Szetey
What are systems archetypes and how can they be used to bring a deeper understanding of causal drivers, potential dynamic behaviour in the future, and policy resistance when tackling complex problems, including those in sustainable development?
Systems archetypes are recurring generic systems structures found in many kinds of organisations, under many circumstances, and at many levels and scales. They are distinctive combinations of reinforcing and balancing processes theoretically rooted in systems thinking and modelling.
Four approaches to shifting mindsets for decolonising knowledge
By Peter Taylor and Crystal Tremblay
2. Crystal Tremblay (biography)
In the context of knowledge for development, what does it require to deconstruct the dominant narratives and personal privileges embodied in our race, class, gender, etc.? And, in a knowledge landscape littered with potential minefields, how do we go about shifting the mindsets that shape the ways in which ‘we’ understand the world and our subsequent values, behaviours, and attitudes?
Drawing on our own experiences, and learning that has emerged through many valued interactions with others, we have identified four approaches which we believe may help to make a difference.
1. Identifying what, and whose, knowledge is valued, counted, and integrated into development processes
Researchers often fail to recognise or value the different knowledges needed to address some of the world’s greatest challenges, because of where knowledge resides and who has generated it.
Challenges to science-policy-society interactions in transdisciplinary research
By Oghenekaro N. Odume, Akosua B. K. Amaka-Otchere, Blessing N. Onyima, Fati Aziz, Sandra B. Kushitor and Sokhna Thiam
Why is transdisciplinary research that aims to co-produce knowledge across academic disciplines, policy contexts and societal domains often so difficult? What are the key challenges that need to be overcome?
We identified five key challenges when we analysed five projects implemented in nine African cities which were part of the Leading Integrated Research for Agenda 2030 in Africa (LIRA) program (Odume et al., 2021).
An analytical framework for knowledge co-production
By Marianne Penker
How can students and academics starting out in transdisciplinary research begin to come to grips with knowledge co-production?
Colleagues and I developed a useful analytical framework comprising the following four elements:
- typology of actor roles (who?)
- research phases (when?)
- objectives and forms of actor integration (why?)
- types of knowledge (what?).
These four elements are illustrated in the figure below.
The development of the framework was based on the literature and our experiences in running a doctoral school on transdisciplinary sustainability research (see Enengel et al. 2012).