Perspective study: governance for C2C

This perspective study will serve as frame of reference for follow-up activities and exchanges both within and outside the Cradle to Cradle Network (C2CN) and it aims to reflect the current challenges and opportunities associated with implementing a Cradle to Cradle approach. In total, four perspective studies have been written, in the areas on industry, area spatial development, governance and on the build theme

Integrating knowledge accross disciplines. Experiences from the NeWater project

The starting question for this deliverable was how to create a new adaptive management concept that can integrate insights from various disciplines and connect people from different institutional backgrounds. From literature research and empirical research on the NeWater project we identified challenges for cross-disciplinary knowledge integration, we evaluated interventions for connecting multiple knowledge frames, we analyzed the process of group model building with UML and formulated recommendations. Cross-disciplinary research has arisen from a growing number of complex problems for which knowledge of a single scientific discipline or societal field is insufficient, but presents important challenges: (1) collaboration and integration of knowledge requires in depth discussions that are timeconsuming; (2) the recursive process of problem structuring and restructuring is often at odds with the sequential planning of project activities; (3) participation and mutual learning are crucial but need to be carefully structured and sequenced; and (4) management and leadership faces the difficult challenge of balancing in depth exploration with timely delivery of tangible results. We conclude with the following general recommendations for large cross-disciplinary projects: (1) including a preparatory proposal phase for thorough exploration of opportunities of between researchers and stakeholders (2) flexible funding, planning and operational arrangements to allow for a recursive research process; (3) a project size that allows frequent interaction opportunities between researchers and between researchers and stakeholders to allow for mutual learning and in depth exploration; and (4) enhancing learning opportunities from one project to the next

Paraphrases and summaries: A means of clarification or a vehicle for articulating a preferred version of student accounts?

The use of group discussions as a means to facilitate learning from experiences is well documented in adventure education literature. Priest and Naismith (1993) assert that the use of the circular discussion method, where the leader poses questions to the participants, is the most common form of facilitation in adventure education. This paper draws on transcripts of facilitation sessions to argue that the widely advocated practice of leader summaries or paraphrases of student responses in these sessions functions as a potential mechanism to control and sponsor particular knowledge(s). Using transcripts from recorded facilitation sessions the analysis focuses on how the leader paraphrases the students’ responses and how these paraphrases or ‘formulations’ function to modify or exclude particular aspects of the students’ responses. I assert that paraphrasing is not simply a neutral activity that merely functions to clarify a student response, it is a subtle means by which the leader of the session can, often inadvertently or unknowingly, alter the student’s reply with the consequence of favouring particular knowledge(s). Revealing the subtle work that leader paraphrases perform is of importance for educators who claim to provide genuine opportunities for students to learn from their experience

Interdisciplinary knowledge integration through group model building: recognizing dualities and triadizing the conversation

As part of the inquiry into managing an interdisciplinary research process on adaptive water governance, we investigated the process of group model building (GMB) and, more specifically, the role of Unified Modeling Language (UML) in this process. An analysis of group interaction reveals several tensions in the process of knowledge integration, which can be grouped into three overarching dualities: ‘simplicity versus complexity’, ‘constraining versus containing’ and ‘defining versus refining’. As group members take different positions with regard to these dualities, these represent sources of tension and potential ‘stuckness’ of the GMB. Hence the question arises how the group can manage duality in ways that take the GMB beyond its opposing forces. We suggest that knowledge integration processes may benefit from early recognition of the dualities at hand and strategies aimed at creating ‘thirdness’, including some suggestions on the concrete forms such ‘thirdness’ may tak