Editors’ introduction

In this chapter the authors explore stakeholders’ understanding of what to do with organic waste within the United Kingdom. They discuss two projects that were both commissioned and funded under the same government research programme specifically to support policymaking. Although looking at the same broad environmental sustainability issue of how to treat organic waste as a resource to be exploited rather than a waste product to be disposed of, the two projects use mapping and involve participants in different ways. Both projects also highlight how the use of quantitative survey data is informed by, and in turn informs, the use of diagrams within the overall methodology. The authors also look at these projects through the different ways diagrams can be used that were discussed in Chapter Two.

Introduction

Throughout the 20th century, particularly in developed countries, the use of organic waste, either from food production, processing and consumption, or of green waste from gardening and horticulture was dominated by either very local reuse (for example, household composting, spreading of cow manure on farm land); burning (incineration) or disposal into landfill sites; or feeding to animals, particularly pigs. While very local reuse still continues to some degree today, there has been concern from scientists, environmentalists and policymakers over the contribution of both burning and landfill to emissions of green house gases and leachates. This, among other issues, has led in the past 20 years to a growing range of statutory requirements, notably within the European Union (EU), to reuse and recycle more organic waste rather than send it to landfill. Further, livestock diseases, such as foot and mouth outbreaks caused by poorly treated/contaminated foodstuffs, have led to tighter regulations on the treatment and disposal of animal by-products within the EU. Similarly, significant changes in the practices and habits of food production, processing and consumption have influenced the public's and politicians’ perspectives on what to do about food waste, with policy and practice on reducing and recycling waste in a more sustainable manner occurring at household, community, regional, national and international levels.

This chapter draws on our experiences in two projects of contrasting scope and scale but both focused on organic wastes and where the use of mapping techniques was a central or key part of the research process and the research outcomes.

This book is based on the collective work of academics from The Open University in the United Kingdom who have been teaching about and researching complex environmental situations using systems concepts, techniques and theories for over 30 years. These techniques have particularly included the use of mapping or diagramming to visually explore, create, enquire, and communicate people's thinking and perceptions (throughout the book we use the words mapping and diagramming interchangeably to describe the visualisation practices discussed further in Chapter Two). From our experience of using mapping extensively within our research and teaching practice, and of supervising and examining many research students, we observed that there is a distinct lack of publications that provide practical examples and reflections on actual research projects and what happens in the practice of conducting research generally, and in particular when and how they use diagrams. Further, we found the majority of research publications, book chapters and journal articles dealing with complex environmental situations involving many stakeholders provide straightforward accounts of the methods used. They ignore the ‘messiness’ of the processes used, and the specific practices of the researchers are rarely analysed or explained in sufficient detail to be of more practical use to other researchers. They also do not provide an account of how such diagramming practices evolve over time, either within specific projects or within the working lives of the researcher themselves. These trajectories provide additional insights into how, as researchers, we intertwine theory and practice in understanding about, and acting in, complex environmental situations.

Diagramming in research not only represents and helps to explore the messiness, but also enables the researcher(s) to draw out and build on multiple perspectives on an issue. Involving users and non-researchers in research processes is increasingly widely accepted and is often required by research funders (see Lyall et al, 2015), particularly within the field of environmental sustainability where people need to interact to bring about desirable changes. Yet again, there is little critique on the realities and messiness of engaging people in this type of participatory, or action-orientated, research where researchers research with people rather than on people. Recently environmental researchers engaged in this type of research have begun to reflect more critically on their practices.

Editors’ introduction

In this chapter we are told the story of longstanding and ongoing research on natural resource management working with Indigenous forest communities in South America. The authors included here represent the range of people that Andrea Berardi and Jay Mistry, as lead authors, have worked with over the years. Their biographies can be found at the front of this book and reading these is considered by the lead authors to be important for a full understanding of their research story. The authors consider their experiences, their challenges and the ethics involved in what they did. Like the other examples in this book, their research drew heavily from systems theories and, as with previous chapters, the authors describe the way that their research processes evolved over time. In this case, moving away from their quantitative origins and becoming increasingly more visual and inclusive over time. This chapter places diagramming within the wider context of visual approaches more generally. Going beyond diagramming, the authors explain how they developed visual techniques relevant for their particular context, including (and combining) video, drawings and photo stories as well as diagramming. Here they explain the way that their approach and use of visual techniques helped to strengthen the capabilities of marginalised people.

Introduction

For over 15 years, the authors of this chapter have been engaged with the Indigenous communities of the North Rupununi, Guyana, in working through complex natural resource management dilemmas. Over time, we have developed a critically reflective approach to collaborative research with Indigenous community members in order to evaluate the type of research methods and techniques we apply, to reposition power relationships in the research processes, and analyse the immediate and long-term impact of the research intervention on participants. Why do researchers and participants engage in the use of visual methods? What are their differential motivations and how does this affect decision making during the research process? Who participates in and benefits from this research? What is the role of technology? How are Indigenous people's rights and knowledges taken into account and advanced? How do visual methods contribute to transformative change and social justice? With what limits?

Editors’ introduction

This chapter provides a stark contrast to the previous chapters dealing with the practice of using diagrams in participatory research. The author steps back to look at his development over many years of some diagrammatic representations of core systems principles and ideas discussed in Chapter Two; diagrammatic representations that can be used for evaluating diagramming as praxis in environmental sustainability. This braiding of theory and practice, including braiding between systems ideas and diagramming, is aimed at providing a robust and comprehensive approach to evaluation, which is an increasingly important part of all funded projects and programmes. We have seen in other chapters how funders and stakeholders are looking for ‘measurable’ outcomes or impacts from many of the projects being described in terms of changes to policy and/or practice. However, in this chapter the author examines what types of ‘conversation’ are needed in different situations in order to evaluate diagramming used in environmental sustainability projects and programmes.

Introduction

Since the beginning of the millennium, increasing concern has been expressed among researchers, wanting to influence policymakers, programme commissioners, commissioners of evaluations, and evaluators, about failures with interventions addressing complex environmental issues (Fukasaku, 2000) and about sustainable development issues more widely (Ramalingam, 2013). While many helpful discussions have emerged on the relevance of systems based and complexity-based approaches towards evaluation (Williams and Imam, 2007; Forss et al, 2011; Reynolds et al, 2012), commissioners and evaluators alike have expressed concern about the lack of uptake of new ideas (Stern et al, 2012; Befani et al, 2015). Relevant stakeholders appear to be talking past each other. Prevailing evidence-based approaches and contingency approaches to planning and evaluation appear not to be providing the way for valuing systems thinking generally, and visual based techniques specifically. The urgency of developing alternative ways of using research for planning and evaluating using different tools and ideas have increased markedly with the publication of The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) and associated implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in succession to the 2000–15 millennium development goals (MDGs).

Researching into systemic failure associated with complex situations of environmental sustainability involves many different interactions among many different entities (human and non-human).

Editors’ introduction

Collaborating with others is central to participatory methods, as we have seen in previous chapters. However, the nature of the collaboration and the role that diagrams play in the methods used also depends in part on the topic being addressed. This chapter tells the story of how a systems method for sharing perspectives on and then agreeing sustainability indicators, which makes extensive use of two forms of diagram, was conceived and then applied in a wide variety of places. Central to this method's evolution were the intentions of its initial creators and the contributions of the different project collaborators and participants in the related workshops. Central to the method's effectiveness are the way two diagram types are used to visualise, and make more relevant to specified communities, indicators of environmental sustainability. This chapter is also another example of the interplay between method and visualisation, both of the method and within the method, and that it can be difficult to say which is the chicken and which is the egg. They are complementary parts of an holistic and ongoing process, particularly where the main objective is action to improve people's lives rather than research on people's lived experiences.

Beginning at the beginning

The story begins in 1999. Professor Steve Morse and I had met at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK, and found compatibility in our worldviews despite working in different fields. I was exploring the use of systems analysis specifically relating to ICT. Steve was focused on the human impacts of agricultural innovation. We both worked in West Africa and were painfully aware of the regular mis-steps made by international aid agencies in their often clumsy interfaces with local people (see Sumberg et al, 2012). Where aid and development projects came face to face with local people there was often/usually a communication chasm – well-intended scientists non-communicating with local populations in what was often experienced as a complex non-iterative process (see, for example, Chambers, 1997; Fisher and Green, 2004; Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Why was this important to us at this time? First, we both saw that a key issue for us was communities and engaging with them. Second, we had, again separately, been working on metrics and measurement.

Editors’ introduction

In this chapter the authors draw on their experiences over many years of research into social learning systems. They focus particularly on communities of practice as social learning systems and reflect on their experiences of using diagramming to map and share understandings and develop knowledge in such systems, mainly in the context of water governance and climate change. The authors have used diagramming techniques as a core part of their research, building on a range of systemic and participatory traditions that are a prime focus of this book. They explain and reflect on how their experiences with diagrams have been an essential part of various action-oriented research processes that have been designed to take a systemic approach to understanding the institutional, biophysical, social and economic dynamics associated with managing water resources, climate adaptation and the related issues of governance.

Introduction

Communities of practice (CoPs) have become well known and popular among academics and other practitioners (see also Chapter Four). Both the concept of a CoP and its enactment appear to provide explanatory power and create value for many when used for social learning activities such as creating knowledge together, and stimulating change (Wenger et al, 2011). CoPs reached encyclopaedia status in the context of information and knowledge management over a decade ago (Coakes and Clarke, 2006) and a quick internet search provides evidence that they remain relevant to large numbers of practitioners.

In this chapter we are concerned with practices of relevance to environmental sustainability in the context of water and with those who are engaging in them or facilitating these practices. The process and role of making visual representations, specifically diagramming, is explored here as a part of these engagement or facilitation processes. We argue that diagramming can be used in the context of CoPs as tools for communication and for exploring ideas and meanings both collectively and individually. The use of appropriate tools for communication and negotiating meanings associated with practice has long been recognised as an essential part of the shared repertoire of any community of practice (Wenger, 1998).

Editors’ introduction

In this chapter the authors provide an overview of systems thinking in practice, the key concepts involved in it and in particular the role of mapping in addressing complex situations. While the chapter touches on all four themes of the book it focuses mainly on the systems thinking philosophy that underpins the work of nearly all the authors in this book; how that philosophy relates to the use of diagramming to capture systemic thinking; and how to engage research participants in trying to think more systemically. It finishes with some more practical advice on the use of diagrams in general and within participatory and action-oriented modes of research in particular.

Introduction

Complexity and uncertainty can be features of any human activity system but this is more so when considering environmental situations and environmental sustainability (Ison, 2010). The number of facts and factors involved, the number of people with different perspectives and disciplinary expertise, all grow larger and seemingly more intractable. To be able to represent a complex messy situation by showing most of the components and how they are thought to fit and work together is therefore very helpful when understanding, researching, designing and implementing systemic changes that draw upon and integrate the thinking from many disciplines.

Systems thinking in practice is a particular way of approaching the understanding of messy situations for some purpose, usually to effect some changes. It is very suited to participatory, action-oriented research and environmental sustainability and is a philosophy that underpins both the teaching and research praxis of the many authors in this book. By praxis we mean the process by which a theory is enacted, embodied, or realised. Drawing on some basic features of systems thinking (see Chapman, 2004; Midgley, 2007), we can identify three generic imperatives as underpinning systems thinking in practice (Reynolds, 2011; 2013; 2014; Reynolds and Holwell, 2010):

• • understanding inter-relationships (‘thinking’ about the bigger picture)

• • engaging with multiple perspectives (the ‘practice’ of joined-up thinking)

• • reflecting on boundary judgements (the praxis of thinking in practice).

A key feature is that one part of the praxis around systems thinking is finding ways of representing a chosen ‘system of interest’, and that is often best done through diagrams, maps or other visual techniques.

In Chapter One we said that there were four inter-related themes running through this book as indicated by its title: mapping, environmental sustainability, systemic practices and participatory research. We explained what we meant by each of these and then in Chapter Two set out in more detail how mapping was a feature of systems thinking and that systems thinking influences how we view environmental sustainability and how we practice our research. That research practice includes working closely with the participants of the situations we are researching and acting within. Chapters Three to Eight then provided different case studies on the use of mapping within their research. These case studies are from people at The Open University who share a common praxis (in that we all collaborate on developing coherent teaching materials on these topics) but are free to undertake their own research in various ‘niches’ relating to the broad field of environmental sustainability. Chapter Nine then took a theoretical perspective on using systems thinking and mapping to help with the evaluation of research projects and programmes.

As well as reflecting on these four themes, we want to add a fifth theme in this final chapter, one that has been implicit throughout the book, that of research methods. This is important since we said in Chapter One that the idea for this book arose out of interest in our use of visual methods in research from doctoral students and research fellows at The Open University and elsewhere. They wanted to know what the benefits of using such participatory visual approaches were, but also the limitations or drawbacks. They were interested in how we had used mapping as a tool or technique as a method for engaging participants, and as a way to frame a methodology. And although the book is particularly relevant to researchers, these same issues around the methods used are also relevant to any practitioner working in complex environmental situations that necessarily involve many different people and perspectives. What follows are our concluding remarks on each of these themes, but what will also be apparent is how each theme is closely tied to the other themes. Hopefully this exposition will help you in developing your own praxis.

Editors’ introduction

In this chapter we (the editors) draw on our experiences over many years of investigating knowledge exchange processes across three research projects that mostly deal with agri-environmental knowledge systems with contentious issues for stakeholders (farmers, policymakers, researchers, businesses and NGOs) to explore, as was the case in Chapter Three. The first project discussed considers UK farmers’ understandings of new technologies and the influencers on them. We then took this work forward into subsequent projects that analysed complex knowledge flows in a number of different contexts – agriculture, health, food, international development and hedgerow management systems. We reflect upon how our use of diagramming and our relationships with participants in our research methods evolved through the three phases of the first project and into the subsequent projects, as is also the case in Chapters Five and Eight. We discuss not only how we drew on tried and tested mapping techniques – cognitive maps and Harman Fans – but also the mapping techniques we devised specifically for the projects. As well as drawing on theories about participatory approaches to research as described in Chapters One and Two, the projects also particularly drew on theories about communities of practice, explained further in Chapter Seven.

Introduction

As discussed in Chapter One, it is important to not only find out about different people's perspectives when considering solutions to issues concerning environmental sustainability, but also bring together different types of knowledge. However, more than that, it is important to consider how, or indeed whether, knowledge is exchanged between people and then acted upon. The majority of this chapter discusses an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded project that used an increasingly more interactive approach, and mapping techniques, to research with farmers. We were interested in not simply their understandings of genetically modified (GM) crops and new technologies more generally, but also how these understandings came about. That is, who influenced their decision making process, in what way and how knowledge exchange might be improved. We discuss the mapping techniques we used and devised. We then consider two subsequent projects that worked with conference participants (academics and practitioners) to look further at knowledge flows and which developed mapping methods for capturing knowledge exchange.

Editors’ introduction

Working towards sustainable agriculture often involves working on contested or controversial issues with others. They involve a complex mix of people, all with their own opinions and ways of seeing the world, such as civil society organisations, policymakers and companies. All the agri-environmental projects (those concerned with the environment but carried out in agricultural contexts) discussed in this chapter involve controversial issues, such as the introduction and development of GM crops, the potential power of large biotechnology companies, the increased use of biofuels, water and intensification of agriculture. As with the next chapter (Chapter Four), this chapter discusses the use and value of mapping techniques in these highly contested environmental research contexts. However, unlike Chapter Four the projects drawn on here were all large scale, multi-partner, European projects. The processes and mapping techniques were chosen for specific purposes, according to the needs of the different projects, the context and type of participants involved and their strategic aims. They also represent the development of the authors’ approaches to engaging with people and demonstrate the way that the approach has changed over time as they have sought ways to enable participants to engage in the research process more fully. Thus while the final project discussed in this chapter is less about mapping, it is included because its unusual funding arrangements enabled a different mode of research participation that provided useful insights for the more action-oriented research we advocate in this book.

Introduction

Several of the mapping techniques presented in this book have evolved from their use in business and organisational knowledge management (for example, Eden, 1988; Huff, 1990), as have the theories from which they draw, such as communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991), networks of practice (Brown and Duguid, 2001) and tacit versus explicit knowledge (Collins, 2010; Polyani, 2015 [1958]), discussed in more detail in Chapters Four and Seven. These techniques and theories are concerned with how informal or tacit knowledge is generated and managed in organisations and have been used by consultants and practitioners as well as academics to link theory and practice (see for example, Huff and Jenkins, 2002). The mapping techniques used by the projects in this chapter were, likewise, originally devised by people who were paid to help companies clarify their strategic options.