In this and the previous sections, we have discussed how historians were looking for ways to be inclusive, and in parallel, how other social scientists in Latin America were questioning scientific methodology and epistemology as a whole in the quest for social equality. The discussions that gave room to the decolonial turn were going hand-in-hand with the development of a particular type of action research, different from its contemporary in Anglophone literature. The scholars at the centre of this debate were questioning not only the separation between researchers and communities, but also the nature of scientific knowledge itself. Action Research and Participative Action Research became useful tools in the quest to transform realities. During the last three decades these debates have changed form, questioning the matter of how the inequalities experienced nowadays are linked to the project of modernity and coloniality that is expressed in capitalism. Decolonial theory places emphasis on finding out the particular ways in which this system is oppressive; it questions relationships of power between centre and peripheries, the nature-social dichotomy, and the homogenization of people. In this process, research about the past has taken an important role, as it is regarded as an empowering tool for communities (Zamosc, 1992).

### **Environmental History, Decoloniality and Participative Methods**

As with many other social disciplines and humanities, in the second half of the twentieth century, historians started asking how to expand historic narratives to include the non-human. The epistemological and practical consequences of the environmental turn in history have been widely researched by other authors (Hughes, 2016). Nonetheless, it is important to mention that environmental historians built a theoretical body to challenge the exclusion of the non-human in history, and a methodological praxis that reached into other sources, interpretations and disciplines to change our interpretation of the past. Some scholars have approached the task of including non-humans by focusing on their agency in history. Others have challenged established narratives on weather and culture, by reconstructing the past based on archival and biophysical information. In this way, many different disciplinary and methodological elements have been used to build the narrative of environmental history. A summary of how environmental historians have thought about methods can be found in Donald Hughes' book *What is Environmental History?*. He compiles the views of several English-speaking authors on the matter and highlights how environmental historians can collect data on societies, the biophysical world and ideas, establishing a dialogue with other disciplines and using the lens of the historic method. He concludes by saying "environmental history refuses to cut culture from nature. Equally it must not cut history from geography" (Hughes, 2016, p. 126).

In terms of how environmental history from Latin America has been influenced by the decolonial and participative approach, there is some discussion; it has been acknowledged that in Latin America environmental history has its own characteristics and there is already a strong body of production that has particularities when compared with environmental histories from other latitudes (Sánchez-Calderón & Blanc, 2019). Mark Carey coined the term "chronic deficiency" for the way Latin American history is typically told: that is, as a story of deterioration. According to Carey, this focus does not allow the seeing of other narratives or processes in the region that were part of the complex process of socio-environmental change. On the other hand, economic historian Patricia Clare of Costa Rica wrote in 2009 that there is an ideological difference between the Latin American environmental historiography and that from other places, making Latin American histories more politically engaged, especially in working towards the end of the deep inequalities of the region (Clare, 2009).

In 2019, the environmental historians Vladimir Sánchez and Jacob Blanc highlighted the close relationship between the environmental deterioration denounced in declencionist narratives, with the social inequalities in Latin America (Sánchez-Calderón & Blanc, 2019). They point out that because of this close relationship, the environmental justice movement and environmental history in the region have grown hand-in-hand; however, they also mention other types of Latin environmental historiography that have been written since 2010, with fewer declensionist narratives. Stefania Gallini wrote two pieces analysing this same topic, one in 2009 and one in 2020 (Gallini, 2009, 2020). She reflects on how the particular context of inequalities and neoextractivist economies in Latin America has made environmental historians more interested in explaining the source of these realities than in other topics. She argues that environmental history in Latin America has focused more on dialoguing with environmental and development studies than with the discipline of history. She also points out that, unlike in other places, environmental history in Latin America is written with the goal of having an impact on policy and social transformation.

In line with these arguments, we suggest that environmental history from Latin America is influenced by the development of the decolonial literature and can contribute to create narratives from the Global South. This is because it aims to support socio-environmental justice claims, challenges the preference of written sources over others, and has especial interest in the history of extractivist economies. Accordingly, within the claims of the environmental justice movement, the work of environmental historians should be able to recognize dynamics of exclusion, which are particularly acute in the Latin American case. This, in turn, is why inclusive methods for environmental history have been more popular in this part of the world. In short, this influence is visible starting with the selection of research topics that have a denunciation tone towards the quest for participative methodologies. It extends to theoretical approaches, use of concepts and the proximity it has with other disciplines like political ecology or development studies.

One great example of these developments is the publication, in 2015, of a manual on how to practice environmental history in Colombia by Gallini et al. (Gallini et al., 2015). The manual was part of a collection of volumes, published with the support of the Colombian government, to produce technical data and recommendations to guide the conservation of strategic ecosystems. The government wanted to create conservation areas, taking into account ecological data and considering the information from the communities that had inhabited the space. As pointed out by the authors of the manual, to be part of this process opened the way for environmental history towards activism and forced it out of the "dangerous ivory tower of academia" (Gallini et al., 2015, p. 7). The idea of the authors was to illustrate "the imperious need of believing in the transformative capacity of a historic research" (Gallini et al., 2015, p. 64), made ideally through co-creation with communities and being appropriated by locals and decision-making stakeholders. The manual warns about the importance of history, since not being aware of it diminishes the ability of adaptation for communities and governments. Another point in the manual refers to the power environmental history can play in granting access to natural resources to different stakeholders, emphasizing that researchers have the responsibility of offering the opportunity of knowledge to build a more equal society. The methodological proposal contained within the manual on how to make environmental history is openly participative, asking researchers to use in-depth interviews and collect archives from local inhabitants. Here, it is important to highlight that this publication came not only from one of the front figures in environmental history in Latin America, namely Stefania Gallini, but also that it was published by a governmental institution that had in mind to affect policy. The origin of the manual, speaks of how these are tools for transformation, not only for academia.

Another critical reflection on the work of including oral testimonies in doing environmental history in Latin America was written by Emilio Vargas Mena (Vargas Mena, 2014). His travels through the territory object of study, had the goal of "trying to read the printed prints that human experience left behind" (Vargas Mena, 2014, p. 230). Vargas Mena problematizes methodological issues around oral sources, including for example, on how to do sampling, how to be prepared for an in-depth interview, and how to build an archive with these sources. Vargas Mena concludes emphasizing the transdisciplinary nature of environmental history. While it needs to take into account non-human dynamics (from plants, animals and others), for environmental history it is still "fundamental to approach civil society…in order to contribute to the urgent tasks of environmental protection and the social and political transformations that make history possible" (Vargas Mena, 2014, p. 257). Another author that reflects on the contributions of Latin American environmental history is Katherine Mora. She calls for going beyond the "declensionist" and tragic stories of the human/non-human relationship, while actively using historical approaches (especially from environmental history) in the construction of adaptative strategies for the present and the future (Mora Pacheco, 2018).

#### **Memory**

Memory has been the main concept that history has drawn upon to use participative methods. Memory is a complex concept and has many interpretations. For example, it is often asked where historiography ends and where memory starts (Traverso, 2007). As the historian and expert in cultural studies Mario Rufer conceptualizes it, memory is composed of public references to the past under a non-official or scholar context (Rufer, 2009). Another academic who has explored the concept of memory in depth is the historian Enzo Traverso. For him, memory can only be understood from the present, as it is composed of representations of the past at the individual or collective level, with historic continuity and filled with meaning and direction (Traverso, 2007). Historians do not have control over this type of knowledge, as explained by Gonzalo Pasamar, since they "share the public space with lots of other actors" (Pasamar Alzuria, 2003, p. 240). For that reason, memory (hand-in-hand with oral sources) was long deemed not valuable as an historic source. However, as explained earlier, by the turn of the century it was already widely accepted among historians of all latitudes that oral history had "freed us from the cul-de-sac question of veracity-falsehood" (Gallini, 2004) of testimonies. By then it was clear that oral sources responded to different questions from written ones. In addition, the interpretation of these sources also changed, because conventional history asks for what happened, whereas oral history asks for meaning (Portelli, 2009).

We argue that memory should be considered a necessary step of societal transformation processes within environmental activism, particularly constructed from a participative and decolonial approach. Engaging in the use of the concept of memory and decolonial participative approaches can also help in uncovering "the existence of diverse historical rationalities that fulfil legitimizing functions within conflicts" (Cusicanqui, 2008, p. 59). As Rivera Cusicanqui argues, in situations of inequality, the discipline of history can focus on unveiling the different interpretations of reality, not on determining the objective truth about what occurred in the past (Cusicanqui, 2008). In other words, to understand the meaning attached to the past "in terms of justice within a cause… making historic research a collective exercise of misalignment" (Cusicanqui, 2008) for the researcher and the communities that are involved in the research. Within the struggles faced by human and environmental rights defenders in the twenty-first century, unveiling the multiple, co-existent and sometimes contradicting memories among stakeholders has an impact in determining the route towards environmental justice.

There can be multiple uses of the concept of memory for a decolonial and participative approach to environmental history. If the goal of the researcher is to commit to an engaged exercise of transformation, memory is a fundamental part of change. In a volume on historical memory in Africa, the anthropologist and historian of Africa oral history, Mamadou Diawara asserts that memory can be a "a rich and powerful tool for orientation in the present and for opening future perspectives on human action. Even on the most abstract level, the way in which we remember has consequences" (Diawara et al., 2010, p. 2). From a pedagogic studies perspective, Gabriela Ortiz says that memory:

can move in the quotidian life and be a powerful tool for fighting when brought to the present. Through the lived experience… memory is brought up to life by constituting transmitted experience that is commemorated in the collective, forming identities and the ways of being in life. (Ortiz Zambrano, 2019, p. 29)

Contrastingly, just as it is important to analyse what is remembered, one of the most important components of memory is *forgetting*, since "forgetting is the norm and remembering is the exception, even though constructed forgetfulness may exist" (Gallini et al., 2015, p. 54).

An illustration of the co-existence of multiple narratives of the past that determine identities is the 1927 massacre of banana workers by the United Fruit Company in Northern Colombia. Official reports limit the number killed to a maximum of 1,000 people, according to the then US ambassador (Bucheli, 2002). In popular memory, that number has been highly influenced by the publication of the Nobel laureate novel *Hundred years of solitude* (where it was suggested there were some 3,000 people killed) by Gabriel García Márquez (García Márquez, 1967). For current processes of labour and environmental inequalities in the area of the massacre, where bananas are still being planted, the popular memory of peasants, conservation workers and social movement gives higher priority to the collective memory than the archival sources (De la Rosa Solano, 2018). The *remembering* of this event has, for decades, fuelled the union movements in Colombia in the fight for proper work conditions.

Another example we can offer here is drawn from fieldwork in the city of Coventry (UK) (undertaken by the first author, De la Rosa Solano), while researching the history of urban waterways. During the post-war period, the main river in the city was diverted underground, disconnecting it from the historic centre. While doing a social cartography exercise on a local festival, different inhabitants of the city informed De la Rosa Solano that they did not know about the existence of the river, a part of which still runs above surface not more than 200 m away from the festival. When asking environmental and local authorities about the problems around the river, the lack of citizen engagement in conservation and care was one of the main issues cited. In her research, De la Rosa Solano finds a connection between the lack of citizen engagement with the literal lack of visibility the river has in the city. In this case, one of the processes in the history of the river has been a constructed forgetting and the subsequent processes of remembering within artistic and environmental activities.7

Accessing individual and collective memory as a researcher can be done in multiple ways. Interviews, life stories, focal groups, social cartography, photo elicitation and other exercises are valuable in the quest for meaning about the past. Particularly, methods that push for interaction with the lived environment and exploration of the researched areas are fundamental in including the non-human in environmental history.

Finally, we would like to end this section by highlighting some reflections on the overall role of the researcher when using the concept of memory to engage in participative and decolonial methods. One useful piece of advice is given by Portelli, when he says that asking the interviewees for their life story, even if some of it is not directly related to the field of study, is of utmost importance. For him, oral history cannot be done, "unless your interest is focused on the person with whom you are talking" (Portelli, 2009, p. 29). The informant experiences are constituent of the ways remembering (and forgetting) is constructed. Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui makes two other notes. The first is to understand that there is cultural and linguistic *untranslatability* that is a natural part of different individuals with different backgrounds, like scholar

7 For more information on this research, see www.recoms.eu.

researchers and communities. These need to be accepted and recognized. They can even bring opportunities for communities to build their narratives in their own terms and for their own purposes. Second, Rivera also reflects on the "negotiation" between the researcher and researched; this should be given in terms of "two subjects that reflect together around their experiences and about the vision each has of the other" (Cusicanqui, 2008, p. 60). These reflections are pointed towards the de-colonizing and construction of truly participative narratives of the past. There will still be limitations though, as previously discussed, depending mainly on each context where a participative and decolonial methodology is used.

## **Conclusions**

This chapter has explored how participatory and decolonial methods of research can contribute to the practise of an inclusive and communicative environmental history that contributes to the cause of environmental justice. Discussed first, was how historical research has looked at inclusion, and then in turn, at participative approaches. The review of Latin American literature offered an introduction to an extensive body of scholarship that explores these topics, providing references for the one interested in taking this exploration further. From undertaking this review we argue that decoloniality and participation can be powerful allies of environmental history research. Namely, the decolonial approach helps reading the past through a critical lens that connects specific cases with larger phenomena, such as imperialism and capitalism, highlighting the spaces for change within them. Similarly, participation challenges historical research to go beyond inclusion and to place people's knowledge in the centre of scientific production. Environmental history brings together these elements to ask questions of the social sciences and humanities about non-human actors and to contextualize the discipline of history within the socio-environmental present day challenges.

The contributions of this chapter are three-fold. First we have studied the integration of social sciences methods for historical data collection in fieldwork; second, we have pointed out the relevance of people's knowledge for environmental history; and thirdly, we have highlighted the links between research practice of environmental history and environmental justice. This contribution was accompanied by a reflection on the fundamental task of including the non-human as part of that collective and individual narrative that forms the collective and individual identity. By way of illustration, the use of memory as a conceptual tool in applying this approach has also been explored. Likewise, by understanding the limits of participative and decolonial methods, the discussions in this chapter are intended to act as a foundation for further explorations on this way of doing environmental history. In this way, we can find spaces of convergence with social and environmental movements, similar to what is done in political ecology, but here, from an historical perspective.

This English language exploration of the evolution of participation in environmental history research in Latin America hopes to open the dialogue for exchanges between different traditions on methods in this field. More importantly, the particularities of the environmental history in Latin America, as they have been highlighted throughout this text, hope to inform research in other regions. Environmental history has already influenced policies in conservation in Latin America, and this is a clear route for more politically committed academic exercises in other latitudes. This type of research could be used for understanding the long-term temporality of social and ecological transformation and inform civil society of how inequities are shaped through time. Awareness of these issues can be created, and actively used, giving room to a politically committed academic practice from history. As many of the environmental historians from Latin America we have quoted, we strongly believe our field has a role to play in facing challenges of the twenty-first century. Among others, environmental history can be used to create awareness, push for inclusion, creating strategies for facing socio-environmental injustices, and have an impact on public policies.

**Acknowledgements** This research received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklowdoska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 765389.

## **References**

volcán Barva -Sacramento y Paso Llano-, Costa Rica. *Revista de Historia, 70*, 229–257.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **5**

## **An Ethos and Practice of Appreciation for Transformative Research: Appreciative Inquiry, Care Ethics, and Creative Methods**

**Angela Moriggi**

## **Introduction**

Over the last decade, a growing debate has emerged in the sustainability science community around the need for transformative research. The latter refers to research approaches that aim at producing impactoriented knowledge through the co-creation of solutions with societal stakeholders, driven by researchers' commitment to partake in interventions seeking to enact and support change (Fazey et al., 2018). On the one side researchers are interested in investigating how transformational change happens, what are its main drivers and barriers, and how it can lead to a radical reshaping of human and environmental interactions in socio-ecological systems (Olsson et al., 2014). On the other, they are

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
A. Moriggi (B)

Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, Padua, Italy

increasingly experimenting with action-oriented modes of knowledge coproduction. In doing so, they contribute to revolutionizing the scientific paradigm towards transdisciplinary and participatory approaches that embrace uncertainty and exploration when dealing with the complex, multi-dimensional nature of socio-ecological problems (Abson et al., 2017; Fazey et al., 2020).

The content expounded in this chapter stems from a Ph.D. project (2016–2021) aimed at understanding transformational change, as well as contributing to transformative research. The study focused on Green Care practices in Finland, nature-based activities with a social innovation purpose, and their significance for pathways of place-based sustainability transformations. The data collection process was carried out over the span of three years, engaging three communities of Green Care practitioners by means of a participatory action research (PAR) approach. The conceptual building blocks of the research drew extensively from care-inspired understandings of sustainability (Pulcini, 2009; Tronto, 2013) and place-based and resourceful approaches to participatory co-production of knowledge (Gibson-Graham, 2008; Horlings, 2016).

In line with Fazey et al., (2018, p. 56) the study followed four preconditions believed to be crucial to practice transformative research: (1) it took into account the real world of politics, values, and ethics in societal change; (2) it included both practical and academic forms of knowledge; (3) it embraced creativity, innovation, and imagination as forms of knowledge production; (4) it was explicit about my position towards society and what kind of impact I expected my research to have.

The conceptual and practical understanding of change that underlined the transformative engagement in the study was inspired by the tenets of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). The latter refers to a form of action research long used in the field of organizational change and management (Busche, 2013). AI is commonly known as a strengths-based and positive approach to change. It provides a framework for anticipatory learning that supports collective processes of envisioning the future in a company, organization, or community. It can go hand-in-hand with a resourcefuloriented approach to participatory engagement (Franklin, 2018). At the same time, AI's philosophical groundings are in tune with a relational view of human agency and a celebration of life in all its forms, which is in line with a care-based understanding of sustainability. According to Zandee and Cooperrider (2008, p. 196), AI is grounded in an 'ethos of appreciation'. Up to now, however, the latter has been seldom discussed in relevant literature, and little account exists that explains how these philosophical tenets play out in practice.

The aim of this chapter is twofold. First, I wish to bring attention to the 'ethos of appreciation' underlying AI, and highlight its promising contribution for reinforcing a care-based approach to transformative research and a resourceful approach to participatory practice. In doing so, I draw particularly from the contribution of Zandee and Cooperrider (2008) mentioned above. The second aim of this chapter is to showcase how an 'ethos of appreciation' can be embodied and applied in practice, detailing five kinds of creative and arts-based methods used in the Ph.D. study. For each of the five methods, I explain the context of use, the purpose, the design, the modes of implementation, and the outcomes achieved. I also link each method to a specific dimension of AI's 'ethos of appreciation', to give a tangible account of how I interpreted it in practice.

In the discussion part of this chapter, I draw some reflections about the methodological potentials and limitations of using creative methods in this study, and the challenges and outcomes they yield when doing transformative research that aims to enable care-*full* and resourceful engagement processes. The chapter ends with concluding remarks about possible avenues for future research.

### **A Caring and Resourceful Approach to Transformative Research: Insights from the Literature**

A growing number of sustainability researchers are looking at transformative change from a relational perspective, one that moves away from focusing on interactions between entities, and rather emphasizes continually unfolding processes and relationships (West et al., 2020). A major source of inspiration in relational thinking is characterized by scholarship on care ethics. In a recently published joint work, we have explored the potential of care ethics as a relational ontology to contribute to sustainability transformation theory and practice. As a result, three caring dimensions emerged as particularly relevant: *ethically-informed practices, relational response-ability,* and *emotional awareness* (Moriggi et al., 2020). Many researchers committed to explore and support resourcefulness in sustainability-oriented community pathways, embrace these three dimensions in their work, in more or less conscious ways. We see their goal as twofold. On the one hand they investigate how bottom-up local initiatives may contribute to "multi-fold social, cultural, environmental and economic value-creation at a community scale" (Franklin, 2018, p. 271). Examples include research on community food initiatives, on alternative forms of health and social care provisioning, on sustainable natural resource management, etc. (Franklin, 2018). At the same time, they also engage in collaborative processes that can nurture the inherent (and more or less latent) potential of the community to sustain and enhance its own resourcefulness and resilience (Franklin, 2018). This is often done by resorting to PAR and co-creative approaches of knowledge co-production, similar to what has been done in the Ph.D. study presented in this chapter. The remainder of this section will elaborate on the meaning of each of the three caring dimensions mentioned above, while giving examples of its application in participatory and resourceful research practice.

As far as the first dimension is concerned, seeing research—and participatory engagement in particular—as an *ethically-informed practice* inspired by caring principles, implies three main conditions: (a) attentive engagement to context and its interdependencies; (b) willingness to experiment; (c) attention towards empowerment (Moriggi et al., 2020). From a care perspective, context matters greatly. Issues cannot be understood only through a universal, standardized lens, nor can they be judged through abstract moral norms (Held, 2006). Embeddedness plays an important role in caring. Similarly, we contend that engaging in care-*full* research practices implies fostering deep relationships with specific contexts and realities, understanding and learning from them (Warren, 2000) as opposed to imposing sterile top-down knowledge or extracting useful data only for the sake of it. Much participatory and place-based researchers embrace embeddedness, relationality, and attention to context in their work (Brown et al., 2017; Giambartolomei et al., 2021; Horlings et al., 2020; see also Franklin, this book). Relating to context and its peculiarities also means becoming aware of its complexity and of the multifold relationships that constitute its socio-ecological system. This ideally implies the recognition of human-nature interdependence, and an openness to appreciate many forms of life, with an eco-centric rather than an anthropo-centric approach (Kimmerer, 2014). Arts-based research and transformative learning approaches offer meaningful examples of this kind of inquiry in practice (Harmin et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2018) Notably, Harmin et al. (2017) resort to 'epistemological stretching' during a graduate level seminar course on environmental decision-making. They describe it as "a pedagogical orientation which focuses on expanding the ways of knowing that someone respects, understands, and/or engages with" (Harmin et al., 2017, p. 1).

During the course, students were asked to combine course readings and lectures with personal experiences in nature, recorded through painting, sketching, prose poems, and photographs.

A second condition of research when seen as a caring and ethicallyinformed practice has to do with willingness to experiment. This is based on the idea that caring is an iterative practice, grounded on intensified involvement and knowledge (Noddings, 2013). For virtuous transformations to happen, things need to be done over and over again. Iteration does not merely (or necessarily) lead to betterment; however, it does create the space to adapt to the needs and capacities of those who are involved in the practice with an intentional and purposedriven approach (Mol et al., 2010; Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2010). It also requires experimentation, tinkering, trial-and-error, and eventually, failure. Experimentation and iterative learning are considered essential factors in transformative research (Fazey et al., 2018; Giambartolomei et al., 2021). To carry out a Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR) project in Uganda, Sanginga et al. (2010) went through four iterative and complementary stages, including bottom-up experimentation and learning, sharing between communities, involvement of policymakers and local administrations, and of district policy stakeholders. Another example is provided by Foster (2016, p. 112) who narrates of the successes and failure of carrying out experimental collaborative arts-based research in order to promote social justice.

The third condition we identified in caring practices is tension towards empowerment. From a care perspective, empowerment goes hand-inhand with recognizing the agency of both sides of the caring spectrum. Both sides must be given a voice, by re-framing relationships of power and by focusing on what people *can* do throughout the research process (Barnes, 2008). This resonates deeply with the call for co-creation and co-production of knowledge animating the transformative research debate in sustainability science today (Norström et al., 2020). Likewise, in PAR the desire to empower participants has motivated decades of attempts of inclusive and generative forms of engagement of communities and individuals (Evans et al., 2010; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Notably, Masterson et al. (2018) describe practical and ethical advantages and challenges of using Photo-voice to engage local communities in Kenya and South Africa and to foster deep learning about human well-being in relation to socio-ecological systems dynamics (Masterson et al., 2018).

A care-based approach to empowerment is valuable as it also prompts us to see non-humans on the other side of the caring spectrum, recognizing their agency and dignity (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011; Spretnak, 1997). The starting point to refuse objectification and domination is to explore with curiosity the rhythm and needs of non-human beings, recognizing them as sentient and communicative (Harmin et al., 2017; Kimmerer, 2014). There are examples of this practice in place-based experiential learning, where storytelling is used to support students of field philosophy to engage with nature affectively, embracing feelings such as wonder and mystery (Goralnik & Nelson, 2017).

Moving on to the second dimension of a care-based approach to transformative research, we can talk of *relational response-ability*, understood as the ability to respond to the needs we see around us (Haraway, 2016). Earlier I highlighted the importance of relationality and embeddedness to context. Close interactions and embodied experiences create bonds, connections, and responsibilities. Most importantly, they enable the possibility to notice and understand the needs of others (Tronto, 2013). This is typical of PAR work, as researchers refuse detachment and neutrality, and take a pro-active committed stance in relation to the community involved. Heras and Tàbara (2014) review around 20 examples of community-based research that used performative methods as an integrative research approach drawing on elements from the performing arts to support individual, community, and institutional reflexivity and transformation. Many researchers also feel the need to train their capacity for attentiveness (and consequently, response-ability) by learning to be "present – in the moment – and also open to what is not yet known" (Foster, 2016, p. 129). This can be done through mindfulness (Wamsler et al., 2018), spirituality (Kaufman, 2017), reflexivity (Robertson, 2000), and a general willingness to "dig in, to develop meaning, make connections, be honest and vulnerable, and seek growth" (Goralnik & Nelson, 2017, p. 15).

Finally, the third component of a care-based approach to transformative change is *emotional awareness.* For a long time, emotions have been fenced from the research arena. Recently, the humanities and social (sustainability) sciences have started to appreciate the centrality of emotions—both 'negative' and 'positive'—for change agency (Leys, 2011). Feelings such as anger, joy, fear, and hope can orient one's self towards the future and guide transformative actions (Pearson, 2021). Emotions are also deeply connected to our value systems, and greatly influence our moral compass, and the decisions we choose to take (Held, 2006). As a result, transformative researchers are slowly experimenting with the practice of bridging emotional and rational dimensions in processes of collective co-creation (Galafassi, 2018; Pearson et al., 2018). The dramatic urgency of socio-environmental issues, exemplified by the climate crisis, cannot be purely discussed through the medium of sterile modelling forecasts. By engaging with emotions, people can foster imagination, creativity, and intuition, and project themselves into the future in hopeful and liberating ways (Pearson, 2021). To this aim, novel ways of generating knowledge are being pursued, including visioning techniques that help people to embrace uncertainty and vulnerability (Evans et al., 2010; Tschakert et al., 2014), and that tap into existing positive and inspirational initiatives to explore alternative pathways to the future (Pereira et al., 2019).

## **Appreciative Inquiry and an Ethos of Appreciation**

Since its introduction in the 1980s, AI has been used extensively around the world to promote transformative change in organizations and groups (Ludema & Fry, 2008). The idea underlying AI is not to implement change towards a goal. Rather, it is "about chang*ing* … convening, conversing and relating with each another in order to tap into the natural capacity for cooperation and change that is in every system" (Ludema & Fry, 2008, p. 281). AI is based on the assumption that each organization or group has a positive core that provides a source of 'renewable' energy for both personal and organizational transformation. Often, this positive source of energy remains untapped due to a long-standing reliance on a problem-solving approach. However, accounts from research and practice have demonstrated how focusing on problems to search for solutions often leads to ineffective and disappointing results (Hung et al., 2018). In contrast, AI builds on the idea of 'generativity'. Rather than being stuck in conversations about gaps and challenges, or getting trapped in reductionist thinking about one solution versus another, AI leverages the capacity for generative dialogue between individuals (Busche, 2011). It empowers people to build new knowledge, spur inventiveness, create energy, and enhance co-operative capacity, through curiosity, wonder, and surprise (Ludema & Fry, 2008; Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008). This triggers a virtuous circle, where inspiration, joy, and strength feed into each other towards "ascending spirals of co-operative action" (Ludema & Fry, 2008, p. 282).

The tendency to focus on the positive characterizing AI has also been viewed with criticism. Practitioners who favour exclusively positive narratives at the expense of negative experiences and feelings, may reduce AI to a simplistic, mechanical, and even manipulative form of engagement (Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008). Moreover, many using AI mostly rely on its 4-D cycle of inquiry (*discovery—dream—design—destiny*), without truly understanding the origins of the practice and the philosophical principles inspiring it (Ludema & Fry, 2008). To countervail risks of trivialization of AI, Zandee and Cooperrider (2008) elaborate on five dimensions that lie at the heart of its 'ethos of appreciation'. These dimensions are not only meaningful as they support AI practitioners in substantiating and elevating the generative capacity of their work. They are also valuable lenses that illuminate over the similarities and complementarity between AI, a care-based approach to transformative change, and participatory and resourceful approaches to engagement. As such, they were particularly valuable in the Ph.D. study object of this chapter. I will now briefly explore each of the five dimensions (also shown in Fig. 5.1).

*Illuminating the miracle of life* is the first dimension proposed by Zandee and Cooperrider. It is based on the assumption that life is mysterious, and as such must be appreciated with wonder and "childlike openness in inquiry" (Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008, p. 193). Accepting mystery also implies embracing uncertainty—for a long time banished from the scientific realm, and now increasingly called for by transformative research proponents (Keeler et al., 2017; West et al., 2020). As far as

**Fig. 5.1** Five dimensions of an ethos of appreciation in AI (*Source* Developed following Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008)

wonder is concerned, from a care perspective, it is absolutely crucial. It is a way to appreciate the Earth's beauty, as well as its suffering; to see, feel, and sense empathetically *with* it (Kimmerer, 2014). Nurturing a sense of wonder is not merely an aesthetic exercise, but also a moral virtue, as Kathleen Dean Moore beautifully explains, drawing from Rachel Carson and her masterpiece *The Edge of the Sea* (2007). As Carson wrote: "I believe that the more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we will have for destruction" (Moore, 2005, p. 28).

The second dimension characterizing an ethos of appreciation is *questioning taken for granted realities.* AI invites us to rethink the questions we ask, and reframe the topics of inquiry. The goal is to break free of habituated patterns of thinking and acting, and unleash curiosity, imagination, and fresh thinking and deliberation (Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008). Care ethics scholars have long questioned taken for granted ontologies, engrained in Western philosophical thinking. The idea of relational response-ability is one of many examples. As explained in the previous section of this chapter, it allows us to shift the focus on responsibility as a burden towards a response-ability as a forward-looking act, triggered by our capacity of being in relation, and noticing the needs of other humans and non-humans.

*Envisioning new possibilities* is the third dimension that underlies an ethos of appreciation in AI. It is the practice of welcoming infinite possibilities when imagining our social worlds (Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008). It stems from a deep inquiry into the core values at the heart of our system and that provide the inspiration to envision evocative images of the future. We have seen above how a care-based approach to change puts at the centre the capacity for imagination, grounded in affective and moral sentiments, needed to crystallize alternative visions of the future.

Fourth, AI is about *creating knowledge in relationship.* The assumption here—once again in line with a care ethics philosophy—is that human existence is fundamentally relational. Instead of focusing on individualistic accounts of human agency, we should focus on relationships and "see others as vital co-creators of our mind, our self, and our society" (Sampson in Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008, p. 195). The process of inquiry is supposed to nurture this relational knowledge by creating the conditions for interpersonal connection and sharing.

Finally, the fifth dimension is about *enabling just and sustainable coexistence*. Relationships are not to be nurtured solely with other human beings, but should embrace other species as well. Engaging in AI processes should therefore also remind us of "our own embodied participation in a spirited, biological realm" and "appreciate our sensuous participation in a more-than-human world" (Abram, 1996 in Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008, p. 195). This eco-centric approach resonates well with awareness of interdependence animating a care-based approach to transformative change.

In the remainder of this chapter, my goal is to showcase how an ethos of appreciation can be put into practice, by detailing five kinds of creative methods I have employed during the collaborative engagement part of my Ph.D. project. For each method, I will explain the purpose, the sources of inspiration, the way it was implemented, and the outcomes it produced. To each method is associated one of the five dimensions of an ethos of appreciation presented above. By elaborating on the practical applicability of each dimension in detail, my goal is to complement and enrich the conceptual assumptions sketched by Zandee and Cooperrider (2008), offering additional interpretations of *how* an ethos of appreciation can be understood and operationalized.

### **An Ethos of Appreciation in Practice: An Account from the Field Using Creative Methods**

This section provides a methodological and empirical account of the application of selected methods during the course of my Ph.D. study. Before introducing each method in detail, I provide some background information about the research and a brief overview of the various stages of participatory engagement.

#### **Empirical Study: A Three-Year Collaboration with Green Care Practitioners in Finland**

The overall aim of my Ph.D. project was to analyze and appreciate placebased practices of Green Care in Finland and their possible significance and contribution to processes of transformative change (Moriggi, 2021). Green Care is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of activities in nature aimed at health and social care, social inclusion, pedagogy, and recreation (Sempik et al., 2010). In this study I explored three diverse examples of Green Care practices. The first case, a care farm, involves a group of mentally disabled people in sheep husbandry and farming activities for therapeutic purposes. The second case, a biodynamic farm, engages different target groups (e.g., long-term unemployed, children with special needs) in farming practices for social inclusion and pedagogy. The third case, a nature-tourism company, offers outdoor sports, wellbeing, educational, and recreational activities to a variety of users, including company employees, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

The main practitioners of the two farms and of the company (seven people) were engaged over the span of three years on a continuous basis (2016–2019). Most stages of fieldwork also involved other stakeholders, such as the staff of the three enterprises, their clients, the external networks of collaborators (e.g., civil servants, business partners, buyers, etc.), as well as experts in the field of Green Care. Around 75 people were involved in total. The collaboration aimed at not only gathering relevant data, but also at fostering a process of critical reflection and capacitybuilding for the three communities of practitioners, appreciating their assets and capacities, in line with a resourceful approach to participatory practice. The study focused on people's values and motivations to initiate Green Care activities, on the caring relationships enacted through the practices (see Moriggi et al., 2020), and on the role of place-based resources in sustaining the process of change agency at both individual and collective levels (Moriggi, 2019).

The empirical work relied on an in-depth qualitative research informed by place-based, transdisciplinary sustainability science, enriched by the principles and techniques of Participatory Action Research (PAR). In line with these traditions, all methods were designed and implemented following principles of inclusiveness, transparency, reflexivity, and empathy. The methods of data collection in the study stem from an 'eclectic pluralism' of approaches and techniques, borrowing from both academic and non-academic fields (Chambers, 2008, p. 311). As often happens in action research, my methodological approach was that of a 'bricoleur', as I integrated and made sense of various perspectives with the evolving of the research process, and of my understanding of the issues under study (Wicks et al., 2008, p. 26). As a result, more conventional data collection activities, such as semistructured interviews and participant observation, were coupled with visual and creative ones, such as Photo-voice and arts-based methods.

Figure 5.2 provides an overview of the various stages of fieldwork and the methods used.

The methods detailed in the following section are creative techniques that were specifically designed and used during the co-creation workshops. The first workshop, called 'Sharing and Reflecting', was carried out in August 2018, and brought together the practitioners of the three cases (nine people)—including the main entrepreneurs and some of their staff. The objectives were twofold: (a) to present and discuss preliminary results and the conceptual framework of the research work; (b) to provide an opportunity for sharing and reflection, highlighting both commonalities and differences of the various approaches to Green Care

**Fig. 5.2** Stages of fieldwork and related methods of data collection (*Source* The author)

across the three cases. The workshop lasted seven hours and was structured loosely following the tenets of Theory U, a facilitation framework particularly used in organizational management and change (Scharmer, 2007). Different techniques were used, some borrowed from organizational management, others inspired by system thinking, others adapted from arts-based research and experiential learning.

The second series of workshops, called 'Envisioning the future', involved each of the three cases separately, to support practitioners in crystallizing future visions of their Green Care practices, and the wider development of their community and place. In total, sixteen people participated in the three workshops. Also in this case, the workshop lasted seven hours, and was designed combining Theory U with the 4- D model of Appreciative Inquiry (*discovery—dream—design—destiny*). The methods used borrowed from system thinking, design thinking, and arts-based research.

I acted as a facilitator in both workshops and had the support of a Masters' student (Finnish mother-tongue), who provided logistical help and interpretation assistance when needed.

Below I introduce five methods used during the two workshops, following the chronological order with which they were implemented.

#### **Method No. 1—'Circle of Objects': Creating Knowledge in Relationships**

The 'Circle of objects' was used as an opening ice-breaker during the 'Sharing and Reflecting' workshop. Two weeks prior to the workshop, participants were invited to think of an object that best represented their involvement in Green Care. The goal was to have each person introduce themselves to the group in a non-conventional way, "creating an atmosphere of unity in diversity" (Pearson et al., 2018, p. 18). The object was meant to be a symbolic token of something people cared about or valued deeply in their work, expressing their personal relationship to Green Care and learning from others in an emotionally-sensed way. "Objects have a great evocative and aesthetic power" and "enable people to communicate tactically and metaphorically" (Pearson et al., 2018, p. 18). The method

**Fig. 5.3** 'Circle of objects': people sharing in circle; all the objects collected on a chair (*Source* The author)

was adapted from a version previously designed by the author of this chapter jointly with other colleagues (from the collective Re.imaginary1) for a workshop not related to this Ph.D. study (see Pearson et al., 2018).

After a few welcoming words at the start of the workshop, participants were invited to join in a circle, holding the objects in their hands. One after the other, people introduced themselves, briefly narrating the story behind their object, and placed it at the centre of the circle, as a symbolic gesture signalling their belonging to the community of people participating to the workshop. As shown in Fig. 5.3, some of the objects were pieces of equipment used daily by people in their work, such as a shovel—reminding them of the importance of caring for the soil, crucial source of life for all practices happening on the farm. Others brought a nail clipper for rabbits and a sheep cane, telling of daily practices of caring for animals, needed 'partners' in the rehabilitation and social inclusion activities. Other objects related to the different aspects or roles taken in Green Care practices. Notably, one participant brought an enamel cup with an image of the Moomins, fantastic characters designed by Tove Jansson (Finnish writer of children's literature), widely popular and appreciated across the country. The object symbolized her role as a storyteller when working as a nature guide, taking groups into the forest and narrating of traditional livelihoods and human-nature relationships. Another person brought a broom with a puppet of a Nature Witch, to introduce her 'alias' during Green Care activities. She expressed her wish to convey wonder and magic to people, via experiential learning in

1 See: https://www.reimaginary.com/.

nature. A woman brought a pair of hand mittens, to signify the combination of softness and strength required of a professional Green Care practitioner. Cloves flowers reminded a person of the regenerating power of forest walks, that she herself experienced living on the biodynamic farm.

The objects were rich in meaning and acted as a medium to people's personal stories and experiences. In line with AI's principle of *creating knowledge in relationships*, they allowed participants to connect as a group and share their sources of inspiration and accomplishment (Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008). These 'narrative rich' short introductions brought smiles to people's faces, and created a sense of kindness and mutual empathy that set the tone for the remainder of the workshop.

#### **Method No. 2—'Creating with the Soil': Enabling Just and Sustainable Coexistence**

The second method, called 'Creating with the soil', was used about twothirds of the way through the 'Sharing & Reflecting' workshop. The core part of the workshop combined my presentations of the main findings of the Ph.D. study (up to that point in time), with discussions in pairs, and sharing in plenary. It then involved an individual mapping exercise focused on Green Care practitioners' resourcefulness, also followed by collective sharing. All these activities required substantial intellectual effort from participants, with a great deal of information being conveyed and thoughts expressed. As such, I deemed it necessary to include a somatic break in the workshop, to allow people to reconnect with their bodies, and rest their brains for a while (Evans et al., 2009).

Participants were therefore invited to 'create with the soil'. A week before the workshop, I asked the practitioners from the biodynamic farm (located only 5 km away from the workshop's venue) to collect a bucket of fresh soil from their farm, and bring it along on the workshop day, together with a thick wood branch. The 'Creating with the soil' method is about working with clayish material in a freestyle, letting shapes emerge and crystallize without previous planning. The goal is to enable a playful and relaxed atmosphere, away from complex and articulated discussions, engaging with a simple, almost child-like, artful expression. The method also aims at facilitating generativity and intuition, by allowing people to 'think with their hands'. As such, it disrupts normal patterns of thought, and can lead to unexpected wisdom and insights during the process of creation. The method is also an inclusive one, as it does not require the communication of articulated thoughts verbally, nor to be 'proficient' in any creative forms of expression, as people can make shapes freely and at their own pace, without any expectations of the outcome.

'Creating with the soil' was inspired by artist Lotte Kravitz, who facilitated a similar exercise during the international conference 'Transformations to Sustainability', held at the University of Dundee in September 2017. When designing the co-creation workshop for my research, I found this method particularly fit, knowing the participants involved, and their natural attitude to 'get their hands dirty'. Moreover, the act of shaping the soil has strong symbolic connotation. The soil of the biodynamic farm is far from being mere dirt; rather, it is composed of lively organic matter, rich in dead and living organisms. For the practitioners there, it is a crucial source of life on the farm, something to attentively care for, and the subject of various sacred rituals. Although the other participants did not follow anthroposophical principles, all expressed great respect for the soil and the natural elements they engage with daily. As such, I felt that 'creating with the soil' could well express AI's proposition to be reminded of "our own embodied participation in a spirited, biological realm & appreciate our sensuous participation in a more-thanhuman world" (Abram in Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008, p. 195). This is linked to the fifth dimension of an ethos of appreciation expounded earlier, namely *enabling just and sustainable coexistence.* The idea underlying it is to nurture relationships with both humans and non-humans, avoiding an anthropocentric approach, and bringing to the room and the co-creation process other living elements. According to Zandee and Cooperrider (2008), one good way to do so is by engaging in bodily exercises, sensing and feeling one's own rootedness in the larger ecology. This may also enable reflections and insights that allow people to reconnect to the values and sources of motivation that inspire their everyday undertakings.

During the 'Sharing and Reflecting' workshop, I placed the wood branch on a table in the middle of the room, together with the bucket of soil and a bowl of water. As shown in Fig. 5.4, people were invited to join on a voluntary basis, and start working with their hands. When and if a shape formed, they could place it on the wood branch for display. Participants responded enthusiastically, and a few of them immediately joined the table. As they started to play with the soil, they engaged in relaxed conversations, laughing and smiling. However, it was not easy to get everyone to join at the same time; this made the process not as fluid and lively as I had experienced it as a participant in Dundee. Finnish people are very respectful of other people's space, and therefore some of the participants preferred to 'take turns' rather than mingle with the whole group. In the end, everyone ended up with a little creation, and placed it on the wood branch.

The shapes were mostly related to beings from the natural world, including a mushroom, a rabbit, a pig, a bug, and a horseshoe. Other shapes included some alien forms, and a small human with open arms. The meaning of the creations was not discussed, but simply shared in plenary to foster a feeling of collectiveness and unity in diversity, and anchor key impressions from the exercise.

Reflecting back on the effectiveness of the method, I can say that it worked as a relaxing and aesthetically pleasant break. However, it required more time than planned (including the time needed for people to wash their hands and reconvene in the room), and I therefore had to

**Fig. 5.4** 'Creating with the soil': people shaping the clay; the forms created displayed on the wood branch (*Source* The author)

rush it towards the end. Moreover, the exercise that was scheduled afterwards did not build on the feeling of more-than-human co-existence, nor did it engage further with the somatic intelligence of the participants. As such, the potential to fully put into practice an ethos of appreciation was partially lost on this occasion.

#### **Method No.3—'Council of Beings': Questioning Taken for Granted Realities**

The third method, called the 'Council of beings', was used during the 'Envisioning the future' workshops, in close combination with method No. 4—'Letters from the future'—which I will present next. Three separate 'Envisioning the Future' workshops were held for this study, and I will therefore reflect on Methods Nos. 3 and 4 thinking of all the three events.

The 'Council of beings' is a combined adaptation of two techniques (respectively called 'Inviting non-human stakeholders' and 'Expanding time') previously designed by a group of colleagues and myself for a workshop not related to this Ph.D. project (see Pearson et al., 2018). It is directly inspired from Joanna Macy's 'Council of all beings' (Macy & Brown, 1998). The latter is a communal ritual in which participants are asked to step aside from their human identity and speak on behalf of another life-form, in order to gain stronger awareness of our interdependence with other living beings, and trigger emotions of care and wonder for them. In this sense, the exercise lends itself to *questioning taken for granted realities*, one of the five dimensions of AI's ethos of appreciation*.* Instead of approaching an issue exclusively from an anthropocentric perspective, as it is normally done, this method forces people to reframe the questions to be asked, and break free of habituated ways of thinking, to take on non-human perspectives.

The 'Council of beings' (together with 'Letters from the future') formed the 'Dream' part of my workshops, which were structured along AI's 4-D cycle of inquiry. During that phase, participants were asked to give voice to desires and wishes for the future, when thinking of the development of their place and practices. As a first step, I invited them

to embrace a different perception of time by showing them a timeline, portraying the time span of different human and non-human beings. The beings on each timeline were closely related to each case. In the one shown in Fig. 5.5—designed for the care farm—I included the picture of a building, namely the guided-living unit where the mentally disabled clients live, imagining it would be there for about 200 years. Human beings included a child, a disabled person, and an elderly lady (living on average 85 years)—representing the current and possible future dwellers of the farm (all the pictures were taken from the internet and did not represent any real person living on the farm, for confidentiality reasons). The remaining pictures portrayed the miniature pigs living on the farm (living 12 years on average), one of the many sheep they raise (living 10 years on average), and a butterfly (living 1 month on average). By showing the different time span of the various beings, the aim was to make people reflect about our usual perception of time, often mostly focused on our short-term needs as humans, and highlight other time perceptions as well. When thinking about the future development of a place, it is important to become aware of the needs of different beings, including elements of the socio-ecological system (Pearson et al., 2018).

As a second step, I laid out seven cards on a table (one more than the number of participants present), each representing one of the beings on the timeline. I asked people to observe the cards, and pick one they would want to give voice to, in this exercise and in the following one

**Fig. 5.5** 'Council of beings': timeline of change; cards with different beings (*Source* The author)

of imagining the future. Once everyone had a card, people introduced their 'new self', and named a characteristic or something they loved about their character. This moment of sharing was meant to symbolically invite the new stakeholders' identities to the discussion, and trigger people's imagination and capacity to step out of their comfort zone. Both steps worked well in all the workshops I held. People could immediately relate to the beings introduced, as they were part of their everyday life and work. They also quickly 'embraced' their new self, and got into the playful atmosphere of pretending to be a different being. Knowing the participants in advance certainly helped me to select the most appropriate choice of human and non-human beings, in a way that would speak to each participant's experiences and aspirations.

#### **Method No. 4—'Letters from the Future': Illuminating the Miracle of Life**

The method 'Letters from the future' followed straight after the 'Council of beings'. Once people went back to their seats, I distributed a nice piece of paper, resembling the texture of a letter, and a pen. People were then invited to write a short letter to themselves, thinking from the perspective of their 'new' being. This person or animal or thing would speak to them from the future, in the year 2039, 20 years from the date of the workshop. Their future selves had the capacity to see their place—the care farm, the biodynamic farm, or the location of the naturetourism company—in its future and most ideal development state. The following guiding questions were given as prompts: *(1) What do you see in the place? What does it look like? (2) What activities are happening? Who is there? (3) How do you feel? What sparks your joy?* People were then given ca. 20 minutes to write their letters, choosing either English or their mother tongue (Finnish or Swedish), as the preferred language of writing (see Fig. 5.6). Once everyone had finished their letters, participants were asked to read them out loud, sharing their visions with the group. Language interpretation was provided by my assistant, in case the letter was not in English, to allow me to understand the content fully.

**Fig. 5.6** 'Letters from the future': participants writing letters from the perspective of other beings (*Source* The author)

The main goal of this method was to elicit a dream-like situation in which people could picture the best possible scenario for their place. In AI, it is important to go through this stage, rather than moving straight from the present situation to a future one. The *Dream* phase allows people to connect to their deepest sources of motivation and to give voice to their wishes, without being held back by cynicism or caution. It answers the question *What could be*? and prompts people to envision multiple possibilities. It is followed by the *Design* phase, when space is given to building the necessary steps to realize the ideal vision, answering the question *What should be?* (Busche, 2011). Zandee and Cooperrider suggest using artful creations, such as drawing, poems, and songs, in the *Dream* phase, to "express latent images of ideal futures" and discover and communicate shared meaning (2008, p. 194). According to them, this is conducive to *illuminate the miracle of life*. Artful creations introduce a sense of wonder and childlike inquiry to the discussion, allowing people to access a more 'intuitive' and 'sensuous' understanding of organizational life (Zandee & Cooperrider, 2008).

In the case of the workshops I held, my hope was to heighten the sense of wonder, by taking the perspective of a different being. In that way, participants were asked to disrupt their normal patterns of thinking, and crystallize thoughts previously untapped. For instance, when thinking as a butterfly, participants imagined flying over their place, and got a landscape view of what was happening and how, noticing smells or seeing things that usually went unnoticed. Additionally, people were asked to picture an ideal and positive future in the mind of an animal or a plant. As such, more chances were created to portray regenerative possibilities—conducive for both human's and non-human's flourishing and well-being—and therefore not only illuminate, but also celebrate and nurture the miracle of life.

It is important to note that not all workshops led to the same outcomes. In one of them, I encountered resistance by one of the participants—who held an important role in the organization—who refused to embrace a positive perspective on the future. Rather, they chose to depict a dystopian future, portraying ecological destruction and loss of the human-nature connection. This partially jeopardized the process, as it created a sense of awkwardness and mismatch with the visions presented by the other participants. It also toned down the collective energy in the group, and somehow trivialized the imaginative and dream-like efforts in the other letters. In response to this, I slightly adapted the remaining part of the workshops, trying also to give voice to risks and challenges when building realistic steps towards the future vision. However, looking back at the workshop now, I can say that a more flexible structure and stronger experience as a facilitator from my side could have helped to welcome the resistance in a more fruitful way, and re-shape the workshop most appropriately.

As far as the other workshops were concerned, the 'Letters from the future' method yielded very positive results. There was a collective sense of empathy and heartfelt connection while people read their letters. People later said that hearing others depict positive visions of their places, made them feel hopeful and energized to further pursue their plans and wishes. This exercise also gave them confidence for the next part of the workshop, in which concrete activities and needed resources had to be envisioned.

#### **Method No. 5—'Vision Tree': Envisioning New Possibilities**

The last method I would like to introduce is called 'Vision tree' and takes direct inspiration from a manual that tells of experiences of using AI with rural Indian communities (Ashford & Patkar, 2001). The tree is a visual metaphor that helps to brainstorm, crystallize, and prioritize thoughts in the group. In the case of my workshops, I used it in conjunction with 'Letters from the future', explained in the previous section. While participants were reading their letters out loud, I recorded as many keywords as possible on post-its, responding to the guiding questions given earlier: (1) *What do you see in the place? What does it look like?* (2) *What activities are happening? Who is there?* (3) *How do you feel? What sparks your joy?* I then clustered the keywords into three main areas: *core elements*, representing the roots of the tree; *main activities*, to be placed on the trunk of the tree; and *values & emotions*, manifested on the fruit or branches of the tree.

Once all participants had finished their letters, as can be seen in Fig. 5.7, I placed the various post-its on the Vision tree—painted by myself prior to the workshop on thick paper, hanging on one of the walls of the workshop's venue. In the case of the care farm, words like horses, visitors, butterflies, wool, water streams, new buildings, etc., appeared at the roots of the tree. On the trunk, there were yoga courses, musical gigs, farmers' markets, horse care, etc. The branches were populated by feelings of joy, beauty, love, community, trust, etc.

My main goal with this adaptation of the exercise was to acknowledge participants' visions in a way that would be immediately visible to

**Fig. 5.7** 'Vision Tree': the tree with and without post-its (*Source* The author)

everyone in the group. By seeing all the keywords in one image, people could easily spot similarities or resonances, but also differences. Moreover, having keywords clustered on the different parts of the tree, allowed for analytical clarity, leading naturally to the next stage in the workshop, in which concrete plans and steps had to be taken into account focusing on future practices, ways of working, and needed resources. The goal was also in line with AI's ethos of appreciation, and in particular with the idea of *envisioning new possibilities*. This process had already started with the 'Letters from the future', and was now further consolidated as people could actually *see* black on white the most important ingredients that made new possibilities alive. As Zandee and Cooperrider put it, 'words create worlds' (2008, p. 194). It is important to co-create the positive imagery collectively and to highlight the connections between ingredients and inspiration, so that the image of the future feels like a shared one.

#### **Discussion**

In this section I draw some methodological reflections, focusing on design and execution of the techniques detailed above, and reflecting on their added value for transformative research aimed at enabling care-*full* and resourceful processes of engagement. I also briefly elaborate on the kind of research data and more general outcomes the methods yielded, highlighting challenges and limitations. These reflections draw from my own observations and the notes in my research diary, as well as the feedback given by the participants about the methods—right after the workshop, as well as via a questionnaire survey administered to the main practitioners (seven people) at the end of the research project (Moriggi, 2021).

As far as design is concerned, a lot of preparation and thorough planning was dedicated to the methods. I followed an informed rationale, and aimed at achieving specific objectives. Only at a later stage, once the methods had been tested multiple times, did I gain stronger awareness of its strengths and challenges. Notably, only when trying out the methods with different audiences did I realize how they could allow me to put specific AI principles into practice and facilitate transformative processes.

In terms of execution, I believe creative techniques substantially enriched the processes of co-creation during the workshops. They also enhanced the care-*full* and resourceful approach I was trying to embody. Notably, they facilitated greater empathy and connection within the group (and with non-human beings), spurred people's imagination and out-of-the-box thinking, they helped participants to access their inner wisdom and emotions, they disrupted habituated patterns of thought and action, and allowed for experimentation and tinkering. The visual artefacts acted as useful 'boundary objects'—prompts that facilitated communication and understanding around a certain issue (Home & Rump, 2015). These outcomes are in line with what is expected of action-oriented and transdisciplinary forms of research. A crucial precondition to their effectiveness was that most participants could *trust the process*, accepting to play and participate, without knowing the outcome. On the other hand, even when some of the techniques were not used to their full potential, or when I encountered the resistance of some of the participants, I could see the long-term benefits of using these methods for the engagement process in its entirety. A certain degree of flexibility was important to adapt the methods to different circumstances. On the other hand, the structure of the workshops was rather tight, and extra space could have been made for improvisation and serendipity. Flexibility and adaptation are crucial for care-*full* and resourceful research: they allow the facilitator/researcher to tap into the full (and perhaps unexplored) potential of the method, while helping the group to feel empowered and thrive along the process.

For the purpose of my Ph.D. study, during the workshops I used creative methods in combination with more 'analytical' ones (e.g., SWOT analysis, system mapping). These methods were particularly appropriate to gather text-rich information, and allowed participants to rely on more conventional and familiar forms of learning and collaborating. By combining different techniques, I was able to elicit different modalities of knowledge generation—engaging brains, hearts, and hands—and facilitate both individual and collective learning.

In terms of outcomes, looking back at the whole research process, I did not merely rely on co-creative workshops and creative methods, but also on more conventional forms of data collection, such as semi-structured interviews and participant observation. These provided in-depth information that cannot always be accessed through group events lasting only a few hours. Interviews transcripts have been a crucial in-depth source of empirical findings for my Ph.D. papers and thesis. I also analyzed some of the data obtained through creative methods. To this aim, it was very important to document the process during the workshops, by taking pictures, recording people's observations and thoughts (either with the help of a note-keeper, or with a tape recorder), and transcribing the information written on post-its, maps, letters, etc. The data obtained were mostly used for triangulation purposes, namely to achieve greater rigour when interpreting different datasets and enhancing the validity of the formulated findings. To some extent, the process of triangulation mitigated risks of 'deference' and 'social desirability' effects, namely when participants tell the researcher what they want to hear, or what makes them look good in front of the group (Galafassi, 2018). Moreover, presenting preliminary findings and conceptualizations to participants was extremely valuable to validate their accuracy and relevance. Documenting the process during the workshops was also valuable as it provided so-called 'presentational knowledge', useful for communication purposes beyond fieldwork (Gearty et al., 2015, p. 61). In the weeks following each workshop, I compiled a 'Learning Portfolio', a short document where I collected pictures, slides, and thoughts discussed during the workshop. The Portfolios were then sent in both hardcopy and electronic format to the participants, as a record of what had happened during the workshops, and as a resource they could tap into for their future development steps. Moreover, I also used the pictures in presentations and events to communicate findings in a more effective and memorable way.

## **Conclusions**

In this chapter, I have discussed the need to foster transformative research, and presented Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as a framework for organizational change and management. AI provides both conceptual and practical tools that can enrich care-*full* and resourceful transformative research practice. In particular, I presented five dimensions of AI's 'ethos of appreciation', laying out their philosophical meaning, as well as their practical application, by giving a detailed account of five creative methods I employed during my Ph.D. study.

In conclusion, it can be said that the methods proved very valuable to facilitate care-*full* and resourceful processes of co-creation. They also revealed, especially over time and with multiple applications, how an 'ethos of appreciation' can be put into practice. However, challenges and limitations were also present. Additional empirical testing of these methods is needed, to explore their possible application and potential in various contexts of action, and in combination with different techniques. Moreover, the five dimensions of an ethos of appreciation deserve further attention and elaboration, at both conceptual and methodological levels. AI offers meaningful perspectives that have so far been only partially taken on by proponents of transformative sustainability research. The hope is that this chapter can provide inspiration for other researchers and practitioners to embrace an 'ethos of appreciation', and to foster care-*full* and resourceful engagement processes for transformative change.

**Acknowledgements** The Ph.D. project object of this chapter has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklowdoska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 674962. Additional support has been provided via a personal working grant funded by Kone Foundation, project identification no. 201801752.

#### **References**

Case studies from Kenya and South Africa. *Ecology and Society, 23*(3), 13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10259-230313.

and teaching. *Sustainability Science, 13*, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-017-0428-2.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **6**

## **Imaginative Leadership: A Conceptual Frame for the Design and Facilitation of Creative Methods and Generative Engagement**

**Kelli R. Pearson**

### **Introduction**

At the very least, participatory involvement with the many forms of art can enable us to see more in our experience, to hear more on normally unheard frequencies, to become conscious of what daily routines have obscured, what habit and convention have suppressed—Maxine Greene (1995: 123)

Complex sustainability challenges can only be understood and addressed via ambiguous subjective judgements, which are shaped by the inner dimensions of individuals and groups, such as their worldviews, imaginaries, interests/motivations, values, and ideologies (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Effective change processes must therefore include

K. R. Pearson (B)

Department of Education and Learning Science, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

cultural transformations and move beyond an exclusive focus on datadriven, technical, policy-oriented, and biophysical solutions (Boyden, 2001). However, even taking the inner-dimensions into account, actuating change is often constrained by the power and inertia of entrenched ways of thinking and perceiving, habituated everyday practices, and social/contextual norms and conventions (Ajzen, 1991; Dewey, 1922; Greene, 1995; Kagan, 2011). Moreover, the human psyche is hardwired to disengage when faced with information that appears overwhelmingly difficult or disturbing and can result in apathy and eco-anxiety (Lertzman, 2015; Pihkala, 2020).

With the aspiration to support transformative change and disrupt habits of thinking and doing, many scholars argue for a 'humanistic' (Hulme, 2011) or 'artistic' (Kagan, 2017) turn in sustainability transformations.1 A humanistic turn calls for drawing from the arts and humanities and from the fields of psychology, cognitive sciences, theology, philosophy, and cultural studies. In fact, the arts have played a vital role in social transformations throughout history (*see* Belfiore & Bennett, 2008), and many studies point to the potential role of arts and culture in supporting sustainability transformations specifically (Hawkins et al., 2015; Kagan, 2011; Kepes, 1972; Rathwell, 2016).

Research suggests that arts-based and creative practices are well-suited for engaging with the inner dimensions of sustainability (Horlings, 2017). One such approach can be termed 'generative engagements' (Eernstman et al., 2021); these include experiences or events that evoke multiple forms of intelligence (Gardner, 2011) and enable emotional, aesthetic, cognitive, somatic, and social processing (Eisner, 2002; Gardner, 2011). The process of physically creating 'practical– aesthetic' artefacts, for example, enables a process of 'thinking with our hands' (Groth, 2017; Sheridan et al., 2014) and gives us multimodal experiences that support meaning-making processes, individually and as

1 'Sustainability transformations' is understandably a flexible and fuzzy term as it frequently makes its way back and forth between various academic disciplines and the world of practice and policy. At its core, however, it is a way to distinguish transformative change (i.e., change that alters the fundamental properties of a system) from transitional change (processes that emphasize incremental change). For a systematic literature review of sustainability transformations, see Salomaa and Juhola (2020).

social and cultural beings (Gulliksen, 2017). Generative engagements can facilitate and trigger the exchange and co-creation of knowledge through making and sharing artefacts (Groth, 2017), by spanning and connecting knowledge systems (Rathwell et al., 2015), through embodied learning and knowing (Gulliksen, 2017), and through playful experimentation (Nørgård et al., 2017). They can also support people to reflect on their deepest values, ethics, and motivations—what they care about and why it is worth taking action (Eernstman & Wals, 2013). While addressing heavy, potentially overwhelming topics, generative engagements also include the motivating and vitalizing affective elements of pleasure (Hammond et al., 2018), humour and light-heartedness (Eernstman et al., 2021)*,* and joy (see Morrigi, this volume).

Generative engagements focused on sustainability can take many forms including, for example, collective artist residencies (Eernstman et al., 2021), immersive/interactive art installations or performances (see Weintraub, 2012), or learning environments and workshops that make use of creative methods (Galafassi, 2018; Taylor & Ladkin, 2009). Creative practices are also widely used in research processes, particularly in participatory action research (PAR) and transdisciplinary research (TDR) (Kagan, 2011; Wang et al., 2017). Still, there is a gap in understanding how creative methods can be designed *specifically* to evoke and support mindsets that are conducive to sustainability transformations.

Therefore, in the spirit of generative, playful, and 'exuberant' experimentation (Hollings, 2004), this chapter addresses the question: How can creative methods be operationalized (via generative engagements) to support the imaginative leadership capacities of researchers and practitioners working in the arena of sustainability?2 I use the term *imaginative leadership* (see below) to describe the ability to understand and consciously influence the symbolic/metaphorical dimensions of self and others that are linked to specific values, mindsets, worldviews.

In addressing the above question, this chapter reflects on the process of co-designing and facilitating two different workshops grounded in

2 Although they can generally be used interchangeably, this chapter uses the more inclusive term *creative methods* instead of *arts-based methods*. Is the process of cooking together, for example, an arts-based method? That is debatable, but if used in the context of a workshop or residency, it could certainly be considered a creative method of participatory engagement.

creative practices and methods. It proposes a conceptual frame that links creative methods to specific transformative mindsets. Both workshops aimed to support the imaginative leadership of sustainability researchers and practitioners by (a) activating specific conceptual frames and processes of self-reflection with the potential to open new spaces of possibility for sensing, perceiving, feeling, and acting, and (b) inviting participants to disrupt default anthropocentric worldviews and timescales and to draw more deeply and consciously from their own values and motivations in their work as sustainability professionals or researchers.3 This chapter focuses primarily on the process of designing the methods and workshops—the theoretical inputs and practicalities that shaped them—rather than on the methods themselves (for a detailed description of all the specific methods used during workshops, see Pearson et al., 2018 or Pearson n.d.).

First, this chapter gives an overview of the workshops and the methodology of the research process. Second, it introduces the key sensitizing concepts of *transformative imagination* and *imaginative leadership*, and third, it presents a preliminary list of *transformative mindsets* that emerged from literature, semi-structured interviews, and the codesign process. Fourth, it describes the design and implementation of the workshops, including limitations. Fifth, emerging from the co-reflection process, it proposes an updated set of transformative mindsets for use in developing a framework for imaginative leadership moving forward, and then ends with concluding thoughts.

3 I follow the school of thought that centres the role of physical, institutional, social, and cultural structures and systems in perpetuating unsustainability, as opposed to focusing on a pro-sustainability behaviour change of individuals (e.g., reducing carbon footprint or making sustainable consumption choices).

### **Developing Creative Methods Workshops to Support Imaginative Leadership: An Overview of the Research Process**

The only way to approach such a period in which uncertainty is high and one cannot predict what the future holds, is not to predict, but to experiment and act inventively and exuberantly via diverse adventures in living—C. S. Holling (2004: 8)

The workshops described in this chapter enabled collaborative development and experimentation with unconventional methods for sustainability leadership within the conventional form of a workshop. The aim was to support the agency and self-efficacy of key individuals/systems entrepreneurs already working towards sustainability transformations, as a leverage point for systemic and cultural change.

First, the *Action Hub: Arts-based methods for transformative design* (referred to henceforth as 'Action Hub') was a 90-min practice session with approximately 30 participants conducted during Transformations 2017, a transdisciplinary conference that took place in Dundee, Scotland. Co-designers included a cohort of six researchers from the SUSPLACE Innovation Training Network.4 The co-designers chose this conference as the arena for our experimentation as it is known for encouraging non-traditional conference contributions, it includes both academics and practitioners, and it is supportive of creative and experiential methods for sustainability transformations.

Second, *Imaginative Leadership: Co-producing with nature and communities* (referred to henceforth as 'Imaginative Leadership') was a full day workshop for sustainability professionals in the Welsh Government working in the area of community engagement. The concept was initiated together with a representative of the Welsh government specializing in leadership and sustainability. Additional co-designers

4 SUSPLACE was an EU Horizon 2020 funded Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Innovation Training Network (2015–2019) focused on understanding 'sustainable-place shaping' from multiple perspectives.

included a professional performance artist working at the intersection of art and sustainability and transformative practices and a social entrepreneur working with Natural Resources Wales. The artist was hired as the primary facilitator of the events and the other two co-designers participated as participant-observers. The same workshop structure was repeated with two different groups of approximately 40 people each (one in northern and one in southern Wales) on two separate days.

The focus of these experiments was not to track the impact of specific methods, but to use the design and implementation process as an arena for reflection, for reality testing the use of creative methods in the process of developing a theoretical framework for designing and applying creative methods, and to probe promising pathways for future practice and research. The learning process can be broken into four (non-linear) phases that incorporated iterative loops throughout: (1) exploration, (2) collaborative workshop design, (3) execution, (4) reflection.

#### **Phase 1: Exploration**

The exploration phase combined semi-structured expert interviews with a wide, cross-disciplinary sampling of literature related to the inner dimensions of sustainability transformations. In total, I conducted 14 semi-structured interviews in the Netherlands and the UK with people who work at the intersection of arts-based or creative practices in facilitation, community engagement, and sustainability (identified via snowballing). They were intended to give insight into how and why professional practitioners use creative methods, as well as what makes them successful and/or challenging (in their perspective). Literature guided the direction of interview questions, and the interviews, in turn, pointed to additional arenas of relevant academic research and theory.

Early influences that shaped my conceptualization of creative practices for sustainability transformations included academic literature in the arenas of art and aesthetic experience (e.g., Dewey, 1934), artbased environmental education (Mantere, 1998; van Boeckel, 2013), and multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 2011). Together these strains of literature emphasize the role of art for sense-making, engaging diverse styles of learning and knowing, processing information through multiple senses and somatic-cognitive processes, re-sensitizing ourselves to the environment (and specific places), releasing conditioned perceptions, and engaging with sustainability issues (and each other) based on depth of emotional experience. From a practice perspective, I was influenced by my experience with Joanna Macy's *Work the Reconnects* (Macy & Brown, 2014) and the social and earth-based practices found in permaculture (Macnamara, 2012). Both experiment with new, transformative ways of relating to the natural world, and both incorporate creative and pragmatic practices that highlight attentiveness to emotions, to interdependencies, to inter-relationships between people, and to the details, rhythms, and cycles of natural systems. Finally, the methodological frameworks of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001) and Participatory Action Research (PAR) influenced my overall approach. AI shifts attention from 'solving' problems, to strengthening what is already working, including re-appreciating more intangible placebased resources (i.e., Horlings et al., 2020) and can be linked to designing creative methods for sustainability transformations (covered more thoroughly in Moriggi, this book). PAR acknowledges and highlights the dual role of the researcher as a scientist and social change agent, particularly in light of the need for urgent sustainability transformations (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014; see also De La Rosa, this volume).

#### **Phase 2: Collaborative Workshop Design**

The concept of the workshop format was first described by Osborn in *Applied Imagination* (1953) in which he outlined methods for creative group problem-solving. From their inception, workshops were intended to spark imagination and collective creativity (Isaksen et al., 2010). Workshops were chosen as the arena for experimentation in part because the format is highly accessible to a range of participants, it requires a relatively low-time commitment on the part of participants, and it is a familiar, 'safe' structure, which is important when people are working outside of their comfort zones (Sol et al., 2013).

Each workshop was co-designed with a different constellation of collaborators (co-researchers, stakeholders, and practitioners). Co-design is understood here as a joint team effort to initiate, develop and implement a participatory process. Although the workshops were different in terms of collaborators, size, participant profiles, content, and length, there were elements common to both. First, they were targeted towards people who already work in sustainability-related arenas and therefore the intent was *not* to change participants' minds or even to persuade or influence them, but instead help them access mindsets that they already value. Second, in order to set the stage for productive collaboration, each experiment began with a series of discussions around workshop goals and parameters, including personal goals, research goals, motivational goals (e.g., planetary health or 'islands of sanity'5) and participant-centred goals (i.e., what would be most useful and generative from the perspective of targeted participants?). In each case, the final step was to design the overall workshop concept and the specific methods. Data collected from this phase consisted of meeting notes, workshop design drafts (that included goals for each activity), and detailed final agendas, together with guidelines for spoken scripts, room set-up, and materials. Still, the nature of collaboration is often ad hoc and messy, and the chaotic demands of practice often subsume tidy categories and intentionality of theory.

#### **Phase 3: Execution**

The execution phase included the actual set-up, production, and facilitation of each event. Data collected included various documents, and artefacts were produced including presentations and notes, written instructions for participants, photographs, short video clips in some cases, and creative outputs/artefacts resulting from specific methods (collages, poems, etc.).

5 Margaret Wheatley (2017) proposes that whether or not humans can stem the tide towards unsustainability, we have the possibility to contribute to 'islands of sanity' that evoke the "conditions for our basic human qualities of generosity, contribution, community and love" (p. 8).

#### **Phase 4: Reflection**

To reflect on the design process and resulting workshops, I drew from both practice-led research and art-based and qualitative methods. Practice-led research is widely used in the context of creative arts and performance studies. It employs iterative cycles of doing/creating and reflection (Candy, 2006) that contribute either to a body of theory or to a more pragmatic concept of social usefulness (Smith, 2009) or new knowledge gained (Mäkelä, 2007). The practitioner-researcher assesses the value and potential of a practical engagement in the world (i.e., the making of an object or a creative process) through reflection and evaluation. In this case, the 'practice' consisted of the creative development and implementation of the workshops. Reflection consisted of discussion sessions with co-collaborators and participant-observers, and was also informed by end-of-session evaluations and follow-up questionnaires. It also involved extended periods of interaction with co-designers engaged in what Clifford Geertz (1998) terms 'deep hanging out'—spending formal and informal time together reviewing and revisiting insights and learnings again and again.

AI also influenced the reflection process by focusing attention on what worked and what contributed to the successes and areas of vitality in the process of designing and executing the workshops (not, of course, to the exclusion of critical discernment—see Morrigi, this book). Finally, reflection was supported by the process of synthesizing findings from both workshops into a toolkit and open-source database (reimginary.com) for researchers and practitioners, which describes each specific method and our overall approach in great detail (see Pearson et al., 2018; Pearson, n.d).

## **Sensitizing Concepts: Imaginative Leadership and Transformative Mindsets**

Ideas are as important as facts and nowhere is it evident that they are inducable from them. We need imagination not rules; intuition not technique; warm ideas not cold facts; inventive people not conformists, fertile thinking not rigid rules to follow—Arthur P. Bochner (2009: 363)

In 1954, Herbert Blumer argued for the value of 'sensitizing concepts' in social sciences research. In contrast to 'definitive concepts', sensitizing concepts "merely suggest directions along which to look…they rest on a general sense of what is relevant" (p. 7). In accordance with Blumer, this research was guided by the concept of the *transformative imagination* (Galafassi, 2018); this assumes that imagination, and therefore the arts, have an important role to play in sparking and strengthening people's individual and collective capacity to create fundamentally new socialecological systems.

Both 'imagination' and 'imaginaries' shape our sense of reality and possibility as we encounter the world. Imagination can be understood as a social and individual cognitive process by which we are able to conceptualize something beyond that which is immediately in front of us. It is a capacity that enables us to envision fantastical scenarios, but also more pragmatic possibilities for both what *could* happen and what *should* happen in reality (Bøttcher, 2020; Vadeboncoeur & Vellos, 2016). Imagination is central to human agency because it orients people to future possibilities that require actions in the present (Appadurai, 1996; Zittoun & Cerchia, 2013). At the same time, when people feel that a present situation is urgently untenable, it can stimulate a leap in their ability to imagine new scenarios, which then results in novel behaviours (Sannino, 2015).

Imaginaries, on the other hand, are less process and more structured, existing as deep, often unconscious, symbolic matrices that filter and mediate our experience of the world. As Kagan (2017) describes it, "the imaginary is like a cognitive and cultural hummus from which more articulate cultural constructs such as visions, narratives, discourses

and utopias can grow and where they can take root" (p. 161). He points out that humans do not simply create and impose imaginaries on reality, but rather that they result from imaginative relational encounters between humans and the rest of the 'more-than-human' world.6 The term 'social imaginary' is therefore used to describe how groups of people collectively imagine and shape the parameters of society in terms of aspirations and priorities and in terms of institutional and social structures (Taylor, 2004). Within the social imaginary, a plurality of paradoxical and conflicting interpretations or landscapes exists, but the overall sense of the possible is bounded by the scope of the imaginary.

Grounded in the above, the concept of the *transformative imagination* (as used by Galafassi, 2018) is a way of describing how individuals and groups can alter the social imaginary (or evoke different dimensions of it) by activating fundamentally new ways of seeing, sensing, feeling, encountering, and envisioning the world (Galafassi, 2018). Galafassi argues that *transformative imagination* supports change agency because it alters the underlying paradigms and worldviews that create the conditions for unsustainability.

Use of the terms paradigm or worldview, however, often implies that people have one dominant and consistent perspective that they apply in all situations. On the contrary, individuals, like societies themselves, are a plurality—not so coherent or consistent. Even if we have a strong, conscious preference for a particular worldview, the majority of people have multiple, often conflicting, conceptual frameworks (linked to different worldviews) that can be activated at any given time (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). With this understanding, the term *mindset* is used here to describe a mental model or conceptual frame/metaphor that is triggered by a specific metaphorical stimulation. A specific mindset, when triggered, defines the overall 'common sense' regarding a specific situation and therefore the scope of possibilities for decision-making and sense-making. Studies about norms (Ariely & Jones, 2008), framing (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), and priming (Molden, 2014; Nijland, 2016), suggest that, depending on the circumstances and relevant frames or

6 More-than-human (coined by Abram, 1996) is used to describe other biological beings (e.g., animals, plants, fungi) and non-animate natural systems or entities (e.g., rivers, mountains, ecosystems).

triggers, a different mindset, and therefore a different set of possibilities and norms, will arise, largely based on the way cognition is rooted in metaphorical thinking (Lakoff, 2010). It can be thought of as a pair of glasses that allows the wearer to see certain colours or opportunities more clearly. Therefore, *transformative mindsets* can be defined as specific cognitive lenses or frames that are helpful for orienting and motivating people specifically towards sustainability transformations (Pearson et al., 2018).

Emerging from this line of reasoning, I propose the concept of *imaginative leadership*; this can be broadly defined as the ability to influence, evoke, or shape the mental models, metaphors, and cultural narratives that people (both self and others) use to make sense of the world. My conceptualization is influenced by Bourdieu's (1991) understanding of symbolic power and Geertz's understanding of culture as a semiotic universe (1976). Lakoff (2010) makes two important points for understanding how imaginative leadership might support people's transformative capacity: (a) the inner dimensions are not static and consistent, but rather subject to ongoing fluctuation and emergent dynamics related to changing external and internal stimuli (also see Nijland, 2016); and (b) repetition of a particular metaphorical frame actually physically strengthens the synapses of specific neural circuits related to a particular ideological perspective (or mindset), which sets the parameters of possibility (in imagination and in action). Therefore, the imaginative leader develops the capacity to identify and evoke specific transformative mindsets (in both self and others) that activate conceptual frames with the potential to expand possibilities for transformative actions towards sustainability (see Pearson, 2021).

### **Identifying Transformative Mindsets**

Creativity is an amoral capacity (Gardner, 1993; Katz, 2018): it can just as easily be used to design an astounding piece of machinery that destroys a forest as it can to spark a radical social-technical innovation that helps the forest and its inhabitants thrive. With this in mind, the methods used in the workshops were intended to evoke creativity *for* sustainability transformations by incorporating triggering metaphors and 'ideological language' (Lakoff, 2010) linked to specific mindsets. Therefore, the question became: which mindsets and which metaphors have the potential to spark mutually beneficial relationships between (and within) the human and more-than-human realms? And then: how can we intentionally evoke, anchor, and strengthen these mindsets and metaphors (in this context, through creative methods and generative engagements)?

During the exploration phase of the *Action Hub*, the co-design cohort identified a limited set of transformative mindsets (see Table 6.1) that was subsequently validated by the *Imaginative Leadership* co-designers. The list was derived via triangulation with input from literature, initial fieldwork (including expert interviews), and previous work experience related to sustainability transformations. It was not intended to be a definitive or comprehensive list of *all* transformative mindsets, but rather provide a reasonable starting point for experimentation. In the post-event reflection process, the conceptualization of these transformation mindsets was expanded and reconfigured, as presented in Section 6.4.

The concept of *regenerative sustainability* (see Table 6.1) deserves particular emphasis, because although it is designated as a mindset, the co-designers of both workshops also considered it as an overarching normative aim of sustainability transformations. In regenerative sustainability, human activities have the potential to have positive, beneficial impacts on the biosphere and all of its inhabitants, which is distinct from discourses on sustainability that primarily emphasize attempts to minimize harm (Mang & Reed, 2020; Wahl, 2016). In fact, although the term sustainability is ubiquitous in academic literature, policy, and popular culture, its usefulness in supporting the scale of social transformation required by the complexity and urgency of global challenges is contested (Wahl, 2016). Herbert Girardet of the World Futures Council, for example, argues that the word sustainability is inadequate, and that regeneration or regenerative development is both a more realistic and a more compelling paradigm (Girardet, 2014).

**Table 6.1** Summary of the first iteration of 'transformative mindsets' that informed the design of the workshops and methods

*Note* See Fig. 2 and table 3 in section xx for revised list *Source* Own conceptualization (CCBY)

## **Putting Theory in to Practice: Designing and Facilitating Creative Methods for Transformative Engagement**

Art is an adventure playground of the heart, where we can explore, discover, share and become who we are, in relative safety, alone and together—Francois Matarasso (2019: 43)

To give context to the reflections and insights that follow, here I return to the process of designing and executing the two workshops. Some decisions made in the design and execution of the *Action Hub* carried over to the *Imaginative Leadership,* so are covered in more detail in the description of the former.

#### **Action Hub: Arts-based Methods for Transformative Design**

The cohort of co-designers for the *Action Hub* originally came together around a shared academic interest in theory and methodologies related to creative methods, but we also shared a more personal interest in using methods that make us (and our research participants) feel 'energized' and 'inspired'. Our collective objective was to put theory into practice and experiment 'exuberantly'. We were also motivated to share practical applications of our research that change-makers, action-researchers, and local leaders could use in their work.

As a first step for organizing our design, we collectively chose the change management framework of Theory U (see Scharmer, 2009) to structure the workshop (see Fig. 6.1 below). We selected Theory U for many reasons—expedient, intuitive, and logical. Expediently, it was already familiar to the co-design cohort; intuitively, it is easy to understand, communicate, and use even in its simplest form (as described here); and logically, it is backed by academic and philosophical rigour and the layers and nuances of the theory resonated with our overall AI and PAR approach. Moreover, Theory U balances a clear linear structure with space for iterative looping, for spontaneity, and for indeterminacy. In several of the expert interviews, practitioners emphasized that establishing a stable, predictable framework for facilitation processes can help participants to leave their comfort zones and engage with unorthodox practices. It can also help consolidate outcomes and transitions into action. Leaving space for indeterminacy, on the other hand, is vital for cultivating serendipity, intuition, and lateral thinking, and therefore for sparking creativity, 'generative engagement', and new ways of perceiving. Theory U also highlights a balance between interpersonal processes of

**Fig. 6.1** Theory U process of observing, reflecting, acting, harvesting (*Source* Pearson et al. [2018] as adapted from Scharmer [2009])

collaboration and individual or introspective processes of reflection. It acknowledges the importance and role of emotional intelligence and values, and is explicitly intended to open spaces of possibility, or in Scharmer's terms 'seeing with fresh eyes' and 'sensing the field'. Theory U also includes a phase for reflecting,7 or 'presencing'. This creates time for participants to intuitively connect with their deepest values and motivations; this is often missing from academic, community, governance, and corporate work on sustainability issues. Scharmer (2009) refers to this as 'the blind spot of leadership'.

In parallel with anchoring our design process in a clear structure, we identified key transformative mindsets (Table 6.1) that would be woven into our methods design and overall approach. To demonstrate the practical application of the methods, we decided to focus on three different specific design challenges (Table 6.2) based on real cases that were familiar to the co-designers. Next, before choosing, adapting, and

7 Note: As a strategic decision for communicating clearly and accessibly to our target audiences, we chose to change the term 'presencing' used by Scharmer (2009) and the Theory U practice community) to 'reflecting' to describe the bottom of the U.

**Table 6.2** Design challenges and stimulating questions: Action Hub

*Note* Challenges 1 and 2 were split into two groups with different guiding questions. Challenge 3 was addressed by only one group *Source* Own conceptualization (CCBY)

designing specific methods, we identified the overall goals and stimulating questions related to each design challenge, and each phase of the Theory U. Eventually, we settled on a design that enabled 5 small groups of 4–6 people to follow a set structure in terms of timing, but within the context of different pre-prepared design challenges, different stimulating questions, employing different creative methods, and emphasizing different transformative mindsets within each group.

The creative methods were then designed with the intention to root and anchor transformative mindsets via sticky metaphors and multisensory experiential learning, making them more auto-accessible and increasing participants' self-efficacy. At the same time the methods were intended for uptake by the participants—to support them in using creative methods (based in transformative mindsets) in their own research and work.

To illustrate the workshop in more concrete terms, Table 6.3 outlines the Dismissed Military Area challenge, including the methods used and the related transformative mindsets. Figure 6.2 shows some of the methods in action.

In the execution phase, we made sure that materials were wellorganized for smooth transitions between activities, that instructions were available verbally and in writing, and that the room was aesthetically pleasing and had a welcoming atmosphere. We used nature-based images and objects (e.g., flowers, pinecones, rocks) to stimulate a sense of biophilia.

In order to get feedback on the workshop, three academic colleagues acted as participant-observers in the smaller groups and reported back their observations. In addition, each of the table facilitators reported on their experience and the 'harvest' with their respective participant groups, and we sent out a follow-up survey. Overall, the feedback was overwhelmingly enthusiastic, with some small technical suggestions (more time being the primary request) and ideas for further experimentation, such as putting more emphasis on establishing trusting group dynamics.

#### **Imaginative Leadership: Co-producing with Nature and Communities (for Frontline Staff in Welsh Government)**

Wales has been a global leader in creating leading-edge policy agendas to support sustainability transformations (Jones et al., 2020), and many people are now working to figure out how to accelerate implementation in various arenas (see Giambartolomei et al., this book). The co-designers of the *Imaginative Leadership* workshop were all interested in supporting the Welsh agenda, specifically with leadership development in the Welsh Government.

As with the development of the *Action Hub*, before designing specific methods, we started with the overall objectives of the workshop from the perspective of the participants and different participating stakeholders. We aimed to (a) introduce the concept of creative methods and transformative mindsets, (b) demonstrate the use (and usefulness) of specific

(continued)

**184 K. R. Pearson**

**Fig. 6.2** Photographs from *Action Hub* (*Source* Photographs taken by Action Hub co-designers with permission)

creative methods for uptake by participants to employ in their own projects, and (c) provide the opportunity for participants to work on actual challenges from their work through the lens of specific transformative mindsets. With consensus from the *Imaginative Leadership* co-design group, the structure of Theory U was carried over from the *Action Hub*.

We used a hypothetical design challenge based on the town of Treherbert in Wales, which the local co-designers identified as emblematic of communities whose economic livelihood used to depend on the now-defunct mining sector. In the post-mining era, many towns and villages have struggled to re-invent themselves and re-define economic (and ecological) well-being for themselves. For the first half of the day, the workshop design focused on re-framing possible futures for Treherbert, evoking an expanded sense of time and more-than-human perspectives, using methods such as the Timeline of Transformation, Storytelling, and Inviting More-Than-human Stakeholders (Pearson et al., 2018). For the second half of the day, building on these new perspectives, we structured a form of peer-to-peer mentoring that looked at specific challenges faced by participants, while still including morethan-human stakeholders.

The *Action Hub* event venue was predetermined, but for *Imaginative Leadership* we were able to choose the locations. Based on her experience in place-responsive performative arts and sustainability, the artist/facilitator emphasized the importance of establishing relationality between the physical space of the workshop (including its history and its symbolic/cultural dimensions) and the design and methodology of the workshop. We looked for spaces that had access to nature, that aligned with our sustainability values (i.e., minimal disposable plastics, availability of sustainability produced food), and that had some cultural/symbolic significance. Once again, we put attention on creating a warm, welcoming ambiance in setting up the room. We also provided a participant workbook that included instructions for each method, key references, and space to take notes.

Feedback from participants was gathered during the harvesting phase of the event and was, again, overwhelmingly enthusiastic. Co-designers and two colleagues acted as participant-observers, and I subsequently conducted follow-up interviews (together with many informal conversations) with co-designers in the months following the workshop.

#### **Acknowledging Limits**

Here I highlight three decisions that limited the scope of these experiments in substantive ways. First, the duration of the workshops was limited to 90 minutes and a full day respectively, with no follow-up or ongoing engagement. This was due to the constraints of the context in which the research took place, and was not an intentional part of the design. Sustained generative engagements, such as extended ongoing training in which people meet regularly over a longer period of time or multi-day intensive 'collective artist residencies' (Eernstman et al., 2021), could involve more iterative processes and yield rich data and more detailed insights about the potential of creative methods to support transformative mindsets.

Second, this research was deliberately focused on increasing the selfefficacy and leadership capacity of people already engaged with sustainability. This decision stemmed from my research parameters, but also from ethical and practical considerations. Ethically, there is a fine line between persuasion and manipulation (Noggle, 2020), which I preferred not to approach, and, practically, within the short time scope of the engagements, starting from a place of common understanding and shared values saved time and effort in terms of setting the groundwork for willing and enthusiastic participation. In the future, it would be interesting to invite people with less familiarity or commitment to sustainability issues to experiment with some of these practices.

Third was the decision to avoid controversial topics or areas of conflict and avoid processes of decision-making. This was intentional; it allowed for a relatively simplistic approach to designing and facilitating the workshops and enabled us to focus on developing our concept of using creative methods to support/spark transformative mindsets. Moreover, it was not realistic or appropriate to surface deeper, potentially traumatic issues given the time constraints. Within different parameters, however, creative methods that are rooted in the deeper common values of participants have the potential to engage generativity with the reality of conflict, power-dynamics, eco-anxiety, and other hidden dimensions such as conflicting goals, values, and agendas (e.g., the value of surfacing conflict in social learning for sustainability, Wals & Heymann, 2004).

## **Putting Practice into Theory: Another Look at Transformative Mindsets for Imaginative Leadership**

The initial list of transformative mindsets, while incomplete, provided a jumping off point for experimentation. Upon revisiting them during the post-workshop reflection process, both co-design cohorts agreed that they were indeed useful and valuable and that they stretched our own creativity and transformative imagination. They supported our novel approach to facilitating generative engagements rooted in creativity *for* transformations towards regenerative sustainability. At the same time, we identified areas for fine-tuning and some gaps. The revised list (see Fig. 6.3) proposes a new starting point for further experimentation and the expansion of a framework for supporting imaginative leadership through generative engagements and creative methods. Notably, the list*,* as it is presented here, is meant for uptake in the field, and is therefore framed for simplicity and clarity with the lay reader in mind. Moreover, it is with humility that I emphasize that each of these mindsets has been studied extensively across disciplines and each represents a vast arena of interconnected literature; they have been framed in many different ways in literature and in practice. In accordance with the parameters of this chapter, the following discussion represents only a brief and limited

**Fig. 6.3** Revised list of transformative mindsets (*Source* Own conceptualization [CCBY])

summary of each (for a more detailed account of each, see Pearson, 2021).

First, *regenerative sustainability* (1) was validated by both co-designers and participants as a foundational concept for imaginative leadership. As a normative aim and as a transformative mindset, it represents a generative evolution in the concept and application of sustainability (Mang & Reed, 2020; Wahl, 2016). The importance of *sense of time* and consideration of *more-than-human perspectives* were also confirmed. Although participants worked in the field of sustainability, in general they found it challenging to imagine 100 years or even 20 years into the future and they appreciated the chance to reflect through the lens of multiple time-scales. Likewise, people valued the opportunity to engage with the design challenges and their own projects through an imaginatively more-than-human lens.

The more-than-human can be considered empathically and ethically (Abrams, 1996; de La Bellacasa, 2017), in planning and decision-making (Macy & Brown, 2014) and from a legal rights-of-nature perspective (Boyd, 2017), but also more instrumentally as inspiration for innovation. The practice of biomimicry (Benyus, 1997), for example, aims to learn from and appreciate the design intelligence ("3.8 billion years of research and development") inherent in natural systems as input for innovations, not only for technology and infrastructure, but also for social and economic innovations (i.e., what could an economic system learn from a forest?). The term *more-than-human 'perspectives*' was therefore modified to the more expansive term *more-than-human 'insights*' (3).

The mindset of *caring for place* in the initial list was indeed a useful lens for designing methods that evoke an emotional, sensory connection to specific places. Upon reflection, however, *caring* as a stand-alone concept was woven into so many dimensions of the design process that it emerged as foundational to our approach on multiple levels. Therefore, we split this mindset into its two components: *place-based* (4) and *expanded spheres of care* (5). *A place-based* lens (see Massey, 2015) emphasizes an attentiveness to the specificity, assemblage of relationships, and the 'situatedness' of what makes a place *a place* (biophysical, symbolic, cultural, relational, etc.); places are 'where things happen' in terms of sustainability transformations (Horlings et al., 2020). It also implies a felt mutuality or attachment; this can be both affective/emotional (Altman & Low, 1992; McEwan & Goodman, 2010) and pragmatic, appreciating our (inter) dependence with tangible and intangible place-based resources, for example (Horlings et al., 2020).

*Expanded spheres of care* (5) highlights both an expanding circle (Singer, 1981/2011) of ethical concern (*who* is being cared for) and the attitudes and practices for expressing care (i.e., *how* to care). The expanded sphere moves beyond self and immediate kin to include humans 'others', the more-than-human, and even future (and past) generations. A broad scope of caring is seen as an essential component of leadership for regenerative sustainability (see Schein, 2017 for an overview of the caring/ecological worldview).8 In terms of attitudes and practices, during the workshops we aimed to be attentive to and inclusive of diverse (and overlooked) voices and perspectives and to respectfully support the physical and mental well-being of participants (and co-designers). Notably, we observed the value of a caring intentionality in designing the workshop 'container', i.e., the physical place (from acoustics to aesthetics to temperature and light), the relationality among the participants and facilitators, and other, often 'invisible' supportive elements such as the food or even the organization of materials.