As we come to the end of our CALS501 design challenge, I reflect on the growth, transformation, and learnings that have come along the way. Each course has challenged me immensely, all with the clear objective of harnessing the necessary skills to become a climate action leader in today’s world.

Our team’s prototype shifted quite dramatically since the beginning of this design challenge. Initially, we wanted to create change so vast that we could touch every corner of the world inspiring youth to engage in climate action. Throughout the past year, our scope narrowed and our focus honed in on how to effectively bring about change locally. The course work, interview phase, and testing phase helped shape what is now a practical prototype ready to impact, educate, and inspire. 

CALS502 inspired communication. How do we effectively communicate climate action? Throughout the design challenge, it became more and more apparent to me that listening and engaging various expertise, cultural backgrounds, and ways of knowing is the way forward. A transdisciplinary approach is what is needed to bring climate action to the forefront. McGregor (2014) defines transdisciplinarity as “going beyond disciplines to engage civil society” (p. 201). We need to be creative in how we communicate the need for climate action. 

CALS503 centered around climate risk management. I learned how to assess risk and present findings and strategies to mitigate the impacts of climatic hazards. My thinking during this course shifted towards what risks were associated with our prototype? Who would benefit from it and who wouldn’t? The theme of accessibility came up time and time again. Open educational resources are powerful. They have incredible potential but they also lack in certain areas. A large aspect of the vision of our prototype centers around Indigenous ways of knowing and traditional ecological knowledge. That said, for remote communities in Canada, most of which are Indigenous, how is a prototype that requires cellular data and wifi accessed? We decided to create a downloadable version of our prototype, specifically, for those remote communities. However, even a downloadable version requires use of a technological device. Access is a clear limitation to our prototype design. 

CALS504, our current course, focuses on building a business case and crafting adaptation strategies to encourage climate action across sectors. How do we pitch climate action projects so that we can encourage organizations to act? Our prototype aims to be attractive, functional, and inspiring. We understand we are selling an idea and that, unfortunately, financial incentive goes hand in hand with climate action. From a business standpoint, can both profit and social good be simultaneously prioritized? We aimed to tackle these profound questions. 

What next? The prototype design challenge produced a mere hypothetical idea. It represents an accumulation of the wealth of knowledge that this program has graced us with. It is now our obligation and responsibility to take the lessons learned throughout this past year and apply them in our professional lives. It is up to us to bring forth change in our communities. Climate action leaders are needed and it is an honor to take on that responsibility. Lonsdale et al. (2015) add that “effective leadership is needed for transformational change” in the climate action space (p. 7). This design thinking challenge taught me that climate action leadership centers around building a network of diverse thinkers with a common goal: to ensure the well being of our planet for generations to come. 

References 

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P. & Turner, B. 2015. Transformational adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme. 

McGregor, S. L. T. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and Conceptual Change. World Futures, 70(3-4), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934635

Unit 3-Blog Post

Designing a prototype within the climate action space that is inclusive, useful, and unique is complex and multi-faceted. It requires utilizing a lens that incorporates a wealth of teachings from various backgrounds, fields of study, and ways of knowing. For the CALS501 design challenge, our group is undergoing the process of integrating Indigenous knowledge, story, and practice into our climate action software model. How can the integration of Indigenous knowledge, from various nations in a given region, be implemented into our prototype in a respectful, non-colonial, and conscientious way? 

The risk of creating a prototype that leans heavily on Indigenous knowledge is that there is an opportunity and space to appropriate and take advantage of the identified culture, language, or knowledge base. This is certainly not the intention, but as Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) points out, researchers, by nature, have the role of enabling knowledge extraction, which is rooted in a colonial and racist agenda (p. 93). Research, at its core, is colonial as the “relationship between the researcher and researched can resemble that between the oppressor and the oppressed or the colonizer and the colonized” (Hales, 2006, p. 244). 

I interviewed a friend and colleague of mine recently for the design challenge, whose name I will leave out of this blog. He is a proud Indigenous man from the Tla’amin nation in what is now known as Powell River, BC. When I explained to him the goals and desired outcome of our prototype, he offered some important insights. First, he noted that Indigenous communities may not simply share their story, cultural practices, or traditional ecological knowledge for the sake of a research project driven by a colonial institution. The idea that one cannot go into a community and expect cultural and historical knowledge of a place and people to be handed over without reciprocity. Trust is built over time. What could we, as students and researchers, give in return? Is the creation of a prototype that is meant to educate and inform of local nations, climate related events, and drive youth engagement around climate action enough? Is that reciprocity? My colleague’s insights brought rise to a topic not yet discussed in our group. We have an expectation to fulfill the vision of a prototype but where is the cultural sensitivity and expressed gratitude in the process of obtaining information?

As we spoke more of integrating cultural sensitivity into the research and prototype development stage, my colleague brought up another valuable insight. Having the knowledge of a people and a culture is an immense privilege but how many conversations are needed in order to legitimize story and cultural practice of a nation? Families, within nations, may tell stories a different way and if knowledge is obtained, how is that information fact checked? And who builds the system to validate that knowledge? If that system is developed by the research institution, the knowledge will likely be validated and sorted through a colonial lens. I was once again brought to the conclusion that, yes, integrating, as a core component, Indigenous knowledge into our prototype is essential but more dialogue is needed around creating cultural sensitivity and establishing transdisciplinarity within the research process. 

As identified in both CALS501 and CALS503, the research process is often one-dimensional, lacking Indigenous perspective, and yet that process informs our thinking and, in many ways, the development of our western societal structure and how we are taught to perceive the world. In MACAL, there is such an emphasis on the concept and practice of transdisciplinarity, one that I believe will aid in the climate agenda moving forward, however, how prevalent really is it in the academic context? Given that the transdisciplinary approach seems rooted in the voice of Indigenous knowledge I see little evidence within academia and the traditional research agenda of this practice unfolding and allowing for inclusion of knowledge systems that aren’t backed by peer review.

The CALS501 design challenge has made me reflect on my own role within academia and how I envision transdisciplinarity impacting the climate action space. Nicolescu (2014) adds that the “goal [of transdisciplinarity] is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge” (p. 187). It’s difficult for me to see past the need for the academic system to be restructured with a change in focus and priority from accolades to inclusion, collective action, or ‘unity,’ as Nicolescu states. We have much work to do and I thank my friend for sharing his input, wisdom, and expanding my intellectual horizon. 

References

Hales, J. (2006). An anti-colonial critique of research methodology (Dissertation). Available from Brill scholarly publishing database.

Nicolescu, B. (2014). Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures, 70(3-4), 186–199. doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd Edition. Zed Books. Retrieved from the Ebook Central e-book database 

CALS501 Unit 2 Blog Post

Climate communication must be relatable to the audience in which it seeks to engage. Effective climate communication incorporates diverse perspectives and ways of knowing in its approach. This is much easier said than done. In today’s world, climate communicators have the difficult challenge of expressing the need for climate action while balancing the multitude of values, perspectives, and beliefs prevalent in our societal realm. Throughout the 501 Design Thinking Challenge, one theme has reemerged time and time again. How does one effectively communicate the need for climate action to multiple stakeholders while simultaneously respecting and empowering the voices of the oppressed and most impacted by a changing climate? In my opinion, this starts with holding up and allowing space for Indigenous voice and story. Oral history, and specifically storytelling, is one of the most valuable forms of climate communication and must be brought to the same table as western climate science. 

Storytelling offers a unique perspective aiding in the explanation and understanding of a changing climate. In CALS 502: Communication for Climate Action, Indigenous storytelling has emerged as a strategy to effectively communicate climate action. It provides an alternate explanation to why climate change exists through emphasis on our relationship with the natural world. Indigenous story as a “practice…sustains communities, validates experiences and epistemologies…and nurtures relationships and the sharing of knowledge” (Iseke, 2013, p. 559). As our relationship with the natural world changes so has our ability to process, communicate, and confront those changes. Indigenous story views climate change through a different lens. One that focuses more on healing a damaged relationship than critiquing and criticizing the wrongdoings of humankind. It “communicate[s] meaning that both produces and reproduces a sense of place” and reestablishes a lost connection (Nakashima et al., 2018, p. 268). Effective communication must pull from diverse ways of knowing represented in Indigenous cultures. The transdisciplinarity incorporated into story makes it one of the most valuable tools of communication there is. 

In addition to the importance of story is the use of traditional and local ecological knowledge in communicating climate change and encouraging climate action. Vinyetta and Lynn (2013) add that “traditional ecological knowledge is the primary Indigenous way of understanding relationship among species, ecosystems, and ecological processes…and has the potential to play a vital role in climate [action] and adaptation efforts that bridge human and environmental systems” (p. 1). What often lacks in the communicative framing of climate change is the role of relationships in guiding climate action responses. It is a pivotal component and one that is often left out of mainstream climate communication. We are inexplicably linked to our natural world and “forget that what we do to her we do to ourselves” (Wyld, 2021, p. 30). Traditional ecological knowledge offers another component of Indigenous way of knowing that derives from centuries of respectfully interacting with the natural world and observing its responses to change. I see this particular knowledge base as an integral piece of the climate action movement. One that is equally as important as western science and should be integrated into all climate communication strategies to better tackle the challenges of our time.  

Effective climate communication is a difficult task. However, further integration of Indigenous voice, through story and traditional ecological knowledge, is a necessary step in articulating and communicating climate impacts, strategies to combat climate variabilities, and overall climate action. The reoccurring theme of transdisciplinarity in this program is important because it sheds light on the need to value the diversity of perspective, lived experience, and expertise within the climate arena. Indigenous way of knowing is the most fundamental aspect of climate communication that, until recently, has been largely alienated, disregarded, and left out. It’s time reconciliation manifests itself in the climate action movement. 

References 

Iseke, J. (2013). Indigenous storytelling as research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(4), 559–577. doi:10.1525/irqr.2013.6.4.559

Nakashima, D., Krupnik, I., & Rubis, J. (Eds.). (2018). Indigenous knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation. Retrieved from http://books.google.com

Vinyeta, K., Lynn, K. (2013). Exploring the role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change initiatives. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-879

Wyld, F. (2021). The land as a research participant: A storytelling project on climate change and Indigenous perspectives. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 24(1), 22-34. Retrieved from https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.046669925438109

As I sit and reflect on the past two weeks, my brain is cluttered with an abundance of information, weeding through themes, and picking out what I see as the driving force of climate action in todays world. What I’ve found most intriguing is the role transdisciplinarity plays and the growing need to implement it in the field of climate action. McGregor (2014) defines transdisciplinarity as “going beyond disciplines to engage civil society” (p. 201). The need to transcend singular trains of thought and include a multitude of perspectives, ideologies, and expertise is how positive change can occur. After listening to the panel on, Climate Action: Designing with Policy in Mind, I began thinking about how essential transdisciplinarity, listening from a place of empathy, and bipartisanship are, specifically, in the context of environmental policy. 

    At the heart of environmental policy is an increased need for bipartisanship in the political sphere. More often than not, we see the issues associated with climate change leveraged within political agendas cementing a tactic to lure in constituents who view climate related topics as a partisan issue. This has got to change. Our climate is not a partisan issue and should not be exploited in such a way. This tactic is simply baffling to me. The science is out there and the need is greater than ever to prioritize and demand climate action from all political parties, philosophies, sectors, and walks of life. A transdisciplinary agenda in a bipartisan setting can help bridge the divide and result in productive policy making.

Bipartisanship is defined by Harbridge et al. (2014) as both “concessions [made] by parties to meet in the middle…and can be perceived as a focus on places of preexisting common ground” (p. 331). My grandfather, Jacob Javits, was the Senator of the state of New York for nearly thirty years. He was a Republican at a time when Republicans were much different than they are today. He helped pass the Civil Rights Act alongside Lyndon B. Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. and deeply believed in bipartisanship. When he passed away he left a legacy of working across the isle to find common ground and achieve a common goal. This type of bipartisanship, that my grandfather exemplified in his years in office, is largely hidden under the surface in todays political climate. To tackle climate change and to find common ground, bipartisanship must be the stepping stone on the path to more impactful environmental policy. We must reestablish the ability to disagree while simultaneously respecting our differences. 

At the core of underwhelming environmental policy lies the stark polarization between political parties, those that believe in climate science, and those that deny its very existence. The United States, where I am originally from, is the epitome of this conflict. Ehret et al. (2018) add that the “US congress has failed to act because of political polarization over climate policy” (p. 308). This polarization is not new. It is deep rooted, difficult to fix, and requires a systematic makeover. The partisan divide in the United States “provides a good case for analyzing the problem of…[climate change]…because it has the dubious distinction of being a deeply polarized country [over] environmental politics” (Brown & Hess, 2016, p. 972). We can’t continue to avoid the unavoidable. It’s time to set aside our bickering ways, redirect political discourse, and demand across the isle collaboration with regards to environmental policy making. 

How can we tackle this issue of integrating differing political viewpoints and perspectives into the writing and enactment of prompt, effective, and important environmental policy? I think it starts with listening from a place of empathy across sectors and to a wide variety of stakeholders and community members. Listening is fundamental to any real progress. Our leaders must listen to the communities most impacted by the harsh realities of a changing climate and bring those voices to the policy making table. When we listen from a place of empathy we “tak[e] the perspective of the other and [feel] an emotional bond with that [person’s story] (Brown et al., 2019, p. 11). By bringing empathy into policy making, transdisciplinarity into practice, and bipartisanship into politics we can foster inclusivity and lasting environmental policy.

References

Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Devine-Wright, P., Anderies, J. M., Barr, S., Bousquet, F., Butler, C., Evans, L., Marshall, N., & Quinn, T. (2019). Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 56, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.003

Brown, K. P., & Hess, D. J. (2016). Pathways to policy: Partisanship and bipartisanship in renewable energy legislation. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1203523

Ehret, P. J., Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Partisan Barriers to Bipartisanship. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308–318. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1948550618758709

Harbridge, L., Malhotra, N., & Harrison, B. F. (2014). Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12048

McGregor, S. L. T. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and Conceptual Change. World Futures, 70(3-4), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934635

In many ways, design thinking is the way of the future. The intersection and collaboration of diverse ideas, perspectives, and Indigenous ways of thinking and knowing is how we, as a society, can effectively tackle the pressing issues driven by the factors of climate change. The purpose of design thinking is in “redesigning existing ecosystems” to focus on the wicked problems generated by an altering climate (Cankurtaran and Beverland, 2020, p. 259). The question I ask is how do we redesign an existing ecosystem? Where and how do we begin this complex process? During and throughout the anthropocene, human induced changes have caused crippling impacts to every ecosystem on our planet. I argue that deep listening and decolonizing the anthropocene through a design thinking lens is not only how we can understand the current climatic issues at hand but further problem solve practical and realistic solutions. 

Design thinking must begin from a place of empathy and listening deeply. As defined by Gram-Hanssen et al. (2021) “deep listening is different from active listening in that it goes beyond listening to the words spoken; it enters into an engagement with Indigenous paradigms, ontologies and epistemologies in a meaningful effort to think, feel, and act” (para. 24). Deep listening actively engages us, as human beings, in the past and present context of colonialism. Colonization is directly linked to climate change and design thinking must inherently begin with this profound and ever present concept when facing the climate challenges presented. Indigenous ways of knowing, through story, oral history, and traditional ecological knowledge, offers perspective and expertise yet to be adopted by mainstream western philosophy. Gadgil et al. (1993) add that “Indigenous knowledge…hold[s] valuable information on the role that species play in [creating] ecologically sustainable system[s]” (p. 156). Design thinking must incorporate this vastly important and unique knowledge base, along with western scientific practice, to generate a multi dimensional approach to confront climate variability. 

In conclusion, the way forward is in many ways the way of the past. The anthropocene has been driven by mass production and extraction of our planet’s ecosystems and the unfathomable amount of GHGs emitted into our atmosphere for the sole purpose of fulfilling human need and the desire to conquest. It is colonialism at its worst. Indigenous knowledge offers insights into reestablishing and recreating harmony within our earth systems and introduces us to solutions based on a history of adaptability. By utilizing Indigenous knowledge, deep listening, and design thinking we can reshape and redefine our role as actors in the climate action space in order to tackle the most pressing dilemma of our time. 

References

Cankurtaran, P., & Beverland, M.B. (2020). Using design thinking to respond to crises: B2B lessons from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.030

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2-3), 151-156. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314060

Gram-Hanssen, I., Schafenacker, N., & Bentz, J.(2021). Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations’. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9