Transition management & sustainability: Renaturing cities & theories
Mediators: Si-Zhe , Wan-Ting
Date: 2019/10/01
During the preparation process, We (Wan-Ting and Si-Zhe) focused more on the integration of the three papers, because Professor Jou asked us to make a short summary before the discussion. Since we also appreciate the way the mediators organized the group discussion in the first week, we decided to keep the group discussion session.
Process
Step 1:
We went roughly through the three papers and decided our divided responsibilities. The reading materials in 4th week contained two “single” papers and one “combined” paper including 6 short essays. To work more efficiently, each one of us took main responsibility (i.e. read carefully and make a summary) for one “single” paper (according to our personal background and interest) and commonly for the “combined” paper.
Step 2:
After finishing reading the papers, we had a meeting to exchange our summary, understanding of the papers, and our reflections. By this way we reached a consensus of the papers.
Step 3:
Then we started to draw a framework to clarify the relationships between the papers. We drafted again and again and again … and finally came to a final version that both of us were satisfied with.
The whole process from step 2 to step 3 took about 3-4 hours, including the small meeting to the process of drawing frameworks. But not include the time when we were in the parade.
(Tips: You may reach a plateau during this process. At that time, it would be beneficial to take a rest, divert your attention, and come back to the work later. In our case, we paused and turned to participate a parade for hours. We returned to the discussion of the framework as soon as the march ended and, to our surprise, we worked out the framework quickly and smoothly.)
Some Struggles happen in the process of drawing framework:
The topic for this week on the syllabus, “Transition management & sustainability: Renaturing cities & theories” also contributes to our summary. We grasped the idea of “transition” almost in the first place. Then we started to place the elements mentioned in the papers. We roughly categorize the elements into “concepts/theory”, “methodologies”, and “case studies”. Since Schneidewind et al. (2016) focuses on building an environment beneficial to transitional science, it makes the framework forming process more challenging.
Step 4:
After finishing the framework, we prepared for the discussion session. Since our framework was composed by three interrelated parts, each of which corresponded to one paper, we decided to set three main issues. To leave some spaces for classmates to bring up their own questions, we decided not to confine the questions; instead, we just provided one suggested question to each issue. We also try to encourage our classmates to combine the topics from different papers in our designed questions (e.g. linking methodologies to cases). Given the time limit overall (two hours), we decided to design only one round of discussion.
Step 5:
About the group division, we decided to let the classmates choose the topic they were most interested in.
Step 6:
Wan-Ting turned our hand-painted framework into a PPT version. And Si-Zhe made tiny editions.
Step 7:
Wan-Ting was quite experienced on facilitation, so she took the responsibility of facilitating the discussion.