具有挑战性的实践:来自社区和个人生活实验室方法的经验

IF 3.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
K. Matschoss, F. Fahy, Henrike Rau, J. Backhaus, Gary Goggins, Eoin Grealis, E. Heiskanen, Tuija Kajoskoski, S. Laakso, Eeva-Lotta Apajalahti, Audley Genus, L. Godin, M. Iskandarova, Annika-Kathrin Musch, M. Sahakian, C. Scholl, E. Vadovics, V. Vasseur
{"title":"具有挑战性的实践:来自社区和个人生活实验室方法的经验","authors":"K. Matschoss, F. Fahy, Henrike Rau, J. Backhaus, Gary Goggins, Eoin Grealis, E. Heiskanen, Tuija Kajoskoski, S. Laakso, Eeva-Lotta Apajalahti, Audley Genus, L. Godin, M. Iskandarova, Annika-Kathrin Musch, M. Sahakian, C. Scholl, E. Vadovics, V. Vasseur","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2021.1902062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we examine a change initiative designed to involve households in testing ways to transform two everyday practices ‒ heating and doing laundry. The research design included an examination of the challenges of changing practices either in a setting that fosters collective engagement or with individual households. Two different types of living labs were carried out simultaneously in eight European countries in Autumn–Winter 2018. We reflect on differences in results in terms of both changes in practices and the experiences of participating households that we argue can be at least partially attributed to householders’ engagement in different types of living labs. We discuss the implications of an individual-focused vs. community-oriented approach for change initiatives seeking to challenge social norms for sustainability transitions, concentrating in particular on differences in the nature of participants’ engagement and their willingness and ability to challenge routine practices. This is complemented by analytical reflections on the differences in design, interaction, and performance between the two types of living labs. We show that an explicit focus on collaborative engagement in living labs can produce results that reflect shared experiences, community support, challenging established norms, and collective commitment toward change.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":"33 1","pages":"135 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging practices: experiences from community and individual living lab approaches\",\"authors\":\"K. Matschoss, F. Fahy, Henrike Rau, J. Backhaus, Gary Goggins, Eoin Grealis, E. Heiskanen, Tuija Kajoskoski, S. Laakso, Eeva-Lotta Apajalahti, Audley Genus, L. Godin, M. Iskandarova, Annika-Kathrin Musch, M. Sahakian, C. Scholl, E. Vadovics, V. Vasseur\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15487733.2021.1902062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this article, we examine a change initiative designed to involve households in testing ways to transform two everyday practices ‒ heating and doing laundry. The research design included an examination of the challenges of changing practices either in a setting that fosters collective engagement or with individual households. Two different types of living labs were carried out simultaneously in eight European countries in Autumn–Winter 2018. We reflect on differences in results in terms of both changes in practices and the experiences of participating households that we argue can be at least partially attributed to householders’ engagement in different types of living labs. We discuss the implications of an individual-focused vs. community-oriented approach for change initiatives seeking to challenge social norms for sustainability transitions, concentrating in particular on differences in the nature of participants’ engagement and their willingness and ability to challenge routine practices. This is complemented by analytical reflections on the differences in design, interaction, and performance between the two types of living labs. We show that an explicit focus on collaborative engagement in living labs can produce results that reflect shared experiences, community support, challenging established norms, and collective commitment toward change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"135 - 151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1902062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1902062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们研究了一项旨在让家庭参与测试的变革倡议,以改变两种日常做法——加热和洗衣服。研究设计包括对在促进集体参与或个别家庭的环境中改变实践的挑战的检查。2018年秋冬,两种不同类型的生活实验室在八个欧洲国家同时进行。我们在实践的变化和参与家庭的经验方面反映了结果的差异,我们认为至少可以部分归因于家庭参与不同类型的生活实验室。我们讨论了以个人为中心与以社区为导向的方法对寻求挑战可持续性转型的社会规范的变革倡议的影响,特别关注参与者参与的性质以及他们挑战常规做法的意愿和能力的差异。这是对两种类型的生活实验室在设计、交互和性能方面的差异的分析反思的补充。我们表明,明确关注生活实验室中的协作参与可以产生反映共享经验、社区支持、挑战既定规范和集体变革承诺的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging practices: experiences from community and individual living lab approaches
Abstract In this article, we examine a change initiative designed to involve households in testing ways to transform two everyday practices ‒ heating and doing laundry. The research design included an examination of the challenges of changing practices either in a setting that fosters collective engagement or with individual households. Two different types of living labs were carried out simultaneously in eight European countries in Autumn–Winter 2018. We reflect on differences in results in terms of both changes in practices and the experiences of participating households that we argue can be at least partially attributed to householders’ engagement in different types of living labs. We discuss the implications of an individual-focused vs. community-oriented approach for change initiatives seeking to challenge social norms for sustainability transitions, concentrating in particular on differences in the nature of participants’ engagement and their willingness and ability to challenge routine practices. This is complemented by analytical reflections on the differences in design, interaction, and performance between the two types of living labs. We show that an explicit focus on collaborative engagement in living labs can produce results that reflect shared experiences, community support, challenging established norms, and collective commitment toward change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy is a refereed, open-access journal which recognizes that climate change and other socio-environmental challenges require significant transformation of existing systems of consumption and production. Complex and diverse arrays of societal factors and institutions will in coming decades need to reconfigure agro-food systems, implement renewable energy sources, and reinvent housing, modes of mobility, and lifestyles for the current century and beyond. These innovations will need to be formulated in ways that enhance global equity, reduce unequal access to resources, and enable all people on the planet to lead flourishing lives within biophysical constraints. The journal seeks to advance scientific and political perspectives and to cultivate transdisciplinary discussions involving researchers, policy makers, civic entrepreneurs, and others. The ultimate objective is to encourage the design and deployment of both local experiments and system innovations that contribute to a more sustainable future by empowering individuals and organizations and facilitating processes of social learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信