Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 167–191 | Cite as

Participatory Design and Technologies for Sustainable Development: an Approach from Action Research

  • Andrés Esteban Acero LópezEmail author
  • María Catalina Ramirez Cajiao
  • Mauricio Peralta Mejia
  • Luisa Fernanda Payán Durán
  • Edier Ernesto Espinosa Díaz
Original Paper
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

This paper explores the relevance of the action research for design of technological solutions that lead to both systemic sustainable development and active involvement of the community. The paper shows how this idea was implemented in a project for water resource conservation with educational institutions of rural areas in Colombia. Through the use of technology, a reduction in water consumption increases in awareness about the use of this natural resource, and the active involvement of the community were sought. Additionally, social processes related to the conservation of natural resources were addressed through a socio-technical approach for analysis and design. During the application of the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), the participants and researchers created technological prototypes that allowed to: 1) give visibility to the community’s initiatives, and 2) save water in the households. This paper focuses on the importance of the design process of innovative solutions for social and environmental issues through the participative approach of action research.

Keywords

Drinking water conservation Participatory action research Technology design Participation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Secretary of Science, Technology and Innovation of the Gobernación de Cundinamarca for coordinating this project through the funding of the Sistema General de Regalías de Colombia (Colombian General Royalties System) under the Convenio SCTeI 022 de 2014 signed by the Gobernación de Cundinamarca, Universidad de Los Andes and Corporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios. They would also like to thank the students, teachers and principals from the participant educational institutions.

References

  1. Al Lily A (2013) Social change and educational technologies: by invitation or invasion. J Organ Transform Soc Chang 10:42–63.  https://doi.org/10.1179/1477963312Z.0000000004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldana E, Reyes A (2004) Disolver Problemas: criterio para formular proyectos sociales, First Ed. Editorial Universidad de los Andes, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade G, Espinosa A, Guzmán D, Wills E (2011) Towards a framework for the observation, understanding, and management of socio-ecological systems: insights from socio-ecological, institutional, and complexity theory. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS - 2011, Hull, UK. International Society of System Science, Hull, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Arias J, Ramírez MC, Duarte DM et al (2016) poCDIO: a methodological proposal for promoting active participation in social engineering projects. Syst Pract Action Res 29:379–403.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9370-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asaro PM (1999) Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Account Manag Inf Technol 10:257–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8022(00)00004-7 Google Scholar
  6. Barcellini F, Prost L, Cerf M (2015) Designers’ and users’ roles in participatory design: what is actually co-designed by participants? Appl Ergon 50:31–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardy R, Rubens A, Massaro M (2015) The systemic dimension of sustainable development in developing countries. J Organ Transform Soc Chang 12:22–41.  https://doi.org/10.1179/1477963314Z.00000000033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barile S, Saviano M, Iandolo F, Calabrese M (2014) The viable systems approach and its contribution to the analysis of sustainable business behaviors. Syst Res Behav Sci 31:683–695.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botero F (2009) Análisis de políticas públicas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia. Universidad de los AndesGoogle Scholar
  10. Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá (2010) Plan de Competitividad para la provincia de Guavio. Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  11. Checkland P (1992) Systems and scholarship: The need to do better. J Oper Res Soc 43(11):1023–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1992.159
  12. Checkland P (1995) Model validation in soft systems practice. Syst Res 12:47–54Google Scholar
  13. Checkland (1997) Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models. Syst Res Behav Sci 14:153–168.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199705/06)14:3<153::AID-SRES134>3.0.CO;2-H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Checkland (2000) Soft system methodology: a thirty years retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17:S11–S58.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1743(200011)17:1+<::AID-SRES374>3.0.CO;2-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corpoguavio (2012) Plan de Gestión Ambiental Regional Corpoguavio 2002–2012. Corpoguavio, Gachetá, Cundinamarca, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Cuéllar-Padilla M, Calle-Collado Á (2011) Can we find solutions with people? Participatory action research with small organic producers in Andalusia. J Rural Stud 27:372–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Guerre DW, Séguin D, Pace A, Burke N (2013) IDEA: a collaborative organizational design process integrating innovation, design, engagement, and action. Syst Pract Action Res 26:257–279.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9250-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2012) Bases del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014-2018, Primera Ed. Bogotá, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. Durston J, Miranda F (2002) Experiencia y metodología de la investigación participativa. CEPAL ECLAC, Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  20. Espinosa A, Walker J (2011) A complexity approach to sustainability. Imperial College Press, OxfordshireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Estensoro M (2015) How can social innovation be facilitated? Experiences from an action research process in a local network. Syst Pract Action Res 28:527–545.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9347-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fals-borda O (1987) The application of participatory action research in Latin America. Int Sociol 2:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flood RL (2001) The relationship of “system thinking” to action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research. Sage Publications, Inc, London, pp 133–145Google Scholar
  24. Flórez MP (2015) Propuesta metodológica para modelar el ahorro de agua logrado a partir de la implementación de una tecnología que disminuya su gasto: Región del Guavio y Sabana Centro. Universidad de los AndesGoogle Scholar
  25. Floricel S, Bonneau C, Aubry M, Sergi V (2014) Extending project management research: insights from social theories. Int J Proj Manag 32:1091–1107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fratini CF, Elle M, Jensen MB, Mikkelsen PS (2012) A conceptual framework for addressing complexity and unfolding transition dynamics when developing sustainable adaptation strategies in urban water management. Water Sci Technol 66:2393–2401.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Imran S, Alam K, Beaumont N (2014) Reinterpreting the definition of sustainable development for a more ecocentric reorientation. Sustain Dev 22:134–144.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ing D (2013) Rethinking system thinking: learning and coevolving with the world. Syst Res Behav Sci 30:527–547.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sres CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iñigo EA, Albareda L (2016) Understanding sustainable innovation as a complex adaptive system: a systemic approach to the firm. J Clean Prod 126:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Instituto Alexander van Humboldt (2011) El gran libro de los páramo, First Edit. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander Von Humboldt, Bogotá, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. Jimoyiannis A (2010) Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Comput Educ 55:1259–1269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R (2014) The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Langdon J, Larweh K (2015) Moving with the movement: collaboratively building a participatory action research study of social movement learning in Ada, Ghana. Action Res 13:281–297.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750315572447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laszlo A (2014) Connecting the DOTS: the design of Thrivable systems through the power of collective intelligence. Syst Res Behav Sci 31:586–594.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour B, Mauguin P, Teil G (1992) A note on socio-technical graphs. Soc Stud Sci 22:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lleras E (2002) Las comunidades de aprendizaje como ámbitos de construcción de mundo. Man iniciación pedagógica al Pensam complejo 1–11Google Scholar
  38. Mackenzie J, Tan P-L, Hoverman S, Baldwin C (2012) The value and limitations of participatory action research methodology. J Hydrol 474:11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mohamed M, Murray A, Mohamed M (2010) The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in mobilization of sustainable development knowledge: a quantitative evaluation. J Knowl Manag 14:744–758.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011074872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nokes-Malach TJ, Richey JE, Gadgil S (2015) When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ Psychol Rev 27:645–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osorio C (2003) Aproximaciones a la tecnología desde los enfoques en CTS, 9Google Scholar
  42. Pavía ER, Dominguez G, Guillermo C (2010) El uso de las TICs en la educación básica de jóvenes y adultos de comunidades rurales y urbanas del sureste de México. RED Rev Educ a Distancia 22:1–19Google Scholar
  43. Ramírez Hernández O (2015) Identificación de problemáticas ambientales en Colombia a partir de la percepción social de estudiantes universitarios localizados en diferentes zonas del país. Rev Int Contam Ambie 31:293–310Google Scholar
  44. Ramírez MC, Bengo I, Mereu R et al (2011) Participative methodology for local development: the contribution of engineers without Borders from Italy and Colombia: towards the improvement of water quality in vulnerable communities. Syst Pract Action Res 24:45–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9175-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramírez MC, Plazas J, Torres C et al (2012) A systemic framework to develop sustainable engineering solutions in rural communities in Colombia. Syst Pract Action Res 25:95–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-011-9203-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramírez MC, Sanabria JP, Duarte DM, Caicedo LC (2015) Methodology to support participative decision-making with vulnerable communities. Case study: engineers without Borders Colombia/Ingenieros sin Fronteras Colombia—ISFCOL. Syst Pract Action Res 28:125–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-014-9325-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rammelt CF (2013) Participatory action research in marginalised communities: safe drinking water in rural Bangladesh. Syst Pract Action Res 27:195–210.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-013-9280-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Righi AW, Saurin TA (2015) Complex socio-technical systems: Characterization and management guidelines. Applied Ergonomics 50:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rousseau D, Wilby J (2014) Moving from disciplinarity to transdisciplinarity in the service of Thrivable systems. Syst Res Behav Sci 31:666–677.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sage D, Dainty A, Brookes N (2011) How actor network theories can help in understanding project complexities. Int J Manag Proj Bus 4:274–293.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371111120243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sayes E (2014) Actor-network theory and methodology: just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Soc Stud Sci 44:134–149.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713511867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Straussfogel D, Becker ML (1996) An evolutionary systems approach to policy intervention for achieving ecologically sustainable societies. Syst Pract 9:441–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stringer E (1999) Action research, second edi. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  54. Trimble M, Berkes F (2013) Participatory research towards co-management: lessons from artisanal fisheries in coastal Uruguay. J Environ Manag 128:768–778.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Universidad de los Andes, Corporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios (2014) Metodología general ajustada (MGA) Proyecto recurso hídrico. Bogotá, D.C.Google Scholar
  56. vom Brocke J, Lippe S (2015) Managing collaborative research projects: a synthesis of project management literature and directives for future research. Int J Proj Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.001
  57. Whitehead D (2005) Project management and action research: two sides of the same coin? J Health Organ Manag 19:519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260510629715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xi X, Poh KL (2013) Using system dynamics for sustainable water resources management in Singapore. Procedia Comput Sci 16:157–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu JE, Hong HC (2016) Systemic design for applying the combined use of SSM and CDA to social practices. Syst Pract Action Res 29:149–171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9355-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrés Esteban Acero López
    • 1
    Email author
  • María Catalina Ramirez Cajiao
    • 1
  • Mauricio Peralta Mejia
    • 2
    • 3
  • Luisa Fernanda Payán Durán
    • 4
  • Edier Ernesto Espinosa Díaz
    • 5
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Business AdministrationSwiss Management CenterZugSwitzerland
  3. 3.Parque Científico de Innovación SocialCorporación Universitaria Minuto de DiosBogotáColombia
  4. 4.Interdisciplinary Development Studies, CIDERUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  5. 5.School of EconomicsUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations