Sustainability Awareness and Expertise: Structuring the Cognitive Processes for Solving Wicked Problems and Achieving an Adaptive-State

Sweet, Don; Seager, Thomas P.; Tylock, Steven M.; Bullock, Jennifer; Linkov, Igor; Colombo, Daniel J.; Unrath, Uwe

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7161-1_5

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It saves time and effort in reinventing new strategies and helps an organization remain familiar with other competencies for adaptation to disturbances (Khalil et al 2020). Additionally, newly developed strategies contribute to an ever-growing 'snowball' of remembered potential responses (Sweet et al 2014), which continue to grow requisite variety and contribute to a streamlined decision-making process. Therefore, remembering for infrastructure is foundational to requisite variety because of the interactive feedback loops between cause-effect learning and other aspects of sensemaking (Clark et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussion: Infrastructure Dynamic Criticalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic criticality for infrastructure prioritization in complex environments

Hoff¹,

Helmrich²,

Dirks³

et al. 2023

Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As infrastructure confront rapidly changing environments, there is an immediate need to provide the flexibility to pivot resources and how infrastructures are prioritized. Yet infrastructures are often categorized based on static criticality framings. We describe dynamic criticality as the flexibility and reprioritization of infrastructure and resources during disturbances. We find that the most important prerequisite for dynamic criticality is organizational adaptive capacity through resilience in goals, structures, sensemaking, and strategies. Dynamic capabilities are increasingly important in the Anthropocene, where accelerating conditions, uncertainty, and growing complexity are challenging infrastructures. We review sectors that deployed dynamic management approaches amidst changing disturbances: leadership and organizational change, defense, medicine, manufacturing, and disaster response. We use an inductive thematic analysis to identify key themes and competencies and analyze capabilities that describe dynamic criticality. These competencies drive adaptive capacity and open up the flexibility to pivot what is deemed critical, depending on the particulars of the hazard. We map these competencies to infrastructure systems and describe how infrastructure organizations may build adaptive capacity toward flexible priorities.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Infrastructure Dynamic Criticalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic criticality for infrastructure prioritization in complex environments

Hoff¹,

Helmrich²,

Dirks³

et al. 2023

Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bijker 1995), arguing that these values are typically those of elite social groups (Irwin 1995) or are shaped by cultural and institutional arrangements that are taken for granted (Fountain 2004;Jasanoff 2005). In these cases, various explicit themes emerge, such as power (van Oudheusden 2014; Stirling 2008), ethics (Boenink 2013;Khushf 2007;Rabinow and Bennett 2009b), social justice (Fehr 2011), environmental sustainability (Sweet et al 2014;Voss, Bauknecht, and Kemp 2006;Wiek et al 2014), and democratic values (Guston 2014;Macnaghten, Kearnes, and Wynne 2005).…”

Section: Calls For Socio-technical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations

Fisher

O’Rourke

Evans

et al. 2015

Journal of Responsible Innovation

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible innovation requires that scientific and other expert practices be responsive to society. We take stock of various collaborative approaches to socio-technical integration that seek to broaden the societal contexts technical experts take into account during their routine activities. Part of a larger family of engaged scholarship that includes inter-and transdisciplinarity as well as stakeholder and public engagement, we distinguish collaborative socio-technical integration in terms of its proximity to and transformation of expert practices. We survey a variety of approaches that differ widely in terms of their integrative methods, conceptions of societal context, roles, and aspirations for intervention. Taking a handful of "communities of integration" as exemplars, we then provide a framework for comparing the forms, means, and ends of collaborative integration. We conclude by reflecting on some of the main features of, and tensions within, this developing arena of practical inquiry and engagement and what this suggests for integrative efforts aimed at responsible innovation.

show abstract