1. How can we help each other to make knowledge and social change within "unruly" (heterogeneous, distributed) ecological complexities? Peter Taylor Univ. Massachusetts Boston Critical & Creative Thinking Science, Technology & Values Education for Sustainability peter.taylor@umb.edu www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt

2. I

5. What places could someone intervene in these “intersecting processes” so as to modify the future development of this situation?

6. II

10. What places could someone intervene in this knowledge- making so as to modify the future development of this situation?

11. III

16. What places could someone intervene in this knowledge- making & intersecting processes so as to modify the future development of this situation?

17. IV

21. How can we help each other to make knowledge and social change within "unruly" (heterogeneous, distributed) ecological complexities?

22. In what situations could you envisage using mapping to help yourself and others make knowledge and social change within "unruly" ecological complexities? What might hinder this or limit its usefulness?

23. V

25. What would it mean to take seriously the creativity and capacity-building that seems to follow from well- facilitated participation but not to conclude that researchers should "go local" and focus all their efforts on one place?

26. "flexible engagement" challenge for researchers in any knowledge-making situation = connect quickly with others who are almost ready to foster participatory processes & through the experience such processes provide their participants enhance the capacity of others to do likewise

27. Formulations 1. simple, well-bounded systems 2. simple scenarios -> greater complexity & further work needed in particular cases 3. work based on dynamics among particular entities/agents whose actions implicate or span a range of realms, which develop over time Angles on practice of researchers A. “dialogue” with situation studied B. interactions with other social agents to establish what counts as knowledge C. affecting social change through attention to the complexities of both the situations studied and the researchers’ own social situatedness

29. Intersecting Processes cut across scales involve heterogeneous components develop over time

30. causality & agency: distributed, not localized multiple points of engagement to modify the course of development joint & partial responsibility

31. SystemIntersecting processes Clearly defined boundariesBoundaries & categories problematic IPs involve heterogeneous components incl. unequal agents Coherent internal dynamics governing development, structure & stability, & adaptation to external environment Levels & scale not clearly separable IPs cut across scales Structures subject to restructuring IPs develop over time, e.g. differentiation among unequal agents + historical contingency External observer positionNo privileged standpoint Natural reduction of complexityControl & generalization difficult structuredness in IPs not reducible to micro- or macro-determinations

32. 1. Intersecting processes involve inseparable dynamics 2. The account represents agency as distributed across different kinds of agents and scale. 3. The account has an intermediate complexity. 4. Intermediate complexity accounts favor the idea of multiple, smaller engagements linked together within the intersecting processes. 5. Intersecting processes accounts highlight the need for trans-disciplinary work grounded in particular locations. 6. Intermediate complexity preserves a role for some kind of social scientific generalization.

33. scientists establish knowledge and develop their practices through diverse practical choices the outcomes of scientific work—theories, readings from instruments, collaborations, etc. —are accepted because they are aspects of heterogeneous webs that are difficult to modify in practice interpretation of scientific work as “heterogeneous construction” exposes specific points at which concrete alternative resources could be mobilized

34. vibrating agency open questions