Abstract
This research examines the first phase of a multiyear initiative about “sustainable placemaking” processes at a mid-size university in a small US city. The study focuses upon the rhetoric used by five faculty members representing the industrial design, engineering, geography, art history, and political science disciplines who have begun to develop a sustainable design working group whose mission is to produce sustainable design and design process alternatives for the redevelopment of a street connecting the university to the community. Integrating symbolic convergence theory and dialogue theory from communication studies with theory about transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development, the research describes the extent to which the group achieved transdisciplinary function and articulates how co-creating meaning around sustainable placemaking shaped group processes and outcomes. Findings indicate that shared experiences of “place” and tensions amongst rhetorical boundaries play key roles. Analysis produces lessons learned for similar groups interested in transcending disciplinary boundaries when addressing sustainable development problems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alhadeff-Jones M (2008) Three generations of complexity theories: nuances and ambiguities. Educ Philos Theory 40(1):66–82
Becker E (1976) The structure of evil. Free Press, New York
Bohm D (1996) On dialogue. Routledge, New York
Bormann EG (1982) The symbolic convergence theory of communication: applications and implications for teachers and consultants. J Appl Commun Res. doi:10.1080/00909888209365212
Bormann EG (1985) Symbolic convergence theory: a communication formulation. J Commun. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1985.tb02977.x
Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson D, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008
Burke K (1969) A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press, Berkeley
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Choi BC, Pak AW (2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 29(6):351–364
Ellinor L, Gerard G (1998) Dialogue: rediscovering the transforming power of conversation. Wiley, New York
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine de Gruyter, New York
Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.002
Isaacs WN (1999a) Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Currency, New York
Isaacs WN (1999b) Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Organ Dyn 22:24–39. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90051-2
Kruetli P, Stauffacher M, Flueeler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861–875
Kueffer C, Underwood E, Hadorn G, Holderegger R, Lehning M, Pohl C et al (2012) Enabling effective problem-oriented research for sustainable development. Ecol Soc 17(4):197–212. doi:10.5751/ES-05045-170408
Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Misra S, Hall K, Feng A, Stipelman B, Stokols D (2011) Chapter 8: collaborative processes in transdisciplinary research. In: Kirst M, Schaefer-McDaniel N, Hwang S, O’Campo P (eds) Converging disciplines: a transdisciplinary research approach to urban health problems. Springer, New York, pp 97–110
Olufowote JO (2006) Rousing and redirecting a sleeping giant: Symbolic Convergence Theory and complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Manag Commun Q 19:451–492. doi:10.1177/0893318905280326
Pohl C (2011) What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures 43(6):618–626
Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) Core terms in transdisciplinary research. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 427–432
Poole MS (1990) Do we have any theories of group communication? Commun Stud 41:237–247. doi:10.1080/10510979009368306
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 28(6):1053–1065
Robèrt KH, Daly H, Hawken P, Holmberg J (1997) A compass for sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 4(2):79–92. doi:10.1080/13504509709469945
Schein EH (1993) On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organ Dyn 22:40–51
Star S, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Soc Stud Sci. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
Stokols D (2006) Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am J Commun Psychol 38(1–2):63–77
Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park
Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organization. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Wilson G, Herndl CG (2007) Boundary objects as rhetorical exigence: knowledge mapping and interdisciplinary cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. J Bus Tech Commun 21(2):129–154
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alexander, R., Britt, L. & Barrella, E. Converging on sustainable placemaking through transdisciplinary process. J Environ Stud Sci 4, 301–309 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0192-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0192-x