Toilet practices and system change: lessons from a transdisciplinary research project

J. Design Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2015 307

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Toilet practices and system change: lessons from a transdisciplinary research project

Dena Fam* Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abby Mellick Lopes School of Humanities and Communication Arts, University of Western Sydney, Australia Email: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper draws on a pilot project of novel sanitation systems, trialled to learn about the potential for system change. Urine diversion (UD) systems, which capture, store and reuse urine in agriculture as a substitute for chemical fertiliser were trialled within an institutional setting over the last two years in collaboration with government, industry and academic partners. Qualitative social research tools were implemented to capture changing perceptions of users, the domestication process arising in the practical use of UD toilets. Feedback from end-users highlighted the need to modify their own practices, adopt new practices and the need for technology modifications to accommodate established practices, if UD was to be more widely accepted beyond experimental trials. The value of qualitative inquiry was that it provided a way of capturing subjective and speculative knowledge from participants about the social context of the trial and unexpected consequences of trialling innovation in practice.

Keywords: social practice theory; niche practices; technological innovation; design research.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Fam, D. and Lopes, A.M. (2015) ‘Toilet practices and system change: lessons from a transdisciplinary research project’, J. Design Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.307–322.

Biographical notes: Dena Fam is a Senior Research Consultant and Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Technology Sydney. Her research experience has spanned socio-cultural (learning for sustainability), institutional (policy analysis) and technological aspects of sewage management. Her expertise has focused on the process of transitioning to innovative systems of water and sewage management. Over the last decade she has been involved in working with industry, government and community actors to collaboratively design, research and trial alternative sanitation systems with the view of sustainably managing sewage and reducing its environmental impact on the water cycle, this has included trialling novel systems of sanitation in urban and peri-urban settings in Australia. Her area of interest and

308 D. Fam and A.M. Lopes

expertise is in the process of facilitating socio-technical change in sanitation through transdisciplinary collaboration inclusive of multiple disciplinary and lay perspectives and knowledge.

Abby Mellick Lopes is a Senior Lecturer in the Visual Communications Design program at the University of Western Sydney. She has 15 years professional and academic experience in the field of design for sustainability (DfS). She was a key team member of the innovative research and educational consultancy the EcoDesign Foundation from 1996–2004. Her research at the foundation focused on design strategies for adaptation to climate change and the ecological impacts of information technology. Her current research focuses on how visual communications design can contribute to ecological literacies and support more sustainable social practices. Recent projects have explored the aesthetics of sustainability and socio-technical change in relation to water, sanitation and urban agriculture, with a focus on user-side practices.

1 Introduction

How are social practices implicated in the adoption of new technologies? This research paper reports on a socio-technical experiment in which an alternative system of sanitation [urine diversion (UD)] was trialled within the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). UD has great potential to contribute to sustainably managing wastewater by separating urine at the source and recovering nutrients for reuse in agriculture. The technological potential of UD relies on changing practices in both using the toilets and managing the system in practice. The aim of the research was to learn about the viability of the system in practice and in the process deliberately intervene to support a transition toward a sustainable sanitation future. The researchers initiating the experiment had a ‘normative intent’ to create change in the broader sanitation regime by experimenting with ‘sustainable’ innovation to learn about the potential of UD in practice. A shared ambition of the research team was both that the system would work and that ‘upscaling’ potential would be identified. As the research progressed, we found that social learning in practice was critical to the successful adoption of the UD technology, actively shaping how a sociotechnical transition might occur. The experience of this research suggests that attending to the dynamics of social practices might have an important influence on how transitions are understood and might be planned in the future.

A strong philosophical and theoretical tradition of interventionist research exists with approaches such as action research (Berg, 2004; Kemmis and Taggart, 2005; Stokols, 2006), transdisciplinarity (Wickson et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2010; Pohl, 2010; Willetts et al., 2012), design research (Cross, 2006; Crouch and Pearce, 2012) and transition management, all combining research and action to legitimately intervene in a situation to create change. This interventionist approach is contrary to traditional scientific research based on observation (as argued by Popper and critiqued by Midgely, 2003). While observation may provide a way of examining ‘what is’, scientific research as an intervention goes further to ask ‘what could be’. A key distinction here is in how the researcher reflexively understands their position in the field of research, representing a shift from ‘observer’ of social reality to agent of change.

Toilet practices and system change 309

The experiment was designed using a transition management framework1 with an explicit focus on learning across multiple dimensions of the system. Learning in the UTS trial was not only focused on technological learning but also learning about the social reception of and engagement with a novel technology, in particular how social practices are implicated in the adoption of new technologies. An underexplored area of inquiry in transition research is ‘transitions in practice’ or how the social aspects of the system might work i.e., how users of novel technologies adapt to innovations that require new practices to be developed (Shove and Walker, 2010).

To fill this knowledge gap design research was integrated into the transition management framework to explore the socio-material relationships associated with introducing novel systems of sanitation. Design research orients itself toward initiating change and views the system of inquiry as a dynamic and complex field of socio-material relationships (Findeli, 2001; Crouch and Pearce, 2012). Design research is characterised by abductive processes of concept generation (Cross, 2006)2. For the design researcher, the field of ‘what is’ highlights a spectrum of opportunities for change. Through a process of learning and strategic questioning, the design researcher makes proposals for interventions that materialise aspects of this learning aligned with a project’s intent. Because of its natural interest in socio-technical details and assemblages, design research was particularly well suited to this project and its focus on social learning in a socio-technical experiment. Design was utilised in the project to create information design proposals and social research tools to support and capture commentary by the system users, which contributed significantly to the project’s experimental intent (Lopes et al., 2012).

The following paper draws on theories of social practice to analyse the role of participatory methods of social research in engaging users in trialling innovation and considers the implications for emerging niche practices and theories of transition management. In defining ‘practices’ we draw on social practice theorists, such as Giddens (1984), more recently Reckwitz (2002), Schatzki (2002), Shove (2010) and Warde (2005) who have sought to define social practices as the relationship between agency and structure in everyday activities such as cooking, washing and shopping. The performance of social practices is therefore perceived as part of “the routine accomplishment of what people take to be ‘normal’ ways of life” [Shove, (2004), p.117].

Practices are produced, reproduced and stabilised through repeated performance by the practitioner and the relationship between ‘materials, skills and images’. For example, every time someone uses the toilet she integrates materials (toilet pedestal, toilet paper, water and flushing mechanism), skills (how to sit on the toilet and dispose of excreta correctly) and images (expectations of freshness, odourlessness, cleanliness, sewage-free interaction with the toilet), which together constitute the practice of ‘toileting’. A distinction can be made in regard to different stages of a practice. Shove (2010) for example, makes the distinction between a proto-practice where the necessary elements exist but are yet to be integrated, the practice where the elements are integrated and routinised and the ex-practice where the elements have become disconnected from each other and the practice deteriorates. In this paper, we attend to the integration of a novel toileting practice in the protected space of an experimental setting. Using a term derived from transition management literature, we refer to this practice as a ‘niche’ practice (Rip and Kemp, 1998). Niches are understood as protected, experimental spaces where radical


innovations can be trialled away from the mainstream. However, rather than understanding a niche as a protected space to support the emergence of technological innovation, we are using it to emphasise a space of social innovation, where learning processes are fostered in relation to the use of a promising technology to determine the viability of that technology in practice.

2 Background to the trial

The university setting of the UTS trial provided a protected space to learn about the viability of the UD system as a novel system of innovation in Australia. Kemp et al. (1998) and Hoogma et al. (2002) suggest a ‘protected space’ is necessary in trialling innovation radically different from the mainstream to protect the innovation from dominant and/or mainstream practices. The assumption is that if such spaces were constructed appropriately, they would act as building blocks for broader societal changes towards sustainable development. While the concept of a ‘protected space’ has been defined by transition theorists as a “…financial space, organisational space, (transition) management space, mental space, juridical and geographical space” [van den Bosch, (2010), p.75], this paper suggests that a ‘social space’ is equally as important when trialling innovation radically different from the mainstream when new practices in using the system are required.

The ‘social space’ of the UTS trial was one in which a sample of users from the Institute for Sustainable Futures and the Centre for Local Government were involved. A total of approximately 50 staff and visitors used the toilet block daily and voluntarily took part in the trial in using the UD toilets over a two-year period between 2010–2012. The ‘non-average’ sample of users was an articulate group of participants who primarily worked in the field of sustainable development with clear commitments to create sustainable futures in their professional and personal practices and who could formulate their own open-ended and conversational responses to the new socio-technical system. It is important to note that the intrinsic motivation of users to support sustainability initiatives and accommodate the inconvenience of novel technology (and the challenges associated with first generation technology) was critical in supporting the social integrity of the experiment. In contrast, trialling the system within an unprotected, uncontrolled, public environment in which participants would be unfamiliar with the system and each other, may have limited quality feedback and conversational responses.

The research design for the UTS trial prioritised social inquiry as an essential aspect of transitions research and presented a novel research design for integrating multi-dimensional learning in the project. In trialling the systems within UTS, the research aimed to draw on users’ existing practical knowledge of toileting to capture the pragmatic everyday issues related to using UD toilets.

3 Methodology

The experiment involved multiple stakeholders from industry, government and academia within a collaborative action research framework. Two types of UD toilets were installed


in an office toilet block (see Figure 1 for images of the toilets) consecutively for eight months with qualitative research conducted to capture responses of participants in using the toilets. The two different toilet models were explicitly used to compare the technical functionality of the toilets rather than compare end-user perspectives of the toilets. A combination of social research tools was adopted throughout the UTS trial which included both qualitative and quantitative methods. This paper will focus on the value of the qualitative research methods used. In particular, weekly comments were sought through a ‘graffiti board’ installed in the washroom of the toilet block. While this space was public in the sense that it was open to other office workers entering the washroom, users could anonymously contribute their thoughts by writing on the graffiti board when the washroom was empty if preferred (see Figure 2 graffiti board used to capture comments by UD users).

Figure 1 UD toilets installed at UTS (see online version for colours)

While the graffiti board was installed in both male and female washrooms, female participants provided significantly more feedback on the system than male participants. In the first month of the system being installed, females provided 188 comments in comparison to 44 comments from male participants. By the third month of the trial male participants had ceased to respond to the graffiti board altogether, unless prompted by the project team. This was in complete contrast to female participants who continued to comment on the system two years after the toilets were first installed. The project team decided to remove the graffiti board from the male washrooms after the initial stage of the trial and continue the social research with female participants only, who continued to provide weekly feedback on the UD toilets for the following year. The limited feedback from male participants was in part due to the fact that male users were more likely to use the urinals to urinate, therefore they had limited interaction with the UD toilets while in the workplace. Male participants also communicated differently in that their replies were short and to the point in comparison to female comments which tended to be conversational in nature [for further information see: Mitchell et al. (2013, p.27)].


Figure 2 Graffiti board used to capture comments by UD users (see online version for colours)

The graffiti board was designed as an anonymous social research tool. While one might be able to decipher individual handwriting and recognise the authors of anonymous commentary, there was little way of identifying participants beyond the clear gender differences discussed above.

The qualitative data analysed for this paper consists of 823 comments collated from the graffiti board, which was replaced weekly over eight months of data collection in the UTS trial. Voluntary participants (who had the option of using the UDT or conventional toilet) were asked one question: What do you really think about the UD toilet? Share your thoughts, reflections and arising issues in using the new toilet.

NVivo qualitative research software was used to manually analyse the data from the graffiti board drawing out emerging themes aligned to social practice theory. Transcripts of the comments were manually coded on the basis of references by participants to toileting drawing on the constituent elements of practices elaborated by Pantzar and


Shove (2010) e.g., how the user integrates materials (i.e., the toilet pedestal, toilet paper, water and flushing mechanism), skills (i.e., how to sit on the toilet to separate urine and faeces, how to place the paper in the back bowl) and images (i.e., expectations of freshness, odourlessness, cleanliness, removal efficiency and sewage-free interaction with the toilet) in using the UD system and reflecting on the experience.

The data was then analysed for patterns and variance across participants’ commentary to identify initial concepts associated with new practices. Recurring themes emerging from the data supported an explanation-building mode of analysis (Yin, 2003) in which barriers to and opportunities for supporting fragile new practices were identified. This approach was used to establish strong evidence for the inclusion of participatory qualitative research methods in socio-technical transition experiments to support the emergence of new practices.

4 Results/discussion

What emerged from the analysis were clear categories of differentiation in participants’ responses to trialling ‘sustainable’ innovation. Four distinct categories of feedback included:

• Reflection on existing socio-technical practices – where participants reflected on how new practices demanded by the system aligned or not with existing practices. For example, one participant noted, ‘I occasionally drop the toilet paper in the pee hole so have to think about placing it in the back-hole. This will be bad when I’m tired and not thinking’.

• Practical design advice and questions – where participants provided technical design advice to the researchers or asked explicit technical questions about the visible system and interface. For example, one male participant commented, ‘great concept, [but] this toilet is a little small for grown men’. In addition to practical design advice a subset of this category evolved to include speculative questions on the broader system where participants sought to locate their novel experiences within a larger system change. For example a number of participants asked about the efficiency rating of the toilet.

• Sharing new practices and insights – where participants commented on their experiences or raised questions about the appropriateness and functionality of the technology relevant to the social setting of the trial. In questioning the viability of the toilet in a private setting, one participant noted, ‘What’s interesting is that if I just throw the toilet paper in without looking, then it sometimes lands in the front pee-hole so it means looking every time… not very practical for a pee at home in the dark’.

• Sustaining practices – where participants shared particular insights about using the technology with the intention of support others’ successful experiences and helping to overcome technical problems in sustaining fragile new practices. For example in the following exchange, participants share insights about flushing the UD toilet: ‘Need to press half flush button for a decent amount of time – a quick press = doesn’t flush enough (user 1) My toilet paper flushes after first flush now that I remind myself to push the half button for a bit longer (user 2)’]’


Through the process of categorising the data and taking into account the changing rhythm of commentary over the timeframe of the project, clear insights were identified with regard to how participatory social research methods might support the emergence of new practices in socio-technical experiments. These insights include:

1 timing research to take advantage of the response from users while the experience of the system is still novel

2 employing an action research orientation in response to user feedback. This helped participants to feel as though their contribution was valued and helped to define the direction of the trial

3 encouraging collaborative feedback through peer engagement and social learning. This provided a sense of sharing and reciprocity and promoted social consensus in feedback; and

4 facilitating reflection through the graffiti board. This contributed to participants’ ability to articulate the tension between ‘new’ practices and ‘old’ practices.

The following section will expand on these four key insights in relation to feedback from the UTS trial.

4.1 Timing processes of engagement

Timing the process of engagement in socio-technical experiments is necessary to capture the sense of novelty inherent in adopting new practices in the use of innovative technologies in the initial stages of the trial. In trialling innovation in which new practices are required, participatory social research offers a way of taking advantage of the ‘window of opportunity’ which exists before the new practice becomes embedded in repetitive action and novel perspectives on the system are lost. The graffiti board was installed to coincide with the installation of the UD systems and capture immediate responses to using the system. This process of periodic intensive engagement over the first three months of the trial was further enhanced through provocations and prompts added to the graffiti board by the project team to sustain a sense of novelty. For example, one of the prompts during the trial included an explanation of the latest science suggesting microbes in soil had the potential to affect pharmaceutical residues in urine (see Table 1). Table 1 Information added to the graffiti board during the UTS trial

Did you know? There’s evidence to suggest that microbes in soil may be able to break down pharmaceutical residues in urine? Applying urine to land may be a safer way of managing urine than diluting and discharging wastewater containing pharmaceutical residues into our waterways… A recent study by Winker et al. (2010) found that the pharmaceutical Ibuprofen broke down in soil through microbial action, whilst others (e.g., carbamazepine) were detected in plant biomass. There’s definitely room for further research but if you want to know more about this, have a look at: Jonsson et al. (2004) Winker et al. (2010)


After two months of collecting weekly commentary, such additions to the graffiti board provided participants with information on the latest research on UD systems internationally. This information positioned the research project within a broader field of sustainability research and innovation and maintained the ‘visibility’ of the system as provisional and experimental while constructive engagement with participants was pursued. The intervention on part of the researchers proved to be productive in promoting re-engagement. It should be noted that the content of the intervention was culturally appropriate in that it was likely to be meaningful to this specific cohort of participants.

4.2 An action research orientation to research

Through a transparent process of planning, action and reflection, the technological system was open to change in response to user feedback. Participants were able to see the results of their contributions through actions taken and therefore perceived their contribution was influencing the direction of the project. As comments were made on the graffiti board, the project team implemented actions in response to those comments. One participant commented, ‘…It seems comments are taken seriously and results in new little tweaks!’ One of the significant outcomes of acting on user feedback was ‘tweaking’ the system to align with user needs and expectations of acceptable practice. For example appropriate cleaning implements were installed in the cubicles after feedback from users that the lack of toilet brushes made the system difficult to use. There was a flurry of tailored design suggestions as users anticipated problems in relation to the design of conventional toilet cleaning implements. As an additional result of these comments different toilet papers were also trialled to accommodate a lack of constraint on paper use in the conventional flush toilet scenario, which was causing problems for users and cleaners interfacing with the new system (see Figure 3 toilet paper trial). One user commented ‘I’m finding this a really good awareness raising tool. I never put any thought into how many squares of loo paper I was using – now I think about it to see if I really need it’. The interactive and responsive dimension of engagement created by the research tools affirmed individual perceptions of the system and invited creative collaboration.

Figure 3 Toilet paper trial using three different types of paper (see online version for colours)

Note: This included trialling 1ply, 4ply and recycled toilet paper


4.3 Supporting collaborative input through peer engagement and social learning

The significance of the social dimension of engagement was unforeseen in the original research design and the early stages of the UTS trial. As feedback commenced, a process of ‘conversational learning’ (Kolb et. al., 2002) was identified through:

1 peer engagement

2 social interaction.

Peer engagement, or more specifically consensus building through peer engagement, was defined in this project as a way in which users positioned their knowledge in relation to others and was recognised by the authors as a way of identifying the importance of recurring themes in the commentary through strong ‘me too’ moments. For example in discussing the need for more information about the broader system, three users supported each other’s comments and reinforced their belief that the project team should provide more information to users on the broader system. ‘(user 1)…provide a link where we can access more info (oh and updates on) (user 2) Agree great idea! (user 3) Where we are up to? is the phosphorous being collected yet? Where is it going? I’m getting interested! The identification of consensus building through peer engagement fortified the perception that users have a significant contribution to make when there is the opportunity for social engagement with other receptive users. This line of questioning can also be seen as part of a process of participants fashioning new ‘images’ about the closed-loop system and its broader meaning, in spite of its ‘invisibility’ at the point of interface. ‘How to’ information designs posted on the back of toilet doors included visual diagrams demonstrating the radical difference between the closed loop nutrient recovery system and the linear waste generating system.

4.4 The graffiti board: an unforeseen prompt for social learning

As the trial progressed the importance of social learning (i.e., users being able to share experiences and interpretations in the process of ‘normalising’ new practices) and feedback from participants became increasingly apparent. Social learning between participants contributed to a process of ‘culturing’ in which perceptions of new practices were shared, not only in relation to the use of the new technology, but also in terms of the meaning of the project more broadly. A positive bias was developed toward it. Largely, it was not a matter of whether the recovery and reuse of sewage via UDTs was acceptable, but rather how the nascent community of practitioners – the ‘users’ – could best facilitate it. This was revealed, validated (in anonymous discussion with other users) and sustained through the social research tools, which allowed new ideals to be cultivated in a protected space.

The graffiti board design became an important means of encouraging reflection and bringing normally tacit experiences into ‘discursive consciousness’ (Hobson, 2003; Giddens, 1984). It created a communal space that prompted conversations in which questions about the system were commonly answered among users. Weekly commentary provided a record of conversational learning and insight into how users had modified their practices over the trial period. User commentary ranged from disclosing experiences in use and problem solving to active inquiry into environmental and economic


possibilities of the systems installed. From an operational perspective users offered insights into system design, questioned the success of planned scale up and articulated thoughtful concerns about the long-term feasibility of the system in both public and private settings.

The process of social learning was not only important for sharing insights but was also identified by the authors as a way of sustaining new practices. For example, participants shared insights about using the technology to support others’ successful experiences and help overcome technical problems to support the (fragile) new practice. One example involved a participant conversation about how to physically use the toilet, which as a new system requires a good deal more attention than is usual. Three participants shared different approaches to using the system. ‘(User 1) If you wipe your hand in the front of your body you need to chuck it back or bring it around to make sure it makes it. It is a bit awkward and takes a bit of concentration. I don’t have any design ideas but maybe there are potential solutions! Thanks. (user 2) I think the trick is to tilt your pelvis back a bit – pelvis ‘back’ or ‘bottom down’ might be a better way to describe. (user 3) TIP! Don’t lean forward ☺’.

Conventions of graffiti commentary were quite easily transferred into this system and became a mechanism for frank and supportive social engagement. In this respect, the graffiti board could be understood as the ‘back-talk’ that Schön refers to in his definition of design as a reflective practice, made social and material [Schön (1983) p.79].

4.5 Reflection in action

Reflective practice, as defined by Schön (1983), is the capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of learning. In the process of reflection that was triggered by the graffiti board, participants questioned the existing system of sanitation that they brought with them in their normally tacit practices. It was as though the novelty of trialling innovation and reflecting on the issues arising from the experience illuminated a tension between new and old and triggered broader system inquiry. A recurring reference to the broader UD system in the data was one in which participants questioned the technical and sustainability profile of ‘normal’ toilets (e.g., conventional flushing toilets). As one participant commented, ‘What’s interesting is that the ‘normal’ toilets don’t always flush properly either!’.

While data collected from the graffiti board provided evidence of changing practices by participants, it is important to recognise that this evidence does not necessarily translate into a permanent change in practice. As one participant reflected on the conclusion of the trial, ‘Because all the social research tools are gone, I automatically put my paper in the front!!! I just forgot without all the prompts’. We therefore cannot assume that participatory methods of social research automatically facilitate new practices. What we can state however is that these approaches to social research facilitate reflection on the broader system to support social learning and peer engagement. They reflexively expose the existing system, which is normally withdrawn from attention and therefore open it to questioning in relation to ‘what could be.’

Implementing these types of participatory methods requires consideration of timing engagement to capture insights when the practice is still new for the user. Responding to commentary as a process of action research not only contributes to driving the direction of the research in a way which overrides a tendency toward technological determinism, but also provides participants with the feeling that their feedback is valued and their


contribution makes a difference. That innovation is a continuous, ongoing process (Pantzar and Shove, 2010; Gherardi, 2012) has important implications for design research for sustainability, reclaiming some ground from the idea that success equates with the effective diffusion of new ‘sustainable’ technologies and tipping the balance back in favour of people figuring out what change means in practice.

The normative intent to find ways to ‘scale up’ the UDT system gave way to situated social learning and the emergence of a collaborative practice of design research. This ameliorated some of the contingency problems commonly associated with action research (Kock, 2007), that its findings are not generalisable and can only evaluate changes made in the specific and unique context in which the research was conducted. New knowledge was generated within the ‘disclosive space’ (Spinosa et al., 1997) of the protected trial, in which participants integrated materials, skills and images in new toileting practice. None of these categories remained stable but rather continually co-evolved, allowing researchers insights into the flexibility of practices. ‘Materials’ were open to evaluation and understood as evolving rather than fixed; ‘skills’ were acquired over the time of the trial and new ‘images’ of the system were developed as expectations were challenged and modified.

5 Implications for managing transitions in sanitation

Intervening in socio-technical experiments and acting on feedback from users provides guidance on the direction a research program should take. In the UTS project an action research orientation led to a ‘tweaking of the system’ in which additional technologies (such as cleaning implements) were added and a stronger focus on alternative methods of urine collection (from waterless urinals rather than UD toilets) has resulted. This path-finding characteristic of action research in collaboration with users suggests that including qualitative methods in socio-technical experiments curtails attempts to prefigure project outcomes and means experiments are less likely to be framed in a deterministic fashion. The additional value of incorporating design in collaborative action research is that the details of socio-material practices are brought to the foreground with small incremental details of change identified rather than broad generalisations drawn from data in an inductive process. In sum, this research approach eked out a space within a multi-stakeholder transition experiment to develop some of the conceptual resources and tools needed to explore transitions in practice.

In this light we note that the research practice itself is a niche practice in that it fosters learning processes in relation to the use of a promising technology and could be said to have an enduring implication because it represents a novel approach that can now be replicated by the researchers involved on the basis of experience and ongoing dialogue. The project has led to a conceptualisation of an ongoing process of research innovation in which new practices are a key focus and therefore participants’ experiences have a critical role to play in developing new knowledge. Design interventions help to facilitate reflection on the part of participants involved in trialling new systems that require the practice of new knowledge (Escobar, 2013). This challenges the prevalent understanding of sustainable innovations as technological prototypes. Consequently, designing socio-technical experiments would require ‘users’ to be engaged, consulted and designed into the system rather than being considered as an afterthought in technology selection or a matter of ergonomic or psychological ‘fit’.


The responsive and reflexive research practice that evolved in this project, facilitated by the social research tools and the action research framing, allowed for the participants to contribute to the direction of the research and generated unforeseeable insights for the transdisciplinary research team, including for some a reconceptualisation of the language and practice of ‘innovation’. Knowledge is not ‘possessed’ but produced as a situated and socio-material practice in which practising is a constant source of innovation (Gherardi, 2012). In this respect, research practice itself is inside this innovatory process. In steering the sociomaterial dynamics of the experiment in small, incremental ways in response to participant feedback, researchers were agents of change in a dynamic field where learning was shared between users of the system and researchers (who were also system users), rather than passive observers of ‘social reality.’

6 Conclusions

In trialling alternative sanitation systems which require changes in everyday practices, engagement with ‘users’ is necessary to generate insights into how the system functions and the degree to which tension exists in the adoption of new practices. While new practices are never entirely new and always emerge in dynamic relation to ‘old’ practices, there is a need to reconcile these tensions in order to support change in socio-technical systems. The shift from resilient embedded practices to those more fragile, emerging practices presents a tension for users in which negotiation is required. Gherardi (2012 p.213) articulates this tension in changing practices as a factor which potentially determines innovation, “…in fact, the key determinant of innovation…is the tension between new and old knowledge: what has been called the ‘paradox of novelty’, that is, the tension between what has worked in the past and what could work in the future; a tension between exploitation of the knowledge already possessed and exploration of new fields of knowledge”.

Qualitative social research tools, such as the graffiti board utilised in the UTS trial support the collaborative development of new knowledge in socio-technical experiments by providing an anonymous space to expose and explore this tension. The process of social learning was sustained by engaging a sample of users who were motivated to support ‘sustainable’ innovation. In this case and with these participants “(c)ollective invention and problemsolving are absolutely part of the fun” [Pantzar and Shove, (2010), p.448]. Creating an environment conducive to social learning required developing feedback mechanisms and periodic triggers to sustain social engagement. While the non-average sample of participants were willing to accommodate the inconveniences of using first generation technology, this was important in order to capture insights on the novelty of the system and to maintain its experimental ‘visibility’. The contextual environment of the university trial and the exclusion of ‘public’ participants initially provided the space to ‘work out’ the socio-material issues associated with the system before any planned roll out on a larger scale and exposed the significance of site specific issues. In light of the emerging importance of social learning, it also afforded close attention to the ‘adaptive’ conversation between participants over time.

To conclude, the systems thinker Luhmann (1989) suggests that ecological relationality needs to achieve more social resonance and comments that, “to the extent that technological intervention changes nature and problems result from this for society, greater rather than less competence for intervention has to be developed, but practiced


according to criteria which include reaction on itself”. If transitions toward sustainability are to be facilitated as is currently being suggested by scholars in the transition management field, then this competency for reflexivity and engagement with the social implications of system change require consideration in any research on transitions to sustainability in practice.

References Berg, B. (2004) ‘Action research’, in Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences,

Pearson, London. Brown, V.A., Deane, P.M. et al. (2010) ‘Towards a just and sustainable future’, in Brown, V.,

Harris, J.A. and Russell, J.Y. (Eds,): Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination, Earthscan, London.

Cross, N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer Verlag, London. Crouch, C. and Pearce, J. (2012) Doing Research in Design, Berg, London. Escobar, A. (2013) Notes on the Ontology of Design – Draft Document [online]

http:www.awyerseminar.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/12/ESCOBAR_Notes-on-the-Ontology-of- Design-Parts-I-II-_-III.pdf (accessed 13 June 2014).

Findeli, A. (2001) ‘Rethinking design education for the 21st century: theoretical, methodological and ethical discussion’, Design Issues, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.5–17.

Gherardi, S. (2012) ‘Why do practices change and why do they persist? Models of explanations’, in Hager, P., Lee, A. and Reich, A. (Eds.): Practice, Learning and Change: Practice-Theory Perspectives on Professional Learning, Springer Verlag, Dordrecht.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, The Polity Press, Cambridge.

Hobson, K. (2003) ‘Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household consumption practices’, Local Environment, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.95–112.

Hoogma, R., Kemp, R. et al. (2002) Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management, Spon Press, London and New York.

Jonsson, H., Stintzing, A., Vinnerås, B. and Salomon, E. (2004) Guidelines on the Use of Urine and Faeces in Crop Production, EcoSanRes Programme and the Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Kemmis, S. and Taggart, R.M. (2005) ‘Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere’, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.): The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp.559–603, Sage Publications, London.

Kemp, R., Schot, J. et al. (1998) ‘Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.175–192.

Kock, N. (2007) The Three Threats of Organizational Action Research: Their Nature and Related Antidotes. Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, Springer Science and Business Media, New York.

Kolb, D.A., Baker, A.C. and Jensen, P.J. (2002) ‘Conversation as experiential learning’, in A.C. Baker, P.J. Jensen and D.A. Kolb (Eds.): Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation, Quorum Books, London.

Loorbach, D. (2007) Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development, International Books, Utrecht.

Lopes, A., Fam, D.M. and Williams, J. (2012) ‘Designing sustainable sanitation: involving design in innovative, transdisciplinary research’, Design Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.298–317.

Luhmann, N. (1989) Ecological Communication Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.


Midgely, G. (2003) ‘Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.7–30.

Mitchell, C., Fam, D. and Abeysuriya, K. (2013) Transitioning to Sustainable Sanitation: A Transdisciplinary Pilot Project of Urine Diversion, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney [online] http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/ Mitchelletal2013funny-dunnypilot.pdf (accessed 6 December 2013).

Pantzar, M. and Shove, E. (2010) ‘Understanding innovation in practice: a discussion of the production and re-production of Nordic walking’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.447–461.

Pohl, C. (2010) ‘From transdisciplinarity to transdisciplinary research’, Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.74–83.

Reckwitz, A. (2002) ‘Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.243–263.

Rip, A. and Kemp, R. (1998) ‘Technological change’, Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 2, pp.327–399, Batelle Press, Colombus, OH.

Schatzki, T.R. (2002) The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change, University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.

Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books Inc, USA.

Shove, E. (2004) ‘Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: a challenge for sustainable consumption’, in Reisch, L. and Røpke, I. (Eds.): The Ecological Economics of Consumption, pp.111–131, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Shove, E. (2010) ‘Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp.1273–1285.

Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2010) ‘Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life’, Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.471–476.

Spinosa, C., Flores, F. and Dreyfus, H. (1997) Disclosing New Worlds, MIT Press, Cambridge. Stokols, D. (2006) ‘Toward a science of transdisicplinary action research’, American Journal of

Community Psychology, Vol. 38, Nos. 1–2, pp.63–77. van den Bosch, S. (2010) Transition Experiments Exploring Societal Changes Towards

Sustainability, PhD, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, p.274. Warde, A. (2005) ‘Consumption and theories of practice’, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 5,

No. 2, pp.131–153. Wickson, F., Carew, A.L. et al. (2006) ‘Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and

quality’, Futures, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp.1046–1059. Willetts, J., Mitchell, C.A. et al. (2012) ‘Creative tensions: negotiating the multiple dimensions of a

transdisciplinary doctorate’, in Lee, A. and Danby, S. (Eds.): Reshaping Doctoral Pedagogies, Routledge, London.

Winker, M., Clemens, J., Reich, M., Gulyas, H. and Otterpohl, R. (2010) ‘Ryegrass uptake of carbamazepine and ibuprofen applied by urine fertilization’, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 408, No. 8, pp.1902–1908.

Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, London.


Notes 1 A transition management framework takes into consideration four clusters of activities i.e.,

a structuring the problem in question b developing coalitions of relevant stakeholders c implementing experiments and mobilising the resulting networks d monitoring, evaluating and learning lessons throughout the process (Loorbach, 2007).

2 Abductive thinking is a transformative way of thinking in the conditions of uncertainty that characterise participatory methods of social research. “Abductive thinking encourages us to think what might happen, or what might be the case, or what could happen if things were rearranged” [Crouch and Pearce, (2012), p.22].

Toilet practices and system change: lessons from a transdisciplinary research project

Documents

Transcript of Toilet practices and system change: lessons from a transdisciplinary research project