아카이브학위논문박사논문(PhD Theses)

학위논문 Theses and Dissertations


NO.NO.D.2021.08_08

집합적 임팩트를 위한 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인 역량강화 에코시스템 개발 促进集体影响的内生性社区设计能力建设的生态系统开发 An Enabling Ecosystem of Capacity Building in Endogenous Community Design for Collective Impact

  • Name : 천타오(陈涛)/CHEN TAO
  • Info : 박사학위논문/博士学位论文/Doctor's thesis/ 2021.08
  • Adviser : 장주영/张洲宁/Chang,Juyoung
192.168.95.172

초록

오늘날 사회는 VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) 의 특징을 보이며 많은 '난제 (Wicked Problem)'를 만들고 있다. 이는 기존의 발전 경험과 모델로 당면한 도전에 대처하기 어렵다. 그 중에서도 가장 큰 도전은 현재 문제에 대한 대응책을 어떻게 디자인하는지가 아니라 지속적으로 대응하고 적응하며 혁신하는 내생 개발 수단을 디자인하는 것이다. 커뮤니티는 사회의 기초 요소이기 때문에 복잡한 문제에 대처할 때 사회혁신의 부화기가 될 수 있다. 커뮤니티 디자인은 더 이상 서비스를 제공하는 목적으로 인식되지 않고, 오히려 서비스 디자인에 더 폭넓게 참여하는 계기가 되고 있다. 많은 학자들은 이미 그것을 더욱 협조적이고 창조적이며 지속가능한 사회 혁신과 경제 수단으로 삼고 있으며, 특히 참여식 공동 창조와 협업 서비스 모델을 강조한다.
그러나 커뮤니티 디자인 연구 분야에서 오랫동안 디자인 전문가들이 주도해 온 디자인은 일반적으로 커뮤니티의 어떤 구체적인 문제를 ‘치료’ 한다. 이런 ‘치료식’ 커뮤니티 디자인은 단기간에 문제를 해결하는 데 효과적일 수 있다. 하지만 현재 커뮤니티의 문제가 복잡하고 역동적으로 변화하여 기존 디자인 모델은 새로운 문제에 대응하지 못해 새로운 갈등을 낳고 있다. 지속가능한 커뮤니티 디자인 방향은 지역 커뮤니티 내부의 디자인 방안으로부터 지속적으로 문제 해결을 촉진하는 것이다. 비록, 현재 커뮤니티 디자인에서 이해관계자가 참여하는 참여 디자인의 가치는 널리 인정받고 있지만 참여 디자인은 단기적인 활동이나 특정 프로젝트에 국한되어 장기적으로 각종 커뮤니티의 복잡한 문제를 해결할 수 있는 능력을 갖추지 못하고 있다. 하나의 합리적인 디자인은 협업과 혁신적인 해결방안을 실현하는 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인이다. 따라서 본문은 내생 개발 모델에 근거하여 커뮤니티 역량 강화 과정에서 단기적 디자인 관여(예: 라이프 프로젝트)와 장기적인 집합적 임팩트를 연구한다. 본 연구의 목표는 커뮤니티 역량 강화에 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인과 집합적 임팩트를 포함하는 역량강화 에코시스템 모델을 제공하는 것이다.
먼저, 본문은 내생 개발 모델 이론 연구를 접목해 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인 (ECD)을 제시하고, ECD의 개념과 요소를 명확히하고, ECD가 분산식 협업 혁신을 바탕으로 집합적 임팩트를 가져오는 디자인 모델임을 설명했다. 그 중 자체 조직 (CoPs)을 협업 혁신의 참여 주체와 분산식 협업의 주체로서 연구를 진행한다. 둘째, 자체 조직 참여자에 대한 연구는 커뮤니티 네트워크로, 분산식 협업에 대한 연구는 집합적 임팩트 (CI)로 심화한다. 커뮤니티 네트워크와 집합적 임팩트를 종합적으로 연구하는 것을 바탕으로, ECD의 세 가지 주요 측면인 참여자, 상호작용, 자원을 정리한다. 이는 커뮤니티 역량 강화에 참여자의 역량, 협업 상호 플랫폼, 자원 데이터베이스를 포함하는 연구 방향을 제공한다. 그 중 자원 데이터베이스 연구는 앞 두 가지 연구 분석 중 포함된다. 셋째, 참여자 역량 강화에 대한 연구이다(제5장). 본 연구는 메타 능력, 내생 메타 프레임워크 (EMF), 내생 디자인 시스템 모델 (EDSM) 과 툴 킷 (toolkit)을 포함하는 방법론을 제시했다. 기존 프레임 혁신과 엑스테닉스 혁신 방법을 결합하여 참여자 역량 강화 방법에 대한 구체적인 개발 디자인을 진행했다. 넷째, 활성화 상호작용 플랫폼 시스템에 대한 연구이다(제6장). 본 연구는 커뮤니티 운영 체제 (COS)를 커뮤니티 라이프 프로젝트 플랫폼으로 제시하고, 플랫폼 속 커뮤니티 자체 조직은 공동의 라이프 프로젝트를 둘러싸고 협업과 디자인을 전개한다. 이를 위해 본 연구에서는 협업 플랫폼 프레임워크, 라이프 프로젝트 개발 프로세스와 방법을 연구했다. 또 사회기술시스템 (STS) 과 연계해 ECD 시스템 중 커뮤니티 네트워크 과 협업 플랫폼을 분석했다. 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인의 전반적인 전략과 결합하여 지속 가능한 발전을 위한 역량강화 에코시스템 모델을 도출했다. 사례 실천을 통해 이론을 검증하여 이 연구가 참가자의 역량 강화을 촉진하는 데 효과가 있음을 입증했다.
커뮤니티 문제의 복잡성이나 지속가능한 발전의 관점에서 모두 시스템 디자인 측면에서 커뮤니티 디자인의 전체적인 방안을 제시하는 것이 필요하다. 이 연구는 내생 개발 모델을 디자인 가이드로 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인 하에 하나의 역량강화 에코시스템을 구축하기 위한 방안을 제시한다. 그것은 커뮤니티 내 여러 이해관계자들이 구조화된 협업 형태 (예: 라이프 프로젝트)를 활용해 공동 어젠다 아래의 구체적인 커뮤니티 문제 해결에 힘쓸 수 있도록 지원한다. 참여자들은 프로젝트 협업을 통해 대화를 촉진하고 상호학습하며 해결방안을 찾으며 이는 사회적 자본 및 커뮤니티 경험을 늘리는 데 도움이 된다. 본 연구는 내생적 커뮤니티 역량 강화와 집합적 임팩트의 결합을 탐구하여, 커뮤니티 생활권과 라이프스타일 변화를 위한 연구방법과 모델을 제공하고, 시스템 차원의 내생적 커뮤니티 디자인 연구의 공백을 메웠다.

摘要

当今社会以 VUCA(Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity)为特征,由此产生了很多“难题(Wicked Problem)”。现有的发展经验和模型难以应对当前的挑战。其中最大的挑战不是如何设计应对当前问题的对策,而是设计持续应对、适应和革新的内生开发手段。在应对动态复杂的问题时,社区作为社会的基本单位,可以成为社会创新的孵化器。因此,社区设计不再被认为是提供服务的目的,反而成为更广泛地参与服务设计的契机。许多学者已将其作为更加协调、创造、可持续的社会创新和经济手段,特别强调参与式共同创造和协作服务模式。
但是,社区设计在研究领域长期以来以设计专家为主导的设计,一般都会"治疗"社区的某个具体问题。这种"治疗式"社区设计在短期内可以有效解决问题。但是现在社区的问题变得复杂而且活跃,现有的设计模式因无法应对新问题而引发了新的矛盾。可持续的社区设计方向是从地区社区内部的设计方案持续促进问题的解决。虽然目前在社区设计中利害关系者参与的参与设计的价值得到广泛认可,但参与设计仅限于短期活动或特定项目,不具备长期解决各种社区复杂问题的能力。一个合理的设计是实现合作和革新解决方案的内生社区设计。因此,本文根据内生开发模式,在加强社区力量的过程中,研究短期设计干预(例如生活项目)和长期的集合影响。本研究的目标是提供包括加强社区力量的内生社区设计和集合影响在内的力量强化生态系统模型。
首先,本文结合内生发展模型的理论研究,提出了内生社区设计(ECD),阐明了ECD的概念和要素,阐述了ECD是一种基于分散式协作带来集体影响的设计模式。其中,将以自身组织(CoPs)作为协作革新的参与主体和分散式合作的主题来研究。第二,对自身组织参与者的研究通过社区网络,对分散式合作的研究将深化到集合性影响(CI)。以综合研究社区网络和集合性影响为基础,整理ECD三个主要方面的参与者、相互作用、资源。这为强化社区力量提供了包括参与者的力量、合作相互平台、资源数据库在内的研究方向。其中,资源数据库研究包括在前两种研究分析中。第三,进行加强对参与者力量的研究(第5章)。本研究提出包括元能力、内生元框架(EMF)、内生设计系统模型(EDSM)和工具包(toolkit)的方法论。结合现有的框架革新和革新方法,对强化参与者力量的方法进行了具体的开发设计。第四,关于激活互动平台系统的研究(第6章)。本研究将社区操作系统(COS)作为社区生活项目平台,平台中的社区自身组织围绕共同的生活项目展开合作和设计。为此,本研究进行了合作平台框架、生活项目开发过程和方法研究。另外,还与社会技术系统(STS)联系,分析了ECD系统中与社区网络的合作平台。结合内生性社区设计的整体战略,导出了可持续发展的力量强化生态系统模型。通过事例实践验证理论,证明了该研究对促进参加者力量强化有效果。
无论是从社区问题的复杂性,还是从可持续发展的角度来看,都需要在系统设计层面采取整体性的社区设计方法。在内生性发展模式的指导下,本研究提出了一种整体方法,在内生社区设计下构建一个动态的生态系统。它支持多个利益相关者使用结构化的协作形式(例如,生活项目)在共同议程下解决特定的社区问题。参与者合作开展项目,以促进对话、相互学习并寻找有助于增加社会资本和社区经验的当地解决方案。本研究探索了社区内生能力建设与集体影响力的结合,为社区亲近生活圈的形成贡献了研究方法和模型,填补了社区内生性设计系统层面研究空白。

Abstract

Maximalism, a tool that expresses new and creative images with unlimited imaginations and experimental designs, has settled down as a fashion domain. Maximalism fashion pursues limitless thinking and maximalism by solidifying distinct image and diversity. Especially, increasing people in the contemporary society lay stress on individuality, crave excitement, and enjoy bold fashion style. Maximalist expression is developing into a new expression method that meets the needs of the time. There is a recent trend of personal media, where individuals create daily fashion content for social media using a smartphone to show off their individuality. Such phenomena are instigating the fashion overheating phenomenon, seeking for what is more exaggerative and maximal. Along with such a tendency, maximalism fashion pioneers a new domain of fashion in the 21st century. Accordingly, this study aims to pay attention to maximalism fashion by actively reflecting fashion trends. This study analyzes clothes that appear in fashion collections from the maximalist perspective, examines changes in such clothes, and finds the differences in the maximalist expression methods according to time. In addition, this study attempted to reveal expressive characteristics by looking into the frequency and trend of maximalism fashion design elements and analyzing these elements according to formative characteristics. By doing so, this study intends to derive aesthetic values of maximalism fashion and inquire the true internal meaning of maximalism fashion expressed in contemporary fashion.
A literature review was done on books and previous studies about dress history and dress aesthetics to consider books and historical records handling the theoretical concept of maximalism. An empirical study was carried out to examine the frequency of appearance and trend of changes in each type of maximalism fashion and fashion design elements. Data collected for the study ranged from S/S collections of 2010 to F/W collections of 2020, limited to the world’s four major collections in the last 11 years. A panel of experts was formed to secure the objectivity and verify the reliability of data analysis, and 403 collections were selected at last. The formative characteristics of maximalism fashion analyzed through previous studies are expansion, decoration, mixture, and non-structure.
First, the ambiguity of ego expression has the effect of hiding the inner anxiety and drawing the attention and awe of viewers by expressing the psychology devastated from the removal of places where one can reveal inner ideology or thoughts through exaggerative clothes.
Second, the reinterpretation of ideal beauty of the time results from the adoption of ideal beauty of each time period by contemporary fashion designers. They use ideal beauty as a tool to imprint their identity and arouse interest, mainly using exaggerative clothes to make one think that the body has been expanded by the exaggerated external image, gaining confidence and expanding ego with the improved external image.
Third, the expression of recurrent decorative beauty accomplishes the intended aesthetic expression by pursuing excessive decorations, feeling superior to others by seeking beauty differentiated from realistic beauty, and creating an illusion that one exists in a different time and space.
Fourth, the fantasy of amusing expression makes viewers giggle because of the unique impromptu. Topics that can be seen as heavy are delivered lightly through amusing expression, and this value can be used as a tool to embrace and persuade more people.
Fifth, the exceptionality of message delivery becomes a powerful weapon for delivering a message that a designer wants to express by expressing the message using an exceptional visual effect.
Modernization intensifies individualism, and human nature is to escape from reality and believe what is seen by expressing the devastated, alienated ego with splendid decorations. By maximizing the expression of the inner ego and accepting an exaggerated and decorated image for inner expansion, people who wear maximalist clothes can expand their physical abilities and console the body and mind by seeking psychological relief and confidence. Maximalism fashion can be seen as a tool that materializes the emotions desired by consumers in contemporary society, reaching beyond the commercial aspect of the fashion industry craved by consumers. In particular, studies on maximalism fashion must be continued from the perspective of understanding the recovery of human nature, vicarious satisfaction through clothing, and psychological reward. The author expects that this study would build the foundation of maximalism fashion and be used for creative design and analysis in the field of contemporary fashion.

키워드

  • #내생적 커뮤니티 디자인
  • # 집합적 임팩트
  • # 커뮤니티 역량 강화
  • # 라이프 프로젝트
  • # 역량강화 에코시스템

  • #内生性社区设计,集体影响,社区力量强化,生活项目,生态系统激活

  • #Endogenous community design
  • # Collective impact
  • # Community capacity building
  • # Life projects
  • # Enabling ecosystem

참고문헌

[Book]

Aghion, P., et al., Endogenous growth theory, MIT press, 1998
2. Bauman, Z., Liquid life, Polity, 2005
3. Bauman, Z., Liquid modernity, John Wiley & Sons, 2013
4. Cai, W., et al., Extenics and Innovation Methods, CRC Press, 2019
5. Christian, D., Maps of time: An introduction to big history. Vol.2, Univ of California Press, 2011
6. DeWitt, R., Worldviews: An introduction to the history and philosophy of science, John Wiley & Sons, 2018
7. Dorst, K., Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design, MIT press, 2015
8. Edmondson, J. and N.L. Zimpher, Striving together: Early lessons in achieving collective impact in education, SUNY Press, 2014
9. Ferguson, P.P., The weight of the world: social suffering in contemporary society, Polity Press, 1999
10. Gardner, H., Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other peoples minds, Harvard Business Review Press, 2006
11. Giddens, A., Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, John Wiley & Sons, 2013
12. Hanleybrown, F., J. Kania, and M. Kramer, Channeling change: Making collective impact work, FSG, 2012
13. Harari, Y.N., Sapiens: A brief history of humankind, Random House, 2014
14. Harari, Y.N., 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Random House, 2018
15. Jégou, F. and E. Manzini, Collaborative services. Social innovation and design for sustainability, Vol. 1. Polidesign, 2008
16. Kania, J. and M. Kramer, Collective impact, FSG, 2011
17. Manzini, E., Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation, MIT press, 2015
18. Manzini, E., Politics of the Everyday, Bloomsbury Visual Arts Press, 2019
19. Meroni, A. and D. Sangiorgi, Design for services, Gower Publishing, Ltd, 2011
20. Nisbett, R.E., Mindware: Tools for smart thinking, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015
21. Norman, D.A., Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, Basic Civitas Books, 2004
22. Osborn, A.F., Applied Imagination; Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-solving, Scribner, 1963
23. Papanek, V., Design for the real world (2 ed), London: Thames & Hudson, 2006
24. Parker, S. and S. Parker, Unlocking innovation (pbk.): why citizens hold the key to public service reform, Demos, 2007
25. Popper, K.R., Objective knowledge, Vol. 360, Oxford University Press Oxford, 1972
26. Schuler, D. and A. Namioka, Participatory design: Principles and practices, CRC Press, 1993
27. Sennett, R., Together: The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation, Yale University Press, 2012
28. Simon, H.A., The Science of the Artificial, M.I.T. Press, 1969
29. Sinek, S., Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action, Penguin, 2009
30. Trist, E.L., The evolution of socio-technical systems, Vol. 2, Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre Toronto, 1981
31. Tsurumi, K., Tadashi Kawata,, Endogenous Development Theory, Tokyo University Press, 1989
32. Tsurumi, K., The Application of Endogenous Development Theory, Tokyo, Japan: Chikuma Shobo, 1996
33. Westall, A., P. Ramsden, and J. Foley, Micro-entrepreneurs: creating enterprising communities, Institute for Public Policy Research, 2000
34. Whitbeck, C., Ethics in engineering practice and research, Cambridge University Press, 2011
35. Yamazaki, A., Community Design No Jidai Jibun Tachi De "MACHI" Wo Tsukuru, CHUOKORON- SHINSHA Press, 2012
36. Yin, R.K, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, London, 2003; 5th ed., 2014

[Academic Journal]

1. Archer, L.B., Systematic method for designers. Design, 1964: pp. 56-59.
2. Arnstein, S.R., A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 1969. 35(4): pp. 216-224.
3. Baek, J.S., A. Meroni, and E. Manzini, A socio-technical approach to design for community resilience: A framework for analysis and design goal forming. Design Studies, 2015. 40: pp. 60-84.
4. Bennis, W. and B. Nanus, The strategies for taking charge. Leaders, New York: Harper. Row, 1985. p. 41.
5. Biggs, C., C. Ryan, and J. Wiseman, Distributed Systems: A design model for sustainable and resilient infrastructure. 2010.
6. Bjögvinsson, E., P. Ehn, and P.-A. Hillgren, Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design issues, 2012. 28(3): pp. 101-116.
7. Boisier, S., Is there room for local development in a globalized world? cepal Review, 2005.
8. Bostrom, R.P. and J.S. Heinen, MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS quarterly, 1977: pp. 17-32.
9. Boutellier, H., The Improvising Society: Social Order in a World without Boundaries. The Hague: Eleven, 2013.
10. Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and M.M. Stone, The design and implementation of Cross‐Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public administration review, 2006. 66: pp. 44-55.
11. Buchanan, R., Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 1992. 8(2): pp. 5-21.
12. Buchanan, R., Thinking about design: An historical perspective, in Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. 2009, Elsevier. pp. 409-453.
13. Buchanan, R., Worlds in the making: Design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2015. 1(1): pp. 5-21.
14. Burgess, S.M. and J.-B.E. Steenkamp, Marketing renaissance: How research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2006. 23(4): pp. 337-356.
15. Burns, C., et al., RED paper 02: Transformation design. London: Design Council, 2006.
16. Butcher, H., Towards a model of critical community practice. Critical community practice, 2007: pp. 51-76.
17. Byrne, E. and S. Sahay, Participatory design for social development: A South African case study on community-based health information systems. Information technology for development, 2007. 13(1): pp. 71-94.
18. Cabaj, M. and L. Weaver, Collective impact 3.0: An evolving framework for community change. Waterloo, ON: Tamarack Institute, 2016.
19. Cafer, A., J. Green, and G. Goreham, A Community Resilience Framework for community development practitioners building equity and adaptive capacity. Community Development, 2019. 50(2): pp. 201-216.
20. Cardoso, F.H., et al., Another development: Approaches and strategies. 1977.
21. Ceschin, F. and I. Gaziulusoy, Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design studies, 2016. 47: pp. 118-163.
22. Chen, T. and J.Y. Chang, Research on Endogenous Design System Model for Building Collective Capability in Community Service Design-Based on Integrated Theories of Design. THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF SCIENCE & ART, 2020. 38(5): pp. 491-504.
23. Chen, T. and J.Y. Chang, Community Design Process for Enhancing Collaborative Capability. 한국디자인포럼, 2020. 68: pp. 65-76.
24. Chen, T. and J.Y. Chang, Research on Elements of Community Design Process Based on Meta-design Perspective. 한국디자인문화학회지, 2020. 26(1): pp. 467-481.
25. 천타오 and 장주영, “디자인 공동창조를 위한 커뮤니티 지식 플랫폼에 관한 연구-필요요소와 방법의 제안”. 『한국기초조형학회 학술발표논문집』, 2019. 2019(2): pp. 443-446.
26. 천타오 and 장주영, “커뮤니티 디자인에 있어서 협업 역량의 특성에 관한 연구”. 『한국기초조형학회 학술발표논문집』, 2020. 2020(1): pp. 107-110.
27. 천타오 and 장주영, “내생적 발전이론에 기초한 커뮤니티 디자인 개념 연구”. 『한국기초조형학회 학술발표논문집』, 2020. 2020(2): pp. 191-194.
28. Chandra, M. and J.P. Neelankavil, Product development and innovation for developing countries: potential and challenges. Journal of Management Development, 2008.
29. Cheshire, L., J.E. Pérez, and M. Shucksmith, Community resilience, social capital and territorial governance. Ager: Revista de estudios sobre despoblación y desarrollo rural= Journal of depopulation and rural development studies, 2015(18): pp. 7-38.
30. Cipolla, C., Creative Communities as relational innovations: a service design approach. 2008.
31. Cottam, H. and C. Leadbeater, RED paper 01: Health: Co-creating services. London: Design Council, 2004.
32. Craig, G., Community capacity building: critiquing the concept in different policy contexts. Challenging capacity building, 2010: pp. 41-66.
33. Craig, G., M. Gorman, and I. Vercseg, The Budapest declaration: Building European civil society through community development. Community Development Journal, 2004. 39(4): pp. 423-429.
34. De Moor, A., A community network ontology for participatory collaboration mapping: towards collective impact. Information, 2018. 9(7): p. 151.
35. Elden, M. and M. Levin, Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. Participatory action research, 1991: pp. 127-142.
36. Ennis, G. and M. Tofa, Collective impact: A review of the peer-reviewed research. Australian Social Work, 2020. 73(1): pp. 32-47.
37. Esnault, L., R. Zeiliger, and F. Vermeulin, On the use of actor-network theory for developing web services dedicated to communities of practice. Practice, 2006: pp. 298-306.
38. Etzioni, A., Creating good communities and good societies. Contemporary Sociology, 2000. 29(1): pp. 188-195.
39. Fischer, G. and E. Giaccardi, Meta-design: A framework for the future of end-user development, in End user development. 2006, Springer. pp. 427-457.
40. Fischer, G. and T. Herrmann, Meta-design: transforming and enriching the design and use of socio-technical systems, in Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World. 2015, Springer. pp. 79-109.
41. Giaccardi, E., PRINCIPLES OF METADESIGN Processes and Levels of Co-Creation in the New Design Space, 2003.
42. Gillam, R. and J. Counts, The intangibles: What it takes for a backbone organization to succeed, in Using collective impact to bring community change, 2018, Routledge. pp. 56-75.
43. Greenbaum, J., A Design of One's Own: Towards Participatory Design in the US. DAIMI Report Series, 1991. 20(375).
44. Hevner, A.R., et al., Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 2004: pp. 75-105.
45. Hillgren, P.-A., A. Seravalli, and A. Emilson, Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. CoDesign, 2011. 7(3-4): pp. 169-183.
46. Hillier, B. and A. Leaman, Architecture as a discipline. Journal of Architectural Research, 1976: pp. 28-32.
47. Hussain, S., E.B.-N. Sanders, and M. Steinert, Participatory design with marginalized people in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities experienced in a field study in Cambodia. International Journal of Design, 2012. 6(2).
48. Huxham, C. and D. Macdonald, Introducing collaborative advantage: Achieving inter‐organizational effectiveness through meta‐strategy. Management decision, 1992.
49. Jar-Der, C., Self-organization: The third governance model beside market and hierarchy. Comparative Management, 2010. 2(2): pp. 1-12.
50. Keast, R. and M. Mandell, The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. Journal of management & governance, 2014. 18(1): pp. 9-28.
51. Keast, R., et al., Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public administration review, 2004. 64(3): pp. 363-371.
52. Kniberg, H., Making sense of MVP (Minimum Viable Product)–and why I prefer Earliest Testable/Usable/Lovable. Crisp’s Blog. Päivitetty, 2016. p. 25.
53. Koen, P.A., et al., Fuzzy front end: effective methods, tools, and techniques. The PDMA toolbook, 2002. 1: pp. 5-35.
54. Korhonen, J. and T.P. Seager, Beyond eco‐efficiency: a resilience perspective, Wiley Online Library, 2008.
55. Ladino, P., et al., A Conversation with Bruce Mau. Catalyst Strategic Design Review, 2011.
56. Leong, B.D. and H. Clark, Culture-based knowledge towards new design thinking and practice—A dialogue. Design Issues, 2003. 19(3): pp. 48-58.
57. Lynn, J., When Collective Impact has an Impact. 2018.
58. Mandell, M.P. and R. Keast, Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks: Developing a framework for revised performance measures. Public Management Review, 2008. 10(6): pp. 715-731.
59. Manzini, E., Creative Communities and the Diffused Social Enterprise. Schumacher Lecture Series, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, 2006.
60. Manzini, E., Small, local, open and connected. Sustainability in Design: Now!, 2010: p. 14.
61. Manzini, E., Error‐Friendliness: How to Deal with the Future Scarcest Resource: the Environmental, Social, Economic Security. That is, How to Design Resilient Socio‐Technical Systems. Architectural Design, 2012. 82(4): pp. 56-61.
62. Manzini, E., Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design issues, 2014. 30(1): pp. 57-66.
63. Manzini, E., Design culture and dialogic design. Design Issues, 2016. 32(1): pp. 52-59.
64. Manzini, E., Covid-19 and social innovation: Contactless sociability and hybrid communities of place. Retrieved July, 2020.
65. Manzini, E. and M.K. M'Rithaa, Distributed systems and cosmopolitan localism: An emerging design scenario for resilient societies. Sustainable Development, 2016. 24(5): pp. 275-280.
66. Manzini, E. and F. Rizzo, Small projects/large changes: Participatory design as an open participated process. CoDesign, 2011. 7(3-4): pp. 199-215.
67. March, S.T. and G.F. Smith, Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision support systems, 1995. 15(4): pp. 251-266.
68. Margolin, V. and S. Margolin, A “social model” of design: Issues of practice and research. Design issues, 2002. 18(4): pp. 24-30.
69. Maslow, A.H., A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 1943. 50(4): p. 370.
70. Maturana Humberto, R. and J. Varela Francisco, Autopoiesi e cognizione. La realizzazione del vivente, Marsilio Editore, Venezia, 2001.
71. Mayan, M., et al., The promise of collective impact partnerships. Community Development Journal, 2020. 55(3): pp. 515-532.
72. Meadows, D.H. and D. Wright, Thinking in systems: a primer Chelsea Green Publishing. White River Junction, Vermont, 2008. p. 13.
73. Meliadou, A., et al., Prioritising coastal zone management issues through fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Journal of environmental management, 2012. 97: pp. 56-68.
74. Moreno, L.A. and E.R. Villalba, Transdisciplinary Design: Tamed complexity through new collaboration. Strategic Design Research Journal, 2018. 11(1): pp. 42-50.
75. Morton, L.W., S.D. Eigenbrode, and T.A. Martin, Architectures of adaptive integration in large collaborative projects. Ecology and Society, 2015. 20(4).
76. Ni, M. and M. Zhu, Open Your Space: Design Intervention for Urban Resilience. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 2017.
77. Norman, D.A., Affordance, conventions, and design. interactions, 1999. 6(3): pp. 38-43.
78. Norman, D.A., Living with complexity. MIT Press, 2011.
79. Noya, A. and E. Clarence, Community capacity building: fostering economic and social resilience. Organisation for economic cooperation and development, 2009: pp. 26-27.
80. Oosthuizen, R. and L. Pretorius, Assessing the impact of new technology on complex sociotechnical systems. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2016. 27(2): pp. 15-29.
81. Peffers, K., et al., A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 2007. 24(3): pp. 45-77.
82. Prell, C., et al., If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2007. 32(3): pp. 263-282.
83. Provan, K.G. and H.B. Milward, Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public‐sector organizational networks. Public administration review, 2001. 61(4): pp. 414-423.
84. Reitan, T.C., Theories of interorganizational relations in the human services. Social Service Review, 1998. 72(3): pp. 285-309.
85. Ries, E., Minimum viable product: a guide. Startup lessons learned, 2009.
86. Rittel, H.W. and M.M. Webber, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 1973. 4(2): pp. 155-169.
87. Robinson, J.B., Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy policy, 1982. 10(4): pp. 337-344.
88. Rynes, S. and R.P. Gephart Jr, From the Editors: Qualitative Research and the" Academy of Management Journal". The Academy of Management Journal, 2004: pp. 454-462.
89. Salignac, F., et al., Understanding collective impact in Australia: A new approach to interorganizational collaboration. Australian journal of management, 2018. 43(1): pp. 91-110.
90. Sanders, E. and P. Stappers, Convivial Toolbox: generative design research for the fuzzy front end. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam, 2013.
91. Schuler, D., Community networks: building a new participatory medium. Communications of the ACM, 1994. 37(1): pp. 38-51.
92. Schumpeter, J.A., The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (1912/1934). Transaction Publishers.–1982.–January, 1982. 1: p. 244.
93. Seyfang, G. and A. Smith, Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental politics, 2007. 16(4): pp. 584-603.
94. Shim, S.-J.H.Y.-H., Social Governance as a Process of Structuration: From the Sungmisan Bottom-up Movement to the Seoul City Policy of Neighborhood Community Reconstruction. Social Governance in Korea and China, 2019: pp. 15-33.
95. Sianipar, C.P., et al., Design methodology for appropriate technology: Engineering as if people mattered. Sustainability, 2013. 5(8): pp. 3382-3425.
96. Swink, M., Building collaborative innovation capability. Research-technology management, 2006. 49(2): pp. 37-47.
97. Tarozzi, G. and A. Van Der Merwe, Open Questions in Quantum Physics. 1985.
98. Thorpe, A. and E. Manzini, Weaving people and places: Art and design for resilient communities. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2018. 4(1): pp. 1-10.
99. Tremblay, D.-G. and V. Psyché, Analysis of processes of cooperation and knowledge sharing in a community of practice with a diversity of actors. Computer Science and Information Systems, 2012. 9(2): pp. 917-941.
100. Tress, G., B. Tress, and G. Fry, Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 2005. 20(4): pp. 479-493.
101. Van der Ploeg, J.D. and D. Roep, Multifunctionality and rural development: the actual situation in Europe. Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development, 2003. 3: pp. 37-54.
102. Walker, G.H., et al., A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control paradigms. Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 2008. 9(6): pp. 479-499.
103. Walls, J.G., G.R. Widmeyer, and O.A. El Sawy, Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information systems research, 1992. 3(1): pp. 36-59.
104. Wenger, E., Communities of practice: A brief introduction. 2011.
105. Wenger, E., B. Trayner, and M. De Laat, Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Rapport, 2011.
106. Williams, P. and M. Stemper, Collaborative product commerce–the next frontier–the next big differentiator for technology companies will be the ability to harness collaboration for new-product development. Many of the tools exist today. Internation Journal of Supplier Chain Management, 2002(1311): p. 31.
107. Wolff, T., Ten places where collective impact gets it wrong. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 2016. 7(1): pp. 1-13.
108. Woodward, S., et al., Better simulation modelling to support farming systems innovation: review and synthesis. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 2008. 51(3): pp. 235-252.
109. Zuckerman, S.J., Making sense of place: A case study of a sensemaking in a rural school-community partnership. 2019.
110. Zeschky, M., B. Widenmayer, and O. Gassmann, Frugal innovation in emerging markets. Research-Technology Management, 2011. 54(4): pp. 38-45.

[Website]

1. The United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) (ECOSOC1582L), https://www.uncrd.or.jp/hs/index.php?menu=368, (2020.11.22).
2. Collective Impact Principles of Practice,
https://www.collectiveimpactforum.org/resources/collective-impact-principles-practice, (2021.05,31)
3. Iza! Kaeru Caravan! http://kaeru-caravan.jp/en, (2021.05.31).