You may wish to begin your exploration with desk research, but to gain a deeper understanding of how people experience the problem – and the positive actions already underway – interviews, focus groups, and workshops with a range of stakeholders are essential.

Remember, your values and the values of your stakeholders will shape how you select and apply methods. Values influence how designers interpret and respond to ethical questions, how they support dialogue among participants, and how design ideas evolve throughout the process (Iversen et al., 2012). Designers rely on their judgment to navigate value tensions and use tools that encourage reflection and negotiation. In turn, the values that emerge help guide future method choices. It’s important to critically consider why a method is chosen and how it supports value-led design.

Generative methods, such as co-creation activities and collective making, are key to co-design. These creative, often playful approaches help people explore complex issues together (Sanders & Stappers, 2012; Langley et al., 2018). They make abstract or overwhelming problems more tangible and accessible. Examples include storytelling, prototyping, andvisualization. Playful methods can boost engagement (Iversen et al., 2012), while things like paper prototyping can build empathy and understanding (Lee & Park, 2021). Co-design also helps to flatten power differences by encouraging people to take turns, and share ownership of the process (Ferne, 2020; Tierney et al., 2021). These approaches lead to better design outcomes, but, importantly, they also make participation more meaningful and enjoyable (Davis et al., 2023).

Focus groups

Focus group discussions are a flexible method for gathering rich, in-depth insights. They can be embedded within workshops or run separately to explore specific topics. Such group discussions are used to explore participants’ perspectives, experiences, and ideas. They are especially useful for understanding diverse viewpoints and generating new knowledge. Unlike structured interviews, focus group discussions encourage open, dynamic exchange. There are two main styles:

Structured focus group discussions follow a set script and resemble interviews. They are useful for gathering specific data, but less suited for creative discussion.

Non-structured or semi-structured focus group discussions are more flexible and allow deeper exploration. These are better for co-production and are recommended for real world labs. Non-structured focus group discussions are traditionally organized with the “fishbowl” method, with chairs are arranged in a circle and people openly facing one another when responding to prompts and conversing. Researchers are placed among them in a non-hierarchical manner, as observers and participants.

It is possible to undertake activities to help facilitate and enable discussion, including:

• Free listing – asking participants to list and share things/opinions of a given topic
• Comparisons – asking participants to discuss the pros and cons of a suggested approach
• Ranking/sorting – giving the group a set of pictures / topics / terms / opinions and asking them to sort the items based on pre-selected criteria such as importance or category
• Serious play – using tools such as Legos, for example, to communicate information about engineering projects or to build a model of something under discussion to convey complex information
• Energizer activities – these are quick, engaging exercises used to boost energy levels in a group setting. Often employed at the start of workshops to set a positive tone, they can also be introduced at any point when the atmosphere feels sluggish. Examples include asking participants to stand up and stretch, do a quick shake-out, or play a fast-paced game like rock, paper, scissors to refresh focus and engagement.

Tips:

• • Start by clarifying your goal. What do you want to learn? Prepare three to five guiding questions and possible follow-up prompts. Share a simple one-pager with participants outlining the purpose and topics.
  • Use laptops with transcription software (e.g., MS Teams), plus extra microphones if needed. Store data securely in a pre-determined place, outlined in consent forms.
  • Supplement recordings with photos of flipcharts and observation notes.
  • After the formal discussion, share and validate findings with participants to ensure accuracy.

Surveys

Surveys can be helpful to collect data from many different individuals at a single point in time to gain a snapshot or overview, or from the same individuals several times over an extended period to understand changes. Surveys typically have two main forms of questions: open-ended and closed-ended. Many surveys use a combination of both.

Closed-ended questions have a predetermined set of answers to choose from. This can be a binary answer (yes/no or agree/disagree), a scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), a list of options asking for a single answer (age categories), or a list of options asking multiple answers possible (interests). Closed-ended questions are best for quantitative research. They provide numerical data that can be statistically analysed to find patterns, trends, and correlations.

Open-ended questions are best for qualitative research. Open-ended question have no predetermined answers to choose from. Instead, they give people an opportunity to write or draw responses that they generate.

When planning your survey it is important to consider:

• Wording: It is important to consider the wording of the question to make sure that it is clear, that it cannot be misinterpreted, and that it is not a leading in nature (seeking a predetermined answer).
• Order: It is also important to consider the flow of the questions. The question order can affect the responses participants give. It is often better to start with simple questions and end with more complex, sensitive, or controversial questions.
• Distribution – It is important to consider not only who you are asking to take your survey but how and when surveys will be conducted. Many surveys are now undertaken online, but this may impact who is able to participate. Consider paper surveys handed to your participants or in public spaces like libraries. Additionally, handing out surveys in workplaces or at the end of workshops may increase response rates.

Interviews

Interviews are a great way for researchers to build rapport with participants and tap in-depth insights from stakeholders. Interviews can be treated as purposeful conversations that explore the views, experiences, beliefs and/or motivations of individuals on specific matters.

There are three types of interviews:

• Structured interviews use a pre-determined list of questions that are asked in a specific order.
• Semi-structured interviews follow a general framework with a set of core questions, but allow for flexibility to explore responses in more detail.
• Unstructured interviews are more conversational and exploratory, allowing the interviewer to follow the interviewee’s lead and to explore emerging themes.

Interview questions do not have to rely solely on conversation. Asking participants to draw, write, or engage in a creative activity can help them express themselves in different ways. These techniques often make people feel more comfortable and can lead to richer, more revealing discussions.

Workshops

A workshop is a structured and interactive session, typically involving hands-on activities, group discussions, simulations, and collaborative exercises. In the facilitation chapter we covered a lot of considerations for planning and facilitating a workshop (including processes, room set up, and documentation).

Workshops can take many forms. Often the most impactful ones are those that break away from the conventional. Incorporating creativity into your workshop design can help participants feel more at ease, foster engagement, and ensure they leave with a sense of value and contribution.

It is a great idea to incorporate an ice breaker activity into the start of any workshop, these are a specific type of energizer activity, designed to help participants get to know one another and ease into group interaction. A nice example is ‘participant bingo’, where each person is given a bingo card with various actions or interests listed. Participants then mingle to find others who match those criteria, encouraging conversation and relationship-building.

In the DIRECTED project, we took a more creative approach to icebreaking. Participants were provided with a variety of materials, such as modelling clay and pipe cleaners, and posed a thought-provoking question to explore in teams. Each pair then used the materials to construct a creative response, sharing their interpretation with the wider group. This activity not only broke the ice but also encouraged playful collaboration and deeper engagement with the theme.

Additionally, integrating serious games or tabletop exercises can create structured opportunities for engagement and dialogue. Tools like “reflection chance cards” can prompt thoughtful reflection, while “veto tokens” can help formalize disagreements. This can turn potential conflict into a constructive part of the process, rather than something personal.

Remember, each workshop should conclude with a moment of reflection and evaluation. Re-visit the facilitation section to remind yourself of different evaluation options.

Here are some great resources to explore different workshop techniques:

• Arts-based methods for transformative engagement: a toolkit. (Pearson et al., 2018)
• Rapid games designing (rapidgamesdesign.info, 2020)
• Games for a new climate (Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, n.d.)

Cultural probes

Cultural probes are open-ended activities, prompts, questions and instructions for recording thoughts and feelings; such probes are given to a group of participants to learn more about their daily lives and environment. They are a great qualitative research tool and can be used when participants cannot make it to workshops, or when a workshop is not suitable for the insights you would like to solicit. Common cultural probes include diaries, maps, games, a disposable camera or photo album and media diary. This article is a good example of how a cultural probe could be used.

Once you have collected all your data, the next step is to extract meaningful findings and insights. There are six main approaches to qualitative analysis:

• Content analysis
• Thematic analysis
• Grounded theory
• Discourse analysis
• Narrative analysis
• Conversation analysis

For many projects, content analysis and thematic analysis are the most relevant and practical. This guide on qualitative research analysis provides a deeper look at each method.

Content analysis

Content analysis is particularly effective for examining interview or focus group transcripts, as well as documents, texts, and even images. It allows you to identify recurring patterns, themes, and concepts within the material – primarily through coding.

There are two main types of coding:

• Inductive coding: Codes emerge as you review the data. This is typically best for the initial round of analysis.
• Deductive coding: You begin with a predetermined set of codes. This method is ideal for follow-up or more structured rounds of analysis.

A common starting point is to establish a framework of high-level codes: broad categories that align with your research questions. For example, in the DIRECTED project, we coded interview transcripts using overarching themes such as challenges, goals, and ideas. These were then broken down into sub-codes that grouped related responses. Once coded, the data can be quantified to assess the frequency of different themes.

Thematic analysis

Thematic analysis often builds upon content analysis but can also stand alone as a more exploratory approach. Rather than starting with a rigid coding framework, themes may develop organically, arising from the data. This method focuses less on frequency and more on interpreting meaning and context.

A useful technique in thematic analysis is clustering, particularly when working with sticky notes or digital boards like Miro. By grouping related ideas through repeated iterations, patterns and themes naturally emerge. This process helps uncover deeper insights and a richer understanding of your data.

The next step is to make sense of your material. This part of the module focuses on how we can use systems mapping and stories to better understand the complexity of a given problem.

When tackling complex issues, there is always a risk of creating solutions that are too simple – and that can sometimes make the problem worse (Wallace, 2021). This is especially true when dealing with wicked problems because challenges are constantly evolving, hard to define, and difficult to solve (Rittel & Webber, 1973). These problems often involve hidden tensions, paradoxes, and deep uncertainty.

To address them effectively requires looking at the bigger picture. That means understanding how the problem fits into the wider system and where small, strategic changes might make the biggest difference. Generative and reflective mapping processes are key tools in this kind of systemic sensemaking and co-exploration of “What is?”

Why are wicked problems so WICKED?

Horn and Webber (2007) outline several reasons wicked problems are difficult to address:

• There is no single “correct” way to see the problem.
• People may have conflicting views, and they may propose contradictory solutions.
• Problems are often linked to other problems.
• Data might be incomplete or unclear.
• There are many value conflicts.
• Cultural, political, and economic constraints get in the way.
• Logic doesn’t always apply.
• Different types of reasoning may be needed.
• There are many possible intervention points.
• Consequences are hard to predict.
• There are high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity.
• Resistance to change is common.
• Problem-solvers may be removed from the people and places affected.

How can storytelling help?

Storytelling is a great sense making technique and way to communicate complexity. It allows for the construction of narratives that contextualize data in meanings, values, and perspectives, ultimately leading to a richer understanding of the research topic. Shared stories can also facilitate a sense of collective understanding, allowing participants to see how their different perspectives converge or diverge. Often storytelling is a great tool to use alongside a visualization, such as a systems map. Together they can provide a richer understanding of the data.

What is systems mapping and how can it help?

ystems mapping is a way to make sense of the messy reality of complex problems by visually mapping out key relationships and dynamics. It helps us understand not just the parts of a system, but how they interact to produce certain outcomes. In this way, a systems map acts like a living hypothesis: a working idea of where and how to intervene in order to create meaningful change. One of the most valuable insights that systems mapping offers is the identification of leverage points. These are places in the system where small, well-targeted actions can lead to significant and lasting improvements.

A systems map reflects our shared understanding of how a system works. It shows how inputs, outputs, outcomes, issues, trends, drivers, and actors interconnect. The type of map you choose will depend on your goals and the questions you’re trying to answer.

It is important to strike a balance between capturing complexity and keeping the map usable. And, remember, it is a living map. That is, the map is not intended to be perfect or final. It will shift and evolve as you continue to explore and learn.

Uncertainty is a core feature of complex systems, especially when unexpected events or feedback loops occur. This is something to keep in mind when exploring “What is?” Today’s challenges, such as climate change and disaster risk, are large, interconnected and complex that it is nearly impossible to fully predict their effects.

This is why a systems perspective is essential. Such an approach by its nature works across disciplines and includes a wide range of voices.

After any sense making exercise it is helpful to digitalize the outcome and allow participants access for a set period of time to allow for amendments and reflections. Additionally, it can be helpful to tidy up the recorded system map used for sensemaking and to revisit it with the lab for a sense checking exercise.

Revisit your theory of change together, thinking about the following:

• Are your intended impacts, outcomes, and outputs still relevant?
• Do your indicators still reflect what you are trying to achieve?
• Should anything be added, revised, or clarified?

Aim for consensus that things feel “good enough for now and safe enough to try.” When the group reaches that point, the group is ready to move into the next phase.

Remember, this is an iterative process. You can – and should – return to earlier stages at any point to reflect, revise, or realign as new insights emerge.

The Tandem framework has practical guiding questions to inform actors in working together to purposefully structure their transdisciplinary engagement, interaction, and collaborative learning. The questions are informed by the elements and characteristics identified in empirical cases (Bharwani et al., 2024) and earlier frameworks (Daniels et al., 2019, 2020).

* These exercises work well when building on the results from the previous exercise/phase or to feed into the next one, but most can also be applied at any stage of the process.

± Question is cross-cutting with another element and may provide useful inputs to it.

Structural

• Are there institutional- or policy-relevant “windows of opportunity” such as the potential to embed the climate service in legislative frameworks that can support its longterm sustainability?
• In the policy, planning and implementation landscape, what plans, projects and policies are in place or in the pipeline to address the adaptation issue(s) and climate impacts? Are these considered sufficient or is further work required to strengthen or broaden policies, projects or implementation?

• • How have such responses been funded and what opportunities exist for funding future projects? Is there a business case for action?

• What are the potential institutional and governance arrangements for the institutionalization of the climate service?

• Are there other knowledge systems that need to be considered and included in the design of the climate service e.g. research and practice-based knowledge, and indigenous knowledge? How can these be integrated or aligned?

• What decisions (e.g. at the policy, institutional or individual level) address the adaptation challenge and may benefit from a climate service or better climate information? How are these decisions made currently?

• What current and projected climate impacts interact with or exacerbate the adaptation challenge (or may do so in future)?

Mindset

• What is the urgency and magnitude of the adaptation challenge? Does public perception of the challenge and related issues provide an opportunity for action or do other trigger points exist?

• How can the value of the climate service be effectively communicated to higher level decision-makers, e.g. the economic and/or social benefits deriving from the use of the climate service?

• Are they considered credible and trusted by different actors and how are they used? If they are not trusted sources, why is this? How could trust be improved?

The everyday

• Which actors are responsible for the production, dissemination and management of climate data and information? Which actors require such information in what format? Which actor(s) could be responsible for administering the climate service or coordinating the necessary information sharing and packaging? Is there willingness and opportunity for partnership building, collaboration and coordination between these actors?
• Are there practical constraints to developing a climate service (e.g. time, budget, cultural, human and financial capacities)? How does this affect the aim of the climate service? How can these constraints be best addressed?How is the strategy to operationalise and institutionalize the climate service implemented? Which are the key actors with defined roles and responsibilities to take forward the strategy? Are there any capacity gaps that need addressing for this to occur?
• Is there any difference in representation (e.g., of men and women, other social identities or knowledge types) in their ability to influence the decision-making process?
• Has climate information (scientific or local/ traditional/indigenous) already been factored into climatesensitive decisions either at individual decision-making or policy making levels? If so, which decisions, how, when and by whom?
• Were there any limitations in the use/application of this information in these decisions? If so, what were they? Has other non-climate evidence been factored into these decisions?

• What existing weather or climate information is available from local providers e.g. meteorological departments, NHMS, private companies or research institutes? Are there any opportunities that can be identified to build on or adapt these existing services to address information needs? In addition to data availability, discussions about data access and sharing are important to uncover to assess opportunities for sharing data more widely or in different, innovative and more accessible ways

• What existing data and information is available, and are these trusted sources? Which actors hold this data and information?

• What are the limitations of currently available climate information? If no relevant climate information can be provided to date, are there non-climate services-related efforts with overlapping interests which could be explored/applied to partly address these concerns?

• Are there existing climate-related services (including environmental and meteorological monitoring services, early warning systems, indigenous or traditional forecasting measures) that have been used to reduce10. Are there existing climate-related services (including environmental and meteorological monitoring services, early warning systems, indigenous or traditional forecasting measures) that have been used to reduce

  • What are the shortcomings/gaps and benefits of these services for decision-makers? What actions have been informed by these services?

• What institutions have responsibility or mandates for the issues being discussed and for data production and sharing?
• How do adaptation solutions affect different stakeholder interests? Are there any synergies/mutual benefits and/or conflicts with other goals and policies?
• What planning tools or impact models are used and what are appropriate formats of climate information that could best be integrated or considered alongside such climate services?
  • Are there related capacity needs to interpret model outputs? E.g., due to a lack of suitable tools or limited technical expertise
• What other (non-climate) drivers of change, related to social vulnerability and socio-economic development trends, interact with or exacerbate the adaptation challenge (or may do so in future)?

Experimental

• What local research related to the adaptation challenges has been undertaken? E.g. to better understand climate impacts at the local scale or in relevant sectors?
• Is there adequate training and capacity development on these services? Is this too technical or specialist or not tailored enough to the local context? ±Capacity development
• Can examples from other cities or contexts help to spur possible adaptation measures?

• What existing solutions and recommendations can be identified? These may be the design and delivery of particular outputs, projects, policies, the strengthening of capacities through particular training or support, innovations in data sharing or the development of new partnerships or increased collaboration between institutions. Are these at appropriate temporal and spatial scales to address the adaptation issue(s) identified?

• How do adaptation solutions affect different stakeholder interests? Are there any synergies/mutual benefits and/or conflicts with other goals and policies?