Scope, review, identify and engage
Enhanced legacy & sustainability
Scope, review, identify and engage
Scope vulnerability, risks, & impacts
This module outlines how to establish the foundations of your transdisciplinary lab, the first phase involved in applying the Tandem Framework. The module is organized into sections that cover the following issues: scoping; identifying stakeholders; aligning goals; values and building trust; and incorporating reflection and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL). These elements are revisited in a continuous learning loop. Each section includes clear goals, Tandem guiding questions, practical tools, and facilitation tips to support thoughtful design and implementation.
Tandem does not impose a formulaic approach. Indeed, experience has shown that a combination of methods is often most effective. Building transdisciplinary labs requires an iterative approach of active participation and reflection. In Tandem we call this scoping – gathering, analysing and assessing. The first question is how to identify and find the stakeholders who should be part of the process. Start by engaging relevant experts to explore their perceptions of risks and vulnerabilities. Use their insights to evaluate who is present and who should be included (remember that experts can refer to those with lived experience as well as traditional academic “experts”). Then continue to strengthen connections to ensure that the lab evolves to reflect the needs, values, and expertise of all participants. These steps create a strong foundation for meaningful co-production. This phase involves three aspects: scoping challenges and stakeholders, engaging stakeholders, and relationship building and aligning as a lab. These topics can be tackled asynchronously; they are deeply intertwined and mutually reinforcing.
As you step into this stage, reflect on the core modules that explored co-design not just as a method but as a mindset. Building a Transdisciplinary Lab within the Tandem Framework requires intentionality in how
collaborations are initiated, nurtured, and sustained. This intentionality can be expressed through personal qualities such as deep listening, patience, empathy, and flexibility. These virtues are essential for fostering the relational and regenerative aspects of co-design. These efforts lay the groundwork for meaningful engagement and sustainable outcomes.
By embracing these principles, designers can navigate the complexity of the front-end stage and foster meaningful collaboration with communities.
Questions
-
What local organizations and initiatives are already working on issues of climate resilience and related issues? Are there partnership opportunities? ±Partnership development
-
Who can provide climate (and non-climate) information? Which actors may be intermediaries or boundary partners to collaborate with in the co-production process (they may have been working in the region a long time, and created strong relationships with stakeholders which will enable better uptake and embedding of any processes)? Note that intermediaries may not be self-identifying in many contexts. What expertise can they provide? ±Partnership development
-
Which organizations, institutions or departments provide the relevant sectoral expertise and experience needed?
-
What gaps in skills or expertise may need to be filled through additional partnerships?
-
What are the greatest challenges within the decision context that do not allow safe living conditions or a good quality of life? What is the ‘lived experience’?
-
What are the socio-economic challenges in the region, (including factors beyond the control of decision-makers) e.g. that affect access to or management of particular resources?
-
What is the current use of climate information – what relevant climate services or reports are available with regards to other risks and impacts (disaster, environmental, social etc.)?
-
Which groups are impacted on the ground (e.g. at community level) and can provide representative voice(s)?
-
What are the different communities and activities at risk? How does vulnerability differ amongst groups and activities? Why are they vulnerable? Be open to sources of vulnerability that are not necessarily related to climate. E.g., related to dynamic social vulnerability.
-
Where are the most vulnerable areas and why are they vulnerable? Be open to vulnerability that is not necessarily related to climate. E.g., related to ecosystem services.
-
If there are other types of vulnerability (e.g. socio-economic) that are not necessarily related to climate, what drives this vulnerability?
-
Do climate or weather events and impacts affect/exacerbate these vulnerabilities, and if so, in what way?
-
Is there any risk of exacerbated vulnerability here or elsewhere, due to compound or cascading risks?
-
What language is used by different actors to describe the same concepts e.g., related to risk, vulnerability, resilience etc.? Can less technical (or local) language be used? How do these terms translate into the day-to-day work of actors? Can a shared understanding of different terms and their usage be reached? ±Communication