We live in a time of compounding ecological and social change. Given the uncertain and
urgent nature of ongoing transformations, contemporary forms of governance are
experiencing a central tension. The tension between controlling the present and nurturing
collective capacities to enact transformative change. Amidst a wave of interest in transitions
and transformations in-the-making, labs in real-world contexts have entered the discussion.
Labs have emerged as appealing, novel and highly complex entities that situate and localize
engagement around complex sustainability challenges. Labs carry a systemic view of
change; they comprise alternative and experimental approaches; they carry a normative
assumption that research has plural roles; and they hold an explicit learning orientation that
infuses knowledge with action.
Given the unfolding of labs in the real world, my involvement in their design, and ongoing
interests in treating both meanings and processes of sustainability, this thesis is organized
around a curiosity. Its overarching aim is to investigate how sustainability-oriented labs
could be unpacked, designed and evaluated in the context of sustainability transitions and
transformations. Underlaboured by a critical realist philosophy of science, this thesis
investigates sustainability-oriented labs by way of a qualitative-dominant, case-based
research strategy. It does this across three overlapping research phases, culminating in four
appended papers.
In research phase one, we adopt a systematic review of sustainability-oriented labs in real-world contexts, exploring and classifying a global sample of labs according to their
engagement with sustainability. In paper II, we identify and unpack 53 sustainability-oriented
labs in real-world contexts. Through a mixed-methods analysis, we explore the
distribution and diversity of these labs, discerning the research communities which
conceptualize labs and the dimensions of their practice. In Paper III, we present an
empirically grounded typology, arriving at six different types of sustainability-oriented labs:
1) Fix and control, 2) (Re-)Design and optimize, 3) Make and relate, 4) Educate and engage,
5) Empower and govern and 6) Explore and shape.
In research phase three, paper II presents a qualitative case-based inquiry into Challenge
Lab (C-Lab), a challenge-driven learning environment. Paper II conceptualizes challenge
framing as embedded within an open-ended learning process, both on a level of practice
and space. Experiences related to framing in C-Lab shed light on how students situate
themselves and see their role within existing challenges, how they navigate limits to
knowledge in complex systems, and how they self-assess their own sense of comfort and
progress. In addition, we introduce three dilemmas that are not owned by teachers or
students but emerge, as contradiction, within the learning space.
In research phase three, paper IV presents a multi-case comparison of evaluation practices
in various sustainability transition initiatives. We conceptualize and compare the role of
evaluation as a tool that can enhance the transformative capacity of sustainability-oriented
labs and its broader family of transition experiments.
This thesis and its appended papers provide practical-experiential, empirical-conceptual
and methodological contributions on the topic of sustainability-oriented labs in real-world
contexts. In addition, it contains a layered account of an undisciplinary doctoral journey. I
do this by (1) reflecting upon each research phase, (2) providing transparent accounts of
positionality in relation to my research, (3) conceptualizing and reflecting upon
undisciplinarity as a process of becoming, and (4) providing a mobile autoethnographic
account of staying on the ground as part of a broader commitment to interrogate
knowledge practices. Moving forward, I find myself motivated by three convictions: (1)
transformations are needed, and labs are invitations in between dualisms, (2) invitations
hold the possibility of flipping big assumptions and ethical practices, and (3)
transformations presuppose fundamental change from within both research and education
knowledge systems. They hinge upon the questioning of what both are, who they are for,
and what they might need to become. In conclusion, they compel us think big, start small,
and act now.