Assessment of the best fit methodology (DE or PAR) for the reviewed studies
| Publication | Best fit (DE or PAR) | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Junyent and de Ciurana (2008) | PAR | The research involved extensive collaboration across multiple universities with a focus on transformative, iterative processes for sustainability education, aligning well with PAR’s principles |
| Kawabe et al. (2013) | DE | Appears to take a philosophically pragmatic approach. Focused on social learning and adaptive capacity in coastal governance, where DE’s strengths in handling complex, dynamic environments and real-time adaptation make it a better fit than PAR |
| Maritz (2017) | DE | Aimed to develop and validate entrepreneurship education programs through iterative research and practical applications, making DE’s real-time feedback and flexibility potentially a better fit than PAR. Explicit consideration of complexity and its characteristics may have added further insight regarding interactions |
| McMahon and Bhamra (2012) | PAR | Focused on international collaboration in design education for social sustainability, with long-term, participatory processes and transformative goals, aligning well with PAR’s focus on transformative action |
| Trott, Weinberg and McMeeking (2018) | DE | Emphasised continuous learning and adaptation in sustainability challenges, aligning well with DE’s focus on complexity, systems thinking and real-time feedback for student and community growth. Recognises top-down and bottom up influences and promotes a bottom-up approach |
| Williams et al. (2008) | PAR | Two cycles completed with a third planned, focused on community-driven quality of life improvements, emphasising social justice, power redistribution and community transformation, making PAR the best fit for this research. Positions bottom-up models as most effective |
| Publication | Best fit | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| PAR | The research involved extensive collaboration across multiple universities with a focus on transformative, iterative processes for sustainability education, aligning well with PAR’s principles | |
| DE | Appears to take a philosophically pragmatic approach. Focused on social learning and adaptive capacity in coastal governance, where DE’s strengths in handling complex, dynamic environments and real-time adaptation make it a better fit than PAR | |
| DE | Aimed to develop and validate entrepreneurship education programs through iterative research and practical applications, making DE’s real-time feedback and flexibility potentially a better fit than PAR. Explicit consideration of complexity and its characteristics may have added further insight regarding interactions | |
| PAR | Focused on international collaboration in design education for social sustainability, with long-term, participatory processes and transformative goals, aligning well with PAR’s focus on transformative action | |
| DE | Emphasised continuous learning and adaptation in sustainability challenges, aligning well with DE’s focus on complexity, systems thinking and real-time feedback for student and community growth. Recognises top-down and bottom up influences and promotes a bottom-up approach | |
| PAR | Two cycles completed with a third planned, focused on community-driven quality of life improvements, emphasising social justice, power redistribution and community transformation, making PAR the best fit for this research. Positions bottom-up models as most effective |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.