Content uploaded by Ananda Marin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ananda Marin on Nov 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmca20
Download by: [Northwestern University] Date: 10 November 2015, At: 11:26
Mind, Culture, and Activity
ISSN: 1074-9039 (Print) 1532-7884 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmca20
Community-Based Design Research: Learning
Across Generations and Strategic Transformations
of Institutional Relations Toward Axiological
Innovations
Megan Bang, Lori Faber, Jasmine Gurneau, Ananda Marin & Cynthia Soto
To cite this article: Megan Bang, Lori Faber, Jasmine Gurneau, Ananda Marin & Cynthia
Soto (2015): Community-Based Design Research: Learning Across Generations and Strategic
Transformations of Institutional Relations Toward Axiological Innovations, Mind, Culture, and
Activity, DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572
Published online: 05 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Community-Based Design Research: Learning Across Generations
and Strategic Transformations of Institutional Relations Toward
Axiological Innovations
Megan Bang
a
, Lori Faber
b
, Jasmine Gurneau
b
, Ananda Marin
c
and Cynthia Soto
d
a
University of Washington;
b
American Indian Center of Chicago;
c
Northwestern University;
d
University of Illinois
ABSTRACT
The socio-ecological challenges facing communities in the 21st century are
building towards a critical conjuncture of history, culture, power, and
profound inequity. Scholars working in the service of social transformation
and improving the wellbeing of communities are calling for creative, delib-
erate, and consequential interventions. Tharp & O’Donnell (this issue) call
for increased engagement between Cultural-Community Psychology and
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory to lead this kind of call. Drawing from our
experiences in community based design research, we argue for cultivating
axiological innovations in research and interventions. We explore three
examples including: critical historicity, inter-generational learning, and stra-
tegic transformations of institutional relations.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 Aug 2015
Accepted 23 Aug 2015
The socio-ecological challenges facing communities in the 21st century are building towards a
critical conjuncture of history, culture, power, and profound inequity. Scholars concerned with
understanding culture and learning broadly, but especially in the service of social transformation
and improving the well-being of communities are calling for creative, deliberate, and consequential
(e.g., Gutiérrez & Jurow, 2014; Lee, 2001) interventions. As we continue to try to understand the
complexity of learning and development in the evolving “thrown-togetherness”of life (Massey,
2005), which Massey describes as politics of the event of place including the politics of difference,
identity, affect, connectedness, and relations, creating interventions that contribute to just and
sustainable change demands engagement across disciplinary fields both within and across the social
and physical sciences to develop new designs, narratives, and possibilities of encounter and making
relations (Aitken, 2010). Within the social sciences the need to synthesize and build across fields in
insightful, strategic ways is critical and ethically responsible. Tharp and O’Donnell (this issue)
propose that increased engagement between Cultural-Community Psychology (CC) and Cultural-
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) with a specific focus on joint activity and intersubjectivity could
be generative for the field and our collective endeavors.
We suggest that the inclusion of principles and methodological innovations from third-generation
activity theory, specifically critical historicity (Vossoughi & Gutiérrez, 2010) and transformative
agency in formative interventions (Engeström, 2004) are necessary for the kind of generative
leadership that Tharp and O’Donnell call for. However, we work to expand what these might
mean and how they might function in justice oriented interventions, in our case more specifically
informed by aspects of decolonial perspectives and sensibilities. We suggest that progress in CC and
CHAT research, as well as a range of related fields, needs to pay more attention to axiological
innovations in research and programming. For current purposes, an adequate definition of axiolo-
gical innovations are the theories, practices, and structures of values, ethics, and aesthetics—that is,
CONTACT Megan Bang Mbang3@uw.edu University of Washington, College of Education, 322 Miller Hall Box 353600, Seattle,
WA 98195-3600.
Copyright © Regents of the University of California on behalf of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
what is good, right, true, and beautiful—that shape current and possible meaning, meaning-making,
positioning, and relations in cultural ecologies. Lemke (2002) wrote,
In its broadest sense the axiological position of a discourse voice is determined by its stance towards itself and
other voices. (p. 39)
Social contestation is discursively effective only to the extent that it crosses this frontier [vulnerability of
social formation], not simply reversing the axiological stance of an existing discourse, or posing a counter
thematics, but providing a mode of articulation that undermines the deepest grounds of an ideological claim for
the “necessity”of some formation. In essence it must do something in a way that, once said, makes old truths
and old rights transparently matters of special interest rather than commonsensical and necessary. (p. 41)
Axiological positionings of self and others with respect to knowledge, knowing, and human
activity are routine parts of interaction. These axiological positionings emerge in the conceptual,
emotional, and affective states that shape intersubjectivities and possible futures in interaction and
we suggest in designing, implementing, facilitating, and studying learning.
For us the need for axiological innovations is shaped by the necessity of continually expanding
decolonial methods and sensibilities in research (L. T. Smith, 1999) and as a kind of critical echo
from diSessa and Cobb’s(2004) challenge to the field that a feature of design-based research should
be the search for ontological innovations about the nature of learning. At the time diSessa and Cobb’s
call resonated and articulated the growing interests of many scholars, and in our view extended the
intent of Ann Brown’s(1992) path-breaking work. We note this brief genealogy to acknowledge the
call for axiological innovations is not new per se; rather it may be an articulation that is useful to our
collective endeavors. Ontological innovations in the study of learning have expanded and deepened
what we know and how we design learning environments in countless and invaluable ways.
However, design-related fields of education have made less progress in designing learning environ-
ments that sustainably disrupt historically shaped inequities and cultivate transformative agency
from within communities. Increasingly scholars have drawn attention to the ways in which settled
forms of knowledge and knowing that reify normative and problematic powered relations saturate
many learning environments. Our call for axiological innovations has been nurtured and inspired by
the collective insights and demands for consequential learning (Gutierrez & Jurows, 2014). In our
view, consequentiality is deeply defined by one’s or a communities’axiology.
In many learning environments there is a kind of accepted axiological normativity and assumed
stability that shapes activity, often toward singular ends that perpetuate forms of privilege and power
that produce and maintain profound inequities. Importantly, we are suggesting that axiology is not a
given, that it is inherently variable, context dependent, and shaped by unfolding activity. In the work
we have been involved in, we have relentlessly worked toward making visible axiological norms such
that decisions in the design, implementation, and study of learning and learning environments
support and cultivate axiological heteroglossia toward decolonial, just, and sustainable futures.
In this article, drawing from our experience in 10 years of community-based design research
(CBDR) in the urban intertribal Indigenous community of Chicago (see Bang et al., 2010; Bang et al.,
2012; Bang et al., 2014) that involved the contributions of many, many people,
1
we respond to Tharp
and O’Donnell’s call (this issue) by naming some of our core design assumptions and their relation
to concepts in the broader field. The authors of this article represent one of the principal investi-
gators of the projects, teacher/facilitators involved in the work, project coordinators, a postdoctoral
scholar, and community researchers. We have varied histories and relations with the Chicago
community, ranging from Chicago being part of our original homelands, to members of families
who have been long-term community members spurred by relocation policies and other migrations,
to more recently relocated community members. All of us have been deeply intertwined with and
committed to working at grassroots community organizations and being active contributing com-
munity members. Some of us have graduate degrees, some gained during the history of these
1
Douglas Medin, David Bender, Lawrence Curley, George Strack, Fawn Pochel, Janie Pochel, Felicia Peters, Eli Suzokovich, and Mike
Marin, among many others, were all key project leaders in various activities mentioned in this article.
2M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
projects, some do not. All of us have made critical and unique contributions to the work we have
done in ways that helped generate a collective space for community to learn and grow in, including
ourselves.
The projects we draw from were deeply influenced by community activists and organizers and
Indigenous scholarship, as well as work in cultural psychology (Cole, 1998), design-based research
(e.g., Bell, 2004; Brown, 1992; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Edelson, 2002), cultural modeling
(Lee, 2001), and formative interventions/change laboratory (Engeström, 2004). These projects high-
lighted the need to remediate normative axiological assumptions reflected in educational research
and practice toward more expansive possibilities. In this article we report on two intentional design
commitments—learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations—
that we propose are practice-based instantiations of axiological innovations. We argue that these
design commitments are fundamental to CBDR and suggest that further exploration into the
multiplicities of possible instantiations of these design commitments afford the potential for con-
tinued axiological innovations in research and practice. Further, we suggest that axiological innova-
tions may be critical in creating serious partnerships and intersubjectivities that can cultivate
transformative agency in joint activity.
Culture and learning
In our view, generative engagement between CC and CHAT will need to work toward shared
sensibilities around conceptualizing and studying culture and change from more explicitly articu-
lated political positionings than has routinely occurred. Work in cultural psychology (e.g., Cole,
1998) propelled our understandings of culture and learning wherein culture is conceptualized as
constellations of practices in which people engage and make sense of the world as they participate in
the everyday activities of their communities. Culture, in this sense, is both historically constituted
and dynamically changing through participation in social practices and making sense of life
(Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Lee, Spencer, & Harpalani, 2003; Moll & González, 2004; Nasir,
Rosebery, Warren, & Lee, 2006; Rogoff, 2003). Viewing learning as dynamic cultural processes, or
what is increasingly called learning in cultural ecologies, recognizes that all people explore, narrate,
make sense of and shape their worlds, but they do so in varied ways, connected to the particular
constellations of practice, relationships, values, goals, and worldviews of their communities (e.g.,
Rogoff, 2003; Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse & Feder, 2009; Bang et al., 2012).This view of culture refuses
constructions of culture in which categorical membership or box model variables materialize (Lee,
2003) or reinscribe notions that culture is externalizable, minimized, or separated from everyday
practice and meaning making. This view of culture we suggest also means that there are explicitly
axiological and political consequences and affordances in how we articulate, study, and work to
change communities.
As the work we have been part of has unfolded, we have tried to make sense of the path-breaking
work of Indigenous scholars articulating Indigenous methodologies (e.g., Brayboy, 2000,2013;
Deloria, 1979; Kovach, 2010; L. T. Smith, 1999; Wilson, 2008). In our experience the normative
axiological assumptions reflected in educational research and practice have often been key issues in
building trust and generative partnerships with Indigenous communities. Further, for all of us
involved in these projects, considering axiological dimensions and questions about the research, as
well as our own personal lives were routine and recursive dimensions of our work.
Context of our work
The impetus for the projects motivating this article arose from witnessing and walking with a group
of Indigenous elders who were (and continue to be) walking the perimeter of the Great Lakes to
bring awareness to the declining health of the lakes and the earth at large and to pass on the
traditions, values, and teaching of Indigenous communities (see www.motherearthwaterwalk.com).
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 3
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
The Great Lakes ecosystems are the home to many Indigenous nations and are the largest body of
freshwater in the world. They are also experiencing significant decline and said to be facing
ecological collapse. The need for renewed human valuing of water, what waterwalkers call the
sacredness of water, and its centrality to life sits at the center of the water walks. Compelled by
the plea of the walkers, a contagious sense of possibility and responsibility began to take root in our
local community, again. Along with some other serendipitous events, the first research project
focused on improving science education, involving more than 100 community members, came
together to develop innovative science learning environments for Native youth, families, and
communities living in Chicago through what we call CBDR. CBDR is a reworking of design-based
research methods because it privileges and centers the work in community, engages broad ranges of
community members, and is driven by community members in key project staff positions. Typically
our employed project staff included between 12 and 15 people. However, we have many more
community members participating and leading in a variety of ways.
The project, which began with a focus on improving science learning in an urban Indigenous
community, was informed by decolonizing methodologies (L. T. Smith, 1999), social design experi-
ments (Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2009), and formative interventions (Engeström, 2011) and aspired to
develop transformative praxis (e.g., G. H. Smith, 2004) through engaging community members and
families in the co-creation and implementation of science learning environments. Importantly,
however, we were not focused on normative science learning. We aimed to codesign learning
environments based in Indigenous ways of knowing (IWOK) that were also effective at teaching
and learning Western scientific ways of knowing in generative and pragmatically useful ways. We
recognized that many efforts to operationalize a theory of change presumes increased school
achievement is the only path towards community wellbeing and typically reflects little critical
awareness of the potential negative impacts of schooling, particularly with respect to Native people
and history.
Considering Native peoples’histories with education in the United States, we were unsure if
schools were appropriate sites of intervention—thus we focused on community contexts and
programming in informal settings. A simplified view of the conflict is this: Can schools be institu-
tions that support Indigenous futures? This question also takes seriously the ways in which schooling
privileges Western epistemologies and ways of knowing. At the same time our work did not proceed
from a romanticized view that ignored the demands for Native children to achieve in school/
Western forms of knowing. We developed a view of human meaning making as fundamentally
heterogeneous and multivoiced (Rosebery, Ogonowski, DiSchino, & Warren, 2010), both within and
between socially and historically constituted communities and ways of knowing. The focus on
heterogeneity reflects Kawagley’s(2006) proposal for finding both the convergences and divergences
of IWOK and Western science ways of knowing. The design team was deeply committed to
relational epistemologies—teaching youth how all things are related, connected in dynamic, inter-
active, and mutually reciprocal relationships (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Brayboy & Castagno,
2008; Cajete, 2000; Kawagley, 1993). We were centrally focused on engaging children, their families,
and ourselves in learning about complex ecological systems and human relationships with those
systems, especially forests, prairies, and wetlands (Bang et al., 2014).
However, we did this by intentionally privileging and engaging Indigenous ways of knowing and
engaging youth in our own practices and traditions. In short, we experienced our projects as being
committed to and believing that increasing Indigenous people’s expertise in Western forms of
knowing is a pragmatic necessity, but that we must find pathways that ensure Native children are
first engaged in Indigenous ways of knowing. This, for many of us, was new because many designed
learning environments have structured pathways toward expertise based on Western forms of
knowing (i.e., making the cultural connections) and have failed to support Indigenous children in
acquiring community based forms of expertise. This terrain is complicated, however, as there are
some Indigenous communities and scholars that deeply question whether designed learning envir-
onments (mostly schools) could accomplish this in a way that does not perpetuate colonial enclosure
4M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
(see Richardson, 2011) at least without significant reconsideration of the core premises of learning
leading the design of learning environments. We see this as a necessary and recursive question in the
design of learning environments that will take on locally specific answers. In our projects we held a
desire for axiological innovations in the design of learning environments such that decolonial
sensibilities shaped all of our activities and helped us to enact forms of Indigenous presents and
imagine possible futures in new ways (see Bang et al., 2014). This recursive questioning is linked to
notions of double stimulation in formative interventions.
Formative interventions and double stimulation
Formative interventions have distinguished themselves from other forms of change making in part
because they focus on transformation and learning in object-oriented activities (Engeström, 2011).
Scholars who have taken up this approach are often outside of schools, in the workplace, or in other
community settings. Importantly, in formative interventions the objects of inquiry are not presumed
to be self-evident or fixed. Rather, they are negotiated and emergent as the actors involved in the
activity systems are engaged in joint investigation. Richardson (2011) questioned whether object-
focused learning theories can lead to libratory forms of education for Indigenous people in part
because they center objects over relations. We think we have utilized insights from formative
interventions in generative ways by shifting our focus from objected-oriented activity to relationally
focused activity. However, this has not meant that object-related activity is absent either. In some
ways this is a side stepping of the deep and still needed work of charting the implications Richardson
raises. The shift to relational foci had impacts on how key aspects of formative interventions have
been aritculated.
A key aspect of formative interventions is the principle of double stimulation, which both makes
visible a “conflict of motives”and works to resolve and transform it (Engeström & Sannino, 2014).
Importantly, the second stimulus in double stimulation is supposed to create a redefinition of a
situation and enable action to break out of the conflict. Taking actions to break out of paralyzing
conflict is accompanied by the principle of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. This process
works toward creating a “germ cell”or foundational model for new patterns of activity. The goal of
formative interventions is to engage in processes directed by these principles and resulting in
transformative agency that generates future-oriented visions “loaded with initiative and commit-
ment”toward an emancipated mode of activity (Engeström & Sannino, 2014).
In our work we developed a kind of “germ cell”that revolved around constructions of natural and
cultural worlds—constructions of human relations with the rest of the natural world—which we call
nature–culture relations. Often science learning environments facilitate and encode views of humans
and nature in which humans are separate or apart from the natural world. In our work we focused
on ensuring that this severance was resisted, and we positioned humans as always a part of the
natural world in consequential ways, a view we saw as fundamental to most Indigenous ways of
knowing (Bang et al., 2014a). Importantly we also recognized that in many science learning
environments IWOK are often positioned as historical and past or no longer generating new
knowledge. And, indeed, our young people are receiving this message explicitly from all directions,
so we explicitly disrupted the implicit positioning of IWOK. We return to these issues further along.
The complexity of nature–culture relations with respect to Indigenous peoples is far-reaching and
in our view stretches the notion of double stimulation and how it functions in change-making work
in historically marginalized communities. It is possible that our projects helped to create a language
or way or articulating nature–culture relations that helped us communicate with others, but the
conflict around nature–culture relations is a painfully visible and felt reality to many peoples in our
communities. Many people in our communities live a perpetual or recursive double stimulation—we
experience a persistent ongoing tension in motives—both our own and in the professed and enacted
motives of others with respect to our communities. From a decolonial and relational perspective, the
first stimulus in double stimulation is less around subjects experiencing a conflict of motives than a
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 5
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
process by which a space may open where naming, sharing, and daring to hope, work, and
emotionally labor for change in the lived conflict of motives is created—a place of witnessing (e.g.,
Fine, 2006). Further, the expectation is not for a complete resolution of the conflict in a single
project; rather there is a demand for expanding the space, the ecologies in which relations are
emancipated from perpetual conflict, what is sometimes called transformative agency (e.g.,
Engeström, Sannino, & Virkkunen, 2014).
Our project led to additional programs and a cascade of new and wide-ranging programming
over more than a decade. The cascading programs included after-school youth programs and early
childhood programming, to intergenerational family programming focused on community building
and more. For example, as our projects progressed, the need to support families lacking trusted
child-care and quality early childhood education was voiced and materialized into culturally based
early childhood education. Another program that took shape was focused on the representation of
Native people in media and especially around mascot issues.
Importantly, these programs all reflected a decolonizing sensibility—or a design axiology—
characterized by cultural resurgence (Alfred, 2005; Coulthard, 2014; Simpson, 2014), political
activism, and a longing for and commitment to community well-being. More specifically, we focused
our design efforts on things like land restoration, language loss awareness, food sovereignty,
Indigenous games, digital literacy, and representational issues in the media and beyond. We suggest
this is a form of community-based transformative agency. In our experience with CBDR, a focus on
a singular program or intervention is a means toward broader scale reworking, not the end in itself.
Opening the desire, possibilities, and hope to make broad scale change in our experience requires
ethical relationship building and community accountability, a kind of axiological innovation that is
often far beyond the scope of what is imagined, supported, or respected in research (see Booker, this
issue). As community or academy-based researchers engaged in or professed change-making efforts
—what are our ethical responsibilities? This is not a new question and has been explored in many
ways. For us, the concepts of bearing witness (e.g., Fine, 2006) and solidarity (Gaztambide-
Fernández, 2012) help articulate parts of this responsibility. In our projects it meant designing
with a persistent notion of critical historicity with a decolonial sensibility and supporting generative
tensions and strategies to engage and transform historically accumulating sites of inequity at the
broad scale and the ways in which people were experiencing in the moments and times we were
collectively engaged in. We think this is connected to what Shotter (2005) called “withness thinking,”
which he suggests is the “kind of thinking that can only be conducted within fleeting moments, in
the course of trying to work out how best to respond to unique and crucial events occurring around
one NOW, at this moment in time”(p. 1).
Shotter suggests that central to withness thinking is the recognition that ‘everything looks
different when one is in motion”(p. 1) by which we take him to mean, when one is centrally
involved in unfolding activity as distinct from being outside or slowing motion down to reflect. This,
as he suggests, is the dominant mode of analysis in the field of education. To be sure it has brought
us much; however, in our experience it has not adequately prepared us to engage in the specific acts
of designing and engaging in community-based design work, or what we might call “withness
designing.”Drawing from Bakhtin’s notion that speakers’utterances are shaped by the anticipation
of the possible encountered responses, he focused on the dialogic nature of withness thinking in
which he suggested, and we agree, that other people’s situated speech, speech that is responsive to
the occurring and unfolding contours of voice and events, shapes everything, even our own inner
most dialogues. Withness designing in our view, then demands designing with an active and ongoing
engagement with critical historicity, not as an abstract, but from within the flows of its ongoinness.
Designing with critical historicity
The need for a sense of historicity in interventions and understanding the dynamics of lived lives
cannot be underestimated. A persistent orientation we have experienced in the field of education is
6M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
an explicit or implicit bounding of relevance to the problem space or “problematic”that often wants
to sever the kind of historicity that lives in our projects. Oftentimes narrow orientations have a
solution—on-demand attitude that minimizes the complexity of the problems and the history that
has produced it (Martin, 2009). This point is connected to recursive double stimulation. In our
design meetings, community designers often returned to previous ideas, issues, or conversations in
making sense of persistent inequities, sometimes in new ways and sometimes not. In our experience
recursive double stimulation, and the space it opens, is a recurring event in transformative projects,
not a singular episode to get through.
Constructions of nature–culture relations is a prime example. A generative aspect of nature–
culture relations in our work focused on constructions of lands (and water) and how Indigenous
peoples’relationships to these lands are positioned, especially in current settler-colonial nations. The
fundamental tenet of settler-colonial societies is the acquisition of land as property, followed by the
establishment of settler life-ways as the norm from which to measure development. These are
accomplished through (a) erasure of Indigenous presence, (b) staged inheritance of land and
indigeneity by Whites (Reardon & TallBear, 2012), and in the case of the United States, (c) erasure
of African descendants’humanity through the structuration of chattel slavery and resultant reduc-
tion to and control of Black bodies (Wolfe, 2006). Scholars have argued that the pervasive induction
of Indigenous absence from lands is a critical aspect of establishing constructions of uninhabited
land and settler normativity (Veracini, 2011).
The persistent construction of nature–culture separation or boundaries (Latour, 2013) manifests
in a plethora of ways. For example, in some of our work we have demonstrated that there is a
dominant construction of the ecosystems without humans in it reflected in school curricula and
public media (Medin & Bang, 2014a), an oddity in part because it is not an accurate representation
of the ways in which ecosystems function and tends to be unreflective of the understandings of
human impacts on ecological systems we need for the 21st century. We see this construction of a
personless nature as a persistent historicized political act, however unintentional, in the service of
settler-colonial domination and the erasure of Indigenous peoples from places (Bang et al., 2014).
We should note that although we focus on Indigenous peoples, the severance of people from lands
more broadly is a critical issue facing human species, as it has led to destructive social and economic
systems—in short, axiological innovation in nature–culture relations is necessary for all peoples and
communities.
The practices of critical historicity in design
There are many ways that critical historicity entered into our design process at a range of scales. We
briefly focus on two for this article: critical reflections about knowledge systems, and weaving/
mapping histories and possible futures. Engaging in routine critical reflection about past, present, or
potential future relations between Western science and Indigenous ways of knowing was a persistent
dimension of our project discourse. Doing this meant that we were necessarily taking a long view of
the relationships of schools to Indigenous communities and the colonization of North America, as
well as the relations between and positioning of Western knowledge systems and indigenous
knowledge systems and being able to see these issues reflected in moments, utterances, and design
processes and decisions we were making.
These conversations functioned as recursive double stimulation because we were engaging
people’s lived and felt histories or “felt theories”(Million, 2011), to develop a collective theory of
change. These “felt theories”were not abstract psychologically distant narratives in American
history. These were the lived stories of peoples and the relatives of people present. Thus designing
with historicity meant always recognizing that the issues we take up in our work, or communities’
awareness and efforts to transform them, are not new—they are lived and felt parts of life and have
been across generations.
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 7
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
Making space for and recognition of these historicized realities and their present forms were/are
perpetually shaping activity. However, the most pressing efforts to intervene on them are often sites
of historically accumulating structural oppression wherein community members have a better
genealogy of the specific activity systems at play than researchers do. In our experience, if transfor-
mative praxis is achieved, the process can be disorienting, even painful at times, for some individuals
for a variety of reasons. Taking seriously the emotional complexity of our work stretched all of us
and required us to develop new professional capacities, as well as a willingness to open and even
change ourselves in ways that we underanticipated. More specifically, the dynamics that unfolded in
our work nurtured a kind of responsibility or an axiological perspective that motivated us and others
involved in the work a desire to foster a praxis that could support and transform our collective
vulnerabilities and histories—a kind of restorative aesthetics in our design practices—though we
sometimes disagreed about what it meant or how to do it, both in specific moments and in slowed
reflective moments. The gravity of the space we opened, in its heaviness, complexity, and contra-
dictions and in its possibility, increased the need for project staff to carefully consider how to
facilitate design meetings and activities—or what can be called design practices. Our design practices
became driven by a need to create space in which a variety of aesthetics, sometimes remarkably
complementary, sometimes unexpectedly tension filled, could be respectfully and generatively
engaged and reflected in the work.
Increasingly we worked to develop design practices to surface and acknowledge our collective
experiences and help us to work toward imagining new possible futures. For example we often
engaged in “river of life”activities, which is a visual narrative method that supports collaborators in
telling their stories, perspectives, and diverse expertises about the past, present, and future by
creating a collective visual artifact, working toward unpacking the trajectories that made the present
moment possible and helped to imagine future trajectories. We used this practice in multiple ways—
sometimes to surface multiple perspectives, but also they served as an artifact that helped hold and
reflect the complexities of our positionings and intersubjectivities, particularly as we were trying to
cultivate change. For example, it became increasingly clear to many people in the project that we
were complicit in constructing particular narratives and identities about urban Indians that, as
Lemke (2002) suggested, “made old truths and old rights transparently matters of special interest
rather than commonsensical and necessary”(p. 41).
For example, contemporary narratives of Chicago often located the presence of Indigenous people
as originating with the Termination and Relocation era of the 1940s to 1960s in which the U.S.
government relocated Native peoples by force, choice, and coercion in a post–boarding school era to
assimilate us into the American mainstream with promises of education, jobs, and homes. These
narratives are often extended to deficit-based discourses of landless, urban, assimilated Indians and
circulate both within and outside the Chicago Native community. However, Chicago is actually the
ceded and unceded territory of many different Native Nations and has always been an intertribal
place with stories of migration and flux among tribal people predating European contact. Indigenous
peoples, and especially children who are currently urban-dwelling Native people, are often subjected
to a barrage of micro- and macroaggressions that work to delegitimize and negate our indigeneity.
Often these narratives are perpetuating a historicized and colonial view of Indigenous peoples
(Shear, Knowles, Soden, & Castro, 2015).
There are important differences in positioning children as walking and living in the same
places their ancestors did versus walking and living in places that are not or no longer Indigenous
and what senses of self and possible futures are afforded. This is almost never how learning
environments engage and position Native children living in urban places. The normative posi-
tionings of Native children living in urban places perpetuate colonization on Indigenous peoples
and create serious barriers for children in developing senses of identity in the present and
developing and valuing possible Indigenous futures (see Tuck & Yang, 2012). Axiologically, the
difference in positioning is squarely located in de colonial choice and Indigenous transformative
agency. For us designing with critical historicity is more than recognizing history or its current
8M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
imprints on activity; it requires working to dislodge and undermine normative axiological
assumptions and ideological claims and also make (critique and visibility alone is not enough)
new articulations in ways that reach for and help propel socioecologically just and sustainable
forms of human activity.
In our experience, sometimes these new modes or articulations are far more actionable then are
often assumed. For us the persistent forms of age segregation assumed in the design of learning
environments is one such example.
Learning across generations
Critical historicity sees age segregation as a site of deep axiological and ideological conflict for
Indigenous communities that has had significant impact on learning and constellations of social
practices. The projects we have been involved in were committed to learning across generations and
deliberately engaged elders, parents, youth, teachers, interested communities members, and profes-
sional scientists, as well as research staff drawn and developed from within community to con-
ceptualize, design, implement, and study learning environments.
This aspect of learning across generations stands in contrast to the forms of age segregation that
are routinely accepted in work and school. We composed our design teams to be intergenerational,
in part because we suspected that creating robust and transformational interventions cognizant of
historically accumulating inequity required multigenerational perspectives. The cleaving of genera-
tions in Indigenous communities has been a key policy strategy of assimilation efforts across
multiple generations in the United States and other settler nations. Generational segregation eroded
familial relations, economic systems, governance systems, and many other dimensions of community
life. Indeed generational segregation has become a persistent and normative structure of everyday life
and work in Western-style schooling and many industrialized nations and is changing the way
interaction, learning and meaning is constructed (e.g., Alcala, Rogoff, Mejia-Arauz, Coppens, &
Dexter, 2014; Coppens et al., 2014; Rogoff, 2014; Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa-Chávez, &
Angelillo, 2012).
Moving toward community well-being in our project context meant restoring healthy interge-
nerational relations and forms of activity. This was more than the consultative, listening, and
feedback models used to include elders’voices, youth voices, or any underengaged and silenced
population in the design of learning environments. It meant recognizing that age segregation has
particular purposes, impacts, affordances, assumptions, challenges, and histories that were designed
to eradicate Indigenous norms and then deliberately making decisions to resist age segregation. This
commitment to intergenerational learning in the design process also started to manifest in new ways
with programming we implements.
For example, one of the cascading program initiatives that emerged in our programs focused on
persistent health disparities, especially around diabetes, in the face of many community efforts and
programs. Despite earnest efforts in the community, including some people involved in the project
who had formerly been employed in such efforts, there was a general sense of dissatisfaction with the
ways these issues had been approached. Project participants saw explicit or implicit deficit framings
embedded in community programming efforts that often made community members feel shamed.
Project staff and community members, building from our earlier efforts at remaking relations with
plant life, what we call our plant relatives, and urban harvesting (e.g., Bang et al., 2014), landed on a
program focused on food sovereignty and healthy lifestyles in a program called “kids creations.”
Over time, this perspective on food sovereignty was integrated into early childhood programming.
The need to involve the whole community in aspects of kids creation emerged, and kids began
organizing and hosting intergenerational community healthy eating events featuring Indigenous
foods. They also began to integrate these efforts in feeding programs focused on elders. This
development became especially important, as it was viewed as a distinctly youth-led form of change
in community.
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 9
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
The need for considering the positioning of intergenerational relations and their functions in
learning environments is wholly underconsidered or narrowly considered in our view. Narrow
forms of intergenerational relations imagined and instantiated in research and in the design and
implementation of learning environments may be serving quite counterproductive ends with
respect to equity and cultivating resiliency and community well-being. Whereas youth-led meth-
odologieshavedoneperhapsthebestatraisingtheseissuesandshouldnotbeabandoned,inour
experience, although empowering and transforming for young people, they are not always restora-
tive of intergenerational relations in everyday activity.Inourwork,wecametorecognizethatage-
segregated learning environments tended not to disrupt coloniality and even promoted interge-
nerational segregation as commonsensical and normative. In short, developing learning and
agency in Indigenous communities seemed to require intergenerational relations. We did this
with respect not only to how we designed and implemented our learning environments functioned,
but also in the way we organized the administration and infrastructure of the work. This, too,
became a site informed by critical historicity that brought to light the need for axiological
innovations.
Strategic transformations of institutional relations
In our work, recognizing the plethora of ways in which institutional structures create and perpetuate
inequity, we tried to engage in strategic transformations of institutional relations and practices in the
development, design, and outcomes of our projects. Critically, we did not think about this as just
outcomes of our work, but also how we establish partnerships, establish flows of work, structure
project governance and decision making, allocate resources, and share expertise. A central aspect of
this was to intentionally form partnerships in which the center of research and “social gravity”
(Erickson, 2006) was located in community. Quite literally we created a research center within the
community center, and our research team contributed to and participated in the daily flows of
activity within the community center as a principled structure of our work. All research staff had to
contribute time and support to community-directed activities not planned or directed by our
research team. This meant everything from assisting with the setup and cleanup of community
events, to the physical labor of unloading delivery of food for the food pantry when needed, to
serving food at elders’luncheons, and other tasks needing community collaboration. This structur-
ing flipped the typical flow of work in research partnerships and shifted the view of pressing
problems and solutions routinely.
In addition to structurally recentering research efforts in communities, we also considered that
the inequities and differences in resources (material and human) between large institutions and
community organizations is staggering and are often clear sites of wealth and structural racism. In
our view, increased attention to these dimensions are necessary for improving our work. In our
projects we have paid explicit attention to these dimensions in part because we partner with Native
nations and institutions, so tribal sovereignty and Indigenous self-determination are central and
must be actively followed. Thus research must be conducted in ways that abide by, uphold, and
strengthen these political and structural dimensions. For example, when conducting research with
reservation communities, investigators must go through the tribal approval process; Institutional
Review Board approval from a mainstream institution is not sufficient (Lomawaima, 2000). With
urban communities we have set up advisory boards and asked them to function in similar ways—
though they lack the legal status of Institutional Review Boards.
An additional initial effort for strategically transforming institutional relations was focused on
strengthening the institutional capacity of Native “owned”and run organizations and utilizing the
expertise and human resources of large universities. The American Indian Center has now success-
fully managed five large National Science Foundation grants, including the scientific, administrative,
and fiscal management and oversight. Although this may seem old hat for researchers, for commu-
nity organizations developing these capacities and accessing indirect dollars at federal rates can be a
10 M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
game changer. Accessing resources though requires many nuanced institutional policies, procedures,
and administrative infrastructure in which many community-based organizations have had little
opportunity to develop expertise. In our experience the research institution’s willingness to provide
institutional mentoring was critical in forming partnerships and propelled community organizations
into new funding arenas, as well as accumulating forms of institutional and social capital. This itself
is a kind of axiological innovation that can and should be documented and studied.
Discussion
In this article we have explored how three interrelated design commitments of critical historicity,
intergenerational learning, and transforming institutional relations emerged and functioned in our
work. Importantly, these three dimensions recursively reframed each other in ways that made them
work in generative tensions and in our view opened spaces in which axiological innovations were more
likely to occur or at least be considered. We think that a fundamental aspect of achieving equitable
partnerships and intersubjectivities that cultivate transformative agency in joint activity may well rest
on the openness and deliberate cultivation of axiological innovations. In our experience, CBDR—that
is, design efforts that work from within the “ongoingness”of communities—may be helpful in the
further exploration into the multiplicities of possible instantiations of these design commitments and
in the development of new ones that afford the potential for continued axiological innovations in
research and practice.
As axiological innovations and transformative programming emerged in our work, and deeper
levels of contradiction emerged, they recursively challenged our theories of change and underscored
the need for much broader axiological innovations, particularly in institutional relations. As com-
munity organizations (and likely other kinds of organizations/institutions as well) like the American
Indian Center develop capacity and accumulate previously unaccessed institutional and social
capital, how does the decolonial sensibility reflected in programming and community activity persist
or resist appropriation given that is unreflective of the broader social world? This question is also
true of scholars occupying positions in institutions of privilege and power.
Increasingly, scholars taking up sociocultural perspectives are interested in more robust under-
standings of the ways in which historically evolving political dynamics pressure, sculpt, impact, and
transform the practices of historically defined cultural communities and the learning that unfolds in
them. Community psychology’s focus on processes of empowerment at the community scale could
be an important cross-fertilization. Achieving the kind of change making that much of CC and
CHAT-related scholarship aspires to will hinge in our view on the extent to which the risks of the
political nature of change work is distributed among researchers, practitioners, and community
members in ethically and positionally appropriate ways. Often the risks and rewards of change
making work are not distributed in equitable ways.
Scholars tend to occupy comparatively profound places of privilege across a range of dimensions.
This privileged positioning is not absolute or stagnant, but it is also not unstable. Beyond the obvious
pay scale and relative job security, we also tend to have access to social capital and influence far
beyond many community partners—at least this has been startlingly true in our own trajectory from
being deeply rooted and employed in community-based organizations to becoming scholars who
continued working in community organizations, and for some of us who eventually came to work
in/from the academy. Our own trajectories and the profound shifts in positioning we have experi-
enced make us acutely aware of the complex terrain of accountability to communities. We are
compelled to ask, What is ethical and accountable work with respect to the communities we and our
families are a part of and where a significant part of our scholarship is focused? What does it mean
to be accountable to community as a scholar and community member? What are the risks and
opportunities of research for community? For ourselves and our families? What forms of life are
made or unmade as a result of the work? Of course these are not new questions. Scholars have been
wrestling with them for generations—and they need to continue to be asked in current times.
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 11
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
In our view it is precisely these kinds of questions that evoke the need for axiological innovations in
learning environments and research. In meeting the call for creative, deliberate, and consequential
interventions (e.g., Gutiérrez & Jurow, 2014; Lee, 2001), we will need axiological innovations to surface
and become visible parts of our collective work, and importantly, not just in our slowed reflective
spaces, but in the moments of witnessing including our withinness thinking and designing. Axiological
innovations, especially those that reflect a “profound faith in the creative possibilities”(Gaztambide-
Fernandez, 2012, p. 61) and transformative agency of people in relations with places making their
stories-so-far (Massey, 2005), may be the key to new cascades of insights to just and sustainable forms
of life.
Acknowledgments
Chi Miigwetch to the Chicago American Indian community. Your love, resiliency, and leadership are remarkable in all
ways. Thank you to Douglas Medin, David Bender, Lawrence Curley, George Strack, Fawn Pochel, Janie Pochel, Felicia
Peters, Eli Suzokovich, Mike Marin, among many others, who were all key project leaders in various activities
mentioned in this article. Thank you to Mike Cole, Andy Blunden, Angela Booker, and Shirin Vossoughi for your
feedback about the earlier manuscript version. Your efforts made this article better.
References
Aitken, S. (2010). Throwntogetherness: Encounters with difference and diversity. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken,
M. Crang, & L. McDowell (Eds.), The Handbook for Qualitative Methods in Geography (pp. 46–69). London,
England: Sage Publications Ltd.
Alcala, L., Rogoff, B., Mejia-Arauz, R., Coppens, A. D., & Dexter, A. L. (2014). Children’s initiative in contributions to
family work in indigenous-heritage and cosmopolitan communities in Mexico. Human Development,57,96–115.
Alfred, T. (2005). Wasáse: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
Bang, M., Curley, L., Kessel, A., Marin, A., Suzukovich III, E. S., & Strack, G. (2014). Muskrat theories, tobacco in the
streets, and living Chicago as Indigenous land. Environmental Education Research,20(1), 37–55.
Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple
epistemologies. Science Education,94(6), 1008–1026.
Bang, M., Medin, D., Washinawatok, K., & Chapman, S. (2010). Innovations in culturally based science education
through partnerships and community. In New Science of Learning (pp. 569–592). New York, New York: Springer
New York.
Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human
Development,55(5/6), 302–318.
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly,36,8–23.
Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist,39,
243–g253.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments:
People, places, and pursuits (Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Board on Science
Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy
of Sciences). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Brayboy, B. M. (2000). The Indian and the researcher: Tales from the field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education,13, 415–426.
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2013). Tidemarks and legacies: Building on the past and moving to the future. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly,44,1–10.
Brayboy, B. M. J., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). How might Native science inform “informal science learning”?Cultural
Studies of Science Education,3, 731–750.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions
in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2, 141–178.
Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.
Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences,13,15–42.
Coppens, A. D., Silva, K. G., Ruvalcaba, O., Alcalá, L., López, A., & Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and
pitching in: Benefits and processes of expanding repertoires. Human Development,57, 150–161.
12 M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skin, White masks. Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Deloria, V. (1979). The metaphysics of modern existence (Vol. 11). San Francisco, CA: Harper.
DiSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences,13,77–103.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
11(1), 105–121.
Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning,16,11–21.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology,21, 598–628.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2014, June). Formative interventions and transformative agency: Principles, practice, and
research. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, CO.
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions.
Mind, Culture, and Activity,21(2), 118–128.
Erickson, F. (2006). Studying side by side: Collaborative action ethnography in educational research. Innovations in
Educational Ethnography: Theory, Methods, and Results, 235–258.
Fine, M. (2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression and resistance—A textbook for critical research.
Social Justice Research,19,83–108.
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2012). Decolonization and the pedagogy of solidarity. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society,1(1).
Gutierrez, K. D., & Jurow, S. (2014, June). Designing for possible futures: The potential of social design experiments.
Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the lEarning Sciences, Boulder, CO.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational
Researcher,32(5), 19–25.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2009). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative
learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education,61, 100–117.
Kawagley, A. O. (2006). A Yupiaq worldview: A pathway to ecology and spirit. Waveland Press.
Kovach, M. E. (2010). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics,conversations, and contexts. Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto Press.
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students.
American Educational Research Journal,38,9
7–141.
Lee, C. D. (2003). Why we need to re-think race and ethnicity in educational research. Educational Researcher,32(5),
3–5.
Lee, C. D., Spencer, M. B., & Harpalani, V. (2003). “Every shut eye ain’t sleep”: Studying how people live culturally.
Educational Researcher,32(5), 6–13.
Lemke, J. (2002). Ideology, intertextuality, and the communication of science. In P. H. Fries, M. Cummings, D.
Lockwood, & W. Spruiell (Eds.), Relations and functions within and around language (pp. 32–55). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Lomawaima, K. T. (2000). Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian education. Harvard Educational
Review,70,1–23.
Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. The Teachers College Record,111, 295–338.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London, UK: Sage.
Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2004). The cultural side of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,111(Supplement 4), 13621–13626.
Million, D. (2011). Intense dreaming: Theories, narratives, and our search for home. The American Indian Quarterly,
35, 313–333.
Moll, L. C., & González, N. (2004). Engaging life: A funds of knowledge approach to multicultural education.
Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education,2, 699–715.
Nasir, N. I. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity
through diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489–504).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Reardon, J., & TallBear, K. (2012). Your DNA is our history. Current Anthropology,53(S5), S233–S245.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, T. (2011). Navigating the problem of inclusion as enclosure in native culture-based education: Theorizing
shadow curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry,41(3), 332–349.
Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human
Development,57,6
9–81.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chávez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2012). Firsthand learning through intent
participation. Análise Psicológica,22,11–31.
Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity
as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,19, 322–357.
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 13
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
Shear, S. B., Knowles, R. T., Soden, G. J., & Castro, A. J. (2015). Manifesting destiny: Re/presentations of Indigenous
peoples in K–12 US history standards. Theory & Research in Social Education,43,68–101.
Shotter, J. (2005). The short book of ‘withness’-thinking. London, UK: KCCF.
Simpson, L. B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society,3(3). Retrieved from decolonization.org
Smith, G. H. (2004). Mai i te maramatanga, ki te putanga mai o te tahuritanga: From conscientization to transforma-
tion. Educational Perspectives,37,46–52.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, England: Zed Books.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society,
1(1). Retrieved from decolonization.org
Veracini, L. (2011). Introducing: Settler colonial studies. Settler Colonial Studies,1,1–12.
Vossoughi, S., & Gutiérrez, K. (2010). Studying movement, hybridity, and change: Toward a multi-sited sensibility for
research on learning across contexts and borders. National Society for the Study of Education,113, 603–632.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood.
Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research,8, 387–409.
14 M. BANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Northwestern University] at 11:26 10 November 2015
