
| Preamble |
This Chapter is part of the PolyCIVIS Handbook on Participatory Methods for Teaching about the Polycrisis in Higher Education. The objective of this Handbook is to serve as a reference resource for teaching about the polycrisis in Higher Education in a participatory manner, a need which has not only been foreseen by the PolyCIVIS project in its inception phase, but also confirmed and further substantiated in a number of meetings and workshops during the project’s lifetime.
This Handbook is not a coursebook to teach what the polycrisis is, but a methods book, to provide instruments for teaching about the polycrisis in a participatory manner. It is to be made available online as a multimedia live resource, presenting different participatory teaching methods for uptake by the Polycrisis-interested community in Higher Education, together with supporting materials such as method descriptions, references, examples and case studies.
The different methods proposed are presented in one chapter for each group of methods, which also includes, in the digital edition of this Handbook, a live survey to collect peer feedback from the community itself, on the usefulness and ease of use that community members (Higher Education tutors, students, researchers as well as practitioners) may themselves find specific methods to have within, and for, their own contexts and audiences.
| What do we mean by thin participation techniques? |
Serious play and playful design techniques use structured play, objects, images, metaphors, storytelling and model-building to support deep thinking, participation and collaborative sense-making. In higher education, serious play is used as a serious method for exploring complexity, uncertainty, conflict and imagination. In the context of teaching the polycrisis, playful design techniques can help students externalise assumptions, build shared system models, represent stakeholders, rehearse futures and discuss emotionally difficult topics through concrete artefacts.
| Indicative starter sources for information about these methods |
| Additional sources of information about these methods |
SAP AppHaus. (n.d.). Scenes: Every great experience starts with a great story. SAP.
https://apphaus.sap.com/resource/scenesSAP AppHaus. (n.d.). Create a vision storyboard: Show your proposed solution idea in action. SAP.
https://apphaus.sap.com/resource/vision-storyboardDetken, K., & Fathallah, S. (2016, December). Build your storyboard with Scenes [Workshop report, Service Design Global Conference, Amsterdam]. SAP Design.
https://medium.com/sap-design/build-your-story-scenes-workshop-6a5ecb77ad48Kuchta, M. (2016, July 8). SCENES: A tangible and collaborative approach to storytelling [Blog post]. SAP Community.
https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-blog-posts/scenes-a-tangible-and-collaborative-approach-to-storytelling/ba-p/13225690Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Storyboarding: An empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 12–21). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142410Van der Lelie, C. (2006). The value of storyboards in the product design process. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 10(3), 159–162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0026-7SAP AppHaus. (n.d.). MOSAIC: Give space to creativity. SAP.
https://apphaus.sap.com/resource/mosaicDetken, K. (2018, August 13). Let your creativity resonate in space [Blog post]. SAP Design.
https://medium.com/sap-design/let-your-creativity-resonate-in-space-46448d4831f2Mural. (2021). Prototype your future workspace [Template].
https://www.mural.co/templates/mosaicThoring, K., Mueller, R., Badke-Schaub, P., & Desmet, P. (2021). Spatial design factors associated with creative work: A systematic literature review. AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 35(3), 250–270.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060421000287Fruchter, R., & Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M. (2011). The WALL: Participatory design workspace supporting creativity, collaboration and socialization. AI & Society, 26(1–2), 177–187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0307-1PLAYMOBIL pro. (n.d.). PLAYMOBIL pro: For your workshop and conference. Play Serious.
https://playmobilpro.play-serious.org/en/PLAYMOBIL pro. (n.d.). The method: Official PLAYMOBIL pro problem solving.
https://playmobilproplay.com/the-method/Experiential Learning. (2023, October 17). PLAYMOBIL pro: What is it and how do you use it?
https://www.experientiallearning.org/blog/playmobil-pro-what-is-it-and-how-do-you-use-it/Prego, J. (n.d.). Pro.Play® international certification. Creativity Certification Program.
https://www.creativitycertification.com/en/proplay-international-certification/Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2018). How it all began: The origins of LEGO® Serious Play®. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(4), 326–343.
https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.18-025Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the LEGO® Serious Play® method. Wiley.
Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886311398453McCusker, S. (2019). Everybody's monkey is important: LEGO® Serious Play® as a methodology for enabling equality of voice within diverse groups. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 43(2), 146–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1621831Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 549–568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.09.005Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.
Dann, S. (2018). Facilitating co-creation experience in the classroom with LEGO Serious Play. Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(2), 121–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.004Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Peters, D., Loke, L., & Ahmadpour, N. (2021). Toolkits, cards and games: A review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation. CoDesign, 17(4), 410–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1683756Vaajakallio, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (2014). Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. CoDesign, 10(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.881886Innovations in Active Learning in Higher Education. (2020). Layers of interaction: Object-based learning driving individual and collaborative active enquiry. University of Sussex Press.
https://openpress.sussex.ac.uk/innovationsinactivelearning/chapter/innovations-in-active-learning-in-higher-education-22/Font, J., O'Bryan, M., Alvarez, A., & Robinson, R. (2025). A case study in playful facilitation for designing embodied experiences. In E. Brooks, E. Edstrand, A. K. Møller, & T. Bjørner (Eds.), Design, learning, and innovation: DLI 2024 (Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Vol. 604). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-85663-1_6| Indicative participatory teaching scenarios for these methods |
Students use bricks, objects, cards or figurines to build a physical model of interacting crises: climate change, displacement, food insecurity, public health, energy instability and democratic distrust. Each student explains one element of the model. The group then connects individual models into a shared system and identifies leverage points.
Using SAP Scenes, Playmobil Pro or simple paper characters, students create scenes showing how different stakeholders experience a crisis intervention. Characters may include students, migrants, local authorities, hospitals, journalists, elderly residents, activists and non-human actors such as rivers or forests. The class discusses who benefits, who is ignored and what consequences emerge.
Students imagine the university campus as a polycrisis-resilient space in 2035. Using SAP Mosaic logic, they prototype learning spaces, care spaces, energy practices, emergency communication points and community partnerships. The activity helps students connect physical space, institutional behaviour, social justice and sustainability.
Each group receives a random object, such as a key, bottle, toy, cable, map or mask. They must reinterpret it as an artefact from a future shaped by the polycrisis. The object becomes a prompt for storytelling, systems thinking and ethical reflection about possible futures.
Students use miniatures, cards and paper templates to prototype a policy response to a fictional emergency. They build the policy as a scene rather than only writing it as text. Other groups “walk through” the scene, identify risks and suggest redesigns.