| 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? |
Playful brainstorming techniques are structured, creative and participatory methods for generating, organising, testing, prioritising and refining ideas. They include empathy maps, dot voting, plus/delta, fishbowl discussion, anti-problem, stakeholder analysis, 5 Whys, flip-it, value mapping, the $100 test, the NUF test and start-stop-continue. These methods are “playful” because they use prompts, rules, visual tools, reversals, movement, voting, role shifts or time limits to make thinking more dynamic. In polycrisis teaching, playful brainstorming helps students move from overwhelm to shared inquiry, stakeholder awareness, root-cause analysis, prioritisation and collective action.
| Indicative starter sources for information about these methods |
| Additional sources of information about these methods |
Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O'Reilly Media.
Gray, D. (2017, July 26). Updated empathy map canvas [Blog post]. Medium.
https://medium.com//updated-empathy-map-canvas-46df22df3c8ade Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. Harper & Row.
Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
XPLANE. (2025). The empathy map: A human-centered tool for understanding how your audience thinks.
https://xplane.com/the-empathy-map-a-human-centered-tool-for-understanding-how-your-audience-thinks/Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley.
American Society for Quality. (n.d.). Multivoting. ASQ.
https://asq.org/quality-resources/multivotingNielsen Norman Group. (2024). Dot voting: A simple decision-making and prioritizing technique in UX.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dot-voting/Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman.
Roussin, C. J., & Weinstock, P. (2021). Embracing informed learner self-assessment during debriefing: The art of plus-delta. Advances in Simulation, 6(1), Article 19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00173-1Lean Construction Institute. (n.d.). Plus/delta.
https://leanconstruction.org/lean-topics/plus-delta/Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Currency/Doubleday.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
Smart, J. B., & Featheringham, R. (2006). Developing effective asynchronous online conversation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(3), 263–279.
https://doi.org/10.2190/9LMH-52H5-6406-3Q50Gillies, R. M. (2015). Rethinking the fishbowl discussion strategy: A mechanism to construct meaning and foster critical thinking and communication skills through student dialogue. Journal of Health Education Teaching Techniques, 2(3), 1–11.
SessionLab. (n.d.). Reverse brainstorming.
https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/reverse-brainstormingOsborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Scribner.
Mendelow, A. L. (1991). Stakeholder mapping. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Systems, Cambridge, MA.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259247Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
Serrat, O. (2017). The five whys technique. In Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance and innovation (pp. 307–310). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_32de Bono, E. (1993). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. HarperBusiness.
Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 16–34.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.96Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (2008). Rural communities: Legacy and change (3rd ed.). Westview Press.
Capitals Coalition. (n.d.). Capitals approach.
https://capitalscoalition.org/capitals-approach/Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330609490152Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. Wiley.
Airfocus. (2023). 100 dollar test prioritization: Definition, benefits and tips.
https://airfocus.com/glossary/what-is-100-dollar-test-prioritization/LaunchNotes. (n.d.). 100 dollar test prioritization: Definition, examples, and applications.
https://www.launchnotes.com/glossary/100-dollar-test-prioritization-in-product-management-and-operationsKano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality, The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control), 14(2), 39–48.
Gamestorming. (n.d.). NUF test.
https://gamestorming.com/nuf-test/Kudrowitz, B. M., & Wallace, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(2), 120–139.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.676633Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.
Agile Alliance. (n.d.). Retrospectives.
https://www.agilealliance.org/glossary/heartbeatretro/| Indicative participatory teaching scenarios for these methods |
Students begin with the reverse question: “How could a university make the polycrisis worse?” Groups generate harmful ideas such as hiding risk information, excluding vulnerable students, wasting energy or ignoring misinformation. They then flip these ideas into constructive principles for institutional resilience, care and democratic accountability.
Students receive a fictional €100 million resilience budget for a city or university. They must distribute it across heat adaptation, housing, food security, mental health, emergency communication, renewable energy and community partnerships. The activity forces explicit discussion of trade-offs, values, justice and evidence.
The inner circle discusses whether the term “polycrisis” helps people understand interdependence or instead creates paralysis and fear. The outer circle observes assumptions, missing voices and types of evidence. Students rotate between speaking and observing, then co-produce a map of arguments.
Each group receives one stakeholder affected by overlapping crises: an international student, elderly resident, refugee family, municipal planner, nurse, farmer, delivery worker or non-human ecosystem. Students complete empathy maps, then compare how crisis policies appear different from each position.
Students choose a crisis symptom, such as food insecurity among students or low trust in emergency alerts. They ask “why?” five times, moving from surface symptoms to structural causes. The class then compares root causes across teams and identifies shared leverage points.
CC BY-SA 4.0 - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Previous chapter