



































 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 
 
ISSN 2184-6995 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International License. 

 

  

 

 
 
Nurturing public value for community resilience. 
A tentative discussion around co-production of narratives  
through a civic design approach 
 
Vanessa Monna, Yasuyuki Hayama 
 
Published online: May 2022 

 
To cite this article:  
Monna, V., & Hayama, Y. (2022). Nurturing public value for community resilience. A tentative  
discussion around co-production of narratives through a civic design approach. Discern: International 
Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 44-53. 
 
  



 

45 

Nurturing public value for community resilience. A tentative discussion 
around co-production of narratives through a civic design approach 
 
Vanessa Monnaa, Yasuyuki Hayamab 

 
aPolitecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. vanessa.monna@polimi.it 
bPolitecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. yasuyuki.hayama@polimi.it 
 

Abstract 

Within a society characterised by growing complexity, communities attempt to address wicked problems 

(Rittel & Webber, 1973), which impact how people live together. The concept of community resilience has 

been discussed in public policy and social-ecological systems studies for communities to be prepared for 

emergencies. Recently, evolutionary resilience (Davoudi, 2012) has been proposed in the context of 

communities facing wicked problems evolving within uncertain worlds. Evolutionary resilience highlights 

the growing need for flexible adaptation towards more dynamic social change. We argue that nurturing 

public value could be a strategic approach for taming wicked problems beyond resource control and the 

capacity for communities to achieve resilience in a rapidly changing society. Indeed, the broad literature 

about public value already implies that it can be properly developed as an outcome of collaboration 

between public institutions and citizens. However, the processes nurturing public value are still under 

investigation, especially within design studies. We propose that the co-production of common narratives 

between public institutions and citizens fruitfully produces public value, by linking design narratives to the 

interpretive approach tightly associated with the concept of evolutionary resilience. Moreover, we suggest 

that the emerging realm of civic design could be a consistent approach for communities and public 

institutions to produce and reproduce these kinds of common narratives. 

 

Keywords: Public value, Community resilience, Evolutionary resilience, Sustainability, Storytelling,  

Design narratives, Civic design 

 

Complexity within liquid society 

Society is changing, and it is changing rapidly due to the liquid nature of the relationships characterising  

it (Bauman, 2000). All human systems are exposed to unexpected risks and fragilities, which trigger hectic 

and multifaceted transitions that are increasingly more common, profound and dramatic. These transitions 

generate a growing complexity requiring creative solutions addressing a high degree of situatedness. 

Within this scenario, we argue that design narratives and civic design can effectively engage with this multi-

level complexity, resulting in new resilient communities moving towards sustainability at an environmental, 

social and economic scale. 

 

Towards community resilience by nurturing public value 

Community resilience beyond conventional approaches 

While conventional approaches to resilience have been adopted within emergency preparedness and 

planning, focusing primarily on resource control and capacity (Chubb et al., 2021), the resilience of 

communities has been discussed in public policy and social-ecological systems studies. Scholars in these 

areas of study commonly understand resilience as the capability of a system to absorb disturbance, 

experience change and preserve its fundamental functions, structure, and identity (Resilience  

Alliance, 2010). 

 



 

46 

Since communities are composed of people, community resilience hinges on, yet is not limited to, its 

people’s relational structure (Sang Baek et al., 2015). Within communities, social bonds are not fixed and 

continuously evolve, led by diverse trajectories and dynamics of interaction, transformation and 

adaptation. Hence, within the context of communities, the notion of resilience is not conceived as a return 

to “normality”: it is understood as the capacity of complex socio-ecological systems to transform and adapt 

with or without external catalysts. Davoudi (2012, as cited in Monna & Auricchio, 2020) refers to this 

conception of resilience as “evolutionary resilience”. This concept shifts beyond conventional approaches 

to resilience because transformation may be triggered by  

 

“…internal stresses with no proportional or linear relationship between the cause and the effects.  

This means that small-scale changes in systems can amplify and cascade into major shifts (reflecting 

Edward Lorenz's idea of "the butterfly effect") while large interventions may have little or no effects”. 

(Davoudi, 2012).  

 

This framework requires constant learning of an evolving and uncertain world, where communities moving 

towards sustainability need to deal with the indeterminacy of wicked problems. 

 

Communities addressing complex issues 

Although all the issues a community seeking resilience faces are contextual and ever evolving, many of 

them impact how people live together and how they experience and give shape to their spaces. Since these 

issues are complex and ill-structured, they acquire the nature of “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber., 

1973). Indeed, they are identified by the following qualities: 

 

● there is no definitive formulation of the problem, since it is understood during the development  

of a possible solution. Each potential solution uncovers new facets of the problem, which require 

further investigation; 

● positing that there is no definitive problem, and there is no conclusive neither right nor wrong 

solution; 

● each solution is a “one-shot operation” and has no given alternative solutions; 

● every wicked problem is unique and might be the symptom of another problem; 

● around every wicked problem, there are conflicts about its values and objectives. Choosing  

to explain a wicked problem in a certain way determines the nature of the solution. 

 

Communities engage with the explosive combination of centrifugal and centripetal forces surrounding 

these issues, seeking to redirect self-interest towards the common good and shared responsibility for  

“our joint world” (Landry, 2017). How do communities engage with these wicked problems? How do they 

determine what they deem as their common good?  

 

Taming wicked problems beyond resource control and capacity 

Traditionally, the complexity, dimension and scale of situated wicked problems are a prerogative of the 

polity, which addresses them through resource control and capacity, putting the accent on a deficit-based 

approach (Chubb & Jennings, 2021). However, “taming wicked problems requires crisis leadership that 

addresses challenges and issues [also] through relationships” (Chubb & Jennings, 2021). Indeed, only 

through relational structures can a community collectively shape and socially govern its commons  

(Basu et al., 2017; Ostrom, 1990), intended not only as a “utilitarian concept but [also as] the moral and 

political condition of human life” (Matei, 2011). In this perspective, “the common good is determined by 



 

47 

broadly inclusive dialogue and deliberative processes. Citizens are seen as co-creators actively engaged in 

creating what is good for the public” (Stenvall et al., 2022) or, in other words, “public value” (Moore, 1995). 

 

Moore (1995) proposed the concept of public value as the counterpart of shareholder value within public 

management. Initially, this notion advocated for public officials to value public services’ benefits and costs 

not only according to money “but also in terms of how government actions affect important civic and 

democratic principles such as equity, liberty, responsiveness, transparency, participation, and citizenship” 

(Kavanagh, 2014). Despite this, today, the term is not limited to the public sector, but it broadly relates  

to the contribution to the common good by any kind of organisation (Meynhardt, 2009). 

 

Moore (1995) suggests considering the entire chain of value production, starting from the inputs, moving  

to the processes and finally focusing on the impact on stakeholders, which eventually spurs the intended 

social outcome (Kavanagh, 2014). Moore (1995) explains the entire chain of public value production 

through what he refers to as the “strategic triangle” (Figure 1). “The model consists of three concepts, 

public value, legitimising environment, and operational capacity” (Salemans & Budding, 2021).  

It illustrates that public value is produced when a strategic action is both given democratic legitimacy, 

 (i.e. it has been supported by the involved community) and is endorsed by an authorising environment, 

such as a governing board and when an institution has the operational capacity to implement the strategic 

action adequately. 

 

Moreover, Moore (1995) shows a relation of interdependency among the three elements of the strategic 

triangle: the more public value is created, the more citizens gain trust in the government, the easier it is for 

elected officials to obtain resources, and, finally, the simpler it becomes for a governing board to endorse 

new strategic actions, restarting the feedback loop. In a few words, public value is “about delivering  

a service that is sustainably valuable” (Salemans & Budding, 2021). 

 

 
 

Figure 1: Public Value Strategic Triangle. Adapted from Moore, 1995. 



 

48 

 

When a governing board takes decisions concerning wicked problems, its choices “reflect local public 

values” (Stenvall et al., 2022). This means that a community’s resilience is highly influenced by its public 

values and is considerably grounded in situated relationships. Hence, how can public value be nurtured? 

 

Power of narratives to nurture public value for community resilience 

To nurture public value, we propose that narratives can be powerful drivers to facilitate and coordinate two 

components of Moore’s strategic triangle (1995), namely “legitimacy and support” and “operational 

capacity”. Through promoting collaborative interactions among public institutions and communities 

consisting of citizens and diverse types of stakeholders, narratives can generate dynamics and trajectories 

encompassing shared values. Hence, public values generated by common narratives between public 

institutions and communities function as a solid foundation of a resilient community, since the processes 

and outcomes are negotiated and shared by potentially all the stakeholders. 

 

Narratives by design as nurturers of public value 

Narratives have increasingly been addressed in design fields due to their essential properties, which 

comprise both a human cognitive process (Polkinghorne, 1988) and a mode of communication (Fisher, 

1985, 1987). Narrative — a plot of sequential and interconnected events with a beginning, a conclusion  

and a basic structure — allows humans to use it as a sensemaking currency (Fisher, 1985; Boje, 1991).  

Its essential properties of being a human cognitive process and a mode of communication (Bruner, 1986) 

allow the conceptual use of narratives in many disciplinary contexts, such as sociology, history, psychology, 

communication, anthropology, philosophy, business management and design studies  

(Rhodes & Brown., 2005).  

 

In the field of design study, narratives and storytelling have been studied in creative practice  

(Lloyd & Oak, 2018) and from broad dimensional aspects, such as “narratives as competency”, “narratives 

as process”, and “narratives as artefacts” (Hayama et al., 2021). Especially in the context of communication 

design, narratives have been underlined as enablers for the inclusion of people in the social innovation 

process (Ciancia et al., 2014). Narratives and stories unlock people’s potential and relationships in 

participatory design processes by collecting stories, expectations and wishes from the community as tiny 

tales from everyday life (Ciancia et al., 2014). In this sense, narratives and stories can play a significant role 

in developing a common language and building empathy with people in a specific community context. 

 

Regarding public value, narratives are considered to develop clear goals and legitimisation by stakeholders 

(Salemans &  Budding, 2021). Salemans and Budding (2021) argue that using narratives is a fruitful way to 

communicate ambitions and results in terms of public value. However, they also warn about the potential 

risk of influencing management and inducing bias, given the capacity of narratives to convince people 

(Brennan & Merkl-Davies, 2013; Beattie, 2014). 

 

In these lines of argument, we suggest that narratives can be potential enablers to generate public values, 

facilitating the co-creation of social commons among public institutions and communities. A designerly 

approach can perform effectively as a powerful facilitator to generate common narratives among citizens 

and different social actors through active engagement, a common language and empathy building. Any 

story consists of three essential elements: “a narrative subject in search of an object, a destinator (an 

extratextual force, the source of the subjects’ ideology) and a set of forces that either help or hinder the 

subject in acquiring the desired object” (Fiol, 1989). Following this pattern, community stories might be 

structured accordingly: the narrative subject as the citizens or the community; the ultimate object or goal 



 

49 

of the narrative as sustainable community development and maintenance; and the destinator as the 

community and societal environment in which the narrative subject operates. In this context, a designerly 

approach can facilitate collaboration with communities and peers to set a common ground for discussion, 

engagement and moving people together. Performing the double roles of “storylisteners” and “storytellers” 

(Ciancia et al., 2014), designers can collect potential fragmented stories from community members and 

organise information in a structured manner. As Ahmad and Thompson (2009) state, “storytelling as  

a means to sharing knowledge, building trust, and cultivating identity” could allow communities and public 

institutions to collect shared knowledge, build trust in each other and develop an intersubjective identity 

through a participatory approach. Consequently, a solid basement of trust and an identity shaped by 

narratives enable a fruitful ground for democratic legitimacy, a fundamental part of public value.  

 

Not only do narratives facilitate the generation of democratic legitimacy, but public managers can also use 

narratives’ benefits to build up another important basement of public value creation, which is the support 

of an authorising environment. Indeed, once a specific public matter is democratically legitimised, public 

managers can easily align their mission with values articulated by citizens. Strongly supported by citizen-

driven legitimacy, public managers can contextualise their mission on the common narratives and position 

themself in democratic political discourses. In other words, by relying on common narratives, public 

managers can easily involve essential stakeholders, such as formal authorities (e.g., the governing board), 

impacted citizens, especially citizens whose voices are commonly unheard, the media and the broader 

citizenry, as well as influential individuals outside of formal organisations. 

 

From the perspective of Moore’s strategic triangle, once democratic legitimacy has been built up, it triggers 

the community to get easier access to the essential support of public authorities (Moore, 1995; Kavanagh, 

2014). Then, the managers of the public institutions who have collaborated with the community can easily 

access inputs (e.g., money, volunteers). Hence, a loop of public value production and amplification would 

be triggered, since the public institutions and citizens would collaboratively achieve two pillars of the 

strategic triangle of public value: legitimacy and support and operational capacity. 

 

Focusing on democratic legitimacy building at the beginning of a shared project would enable public 

institutions and communities to make the most out of the narratives and storytelling produced to generate 

public value in an interdependent way, activating a feedback loop. A designerly approach to storytelling 

and narrative creation could potentially trigger public value generation by achieving a firm foundation of 

democratic legitimacy towards a specific public issue through collaboration, which unlocks the potential  

of people and the relationship among all the stakeholders of a community. 

 

Potential roles of narratives towards community resilience 

Public institutions could use the potential roles of narratives to nurture public value and, thus, develop 

community resilience. As mentioned above, the capability for a community to tackle complex, wicked 

problems flexibly, in other words, nurturing evolutionary resilience, is becoming increasingly crucial. Since 

evolutionary resilience emphasises “fluidity, reflexivity, contingency, connectivity, multiplicity and 

polyvocality” (Davoudi & Strange, 2008), Davoudi (2012) proposes that the “interpretive approach” has 

good parallels with it. Indeed, contrasting with the naturalist-positivist approach, the interpretive approach 

“considers knowledge to be a matter of understanding rather than an explanation” (Davoudi, 2012). 

Certainly, social phenomena diverge from natural ones because they hinge on people's meaningful and 

intentional actions. Hence, instead of explaining the causes of behaviours, social sciences seek the  

meaning of action, making sense of them individually and on a social scale. 

 



 

50 

Within this perspective, narrative as a mode of communication and a mode of knowing is endorsed as an 

original scientific approach based on “narrative rationality” (Bruner, 1986; Czarniawska, 2004; Fisher, 

1987). As narratives are intrinsically “interpretative flexible” (Pinch & Bijker, 1984), they can be shared with 

diverse audiences, stimulating multiple ways of thinking and enabling individuals to draw inspiration from 

concepts, ideas and events concerning their understanding and contexts. In this sense, narratives are 

considered a boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989). Indeed, they are both coherent enough to bring 

together individuals' expression of different facets of communities and pliable enough to let them draw 

inferences that fit their unique contexts. According to Fisher’s (1987) “narrative paradigm”, human beings 

are storytelling animals that make sense of their world and their own lives through narrative 

understanding, as their interpretations of the world. 

 

Consequently, as a solid interpretative artefact, narrative can have strong potential to develop evolutionary 

resilience within a community through an interpretive approach. Then, how can citizens and public 

institutions generate common narratives which can function as enablers of nurturing public value towards 

an evolutionary resilient community? We argue that Civic Design might be the preferable approach. 

 

Civic Design fostering common narratives 

Even if the notion of Civic Design is yet to be theoretically clarified within design studies, we agree that  

Civic Design “is an approach for inclusive and productive conversations” (We Who Engage MIT, 2020), 

contributing to “new forms of living together” (DiSalvo & Le Dantec, 2017). This means that there is the 

need to consider new modes of encounter — new ways of working with communities, with government 

and non-government agencies, with all manner of civil society and even (perhaps especially) with those 

who work beyond the normal conceptions of what is appropriate of civil action (DiSalvo & Le Dantec, 2017). 

This last point is critical when talking about co-producing narratives that actively involve all the impacted 

stakeholders, which is crucial for the successful creation of public value. Indeed, Civic Design aims to create 

a space where, even if unanimity is hardly present if treated as a place in common, diverse voices can be 

heard, enabling a process resulting in negotiated resilience (Harris et al., 2017). This space would allow 

stakeholders to discuss both the symbols and the structures on which society is based, opening the 

opportunity to create new common narratives around problems, sparking new publics into being  

(Dewey, 1927; Marres, 2005). Common narratives could challenge and rethink established ideas that 

citizens have of themselves. This would transform the situated community’s public value which,  

potentially, could activate the community towards the open-ended remaking of its governance structures. 

 

Discussion 

Although the literature about public value has been long-standing, it has barely crossed the field of design 

studies. We propose an original yet quite raw view on how public value might be nurtured through 

designerly approaches and processes. Specifically, we have bridged the concepts and practices of Design 

Narratives and Civic Design with significant debates around public value management and evolutionary 

resilience concerning communities. Our reflection emphasises that a designerly approach to public value 

generation is meaningful in terms of legitimisation. Indeed, both Design Narratives and Civic Design 

generate inclusiveness through engagement, participation and collaborative actions. These actions 

contribute to the production of public values resulting in a resilient community hinged on inclusiveness. 

 

A limitation of the presented contribution is that it does not clarify how Civic Design builds common 

narratives. Indeed, the operational framework of Civic Design is yet to be defined, and it is the subject  

of ongoing PhD research. 

 



 

51 

Moreover, we consider an empirical study essential. Here we propose a reflection to open a discussion 

about the designerly opportunities nurturing public value, which are yet to be investigated by design 

scholars. However, we suggest proceeding with an empirical study grounded in real projects within the 

Design Narrative and Civic Design realms. 

 

Furthermore, we suggest several research avenues regarding public values and community resilience 

through a design study point of view. For example, among the many, investigating the broader roles and 

contribution of design to strategic management in governments (Moore, 1995), such as Design Narrative 

for strategic sensemaking in governments. 

 

Conclusion 

Within design studies, the processes enabling the production of public value are yet to be clearly described 

and framed. The presented reflection brings the approaches and processes of Design Narratives and Civic 

Design into public value management and community resilience debates. This reflection critically considers 

complex relations between community and state, exploring common narratives nurturing public value  

as a fundamental agenda for democratic governance. 
 

References  
Ahmad, A., & Thompson, J. (2009). Tale-telling organizations: Using stories to create collective change. 
https://www.mcmaster.ca/stlhe/3M.council/Tale-telling%20Organizations.pdf  
 
Barthes, R. (1968). The reality effect. In D. J. Hale (Ed.), The novel: An anthology of criticism and theory, 
1900-2000 (pp. 229-34). Blackwell Publishing. 
 
Basu, S., Jongerden, J., & Ruivenkamp, G. (2017). Development of the drought-tolerant variety Sahbhagi 
Dhan: Exploring the concepts commons and community building. International Journal of the  
Commons, 11(1), 144-170. 
 
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press. 
 
Beattie, V. (2014). Accounting narratives and the narrative turn in accounting research: Issues, theory, 
methodology, methods and a research framework. British Accounting Review, 46(2), 111-134. 
 
Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106-126. 
 
Brennan, N. M., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2013). Accounting narratives and impression management.  
In L. Jack, J. Davison, & R. Craig (Eds.), The Routledge companion to accounting communication  
(pp. 123-146). Routledge. 
 
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press. 
 
Chubb, M., & Jennings, C. (2021). Defining an integrative framework of sensemaking and sustainability for 
building organizational and community resilience. Naturalistic Decision Making and Resilience Engineering 
Symposium 2021, Toulouse, France. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352666353_Naturalistic_Decision_Making_and_Resilience_Engi
neering_Symposium 
 
Ciancia, M., Piredda, F., & Venditti, S. (2014). Shaping and sharing imagination: Designers and the 
transformative power of stories. In H. Moura, R. Sternberg, R. Cunha, C. Queiroz, & M. Zeilinger (Eds.), 
Proceedings of the Interactive Narratives, New Media & Social Engagement International Conference  



 

52 

(pp. 37-46). 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269088110_Shaping_and_Sharing_Imagination_Designers_and
_the_Transformative_Power_of_Stories 
 
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Sage. 
 
Davoudi, S., & Strange, I. (2008). Space and place in twentieth-century planning: An analytical framework 
and a historical review. In S. Davoudi & I. Strange (Eds.), Conceptions of space and place in strategic spatial 
planning (pp. 21-56). Routledge. 
 
Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice,  
13(2), 299-307. 
 
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Henry Holt. 
 
DiSalvo, C., & Le Dantec, C. p(2017). Civic design. interactions, 24(6), 66-69. 
 
Edwards, C. (2009) Resilient nation. Demos. 
 
Fiol, C. M. (1989). A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries and joint venturing. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(2), 277–303.  
 
Fisher, W. R. (1985). The narrative paradigm: In the beginning. Journal of Communication, 35(4), 74-89.  
 
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration. University of South Carolina Press.  
 
Harris, L. M., Chu, E. K., & Ziervogel, G. (2017). Negotiated resilience. Resilience, 6(3), 196-214.  
 
Hayama, Y., Zurlo, F., Cautela, C., & Melazzini, M. (2021). Narrative in design and business: A literature 
review and research agenda for the future. 28th Innovation and Product Development Management 
Conference, Milan, Italy [online]. https://tinyurl.com/2nfsmfwx 
 
Kavanagh, S. (2014). Defining and creating value for the public. Government Finance Review, 4, 57-60. 
 
Landry, C. (2017). The civic city in a nomadic world. Nai010. 
 
Lloyd, P., & Oak, A. (2018). Cracking open co-creation: Categories, stories, and value tension  
in a collaborative design process. Design Studies, 57, 93-111. 
 
Marres, N. (2005). Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey 
debate. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 208-217). 
MIT Press. https://opencuny.org/pnmarchive/files/2019/01/Marres-Issue-Spark-a-Public.pdf 
 
Matei, O. (2011). The Machiavellian concept of civic virtues. Societate şi Politică, 5(9), 106-115. 
 
Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value Inside: What is Public Value Creation? International Journal of Public 
Administration, 32 (3-4), 192-219. 
 
Monna, V., & Auricchio, V. (2020). Building the civic city. Civic design as enabler of resilient communities. 
Sustainable Mediterranean Construction, 12, 166-170. 
http://www.sustainablemediterraneanconstruction.eu/SMC/The_Magazine_n.12_files/1226.pdf  
 
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government.  
Harvard University Press. 



 

53 

 
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.  
Cambridge University Press. 
 
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of 
science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399-441. 
 
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. SUNY Press.  
 
Resilience Alliance (2010). Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for Practitioners. 
https://www.resalliance.org/files/ResilienceAssessmentV2_2.pdf 
 
Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005). Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal  
of Management Reviews, 7(3), 167-188.  
 
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,  
4, 155-169. 
 
Salemans, L., & Budding, G. (2021). Operationalizing public value in higher education: The use of narratives 
as an alternative for performance indicators. Journal of Management & Governance. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09596-4 
 
Sang Baek, J., Meroni, A., & Manzini E. (2015). A socio-technical approach to design for community 
resilience: A framework for analysis and design goal forming. Design Studies, 40, 60-84. 
 
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs  
and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science,  
19(3), 387-420. 
 
Stenvall J., Laitinen I., Yeoman R., Thompson M., & Mueller Santos M. (2022) Urbanisation and public 
values. In Public values for cities and city policy (pp. 115-140). Palgrave Macmillan. 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-80799-3_6 
 
Striano, M. (2005). La narrazione come dispositivo conoscitivo ed ermeneutico. M@gm@, 3(3).   
http://www.analisiqualitativa.com/magma/0303/articolo_01.htm 
 
We Who Engage MIT. (2020). The Civic Design Framework report. MIT Department of 
Urban Studies and Planning. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SRojEzmz5JVDbexeWNGA0a7BOmRDvA13/view 
 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09596-4

