





































 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

  

 

 

 

A review of community and connectivity strategies for the acceleration  

of sustainable transitions 
 

Mike Murray, Emina Kristina Petrović 

 

Published online: November 2023 

 
To cite this article:  

Murray, M., & Petrović, E. K. (2023). A review of community and connectivity strategies for the acceleration 

of sustainable transitions. Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation 

and Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 42-57. 

 
 
  



 

43 
 

A review of community and connectivity strategies for the acceleration  

of sustainable transitions 
 

Mike Murraya, Emina Kristina Petrovićb 

 
aTe Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 6011, New Zealand. 
bTe Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 6011, New Zealand. 

emina.petrovic@vuw.ac.nz 

 

Abstract 

In the face of the escalating climate crisis, a cross-disciplinary understanding of strategies for stimulating 

transitional change is critical (Newell et al., 2022). To meaningfully stimulate and accelerate transitions 

toward more sustainable practices, it is essential to foster broad community action, which requires 

connectivity within and across disciplines. This article presents the findings of a literature review on 

physical and digital community organization and connectivity strategies, articulating the potential of 

participation and knowledge sharing within communities to stimulate meaningful change. Eight physical, 

community-based strategies are reviewed and analysed, alongside four digital strategies. The selection  

of physical strategies conveys a range of tried-and-tested methods of stimulating change, while the review 

of digital strategies explores how traditional methods have been adapted to the digital age. Middle-out 

approaches to change are particularly focused upon, as middle actors hold a balance of both agency and 

capacity to drive sustainable transitions, compared to top or bottom actors (Janda & Parag, 2011; Simpson 

et al., 2020). Awareness of the value of middle-out action is growing, with an example being the European 

Union’s introduction of formal support for ‘transition brokers’ capable of providing middle-level facilitation 

for change (Cramer, 2020). By bringing together into one place an analysis of a range of existing concepts 

and strategies, this review takes an initial step toward establishing a cross-disciplinary source of community 

organizing and connectivity strategies, which may be implemented by middle actors. 

 

Keywords: Community and connectivity strategies, Middle-out, Sustainable transitions, Acceleration 

 

Introduction and background 

In the face of the escalating climate crisis, there is an urgent need to accelerate transitions toward more 

sustainable practices, and a recognition that better support for the social infrastructure and processes 

needed for behavioural change would help (Newell et al., 2022). Supporting that, some European Union 

countries have started introducing formal support for ‘transition brokers’ capable of providing middle-level 

facilitation for the necessary transitions (Cramer, 2020). However, better understanding of how to 

stimulate the collective acceleration of sustainable transitions is still needed (Feeney et al., 2023;  

Newell et al., 2022). 

 

This article presents the findings of a literature review on 12 physical and digital community organization 

and connectivity strategies, articulating the potential of participation and knowledge sharing within 

communities to stimulate meaningful change. The strategies analysed originate from a wide variety of 

disciplines, including education, economics, policy, business, grassroots activism and organizing. This review 

synthesizes the acquired knowledge into a cross-disciplinary understanding of methods for accelerating 

sustainable transitions. A brief historical background of these strategies, including their disciplines of origin, 



 

44 
 

is provided. The identified strategies are analysed through the lens of a middle-out approach, to identify 

effective strategies for middle actors seeking to influence transitional change  

(Janda & Parag, 2011; Simpson et al., 2020). 

 

Top-down, bottom-up and middle-out approaches 

Approaches to change are often discussed as either ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ and attract a range of 

slightly different definitions. The strengths of bottom-up approaches include the potential to identify  

local issues through participatory community involvement and the ease with which local disciplinary or 

indigenous knowledge bases can be tapped into (Panda, 2007). Top-down approaches also have their 

merits within the broad ecosystem of change but also attract some valid criticisms. Finger and Princen 

(1994) critique the failure of top actors (whether they be corporations or states) to prioritize climate over 

capital, observing that economic growth often trumps ecological constraints. Finger and Princen (1994) 

further caution that the bottom-up focus on decentralized, community-led responses makes it harder to 

influence widespread societal change – hence the importance of using a range of approaches. 

 

As an alternative to this dichotomy, Janda and Parag (2011) proposed a middle-out approach to sustainable 

transitions. They asserted that through middle-out activity, one might influence actors upstream (i.e. at the 

‘top’), downstream (i.e. at the ‘bottom’) or sideways – influencing actors in adjacent or competitive 

positions (Janda & Parag, 2011; Simpson et al., 2020). A series of case studies by Simpson et al. (2020) 

found that middle actors within the industry often had less upstream influence and that sideways influence 

amongst professionals was common. 

 

Janda and Parag (2011) discuss the relationship between individuals as ‘bottom’ actors and governments  

or corporations as ‘top’ actors. Compared to top or bottom actors, middle actors hold a balance of both the 

agency to drive and the capacity to support sustainable transitions (Janda & Parag, 2011; Simpson et al., 

2020). Middle actors are therefore workers or professionals engaged in any field or discipline below 

government level (Mindell et al., 2021). 

 

This review does not focus on middle actors in any discipline, but instead draws and synthesizes knowledge 

from a range of disciplines – toward a broader range of tangible middle-out strategies to support 

transitional change. 

 

Historical context 

During the 20th century, there have been some radical expansions and re-conceptions of this area (Sites et 

al., 2007). Community organization has been viewed as a multi-paradigm field that does not privilege any 

one strategy (Sites, et al., 2007). On the other hand, it has been recognised that community organizations 

tend to share four key concepts: development, organizing, planning and change (Weil, 2012). 

 

Although activities during and after the 1960s are often seen as the point of origin of numerous community 

organization strategies, the beginnings were earlier (Fisher, 1984). In the 1920s and 1930s, following the 

Red Scare of 1918, the professionalization of social work led to community organization (Fisher, 1984; 

Lubove, 1975). This is when a distinctive social work practice area became recognised, and these early 

developments often used mass mobilization (Fisher, 1984; Sites et al., 2007). Further expansion of 

community organization took place after World War Two when academics and activists called for an 

increase in equality and improvements in working conditions (Fisher, 1984; Sites et al., 2007). This was 



 

45 
 

followed by further expansion during the 1960s as part of the civil rights movement and general resistance 

to Western influence (Fisher, 1984), continuing into the 1970s with the anti-war and early second-wave 

feminist movements (Evans, 2014; Fisher, 1984). 

 

Early conceptions of what is now known as social entrepreneurship emerged in the 1970s (Nicholls  

& Collavo, 2019). Fisher (1984) discusses the transition in the mid-1970s from mass mobilization to 

grassroots organizing. Social entrepreneurship is often critiqued for its reliance on collective action and 

community organizing methods (Nicholls & Collavo, 2019; Sud, VanSandt & Baugous, 2008), which can be 

interpreted due to its roots in the post-Fordist economic restructurings of the late 1970s (Sites et al., 2007). 

The term ‘game changer’ can be traced to baseball commentary from 1982, before an expanded uptake in 

economic and political commentary in the 1990s (Safire, 2008). Today, game changers are often discussed 

with social change and innovation (Avelino et al., 2017), constituting another often-financed approach to 

social change (Sites et al., 2007; Westley et al., 2016). 

 

The framework of intersectionality was introduced by the Combahee River Collective in 1983 and later 

expanded upon as intersectional activism by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 (Loopmans et al., 2021). This 

preceded third-wave feminism, which began in the 1990s (Evans, 2014). The 1990s also saw the 

introduction of several other strategies. Community of practice (CoP) was introduced by Jean Lave and 

Etienne Wenger in 1991 as a framework for understanding how knowledge is shared in professional 

communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Furthermore, in 1997 the term ‘disruptor’ emerged out of the 

Harvard Business School (Christensen, 1997), and in 1999 the community of inquiry framework was 

introduced (Garrison et al., 1999). 

 

This shows that there is a range of approaches in this area, which may employ a broad variety of actors. 

Before determining which concepts or strategies would be most useful for acceleration of pro-sustainable 

transitions, a literature review was undertaken. 

 

Methodology 

The purpose of the review was to explore discussions of communities of practice, game changers, 

disruptors and similar strategies. Literature was sought based on shared keywords, authors and 

publications. Communities of practice, game changers and disruptors were identified as three initial 

strategies to review, with the remainder of the strategies identified throughout the review process. The 

following series of literature reviews explores the background, functionality, variations and key parameters 

of the 12 identified strategies. Considerable variation is identified in the status and function of the 

strategies. They also address whether the strategies can be characterized as top-down, middle-out or 

bottom-up approaches. 

 

Quantification of the list of identified strategies was conducted by citing data from the Altmetric database, 

which breaks down ‘mentions’ of the search term by source type, separating research outputs and 

publications from other sources of mentions. This quantification was undertaken to ensure that the 

concepts being reviewed were not too emergent or peripheral to later inform valuable and deployable 

strategies. The Altmetric database was selected for its broad coverage and variety of analytical metrics for 

interpreting search results. The results of the physical and digital strategies are listed in Table 1. The 

prominence of each term in the literature is primarily indicated by the ‘research outputs’ column, while the 



 

46 
 

‘mentions in policy documents’ column indicates how much uptake strategies may have had in political 

spheres. Unsurprisingly, the more recent digital strategies tended to return fewer results. 

 

Table 1: Mentions of strategies across the literature (Data Source: Altmetric Explorer). 

 

Strategy Research outputs Mentions in policy 

documents 

Mentions in peer 
reviews 

Community of Practice 14,162 2,290 156 

Social Entrepreneurship 2,551 195 16 

Mass Mobilization 2,331 1,518 69 

Disruptors 1,699 880 33 

Game Changers 867 99 5 

Community of Inquiry 722 49 7 

Community Capacity 

Building 

470 96 8 

Intersectional Activism 207 37 2 

Digital Mobilization 1,889 1,608 15 

Digital Storytelling 940 26 4 

Virtual Community of 

Practice 

225 8 1 

Digital Artefacts 210 70 1 

 

Analysis 

Two levels of analysis were undertaken: a content analysis and a VOSviewer analysis. The content analysis 

examined the whole body of literature for critical differences and was used to compile most parts of this 

review. VOSviewer is a data visualization software, and for that part of analysis, the same 53 texts were 

used in order to further understand key themes in the body of literature. VOSviewer was used because  

of the comprehensiveness of the software, which provides immediate digital 2D bibliometric graphs. 

According to Viswalekshmi et al. (2023) and Elshaboury et al. (2022), VOSviewer is emerging as a widely 

used network mapping tool. To prepare the data for use in VOSviewer, the bibliographical data for these 

texts was compiled using the Zotero reference manager application for input into the VOSviewer data 

visualization software. VOSviewer clusters and maps connections between keywords as indicated by the 

cluster colour and visualizes their frequency through the size of the nodes. 

 

Results of the literature review 

Community of practice (CoP) 

A CoP is a group with a shared profession or field of activity, which comes together with a mutual desire to 

share knowledge, typically regarding a collective concern (Li et al., 2009; Wenger, 1999). These 

communities are typically informal, ever evolving and bound by mutually valued knowledge production 

(Wenger et al., 2002), as well as inter-generational participation between newcomers and older members 

(Lave & Wenger, 1991). The concept originates from education theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 

1998), but has been developed across a range of other disciplines since. If considering architects as middle 

actors (Janda & Parag, 2011) and acknowledging the proven need for further knowledge sharing to activate 

the agency of the profession (Simpson et al., 2020), it becomes clear that the CoP is an optimal middle-out 

strategy for a range of improvements. 



 

47 
 

 

In-person workshops, coaching, roundtable discussions and storytelling are tools which support the 

operation of a CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1999; Wenger et al., 2002). A community coordinator  

is typically needed to guide the development of a CoP (Wenger et al., 2002). Where members wish to gain 

knowledge from a range of sources, dividing the workload is often successful, with members then reporting 

back to the group – documentation and recording of information is also critical  

(Wenger et al., 2002). 

 

Social entrepreneurship 

The field of social entrepreneurship integrates and appropriates a variety of methods from the broader 

practice of community organization to generate positive and effective outcomes (Nicholls & Collavo, 2019). 

A social entrepreneur acts as a change agent within society, generating opportunities through 

transformative action (Maas & Grieco, 2017) and following a similar structure to standard 

entrepreneurship, but to generate social value over financial capital (Maas & Grieco, 2017). The concept  

of social entrepreneurship originates from business studies (Nicholls & Collavo, 2019) that note a common 

critique of social entrepreneurship and the capitalization on collective action. Approaches to social 

entrepreneurship may be collaborative and even interdisciplinary (de Bruin et al., 2017); however, these  

still constitute top-down approaches and as such are of less significance to the middle actor. 

 

Mass mobilization 

Checkoway (1995) defines mass mobilization as the process of unifying people around a cause through  

a collective mass activity, such as protests, boycotts or strikes. Mass mobilization is one of the oldest 

strategies, and its origin cannot be attributed to any discipline. Shultziner and Goldberg (2018) argue that 

mass mobilization is comprised of three phases: origin, protest and outcomes. Grassroots movements 

which deploy mass mobilization tactics can be considered bottom-up actors, as the organizing, decision-

making and activity come directly from the community, putting pressure on top actors (Finger & Princen, 

1994). Finger and Princen (1994) argue that established organizations are functionally no longer grassroots 

movements but that their inability to dictate downward clearly rules out any top-down intervention. 

Grassroots movements which deploy mass mobilization tactics may indeed be considered bottom-up 

actors, as the organizing, decision-making and activity come directly from the community  

(Finger & Princen, 1994). 

 

Mobilization organized or sponsored by established organizations may not be more effective than 

grassroots efforts by default, as the use of resources and the effectiveness of leaders are still critical factors 

(Shultziner & Goldberg, 2018). Social media, digital forums, planning workshops and visual artefacts are 

tools which support organization-led mass mobilization (Shultziner & Goldberg, 2018). 

 

Disruptors 

Disruptors are agents that materially disrupt the status quo of their given industry through entrepreneurial 

action, acting as a force for change across one or more sectors toward a more equitable society (Burgelman 

& Grove, 2007; Nicholls & Collavo, 2019). The concept originates from the business sector (Christensen, 

1997). Burgelman and Grove (2007) also discuss the cross-boundary disruptor, whose entrepreneurial 

actions significantly impact the status quo of an adjacent industry. Alpkan and Gemici (2016) caution that 

disruptors must exercise ambidexterity and be capable of adapting different capabilities to enjoy the most 

success in driving innovation and change. From a business perspective, newcomers typically take the form 



 

48 
 

of start-ups (Burgelman & Grove, 2007). This may not be the case for all disciplines, as disruption may also 

be prompted by shifting discourse or social action (Seglem & Bonner, 2022). 

 

Internal disruptors or cross-boundary disruptors may use a range of discipline-specific tools as available to 

them (Burgelman & Grove, 2007; Christensen, 1997). Disruptors and their capacity to drive change across 

one or more sectors (Nicholls & Collavo, 2019) are alluded to by Simpson et al. (2020), who discuss middle 

actors’ potential to act as disruptors across interconnected disciplines. Simpson et al. (2020) discuss 

middle-out disruption as something which actors may stimulate through their everyday activities. 

 

Game changers 

In the context of social change, a game changer can be defined as a macro trend or shift which shapes the 

trajectory of an industry or practice (Avelino et al., 2017). The concept, as it is discussed, originates from 

economic and political discourse (Safire, 2008). Innovative ideas or concepts which catalyse social 

innovation are seminal game changers, while external events which disrupt social innovation are 

exogenous game changers (Avelino et al., 2017; Westley et al., 2016). The endogamous game changer  

is the most significant approach for generating change, as it is the only variation to be developed and 

deployed by the actors themselves (Avelino et al., 2017; Westley et al., 2016). As endogamous and seminal 

game changers are generated directly and indirectly by the activity of actors in or adjacent to a given field, 

they can be employed as middle-out approaches. 

 

A seminal game changer is typically driven by new research, policies, theories or concepts, which typically 

result from a range of efforts (Avelino et al., 2017; Westley et al., 2016). One could also consider 

conferences, seminars and publications as tools which enable such aggregation. Due to this nature,  

a seminal game changer cannot be perfectly targeted at a specific audience. Awareness of the 

phenomenon is still useful, however, as researchers can use their best efforts to predict and contribute  

to future seminal game changers (Westley et al., 2016). 

 

Community of inquiry 

The community of inquiry is an organizing framework for groups within communities who share a mutual 

interest in a problematic issue and work to investigate, understand and overcome the issue (Shields, 2003). 

The framework is rooted in educational theory (Garrison et al., 1999) and can be defined as an intersection 

between cognitive, social and teaching presences; however, the presence of disciplinary experts is not 

required to facilitate the presence of teaching in a community of inquiry (Garrison et al., 1999; Sharp, 

2017). As the community of inquiry forms organically without the presence of a shared domain or 

profession, the strategy lends itself to the bottom-up approach outlined by Panda (2007), with a focus  

on learning and participation. 

 

Tools employed by a community of inquiry may include focus groups, storytelling, mapping exercises to 

gauge opinions and understanding and other accessible research tools (Shields, 2003). As a community  

of inquiry may have members from broad backgrounds, it may be necessary to test and develop methods 

during an intervention (Shields, 2003). Tools employed should support participatory democracy so all 

members can contribute (Shields, 2003). Like the CoP, a ‘leader’ is typically needed to guide discourse  

and support the group (Sharp, 2017; Shields, 2003). 

 

 



 

49 
 

Community capacity building 

Community capacity building is a practice which has been interpreted in a myriad of ways since its 

conception in 1992 and may also be referred to as community capacity development or capacity 

strengthening (Craig, 2007; McGinty, 2003; Sarapura, 2009). The strategy originates from a policy context, 

specifically environmental policy (Craig, 2007). Nonetheless, the practice principally centres around 

collaborating with communities to strengthen their capacity to engage with and inform social, political, 

economic or environmental change – often through policy development and the upskilling of community 

members (Craig, 2007). Community capacity building is often driven by top-down forces such as 

government agencies (Varcoe et al., 2011), unlike the more community-driven community of inquiry. In 

response to this, Varcoe et al. (2011) propose a two-way approach, where the sharing of knowledge and 

experience is welcomed in both directions. Varcoe et al.’s (2011) two-way approach to community capacity 

building embodies a middle-out approach, as both upstream and downstream influence is generated 

(Simpson et al., 2020). 

 

Two-way community capacity building may employ two-way interviews, roundtable discussions, storytelling 

or visual artefacts as tools (Varcoe et al., 2011; Singh, 2011). Visual artefacts, whether they  

be physical or digital, can support this strategy as tools for collaborative research and knowledge sharing 

(Singh, 2011). The inclusion of incentives may strengthen capacity-building initiatives within professional 

environments (Sarapura, 2009). With a two-way approach, integrating back-and-forth discussion into the 

methods employed is critical (Varcoe et al., 2011). 

 

Intersectional activism 

Ortiz-Wythe et al. (2022) characterize intersectional activism as activism which consciously considers the 

intersectional dynamics between social hierarchies such as race, gender, class or sexuality. Intersectional 

activism does not originate from a given discipline, but instead from black feminist activism (Crenshaw, 

1989; Loopmans et al., 2021). From a decolonial perspective, Apostolopoulou et al. (2021) argue the 

importance of analysing intersectional dynamics to equitably advance climate justice, environmental policy 

and conservation policy. 

 

As a framework, intersectionality may be meaningfully employed by both top and bottom actors, who 

naturally would employ different methods (Heaney, 2021). While intersectional activism originates from 

bottom-up grassroots organizing, the core principles can and should be extrapolated and applied to any 

method of community organizing (Apostolopoulou, et al., 2021). 

 

Digital mobilization 

Digital mobilization refers to collective action catalysed by social interaction on digital forums, often 

regarding a political issue (Koc-Michalska & Lilleker, 2017). Collective action occurring due to digital 

mobilization may happen physically rather than digitally – often digital organizing tactics strengthen the 

coherence and turnout of physical action (Koc-Michalska & Lilleker, 2017; Morgan & Davis III, 2019). Earl 

and Kimport (2011) characterize digital mobilization as operating similarly to standard mass mobilization, 

but without the organizational demand of co-presence, due to the flexibility afforded by the internet. Like 

mass mobilization, digital mobilization may be considered a bottom-up approach if initiated by individuals 

or groups of individuals (Oyedemi, 2020), or middle-out if initiated by an existing organization  

(Finger, 1994). 

 



 

50 
 

Social media, digital forums, surveys, videos and digital artefacts are tools which may support organization-

led digital mobilization (Shultziner & Goldberg, 2018). If the result is in-person action, a hybrid approach 

may be appropriate, utilizing traditional mass mobilization methods as well (Koc-Michalska & Lilleker, 

2017). Despite the educational and organizational value of digital tools, it has been observed in some 

contexts that the opportunity for direct digital engagement with political actors may be limited or even 

non-existent (Koc-Michalska & Lilleker, 2017). 

 

Digital storytelling 

Digital storytelling refers to the act of delivering information in the format of a short story through various 

forms of digital media, such as video audio, and static imagery (Pasupa & Pasupa, 2017; Robin & McNeil, 

2019; Rossiter & Garcia, 2010). Pasupa and Pasupa (2017) argue that digital storytelling can play a critical 

role in influencing behavioural change toward sustainable outcomes, due to the strategy’s persuasive 

capabilities when well-executed. Gubrium and Scott (2010) also explore examples where digital storytelling 

has been used as a workshop tool, in which participants are empowered to communicate stories from their 

positionality and worldview. As digital storytelling is typically conducted by actors in any given field (Robin 

& McNeil, 2019), it can be employed as an effective middle-out approach. Digital storytelling may also be 

employed as a tool to support broader strategies referred to in this paper. 

 

A virtual CoP 

A virtual CoP reflects the traditional community of practice as defined by Lave and Wenger, in that 

participatory learning among a group with a shared profession is the focus (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Thoma et 

al., 2018; Wenger & Lave, 1999). Dubé et al. (2005) stress that the structuring characteristics of physical 

and virtual communities of practice are different, and one looking to deploy these concepts must be aware 

of the differences. Research before the COVID-19 pandemic indicated that in-person meetings were 

typically critical to the success of a virtual CoP, as they better facilitate the development of relationships 

(Hildreth et al., 2000; Dubé et al., 2006). There is still a limited body of literature exploring shifts which have 

occurred since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Lehr and Vaughan (2023) found virtual communities of 

practice to be a critical tool for improving adaptability and resilience in the wake of the COVID-19 

pandemic. Fayez et al. (2023) similarly found that a virtual CoP supported teachers to adapt to pressure and 

uncertainties during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the discussed similarities to the traditional CoP, the 

virtual alternative can also be considered a middle-out approach. 

 

Typical tools which may be employed to support a virtual CoP include video calling, email, digital 

storytelling and discussion forums or threads (Dubé et al., 2005, 2006). The virtual CoP may often be more 

fluid than the traditional CoP, due to the nature of digital systems (Li et al., 2009). In-person methods used 

in a standard CoP may also be employed to supplement digital methods (Dubé et al., 2005). A shared 

database both for the viewing and recording of information is also critical when operating a virtual CoP 

(Dubé et al., 2006). 

 

Digital artefacts 

Digital artefacts, also commonly referred to as digital objects, have been conceptualized in various and 

often complex ways throughout the literature (Hron et al., 2022). The clearest definition of a digital artefact 

is an entity generated by computing practices (Ekbia, 2009), with examples including social media profiles, 

blogs, webpages and repositories or databases (Ekbia, 2009; Kallinikos et al., 2013). Regarding social 

change, Mitchell et al. (2017) discuss the value of visual digital artefacts for disseminating knowledge 



 

51 
 

beyond publications to reach broader communities and support sustained participatory dialogue. As such, 

visual digital artefacts may facilitate a two-way approach in research scenarios, and examples of such 

artefacts include digital images, paintings, maps and slideshows (Mitchell et al., 2017; Singh, 2011). A digital 

artefact can be considered more a tool than a strategy of its own (Ciriello et al., 2019) and therefore may 

feed into a variety of approaches to stimulate change. 

 

Analysis 

Groupings and content analysis 

From the literature review, content analysis determined a list of 16 strategies (Table 3). Of these, 10 have 

been identified which embody middle-out approaches. The positionality of each strategy in terms of top-

down, bottom-up and middle-out approaches has been established in the literature review. For the middle-

out approaches reviewed, strategies with upstream and downstream influences are differentiated from 

those with sideways influences (Janda & Parag, 2011; Simpson et al., 2020). It became evident during the 

literature review that not all the strategies hold the same status, for example digital artefacts are tools 

(Ciriello et al., 2019) and digital storytelling is a mediatic activity (Gubrium & Scott, 2010), both  

of which may support broader strategies or practices. Furthermore, intersectional activism is omitted  

here, as it is more appropriate to apply as a fundamental principle for any method of organizing  

(Apostolopoulou, et al., 2021). 

 

A CoP is notable for its capacity to influence upstream and downstream, as well as sideways. Some 

strategies may be characterized as middle-out approaches, dependent on the actors responsible for 

carrying them out. For example, community capacity building is typically a top-down measure, but a two-

way approach empowers middle actors to exert influence from the middle upwards (Varcoe et al., 2011). 

The game changer may be a middle or top actor, and mass mobilization may manifest as bottom-up action, 

or middle-out action if driven by an established organization. These variations of strategies offer a greater 

nuance of middle-out approaches than initially expected, as well as several notable bottom-up and top-

down strategies. While different approaches, strategies and tools will naturally suit different actors, causes 

and contexts, this review provides a base point for future research and the development of more  

detailed frameworks. 

 

An additional analysis is shown in Table 3, based on Simpson et al. (2020), who categorize the actions of 

groups based on their function into enabling, mediating or aggregating. Enabling refers to actions which 

promote the adoption of something, mediating refers to actions which facilitate knowledge sharing, and 

aggregating refers to the process of knowledge accumulation or development across multiple projects or 

scenarios (Simpson et al., 2020). Overall, these show limited patterns, as most directions of influence can 

have the most functions. However, it also shows that aggregating is challenging from the bottom-up 

approach, just as middle-out approaches are most likely to engage in mediating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

52 
 

Table 3: Positioning of strategies based on direction of influence. 

 

Direction Strategy Enabling/ 

disabling 

Mediating Aggregating 

Bottom-up Grassroots mass mobilization 

Grassroots digital mobilization 

• 

• 

  

 Community of inquiry  •  

Middle-out: 

Up/Down 

Organization-led mass mobilization 

Organization-led digital mobilization 

• 

• 

  

 Internal disruptors •   

 Digital storytelling • •  

 Community of practice*  •  

 Two-way community capacity building  •  

Middle-out: 

Sideways 

Cross-boundary disruptors •   

Community of practice* 

Virtual community of practice 

 • 

• 

 

Seminal game changers   • 

Top-down Endogamous game changers •   

 One-way community capacity building 

Social entrepreneurship 

•  

• 

 

• 

 

Accessibility analysis 

Accessibility is still recognised as a considerable issue for digital methods of organizing and mobilization,  

in that digital activists are more likely to be financially and racially privileged, to speak English and to belong 

to the middle class or above (Fenton, 2016). When planning entrepreneurial action, it may be more 

impactful to function as a game changer, but acting successfully as a disruptor may be less complex and 

more accessible (Alpkan & Gemici, 2016; Westley et al., 2016).  

 

The literature review touched on the rapid development of digital organizing strategies and tools following 

the COVID-19 pandemic, primarily for virtual communities of practice, which had historically relied on 

ancillary in-person meetings (Dubé et al., 2006; Hildreth et al., 2000). However, the accessibility of digital 

community and connectivity practices is likely to continue to shift and improve drastically. 

 

Another aspect of accessibility is physical accessibility, and there is an existing body of evidence of certain 

groups tending to be more represented in various in-person formats (Bora et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2021). 

Such formats might unintentionally privilege able-bodied people in retirement, while lower representation 

can easily happen for groups with reduced mobility or neuroatypical sensory needs, or those experiencing 

higher demands on their time, such as parents, and especially single parents. The issues associated with 

access to digital media should be considered against the historical issues associated with access to events  

in person. Further innovation is needed in this area to achieve effective and truly inclusive approaches. 

 

VOSviewer analysis 

The VOSviewer analysis focused on the frequency and interconnectivity of the keywords in the reviewed 

articles (Image 1). The most significant cluster is depicted in red and groups key terms relating to the 

recurring themes of organization, strategy, concept, knowledge, focus on change and mechanisms to 



 

53 
 

achieve change or even specifically protest as one of the mechanisms, but it also includes innovation as an 

important aspect. Of the strategies listed amongst this cluster’s key terms, the majority can be classified as 

enabling/disabling strategies, based on the framework presented by Simpson et al. (2020). Moreover, these 

concepts relate to how to organize and facilitate change. The green cluster focuses on learning, storytelling, 

philosophy, inquiry and perspective, which explain the importance of shared knowledge and dissemination 

of that knowledge. The blue cluster contains terms related to the actors of the change such as the 

organizers, members and social entrepreneurs and their experience and understanding. The yellow and 

purple clusters are small and appear to deal with a methodology for social change (yellow), impact 

measurement, social innovation and game changers (purple). Jointly, these clusters describe the key 

practices which any actors need to engage with in this area. 

 

 

Image 1: VOSviewer keyword clusters and co-occurrence in the reviewed literature. 

 

Discussion 

This article situates community organization and connectivity strategies within their historical context from 

the start of the 20th century. In some ways, efforts to form groups and drive change through those can be 

seen as an antithesis of Western individualism, which was over the same period starting to exercise global 

domination (Siedentop, 2014). This collection of the different methods can be useful for scholars in any of 

the areas interested in fostering and accelerating change but is especially useful within the context of the 

contemporary understanding of the immediate and urgent need for climate action. 

 

The review considers a range of disciplinary approaches which have helped with localised development, but 

also indicates a possible lack of connectivity between and across the approaches. There is also similarity in 

the methods and tools used by diverse groups when pursuing social change. Of these, communities of 

practice, mass mobilization and, to a lesser extent, communities of inquiry stand out as the most used. 

Meanwhile, most digital methods can be seen as more recent additions to this body of knowledge. 

 

The content analysis undertaken shows that middle-out approaches might be especially critical for climate 

action because of the limited capacity for bottom-up approaches to aggregate or even mediate, and 

because there is a limited capacity to drive all the needed change using top-down approaches. This is 

where the range of middle-out approaches can be critical for transitions. The example of the introduction 

of ‘transition brokers’ in some European countries (Cramer, 2020) signals a recognition of the importance 



 

54 
 

of supporting middle-level facilitation for change. This shows that even the leading top-down initiatives are 

starting to recognise the importance of using middle-out strategies to increase the quality of recruitment, 

engagement and participation of large communities of actors. Such a broad range of participation is 

necessary for the much-needed acceleration towards climate action. 

 

The VOSviewer analysis summarizes the needed competencies for action to consist of three main 

dimensions: organizational strategy and mechanisms, shared perspectives and learning and a set of actors 

with a shared understanding. These key components are complemented by the methodological approaches 

and impact factors and measurements. 

 

Finally, the accessibility analysis shows mixed trends with the potential for both a decrease and increase in 

accessibility for organizational activities due to the introduction of digital media. Further research is needed 

in this area to evaluate these evolving patterns. 

 

Conclusion 

The selection of strategies reviewed in this article offers a range of approaches for individuals or groups  

of individuals wishing to stimulate the acceleration of sustainable transitions within their field of practice. 

These strategies originate from a range of disciplines. This review has taken an initial step toward 

establishing a cross-disciplinary repository of community organizing and connectivity strategies for the 

collective benefit of all disciplines seeking to accelerate sustainable transitional change. The emphasis on 

middle-out approaches builds upon prior literature, acknowledging the importance of empowering middle 

actors to influence sustainable transitions through diverse methods instead of relying on the perhaps 

outdated bottom-up versus top-down dichotomy. Further research in this area may include the application 

of these principles to specific disciplines, further analyses of the practical requirements of the strategies or 

the development of detailed deployment frameworks and field guides. 

 

References 
Alpkan, L., & Gemici, E. (2016). Disruption and ambidexterity: How innovation strategies evolve? Procedia - Social and 

Behavioral Sciences, 235, 782–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.080 
Apostolopoulou, E., Chatzimentor, A., Maestre-Andrés, S., Requena-i-Mora, M., Pizarro, A., & Bormpoudakis,  

D. (2021). Reviewing 15 years of research on neoliberal conservation: Towards a decolonial, interdisciplinary, 
intersectional and community-engaged research agenda. Geoforum, 124, 236–256. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.05.006 

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Kemp, R., & Haxeltine, A. (2017). Game-changers and transformative social innovation. 
Ecology and Society, 22(4), 41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26798984 

Bora, D. et al. (2017) ‘ActVirtual: Making public activism accessible’, In ASSETS ’17: Proceedings of the 19th 
international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (pp. 307–308). Association for 
Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3134815  

Brown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A., & Loorbach, D. A. (2013). Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions:  
The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 701–718. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013 

Brown, R. R., Rogers, B. C., & Werbeloff, L. (2016). Moving towards water sensitive cities: A guidance manual for 
strategists and policy makers. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. 
https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/moving-towards-water-sensitive-cities-a-guidance-manual-for-
strat 

Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (2007). Cross-boundary disruptors: Powerful interindustry entrepreneurial change 
agents. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.27 

Checkoway, B. (1995). Six strategies of community change. Community Development Journal, 30(1), 2–20. 
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard  

Business Review Press. 
Ciriello, R. F., Richter, A., & Schwabe, G. (2019). The paradoxical effects of digital artefacts on innovation practices. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.080
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.05.006
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26798984
https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3134815
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013
https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/moving-towards-water-sensitive-cities-a-guidance-manual-for-strat
https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/moving-towards-water-sensitive-cities-a-guidance-manual-for-strat
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.27


 

55 
 

European Journal of Information Systems, 28(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1524418 
Craig, G. (2007). Community capacity-building: Something old, something new...? Critical Social Policy, 27(3), 335–359. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018307078846 
Cramer, J.M. (2020). The function of transition brokers in the regional governance of implementing circular 

economy—A comparative case study of six Dutch regions. Sustainability, 12(12), 5015. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125015 

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination 
doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. 
https://tinyurl.com/2nbynyh5  

Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual 
communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 145–166. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510589570 

de Bruin, A., Shaw, E., & Lewis, K. V. (2017). The collaborative dynamic in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship  
& Regional Development, 29(7–8), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1328902 

Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., Jacob, R., & Koohang, A. (2006). Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice. 
Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge & Management, 1, 69–93. 

Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. MIT Press. 
Ekbia, H. R. (2009). Digital artifacts as quasi-objects: Qualification, mediation, and materiality. Journal of the American 

Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2554–2566. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21189 
Elshaboury, N., Al-Sakkaf, A., Mohammed Abdelkader, E., & Alfalah, G. (2022). Construction and demolition waste 

management research: A science mapping analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and 
Public Health, 19(8), 4496. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084496 

Evans, E. (2014). The politics of third wave feminisms. Springer. 
Fayez, O., Ismail, H., & Aboelnagah, H. (2023). Emerging virtual communities of practice during crises: A sustainable 

model validating the levels of peer motivation and support. Sustainability, 15(7), 5691. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075691 

Feeney, M., Grohnert, T., Gijselaers, W., & Martens, P. (2023). Organizations, learning, and sustainability: A cross-
disciplinary review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(1), 217–235. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05072-7 

Fenton, N. (2016). Left out? Digital media, radical politics and social change. Information, Communication & Society, 
19(3), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109698 

Finger, M., & Princen, T. (1994). Environmental NGOs in world politics: Linking the local and the global. Taylor  
& Francis Group.  

Fisher, R. (1984). Let the people decide: Neighborhood organizing in America. Twayne Publishers. 
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer 

conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 

Gubrium, A., & Scott, T. (2010). Teaching and speaking to social change: A digital storytelling approach addressing 
access to higher education. Societies Without Borders, 5(2), 126–151. 

Heaney, M. T. (2021). Intersectionality at the grassroots. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9(3), 608–628. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1629318 

Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270010315920  

Hron, M., Obwegeser, N., & Müller, S. D. (2022). Innovation drift: The influence of digital artefacts on organizing for 
innovation. Innovation, 24(1), 168–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1937185 

Janda, K. B., & Parag, Y. (2011). A middle-out approach for improving energy efficiency in existing buildings. Building 
Research & Information, 41(1), 39–50. 

Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2),  
357–370. 

Koc-Michalska, K., & Lilleker, D. (2017). Digital politics: Mobilization, engagement, and participation. Political 
Communication, 34(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1243178 

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared 
cognition. (pp. 63–82). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-003 

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Lehr, 
A., & Vaughan, S. (2023). Digital networks and leadership collaboration during times of uncertainty: An 
exploration of humanistic leadership and virtual communities of practice. In A. Visvizi, O. Troisi, & M. Grimaldi 
(Eds.), Research and Innovation Forum 2022 (pp. 713–721). Springer International Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19560-0_61 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1524418
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018307078846
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125015
https://tinyurl.com/2nbynyh5
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510589570
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1328902
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21189
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084496
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075691
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05072-7
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109698
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1629318
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270010315920
https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1937185
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1243178
https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-003
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19560-0_61


 

56 
 

Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009). Evolution of Wenger’s concept  
of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11 

Loopmans, M., Brown, G., & De Craene, V. (2021). Everyday spatialities of intersectional solidarity and activism. 
Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 112(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12421 

Lubove, R. (1975). The professional altruist: The emergence of social work as a career, 1880-1930. Atheneum. 
Maas, K., & Grieco, C. (2017). Distinguishing game changers from boastful charlatans: Which social enterprises 

measure their impact? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 110–128. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1304435 
McGinty, S. (2003). Sharing success, an indigenous perspective: Papers from the second national Australian 

indigenous education conference, Townsville, Queensland, July 2002. Common Ground. 
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/1697/1/SharingV0003_small.pdf  

Meyer, M.F. et al. (2021). Virtual growing pains: Initial lessons learned from organizing virtual workshops, summits, 
conferences, and networking events during a global pandemic. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 30(1), 
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10431  

Mitchell, C., Lange, N. D., & Moletsane, R. (2017). Participatory visual methodologies: Social change, community and 
policy. SAGE. 

Mindell, J. S., Parag, Y., Bartington, S. E., Stoll, L., Barlow, J., & Janda, K. B. (2021). The middle-out perspective –  
An approach to formalise ‘normal practice’ in public health advocacy. medRxiv. 
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.17.21266405 

Morgan, D. L., & Davis III, C. H. F. (2019). Student activism, politics, and campus climate in higher education. Taylor  
& Francis Group.  
Newell, P., Daley, F., & Twena, M. (2022). Changing our ways: Behaviour change and the climate crisis. 

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009104401 
Nicholls, A., & Collavo, T. (2019). The concept of social entrepreneurship. In The social innovation landscape - 

global trends (pp. 29-31). Atlas of Social Innovation. https://tinyurl.com/37zwcz6f  
Ortiz-Wythe, B., Warren, M. R., & King, A. R. (2022). Intersectional organizing and educational justice: How lived 

experience influences community organizers’ understanding and practice of intersectional organizing. Social 
Sciences, 11(4), 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040147 

Oyedemi, T. D. (2020). Protest as communication for development and social change. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Handbook  
of communication for development and social change (pp. 615–632). Springer Singapore. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2014-3_132 

Panda, B. (2007). Top down or bottom up? A study of grassroots NGOs’ approach. Journal of Health Management, 
9(2), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/097206340700900207 

Pasupa, S., & Pasupa, K. (2017). The potential of digital storytelling in encouraging sustainable lifestyle. In SUIC’s 15th 
anniversary conference and exhibition. (pp. 263–270). 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320593543_The_Potential_of_Digital_Storytelling_in_Encouragin
g_Sustainable_Lifestyle  

Robin, B. R., & McNeil, S. G. (2019). Digital storytelling. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy. John Wiley 
& Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0056 

Rossiter, M., & Garcia, P. A. (2010). Digital storytelling: A new player on the narrative field. New Directions for Adult 
and Continuing Education, 2010(126), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.370 

Safire, W. (2008, September 12). It would seem. The New York Times. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/magazine/14wwln-safire-t.html 

Sarapura, S. (2009). The feminist capacity development approach: A methodology to gender analysis  
in development programs. https://tinyurl.com/yd685yzp  

Seglem, R. and Bonner, S. (2022). Igniting social action in the ELA Classroom: Inquiry as disruption. Teachers College 
Press. 

Sharp, A. M. (2017). What is a ‘community of inquiry’? In M. R. Gregory & M. J. Laverty (Eds.), In community of inquiry 
with Ann Margaret Sharp: Childhood, philosophy and education (pp. 38–48). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625393  

Shields, P. M. (2003). The community of inquiry: Classical pragmatism and public administration. Administration  
& Society, 35(5), 510–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399703256160  

Shultziner, D., & Goldberg, S. (2018). The stages of mass mobilization: Separate phenomena and distinct causal 
mechanisms. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 49(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12187 

Siedentop, L. (2014). Inventing the individual: origins of Western liberalism. Harvard University Press. 
Simpson, K., Janda, K. B., & Owen, A. (2020). Preparing ‘middle actors’ to deliver zero-carbon building transitions. 

Buildings and Cities, 1(1), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.53 
Singh, A. (2011). Visual artefacts as boundary objects in participatory research paradigm. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 

10(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jvap.10.1.35_1  

https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11
https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12421
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1304435
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/1697/1/SharingV0003_small.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10431
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.17.21266405
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009104401
https://tinyurl.com/37zwcz6f
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040147
https://doi.org/10.1177/097206340700900207
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320593543_The_Potential_of_Digital_Storytelling_in_Encouraging_Sustainable_Lifestyle
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320593543_The_Potential_of_Digital_Storytelling_in_Encouraging_Sustainable_Lifestyle
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0056
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.370
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/magazine/14wwln-safire-t.html
https://tinyurl.com/yd685yzp
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625393
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399703256160
https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12187
https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.53
https://doi.org/10.1386/jvap.10.1.35_1


 

57 
 

Sites, W., Chaskin, R. J., & Parks, V. (2007). Reframing community practice for the 21st century: Multiple traditions, 
multiple challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(5), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9906.2007.00363.x 

Sud, M., VanSandt, C. V., & Baugous, A. M. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: The role of institutions. Journal of Business 
Ethics, 85(1), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9939-1  

Thoma, B., Brazil, V., Spurr, J., Palaganas, J., Eppich, W., Grant, V., & Cheng, A. (2018). Establishing a virtual community 
of practice in simulation: The value of social media. Simulation in Healthcare, 13(2), 124–130. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000284 

Varcoe, C., Brown, H., Calam, B., Buchanan, M. J., & Newman, V. (2011). Capacity building is a two-way street Learning 
from doing research within Aboriginal communities. In G. Creese & W. Frisby (Eds.), Feminist community 
research: Case studies and methodologies (pp. 210–231). UBC Press. 

Viswalekshmi, B. R., Bendi, D., & Opoku, A. (2023). Exploring the trends in construction waste reduction research:  
A bibliometric analysis. Science & Technology Libraries, 42(2), 155–179. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2022.2047871  

Weil, M., Reisch, M. S., & Ohmer, M. L. (2012). The handbook of community practice. SAGE Publications. 
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. 
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing 

knowledge. Harvard Business Press. 
Westley, F. R., McGowan, K. A., Antadze, N., Blacklock, J., & Tjornbo, O. (2016). How game changers catalyzed, 

disrupted, and incentivized social innovation: Three historical cases of nature conservation, assimilation,  
and women’s rights. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270034 

 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00363.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00363.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9939-1
https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000284
https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2022.2047871
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270034

	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.
	A review of community and connectivity strategies for the acceleration  of sustainable transitions
	Mike Murray, Emina Kristina Petrović
	Published online: November 2023
	To cite this article:  Murray, M., & Petrović, E. K. (2023). A review of community and connectivity strategies for the acceleration of sustainable transitions. Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entr...
	A review of community and connectivity strategies for the acceleration  of sustainable transitions
	Mike Murraya, Emina Kristina Petrovićb
	aTe Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 6011, New Zealand.
	bTe Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 6011, New Zealand. emina.petrovic@vuw.ac.nz
	Abstract
	In the face of the escalating climate crisis, a cross-disciplinary understanding of strategies for stimulating transitional change is critical (Newell et al., 2022). To meaningfully stimulate and accelerate transitions toward more sustainable practice...
	Keywords: Community and connectivity strategies, Middle-out, Sustainable transitions, Acceleration
	Introduction and background
	In the face of the escalating climate crisis, there is an urgent need to accelerate transitions toward more sustainable practices, and a recognition that better support for the social infrastructure and processes needed for behavioural change would he...
	This article presents the findings of a literature review on 12 physical and digital community organization and connectivity strategies, articulating the potential of participation and knowledge sharing within communities to stimulate meaningful chang...
	Top-down, bottom-up and middle-out approaches

	Approaches to change are often discussed as either ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ and attract a range of slightly different definitions. The strengths of bottom-up approaches include the potential to identify  local issues through participatory community i...
	As an alternative to this dichotomy, Janda and Parag (2011) proposed a middle-out approach to sustainable transitions. They asserted that through middle-out activity, one might influence actors upstream (i.e. at the ‘top’), downstream (i.e. at the ‘bo...
	Janda and Parag (2011) discuss the relationship between individuals as ‘bottom’ actors and governments  or corporations as ‘top’ actors. Compared to top or bottom actors, middle actors hold a balance of both the agency to drive and the capacity to sup...
	This review does not focus on middle actors in any discipline, but instead draws and synthesizes knowledge from a range of disciplines – toward a broader range of tangible middle-out strategies to support transitional change.
	Historical context

	During the 20th century, there have been some radical expansions and re-conceptions of this area (Sites et al., 2007). Community organization has been viewed as a multi-paradigm field that does not privilege any one strategy (Sites, et al., 2007). On ...
	Although activities during and after the 1960s are often seen as the point of origin of numerous community organization strategies, the beginnings were earlier (Fisher, 1984). In the 1920s and 1930s, following the Red Scare of 1918, the professionaliz...
	Early conceptions of what is now known as social entrepreneurship emerged in the 1970s (Nicholls  & Collavo, 2019). Fisher (1984) discusses the transition in the mid-1970s from mass mobilization to grassroots organizing. Social entrepreneurship is oft...
	The framework of intersectionality was introduced by the Combahee River Collective in 1983 and later expanded upon as intersectional activism by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 (Loopmans et al., 2021). This preceded third-wave feminism, which began in the 1...
	This shows that there is a range of approaches in this area, which may employ a broad variety of actors. Before determining which concepts or strategies would be most useful for acceleration of pro-sustainable transitions, a literature review was unde...
	Methodology
	The purpose of the review was to explore discussions of communities of practice, game changers, disruptors and similar strategies. Literature was sought based on shared keywords, authors and publications. Communities of practice, game changers and dis...
	Quantification of the list of identified strategies was conducted by citing data from the Altmetric database, which breaks down ‘mentions’ of the search term by source type, separating research outputs and publications from other sources of mentions. ...
	Table 1: Mentions of strategies across the literature (Data Source: Altmetric Explorer).
	Analysis

	Two levels of analysis were undertaken: a content analysis and a VOSviewer analysis. The content analysis
	examined the whole body of literature for critical differences and was used to compile most parts of this review. VOSviewer is a data visualization software, and for that part of analysis, the same 53 texts were used in order to further understand key...
	Results of the literature review
	Community of practice (CoP)

	A CoP is a group with a shared profession or field of activity, which comes together with a mutual desire to share knowledge, typically regarding a collective concern (Li et al., 2009; Wenger, 1999). These communities are typically informal, ever evol...
	In-person workshops, coaching, roundtable discussions and storytelling are tools which support the operation of a CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1999; Wenger et al., 2002). A community coordinator  is typically needed to guide the development of a ...
	Social entrepreneurship

	The field of social entrepreneurship integrates and appropriates a variety of methods from the broader practice of community organization to generate positive and effective outcomes (Nicholls & Collavo, 2019). A social entrepreneur acts as a change ag...
	Mass mobilization

	Checkoway (1995) defines mass mobilization as the process of unifying people around a cause through  a collective mass activity, such as protests, boycotts or strikes. Mass mobilization is one of the oldest strategies, and its origin cannot be attribu...
	Mobilization organized or sponsored by established organizations may not be more effective than grassroots efforts by default, as the use of resources and the effectiveness of leaders are still critical factors (Shultziner & Goldberg, 2018). Social me...
	Disruptors

	Disruptors are agents that materially disrupt the status quo of their given industry through entrepreneurial action, acting as a force for change across one or more sectors toward a more equitable society (Burgelman & Grove, 2007; Nicholls & Collavo, ...
	Internal disruptors or cross-boundary disruptors may use a range of discipline-specific tools as available to them (Burgelman & Grove, 2007; Christensen, 1997). Disruptors and their capacity to drive change across one or more sectors (Nicholls & Colla...
	Game changers
	In the context of social change, a game changer can be defined as a macro trend or shift which shapes the trajectory of an industry or practice (Avelino et al., 2017). The concept, as it is discussed, originates from economic and political discourse (...

	A seminal game changer is typically driven by new research, policies, theories or concepts, which typically result from a range of efforts (Avelino et al., 2017; Westley et al., 2016). One could also consider conferences, seminars and publications as ...
	Community of inquiry

	The community of inquiry is an organizing framework for groups within communities who share a mutual interest in a problematic issue and work to investigate, understand and overcome the issue (Shields, 2003). The framework is rooted in educational the...
	Tools employed by a community of inquiry may include focus groups, storytelling, mapping exercises to gauge opinions and understanding and other accessible research tools (Shields, 2003). As a community  of inquiry may have members from broad backgrou...
	Community capacity building

	Community capacity building is a practice which has been interpreted in a myriad of ways since its conception in 1992 and may also be referred to as community capacity development or capacity strengthening (Craig, 2007; McGinty, 2003; Sarapura, 2009)....
	Two-way community capacity building may employ two-way interviews, roundtable discussions, storytelling or visual artefacts as tools (Varcoe et al., 2011; Singh, 2011). Visual artefacts, whether they  be physical or digital, can support this strategy ...
	Intersectional activism

	Ortiz-Wythe et al. (2022) characterize intersectional activism as activism which consciously considers the intersectional dynamics between social hierarchies such as race, gender, class or sexuality. Intersectional activism does not originate from a g...
	As a framework, intersectionality may be meaningfully employed by both top and bottom actors, who naturally would employ different methods (Heaney, 2021). While intersectional activism originates from bottom-up grassroots organizing, the core principl...
	Digital mobilization

	Digital mobilization refers to collective action catalysed by social interaction on digital forums, often regarding a political issue (Koc-Michalska & Lilleker, 2017). Collective action occurring due to digital mobilization may happen physically rathe...
	Social media, digital forums, surveys, videos and digital artefacts are tools which may support organization-led digital mobilization (Shultziner & Goldberg, 2018). If the result is in-person action, a hybrid approach may be appropriate, utilizing tra...
	Digital storytelling

	Digital storytelling refers to the act of delivering information in the format of a short story through various forms of digital media, such as video audio, and static imagery (Pasupa & Pasupa, 2017; Robin & McNeil, 2019; Rossiter & Garcia, 2010). Pas...
	A virtual CoP

	A virtual CoP reflects the traditional community of practice as defined by Lave and Wenger, in that participatory learning among a group with a shared profession is the focus (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Thoma et al., 2018; Wenger & Lave, 1999). Dubé et al. ...
	Typical tools which may be employed to support a virtual CoP include video calling, email, digital storytelling and discussion forums or threads (Dubé et al., 2005, 2006). The virtual CoP may often be more fluid than the traditional CoP, due to the na...
	Digital artefacts

	Digital artefacts, also commonly referred to as digital objects, have been conceptualized in various and often complex ways throughout the literature (Hron et al., 2022). The clearest definition of a digital artefact is an entity generated by computin...
	Analysis
	Groupings and content analysis

	From the literature review, content analysis determined a list of 16 strategies (Table 3). Of these, 10 have been identified which embody middle-out approaches. The positionality of each strategy in terms of top-down, bottom-up and middle-out approach...
	A CoP is notable for its capacity to influence upstream and downstream, as well as sideways. Some strategies may be characterized as middle-out approaches, dependent on the actors responsible for carrying them out. For example, community capacity buil...
	An additional analysis is shown in Table 3, based on Simpson et al. (2020), who categorize the actions of groups based on their function into enabling, mediating or aggregating. Enabling refers to actions which promote the adoption of something, media...
	Table 3: Positioning of strategies based on direction of influence.
	Accessibility analysis

	Accessibility is still recognised as a considerable issue for digital methods of organizing and mobilization,  in that digital activists are more likely to be financially and racially privileged, to speak English and to belong to the middle class or a...
	Another aspect of accessibility is physical accessibility, and there is an existing body of evidence of certain groups tending to be more represented in various in-person formats (Bora et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2021). Such formats might unintentiona...
	VOSviewer analysis

	The VOSviewer analysis focused on the frequency and interconnectivity of the keywords in the reviewed articles (Image 1). The most significant cluster is depicted in red and groups key terms relating to the recurring themes of organization, strategy, ...
	Image 1: VOSviewer keyword clusters and co-occurrence in the reviewed literature.

	Discussion
	This article situates community organization and connectivity strategies within their historical context from the start of the 20th century. In some ways, efforts to form groups and drive change through those can be seen as an antithesis of Western in...
	The review considers a range of disciplinary approaches which have helped with localised development, but also indicates a possible lack of connectivity between and across the approaches. There is also similarity in the methods and tools used by diver...
	The content analysis undertaken shows that middle-out approaches might be especially critical for climate action because of the limited capacity for bottom-up approaches to aggregate or even mediate, and because there is a limited capacity to drive al...
	The VOSviewer analysis summarizes the needed competencies for action to consist of three main dimensions: organizational strategy and mechanisms, shared perspectives and learning and a set of actors with a shared understanding. These key components ar...
	Finally, the accessibility analysis shows mixed trends with the potential for both a decrease and increase in accessibility for organizational activities due to the introduction of digital media. Further research is needed in this area to evaluate the...
	Conclusion
	The selection of strategies reviewed in this article offers a range of approaches for individuals or groups  of individuals wishing to stimulate the acceleration of sustainable transitions within their field of practice. These strategies originate fro...
	References
	Sarapura, S. (2009). The feminist capacity development approach: A methodology to gender analysis  in development programs. https://tinyurl.com/yd685yzp
	Seglem, R. and Bonner, S. (2022). Igniting social action in the ELA Classroom: Inquiry as disruption. Teachers College Press.
	Sharp, A. M. (2017). What is a ‘community of inquiry’? In M. R. Gregory & M. J. Laverty (Eds.), In community of inquiry with Ann Margaret Sharp: Childhood, philosophy and education (pp. 38–48). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625393

