Possibility Spaces: An invitation to foster transformative experiences of the possible

Abstract

This article focuses on the applied side of Possibility Studies and the methodologies that could be used to cultivate possibility thinking and empower participants to become agents within the field of the possible. It proposes Possibility Spaces as collaborative pop-up interventions in which theories, methods and practices from across disciplines co-evolve in order to engage with and to serve participants from a wide range of communities around the world. The article starts by outlining a conceptual framework for Possible Action (P-ACT), grounded in the relation between sense of the possible, personal agency and action, which is the theoretical basis for methodologies like PROMPT (Positioning / Repositioning / Original Repositioning / Making / Possibilities Transformed), discussed in great detail. Offered as an example of how to run Possibility Spaces, PROMPT is one among other action-research tools envisioned in the paper. A future of collaboration is ultimately argued for, one in which researchers and practitioners within Possibility Studies work together with local communities to develop more methodologies that foster transformative experiences of the possible – experiences grounded in the continuous interplay between enhanced sense of the possible, personal agency, and the enactment of new possibilities.

Keywords

Action making methodology P-ACT personal agency perspective-taking practice PROMPT repositioning sense of the possible theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Batliwala

Friedman

(2014). Achieving transformative feminist leadership: A toolkit for organizations and movements. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://www.creaworld.org/wp-content/resources/toolkits-and-manuals/Feminist-Leadership-Toolkit.pdf

Baumeister

R. F.

Alquist

J. L.

(2023). The pragmatic structure of indeterminacy: Mapping possibilities as context for action. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 15–20.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2023). A new horizon for possibility thinking: A conceptual case study of Human × AI collaboration. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 324–341.

Blankstein

A. M.

Houston

P. D.

Cole

R. W.

(2008). Sustaining professional learning communities. Corwin Press.

Corazza

G. E.

Lubart

(2020). Intelligence and creativity: Mapping constructs on the space-time continuum. Journal of Intelligence, 9(1), 1.

Craft

(2005). Creativity and possibility in the early years. Accessed October 12, 2023, from https://tactyc.org.uk/pdfs/Reflection-craft.pdf

Dewey

(1958). Art as experience. Perigee Books. (Original work published 1934)

Díaz

(2011). By chance, randomness and indeterminacy methods in art and design. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 10(1), 21–33.

Epstein-HaLevi

D. Y.

Silveira

Hoffmann

(2021). Eco-activists and the utopian project: The power of critical consciousness and a new eco imaginary. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 30(1–2), 13–33.

10.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury.

11.

Gergen

K. J.

(2015). From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.

12.

Gillespie

(2006). Becoming other: From social interaction to self-reflection. Information Age Publishing.

13.

Gillespie

Martin

(2014). Position exchange theory: A socio-material basis for discursive and psychological positioning. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 73–79.

14.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2013). Creativity and folk art: A study of creative action in traditional craft. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 7(2), 140–154.

15.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2016a). Affordance. In Glăveanu

V. P.

Tanggaard

Wegener

(Eds.), Creativity: A new vocabulary (pp. 10–17). Palgrave.

16.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2016b). Things. In Glăveanu

V. P.

Tanggaard

Wegener

(Eds.), Creativity: A new vocabulary (pp. 164–171). Palgrave.

17.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2020). The possible: A sociocultural theory. Oxford University Press.

18.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2022a). Not knowing. In Beghetto

R. A.

Jaeger

G. J.

(Eds.), Uncertainty: A catalyst for creativity, learning and development (pp. 7–21). Springer.

19.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2022b). Ignorance and (im)possibility. In Arfini

Magnani

(Eds.), Embodied, extended, ignorant minds: New studies on the nature of not-knowing (pp. 99–118). Springer.

20.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(Ed.). (2023). The Palgrave encylopedia of the possible. Palgrave.

21.

Glăveanu

V. P.

de Saint Laurent

(2018). Taking the perspective of others: A conceptual model and its application to the refugee crisis. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(4), 416–423.

22.

Gruber

C. W.

Clark

M. G.

Klempe

S. H.

Valsiner

(Eds.). (2015). Constraints on agency: Explorations of theory in everyday life. Springer.

23.

Hanchett Hanson

. (2023). Reality studies: Reflections on the possible and actual. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 87–98.

24.

Harris

D. X.

(2023). Non-binary possibilities of creative agency. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 99–104.

25.

Karwowski

Beghetto

R. A.

(2019). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 13(4), 402–415.

26.

Karwowski

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.). (2017). The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. Academic Press.

27.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

28.

Lewin

(1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. Tavistock.

29.

Lucas

(2016). A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 278–290.

30.

Malafouris

(2023). Enactychism: Enacting chance in creative material engagement. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 300–310.

31.

Martin

(2007). Educating communal agents: Building on the perspectivism of G.H. Mead. Educational Theory, 57(4), 435–452.

32.

Martin

Gillespie

(2010). A neo-Meadian approach to human agency: Relating the social and the psychological in the ontogenesis of perspective-coordinating persons. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44, 252–272.

33.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.

34.

Meretoja

(2017). The ethics of storytelling: Narrative hermeneutics, history, and the possible. Oxford University Press.

35.

Mersand

(2021). The state of makerspace research: A review of the literature. TechTrends, 65(2), 174–186.

36.

Miaskiewicz

Kozar

K. A.

(2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430.

37.

Miller

(2018). Futures Literacy Laboratories (FLL) in practice: An overview of key design and implementation issues. In Miller

(Ed.), Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century (pp. 94–109). Routledge.

38.

Reiter-Palmon

(2017). The role of problem construction in creative production. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 323–326.

39.

Schmitt

M. T.

Neufeld

S. D.

Mackay

C. M.

Dys-Steenbergen

(2020). The perils of explaining climate inaction in terms of psychological barriers. Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 123–135.

40.

Seligman

M. E.

Railton

Baumeister

R. F.

Sripada

(2016). Homo prospectus. Oxford University Press.

41.

Soomro

S. A.

Casakin

Nanjappan

Georgiev

G. V.

(2023). Makerspaces fostering creativity: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32, 530–548.

42.

Staunæs

Kofoed

(2007). Experimenting with affects and senses—A performative pop-up laboratory (self-)critically revisited. In Knudsen

B. T.

Stage

(Eds.), Affective methodologies (pp. 45–68). Palgrave Macmillan.