Transforming Cultures HEF 2015 March 20
The February 27th HEF included discussion of the scope and focus for the Transforming Cultures
theme for this year. The feeling is that there should be a mix of theoretical methodological
discussion and a series of case studies to demonstrate actual practice of transformation. Several
topics were suggested, and these will be listed further on.
A series of questions about transformation also emerged from this discussion. These included:
1. What outcome? The group recognised that outcome is not a final point, but an aspiration. Long
discussion gave birth to agreement that what this group thought was the desired outcome can be
expressed: “Wellbeing for the natural world of which humans are a part and on which humans are
dependent.” We recognised that concepts such as wellbeing and natural world require further
definition (see Thesaurus further on). Two further understandings were reached:


the natural world comprises Earth’s ecosystems and their inhabitants
wellbeing for the natural world includes the notion that the survival of the human species is
important, at least for most humans.
Within this view of transformation, it was proposed that humans live in a relationship with the
natural world and that transformation operates across a scale of dimensions within this relationship.
2. Whose goals, outcome and purpose does a transformation serve?
3. Can we actually set goals or define a purpose?
4. How do we know we are within a transformation? What would it look like?
5. How do we know that the transformation is beneficial? For whom? What values underpin this
assessment? What indicators or criteria might be useful? The Genuine Progress indicator and
Bhutan’s Happiness Index were mentioned; others exist.
The role of these questions in fact suggest a way to evaluate transformation in general.
Four basic values were proposed to inform us: equity, justice, ecological sustainability and
relationships (although the values beneath relationships wasn’t spelt out). The principle of first doing
no harm was added.
The issue of urgency arose. How can we balance urgency with the need to undertake a proper
process?
There was also later some question (coming from last year’s wrap up workshop) about agreeing to a
common set of definitions for terms; that is to have a thesaurus for the Transforming Culture group.
Peter Tait felt that this may not be helpful for two reasons. Firstly, it may be difficult to agree on a
common definition and in fact that a diversity of opinion around the meaning of terms may be
useful. Secondly, setting up definitions may risk the group becoming non-inclusive, where in fact we
want more input from more diverse people.
Case studies of actual transformations completed or in progress were explored both on February
27th and March 20th. The place /role of “The Arts” and the ideas behind the Transition Towns
movement were two defined ones. A further case study around organic waste management at ANU
to explore the issue of an actual practical transformation on campus was proposed. Finally the issue
of power, the exercise of power, and the role of governance in shaping the expression of power
came forward as another idea to be explored. A subset of this idea, the public health response to
power and governance, was also suggested as a topic.
The group also reconfirmed the principles of using the 7 ways of knowing for all sessions in this
theme, and of applying the Kotter after Webb Framework to help place discussion of cases and
theory into the Transformational process.
In terms of the Transformational Framework, and the place of the Transforming Cultures theme
within the HEF, the role of this regular HEF group as the guiding coalition (Framework Step 0) was
questioned. What is our relationship and the relationship of the HEF Transforming Cultures theme to
other groups engaged in similar projects? How do we use the HEF Transforming Cultures theme to
interact with these groups? (Groups mentioned included: the Canberra Transitions Towns, SeeChange and their projects such as the Canberra Alliance, the Frank Fenner Foundation and ANU
Green.
None of these questions were answered in this session, and indeed many have no definitive answer
but are more to focus our awareness on the need to keep them in mind as we go along.