MLS PROJECT, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

Material and Methods

The approach used in this research is qualitative and exploratory, with the proposal of a comparative analysis between the SUS model created by Rio and Amorim (2017) and the SUS model constructed by Rio (2015), being this last one a framework linked to the study of the Open City of Valparaíso, Chile. As Gerhardt and Silveira (2009) teach, “qualitative research has nothing to do with numerical representation, but with the deepen in comprehension of a social group, organization, etc.” In this case of originality and specificity, it was considered the most appropriate for interpreting numerous complex social elements present in both models, once the inherent limitations of the positivist model were observed; this model is also known as “single research model.” Therefore, qualitative research focuses on reality aspects that can’t be quantified, centered in understanding and explaining the dynamics of social relationships” (Gerhardt and Silveira, 2009).

The goal of this research is finding the contributions of the SUS theoretical models proposed by Rio (2015) and Rio and Amorim (2017) to achieve the refinement of the concept “sustainable”, and identifying the correlations among them. Therefore, it would be needed to resort to synthesis that shapes the essence of the SUS model produced by Rio and Amorim (2017), where the model base is formed by three Learning Theories that integrate it: individual, organizational and social. Also, it would be needed to use the work condensation on a SUS published by Rio (2915), particularly, the description of the results obtained in this study. These aspects are key to allow greater clarity and resiliency when proposing the results that generate from the methodology adapted by the present research.

It’s important to emphasize the uniqueness of the proposed work, since it’s an empiric research that uses the analytical tool called Multilevel Analysis Theory, considered appropriate for this mix of complex variables. Also, it’s needed to highlight that Multilevel Analysis can acquire different propositions and implementation facets, since one must consider the size of the sample object that will be studied. Nevertheless, according to Deslauriers (1991) apud Gerhardt and Silveira (2009), “the goal of this sample is producing exhaustive and illustrative information: whether it’s small or big, the important thing is that it must be able to produce new information.”

In this sense, being aware of the limits of the presented sample in the proposed research, and keeping in mind all the specificity and complexity that surrounds it as well as the restrictions that may appear so the results identified here can be extended to other sample realities, it was decided to use the Multilevel Analysis chain that uses the method known as Quantitative Propositional Analysis (QPA). “This technique is a key tool on multivariate analysis for multivariate analysis for a group of qualitative data due to its facility to be interpreted” (Madeira, Lopes, Giampaoli y Silveira; 2011). The purpose of this qualitative research is promoting the understanding of complexity and the interaction with the research problem without focusing mainly on statistics” (Madeira et al, 2011).

Results and Discussions

Contributions of the model by Rio (2015) to the SUS concept

According to the conclusions on Rio’s research (2015), the SUS concept must be considered a complex, dynamic, cyclic and mesoanalytic process, also it must be original and adapted to the reality of each community to be interpreted. When looking at all these elements as a complex and independent net, according to the author, a more flexible reading of the concept is possible, obtaining the needed comprehension to reach all the potential that the created knowledge has. When proposing a dialogical emergency of mesoanalytic rules based on the hospitality and hostility principles in urban communities - Figure 3, recognizes that the values perceived by the authors must be understood as particulars, this means that they can0t be interpreted or copied outside that community. This is explained thanks to the fact that there’s different scales and development levels that social workers must consider and revise constantly.

Figure 3. Dialogical Emergency Model of Mesoanalytic Rules based on hospitality and hostility.

Note: Source: Rio (2015)

Rio’s interpretation of the SUS model (2015) considers two kinds of mesoanalytic rules articulated with criteria: when connecting the principles with the criteria or value problems, it’s a long-path rule (A); when linking value criteria with cause-effect and problems with cause-effect, therefore they’re short-path rule (B). The difference between both types is that the long-path rule (A) needs more time to put the learning into practice due to the creation, adoption and rule retention process, which requires a higher reflection level. On the other hand, the short-path rule (B) undergoes a quicker transformation because it’s more frequent, the dialogs are common. The numerated stars in figure 3, on the other hand, correspond to 8 principles of the Complexity Theory; to get more details, see Rio’s (2015) whole research.

Model contributions of Rio and Amorim (2017) to the SUS concept

Rio and Amorim (2017) proposed the development of a theoretical model for SUS based on three lines of the Learning Theory: individual, organizational and social. The use of Learning Theories to sustain the model proposed by the authors is due to the knowledge that SUS is a learning process, since we can dive into the comprehension of these constructions can make possible to find a route, a way where we can observe how it happens. This process must be cyclic and original for each urban community that wants to be studied. As the authors pointed out, environmental and sustainable problems are, generally, analyzed on very few occasions. Researchers prioritize one of the elements of the sustainable tripod: environment, society, economy, some more, some less, according to their reflections about diverse questions.

From this perspective, Rio and Amorim (2017) consider the adoption using Learning Theories, something never done before, to offer strength and depth to the creation and interpretation of the proposed SUS model, through the recognition of complexity involved in constituent variables that stem from selected doctrines. Also, even though the elements of the doctrines are different the ones from the others, they complement each other and allow us to reach a clearer and more defined comprehension in the middle of the complexity of the problem found in the research. The proposal of a framework that analyzes the learning process, more integral on the mesoanalytic scale, involved elements of the city and the citizens. The interaction between these mediums, a turbulent paradigm from the perspective of social sustainability, was analyzed to comprehend how interactions, social relationships and collaboration nets can conduct to a SUS community and the life quality of citizens.

Figure 1 - The SUS theoretical model, already identified in chapter 2.2, represent the model proposed by Rio and Amorim (2017) to understand the SUS concept seen through the three Learning Theories used, which is used as a tool of deep analysis for the most variable levels of SUS design according to the most diverse realities of urban cities. Finally, Rio and Amorim (2017) conclude that the Learning Theories can and must influence directly on the social-sustainable development, understood as a model of cyclic and continuous learning. Since it’s a dynamic, independent, complex and constantly reviewed process, it must be adapted to the reality of each urban community that it’s to be analyzed, under the risk of not achieving the initiated objectives.

Correlations between the SUS models of Rio (2015) and de Rio and Amorim (2017)

The deep research of dialogical emergencies of a SUS generic model based on the inherent research of mesoanalytic rules can be highlighted as the main point of a route used by both authors on their respective researches.

A proof of this is that both studies were based on the Complexity Theory and Multilevel Analysis, this one was a main tool to properly research and interpret the different phenomena that stem from complex environments. Even though the research by Rio and Amorim (2017) doesn’t use, explicitly, the Multilevel Analysis tool as research element of their model, the insertion of Learning Theories as model foundation suggests a complex reflection that’s only possible trough Multilevel Analysis.

The questionnaire model of the mesoanalytic route for the study of SUS for this community by Rio (2015) brings essential elements that cross the structural lines of the Learning Theories found in the Learning Theory’s structural lines, found in the research by Rio and Amorim (2017). The last one acts as an alternative followed by Rio (2015) on its research for this community, where it warns about the limits of his research and proposes action possibilities to look for a SUS generic theoretical model that’s reinforced by the emergence of mesoanalytic rules trough Learning Theories, seen as central elements to understand these social phenomena by both authors.

Something interesting detected by Rio and Amorim (2017) is the conceptual confusion regarding some terms, including sustainability. These authors observed the difficulties found when mentioning that expression, due to the multiple faces that this concept can acquire according to the perception of each expert and academics on the topic. This can be clearly identified on the graphic sequence 1, 2 and 3, that shows the conceptual comprehension that average people have regarding a specific topic. In this case, data (extracts) were used in Rio’s survey (2015) regarding the results obtained on the table 1.

Figure 4. Hostility concept according to the survey respondents of Rio (2015)

Note: Source: Authors

Figure 5. Hospitality concept according to the survey respondents of Rio (2015)

Note: Source: Authors

Figure 6: SUS concept according to the survey respondents of Rio (2015)

Note: Source: Authors

Figures 4, 5 and 6 consider the obtained evaluation applying the questionnaire and their respecting answers according to the samples of this research. On each open answer they looked for one or more elements that synthesize the reasoning of the interviewee about the applied question during the interview with the researcher. After the content (the interviewees discourse) was summarized, the segmentation of different responses on multiple questionnaire sections allowed to find simple and common expressions and, in many cases, typeset expressions; this means more than one definition per interviewee. This search for proposition (extracts) through the Quantitative Propositional Analysis (QPA), allowed to identify elements that are associated to the conceptualization of each topic exposed by this research according to the data presented by these graphics.

Something eye-catching when you revise the graphics, specially the graphic 3, is the remarkable consensus that blurs the SUS concept. This is on the same page as the argument presented by both studies, where said concept is declared as a term in a constant and dynamic (re)building process. Also, the essence of this mesoanalytic study found in both models follows a route based on the weight and the dynamic of complexity, that can only be analyzed from the emergent inquiry of the rules of innovation tracking combined with the Multilevel Theory. This means, that the research about Multilevel Analysis by Dopfer (2004) and the Complexity Theory by Morin (1992, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013), found in the research of Rio (2015) are linked positively with the Learning Theories by Kolb (individual learning), Argyris and Schön (organizational learning and Wegner (social learning), emphasized by Rio and Amorim (2017.

Final Considerations

The search for a generic theoretical model of SUS that could be used as a parameter to study the mesoanalytic rules f learning in urban communities, especially those underdeveloped economically, is a growing and relevant topic that has the goal to determine information that may be useful to interpret the complex and deep dynamic of today’s societies to reach auto-sustainable development. In this sense, the present research was developed with the main goal to linking the SUS models of Rio (2015) and Rio and Amorim (2017) to contribute to the SUS concept.

This “test” was considered compulsory because it links the convergence of mesoanalytic rules with the most assertive interpretation of this growing phenomenon. Following this path, this research was developed presenting existing concepts in both SUS models, like the Complexity Theory and Multilevel Analysis, even though these topics aren’t mentioned explicitly in the study of Rio and Amorim (2017). Nevertheless, due to this being a complex topic, this work seeped into both concepts when setting the theoretical foundation in Learning Theories, something that was seen as new in the interpretation of mesoanalytic rules.

According to both authors, other topic to be highlighted is understanding that the SUS concept is a new, recent and growing phenomenon, and therefore it must be experimented constantly, cyclic and (re)constructive. On the same line, the dynamics of innovation tracking is a highly potential alternative that can allow a deeper reflection about how learning social interactions occur in the SUS models. This is incredibly relevant from the point of view of implementing possible public politics for community development through the dreamed path of sustainability. On the other hand, this is a topic observed by two previous studies, where the citizen must be considered a central element of the paradigm when looking for the quality of a fulfilling life.

To link the SUS models and identify possible application traces, Multilevel Analysis methodology was proposed, seen as key to interpret correctly the deep and complex qualitative data of the present research, that complies with understanding. Morin (1992) apud Rio (2015); Dimitrov (2003); Dopfer (2004) apud Rio (2015); Silva (2011); Mendonça, Cunha and Nascimento (2013); Kanso (2015); Torres (2018). Also, The Quantitative Propositional Analysis (QPA) was also used to determine quantitative data, even though this wasn’t the main goal of the study. os, aunque este no era el propósito central del presente estudio.

In this sense, one of the recommendations found in the research by Rio (2015) was proposing more studies about mesoanalytic rules trough the inclusion of Learning Theories in the SUS theoretical model to improve the development, interpretation and application. The research by Rio and Amorim (2017) put under the spotlight this possibility when basing their theoretical foundation in deepening these conduct theories. Clearly, studies by the authors about the SUS models must be revised, refined and continuously checked in other realities to extend their application.

Therefore, even though both authors of both researches considered it as evidence, unusual characteristics of originality and cyclic character in which the development processes of each community happen, in a singular sense, that include the learning processes described by Dopfer (2004) apud Rio (2015); Kolb (1997, 2005), Argyris and Schön (1974, 1996), Wenger (1998, 2000) apud Rio and Amorim (2017). This is needed so an interpretative proposal to be carried out is aligned with all the complexity and deepness ever-present in a dynamic, independent and evolving environment.

Nevertheless, as both authors previously pointed out while having the problem presented in this research, the development of generic theoretical models proposed by the SUS must be polished constantly so it fits the interpretative form in a deeper and more real way. Like this, both studies are used as a guide to carry out researches about the development of the SUS, but they can’t be considered static and rigid SUS models, since the dynamics of development (evolution) can’t be explained only in systemic models, restrictive in the superficial aspect of things.