As sentient and social beings, we live in hope that we can be understood when we try to communicate with each other but we also know that we might be wrong. We strive for better understandings, engaging in an on-going dance of collective sense-making. This paper considers how communication among individuals involves co-creation of meaning by exploring narratives those expressed by a speaker and those created internally by listeners in efforts to achieve understanding. We note that the extent of these efforts varies from reliance on prejudice at one extreme to deep listening at the other, and that organizational barriers may exist which inhibit cocreation of meaning. We suggest that an open systems approach, which enables individuals to explore and share their contextually dependent understandings, will be helpful. We propose a framework that supports and guides participants in endeavors to co-create understandings of problem spaces through storytelling and listening.

Key words: communication, knowledge creation, listening, narratives, open systems, sense-making

Purpose: This paper seeks to develop the argument that a cybernetic framework will enable designers to act as an observer and participant in the process of designing. The dynamic nature of the design process will be discussed in order to better understand how these aspects impact on a designer’s ability to act effectively in design. Design/methodology/approach – A second‐order cybernetic framework is offered as a means to facilitate a designer’s capacity to act as an observer‐participant in the co‐creation of a design solution. It characterizes the design process as a conversation to enhance a designer’s ability to conceptually develop novel design solutions in participative situations. Findings: The significance of the designer in the design process and the design solution is established. A second‐order cybernetic framework provides an explanation for a designer’s actions by acknowledging their presence in the design process. This makes possible the collaborative development of a design situation and its solution between various participants in this process through negotiation and mutual understanding. Practical implications: It is envisaged that the value of cybernetic concepts as a means to augment interaction, reflection, mutual understanding, creativity and innovation to facilitate designerly ways of knowing, thinking, and acting, is realized. Originality/value – The main value of this framework is for designers who struggle with finding an appropriate framework to facilitate and rationalize the subjective nature of human‐centred design methods and the complexity of design.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: The target article describes a programme of study in enterprise education based on radical constructivism (RC. There are a number of issues that arise: the RC approach emphasises student learning rather than preparation for teaching, this type of course can have an impact on the other courses in the programme, and the nurturing of student uncertainty requires particular skills in any group by both teachers and students.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: The aims of this commentary are to pose a few reactions to the design framework, enactment, and data and analyses of the reported investigation, and to offer additional overall perspectives on radical constructivism as a potential framework for classroom teaching (and specifically the teaching of school mathematics.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: I introduce and discuss an advancement of the idea of “learning from the future,” called “interacting with the envisioned future.” Further, this approach is put into the context of the target article and the perspective of radical constructivism.

Context: Radical constructivism (RC) is seen as a fruitful way to teach innovation, as Ernst von Glasersfeld’s concepts of knowing, learning, and teaching provide an epistemological framework fostering processes of generating an autonomous conceptual understanding. Problem: Classical educational approaches do not meet the requirements for teaching and learning innovation because they mostly aim at students’ competent performance, not at students’ understanding and developing their creative capabilities. Method: Analysis of theoretical principles from the constructivist framework and how they can be used as a foundation for designing a course in the field of innovation. The empirical results are based on qualitative journal entries that were coded and categorized according to Charmaz’s grounded theory approach. Results: It is shown that there is a close relationship between learning and innovation processes. The proposed investigated course design based on RC incorporates the following concepts: the course setting is understood as a framework to guide understanding; students work in teams and are subjective constructors of their own knowledge; instructors take on the role of coaches, guiding students through an innovation process as co-creators. Such a framework facilitates dynamic processes of assimilation and accommodation, as well as perturbation through the “other,” which potentially lead to novel, and viable, conceptual structures crucial for sustainable innovation. Constructivist Content: The paper argues in favor of RC principles in the context of teaching and learning. The proposed course setting is oriented at von Glasersfeld’s understanding of knowing, learning, and teaching (vs. training. It outlines theoretical and practical aspects of these principles in the context of a course design for innovation. Furthermore, it shows the importance of von Glasersfeld’s concept of intersubjectivity for processes of accommodation and the generation of (novel) autonomous conceptual structures. The interplay between creating coherence, perturbation, and irritation through interacting with the “other” (in the form of co-students and instructors) is assumed to be vital for such processes, as it leads to the creation of not only novel but also viable conceptual structures, therefore re-establishing a relative equilibrium critical for sustainable innovation.

Key words: Innovation, teaching, learning, course design, co-creation, Enabling Space, radical constructivism.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: Peschl et al. argue that innovation, or the creation of sustainable change in the market, is a natural topic to be understood from a radical constructivist perspective and is similar in structure to von Glasersfeld’s theory of learning. I argue that this is an accurate and interesting extension of the theory, but that their understanding of innovation needs to be extended to consider the viability of the innovation in the market. It is only in the context of the market that the innovation is perceived as novel, or that it can be understood as sustainable.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: This commentary emphasizes the three levels of a teaching methodology designed to scaffold conceptual autonomy and innovation on the part of graduate students with diverse areas of expertise.