Turning inwards for change – The role of inner conditions in transformative co-design

Abstract The transformation towards eco-social sustainability is an important issue for many of us. Those involved in transformative activities often undergo continual processes of self-reflection, enhancing their awareness and capabilities. This paper focuses on co-design with transformative aims and on processes for which the ability and willingness of individuals to shift their perspectives and adopt new roles and practices is central. It looks at the ways in which we can nurture the interconnectedness of internal and external change by revisiting existing design practices that are complemented by awareness-based system change. The paper contributes to the discussions on the inner conditions in transformative co-design through three perspectives: empathy and relating, self-awareness in co-design, and experiencing connectedness. Transformative processes are not easy. Therefore, we need to pay more strategic attention to inner conditions if we are to increase the transformative potential of design to cultivate eco-social change.


Introduction
In this article, we start from the perspective that the transformation towards eco-social sustainability and planetary well-being requires people to rethink how they are and become with others and the world.By eco-social sustainability we refer to a transformative change that recognizes that human and planetary sustainability cannot be separated, and that greater equity and ecological justice require practices and actions that create a thriving, flourishing world for everyone (e.g.Bentz, O'Brien, and Scoville-Simonds 2022;UNESCO 2020).This kind of rethinking involves understanding that people's inner conditions affect the way in which they approach issues, make decisions, interact with others, and ultimately encounter the world and themselves (Takanen 2013;Du Plessis 2015;Akama 2018).By inner conditions, we refer to mental models -the internal pictures in our minds, that represent everything we think we know about the world, and that shape our habitual patterns, values, beliefs and attitudes (Senge 1990;Meadows 2008).What is significant for the design field is that inner conditions also affect how people come into collaborative situations and relate to one another, as well as their orientation in co-creating futures with others (Grocott 2022;Vink, Wetter-Edman, and Aguirre 2017).In other words, the transformation towards eco-social sustainability means not only profoundly changing what we do, but also recognizing who we are as active players in our social and ecological systems, and how we do things, both alone and together (Light, Wolstenholme, and Twist 2019).
The idea that 'in changing ourselves, we are changing the world' has been emphasized by authors in various fields. 1Grocott et al. (2019) have continued this idea by pointing out how we must first better understand our individual selves before we can better understand others.This requires turning inwards, both individually and collectively.In this context, the influence and role of inner conditions, which are sometimes referred to as the deep leverage points of transformation, are widely known in the literature on systems change (Meadows 2008;Scharmer 2016;Senge 1990) and in sustainability sciences (Abson et al. 2017;Ives, Freeth, and Fischer 2020;O'Brien 2018).According to Scharmer (2018), becoming aware of these inner conditions in social systems, encourages us to pay attention to the interconnectedness of internal and external change, thereby working more holistically towards transformation (see also Wilber 2005).Such holistic work often calls for abilities to transcend paradigms by challenging prevailing worldviews and existing ways of doing things (Meadows 2008;Light, Wolstenholme, and Twist 2019).This includes criticizing the dominant, mechanistic (western) worldviews that have neglected, for example, the more pluralistic ways of coexisting that are rooted in connectedness, and living harmoniously with nature and more-than-human others (Escobar 2018).
Without underestimating the role of systemic, societal, and political debate in the transformation towards eco-social sustainability, we focus on 'the neglect of inner worlds' of sustainability, as described by Ives, Freeth, and Fischer (2020) and build on a 'human-sized' perspective in these discussions (O'Brien 2018).Our focus is motivated by Bentz and colleagues' (2022) call for 'how', i.e. how can we move beyond talking, and focus on meaning-making, learning, listening, diverse ways of being and becoming, and on integrating the means (methods) and manners (ways of acting) for transformative change.In this context, co-creative and reflective practices in design are highlighted as one pathway along which this 'how' can unfold (ibid).Our interest is in bringing the co-design perspective to these discussions and looking at possible ways in which to nurture the interconnectedness of internal shifts and external transformation.In doing this, we may help people shift their perspectives and adopt broader awareness, which in turn would support both individual and collective transformation towards eco-social sustainability.By exploring this topic, we join an ongoing conversation on making the transformative potential of creative practices more visible to the audiences involved in engendering transformative change (see Light, Wolstenholme, and Twist 2019;Dolejsov a et al. 2021).
This conceptual article summarises our views from long-term co-design practices in different contexts.Given our interest in the potential of creative co-design practices within the broader methodological debates on eco-social transformation, we start by introducing how transformative design is connected to codesign.Next, we focus on the role of inner conditions and turning inwards in transformative co-design.We approach this by exploring how empathic design can help cultivate qualities of relating and collaboration, using examples from design practices that promote self-reflection.We then continue by discussing the practices that foster self-awareness and broader connectedness in the codesign processes.Figures 1-3 are included to illustrate examples of our practices.We conclude by highlighting the strategic role of inner conditions, the facilitation of turning inwards and relating, and their interconnectedness.

Transformative design
Design and other creative practices are becoming increasingly connected to the topic of eco-social transformation (e.g.Sangiorgi 2011, Light, Wolstenholme, andTwist 2019).Burns et al. (2006) grasped this growing field Figure 1.These photos depict co-design as enabling creative practice.They are from a series of workshops held by the authors to facilitate cross-administrative and cross-sector service development.The participants represented their own agendas and experiences, but also carried their personal inner conditions 'to the same table', which then influenced co-creation.Around the tables sit representatives of private service providers and public organizations.When envisioning new service journeys, the discussion revealed that both parties had critical interpretations of the other.However, when face to face, and supported by empathic codesign tools, exercises and facilitation, their interpretation started to shift.This is an example of how empathic approaches can work constructively to support the broadening and shifting of perspectives and openness to learn from the perspectives of others.(See more e.g. in Hakio and Mattelm€ aki 2011).
by dubbing it transformation design.They define transformative in terms of ground-breaking changes that challenge existing cultural models and practices in organizations and the public sector (see Sangiorgi 2011, 31).Such changes address mental models of participation, expert-driven vs people-driven innovation approaches, and the value of designing experiences and systems from a human-centred perspective (Sangiorgi 2011;Burns et al. 2006).
Figure 2. Three photos illustrate different means for guiding participants to become aware of and make visible both personal and collective inner conditions.In the left, participants were asked to bend their thoughts back to themselves through guided reflection and journaling activities, in the middle, cultivating self-awareness in social encounters by visualizing what they each bring to the situation, and in the right, guiding participants to sense the tone and quality of the dynamics and relationships embedded in their social system through embodied knowing (see Hayashi 2021).The purpose of these exercises was to engage the participants' perceptions and ways of thinking about their personal and shared future possibilities.Jonas and colleagues (2015) define transformative design as a value-based attitude towards designing, and a field for deconstructing and redesigning social relations (p.15).According to them, transformative design is not a discipline per se, but a broader scope of discussion on how humanity wants to live responsibly in a post-growth society.In the same vein, some 10 years after the definition offered by Burns and colleagues, Irwin's (2015) debate on transition design gained visibility by shifting the focus from organizations and public sector innovation to social and environmental concerns.In Irwin's definition, transition design emphasizes that designing for socially and environmentally sustainable futures must be based on a deep, holistic understanding of the dynamics and anatomy of change, thus requiring both transdisciplinary knowledge on theories of change, and new mindsets (worldviews) and postures (approaches/attitudes) for collaborating through transitional times (Irwin 2015, 232).In this context, the adoption of new mindsets and postures is also associated with the theme of inner growth and capacity-building, in which the process of becoming self-aware is connected to transformative learning experiences and internal transitions to lifeaffirming habits (Jaakkola et al. 2022;Du Plessis 2015).
What seems to be common to transformative design approaches is that they recognize that change emerges from a co-creative, mutual-learning and capacity-building process, in which different stakeholders and designers work together as co-learners (e.g.Sangiorgi 2011;Light and Akama 2014;Irwin 2015, 237;Seravalli, Upadhyaya, and Ernits 2022;Grocott 2022).Such perspectives on mutual learning are embedded in participatory design discussion where people involved in change processes adapt and change their practices alongside the design outcomes (Carroll and Rosson 2007;Ehn 1993).Some authors in design research have emphasized the need to initiate more self-reflective processes.They acknowledge how the ability and willingness of individuals to change, and to adopt and develop new roles and practices is at the heart of radical societal change and the shift towards collective well-being (Light and Akama 2014, 152;Sangiorgi 2011, 37;Hummels et al. 2019;Du Plessis 2015;Vink, Wetter-Edman, and Aguirre 2017).This is where our understanding of co-design as an enabling creative practice meets transformative design.By enabling creative practice, co-design becomes a setting in which people from different backgrounds and disciplines can come together, interact with each other, and together imagine new possibilities, connections, and solutions (e.g.Sanders and Stappers 2008, 6).In the co-design context, facilitating and building scaffolding to support people's interactions and collective creativity are among designers' wellknown repertoires (ibid).Co-design expertise includes creating favourable conditions for co-design participants to move together towards the targeted outcomes through exploring ways of reframing, shifting points of view, and knowing (Simonsen and Robertson 2013;Halse et al. 2010;Mattelm€ aki et al. 2011;and others); and further, building more reflective co-learning processes by allowing the individual and shared experiences to 'talk back' to participants (Seravalli, Upadhyaya, and Ernits 2022).
When people join co-design processes as invited participants or as part of self-organized local groupsbe it working for service innovation, social innovation, or sustainability challengesthey become the co-creators of solutions, new openings, and future visions (Manzini 2015;Ehn, Nilsson, and Topgaard 2014;Light and Akama 2014;Sangiorgi 2011), and often also the implementors of co-created outcomes toward transformation.Each brings to the situation their personal and cultural mental models, worldviews, and values (see Figure 1).These then influence their encounters and collaborations, but quietly, in the background.Hence, the qualities of these encounters and interactions are significant.In the following sections, we turn to look at how creative practices from design and other fields can help cultivate inner conditions and relating, and contribute to transformations towards eco-social sustainability.

Empathy and relating
We start by looking at empathy as one of the possible ways, and established design practices, of cultivating self-reflection and shifting perspectives.As Fulton Suri, et al. (2003, 52) states, empathic design aims towards 'achieving greater awareness, an extended imagination and sensitivity to another person's world in a powerfully memorable way'.Empathy in design refers to an ability to shift perspectives, but also a willingness to become sensitized to others (Kouprie and Visser 2009).The relevance of empathy is recognized in sustainability transformation discussions as 'the ability to learn from others; to understand and respect the needs, perspectives and actions of others; to understand, relate to and be sensitive to others; to deal with conflicts in a group; and the ability to engage in collaborative and participatory problem solving' (UNESCO 2017, 10).In this paper, we see empathy in design as a respectful and genuine interest in understanding fellow individuals, and as experimental approaches that have been developed in and for design research and practice (Mattelm€ aki et al. 2014).
Empathic design became popular with the emergence of 'design for experiences' in the first decade of the 2000s (e.g.Leonard and Rayport 1997;Segal and Suri 1997).Design for experiences requires holistic understanding of people and their contextual and personal needs, wishes and aspirations (e.g.Koskinen, Battarbee, and Mattelm€ aki 2003).Through empathic design, which nurtures curiosity about what it is like to be someone else (Fulton Suri, et al. 2003, 57), the designer creates opportunities for experiential learning in order to gain access to how others feel and make sense of the world (e.g.Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005).
Various ways to approach individual, contextual, experiential, tacit and emotional qualities have been developed and applied in design research and practice, including observations, immersion, storytelling, role playing (e.g.Fulton Suri, et al. 2003), and generative tools (e.g.Sleesvijk Visser et al. 2005).With the mindset that people are experts of their own experiences, creative approaches are applied to help people reflect upon and express their opinions, values and experiences and to voice what is meaningful to them (e.g.Sanders and Stappers 2012).The process and outcomes help designers dive into the lives of other people, empathize with their situations and draw from these insights to design experiential solutions.
Empathic design includes an adaptable repertoire for shifting perspectives, reflecting, and relating when moving from the traditional field of design to transformative design.The widening of the original frame of empathic design (i.e.designer empathizes with users) towards cultivating qualities of relating and collaboration has become meaningful (see e.g.Sangiorgi and Prendiville 2017;Smeenk 2019, 25;Akoglu and Dankl 2021;Hakio and Mattelm€ aki 2011;Vaajakallio and Mattelm€ aki 2007).In the new framing, empathic, collaborative, and explorative design activities aim for collective learning in which willingness to learn and change are most relevant in supporting individuals' relating to others (Figure 1).

Empathy and its many forms
To complement the design discourse on empathy, we cite philosopher Elisa Aaltola, who reminds us that empathy is a multidimensional capacity and an ability to act reflectively, respectfully, and morally towards other humans and non-humans (Aaltola 2014(Aaltola , 2018)).It includes navigating between affective and cognitive empathy, and between oneself and others, and the interrelated orientations of these two (see more in Aaltola 2018; Hess and Fila 2016;Smeenk, Tomico, and van Turnhout 2016).
As an example of how designers have triggered such affective resonance and interrelationships, Smeenk (2019, 90) describes a dementia simulator, the aim of which is to provide an experiential glimpse of everyday life with dementia.The simulation can form a connection with a person's own past and current life, and the potential future world of experiences awaiting them.Through such an experience it is possible to make an evocative and emotional embodied connection with the issue at hand, far beyond merely distantly observing otherness, based on aspirations circling around personal histories and lived experiences.In this way, the unknown can be made more visceral and tangible through one's own experience.
In transformative co-design, the aim of empathic practices is to broaden the ways in which we relate to each other, and to help us see different perspectives, and the role of empathy lies in its ability to recognize individuals and subjective interpretations.In other words, the unknown and unfamiliar can become familiar, and the faceless mass can become a group of individuals with their own perspectives, needs, experiences, and minds (Aaltola and Keto 2017, 119-120;Aaltola 2018).
Subjectivity can also be seen as a limitation.Heylighen and Dong (2019), suggest that empathy lacks participation and its features feed naïve judgements (Bloom 2016).Empathy can be discriminating, as people inherently only experience empathy towards those who are like them (Edmonds 2017, 209), and are influenced by geographical proximity, ethnic background, country of residence, or lack of emotional connection such as kinship (Aaltola and Keto 2017, 117), not to mention the 'otherness' of more-thanhuman species such as fish or trees or nature in general (Aaltola 2018).Citing Bloom (2016, 68), Heylighen and Dong further confirm the argument that empathy is always modified by our inner conditions and dimensionour beliefs, expectations, motivations, and judgements (2019,115).
It is therefore important to question whether we actually are able to step into others' shoes, an expression that is often used in the empathic design discourse.Thus, following Lee (2012, 96) it might be better that, before seeking to step into another's shoes, one should first identify the shoes one is wearing oneself, and to think through one's own abilities to settle into another's position.This leads us to think how to educate our awareness of such shoes through reflective empathy.

Reflective empathy
Some researchers argue that if empathy is understood as a skill, it carries an element of an interior shift.For example, Persson and Savulescu (2018, 5) propose that people can modify the direction of empathy and develop it in more reflective ways to overcome its shortcomings described above.Lee (2014, 5.8) proposes that the practice of empathic design can be seen as a relating and sensitizing process.Reflecting on students' learning practices, she observed that 'The method-making process seemed to enable the (design) students' realizations of their own backgrounds and preoccupations, which helped them to gain a greater degree of sensitivity to the users' (ibid.).With such a process of relating, the immediate experience of empathy based on cultural and emotional biases and learned mental models, can be at least partially uncovered, and eventually altered through reflective observations and empathic approaches, thus making empathy a conscious, deliberate practice that can be cultivated.
Reflective empathy consists of repetitive movements between an immediate level of empathy, on which one recognizes and shares the emotional states of others, and, a reflective meta-level of empathy, on which one can detect how one's assumptions and feelings affect one's abilities to empathize, and how they direct and shape the experience of empathy (Aaltola and Keto 2017, 96).It includes movement towards oneself and can redirect one's own tacit beliefs and mental concepts, and ultimately trigger an alteration of pre-established desires, belief systems, stereotypes, and misleading emotions (Aaltola 2018, 135).To practise such reflective forms of empathy requires adopting the posture of an external observer (cf. the act of transcending paradigms by Meadows, 2008).In sum, reflective empathy can be seen as a transformative practice of relating.

Cultivating self-awareness in collaborative settings
The underlying layers of inner conditions that participants bring to the collaborative design practice have not gained much attention to date.Wellknown examples in this area include generative tools that aim to facilitate the sensitizing, expressing, and verbalizing of feelings, opinions and experiences that are not explicit (See Sanders and Stappers 2012;Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005).This example, however, does not refer to transformative design or eco-social sustainability.
Lisa Grocott's (2022) recent work builds connections between co-design research and transformative learning, emphasizing how transformative learning requires not only cognitive processes but also embodied, non-cognitive and social learning experiences.She takes a different stance to Mezirow's (1990) interests in transforming meaning schemes and meaning perspectives, by focusing on exploring how transformation can lead to new ways of being and acting in the world (see also Jaakkola et al. 2022).To Grocott, rehearsing new ways of being is related to cultivating self-awareness in social encounters, and thus, for co-design to be transformative, it must involve an element of internal shift work.Grocott sees how transforming inner conditions is a kind of storytelling process in which knowing the frameworks and narratives that we tell ourselves, both individually and collectively, need to be integrated into new ways of being through experiencing and co-realizing (Grocott 2022).What is significant here is how the identification and transformation of personal inner conditions is connected to people's abilities to explore and imagine something not-yet-known, as the underlying mental models, beliefs, attitudes, and habitual patterns influence and define how openly or restrictively people can generally imagine potential future worlds (ibid., 213).
Collaborative design includes suitable elements for supporting the continuous learning and fostering of internal shift work required in transformative processes.As designing is not definite, it asks the learner to dynamically move between wondering, open-endedness and the not-yet-known (Grocott 2022, 234; see also Mattelm€ aki et al. 2011).It also includes ways in which to view and make visible past knowing, current situations and awareness, and to attune to emerging futures by 'discursive, embodied, material practice propelled by generative moves of reflection and speculation' (Grocott 2022, 8;Du Plessis 2015).Vink, Wetter-Edman, and Aguirre (2017) use a similar concept called 'Aesthetic Disruptions' to explain how to address participants' inner conditions.Aesthetic disruptions are seen as distinct from empathy or making sense of experiences through design, as they disrupt, i.e. 'highlight experiences that challenge actors' own habitual actions' (Wetter-Edman, Vink, and Blomkvist 2018, 19).However, cultivating self-awareness in co-design processes also has another aspect.For Du Plessis ( 2015), building the capacity to face and deal with the uncomfortable side of transformation journeys, such as unpleasant feelings, pain, or trauma that surface from personal and collective histories, is a crucial part of the transformation process and cannot be bypassed (e.g.Smeenk [2019] examples of mourning).
The above ideas resonate with Sch€ on's (1983) thinking on reflective practice and the practitioner's abilities to change frames and perspectives in codesign (e.g.Halse et al. 2010;Gardien et al. 2014;Hummels and Frens 2011).Sch€ on's view of design practice, which highlights the ability to take part in reflective dialogue with the materials of the design situation, while reassessing the personal structures of knowing-in-practice (Akama 2012;Binder 2002), can also be applied when trying to understand the social interactions in co-design situations.Vink, Wetter-Edman, and Aguirre (2017) make a distinction between the terms reflection and reflexivity.To be reflective means to think carefully and deeply about something, whereas the term reflexivity refers to an internal discussion, in which the embodied actor in a social context bends her thoughts back to herself (Vink, Wetter-Edman, and Aguirre 2017, also Scharmer 2018) (See Figure 2).We find this division interesting, as the definition of reflexivity is in line with the way in which we, in this paper, address reflective empathy and self-awareness as an ability to turn inwards to relate.To continue expanding the theme of relating, we next focus on building the capacity to experience connectedness to complement the internal shift work and new ways of being and acting in the world.

Experiencing connectedness
When it comes to experiencing connectedness with oneself, with others, and the wider eco-system, the conversation turns easily to exercises that foster being present in the moment, and approaches that originate from contemplative practices and Eastern philosophies (see, e.g.Akama 2018Akama , 2012;;Senge et al. 2004).For example, reflective empathy is closely linked to practices that have roots in ancient Buddhist philosophy, but which can be translated into today's expression of mindfulness (Aaltola and Keto 2017, 101).A central aspect in such mindfulness exercises is that they guide participants to shift their focus from external events and occurrences in the world to internal events and dialogue in a non-judgmental way.The exercises to which we refer in this paper do not necessarily require silent meditative contemplation, but involve a relational perspective by being present and aware in social engagements and everyday actions (Takanen 2013, 45;Tull 2018).
The awareness-based system change approach (e.g.Scharmer 2016) is familiar with exploring this area in more detail as part of transformation processes.Dutra Gonc ¸alves and Hayashi (2021), for example utilize embodied intelligence and performative art forms to guide participants to sense the tone and quality of the present moment, and to make visible the latent dynamics and relationships embedded in social systems.Scharmer and Kaufer (2015) call their guided acts of mindfulness Presencing, which blends the terms 'sensing' and 'presence'.Presencing is an exercise in which the actor becomes aware of the present moment but at the same time engages in an inner movement of letting go, letting come, and connecting to something larger than oneself.In the holistic experience of connectedness with the larger whole, the actor is then guided to listen from the whole and the source of one's highest future possibilities (See Scharmer 2016 for Presencing).Such exercises allow room for internal growth in transformative processes, because they guide the participants to ask themselves profound questions such as 'what is my work?' and 'who do I want to become?' (e.g.Scharmer 2016).
Connectedness might mean different things to different audiences, depending on their cultural backgrounds and worldviews.Some practitioners refer to connecting to heart consciousness (see Takanen 2013), while others refer to connecting to a larger whole as a source of deeper knowing and presence after various wisdom traditions (Scharmer 2016, Senge et al. 2004).A different interpretation invites participants to simply be in the embodied, mindful presence between the sky and the Earth (Hayashi 2021).The aim of such practices is that participants first learn to develop an internal state of experiencing a connection with themselves, their own embodied wisdom, and then with the wider social body and the Earth, which then affects their ability to co-create with others' external conditions for healthy social relationships (Dutra Gonc ¸alves and Hayashi 2021).
Design-led, transformative learning practices have similarities with the above-described exercises, as they offer opportunities to build sensorial memory traces of the new, both individually and together, that show the (social) body how change might feel (Grocott 2022, 239), here and now.The co-design repertoire includes a variety of ways to explore, prototype and rehearse future visions, scenarios, and situations through embodied practices.In this context, however, we mean a slightly different orientation in the formation of sensorial memory traces by building the capacity to experience connectedness with the broader eco-system, including more-than-human others and nature (Figure 3).This is in line with, for example, Arturo Escobar's (2018) argument for developing more pluralistic ways of coexisting rooted in connectedness.According to Escobar, all transformation work needs to develop attunement to the Earth, which refers to our deep, indissoluble connection with everything that exists in the universethe unity of all beings (ibid., 204).These connections and new relationships can then be used to co-create new sensorial memory traces of emerging future possibilities.Escobar notes that awareness-based transformation approaches like Otto Scharmer's work (2016) have similarities with ontological design frameworks (Escobar 2018, p. 126), as they both tackle inner shift work: using Grocott's terms, all parties involved need to do in order to embrace new ways of being and acting in the world.
Creating connections to inner conditions may sound difficult in a rationally attuned environment.However, if the conditions of the collaborative and participatory setting are perceived as safe and supportive (Du Plessis 2015, 6) even very simple exercises such as guided moments of mindfulness may enable such a shift in internal focus and awareness.Scharmer calls this the capacity to hold the space for profound transformation (Scharmer 2018(Scharmer , 2016)).

Discussion
This paper has focused on inner conditions in transformative co-design.In the context of transformation towards eco-social sustainability, seeking reflective, metalevel perspectives to one's habitual actions and mental models is essential.Furthermore, new ways need to be created of relating to oneself and to others through building the capacity to experience connectedness.To address this need, we have studied how inner conditions can be addressed in design practice by revisiting co-design's repertoire of sensitizing, the ability and willingness to relate, and awareness of oneself and others.The design field examples, including reflection and relating in empathic design and transformative co-design, and the conditions required for transformational learning to take place, were complemented with introductions to awareness-based system change practices.We concluded by proposing taking inner conditions into account in transformative co-design through three perspectives: empathy and relating, self-awareness in co-design, and experiencing connectedness.
We started with Bentz and colleagues' (2022) call for meaning-making, learning, listening, diverse ways of being and becoming, and integrating the means (methods) and manners (ways of acting) in transformative change.Manners in empathic design refer to a mindset of curiosity and respect, and means are creative practices that recognize subjectivity and facilitate reflecting and relating.Their integration into the context of advancing eco-social transformations can support relating both individually and collectively through shifting perspectives from others to oneself and back in a reflective way.
Considering co-design an enabling creative practice, along with some others (Grocott et al. 2019, Light, Wolstenholme, and Twist 2019, Vink and Koskela-Huotari 2021), we conclude that many generative, exploratory, embodied design methods and creative practices can be applied in new ways to support transformation processes.Already established design approaches need to be reviewed and applied in more strategic and focused ways to increase reflectivity and the nurturing of inner conditions and relating, thus supporting participants' ability to become aware of and shape intentionally institutionalized social structures in collaborative projects (see e.g.Vink and Koskela-Huotari 2021).Thus, for co-design to be transformative and capable of meeting the challenges of eco-social sustainability, it must include part of the internal shift work.To support such processes, we propose adding guided acts of turning inwards, i.e. turning one's thoughts back to oneself, to the co-design repertoire.This can be done by applying generative tools and improvisational exercises or by integrating activities such as reflective journaling, and guided moments of presencing and connecting, which encourage participants to work with their bodies, emotions and intuitions, and then in turn, nurture relating and co-learning through creating insights and prototyping new ways of engaging with themselves and the world (Du Plessis 2015; Grocott et al. 2019;Scharmer 2016, Hakio andMattelm€ aki 2019) (see all figures).
Asking people involved in co-design to turn inwards and be self-reflective might not be an easy process.Reviewing and making personal but also collective deep mental models and worldviews visible in social systems requires participants to examine and weigh, among other things, their learned ways of thinking and behaving, which they might have inherited form their parents or which are the result of cultural and societal conditioning.This includes the ways in which they relate to themselves, as well as how they relate to others through, for example, political views.Such relating can also surface from underlying values regarding how we treat those who disagree with or differ from us, including other species and nature.However, in order to address the difficult, complex and even chaotic issues of this time, we cannot avoid dealing with neglected inner worlds (after Ives, Freeth, and Fischer 2020) and involving the hard, uncomfortable side of transformation journeys (Du Plessis 2015).From an ethical point of view, it should be noted that such work is voluntary; participants only share with others what they feel comfortable with.
While transformation is a grand word, transformation processes can compose cumulative, subtle shifts that are almost invisible.Lisa Grocott reminds us that 'The grand changes … are oftentimes granular, invisible and intangible.The transformative shifts operate in the marginsthey are experienced at an intrapersonal level and can take their time to bloom' (Grocott 2022, xix-xx) and 'The potential to sustain new ways of being and acting in the world comes with our capacity to not just change the stories we tell ourselves but to holistically internalize those stories' (Grocott 2022, 171).Accordingly, our future work will involve strengthening the connection between transformative learning and creative practices to internalize them in the motivation of design practices to advance eco-social sustainability.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The collage depicts examples of co-design workshops in a nature tourism service project where the first author acted as a facilitator.The activities included walking meditation as a form of presencing and connecting, and speculative and embodied design activities to explore the roles of other beings.These exercises aimed to support the exploration of ecological selves and build connections with local more-than-humans and nature.(See more in Hakio and Mattelm€ aki 2019).