Associate Name: James Edwards
Main Advisor and OP Reviewer: Jennifer Dauksha-English Morgan

Output Packet #:  2		Year: Capstone MSc
Date Submitted: September 20th, 2019
Date Reviewed: September 25th, 2019
Title: Regenerative Economics in Theory and Practice
Mark: 76
Grade: B
See Review: 77
Time Spent on Review: 4.5 hrs

Dear James,

Was lovely to talk with you this month and then to have the opportunity to review your final OP 2. What a shift from the PreCap OP! Very impressive. This is definitely my favorite OP of yours I’ve read. You’re writing has improved significantly. There’s much more integration. As with all my Associates, even though there’s improvement of great magnitudes, I’m still going to give reflection for further investigation and integration. I see you took my feedback and suggestions into consideration thus far and I hope you find this next round of input supportive. I tried focussing more on the content, whereas last time we spent considerable attention on creating a container to house all your different layers of this OP, while still meeting the requirements for word count. Which you succeeded by the way. However, not even reading the entire OP, it still took me 4.5 hours just because the topic is so dense. It would probably take 6 hrs for the extras!

Thanks for all of your work on both self and planetary levels. I appreciate how similar our research and internets overlap!

My review is broken into these sections:
1. Evaluation Form 
2. Comments Per Section

Required next step: 
- Upload peer review.
- Add more on leadership, experimentation and dissemination in OPs 3-4. Add more on pathway tracking in OP 5.

Recommended next step:
- Read over feedback and incorporate changes that feel relevant to you.

I respect your integrity in managing your pathway. I'm glad to be your advisor!

Cheers,
Jennifer

OP REVIEW-------------------------

1. EVALUATION FORM-------------------- 

(attached)

2. COMMENTS PER SECTION---------------

Commentary
- Love the quote and that you provide meaning/relevance. I had no idea it was from burning man - neat! How many years have you gone now?
- You say in your opening WELCOME message that this is your third OP, which I get. It might confuse readers though, as it is labeled OP 2. Perhaps say this is my first project based OP - to be more clear?
- Very powerful opening statement and call to action. What do you mean by initiation? Wow, intense and powerful language dystopia or redemption! Great use of descriptive words. This is very poetic.
- I agree that the culture of capitalism and associated world views are the cause of current world wide crises - yet I think the disconnect itself came first. I think it would help this story if you shared some of the background of our fragmentation from nature. Who are we and how did we get in this situation? What did we believe that led us here? Or what did we fear?
- Transition architects - sounds like us!
- Try not to end sentences with a proposition (like to). 
- Clear navigational instructions and note on word counts. Very succinct and easy to understand.
- Again, great language James - “luminaries in the field” - love that. And “thought leaders”.
- In specification I appreciate the ongoing context around realism related to your skepticism towards optimism, and how that relates to your research (who caught your attention). You mention this selection as guardrails - nice descriptive word. Your language is far more eloquent and creative then I remember. Such a pleasure to experience this deeper, more meaningful (and polished) writing.
- Ecological design as non-negotiable path forward. You call yourself an ecosocial designer in the same sentence - how about just saying ecosocial design then, instead of ecological design? Is it because of the other two books, and their field of focus? Either way I think taking a sentence to define what you mean by ecosocial design would help this paragraph/specification. And stick to ecosocial design instead of going back and forth between that and ecological design.
- I see in the abstract you are calling it the ecosocial designer. Again, define this in above section.
- I like how you sectioned the OP into the business owners and the economist/policy maker. I bet there’s a deeper metaphor there - like how too understand one perspective, the person must encapsulate the concepts of the other - macro to micro. Patterns to details. 
- You say better than sustainable - explain why sustainable isn’t an option. Why it doesn’t make sense.
- You are brining up Permaculture - define. It feels that you just dumped this thought here without any context - what do you mean by using these principles as part of a comparative assessment? Fragmented thought. Needs more context for reader. Don’t assume the reader knows Permaculture.
- After you state the bit in the abstract about using your own pathway as a case study - create a sentence or small paragraph summarizing your key outcomes/findings from researching/providing this assessment. An abstract needs to not only summarize content, it also offers the outcome.
- In design, when you speak so thoughtfully about research and books, how about link your resource review? I thought this earlier when you narrowed your extensive research down to just two authors and was like wow - how’d he go from many to few, and wanted to see your book list. I wanted to hear a bit more about your project based design strategy that led you down this path. How did you make these choices and was there an intention research approach that you were following?
- Research is absolutely an action, especially if you equate and evaluate the process of researching and hone in on refining your skills as a ‘researcher’. Even look at it as an archetype.  I think you could add more value to this comment, “nevertheless, I consider this type of research…” by explaining in a few sentences who you are as a researcher and what the parameters of your active experiment to research were within the design process. Before talking about the design model. You’re implying a connection that seems void until further fleshed out <research =  action learning>. Explain or consider taking out the bit about how this is a different type of OP. Also, and this is important for future OP’s, please note that there’s the requirement of OP design and another for project design. I do not expect or wish for you to use exactly the same design process for both. In this case your research was the project, and the OP creation was the OP (of course). Please explicitly state in future OP’s a bit more clarity on the design for each of these components of your work. The ideal scenario is that you are using 2 different processes (for experimentation purposes), so that by the end of the cycle you’ve trailed at least 10, if not more, design strategies.
- When you speak of the two design models (Disruptive Design and GaSADIE models) you go directly into bullet points. How about taking one sentence first to explain each model’s reach/lineage of thought or at least a statement on why this model compared to other types of models.
- Great examples of each step along the way per design model. Very tuned in to the process here - pragmatic overview.
- In the reflection section you mention taking an iterative approach, was that mentioned above? I don’t think so. Can you weave that in above? It feels that it’s coming out of left field as a new approach. As a designer, I know it’s linked, just explain how.
- I love the choose your own adventure! Fun foraging ahead!
- In learning section I really like how you explain the history of your relationship to academic writing. I think this is the context I was looking for above in explaining your role as a researcher.
- I’m enjoying the inclusion of cross referencing (which I often call triangulation) and your choice of hard data searches to verify relevance of work you were reading. This is part of the design process (though not as explicit as I’d like). It would be cool to turn this into an equation. Who’s writing this? Why? What are they selling? What do they have to gain? How does their work influence the field? How does their work compare to others in the field? And to facts in the field? Which then bares question to what is a fact or hard evidence? To me that’s difficult to define, as nothing seems to be absolute. In my opinion. At one time the populous was convinced the world was flat and that the universe spun around the earth at its center. I’m sure researchers in that day could find much anecdotal, verifiable, and empirical evidence to prove these truths. Just a philosophical tangent - yet important in the scope of what you’re doing here as an investigator/researcher. More to unpack around this archetype.
- You mention scale. Think about an OP as a large abstract to your greater work in the world. For instance you may have written a 32 chapter book on the subject, and then submitted the book as supporting evidence, yet the OP itself included the highlights and a summary of your action learning around being the ‘writer’ of the book. In this case your focus was on being the ‘researcher’. Does that make sense? Just a thought for future OPs.
- You were a student of Diplomacy and History? What does that mean?
- Good note on unlearning here at the end of your section 1. I appreciate when you come right out and say words like pattern awareness or unlearning. It makes me easier to hone in on your PoDAPO skill flexing.
- On goals, section 2, add a sentence at the top of this section saying you’re sharing your goals then directly assessing their success. As it is now you jump directly into summaries of goals and outcomes without any context to the intent of this section. This bulleted list may be best illustrated as a chart. Goals in one column and outcomes/results in the other. Well done for achieving all of your goals! Of course goal 4 is in process. I look forward to seeing how that develops over the next season.
- On feedback - awesome that my reviews have been so supportive. I notice you mention I added feedback about inconsistencies and wonder if this would be a good place to give the reader an example of how you improved the writing, instead of just mentioning the theme of the feedback? 
- On dissemination - you mention including material from this research into two education programs - can you give an example of the content shared? Same with the network and your clients. What of this OP content were you able to share and how? You’re making a very broad statement about sharing the general gist of your work, without specific examples. If you can’t add that, then perhaps provide examples of opportunities to disseminate - like you taught a session on xxx, or led a client through xyz.
- In comments I see your self and Dor’s peer review. Where’s your peer review?

Regen Econ
- I love you’re opening statement about reductionism! I would love for you to explain this a bit more. How did we get there via Newtonian physics? Excellent that you started this out with world views!
- Great that you added the glossary for complex terms like complex adaptive systems:) Question - who says that economics is this CAD? You? One of the books? Either way, provide an analogy or example so the reader understands what you mean.  Maybe go a bit further with your comment about machines. That’s a useful, applicable analogy and pivot point for storytelling.
- It is really brilliant that you take this concept of complexity and equate it to unintended consequences, which equal collapse. I wonder though, are some of the consequences conscious? Like with the Newtonian mechanistic world view, doesn’t that include some belief in devaluing systems as lifeless? Everything becomes a commodity and can be replaced by other commodities or technology, right? So with that worldview it’s ok to destroy things, because we can fix the specific things we realize we might need as we find a need/use for the thing.  Plow forward until something needs to be fixed and use technology to solve the problem - irregardless of the life of the system - because the system is not a living thing, and is certainly lifeless. All I’m saying is that yes, there are intended consequences, AND there are very real conscious choices intended that are clearly leading to collapse. Some may even be intended for collapse. Because of their worldview, it doesn’t matter. 
- This is such an intriguing and pointed introduction compared to the previous version. It fits not and feels connected. Before it was like a stray thought, a section of it’s own unhinged from the rest of the report.  I will say that the jump between discussing economic systems to the content of the OP in three parts seems a bit steep. Could you soften the edge of the shift by saying, With the aim of providing applicable and relevant content for the reader, I’ve designed the OP in three parts: xxx. That way you’re taking the ending of the previous section into the next.
- I like how you kept the part on visioning. It fits better now. Good analogy about the cinema. I totally agree. It is easier for people to imagine an apocalypse then evolving beyond capitalism.  Good on you for adding the sentence that provides context - how this passage connects with the content you’re about to share. Nice.
- I’d love to unpack your comment that business is the most influential driver of global culture. I am curious about this statement since you so boldly called it a TRUTH. Would there not be something even more powerful than business driving culture? What is driving business? Who’s in the driver seat? Is it ego? Is it ego pursuing pleasure and avoiding personal pain? Ego grasping for power? If we looked at life as nothing more than movements and pools of energy, it seems that there’s a lot of manipulating and hoarding energy that creates, sustains, propels and perpetuates (even emboldens) the business sector. This cluster of energy then becomes attractive. The attraction makes it sought after and esteemed, and even normalizes it as our cultural identity. So much that the curators of culture create language of this identification.
- Anyway, I like how you turned these three truths into an if-then equation. You even touch on shifting consciousness and how that requires a shift in business. And yes I agree with you that this is key and society will change if business changes. I just think there’s some deeper psychological patterns in humanity that drive this more so than the realm of business itself, and suggest you consider fleshing that out a bit more (or don’t call it a truth). As soon as someone calls something a truth my BS radar goes off and I’m wanting proof. Which I love how you say, “Too bold a statement?” as if you knew some of your readers would be on the prowl! 
- I hope you don’t feel that I’m delegitimizing your thesis. I’m more fascinated in the discussion than alienating your idea. Example, I wrote my initial MSc thesis on need satisfaction and wellbeing and how advertising (specifically the tactics of Edward Bernay’s) played on our social and ecological context as it shaped our self identity.  I look forward to further deconstruct/reconstruct these ideas with you. Bernay’s is so mechanistic to the point that he believed that only certain humans had value as leaders, and all others were cogs in the machine who weren’t capable of making informed intelligent decisions on their own. Herded like cattle, was a comment of his referring to the masses. 
- Good that you provide those examples of business sectors expenditure on lobbying (we could replace that word for a synonymous one - propaganda).  I’m in agreement with you James. We have to get back control from big business. It is of top priority. I would be curious to have a conversation with you about how we got into this mess on a more psychological framing than just cultural. What is the neurological pattern in our mind scapes that is running this program and how can it be replaced? AND THEN TOO, how can the external realities of business culture match that internal shift? There’s the merged ticket to cultural change that I think we are both seeking.
- You say in the last sentence that business is shifting to profit being an emergent outcome. Awesome. Give an example.
- I’m appreciating your note on Business as a term. This provides a wonderful construct for the ecosystem - rather than a simple sector. Nice work on being complex/adaptive instead of reductionist even in your language.
- In the section on ‘Two visions for change’ - define or give an example of a circular economy. 
- Impressive list of resources (models for circular economy). Would be amazing if you could stack functions and 1. diversify your writing style/media and 2. incorporate flash comparative assessment to yield a glance at models (adds to readers ability <and yours> to conduct pattern observation <which you mention>) - by turning this list of resources into a chart. Maybe Name, Title, Topic, Model, Relevance, etc. What do you mean that these models have commonalities and connections and consistencies (3 Cs) with Permaculture and Biomimicry? I think this needs to be clearer. I also think that you have not yet spent enough time defining these two fields of practice to pivot off of them as a comparison. 
- What do you mean as using the models as archetypes? Is that the most appropriate word? It seems like a loaded word that may need some context. Are you saying that their similarities place them into a particular type of worldview/practice that is comparable to an archetype? I’m intrigued by the thought of as above, so below (out/in). The thought that we each have a stream of archetypes that we tap into aligns with my own theories and experience, and I’m interpreting that you’re taking that out into larger systems. A business entity or grouping of businesses have similar tendencies?
- On Doughnut Economics - I like your descriptive opening (very captivating and relevant - makes me feel drawn in to and moved by the relevant flaws of a system and possible solutions). Choosing this work to deconstruct is useful because it provides a framework for pattern level assessment. Raworth’s 7 diagnostic flaws and corresponding prescriptions are valuable. Because of your introduction that sets the tone for linvestigating complexity theory, I would love to see you compare these 7 practices in view of simple-complicated-complex-chaotic analysis, to see if there’s overlap between the models. Another goo example of taking a thread from your opening and overlapping it onto a key taking point. These principles and their corresponding practices do remind me of Permaculture. So here’s another opportunity for you to explain her thinking and then add your own reconstruction/expansion by comparing each of the 7 to similar Permaculture principles. I see you have a section on page 6 with more of this information, so give one example in this text and then direct readers to section 6 for more information and examples.
- Have you defined systems thinking or regenerative design yet? You’re using these words frequently and I don’t recall them being contextualized.
- Appreciating the section you included on ‘what does the doughnut help us understand’. The zones of basic human needs to the outter ecological ceiling (planetary boundaries). This is a fantastic model and an excellent way to track when we’ve moved beyond boundaries or have shortfalls in our social foundation. Great overview. You did well at capturing the key points of Raworth’s offering. You also do a wonderful concluding her work and posing questions about the wellbeing of people and the biosphere.
- What I’m not seeing is your critique or expansion on her work.  Firstly, I would have liked to know if you felt there were any gaps in her model? Are there places that this is applicable and others not? Secondly, this model is very human centric. Food for thought, what about the commons. What if we added an economic model that gave other species rights, or land itself? As of now humans are in the center of the model and there’s respect for the boundaries of the biosphere. However animals, plants, minerals, water, and land are considered property not in the model itself, but in the world. What would the model look like if we put an animal or plant in the center of the doughnut? Or an ecosystem, like the Amazon? How does the doughnut model stack on living systems theory, which you mention on the other page? I’m giving you two example of how you might have used this opportunity to weave threads from your introduction on page one into your presentation of this model (complexity science and living systems).
- Moving on to the section on Regenerative Capitalism, I love that you posed the question on whether or not capitalists could fix capitalism. There’s a definite conflict of interest around power and decision making. I wonder too, if we go back to my previous comment about unpacking the psychology of world views, and ask how can any of us create change? How does that work inside the human mindscape? If we want to intervene in changing a behavior or attitude, what do we do? Think of something extra challenging that includes trauma, addiction, and attachment to/identification with a pattern. Now if there was a process, can that same process be amplified from interpersonal to interpersonal change? Can that same process change an either system? If yes, then I think that capitalists can fix capitalism. Another question is how much of capitalism is inside our unconscious realm? Think about how someone might not be Christian but was raised in a Christian culture so therefor has underlying Christian world views and social conditioning that influence behavior. So therefore, who isn’t a capitalist?
- I like how you give the example of Fullerton, a classic capitalist who had a crisis of faith that sent him in a new direction. He starts including systems thinking and ecological literacy in his writing. False separation is a key talking point. There’s an entire thesis here on the fragmentation of our social and ecological context that positions us to fall prey to mechanistic Newtonian thinking, reductionism of all our parts - leads to ownership. This ties nicely into your section on reductionism and the other section on propaganda (Edward Bernays - check your spelling) - I think you missed an opportunity here to reweave those threads. This is a common pattern in your writing. I’d like to see you go through your work by printing it out and bullet pointing the key talking point of each paragraph i.e.. reductionism, propaganda, etc. and then use this as a map to weave those concepts into future sections like this one on Regenerative Capitalism. It’ll make for a stronger web.
- Next, I am finding a lot of value in Fullerton’s eight principles for Regenerative Capitalism. Especially appreciating that you encapsulate the similarities between Haworth and Fullerton as changing the outcomes by changing the priorities. The emphasis being on being of service to humanity. So, overall good conclusive remark, however I would like for you to go a bit deeper in comparing the two models and fleshing out a few other overlaps or gaps. 
- Great that you included the videos of each author.
- In your conclusive statement you say, “it is clear that in order to…” I would just add, “It is clear, based on this research, that” My thinking is that someone could validate research that proves the exact opposite of what you found based on other research. That’s the way of it right? We are all just proving or disapproving our own perspective. Which is why I think it’s so important to not only summarize the work of others, but speak more about who they are and why they hold this world view, and do more critique/expansion and comparative assessment. Would be well rounded to see you provide some evidence of research that counters this theory, so you can deconstruct and critique it to further prove your point. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your conclusion, personally. I just know that you’re aiming to shape your career off of this work and there will be naysayers along your path. Good to have a look at what they are saying so you can have a think about your response.
- In the conclusion I’m really appreciation your take on overcoming deeply ingrained patterns, and the creative language “the writing on the wall”. You mention the Business Roundtable making a recent statement that maximizing shareholder value can no longer be the priority of corporations - oh that’s a topic to unpack. I was just reading about the CEO of Valiant Pharmaceuticals, J. Michael Pearson who said on MSNBC that “My primary responsibility it to Valiant Shareholders. Ww can do anything we want to do.” Essentially saying as long as shareholders are happy the company can hike drug costs by 500% and Martin Shkreli of Truing Pharmaceuticals who said that “we’re in the business of shareholder profit, not helping the sick.”

Core Report
- This is great. Exactly what I was envisioning and I think you pulled it off nicely. I do think the top line could benefit with a more inspiring opening. Maybe pull from the conclusion of previous page to set the tone for expansion.
- I hope that doing this synthesis page also helped you hone in on your conclusive outcomes, via fleshing out the core nuggets and harvesting the pattern level thinking of what you’re offering.
- I like how you refer back to the core report.
- In the second summary I like how you talk about complex systems and explain how permaculture applies a pattern level strategy that is a ‘likely fit” because of it’s history in working with patterns on a systems level - nice.
- Lots of cooperative assessment noted - well done!
- And finally, I very much appreciate how you take these big level questions - a very world centric take, and bring it home to you and your personal choices as a case study. Very cool. Very appropriate. Love the sphere of influence.

Survey and Analysis (Supportive Research)
- I’m unable to spend detailed time on these sections as part of this review. Let’s discuss them as part of our next advising session.
- Overall though great summary of examples of enterprise in practice. I like your analogy of stooge to set the stage. Good balance of creative writing with academic writing once again.
- Finding value in your question, “How can we know if these ideas are effective, or even practical?” Your emphasis on interventions, experimentation and iteration are key here. Yes there is a lot at stake - so what can we do to add incentives for business to trial new ways? Talk a bit more about examples and the Green New Deal.
- Really glad to see you have an entire section on taking the previous work of Fullerton and Raworth and running them through the lens of Permaculture’s ecological design. When you say five themes emerge, is that your own pattern observation or you pulling that from something? I’m noticing some, like diversity, are clearly Permaculture principles. Yet others like holism, are implied within Permaculture but not an explicit principle. So I’m a little confused.  I think it would have helped your argument on page 2 had you said that you’d be comparing these in more detail on page 5.  I would highly recommend in your specification and note to reviewer that you encourage this page 5 as the section that really highlights comparative assessment and your own deeper critique and expansion of the other work. 
- You keep saying that Permaculture is an established ecological design practice, yet I don’t recall you providing any historical context.  Would be helpful to open this section with a bit more intro to Permaculture as a field, since you are using it as a lens. Maybe also to being with a section on Permaculture principles themselves before you run the two models through looking for patterns.
- As far as the personal assessment, I’m going to skip this section. I’ve already reviewed it extensively (and provided feedback) inside your previous submission. Awesome upgrades though on basic professional presentation of the content. I think this section really highlights some mix of writing style not as evident in the more academic research parts of your work,

SE - Resources
- Excellent annotated resource review. By far the best one of yours I’ve seen to date. Fantastic list of 67 diverse books. No articles? You did an exceptional job of annotating each resource. My only additional request would be to add a short sentence to these descriptive annotations that concludes how it impacted your work.  Number/row 14 isn’t really an acceptable annotation:).
- When you provide resources like the mind map of Permaculture Principles, please take a moment to provide context. Share what it is and why you’re including it, and where it’s referenced in your report. Don’t assume the reader will make the connection. I would suggest that each support page has a mini introduction that contextualizes the nuggets of support you’re uploading. Like the Denver Regenerative Hub Convener Proposal, I’m like? Where was this referenced? This is a huge collection of work, even I can’t keep track of all the bits. Was this inside your personal assessment? I think so. Make it easier for your reader to connect the web of integrated threads. Another idea would be to organize this page based on the different sections. Here’s support for part 1, 2, 3, 4, etc…

SE - Pathway
- Time and participation tracking updated and adequate. Journal entires attached. Where’s your assessment and tracking of your learning intentions and pathway design? I know we discussed this in our previous meeting, that you’d focus much more heavily on this in OP 5. However, for the sake of other students who look at your work, please at least acknowledge this by saying that you and your advisor agreed to tread lightly in OPs 2-4 on LIPD tracking. But I do want a considerable amount of skill flex assessment and LIPD tracking/reporting to happen in OP 5, so be certain your not overlooking data collection that will benefit adding metrics to final portfolio.