Assignment | Tending the Seed of your CRC Renewal Project | Reflective Question

Design Thinking for Social Change
Week 2 — Forum Responses

Question 1: What shimmers for you from the material you have watched and read this week?

What shimmers for me this week is how much we can miss when we focus on gathering responses without fully understanding the person responding. Professor Goldberg’s discussion about surveys stayed with me. A survey may tell us what someone thinks, but it does not always show us what they are experiencing or give us the opportunity to ask the second and third “why.”

My first thought was that we should remove surveys from the listening project our earlier Congregational Renewal Cohort developed. Then I had an afterthought. What about someone who cannot attend a listening circle? What about someone who has something to say but does not feel comfortable saying it in front of other people? I began to see that we may need several ways for people to participate. Listening circles, private conversations, surveys, and email could each create an opening. What matters is how we follow that opening into deeper understanding.

The Field Guide’s “Interview,” “Group Interview,” and “Immersion” methods helped me think about this more clearly. People’s stories and circumstances matter. So does making room for voices we might otherwise miss. In my own ministry, I have learned that people are often carrying much more than what is visible. Sometimes what they first share is only the beginning of what they need us to understand.

I also keep thinking about how our assumptions shape what we hear. We can care about someone and still misunderstand them. Professor Goldberg’s emphasis on compassion, humility, and patience reminds me to slow down, ask another question, and allow people to explain their own experience.

“Nothing About Us Without Us” in Design Justice raises another question for me. Will our congregants help shape how this listening happens? Have we asked what would help them feel comfortable participating? Those questions need to be part of the design itself. The chapters on intentional adaptation and nonlinear, iterative change in Emergent Strategy also reflect how my thinking unfolded. My first response changed as I considered whose experience I might be overlooking.

What shimmers most is the responsibility that comes with listening. When someone trusts us enough to share a concern, what happens next matters. We may not be able to resolve everything, but we can acknowledge what we heard, consider what is possible, and communicate back. I want people to be able to see how their voices are reflected in the life of our church.

References — Question 1

• IDEO.org. (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. “Interview” (p. 39), “Group Interview” (p. 42), and “Immersion” (p. 52).
• Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Chapter 2, “Nothing About Us Without Us.”
• brown, adrienne maree. (2017). Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds. Chapters 4, “Intentional Adaptation,” and 6, “Nonlinear and Iterative.”
• Goldberg, N. (October 10, 2026). Design Thinking for Social Change. Pacific School of Religion, Zoom classroom discussion.

Question 2: How is your team formation going?

My team formation is growing out of relationships and work that already exist. I serve on the Member Services team at City of Refuge UCC, and our earlier PSR Congregational Renewal Cohort developed a listening project around people’s experiences of belonging, communication, participation, and trust. That work gave us a foundation. What we have not yet established is an ongoing process for listening and responding to what people share.

Today I prepared a two-page proposal called “More Than Being Heard” and emailed it to Ursula and Pastor Maria. It includes possibilities for listening circles, private conversations, surveys, and email. It also outlines how we might acknowledge responses, review concerns and suggestions, and communicate back to the congregation. I sent it to begin a conversation. I am not asking anyone to start running a program at this point.

That matters to me because I know Member Services and our clergy are already carrying many responsibilities. An idea can sound helpful and still require more time and energy than people have available. Before moving toward implementation, I want us to have several conversations about what already exists, where the gaps are, and what we could realistically sustain together.

I may also ask Sheree, who helped develop the original cohort project, for her perspective. Her experience could help us think through the proposal, but I do not want to assume that asking for her thoughts means she is available to take on more work.

The Field Guide’s “Build a Team” method reminds me to pay attention to both people’s skills and their availability. “Group Interview” also reinforces the importance of hearing different perspectives. The Design Justice chapter “Nothing About Us Without Us” makes me think about including congregants alongside the people who would be responsible for carrying out the work. Each may see something the others do not.

I appreciated Professor Goldberg and Alicia reminding us that community projects develop over time. We are not expected to complete this work in four weeks. That gives me room to listen, reconsider, and let the relationships shape the next step.

For now, my next step is to hear how the team responds. I want to understand what feels useful, what raises concerns, and what might fit within the life of our church. Sometimes another Lego piece can help strengthen what we already have. Those conversations will help us understand what that piece might be.

References — Question 2

• IDEO.org. (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. “Build a Team” (p. 35) and “Group Interview” (p. 42).
• Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Chapter 2, “Nothing About Us Without Us.”
• Goldberg, N., and PSR classroom discussion with Alicia. (October 10, 2026). Design Thinking for Social Change. Zoom session.
• City of Refuge UCC Congregational Renewal Cohort. (2026). Congregational renewal project report (unpublished).