Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1. Methodological approach
3.1.3. Knowledge co-production
This study was undertaken within the framework of a research programme; the Mistra Urban Futures - Knowledge Transfer Programme (MUF-KTP)15. As part of this programme I, along with three other researchers that formed a community of practice, were ‘embedded’ in the City of Cape Town to investigate ‘urban sustainability policy and practice’. The intention of the research programme was to assimilate practical knowledge (tacit) of practitioners and ground it within the theoretical knowledge of the researcher (Patel et al., 2015; Davison et al., 2015). Such an approach is referred to as knowledge co-production or alternatively engaged scholarship, Mode 2 knowledge production, or embedded research.
The theoretical foundation of knowledge co-production requires some elaboration. Academic knowledge16 and practical knowledge17 can be regarded as distinct forms of knowledge (May and Perry, 2006; Patel et al., 2015). Each has different ontologies and methods for ‘addressing different questions’ (Hamman and April, 2013). Practitioner knowledge is generated in response to problems encountered in everyday life (Lemos and Morehouse, 2005). Accordingly, practitioners develop a deep and contextual understanding of problems that arise in particular situations and responses
15 MUF is an international centre for sustainable urban development. MUF focuses on co-production of knowledge as well as creating Fair, Green and Dense cities for a sustainable urban future. A global arena provides for interaction between the four cities.
16 Explicit epistemic
17 Tacit
66 that may solve these problems (Patel et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2013). Academic knowledge on the other hand strives towards generalisable theory (Brown-Luthango, 2013). There are widespread calls and arguments related to the value of reconciling these forms of knowledge.
Pettigrew (2001: 61) argues that a ‘deeper form of research that engages both academics and practitioners is needed to produce knowledge that meets the dual hurdles of relevance and rigor for theory as well as practice’. Gibbons (2000) makes a strong motivation for the generation of knowledge that is context-sensitive, relevant to pressing social issues, interdisciplinary and reflexive. This is termed ‘Mode 2 Knowledge Production’, which necessitates greater integration between academia and practitioners. Waghid (2002) argues for broadening the conception of scholarship to include a greater focus on integration, interdisciplinary forms of research collaboration and applied research. Several scholars argue that, rather than reducing rigour and credibility, assimilation of research and practice actually enriches the quality and relevance of research (Schon, 1995; Brown-Luthango, 2013) and complements more traditional modes of knowledge production (Waghid, 2002). In essence, knowledge co-production and engaged scholarship are seen as a means of addressing this theory-practice gap (Patel et al., 2015; Hamman and April, 2013). It is built on a duty to do research that both advances academic knowledge and sheds light on practice within a professional domain (Pieterse, 2014).
A number of characteristics and principles of engaged scholarship and knowledge co-production can be extrapolated from the literature. These principles informed the approach adopted in this study. First, knowledge co-production involves collaborative and mutually defined partnerships between researchers and practitioners (Polk, 2015). It employs inclusive and collaborative strategies to knowledge generation. This creates a learning community that aims to produce knowledge for the benefit of both academia and practice (Brown-Luthango, 2013; Patel et al., 2015).
Second, engaged scholarship is an approach that enables researchers to study complex real-life problems. It is inherently participatory and makes use of different forms of knowledge of diverse participants (Patel et al., 2015; Davison et al., 2015). It is based on the premise that researchers
‘can significantly increase the likelihood of advancing fundamental knowledge of a complex phenomenon by engaging others whose perspectives are relevant’ and the value of democratisation of research and ‘learning by doing’ (Van de Ven, 2007: 10). It is cognisant of the rich experiential and embodied knowledge (Soal, 2012; Anderson et al., 2013) of local participants that is gained through extensive experience of complex situations (Greenwood and Levin, 2007).
67 Third, it is intended to facilitate knowledge generation that is grounded in rich empirical data and experience. As argued by Pieterse, engaged scholarship
demands immersion into profoundly fraught and contested spaces of power and control.
It challenges us to think ourselves not apart from the world, but rather deeply and irrevocably caught up in all of its contradictory entanglements (Pieterse, 2014:23).
Authors argue that this does not reduce scientific rigour but rather generates knowledge that is more ‘strongly rooted in real-world social dilemmas’ (Brown-Luthango, 2013: 5). The proposed outcome for academia is research that is more rich and evidence-based and hence robust (Patel et al., 2015).
But what does knowledge co-production mean in practice, as a method? In practical terms, this meant spending three years in the City (2012-2015), doing research of utility and relevance to the City (practitioners). The program design required an annual seven-five month split, where researchers would spend seven months in the field, embedded in local government doing applied research, followed by five months out of the field. During these years I was embedded in the Energy and Climate Change Unit, where I undertook research to inform City projects and policy related to urban energy and resource sustainability.
During the research period, I (researcher) worked alongside a practitioner (official in the Energy and Climate Change Unit) on a research area that was co-defined by my research interests and questions alongside a requirement of relevance to the City. The data and information generated from my periods of ‘embeddedness’ thus linked closely to data developed and analysed by practitioners working in the Energy and Climate Change Unit and organisations with which the unit partners and collaborates. This process of co-defining research aims enables common assumptions to be formed.
Primarily, I was involved in research related to the development of two proposed City policies: a Resource Efficient Development Framework and the Internal Energy Management Policy. I further conducted applied research to inform a number of City plans, guidelines and protocols. Notably, engagement in these policy and planning processes facilitated access to meetings, discussions and workshops with officials across the administration and built trust and credibility amongst City staff.
This in turn enabled access to data and insights into the policy process, decision-making, interpretation of rules and organisational cultures within and across departments. Further, I conducted applied research that informed the City’s inputs into national and provincial regulatory and policy reform in relation to energy and climate change. This provided key insights into the tensions and relationship between national government and the City in relation to urban transitions. Finally, I was involved with research that informed the City’s international reporting and
68 partnerships on energy and climate change. This provided an entry point into understanding the City’s engagement with multi-level climate governance.
The initial research questions of this study were fairly open-ended. This is in line with grounded theory, which requires identification of broad areas of interest without making prior assumptions.
These broad areas of interest were defined by both theoretical gaps and discussions with experienced practitioners (City officials) who had intimate, albeit tacit knowledge of the manifestation of ‘theory in practice’. Several proponents of engaged scholarship outline the value of such an approach to research formulation. Caswill and Shove (2000: 222) argue that complex research questions require engagement with practitioners with diverse functional experiences.
Problem formulation for complex problems, accordingly, requires a process of arbitrage and sense- making whereby researchers and practitioners negotiate and co-formulate the problem (Patel et al., 2015). Schon (1995) asserts that, in practical terms, problem formulation in engaged scholarship is guided by both a review of literature (inferring and diagnosing) and by engaging stakeholders who have experience and knowledge of the problem in order to ground the problem in practice.
This is not limited to problem formulation and defining research problems. Rather, it is an iterative process throughout the research. Lindkvist (2005) emphasises the importance of engaging others in theorising. Theory building in engaged scholarship requires communication with ‘knowledge experts from relevant disciplines that have addressed the problem’ alongside a continuous review of the literature (Van de Ven, 2007: 11). Van de Ven and Johnson (2006: 816) further recommend developing alternative theories to study a problem, as ‘multiple frames of reference are needed to understand complex reality’. Engaged scholarship, accordingly, can be regarded as a pluralistic methodology that employs different lenses to understand empirical findings and ensure richer insights.
Knowledge co-production and embedded research in particular has both positive and negative attributes that requires reflection. First, being a participant and active in a space provides the researcher with rich narratives and detailed empirical data that are context specific. The researcher gains a deep understanding of both the substance or content of issues and the underlying processes with which practitioners are involved. The researcher, in a sense develops a deep, even tacit understanding of the system and organisation under study (Patel et al., 2015). Being involved with the daily functions of an organisation one begins to understand the logics of the organisation, participants and systems under study. Such an understanding, based on a rich personal account, was necessary for the research themes and enquiries of this study, which required an understanding of how participants (City officials) construct, reproduce and modify socio-technical
69 systems (City electricity system) with particular attention to interpretation and negotiation of rules, organisational conditions and values (both personal and institutional).
Second, in my experience, the role of a researcher, in all likelihood, enabled greater access to data and high-level discussions and policy processes than had I been a City staff member (full participant) on the one hand, or in a more conventional researcher role on the other. This is partly because there are considerable tensions amongst departments and individuals in the City. Being an active, rather than full, participant, allowed movement between departments and built credibility and trust on the basis that I did not fully adopt ‘the insider view’ of my ‘host’ department, the Environmental Resource Management Department. Also, carrying the title ‘researcher’ often meant that officials across the administration were interested in talking to me about issues and complexities that they would not usually share with other officials. This in turn may enhance the credibility and quality of data collected.
Third, working in an embedded space provided an opportunity to triangulate and ‘ground truth’
facts and data (Patel et al., 2015). This was a form of boundary management whereby researchers and practitioners ‘work together to develop data and information, analyse facts and forecasts and develop common assumptions’ (Susskind et al. 1999: 376). This also involved ‘feeding back’ the research findings to practitioners in order to facilitate a process of co-producing its meaning to theoretical and practical problems (Van Buuren and Edelnbos, 2004).
Finally, it is necessary to briefly outline the value of knowledge co-production for the overall aim of this study. This thesis in general seeks to understand and explore a complex socio-technical system, in a unique context. Knowledge co-production is well suited for this, as it shares many underlying sensibilities with the dynamic systems theory and hence the MLP. Systems theory avoids reductionism and is guided by a set of holistic concepts that views the world as comprised of interacting systems that are integrated in different ways to produce the immense complexity ‘in the world of experience’ (Walby, 2007). Knowledge co-production similarly focuses on non-linear, complex and interconnected problems (Anderson et al., 2013). Moreover, systems theory acknowledges that complex systems do not operate in isolation but are coupled with ‘neighbouring systems’. Although the lens of analysis becomes the system, individuals and institutions exert agency that affects the system in complex ways. Knowledge co-production is likewise a means to examine and collect data on the ways in which individuals or participants and organisations (the City) exert agency, which impacts on the whole system (electricity regime).
70