Session 20

The methodological debate has increasingly recognized the relevance of conducting research ‘with’ communities rather then ‘on’ them. Particularly within the context of informal settlements in Southern cities, this means progressing from conventional research methods to participatory and co-productive approaches. Those encompass solutions in which communities actively co-gather data with a researcher (for instance through participatory urban appraisal methods) or produce data by themselves. The latter includes examples of community-based mapping and enumeration, which are utilized by communities in their efforts to gain full citizenship rights and wider access to services. On one hand, these methods reduce power-dependencies in the researcher-community relationship, promote engaged academia and stimulate embedded research generating real social impacts. On the other hand, the close relationship between community groups and researchers may be tainted by the loss of objectivity in the research process, refocusing attention on already ‘empowered’ communities as well as limited critique concerning the methodological and practical aspect of the approach.

This session invites papers which critically investigate these issues and discuss the prospects of co-productive and community-based methods on research process, policy debate and urban development practice. Papers concentrating on the practical impacts, ethical issues and methodological considerations are equally welcomed in the session.

ABSTRACTS

1.Knowledge Creation in Informal Settlements: The Process, Ethics and Outputs of Co-Productive and Community-Led Research Methods

Jakub Galuszka  (Germany)

Aditya Kumar  (South Africa)

The methodological debate has increasingly recognized the relevance of conducting research ‘with’ communities rather than ‘on’ them. Particularly within the context of informal settlements in Southern cities, this means progressing from conventional research methods to participatory and co-productive approaches. Those encompass solutions in which communities actively co-gather data with a researcher (for instance through participatory urban appraisal methods) or produce data by themselves. The latter includes examples of community-based mapping and enumeration, which are utilized by communities in their efforts to gain full citizenship rights and wider access to services. On one hand, these methods reduce power-dependencies in the researcher-community relationship, promote engaged academia and stimulate embedded research generating real social impacts. On the other hand, the close relationship between community groups and researchers may be tainted by the loss of objectivity in the research process, refocusing attention on already ‘empowered’ communities as well as limited critique concerning the methodological and practical aspect of the approach. This session invites papers which critically investigate these issues and discuss the prospects of co-productive and community-based methods on research process, policy debate and urban development practice. Papers concentrating on the practical impacts, ethical issues and methodological considerations are equally welcomed in the session.

2.Co-production for co-optation or transformative urban agendas?

Chadzimula Molebatsi  (University of Botswana, Botswana)

This paper reflects on the upsurge in interest on coproduction processes in urban and regional planning and related disciplines. In general, coproduction seeks to bring together actors who otherwise act independently of each other despite the fact that the outcome point to the need for sustained dialogue between the actors. The disjuncture between everyday urbanisms and state-crafted urban policies which characterises human settlements in the global South gives relevance to coproduction in the creation and claiming of urban spaces. It includes a wide range of participatory and community-engagement methodologies. The argument advanced in this paper is that although largely used for co-optation and maintenance of the status quo purposes, coproduction has the potential for radicalisation and subsequent utilisation for transformative and just urban futures. Such radicalisation is possible whereby co-production is understood to mean the bringing together dialogue among different ways of knowing, being and acting. Understood as such coproduction requires acknowledgement of the existence of many and non-hierarchized knowledges (ways of knowing, being and acting) that speak to others in the search for co-existence. The paper sifts through urban development planning efforts and picks traces and opportunities for the radicalisation of existing co-production initiatives in Botswana.

3.Culture and space transformation in Botswana’s urban villages – a decolonial approach

Seabo Morobolo  (University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom)

The relationship between culture and space is a widely studied phenomenon. The main thrust for these studies has been changing theorisations of concepts and their implications. The built environment has not been exempted due to its attendant focus on manipulation of space. Since the 1960s authors have sought to understand the relationship between culture and the built environment and processes of its transformation. In Botswana, despite the richness and uniqueness of Tswana ‘endogenous’ settlements, the connection between culture and space transformation remains unexplored. Variously referred to as ‘major villages’ ‘agro-towns’ and more recently, ‘urban villages’, this genre of urban centres consists of ‘traditional’ settlements that have over the years transformed in terms of size, form and economic structure. This has ushered in shifts in spatial models, forms and knowledges resulting in their transformation. The general form, architectural mix and policy interventions in these urban villages display existence of different ‘knowledges’ – modernist-derived and indigenous-based space organisation principles and concepts. At issue is how are conflicting modernist and indigenous concepts and principles affecting the culture-space connection within urban villages. Drawing from the decolonial theoretical framework, this research aims to examine culture and space transformation in Botswana’s urban villages to propose culturally responsive design concepts and principles for these villages. Methodologically, I draw from indigenous methodologies and qualitative sources to analyse and deconstruct this transformation. I present indigenous and decolonised methodologies as alternative approaches to understanding the culture-space relationship and transformation from the perspective of the researched. This study aims contribute to practice and academia through design and culture theories based on indigenous knowledge by understanding Tswana knowledge and culture as an approach towards creating inclusive human settlements.

4.Decolonizing Methods and Actionable Whanau: The intersection of theoretical, epistemological, and citizen participation constructs that gets us to co-crated aroha

John Gaber  (Clemson University, USA)

We are at a critical mass with the convergence of theoretical, epistemological, and citizen participation literatures and now are seeing several paths to the development of co-created solutions. One example in the creation of multiple decolonizing co-created paths is in New Zealand and the application of the kauppa Māori research approach (among others) that are applied by the Māori people via whakawhanaungatanga (whanau) relationships. The focus of this paper is to provide the conceptual journey on the intersections of three literatures that make whanau relationships methodologically operational across the world. The three literatures are: a.) theoretical, co-creation of knowledge, b.) epistemological, mixed method research design, and c.) citizen participation, Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation. It is through the rich theoretical grounding of empirical community data that places it on equal footing with western constructed data. For Pike (1967) it is emic observations; John Dewey (1969) it comes in the form of experiri, and, Stewart Hall (1997) it is in the formation of knowledge. Innovations in mixed method research approaches over the last 30 years provides the methodological framework that allows for the co-production of knowledge that integrates qualitative community methods with western quantitative methods. Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation captures the multiple levels of unequal power relationships between government and disenfranchised communities. Recent archival research revealed that Arnstein had proposed a new approach to breaking government’s colonizing relationship with politically under-powered communities; the creation of a third agency based in the community that includes government participants (Gaber 2019) to allow for the development of co-created solutions. Here, whanau relationships are established that allows for disenfranchised communities to cultivate community data and co-develop new knowledge with government agencies. It is by understanding the conceptual framework in the three converging literatures and analyzing how they intersect with each other that allows us to better understand, calibrate, and innovate the different paths to decolonizing research methods and their applications.

5.An examination of participatory communication approaches in disaster risk reduction programmes in Malawi

Aubrey John Chirwa  (University of East Anglia, UK, England)

The paper intends to analyse participatory communication methods used in disaster risk reduction programmes in Malawi. The study will be designed as a case study on participatory programmes being implemented by the Red Cross Society of Malawi. This will be analysed in relation to government’s policy on resettlement of households living in disaster prone areas. The purpose of the study is to examine the level of participation by communities in these programmes through the prism of various theoretical frameworks such as behaviour change communication vs participatory communication, mediatisation, ladder of participation theory and the power cube. The study will first of all analyse the overarching National Communication Strategy on Disasters in Malawi which guides all disaster activities in that country and how the resettlement policy was formulated. The study will then examine the Red Cross disaster advocacy programmes and compare how they align with the Strategy, which will be underpinned by the theoretical frameworks.

6.The Liveable Life in Slums

Neele Eicker  (Hafen City University of Hamburg, Germany)

More than 1 billion people of the world’s urban population lives in slums. (1) One in eight people. The locus of global poverty moves to cities, with the majority in the developing world. Low incomes, poor infrastructure and rising exclusion are just minor stimulators that contribute to a poor quality of life. Long since nations, governments and local administrations recognized the need for higher living standards for each and every citizen. The focus on creating worldwide sustainable livelihoods peaked in 2015, with the international acceptance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), followed by the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in 2016. Liveable areas became a priority, and the concept of liveability evoked a new sense for sustainable improvements of human life. Still, liveability remains a complex concept that includes a variety of elements and can be measured through a set of sub-dimensions (2) and encompasses objective indicators (3), as well as subjective indicators. (4) Problematic is the fact that in most cases liveability indicators are measured and quantified for whole regions, rather than individual neighborhoods, “you can live in a city that ranks high in terms of quality of living and still suffer from a low quality of life because of unfortunate personal circumstances […]” (5) The extent of disparity in perceptions of a liveable life is mostly limited to formal settlements, whereas in countries, as India a large proportion of the population lives in informal settlements. Transferring liveable life perceptions to the guidance of slum upgrading, mainly emphasizes the interplay between top-down and bottom-up approaches. Lack of studies for informal settlements often lead to the assumption that upgrading tasks, such as house improvements, basic service provision or access to water automatically lead to improved local living conditions; but a lack of local comprehension, along with upgrading assumptions are deeply intertwined; this paper argues, so are their solutions. Lining the trend of raising global liveability to the papers’ informal settlement context, the liveable life at the urban slum level is investigated. Liveability is mainly calculated to take a quantitative approach, rarely differentiating between social classes or focusing on individual perceptions. (6) The concept of a liveable life goes one step further and focuses mainly on perceptions at a defined community level. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of identified liveable life indicators within the framework of a fieldwork study in slums of Bhubaneswar (Odisha, India). The identification of indicators aims to act as a lever within participative slum upgrading. It hypothesizes that community perceptions of a liveable life are the most influential indicators, and they perform weakest in slum upgrading. The area of research is Bhubaneswar, the capital of the Indian state Odisha and center of pilot projects of “Odisha’s Liveable Habitat Mission”. The method developed includes Focus Group Discussions in slums of Bhubaneswar to identify liveable life indicators.