Co-production as praxis: Critique and engagement from within the university

Abstract

This paper takes as its starting point the question of whether there is an inherent tension between co-production and critique. Whilst the former requires engagement, proximity, situatedness, an inclusive definition of expertise and an action-orientation, the latter has traditionally been equated with disengagement, distance, academic expertise and theory-building. Tracing both the critique of co-production and the critique of critique, I suggest that co-producing critique could be one basis for rescuing both from their detractors. Drawing on my experiences in the Realising Just Cities programme (2010–2020), I argue that co-producing critique from within the university requires designing boundary spaces, intermediating between knowledge claims and balancing between articulated and attributed values for co-production. This gives rise to co-production as an epistemic praxis, not method, characterised by boundary work, epistemic choreography and triple shifting. I argue that whilst academics should argue for altogether different kinds of institutions, there is also value in recognising how we are tethered to our institutions. More attention should be paid to choreographing universities into, rather than out, of critical-engaged work, in order to mobilise their privilege and position for social justice.

What Constitutes Engaged Dialogue in Urban Research? Thoughts From a Long Time “Outside-Insider”

“…My own class identity has led to my “outside-insider” positionality, and it has urged me throughout my career to be open to engaged dialogue as an intellectual project (but without wanting or trying to be intellectual). But I also chose and indeed continue to choose to remain inbetween, in an intermediary position, which Perry (2022) says is important for advocating for, translating, and legitimating, different ways of knowing or knowledge claims. Going forward, I would like to see an engaged dialogue in urban studies that changes the way we do so-called “critical urban studies .” This will have repercussions for our methodologies, our theory-making, and in how we communicate our research.…”

“…It is an ethical stance whereby we try to respect (or at least listen to) other views, be curious of other views, and in so doing challenge both our own and other's assumptions. It is a participatory way of thinking together (see Perry, 2022, for an excellent review of co-production and the participatory turn and critiques of it).…”

“…It can lead to ideological arguments that are empirically unproven and methodologically weak. The critique that intellectuals do is a luxury and a privilege but like Perry (2022) I do not believe it is “a simple choice between co-production and critique, or the rejection or embrace of academic identity and position,” there is real value in the co-production of critique (see also Clarke, 2019, on thinking through the collaborative and dialogical processes of critical thinking in social science more broadly).…”

“…There are complex relations involved, friends to side with, enemies within, insiders and outsiders. The intelligentsia do what Perry (2022) calls “distanced scholarly critique”—they take a detached territorial stance as opposed to starting from a place/position of engagement on the ground. Like me, it seems Perry (2022) wants to see acknowledgment of the critical competences of other (non-academic) actors.…”

“…The intelligentsia do what Perry (2022) calls “distanced scholarly critique”—they take a detached territorial stance as opposed to starting from a place/position of engagement on the ground. Like me, it seems Perry (2022) wants to see acknowledgment of the critical competences of other (non-academic) actors. As Pain et al (2015) say, recognizing the relationship between theorizing and critique can “extend processes of theorising and knowing beyond campus spaces” (121).…”