Researchers as knowledge brokers: translating knowledge or co-producing legitimacy? An urban infill case from Finland

Leino, Helena; Santaoja, Minna; Laine, Markus

doi:10.1080/13563475.2017.1345301

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior contacts were weak, and the city had neither the methods nor tools to deepen the relationship with the residents. From the citizens’ viewpoint, the suspicion towards the plans that the city had for the area, was based on previous planning processes, where city planners and political decision-makers had not taken into account their opinions and worries (Leino et al., 2018). Thus, the city encountered difficulties in interaction and in co-creating knowledge together with the residents regarding the future of the area.…”

Section: Co-creation As a Way Of Producing Knowledge With Residents On Urban Infillmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The city as such is a massive and complex organization, where different units do not necessarily cooperate with each other. The operating rationality of the units can be so variant that optimizing the objectives of one city department can appear irrational to another department (Leino et al., 2018).…”

Section: Building a Public Sauna: Co-creation As An Innovative Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities

Leino

Puumala

2020

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-creation has become a globally popular concept in different sectors of the society. Its promise lies in breaking down hierarchies between local government, business life, universities, citizens and other stakeholders. Instead of being a top-down or bottom-up process, co-creation involves a multi-directional approach to problem solving. In this article, we scrutinize the capacity of co-creation to transform the practices of public sector in the context of urban development. In this way, we discuss both the potential and limitations of applying co-creation to the enhancement of citizen participation in cities. While new ways of acting can create novel spaces for opportunity, they also bring new winners and losers to the fore. After all, citizens are not all the same: they fall in several categories and some of them have more resources to participate in co-creative processes than others. Thus, it is relevant to know who participate in and whose voices get heard through these processes. We claim that to realise the participatory potential of co-creation, it is crucial to scrutinize actual practices through and networks within which it takes place. Through three co-creative processes from Finland, we illustrate that the promotion of participation through co-creation necessitates acknowledging the heterogeneity of citizens and taking seriously issues of urban social justice and inclusion. In conclusion, we identify issues regarding the sustainability and accessibility of participation that must be unpacked, if co-creative processes are to be used in the context of urban development.

show abstract

Section: Co-creation As a Way Of Producing Knowledge With Residents On Urban Infillmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Building a Public Sauna: Co-creation As An Innovative Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities

Leino

Puumala

2020

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, their support and advice will mitigate the risks and uncertainties involved in the process. In addition, the findings highlight the need to develop new forms of co-operation between the housing company and municipal authorities in planning infill schemes (see also Laine and Leino 2013;Leino et al 2017;Laine et al 2018).…”

Section: Summary Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Professional consultancy is required at different stages of the process. In the case of infill development, the housing company's new role in producing residential spaces instead of only owning and maintaining them (Leino et al 2017) reflects the extended range of private governance in cities as well as the challenges embedded in the lay nature of these arrangements and its implications (e.g. McKenzie 2011; Easthope et al 2014).…”

Section: Summary Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The distribution of perceived advantages and disadvantages of infill development among owners of a commonhold and its’ implications

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, Tampere's planning officials underestimated the power of local stories and housing companies. From 2012 onwards, the city officials continued the business-as-usual kind of participatory planning practice with conventional public hearings (Leino & Laine, 2012;Leino, Santaoja, & Laine, 2017) and assumed housing companies would eventually sell building rights to the construction companies. However, the planners' story of the future Tammela remained abstract, without recognising the local stories and respecting the neighbourhood's symbolic elements (Ameel, 2016;Sandercock, 2010).…”

Section: -2017mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Polyphonic Story of Urban Densification

Wallin

Leino

Jokinen

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban strategies, representing stories of possible futures, often intervene in already established local communities and therefore call for a considerate urban intervention. This article utilises the ideas of Henri Lefebvre's socially produced space and of literature on stories involved in planning. Our empirical example tells a story of urban densification aspirations for an inner-city neighbourhood in Tampere, Finland. By combining the interviews of local people and planners with policy documents, we argue that planners' stories pay too little attention to the place and to local stories. Planners' abstract visions of the future and local stories building on lived experiences both draw meanings from the same place but have very different intentions. In our case, the consultation of the project started out wrong because the planners neglected a neighbourhood thick in symbolic meanings and the local stories' power in resistance. By understanding the place as polyphonic in its foundation, planners could learn about the symbolic elements and reasons for people's place attachment, and thus end up re-writing the place together. Urban interventions such as urban densification should connect to the place as part of its polyphonic historical continuum and acknowledge the residents' place attachments.

show abstract

Researchers as knowledge brokers: translating knowledge or co-producing legitimacy? An urban infill case from Finland

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities

What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities

The distribution of perceived advantages and disadvantages of infill development among owners of a commonhold and its’ implications

A Polyphonic Story of Urban Densification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About