Making space and place for knowledge production : socio-spatial development of knowledge community precincts

In the knowledge era the importance of making space and place for knowledge production is clearly understood worldwide by many city administrations that are keen on restructuring their cities as highly competitive and creative places. Consequently, knowledge-based urban development and socio-spatial development of knowledge community precincts have taken their places among the emerging agendas of the urban planning and development practice. This chapter explores these emerging issues and scrutinizes the development of knowledge community precincts that have important economic, social and cultural dimensions on the formation of competitive and creative urban regions. The chapter also sheds light on the new challenges for planning discipline, and discusses the need for and some specifics of a new planning paradigm suitable for dealing with 21st Century’s socio-economic development and urbanization problems.

Dancing as Knowledge Production/Dancer as Researcher in Practice-led Research

This chapter discusses research undertaken for a PhD in dance, highlighting the oscillating and ambivalent nature of practice-led research methods. Holding an unusual position within the field of practice-led research in dance, the researcher adopted the role of dancer within four creative processes led by four choreographers. Although instigating and leading this research, the author produced new knowledge of dancing practices whilst being directed creatively by the choreographers in the research environment. In line with many definitions of practice-led research, the methods used were emergent from the research arena and responsive to the requirements of the project. Deeply imbricated in the research environment, the researcher used her embodied self as a research tool, as the one who participated, discovered and recorded. This outsider/insider role of researcher/participant produced a series of meta-positions, leading to a mixed-modal outcome that encompassed live performance, a movement treatise and a written thesis.

Consent Practices and Biomedical Knowledge Production in Tissue Economies

The use of human tissue sample collections has become an important tool in biomedical research. The collection, use and distribution of human tissue samples, which include blood and diagnostic tissue samples, from which DNA can be extracted and analyzed has also become a major bio-political preoccupation, not only in national contexts, but also at the transnational level. The foundation of medical research rests on the relationship between the doctor and the research subject. This relationship is a social one, in that it is based on informed consent, privacy and autonomy, where research subjects are made aware of what they are getting involved in and are then able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to participate. Within the post-genomic era, however, our understanding of what constitutes informed consent, privacy and autonomy is changing in relation to the needs of researchers, but also as a reflection of policy aspirations. This reflects a change in the power relations between the rights of the individual in relation to the interests of science and society. Using the notions of tissue economies and biovalue (Waldby, 2002) this research explores the changing relationship between sources and users of samples in biomedical research by examining the contexts under which human tissue samples and the information that is extracted from them are acquired, circulated and exchanged in Finland. The research examines how individual rights, particularly informed consent, are being configured in relation to the production of scientific knowledge in tissue economies in Finland from the 1990s to the present. The research examines the production of biovalue through the organization of scientific knowledge production by examining the policy context of knowledge production as well as three case studies (Tampere Research Tissue Bank, Hereditary Non-polyposis Colorectal Cancer and the Finnish Genome Information Center) in which tissues are acquired, circulated and exchanged in Finland. The research shows how interpretations of informed consent have become divergent and the elements and processes that have contributed to these differences. This inquiry shows how the relationship between the interests of individuals is re-configured in relation to the interests of science and society. It indicates how the boundary between interpretations of informed consent, on the one hand, and social and scientific interests, on the other, are being re-drawn and that this process is underscored, in part, by the economic, commercial and preventive potential that research using tissue samples are believed to produce. This can be said to fundamentally challenge the western notion that the rights of the individual are absolute and inalienable within biomedical legislation.

Professional Master's degree in Nursing: knowledge production and challenges

OBJETIVO:analisar a produção do conhecimento gerada pelos programas de mestrado profissional em enfermagem e refletir sobre suas perspectivas para a área.MÉTODO:estudo descritivo e analítico. Foram incluídos dados das dissertações de três instituições de ensino que titularam alunos em programas de mestrado profissional em enfermagem entre 2006 e 2012.RESULTADOS:a maioria dos 127 trabalhos de conclusão analisados se desenvolveu no contexto hospitalar; houve tendência de concentração nas áreas organizacional e assistencial, nas linhas de pesquisa processo de cuidar e gerenciamento e predomínio de estudos qualitativos. Há diversidade de produtos resultantes dos trabalhos de conclusão: avaliação de serviços/programas de saúde e geração de processos, protocolos assistenciais ou de ensino.CONCLUSÃO:os programas de mestrado profissional em enfermagem, em fase de consolidação, têm produção recente, em desenvolvimento, havendo lacuna na geração de tecnologias duras e inovação. São fundamentais para o desenvolvimento das práticas profissionais inovadoras que articulem o setor saúde e a educação.

Knowledge-Production Processes in Practice Research - Outcomes and Critical Elements

The welfare sector has seen considerable changes in its operational context. Welfare services respond to an increasing number of challenges as citizens are confronted with life’s uncertainties and a variety of complex situations. At the same time the service-delivery system is facing problems of co-operation and the development of staff competence, as well as demands to improve service effectiveness and outcomes. In order to ensure optimal user outcomes in this complex, evolving environment it is necessary to enhance professional knowledge and skills, and to increase efforts to develop the services. Changes are also evident in the new emergent knowledge-production models. There has been a shift from knowledge acquisition and transmission to its construction and production. New actors have stepped in and the roles of researchers are subject to critical discussion. Research outcomes, in other words the usefulness of research with respect to practice development, is a topical agenda item. Research is needed, but if it is to be useful it needs to be not only credible but also useful in action. What do we know about different research processes in practice? What conceptions, approaches, methods and actor roles are embedded? What is the effect on practice? How does ‘here and now’ practice challenge research methods? This article is based on the research processes conducted in the institutes of practice research in social work in Finland. It analyses the different approaches applied by elucidating the theoretical standpoints and the critical elements embedded in them, and reflects on the outcomes in and for practice. It highlights the level of change and progression in practice research, arguing for diverse practice research models with a solid theoretical grounding, rigorous research processes, and a supportive infrastructure.

Meeting the Challenges of Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production for Sustainable Water Governance

Increasing pressure on mountain water resources is making it necessary to address water governance issues in a transdisciplinary way. This entails drawing on different disciplinary perspectives, different types of knowledge, and different interests to answer complex governance questions. This study identifies strategies for addressing specific challenges to transdisciplinary knowledge production aiming at sustainable and reflective water governance. The study draws on the experiences of 5 large transdisciplinary water governance research projects conducted in Austria and Switzerland (Alp-Water-Scarce, MontanAqua, Drought-CH, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Planning, and an integrative river management project in the Kamp Valley). Experiences were discussed and systematically analyzed in a workshop and subsequent interviews. These discussions identified 4 important challenges to interactions between scientists and stakeholders—ensuring stakeholder legitimacy, encouraging participation, managing expectations, and preventing misuse of data and research results—and explored strategies used by the projects to meet them. Strategies ranged from key points to be considered in stakeholder selection to measures that enhance trustful relationships and create commitment.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.