To elucidate how authoritative knowledge is established for better dealing with unstructured urban problems, this article describes how collaborations between researchers and officials become an instrument for conceptualizing and addressing policy problems. A case study is used to describe a research consortium evaluating the controversial practice of ‘Lifestyle’ based housing allocation in the Dutch domain of social-housing. Analyzing this case in key episodes, we see researchers and policymakers selectively draw on established institutional practices—their so called ‘home practices’—to jointly (re-)structure problems. In addition, we find that restructuring problems is not only intertwined with, but also deliberately aimed at (re-)structuring the relations within and between the governmental practices, the actors are embedded in. It is by selectively tinkering with knowledges, values, norms, and criteria that the actors can deliberately enable and constrain the ways a real-world problem is addressed.
From the article : "Based on a review of recent literature, this paper addresses the question of how urban planners can steer urban environmental quality, given the fact that it ismultidimensional in character, is assessed largely in subjective terms and varies across time. A novel perspective of urban environmental quality is proposed, simultaneously exploring three questions that are at the core of planning and designing cities: ‘quality of what?’, ‘quality for whom?’ and ‘quality at what time?’. The dilemmas that urban planners face in answering these questions are illustrated using secondary material. This approach provides perspectives for action. Rather than further detailing the exact nature of urban quality, it calls for sustainable urban environmental quality planning that is integrated, participative and adaptive" ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ) DOI: 10.1002/eet.1759 - Preprint available for free download.
This text is structured as follows. Section 1 concerns the background to this public lecture: the fact that social participation is becoming increasingly important in our society. This is evident, for example, from the way we are evolving from a protective welfare state into an activational, participative society. This development has consequences for the social sector and therefore also for the professionals who work in it. Social work professionals are not necessarily expected to identify or solve participation problems; they are seen as intermediaries who enable citizens to take responsibility themselves. Social work professionals are therefore expected to provide the individual applicant with less direct support and to focus more on strengthening the social networks of people and the social contexts in which they find themselves. Section 2 connects sections 1 and 3, but may also be read independently. It is about the fact that social work professionals are not yet in the habit of providing systematic insight into the results of their actions, while policy makers, for example, are increasingly looking to them precisely for this. First of all, I set out the reasons why it is so important to make the products of their interventions more visible, not only to policy makers, but also to social work professionals themselves and to the customers/citizens who depend on them. Secondly, I set out how the results of social interventions can be made more visible than they are at present; and what research can contribute. In this, I advocate a change in thinking: from thinking in terms of the evidence to thinking in terms of the evident. This argument forms the basis of the type of research that is being taken up from within the research group. In section 3, I describe a number of research projects that will be conducted during my tenure. I also set out the main proposition of this address, which states that social work professionals should do more with the knowledge that peoples behaviour is determined to a significant degree by contexts. In particular, social contexts could play a bigger role in promoting citizen participation. At present, social work professionals normally intervene directly in peoples behaviour, such as with therapies for combating problem behaviour. Interventions in a broader, social, context are rare. Why is this? And couldnt citizen participation be more effectively promoted by these means than through direct behavioural interventions? I put forward four propositions in this regard, and explain each of them in reference to one of the current research projects within the research group. With this, in combination with the general outlines of the research presented in section 2, I hope to provide a clear and inspiring overview of the research that will be carried out within the research group in the coming years. Finally, in section 4, I will discuss the significance of the research group to the faculty of Society and Law at Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, and to parties outside of Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences.
On a societal scale, the ‘problem with work’ is that everyone is exhausted, job security has been replaced by ‘flex work’ and much important work had been invisibilised. While billions of people are displaced and illegalized from work, others have physical/ mental conditions caused by work. The problem with work merits scrutiny not only from medical, corporate or legal perspectives. It needs tackling without an agenda of productivity, with an open regard and embodied, intuitive research. Artistic research has this scope. It taps into knowledges that are underused/repressed, by involving the body, harnessing intuition, experience and situatedness, and activating a plurality of voices. The aim of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of what is (not) work, who we are when we perform work, and when we don’t or are not able to work. Why are certain activities or roles called work and what happens when the term is applied to activities that are not normally deemed work, but which include comparable elements? Three research questions are addressed: 1. What can be learned about work by regarding every job, or all the work, as a performance? 2. What can be learned about performance (art) by looking at it through the lens of work? 3. What are ethical practices in collaborative and participative work processes? The research is carried out through an artistic approach that contains a particular way of making, teaching and researching which is collaborative, performative and transdisciplinary. It proposes the body as a thinking apparatus, experience as a way of gathering information and doing, writing, exchanging and performing as both method and dissemination. This research aims to contribute to a better understanding of what work is in our lives. The research has social, artistic and educational targets and target groups, which are also intertwined.
Various studies suggest that the fashion and textile industry need to move away from traditional, extractive leadership models. Dreier et al. (2019) show how traditional top-down, hierarchical leadership approaches are not effective in fostering sustainability, and argued that a more collaborative, participative approach is needed to implement true and long-standing change. Moreover, research also shows how fashion and textile designers don’t see themselves as leaders but instead as ‘creators’ who employ others to manage their business and lead the team. This change in leadership is also necessary to achieve the European vision for Industry 5.0 (2022), which places the wellbeing of the worker at the centre of the production process. If we want to find solutions to the problems we face today, we need to change the way we think, lead, and do business. This calls for regenerative leadership which involves not only minimising negative impacts, but also actively working to restore and enhance the social ecological systems in which an industry operates. And since technology has become ubiquitous in every aspect of our lives (including business), it is important to explore its role in helping us become better regenerative leaders. With ReLead, The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) aims to amplify consortium partner i-did’s social and environmental impact. Since its inception in 2009, i-did has helped more than 400 people become gainfully employed while helping recycle almost 60.000 kgs of textile waste. This has been possible due to the transformation of i-did’s founder (Mireille Geijsen) from a creative designer, into a collaborative and mindful leader. The intended outcome of this project is to create a tech-enabled leadership transformation toolkit and leadership academy that helps creative designers transform into regenerative leaders.
