Seeking to bring into a new resolution the fragmented state of the literature with regards to urban informal cultural practices, the key research gaps and conceptual limitations can be briefly set out as follows (for methodological limitations, see chapter 3):
- Firstly, there is a lack of research that provides a multi-faceted valuation of informal cultural practices. The current research is centred on forms of economic value and fails to provide an in-depth understanding of the broader (non-economic) roles and purposes that informal cultural practices take on in the urban context.
- Secondly, there is a lack of research that interrogates the role of informal cultural practices for cities of the global South. Within the significant body of work interrogating urban informality in the global South, the field of culture is largely omitted. While some studies look at informal cultural practices predominantly found in rural areas, there is a
52
particular gap in the literature on the global South that considers informal practices that are urban and cultural.
- Thirdly, there is a lack of nuanced discussion and understanding of informal cultural practices in the urban context, especially, but not exclusively, in the global North. The current state of urban research is too often framed in dualist conceptions, and restricted to a normative framework that prevents the analysis of complex and multifaceted urban processes, such as informality.
Bringing these together reveals the fourth and final major gap in the literature;
namely there is a need to not only recognise the relevance of informality to cities of the global North, but to actually apply the learning from urban theory in the global South to cases elsewhere (as well as vice-versa). As Daniels (2004) has pointed out, no political system functions on the basis of formal structures and processes alone. And while authors such as Roy (2009a, 2009b) and Robinson (2011) have advocated for some time for planning and urban theory in the global North to acknowledge the relevance of cities in the global South, only few authors have put this into practice. The few researchers who have entered this comparative space (such as Echanove, 2010; Harris, 2008; Lowry
& McCann, 2008) have demonstrated that such comparative work can and should be undertaken, as it can help to highlight distinct urban particularities, and – based on these – provide an important source of learning across the different geographies.
Admittedly, it is not an easy task, since it is not enough to simply study cities in the global South as “interesting, anomalous, different, and esoteric empirical cases” (Roy, 2009: 820). Instead, there needs to be a dislocating of theory itself (Robinson, 2011; Roy, 2009). This includes promoting theory cultures that are
“alert to their own locatedness and sources of inspiration, open to learning from elsewhere, respectful of different scholarly traditions and committed to the revisability of theoretical ideas”. (Robinson, 2016a: 188)
As explained in more detail in chapter 3, my proposal for achieving this is to move beyond an interrogation of informal cultural practices through the lens of
53
the global South or the global North, but rather to seek to understand them, from the ground up, through the experience of the actual practices in the city.
The three main building blocks (multiplicity and interconnectedness of informal/formal, negotiation processes, and diversity of actors who deploy informality) set out in the previous sections provide a useful starting point for guiding this interrogation.
My main research aim, then, is to provide an in-depth and grounded understanding of informal cultural practices in the urban context. In order to gain such an understanding, my empirical enquiry is guided by the research questions set out below (and summarised in Figure 4).
i. According to the urban actors themselves, what are the different roles and purposes that informal cultural practices take on in contemporary cities?
The first question is going to help me address the knowledge gap around a multi-faceted understanding of the role of informal cultural practices in the urban context, both in the global North and the global South (as outlined in the first and second research gap). It will help improving our understanding of the broader (non-economic) roles and purposes that informal cultural practices take on in the urban context. Interrogating questions about these broader roles and purposes will also provide new insights into the reasons why informal cultural practices are important in the urban context, and what motivates people to engage with them in first place.
ii. How are informal cultural practices defined and delimited by urban actors themselves?
The second question is going to interrogate the fluid relationship between the informal and the formal – in line with the first of my analytical ‘building blocks’
(as discussed in section 2.4.1). It will examine the boundaries of the informal that are defined and delimited by urban actors by interrogating their principles and values, thus addressing the third research gap.
iii. How is informality deployed by urban actors to fulfil the different purposes of their practices?
54
The third research question looks at how informality is deployed in practice. By examining the actual processes used by urban cultural actors to realise their ideas, this research question will help provide answers about the role of (specifically) informal practices to fulfil their various purposes, as well as providing a more nuanced understanding of informality. Setting out how informality is actually deployed on the ground and comparing this to urban cultural actors’ theoretical boundaries and delimitations, will also interrogate the various negotiations that urban actors engage in (the second of my analytical
‘building blocks’, as discussed in section 2.4.2).
iv. How and why do urban policy-makers engage with, and respond to, informal cultural practices?
The fourth research question is a subsidiary enquiry, based on the acknowledgment of the role of public policy in influencing the specific manifestations of informal practices in different cities (Harris, 2008) and thus, as a particularly important field of negotiation for urban actors (as argued in the discussion of the third ‘building block’ in section 2.4.2). It will also help addressing the first three research gaps. This subsidiary enquiry will generate insights to questions including whether policy-makers are supportive of informal cultural practices; to what extent and under which conditions; whether they actively engage with informal cultural practices, and if so, why; and what challenges arise when policy-makers engage with informal cultural practices?
The reason why it has been set as a subsidiary research question is the methodological scope of this study (see section 3.3).
55
Figure 4: Research questions of this study
The final gap in the literature mentioned above is not directly covered by the theoretical and conceptual knowledge that will be generated through the research questions. Rather, it will require a different methodological approach.
The extent to which the extant research provides for such a different methodological enquiry will be reviewed in chapter 3.