Sesión 2: Explorando nuestro cuerpo

88

00.03.fig.14 - An illustration of the cyclic action research process according to Kemmis, Mc Taggart and Retallic (2013).

act

plan observe

reflect

00.03.fig.15 - An illustration of a notebook sketch that represents design-based particiaptory action research as an entangled knot of lines, January 2018.

89

force unequality. The intention to achieve more “flexible and socially owned” processes of academic production need to be safeguarded throughout the process (Kindon et al., 2007: Introduction).

Participatory action research draws from existing capabilities and assets in order to set up relevant action. This is significantly different to action research as Lewin (1946) has defined it; being a research process in which practical actions are set up to develop and / or test a theory. In participatory action research, researchers and participants together outline the next steps to take (Kindon et al., 2007: Particiaptory action research: origins, approaches and methods).

In its societal and environmental science context, participatory action research ac-knowledges the importance of space as it is strongly influential to social life and crucial to participation (Kindon et al., 2007). This reveals a strong relation to the field of urban architectural design in which urban architecture is perceived as a social architecture that aims to impact on the urban community. The architect acts as go-between for spatial and social issues (KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, 2012).

Another relevant aspect of participatory action research, are the alternative modes of representations through which it acts. Acknowledging and nurturing the value of aca-demic reflection, researchers explore to make acaaca-demic knowledge production less ver-bose and impenetrable (Kindon et al., 2007). This aspect also relates to the field of urban architectural design where drawings, schemes, models, and 1:1 scale interventions are a crucial form of communication, expression and articulation.

Moreover, the local and situated field of intervention of participatory action research is not limited to the local scale but also connects to the “global, regional, national, house-hold and personal” (Kindon et al., 2007: Introduction). A similar scaled approach is present in urban architectural design; in the uAD context, working on different scales is an inherent part of the practice (KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, 2012).

A final particularity of participatory action research is the approach to knowledge production as a collective and participatory activity. The method acknowledges that a plurality of “knowledges” are built that emerge in different institutions and locations (Kindon et al., 2007). Furthermore, practical knowing is put up front in a worldview that brings action and reflection, and theory and practice together (Reason & Brad-bury, 2005). For McTaggart (1994), participatory action research starts from a feeling of concern and a desire to act in order to improve a situation. In relation to the field of architecture, Katoppo and Sudradjat (2015, p. 121) stress participatory action research is

“based on exploration and objectification of experience and the disciplining of subjectivity”.

In the framework of this doctoral thesis I value the acknowledgment of a plurality of knowledges, and accordingly, I will emphasize the importance of experience and

“feeling of concern”. I, thereforee relate to Haraway’s (1988) feminist perspective on objectivity that undermines the “inside-outside boundaries” in knowledge. She claims all knowledge production is embodied and motivates that a situated objectivity is to be found in the explicit making of the researcher’s positioning, translation and convergence of knowledge. According to this standpoint, I will refer to “lived experiences” when ad-dressing the type of embodied and strongly sensed knowledge that is obtained through the implementation of participatory action research. With the concept of lived experi-ences, I aim to acknowledge the valuable insights and findings that are derived from the more emotional and sense-based learnings, which can only be obtained by an insider perspective. To articulate these experiences, to disseminate them and to offer them a

90

place within the written account of the doctorate, I have included reconstructions of lived experiences (REC) as a complimentary narration to the foundational discussion (00).

b. Research by design approach

The method of participatory action research is implemented within the field of uAD, in which the doctoral dissertation is situated. UAD has a strong connection to both the theoretical and practical domain of architecture in its approach as a spatial interpre-tation of social issues (KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, 2012). Perceiving architec-ture as a social situation, furthermore is recognized to be inherently participatory and empowering (Katoppo & Sudradjat, 2015). There is a clear overlap with how participa-tory action research is positioned as a method within the social sciences; however, the design-oriented context of the doctorate has an impact on the implementation of the participatory action research method.

I will first describe the design-oriented research approach that underpins this doc-toral research and design practice. Subsequently, I will reveal the common ground that connects the field of uAD to the method of participatory action research. Hereafter, I will discuss the crucial differences that have triggered certain adaptations of the partic-ipatory action research within this design-oriented context. To conclude, I will discuss the type of knowledge this specific implementation of what I will call “design-based participatory action research” has resulted into.

The uAD field in which the doctorate is situated, takes on a research by design ap-proach–in Dutch “ontwerpend onderzoek”. Design is implemented as a way to obtain and develop insights, understandings and knowledge. The method is applied in archi-tectural, urbanistic and artistic research, as well as it is commonly used in practice and education (Pak, 2017; KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, 2018; Verbeke, 2013). This method informs the design outcome and builds the underlying research; design then becomes an instrument “to reflect on the spatial impact of social issues” (KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, 2012).

Research by design is established as an academic method that, in the words of Johan Verbeke (2013, p. 157): “is not about analytical thinking in the narrow sense, but rather about exploration – that is searching, searching and searching again to find new insights and aspects of architecture. It is about extending horizons, changing borders, stimulating curiosity and exploration.”

In addition to the above described dissociative and exploratory approach, research by design –in the context of this doctorate- entails two more crucial assets. The method is recognized as a way to ask the right question founded through a design-oriented study of the socio-spatial reality (Borret, 2016). Moreover, there is a strong speculative aspect that makes research by design “is about imagining, visualizing and projecting alternative worldviews, as well as developing spatial understanding and making possible future worlds – and thus also contributing to the understanding of underlying processes of the present”

Verbeke (2013, p. 157).

The doctoral research and design practice is grounded in a research by design ap-proach in which design is seen as a vehicle to develop insights. The implementation of participatory action research in this context is claimed to be a relevant method to

91

enrich architectural research, in which architecture is approached both as knowledge and practice (Katoppo & Sudradjat, 2015; Swann, 2002).

The three key aspects of action research that I have discussed in the previous section can be retraced in the doctoral research and design practice. The first aspect that focuses on the cyclic follow up of actions resulted in design actions that consist of micro-inter-ventions in transitional use, negotiation processes, presentation activities, the organi-zation of workshops and more. Within their continuous and serendipitous emergence, these concrete design actions align with moments of observation, reflection and planning that are conducted throughout the process. As second aspect, the partnership ambition and the strong participatory approach is also represented in Josaphat’s living lab at large in which civic agents and their practices are not only included in the re-search, but make up the very ground on which the doctoral research and design practice is founded. As third aspect, the aim for change resonates with the speculative ambitions of the research by design method. There is a shared ambition to change certain conven-tional practices and to investigate options for other ways of doing.

More particularly, several of the characteristics of participatory action research align with the design attitude. To start, the political value of participation and its ambition to support empowerment resonates with the design approach that has been conducted within the doctoral research and design practice. Moreover, the need to have a flexible and more socially owned process and the objective to start from existing assets and capacities are represented in the design practice that has developed around Josaphat’s ground. The research by design stance resonates with the participatory action research method in its recognition of the importance of space and the exploration for alternatives modes of representations. Furthermore, the relation of the local scale of the research to other levels going from the global to the personal, is also a relevant concern for the uAD practice.

The relation between participatory action research and research by design in the field of uAD shows to be very strong, nevertheless it had been a challenge to combine these methods. There are several particularities that differentiate the, in a design context realized, implementation of participatory action research from how the method is applied in the context of social sciences. In the field of design Swann (2002) claims the method needs to leave enough space to unfold an intuitive process.

While bringing participatory action research and research by design together, the social science approach conflicted with the intuitive design approach. This resulted in certain limits. Mainly the structuring of actions in consecutive cycles that follow a fixed planning, acting, observing and reflecting sequence (see 00.03.fig.14), shows to be restraining. The numerous design and research interventions on and around Josaphat occur at such an intensity that make it impossible to maintain this framework. In a design practice the layered and fast moving reality urges for a more ad hoc and intuitive approach. RInstead of visualizing the research process as a cyclic and consecutive series of action cycles, I would propose to outline the process by an entangled knot of lines of action research (see 00.03.fig.15). These lines connect to certain design projects that grow, maybe stop at a certain point, merge with others and are interwoven or intersect with one another.

In addition the research by design interventions cannot be narrowed down to delim-ited action cycles as it is framed within the social sciences approach. Even though the conventional action research framework acknowledges the reality is more complex,

re-92

search by design approach add on to this as it entails strategic maneuvering, playing on different scales and levels, impulsive interventions. Moreover, everyday conversations and several documentations ( writings in the forms of reports, mails, subsidy appli-cations and the like) make the concept of “action” highly hybrid. Too delimitated and clear-cut action cycles conflict with the fast moving and diverse nature of the actions in a design practice.

Moreover, another specific particularity that emerged from the research by design con-text is the ongoing reformulation of the central research question. It is the very design practice that –as a research- provides the method to ask the right questions. Participato-ry action research already marks a shift away from a research approach that starts from a certain theory or hypothesis; however, this aspect is significantly stronger in research by design, where not only the assets and capacities that are present by also the conduct-ed design practice inform the research question of the doctorate.

The outcome of the participatory action research, as it is conducted in the field of uAD, also leads to a different type of results. The knowledge contributions that emerge from the doctorate are more speculative and aim to offer a series of concepts –a per-formative vocabulary- that, apart from the change that is achieved within the living lab at large, also aim to change the broader discourse. This differs from the social science approach where the result is oriented to “inform a theoretical understanding and the outcomes of social or environmental change” (Kindon et al., 2007: Introduction)

In addition, the participatory aspect within the doctoral research and design practice is strongly present in the design practice, but the knowledge contribution that the doc-torate aims at remains focused on the architectural discipline. Although the docdoc-torate takes into account the political and social facets of the architectural discipline, its main contribution is still mainly oriented at the uAD scene. The implemented method alters from the participatory action research approach in which the reflection is oriented at the transformation of the social situation.

Combined, the methods of participatory action research and research by design pro-vide the framework for the entangled doctoral research and design practice. As a living lab at large, Josaphat’s ground binds together the academic and civic, as well as it blurs the barriers between research, design and action.

I frame the collision of research by design and participatory action research as “de-sign-based participatory action research” . This method offers and academic frame for the intuitive yet also rigorous design approach that entangle within the doctoral research and design practice.

As discussed in the previous section, I recognize the plurality of knowledges that are developed within this doctoral research and design practice. The importance of the embodied and strongly sensed knowledge that is obtained through participatory action research is referred to as “lived experiences”. In addition, I would like to emphasize the tactic knowledge that is obtained through a research by design approach for which I will use the concept of “designerly ways of knowing”. Cross (2001) refers to this notion to recognize the particular relation of design and science. Where the latter is analytic, design is constructive and focuses more on how things ought to be. Designing as an academic method is not to be repeatable. Moreover, designerly ways of knowing is by Newton (2011) related to research in the field of architecture, for which she claims it is

“embedded in the social world at large and that has its impact in the social realm”.

Through the written account of the doctoral research and design practice, I aim to

93

make these designerly ways of knowing explicit. Moreover, I implement different forms of representations the emphasize the different type of “knowledges” that are obtained.

Complimentary to this book, the timeline (TL) provides a visual resources to bring out the designerly ways of knowing in an accessible manner.

c. Supporting methods

As part of the design-based participatory action research several supporting methods have been implemented to make the tacit knowledge explicit. Both the lived experiences and designerly ways of knowing have been captured and processed through the use of auto-ethnographic notations, coding and categorizing, and the use of personas.

The use of auto-ethnographic notations has been implemented as a technique to support the design-based participatory action research. The link to the field of auto-eth-nographic research can be found in my insider position as architect and researcher. In auto-ethnographic research, anthropologists study their own cultural group or setting.

The result is an intensive participant observation study in which the researcher is a participant herself.

As the design-based participatory action research implies the researcher is immersed in the practice and through that also becomes the subject of the research, auto-eth-nography has provided useful methods and techniques “for field research in familiar everyday settings” (Tetnowski & Damico, 2014). More precisely, an auto-ethnographic approach has supported me to recognize and reflect upon the knowledge that is present in the lived experiences and designerly ways of knowing. It is important for the re-searcher to acknowledge her own view and interpretations and to express these openly.

A “sympathetic introspection” (Reed-Danahay, 1997) is at place.

In relation to this auto-ethnographic approach, it is crucial to recognize the research-er’s limit to only produce “partial, located and critical knowledges” as claimed by Donna Haraway (1988, p. 584) in her paper on “Situated Knowledges”. With her concept of

“situated knowledges”, Haraway acknowledges the multiplicity of knowledge as she advocates a feminist version of objectivity that positions rational knowledge as “process of on-going critical interpretation” (Haraway, 1988, p. 590). In her recognition of the em-bodied nature of knowledge production, Haraway claims the researcher is accountable and responsible for the translation and linking of the many voices that took part in this process. This aspect of auto-ethnography resonates with the method of design-based participatory action research.

Auto-ethnographic research and the recognition of situated knowledges values the insider perspective. The more personal view on the studied phenomena is perceived to contribute to a specific knowledge and objectivity that is not merely subjective, but which opens a door to look beyond (Reed-Danahay, 1997).

An additional and more recent aspect of auto-ethnography is the blurring of the boundaries between qualitative research and story writing. This relates to participatory action research that explores alternative ways of knowledge representation. It moreover also connects to research by design where the use of different means of expression is a common practice. The different forms of output of this doctoral research and design practice as described in section 00.02.02 “Reader’s guide” is inherent to the method of design-based participatory action research.

94

This auto-ethnographic research approach has found expression in the form of archi-tectural notebooks that I have been keeping throughout the research (see 00.03.fig.16, 10 & 11). Since –even before- the start of the doctoral research I have been making an-notations in a dozen notebooks. With chronology as their only leading structure, these books have been filled with observations, reflections, inspirational references, literature summaries, meeting notes, memos from presentations, drawings, schemes, agenda’s, design sketches, presentation preparations, interview notes, et cetera. In this form, my auto-ethnographic notations have supported the reflection on the knowledge within the lived experiences and designerly ways of knowing.

Throughout the four years of this design-based participatory action research I have kept these auto-ethnographic notations meticulously and allowed my personal reflec-tions as well as those of others to crystallize in these notes in the form of schemes, writings, drawings, et cetera. In this final stage of the dissertation, these notebooks serve as fundamental part of the rich data. They help to recall lived-through emotions, obtained insights, upcoming questions and emerging themes. Throughout the last two years, these notes –in their varying forms- have formed the ground from which to more structurally and precisely look back at the process of design-based participatory action research from my insider perspective. Reporting on the Josaphat experience and beyond, they were subject of a rigorous coding exercise.

This provides a lead to the second technique that has been implemented to support the explicit making of the obtained knowledge. In order to capture the situated knowledges embedded in the lived experiences and designerly ways of knowing, I found inspiration in the supporting methods of coding and categorizing, derived from the constructivist grounded theory methodology.

In the context of design-based participatory action research, the interest in construc-tivist grounded theory is focused on the process of data processing. Kathy Charmaz (2014, p. 1) describes how the method “begins with inductive data, invokes iterative

In the context of design-based participatory action research, the interest in construc-tivist grounded theory is focused on the process of data processing. Kathy Charmaz (2014, p. 1) describes how the method “begins with inductive data, invokes iterative