Co-learning and knowledge brokerage

General introduction to approach

Co-learning and knowledge brokerage is a cluster of approaches implemented in cities with the objective to facilitate the circulation of ideas, understandings and cutting-edge research between a diverse variety of actors in society. It is closely related to the concept and practice of multi-stakeholder partnership, as it requires the convergence of people and groups from different fields and backgrounds, and it shares the aim of exchanging knowledge and reflecting together on complex urban challenges. Co-learning and knowledge brokerage, however, does not usually require a commitment to (more long-term) partnership, or the uptake of concrete measures and actions in terms of policy or implementation. It is emphasizing on sharing and transferring knowledge, through unconventional methods and the development of adequate formats and common vocabularies (translation of technical terms, introduction of tacit knowledge, popularization of research). This can mean the development of multi-disciplinary platforms of exchange for tackling urban challenges (bringing different academic disciplines together) or a more transdisciplinary approach which involves knowledge exchange between policy makers, technical experts, researchers, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, including students, and activists.

Shapes, sizes and applications

Some approaches of urban co-learning and knowledge brokerage are more explicitly about transferring societal demands and bottom-up knowledge about problems into academic institutions, and thus shaping research agendas (Science Shops) or bringing social innovations to broader light and thus inspire policy (Living and Lively Laboratory). These approaches aimed at the exchange and brokerage of knowledge between geographically proximate groups (city level) but their knowledge outcomes and implications aimed also at higher level influence. In the case of the SeiSmic project (2013-2016) for example, it became clear that more open procurement policies for less traditional and less formal social innovators, and less cumbersome financing models for business, would both strongly enhance EU efforts to achieve sustainable, inclusive and liveable urban futures. Other approaches apply the principles of knowledge transfer and brokerage more broadly between disciplines, sectors, academic and policy experts and civil society, users, end-groups etc. Of those, some begin with a more local focus, like Communities of Practice (CoPs) and Urban Learning Labs (ULL), and thus have more concrete issues and potentialy more immediate practical implications. On the other hand, Knowledge-Action Networks (KAN) of the FutureEarth initiative, for example, have a more international scope and thus bare the limitation of remaining too theoretical or abstract arenas of exchange and debate –although this will show with time, as these Networks are only now beginning to be estabilshed. Last, knowledge brokerage initiatives such as the ones of PRIMUS project that are built around a series of events and meetings (Informed Cities Fora, European Round Tables, and Implementation Workshops), to bring together scientific partners with local councils and civil servants, was quite limited in including more bottom-up views and perspectives.

Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice

Although knolwedge brokerage and co-learning is not necessary referring to urban contexts, we find most of the approaches to be implemented in the urban context. This is, it seems, also due to the complexity of challenges faced in the urban context, and the hybridity and high density of stakeholders and actors in cities. However, some applications of knowledge brokerage, as in the case of Communities of Practice for sustainable and just food systems (FOODLINKS), did not explicitly focus on the urban. Whereas the driving goal of knowledge brokerage networks and actions is to better understand and address urban challenges, this is not alwaysnecessarily done with the same attention to justice. Namely, whereas breaking institutional and disciplinary silos is likely to contribute to more integral understandings and timely reactions with regards to some exisitng socio-environmental inequalities and injustice, it is not gauranteed that these processes of brokerage will not also reproduce or ignore other types of injustice. This is particulalry the case when knowledge about complex issues of sustainability is shared and asserted mainly between high-level bureacrats, academics and policymakers, excluding more grassroots demands, experiences and knowledge.

In sum, the degree of involving civil society in knowledge brokerage varries between the approaches and is expected to define how they include or address justice in their objectives and outcomes. The focus of each approach is related either to the overall question of sustaibility (e.g. KANs, PRIMUS knowledge brokerage), or to specific aspects/themes of sustainability (such as food or green infrastructure), or to domains such as social innovation (SEISMIC) and heritage regeneration (ROCK) but with sustainability-oriented goals. In most cases, questions of sustainability are addressed at local scale, but require or promote the glocalisation of knowledge. The connections between sustainability and justice are not clear in this overall type of approach of co-learning. It is shown, for example that more participatory processes (procedural justice), through community based design, improve the outcomes of cultural heritage actions. In most cases, distributive justice is more an assumed outcome of better sustainability policy (trickle down of benefits), but justice as such is not necessarily brought into question, neither as an outcome nor as in the process of knowledge brokerage around sustainability.

Narrative of change

Achiving environmental and social sustainability is a multi-faceted and multi-layered challenge which requires the joint work and synchronisation of efforts from a number of insitutions and actors at multiple scales. In order for this process to bare fruits, knowledge needs to be translated, circulated and reflected upon collectively, breaking professional, institutional and social boundaries. Co-learning and knowledge brokerage aim at enabling communication, collaboration, stimulation and motivation for diverse stakeholders and can help towards urban sustainability, building national and international bridges for mutual learning between society, the scientific community and policy makers. This can have implications for research and innovation agendas, the development of policy recommendations for real social needs, and the creation of platforms for dialogue and mutual learning among citizens and urban actors in order to strengthen innovative governance for urban sustainability.

Transformative potential

Knowledge brokerage and co-learning through innovative methods for building multi-stakeholder platforms of exchange, allows for knowledge and ideas to be circulated faster and with higher potential for creative application. The uncustomary bringing together of stakeholders from different bacgrounds, with communication and transfer of knolwedge as the central objective, opens up opportunity for accessing and debating certain types of knowledge for actors who might be typically excluded from it. This can alter, change or even challenge dominant insitutions, as knowledge becomes more accessible, manageable and implementabe. In the example of participatory design (ROCK), local demands find place in urban planning. In CoP, civil society organizations are better positioned to long-term dialogue with policy makers, shaping the creation of concrete measures. Research-policy networks of knowledge brokerage are also created (such as Science Shops, or in the PRIMUS project) and barriers to transformative futures are identified, thus enabling a shift of research agendas and policy directions towards more sustainable and just directions. It has been shown also in the context of Experimentation Labs, that integrating students in transformational partnerships promotes the coupling of education, research and community engagement with sustainability challenges.

Summary of relevant approaches

In the example of the Knowledge Action Networks (KANs) of the Future Earth initiative, collaborative frameworks facilitate highly integrative sustainability research on some of today’s most pressing global environmental challenges. At a global scale, bringing together experts and stakeholders form various regions, they aim is to generate the multifaceted knowledge needed to inform solutions for complex societal issues. In the theme of Health, for example, a research agenda was set for a better, integrated understanding of the complex interactions between a changing global environment (such as pollution, disease pathogens and vectors, and ecosystem services) and the health of human beings (including livelihoods, nutrition, and well-being).

In a more bottom-up example, the SEiSMiC project mobilised a wide range of urban actors from civil society in 10 countries (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom). It identified a number of social innovation good practices that enhance the inclusive, sustainable and liveable future of European cities. These good practices include concrete tools to stimulate social innovations; new approaches to exchange via Internet cartographic tools used by groups of citizens; hotels run by migrants; the stronger involvement of women in the governance of cities; charters for the use of public space; and a focus on storytelling as an essential element of community building at the beginning of projects. Through a “Living and lively laboratory” approach, it experimented with multi-level dialogue and mutual learning processes, showing how not only are alternative methods useful in creating better innovation dynamics (walkshops,narratives, case studies, filmed meetings, visualisations) but that visualization and the “language” of civil society is complementary and an added value to the traditional policy discourse of experts.