n po e
a long way to go in enacting either the “reparative” modes of enquiry advocatedby Sedgwick (2003) or Connolly’s (2008) “afﬁrmative critique”. Frequently, this isdue to how and where results are framed and presented, which might appear tolack respect for the practical and hard-earned knowledge of practitioners. Stickingwith the ﬁeld of sustainability transitions, the examples of critiques of the TransitionTown movement by the Trapese Collective and by Mason and Whitehead springto mind (Mason and Whitehead 2012; Trapese Collective 2008; see also Mason2008). While such critiques are intended to be helpful, when framed by radicaltheory and presented in esoteric language via academic journal articles or politicalpamphlets, they can undermine the ideologies of social movements (see Hopkins2008a, 2008b), breaking the faith needed to move mountains and effect socialchange. What we consider constructive critique can be received as damagingcriticism. Arguably, practitioners, from architects to climate activists, are most, thoughclearly not exclusively, interested in the form of knowledge discussed by Aristotle as
, roughly what we today dub technology (see Flyvbjerg, 2001): practitionersneed to
to do things, and they want to get on with it. Academics,meanwhile, are typically most interested in
, understanding or “puretheory”, that is, analytical or scientiﬁc knowledge: We want to
thingsare done. Often, ﬁguring out the how and the why are contested and competinggoals, resulting in not only different research aims but in different research outputs.The question thus becomes what are we seeking when we engage with and critique
, particularly from a participatory perspective? The beneﬁts of non-academicparticipation for academic endeavours are increasingly clear in this new (UK) eraof “impact case studies”, yet the beneﬁts to those concerned with
remainambiguous. As organisers of events promising interaction between academics andpractitioners, we note that practitioners are increasingly asking what the beneﬁtsto them actually are. They doubt any useful knowledge exchange will occur andinstead request payment for their time in sharing their knowledge with us. For manypractitioners, the link between technology and economy is alive and direct. As PatBorer also wrote: “Patrick Belliew (a brilliant consultant) once said to me whilst wewere waiting our turn to give a lecture at some conference or other, ‘Why on earthdo you give talks to architects, are they ever going to give you a job?’
. . .
”. Similarly,climate activists might ask of their participation in academic events: “Are you goingto fund us, plan with us, act with us
. . .
?”.Too often such events involve both academics and practitioners articulating their knowledges, with neither group taking the time to listen, engage or actually interactaround commonalities. There is a commodiﬁcation of time and knowledge whichleads to us missing a step in taking the time (and funding the time) to discuss ﬁrstprinciples
we all get in a room and talk across each other. For academics, the funding needed to attend a seminar or conference often amounts to little more thancovering our travel and subsistence costs. We are paid to do this work. In contrast, for freelance practitioners or activists juggling precarious employment to sustaincampaigning activities, time spent (unpaid) at a seminar is potentially income lost.So, we may have to challenge the institutional arrangements of academic fundingprogrammes. Otherwise, how can we tailor our academic practices to open up
2012 The Author.
2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.