Knowledge institutes and the co-creation of knowledge : approaches involving knowledge institutes in multi-stakeholder collaborations for knowledge co-creation : case studies from Vancouver and Amsterdam

KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTES

AND THE CO-CREATION OF

KNOWLEDGE

Approaches involving knowledge institutes in

multi-stakeholder collaborations for knowledge co-creation

Case Studies from Vancouver and Amsterdam

Research Master Urban Studies

University of Amsterdam

Author:

Philipp Benkowitz – 11396377 – Philipp.Benkowitz@gmx.de

Supervisor and first reader:

Prof. Luca Bertolini

Second Reader:

Dr. Federico Savini

Date:

20.06.2019

1

A

Knowledge institutes are increasingly engaging in multi-stakeholder collaborations for the creation of sustainable urban solutions and knowledge innovation. In the process of combining research, practice and education, experiments become real-life learning environments for all stakeholders. But how are knowledge institutes involved in multi-stakeholder collaborations with local government and how is knowledge created? What roles do the different stakeholders assume in those multi-stakeholder collaborations and what are their individual benefits?

This international comparative case study analysed approaches of institutional collaboration in Amsterdam (Netherlands) and Vancouver (Canada). Data was gathered through qualitative stakeholder interviews and analysed using content analysis. This led to the formulation of a category system for analysing experimental collaborations.

Despite the differences in how knowledge institutes are involved in multi-stakeholder collaborations, there are also similarities. What has been observed is the intensive use of students in educational-led experiments as a key resource. Students receive experiential learning which incorporates multi-disciplinary problem-solving. Looking at students as a subgroup has provided new insights into collaboration. It is

recommended to sub-divide knowledge institutes as a stakeholder group to reflect students’ positionality for building trust-relationships. The category system

established in this study could aid future comparative analysis of experiments. Future studies should conduct pre- and post-test interviews with stakeholders in experiments to see how or whether their perceptions changed as a consequence of participation.

Keywords

:

2

Acknowledgements

At the beginning I would like to extend my gratitude to all those people who have been involved in the making of this thesis project. Without their support and assistance it would not have been possible.

First and foremost my thanks go to Luca Bertolini for his enduring support and critical input over the lifetime of this project. Although it sometimes was a bumpy ride, his continued guidance helped me organise my thoughts more clearly.

I would further like to thank all participants and respondents from both Amsterdam and Vancouver for providing their time and perspective towards this research. It was a pleasure meeting everyone on a professional and personal level. On this front I extend special gratitude to Erick Villagomez for his help in establishing connections with respondents and his warm attitude.

Also thanks to my family and girlfriend, who have given me unconditional and valuable feedback throughout my whole degree, for which I am deeply grateful.

3

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

1 Introduction ... 4

2 Literature Review and Research Questions ... 5

2.1 Theoretical Background ... 5 2.2 Research Questions ... 13 3 Research Design ... 14 3.1 Conceptual Scheme ... 14 3.2 Case Selection... 16 3.3 Research Methods ... 24 3.4 Data Analysis ... 28 3.5 Data Collection ... 32 4 Results ... 35 4.1 Vancouver - Citystudio... 35 4.2 Amsterdam - BOOT ...51 5 Discussion ... 64

5.1 Main RQ: Involvement of Knowledge Institutes ... 65

5.2 SQ1: Role Allocation in Multi-Stakeholder Collaborations ... 74

5.3 SQ2: Benefits and Challenges ... 78

5.4 Research Limitations ... 81

6 Conclusion and Future Outlook ... 83

7 References ...85

4

1 I

NTRODUCTION

Cities are no static entities, rather they are continuously changing with and according to their environment. And so are the issues and challenges they are facing. Today many cities are facing affordable housing shortages, rising pollution levels, inequalities and the negative impacts of climate change. Cities are exposed to different degrees of these issues, wherefore a trial-and-error-based approach to finding locally applicable solutions has gained prominence.

Cities have also become important places of transformative change (Bulkeley et al, 2011). Particularly so because they contain high degrees of complexity and interaction between many stakeholders and economic activities with a high

concentration of resources and knowledge (Fuenfschilling et al, 2019). The diversity of their populations include many layers of socio-economic and educational

backgrounds (Frantzeskaki et al, 2017).

This comes into a time where people are looking for increased participation in urban development activities (Kamaci, 2014) and increased democratic decision-making, while local governments seek more legitimate outcomes (Voorberg et al, 2015). Cities, municipal planners and other decision makers therefore required to find ways to balance/exploit the existing knowledge of all urban stakeholders and realise new opportunities (Nielsen et al, 2019).

Introducing new measures and experimenting with existing ones is no new concept. It’s application however is. The increasing pace of change presents new challenges for cities, as they require faster and more flexible problem-solving approaches. Pressures of austerity policy and public spending cuts across western countries have made way for new organisations and institutions to fill voids created by a receding government (Peck et al, 2009). Collaboration between different urban stakeholders is therefore an essential task for cities. In order to solve urban issues, scientific knowledge plays an increasingly important role.

But who are these stakeholders involved in making a city? And what does institutional experimentation offer cities to address current challenges and issues differently than before?

5

2 L

ITERATURE

R

EVIEW AND

R

ESEARCH

Q

UESTIONS

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Describing Urban Experiments

Generally, the term “urban experiment” refers to a variety of experimental projects of a participatory nature (Nesti, 2018). Also termed, living labs, urban living labs, city laboratory, field lab or hub (Steen and van Bueren, 2017), all of these refer to similar ideas, namely to develop, try out and test innovative urban solutions in a real-life context (ibid). The on-the-ground nature of projects, field-sites embedded in real-life contexts, is merged with credibility from laboratories as something

controllable, measurable and generalisable (Gieryn, 2006). In turn this allows

experiments to make legitimate scientific claims. The idea of science as measurable truth that simultaneously stems from real-life observations makes the concept strong in its theoretical foundation. Context-dependency then is part of the idea of

experimentation, offering a frame for organising development activities according to local requirements.

Within the literature context-dependency of experiments is one of their main features (Frantzeskaki et al, 2018). These include institutional structures, policy environment and political power distribution in which experiments are embedded. It plays a role in understanding experimentation both individually and generally.

This chapter starts by reviewing the literature around urban experimentation. Since the literature covering this topic engages many different disciplines, the presented

literature will invariably only include some of the voices that partake in the conversation. Seeking to better understand the concept, one definition of urban experiments is

presented.

Problematising the composition of stakeholders in experimentation, the focus is gradually put on collaboration models that involve knowledge institutes. This comes out of potential difficulties surrounding roles and expectations that are ascribed to them within the literature.

The chapter concludes in questioning what knowledge is leveraged through experimentation as a consequence of the role distribution and employed processes within collaborative partnerships.

6

The ability of the concept to operate across a wide range of different disciplines lies within its very nature. Experimental projects can be found in areas such as climate change mitigation, sustainability, transportation, creative industries, new technologies and social innovation (Caprotti and Cowley, 2017). While this offers a powerful reconstruction of urban development activities, it concurrently makes defining the concept even harder. Each domain has differing perceptions about the nature and purpose of experimentation. Within sustainability transitions literature there is a focus on bounded urban experiments in areas such as climate change (Bulkeley and Castan Broto, 2013) and experimental urban governance (Evans, 2011; Evans and Karvonen, 2014). In contrast public sector literature focusses on the way central and local government can maximise innovation capacities through

experimental practices (Askim et al, 2018). Studies have conceptualized the

geographically bounded nature of experiments differently, where some are focusing on individual buildings (Brown and Vergragt, 2008), while others take whole cities as experimental arenas (McLean et al, 2016).

So although there is consensus around experimentation being a placed-based intervention with participatory elements through new partnerships, there is much less clarity on their scales and objectives. This is something that presents its own

challenges, particularly when it comes to defining the concept.

Defining Urban Experiments

Synthesising the concept into a coherent definition is difficult. Not at least because of the widespread application with differing methodologies, but also due to the variety in experiments the world over. Despite the concept being defined by its indeterminacy, potentially acting as an “empty signifier” (Caprotti and Cowley, 2017), Sengers et al. (2016) have tried a definition adopting a sustainability lens, and define an urban experiment as:

An inclusive, practice-based and challenge-led initiative designed to promote system innovation through social learning under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity

7

While some definitions cover whole pages, this definition is not second to none of them regarding its substance. There are six distinctive elements identified here which require further explanation.

Through the inclusion of a variety of different stakeholders, the idea is that one can learn about the range of impacts, benefits and risks for different social actors through innovation in the system. Enabling participation early-on in projects makes involvement more democratic and outcomes more socially-robust or acceptable (Sengers et al, 2016). Although experiments are not laboratories in the strictness of senses, they nonetheless emulate an environment of isolated projects and trialling out solutions. This is their practice-based nature, occurring outside of the

conventional laboratory under real-life conditions.

The notion of societal-challenge denounces the co-design of the problem frame by a diverse network of social actors involved. By adopting the idea of a common challenge, different stakeholders can be brought into conversation with each other and give purpose to the undertaking. This allows the integration of

different perspectives and abilities. Where system-innovation is concerned, this refers to co-evolutionary processes of far-reaching changes in technological, institutional, infrastructural and social dimensions of a system. Such systems could be an energy system or even a whole city. Important is the drive for innovation in making changes within an operating frame (Sengers et al, 2016).

Experiments aim to stimulate practical, network and institutional learning including the development of new producer-user relationships, regulations, user and social practices etc. Facilitating this requires systemic learning-by-doing and a broad-based iterative approach to learning. The inclusion of a greater variety of social actors and interests implies that there will be diverse – and often misaligned and conflicting – values and interest at play. The negotiation of these values through an experiment is an intrinsic part of the process of innovation and social learning, introducing ambiguity to goal-setting and problem solving. It also introduces deep uncertainty into the pace, direction and substance of the problems, obstacles, solutions adjustments and changes that emerge and are tackled through the experiment.

In this definition, experiments become strategic interventions that expand the frame of possibility. They give voices to stakeholders that might not have been heard

8

before and involve them in organising urban activity. Although there might be conflictual relationships or opinions between stakeholders, the shared learning process under the umbrella of a common agenda is seen to make decision-making more democratic, while risks involved could be identified earlier to minimise future impacts. All of which is happening within a framework in which collaboratively trying out new ways of planning cities. It is precisely this which gives such prominence to urban experimentation as compared to other concepts, in that it can address and combine many different challenges, disciplines and stakeholders under its wing.

Although inclusivity is an integral element of this definition, the assumption that each stakeholder has equal power in the process might at times be more an

aspiration than a reality. Some cases highlight the difficulty of engaging stakeholders as envisioned (van Winden et al, 2016) or their perceived role naturally positions them apart from others (Chatterton et al, 2018). Hence, while inclusivity seeks to make experimentation a more democratic way of participation, this also depends on self- and common-efficacy of stakeholders to effectively collaborate together.

Particularly then in relation to the socio-political nature of experiments, their internal politics are quite significant (Evans, 2016).

Stakeholder Composition

The way that experiments are participatory is through the involvement of a variety of stakeholders opening up the possibility of knowledge exchange. To

understand stakeholders and what their contribution to experiments can be, the idea of a “quadruple helix” is often employed. Here four main stakeholder groups are identified: Users, Private Actors, Public Actors and Knowledge Institutes. Each represents a different perspective which provide their own knowledge and skills to experimentation (Fig. 1).

Users are generally understood as a wider public that is the target group of an

intervention or new product. They are ascribed to be the behavioural definers of the eventual outcomes. As such they provide feedback on the feasibility and applicability to local issues of the intervention (Steen and van Bueren, 2017).

9

Private Actors often have the largest resources and practical know-how of

how to manage and run projects. These can be big companies or other market actors (ibid.).

Public Actors can also be understood as local government bodies, which are

setting the framework of the projects, provide the long-term perspective on

interventions and their implementation. They further act as the regulatory body (ibid.)

Knowledge Institutes are seen as providing scientific substantiation in

projects as well as providing academic expertise (ibid.).

While this conceptualisation of stakeholder groups helps delineating different interest groups, questions around the roles stakeholders have, or should have, in experimental spaces is an ongoing issue (Fuenfschilling et al, 2019; Raven et al, 2017). Engagement of many perspectives is seen as increasing democracy in the city and legitimising actions by local government, which is often seen as detached from peoples’ needs and wants (Kathi et al, 2007). When people trust their government,

10

they are more empowered to take policy risks and innovate (Fitzgerald and Wolak, 2016). Trust is higher when people are satisfied with local services. But trust in local government also finds a basis in community life and social connections offering a reservoir of public trust (ibid). Engagement of users is therefore crucial for

experimentation to build public trust relationships (Kathi et al, 2007).

Collaboration then entails the promise of increasing trust. At the same time, this is no simple task. The roles of involved stakeholders have to be formulated within a field of tension, where participants are urged to cope with possibly contradictory role expectations and limited resources. Simultaneously they are expected to adopt, re-interpret and subvert given role models (Voorberg et al, 2015). The collaboration between different stakeholders therefore can challenge current working practices. They might also, however, give prominence to already established ones which can position themselves strategically through new partnerships.

This introduces an element of uncertainty into the stakeholder group model outlined above, whereby closer examination of diversity of roles and their impact on collaboration processes would help understand which actors should be involved in transitions to more sustainable urban environments (Burch et al, 2018).

Local governments across many places are seeking to generate new knowledge in the pursuit of sustainable cities and economic competition. Far from being set in stone, stakeholder expectations and roles have to be negotiated continuously. This also is part of context-dependency, as the expectation of stakeholders will differ from place to place, depending on the respective understanding of each role. Social learning, promising the generation of new knowledge and processes in collaborative exercises, then relies on the common-efficacy of stakeholders to share their experience and to create a common agenda (Chatterton et al, 2018).

Knowledge institutes

Another important stakeholder group in experimentation and innovation

activities are knowledge institutes. They bring scientific knowledge and substantiation into experimentation. Collaborating with them bears great potential for legitimacy of outcomes. Nonetheless, universities, like many publicly-funded organizations need to

11

explore ways of doing more with less (Pratt et al, 2011). Both local government and knowledge institutes are therefore seeking new ways of closer collaboration to alleviate some of their individual pressures.

Trying to bridge the connection between local government and civil society, knowledge institutes can assume a special role of mediator. The central

understanding is that academic institutions can play a critical role by providing a forum and guidance for civic parties to deliberate in a collaborative exercise. When communities experience power imbalances and/or information asymmetry, mediating institutions can improve trust in part by ensuring the trustworthiness of participants or by levelling the playing field (Kathi et al, 2007).

Knowledge institutes further play an important role to organise common learning processes and activities (Majoor et al, 2017) or assist linking theory and practice (Kathi et al, 2007). Experimentation can flourish where community networks geographically overlap and encompass more than one university campus (Pratt et al, 2011).

One of the first engagements of experimentation and knowledge institutes was described by Bajgier et al. (1991), where an university course was taught using an inner-city neighbourhood of Philadelphia as an urban experiment. Here the aim was to teach students a problem-solving approach while interacting with a neighbourhood community. The community gained a new, no-cost resource that offered a neutral forum for conflict resolution and high quality analyses, while students could apply skills to real-world problems (ibid). Similarly, Juujärvi and Pesso (2013) in their study on actor roles in urban experiments found that students as innovators and teachers as service experts provide an extra resource that should be utilised more. More recently, a number of scholars have pointed towards the role of students as social agents of change in experimental, real-world and sustainability-led processes (Rosenberg Daneri et al, 2015; Trencher et al, 2016).

There are downsides to their involvement also, where faculty members and students may also not have practical knowledge about how government actually works, impeding rather than helping (Kathi et al, 2007). Further, university

participants can also be viewed as elitist, and community groups can find it difficult to gain access to them (Chatterton et al, 2018). Across the literature the involvement of

12

students in co-creation and knowledge production in experimental settings is as of yet underrepresented (Trencher et al, 2015).

Through the engagement of universities and their students in experiments, the boundaries between knowledge makers and knowledge users are dissolved. In effect then science is increasingly intermingled with governance (Evans and Karvonen, 2014). On one hand this blurring of boundaries, this collaborative and iterative

process of shared learning could help democratize the research process and lead to more socially just change (Campbell and Vanderhoven, 2016). On the other hand, the position of higher power and knowledge of university participants could also favour particular viewpoints or interests (Chatterton et al, 2018).

For knowledge institutes, experimentation could provide the opportunity to establish learning environments as well as increase involvement in neighbourhood-building capacities (Trencher et al, 2017). Students could benefit through new educational learning environments. Neighbourhoods and users might receive extra support free of charge. For local government experimentation could mean internal renewal with innovation being minimally disruptive to their current operations (Dorstewitz, 2014; Evans, 2016)

Experimental Knowledge Creation

Whilst scholars have examined the sustainable city, less emphasis is placed on the relationships between knowledge, the city and experimentation from a social epistemological point of view (May and Perry, 2016). The way that local government are harnessing knowledge production within their contexts and how findings are subsequently translated into urban reality requires closer study (Evans and

Karvonen, 2014). The question then becomes what knowledge is being created in urban experiments that involve knowledge institutes and what its impact is local government. This is by no means a one-way street. Reversely could there also be an impact of local government on universities through collaboration in experimental settings? Or are there also other directions that impact is affecting stakeholders through collaboration?

How are other stakeholders involved in these partnerships between local government and knowledge institutes? Whose knowledge is being shared? What role

13

do universities take in innovation processes? What are the different roles that

stakeholders assume in these experiments? How are different cities harnessing their local knowledge infrastructure for the public benefit? These questions guided the formulation of this study’s research questions.

2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Following the literature review and the identified knowledge gaps in the debates, the research questions of this study are:

Main Research Question:

How are knowledge institutes involved in multi-stakeholder collaborations with local government and how is knowledge created?

Sub-question 1:

What roles do the different stakeholders assume in multi-stakeholder collaborations?

Sub-question 2:

How do stakeholders assess benefits and challenges of those multi-stakeholder collaborations?

In order to answer the research questions, chapter three will lay out the research design. This includes the conceptual scheme, case selection, research methods, data analysis and data collection. Chapter four presents the results of each case study in greater detail to inform the subsequent discussion of findings in chapter five. Here the research questions are discussed using the findings of each case study against the backdrop of academic debates, and limitations presented. The

conclusions in chapter six summarise the main arguments of this research project and provides a future outlook.

14

3 R

ESEARCH

D

ESIGN

3.1 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME

The main scope of this research project was to investigate the ways that knowledge institutes and local government are collaborating in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Investigating the way that knowledge institutes (X1) and local government (X2) are collaborating for the creation of knowledge through

experimental partnerships (Y) with other stakeholders (X3), sought to uncover the roles that are ascribed to the each stakeholder. Collaboration is further understood to be in constant exchange with stakeholder groups and depending upon them,

wherefore the indicated arrows go in both directions. This is to reflect the fact that collaboration might affect each of these stakeholders as a consequence of

participating (Fig. 2).

This chapter starts by laying out the conceptual model relating to the research question. After explaining the chosen comparative multiple-case study approach, the case selection criteria as well as the actually selected cases are presented.

Both the rational for choosing specific study methods and their scientific relevance are then highlighted. These consists of qualitative stakeholder interviews and document analysis of what is termed “academic reporting” and “official documentation”.

The on-following description of qualitative content analysis has led to the

formulation of six categories: Collaboration, Stakeholders, Context, Outcomes, Challenges and Surprise. Ultimately the collected stakeholder data is presented.

Y X1 X2 X3 Xn Fig. 2: Conceptual research scheme

15

At the same time the influence of the political and policy environment that might affect the collaboration is omnipresent. Other factors that might emerge during the research are also accommodated for (Xn). The variable of collaboration was measured using stakeholder interviews and document analysis, accounting for the influences of the here conceptualised factors.

Case Study Approach

Although there have been efforts to report about a variety of experiments and interventions (Bulkeley and Castan-Broto, 2013; Nesti, 2018), arguably the most common form of academic inquiry is by single case-study design (Chatterton et al, 2018; Dorstewitz, 2014; Gopakumar, 2014). The inherently intricate play between context and collaboration requires careful examination. This speaks in favour of the case-study for in-depth inquiry into a particular event (Yin, 2015). Following the three-step procedure proposed by Yin (2015) a case-study design is appropriate when (1) “how” questions are asked about (2) a contemporary set of events (3) over which little or no control can be exerted.

Taking this approach allows to examine interventions in close detail, enabling a rich understanding of a single phenomenon. An even richer understanding,

however, can be gained from interrogating multiple interventions using similar metrics and methods. Therefore it was decided that comparative multiple-case study design would be the most appropriate method for conducting this research project.

Although there are numerous individual case studies of partnerships between knowledge institutes and societal stakeholders (Trencher et al, 2015), comparative case studies are still missing (Scholl and Kemp, 2016). Despite these becoming more frequent, the widespread adoption and sheer number of experimental collaboration models makes this a timely research agenda (Evans et al, 2016). Directly contrasting different collaboration models, whilst paying particular attention to the way that

knowledge institutes and local government collaborate.

Another benefit of multiple-case studies is that they strengthen or broaden the analytic generalisations (Yin, 2009). Although this research project does not have generalising ambitions, contrasting cases within the same study could help tease out particular similarities and differences that might be lost within individual case

16

analysis. The expectation would therefore be that multiple case evidence could be brought into dialogue more robustly.

The research project therefore has been set up using a literal replication model (Yin, 2009), seeking to interrogate two instances of collaboration. Based on the available literature it is expected that different places have different stakeholders with different levels of influence and hence roles.

3.2 CASE SELECTION

Choosing a multiple-case study approach requires a careful of selection of cases to compare. Expectations of how each case fits into the bigger frame of this research is an important consideration, as well as the chosen comparative case. In order to provide background on the selection process, the criteria for choosing environments in which to look for cases are described hereafter.

3.2.1 Criteria

The selection of cases for this research project has been greatly influenced by the conditions that different literatures prescribe experimentation. A theoretically and definition-driven approach for identifying relevant contexts of the wider population of experiments has been used. Taking those conditions into account, two cities have been chosen expressing those conditions. This research project therefore focused on one experimental collaboration from Vancouver (Canada) and one from Amsterdam (Netherlands).

One important factor in the occurrence of experimentation is their spatiality. Not only their contextual dependence, but their geographical location. This comes in a time when cities generally have risen in status and influence (Sassen, 2005), and hence are important drivers of innovation activities. Although innovation is hard to quantify, analytical investment company 2thinknow has developed a global city index of innovation opportunities. Using 162 indicators to inform their three main factors

Cultural Assets, Human Infrastructure and Networked Markets, they provide an

17

almost identical scores, Amsterdam with 50 and Vancouver 49 (2thinknow, 2018). The uppermost innovative city reaches a score of 56, which places both cities high-up on the ranking (Tab. 1).

Secondly a strong sustainability focus is often the case when considering experimentation, since this is an area where a lot of initiatives are happening. According to the environmental sub-index of consultancy agency Arcadis’

Sustainable City Index 2018, Amsterdam and Vancouver are neck-on-neck on places

16 and 17 respectively (Arcadis, 2018) .

Thirdly there should be a focus on creating sustainability policies by local government, as are generally able to mobilise resources and knowledge of

stakeholders for sustainable innovation. Vancouver (City of Vancouver, 2012) and Amsterdam (Gemeente, 2015) again display this condition.

Fourthly, not only is the presence of knowledge institutes required, but also the amount of those agglomerated in space. Particularly places with a multitude of

overlapping such institutes can provide the necessary capacity to foster an

experimental environment (Pratt et al, 2011). Here Amsterdam (Education Providers) and Vancouver (British Columbia) provide such environments.

Tab. 1: Case Selection Criteria

Amsterdam Vancouver

2thinknow Innovation Cities

Program: Global Index 2018 Score 50 Score 49

Arcadis Sustainability Index 2018 Score 16 Score 17

City Sustainability Policy Agenda Duurzam Amsterdam

Greenest City Action Plan

18

3.2.2 Citystudio – Vancouver

Within the City of Vancouver and its surrounding municipalities there are, and have been, numerous collaborations between knowledge institutes, local

government, private companies and community organisations, each with their own objectives and histories (Curry, 2015). They heavily depend on relationships, trust and their common history (ibid). And while many of these collaborations might be bringing positive change towards realising more sustainable futures, there is one collaboration model that has attracted quite some attention. This is largely due to its ability to bring together local government, knowledge institutes and other

stakeholders in an experimental, yet organised, manner.

Called the “Citystudio”, it is an innovation hub inside City Hall where staff, university students, and community members co-create, design, and launch projects on the ground (Fig. 3)

Back in 2009, the then mayor initiated a special committee to find ways how Vancouver could become a more sustainable city (Mitchell, 2014). The idea for a collaborative platform connecting different stakeholders came out of a competition of

Fig. 3: Citystudio Framework (Citystudio, 2017: 6)

- Simon Fraser University - University of British Columbia - Emily Carr University

- Langara College

- British Columbia Institute of Technology

19

the municipality called “Talk Green To Us”, inviting community input on how to

achieve the city’s sustainability targets (GC, 2020). Based on a public voting system, the idea of Citystudio, then called City University, finished in fourth place. It was proposed by two former local university professors. The project was aiming to provide a new perspective on dramatically increasing experimental capacities in achieving the “Greenest City Action Plan” (City of Vancouver, 2012), Vancouver’s official sustainability policy. Acting as a mediator, the Citystudio strategically connects local government with six local post-secondary learning institutions. The aim is to

“investigate and generate solutions for issues related to Greenest City goals” (ibid, 16).

One of main features of Citystudio is its use of design-thinking theory in its projects. Design-thinking generally describes a process of finding adequate solutions to complex issues, and is widely viewed as a problem-solving process that involves multiple disciplines (Beckman and Barry, 2007). It further has recognisable phases of search and understanding, which end with synthetic phases of experimentation and innovation (ibid). The different stages are:

 Empathise: building empathy for users by learning their problems  Define: unpack empathy findings into needs and insights and scope

meaningful challenge

 Ideate: generate radical design alternatives, explore wide solution  Prototype: getting ideas out of the head into the world

 Test: gather feedback, refine solutions and continue learning (Institute of Design at Stanford, 2018) (Fig.3)

This methodology builds the methodological backdrop with which the different stakeholders are collaborating in projects. As such, students guided by professors, city staff and particularly community organisations, try innovate within the

collaborative framework of Citystudio. This can happen either in Citystudio’s own “studio course” or so called “campus courses” (Citystudio, 2017).

Regarding the studio course, this is a program where through competitive application around 20 students are able to participate in a semester long intensive educational programme. Students from all partner institutes can apply and it rewards

20

them with 15 credits (30 ECTS). Within this program, students are taken through design-thinking exercises to develop a range of skills, including problem solving, dialogue, leadership, communication and project management amongst others (Burch et al, 2018). Students receive a weekly schedule which includes different activities. This program is further split into two parts, where the first part involves a theoretical grounding, since students come from an interdisciplinary set of study backgrounds. In addition the first half of the course involves a “mini-project”, which lets students try out knowledge and skills they gathered so far and to receive

feedback on their individual approaches. Subsequently the final project takes place in the second half of the course and is based on co-creational learning between

students, city staff, faculty and community members (Burch et al, 2018).

Another option for Citystudio projects is through campus courses. Here

Citystudio acts as a matchmaker between the involved knowledge institutes and City

staff. Themes that the local government is working on are strategically matched with the curriculum and objectives of university professors. This includes professors potentially adapting their curriculum as they see fit in order to participate with their students. The idea is that instead of working on fictional projects, students will get the opportunity to try out ideas in a real-life setting (Earl et al, 2018). Project themes that students have worked on range from green buildings, placemaking, biodiversity, green economy, zero waste, community engagement, urban agriculture, health and safety, social inclusion, food waste and many others (Kerrigan, 2018).

The idea of community-led projects is enacted by students intensively consulting with community organisations about their needs before and during their projects. The amount of engagement between stakeholders depends on the nature of the project and the particular stakeholders involved. As a consequence of which there can be projects with more or less engagement. The variety of engagement processes is due to the different forms a Citystudio project can take (Fig.4).

By being able to focus on education, research and institutional change, this collaboration framework seems to offer a route for strategic interventions in times of uncertainty regarding sustainable solutions. Citystudio’s aim is to normalise

experiential learning and civic action as key elements within higher education (Citystudio, 2017).

21

Funding of Citystudio is covered partly by local government and the partner institutes. The latter mostly cover the actual project costs. Citystudio further has a physical location in which they provide courses and workshops, which generate revenue (Earl et al, 2018). Other sources of income include donations from

philanthropists and other organisations which have a shared agenda with Citystudio.

Choosing this collaboration model was therefore guided by the strong focus on involving knowledge institutes to work together with local government and other stakeholders in an experimental yet structured fashion.

3.2.3 Buurtwinkel voor Onderwijs, Onderzoek en Talentontwikkeling – Amsterdam

In choosing an experiment in Amsterdam a strategic choice had to be made as well. Especially because within this context collaborations between knowledge institutes, local government and other stakeholders are also a common occurrence. Being home to research-oriented as well as more practical institutes, there is a strong knowledge base that is being brought into local operations.

One collaboration that was also established in response to a government initiated policy programme was the “Buurtwinkel voor Onderwijs, Onderzoek en

Talentontwikkeling” (BOOT) or “Corner shop for education, research and fostering talent”. Situated within the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool

22

van Amsterdam), BOOT is its operating base for research practices in Amsterdam’s neighbourhoods (BOOT, 2018).

BOOT was the HvAs response to the Dutch national Community Development

Programme (Wijkanpaak) which was started in 2008 (Broersma et al, 2016). The

mission of the programme was a more holistic approach to providing welfare services within the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, of which some were situated in Amsterdam. The question became how the HvA, as the biggest institute for professional education in Amsterdam, could provide its knowledge as well as teachers, students and researchers in improving those neighbourhoods. Identifying the most socially challenged neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, the HvA

strategically connected to that programme through its practically-oriented education.

It was decided that the HvA would create physical locations in identified

neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, in which learning environments would be created to match issues of city stakeholders with university students.

From 2011 onwards, BOOT therefore formally started offering financial and legal services at different locations within the neighbourhoods. There are three of those locations at the moment. Hundreds of students from different departments pass through BOOT every year and provide their knowledge to the neighbourhoods (Fig. 5). In collaboration with HvA departments, they also started offering specific

neighbourhood programs, such as De Keukentafel or the Amsterdamse Zak (Majoor et al, 2017).

Similarly, in this approach there are different ways in which students can participate. As part of a bachelor study at the HvA, students have to do a practical year working at an organisation, institute or company. BOOT can be one option for students to do their compulsory year-long internship there. Alternatively some study programs have a component in which they collaborate with BOOT. These students would stay a shorter time and be mainly involved in delivering some of the existing BOOT services and programs. Within BOOT exists also the so called “Breeding Pond” (kweekvijver), a talent development platform for bachelor thesis writing with supervision within the neighbourhoods. There are also possibilities for international exchange students with project components as requirements of their studies to participate in BOOT.

23

Projects themselves are entirely community-led with input from the students based on a “service-learning” methodology. This is an instructional method in which students take study skills and put them into practice in community projects (Eyler et al, 1999). Service-learning is intrinsically based on experiential learning, or learning by doing, whereby learning is understood as “the process whereby knowledge is

created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984: 41).

Projects are initiated in response to community organisations or members approaching BOOT with questions regarding their neighbourhood. These projects are then matched with students from the HvA and carried out in an open format, by which every project can take a different direction, approach and eventually outcome. In so doing maximum flexibility can be retained to incorporate a large number of students to match with relevant neighbourhood challenges.

Local government is mainly involved in receiving feedback from BOOT coordinators about initiatives and interventions that were or were not successful. Otherwise students are not involved with City staff directly, but rather support community organisations and build relationships in the neighbourhoods. Local government further provide funding for each BOOT location. Local government is

Figure 5: BOOT framework (created by author)

Input Output Feedback Leadership Management Feedback Provide Participate

24

further providing funding with the HvA putting the same amount towards the overall costs. The physical neighbourhood locations are leased from housing corporations free of charge.

BOOT is situated within the research programme Urban Management at the HvA and the BOOT manager is directly supervised by the Urban Management

director. As such although BOOT is presented as an independent organisation which the HvA can use for its research operations within neighbourhoods, the concept is firmly placed within the university structure.

Again choosing this collaboration model was guided by the prevalence of institutional and government involvement within urban development activities.

3.3 RESEARCH METHODS

Within the decision to conduct a comparative multiple-case study,

considerations of the appropriate methods in gathering evidence were fundamental. A range of methods are available for social science research, many of which require different abilities of a researcher, all of which represent practices of doing social science (Abbott, 2004).

Doing research depends on the prior understanding of what individual methods are contributing to the understanding of the phenomenon in question. For this research project a set of methods has been employed to understand, describe and ultimately analyse the collaborations in detail. Presented on-following is the selection of methods for this research project. These include both stakeholder interviews and document analysis.

3.3.1 Interviews

For this research project, interviews have been selected as a method of collecting primary data in form of stakeholder interviews. Qualitative interviewing

25

naturally lends itself to the study of how individuals experience some phenomenon (Brinkman, 2013).

The choice of qualitative interviews as opposed to other methods has been a strategic one. Chatterton et al. (2018) describing the difficulty of social interaction involving academics, one can readily imagine the importance of dialogue in stakeholder interaction. There are more and less vocal participants, with varying knowledge concerning different areas, and of course the intricacies of group

dynamics in general. Learning about benefits and challenges from respondents can constitute a valid and necessary experiential dimension of experimentation (ibid). Staying open-minded and embracing others is no easy task. And so collaboration cannot and will not be free of basic challenges of interaction.

The lived experience of individuals is invariably subjective. Approaching interviews as a revelatory method reflects the assumptions made earlier about the phenomenon itself hinging on internal capacity and efficacy of stakeholders to create a common agenda. Knowledge is situated and contingent upon interaction between stakeholders, whereby only they themselves can identify what is happening in their own place and time. In other words, they have privileged access to their own reality (Abbott, 2004).

Qualitative interviews have further been chosen to understand the internal and potentially conflicting perspectives of participants that might not make it into final reports or policy documents. Uncovering collaboration practices and individual

perspectives can help elicit a better understanding, not only how collaboration models work, but also how participants perceive its process.

Therefore an interview guide has been constructed prior to conducting the interviews to identify differing experiences that stakeholders could provide (Appendix 8.1). Based on participant responses the guide for subsequent interviews was

amended accordingly, incorporating new directions in the research. While the aim was to stick to the composed questions, their semi-structured nature allowed for deviation. Some conversations therefore brought up surprising elements. Sometimes also elements outside the scope of the main research question.

Constructing the interview guide was informed by the literature review. This provided for the initial starting point in understanding experimental collaboration

26

between knowledge institutes, local government and other stakeholders. Taking these ideas and building on them further, they were tailored to each specific

stakeholder group. For example contextual questions about environmental factors or nature of the collaboration were mainly addressed at higher level of management, rather than students. Although it naturally came up in those conversations as well, it was more by chance than by intention.

The element of surprise as well as the ability to discover areas not envisioned relevant before were further reasons for the employment of interviews. As Yin (2009) points out these revelations might necessitate a change in the initial research design. This has been the case in this project (Appendix 8.2).

3.3.2 Document Analysis

For research purposes document analysis presents a particularly applicable method for qualitative case studies, which seek to produce rich descriptions of a phenomenon, event or program (Yin, 2015).

Analysing documents presents one systematic approach of evaluation. Meaning is elicited through the interpretation of data, which subsequently can

become empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009). Document analysis can provide a range of information and data, mainly excerpts and quotations (ibid.) which are then to be organised into themes and subsequently categories through content analysis.

This iterative process combines elements of content analysis and thematic analysis. Content analysis is the process of organising information into categories related to the central questions of the research. Thematic analysis is a form of pattern recognition within the data, with emerging themes becoming the categories for

analysis. Overall, documents provide background and context, additional questions to be asked, supplementary data, a means of tracking change and verification of findings (ibid.)

Documents should not be treated as necessarily precise, accurate, or

complete recordings of events that have occurred (Bowen, 2009). Rather they should be seen as social actors of themselves, which are to be understood within their

27

assessing any social situation at a single moment is precisely the inability to see the snapshot merely as part of a bigger picture (Abbott, 2004). The complimentary triangulation of evidence can therefore validate and strengthen the basis on which claims are made.

Triangulating research evidence, the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon, attempts to provide “a confluence of evidence that

breeds credibility” (Bowen, 2009: 3). Thereby using multiple research methods is

seen as increasing the validity of a study (Fig.6). It helps guard against the

accusation that a study’s findings are simply an artefact of a single method, a single source, or a single investigator’s bias (ibid).

For this research, a distinction has been made between “Academic Reporting” and “Official Documents”. Despite them being subjected to a similar method of

analysis, their character is seen as inherently different. As such the former refers to academic literature or reports that exist about a case. This is seen as fundamentally different from the latter, mainly due to its procurement methods. Academic writing itself is a representation of reality, using particular methods, from a particular

standpoint. It is subjected to different standards of writing and reporting, most likely to be peer-reviewed and hence conforming to “industry standards”.

28

As opposed to the primary data collection done through stakeholder interviews, document analysis is advantageous for it rather comprises of data selection (Bowen, 2009). This makes it a cost-effective and less time consuming methodology that can still provide rich detail of events.

And yet while the level of detail can be high this might be only applicable to certain areas. Particularly where biased selection of documents yields similar information. Generally documents can be seen as agents in their own right (Given, 2008). Therefore the documents themselves could already contain a limited scope which could then be further exacerbated through selective sampling. It is an

important consideration to reflect on the origin of these documents and to let that inform the analysis.

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS

3.4.1 Interviews

Interpretation of stakeholder interviews requires dissemination and careful analysis. Particularly considering the positionality of interviewees within a wider context of collaboration. The interviews are thus always interpreted within their context.While personal experiences are valuable sources of information, in order to use them scientifically, an rigorous analytical tool is necessary. This also ensures the objectivity of the researcher so that interpretation bias can be minimised. In turn, this bolsters the replicability and internal validity of the study. Therefore qualitative

content analysis has been chosen as the analytical tool.

Qualitative Content Analysis

The systematic, rule-based and theory-driven characteristics of content analysis provide for a robust analytical tool. Building on Mayring’s conceptualisation of the summarising content analysis (2014), stakeholder interviews were gradually abstracted based on a step-by-step procedure (Fig. 7). Adopting an inductive

perspective is essential for every step of the analytical process: to develop categories further, to summarise and differentiate between them (Kuckartz, 2005). In fact, the

29

prior building of a category system is seen as the central part of any qualitative content analysis. Working with a category system is additionally an important contribution to the comparability of findings and the evaluation of analysis reliability (Mayring, 2014).

This category system, representing all essential statements in relation to the unit of analysis, was hence the basis on which cases could be systematically compared. Overall, the purpose is to reduce a large volume of material to a manageable level (Fig.8), but retaining the essential content (Mayring, 2014).

Fig. 7: Model of summarizing content analysis (Mayring, 2014: 66)

30

Qualitative Content Analysis

The process of the summarising qualitative content analysis followed a theory-and rule-based approach. Here both interview transcripts theory-and notes were analysed using this method. Each step of Mayring’s (2014) methodological procedure

contained specific characteristics.

In a first step of the analysis the unit of analysis was determined, to select relevant text passages from the transcripts. The unit of analysis used for this analysis was “collaboration with knowledge institutes” which included all aspects of the

collaboration model, from participants over the process of actually collaborating. Selecting only content-bearing parts of the interviews, non-relevant ones could be omitted (ibid.).

After selecting, the second step of the analysis was paraphrasing of content-bearing text passages. All components with minimally relevant content were cut, including repetitive and reoccurring elements. Expressions were transposed and transformed to an uniform stylistic level and into grammatically abbreviated form. The selected and paraphrased passages were then generalised onto a higher level of abstraction. Therefore newly formulated abstractions implied old expressions. On-following step four contained a first reduction by cutting semantically identical

paraphrases. Also paraphrases that did not substantially contribute to the content on

Fig. 8: Reduction through summary, length of bar corresponding to amount of material (Mayring, 2014: 79)

31

the new level of abstraction were cut. Additionally paraphrases with reference to similar subjects were combined into one paraphrase (ibid.).

New statements were tested as a category system representing the initial input material. Statements with similar topics were grouped under these categories. The new category system was re-tested through comparison with the initial

paraphrases so as to establish a congruence between in- and output material. Re-testing of categories is an integral part of the process (ibid.).

Based on this procedure all stakeholder interviews were analysed accordingly. Six categories emerged as representing all relevant statements (Fig. 9). The analysis for each stakeholder interview therefore yielded statements that were grouped in one of those categories. Not all interviews contained statements for all categories,

however.

Since this research was particularly interested in the different opinions of stakeholder groups about collaboration and its process, the interviews were further integrated within each stakeholder group. As such, statements for each category within each stakeholder group were taken and further combined and integrated to

Fig. 9: Emergent categories grouping stakeholder interview statements for analytical purposes

32

consolidate all statements per stakeholder group. This resulted in comprehensive and accessible summaries per stakeholder groups using the six category system. These were then used to present the findings of the interviews.

All documents relating to the analysis of this research study have been made available externally (Appendix 8.3).

3.4.2 Documents

Following the stakeholder interview analysis, the output based on the formed category system was then synthesised with the wider environmental context as emerged from documents. Therefore documents were to be analysed for their

statements in relation to the emerging category system. Their content was examined for relevant passages and information that might provide more background for each of the above identified cases.

As explained (Appendix 8.2) the documents were eventually used as complimentary background information, as they could not provide the envisioned information about collaboration. Despite them informing the building of the interview guide and category system, they were merely employed to provide the contextual case descriptions in the end.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION

Data for this research project was collected throughout different stages. In order to make this process transparent, the characteristics of the different interviews such as number of respondents, length, and type of interview are provided for each case study hereafter.

33

3.5.1 Interviews

Within each location, stakeholders of an experiment had to be selected for participation in the research project. Following the initial project identification outlined above was the further identification and contacting of participants to interview. In relation to the main unit of analysis a purposive sampling methodology has been employed. There have been two main strategies of seeking out participants: firstly by online research of completed projects, websites, documents and other reports.

Secondly a snow-balling methodology was used, by which participants would recommend other potential participants generating new participants.

In total 17 interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed using Olympus

DSS Player Pro Transcription and Microsoft Word software. The remaining nine

interviews were supported through taking field-notes. Consent has been given by interviewees verbally before the interview and in writing after receiving a full transcript of their interview. This was done for transparency and double-checking for

interviewees if the transcript corresponded with their opinion. Further this gave the opportunity to clarify inaudible passages on the recordings and making transcripts complete prior to analysis.

Vancouver

In this manner, subsequently a total of 16 Interviews stakeholders in

Vancouver were conducted between October and December 2018 (Appendix 8.4). Of those, 13 interviews have been recorded and three supported by field notes. The ones supported by notes were ‘trial’ interviews, determining the initial direction of the research and were therefore not been included in the subsequent analysis. These are the first three listed interviews. Due to the specificity of the experiment, four main participant groups had been identified. These were: faculty /university staff, students, City staff and Citystudio staff. Interviews were conducted either in a face-to-face meeting or on the phone. The duration of interviews ranged from five minutes to 65 minutes. All interviews were conducted by the author of this research project.

Overall the number of interviews that were conducted within the Vancouver context are sufficient for this project. In light of the research question, there was a certain level of saturation with participants’ answers.

34

Amsterdam

Data in Amsterdam was gathered between March and June 2019. Overall 10 interviews were conducted in that time period (Appendix 8.5). Of those four

interviews were transcribed and the remaining supported by field-notes. In the Amsterdam case, five different stakeholder groups had been identified. These were: HvA faculty, students, BOOT staff, City of Amsterdam staff and community

professional. Interviews lasted between 25 and 77 minutes and all except for one were conducted in face-to-face meetings. Although the number of interviews is not exhaustive, they seemed sufficient for this research project as different stakeholder groups were involved.

3.5.2 Document Analysis

The main identification method for documents had been done through web research. As such it was attempted to find documents originating from involved partners themselves as well as external coverage. The former in search for self-representation of operations and outcomes and the latter for an outsider perspective. Combining the perspectives of documents helped understanding the context and results of collaboration. Listed below are the respective documents that were selected to inform the case background and environment (Tab. 2).

Table 2: Document Analysis

Vancouver Amsterdam

Official Documentation

Citysudio Impact Report // Survey Results 2011-17

Citystudio Annual Report 2017-18 Greenest City Action Plan 2020

Jaarverslaag BOOT 2017 Local Area Plan Oost Agenda Duurzamheid Academic Reporting Kerrigan (2018) Burch et al (2018) Earl et al (2018) Broersma et al. (2016) Majoor et al. (2017)

35

4 R

ESULTS

Hereafter the interview data as based on the content analysis are presented. Not all stakeholders made statements in relation to all the six categories. Where a category for a stakeholder group is missing, there were no specific statements made.

4.1 VANCOUVER - CITYSTUDIO

The results of stakeholder interviews in Vancouver, using the above outlined qualitative content analysis, provided an in-depth account of perspectives and motivations of stakeholders. Represented in this way were four main stakeholder groups, namely: City of Vancouver staff, University staff, Citystudio staff and

students. For each group the main experiences have been thematically categorised, as they emerged from the analysis.

Since the focus of this research project was to a great degree on the way stakeholders collaborate and their personal reflections on the process, these results present an important part of the subsequent discussion.

City of Vancouver staff



City of Vancouver staff welcomed the ability to experiment with reduced

parameters in these projects. Engaged students were able to identify firstly problems outside of the municipalities scope and secondly areas where existing red tape could

This chapter presents the results of both case studies. Using the

methodology outlined in the previous chapter the summarised data is presented hereafter. The building of a categorical classification of interview statements has led to the identification of six main interview categories: Collaboration, Stakeholders, Context, Outcomes, Challenges and Surprise.

36

be removed. In fact creative solutions proposed by students would increase efficiency in delivering existing services.

All the while, the Citystudio framework in which this coordinated

experimentation could take place was stated as beneficial. Particularly valuable because of the opportunity to receive feedback from a youth perspective.

Public engagement depended on the project objectives, where it would serve as a critical reflection on projects. In one case community feedback led to the

discontinuation of a project.



Citystudio’s initial role was described as a support structure for implementing the City of Vancouver’s sustainability targets through a process of strategic and experimental innovation. In pursuit of those aims the framework reduced barriers for student participation and access to City staff. Citystudio was seen as both a cross-pollination platform as well as an effective youth engagement strategy that went beyond traditional election cycles. Students were enablers of wider City goals due to their ability of creating new ideas, identifying other stakeholder problems and

activating citizens to reach the City’s targets.

The idea of challenging City staff through student engagement was embraced by higher level management. Student engagement would in the best case support changing the role of the City from a prescriptive policy creator to a more community-led support and facilitation organiser. This was expressed through the idea of shifting the public’s behavioural patterns. City staffs own role was to support students in projects and show up realistic constraints to their ideas. They generally perceived the interventions as successful.

Through spinning off into its own structure, Citystudio might increase its independence, allowing more critical engagement with the municipality.



Citystudio was supported by previous City Council which was open to new partnerships and initiatives. Adopting sustainability in all city operations and integrating it into the Planning Deparment of the City subsequently pulled all

37

departments together. This also meant a shift towards more collaborative working practices. Although governments are generally risk-averse, this new partnership was seen as injecting creativity and youthful energy in City projects. Especially as

electoral participation among industrial countries is seen in need of new youth engagement strategies, Citystudio could further involvement.



When asked about the variety of potential impacts and outcomes of the collaboration, City staff related those to different stakeholder groups. Reflecting on the changes within their own organization, “student projects” were purportedly inspiring more willingness to experiment. Experimentation has become part of the governments’ working culture.

There are other areas in which the City of Vancouver experienced positive outcomes. Students invested a lot of time in those projects and the level of engagement they achieved led to valuable research and ideas that subsequently could inform other, similar cases. Meanwhile, City staff could also learn from the approaches and strategies that students adopted in their projects. Those could then be employed in achieving the City targets. Therefore, students could make processes more efficient. They were doing so mainly by providing a different perspective and an enriched understanding of problem areas whilst providing the opportunity to fail. It is no surprise then that City staff mentioned the project process being more important than the outcome. Some projects, however, also generated successful physical outcomes.

Involved students benefited through gaining valuable experience with real-world issues, networking opportunities and a foot in the door at the City. At the same time they could become changemakers of their own future society.

With that being said, the Citystudio framework provided a great learning experience for both students and City staff. Of particular importance were the honest reflections of working practices and the piloting of small scale ideas.



Interviews with City staff also highlighted some of the challenges and issues that this group experienced within the collaboration.

38

Although the variety of viewpoints within Citystudio is generally welcomed, it also meant that work could become less focused as a consequence. Within the rather short timeframe, paired with students’ lack of knowledge about project management and risk-assessment, this could further slowdown projects. Therefore the desire for a longer timeframe was expressed frequently. As was the call for more budget to realise projects.

Concurrently the opportunity to be challenged by students and their perspective was generally good. City staff nonetheless expressed the need of a bottom line, where their responsibility also included other tasks beyond collaborating with students.

The possibility of friction between misaligned students and City’s corporate values was further seen as a challenge, despite being a minor one. Some problem areas such as community-behaviour issues are hard to tackle. Here and elsewhere the projects could be interesting, but would not solve problems.



City staff were impressed by the professional qualities and abilities of

students. They were surprised at how quickly small scale work can be implemented and the generally positive reception by other City staff.

University Staff



From the perspective of university and faculty staff the Citystudio framework offered a dual benefit: on one hand grounding university research in a real-world context whilst offering a practical learning experience for students.

The matchmaking process of Citystudio between City staff and professors enabled both sides to articulate realistic requirements and achievable expectations, culminating in a shared agenda. Collaboration with City staff was seen as a