Researchers as knowledge brokers: translating knowledge or co-producing legitimacy? An urban infill case from Finland

ABSTRACT

Knowledge brokering is on the rise in various spheres of knowledge societies. The aim has been to improve the interaction between knowledge production and use. This paper analyses knowledge-brokering activities in the context of urban densification. In an institutionally ambiguous situation we organized a new kind of participatory event for enabling the public discussion on densification to grow. We interpret the event as a boundary interaction, wherein we acted as knowledge brokers. However, the question remains as to what were we actually co-producing: brokered knowledge, novel collaborative partnerships or political legitimacy for a vague planning process?

Call for knowledge brokers

This paper contributes to the current debate on knowledge transformation and interaction in complex public policy problems. The discussion is framed within the context of Finnish land-use planning in the case of urban densification where numerous complex issues are demanding new forms of collaboration. Why should knowledge transformation receive more attention in interaction? We claim, it is the form of knowledge, that fails to meet the needs of the participating public. At least in the Finnish context, the planners have severe difficulties in realizing this. They are producing knowledge that the dwellers misinterpret or do not understand at all. Simultaneously, multiple methods are used to ask the public for various types of knowledge, which the planners later do not even use.

In societies, there are many responses aiming to improve the knowledge producing, moving and translating practices. These practices have created a novel group of actors labelled as knowledge brokers. There has been a wide variety of research made on knowledge translation, boundary practices and knowledge brokers (Guston 2001; Williams 2002; Huitema and Turnhout 2009; Ward, House, and Hamer 2009). However, this debate has not yet reached the context of land-use planning in the manner it has been discussed elsewhere. We want to analyse the potentiality of knowledge brokering in planning practice. We carry this out in an empirical experiment and analyse the knowledge-brokering activities by doing them.

Densification and redevelopment of urban areas set new challenges for participatory planning (Tomalty 2002; Rousseau 2015), as public attitudes towards compact development are best described as complex (Lewis and Baldassare 2010). Since 1999, when the Land-use and Building Act emphasizing public interaction was implemented, Finnish planning practices have developed a rich diversity of participatory methods (Bäcklund and Mäntysalo 2010; Leino 2012). What is noteworthy in the Finnish planning system, is that it is based on a strongly regulated hierarchy of binding land-use plans and a primacy of municipal self-determination. There is a three-tier system of binding land-use plans: regional plan, master plan and detailed plan. The regional plan is a joint municipal activity and the two lower tiers are municipal. The plans, once approved, are binding and must be accounted for in lower-tier planning. The municipalities enjoy a planning monopoly within their territory, which also affects the implementation of the participatory procedures.

However, these participatory methods, although manifold and diverse, no longer apply in the novel situation of urban infill. In Finland, the ownership of the land in cities often belongs in a large part to housing companies formed by the owner-occupiers of the flats. While traditionally and legally the sole purpose of housing companies has been to own and manage buildings that are mainly used as residential flats, in case of infill the housing companies are becoming constructors, or ‘prosumers’, both producing and consuming private residential services. Since housing in Finland is largely based on owing a flat, this has made several citizens small-scale landowners.

The new situation requires reconfiguring the actor relationships in urban planning, as the decision-making power whether to construct ultimately lies with the housing companies. Consequently, Finnish cities need to interact with the dwellers and produce knowledge more intensely than ever before and make the idea of urban densification attractive to the dwellers. Cities worldwide have struggled with the same situation well before Finland. For example, Rousseau (2015, 624) has articulated the problem in the French context as follows: How is the impetus to densify perceived in the highly heterogeneous (historically, economically and socially) urban landscape formed by suburbs? We agree with Rousseau when he claims that the question of how municipalities construe densification appears crucial to comprehending the negotiations shaping the implementation of densification policies (Rousseau 2015, 524), not only in suburbs but also in inner cities. Densification involves significant political and economic stakes and for this reason, planning officials are aware of the need to cooperate more closely with dwellers. Increased need for public interaction along with ambiguous rules and undeveloped practices of urban densification has led to multiple knowledge demands.

In this paper, we go through a participatory experiment conducted in Finland in 2014. This experiment was performed because the ‘rules of the game’ of urban densification and public understanding on infill were unclear. We interpret the experiment as a form of boundary interaction, where we played the role of knowledge brokers (Ward, House, and Hamer 2009; Meyer 2010; Bornbaum et al. 2015). When analysing the experiment, we interpret it as a form of knowledge creation and explore the types of transformed knowledge produced. In addition, we question whether the process produced changes in actor relationships as well as in the policies and practices of the city planning department.

The paper proceeds as follows: In the next section, we review the theoretical concepts of boundary interaction and knowledge brokering, which have helped structure the analysis. Then, we introduce the data and case context, after which we analyse the brokering experiment. Thereafter, we discuss some of the problematic issues that arise when knowledge brokers enter the participatory planning practice. The concluding section sheds light on the relevance of knowledge-brokering activities and discusses further the importance of tailoring knowledge before it is disseminated between different actor groups.

Knowledge production and the role of brokers in urban planning

All phases of the planning procedure include knowledge production as well as the aspect of political decision-making. Preparing planning processes, sketching diverse planning drafts, allocating resources, and finally, ratifying the plan are all political choices (Leino 2012, 386). The knowledge used in planning is gathered, for example, in public hearings, cooperative groups, participatory workshops and Internet applications.

Plans require contribution from multiple actors and diverse fields of knowledge. The actors involved often confront problems that are outside their competence and are forced to negotiate their own competence with that of others (Leino 2012, 387). When knowledge is produced in diverse institutional settings that operate between different social worlds, one challenge is to build bridges among multiple distinct groups and encourage adaptation while permitting divergent interests and unique social norms to persist (O’Mahony and Bechky 2008, 422–459).

Planning procedure serves to frame and define the scale of possible problems involved in the plan, mediates the information flows and provides the opportunity for stabilization and negotiation of boundary spaces responsive to the actors involved (White et al. 2010, 220–221). The participation of divergent actor groups can be interpreted as boundary interaction, a challenging area where actors can produce generative tension between them (Wenger 2003, 84–85). Boundary interaction in practice can create a basis for learning but also for separation, fragmentation and misunderstanding. Opposing pressures and accountability of the actors coming from different social worlds challenge efforts to stabilize boundary interaction. However, boundary interaction can be active, iterative and inclusive communication at best (White et al. 2010, 222). Importantly, it creates a possibility for radically new insights to arise at the interface between different communities.

Wenger (2003, 86) uses the concept of brokers when boundary interaction needs people to introduce elements of one practice to another and thus, enable the common understanding to evolve. Although the planning process can be described as a space of boundary interaction, the interaction between different actors within a planning procedure is usually operated either by the planning official or a hired consultancy. These individuals tend to prioritize the interest of the city, even though they organize public interactions to gather dwellers’ opinions and viewpoints. Thus, the idea to use an external broker or brokers in a planning process, being other than a paid consultant, is new, at least in Finland.

Brokers are more commonly used in the private sector delivering services to several actors (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009; Ward, House, and Hamer 2009). They are, nevertheless, considered neutral third-party actors aiming at reducing uncertainties in a novel situation. Brokers communicate the existing knowledge or knowledge demands, explore the possible alternatives and their implications as well as engage in the particular policy process at hand (Huitema and Turnhout 2009, 580). According to Turnhout et al. (2013), brokers supply knowledge, connect people and facilitate participation. Bornbaum et al. (2015) divide brokering activities into knowledge management, linkage and exchange, and capacity building. These involve several tasks and activities such as identifying and engaging with the stakeholders, facilitating collaboration, identifying relevant information, enhancing stakeholders’ skills, preparing knowledge syntheses, identifying networking opportunities and facilitating and evaluating change.

In sum, much of the brokering work involves gathering knowledge and facilitating collaboration and participation. However, in addition to gathering or redistributing knowledge and enhancing access to it, brokering is about transforming knowledge (Meyer 2010, 120–121). The collective exploration is based on translating knowledge from one world to another. In addition, the translation of knowledge intertwines with the translation of accountability and usability, as the objective of the brokering process is to make knowledge socially, politically and economically more robust (Meyer 2010, 123). This description fits well the needs of many urban planning processes and ambiguous relationships among the city planners, housing companies and the wider public. Paid consultants have facilitated the planning processes around the Western world for decades, but the transformation process between different kinds of knowledge has often been insufficient. This is where knowledge brokering deviates from consultant work: in the process of knowledge transformation. The conventional way of taking care of public participation is gathering and redistributing knowledge, many times involving interaction such as public hearings, planning cafés, workshops and so on. However, the understanding of the type of knowledge needed and the importance of transforming knowledge to suit the needs and understanding of the other party is an undeveloped practice. For this reason, it is interesting to pay more attention to knowledge as a category that has been done in planning research thus far. The vital question is then, what kind of knowledge serves locally and makes the understanding of the phenomena more operable for all actors involved.

For our analysis we use classification of knowledge-brokering tasks by Bornbaum et al. (2015). We arranged the brokering tasks used in this case according to three activity domains: (1) knowledge management, (2) knowledge linkage and exchange and (3) capacity building. First, we needed to go through all the diverse brokering tasks and activities, which were implemented in our case. These activities were, for example, identifying relevant information, facilitating collaboration, supporting communication and information sharing, and project coordination. After organizing the small pieces of activity according to Bornbaum et al. (2015), we moved on to the next level in analysis and arranged the brokering tasks under the three activity domains.

Of course one should bear in mind the possibility of using fashionable brokering work as a political device in a novel situation where the rules and relationships are unclear. This is an important notion when revisiting the political challenge of making urban infill a more attractive phenomenon. As Turnhout et al. (2013, 363) argue, knowledge brokering in particular and participatory processes in general often result in the subjugation rather than empowerment of participants. Inattentiveness to power inequalities in the practices affect outcomes and thus, one should critically analyse the intentions and actual outcomes of knowledge-brokering processes.

Case Tammela

Tampere is the core city of the second largest urban region in Finland with about 3,60,000 residents in the region. The population of the region is expected to grow by 90,000 new inhabitants by 2030 and the city is growing by 2000 residents annually. Tampere has been elected several times, most recently in 2016, as the most desirable place to live in Finland. Urban regeneration is one of the key objectives in the city of Tampere strategy. The basic idea has been to proceed on a neighbourhood- level densification instead of trying to fill in small plots here and there. In 2009, the city planning department officials chose the neighbourhood of Tammela as a pilot for urban infill. The pilot aimed at adding 4000 new inhabitants to the district, which currently houses 6400 residents in approximately 4800 flats. The city council accepted the tentative vision for the Tammela infill, but as explained in the introduction, it is in the hands of resident-owned housing companies to make the final decision whether or not to start the infill in their plot.

We have followed the process from the day the Tammela densification vision was made public in 2012. The local residents were wary in the first public hearing because they did not understand the change in the power relations. Usually the public hearings have been routinized formalities with little actual input to the planning process, but now the dwellers had the dominant position in the final decision-making. Although the planners knew this, they did not change their manoeuvres in the public hearings. After two public hearings in 2012 and 2013, the city planning department sent a letter to the housing companies and invited them to smaller meetings to discuss the infill interests individually within each plot.

In 2013, we were able to cooperate with the city and use the Tammela infill as a case study in one of the university courses. The city planning department asked us to conduct interviews in the area, and especially among the housing company boards. The planning department was keen to know why so many housing company boards had showed no interest in discussing infill development possibilities with the city planners. Thus, the Tammela urban infill development had ended up in a stagnant situation in 2013, and the infill vision was not proceeding as had been hoped at the beginning of the process in 2009.

We along with the students conducted interviews in the area. These 44 interviews made in 2013–2015, cover actor groups such as members of housing company boards, local small entrepreneurs, local planning officials, local politicians and dwellers in general. Based on the interview results, we suggested an experimental interaction forum for the Tammela area. Later, the city planning department showed interest in supporting this novel format of public debate. Consequently, in autumn 2014, the data collection process changed from participatory observations to a more action research-oriented process (Bartels and Wittmayer 2014; Boezeman et al. 2014).

We took an office container to the Tammela market-place and made ourselves available to discuss issues related to the infill. Over 10 days, we invited experts from the city of Tampere to answer questions regarding, for example, the development of green areas or traffic arrangements in Tammela. We also acquired planning material and visualizations from the city planners to be used as a basis for discussion in the container. We experimented with different methods to collect feedback and used different visual materials to stimulate the discussions. The data gathered from the experiment comprise 450–500 individual face-to-face discussions, 290 written feedback notes on PostIts and in a mailbox, field diary and photographs from the experiment.

We used interpretive policy analysis as our methodological approach (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003) and focused on the multiplicity of meanings given to the area and urban infill. In addition, we wanted to explore the framing of positions given to dwellers in the process (Yanow and Schwartz-Sea 2006). The interview data, official planning documents and newspaper articles were analysed to explore the chain of events for 2012–2014 and identify interpretations of urban infill, key challenges and actor positions. The aim was to understand how different actors position themselves in the context of urban infill, the city planning department, city council members and housing companies. Conducting interpretive policy analysis means deciphering the meaning of participatory planning processes embodied in the actions and practices of the Tammela urban infill process (cf. Bevir 2006, 284).

In the second phase of the analysis, we shifted our focus to the data gathered from the experiment. The data consisted of brief comments, sudden discussions, short walks and material attachments (e.g. photographs, architectural models and sketches). From these, we wrote a diary, including photos from the course of each day. The container event data, together with the interviews of the members of housing company boards, provided a basis to analyse the data using knowledge-brokering elements to interpret phenomena from a knowledge-producing viewpoint and explore our position as knowledge brokers. The brokering tasks were finally organized according to the classification by Bornbaum et al. (2015), which we described in more detail in the previous chapter. In an iterative process, the data were analysed and subsequently, categories were developed that informed further interpretation processes (Kornberger and Clegg 2011). Moving between theoretical concepts and the data, we isolated episodes, quotes and observations that illustrated expectations given to the experimental participatory process and us as brokers in the urban infill process. We also concentrated on the nature and transformation of knowledge and how different forms of knowledge mobilized or halted the infill process development.

Brokering activities: case of urban infill

As a result of the preceding activities for the densification of Tammela and the somewhat stagnant development of inner city infill plans, the city planning officials considered our suggestion of adopting a different approach to public interactions. Based on our previous interviews with the members of housing company boards, knowledge base, images and procedure, the concept of urban infill seemed blurry and ominous among the dwellers of Tammela.

Thus, we invited the city planning unit and officials from other departments of the city administration to participate in planning the programme of the container event. The planning department gave us access to various planning materials, architectural models and aerial images of the Tammela area, which were used to aid the discussions. Approximately 450–500 people visited the container during the 10 days. The discussion topics included infill in general and more specifically, neighbourhood traffic arrangements, the market square, the football stadium, and parks as well as other green areas, parking facilities, public services and the container event itself. Some dwellers attended the container more than once and others after a recommendation from a neighbour or a friend. Feedback from the experiment from both city residents and experts was positive and we were asked by both groups to re-run the experiment in 2015.

The 10-day-container experiment involved several knowledge-brokering tasks and activities. We explore these from the following three viewpoints: (1) knowledge linkage and exchange, (2) knowledge management and (3) capacity building.

Knowledge linkage and exchange: facilitating participation

Knowledge linkage and exchange meant in this case organizing a forum for interaction, facilitating the dialogue between different stakeholders, and helping in relationship building between the stakeholders (cf. Bornbaum et al. 2015, 165). Before this, we had identified and engaged relevant stakeholders and invited them to the container.

The dwellers were aware of the urban infill visions made by the city planners, but there had been no general discussion over the future of the Tammela area from the dwellers’ viewpoint. Based on our previous analysis, we had concluded that people needed space and a place to discuss their hopes, visions and urban development ideas. The container event, from our viewpoint, was more an experiment in public interaction, as we invested the 10 days to see how the discussion developed with more than the normal time in public hearings, approximately three hours in one evening. The city planning department provided us with some general material for the container about the infill visions but we also gathered other material. For example, we displayed several ideas of future Tammela made by architecture students and our students’ reports summing up the results from the interviews made in the area.

For us, it was clear that we organized the public event as a third party. As brokers, we identified ourselves as a party not representing or supporting a particular viewpoint regarding the urban infill or the future of Tammela. However, during the first two days, most of the visitors were under the impression that we were representatives of the city planning unit, and even when corrected, some of them accused us of being henchmen to the city. Such incidents have been witnessed in other cases as well; for example, Turnhout et al. (2013) write about brokers’ risk of being ‘on a policy leash’ (Turnhout et al. 2013, 361) or being perceived by others in such a position. When it came up, we openly discussed our personal opinions regarding the infill. Our view as researchers was uniform in that we saw environmental and economic benefits in infill, but we also emphasized it should be carried out in close collaboration between the city and its residents, including the hopes, needs and concerns of the latters in the plans. Retrospectively, we were a bit naïve to think that coming from university would automatically illuminate us as neutral actors. Academics might be unusual people to organize public events where knowledge produced by different sources is being presented (Turnhout et al. 2013). However, we wanted to test the method of a lengthy event, and we knew that the city would not be willing to pay an outside mediator on a 9–15 duty for 10 days, let alone organize this sort of event itself.

In facilitating the interaction, the most important method was to be present, meet people face to face and listen. The dwellers had clear information needs: lack of clarity regarding planning legislation, power relationships and densification process were unclear, uncertainty about benefits and costs, and most importantly, unfamiliarity with the possibilities and images of densification. Our role as brokers developed during the 10-day-event. We had been following the process so long, that we could direct the particular questions to particular people in the city municipality. It became clear, what were the most important issues the dwellers wanted to discuss. These needs focused on: (1) the procedural concerns such as how the city had organized the implementation of the urban infill vision and public interaction, (2) the power relations in infill development – who decides in the end, (3) the future of Tammela’s green areas, (4) the traffic arrangements, (5) the development possibilities of Tammela’s market-place and (6) the potential economic benefits from infill to the housing company.

Knowledge exchange and linkage highlighted the brokering needs in the case. Besides the dwellers, planning and other city officials visited us daily. As the event turned out to be a success among the public, the planners started to have questions regarding the resources needed in organizing such an event and the knowledge we gathered and the discussions we had. Thus, the brokering role of us ‘amateurs’ gained more weight because of the high number of visits and discussions. While the container itself did not incur a huge cost, the time spent in bringing it all together was the highest investment. In terms of maintaining communication, a key strategy is allowing sufficient time for discussions. That is, participants were not hurried during discussions and the public event was not a ‘one-day phenomenon’ but continued for 10 days. Several people revisited us on different days.

Our experiences during the container event support such arrangements in participatory and collaborative planning, which allows people to develop their capabilities in thinking about infill and urban development in general. Public feedback on the method was positive despite some claims that there is no room for such interactions in large public hearings. Lewis and Baldassare (2010) emphasize that knowledge on urban development issues is central in making people understand the connection between the general goods of compact development and their desired neighbourhood characteristics. This knowledge exchange must take place in both directions. In addition to participatory events providing information to residents, it is equally important to establish a more nuanced understanding of people’s issues regarding future planning. This takes us to the next activity: managing and transforming knowledge.

Knowledge management: transforming knowledge from one stakeholder to another

As a result of previous interviews with the housing companies, we were fairly informed about the kind of knowledge dwellers lacked. We identified certain key questions the dweller might have and invited experts who could deliver and discuss answers. As Turnhout et al. (2013, 361) argue, supplying knowledge in boundary interactions involves putting experts together with knowledge users without the broker playing an active role.

The visual material available inside the container served as a guide for the discussions. Different actors constantly referred to an aerial photograph of Tammela and people were encouraged to leave PostIt comments on the photograph (Figure 1). At the end of each day, we photographed the wall, collected the feedback and started from scratch the next day.

Figure 1. Aerial photo of the area incited discussion of places to be developed.

In connection to transforming knowledge, we witnessed the significance of visualizing different development possibilities. In previous occasions, publicly displayed designs of a proposed infill were created using rectangular colourless ‘lego bricks’ without any detail. The city architects believed that if the designs were too detailed, people would interpret them as finished and oppose them even more. In reference to Lefebvre’s representational spaces, Vallance, Perkins, and Moore (2005) note that we should be careful about ‘[imagining] elements of the city and the ways that agonistic engagement around such elements become a central component of the politics of place’. They emphasize that infill housing should be designed in such a way that it accommodates people’s geographic imagination and symbolism, which is integral to building an environment. In the container, we incorporated visions by a group of architecture students who studied different infill possibilities in a single building block in Tammela and visualized different possibilities using masses, building shapes, structures, colours and materials. This example seemed to work as an eye-opener for some residents: infill does not necessarily mean reproducing concrete block in front of their window, as in the case of the existing buildings from the 1960s. It can actually be pleasing to the eye and even add to the urban green.

Thus, during and after the event, we generated new knowledge both for the urban dwellers and the planning department. After the event, we communicated the results to planning officials and articulated knowledge demands that emerged during the process and translated these into issues that planners would ‘take more seriously’ compared to those voiced by dwellers. Knowledge transformation had a political aspect as well. While explaining the need for housing companies to become more enthusiastic, we also identified implications for local planning practices and relevant land-use policies, which clearly needed to change (e.g. Bornbaum et al. 2015).

However, at this point, we became aware of the limitations of our role as a broker. The city planning department and other departments who had been following the experiment were satisfied with the informal discussion we had conducted in Tammela for 10 days. But, after the event, their level of enthusiasm seemed to drop, especially when we suggested revisiting existing policies and practices on the basis of the results. On the one hand, the planning officials seemed unable to position themselves in the place of the housing companies to see the unclear issues in the infill process. On the other hand, the city administration was divided into many silos that hindered the possibilities to significantly develop the existing policy practices. We interpret this as Turnhout et al. (2013) have pointed out, that we were used more as a political device in a novel situation where rules and relationships were uncertain. It is certain that brokering was needed in Tammela, where conflicts of interest are prevalent. However, the outcomes of the brokering process were not utilized in the best possible way.

Capacity building

During and after the experiment, we needed to interpret and explain viewpoints from one group to the other. People involved in the urban infill confronted problems and questions outside of their competence. We were in a position to help actors understand the process from various viewpoints and without the instant need to present a conflicting argument.

As brokers, this situation allowed us to produce brokered knowledge (Meyer 2010), that is, knowledge which we tried to make more robust, accountable and usable in the stagnant situation. In an attempt to link know-how, know-why and know-who (Meyer 2010, 119), we were able to bring not only planning officials but also politicians and private architects to the container to meet people and make and establish new relationships.

To proceed in the case of the Tammela urban infill, we believe that key actors should openly admit and understand their interdependencies (Laws and Forester 2015, 280). The vision of densification cannot be realized until housing companies, various actors within the city and construction companies recognize these interdependencies. No one actor is capable of pushing forward the vision. As the Tammela case has revealed, rather than informing or consulting housing companies, it is important to engage and collaborate with them. The Finnish planning professionals have thus far appealed to their legal responsibility as planning officials to act as leaders in planning processes (e.g. Puustinen 2006). The brokering helped not only in the process of knowledge transformation and production but also in building the stakeholders’ capacity in the issue and assessing the readiness for change (Bornbaum et al. 2015). This aspect is still somewhat unrecognized in the Finnish planning procedure.

Conclusion

In this paper we have identified different repertoires and activities of knowledge brokering and reflected them with recent theoretical discussions on knowledge brokers, knowledge production and capacity building (Wenger 2003; Meyer 2010; Turnhout et al. 2013; Bornbaum et al. 2015). At least in the Finnish context there is still a gap between the knowledge offered by the city planners and the knowledge needed by the dwellers. Despite the multiple methods developed and used for public participation in planning processes the focal point, the form of knowledge, is undervalued. Vast amounts of knowledge are being produced and restored in every planning process, but the planners can make use of only a very restricted amount of it all. When it comes to resources, it is easier to disregard knowledge where it seems most irrelevant. However, time could be saved if the planners focused on the questions and type of knowledge needed by the dwellers. Currently, they are using their time to produce knowledge that the dwellers in the worst case misinterpret or do not understand at all.

This is especially problematic in the ambiguous circumstances where the power relations have changed, as in the case of urban infill – where the dwellers own the land. We believe the applicability and possibilities of knowledge brokering would come in use in such circumstances. There are not many mediators available in Finland for public disputes. Community intermediaries, let alone brokers, are not a recognized profession in the field of land-use planning. We experienced this in the case of the Tammela urban infill, where the situation urgently warranted an outside actor who could bring together groups who needed to learn, participate in open dialogue, and establish new partnerships. Even though we received positive feedback about our public experiment from diverse stakeholders, we are still forced to ask whether the city planning department understands the role of brokers or whether it tries to use them (us) as a tool to escape their responsibilities when organizing public interactions and events? Brokering is a time-consuming activity as Ward, House, and Hamer (2009) rightfully point out.

Nevertheless, we found the experiment rewarding and thought-provoking, but declined when the city wanted us to organize another container debate in Tammela in 2015. The urban infill process in Tammela has progressed only little since the first container event in autumn 2014. We felt that the rules of using brokers in facilitating knowledge production were unclear in the situation. Another event in the market-place would have been justified had the infill process proceeded in the meantime and had there been new issues to discuss come up. We also believe that such container events should be organized by the city planning officials themselves, and the results on how previously identified needs and questions have affected infill plans should be made more transparent.

Knowledge brokering and boundary interaction are challenging activities. In the best case scenario, stakeholders may produce generative tension (Wenger 2003, 84–85); however, in the worst case, opposing pressures and accountability of actors from different social worlds make the situational interaction challenging. We agree with Schlierf and Meyer (2013) who argue that although the work of knowledge inter-mediators and brokers appears to be increasingly important in societies, the value of such work remains questioned. As we translated important knowledge needs and cooperation demands and pointed out the new roles of key stakeholders in the Finnish urban infill, the consequences were not always visible in terms of transformations in interaction or organizational practices. The brokering between the dwellers and the planning department partially succeeded, as the planners have changed some of their practices and started to cooperate with the housing boards more closely. Simultaneously, we rendered visible other needs for brokering and boundary interaction. For the infill development, it would be vitally important to extend the brokering tasks within the city administration and its complex silos. This is a noteworthy matter, which has not yet been identified in the discussion of knowledge transformation and interaction in complex public policy problems. The discussion on boundary interaction has focused more on the knowledge needs between actors representing different social worlds. Our findings illuminate the need for brokering within one social world, in our case, the city administration with its traditional practices.

How then measure and value the unintended results of knowledge brokering, especially if the results are seen only in the long term? Several previous studies have also posed this question (Ward, House, and Hamer 2009; Schlierf and Meyer 2013). In practice, the small and non-intrusive contributions of knowledge brokers are difficult to account for in terms of visible impacts, as are the outcomes of the processes facilitated by them. Nevertheless, empirical experimenting as knowledge brokers can help produce small yet significant changes (Bartels and Wittmayer 2014, 403) by inducing reflexivity and repeatedly illustrating interdependencies in diverse planning situations. The understanding of various knowledge needs and translations is embodied only when one performs brokering. Moreover, brokering can shed light on other needs in terms of communication problems and bridging people. Thus, planning officials should carefully weigh the benefits of organizing novel forms of interaction themselves or outsource it to other actors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under Grant number [289691]; Luonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen Toimikunta.