PHONETIC AND SOCIALLY RELEVANT PARTICIPATORY PROBLEM- PROBLEM-BASED RESEARCH APPROACH IN THIS PHD THESIS

I have outlined how Flyvbjerg argues against attempts in social sciences to generate general overall predicative theories. He instead argues for what he frames as phronetic research, which from a specific value standpoint creates contextual research providing insights (and feedback) on the particular focus of study and learning to inspire future study (or actual execution) of similar focuses. I have also outlined how Illeris presents an alternative approach to the traditional disciplinary research departing from established theories and assumptions, where he instead argues for a study that is departing from societal problems and where the assessment of these problems in groups adds to opening the interpretations and dynamics of the problem. Below I will outline how these perspectives inspired the scientific approach of this PhD.

My point of departure is, as mentioned, a specific project, Carbon 20, and the municipalities participating in this. The object of study is thus the particular experiences of the municipalities within the context of the Carbon 20 project. As such I follow Flyvbjerg’s notion of a contextual science of the particular. Following his directions for such, the intention of this study was not to generate, test (verify/falsify) or develop any overall generally applicable theory or knowledge about how municipalities in all circumstances and within different contextual settings can act to influence companies on the topic of GHG reductions. What I am addressing is to provide insightful contributions to: 1) enhancing the capabilities of the specific municipality officers, 2) discussions of the specific contextual settings and frameworks for the influential activities of municipalities, and 3) learning in respect to what could be inspiring for others in respect to the first two points.

Like Flyvbjerg I thus wish to contribute specifically to the context of study, and further attempt to point at learning that could have value for other similar situations.

Flyvbjerg’s interest seems mainly to provide insight into the context of study, not specifically in contributing to the actual performance of the specific actors of the particular case. Conversely – as involved in the Carbon 20 project – I attempt to engage with the specific actors in terms of enhancing their performance. I thus extend Flyvbjerg’s work in terms of also wishing to contribute actively to the development of the Carbon 20 project and through this the actual performance of municipal officers. In contrast to Flyvbjerg, who seems to apply a rather external observer perspective, my approach is closer to a participatory research approach in terms of actually engaging myself in the Carbon 20 project, and furthermore in also engaging the participant municipal officers in the determination of which interesting problems to study.

My formulation of the problem(s) to be studied has thus been “participant steered”

– or more precisely inspired. The “participant steering” does however depart from Illeris’ formulation of the concept, as I have been interacting with the municipal officer views in defining the problems of concern to be studied – not with fellow researchers (or peers as in the educational process).

The participating practitioners from the municipalities have been involved in the actual identification and formulation of the problems of interest. For the specific framing in this thesis, I as the researcher have had the final say in assessing the problems as scientific problems, although in alignment with the problems and challenges that are experienced by the participating municipalities (see more on this later)

By engaging with the participating officers and acknowledge their understandings of challenges etc. I clearly make the PhD research of societal relevance, as one of the specific tasks of the Carbon 20 is to enhance the competences of the municipalities in order to contribute positively to the socially relevant problem of climate change. I also make sure that the experiences of the officers are taken seriously and their knowledge is built upon.

Following Illeris and the tradition of the Frankfurter School, however, the research focus should go beyond this. I adhere to applying a critical perspective in terms of attempting to question the present structure of society. When analysing the specific situations and the challenges identified by the participating municipal officers I will therefore apply a critical view of the established societal frameworks and understandings that the officers act within – Illeris’ “societal relevance” criteria, which actually resembles the context that Flyvbjerg also addresses.

While inspired by a critical theory focus on questioning existing societal structures, I follow Flyvbjerg’s argument against the suitability of general overall theory and

thus also that such questionings of the societal structures doesn’t provide for a general applicable critique. My intention with this critical perspective is to provide insightful critique and suggestions for altering the specific settings surrounding the assessed municipality actions – not to postulate that this critique is generally applicable in all given cases.

In this process of contributing actively both to the learning of the participant municipalities and providing insight into the settings for their actions, I do however find that such contributions also make more “generalised” contributions in terms of both nuancing the academic debates about local governance in respect to climate mitigation, and providing learning inspirations for other municipalities in similar situations.

After having outlined how Illeris and Flyvbjerg have been applied to forming the scientific approach in this PhD thesis and before turning attention towards the methodical implications of this, I now briefly turn focus back to the preliminary discussion of Adolphsen, Kjærsdam and Enemark with respect to the practical problem and its related “theoretical” (or conceptual) problem(s).

In the first chapter I described how different actors at national, regional and global governmental levels, companies, municipalities, NGOs etc. have begun acting on the climate change mitigation agenda. I also argued that most of the public (and academic) awareness so far has been at the national, regional and global governmental level (Kyoto, COP, EU, US etc.) or company internal actions. I also showed, however, that the municipalities have received renewed attention as central actors in respect of the actual implementation of policies related to climate change.

I have outlined the overall field of concern (the theoretical problem) as a governance perspective, with respect to the efforts of municipal actors to engage with and actively influence local companies in implementing the overall policy formulation. This governance framing relates specifically to my interest in addressing broader societal settings from a critical perspective.

I maintain this as the overall framing of the PhD thesis, but emphasise that the analyses and discussions are also seen from a learning perspective in terms of also addressing how the project and this PhD have contributed with respect to enhancing the competences of the participating municipalities and the participating officers, and how the project provides possible inspirations for other municipalities.

2.2. METHODICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Above I have outlined the scientific approach based on a combination of Illeris’

problem-based research approach and Flyvbjerg’s phronetic contextual approach. I indicated the main two-fold interest of the specific study, a governance perspective

and a learning perspective with the Carbon 20 project as the basis of the study. I now turn towards a discussion and explanation of the methodical consequences of this approach in respect to the specific object of research.

As Flyvbjerg emphasised, the problem-based research approach calls for an adaptive methodical approach in terms of applying the methods and knowledge from previous writings to provide valuable insight to the specific problem in focus.

As argued above I adhere to Flyvbjerg’s arguments against the attempt to apply

“ideal theory” in social sciences, arguing specifically that the context is central.

However I do emphasis that past contributions have a role to play in contextual problem-based research and introduce “Governance” and “Practitioner Learning” as central conceptual focuses of this PhD. In addition – following both Flyvbjerg’s adaptive methodical considerations and Illeris’ application of interdisciplinary studies – I also use “past contributions” in the form of “theorisations”, conceptualisations etc. in the specific analyses carried out. They form, however, a rather different role than “ideal theory”, as they are not applied to assess the field of concern, but rather as an outline of the basic understandings, rationalities and ideas (discourses) of the field. A first step in pointing out the methodical choices is thus to go deeper into the discussion about the role of “theories”, concepts and “past knowledge” within this PhD Thesis as I on one hand refer to Flyvbjerg’s argument against “ideal theory” but still use different conceptualisations, “theorisations” and past knowledge.

As mentioned, the empirical base of this study is the Carbon 20 project. This forms what Flyvbjerg calls a case. I will discuss the idea of using case studies, particularly following Flyvbjerg’s approach, as a method for getting close to the context and point at possible learning of broader interest in light of his argument of the “force of the example”.

Contrary to Flyvbjerg’s focus in his 1999 publication, where he developed his method for the specific case of the in-depth analysis of a specific (past) political planning process, in my case I am not interested in looking in depth at a specific (past) political process, but in attempting to get close to the actual contemporary practises of the participating municipal officers. This different focus and nature of the case naturally also influences the method I find useful for the specific empirical data collection in my study compared to that which Flyvbjerg has chosen to apply.

I adhere to Flyvbjerg’s principle of attempting to rely on primary information sources. Contrary to Flyvbjerg, however, this is not the dechiffrement of documentary acts, but rather methods that allowed me to capture the experiences of the participating officers. My method thus departs from Flyvbjerg’s agitation for an archeologically – geological assessment of specific events and their meanings from the specific acts of a given decision process. Conversely, I need methods that allow

me to get closer to the actual practise of the partitioning municipalities and the officers.

As already explained I took an active part in the Carbon 20 project including letting the officers’ understanding of the context form input for the actual formulation of the problem to be studied. I will thus look more deeply into the concept of participatory research and how I apply this – including as empirical input for my assessment.

Supplementing such data, I applied qualitative interviews as one of the central means to receiving the input, perspectives and judgement of the participating officers and other actors.

While clearly not putting as much emphasis on the dechiffrement of key acts and documents as Flyvbjerg, a review of central documents in terms of both municipality action plans, and of the contextual settings for their action will also be included – focussing on the more official documents, whereas Flyvbjerg also looked into the specific underlying documents, as he was interested in the political processes leading to the decision.

THE USE OF THEORY, CONCEPTUALISATION AND PAST