This book offers a fundamental contribution to the literature on the creative industries and the knowledge-based economy by focusing on three aspects: urban spaces as key sites of capitalist restructuring, creative industries policies as state technologies aimed at economic exploitation, and the role of networks of aesthetic production in inflecting these tendencies. It simultaneously goes beyond these debates by integrating a concern with the cultural and aesthetic dimensions of the creative industries. As such, the book is relevant to researchers interested in the transdisciplinary project of a cultural political economy of creativity and urban change.
In my original paper for Dialogues in Urban Research, I mapped the publication output of a set of multi-disciplinary urban studies centres across the world. The aim was to provide first insights into the (uneven) geographies of urban knowledge production and circulation. In this reply to the five commentaries on my paper, I will develop three observations in some more detail: urban studies as a fragmented field of research, urban studies as a place-based articulation of multiple disciplines and urban studies centres as a contested organisational form within university hierarchies.
This paper poses the question of what the proliferation of urban research centres across the world means for urban studies as a field of research, what this tells us about the (uneven) geographies of urban knowledge production and circulation, and who are the key institutions and researchers involved. In other words: what, where and who is urban studies? Building on a minor tradition of bibliometric research in urban studies and related disciplines, the paper assesses the Scopus-registered 2011–2021 publication output of the more than 1000 researchers affiliated to 30 urban studies centres across the world. The analysis points to four main observations. First, urban studies output is published in an extraordinarily wide range of journals, representing work from research communities across the social sciences and humanities, engineering, natural sciences and medical sciences. Second, clear global hierarchies exist in knowledge production, but co-authorship relations are also shaped by geographical proximity and the multidisciplinary profile of each individual research centre. Third, English is the dominant language of academic publications, but other languages play important roles for individual centres at the level of co-authorship relations and journals. Fourth, the article provides evidence of a diverse and globally distributed landscape of mid-sized urban studies centres that contribute substantially to the top urban studies journals. Each observation is linked to a reflection on the potential role for research centres in creating a more equal playing field for urban studies.
This book offers a fundamental contribution to the literature on the creative industries and the knowledge-based economy by focusing on three aspects: urban spaces as key sites of capitalist restructuring, creative industries policies as state technologies aimed at economic exploitation, and the role of networks of aesthetic production in inflecting these tendencies. It simultaneously goes beyond these debates by integrating a concern with the cultural and aesthetic dimensions of the creative industries. As such, the book is relevant to researchers interested in the transdisciplinary project of a cultural political economy of creativity and urban change.
AbstractThe notion of the 'urban laboratory' is increasingly striking a chord with actors involved in urban change. Is this term simply a metaphor for urban development or does it suggest urbanization by substantially different means? To answer this question, we review the work of science and technology studies (STS) scholars who have empirically investigated laboratories and practices of experimentation over the past three decades to understand the significance of these spaces of experimentation in urban contexts. Based on this overview of laboratory studies, we argue that urban laboratories and experimentation involve three key achievements — situatedness, change‐orientation and contingency — that are useful for evaluating and critiquing those practices that claim to be urban laboratories. We conclude by considering some future directions of research on urban laboratories.
Knowledge about air pollution is key, both to contest the status quo and to propose a different environmental imaginary as to how urban reality should be. Empirically, this paper focuses on Brussels and its history of air pollution contestation over the last fifty years, in order to trace how knowledge dynamics shape the politics of air. Theoretically, the paper offers a critical reading of the 'post-political city' literature that has been omnipresent in urban studies, human geography and political ecology over the last decades, in order to offer a more sophisticated theorization of expertise and knowledge. The paper offers at least three key insights. First, lay as well as public knowledge is of key importance in making air pollution manifest as a matter of concern. Making a perceived problem visible to a wider public in itself can be transformative and can pressure governments to respond, albeit rarely adequately. Second, the use of scientific knowledge by social movements and civil society plays a central role in contesting established priorities and in developing counter strategies, often alternating lay knowledge and more formal scientific knowledge in the process. At the same time, scientific knowledge and other forms of specialized expertise also play an important role in solidifying existing hierarchies of authority. Third, our analysis points to the centrality of the state as an arena for political action and to the importance of a politics of shifting blame and responsibility onto other layers of government or other societal actors.
