My research has the general theme of social innovation processes in a changing urban context with an emphasis on processes of democracy, participation and publicity. This theme is approached from a hopefully rather original perspective, namely one that refuses to "align" to any of the established research traditions and disciplines relevant (in broad terms) to this field. The project is, on the contrary, an attempt to cross disciplinary borders. To the extent the originality in the approach can be discussed, and the argument of eclecticism be turned against me, my only response is that I, like all other researchers and practitioners, of course am no "self-contained island", rather I/we are "results" of both our personal experiences, life-long learning processes and training, and perhaps in particular of our "communities of research practice".
Before I go into a reflection on my research practice, I would like to make clearer what it is I am "refusing to align" myself to, i.e., the established traditions/-disciplines in this field, and to explain why I have chosen to try and cross the borders, and which. In broad and general terms, the field could be approached by:
Each of these disciplines do indeed, in various degrees, have something to offer. In particular, I have found the work of some urban/cultural sociologists (e.g., Richard Sennett and Thomas Ziehe) as well as some urban/regional planning theoreticians (e.g., Patsy Healey and John Forester) very inspiring, offering valuable insights of the societal conditions. Although it may be unfair to apply the same yardstick to all of these, I think they can be used to make two more or less ontological statements:
1. Culture is a significant category for understanding social innovation
2. Public sphere is a significant category for understanding democracy and participation
However important these two statements are (and I do find them extremely important, and have devoted a major part of the thesis to making the argument), they only form part of the foundation for my work; one side of the coin, so to speak.
The other side of the coin comes from somewhere completely else. Namely from computer and information science. Bringing into scope computers and information technology, I am not only relating myself to the present societal conditions - with computers and IT being introduced into more and more spheres of society, in more and more advanced ways, to such a degree that people (including myself) nowadays speak of society as being an information society - but I am also bringing in a design perspective. This involves (at least) three aspects: first, since computers and IT are, or should be, support tools (Ehn,1990), I have to analyse and assess the presently applied "tools" in social innovation, be it computer-based or not, and hereby unmask a very essential element in the social innovation processes. Second, by introducing, as information science does, an analytic emphasis on systems, decisions, and information, and bringing it into play in the research practice, I get what might be called a "counter-weight" to the (above mentioned) cultural approach. This side of the coin has several sides itself, and I want to go into some detail with these - if I don't, I cannot explain my methodology.
I am talking about support for participation and social innovation. This must be the starting point for my interest in computers and information science. Before and in the beginning of the project I was very interested in the two related areas called Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and Participatory Design (PD), both of which have that starting point. CSCW and PD are here used "loosely"; CSCW as the "computerization movement" (Kling and Iacono, 1995 - http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/ TechnicalUtopias/) wanting to develop systems for cooperation and participation supported by, often directly mediated by, computers; and PD as the movement wanting user-involvement in the design of systems.
Kurt Keller (1995), who writes about CSCW (and PD, I'd say) from a phenomenological perspective, is using a "formula" similar to mine; he calls his perspectives cultural versus systems perspectives. Although I find his work valuable in its own right, I do want to point out the shortcomings of the whole CSCW tradition. In my view, the main shortcoming in the whole field of CSCW is not really concerned with what they do, rather it is what they don't do! Especially when they, as Keller does, speak about stuff like culture, it can in my opinion only be a shortcoming when they restrict themselves to working in corporate settings, with working life, not the "whole way of life", or everyday life issues. CSCW does, however, raise many interesting and relevant issues with regard to the relationship not only between people and computers, but also between people - and people. An example is the work of Lucy Suchman and others taking inspiration from the ethnomethodological tradition (known from anthropology). Suchman's concept of situated action is relevant for not only for work analysis but also for design theory (or rather, theory of the design process).
It is my idea that CSCW/PD should be about more than introducing "groupware". I cannot see anything really innovative in systems like Lotus Notes (Keller's case) and the likes. To put it simple: All the high-end technical whizz-bang gadgets developed in research labs really have little value for my work.
At the "Computers in Context" conference in Aarhus, Lars Mathiassen, a famous Danish professor divided "the field" into these categories:
Placing myself into this scheme makes me creative - I find myself somewhere between CSCW and PD (participatory design), actually having difficulties separating the two (product and process are two sides of the same "thing"), while definitely not seeing myself as having anything to do with neither object-orientated programming nor CMM (Capability Maturity Model). As in most other methodologically similar "dualisations", the problem with this division and splitting-up into distinct categories (pairs) is that it can be used only at a more or less superficial level, but does not "hold water" when taken to the dialectics test. Thus, it can, correctly, I think, be used to point out that CSCW puts too much weight on the first "C" - the computer (product) - and too little on the second "C" - cooperation (process) (Rob Kling 1994). Mainstream CSCW has nothing or very little to offer in terms of social innovations, just as many other highly technical and very technically oriented computerization movements. But the idea of computer-support for cooperation, participation, communication and dialogue has been taken under close examination.
It was originally planned for this project to be more or less theoretically oriented, when computers are concerned. I was to analyse the possibilities for using computers and information technology in participatory processes. I have done so, and actually think I have a strong case at exactly that point. But I have also developed a much more practical orientation in the project - to an extend I can now say I have a real design project, with real-life design contexts where I am the designer. I am not a computer scientist, not even a computer engineer, but in comparison to an average Technology-Society researcher, I do know my ways around a modern computer and information system (which to me includes the Internet). This has not only been of benefit (and sometime pain) to my colleagues at the institute (whose daily problems I much to often has had to solve), as well as my Japanese supervisor, whom I also helped and helps, but has also turned out to be of great importance in my research practice and empirical work. What was here in the beginning a question of examining the possibilities for the use of computers, is now more a question of design and implementation. In both my cases, actually! Whether I should take the fact that it is happening in both my cases as a result of my work, which has been action-oriented, is an open question, but I do have significant "evidence" for the process being influenced if not facilitated by me.
What is it I have done then? Well, to put it simple, I have made dialogues! I have done dialogue research, and I have developed a dialogue method.
So - "dialogue", then?
Johan Galtung is the person to go to for inspiration on dialogues, I find. Not only does his concept of development shed light on what social innovations are all about. He also puts forward a very strong case for the concept of dialogue. "Dialogues are not tools for development. Dialogue is development, linked to an image of the developmental process as a struggle against domination" (1978, p. 78).
A simple typology of dialogues is concerned with who the participants are (p. 75-79):
I. Researcher - researcher dialogues
II Researcher - people
A. Dialogues of researchers - elites
B. Dialogues of researchers - people in general
III. People - people
A. People - people dialogues with researchers present
B. -- " --- absent
Each of these types has been taken in use in my research work. Due to the fact that I am not only a researcher, but also a "people in general", in the researched context, I do, so to speak, cover the whole spectre.
The goals of dialogues is by Galtung described in a tripartite cycle for a full-fledged dialogue (78):
If a dialogue is not capable of running through the whole cycle, but "only" through one or two phases is called a truncated dialogue. Whichever kind it is, it is an important point that "dialogue is politics" (78). But politics is certainly not always dialogue; and this have to do with the conditions necessary for a process to be called a dialogue. Galtung lists three such conditions (79):
"The dialogue is mutually conditioning", in that it is an act of interdependence, not one-way penetration. Researchers getting involved in dialogues ceases to be instruments and "becomes a part of social reality, fusing with others, conditioning and being conditioned by others". (80)
So, how does one then go about applying this kind of "insight building device"(IBD), as Galtung ironically (I hope) calls dialogues? Especially when trying to combine (continuously) the different types of dialogues, there is a need for making some methodological elaboration on the issue.
It follows from the definition of a dialogue that not all communication is dialogical. In fact, many people would argue that there is no such thing as true dialogues in our contemporary society, and that the dominant communication forms have nothing to with dialogues. There are numerous sociological studies making this argument; even Habermas seems to have lost faith in his version of dialogues: "un-coercive communication" (...speech acts).
If I didn't believe in the possibility of dialogues, I wouldn't have made this project. Because the whole idea here is to generate and analyse dialogues. On one hand, at a personal level, where I myself get engaged in dialogues. On the other hand, I am also trying to examine the extent to which dialogues are used - and could be used - in the empirical context.
I have hereby used myself as a case, in the sense that I have tried to get involved in the context, I am researching. In fact, I was already part of it when I started out; as a "native" Amager citizen. But then I was not involved with either of my concrete cases Orestad and Amager Culture Centre). My method in approaching these two cases has therefore been some kind of a double strategy: I have been a traditional researcher (interviewing, observing and analysing), looking at what they are doing, examining their communication strategies, observing them "in public", and so on. At the same time, I have been trying to establish a more personal, and dialogical, relationship with each of them (that is, with some of their employees), in which I go beyond the "objectivity" of the researcher and expose myself.
At this point some might point to the fact that I am dealing with two very different concrete cases. How do I cope with that? Am I playing different roles? Where do I stand? Can I be blamed for being some kind of "double agent"?
There is no doubt about the importance of these questions. If the method is to work, there are things I can do, as well as things I definitely cannot do. The character of these relationships goes, for me and the people in "the other end", beyond the surface level, where there is no real reciprocity (e.g., in-depth interview, which can at best get a professional reciprocity in play). It is perhaps a question of trust (they have to trust me, if they are to tell me the "juicy" stuff), but it is also a question of thrust (they have to regard it as a useful learning process, as something they want to do).
In this way, the question is not only about the classical researcher question of how to find a way between empathy and distance, although this is not of little importance. There is, however, another "axis", namely one between engagement and obligation.
Galtung's typology is lacking some very crucial types:
elites - people dialogues
- researcher present or absent
elites - elites dialogues
- researcher present or absent
In my view these two types of dialogues are at least as important to my theme (and actually, I find, to much social science in general) as those mentioned by Galtung. Surely, this must be part of what he means by "development"; but it does seem, however, that Galtung somehow falls back on some very traditional ("modernistic") views on the role in society of the intellectuals and the intelligensia, where they act as some kind of mediators.
As explained earlier, the theme of my research can be approached from different disciplines. This means that I have a potentially very broad spectre of researchers to choose between for making dialogues about the theme. What I have done in practical terms, however, by defining my project as I did, is to open up for many possibilities for thematic dialogues, but also narrowing the chances of finding anyone covering the whole theme.
The wholeness of this project seemed from the beginning a matter of great importance, not only in terms of internal consistency, but also in a more generalised methodological sense. The real challenge is not related to the components themselves, but to the whole idea. While I can qualify my reflections on Danish planning strategies, for example, by getting involved in dialogues with Danish planning researchers and practioners, I cannot really use them in my reflections on Japan, nor in terms of the computer/network theme.
I have tried to establish dialogues with researchers from various (selected) disciplines by "entering" their fields with an open-minded approach, admitting that they are the experts, in their fields, while at the same time trying to put forward the argument that my approach is, or should be, relevant for them. This means that I have talked about urban planning with urban planners, "nihonjin-ron" (theory of Japanese culture) with japanologists and Japanese people (including researchers), political philosophy with political philosophers, and so on. My contribution to these different dialogues has not been on matters strictly internal to the disciplines, but more on the "borderline" issues and problems.
One example of this is from my involvement in a series of seminars at the Aarhus School of Architecture, all on the theme of "The City", hosted by Hans Mammen. The format of the 4 seminars (each lasting 5 days) was divided into two parts: one where a range of international capacities were giving keynote-speeches and taking part in a round-table debate with an audience, each presenting their own ideas, all in relation to an over-all theme ("the city as ...." - 1. Architecture and plan, 2. Environment, 3. Culture and heritage, and 4. Information and communication); and another part where the students/audience present their projects. These seminars were not only a good learning experience in terms of learning from the "big ones", but also in terms of being forced to relate ones own project to the themes. It was especially a good idea from the arrangement group to use the multi-perspective approach. To the extent the participants (mainly architects and planners) followed all the seminars, at least. Unfortunately, we were only few who did so - but those of us who did so learned much, we all agreed. I contrast to most other participants, I did not have one preferred theme; in fact, they were all four central, I argued. In other words, I was taking the basic idea of the seminars seriously. It gave me a good occasion to practice my methodology - and to get it "tested" by exposing myself to a very qualified forum. If my methodology can take this test, it must be good, I thought. What I did was to look in my own work for ideas, stories, references, a.s.o., which could be used as some kind of "oblique angles" to the themes, because I knew that if I went on to use "right angles" (i.e., the normal stuff), I would not be able to contribute much ("the student against the professor"). Concretely, I made a kind of deconstruction and reassembling of the four themes: at the architecture and planning theme seminar I discussed how the "information society" relates to the concept of community; at the environment theme seminar I brought up issues of human-centredness design; at the culture and history theme seminar the issue of the future; and at the information and communication theme seminar issues like the history of utopian thinking and practice and the theory of democratic participation. It was a process of more or less rash decisions that led to the actual "interventions", also influenced by my other activities ("cut-and-paste"). Yet it is, I will argue, consistent with my methodology.
Another example: At the Øresund Programme's Summer-School 1994, I was among a bunch of Scandinavian computer scientists working with corporate systems design in various ways. There, I talked about the Ørestad development project.
These examples are from special occasions (e.g., seminars). The outcome of dialogues in such contexts can in many cases be rather limited, especially with people you don't know beforehand and in situations with too little time to go into details. Such situations, being among strangers, can, I find, be interesting because the combination of formal, scheduled "dialogues" (interventions, lectures, etc.) and the informal activities (dinner-conversations, chat, etc.), can lead to deeper dialogues, sometimes "on the spot", but also when keeping in touch and following up on the dialogue in the time after the concrete occasion.
The distinction Galtung makes between researcher - people dialogues and researcher - elites dialogues is not easily used in practice, because the division is an analytical abstraction. In real life, it is not possible to make this division between people. Elites are no clearly definable "class" of people.
Many of the people I have been working with, and made dialogues with, belongs to what would be "the elites" in most people's terminology. First of all, with the case of the Orestad, where the whole project - and thereby everyone involved in it - has a strong "elitist" image in the public, a picture drawn by "public image makers" such as journalists and most of the researchers exposing themselves in the public (e.g., Rikke May and Allan de Waal, newspaper Information; Arne Gaardmand, planner; Uffe Palludan, future researcher, and many more).
In my view, the "elites" are not only the people directly involved in the Orestad project. True, they, at least some of them, are "elites"; there are many "heavy boys" (Danish acronym for "key actors", "VIPs") involved, such as top-politicians from both left and right - and centre, business top-managers, and top bureaucrats and civil servants. Further, it is no secret that the whole idea behind the project comes from these circles - many of the key actors in the project were themselves directly involved in fostering the idea, and personally involved in the work leading to the project foundation; Anne-Grethe Foss, the general manager of the ODC, was secretary to the so-called Wurtzen-committee who prepared and introduced a report in Parliament, suggesting (among others) to begin the Orestad project. Likewise, it is no secret that some, if not all, the high officials in Copenhagen Municipality's urban and regional planning offices have been directly involved in the project making; the director of planning actually proposed a very similar project when he as a younger planner in the 1960ies participated a design contest about urban development on Amager; he did not win, by the way.
So, here I am with a project which is elitist to the extent that it has a unpleasant "smell" of conspiracy; Arne Gaardmand has said that he can and will prove that it is so, and many others have argued the same. So, when I am interested in participation and democracy, surely I must be using, as the critical researcher I say I am, this case as the "how-NOT-to-do-it"-kind of case? Well, it would probably be an easier research project, in many ways - I would do the same as almost all others "of my kind" do, distancing myself from the whole project, going into opposition. This seems, I guess, even more "appropriate" taking into consideration that I am myself "one of the locals". I have not done so however. In fact, I have done almost the opposite: I have gone into a dialogue with the ODC!
The same is the case with my other case, the Culture Centre, which has a basic non-elitist image. It was established by the locals, and is in many ways a school-book example of successful, locally initiated social innovations in an urban context. My dialogue approach here might then seem much more obvious than the other case, and should not be in need of much further "legitimisation". In relation to the elites-people issue, I should note, however, that I actually consider this whole project, too, more or less elitist; it has not been the people as such who has carried this projects through - had it not been for the strong community leaders, groups of professional "projects makers", and others, the project had never been around today.
In this way, both of my cases involves dialogues with elites more than with people. Different kinds of elites, though.
I now want to go deeper into my process. A deeper understanding/explanation of the process I have been through, and still is in, is still needed to get to the core of my methodology.
I am trying to be a dialogue facilitator. I want to establish dialogues. Ideally, the ultimate aim is to establish dialogues between the "elites" and the people - that is my abstract utopia in essence - but realising that this is a social innovation process, which goes far beyond a research process, I cannot use that as a methodological framework per se. The methodology must, for very practical reasons, start with myself. Put simple, I cannot go out and initiate dialogues, if I don't bring myself into play. To do what I want to do, I have to expose myself to the elites and the people. So from my point of view, the methodology must be starting with researcher - elites/people dialogues. From there, I can start working on the "real thing", so to speak.
An inspiration source of an untraditional kind have been highly influential on my methodological, theoretical and practical work, so I guess I should also pay some attention to the source here. I will do so now, as it might clarify my position.
An important inspiration source comes as far from Denmark one can possibly (well, almost) get: Japan. Why? Well, the background for this is very simple indeed: it is a direct result of my choice of co-supervisor (Masao Hijikata) and external research stay (his university, Waseda University in Tokyo). I simply wanted to learn from Hijikata, sensei, whom I got to know very well (beyond the academic level, at the private level) when working with him in England for a year, both of us being guest researchers at Brighton Polytechnic.
Hijikata's concept of GDPSS, Group Decision Process Support System, is a human centred approach to participatory design. The suggested participatory system puts emphasis on three keywords: information, decisions, and organisation. The 'support system' is both a 'soft' and 'hard' system. It is a computer-supported, project-oriented (group-based) problem finding and solving methodology. Hijikata's starting point is the assumptions - or facts (?) - that: 1. Information in a complex environment cannot be complete, and 2. No human can know everything. These assumptions are then turned into research questions of how to share information, and thus how to organise decision processes in complex situations.
From the beginning of our relationship, I have been intrigued by Hijikata's approach, which I find highly original, but also in need of much work. Fortunately, he has given extraordinary high priority to his "job" as co-supervisor for me, actually, much more than that: he has been willing to have a "real" (in Galtungs sense, reciprocal and all that) dialogue with me. He has been visiting me in Denmark twice during my project, the only travels abroad he has made during that time, and was more than just supportive when hosting my stay in Tokyo (where I, by the way, astounded everyone I met, when I told them about our relationship; just the fact that I use his first name almost made people fall over - "he's a Japanese professor, you say?"). Even at a distance, we have kept in touch; we are keen users of the Internet, and have been mailing each other very often (weekly, in periods daily), not only with personal/social issues, but also research issues, theoretical and practical.
The general issues we have touched upon and dealt with are these:
The first issue has been fundamental. It basically started out as a confrontation between us, where my idea of a democratic perspective were confronted by Hijikata, whose notion of democracy was quite different from mine. This is perhaps a good example of the many times where we have experienced that culture matters! Our different ideas of democracy are not easily put into a traditional political scheme (left-right or so), although Hijikata is distancing himself much more explicitly from the Marxist tradition than I do - but then again, we are referring to two different traditions. I have learned that there are big differences between "western" and "eastern" cultures when it comes to these matters, not that it came as a big surprise, though.
In a sense, we have encountered some kind of cultural barrier when concerned with our abstract utopias. In the beginning, I think I was very focused on getting us to break down that barrier, but after some time, we found out that we were much better of if instead beginning with our concrete utopias. Such as sharing an idea of participatory practice, and developing the idea of designing computer-based that support processes.
On the issue of participatory practice, we have spent much time on several methodological issues, e.g., the researchers role in participatory systems, as well as the role of various participants. To take the latter first, we encountered a difference of scope in out initial points of view; whereas Hijikata used a kind of wholistic systemic view, and with this had a rather clear image of what a participatory system is, my situation was more dominated by a normative, value-oriented model of participation, as noted in the study plan giving full attention to citizens participation. In Hijikata's view, citizens are only one part, however important, of a participatory system. But the system is not complete, until it has participation by all the other relevant groups of actors (e.g., researchers, consultants, designers, representatives, and decision makers). The "real problem" - a notion used by Hijikata - is thus not "only" citizen participation, but the participatory system itself. I have "bought" this idea, which has been instrumental in formulating my methodological framework of the culture versus systems perspective, in another way than Keller does.
Concretely, Hijikata and I made a practical outline for a "full-fledged" systems orientation. This was done during my first stay in Tokyo (winter 93-94). This is how the outline looked:
1. Pick up interest groups (citizens, organisations, institutions)
2. The Orestad Development Corporation - how do they proceed? How do they work?
3. Make causal relations figures showing different groups' perceptions
4. Reflection: What are real participatory systems?
I have to a large extent used at least the two first points in my project. I have not, however, been able to get fully into the task in point three, the substantial part. The questions raised under point 3 have, however, been asked, but only in a loosely ("soft") way, more in the line of "rich pictures" from Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland).
Now, it is time to go into the context itself.
I am more than a "concerned spectator", because I am myself part of what I am "spectating". I am, due to my personal history of me being a fourth-generation citizen of Amager, a member of Amager Culture Council, a chairman of a housing association, a.s.o., myself an actor in the "play", I am doing research on. This, I thought in the beginning, would give me some interesting research questions which had the potential of creating more emphatic (?) dialogues. I did not have to get to learn about a new place, in fact, I often experience knowing much more about the place - Amager - than the people I encounter in my work, even the professionals. In both my cases, it has proven to be of great importance.
Building a dialogical relationship with the Orestad Development Corporation (ODC) has become a special challenge (or part) of my project. This process has involved some 30 intensive meetings, most of them with one employee, KA, in the beginning employed as the academic secretary to the manager and board, after reorganisation responsible for financial and planning-related matters. In addition I have made several traditional qualitative interviews with the general manager, AGF, as well as other staff members, the latter often in group situations. I have been through three phases:
First, qualitative in-depth interviews, finding out whether the ODC themselves recognises the critique/"how they stand" in terms of public relations, communications strategies and planning; me in the role of the "objective" researcher; documentary (tape-recorder); non-exposure from my side, only trust-building.
Second, opening a new dialogical agenda with selected employee, KA, in particular and the ODC in general; sharing, increasing exposure from my side; confrontation (also in public, on the regional radio); "off the record"-issues, no tape-recorder; using the case of IT/Internet to "legitimately" bring up communication (and other conflict) issues; in-company lecture/seminar on Japanese urban development projects.
Third, "full exposure" (...."under construction right now"), intervention, facilitation .....
The first phase can be traced to the time from autumn 93 to autumn 94, although the "shift" to the second phase is not easily placed in time. The shift was probably influenced by Hijikata's visit to the ODC in July 94, which was used by me as an opportunity to push forward some issues, I had had difficulties with before, by using the Japanese case and inspiration as a "mirror", or rather, an image. "Safe" as it is, by the force of distance and context-independence (superficially, at least), we could discuss and share reflections on alternatives and "the other"/stranger. The reflection-on-action I made at that time learned me that I "was onto something", and that I here had a more or less unique opportunity for approaching the context itself (i.e., the Orestad), for really getting into the context, because the whole thing was at the same time a way of getting into the "deep" issues, such as consciousness of problems, values settings and cultural understanding. Also, I found the Japanese case useful for introducing the issue of information technology - not only because of the Japanese examples (all information-oriented cities) formed a glaring contrast to the Orestad, where the whole idea of the information society basically was if not totally strange to them, definitely not taken to "the heart" - or "brain" - of the whole project. A simple example: in spite of the fact that it was announced in the competition brief for the design competition, an electronic map of the area was never produced (well, never publicised), and there has never been made use of the electronic media in any kind (apart from news-spots in TV and radio).
I have used this issue as a jumping-off ground for getting from phase two to phase three, and I am currently in the middle of this process. But let me stay for a while with the shift from phase one to phase two. I argued earlier that the Japanese case was influential. But other phenomena should be added for the full picture to be drawn. I many ways the winter 94-95 was the turning point (first milestone), and this time is not coincidental, being the time where public hearings were held, two arranged by the ODC, one by Sundby Local Council. I was participating (as part of the public) in all the hearings held, and often visiting the public exhibition, and in general keeping an eye and ear open, whenever I encountered Orestad-talk in public, especially locally on Amager (in the bus, supermarket, cafes, etc.). In addition, I was following the planning process itself, and tried to get as close to that as possible, not only by reading all the material (results of the competition, the few academic papers I could find, etc.), but also by entering a dialogue with planners and architects (in relation to the seminars at the Aarhus School of Architecture). What I achieved was, as I see it, a very comprehensive and rich knowledge stock. I then started using this rich knowledge stock directly in my dialogues with KA, and others. I started confronting him, sometimes quite aggressively (to an extent that almost I get surprised of myself when I today listen to the tapes). In order to illustrate this process, I have below provided a lengthy cut from one of the dialogues we had (Danish, sorry):
[ODC 29.11.94; interview has been going on for 10 minutes]
JG: ... well, the citizens on Amager really wish to get a underground railway under Amagerbrogade, don't they?
KA: What we've experienced is .... Well, we have of course also talked with them, that is, we have been in touch with the local councils and such, you know, they've come in here and got afternoon coffee, well, I didn't actually participate in all those meetings, just a few of them ...
JG: Is that Sundby Lokalråd (Sundby Local Citizens Council)?
KA: Yes, there has been a meeting here recently. And the opinion is, well, you know, our claim is that we have to neutrally calculate the amount of people who might use the railway, and there has not been taken account of any development in the Ørestad, and it has solely been based on the existing circumstances, and then the railway as we have laid it out will actually serve ....ehmmm .... I think it is 30 to 40 percent more than the underground line under Amagerbrogade would, and besides the line under Amagerbrogade would not be possible to build for the same amount of money as we build the other one, since it is on open land. And of course, how to construct it and such, is something people find difficult to relate to, and at the same time, many of them say they bloody well don't believe in the figures presented by us, and that they very well know how the world looks. Many of these perceptions are of course based on the current traffic situation, and our thesis is then to some extend that things will change because there will come a railway across Amager which will change Tårnby and Ørestad Station into centres. This is why something will indeed happen under all circumstances, so the collective traffic will need to be changed. But that is hard for people to relate to, and that is at the end of the day not very strange. You cannot communicate it to them so that they will find it more sensible, I think.
JG: But you mention, then, that you've made some calculations on it?
KA: Well yes, that is actually something that goes back to the days when the Ørestad Act was proposed. We then made some calculations on how many existing homes and workplaces lies within a radius of 600 meters .... Ehmm ...at the places where one had thought of placing stations. And then we took the old tunnel-line project, which is an extension of the S-line to Amager, that is one of these old proposals that Helge Israelsen spearheaded, while he was a communist party member. There was actually a plan for it, and it was put forward to the Parliament, and I even think it was decided upon and then skipped later on ...
JG: That might be the case, but ...
KA: Oh yes, it was! Well, there we were. We took the line layout and said, if one uses this and calculates after then same criteria and says, what is the actual amount of people living there, how many are working there, in some suitable distance from the stations, then we can calculate that the old tunnel-line would serve some 70.000 existing homes and work-places, while the line we proposed, and which was then proposed by the Würtzen Commission and in the proposal for the Act, that would serve, I think, some 95.000. Then we changed the line layout to go west of the University, and actually then served Islands Brygge, which becomes nicely covered by the radius going from the university station, which was moved to the Island Brygge side. This all gave quite a bit in the coverage!
JG: Yes, sure, that adds a bit. I think it's some 6000 living there. And ...
KA: Plus what comes from the university, right? And the many who work in the area too.
JG: Right, the Municipality has some offices there.
KA: And the Consumer Department and all. Anyway, the line layout took in the university. This made the project a bit more expensive, but that is in fact all described in the parliamentary papers.
JG: So are you still using these calculations? You must have changed something, because you have removed the station from Christmas Møllers Plads, so there must be some reduction, or what?
KA: No, because the line layout we proposed .... [gets up and goes out to find something, comes back immediately, points to a map] ... this line layout, OK, and then this line layout, which is described in the act, is a layout which is comparable to the alternative called light-rail, which is one of the three alternatives we evaluated - tram, light-rail and mini-metro.
The light-rail is surface-based more places than the mini-metro. There are, like, several different issues here, I'll describe them to you afterwards, as to how the two projects relates economically. But the point is that the light-rail is surface-based here [points to somewhere on Frederiksberg], and this means that it is necessarily connected to the road/street-plans already exisiting today. To make a station on the surface-level is not too expensive, but it is quite expensive underground, possibly something like 250 million or so.
JG: For one station?
KA: For one station, yes. They are bloody expensive, those things!
JG: Gosh, I thought it was just a hole in the ground with some concrete in it [grin] ...
KA: No no, it, it's much more than that ...
JG: Hmmm, yes I guess it is ...
KA: Afterwards, we can try to .... Hmmm ... I got a drawing out there, you can try to .... Well, it all meant that if you make circles with a radius of 600 meter from the three stations here [points to map], then you cover the most important parts, because what is out here [points again] gives almost nothing. Thus it changes almost nothing. But the idea was that is we had the light-rail, then we would like to, how to put it, provide the service, or enable us to serve exactly that place, because it has some sentimental connotations for some people, something with the old trams I think which had something to do with Christmas Møllers Plads. But it has been dropped now, it is simply too expensive. We have also cancelled a station on Frederiksberg, the one by the Landbohøjskolen .....
JG: I see ...
KA. Right. The mini-metro then, there we are not restricted by the roads and streets. There you use the shortest distance. There are more things that plays a role, but this is in principal the two changes made. The light-rail runs in part in tunnel too, and one should perhaps think it would be cheaper than the mini-metro. The cars costs almost the same. What is making the prize difference between the two smaller, is that in order for the light-rail to achieve an adequate capacity passenger-wise, it is something with frequency time number of transportable passengers, if that has to be the same for the two alternatives, and taking into account the fact that due to human driver need the frequency cannot be as high as for the mini-metro, then the cars have to be longer. The total length of the mini-metro train is set to 50 meters, while the cars on the lit-rail, that is two cars, each cars is two boxes, or whatever they're called, in order to achieve the right capacity, will need to be 70 meters. In other words, all tunnel stations need to be 20 meters longer for each track. That will be extremely expensive, and that diminishes the prize difference between the two. And there has even been someone arguing, in the calculation phase, that the light-rail will be nearly as expensive to build, but it will not get the same number of passengers as the mini-metro. It is also related to the fact that the mini-metro is much faster. Why? If you see it in alternative ways, then there are shorter waiting-times on the mini-metro and also shorter travel-time, which means that alternatives become less attractive, or that they become relatively less attractive, they do not become worse than they are, of course. So this is roughly how the two projects relate to each other. What the board looked at and chose among was in fact two projects that cost the same, but where the light-rail solution would never be able to get as good a frequency as the mini-metro's one-and-a-half minutes.
JG: Hmm, that sounds logical ...
KA: We also talked about the time when the decision on the act was made. There we made those "dot-maps" where all the circles are marked out around the stations, and then marked out with the numbers of homes and work-places. There we did not take into account the development of the Ørestad. The calculations we make when we evaluate the running costs of the line in the long term, we of course take into account the Ørestad, because if we did not, we shouldn't build the line. That goes for all alternatives, even the tram alternative. There will be a passenger contribution herefrom in whichever case.
JG: So how big a contribution do you use?
KA: I really don't remember that. Honestly, it is not that I don't want to tell you, I simply can't remember. Ehhhh ..... but there has be calculated with an extension equalling the 75.000 square meters a year in the Ørestad over a very long period of time. Over a period of 30 years it means that the Ørestad will not be completely built ... if you stick to the 3,4 million square meters we can build, there will still be something like one-fourth left by then. But it means that the running costs will be much better than we earlier thought. Those observations on how many passengers we could get into the system were made with "a finger out of the window", a rough estimate. Now we are building models - it is Karsten Fich whom is working on this - and you can see them sometime. There will be designed a giant traffic model, but it is not finished yet. The model is designed by some companies in the Carl Bro Group and some Dutch and Swedish companies. There they make assessments of how people's behaviour is determined by the transport options given to them, and that is something completely new. Luckily the first tests of the model result in an extremely much higher number of passengers than we first thought. It has been mentioned in the media some time ago, what was it, some 85 million passengers a year in the long run. It can very well be even higher, it is only calculations, right. It can also be less, but it is normally said that the construction costs are much more difficult to assess than the amount of traffic, for some reason. Therefore, we are rather confident in the economy of the system being very good. The whole idea of the act was somehow that the city should pay the line. Thus we can say that a safe estimate today, still with the same growth rate of the Ørestad, seems to give a 50% self-financing of the line. That is quite good, well, it's damn good, because typically you can .... Well, some of the systems in existence around the world, they can probably cover their own running costs, but there are no contribution from the running costs to the construction itself. There is a metro that has paid itself, and more, and that is the one down in Hongkong, which gives a very high profit. But there are also quite a few more people to put into it, you know. Besides, the trains there are so packed that, if it were the same here, people would not accept it, they would take the car or their bikes instead.
JG: So which are the metro-system you would compare with? There has been talked about Lille and Lyon.
KA: Yes, on the technological side.
JG: But what about the consumer-side, the traffic behaviour and so on?
KA: I don't know, actually. But I can tell you that one of the systems the board has looked at before they decided on the mini-metro, was the mini-metro in Vancouver, where there has been a drastic city development around the line ............ (end of transcript)
The full dialogue that day took three hours, no breaks, and lots of cigarettes and coffee. The cut is from the first third. After first going through a range of issues related to the preparations of the public hearings, in brief proving that there was no well-defined ODC strategy planned yet, only 2 months before the hearings. I kept circling around this fact, of course. And kept doing so, also in the following dialogues. Gradually, I started exposing myself.
But then I went to Japan, and a break in our dialogues occurred. We took up the dialogues soon after my return to Denmark, and they got ever more "intense". I have chosen not to use a tape-recorder anymore, mainly for not disturbing/limiting our dialogues, but also for reasons of confidentiality. I know MANY things about the ODC - and I could actually fill in some of Arne Gaardmands "holes", or missing links, had I wanted to do so.
Over the past months, my relationship with the ODC has changed. I am in the third phase, as mentioned earlier. Full exposure, real intervention in the organisation. Actually, this process has let to the somehow bizarre situation, that I will need to put my researcher-hat away for a period, and instead put on (for the first time ever) a "free-lance consultant"-hat, in order to continue my dialogue facilitation. What is at stake is an Internet-project, aiming at creating a new kind of presence in the public sphere for the ODC.
One of the areas in which I have been most "exposing" in my recent dialogues with the ODC is in a critical stance towards their "public relations". I have simply pointed out, again and again, that they have a problem with their public "image", and in more general terms, they "suffer" from the "modern fear of exposure" (Sennett). Of course, they were, and are, well aware of that fact. The media coverage they get is mostly very negative, and they complain about not being able to get through with what they regard as the "real picture" - "all the positive things are filtered away by the journalists", "the journalists condemn us", and so on, are their reactions to this.
What I have done here is to point out, first, that they gain nothing by self-pitying themselves. Second, that they have asked for this themselves, with the way they have made (or not made) public sphere work. I have argued that they have done nothing whatsoever in terms of making innovations or experiments in the area; they have "followed the book", nothing more, nothing less. In a way, they have not taken public communication strategies into their considerations and over-all project management. Had they done so, I argue, they could easily have avoided many of the critics. For example, the board of the ODC chose to make a decision on which type of urban transit system to be used before the public hearings took place. In that way, they eliminated any kind of discussion with the public on this matter - which turned out to be a key issue for many local citizens and organisations. Had the board instead waited until after these hearings with making the decision, they could at least have given the impression of a more open decision process, let alone taking the opinions expressed into consideration in the decision making. Likewise, I have more recently touched upon the lack of new thinking in the Master Planning process, first with regard to the Master Plan made by the ODC and later with regard to the public hearing on the amendment to the municipal plan for Copenhagen Municipality. As for the process around the municipal plan, the ODC has clearly chosen to keep a very low profile, by arguing that it should be left to the Municipality of Copenhagen to decide how to advance in this process. I have here argued that even though it might seem important to sustain a pretence of independence, it is in reality the worst disservice they can do - to themselves as well as the municipality; "everyone" know of the very tight relationship between the ODC and the municipality, and it only confirms the suspicions of a "conspiracy" when there is no "joint effort" in the actual processes.
I am fully aware of the fact that I here raise some very explosive political issues. And I am also aware of all the dangers and problems involved in pressing them on exactly these issues. What I have done is to be sincere and act as an "objective, authoritative expert" (references to other places, a.s.o.), while at the same time pushing it further by introducing and suggesting a whole new agenda for their communication strategy and their use of media, namely by introducing to them the new electronic media, especially the Internet. This strategy has been very interesting indeed, because it seems as if I in this have not only a way of showing, very directly, that the ODC (and the municipality too, for that sake) today actually do have an alternative, an opportunity to do something with the public image and the presence in the public sphere. The strategy has also, and that is the "beautiful" part, been instrumental for "validating" my research approach, because of the issues brought up in this new project are all a direct "mirror" to almost all the central interests I have (i.e., participation, publicity, etc.). It is not a hidden agenda on my part that my real objective in this project is this. Accordingly, the project has now been "politicised" in the ODC, resulting in some kind of a conflict situation internally, where it becomes obvious (to me, they knew) that there of course, as in all organisations, are different "fractions", and of course different opinions about priorities and strategies. As the facilitator, I have put myself into a position where I have become the "owner" of this project. Much more literally than I ever imagined, because it so turns out, that KA and others now want to "buy" me, and to give me the task of being project manager, and designer, of the whole project and its implementation/realisation. Admittedly, I have asked for this myself, because I chose to try and "sell" the project as convincingly as possible, and in doing so, went "all the way" and suggested that I personally would be more than happy to carry out, with them, the project itself. Just to give a flavour of my "marketing" of "Gotze's Webdesign Inc" is here one of my letters to KA, for the sake of argument made up as an email (and actually printed out as a screen dump from a real email-environment).
To: Klaus.Ahm@orestad.dk
From: itsjg@inet.uni-c.dk
Subject: Mere om Orestad-online
Hej Klaus,
I forlængelse af vores snak om Orestad-online, her et par ting at tygge på:
Indtil fornylig regnede jeg med, at der for så vidt "kun" var en Ørestadsbeboer allerede på Internettet (KUA). Men nu skal du bare høre: Jeg ved fra sædvanligvis pålidelig kilde (min bror!) at en anden Ørestadsbeboer, Bella Centret, er på vej på nettet.
---dette er IKKE noget jeg ved officielt -- men min bror er netværksmand i BC, så jeg ved det derfra. Det er vist meget nyt, så der er sikkert ikke mange derude, der endnu ved det.
--det var måske værd at overveje at lave noget sammen med BC? Eller måske netop IKKE at gøre det?
Jeg har iøvrigt fundet ud af, at der eksisterer en online-diskussion om Ørestaden!! På Politiken-online - dvs. ikke direkte på Internettet. Jeg har kun set nogle overskrifter, men er ikke abonnent, så jeg kan ikke læse dem. Et forslag: hvis I betaler abonnementet, skal jeg sørge for det bliver oprettet. Selvom det er snyd, kan flere deles om det (men fra Ritt-sagen ved du hvordan Thøger Slapifarten har det med ophavsrettigheder!). Har i et modem? I så fald kan I bruge Pol-online direkte i Windows - med et udvidet abonnement med fuld Internet-adgang. (men hvis det blot er internet-adgang, er der en række konkurrenter, der bør overvejes). For mig er det lille abonnemnet nok - og hvis I giver mig adgang, kan jeg godt påtage mig at sende kopier på papir til jer, når der kommer noget. Jeg tror ikke Presseklip tjekker her.
Jeg har iøvrigt sammensat et program for Anne-Grethe og evt. andre. De er velkommen til at komme herud - de skal bare sige til. Du og Michael er selvfølgelig også velkomne, hvis I vil surfe igen -- any time!
Hilsener
John Gøtze
I here tell KA about a new web-project carried out by the Bella Center, where coincidentally my brother works. (The Bella Center is located in the area). I also mention that a local BBS is hosting an online debate about the project, but that I personally do not have access to it. Lastly, I invite him and his colleagues to come and visit me at the university.
After having discussed the possibilities of the new electronic media, especially the Internet, at several meetings in the ODC, KA and another employee had clearly "bought" the idea. We now had a project to "sell". They had never actually used the Internet, but had of course heard of it. They asked me to give a demonstration, so I invited them to my office, where we spent two hours "surfing" around on WWW and I demonstrated how I use email. They went back to the ODC with an even bigger motivation, and began to "plant" the idea. And that was/is no easy task. AGF, the general manager, whose decision it is to take to begin the project, is the kind of manager, who leaves working with computers to her employees. But even she had heard of the Internet, and did not turn the project down, but neither did she just say "go ahead". PK, the communications and PR person, had/has about the same kind of relationship to computers, and as far as the Internet is concerned, his first response was something like "that's this pornography thing, isn't it?". Several others, however, support the idea very strongly, one so much that he has changed his mind with regard to a job shift, which was already arranged, with the one reason that he wants to become involved in this project, as a graphic designer which is his profession.
In my position paper for the "knowledge test", I wrote:
AGF is yet to say "go ahead", but it is, I hope, only a question of days from now (21.2.96). When she does so, we will start the project immediately. I have done the necessary preparations, I think, to take on the task in "professional" terms (how much does it cost? - what kind of system are we talking about? - established contacts to service-suppliers - learned the latest WWW design "tricks" and so on).
I have on purpose tried to push the whole process forward, instead of waiting until I finish my PhD-project. As for my PhD, I am, two-and-a-half years on, now actually in the final phase of the project, trying to write a thesis, analyse empirical data, and so on. Nevertheless, I have seen this new project as an opportunity to qualify my remaining work. Even though I go on a leave from my PhD, to do something that basically has nothing to do with research, I will not leave my head at DTU! And I have made it very clear to the ODC that they get no rights whatsoever in terms of my thesis, just because they "buy" me for a month or two. In terms of the project itself, we are yet to discuss the degree of freedom I get when designing the web-presence for them; there will without doubt be a fully legitimate motivation from their part to have more or less full control over the content in the presentation. I see nothing wrong in that - it is after all their place. But I have also made it clear to them that my ideas goes further than the usual PR-promotion, presenting only what the newspapers do not (i.e., the positive things), and that I ideally consider this project a first step towards a more participatory system. We'll see - make your bookmark now for http://www.orestad.dk ;-)
That was in february. Things didn't work out quite the way I planned; there is still no response when trying to load http://www.orestad.dk (*)... because it does still not exist. The fear of exposure won over the acclaimed transparency claim. In the next chapter I will look at how things may have been, had the process been different.
*: Note: On 11th December 1997, more than two years after Wired Amager, www.orestad.dk was opened. Not a very interactive site ...