CASE STUDY: INCREMENTAL UPGRADING OF ENKANINI – THE ISHACK INITIATIVE
Copy/paste this URL to link to this paper
Abstract : Preface by John Van Breda
[A rich format version of the paper is downloadable through Dropbox ]
The case you are about to read captures an emerging / real-life transdisciplinary (TD) initiative, situated in an informal settlement in Stellenbosch (South Africa). When we started with this case study two years ago (at the beginning of 2010) we had to ‘suspend’ all our theoretical knowledge and models of how to start a typical td case study. This is because most of the literature on TD has been written in the context of the developed world with its well established democratic structures and institutions. Although we in South Africa are eighteen years into our democracy, we are still one of the most unequal societies in the world. Structural inequality is a daily reality experienced in all areas of our lives. One such area where the growing disparities between rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, is most explicitly felt is housing. Thousands of poor black people in South Africa are still without decent housing as well as the most basic services such as access to water, sanitation and electricity – things normally taken for granted as a ‘given’ in any country and society in the developed world. Enkanini tells this story when over the last five to six years approximately between 6 – 8 thousand people in-migrated from the Eastern Cape to look for a better life in and around the Stellenbosch area.
When we decided in 2010 to become involved with the plight of the people living in this informal settlement on our doorstep, so to speak, we very quickly realised from the onset that the TD approaches developed and written about in the literature would not necessarily work in this context. It became clear that it was impossible to approach the people living in Ekanini with concepts such as "community" and "stakeholders" because in this context of an emerging ‘community’ people were struggling to survive from one day to the next have not mobilised themselves as yet, and there were no stake-holder groups with clearly defined and articulated interests. Also lacking was ‘knowledge’ about how to conceptualise their basic needs as well as possible solutions. Therefore, the fundamental challenge that we stumbled across from the outset was where and how tostart a TD case study when all the basic building blocks’ of how this approach has been articulated in the literature were simply not present?
In the context of an emerging democracy such as South Africa, the fundamental Habermasian "idea of dominant free discourses, in which rationality and consensus are attained in a communicative process that is open to all relevant (sometimes conflicting) arguments from participants, thus honouring their equal rights and duties"; (Scholz 2012, p.390) will not necessarily work. We had to literally "think on our feet" and come up with new, creative ways of starting a td case study in a developing world context fundamentally different to that of the developed world. From our humble beginnings a lot of interest has emerged both within Enkanini as well as from "external" stakeholders. Amongst others, these include the local Municipality, the Provincial Government, Stellenbosch University and to the Gates Foundation – all expressing a keen interest in what can be done for people living in informal settlements in South Africa. However, this, as mentioned, is an unfolding story and we invite you to participate with us in critically discussing this emerging td case study. From this we sincerely hope that many lessons, both theoretical and practical, will be learnt on how to approach td case studies in different contexts and in different parts of the world
The case you are about to read captures an emerging / real-life transdisciplinary (TD) initiative, situated in an informal settlement in Stellenbosch (South Africa). When we started with this case study two years ago (at the beginning of 2010) we had to ‘suspend’ all our theoretical knowledge and models of how to start a typical td case study. This is because most of the literature on TD has been written in the context of the developed world with its well established democratic structures and institutions. Although we in South Africa are eighteen years into our democracy, we are still one of the most unequal societies in the world. Structural inequality is a daily reality experienced in all areas of our lives. One such area where the growing disparities between rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, is most explicitly felt is housing. Thousands of poor black people in South Africa are still without decent housing as well as the most basic services such as access to water, sanitation and electricity – things normally taken for granted as a ‘given’ in any country and society in the developed world. Enkanini tells this story when over the last five to six years approximately between 6 – 8 thousand people in-migrated from the Eastern Cape to look for a better life in and around the Stellenbosch area.
When we decided in 2010 to become involved with the plight of the people living in this informal settlement on our doorstep, so to speak, we very quickly realised from the onset that the TD approaches developed and written about in the literature would not necessarily work in this context. It became clear that it was impossible to approach the people living in Ekanini with concepts such as "community" and "stakeholders" because in this context of an emerging ‘community’ people were struggling to survive from one day to the next have not mobilised themselves as yet, and there were no stake-holder groups with clearly defined and articulated interests. Also lacking was ‘knowledge’ about how to conceptualise their basic needs as well as possible solutions. Therefore, the fundamental challenge that we stumbled across from the outset was where and how tostart a TD case study when all the basic building blocks’ of how this approach has been articulated in the literature were simply not present?
In the context of an emerging democracy such as South Africa, the fundamental Habermasian "idea of dominant free discourses, in which rationality and consensus are attained in a communicative process that is open to all relevant (sometimes conflicting) arguments from participants, thus honouring their equal rights and duties"; (Scholz 2012, p.390) will not necessarily work. We had to literally "think on our feet" and come up with new, creative ways of starting a td case study in a developing world context fundamentally different to that of the developed world. From our humble beginnings a lot of interest has emerged both within Enkanini as well as from "external" stakeholders. Amongst others, these include the local Municipality, the Provincial Government, Stellenbosch University and to the Gates Foundation – all expressing a keen interest in what can be done for people living in informal settlements in South Africa. However, this, as mentioned, is an unfolding story and we invite you to participate with us in critically discussing this emerging td case study. From this we sincerely hope that many lessons, both theoretical and practical, will be learnt on how to approach td case studies in different contexts and in different parts of the world
Introduction
We would like to thank Andreas Keller; Berry Wessels; Vanessa von den Hyde; Lauren Tavener-Smith for their important work in Enkanini and Prof. Mark Swilling (School of Public Leadership – Stellenbosch University) and Eve Annecke (Director: Sustainability Institute) for their leadership in the Enkanini project.
Enkanini is an informal settlement of about 8,000 people located in the vicinity of Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Small shacks, water sanitation challenges, poverty, lack of electricity characterize this informal settlement as does its tight social networks, groups and religious organizations. As part of their doctoral training in transdisciplinary research, PhD students at Stellenbosch work with colleagues across disciplines and Enkanini inhabitants in order to strengthen the local capacity to improve living conditions. The students’ task is to employ disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary inquiry approaches to meet their development goals in sustainable ways. Working in Enkanini where actors have not yet organized in rational and democratic institutions reveals the need for new approaches to local engagement, transdisciplinary knowledge construction and development work.
This case study documents the Enkanini initiative. It outlines the project’s context and goals; the composition of working team and recruited forms of expertise; key moments and challenges in the project’s life as well as emerging lessons and challenges. A concrete instance of transdisciplinary research in a developing country and a training ground for researchers employing transdisciplinary approaches, the case provides a common ground for deliberation around two questions:
Question one: How might current conceptions of transdisciplinary research be enriched through the lessons learned from developing contexts where rational democratic practices and institutions are only emerging?
Question two: What lessons can be drawn from the case to address the challenge of preparing masters and doctoral candidates to conduct research that is at once rigorous and responsible and able to address problems of our time—e.g. from poverty to climate change to the protection of universal human rights?
Enkanini is an informal settlement of about 8,000 people located in the vicinity of Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Small shacks, water sanitation challenges, poverty, lack of electricity characterize this informal settlement as does its tight social networks, groups and religious organizations. As part of their doctoral training in transdisciplinary research, PhD students at Stellenbosch work with colleagues across disciplines and Enkanini inhabitants in order to strengthen the local capacity to improve living conditions. The students’ task is to employ disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary inquiry approaches to meet their development goals in sustainable ways. Working in Enkanini where actors have not yet organized in rational and democratic institutions reveals the need for new approaches to local engagement, transdisciplinary knowledge construction and development work.
This case study documents the Enkanini initiative. It outlines the project’s context and goals; the composition of working team and recruited forms of expertise; key moments and challenges in the project’s life as well as emerging lessons and challenges. A concrete instance of transdisciplinary research in a developing country and a training ground for researchers employing transdisciplinary approaches, the case provides a common ground for deliberation around two questions:
Question one: How might current conceptions of transdisciplinary research be enriched through the lessons learned from developing contexts where rational democratic practices and institutions are only emerging?
Question two: What lessons can be drawn from the case to address the challenge of preparing masters and doctoral candidates to conduct research that is at once rigorous and responsible and able to address problems of our time—e.g. from poverty to climate change to the protection of universal human rights?
State of the Art : THE CONTEXT
Approximately 25% of South African urban households live in informal structures of various kinds, despite a massive house building program put in place by the South African government since 1994. In recent years, a new housing policy introduced by the government, called Breaking New Ground: A Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements (commonly referred to now as BNG), shifted the emphasis from building new structures in greenfield sites on the urban peripheries to the “incremental in situ upgrading” of informal settlements where they are more or less currently located. It was envisioned that this Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP) would move the focus away from building housing units to addressing the need for more integrated sustainable human settlements. However, the shack dwellers in line for incremental upgrading often wait an average of no less than eight years before the electricity and water grid is installed.
One such informal settlement is Enkanini, located within walking distance of the center of Stellenbosch, which is a town of nearly 200 000 people located 40 minutes by road from Cape Town. Enkanini is a growing informal settlement, currently home to about 8000 people. It is a proper illegal settlement and un-serviced, unlike most of Cape Town’s settlements that are legal informal, or legal serviced with shacks. Its location on a steep slope has made it an unlikely candidate for the upgrading programme because of the engineering difficulties involved. Any provision of services would come at a high cost, and neither the municipality nor the poverty-stricken inhabitants have any incentive to press for upgrading.
As such, Enkanini presented an opportunity for a project group from the University of Stellenbosch and the Sustainability Institute to test the idea of an alternative trajectory for incremental upgrading with ecological design, in particular with energy, sanitation and waste technologies. Using an ecological design approach, the iShack project based in Stellenbosch developed an approach that provides shack dwellers with immediate solutions that can improve their lives before electricity and water grids are installed. The iShack project, the focal point of this case, is one of three related innovations in Enkanini. The other two projects addressed sanitation issues and social processes of social mobilization and institution building respectively.
One such informal settlement is Enkanini, located within walking distance of the center of Stellenbosch, which is a town of nearly 200 000 people located 40 minutes by road from Cape Town. Enkanini is a growing informal settlement, currently home to about 8000 people. It is a proper illegal settlement and un-serviced, unlike most of Cape Town’s settlements that are legal informal, or legal serviced with shacks. Its location on a steep slope has made it an unlikely candidate for the upgrading programme because of the engineering difficulties involved. Any provision of services would come at a high cost, and neither the municipality nor the poverty-stricken inhabitants have any incentive to press for upgrading.
As such, Enkanini presented an opportunity for a project group from the University of Stellenbosch and the Sustainability Institute to test the idea of an alternative trajectory for incremental upgrading with ecological design, in particular with energy, sanitation and waste technologies. Using an ecological design approach, the iShack project based in Stellenbosch developed an approach that provides shack dwellers with immediate solutions that can improve their lives before electricity and water grids are installed. The iShack project, the focal point of this case, is one of three related innovations in Enkanini. The other two projects addressed sanitation issues and social processes of social mobilization and institution building respectively.
Central Claim
RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT GOALS
It was apparent early on that, in reality, services pertaining to electricity (streetlights only), water, sanitation, roads, storm water and solid waste are not provided to Enkanini, even though in theory the municipality is supposed to do so. This is because the Enkanini informal settlement has not been legally recognized as permanent. Neither has the land it is sitting on been rezoned for residential purposes. Instead, Enkanini is one of the few informal settlements in South Africa that has hanging over it a court interdict ruling that it is formally illegal and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the inhabitants were legally entitled to be there, in situ upgrading will not be readily available to them. They will have to wait for the electricity and water grids to arrive, with minimal solid waste collection services in the meantime.
In short, the problem facing the inhabitants of Enkanini was: if upgrading means ‘wait for the grids to arrive’, what happens in the meantime? The fact that development has come to mean ‘trust and wait’ could effectively demobilize civil society since there is nothing to organize communities around that can result in tangible immediate improvements to daily life. If the project focuses only on staying one step ahead of the settlement and organizing, in a uniform top-down manner, the inhabitants for receiving in situ upgrading, it would only, at best, be laying the groundwork for a weak civil society. Even more worrying is that such support could effectively undermine democracy
Swilling, M. (2012). Rethinking the science-policy interface in South Africa: Experiments in co-production of knowledge at different scales. Paper presented at the 2012 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Freie Universitat Berlin, 5-6 October 2012.
An alternative was therefore necessary for reasons that go beyond urban development.
In view of these, the project at Enkanini set out to achieve two overarching goals:
1. Building and upgrading - to examine how ecologically sound shacks could be created at Enkanini that leverage local resources (e.g. human, materials, etc.)
2. Practical impact – to create conditions for the informal settlement at Enkanini to improve their lives and develop agency for sustaining those improvements
Specifically, the team set out to investigate the following questions: What would an improved notion of incremental upgrading look like in practice? What are the ways to improve the comfort environment of incrementally upgraded shelters? What are the possibilities for incorporating incremental energy technology into an in situ upgrading process?
II. ISHACK DESIGN AND TEAM COMPOSITION
Design features of the iShack
The iShack is a 14.2m2 structure equipped with the following features:
* insulation in the walls and roof covered with cardboard painted with fire retardant paint;
* a thermal mass for passive heating and cooling by using a 1 meter high adobe wall along the back of the shack together with a floor made from fired clay bricks reclaimed from the landfill;
* a north-south orientation plus a roof overhang on the north side for shade in summer and solar penetration in winter;
* correctly sized and located windows for lighting and ventilation;
* a 25 watt solar panel to power 3 LED lights and a cellphone charger;
* a gutter to capture rainwater.
The team worked with three shacks in the Enkanini informal settlement on an energy intervention that tracked the thermal performance of the iShack vis-à-vis a retrofitted shack and an existing one:
1. The iShack or improved shack is a completely new shack built according to ecological design principles with recycled material insulation and a DC Solar Home System.
2. The Retrofit shack refers to an existing shack fitted with cheap recycled material insulation.
3. The Control shack is an existing shack used as a benchmark against which to gauge the thermal performance of the iShack and Retrofit shacks.
Data readings of the thermal performance of the three shacks were logged and recorded over a period of two months – October to November 2011. All three shacks were retrofitted with a WH3081 Wireless Weather Station and Data Logger in order to record individualized indoor and outdoor temperature observations at 15-minute intervals. The participating households and shacks selected for the study were similar in size, material composition, occupancy level, socio-economic profile and location, thereby allowing for reasonable accuracy in thermal performance comparability.
Team composition
The following list presents the people involved in a recursive design process with 10 major design iterations, which lead up to the final iShack design. The project team – settlement members, students, consultants – and their backgrounds and disciplinary contributions are outlined below:
1. Enkanini residents. Lived experience. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge
2. Cindy Bester. 4th year Mechanical Engineer Student. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge
3. Shaun Cuff. Architect and Civil Society Pratictioner. Disciplines: Structural Design, Ecological Design, Livability and Comfort, Thermal Performance.
4. Colette Fransolet. Industrial Design Student. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge, Livability and Comfort.
5. Bernhard Lembeck. Ecological Paint Manifacturer. Disciplines: Ecological Design, Materials Knowledge.
6. Mugendi M'Rithaa. Industrial Design Academic. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge, Livability and Comfort.
7. Mark Swilling. Sustainability Academic. Disciplines: Structural Design, Ecological Design, Materials Knowledge, Livability and Comfort.
8. Malcolm Worby. Architect and Earth Building Specialist. Structural Design, Ecological Design, Materials Knowledge, Thermal Performance.
9. ISUG Fellows Researchers. Economics and Sociology. Livability and Comfort.
III. THE ISHACK: TRANSDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS
Central Role of the Settlement in recasting incremental innovation
What does in situ upgrading, as specified by the government’s building policy, mean in practice from the perspective of the average shack dweller living in Enkanini? Instead of an upgrading program that was directed top-down by the municipality, the iShack initiative took the route of a ground-up project. Employing a transdisciplinary research methodology, Stellenbosch researchers recognized from the start the importance of settlement partners in the team.
The team first laid the groundwork for the project by building a deeper understanding of the context within which they were working. Graduate students on the project team moved into the informal settlement to live, work and play. In doing so, they came to better understand the living conditions of the Enkanini inhabitants, the challenges they faced, and the needs they had. Such understanding deeply informed the design of the iShack described above, as well as the plan to build capacity within the informal settlement. The students’ strong relationships with Enkanini dwellers also meant that they were positioned well to effectively mount visible campaigns to improve settlement spaces, such as the painting of shacks using bright colors and designs.
Mindful of how the cost of upgrading could stymie reception to the iShack, the team carefully calibrated the cost of building and maintaining the iShack. To ensure that the iShack was economically viable, the team used the Enkanini informal contractors’ construction cost of R3000 for a 3m x 3m basic zinc shack as a benchmark at which to peg the cost of the iShack. It also calculated that a further R1000 allowance for sustainability interventions was necessary as an initial investment which could be recouped in the long term where cost savings are realized in the form of reduced health and energy costs.
The project also enlisted the support of informal social movements as well as governmental bodies for their work in Enkanini. The team established contact with the Informal Settlement Network (ISN), a social movement active in the Stellenbosch area that was supported by Shack Dwellers International (SDI). It also went on to establish a working relationship of sorts with relevant officials in the Stellenbosch Municipality who were, in turn, working formally with ISN. Doing so enabled the team to work more effectively within and for the settlement.
The team conducted research on government agencies and their existing policies on upgrading and resettlement. Equipped with their research and informed by discussions with the Enkanini inhabitants, officials and ISN, the initiative came to the conclusion that ecological design methods and tools may open up an alternative way of thinking about a genuine incremental approach to upgrading that avoids all the negative consequences of the ‘trust and wait’ approach. Working with engineers and an ecological architect, a design was generated for an “improved shack”, or the “iShack.” To the question of “What would an improved notion of incremental upgrading look like in practice?” students respond – bottom-up, transdisciplinary, and immediately relevant, as illustrated by the iShack.
Dynamic problem framing and a network of relevant design innovations
If the students’ stance in Enkanini contributed to their understanding of the dweller’s experience, to build social networks to identify key settlement members of the team, the process of defining the problems for study was neither linear nor definite. Various dimensions of incremental upgrading enterprise called for unique forms of expertise (disciplinary, institutional and local) as well as for the coordination of perspectives in productive designs. Over time, varying dimensions (energy, costs, comfort, safety and appeal) received prime attention. They presented design opportunities and demands and invited micro-innovations that made the design possible. The Enkanini inhabitants’ concern of fair fees illustrates the point.
Potential iShack users were concerned that an initially conceived flat monthly energy fee to sustain green energy availability would not be fair. If a person were to work all day, they argued, he or she would use it much less than another person who worked less. To address the problem, the team worked with its technology partner, Specialised Solar Systems (SSS). Key to the partnership of the project and SSS is the confluence of their motivations and interests: the iShack initiative is looking to a social-technical innovation process to transform the upgrading of Enkanini, while SSS is not only a key supplier of fixed goods, but have vested interest in technological innovation.
SSS came back with the idea of a watt meter. While a watt meter does not exist at present (there are only kilowatt meters because they require a large electricity flow to be accurate), SSS was confident that they have designed an accurate watt meter that could measure small amounts of electricity usage. Additionally, the company is also innovating beyond powering lights and cell phones; they also supply 12V fridges, 12V TVs and DSTV. In fact, a whole range of appliances can now be 12V, which means a much smaller panel is needed, one that can actually power a 12V system without the inverter. According to SSS, the reason for solar energy not being rolled out rapidly worldwide is the common assumption that all household appliances are 220V ones, hence to power them using renewable energy would require the installation of many solar roof-panels as well as an expensive converter. SSS suggests replacing the inverter and the 220V system with a 12V system that achieves exactly the same output. Of course, at present, appliances for that market have yet to be fully developed.
New scalable standards for sustainable improvement
Innovations were not only related to outputs but also to methods and standards for research and development. There currently exists a myriad of sustainable design guidelines and rating systems that strive to improve the sustainability performance of buildings. However, these are usually crafted for formalized environments and hence are unsuitable for the complex contexts of informal settlements like Enkanini, where other limitations and opportunities for sustainable building exist. As a result, the design team set its own qualitative and quantitative criteria, which were informed by in-field experiences, as well as informal discussions and semi-structured interviews with experts and members of the Enkanini settlement.
Given the lack of objective comparisons by which to measure the efficacy of the design, the criteria as laid out by the team served a two-fold purpose: firstly, they were used to guide the design approach, highlighting those aspects that would speak to sustainable improvements of thermal comfort; secondly, they became the objectives of the design outcome for both the iShack and Retrofit designs. The criteria used are:
1. Thermal comfort – the design of the iShack had to reduce temperature fluctuations and keeps the temperature at an acceptable level in order to achieve indoor thermal comfort. This was especially challenging given the unelectrified environment of the Enkanini settlement.
2. Design complexity – it was essential that the design of the iShack were of low complexity (e.g. not requiring the use of power tools) so that they could be built within a shorter timeframe as well as be easily replicated.
3. Indoor air quality – within the confined space of a shack, the Indoor air quality is likely to be compromised because the emissions such as volatile off-gas emissions from chemical compounds, as well as other particles such as spores emitted from mouldy surfaces, are intensified. Hence, the design of the iShack had to ensure that moisture build?up was prevented through proper ventilation.
4. Fire resistance – the informal settlements were fire hazards because of high dwelling densities, alcohol abuse, and the inferior fuels used in inefficient appliances. As such, the use of flammable materials in the construction of the iShack had to be kept to a minimum, thereby reducing the potential for fires and their spread to nearby structures.
5. Recycled and renewable material content – the team determined that the use of recycled materials for building would bring twofold advantages: reduce cost as well as the carbon footprint of dwellings.
6. Cost – given that Enkanini informal contractors’ construction cost for a 3m x 3m basic zinc shack was R3000, that amount was set as a benchmark for the cost of the iShack. An additional amount of R1000 was included for sustainability interventions.
7. Visual appeal – interviews with informal settlers revealed their overwhelming preference on living in a dwelling that is individualized and visually appealing.
Learning to meeting the eclecticism of real-world demands by integrating multiple forms of expertise
In contrast with traditional forms of disciplinary doctoral training that puts a premium on highly specialized disciplinary problem niches likely to prepare students for a career in their fields, students working in Enkanini were challenged to define aspects of the problem for in-depth investigation putting disciplinary standards, available resources, and organizational supports in dialogue with local interests. For example, to advance designs that were not only energy efficient but also comfortably to live in, the team (composed of disciplinary and settlement experts) had to draw on multiple forms of expertise. Applying principles of physics to building design, the team used passive solar designs that utilize strategically placed windows to regulate airflow, and building materials such as adobe and bricks to maintain a comfortable temperature within enclosed spaces as well as create a thermal mass that adapted to the changing seasons.
Architectural ideas ensured that indoor air quality was improved and sustained by using proper ventilation to remove moisture build?up. The iShack was built with large windows positioned at the North and East facing sides encouraging natural ventilation through the formation of a draft. Northern windows open at the top to send warm air out. A roof-overhang shades the iShack from the heat of the summer sun, yet allows the low-lying winter sun in. The roof slants at 8 degrees creating a sufficient gradient for water run-off, which is collected in a gutter at the back to enable rainwater harvesting.
The team also took advantage of the availability of recycled and renewable resources in the settlement as building material. For example, waste cardboard provided insulation for roof and walls. Tetrapak was installed between the zinc and cardboard for additional insulation with the shiny side facing outwards to ward off heat. The Cob wall, intended to provide insulation on the cold southern wall and create thermal mass that gets warmed up by the sun shining through the large northern front windows during winter, was painted with melted candles mixed with spirits to create a cheap varnish and kill off any seeds that may want to grow in it. Old tyres were also filled with earth and used to build up retaining wall and to be used for vegetable growing.
To ensure that the iShack was fire resistant, the team ensured that the insulation for the roof and walls were treated with fire retardant, ecologically friendly and biodegradable paint specially designed for the project by EnviroTouch.
A view of Enkanini
It was apparent early on that, in reality, services pertaining to electricity (streetlights only), water, sanitation, roads, storm water and solid waste are not provided to Enkanini, even though in theory the municipality is supposed to do so. This is because the Enkanini informal settlement has not been legally recognized as permanent. Neither has the land it is sitting on been rezoned for residential purposes. Instead, Enkanini is one of the few informal settlements in South Africa that has hanging over it a court interdict ruling that it is formally illegal and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the inhabitants were legally entitled to be there, in situ upgrading will not be readily available to them. They will have to wait for the electricity and water grids to arrive, with minimal solid waste collection services in the meantime.
In short, the problem facing the inhabitants of Enkanini was: if upgrading means ‘wait for the grids to arrive’, what happens in the meantime? The fact that development has come to mean ‘trust and wait’ could effectively demobilize civil society since there is nothing to organize communities around that can result in tangible immediate improvements to daily life. If the project focuses only on staying one step ahead of the settlement and organizing, in a uniform top-down manner, the inhabitants for receiving in situ upgrading, it would only, at best, be laying the groundwork for a weak civil society. Even more worrying is that such support could effectively undermine democracy
Swilling, M. (2012). Rethinking the science-policy interface in South Africa: Experiments in co-production of knowledge at different scales. Paper presented at the 2012 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Freie Universitat Berlin, 5-6 October 2012.
An alternative was therefore necessary for reasons that go beyond urban development.
In view of these, the project at Enkanini set out to achieve two overarching goals:
1. Building and upgrading - to examine how ecologically sound shacks could be created at Enkanini that leverage local resources (e.g. human, materials, etc.)
2. Practical impact – to create conditions for the informal settlement at Enkanini to improve their lives and develop agency for sustaining those improvements
Specifically, the team set out to investigate the following questions: What would an improved notion of incremental upgrading look like in practice? What are the ways to improve the comfort environment of incrementally upgraded shelters? What are the possibilities for incorporating incremental energy technology into an in situ upgrading process?
II. ISHACK DESIGN AND TEAM COMPOSITION
Design features of the iShack
Control, Retrofit and iShack
The iShack is a 14.2m2 structure equipped with the following features:
* insulation in the walls and roof covered with cardboard painted with fire retardant paint;
* a thermal mass for passive heating and cooling by using a 1 meter high adobe wall along the back of the shack together with a floor made from fired clay bricks reclaimed from the landfill;
* a north-south orientation plus a roof overhang on the north side for shade in summer and solar penetration in winter;
* correctly sized and located windows for lighting and ventilation;
* a 25 watt solar panel to power 3 LED lights and a cellphone charger;
* a gutter to capture rainwater.
Top view of the iShack
The team worked with three shacks in the Enkanini informal settlement on an energy intervention that tracked the thermal performance of the iShack vis-à-vis a retrofitted shack and an existing one:
1. The iShack or improved shack is a completely new shack built according to ecological design principles with recycled material insulation and a DC Solar Home System.
2. The Retrofit shack refers to an existing shack fitted with cheap recycled material insulation.
3. The Control shack is an existing shack used as a benchmark against which to gauge the thermal performance of the iShack and Retrofit shacks.
Data readings of the thermal performance of the three shacks were logged and recorded over a period of two months – October to November 2011. All three shacks were retrofitted with a WH3081 Wireless Weather Station and Data Logger in order to record individualized indoor and outdoor temperature observations at 15-minute intervals. The participating households and shacks selected for the study were similar in size, material composition, occupancy level, socio-economic profile and location, thereby allowing for reasonable accuracy in thermal performance comparability.
Team composition
The following list presents the people involved in a recursive design process with 10 major design iterations, which lead up to the final iShack design. The project team – settlement members, students, consultants – and their backgrounds and disciplinary contributions are outlined below:
1. Enkanini residents. Lived experience. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge
2. Cindy Bester. 4th year Mechanical Engineer Student. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge
3. Shaun Cuff. Architect and Civil Society Pratictioner. Disciplines: Structural Design, Ecological Design, Livability and Comfort, Thermal Performance.
4. Colette Fransolet. Industrial Design Student. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge, Livability and Comfort.
5. Bernhard Lembeck. Ecological Paint Manifacturer. Disciplines: Ecological Design, Materials Knowledge.
6. Mugendi M'Rithaa. Industrial Design Academic. Disciplines: Structural Design, Materials Knowledge, Livability and Comfort.
7. Mark Swilling. Sustainability Academic. Disciplines: Structural Design, Ecological Design, Materials Knowledge, Livability and Comfort.
8. Malcolm Worby. Architect and Earth Building Specialist. Structural Design, Ecological Design, Materials Knowledge, Thermal Performance.
9. ISUG Fellows Researchers. Economics and Sociology. Livability and Comfort.
III. THE ISHACK: TRANSDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS
Central Role of the Settlement in recasting incremental innovation
People working at Enkanini
What does in situ upgrading, as specified by the government’s building policy, mean in practice from the perspective of the average shack dweller living in Enkanini? Instead of an upgrading program that was directed top-down by the municipality, the iShack initiative took the route of a ground-up project. Employing a transdisciplinary research methodology, Stellenbosch researchers recognized from the start the importance of settlement partners in the team.
The team first laid the groundwork for the project by building a deeper understanding of the context within which they were working. Graduate students on the project team moved into the informal settlement to live, work and play. In doing so, they came to better understand the living conditions of the Enkanini inhabitants, the challenges they faced, and the needs they had. Such understanding deeply informed the design of the iShack described above, as well as the plan to build capacity within the informal settlement. The students’ strong relationships with Enkanini dwellers also meant that they were positioned well to effectively mount visible campaigns to improve settlement spaces, such as the painting of shacks using bright colors and designs.
Mindful of how the cost of upgrading could stymie reception to the iShack, the team carefully calibrated the cost of building and maintaining the iShack. To ensure that the iShack was economically viable, the team used the Enkanini informal contractors’ construction cost of R3000 for a 3m x 3m basic zinc shack as a benchmark at which to peg the cost of the iShack. It also calculated that a further R1000 allowance for sustainability interventions was necessary as an initial investment which could be recouped in the long term where cost savings are realized in the form of reduced health and energy costs.
The project also enlisted the support of informal social movements as well as governmental bodies for their work in Enkanini. The team established contact with the Informal Settlement Network (ISN), a social movement active in the Stellenbosch area that was supported by Shack Dwellers International (SDI). It also went on to establish a working relationship of sorts with relevant officials in the Stellenbosch Municipality who were, in turn, working formally with ISN. Doing so enabled the team to work more effectively within and for the settlement.
The team conducted research on government agencies and their existing policies on upgrading and resettlement. Equipped with their research and informed by discussions with the Enkanini inhabitants, officials and ISN, the initiative came to the conclusion that ecological design methods and tools may open up an alternative way of thinking about a genuine incremental approach to upgrading that avoids all the negative consequences of the ‘trust and wait’ approach. Working with engineers and an ecological architect, a design was generated for an “improved shack”, or the “iShack.” To the question of “What would an improved notion of incremental upgrading look like in practice?” students respond – bottom-up, transdisciplinary, and immediately relevant, as illustrated by the iShack.
Dynamic problem framing and a network of relevant design innovations
If the students’ stance in Enkanini contributed to their understanding of the dweller’s experience, to build social networks to identify key settlement members of the team, the process of defining the problems for study was neither linear nor definite. Various dimensions of incremental upgrading enterprise called for unique forms of expertise (disciplinary, institutional and local) as well as for the coordination of perspectives in productive designs. Over time, varying dimensions (energy, costs, comfort, safety and appeal) received prime attention. They presented design opportunities and demands and invited micro-innovations that made the design possible. The Enkanini inhabitants’ concern of fair fees illustrates the point.
Potential iShack users were concerned that an initially conceived flat monthly energy fee to sustain green energy availability would not be fair. If a person were to work all day, they argued, he or she would use it much less than another person who worked less. To address the problem, the team worked with its technology partner, Specialised Solar Systems (SSS). Key to the partnership of the project and SSS is the confluence of their motivations and interests: the iShack initiative is looking to a social-technical innovation process to transform the upgrading of Enkanini, while SSS is not only a key supplier of fixed goods, but have vested interest in technological innovation.
SSS came back with the idea of a watt meter. While a watt meter does not exist at present (there are only kilowatt meters because they require a large electricity flow to be accurate), SSS was confident that they have designed an accurate watt meter that could measure small amounts of electricity usage. Additionally, the company is also innovating beyond powering lights and cell phones; they also supply 12V fridges, 12V TVs and DSTV. In fact, a whole range of appliances can now be 12V, which means a much smaller panel is needed, one that can actually power a 12V system without the inverter. According to SSS, the reason for solar energy not being rolled out rapidly worldwide is the common assumption that all household appliances are 220V ones, hence to power them using renewable energy would require the installation of many solar roof-panels as well as an expensive converter. SSS suggests replacing the inverter and the 220V system with a 12V system that achieves exactly the same output. Of course, at present, appliances for that market have yet to be fully developed.
New scalable standards for sustainable improvement
Innovations were not only related to outputs but also to methods and standards for research and development. There currently exists a myriad of sustainable design guidelines and rating systems that strive to improve the sustainability performance of buildings. However, these are usually crafted for formalized environments and hence are unsuitable for the complex contexts of informal settlements like Enkanini, where other limitations and opportunities for sustainable building exist. As a result, the design team set its own qualitative and quantitative criteria, which were informed by in-field experiences, as well as informal discussions and semi-structured interviews with experts and members of the Enkanini settlement.
Given the lack of objective comparisons by which to measure the efficacy of the design, the criteria as laid out by the team served a two-fold purpose: firstly, they were used to guide the design approach, highlighting those aspects that would speak to sustainable improvements of thermal comfort; secondly, they became the objectives of the design outcome for both the iShack and Retrofit designs. The criteria used are:
1. Thermal comfort – the design of the iShack had to reduce temperature fluctuations and keeps the temperature at an acceptable level in order to achieve indoor thermal comfort. This was especially challenging given the unelectrified environment of the Enkanini settlement.
2. Design complexity – it was essential that the design of the iShack were of low complexity (e.g. not requiring the use of power tools) so that they could be built within a shorter timeframe as well as be easily replicated.
3. Indoor air quality – within the confined space of a shack, the Indoor air quality is likely to be compromised because the emissions such as volatile off-gas emissions from chemical compounds, as well as other particles such as spores emitted from mouldy surfaces, are intensified. Hence, the design of the iShack had to ensure that moisture build?up was prevented through proper ventilation.
4. Fire resistance – the informal settlements were fire hazards because of high dwelling densities, alcohol abuse, and the inferior fuels used in inefficient appliances. As such, the use of flammable materials in the construction of the iShack had to be kept to a minimum, thereby reducing the potential for fires and their spread to nearby structures.
5. Recycled and renewable material content – the team determined that the use of recycled materials for building would bring twofold advantages: reduce cost as well as the carbon footprint of dwellings.
6. Cost – given that Enkanini informal contractors’ construction cost for a 3m x 3m basic zinc shack was R3000, that amount was set as a benchmark for the cost of the iShack. An additional amount of R1000 was included for sustainability interventions.
7. Visual appeal – interviews with informal settlers revealed their overwhelming preference on living in a dwelling that is individualized and visually appealing.
Learning to meeting the eclecticism of real-world demands by integrating multiple forms of expertise
In contrast with traditional forms of disciplinary doctoral training that puts a premium on highly specialized disciplinary problem niches likely to prepare students for a career in their fields, students working in Enkanini were challenged to define aspects of the problem for in-depth investigation putting disciplinary standards, available resources, and organizational supports in dialogue with local interests. For example, to advance designs that were not only energy efficient but also comfortably to live in, the team (composed of disciplinary and settlement experts) had to draw on multiple forms of expertise. Applying principles of physics to building design, the team used passive solar designs that utilize strategically placed windows to regulate airflow, and building materials such as adobe and bricks to maintain a comfortable temperature within enclosed spaces as well as create a thermal mass that adapted to the changing seasons.
Architectural ideas ensured that indoor air quality was improved and sustained by using proper ventilation to remove moisture build?up. The iShack was built with large windows positioned at the North and East facing sides encouraging natural ventilation through the formation of a draft. Northern windows open at the top to send warm air out. A roof-overhang shades the iShack from the heat of the summer sun, yet allows the low-lying winter sun in. The roof slants at 8 degrees creating a sufficient gradient for water run-off, which is collected in a gutter at the back to enable rainwater harvesting.
The team also took advantage of the availability of recycled and renewable resources in the settlement as building material. For example, waste cardboard provided insulation for roof and walls. Tetrapak was installed between the zinc and cardboard for additional insulation with the shiny side facing outwards to ward off heat. The Cob wall, intended to provide insulation on the cold southern wall and create thermal mass that gets warmed up by the sun shining through the large northern front windows during winter, was painted with melted candles mixed with spirits to create a cheap varnish and kill off any seeds that may want to grow in it. Old tyres were also filled with earth and used to build up retaining wall and to be used for vegetable growing.
To ensure that the iShack was fire resistant, the team ensured that the insulation for the roof and walls were treated with fire retardant, ecologically friendly and biodegradable paint specially designed for the project by EnviroTouch.
Discussion/Conclusions : WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED?
Creating an effective locally-based institutional model
The success of the iShack initiative suggests that informal settlements can be spaces for a different kind of micro-level governance. An informal settlement does not necessarily need to follow the usual trajectory of waiting eight years or more for service delivery, nor do they need to fall back on the market option where entrepreneurs sell solar panels and batteries or collect waste in the settlements. There may be room for a new institutional model somewhere in between.
The experiment at Enkanini has revealed the potential of a genuine incremental upgrading approach to offer real benefits now rather than waiting for the grid - which if it does arrive, simply becomes the next level of upgrading. The Gates Foundation has accepted the project team’s proposal to scale up the idea to between 40 and 100 units in Enkanini, and has allocated $250 000 (about R1.8 million at current exchange rates) for this purpose. The iShack initiative is not about alleviating poverty for 100 households, but about using the project as a platform to innovate a new institutional model. This model would not be state or municipality driven, but would be analogous to a market-driven model because an entrepreneur would be responsible for repairs and maintenance. However, it must also foster cooperation, because the resulting infrastructure is used by more than one person, and the inhabitants must necessarily work together to protect it.
Although the immediate work is to create more iShacks powered by solar panels, the long-term goal of the iShack initiative is to create adaptive communities where inhabitants come face to face and use data on their livelihoods and health to solve problems. As such, the technology is not the end point but the catalyst to building a learning organisation using proper learning principles.
An effective locally-based institutional model underpins the success of such an adaptive informal settlement. Key elements of such a settlement-based institutional model include:
* Viable and appropriate technology There must be evidence that the technology works, and a strong demand amongst the settlement for the technology. It is also important to understand how people are currently coping without the technology. In the case of Enkanini, illegal electricity connections are prevalent. However, the instability of such connections causes unreliable power supply as well as increases the danger of fire or electrocution. As such, many shack dwellers still prefer to use solar power. A key indicator of a technology’s appropriateness for the informal settlement hinges on whether the people can construct and maintain it. How much expertise is required? Is it maintainable by a course and training for ten people to do it part-time on the weekends, or is it a full-time job for one person? Often the practical ability of the people in these communities is overlooked. Yet, while the inhabitants can be incredibly practical and knowledgeable, they are less likely to welcome technology that has been “dumped” on them, either because of a dependency that’s been created, or because of myths around the technology.
* Clearly communicated and negotiated roles The roles involved in the institutional model are a critical part of the experiment if the model is to be replicable. Properly negotiated roles, where the main parties involved outline their skills and work on a common vision, help to create projects that can be sustained in the long term. This is because each role has implications for the relationships established with the informal settlement. An institutional arrangement is ultimately a set of relationships, so understanding “who brings what” will form the basis of those relationships. For example, the role of the NGO initiating the project can be described as the “adaptive manager”: it works with the informal settlement, communicating a social hypothesis of the process, and then implements and monitors it, and the monitoring feeds back into the system. This builds an adaptive cycle. On the other hand, the role of the university is to create a conceptually sound hypothesis, e.g. “this model will work because communities work in this way”, and facilitate the data flow and communication. Perhaps it is most fruitful for the university to commit to a long-term relationship with the informal settlement, where data is continually being generated, papers are being published, and learning goes into its highest gear.
* Motivated groups that organize for its own development The selection of the groups to work with is important to the success of a project, as communities can vary considerably in their eagerness to work together with an outside project team. The iShack employed a more market-oriented approach, where people decide if they want to enter the model having understood clearly the rules for participation. Rather than going through their often self-appointed leaders, the informal settlement could thus be directly engaged through an application process for individual households. The result is a gathering of groups of people who are motivated to take the initiative and who want to work with the project team. In this way, the people who want to join the programme will identify their own settlement, rather than have one identified for them by outsiders. Trying to identify the informal settlement from the outside can contradict the long-term goal of building capacity. Attention needs to be paid to cross-scale relationships; the long-term sustainability of micro governance depends to an extent on the macro governance, e.g. the City Council, so it is important to have these role players at least philosophically on board with the project so that it can endure some future change. The informal settlement is also empowered to identify its own problems and consider ways to solve them.
* Implementation of the institutional design In this context, the project’s model is “introduced” rather than “imposed” on a settlement by the project, providing a clear picture of what the project team’s goals and process. By insisting that the technology is embraced together with the institutional structure, the project ensures that the first groups to get organised and apply to participate become part of the programme. In this way the project becomes demand driven. As long as the introduced model works, participating settlements are likely to understand it and adapt to it. The key, however, is to allow the model to shift and adjust to changes in the context; the project team needs to begin by listening deeply to people’s feedback to discover where the technology is working and where it is not. To be successful, the people must be given space to change the model as they learn about it.
* Settlement’s ownership of assets Instead of only offering a service, it is advocated that a hire purchase or pay-as-you-go model is used. In such a model, users make regular payments for maintenance costs plus a little bit extra, and after a certain number of payments, the asset becomes their own. This is an effective way of sharing the capital costs while giving that sense of proprietorship of an asset. For those in informal settlements, infrastructure of this kind will be a significant asset in their lives.
* Use of quality external facilitation A quality facilitator for a project like the Enkanini initiative should be trusted by all partners, as well as be someone who understands institutions. Such a facilitator works with the informal settlement and builds capacity within it. He or she is a source of technical information, conflict management, opportunity taking, and data management, and plans for the long-term sustainability of the project by training others from the settlement to take over the facilitation role.
In sum, the elements of an effective and replicable locally-based institutional model include: a long-term goal to create adaptive communities, rather than a focus on installing infrastructure; technology that is viable and appropriate; clearly communicated and negotiated roles; choosing to work with an informal settlement which is self-motivated to organise and develop by clearly defining the rules up front and inviting households to apply; introducing the initial institutional design, and then allowing it to adapt; experimenting with and then choosing a form organisation that works to scale up; choosing an entrepreneurial form and payment structure that incentivises performance, builds capacity and makes micro-economic sense; allowing users to eventually take ownership of the assets through a hire-purchase or pay-as-you-go system; and putting in place quality external facilitation that allows the project team to move on rather than close off.
Perhaps the major learning from this discussion, however, is that what is called a “settlement” is actually a thickness of institutions with intersecting sets of rules. So when we talk about building a settlement, we are actually talking about building institutions. Establishing a robust institution that can deliver infrastructure services in an informal settlement is thus at once a golden opportunity to build a settlement while improving living standards.
Design challenges
As a design like the Enkanini initiative is scaled up, it is important to consider three issues that the institutional model will need to deal with in order to operate successfully. These issues are:
1. Income – The income for such projects like Enkanini is derived from its users; without that income, repairs and maintenance are impossible, and the assets will run down. The whole system is dependent on a minimum flow of income. It is crucial that the system is used at no less than the minimum required to operate the business. There is a risk of failure if all the assumptions about usage are wrong.
2. Ownership – Although the cost of the infrastructure is high, the intention is that eventually they will be attached to households. Yet, these assets are likely to be funded by groups and/or people outside the settlement involved. Important but difficult questions like Who is the owner of these assets? Is it the business, so that when people don’t pay, or don’t use the service, the contract allows the business to take back the asset? On what terms? need to be asked. For instance, structures in Enkanini are occupied, not owned; there is no subdivision titling. Though ownership is not a real right in legal terms, it is a real right in reality given that the people living in their shacks effectively own them, even without a formal title. It is therefore crucial to articulate this question of ownership because of the implications it has for the service being offered.
3. Value of community – The third issue concerns building community. A system very similar to the one envisaged by the Enkanini project but related to housing exists in Thailand, which has been organised around groups of five people in a manner similar to the Grameen system. Certain transaction costs are pushed onto the group of five so that the business doesn’t have to carry those transaction costs at a high level, exploiting the voluntary, unpaid transaction costs at a small group level. Only people who apply as a group of five are admitted, and the business enters into a contract with them as a group of five, similar to a housing club. But in the Thai model, it is a co-operative which owns the assets, and a member of the co-op is entitled to utilise the assets. However, there are disadvantages to co-operatives, such as the amount of social capital needed and the level of uniformity and skill needed to keep the co-op going. Institutional meltdown can set up the risk of system breakdown. So if the co-op model is used, how can its continued operation be ensured? Is there an entrepreneur or employee of the co-op, does the co-op subcontract or put out a tender to potential entrepreneurs, and what is the role of the operator? These questions show the deep complexities of innovating an institutional model that builds community while improving living standards.
As the lessons learned and design challenges above suggest, contexts like Enkanini which are prominent in the developing work present important opportunities to rethink and retool transdisciplinary knowledge production. In these contexts fundamental social, institutional, and technological conditions for TD work must be created rather than built upon, and constructs ranging from “stakeholders”, “community” and “rational deliberation” must be re-thought. In the spirit of participatory TD work, this case invites a new deliberation—one in which we add nuance and social robustness to the lenses we employ to understand and transform the many worlds in which we live.
The success of the iShack initiative suggests that informal settlements can be spaces for a different kind of micro-level governance. An informal settlement does not necessarily need to follow the usual trajectory of waiting eight years or more for service delivery, nor do they need to fall back on the market option where entrepreneurs sell solar panels and batteries or collect waste in the settlements. There may be room for a new institutional model somewhere in between.
The experiment at Enkanini has revealed the potential of a genuine incremental upgrading approach to offer real benefits now rather than waiting for the grid - which if it does arrive, simply becomes the next level of upgrading. The Gates Foundation has accepted the project team’s proposal to scale up the idea to between 40 and 100 units in Enkanini, and has allocated $250 000 (about R1.8 million at current exchange rates) for this purpose. The iShack initiative is not about alleviating poverty for 100 households, but about using the project as a platform to innovate a new institutional model. This model would not be state or municipality driven, but would be analogous to a market-driven model because an entrepreneur would be responsible for repairs and maintenance. However, it must also foster cooperation, because the resulting infrastructure is used by more than one person, and the inhabitants must necessarily work together to protect it.
Although the immediate work is to create more iShacks powered by solar panels, the long-term goal of the iShack initiative is to create adaptive communities where inhabitants come face to face and use data on their livelihoods and health to solve problems. As such, the technology is not the end point but the catalyst to building a learning organisation using proper learning principles.
An effective locally-based institutional model underpins the success of such an adaptive informal settlement. Key elements of such a settlement-based institutional model include:
* Viable and appropriate technology There must be evidence that the technology works, and a strong demand amongst the settlement for the technology. It is also important to understand how people are currently coping without the technology. In the case of Enkanini, illegal electricity connections are prevalent. However, the instability of such connections causes unreliable power supply as well as increases the danger of fire or electrocution. As such, many shack dwellers still prefer to use solar power. A key indicator of a technology’s appropriateness for the informal settlement hinges on whether the people can construct and maintain it. How much expertise is required? Is it maintainable by a course and training for ten people to do it part-time on the weekends, or is it a full-time job for one person? Often the practical ability of the people in these communities is overlooked. Yet, while the inhabitants can be incredibly practical and knowledgeable, they are less likely to welcome technology that has been “dumped” on them, either because of a dependency that’s been created, or because of myths around the technology.
* Clearly communicated and negotiated roles The roles involved in the institutional model are a critical part of the experiment if the model is to be replicable. Properly negotiated roles, where the main parties involved outline their skills and work on a common vision, help to create projects that can be sustained in the long term. This is because each role has implications for the relationships established with the informal settlement. An institutional arrangement is ultimately a set of relationships, so understanding “who brings what” will form the basis of those relationships. For example, the role of the NGO initiating the project can be described as the “adaptive manager”: it works with the informal settlement, communicating a social hypothesis of the process, and then implements and monitors it, and the monitoring feeds back into the system. This builds an adaptive cycle. On the other hand, the role of the university is to create a conceptually sound hypothesis, e.g. “this model will work because communities work in this way”, and facilitate the data flow and communication. Perhaps it is most fruitful for the university to commit to a long-term relationship with the informal settlement, where data is continually being generated, papers are being published, and learning goes into its highest gear.
* Motivated groups that organize for its own development The selection of the groups to work with is important to the success of a project, as communities can vary considerably in their eagerness to work together with an outside project team. The iShack employed a more market-oriented approach, where people decide if they want to enter the model having understood clearly the rules for participation. Rather than going through their often self-appointed leaders, the informal settlement could thus be directly engaged through an application process for individual households. The result is a gathering of groups of people who are motivated to take the initiative and who want to work with the project team. In this way, the people who want to join the programme will identify their own settlement, rather than have one identified for them by outsiders. Trying to identify the informal settlement from the outside can contradict the long-term goal of building capacity. Attention needs to be paid to cross-scale relationships; the long-term sustainability of micro governance depends to an extent on the macro governance, e.g. the City Council, so it is important to have these role players at least philosophically on board with the project so that it can endure some future change. The informal settlement is also empowered to identify its own problems and consider ways to solve them.
* Implementation of the institutional design In this context, the project’s model is “introduced” rather than “imposed” on a settlement by the project, providing a clear picture of what the project team’s goals and process. By insisting that the technology is embraced together with the institutional structure, the project ensures that the first groups to get organised and apply to participate become part of the programme. In this way the project becomes demand driven. As long as the introduced model works, participating settlements are likely to understand it and adapt to it. The key, however, is to allow the model to shift and adjust to changes in the context; the project team needs to begin by listening deeply to people’s feedback to discover where the technology is working and where it is not. To be successful, the people must be given space to change the model as they learn about it.
* Settlement’s ownership of assets Instead of only offering a service, it is advocated that a hire purchase or pay-as-you-go model is used. In such a model, users make regular payments for maintenance costs plus a little bit extra, and after a certain number of payments, the asset becomes their own. This is an effective way of sharing the capital costs while giving that sense of proprietorship of an asset. For those in informal settlements, infrastructure of this kind will be a significant asset in their lives.
* Use of quality external facilitation A quality facilitator for a project like the Enkanini initiative should be trusted by all partners, as well as be someone who understands institutions. Such a facilitator works with the informal settlement and builds capacity within it. He or she is a source of technical information, conflict management, opportunity taking, and data management, and plans for the long-term sustainability of the project by training others from the settlement to take over the facilitation role.
In sum, the elements of an effective and replicable locally-based institutional model include: a long-term goal to create adaptive communities, rather than a focus on installing infrastructure; technology that is viable and appropriate; clearly communicated and negotiated roles; choosing to work with an informal settlement which is self-motivated to organise and develop by clearly defining the rules up front and inviting households to apply; introducing the initial institutional design, and then allowing it to adapt; experimenting with and then choosing a form organisation that works to scale up; choosing an entrepreneurial form and payment structure that incentivises performance, builds capacity and makes micro-economic sense; allowing users to eventually take ownership of the assets through a hire-purchase or pay-as-you-go system; and putting in place quality external facilitation that allows the project team to move on rather than close off.
Perhaps the major learning from this discussion, however, is that what is called a “settlement” is actually a thickness of institutions with intersecting sets of rules. So when we talk about building a settlement, we are actually talking about building institutions. Establishing a robust institution that can deliver infrastructure services in an informal settlement is thus at once a golden opportunity to build a settlement while improving living standards.
Design challenges
As a design like the Enkanini initiative is scaled up, it is important to consider three issues that the institutional model will need to deal with in order to operate successfully. These issues are:
1. Income – The income for such projects like Enkanini is derived from its users; without that income, repairs and maintenance are impossible, and the assets will run down. The whole system is dependent on a minimum flow of income. It is crucial that the system is used at no less than the minimum required to operate the business. There is a risk of failure if all the assumptions about usage are wrong.
2. Ownership – Although the cost of the infrastructure is high, the intention is that eventually they will be attached to households. Yet, these assets are likely to be funded by groups and/or people outside the settlement involved. Important but difficult questions like Who is the owner of these assets? Is it the business, so that when people don’t pay, or don’t use the service, the contract allows the business to take back the asset? On what terms? need to be asked. For instance, structures in Enkanini are occupied, not owned; there is no subdivision titling. Though ownership is not a real right in legal terms, it is a real right in reality given that the people living in their shacks effectively own them, even without a formal title. It is therefore crucial to articulate this question of ownership because of the implications it has for the service being offered.
3. Value of community – The third issue concerns building community. A system very similar to the one envisaged by the Enkanini project but related to housing exists in Thailand, which has been organised around groups of five people in a manner similar to the Grameen system. Certain transaction costs are pushed onto the group of five so that the business doesn’t have to carry those transaction costs at a high level, exploiting the voluntary, unpaid transaction costs at a small group level. Only people who apply as a group of five are admitted, and the business enters into a contract with them as a group of five, similar to a housing club. But in the Thai model, it is a co-operative which owns the assets, and a member of the co-op is entitled to utilise the assets. However, there are disadvantages to co-operatives, such as the amount of social capital needed and the level of uniformity and skill needed to keep the co-op going. Institutional meltdown can set up the risk of system breakdown. So if the co-op model is used, how can its continued operation be ensured? Is there an entrepreneur or employee of the co-op, does the co-op subcontract or put out a tender to potential entrepreneurs, and what is the role of the operator? These questions show the deep complexities of innovating an institutional model that builds community while improving living standards.
As the lessons learned and design challenges above suggest, contexts like Enkanini which are prominent in the developing work present important opportunities to rethink and retool transdisciplinary knowledge production. In these contexts fundamental social, institutional, and technological conditions for TD work must be created rather than built upon, and constructs ranging from “stakeholders”, “community” and “rational deliberation” must be re-thought. In the spirit of participatory TD work, this case invites a new deliberation—one in which we add nuance and social robustness to the lenses we employ to understand and transform the many worlds in which we live.
Start a new discussion thread (are you logged in ?)
Write a review (are you logged in ?)
Moderator(s): Gloria Origgi , Veronica Boix-Mansilla , Britt Holbrook , Julie Klein , Jennifer Dellner , Machiel Keestra
- Lessons and recommendations (3 contributions)
Gloria Origgi, Dec 7 2012 14:26 UTC
One of the questions you asked at the beginning of this fascinating case study is the following:
"Question one: How might current conceptions of transdisciplinary research be enriched through the lessons learned from developing contexts where rational democratic practices and institutions are only emerging?"
While going through the rich description of your case, I am not sure I have found an answer. Is the "bottom-up" strategy you have favored a way of enhancing "rational democratic practices"? Or is it the "market approach", that seems to by-pass a lot of institutional negotiation, while creating another system of collaboration between stakeholders?
Do you think that in these situations appealing to "deliberative democratic practices" is just hopeless because they are too slow in implementing themselves in these realities, or do you think that this style of TD interaction and negotiation could be a way to develop democratic practices?
Hope that it is clear!- institutions and the responsibility of TDR (2 replies)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Dec 11 2012 19:30 UTC
What I learned from John and his colleagues about the experience in Enkanini is that a sense of “community” in the settlement was not visible when the project began (neither were there formal representative practices such as town hall meetings ) but that a budding sense of community is emerging over time. John and his colleagues will be best positioned to describe this process in Enkanini and what they make of it in more depth than Flossie or I.
However, you bring our fundamental conceptual challenge to the forefront: How might TD work in the developing world inform our current understanding of transdisciplinarity? Perhaps we can begin by restating some of the principles on which TDR stands. As we learned from Roland Scholtz earlier in this forum, transdisciplinary research “takes concrete problems of society, and works out solutions through cooperation between actors and scientists…. It organizes processes of mutual learning among science and society, it integrates knowledge and values of society into research, and provides an appropriate paradigm that better reflects the complexity and multidimensionality of sustainable development”
The Enkanini case suggests to me the possibility that in some contexts, the strengthening of social networks, the creation of local social contracts, shared norms and participatory institutions might need to be considered not only as strategic means to solve a given socio-technical problem (e.g. designing a sustainable shack) but as a desirable goal in itself. TD initiative like Enkanini’s may need to ensure, not only that individual innovations like the I-Shack can be maintained and cared for over time after the university folks leave the settlements, but that actors are equipped with an enduring “capacity for mutual learning.” As a result I wonder, does the responsibility of a TD team in “creating processes for mutual learning between science and society “ stop at the resolution of the chosen problem or should/could it be extended to include learning and problem solving capacities of the social actors involved ? What might be the consequence of considering such capacity building and the strengthening of institutions a key marker of success in the evaluation of TD enterprises in the developing world? Again... thanks for your thoughts!! VBM- Making connections, joint problem framing and mutual learning ... (1 reply)
John van Breda, Dec 13 2012 18:29 UTC
Hi Veronica and thanks for this excellent response to Gloria's opening questions. I can only repeat some of the comments / observations I made in our other discussion further down, that there is such a close relationship between the making / facilitating / establishing of new networks / connections, mutual learning and doing joint problem framing. Our emerging post-apartheid context of public spaces being dominated by discourses locked-in existing top-down policy and bureaucratic ways of thinking and doing, excluding ipso facto the creativity and knowledge of the poor, made it impossible for us to follow the kind of Habermasian approach advocated by Roland - i.e. creating a space 'free' of contestation and power relations for stake-holders to engage each other in a 'rational' way. The socio-political conditions for following this approach simply do not exist in our context. That is why we decided on a very different strategy, a more 'relational' or 'informal' strategy of facilitating social connections that do not at the moment. As mentioned, it is 'in' this bringing together of people (experts and locals) and things (DC-PV converters and boxes etc.) that the innovative 'mutual learning' and joint problem-solution definition happened. It was this lived-experience of the students being actively involved in making these connections that 'produced' the socio-technical innovation of the i-Shack. In the words of the sociologist Richard Sennett, the 'genius' of the Enkanini experience has been the actual making of these informal social relationships. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how this socio-technical solution could have 'emerged' had we followed the type of approach developed in and for a very different context / situation in Switzerland. Of course, we are not suggesting for one moment mutually exclusive approaches here. Our relational / informal approach does not per definition exclude a more structured / formal process. Up-scaling our one i-Shack to co-designing and building the next 100 i-Shacks will most definitely face the challenge of engaging more formally with stakeholders, such as municipal officials, politicians etc. also active in one way or another in Enkanini. However, and this is critically important, our informal / relational approach has produced something tangible that has not existed a few months ago, a real socio-technical innovation that will now make it possible for those stakeholders around the table to not only 'imagine' a different, but to actually 'see' and 'touch' it as well. Needless to say, there is no guarantee, as we speak, that this WILL happen, i.e. that all the stakeholders will necessarily respond positively to the idea up-scaling the i-Shack as a possible way of tackling the huge challenge of in situ incremental upgrading of informal settlements in SA. How the next 'level' of socio-technical connections will be knitted together,as it were, will indeed be telling. However, our team of td researchers will not be alone in taking this to the next level - the levels of 'trust' that they have managed to establish through all their efforts of relationship building and mutual learning with the people in Enkanini will hopefully be strong enough for taking up-scaling this project. Just to mention, that the next phase of this project will not only be building the next 100 i-Shacks. On 9 December we heard that our application for more funding to our National Research Foundation for Phase II of this project was successful, which will focus on the water, sanitation and, more specifically, waste problems in Ekanini. John- relationships, institutuions and TD work in global times (no reply)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Dec 14 2012 16:54 UTC
John et al,
I very much appreciate the way in with you help us reflect by grounding our thinking on the specifics of Enkanini. You describe healthy relationships of trust as a necessary foundation for formal mechanisms for participation and you highlight the role of a scaled up I-Shack initiative as a likely tipping point that might (if all goes well) trigger the involvement of (hopefully constructive) stakeholders and the creation of budding institutions and formalized processes. I agree with you on the idea that both a healthy social network and increasingly strong institutions are necessary for the health of the budding Enkanini democracy. While recognizing that both need to be in place, I wonder whether context drives which one comes first.
I’ll share an example. We are currently working in a city in the United States that has received a surprising number of refugee families from Sudan, Somalia, Afganistan, Iraq and the like. These communities locate in particular neighborhoods in the city and are not likely to interact much with one another. The public school (a long-standing democratic institution) serves as the only place in which old dwellers and new immigrant children meet. In this context, “town halls”-are ineffective in reaching families for whom this tradition is very foreign. Insistence on the importance of parental advocacy and accountability also falls flat. Recognizing that the well-being of these children ( and I would say of our democracies) depends on more than teaching English vocabulary and punctuation, leaders and teachers in some of these schools are organizing to spend time with parents (and translators) in the children’s homes, help bring the children to school in the mornings, and invite mothers to teach dance, art, or languages at the school working in small groups. So in this case, contrary to your group in Enkanini, actors begin with an institution, albeit one that needs recalibration to performs is real mission.
Two conclusions emerge for me by comparing these cases: 1. Both factors are necessary (relationships and institutions) and where one begins is a matter of context. 2. Perhaps more importantly, this comparison seems to challenge clear cut “first” – “third” world distinctions. Globalization propels hybridity and with that our obligation to understand a broader variety of worldviews. As a result, learning from Enkanini directly informs what we do in the rapidly changing and diasporic neighborhoods of the metropolitan centers of the developed world. All the more a reason to thank you for sharing!
- relationships, institutuions and TD work in global times (no reply)
- Making connections, joint problem framing and mutual learning ... (1 reply)
- institutions and the responsibility of TDR (2 replies)
- From Enkanini settlement to Eco-Village with the help of Earth Art and Architecture (1 contribution)
Bressan Carla, Dec 10 2012 19:17 UTC
After reading about the Enkanini settlement in South Africa, as well explained in the interesting case study proposed, and accepting the INIT invitation to participate at this forum on the demands of transdisciplinary work in the developing world, I would like to give a personal contribution to the transdisciplinary initiative in the attempt to enrich the collective understanding of this case.
The following suggestions are made with the intention to diminished in any way the efforts done by the organizers to find the best possible solution to the problem faced by the Enkanini settlement. I would like to bring to the attention of the iShack/INIT case study team the work experience of an organization, specifying that I have no connection nor personal interest with it, but have found the work presented very interesting and applicable to the case study presented in this occasion.
The organization is called Cal-Earth - The California Institute of Earth Art and Architecture, which is a 501 (C)3 non-profit/charitable foundation at the cutting edge of Earth and Ceramic Architecture technologies today.
As reported in page 11 of the Ekanini case study: “Given the lack of objective comparisons by which to measure the efficacy of the design, the criteria as laid out by the team served a two--‐fold purpose: firstly, they were used to guide the design approach, highlighting those aspects that would speak to sustainable improvements of thermal comfort; secondly, they became the objectives of the design outcome for both the iShack and Retrofit designs.”
I would like to draw your attention to some of the characteristics of the Cal-Earth house projects, to find out if they could become a valid alternative/support to the iShack, which may solve temporary housing, but which structures, once in place, may not be far to become a solar powered/digital settlement, that will need further rebuilding to slowly achieve village status.
Using the information available online, and using the same criteria used in the iShack, I have listed a series of characteristics and options that should help to consider the Cal-Earth at least a possible partner that should be involved in this process.
The criteria used are:
1. Design complexity – it was essential that the design of the iShack were of low complexity (e.g. not requiring the use of power tools) so that they could be built within a shorter timeframe as well as be easily replicated.
The Eco-Dome is a small home design of approximately 400 square feet (40 sq. meters) interior space. It consists of a large central dome, surrounded by four smaller niches and a wind-scoop, in a clover leaf pattern.
Learning and building an Eco-Dome is the next stage after building a small emergency shelter and provides hands-on learning experience in the essential aspects of Superadobe construction. It's small size of approximately 400 square feet (interior space), makes it a manageable structure for the first time owner builder.
The finished "very small house" is self-contained and can be the first step in a clustered design for community use in an Eco-Village of vaults and domes.
Some features of the Eco-Dome include:
1. Built from local earth-filled Superadobe coils (earth stabilized with cement or lime).
2. Maximum use of space through alternative options. The main dome and four niches, depending on local code approval, can function as:
1. main living room, entrance hall, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom (called "bed-womb" because of it's small, organic form!)
2. living room, entrance hall, and three bed-rooms.
3. living room, entrance hall, two bedrooms, and a bathroom.
3. Self-contained single unit or double unit (larger family residence).
4. Can be repeated and joined together to form larger homes, common areas, and courtyard houses.
5. Can be built by a team of 3-5 people.
6. Designed with the sun, shade and wind for passive cooling and heating.
7. Wind-scoop can be combined with a rated furnace unit, depending on local code approval. Solar energy and radiant heating may be incorporated.
8. Interior furniture can be built-in with same material.
The Blueprints for this design have been previously approved and built in Hesperia City and San Bernardino County, California, as well as other regions nationally and internationally.
The learning tools developed and used during the apprenticeship training program at Cal-Earth Institute are available to the public as educational materials and can be purchased in the online store along with Superadobe rolls of various lengths and widths based on project-need.
In July of 2001, a visit from the United Nations headed by the Director of UNDP Emergency Response Division with his team from New York, participated in a Cal-Earth workshop for these Emergency Shelters; they slept in one to experience their quality. Their very positive response was recorded by Reuters World News Agency.
2. Indoor air quality – Some features of the Earth One house and 3-vaulted designs are:
1. View through depth of two vaults increases a sense of interior space.
2. The offset vaults eliminate the need for corridors.
3. Simple design based on repetition of the single vault design unit simplifies construction.
4. More vaults can be added at a later time.
5. Variety can be introduced through the placement of windows and other small elements such as niches.
6. Arches and vaults are inherently beautiful, especially if repeated in a series.
7. A two storey wind-scoop faces prevailing summer breezes for cooling.
8. The vaulted curve of the roof, combined with the sun's path overhead, creates sun and shade zones which encourage circular air movement inside the house.
9. Play of light and shadow minimizes the need for decoration.
10. Designed with the sun, shade and wind for passive cooling and heating.
11. The combination fireplace and wind-scoop enhances both heating and cooling functions.
12. Can be integrated with conventional interior framing, fittings, and finishes.
Superadobe/sandbag technology has been patented in the United States and overseas (patent #5,934,027), to protect the innovator's right to make it freely available to the needy of the world and to the owner-builder, and to license it for commercial use.
3. Recycled and renewable material content – the iShack team determined that the use of recycled materials for building would bring two fold advantages: reduce cost as well as the carbon footprint of dwellings.
The Cal-Earth technology is designed to:
• Use the materials of war (sandbags and barbed wire) to create a safe shelter in most regions of the globe as well as in your backyard.
• So-called "Natural" bags can be used if a small amount of lime or cement is added to the earth to stabilize the earth from water erosion. Note: Most natural bags have, in fact, been treated with pesticides so that insects are deterred from eating through the bags and destroying the grains, rice or products inside.
• Utilize minimum amounts of purchased product and maximum amounts of the free earth under your feet.
• Participate in a family or community activity by building a shelter, or a sustainable community.
• Create a shelter with maximum protection against natural and man-made disasters.
The construction schedule depends on how large the project is and how much labor is available. There are optimal numbers of personnel if the project is to be built without any kind of mechanization. The rate at which the mix is produced dictates how fast a project can go. The optimal number seems to be 7 persons where one or two are making mix and the remainder are split into two groups laying two bags at the same time. From past experience there are some fairly predictable estimates as to what can be achieved:
1) Three reasonably-fit persons can work very efficiently laying 100 linear ft of bag per day.
2) A double eco-dome (see web-site under "buildings and designs" can be built in just 10 weeks. (This is bag work alone - and it is estimated that all finish work will take about the same amount of time.)
There are, of course, time-saving techniques which are discussed during workshops and training sessions.
4. Cost – given that Enkanini informal contractors’ construction cost for a 3m x 3m basic zinc shack was R3000, that amount was set as a benchmark for the cost of the iShack. An additional amount of R1000 was included for sustainability interventions.
Cal-Earth dome: Costs vary considerably. Material costs are typically very low indeed while labor costs can be more significant. If you are building in another country then the prevailing labor rates may be less or more than those of your native country. The amount of labor you need is, of course, related to the size and scope of your structure. The larger the building, the more expensive it becomes on every level. The number one cost-saving approach as well as the number one criterion for ecological responsibility is THINK SMALL! Simplify. Costs and budgeting are discussed during our workshops and training sessions or can be explored through consultation with one of our instructors.
5. Visual appeal – interviews with informal settlers revealed their overwhelming preference on living in a dwelling that is individualized and visually appealing….
The 3-Vaulted house prototype has been in development since the mid-1980's by Nader Khalili to allow the maximum space, light, and interior ventilation, while using the traditional form of the vault. The spaciousness of the interior design derives from this pattern of 3 offset vaults which allow a maximum view through the house's open plan area, and from the height of the vault. The 3-vault system can be combined with domes and apses, or repeated back to back to form a variety of aesthetic and efficiently planned house designs.
6. Work opportunity - Cal-Earth also offers the possibility of a long-term apprenticeship course following participation in one of our workshops. The long-term apprenticeship program at Cal-Earth is an immersion opportunity. The program is developed to offer greater understanding of Superadobe work in greater depth than a one-week apprenticeship can offer.
Apprentices may make a career from what they have learned, including teaching for Cal-Earth, as well as working on private building projects. The long term apprenticeship program is geared more to those who might like to make a career out of this work or who might like to teach and train others in sustainable or "green building". Additionally, the program will prepare you to lead a larger and more complex project-perhaps for a client or community. Long-term apprenticeships are offered upon evaluation with Cal-Earth's directors at the completion of an intensive workshop.
7.School opportunity-
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS: The Children will learn through the life size examples of the Cal-Earth buildings about living in harmony with the environment: How to build and live with only what they find around them in the natural environment, and the principles of how to utilize the natural elements of Earth, Water, Air and Fire, to create a Utopia. How to use earth as building material, wind in wind-catchers, solar energy for glazing buildings and for cooling them, shade for making ice reserve systems, earth and clay as the most precious resource. "Earth is not dirt, it is better than gold".
BUILDING WITH EARTH: The children learn how to build their home with arches, vaults and domes, using the earth under their feet as the alternative material to zinc, timber, steel, or concrete. And how to use the Superblock construction system, adobe techniques and how to make adobe plaster. Because the systems developed and tested at Cal-Earth are simple, direct, and understood through the hands and senses children are our best students. They learn faster than any adults!
EMERGENCY HOUSING: The children learn how, with a few bags and a shovel they can build a flood and fire-proof, earthquake and hurricane resistant emergency shelter for themselves, their family and their community in a few hours.
8.Upgrade possibility– As explained in the case study, if The Gates Foundation has accepted the project 13 team’s proposal to scale up to reach 100 units in Enkanini, and has allocated $250,000 for this purpose, could it be important for the iShack initiative to move further on and seek collaboration/assistance from the Cal-Earth project and evaluate the possibility to train some of ISN/SDI staff or Stellenbosch University students and teach the Enkanini inhabitants to form a Cal-Earth work force to build a new settlement with the technological and solar facilities already tested in place with the iShack.
Although the project, as explained in the case study, is not about alleviating poverty for 100 households, but about using the project as a platform to innovate a new institutional model; start building from scratch, from the beginning not a better settlement, but a structure with a better appeal, a pseudo-village, an Eco Village that do not need to be rebuild, optimizing time, resources, workforce, material, and creating from the beginning the feeling of belonging to a community, with the effort of the entire community to start building individual houses, and later also common areas, where people can gather, meet, work, etc., like a church, a common bath, laundry, canteen, medical, educational service, etc. The upgraded standard process, together with the first “brick” to develop new working skills, new job opportunities, new knowledge may be achieved more easily. The process should create among the inhabitants the feeling of being building a future, in time the Enkanini Eco-Village of vaults and domes could become a unique place, a special attraction for visitors!
“The iSheck project must also foster cooperation, because the resulting infrastructure is used by more than one person, and the inhabitants must necessarily work together to protect it.” Working together with the Cal-Earth should be a great opportunity. More info about Cal-Earth at http://calearth.org.
Hoping this info will be of help. Best wishes for the project!
Regards,
Carla Bressan- Exciting connection! (no reply)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Dec 28 2012 15:34 UTC
Dear Carla,
Thank you so much for bringing Cal-Earth to our attention. I know there are a few educators, designers and architects with an interest in sustainable shelters who are allowing this discussion and I am sure they will be interested in investigating this further. The website: http://calearth.org/ includes beautiul images of these homes! Thank you! VBM
- Exciting connection! (no reply)
- Expertise and dialogue (6 contributions)
Britt Holbrook, Dec 10 2012 21:52 UTC
I want to raise a question about this brief passage:
"In contrast with traditional forms of disciplinary doctoral training that puts a premium on highly specialized disciplinary problem niches likely to prepare students for a career in their fields, students working in Enkanini were challenged to define aspects of the problem for in-depth investigation putting disciplinary standards, available resources, and organizational supports in dialogue with local interests. For example, to advance designs that were not only energy efficient but also comfortably to live in, the team (composed of disciplinary and settlement experts) had to draw on multiple forms of expertise."
As I was reading, I suppose I filled in a bit ahead of where I actually was in terms of words and read: students working in Enkanini were challenged to define aspects of the problem for in-depth investigation putting disciplinary standards IN QUESTION.
Obviously, that's not what you wrote, however.
So, I wonder: Why the emphasis on dialogue between forms of expertise? And how does that dialogue take place? Must residents learn to talk the talk of academic experts? Or do the experts need to abandon their disciplinary standards -- or even their expertise -- in order to communicate?- Expertise and dialogue (no reply)
Britt Holbrook, Dec 10 2012 21:58 UTC
I think you may be on to something at the very end, when you write:
"As the lessons learned and design challenges above suggest, contexts like Enkanini which are prominent in the developing work present important opportunities to rethink and retool transdisciplinary knowledge production. In these contexts fundamental social, institutional, and technological conditions for TD work must be created rather than built upon, and constructs ranging from 'stakeholders', 'community' and 'rational deliberation' must be re-thought."
I agree on the need for rethinking these concepts -- which is why I question whether it is best to speak of a dialogue of experts (involving each other, or also non-experts). Don't we need to question expertise, rather than simply put it in dialogue with others? - Thinking about Expertise (no reply)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Dec 11 2012 20:33 UTC
Hi Britt,
Thanks for this great two part provocation! Part one refers to our conceptions of expertise and part two to the possibility (or impossibility?) of dialogue among people with different world views and epistemic stances. Expertise and dialog are at the heart of ID, and TD enterprises so they are worth considering carefully.
Do you worry about “expertise” because you are thinking about it along the lines of a typically disciplinary competence, officially sanctioned by a department etc.? Of course there are volumes written about expertise and I suspect that we all have either formal or working definitions. In my usage, the term extends to the often tacit competence of actors who understand a given problem or contexts in ways that go beyond mere common sense. They can navigate these contexts, make informed decisions and judgments even if they cannot formally explain the foundations of their knowledge. Praxis, and a cycle of trial, error, reflection and feedback may underlie this capacity. And the possibility of error is kept in mind (in my view one of the strongests markers of rigor).
If we accept this, Enkanini actors probably provided local expertise-not only vis a vis their settlement “needs” but also regarding who to talk with, where to make decisions, who might serve as an ally in the eclectic context of settlement life. What I find interesting is that students, scientist and engineers at Stellenbosch may have not been as effective were this form of tacit expertise missing--thus pointing to the need or this local expertise. Would you agree? I am curious about what you and others think! VBM - RE: Thinking about expertise (3 replies)
Britt Holbrook, Dec 11 2012 20:55 UTC
Yes, Veronica, I agree we need to think more about expertise. I am very much in sympathy with the idea of 'local expertise' that you put forth. It's very much akin to the idea of traditional ecological knowledge, which is something that's incredibly important. Recognizing such alternative notions of expertise is, I agree, vital to transdisciplinary activities.
But this does raise, for me, the question of how these different sorts of expertise can interact. Bringing them into dialogue sounds like a good idea, as far as it goes. But how do we do this? What does communication between different areas of expertise really look like? I address these issues in terms of interdisciplinary communication here: http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-84866494198&origin=inward&txGid=26F5EEFF1688D9714C1391BB0A32FDED.WeLimyRvBMk2ky9SFKc8Q%3a2. I think these issues arise in transdisciplinary communication, as well.- Trans-disciplinary dialogue (2 replies)
John van Breda, Dec 12 2012 06:36 UTC
Thanks Britt and Veronica for this stimulating discussion! I think it goes to the heart of this case study: in the interest of knowledge co-production, how to generate a truly trans-disciplinary dialogue of bringing together / connecting certain disciplinary expertise with local knowledge / expertise. Our students involved in this case study have, and still are, playing a crucial role in facilitating these actual connections to take place. We refer to this as our 'relational' approach. For example, bringing together the disciplinary expertise of Specialised Solar Solutions (SSS), who provided the DC-PV Micro Grid System for the i-Shack, and the local expertise, in the person of Mr Madiba (a 'bare foot' electrician) proved to be crucial in the co-designing, training and implementation of this socio-technical innovation. I dare say, that this socio-technical innovation would not have been possible, was it not for one of our Masters students, Andreas Keller, to make these critical connections. The significance of this must also be understood within our broader context of local authorities being 'locked-in' a system of grid-supplied electricity (provided by coal-fired power stations two thousand kilometers away from us). Municipalities normally only think and act in terms of this grid-supplied system, which in our case means that people living in informal settlements have to wait for many, many years to be 'supplied' with electricity. Joint problem definition with municipal officials would, for example, have been a completely different exercise, producing very different (and predictable) outcomes. Therefore, in order to come up with a socio-technical solution / innovation, such as the i-Shack with its DC-PV Micro Grid System, responding to the peoples of Enkanini's immediate / basic needs, it was critical for Andreas to make this important connection between disciplinary and local expertise / knowledge. (By the way, Andreas is graduating today. He has written an amazing Masters thesis and should you be interested in looking at this I can send you a copy).
John van Breda- beyond inconmensurability in transdisciplinary dialog (1 reply)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Dec 12 2012 14:44 UTC
John and Britt,
Thank you for these great inputs and congratulations to Andreas—graduating today!
I much appreciated your analysis of three takes on communication in ID dialog, Britt, as well as the way in which you illustrate roles in the construction of such dialog at Enkanini, John. In my view, two constructs can help us think through the puzzle of communication-especially when the forms of discourse and expertise are as distant as they are, say, between SSS representatives and Mr. Madiba in Enkanini. The first, is Peter Galison’s old notion of “trading zone” and the recently associated notions of interactional expertise by Robert Evans and Harry Collins. The second, it the idea of “pragmatism” (a philosophical tradition that could perhaps enrich your categorization, Britt).
In his study of the history of Physics, Galison finds the limits of Kuhn’s notion of incommensurability—He sees (contrary to Kuhn) that collaborators holding conflicting scientific frameworks managed to find local points of communication and create local “inter-languages” while suspending disbelief about the remaining aspects of each others’ conceptual framework. In Galisons’ words “two groups can agree on rules of exchange even as they ascribe utterly different significance to the objects being exchanged, they may even disagree on the meaning of the exchange process itself" (1997,783). Our study of interdisciplinary collaborations among experts and professional practitioners has exhibited this “trading zone” phenomenon repeatedly and what is most interesting to me is the notion that individuals can interact around constructs like “culture” or “electrons” without holding an analogous mental representation of these constructs. Optimal ambiguity reigns!
So, of course, the question emerges: How do we know they are communicating? How can we assess their success? Here is where, in my view, we must think about “purpose,” and where philosophical pragmatism [note not merely a matter of being practical!] may be of help. Seeking to move beyond structuralism, philosophical pragmatism points out the purpose-driven nature of human enterprises, including knowledge construction. WHAT collaborators in Enkanini are TRYING TO DO matters to understand the nature of their dialog. If Mr. Madiba and the SSS representative were collaborating on a new theory of, say, the physics of energy conversion, their work would be subjected to criteria such as explanatory power, non-contradiction, generalizability etc. As such their dialog would have taken a very different direction, one for which Mr. Madiba’s expertise is, I presume, less relevant. However, a new measuring devise succeed, among other things, on grounds of precision (for which SSS understanding of physics and engineering matters), workability, and ease of use, areas in which Mr. Madiba has great expertise. Whether Mr. Madiba and the SSS representative attribute the same significance to the devise or hold similar explanations for how it works happens to be less relevant in this case… Most likely their views differ … still purpose-driven dialog is possible…and this, I imagine, is what Andreas understands. Don't you think?
As a side note: it is so much fun to read and react to your views… I wonder if others will be temped to participate as well? VBM- Making connections, joint problem framing and mutual learning ... (no reply)
John van Breda, Dec 13 2012 12:02 UTC
Hi Veronica,
You are asking many interesting and important questions. However, as I see it, what is important in this td-oriented case study is to further explore the relationship between making (informal) social connections, joint problem framing and mutual learning. What has happened, and is still happening, in the post-apartheid SA is that our so-called 'public' spaces have become dominated and controlled by self-serving politicians and officials. Our public spaces are simply not the spaces for doing 'joint' problem framing as the voices and interests of the poor have to a large extent been excluded from these spaces. Therefore, we figured out from the onset that following a 'formal' approach of first getting all the stakeholders (e.g. ward councilors, municipal officials etc.) around the table will simply not work. There would have been no learning or innovation coming from this approach. We therefore decided on a different approach - a more 'relational' or 'informal' approach of facilitating multiple connections which simply do not exist. It is 'in' the making of these connections - between people and between people and things - that the crossing of disciplinary and non-disciplinary boundaries happened and that the learning and shared understanding of the complexity of the problems facing Enkanini and possible solutions 'emerged'. It is 'in' the figuring out of which connections to make (and also the uncertainties involved with this) that the 'cognitive stimulation' for innovative thinking and approaches to joint problem framing occurred. It is as if these 'informal social processes were the genius' (to quote Richard Sennett) of the Enkanini experience. Having followed this informal / relational joint problem framing and mutual learning approach has produced a potentially significant 'solution' to the problems facing informal settlers in the developing world. Needless to say, we cannot jump to any such 'decisive' conclusions, as we only have one i-Shack at the moment. However, this one i-Shack has already captured the imagination of many interested 'stakeholders', such as the Gates Foundation for providing us the necessary funding to build another 100 i-Shacks. However, for this scaling up of the project to happen a lot more connections need to be made, a lot more 'cognitive stimulation' is needed to come from not knowing in advance what the answers / solutions, both technical, social and institutional, are and, therefore, together learning / figuring out new and innovative ways of solving problems, each step of the way ...
- Making connections, joint problem framing and mutual learning ... (no reply)
- beyond inconmensurability in transdisciplinary dialog (1 reply)
- Trans-disciplinary dialogue (2 replies)
- Expertise and dialogue (no reply)
- What kind of learning is taking place at Enkanini? (3 contributions)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Dec 14 2012 17:13 UTC
In learning about Enkanini one can imagine the experience of Stellenbosch students whose preparation for professional life involves full immersion in solving problems of palpable significance that demand the articulation multiple forms of expertise.
One is bound to wonder... What exactly are students learning? What are they learning not only in terms of specific technical and scientific skill but vis a vis the broader enterprise of knowledg construction and the even greater enterprise of finding their place as professionals and as human being in our changing world?...- Mutual learning, innovation and social institution making ... (2 replies)
John van Breda, Dec 17 2012 11:55 UTC
Hi Veronica,
Thanks posing this important question. I do not wish to respond to this question ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of’ the students, and therefore will only give my own viewpoints on the matter. The process of learning is of course integral to td knowledge co-production because the crossing of both disciplinary and non-disciplinary boundaries is always involved in the process of mutual learning – as it is known in the td literature. Learning, as I understand it, is a complex process in which ‘what’ we learn and ‘how’ we learn is inextricably intertwined. This is particularly important for us, because in our case and context our interest is in the relationship between ‘innovation’ and ‘learning’, and the critical role this plays in the search for the transitioning to a ‘more’ just and sustainable society. As we know, there is not fixed / predetermined recipe for the latter, which means that the transitioning to a more just and sustainable society can only be figured out in each context that one is involved in, and this can only happen through a process of mutual learning between science and society. Practically speaking, in terms of the ‘what’ question of learning, what this has meant in the case of Enkanini has been a steep learning curve understanding how to respond to the current reality (status quo), i.e. both in terms of what is ‘there’ as well as what is ‘not there. On the one hand, figuring out how to work with and use existing building materials and technologies and bringing them together in innovative ways that do not exist as yet. The i-Shack is a concrete manifestation of the mutual learning that has taken place between our students and the people of Enkanini involved thus far in our project. On the other hand, this has involved innovating ‘new’ social institutions that do not currently exist. It means figuring out in situ the process of bringing together relevant disciplinary expert knowledge with local understanding and knowledge of the lived conditions in Enkanini. Learning to create the necessary social institutions for working together has been, in the words of the sociologist Richard Sennett, the ‘real genius’ of the Enkanini experience. The significance of this must also be understood against the background that we didn’t enter this case study with any reference or appeal to any of the western epistemological and/or social ‘safe havens’ for producing certain / secure knowledge about or for society. When working in the ‘fluidity’ of emerging informal settlements in African cities claiming or gaining access to such ‘secure spaces’ is simply not possible. In these contexts, learning how to do ‘joint problem-solution definition’ can only happen ‘in’ the actual process of creating the social institutions necessary for collaboration, and this is why the Habermasian version of such ‘safe spaces’ – free of power and contestation – could not be adopted as a point of departure in this case study. Our students followed a very different, below-the-radar approach, of ‘immersing’ themselves 'deeply' into the everyday life of Enkanini. This allowed them to follow the logic of the in situ incremental approach itself, i.e. of figuring out in many different ‘bottom-up’ ways what the current reality in Enkanini ‘is’ (systems knowledge) as well as the possibilities of incremental transitioning to a more sustainable way of living in an improved Shack in Enkanini (target and transformation knowledge). I hope this sheds some light on your question. John- How "meta" need we be about TD learning while in the porcess? (1 reply)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Jan 11 2013 16:00 UTC
John,
Thanks for this rich response. I agree with you in that it would be great to hear from the students involved in Enkanini about their experience, as well as from other students interested in Td or Interdisciplinary research more broadly.
I was intrigued by your observation that students did not approach the work with a Western conceptual framework about TD in mind but followed the logic of incremental improvement. In the ID field we deliberate quite a bit about the role that awareness of an interdisciplinarity framework plays in student learning. Positions range from viewing such frameworks as “methods” like statistics which students must learn explicitly, to viewing such frameworks as guideposts for analysis but a distraction in what it otherwise “the work itself” of designing innovations, creating products, etc.
The question for our seminar community thus becomes : WHEN is awareness of td frameworks, approaches, procedures most productive in student learning?- How to assess learning outcomes in td-projects (no reply)
Ria van der Lecq, Jan 13 2013 12:57 UTC
Veronica has raised some important questions, but I would like to add another one: 'how can/should the learning outcomes of td-projects be assessed'? In the Enkanini project, how did it become evident that there was a "steep learning curve" as you say, John? Did the students reflect on their learning process? Was the project part of their master's thesis? Which criteria were used to assess the students' work? Was awareness of td-frameworks assessed at all? Were the residents involved in the evaluation of the students' contribution? I wonder, because at the end, every student had to receive a grade, I suppose.
- How to assess learning outcomes in td-projects (no reply)
- How "meta" need we be about TD learning while in the porcess? (1 reply)
- Mutual learning, innovation and social institution making ... (2 replies)
- On the media (no contribution)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Jan 11 2013 16:20 UTC
The Enkanini case is a ‘case in the making” giving us the chance to watch it unfold and consider emerging questions as it does.
A new area of development and food for thought is the growing visibility the ishack is gaining in the media. Jen Dellner shared the following link with us:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259075/Slum-dwellers-South-Africa-given-taste-mod-cons-introduction-environmentally-friendly-iShack.html
John van Breda let us know that O Globo in Brazil and the South African media were interested in running a story about this case as well. Exciting developments, for sure, as one envisions the possibility of iShacks expanding and improving the lives of so many.
One wonders: How does media attention shape the process of TD research? What impact might we expect? What are the risks of a sudden flow of TV cameras and reporters to Enkanini?
open sourced and designed by Collective Developments
