Literature review

The Research Group conducted academic research through a literature review, case studies, and interviews with other academics working in relevant fields. The relevant concepts were then synthesised into three academic domains: 1) intentional communities; 2) insurgent planning; and 3) self organisation and self governance. These were chosen because of their relevance not just to the development of the Association, but also to its relationship with the Municipality and to citizens in Trondheim.

Action research and autoethnography

There is no singular definition of action research, but it can be differentiated from more traditional processes of research in terms of its intention to address societal issues and act as a vehicle for change, often in partnership with others (Maruyama and Van Boekel, 2014). For the Research Group, the inherent tension between embodying an agent for change whilst researching the process of change itself was clear. Therefore, as part of the process of action research the team integrated the principles of analytical autoethnography to provide a robust and structured way of collecting empirical data and gaining insights into broader social truths and trends in the context of the Fargemarka Association.

Autoethnography aims to discover “a world beyond the self of the writer” and blend “personal experience with narratives of others so as to study the complexity of everyday lived experiences” (Jenks, 2005). Sally Denshire justifies this approach by claiming that traditional academic research removes personal voices and experience, and can thus be deferent to wider dominant theory. Autoethnography, on the other hand, breaks through the ‘self-other dichotomy’, considers the background and perspectives of the researcher, and ultimately makes them accountable and vulnerable for the outcome of the research (2014). The technique was considered essential for the role of the Research Group, as each member was participating with personal intentions and biases.

Leon Anderson distinguishes between two forms of autoethnography. On the one hand ‘evocative autoethnography’ seeks to move “the reader to feel the feelings of the other”, and is akin to storytelling in requiring significant “narrative and expressive skills” (2006, p. 377). Analytical autoethnography, on the other hand, can be distinguished by not only “rendering the social world under investigation”, but revealing broader and more general social truths (2006, p. 388). Anderson highlights five key features of analytical autoethnography to make this distinction more clear: a) Complete member researcher; b) Analytic reflexivity; c) Narrative visibility of the researcher’s self; d) Dialogue with people beyond the researcher; and e) Commitment to theoretical analysis. These are explored in the context of the Fargemarka Research Group below.

Complete member-researcher (CMR)

CMR requires absolute immersion in the social situation under study. Therefore, the Research Group took an active role in development of the Association and participated extensively in its activities. The group commitment to recording and documenting empirical data through meeting notes, photos, videos and regular reflections. Because of the personal interests of the researchers, there was a great willingness to invest significant voluntary time for engagement in the project. The group recognised there was a ‘tension’ between full and active engagement in Association activities and the need to record, interpret and reflect on large quantities of empirical data.

Analytic reflexivity

As the Research Group played such an active and engaged role in the development of the Association, it was necessary to be aware of their impact on the development of the research situation under study – and vice versa. The group committed to weekly reflections, in order to understand the beliefs of both themselves and others in the Association, and how these could potentially change over time.

Visible and active researcher in the text

As fully engaged members there was an element of reciprocal co-creation with other members. Therefore, the members of the Research Group are visible actors in the text, and regular weekly records include an exploration of subjective experiences. As explained by Anderson “As full-fledged members, they [the researchers] cannot always sit observantly on the sidelines. They should not necessarily shy away from participating in potentially divisive issues” (2006, p. 384). The weekly record sheets were the chosen format for showing the team’s engagement in the project including networking (to academic stakeholders like researchers or other institutions), involvement in working groups (structure, communication), the organising of workshops and the facilitation of the weekly meetings.

Dialogue with people beyond the researcher

The study necessitated distillation of multiple viewpoints to provide a fair representation of other views. Therefore, the Research Group conducted an anonymous survey and interviewed four individuals that were considered to be reasonably representative of the diversity of views and beliefs within the group. These views have been integrated as part of the text.

Commitment to theoretical analysis

Analytic social science gains “insight into some broader set of social phenomena than those provided by the data themselves” (Anderson, 2006, p. 387), and therefore it was necessary for the Research Group to consider their analysis, and the research question, in the context of three broader academic domains and interpretations of planning and urban experiments in the global context.