An interesting topic indeed, although it might be rarely studied into detail. The question is of course who would like to pay for such research. Within the literature on research policies and innovation some interesting work might be found. I do however not know to which extent such research also engages with the ways in which existing power/knowledge configuration get reproduced in research agendas and outcomes.

The article “Is Urban Design Still Urban Planning? An Exploration and Response” by Michael Gunder does address this topic, although not explicitly in terms of research funding. But he does show how “urban design when engaged as a discrete field tends to often act merely as an instrument of global capitalism and in the fulfilment of its neoliberal agendas”.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/31/2/184.short

Article The relationship between description and prescription in tra...

Thank you for your observations and link Dr Beunen, I will follow them up. I think much of the urban design research is only funded if it serves narrow political intentions. I have certainly seen the effects of that in the design and planning of my local environment, but as you imply why would such research exist, especially if it contradicts the tenets of global urban development.

I am particularly concerned with the egalitarian access to the restorative benefits of beach precincts. However, I see the urban design and planning of urban beach precincts as a microcosm of the wider political narrative of the privatisation and monetisation of the public realm in general.

Hi Nigel

From my work I've come across some research in general on the political nature of scientific research - but much of it tends to focus on natural sciences (medicine, regulatory science, environmental science and climate change). I've not come across many that look at things like urban design or planning, or the more 'social sciences'. I suspect many of the same issues apply however. I can send some papers if you think they might be of use. Sheila Jasanof's book 'The Fifth Branch' might be a good starting point for this side of things if it is of interest.

Certainly there is an issue of politics driving what gets researched (more recently driven less by governments and more by industry in some areas, as this is where the money is); and perhaps more fundamentally that research tends to be carried out in the rich, developed West, which creates an inherent bias. Other examples of community bias have been identified in environmental science most commonly (most working in the field tend to be 'greenie' to some extent or another).

And 'problem-led' research is determined by the question asked, which may very well be the council/policy-makers. The most obvious cases being when consultancy is used - there's always a risk that you'll get the answer you want because the company/organisation wants you to come back to them.

I've not come across a lot of literature directly looking at this though.

Thanks Edward, I suspect that the focus of public policy driven research into aspects of development such as design and planning is as, if not more politically driven than scientific research. It's a catch twenty-two situation, if you assert political bias there is precious little you can cite in support of that claim (and those acting out of bias are hardly likely to admit it).

Thanks for your links, I am aware that some academics at your institution made a case for research into political corruption in the development industry in Queensland. It does depend, as you observe on the definition of the 'problem'. Then in turn, the questions that are posed arising from the problem as described and bounded by those who set the research agendas.

A recent phenomenon where decisions on funding and political considerations can be seen to have influenced research practice is in the 'evidence-based approach' to policy or management.

Though much of the discussion about the evidence-based approach has been about epistemological questions (such as can we use medicine as a basis for thinking about policy / management), in fact there are political and ideological considerations too if we see social research in this way.

Three papers on this are attached - each reviews a lot of work in the field from a more critical perspective, and explicitly connects politics, research and funding.

Article The Narrative of 'Evidence Based' Management: A Polemic

Article Evidence-based management: The very idea

Article Evidence-Based Dialectics

Kevin, I was not aware of the approach to policy and management you have appraised. I will ruminate and try to digest your papers in the coming weeks and the implications for further research in defining governance as an urban design characteristic. There does seem to be an ongoing dispute over the nature of governance to loosely mean government, or ‘processes of social and economic coordination, management and steering’ (Gregory et al 2009). There also seem to be many interpretations concerning the identity and role of the different actors in governance and the term appears to be a fluid one with diverse interpretations and shifts in meaning to suit political agendas. The interpretation of governance I have adopted for my urban design analyses can also described as ‘governmentality’, or the exercise of power in the enclosure, restriction, partition and control of space by different levels of government and non-government public, private and voluntary groups (Foucault in Rabinow 2000).

Hi Nigel, I've published a bit on governance too, though not in Urban studies. There is a discussion of the problems defining governance in the pre-print version of the attached pp4-6, which may be of use in a literature review. Good luck with your Foucauldian approach.

Article Governance and the Public Good