Epistemologies of Participation, or, What Do Critical Human Geographers Know That's of Any Use?

Declining an invitation to take part in a seminar on “the practices of sustainability transitions”, Pat Borer, an iconic green architect (Mason 2011), cited his dissatisfaction with participation in a previous seminar in the series. One issue Pat highlighted was academics’ use of specialist language, stating that in his presentation: “I did point out that I rarely get to use ‘hegemony’ and ‘paradigm’ on building sites—but that I shall try in future”. The use and misuse of specialist language is clearly something which both academics and practitioners should be aware of, but there is a gap between our acknowledgement of it as a problem and our practice in changing it. We still need to be reflexive about the language we use: explanation is not condescension. Academics have long argued over the necessity (or otherwise) of using complex language in order to understand complex problems. And academia is not alone in using specialist language—there is often a language of a trade or field—or in having a specialist audience. Complex language is a shorthand for communicating without the need for lengthy explanation and that is why the institutional expectation of academia is embedded in the need for theoretically rigorous and complex language publications (see Pain, Kesby and Askins 2010). Simplifying the language we use does not in itself make the knowledge we wish to share more useful. There is a bigger issue here which needs further attention, especially in so-called radical geography. Here we explore three issues: types of knowledge; the economics of participation; and the mechanisms of power. Pat’s observation, pertinent in itself, serves to exhume deeper epistemic concerns (and, yes, we do realise the irony of using another term seldom heard on building sites!). By definition practitioners like Pat require knowledges that are useful in practice. In his case, green buildings need to be designed, built, operated and maintained; occupants need to learn behaviours appropriate to optimising performance, achieving comfort, and so on. Academics, however, are most often looking to critique designs, practices and behaviours. Although the intention of such critiques may be constructive, practitioner knowledges can be threatened or undermined. It seems even those of us who are sympathetic to the concepts still have