Integrating Urban Knowledge

  • Peter Moser


This text attempts to tackle some general issues of knowledge and steps into the controversy between the Mode 1 and the Mode 2 production of knowledge. It questions in a critical way the claim and the chances of various kinds of knowledge to contribute to the improvement of living conditions in urban development processes. The conditions for knowledge productions and the powers that determine knowledge integration or exclusion will be reflected. Finally some analytical effort will be spent on theoretical and practical questions concerning quality, usability, and evaluation of urban knowledge.


Urban Development Local Knowledge Knowledge Production Tacit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andersen, L. (2003). Pursuing truth, exercising power. Social science and public policy in the 21st century. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Antweiler, C. (2000). Urban Knowledge for a citizen science, experiences with data collection in eastern Indonesia. Paper presented at the ASA 2000 Conference ‘Participating in Development’, 2–5 April 2000, London, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. (2007). Urban regeneration, evaluation and knowledge in the UK. Working Paper for the COST C 20 action “Urban Knowledge Arena”. Unpublished working paper.Google Scholar
  4. Barbiero, D. (2004). Tacit knowledge, dictionary of the philosophy of mind.
  5. Baumgartner, P. (1993). Der Hintergrund des Wissens. Kärntner Dr.- u. Verlag-Ges., Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
  6. Deyanova, L. (2007). A ‘new paradigm’ for social science knowledge? Paper presented at the International conference: The humanities and social sciences on the periphery: Sciences or technocratic instruments? Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, M. (2005). Implizites Wissen. Verl. Universität Bremen, FG Berufsbildungsforschung, Bremen.Google Scholar
  8. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ganzer, S. (2006). Implizites Wissen – Bedeutung und Externalisierung. Institut für Forschung und Beratung.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, M. (2003). L’avenir de l’enseignement supérieur dans un monde globalisé. In: Globalisation et Universités, Edition UNESCO, Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
  11. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). Die Organisation des Wissens. Frankfurt/New York: Campus publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2004). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Polanyi, M. (1958/1974). Personal knowledge: Towards a post- critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ryle, G. (1949/1984). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Weiler, H. N. (2002). Wissen und Macht in einer Welt der Konflikte. Zur Politik der Wissensproduktion. In Heinrich Böll Stiftung (Ed.), Gut zu Wissen – Links zur Wissensgesellschaft (pp. 238–261). Münster: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.Google Scholar
  16. Willer, D., & Willer, J. (1973). Systematic empiricism: Critique of a pseudoscience. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Ziman, J. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282(4), 1813–1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SRZ Urban and Regional Research ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations