Loose praxis: methodological assemblage in the social complexity of the Australian private rental system

Abstract

Rental housing systems are examples of ‘social complexity’ – with many interdependencies that may only be discerned and understood in hindsight. The methodological question then is: How can we come to discover and make (some) sense of significant, system-scale, and potentially problematic complex system interdependencies, the impacts of these on actors (in this case renters), and also plan for improved outcomes at various scales and levels of such a system? In response to this methodological conundrum, this research trialled a nested methodological assemblage of narrative based tools and processes, Sensemaker™ and the multi-ontological Cynefin Framework for decision-making as core tools of a wider assemblage of praxis. Grounded in participatory/action research and planning, and enacted as ‘loose’ praxis, the research responded to emerging concerns from housing advocates in the rental system. The thesis therefore explores the methodological conundrum of understanding (research) and planning (action) through the problematic of a complex rental housing system with multiple sectors, scales and contextual constraints. The tools and processes of the core methodological assemblage have indeed revealed complex issues and extensive new findings and understandings about cultures within the Australian private rental system (PRS) as well as potential experiments to enact change in the PRS. These are key contributions of the research. However, this ostensibly methodological thesis also reflects on the usefulness of the tools and processes trialled - in the context of this particular action research process and more widely in researching and planning in complexity. Hence, there are many threads and layers to the research process and thesis. Content/case study and methodological assemblage intertwine with the fluid positionalities of an action researcher, also a renter, in and within the research. Two additional, organising questions of the research intertwine with the opening question and relate to both case study and methodological process findings and outcomes: • What knowledge and potential impact emerges from collaborative, participatory and researcher’s sensemaking, for application to rental housing environments, policy, and social and urban planning processes? And • Beyond shelter, what socio-spatial, material, and conditional attributes of rental housing environments support and enable, (or challenge or impede as the case may be) the flourishing of persons who rent, their sense of home and their connectedness to wider communities? Findings and conclusions: The research reveals stark system patterns pertaining to attitudes and behaviours and the inspection practices of landlords and real estate agents; factors that challenge renters’ sense of security and privacy, and their capacities for flourishing and feeling ‘at home’ as renters. These and other patterns, supported by strong correlative statistics, reveal complex interrelationships that support multiple, proprietary interests, most often to the detriment of renters. This includes their financial security - the longer they remain as renters in the system. Thus behaviours and practices of both rental agents and landlords in the social complexity of the PRS are revealed as cultural problems that need addressing to improve private rental life in Australia and redress imbalances and increasing inequalities. The research also finds that informal relationships between renters and property investors, disintermediated by real estate agents, offer Australian renters significantly more security in maintaining a secure occupancy in place over time, and therefore a greater sense of home in line with community housing outcomes. Methodologically, the research concludes that core Sensemaker™ tools and methods support the development of shared heuristics and understandings for planning in response to complex issues - planning in social complexity that both include and move beyond policy planning. Therefore, as generic process the assemblage is found to be useful in support of collaborative planning and research processes in complex public policy and advocacy realms. However, the research also found that unacknowledged subjectivities of actors and entrained ways of thinking impacted potential outcomes. The planning of action to address identified complexities thus resulted in a limited range of potentially useful, safe to fail, experiments aimed at improving outcomes for Australian renters. Finally, in reflecting on this ‘loose praxis’ as collaborative and participatory urban/planning and research method in social complexity, the thesis proposes a transrational planning praxis with the potential to shift actors’ subjectivities and attend to their learning of, and subsequent planning in, complexity.