Encouraging household energy conservation through transdisciplinary approaches in Ghana and South Africa: assumptions, challenges and guidelines

ABSTRACT

Transdisciplinary research has gained traction globally for mapping pathways for sustainable urbanisation. The involvement of local communities is believed to central to knowledge co-production needed to address sustainability challenges. But working with local communities can be challenging. This paper is structured around the authors’ personal reflections on undertaking transdisciplinary household energy conservation projects in Ghana and South Africa. The paper reflects on the assumptions and challenges of doing transdisciplinary research in urban Africa and suggests some guidelines for consideration when doing transdisciplinary projects. An inductive analysis of our reflections showed five key challenges: lack of integration, divergent problem identification, tensions in knowledge co-production, asymmetrical power relations, and distrust and managing expectations. We draw on our collective experiences to develop guidelines for conducting transdisciplinary research in urban Africa. These guidelines are not prescriptive but can be useful for a growing and broader audience interested in undertaking transdisciplinary research.

KEYWORDS:

• Transdisciplinary research
• energy conservation
• urban sustainability
• challenges
• African cities

1. Introduction

Global residential energy consumption is a significant contributor to global energy demand, accounting for approximately 20% of total energy consumption (Song et al. 2019). According to the International Energy Agency (2019), the residential sector is projected to account for more than 40% of the increase in energy demand between 2019 and 2040. This trend is particularly pronounced in developing countries, where rapid urbanisation is driving up energy demand. It is estimated that nearly 90% of the increase in global residential electricity consumption between 2020 and 2040 is expected to come from developing countries, where urbanisation is occurring at a fast rate (International Energy Agency 2019). The demand for energy in residential buildings is mainly driven by the need for lighting, space heating, cooling, and water heating. In response, there is a global drive to encourage reduction in residential energy consumption through behavioural approaches to mitigate climate change, improve energy security in growing economies, and promote environmental and social benefits (Thondhlana and Kua 2016; Nahiduzzaman et al. 2018). However, behavioural interventions have tended to be often prescriptive with little or no involvement of the key stakeholders – the energy users (He and Kua 2013; Mutumbi et al. 2022). In response, there are increasing calls and support for involving local people in designing solutions for addressing sustainability challenges within their spaces (Ambole et al. 2019; Thondhlana et al. 2021).

The emergence of transdisciplinary research is a response to the need for society-relevant research and the imperatives for people to be actively involved in research that concerns them (Becker 2012; van Breda and Swilling 2018; Thondhlana et al. 2021). It is a realisation that the complex nature of societal problems cannot be thoroughly interrogated by one-dimensional science (Hadorn et al. 2008; Spangenberg 2011; Femenías and Thuvander 2018). Transdisciplinary research is defined as a ‘problem-solving research where scientific knowledge is combined with values, knowledge, and know-how from practitioner-based practice through in-depth inclusive processes’ (Hansson and Polk 2018, p. 1). A key principle for TD research is that collaboration between societal stakeholders and researchers would result in more socially relevant results, actionable knowledge, and sustainable outcomes (Hansson and Polk 2018; van Breda and Swilling 2018). In TD research, the society is involved through various means including co-problem formulation, co-designing of interventions, data collection and analyses, monitoring, and reflective exercises (Guimarães et al. 2019; Thondhlana et al. 2021). Transdisciplinary research also involves the development of soft skills such as trust-creation and trust-building (Thondhlana et al. 2021) openness and tolerance (Guimarães et al. 2019), an appreciation of social values and norms that shape actions, and co-learning (Lang et al. 2012).

However, literature on TD practice in Africa is still evolving and growing, and ‘there are limited case-specific examples and solutions’ (Lang et al. 2012, p. 38). Most documented TD examples and experiences are drawn from the Global North. Meanwhile, generalising the results from case studies in TD research is a challenge because problems and solutions are context-relevant and may not be easily transferred from one normative context to the other (Lang et al. 2012; van Breda and Swilling 2018). By synthesising evidence from case studies, some theorisation across the cases may be achieved, and insights obtained from case studies can be transferred to other contexts (Lang et al. 2012).

Therefore, there is a need to develop empirical evidence on the challenges of implementing TD research in the Global South to develop context-relevant guidelines for TD practice. The authors of this article were involved in a transdisciplinary household energy conservation project in two African cities of Kumasi, Ghana, and Makhanda, South Africa (Thondhlana et al. 2021). The sustainability challenge that the project aimed to address was unsustainable electricity use at the household level in the two countries. It was anticipated that co-designing energy-saving interventions with local communities (householders) would lead to positive outcomes including developing of local people’s agency, behaviour change, and reduced electricity consumption. The authors share a collective commitment of advancing understanding of TD in practice and developing locally relevant solutions to wicked sustainability challenges. This paper documents the authors’ personal reflective accounts on the challenges of involving local communities in TD research as a basis for advancing knowledge on and framing of TD research in the Global South. The paper is guided by the three questions of interest. What assumptions guided the TD energy use research in the two African countries? What challenges were encountered in doing TD research? Based on the challenges what guidelines for undertaking TD research within African urban setting might we imagine?

2. Conceptual framing: transdisciplinary research assumptions and challenges

Transdisciplinary research is informed by a set of assumptions. The first assumption is that engagement between actors is on equal footing. Formal stakeholder engagement is the principal channel for communication and decision-making (van Breda and Swilling 2018). This implies that certain social conditions exist which allow societal stakeholders such as policymakers, local residents, and practitioners to engage on the same level with academic actors. However, in practice there tends to be power asymmetries relating to unspoken hierarchies, including knowledge hierarchies (Moser 2016; Norström et al. 2020), inequalities, and political sensitivities within and between actors (Hansson and Polk 2018). Norström et al. (2020) caution that failure to address power imbalances in participatory processes can reduce the quality of engagement and process outcomes (e.g. knowledge co-production) which can derail an entire project. Furthermore, knowledge hierarchies may be reproduced through unequal access to information and means of participation.

The second assumption is that there is a common platform for co-learning and change among actors to allow co-problem formulation (Fazey et al. 2018). However, lack of problem awareness or inappropriate problem framing can result in a lack of consensus on the sustainability challenge, undermining the principle of joint problem definition (Lang et al. 2012). This may further result in a lopsided view of the nature of the problem among stakeholders and, consequently, constrain mutual learning. This diversity of perspectives is valuable for TD research but should be carefully managed to ensure effective interactions (Cundill et al. 2019) that support co-creation of knowledge. The third assumption is that sustainable impacts can result from the development of interventions that are consistent with the norms and values of the society being studied (Fazey et al. 2018). Related to this is the assumption that sustainable solutions are predicated on effective stakeholder engagement, that is, collaboration between societal stakeholders and researchers would result in more ‘socially relevant results, actionable knowledge or sustainable outcomes’ (Pohl and Hadorn 2007; Wiek et al. 2012; Bornmann 2013; de Jong SP et al. 2016; Roy et al. 2020). Fazey et al. (2018) suggest that multiple perspectives, knowledge, and ways of knowing are fundamental to making a positive impact.

However, joint knowledge generation from multiple perspectives is a social process that hinges on the interactions between science experts and societal stakeholders and experts (Lang et al. 2012; Wiek et al. 2012; Hansson and Polk 2018). Wiek (2007) identify two key challenges to joint knowledge generation. The first challenge relates to confounded agendas. While societal stakeholders such as local communities might focus on finding socially robust solutions to local sustainability challenges, academics might have an affinity to producing data that can be ‘published, discussed, and used for further research in the scientific community’. The second challenge is separate data philosophies. Scientific and local experts tend to conflict due to differentiated attraction to quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, as well as their formal and intuitive data generation approaches, respectively. Hansson and Polk (2018) describe this as the institutional challenge of linking knowledge to impact, especially considering the several ways knowledge-generating processes is considered salient, credible, and legitimate by different institutions or actors. Moser (2016, p. 111) warns that there is a challenge in ‘working across differences in background, training, experiences, needs, ideologies, and interests’, and agreeing on a ‘consensual framework for the research, on methods, standards of work and priorities, along with different ontologies and epistemologies’. Moser (2016) stresses the value of considering challenges related to building, deepening, and maintaining engagement for trust-building among actors. In socially fluid contexts, trust may not be easily achieved because of the existence of misperceptions, unfounded fears, and existing bridges (van Breda and Swilling 2018). Trust building tends to be a long process that results from long engagement processes in unrestricted spaces (Lang et al. 2012, van Breda and Swilling 2018; Thondhlana et al. 2021). Therefore, where power asymmetries exist, either as political or institutional constraints (Hansson and Polk 2018) or some entrenched levels of inequalities, trust does not thrive, which can constrain transdisciplinary research.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Overview of the case study cities

Using transdisciplinary approaches, our two-year project’s goal was to promote sustainable residential energy consumption through co-designed behavioural interventions in Kumasi, Ghana, and Makhanda, South Africa. The project was designed and implemented by a team of researchers within the broader framing of Leading Integrated Research for Agenda 2030 in Africa (LIRA 2030) designed to address complex African urban sustainability challenges including poor sanitation, informal housing, and water and energy insecurity.

Kumasi is a metropolis and the second-largest city in Ghana, with a population of approximately 3 million people (Ghana Statistical Service 2012). It is the administrative capital of the Ashanti Region and the traditional capital of the Asante Kingdom. The economy of the metropolis is driven by the commercial sector. It is a major transport and commercial centre in the West African Trade region, particularly to the neighbouring landlocked countries. The city houses the Suame Magazine, the largest informal industrial area in the country, which also serves the West African Trade region (Obeng 2001). The city has a growing urban population driven by rural-urban migration influx of immigrants. Due to population growth, the city faces several sustainability challenges including poor sanitation, inadequate housing, and erratic electricity supply (Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation MESTI 2013; Eshun and Amoako-Tuffour 2016). Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation (MESTI) (2013) reports that over half of dwelling units in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area (KMA) are compound houses, with about 64% of households residing in one-room dwelling units.

Makhanda, formerly Grahamstown, is a medium-sized town of approximately 70,000 people, located in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The economy of Makhanda is driven by the education sector, namely Rhodes University, public schools, and a few historically elite private schools. Migration of people from nearby farms and Makhanda’s peripheral villages to the town is a historical issue as people search for better economic opportunities and improved service provision. This has seen an increase in Makhanda informal settlement populations and a decline in municipal service delivery as the local government fails to cope with urban growth. In general, the town has limited access to basic infrastructure and services such as electricity and water (Integrated Development Plan 2020).

The two countries we investigated differ in terms of energy access and sources, providing a wealth of viewpoints on energy consumption and the complexity of involving local communities as key stakeholders in research endeavours. Ghana has an electricity access rate of 87% across all urban areas, but the country has an unreliable energy supply linked to the country’s reliance on hydroelectric power (HEP) generation, which has been severely hampered by low water levels due to unpredictable changes in rainfall patterns (Energy Commission Ghana 2012). In 2003–2004, 2007, 2014–2016, the country went through massive load-shedding exercises. Among other reasons, gross technical inefficiencies and poor demand-side management negatively impact reliable electricity supply to households. South Africa has one of the highest rates of household access to energy in Africa with almost 90% of all households connected to the national electricity grid (Department of Energy 2012). Nonetheless, the country is challenged with high dependence on fossil fuels, energy poverty, and insecurity, with negative ramifications on the economy and human well-being. The national approach of investing in additional coal-powered stations to meet rising energy demand (ESKOM 2014) does not address wasteful behaviour and energy poverty, especially for the urban poor. It is estimated that energy demand will more than double by 2050 (International Energy Agency 2019) which presents a disequilibrium with energy supply capacity. Due to low generation capacity attributed to an ageing fleet, the country has experienced very intensive load shedding from about 860 hours of load shedding in 2020 (Calitz and Wright 2023) to over 3 000 hours in 2022.

The sustainability challenge the TD research project aimed to address was unsustainable consumption among low-income households in both Kumasi (Ghana) and Makhanda (South Africa). The two cities reflect a macro-national challenge in the respective countries, with adverse effects on the urban socio-economic development agenda, particularly for the urban poor (Marta and Agnieszka 2015; Umar and Kunda-Wamuwi 2019). The TD project employed a range of methods to address several outcomes summarised in Table 1 (see Appendix 1). Full details about the TD project inception, including baseline studies on energy consumption behaviour, co-designing of behaviour change interventions, and the effectiveness of the interventions are covered elsewhere (Mutumbi et al. 2021, 2022; Thondhlana et al. 2021) but summarised in Appendix 1.

Table 1. Summary of TD project activities, expected outcomes and methods.

Activity and expected outcomes	Methods	Stakeholders (n)
Co-development of research problem for engendering a collective understanding of the sustainability challenge.	Personal meetings and workshops with stakeholders/local knowledge partners (local city/municipal officials of the Makana Municipality and ESKOM (South Africa) and Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, the Electricity Company of Ghana, households and civic organisations (Ghana).	Makhanda Community champions (8) Municipal officials (2) ESKOM representative (1) Kumasi Households & community champions (14) Local city officials (7) ECG representative (6) Civic organisations (2) Energy Commission (1)
Generating baseline data on household electricity use behaviour, monthly energy consumption and energy saving strategies.	Households surveys with participant households.	Makhanda Households(297) Kumasi Households (285)
Co-designing of energy-saving interventions (pamphlets, stickers, and discussions) based on baseline study and translation into local language. Implementation of interventions by households with assistance from community champions. Co-monitoring of energy consumption by participant households after the implementation of interventions and analysis. Re-modelling interventions with participant households and further implementations and analysis.	Workshops with participant householdsand community champions, face to face meetings with energy providers.	Makhanda: Communitychampions (8) Households (44) Kumasi Households (88)
Creating platforms (meetings/workshops) for stakeholders’ involvement from the project outset to highlight the value of participating in the project. Feedback of results to respective local partners (participant households, local city officials, civic organisations, and other interested local stakeholders) via workshops	Workshops	Makhanda Households (44)– Kumasi Households (60) Officials of city/municipal council (7) ECG representative (4) Civic organisation (1) Energy Commission (1)
Reflective sessions with households and champions on the research process i.e. experience versus intended outcomes. Records of participants’ perceptions on impact of research process and programme on their agency and energy-saving achievements.	Workshops	Makhanda Households (19) Community champions (8) Kumasi Households (88)
Evidence of sustained reduced energy consumption via reports.	Energy consumption monitoring among participant households via self-reporting	Makhanda Households (44) Kumasi Households (88)

3.2. Research methods

The authors adopted a self-reflection exercise drawing on the Claims Arguments Evidence (CAE) framework (Chang et al. 2013). CAE is an approach that ‘engages two or more autoethnographers in a research team to pool their lived experiences on selected sociocultural phenomena and collaboratively analyse and interpret them for commonalities and differences’ (Chang et al. 2013, p. 251). Drawing on the CAE approach, we combined self-reviews of the challenges encountered by the authors when undertaking TD research in the respective countries, within a collaborative and supportive framework. One of the authors was part of a panel at the Sustainability Research & Innovation (SRI) 2021 online congress where the TD challenges were presented, and feedback was provided. We first held a brain storming session where we emphasised self-reflections of our experiences in undertaking a TD project from project outset (problem formulation) with local communities, designing of data collection instruments, and energy reduction interventions, implementation of interventions, monitoring of energy consumption performance and reflective exercises on the experiences of the collaborative processes via several community workshops, household surveys, and personal interviews. Each author was asked to develop a personally written reflective account on the assumptions of and challenges encountered in implementing TD research within their respective contexts. These initial reflections formed the basis of several virtual discussions teasing out matches and mismatches between TD assumptions and practice and what shaped the different challenges observed or experiences by the authors.

Reflective commentaries were varied and included short essays and email exchanges on the subject between the three authors. In the first stage of the inductive analysis of the study, each author read the commentaries from the other two to note any similarities and differences. This analysis of data did not emerge from a structured methodology to capture the challenges encountered in doing TD research but from our reflective experiences, hence it was constraint-free and consistent with inductive approaches to data analysis (Thomas 2006). Thomas (2006, p. 238) states that ‘the primary purpose of the inductive approach is to allow research findings to emerge from the frequent, dominant, or significant themes inherent in raw data, without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies’. In subsequent meetings, we shared our own reflective accounts of dominant challenges emerging from the raw data (reflective commentaries), and through several zoom video conferences, we discussed and agreed on emerging themes that we deemed to capture our collective views of challenges encountered in TD research.

We are cognisant of questions related to the trustworthiness of this analytical approach. We are confident of the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of our analytical approach because the unrestricted nature of the individualistic approach to the writing of the reflective accounts avoided influences from collective discussions. Further, the three authors are from different research disciplines (Urban Planning, Restoration Ecology, and Sustainability Science) hence there was room for disciplinary biases to be identified, shared, and discussed. Further, there was a consensus regarding our collective experiences after several discussions, negotiations, and iterations. Therefore, the credibility of the emerging themes in our analysis was tested through frank discussions. The focus of the study, TD challenges, is complex and context-specific, hence the findings might not be generalisable. However, the value of the study to the broader TD literature and practice is the potentially transferable insights (Marshall 1996) on issues related to TD practice, including the involvement of local actors in problem formulation, knowledge co-production, power dynamics, and trust. Transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the analysis were tested via comparisons of our findings with the experiences of the authors in other LIRA-funded TD projects and international literature on TD challenges.

4. Results

Individual reflective exercises provided a rich source of data on challenges emerging from practising TD research in the two African cities. The recurrent themes were lack of integration, divergent problem formulation, joint knowledge generation, power asymmetries, and trust, with considerable variations in the extent of emphasis on the challenges between Ghana and South Africa.

4.1 Lack of integration

Our project generated knowledge with stakeholders from three spheres, namely, science, policy, and society. A key guide was that the three spheres would allow knowledge co-creation to enhance ownership of project outcomes. A major challenge was conceptual threshold crossing. Actively engaging three different spheres of actors with the aim of carving out a trajectory implied engaging with diverse discursive language and epistemic backgrounds. On the one hand, some actors found it hard to compromise on their thresholds. On the other hand, there was a challenge relating to translating scientific discourse into accessible everyday language. For instance, the word ‘energy’ does not exist in the local dialect (Twi) spoken in Kumasi, Ghana; its translation must be disaggregated using the different types of energy. A section of some of the actors engaged their selective assimilation and cognitive faculties, with certain predispositions about other actors at the initial stages of engagement. For instance, in Kumasi, a presentation made by academics using infographics to relate energy efficiency to the environment and household financial savings during an inception engagement was tagged ‘purely academic’ by a section of societal participants. Technical language barriers also existed between the power utility in Ghana and communities, e.g. an attempt by the power utility to explain the components of an electricity bill and how it was calculated using the graded tariff levels appeared frustrating at the initial stages of engagement for the ordinary households leading to agitations. Similarly, in South Africa, residents who participated in the study were unable to estimate their monthly electricity consumption in kilowatt hour but preferred to use electricity bills as a point of consumption reference.

Reflective accounts of our views of lack of integration mirrors the broader literature (Burger et al. 2003; Hadorn et al. 2008; Lang et al. 2012; Moser 2016). The energy challenge was understood differently by the different academia, society, and policy actors. Similarly, technical language barriers were identified between the power utility and the communities. Two interventions were employed. The first was the use of communicators to address language barriers. The CSO and the Energy Commission in Ghana played advocacy roles in neutralising the divergent views and converging into a focus. The second intervention was tailoring language to suit both technical and non-technical audience. For example, words and expression such as tariffs, kilowatt hour, and technical losses were reserved for discussions among the power utility and energy regulators.

4.2 Divergent problem identification

At the project inception stage in both Ghana and South Africa, we attempted to develop a shared understanding of the sustainability challenge and co-design locally relevant and socially meaningful solutions. While the authors initially framed the sustainability challenge from a behavioural standpoint, the local communities perceived the energy problem to be a technical one, that is, capacity failure by power utilities. Indeed, in the case of Kumasi, there was no awareness about or reference to the links between that residential energy consumption practices and energy supply problems. Instead, residents raised conflict between them and the energy provider, born out of the energy crisis frequently experienced in Ghana, with its concomitant load shedding (popularly referred to as ‘dumsor’ i.e. unregulated power outages) and the adverse socio-economic impacts on consumers. In Makhanda, South Africa, conflicts were reported between community participants and the energy utility, ESKOM. The project was perceived as an opportunity for ESKOM to meet with energy users and address technical electricity-related problems encountered by the community. For example, initial discussions with local communities focussed on how ESKOM should fix faulty metre boxes. Engagements with partners were therefore constrained by dissenting views. We responded to this through allowing households to share their own perspectives and living experiences, and space for discussing their role as electricity consumers, in addressing wasteful energy use practices.

Our experiences of divergent problem identification among actors are consistent with findings elsewhere (Lang et al. 2012). The initial disagreements on the sustainability challenge were due to the different lenses through which the sustainability challenge (unsustainable use of energy) was considered. On the one hand, academic actors employed behavioural lenses while, on the other hand, societal actors (residents and energy providers) framed the sustainability challenge technically. Local communities tended to downplay their contribution (wasteful energy behaviour) to the sustainability challenge but highlighted the persistent technical inefficiencies such as frequent power outages, bureaucracies in metre acquisition, and wrong metre-reading and billing. Overcoming this challenge required scientific and societal actors to overcome ‘inertia and reluctance’ and engage (Lang et al. 2012). The role of the demand side, i.e. household energy consumers, in identifying socially relevant solutions was emphasised (Wiesmann et al. 2008; Allen et al. 2015; Odume et al. 2021). Further, it was necessary to emphasise that all facets of the problem could not be addressed through a single TD research. Additionally, in line with the principles of recursivity, it was useful to revisit the project goals throughout the course of the project.

4.3 Tensions in co-production of knowledge

We contend that tensions in co-production of knowledge emerged due to separate knowledge philosophies. In Ghana, getting buy-in from practitioners required developing a technical report on the research process with scientific evidence of reductions in monthly household electricity consumption though the main effort by the research team, and civil society centred on changes in energy behaviour at the household level. Participant households reported a reduction in electricity consumption by simply observing how many extra days their prepaid electricity cards lasted after practising good energy use behaviour. The academic faculty at the University in Kumasi required a scientifically robust methodological approach to conducting research with emphasis on sample identification and selection, replacements, and definitions to mention a few, while the research team aimed at working with partners and allowing an emergence of methodologies when it became necessary (van Breda and Swilling 2018).

Furthermore, the heterogeneous nature of society was another notable challenge. Participants’ viewpoints and contributions were diverse, as were their socio-demographic backgrounds. Each of the stages of engagement brought together local communities with their energy champions, civil society organisations (CSOs), representatives of the local government, power utilities, and the energy regulator. For each stage, we planned breakout sessions and presentations where varied perspectives on the subject under discussion were shared. The varied perspectives had to be moulded into useful information appreciated and understood by all stakeholders. Although challenging, it was critical to allow this diversity and to model out the next steps within this diversity. It required planning for extended conversations (time) with corresponding implications on the project budget. The process showed the dynamics of society and the need to consider this dynamism in the assumptions that guided the theory of change. For example, the researchers assumed that co-production of knowledge would facilitate alliances between actors. While this outcome was achieved, it was not a simple linear process (van Breda and Swilling 2018) but one that traversed through complex spirals (Schneider et al. 2019) and negotiations – a time-consuming exercise.

4.4 Asymmetrical power relations

Power relations manifested in varied ways in both Ghana and South Africa. As already mentioned, we observed tensions during project inception due to different perspectives on the sustainability challenge between actors. We felt that there was a tendency to engage into fault-finding (name calling) relating to electricity supply problems. We responded to this by shifting the subject focus to the potential contribution of individual behaviour to the sustainability challenge. Although researchers intended to dissociate the projects from political lines, the selection of energy champions required a tactful balance between different political alignments to prevent unintended biases. For example, in Kumasi, two well-known community champions recommended by the community refused to work together because they were affiliated with the two major opposing political parties in Ghana. In both Kumasi and Makhanda, the suggested training grounds for the energy champions were strongly opposed because one group of champions felt subservient to the other. In Makhanda, the involvement of a politically affiliated community champion resulted in tensions, with some community champions complaining that their views, suggestions, and contributions were being side-lined in discussions by the powerful individual. There were also perceptions by some community champions that the politically connected champion was participating in the TD project to further his political interest. These tensions constrained decision-making in many instances and slowed progress with project goals.

In another instance, the passive participation of the municipal representatives in Ghana was observed. The municipal representatives did not have the power to make decisions but took instructions from the power utility and the Ministry of Energy. This position conflicted with legislated structures and marginalised the role of the municipal authorities. This assumed position of ‘therapy’ (Maslow 1943) affected their participation in the project so that notwithstanding the opportunity to engage and contribute, they appeared only to show representation, observe, and record proceedings. Similarly, in Makhanda, asymmetric power relations were evident when dealing with ESKOM. Even though the national power utility ESKOM had a local sub-office, they did not have the power to engage on the project without authorisation from a ‘higher’ office. This restricted their involvement in co-problem formulation, co-designing of energy reduction interventions and co-monitoring of effectiveness of interventions among other activities. In fact, ESKOM’s participation in the TD project was to a greater extent peripheral. We believe this was a missed opportunity for engagement between ESKOM, a key actor in energy supply and residents, which could have developed a shared understanding of the energy challenge and the responsibility of each actor in addressing it.

Our reflective accounts also point to the complexities of working with traditional communities that have evolved and urbanised over the years through urban sprawl. Particularly in the case of Kumasi (and more generally in Ghana), these communities still possess strong traditional hierarchical systems, alongside the political decentralised governance system. The Assembly members at the community level in Ghana, who form the basic unit of the decentralised governance system are elected based on their ethnic origin and by the approval of the people. They served either as energy champions or selected young and vibrant persons to represent them. They also served as links to the traditional authority. According to Thondhlana et al. (2021) such settings require collaborative leadership and strong relational capacities. For example, community entry processes are non-negotiable and cannot be bypassed.

Furthermore, power asymmetries influenced participation and learning. For example, some participants perceived that academics had superiority of knowledge on energy issues. This perception constrained participants from freely contributing to dialogue around defining the sustainability challenge and developing data collection instruments. Another common scenario was in choosing the location for partners’ engagement. Although other societal actors and representatives were involved, it was necessary to choose a location that suited the participation of the local communities due to perceived power asymmetries. In Makhanda, all workshops were done at local community halls that were easily accessible physically and culturally. In other words, we carefully chose these meeting places with the help of local community champions to ensure the creation of safe spaces for open dialogue.

Our experience of tensions between ontological approaches reflects power asymmetries in knowledge production where certain knowledge and expertise are considered more legitimate than others (Norström et al. 2020). We interrogate our experiences in power asymmetries within the framings provided by Hansson and Polk (2018), i.e. inequalities and political sensitivities. Fritz and Binder (2020) in their discussion on power relations in TD research argue that in setting rules of interaction (procedures), the decision on ‘locations’ is a critical factor that defines effective participation. Another dimension of community action is rooted in levels of economic inequalities witnessed in the urban areas investigated. The compound-house phenomenon (Ghana) and the backhouses ‘shacks’ phenomenon (South Africa) can affect effective engagement. For instance, shared electricity metres were a common phenomenon in the low-income urban communities studied. Single housing units were connected to multiple housing units or backhouses that also drew electricity from the same metre. Van Breda and Swilling (2018, p. 2–3) describe this situation as a ‘hybridised formal and informal service delivery system’, common in the Global South. Jaglin (2014) reiterates that services in cities of the Global South do not always reach end-users through the traditional conventional network. Therefore, an action towards sustainable consumption should acknowledge the existence of this informality (van Breda and Swilling 2018).

4.5 Distrust and managing expectations

The reflections showed a high level of agreement on elements of distrust between academics and local communities. At the initial stages of the research, the research teams were viewed with suspicion, and the willingness of the local communities to participate was lower than anticipated. For instance, in one community in Kumasi, the research team was not initially welcomed, fuelled by an opinion leader. In other communities in Kumasi, some households expressed research fatigue and disillusionment with the prevailing electricity supply situation and were unwilling to grant audience to any research related to electricity. Research fatigue was also observed in Makhanda, a university town subjected to various kinds of energy research. To build trust, the project team engaged the community via workshops about its the project’s goals and flexibility in tweaking the goals, intended impacts and outcomes and the role of each actor in defining pathways towards achieving goals. We also invested time in finding gate keepers (energy champions and traditional leaders), who enabled access to communities. In addition, the process of problem co-identification and formulation initiated a trusted space for engagement among actors. Further, we identified and respected community values and norms relating to daily livelihood activities, observing community activities such as funerals and cultural ceremonies, which in our view contributed to building a mutually beneficial relationship rather than an extractive one. For example, in one community in Kumasi, a scheduled community engagement coincided with a community funeral. Similarly, in Makhanda, South Africa, scheduling meetings during social welfare grant payment days and weekends proved to be challenging. In South Africa, weekends are often reserved for funerals and other cultural ceremonies. Therefore, the research team identified days and times that suited local communities’ livelihood activities. This approach inevitably meant that the different stages of the project were delayed, but the benefits far outweighed the costs as evident in large turnouts at workshops. In reflection workshops on the processes of engagement that we employed, the communities referred to observance of community daily livelihood practices and other commitments as major trust and confidence-building situations.

Issues of trust were also apparent in institutional collaborations. In general, research involving academia and technical experts did not appear as a trusted space initially. Meetings with municipal and ESKOM officials in Makhanda were difficult to arrange due to differences in perspectives and how these managers valued the project. Further, some participant households were unwilling to be in the same space with ESKOM and the Municipality to discuss electricity issues for fear of victimisation emanating from illegally connected ‘backroom’ shacks. The problem of integrating backroom shacks to the energy conservation programme emerged later in the project in reflective workshops on TD processes and impacts, suggesting that trust building takes time, as already mentioned. Further, open discussions of illegal activities are indicative of perceptions of a safe space to dialogue and a high level of trust among different actors. In Kumasi, researchers had to negotiate perceptions by sections of the power utility that academic researchers were exploitative. This mishap delayed institutional data collection over a long period.

5. Overcoming the challenges: some guidelines for doing TD research

From the critical reflective accounts of our experiences in undertaking TD in Ghana and South Africa, we suggest some guidelines that could be useful for TD research and practice in an African urban context. We do not consider these guidelines prescriptive, but we believe researchers can consider and adopt them for similar contexts. Some (not all) steps that can be taken in doing TD research are explained below.

• To address lack of integration, all actors should ‘work together’ in principle and practice. Framing the research project together during stakeholder meetings in the project planning phase can allow the development of a shared understanding of the sustainability challenge and co-creating a synergistic research team. In our context, several problem formulation meetings with different actors via workshops and personal engagements allowed us to get buy-in from the different actors though there was considerable variability in the level of commitment of actors within and between the two countries.

• To deal with divergent problem identification, it is important to anticipate that different stakeholders are likely to view sustainability challenges differently but provide platforms for developing common understanding. According to Funtowicz (1993), it is crucial to allow a ‘plurality of legitimate perspectives’.

• Achieving co-production of knowledge requires TD researchers to adopt the role of an epistemediator (Wiek 2007), that is, not only balancing varied perspectives of stakeholders but also finding common points or connectors within the plurality of perspectives. Reflexivity, a process of examining one’s beliefs, judgements, and practices during a research project is also a useful strategy.

• Power asymmetries must be recognised. Actor constellations are useful for identifying positions, roles, and responsibilities of stakeholders. Allowing actors to identify their roles and points of collaboration and conflicts between themselves and other actors proved to be effective. With multiple actors, an engagement schedule would reduce unnecessary conflict. Stratified engagements are recommended, that is, engaging individually and collectively and at different levels. Constant engagements with stakeholders are useful in aligning different powers to responsibilities in the research process, on the one hand, and neutralising the asymmetrical power dynamics, on the other hand. In some cases, a level playing field simply means finding a neutral meeting ground for stakeholders. Consistent with Norström et al. (2020), knowledge co-production will require attention to mechanisms of social change including values, politics, and power. Careful attention should be paid to contexts where political and traditional governance systems intersect and operate in tandem as in the case of Ghana. Often it is not possible to bring these institutions together without causing tensions, therefore acceptable trade-offs should be considered.

• Building trust requires consistency in the process of engagement. Further, the goals of the research should find cohesion with the needs of society. Dialogue can be a useful tool that allows stakeholders to learn and unlearn, remove barriers, and allow a collective and mutual understanding necessary for developing a desired pathway. Clearly defined rules of engagement can regulate discussions, how power and responsibilities are exercised, and consensus building through collaborative discourse, making partnership more effective. The ability of the different partners to express their views without intimidation can build trust. In South Africa, backhouse ‘shacks’ that are illegally connected to electricity lines in the main house are common, hence engaging participants and service providers require attention to unintended consequences such as being reprimanded, which can erode trust in TD processes.

• Understanding the normative setting for interaction in the design stage is critical for avoiding pitfalls that could jeopardise the research intent. Engaging community resource persons (e.g. community champions) who are experienced in the social context and can facilitate interactions is recommended. Such persons may not be members of the research team but their role is equally important.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this article was to document the challenges encountered in doing TD research in African urban contexts based on reflective accounts of the authors. Our experiences revealed complex challenges embedded in TD research relating to collective problem formulation, power asymmetries between actors, knowledge co-production, and trust building. In reality, these challenges cannot be considered separately but are highly complex and interrelated as the sustainability challenges TD research attempts to address. We considered that addressing the challenges lies in building bridges between actors, meaningful engagement for collective problem formulation, levelling the ground of engagements and addressing real and perceived power asymmetries. This can help build mutually beneficial relationships needed to translate TD principles into practice. In conclusion, working in the TD space requires constant negotiation of where and when differences and tensions emerge. TD approaches require versatility to respond to unexpected situations that, if not identified and addressed early, might jeopardise the participation of local communities in co-designing locally relevant solutions for addressing sustainability challenges.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study received financial support from the International Science Council (ISC) in partnership with the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) with support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Grant No. LIRA2030-GR02/20. Rhodes University co-funded the project.

Notes on contributors

Gladman Thondhlana

Gladman Thondhlana is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Science at Rhodes University, South Africa. His research focuses on (a) understanding the links between wild resource use and household welfare issues and (b) urban sustainability. He has published more than 45 peer-reviewed journal articles and working papers. He is a National Research Foundation (NRF) Y2-rated researcher – a category awarded to a researcher who has the potential to establish himself as a researcher of considerable international standing on the basis of the quality and impact of recent research outputs.

Akosua Baah Kwarteng Amaka-Otchere

Akosua Baah Kwarteng Amaka-Otchere is a Lecturer in the Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana. She is a Development Planner with over 15 years working and research experience in various development-related fields. Her professional engagements have been in the form of development research, monitoring, evaluation, project implementation and management, development policy analysis principally in the fields of energy, environment, governance and gender, and regional and urban planning. She has consulted for a number of local and international organisations including the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development- Ghana, German Bank for Development (KfW), German Technical Cooperation (GIZ), and African Development Bank. She is adept in both quantitative and qualitative research, with extensive skills in statistical analysis using SPSS software and in stakeholder engagement and evidence uptake processes.

Sheunesu Ruwanza

Sheunesu Ruwanza is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Environmental Science at Rhodes University, South Africa. He is a Y2 National Research Foundation rated scientist, a rating awarded to young researchers who have cutting-edge research and have the potential to develop into recolonised scientists. His research focuses on ecological restoration, more specifically developing cost-effective restoration models. Of late, he has applied his understanding of ecology to examine the ecological effects of harvesting Non-Timber Forest Products. Sheunesu started his research career in Environmental Policy and Planning, an area he still publishes regularly. To date, he has published more than 40 peer-reviewed journal articles in high impact factor journals. He is a DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB) core team member and has recently been appointed to serve in the Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel (ASRARP) of South Africa.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Categories of activity and relevant data collected.

Category of activity	Data collected
Feedback of results to respective local partners (participant households, local city officials, civic organisations and other interested local stakeholders) through workshops	Baseline data – reported electricity consumption behaviour, electricty consumption patterns and expenditures, and electricity-saving practices. Energy consumption patterns before and after implementation of co-designed electricity saving interventions.
Reflective sessions with participant households and community champions on the research process i.e., experience versus intended outcomes. Records of participant households' perceptions on impact of research process and programme on their agency and energy-saving achievements.	Participant households' perceptions of collective problem formulation, level of their involvement, general agreement on the sustainability challenge, benefits of collective action, ownership of the project, and openness and fairness of decision making and information sharing.
Evidence of sustained reduced energy consumption via reports.	Trend analysis of monthly electricity consumption before and after implementation of co-designed electricity saving interventions. Monthly financial savings on electricity.