South Africa is marked by a long history of relations between academia and broader society. It is known for the engagement of academics in the public sphere: in critiquing the apartheid system, in constructing post-apartheid visions, and in transforming society and institutions in support of social movements and marginalised groups (Spiegel et al. 1999; Dawson & Sinwell 2012). Such opportunities for engagement multiplied in the post-apartheid era, where the boundaries between academics, activists, experts and consultants become porous and blurred (Siméant 2002). This situation, prevalent in the 1990s and 2000s, had the exhilarating atmosphere of a frontier, of a new world being constructed, where it seemed possible to have a say, to play a role, to shape the future: where words and thoughts mattered and perhaps could change society.

Beyond South Africa, particularly in English-speaking academia, a vast literature has developed reflecting on the role of research in broader society. This has been given various names (public sociology, action research, participatory research, service learning, to name a few) within various disciplines (sociology and anthropology, and especially in the more applied disciplines, such as planning, design, architecture, health and education). The practice of involvement in social debates and in specific communities is currently becoming institutionalised across the world, via dedicated departments within universities, such as Service Learning, Community or Stakeholders Engagement, and Strategic Partnerships, depending on local priorities and positioning. This is to be both celebrated and decried. It challenges the ivory towers of academia and prompts academics to engage in the challenging work of translating and justifying research to the broader society. But it also responds to an increasing, neoliberal questioning of educational institutions’ ‘value for money’, requiring immediate and visible usefulness and applicability of all forms of knowledge production and pushing for the alignment of higher education with identifiable ‘skills’, the more technical and less critical knowledge assumed to be required by the market.

in this national and international context, no wonder an abundant literature has been generated on the matter. It is so vast that for a long time I have postponed the exercise of engaging with it. It is, however, not merely its expanse that had caused my reluctance: it is mostly its normative character, and often politically angelic posture on urban politics, that I find difficult to grapple with.