To elucidate how authoritative knowledge is established for better dealing with unstructured urban problems, this article describes how collaborations between researchers and officials become an instrument for conceptualizing and addressing policy problems. A case study is used to describe a research consortium evaluating the controversial practice of ‘Lifestyle’ based housing allocation in the Dutch domain of social-housing. Analyzing this case in key episodes, we see researchers and policymakers selectively draw on established institutional practices—their so called ‘home practices’—to jointly (re-)structure problems. In addition, we find that restructuring problems is not only intertwined with, but also deliberately aimed at (re-)structuring the relations within and between the governmental practices, the actors are embedded in. It is by selectively tinkering with knowledges, values, norms, and criteria that the actors can deliberately enable and constrain the ways a real-world problem is addressed.

中文翻译：

---

机构内的研究；学术和政府实践如何促进和限制合作研究

为了阐明如何建立权威知识以更好地解决非结构化的城市问题，本文介绍了研究人员和官员之间的合作如何成为概念化和解决政策问题的工具。案例研究用于描述一个研究联盟，该联盟评估了荷兰社会住房领域基于“生活方式”的住房分配的有争议的做法。在关键事件中分析这种情况，我们看到研究人员和政策制定者有选择地借鉴既定的制度惯例（他们所谓的“家庭惯例”）共同（重新）构造问题。此外，我们发现，重组问题不仅与行为问题交织在一起，而且还故意针对（重构）行为者所嵌入的政府实践内部和之间的关系。