Theme: The Universal and the Particular: Challenges in Theory Application
Speaker: Professor Mary Lawhon, University of Edinburgh
Hosted by the School of Environment, Education, and Development, University of Manchester
Organizers: Xinyue Dong, Xiaowen Zhan, Dongyang Mi
Funding: Student-led interdisciplinary project fund from SEED, UoM
Authors: Xiaowen Zhan, Xinyue Dong, and Dongyang Mi
- Summary of the Presentation
At our recent workshop on The Universal and the Particular, Professor Mary Lawhon, a leading geographer and political ecologist from the University of Edinburgh (https://marylawhon.com/), delivered a powerful keynote, titled “Making Theory from the South: Where, Why, and What Next?”, addressing head-on the deep challenges of applying, adapting, or rethinking theory in urban research.
Mary emphasized that theory is never neutral—it reflects our values, positions, and visions for the world. She urged researchers to move beyond simply noting empirical differences or citing Southern cases, and instead work toward “modest” and decolonial frameworks that challenge universalist assumptions.
From the outset, Mary made clear that her focus was not on theory application in the conventional sense—“cut and paste models,” as she put it—but on the limits of applying dominant theories, especially those developed in and for the Global North. While scholars are often told to “advance” theory rather than merely apply it, she reminded us that even the act of advancing is deeply shaped by normative assumptions—about what counts as a good explanation, a just city, or a desirable future.
Why We Make Theory (and Why It Matters Where From)
Mary opened with a foundational provocation: theory is never just explanatory—it is also judgmental and normative. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the theories we use carry implicit ideas about what ought to be, and these shape not only how we interpret the world, but also what kinds of futures we imagine. This is especially critical for researchers working across contexts. The problem, she noted, isn’t simply that dominant theories are Northern in origin. It’s that they are often embedded in what she called “colonial modern thought”—a framework that recognizes difference only to declare it lesser. This legacy continues to shape what is seen as valid knowledge and what is dismissed.
Southern Theory or Southern Critique?
“The South isn’t just a place—it’s a standpoint to rethink theory’s colonial foundations. The goal isn’t to replace Northern theory but to democratize knowledge.”
Rather than arguing for a fixed body of “Southern theory,” Mary advocated for what she and her collaborators call a “Southern urban critique.” This distinction matters. While “Southern theory” risks becoming another static category, the Southern critique is a process—a mode of critical engagement rooted in positionality, reflexivity, and resistance to universalist assumptions.
She outlined three types of interventions commonly associated with Southern urbanism:
- Highlighting empirical differences (cities work differently in the South).
- Recovering distinct intellectual traditions.
- Deconstructing the assumptions of theory-making itself, particularly those rooted in colonial modernity.
The third approach, she argued, offers a truly post/decolonial approach—not just acknowledging difference, but valuing it in ways that challenge the hierarchy of knowledge production.
Three Examples: Environmental Justice, Urban Appropriation, and Infrastructure
Mary brought theory to life through three empirical examples which she has written about with increasing detail as she moved from ‘observing the limits of theory’ to ‘theorising anew’:
- Environmental Justice in South Africa
The adoption of US-centric EJ frameworks in South Africa helped legitimize local activism, but also narrowed the scope of analysis. By asking only questions that fit the canonical mold—pollution near marginalized communities—scholars missed other forms of environmental harm. A broader, more open-ended approach, rather than theory-driven framing, might have uncovered more context-specific landscapes of injustice. - Urban Appropriation and the Limits of Existing Categories
Drawing on fieldwork with PhD students, Mary critiqued dominant theories which frame appropriation as either “consolidating legal rights” or “surreptitious survival.” These models explain some types of informal appropriation but fail to capture others (e.g., collective, non-need-based appropriations). Her work suggested that starting from what is seen on the ground, rather than retrofitting cases into existing theories, opens up space for identifying overlooked practices and building new vocabularies. - Infrastructure and the Colonial Modern Ideal
Her most recent work focuses on what she calls “modest infrastructures”—urban systems that fall outside the binary of modern/traditional or formal/informal. These configurations, often overlooked, challenge the idea that every city must follow the path of large-scale, centralized, “modern” infrastructure. Here, Mary called not just for a critique of the modern ideal, but for new normative imaginaries rooted in the realities of Southern cities.
Reflexivity, Unlearning, and What Comes Next
One of the lecture’s most resonant messages was about the role of reflexivity. Mary urged us to turn the critical gaze back on our own assumptions—not only about which theories are “applicable,” but about what makes a case worthy of study in the first place. This process of unlearning, she emphasized, is essential for genuine theoretical innovation.
She acknowledged that rethinking theory is difficult, risky, and uncomfortable—but necessary. “This kind of work is harder than just writing about London,” she quipped, “but it’s also where real transformation lies.” Southern critique, in this light, becomes a strategic, political, and analytical stance—a way of making space for new questions, new subjects, and new worlds.
A Message of Encouragement
“Ideas are the most fundamental way to change the world—but it’s a slow, collective process.”
In closing, Mary offered a moving reflection on the slow, collective nature of theoretical work. She reassured postgraduate and early-career researchers that big ideas often emerge years after the PhD, through a patient process of thinking, writing, and rethinking in dialogue with others. Her humility, honesty, and deep commitment to inclusive theory-making left the room not only intellectually challenged, but also deeply inspired.
2. Summary of the Q&A
Executive Summary: Q&A Session with Professor Mary
This Q&A session with Professor Mary brought together a diverse group of PhD students who shared their research challenges, explored complex theoretical questions, and sought guidance on navigating the academic landscape. Professor Mary responded with practical insights drawn from her own academic journey, offering both strategic advice and critical reflections. The key themes of the discussion included the complexity of theoretical engagement, the balance between safety and risk in research, the challenge of adapting theories across contexts, and the importance of maintaining intellectual integrity.
Across the session, Professor Mary emphasized the importance of strategic publishing, the value of intellectual courage, and the need for critical engagement with theory. Her responses highlighted the challenges and opportunities of academic research, encouraging students to remain true to their intellectual values while navigating the complexities of academia.
Q1: Understanding Theoretical Complexities in Solid Waste Governance
Shahana, a final-year PhD student researching municipal solid waste governance in the Global South (Bangladesh), expressed profound gratitude to Professor Mary for her scholarly work, which played a crucial role in shaping her thesis. Charlotte explained that when she first embarked on her research journey, she struggled to understand complex theoretical concepts, particularly those related to “Global North” and “Global South” theories in urban political ecology. Despite receiving guidance from her supervisor and being introduced to key academic papers, the theoretical language seemed impenetrable. It was only after completing her fieldwork and grappling with a vast amount of data that she began to make sense of these theories. At that critical point, her supervisor reintroduced her to several foundational papers, including those written by Professor Mary. These works became pivotal, enabling her to connect theoretical insights with her empirical findings and refine her academic arguments. Charlotte further highlighted a challenge she faced—translating her extensive data and insights into coherent academic writing. Although she had published two papers and was preparing to submit two more, she continued to find it difficult to articulate her ideas in “academic language.” Her struggle was compounded by the scarcity of research on municipal solid waste governance in South Asia, which made it harder for her to position her work within the existing literature.
In response, Professor Mary acknowledged the difficulty of navigating complex theoretical landscapes, especially for researchers working in underrepresented regions. She reflected on her own journey, recalling how scholars like Jenny Robinson had to fight to introduce fresh perspectives into the field of urban studies. According to Mary, while reviewers and editors are now more open to new ideas—especially those from the Global South—this openness did not come easily. It was the result of sustained efforts by a collective of scholars who challenged conventional narratives and made space for diverse voices. Mary encouraged Charlotte not to be discouraged by the initial struggles with academic writing or the limited availability of South Asian literature. Instead, she suggested that Charlotte could benefit from identifying journals and editors who are more receptive to new perspectives and being proactive in engaging with them. Mary emphasized that these challenges are part of a broader struggle to expand the intellectual space for alternative perspectives in urban studies.
Q2: Navigating Theoretical Complexity and Strategic Publishing Choices
Edwin, a researcher focused on water governance in informal settlements in Nairobi, shared his struggle with the overwhelming density of theoretical language in urban studies, particularly theories related to infrastructure, assemblage, and actor-network theory. He described feeling “drowned” in academic jargon and frustrated by what he saw as a culture of “theoretical one-upmanship,” where scholars seemed more interested in demonstrating intellectual sophistication than in producing practical insights. Although he eventually became more familiar with this discourse, he continued to question the dominance of these abstract theories in urban studies. Edwin sought Professor Mary’s reflections on whether such dense theoretical language was necessary and how to engage with theory without losing clarity.
In response, Professor Mary acknowledged Edwin’s frustration and validated his experience. She noted that while complex theoretical language can sometimes be useful, it is not always essential. Reflecting on her own academic journey, she encouraged Edwin to focus on identifying his “intellectual home”—a community of scholars who communicate in ways that resonate with his research values. Rather than feeling pressured to engage with every theoretical debate, she suggested that Edwin prioritize conversations that align with his research focus.
Mary also shared her perspective on some of the most complex theoretical debates, such as those around “planetary urbanisation,” which she considered a distraction from more interesting conversations. In her view, debates on planetary urbanisation often involve scholars arguing over obvious points in excessively complicated language, which can be more about intellectual posturing than advancing understanding. She advised Edwin to avoid such debates if they did not serve his research goals.
As a practical strategy, Mary recommended that Edwin should carefully select his theoretical framework, and that citing scholars who argue for thinking from the South can make space for new ideas and language. This approach would allow him to establish his research perspective without being drawn into theoretical disputes that are not the focus of his interests. She emphasized that by making thoughtful citation choices and clearly articulating his arguments, Edwin could (likely!) avoid having his work reviewed by scholars invested in those dominant theories. This strategy, she explained, would help him maintain focus and clarity in his research.
Q3: Balancing Theory and Case Study in Research Design
The third student expressed uncertainty about how to design her PhD research, specifically whether to begin with a theoretical framework and test it through her case study or to let the case study guide the development of theory. Her primary concern was how to construct a research proposal that effectively balances theory and case study while ensuring that it remains methodologically sound and convincing to supervisors and funders.
Professor Mary responded by reassuring the student that her question was both important and entirely valid. She explained that in research, especially at the PhD level, it is rarely sufficient to simply state an intention to explore a case and then determine whether existing theories are applicable. Such an open-ended approach can be difficult to justify in a proposal, as both supervisors and funders generally expect a clear theoretical direction from the outset. Instead, Mary suggested a more strategic approach—one that balances theoretical engagement with a clear understanding of the case context.
She recommended that even if the student ultimately wishes to challenge or refine existing theories, she should initially frame her proposal in a way that demonstrates familiarity with the theoretical literature. This involves presenting preliminary knowledge of the case and identifying why the existing theories may be inadequate for fully explaining it. For instance, if her research focuses on urban governance, she might begin by discussing how established theories (such as those on infrastructure or the right to the city) typically explain such cases. She could then argue that her research will examine whether these theories hold true in her specific case or require modification.
Mary illustrated this strategy with an example from her own experience. One of her students initially proposed to explore the concept of the “right to the city” in the Global South. However, as the research progressed, the student discovered that the concept was not directly useful for explaining their findings. Despite this, the initial proposal was successful because it demonstrated an understanding of the theory and a willingness to engage with it critically.
Finally, Mary acknowledged that not all supervisors or funding bodies may be comfortable with an approach that appears to question established theories. Therefore, she advised the student to be strategic—ensuring that the proposal demonstrates enough familiarity with existing theories while subtly suggesting why the case study may challenge them. This balanced approach can help secure approval and support for the research, even if the true aim is to develop new theoretical insights.
Q4: Challenging Dominant Theories and Navigating Hostile Feedback
The fourth student, a sociology student studying social movements, shared his experience of facing hostility and even outright racism when attempting to publish research that challenged dominant, Northern-centric theories of democracy. His research applied Southern theory to critique conventional understandings of democracy, arguing that these established frameworks were inadequate for explaining recent social movements. However, his attempts to publish these ideas were met with strong resistance, including dismissive and prejudiced feedback from reviewers. This left him questioning how to effectively challenge canonical theories without facing such hostility.
Professor Mary began by acknowledging his experience and emphasizing that he was not alone—many scholars attempting to introduce perspectives from the Global South or challenge established theories have encountered similar resistance. She explained that part of the problem lies in how concepts like “universal theory” are often misunderstood or misused. While certain phenomena—such as poverty or urban appropriation—may be universally present, their causes, expressions, and consequences differ across contexts. The challenge, she noted, is that when scholars attempt to generalise too broadly, they inevitably lose important context-specific insights. Mary described this as a “pyramid” where the more one generalises, the less accurate or meaningful the conclusions become, even if they are useful for certain purposes.
To help him navigate this difficult terrain, Mary offered two practical strategies. First, she recommended finding journals and editors that are more open to diverse perspectives, particularly those from the Global South. She shared that she had recently become an editor for a journal (Area) and explicitly encouraged submissions from Southern scholars and critical perspectives on existing theories. This, she explained, highlights the importance of identifying sympathetic editors and publication venues that are more likely to support alternative viewpoints.
Second, Mary emphasized the importance of persistence. She encouraged the student not to be discouraged by hostile reviews but to continue submitting his work until he found an audience willing to engage with it. In her experience, almost any paper can be published somewhere—it is often just a matter of finding the right journal and the right reviewers. Even within highly ranked journals, openness to alternative perspectives can vary significantly, and finding supportive reviewers and editors can make all the difference.
Mary concluded by emphasizing the value of building networks with like-minded scholars who are also challenging dominant theories. Such networks provide both intellectual and emotional support, making it easier to persevere in the face of resistance. She expressed hope that by staying true to his perspective and continuing to seek out supportive spaces, he would eventually succeed in publishing his work and contributing to the diversification of sociological theory.
Q5: Rethinking Hierarchies in Comparative Research
The fifth student, a researcher exploring networks of solidarity between groups and movements across North-South contexts, raised a critical concern about the risk of unintentionally reinforcing hierarchical thinking in his research. As he attempts to examine relationships between groups, he worried that simply placing different groups side by side might inadvertently recreate existing hierarchies—where one is viewed as superior to the other. He sought Professor Mary’s reflections on how to avoid such pitfalls.
Professor Mary responded by first acknowledging the importance of his question, which touches on a fundamental challenge in comparative research. She explained that the risk of reinforcing hierarchies often arises because comparisons are rarely neutral. When two entities are placed side by side, the act of comparison often carries implicit judgments about which one is better. For Mary, the key to overcoming this challenge lies in making those hidden judgments and assumptions explicit rather than leaving them unexamined.
Drawing on her own work around infrastructure, Mary illustrated this point with a practical example. Instead of simply contrasting “modern” and “arcadian/traditional” infrastructure, which can imply that the former is superior, she prefers to focus on more meaningful criteria such as safety, dignity, sustainability, and functionality. By explicitly defining what makes infrastructure “good,” she avoids falling into the trap of equating “modern” with “better.” This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding, where non-modern infrastructures can be recognised for their own strengths—such as being more sustainable or better suited to local contexts.
Mary further explained that this method applies beyond infrastructure. Whether comparing social movements, governance models, or technologies, researchers must establish clear criteria for what makes something valuable or effective. These criteria should be based on the specific goals and values of the research context, not on broad and unexamined assumptions about progress or development.
She also acknowledged that the struggle to avoid hierarchical thinking is not just a theoretical issue but a deeply practical one, affecting how research is designed, written, and presented. For Mary, making normative values explicit—such as identifying what makes infrastructure “safe” or “dignified”—is essential. Without this clarity, comparisons can easily slip into reinforcing old hierarchies, where the “modern” or “Northern” model is always seen as superior.
Mary concluded by encouraging the student to be transparent about the values and criteria guiding their comparisons and to directly challenge the idea that one model is inherently better than another. This, she explained, is how comparative research can move beyond simply describing differences to critically questioning which differences matter and why.
Q6: Balancing Safety and Risk in Research Choices
Xinyue, the sixth student, shared her dilemma about choosing between the safety of conducting research in a familiar context, such as the UK, and the excitement of exploring new, potentially more challenging contexts, like China. She explained that researching in the UK felt safe because it allowed her to rely on well-established theories without needing to challenge them. This approach made it easier to produce academically acceptable work that reviewers would find reliable. However, she found it somewhat uninspiring—an exercise in applying existing frameworks rather than developing new ideas. In contrast, venturing into less familiar contexts seemed intellectually stimulating but also intimidating, especially because she lacked experience in these areas. Xinyue asked Professor Mary what she found exciting about taking risks in research and how she approached them in her own career.
Professor Mary began by acknowledging that Xinyue’s dilemma is a common one in academia, reflecting a broader tension between safety and intellectual adventure. She explained that the choice between safety and risk is not just about research contexts but about how scholars define themselves and their careers. Sharing her own experience, Mary described how she had the luxury of time and freedom as a postdoctoral researcher in Cape Town. With a two-year postdoc, she had a supportive community, relatively few immediate responsibilities, and enough unstructured time to explore new ideas without to many immediate pressures. She recognized this as a privilege—one shaped not only by her academic position but also by personal circumstances. Without family responsibilities or immediate financial pressures, she was free to take risks that might not have been possible for others.
Mary explained that for many researchers, the freedom to take risks is constrained by financial, social, or institutional demands. Not everyone can afford to challenge established theories or venture into unfamiliar research areas, especially if their career stability depends on producing safe, publishable work. For these scholars, being strategic is essential—choosing supervisors, journals, and collaborators who are open to innovative ideas, or working in environments that provide some level of security while experimenting with new perspectives.
However, Mary also emphasized that choosing safety is not inherently wrong. Some researchers may thrive by working within established frameworks, refining existing theories, and producing reliable, incremental contributions. For others, exploring uncharted theoretical or empirical territories is what makes research meaningful. She encouraged Xinyue to reflect on what genuinely excited her about research and to be honest with herself about her personal circumstances, including her financial needs, career ambitions, and willingness to face potential setbacks.
Mary then shared a more personal perspective, acknowledging the privileges that made it easier for her to take risks. As a young researcher without family obligations, she knew that even if her academic experiments failed, she had a safety net. Her parents could support her, and she had the freedom to explore without immediate consequences. This recognition, she explained, is crucial—understanding that what is possible for one researcher may not be possible for another.
Yet, she also highlighted the immense intellectual and personal rewards of taking risks. Reflecting on her own journey, she described how her work in South Africa allowed her to encounter new ideas, challenge her assumptions, and eventually develop a deeper understanding of the world. Even her latest book, which she described as a profoundly peaceful and clarifying project, was the result of a willingness to explore uncomfortable questions and pursue ideas she found unsettling.
Mary concluded by encouraging Xinyue to consider what kind of researcher she wanted to be and to make her choices consciously. For some, the excitement of discovering something genuinely new is worth the uncertainty and risk. For others, the stability of building on established knowledge provides a more satisfying path. Neither choice is superior—what matters is making a choice that aligns with one’s values and circumstances.
Q7: Adapting Southern Theories to Northern Contexts
The seventh student, a male researcher, raised a question about the value and challenges of applying concepts and theories developed in the Global South—particularly those related to the social dimensions of infrastructure—to Northern contexts like Greater Manchester. He observed that certain ideas, such as “human infrastructure” or the intertwining of bodies and infrastructure, are more prominently studied and visible in Southern cities like Johannesburg. These concepts offer rich theoretical insights, but he wondered whether it was justified to apply them to Northern cities, where similar issues may be less visible. He also questioned whether this approach risked misrepresenting Northern contexts or falling into theoretical traps.
Professor Mary began by affirming the intellectual value of his idea. She agreed that bringing theoretical insights from the Global South to Northern contexts can be a powerful and transformative approach. It allows researchers to question assumptions, challenge dominant narratives, and reveal social dynamics that are often overlooked in Northern cities. In Mary’s view, this process—using Southern theories to reinterpret Northern contexts—is not only justified but can also enrich urban studies as a whole.
However, she also acknowledged the practical difficulties of pursuing this approach. According to Mary, it is often easier to publish research that applies Southern theories to Southern contexts, such as studying Johannesburg through the lens of human infrastructure, than to use the same theories to reinterpret cities like London or Manchester. Journals may be more receptive to studies that present Southern cities as sites of innovation and theoretical development, while they may be sceptical of attempts to challenge traditional understandings of Northern cities. This reflects a broader bias within academia, where the Global North is often seen as the source of theories and the Global South as a place to be studied, rather than the other way around.
To help the student navigate this challenge, Mary recommended a strategic approach. She suggested that before investing significant time by submitting a manuscript to a journal, the student could test his idea by submitting an abstract to a journal or even reaching out to an editor directly. This allows him to gauge interest and identify journals that are more open to innovative perspectives. Mary also emphasized the importance of choosing journals and editors who are likely to support this kind of critical approach, as not all are receptive to challenging Northern dominance in theory-making.
Reflecting on her own priorities, Mary explained that while she supports the idea of applying Southern theories to Northern contexts, it is not her personal focus. Her primary interest lies in understanding the Global South more deeply rather than using Southern insights to critique the North. This, she explained, is a matter of personal choice—each researcher must decide which battles they are willing to fight and which ones are most meaningful to them. She noted that while some scholars, like Jenny Robinson and Ananya Roy, are deeply committed to this kind of theoretical cross-application, she has chosen to focus on deepening understanding within Southern contexts.
Mary concluded by encouraging the student to reflect on whether this was a battle he was passionate about. If he believed strongly in the value of using Southern theories to reinterpret Northern cities, he should be prepared for resistance but should also see it as a meaningful and potentially impactful intellectual project. If he was less committed, he might consider focusing on areas where his work would face less resistance. For Mary, the decision ultimately depends on what excites a researcher, what they find meaningful, and where they are willing to invest their time and energy.
Q8: Navigating Northern Theories in Non-Western Contexts
The final student, a female researcher focused on Eurasian cities in Central Asia, shared a critical insight she had encountered—one of the prominent scholars in Central Asian studies argued that any attempt to fit a Central Asian case within a Western-born theory is inherently tied to the logic of colonisation. She wanted to reflect on this idea, questioning whether it is possible to use Northern theories without imposing colonial perspectives on non-Western contexts.
Professor Mary began by recognizing the value of this question and reflected on her own journey grappling with similar concerns. For Mary, the challenge is not necessarily about rejecting all theories from the Global North but about critically examining which aspects of these theories are problematic and why. She explained that while some Northern theories may carry colonial or modernist assumptions that can distort non-Western contexts, not all do. Understanding which theories carry this baggage and how they impose their perspectives is crucial.
Mary illustrated this with her own experience of working with the concept of environmental justice—a theory with roots in Northern, left-leaning progressive thought. Despite its Northern origins, she found it useful because it allowed for critical engagement with issues of inequality and exclusion without imposing a colonial narrative. However, she also acknowledged that even this concept is not without its limitations, especially when applied to contexts far removed from its origins.
She further explained that the language used to describe theoretical perspectives can itself be problematic. Terms like “Global South” are often politically charged and geographically imprecise, creating a false sense of unity among vastly different regions. As a geographer, Mary has increasingly shifted from labelling theories as “Northern” or “Southern” and instead shifted to focus on identifying the specific assumptions they carry—particularly those rooted in colonial or modernist thinking.
Mary suggested that instead of rejecting all Northern theories, scholars should adopt a more nuanced approach, asking which theories are problematic, why they are problematic, and how they can be critically adapted. She emphasized the importance of developing sharper language to describe what exactly is being challenged. For instance, instead of broadly dismissing “Northern theories” as colonial, it is more useful to identify specific colonial or modernist assumptions within them. This not only makes the critique clearer but also helps researchers build alliances with those in the Global North who are also critical of these assumptions.
Ultimately, Mary encouraged the student to move beyond the binary of “Northern versus Southern” theory and to focus on what each theoretical approach can offer—while being mindful of its limitations. By doing so, researchers can make more informed decisions about which theoretical tools to use and how to adapt them to the unique contexts they are studying.
Short bios of workshop organizers:
Xinyue Dong is a PhD Candidate in Planning, Property, and Environmental Management at the University of Manchester. Her research focuses on age-friendly urban policy, collaborative governance, and inclusive planning. Her doctoral project examines older people’s participation in neighbourhood planning in England and how local policies reflect age-friendly priorities, using applied policy analysis and mixed-methods approaches. She is also actively involved in community engagement and interdisciplinary initiatives that bridge academic research and real-world impact. Xinyue holds an MSc in Planning from the University of Manchester and a BA in Environmental Design from Zhejiang University
Dongyang Mi is a President’s Doctoral Researcher at the University of Manchester and a PhD Candidate in the joint-PhD program under the GOLDEN (Global Doctoral Research Network) Partnerships between the Universities of Manchester and Melbourne. He is a human geographer, and his main research interests lie at the intersection of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH), sustainable practices and infrastructure, and urban governance and transformation in Chinese and other Global South cities. He is one of the initiators/Principal Investigators (PIs) of the China Water Network under the Global Scholar Funds, establishing interdisciplinary and global connections among scholars focused on Chinese water research topics. Mi is also an architect, urban designer, and academic tutor based in the UK, China, and Australia.
Xiaowen Zhan is a PhD researcher in Human Geography at the University of Manchester. Her research focuses on environmental justice and urban sustainability, with a particular emphasis on nature-based solutions in Chinese cities. Using mixed methods, her work examines spatial patterns of environmental inequality resulting from NBS interventions and investigates how they are shaped by local governance and global theoretical frameworks. She is particularly interested in the challenges of applying dominant urban theories across different socio-political contexts, and in developing more inclusive, reflexive approaches to knowledge production.