ict - information and communication technologies · h2020 ! research and innovation project...

ICT-InformationandCommunicationTechnologies

ProjectAcronym: MAZI

ProjectFullTitle: ADIYnetworkingtoolkitforlocation-basedcollectiveawarenessGrantAgreement: 687983

ProjectDuration: 36months(Jan.2016-Dec.2018)

D3.6-Aninterdisciplinaryframeworkforcomparisonsandcross-fertilizationstrategiesofMAZIpilots(version2)

DeliverableStatus: FinalFileName: MAZI_D3.6_final.pdfDueDate: 31December2016(M12)SubmissionDate: 10January2016(M12)DisseminationLevel: PublicTaskLeader: AndreasUnteidig(UdK)Author: AndreasUnteidig(UdK) PanayotisAntoniadis(NetHood) IleanaApostol(NetHood) MarkGaved(OU) GarethDavies(OU) HarrisNiavis(UTH) StavroulaMaglavera(UTH) JamesStevens(SPC) ElizabethCalderon-Lünig(CG) AnnaHeilgemeir(CG)

MAZI! GrantAgreement687983D3.6-Aninterdisciplinaryframeworkforcomparisonsandcross-fertilizationstrategiesofMAZIpilots(version2)! December2016H2020!ResearchandInnovationprojectH2020-ICT-2015-10!CollectiveAwarenessPlatformsforSustainabilityandSocialInnovation!

Page2of55

Copyright

©Copyright2016-2018TheMAZIConsortium

Consistingof:

OrganisationName ShortName Country

UniversityofThessaly UTH Greece

NETHOOD NH Switzerland

EdinburgNapierUniversity NU UnitedKingdom

UniversitatderKunsteBerlin UdK Germany

TheOpenUniversity OU UnitedKingdom

SlacktivistLimited SPC UnitedKingdom

INURAZurichInstitute INURA Switzerland

CommonGrounds CG Germany

UnMonastery UM UnitedKingdom

Disclaimer

All intellectual property rights are owned by the MAZI consortium members and are protected by the applicable laws. Except where

otherwisespecified,alldocumentcontentsare:“©MAZIProject-Allrightsreserved”.Reproductionisnotauthorisedwithoutpriorwritten

agreement.

AllMAZIconsortiummembershaveagreedtofullpublicationofthisdocument.Thecommercialuseofany informationcontainedinthis

documentmayrequirealicensefromtheownerofthatinformation.

AllMAZI consortiummembersarealso committed topublishaccurateandup todate informationand take thegreatest care todo so.

However,theMAZIconsortiummemberscannotacceptliabilityforanyinaccuraciesoromissionsnordotheyacceptliabilityforanydirect,

indirect,special,consequentialorotherlossesordamagesofanykindarisingoutoftheuseofthisinformation.


Page3of55

History

Version Author Date Status

1.0 AndreasUnteidig November30th,2016

InitialDraft

2.0 AndreasUnteidig December30th,2016

Draft

3.0 AndreasUnteidig January10th,2017 FinalDraft

FF StavroulaMaglavera January10th,2017 FinalDraftreviewed


Page4of55

Executivesummary

The1st versionof this deliverable focusedon framing and carryingout exercisesof self-reflection across allMAZIpilots,whichaimedtogathercomparableknowledgeoftherespectivepartner‘svisionsandanticipationof the pilot activities. This allowed us to draw comparisons that proved valuable as a starting point for thecross-fertilisationevents,inwhichmultiplepartnersmetwiththegoaltoworkontheinterdisciplinaryaspectsofMAZIasaproject.

Inthissecondversion,wemakeonestepfurthertowardfourdirections:

a) weanalyzethematerial included inD3.2andD3.5 in lightof furtherdevelopmentsand interactionstowardcomparingtheindividualperspectivesofpartnersonkeyconceptssuchasDIYnetworking,aswellasthedifferentpilotstudies;

b) we describe and analyse the cross-fertilization events that took place during the first year and theinitiallessonslearnedfromthem;

c) we try to capture the similarities and differences between the disciplinary perspectives of theacademicpartners;and

d) weidentifyimportanttensionsbetweenresearchandactionastheyhavemanifestedduringthecross-fertilizationeventsofthefirstyear.

Based on this material, we propose certain enhancements of our interdisciplinary framework, i.e., thedeconstruction of the pilot studies into their core elements, the placement of MAZI toolkit as a boundaryobjectbetweendifferentsubsetsofactors inMAZI,andtwoself-reflectionexercisestobecarriedout inthefollowingmonthsandtobedocumentedintheDeliverableD3.11.


Page5of55

TableofContentsHISTORY............................................................................................................................................................ 3EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 41. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 62.KEYCONCEPTSANDINDIVIDUALPERSPECTIVES.......................................................................... 82.1 UNDERSTANDINGSOFDIYNETWORKING ...........................................................................................................82.2APOSSIBLEBOUNDARYOBJECT .............................................................................................................................. 10

3.COMPARISONSBETWEENPILOTS .....................................................................................................134.COMPARISONSBETWEENDISCIPLINARYPERSPECTIVES .........................................................194.1SPECULATIVEDESIGN:PARTICIPATORYCREATIONANDDIALOGUE................................................................. 194.2CO-DESIGNING(INFRA-)STRUCTURESVERSUSDESIGNINGSOLUTIONS........................................................... 194.3PARTICIPATORYACTIONRESEARCH....................................................................................................................... 204.4INTERDISCIPLINARYSTRUCTURESFORINFORMATIONSHARING...................................................................... 20

5.CROSS-FERTILIZATIONEVENTS .........................................................................................................225.1THEBERLINWORKSHOP.......................................................................................................................................... 225.2THEINURACONFERENCE....................................................................................................................................... 235.3.OTHERCROSS-FERTILIZATIONEVENTS ................................................................................................................ 25

6SYNERGIESANDTENSIONSBETWEENRESEARCHANDACTION ..............................................297.ENRICHINGTHEINTERDISCIPLINARYFRAMEWORK .................................................................327.1EXPOSINGSIMILARITIES,DIFFERENCES,ANDTENSIONS .................................................................................... 337.1.1 ComparisonsbetweenMAZIresearchers ............................................................................................ 337.1.2 Comparisonsbetweenthecommunityactors ................................................................................... 347.1.3 Tensionsbetweenresearchandaction ................................................................................................ 35

7.2NEGOTIATIONANDMAZITOOLKITASABOUNDARYOBJECT ........................................................................... 357.3ORGANIZATIONANDDOCUMENTATIONOFCROSS-FERTILIZATIONEVENTS .................................................. 37

8SUMMARYANDFUTURESTEPS ...........................................................................................................38REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................39APPENDIXA-BERLINWORKSHOP ........................................................................................................40APPENDIXB-MAZIATTHEINURACONFERENCE ............................................................................44


Page6of55

1. Introduction

One of the key advantages and key challenges of MAZI at the same time is its diversity. The diversity ofdisciplinaryperspectivesontheconceptofparticipationanddesign,amongothers,thediversityofpilotstudiesin terms of environment and profile of activists involved, and also the diversity of the possible form andcontentofitsmainoutcome,MAZItoolkit.

To address and to productively deal with this diversity, we have established three parallel “threads” forstructuring, analyzing, and evaluating our transdisciplinary work. Namely, the interdisciplinary comparativeframework(D3.5-7),thepilotevaluation(D3.8-10),andtheself-reflectionexercise(D3.11-13).Allthesethreadshave as their starting point Deliverable 3.2, which introduces the key disciplinary perspectives, the initialapproachofallmembersoftheprojecttotheMAZIobjectivesandapproach,andestablishestheMAZItoolkitasthe“boundaryobject”ofourtransdisciplinarywork.

Figure1:Thedifferent, interrelated instrumentssetupforstructuring,analyzingandevaluatingourtransdisciplinarywork:MAZItoolkitdescribed in detail in D1.1. will be the concrete outcome of the project, a proper boundary object “sitting in themiddle” between thedifferent“socialworlds”of theprojectrepresentedbythe“couples”ofeachthepilotstudy.Deliverables3.2-4documentthe integrationprocessof findinga“commonground”betweenthedifferentperspectivesandmake the required translation to the toolkit's“language”(i.e.,listoffunctionalities,customizationoptions,templates,guidelines,etc.).Thesedifferentperspectivesarebeingcomparedandanalyzedthrough the comparative framework developed in Deliverables 3.5-7, evaluated through the evaluation framework developed inDeliverables3.8-10,whilethewholeprocessofdifferentiation,comparison,evaluation,integrationwillbeoverlookedanddocumentedinaself-reflectivemodeinDeliverables11-13.2. 3. These relationships aredescribed indetail inDeliverables 3.2 and3.5. This is the seconddeliverableon the“interdisciplinarycomparativeframework”thread,summarizingandanalyzingtheoutcomesoftheinteractionsthattookplacethefirstyearoftheproject.Withtwoofthepilotsstartingoff,andafterseveralrelatedevents,weare in abetterposition to structure thedevelopmentofour interdisciplinary frameworkand the roleofMAZItoolkitastheboundaryobject.

4. 5.


Page7of55

Figure2: Eachof thepilots consistsofmultiplevariables,heredescribedas contexts,hybridelementsand framings/objectives, thatwillevolveandchangeover time.Theircombinationand interplayaresubject toplannedexperimentationwithin the fourdifferentpilots, ineach of which a particular body of knowledge is being generated. This knowledge is being discussed, challenged and enriched withperspectivesbothoutoftheconsortiumaswellasbeyondtheprojectboundaries.

6. 7. Althoughwearestillinthephaseofopeninguptothemultitudeofexistingperspectiveswithout“constraints”,wearealsoreadytoformulateaconcreteplanonhowthesediverseviewsandcoursesofactionwillmanageto converge to a single output, MAZI toolkit and also allow for useful comparisons in the different “localdomains”. Inotherwords,aninterdisciplinaryorbettertransdisciplinaryframework,thatwillorchestratethe“backandforth”betweenfamiliarityanddiversity,asdescribedinD3.2.

Thisversionofthedeliverablemaybeunderstoodasadifferent‘moment’ofthetransdisciplinaryframework,whichisitselfacontinuumthatevolveswhileadvancingwithMAZIworkplan.Inthiscase,whatwaspresentedinthefirstversion,isamomentofpractice,andwhatweareelaboratinginthisreportisratheraconceptualmoment of representations. In the third and last version of the deliverable, the lived moment of theinterdisciplinaryframeworkwillbepresentedthroughtheprojectteammembers’stories--particularlyontheMAZI toolkit-- of their personal and group experiences (e.g., intra-pilot or bilateral negotiations; consortiumnegotiations;“kaleidoscope”thatreferschanging‘frames’andpointsofviewwithinmixedorsmallerprojectgroups).

Westructurethisdeliverableintwoparts.First,wesummarizeandanalyzetheactualcontentproducedduringthefirstyear.Morespecifically,

a) theanswerstothequestionnairesincludedinpreviousdeliverables(Sections2&3),

b) thedevelopment of the individual research agendas of thedifferent academic partners captured indifferentdocumentsproduced(Section4),

c) the interactions that took place during the cross-fertilization events and most notably the BerlinworkshopandINURAconference(Section5),and

d) thetensionsthatwererevealedbetweentheresearchandcommunityactors intheproject (Section6).Second,inSection7,wedescribecertainenhancementsofourinterdisciplinaryframework,whichwillhelpusinformthefutureworkinMAZI.


Page8of55

2.Keyconceptsandindividualperspectives

To understand the various perspectives of DIY networking within MAZI consortium, five months after thebeginningoftheNetHoodresearchteamformulatedandsentoutaseriesofquestionstobeansweredbyallmembersofMAZIconsortium.Thequestionsregard“whatDIYnetworkingis”foreveryrespondent,alsolistingitsmaincharacteristics,capabilitiesand limitations;exploring itscommunity impactandroleasacatalyst, intheory and also through personal experiences of events organized around DIY networking. The answers asprimarysourceof informationareprovided inMAZIDeliverable3.2 (refer toSection4).Belowwepresentasyntheticclassificationoftheseanswersinordertosketchacollectiveimageofhowanunderstandingoftheconcept’scomplexitywasbuiltfromtheperspectivesofthisgroupofresearchersandactivists.Thisisourfirstattempttocreateaseriesofsurveysthrough,whichtocompileasharedvocabulary.

2.1 UnderstandingsofDIYnetworking

Regardingtheconceptdefinition,andtheidentificationofitscharacteristicsandcapabilities(D3.2.pp.25-29),first, there is a technology-centered perspective that defines DIY networking as “the appropriation oftechnology beyond the pre-designed solutions presented to customers by commercial providers” [...] “byproductive “misuse” (customization) of off- the-shelf hardware”. DIY is when "someone acquires low cost,easy-to-findhardwarecomponents,notnecessaryopensource,inordertobuildanetworkusingopensourcesoftware.Thehardwarecomponentsincludesmall-sizedcomputers,antennas,networkmodulesetc,anditisgenerally easy to assemble it and install it, using custom methodologies". From this point of view, criticalaspects of DIY networks come to the fore “the proximity/location based aspect”; “the possibly internet-independence of the networks”; “affordable, experimental, open, appropriable, slightly piraty”; “built fromclearlylabelledfunctionalelementsthatareconnectedwitheasytoimplementprocedureswithoutthehelpofan 'expert'”;;andagain“low-cost,easytofind,easyto install”.DIYnetworksareresilientandcouldfunctionwhereacentralpowersourceisnotavailableandinremoteregions.

Second,thereisadata/informationexchangedimensionexpressedthroughDIYbeing"easytobuild,easytomanage system providing wireless access, which allow people to communicate through a network even inabsence of a connection to the Internet"; “communication independent from enterprises”; its advantage inurbanareas,forexample,as its"abilitytotransfer largeamountsofdatainveryshorttimes,somethingthattheinternetstillstruggleswith,especiallyincountries(severalinAfricaIcanthinkof)whereinternetischargedbythemegabyte",andinmoregenericterms,“DIYnetworkingisthecommonprovisionoftelecommunicationtools,beithardwarebeitsoftwarewithpurposeofindependentexchangeofinformation.”

Third,theempowering“self”-productionpointofviewcomesintothecollectivepicturethroughaffirmationslike“Ahumancentredapproach to theprovisionofnetworks thataims toempowerpeoplebycreating selfbuild toolkits.” ... "Not assuming that someone else will best serve your network connectivity andentertainmentstreamsthentakingstepstounderstandhowthesesystemsworkandselfprovide,iterateandmoveforward."…“Aformofsmall-scalecommunicationnetwork,comprisingsoftwareandhardware,thatispurchased,installedandconfiguredbyanindividualorsmallgroupofpeople,fortheirownuse,”andthereisemphasisontheadaptabilityandDIYnetworking’sclosenesstotheusers’needs.

Fourth,theexperimentaldimensionoftechnologyallowingforsocial innovationandaddressinglocalneeds,as“itcanbringabouttailoredsolutions,openspacesforexperimentationandinvention”,andDIYnetworkingis“aparticulartypeofapproachtothewaytechnologyisusedinasituation”,“theexperimentalapplicationofnetworkingtechnologyforlargescale(e.g.guify)and(mostly)smallscalecontexts.[...]onecentralparameterofDIYnetworking is theopportunity todesign the interactions tobe facilitatedormediatedby ICT innovelwaysthatarenotboundtothe“naturalized”processesofcommunicationdesignedandsoldbyverysuccessfulplatforms such as facebook, twitter or the like.” … its adoption depends on the curiosity and interest inexperimentalformats.

Fifth,thereisanextensivecoverageofthecommunityorganizationperspectivethatisincludedinmorethanhalfoftheDIYnetworkingdefinitions.Thisemphasizestheappropriatenessofthistopicinthebroadercontextof theCAPSobjectives, e.g. by ensuring social needs aremetbyplacing themat the centerof the researchagenda.


Page9of55

On the one hand, the social aspects are presented in a complementary way to the technical aspects: “DIYnetworks are not only technical systems but also social systems: they rely on people, so are shaped by theparticipants’motivations, personal andpolitical philosophies, and their goals and ambitions.”; aswell as “...normalnetworkingallowsindividualsworkingtogethertoformgroupsaroundcommunicationsinfrastructure;DIYnetworkingallowstheopposite,communicationsinfrastructureformsaroundgroups.”

Inaddition,thereisastrongfocusontheorganization,managementandcontrolofthenetworkingtechnology.“Itperhapsdiffers fromother typesof technologyonly in termsofwhocontrols it.” ... “Communities takingownershipandcontrolover the configurationof technology. SuchDIYnetworks canbe configured in suchaway as to take into account the needs of the local community.” … “It is a grassroots form of enablingconnectionandcommunicationat the local level,which couldbe self-built, self-managed, self-governedandownedat thegrassroots level indifferent forms (cooperation, associationof individualsor groupsetc); theymakemostofthecommunitynetworks.”

Along similar lines, (the most) important characteristics of DIY-networking are considered, “citizen control;built,implemented,andoperatedthroughparticipatoryprocesses,strengtheningcommunitytiesandasenseof ownership and independence from the profit-making commercial companies, materialized collectivechoices,satisfied(ornot)individualpreferences”;...“thedo-it-yourselfcomponent,communityownershipandself-organizationaroundtechnology.TheDIY-aspecthastobeputincontext.Althoughitispracticallypossibletomakeandcreate thesenetworksyourself, it is clear thata certain interestanddigital literacy isexplicitlyneeded.Communityownershipofthenetworks isavitalcounter-argumenttocommercial/traditionaldigitalnetworks. To assure longevity of the networks, self-organization around content management andmaintenanceshouldbevitalforthenetwork.OtheraspectsofDIYnetworksaretheproximity/locationbasedaspectaswellasthepossiblyinternet-independenceofthenetworks.”

Nevertheless, there are many forms of collective organization for the production and use of networkinginfrastructure, and thus understanding, what the DIY ‘is’, may mean to look also into what generates thedifferentinitiatives,orinotherwords,what“do”means,what“it”meansandwhat“yourself”isaboutineveryparticularsituation1.

Considering themotivations inchoosing theDIYnetworking infrastructure, itwasnoted that there isawidevarietyas,forinstance,oneanswernotedthatthedeploymentofthistypeoftechnologydependsonthelevelof (political) sensitivity toward the use/misuse of data and the commercialization of communication etc. TointroduceDIYinpractice,itisconveyedthatitshouldalwaysincludeanelementofhand-on-workshopinsteadofhavingatheoreticalfocus,andratherthananadd-on,beanaddedvaluetotheactualworkgoingonwithinthatcommunity.Dependingonthegroup’sobjectives,however,therearemanypracticaloptions,forexample,“the setting up of such a network might be carried out wholly independently; with the support of otherpractitioners, or by paying for expert support. A network might operate completely independently of theInternet, or be complementary or subsidiary to networking capabilities provided by a commercial orgovernment funded network provider. The network may be a small scale purposefully temporary artinstallationoralongterminfrastructureinitiativeacrossacityorcountry.”

From the definition of DIY networking, the questionnaire opened up the topic of limitations, aswell as theabilityofsuchinfrastructurestoplay(ornot)acatalystrole,andtohaveasignificantimpactonacommunity.Belowwedetaileachoftheseaspects.

AmongthelimitationsofDIYnetworkingarelisted(refertoD3.2pp.28-29)digitalliteracydivideandtheeffortrequiredbymembersofthecommunitytodeveloptheskillsneededtocreateandmaintaintheDIYnetwork,someonementioningthatDIYisrelatedto“bugs,geeks,frustration”.Alsoonthesideofthenon-savvyusersthereissometimesskepticism,somedegreeofresistance,and“frustrationattheslowrateofprogressandthefear of missing out or falling behind the curve of innovation and understanding”; necessary long termcommitment and engagement; less reliability than commercial products; overwhelming options fromcorporations; some specific technical requirements like no physical obstacles for antennas; and alsogeographicallimitationsastoassurepeople’sproximity,withtheconsequenceofimprovingthesociallinksandslowly,over time,a suitable levelof trust.Moreover, “in situationswhereweneed reliability, sustainability,highcomputationalpowerorhighstoragecapacity,wecannotrelyonDIYnetworks.”

1SeeMarkGaved’sblogon“DIYNetworking?”:http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/MAZI/?p=17


Page10of55

TosummarizetheroleofDIYnetworkingasacatalyst(refertoD3.2pp.26-27&29-34),firstwementionsometheoreticalconsiderationstobetakenintoaccount,andthentheconnectionwiththerealimpactwillbemadebythereflectionsonpractice,includingreferencestoanattendedevent,thathavebeenexpressedwithintheanswerstothesurvey.

First,tobeacatalyst,fromone’spointofview,thediscussionaboutDIYnetworkingshouldbereversedfrom“aparticular typeof technology” toa “concept”, “methodorapproach”.Basedonpracticalexperiments,aninitiative might act as the catalyst “for reflection on the broader goals, purposes, and ambitions of theparticipants.”Whiletherearerationalunderstandingsexpressedintermsoffulfilledpurposes(e.g.“itmayactasacatalyst, through thedegree towhich it successfully fulfils itspurpose,or revealsotheropportunities”),there is also awarenesswithin the consortium that “needs can be produced or induced by the existence ofpossibilities,”andthatsuchinitiativesinherentlyinspireconfidenceinotherareasoflife.Itcouldalsostimulateasenseofownershipandindependencefromtheprofit-makingcommercialcompanies,withhighpotentialtostrengthenthecommunitylinkswheresomelevelofcommunitytiesalreadyexist.

Twocriticalpointsweremadewithrespecttoa)managingexpectationsandb)keepinginmindthepotentialemergenceof“unintendedconsequencessuchasmarginalisingalreadyvulnerablegroups,reinforcingcurrentpowerstructuresorconsumingresourcesthatmighthavebeenbetterdeployedelsewhere.”

Second, on a rather practical level it could play the role of a catalyst on a spectrum ranging fromcommunication and information sharing to empowerment and capacity building. On the one hand, it mayprovidedatathatcaninformdebatesaroundalocalissue;buildawarenessofthe“relativeinformation,energyandfinancialpoverty”;createahybridspaceforgatherings,discussionsandexchangeofinformation;supportproductionactivitiesaswellaseducationalactivities.DIYnetworkingcould improvecommunicationbetweenstrangersinproximityinadhocinstallationsortemporaryeventslike,forinstance,becomingabroadcasterinanartexhibitionsetting,andfacilitateindividualaswellascollectiveexpressioninhybridspace.Itcouldaddaplayful effect to interactions and catch people’s curiosity and imagination, and be appropriated for anunexpecteduse.

On the other hand, to avoid “a mere “performative” participation without real consequences”, furtherexperimentsshouldexplorethecapabilitiesofDIYtoempower(local)participatingactors.Thereisevidenceofthepotential tobring togetheraroundDIYpeople,whohavebeen looselyconnectedbeforehand,either forspontaneouscommunicationorformoresustainedcollaborations;certainlyitmaygeneratesocialinteractions,inparticularintergenerationalconnections,andalsolinkdifferentexistinginitiatives.Atthesametimeitmaybecomeanenhanceroftransparency,anddevelopcapacityforfurtheraction.

Therefore,the impactoncommunitythatthe implementationofDIYnetworkingmayhave isrelatedtotheargumentsbroughtintheabovetextwithrespecttoitsroleasacommunitycatalyst,andtothe‘communityorganizationperspective’ indefiningtheconcept.“AtthecoreoftheDIYphilosophyarethedevelopmentofskills and knowledge within the community. By taking ownership and responsibility for the creation,configurationanddeploymentofthenetworktheaspirationisthatthiswillstimulateparticipationwithinthecommunity and better place the participants to take advantage of the other factors.” In addition, it couldenablecriticalreflectiononbroadercommunitygoals.Asthere isanopportunitytocreateacomplementarymodel to the corporate one in the provision networking infrastructure, thatmay confer a new role to localcommunitiesascollectiveactorsinthemarketplace.However,thereisexpressedskepticisminthecapacityofcommunitiestocompetewiththecommercialInternetproviders,butrathercomplementthembyaddressingfirstthelocalneeds.

AsageneralcommentregardingthecommunityofMAZI,itwasnotedthatcurrentlyDIYnetworksseemto“sitlikeamountain”betweencommunities,orasa“boundaryobject”betweendisciplines;eachdiscipline isstilltryingtodescribeandunderstandtheconceptfromtheirownperspective,similarlytoseeingonlyonesideofthemountainanddefiningthemountainfromthisvantagepoint.

2.2Apossibleboundaryobject

Asaconsequence,thesurveyproposedasecondsetofquestionsontheexistingskillsandinterestswithintheconsortium,whichwasmeant to identify thedifferent individual rolesofMAZI teammembers,andhowtheboundaryobjectmaytakeshapethroughacollectiveunderstanding.


Page11of55

Regarding theconsortium’spoolof skills,whichweredefined through inquiryon the“topicsmastered,” thefollowingareasofperceivedexpertisewerementioned,listedhereassomesortofaspectrumof‘targets’foraction,rangingfromhumancentereddesigntonetworkengineering:

- Ahumancentredapproachtointeractiondesign;- Designandinnovationprocess,servicedesign;- Assessingsocialandpoliticalimplications,aswellasimaginingscenariosforimplementationarecloser

tomyexpertise;- Ifeelcomfortablediscussingscenariosforimplementation,politicaldimensions,socialimplications;- I can talk with engineers and discuss best ways to solve a problem. Also, I am able to discuss the

political, social and designerly implications of concepts around DIY networks with the respectivecommunities;

- Whenworkingwithgroups,investmostlyinencouragingotherstofindavoice;- Implementation,takingintoaccountthepoliticalandsocialimplicationsofthetechnology;- Practitioner in DIY networking: set up own networked community. Academic researcher in DIY

networking;- thenetworkengineeringtopics.

As for the related knowledge that interdisciplinary conversations and experiments may deepen, the listmentioned a series of sets of issues namely a) long-term perspectives on the topic, b) contextualization, c)buildinguptechnicalskillsandd)literatureresearch.

a) Long-termperspectivesonthetopic- Adaptability;- ThePhysicaldesignof aDIYdeploymentand inways tobuildappealing, engagingDIYnetworks for

citizens,whichwillnotonlybeattractivetothembuttheywillalsomanagetokeepusersconnectedtothem;

- Howtoimproveorganisationalaspectsofnetworksandotherentitieslikecooperatives;b)Contextualization

- Abetterunderstandingofwhatconstitutesthe‘local’andtherolethatitplaysinthelivedexperience;- Contextualissues,researchmethodologies,evaluationtechniques,goalsettingetc;- Thecontextualizationofourcommontopicinthedifferentareasofexpertiseandinterest;

c)Buildinguptechnicalskills

- Technical characteristics and applications, the motivations behind certain design choices, designreasoningandprocessthinking;

- Mytechnologicalunderstandingandabilitytocreate;- Buildingapplications(coding);

d)Literatureresearch

- Different theoretical perspectives thatmight be employed to enable analysis and evaluation of DIYnetworkinginitiatives.…Broaderunderstandingoftheacademicliteraturearoundthefield;

- Thesmart-citydiscourseandthealternativenarrativesofthisdiscourse.

Toconclude,thisfirstsurveyaimedtosketchoutwhattheboundaryobjectmightbe.Inthenextparagraphwesummarizetheidentifiedtopicsthatmaybeplacedatthecenteroftheinterdisciplinarydiscussions(refertoD3.2pp.34-35).

The topicofapplicationswasconsideredcritical. Ingeneral there isan interestonhands-onworkshopsandlearning-by-doing,e.g.intrainingsessions,onspecificcasestudiesandwithrespecttoaspecificsocialcontext.Discussingtechnicalcharacteristics ismentionedasbeing important inexploringpossibilitiesand limitations,aswellasreleasingthe‘fear’fromtechnicalissuesthroughpracticalapplications,soeffectiveexperimentationof ‘how things work’. Imagining scenarios for implementation would help in understanding: a) whatapplications may be meaningful or useful, b) anticipating their appropriation by users, c) experiencingnegotiation processes in bringing visions to reality, d) advancing the perception of ‘needs’ by spelling outpossibilities.Conversationsaroundthepoliticaldimensions,asacentraltopicinMAZI,maybringtolightthepotential affordances of DIY networking, on issues of independence, ownership, privacy of data; creating


Page12of55

awarenessofthevariationswithintheboundariesbetweentheprivateandthepubliclife,andbuildingontheadvantagesofphysicalproximityandnetworkedcommunicationthatareincorporatedintheofflinenetworks.Finally,structuringthediscussionsaroundsocialimplications,thathavebeenidentifiedasbeingcriticalalsointhe paragraphs above, may encourage critical self-reflection on risks and possibilities toward buildingsustainable options for local engagement, resource sharing, capacity building, knowledge generation, andcollectiveawareness.


Page13of55

3.Comparisonsbetweenpilots

In the first version D3.5 of the deliverable “An interdisciplinary framework for comparisons and cross-fertilizationstrategiesofMAZIpilots”,inSection1.3presentingthecomparativemethodwewrote,“Manyoftheeventsandactivities inMAZIare structuredaround [similar] conversations,moreor lessunsettling, thathave the capability to uncover surprising findings and to stimulate creative and innovative further steps foraction”(p.10);indeedtheinterdisciplinaryframeworkisshapedovertimewiththehelpofsuchconversations,andamongthecollecteddiscoursesduringthefirstyearofMAZIarealsothesurveyanswersaboutthepilotprocess.

Figure3:The fourpilot studiesunfold inacascadingmanner.Numeroussituationsofcross-fertilizationandexchangewithinMAZIhavebeenscheduledInMAZI,weselected fourcases (asmallnumber, to refer to theconditionsof thecomparativemethod,seeD3.5)thatunfoldinacascadingmanner(seeFigure3),startingatdifferentstagesduringtheprojectduration.Tocontinuouslyreflect,compareandshareexperiencesacrossthepilotprojects,therearescheduledavarietyof overlappings either face-to-face interactions --taking place during the interdisciplinary meetings and thecross-fertilizationevents--or suchabstract ‘meetingpoints’bymeansof answeringquestionnairesand theninterpretingthemincomparison.

Before proceeding with the narration though, we include a comparative description of the different pilots,informingtheoverallinterdisciplinaryframework(i.e.,keyconceptsandcomparisonvariables)thatisa“new”versionofthesimpletableincludedintheDoW.


Page14of55

TheinitialcomparativetableintheDoW:

Pilots/Variables

OU/SPCCreekNet

UdK/CGPrinzessinnengarten

NetHood/INURAKraftwerk1

NU/UMMakeSpace

Context Urbanneighbour-hood(1kmradius)

CommunitygardenatBerlincitycore

Cooperativehousingandlivingcomplex(~300residents)

Tobedecided

Framing ContactInformationDiscourse

InformationDiscourse

Knowledge ContactInformationDiscourseKnowledge

Toolkit DecisionmakingP2PSharedstorage

Contentsharing Knowledgeproduction

Multiplemodes

Actors PioneersCommunitychampions

CommunityNeighboursActivistsCityofficials

CommunityCatalyst

ArtistsCitizens

Duration LongtermContinuous

LongtermContinuous

LongtermContinuous

Tobedecided

Designprocess Co-designworkshopsLiquiddemocracyTraining

Co-designworkshopsIterativeprototyping

Deliberation CriticalDesignDesignFictionsCulturalProbes

Evaluation ActivityContentanalysisInterviewsDebriefingworkshop

ActivityContentanalysisInterviews

ActivityInterviewsContinuousobservation

WorkshopsInterviews

Phases 1.Communityengagement2.Implementation3.Integration4.Finaltrial

1.Frameworkco-design2.Earlyprototyping3.InformationBase4.Co-Creationofapplication5.Synthesis&filtering6.Publicdebate7.Evaluation&dissemination

1.Observation2.MAZIoffering3.Implementationandevaluation

1.Initiationandsetup2.Relationshipbuilding3.FinalTrial

Belowweprovideanupdatedviewoftheinitialtableforthetwofirstpilotsthathavestartedin2016,BerlinandDeptford.

Pilots/Variables

OU/SPCCreekNet UdK/CGNachbarschafts-Akademie(NAk)

Context Urbanneighbourhood.Communitynetworkingorganisationconnectingarangeofgroups,individualsandorganisations(social,environmental,cultural)definedbyphysicalspaceandfacingoverlappingchallengesduetorapidlychangingbuiltenvironment.Issuesaroundgentrification,rightsofaccess,environmentaleffectsofdevelopment,continuityandevolutionofculturalandenvironmentalenterprises.

Hub/Meta-organisation,interconnectingdifferentlocalcommunitiesofpracticeinBerlin.Aimingatsynergizingtheknowledgegeneratedthroughoutthedifferentformsofcriticalurbanpracticewithinthenexusoflocalandglobalexchangebetweenurbanandruralcommunities,commons,righttothecity,bottomupsocio-ecologicaltransformationandself-organizedlearning.

Framing Contact:Thepilotasaboundaryobjecttofacilitateinteractionsacrosscommunities,andthedevelopmentoftoolswithfunctionalitiestosupportthebuildingofrelationshipstoenablecollectiveactionandresponsestolocalchallenges.Information:Thepilotaimstoprovidetoolsthatenablelocalgroupstobroadcastknowledgemorewidely;toprovideanalternativechannelfordistributionofdata;topromotetheircausesandto

Discourse:ThepilotaimsatcreatingtoolsthatamplifythediscussionsaboutthefutureofpubliclandinBerlinandbeyond.Knowledge:Thecurrentprototypeaimsatthecreation,annotationandbroadcastingofknowledgeaboutpubliclanduseandcriticalurbanpracticebyactorsdeemedcentralbytheNAk.Information:Thepilotessentiallyaimsat


Page15of55

informbothlong-termandnewresidentsaboutthelocalarea(historical,social,cultural,naturalriches).Discourse:Thepilotaimsatcreatinganddeployingtoolsthatmayinformandamplifydiscussionsaboutthecurrentandfutureuseofthelocallandscape,andprovideanindependentvoicetolocalcommunities.

fosteringandopeningthediscoursesalreadyhappeningwithinthepoliticallandscapeofurbaninitiativesinBerlintoapublic.Itdoessopartlybydisseminatinginformation.

Toolkit • Boundaryobjectbetweendifferentinitiativesandgroups

• Archivingknowledge/sharedstorage• Communitymapping• Environmentalsensing• Broadcasting/disseminating• Promptinginteractions/provokingdiscussion• Repositorytoenablefurtherdata

reuse/repurposing

• Boundaryobjectbetweenthedifferentinitiatives

• Knowledgeproduction• Synthetization&centralizationofcontent• Dissemination/Broadcasting• Prospective:Participationtool

Actors Pioneers;communitycatalysts/organisers Communitycatalysts/organizers

Duration Longterm/continuous;butsomescenariosmayalsobetemporary(durationdependentonspecificities)

Longterm/continuous

Designprocess ParticipatoryActionResearch;communityengagement,co-design,partialdeploymentandtesting,training.

Co-design,iterativeprototyping,partialdeployment&testing

Evaluation ActivityObservationInterviewsSurveys(DataLogging?)Debriefingworkshop

ActivityObservationInterviews

Phases WearefollowingthePhasesdescribedintheDoWbutarehavingtorespondtolocalconditionsandtimelinesmightbemodified

WestillfollowthephasesasoriginallydescribedintheDoW,butupdatedthemtothedevelopmentswithinthepilotstudy.FordetailspleaseseeD2.1.

InthecomparativeanalyseswetakeintoaccountkeyvariablesofMAZIpilots--meaningthattheyarecapabletoshowdifferences--whilethosesimilar like,say,“thelimitationsofDIYnetworking”arenotkeptcentraltothe analysis. In the deliverable D3.5 the research team of each pilot responded to the initial ‘catalogue ofquestions’ meant to provide a structure for pilots’ comparative analyses (see the answers in Section 3.6).Amongsuchkeyvariablesarethoseunderwhatthequestionnaire labeledasthe“community,” for instance,the“communityneeds”identifieduntilJune2016.Belowwepresenttheseanswers‘inthemirror’,focusingonthefirsttwopilotsinBerlinandinLondonthathavestartedduringthefirstyearofMAZI.

ThecommunityneedsintheBerlinpilotwerethoughtofinthreedimensions:

1. asservingthecommunityinplace(e.g.,knowledgehub/archive,toolfororganization,materialdatabase),

2. asatoolforknowledgeandcontentgeneration(e.g.researchtool,collaborationtool),and

3. as an interface to the outside (e.g. to other initiatives, broader neighborhood, external workshops, tomaketheinitiativesandtheirworkmorevisible).

IntheLondonpilot,theneedswereformulatedas:

1. engagementwithlocalenvironment(wildlife,environmentalconditions),


Page16of55

2. understanding of environmental conditions: concerns around Thames Tideway infrastructure project’senvironmentalimpact,

3. dataasaresourceforwideruse,appropriationbyarangeofcommunities:datamaybecollectedforonepurposes then repurposes for use by others, e.g. environmental data then reused as a resource forgeneratingart,andd)engagementoflocalandschoolscommunitieswithDeptfordCreek.

Then taking into account the expectations that the local community has fromMAZI, the answer from theBerlin pilot stated, “There is an overall curiosity about MAZI and its potential as an added value for thecommunity. A motivating effect has been the deep interest of the political approach of the project –community ownership of technological development, community owned data, DIY technology and self-organizations.Theseaspectshavequicklybeen linked to thepoliticalvisionsofmanyof the initiativeswhenspeakingofcommunityownedhousing,self-sufficiencyandcommunityorganizingaroundshared issues.Thelocation-basedqualityofMAZIisafacetthatengagesthecommunitymemberswehaveinteractedwithsinceitstressestheimportanceofthelocal.TheconcreteexpectationsofMAZIaretooearlytobeassessed.Whatisclearer iswhatMAZIshouldnotbe:atechnologicalgimmick,aworking layeron-topofanalreadystrenuousworkingsituations,ameansforitself.TheexpectationofthefirstprototypeintheNeighbourhoodAcademyisstructural improvement due to technical support, a specificworking tool to collect and spread information,make interactionswithdifferentneighbourhoods intheAcademyvisible, lightentheburdenofthefigureofthe ‘networker’.”And the followingquestionon the relationof community expectationswith the researchteam’sexpectations,“Wearemotivatedbythe interestofthecommunity,see itas importantnottocreateexpectationsthatwecannotmeetwithintheproject.Thecommonpoliticalinterestsurpassesourexpectationsand is an unexpected common ground with other initiatives that can be the growing ground for furtherprototypesandjointactivitieswithintheproject.”

FortheLondonpilot,thefirstanswerstatesthatthecommunityexpectationsfromMAZIareintherangeof“highprestigeasEUfunded:expectationofsignificantresourcingandexpertise;technicalexpertisethatmayresolvelocalchallenges;provisionofequipmentandongoingmaintenance;academicexpertisethatmayhelpresolve local challenges, e.g. around evaluation,” and thus there is gap between the community’s and theresearchteam’sexpectations,as“doesnotcompletelyalignwithourambitions:rather,weseektocollaborateon implementationsofnetworked technologies thatwill be customised,maintained, anddevelopedby localgroups themselves,with some initial resourcingandsupportby theMAZI team.Ourgoal is to reachapointwherecollaboratorstakeonthesystemsthemselvesandindependentlyinteractwithothersimilargroups(e.g.participantsinotherMAZIlocations)withouttheinterventionorsupportofMAZIpartners.”

These three criteria for comparison based on the “community” variable have the capability to show adialecticalmultifacetedrelationshipintheinterpretationofthepilotprojectsincomparison.Ontheonehand,thestartinggroundisquitedifferentinthetwocases,ifconsideringtheabovecommentsonexpectations,inspiteof the relatively similarcommunityneedsnamelyproviding tools forcontentgenerationandusing thisknowledgetobetterunderstandthelocationandalsotoconnectwiththelargerscalesoftheneighborhood,cityetc.Ontheotherhand,therearedifferencesthateachpilotshowsinitsfocusonthecommunityneeds,for instance, knowledge to be stored and shared on location at the NAk in Berlin, that may be used as a‘networker’withinbroadernetworks,incontrastwiththecollectionofenvironmentaldatatounderstandtheconnecting neighborhood spine, Deptford Creek in London. However, their reading in comparison gives ushints, in this case about the characteristics of theplace, Berlin pilot location functioning rather as a “node”whileLondonpilotexpandingoveritsterritorymorelikea“network”(refertoSection7.1.2formoredetailsonthesemetaphors).

The exercise above is an illustration of how MAZI ‘meeting points’, created through the responses of theproject interdisciplinary teamtosurveys,couldadvancetheresearchpractice in thepilots,aswellasaddtoconceptformationandinthedevelopmentoftheinterdisciplinaryframework.

Toconcludethissection,werepresentthepilotsaccordingtothesixprinciplesofengagedresearch(accordingtotheHollimanetal.’s(2013)6Psofengagedresearch).Originallydesignedtohelpuniversitiesplanandreflectonpublicengagementwithresearch,the6PsarerelevanttoMAZIwithitsfocusonintroducingnoveltechnology-basedsystemstoawiderangeofpublics.


Page17of55

Tableshowingthe6PrinciplesofEngagedResearch

OU/SPCCreekNetinLondon UdK/CGNachbarschafts-Akademie(NAk)inBerlin

Preparedness2 ThepilotsupportsSPC’sengagementwithlocalcommunityorganisationsandactivistsastheyseektorespondtolocalchallenges.ReinvigorationofSPC’sOpenWirelessNetwork,inoperationsince2008.ChallengesofrapidgentrificationinDeptfordareadisplacingexistingcommunitiesandsocialandculturalorganisationsandbringinginnewresidents.Majorinfrastructureproject(ThamesTideway)onsitenexttoDeptfordCreeklikelytohaveenvironmentalimpactduetoworks(building,andtransportationofwasteeitherbyboatorroad).

ThepilotsupportsNeighborhoodAcademyasitbuildsplatformsbetweenvariousactorsandnetworksfromthecontextofDIYurbanisminBerlinandbeyond.NAkislocatedinBerlin‘sPrinzessinnengarten,acontestedspacewithanunclearfuture.Throughdevelopingtoolsforsharingknowledgeaboutnovelformsofurbanaction,thepilotaimsatsparkingandfosteringlivelydiscussionsamongneighbors,initiativesandcityauthorities.

Politics3 RecognisingSPC’slongstandingengagementandinteractionsinthelocalarea.Workingwithsmallscalevoluntaryorganisationsandindividualswhoarelimitedinresources.Pilotinvolvesadiverserangeoflocalactorsacrossthegeographicspreadofthepilotstudyareafacingarangeofchallengesandwithavarietyofestablishedpoliticalnetworks.

Theresearchiscloselytiedintovariouspoliticaldimensions.UrbandevelopmentisahighlydiscussedtopicinBerlinatthetimeofthepilot,withcitygovernmentnowpushingforaturntowardsmoresustainablepractices.Pilotinvolvesadiverserangeofformalandinformalpractitioners(e.g.right-to-the-city-activists).

People4 DevelopingaworkingrelationshipbetweenOUasanacademicpartnerandSPCasacommunitytechnologyorganisationalreadydeeplyembeddedwithinthelocalityandhavingexistingandlongtermrelationshipswithdiversegroups.Workingalongsidecommunityactivists,technologyenthusiasts,andcommunityorganisers;individualsandsmallscaleorganisations,manyofwhichworkonavoluntarybasis.

Thepilothasdifferentlevelsofinclusionandaffection:UDKandNAkarethemainpartnersthatcarryouttheresearch.However,thewidernetworkofinitiativesaroundNAkplaysanimportantrole,eitherasactorsinvolvedinparticipatorydesignsessionsorasbearersofknowledgethatNAkaimsatcommoningwithinandbytheMAZIpilot.Finally,citizensanddecisionmakersofthecityofBerlinareaffectedbytheurbandevelopmentprocessesthispilotaimsatengagingin,hencetherangeofaffectedpeoplecanincreasesignificantly.

Purposes5 Enablingthebuildingofrelationshipsacrossdiversegroupsandthedevelopmentoftoolstoallowcollectionanddisseminationofinformationtobuildasenseofcollectiveawareness,informinglong-termandnewresidentsaboutwhatishappeningaroundthem,revealinghiddenstoriesandhistories,andengagingandenablingdebatesabouttheidentityandfuturepotentialoftheirsharedlivedenvironment.AnexplorationoftheextenttowhichtheMAZItoolkitcanprovideanalternativemediachanneltocurrentoutletsandenabledebatearoundurbandevelopmentissues.

Creating“spaces”fordifferentformsofknowledgearoundcriticalurbanpracticestocoexistandsynergize.Providingaknowledgebasetoengagewithforbothexpertsandlaymen(neighbors).Providediscursivebaseforderivingcollectiveawarenessthatleadstopoliticalaction.Developingnetworktechnologyinandoutofanon-market,critical,value-drivencontext.

Processes6 ParticipatoryActionResearchapproach:activelyengagingwithlocalcommunitypartnersintheco-creationofknowledge,buildingalliancesandpromotingsocial/collectivechange,recognisingtheirexpertisearoundlocalchallenges.Emphasisesempowermentandseekinglongtermsustainability.Stagesincludecommunityengagement,sharedexplorationsofchallengesandpotentialsolutions,rapidprototyping,deploymentofearly-stageimplementationsandbuildinglocalcapacities.

ParticipatoryDesign:Designers&non-designers,technologistsandnon-technologists,communityactivistsandinstitutionalresearchersaswellasartistsandnon-artistscollaborateoniterativeprocessesofdevelopment.Stagesincludetheexhaustivediscussionofcontextandproblemspace,theideationofpossibleroutes,rapidprototypingandthedeploymentofearly-stageinstantiationsforexplorativeuse.

Performances7 Phase1hasbeencompleted(community ThepilotiscurrentlyinphaseII,aftercompleting

2 Identifying local contexts, understanding of the challenges to be faced, the researchers’ preparations for dealingwiththesechallenges3understandingthelocalsocialandpoliticalcontextsinwhichtheresearchwouldbecarriedout4Identifyingthepeoplethatwillbeinvolvedoraffectedbythework:theresearchers,thecommunitypartnerswithwhomweengaged,othercommunityparticipants,othersaffectedbythework5 Clarifying the aims and objectives of the research from the perspective ofMAZI, the participants involved and otherpublics(people)6Pinningdowntheapproach,methodsandtechniquesthatwouldbefollowedbytheresearchteam


Page18of55

engagement)reachingouttoidentifypotentialMAZIparticipants.ActivitiesinPhase2arelikelytofocusonfourgroupswhoactashubsforlocalactivityatdifferentlocationsalongtheCreek,developingtheirinfrastructureandcapacitytosupportandexploreMAZItoolkitprototypeswithintheirworkingpractices.

communityoutreach,definitionofproblemspaces,firstprototypingandtesting.Currently,wearesimultaneouslyworkingonasecondgenerationprototypewhileuse-testingthefirstone,generatingvaluablecontentfortheNAkknowledgebase.

7Consideringwhatwasfoundandtheextenttowhichthismettheobjectivesoftheresearch


Page19of55

4.Comparisonsbetweendisciplinaryperspectives

In Deliverable 3.5 we provided a “state-of-the-art” type introduction to different forms of participation indesignthatthedifferentresearchpartnersofMAZIbroughtwiththemintheproject.

Inthissectionwepresentthesedisciplinaryperspectivesoftheresearchpartners inMAZIpilots,astheyarereflected in four recentdocuments.Theyare twoscientificpapers for theDesignNextConference inRome,April2017,byMichaelSmyth&IngiHelgason,NapierUniversity,andbyAndreasUnteidig,BerlinUniversityoftheArtsrespectively,aswellastwoprojectreports,aMAZIdeliverablebyMarkGaved&GarethDavies,TheOpenUniversity,andaprojectdeliverableforanotherCAPSproject,bythenamenetCommons,byPanayotisAntoniadis&IleanaApostol,NetHood.Thesedocumentshavebeendraftedindependentlyfromeachother.

4.1Speculativedesign:participatorycreationanddialogue

Theconferencepaper“Makingandunfinishedness:designingtoolkitsfornegotiation”byMichaelSmyth&IngiHelgason(2017)proposesanintriguingparallelbetweenthedesignoftoolkits,whichisseenasanexploratoryand reflective process that keeps within a sense of pleasure and enjoyment, and the toolkit as “a site forresearch design”. The argument builds on the composite nature of the term “toolkit”, placed at the borderbetweenthe“tool”--themoreadaptable‘soft’elementofthecoupleallowingforadaptiveuse--andthe“kit”--the ‘hard’ element that has amore clearly defined final outcome. Therefore, the authors suggest that thedevelopmentoftechnologytoolkitsforDIYnetworkingisatopicthatframesthedialoguewithintheresearchprocess in the current MAZI project, and at the same time, may enable the ‘soft’ adaptable and joyfulcharacteristics into products and services. Their disciplinary perspective on design innovation sheds a brightlightonthetopicofMAZI.

MAZIresearchteamwithNapierUniversityhasahuman-centreddesignapproachthatcomprisesofamixtureofdifferentmethodsaccordingtotheparticularsituation,andtheparticularaimsofaproject.For theMAZIunMonastery pilot study, they take as their starting point an approach described as; "speculative design:participatorycreationanddialogue”,whichemphasisesdialogueanduseof“speculativedesign”asatoolormethodtosupportthatdialogue.Thisapproachincludesthedevelopmentofscenarioconcepts,takingvariousformsasemergingfromtheparticularsituation.

4.2Co-designing(infra-)structuresversusdesigningsolutions

Intheconferencepaper"Digitalcommons,urbanstrugglesandtheroleofDesign"AndreasUnteidig&BlancaDominguez Cobreros (2017) set up the stage for an ambitious exploration with far-reaching consequencesnamely the role(s) of design in processes of contemporary society. From the perspective of the designer-activists,theauthorsquestionthepossiblerelationshipsbetweendesignpracticeandthe"social",inordertounderstandhowthisrelationshiphastransformedoverthelastcentury,andifcurrentlyemergingpracticesarecapabletoproducemoresustainablestructures.

The paper iswoven from amultitude of threads of thought. There is a historic perspective that places thesocietalchangepromotedbythemodernschoolsofdesigninGermany(i.e.,Werkbund,Bauhaus,Ulm)nexttocurrentdesignpracticesaimingatcontributingtolarge-scalesocietalproblems.Inthis,thepaperbringstothefore amore theoretical thread about the design process, discussed through the dichotomy problem-solvingversusdesigning structures.The latter is seenasanemancipation fromtheparadigmofproviding solutions,allowingforactioninfastchanginganduncertainsituations.Inthislight,theauthorsdiscusstheirownactivityinMAZIBerlinpilot,thatengageswithongoingurbaninitiatives.

Thepoliticalargument inrelationtotheaspirationsofdesignpracticetobecomemorepolitically involvedinsociety,questionsdesign‘straditionalroleasproblemsolver,stemmingfromitsrootsinmodernity,andarguesforthedisciplinetoratherseeitselfasapartneratthenegotiationtablewithinpoliticalprocesses.Onlybrieflytouched, through recent government design initiatives, is the role that the state has played over time inshapingthedesignpractice.InthemultidisciplinaryperspectivebroughttoMAZIbyAndreas,anovelandkeydriverofthecurrentdesignpracticeisawidelandscapeofpolitical-urbaninitiativesthataimtochangesociety


Page20of55

through ongoing political struggles, while the designer plays more of a role of amplifying, curating anddesigningstructures.

4.3Participatoryactionresearch

In MAZI deliverable D.2.4, "Design, progress and evaluation of the Deptford Creeknet pilot" (first version,December 2016),Mark Gaved and Gareth Davies, the research teamwith the Open University, propose toframe theparticipatorydesignprocessbydrawing from theparticipatoryaction research (PAR) approach toapplied research in specific communities. “PAR makes sense of the world through the collective efforts ofresearchersandcommunitypartners”(p.12),focussesonempoweringmarginalizedpeople,andthusisalignedalso with the broader goals of MAZI to democratize access to tools and enable sustainable use ofinfrastructure;aperspectivebroughtbytheauthorstotheMAZIinterdisciplinaryteamaswell.

This report refers to the first sevenmonths of research work on the Deptford Creeknet pilot, and thus anextensivepartofthepaperisdedicatedtothedescriptionoflocalactorsandtheirnetworks,beingindividualsor collective communitypartners,whoeithermightbepotential partnersorhavealreadyengagedwith theproject activities. Spending extensive time to engage with the local community is a critical part of theparticipatory design process, as it is understood that, “weneeded to establish termsof reference basedoninterpersonal relationships facilitated by a history of trust, rather than purely based on legal forms andcontracts”(p.13).Moreover,astheprojecttopicandthe“offlinenetworks”ingeneralarenotconveyedeasilytocommunitypartners,fromtheevaluationofthispilotphasestandsoutthenecessitytoprovideaconceptualframing,as“weneedanarrativetoengagepeoplebeyondinvitingthemtotrynewtechnologies”(p.34).

TheauthorschosetostructurethedocumentaccordingtotheHollimanetal.’s(2013)sixprinciplesofengagedresearch (the6P’s),which is a framework "originallydesigned tohelpuniversitiesplanand reflectonpublicengagement with research", drawing from Gareth Davies expertise in this area and recognising that theseprinciplesarerelevanttoMAZI,withitsfocusofintroducingnoveltechnology-basedsystemstoawiderangeofpublics.The6P’sframeworkrefersto1)preparedness;backgroundandwhatwasdonetopreparethepilot,2)politics,meaningbothlocalandbroaderpoliticallandscapes,3)publics,identifyingwhoaretheindividualsandgroupstoengageintheparticipatorydesignprocess,bystartingwithcommunitymapping,4)purposes,whataims and objectives are collectively devised, 5) processes including material and methods, where theyelaborate on the PAR approach, and 6) performances ormeasured results, according to the aim to “movebeyonddisseminationandone-wayformsofcommunicationtowardsengagingparticipantsasequalpartners”(p.16). An academic researcher in DIY networking and experienced practitioner who set up a networkedcommunity,MarkbringstotheMAZIinterdisciplinaryteamasocialsciences'perspective,byunderstandingtheimplicationsofengagingcommunitypartnersintothedesignprocess,andalsoanexpressedinteresttosupporteducationalactivitiesthroughDIYnetworkingtechnology.

4.4Interdisciplinarystructuresforinformationsharing

PanayotisAntoniadisandIleanaApostol--theresearchteamwiththenonprofitorganizationNetHoodbasedinZurich--haveelaboratedfortheCAPSprojectbythenamenetCommons,thedeliverableD3.1,whichisthefirstversionofthe"Multi-DisciplinaryMethodologyforApplicationsDesignforCNs,includingDesignGuidelinesandAdoption Facilitation" (December 2016). In this report they propose a first step in the development of amethodology forparticipatorydesignof local applications, conceived tobehosted inaCommunityNetwork(CN)without relying on the existence of Internet connectivity. Half of the document is dedicated to rathertheoretical considerations, and to lessons learned fromdisciplines likeurbanplanninganddesign thatapplyknowledgein'reallifelaboratories',whiletheotherhalfofthenarrativereportsonanongoingcasestudyoftheCN in theSarantaporoarea inGreece. From the firstexperimentswithparticipatoryprocesses, it seemsthatthemostimportantruleisthat,rulescannotbeeasilyformalizedeveniftheyarecriticalinstructuringtheprocess;theyneedtobesomewhatschematicandflexibleenough,aseverylocalcontextpresentsvariationsand specificities. In a real life situation every problem is a one-shot operation, which needs to be thoughtthroughandtackledwithcareandpatienceoverarelatively longperiodoftime.Therefore,theyadvocatea‘step back’ attitude of field researchers, and propose to focus on structuring opportunities for encounters,deliberations and information sharing for theproject research team, and also togetherwith the communitypartners.Basedon similarprincipleswith the “planning for real”participatory techniquedevelopedbyTony


Page21of55

Gibson in the UK (e.g., cited in Forester 2008), through intimate settings and a climate of non-committalfreedom,suchopportunitieshavethepotentialtostimulateinterest,andatalaterstagealsoengagementintheparticipatorydesignprocess.


Page22of55

5.Cross-fertilizationevents

Events are keymoments of cross-fertilizationwhere the different perspectivesmeet each other.During thefirst year of the project, the first such eventwas theBerlinworkshop, a great opportunity for the differentpartnerstoseehowthefirstintherowpilotstarted,thechallengesthatappeared,andthesolutionsprovided.The protagonists were UdK and Common Grounds and their own local network of activists. The parallelworkshopsorganizedtodiscusswithsomeofthesepeopleinterestingquestionsrelatedtoMAZIhelpedustoseeourselvesasagroupintheeyesofthiscommunity,butalsotobuildawarenessonthe“otherside”ofwhatthisprojectisaboutandwhoisinvolved.

TheINURAconferencewasthesecondcross-fertilizationevent.DespitethestrongrolethattheINURAZurichInstituteandNetHoodplayed,thelatterespeciallysinceIleanaApostolandPanayotisAntoniadiswereamongtheorganizingteam,theeventprovidedarelativelyneutralspaceawayfromtheactualpilots’homelocations.Itmadepossibletoaccessanaudiencebothengagedandnon-expertforasignificantamountoftime(8days);inBerlinthecontactoftheMAZIteamwithoutsiders,althoughverystimulating,itlastedonlyafewhours.

Akeyfeatureoftheinterdisciplinaryframeworkisthefactthatinthecross-fertilizationevents,MAZIpartnersdonotonlyinteractbetweenthembutalsowithexternalactors,notattachedtotheprojectinanyway.Morespecifically, the exposure to outsiders as a group, placing ourselves in spotlights coming from differentperspectives, is very important for buildingMAZI identity and also to better understanding each other overtime.

In the following, we report on the exchanges that took place during the INURA conference and the Berlinworkshop, what we learned from them, how they informed our under-development framework forcomparisons, and how we plan to use these lessons for organizing future events. We include also shortdescriptionsofthepartsoftheDeptfordworkshop,unMonasterySummit,andtheVeniceBiennaleworkshopthat included interactions between a subset ofMAZI partners and external actors and can bring additionalelementstotheanalysis.

Detailed descriptions of the Berlinworkshop, especially those parts that have not been documented in thecorresponding deliverable (D2.1), and of the INURA conference are available in the Appendix. By way ofrecallingparticipants’memories, suchdetaileddescriptionsareuseful in stimulating theexpressionof thosethoughtsthatarenotalwayseasilyarticulatedduringtheevent’s“action”(e.g.somesortof ‘reflection-post-action’).Theyalsogiveagoodoverviewonwhathappenedtothosewhodidnotattendtheevent.

5.1TheBerlinworkshop

The first public event of MAZI was held on July 15th, 2016, in Prinzessinnengarten, organized by UdK andCommon Grounds and was combined with the project’s second plenarymeeting. This brought together allpartners of MAZI, therefore constituting an appropriate field to present the current development of theprototypetothepublic,whiletestingitforthefirsttimewithinandbeyondthecoreteam.

ThepubliceventwasorganizedbyUdK‘sDesignResearchLabandtheNAkandtookplaceintheexperimentalarchitecture the“Laube” (Arbour) inPrinzessinnengarten.We invited theparticipants fromtheprevious twoco-designingworkshops(refertoD2.1)oftheBerlinMAZIpilot,allthepartnersfromtheMAZIconsortiumaswellasseveralexternalactorstoparticipateinathirdworkshop,finishingwithaneventopentothegeneralpublic.

Undertheframingof“MAZI:Betweendigitalcommons,urbanstrugglesandlocalself-organization”,theeventhosted a discussion around DIY-networks that intended to go beyond the ecosystem of MAZI. The mainobjectivesof thiseventwere therefore,on theonehand, topresentMAZI toawideraudienceandpubliclydiscussrelevanttopicsaroundtheproject‘sobjectives,andontheotherhand,toconnectandexchangeideasbetweenMAZIpartnersandlocalinitiativesandrelevantactors(seeAppendixA).


Page23of55

Figure4:AsceneoftheworkshopsituationaspartoftheeventonJuly15th2016

Hereisastructuredsummaryofthiscross-fertilizationevent:

Profileofoutsiders:Communityactivists,Eco-activists, filmmakers,artists,urban researchers,designers thatareengagedincriticalurbanpracticesinoneortheotherway.

Relationshipwiththeoutsidergroup:Members&friendsofNAk,collaboratorsofUDK

RoleofMAZIconsortiumintheevent:a)IntroduceDIYnetworkingasatoolforurbanactivism,b)discussionofissuesrelevanttobothconsortiumandwidernetwork,openingperspectives

MAZI proposals:DIY networking as ameans for fostering collaboration and exchange in-between actors ofrelated fields, enriching discourse around the right to the city by introducing related issues in regards totechnology,exploringpossibilitiesprovidedbyDIYtechforcivicparticipationprocesses

Community suggestions/ideas:Furtherdevelopmodiof interaction for visitors/usersof thearchive (outsideNAkactors),Workonusability(especiallycaptiveportal)

Challenges identified: usability (see above), prototype canonlybe successful if cared forby the communitypartnersandactorsoftheirrespectivenetworkswithintheMAZIpilot

MAZIzonestriedout:CustombuildNAk/MAZIarchive&recorder

Overall feedback: Theoverall feedback to the event showed that thepilot team succeeded in gainingbasictrustby thewider community.A senseof sharedvalueswasestablishedandclear interest in theprojectby“outsiders”wasstated.

5.2TheINURAconference

INURA plays a key role in MAZI, since the Zurich Kraftwerk1 pilot is run by Philipp Klaus (INURA ZurichInstitute),who is the network's committed secretary since 1998, and Panayotis Antoniadis& IleanaApostol(NetHood), who are both INURA members since 2013 and members of the organizing committees of theAthensconference(2015)andtheBucharestconference(2016)respectively.


Page24of55

Figure5:DebriefingoftheINURAconferenceinBucharestduringtheINURAretreat(Sibiu,September8,2016)

Inthisyear'sconferenceinBucharest,MAZIbroughttoBucharestaninterestingtechnologythatcanplayakeyroleintheextensionofthe‘righttothecity’concepttothe"righttothehybridcity".TheideawastointroduceDIYnetworkingtechnologyasaverypowerfultoolforurbanactivism.Butitalsobroughtwithitanextendedgroupofnon-academicactivists,bothregularINURAmembersandnewcomers,someofthempartofMAZIs’consortium,andothersasinvitedspeakersforthetwoscheduledworkshops.

In addition to the regular conference activities, in the city part and in the retreat MAZI organized severalsessions.Morespecifically,ahalf-dayworkshop inBucharest, September2,2016,before theofficial startofthe conference introducing the project and the work of special guests/activists, and a short plenarypresentationandaparallelworkshopduringtheretreat,onSeptember9,2016,whicharealldocumentedindetailinAppendixB.

Hereisastructuredsummaryofthiscross-fertilizationevent:

Profile of outsiders: A well-established network of researchers and activists at their yearly conferencegatheringeveryyeararound100peoplefromallovertheworld

Relationshipwiththeoutsidergroup:Secretaryof thenetwork (PhilippKlaus)andmembersof thenetwork(NetHood)

RoleofMAZIconsortiumintheevent:IntroduceDIYnetworkingasatoolforurbanactivismandalsodifferentformsofactivismrepresentedbytheMAZIpilotstudiesandMAZIguests.

MAZI proposals: DIY networking as a means for informing citizens for topics of concern, more egalitariancollaborationsbetweenresearchersandactivists.

Communitysuggestions/ideas:Coordinateurbanactionsprotectedagainstsurveillance

Challengesidentified:Appropriationofthetechnologybycorporations,dependenceonICT

MAZIzonestriedout:Owncloud,etherpad

Overall feedback: Many people liked the proposed tools being all aware of the risks of using corporateplatformslikegoogle,butnothavingthetechnicalexpertisetodiscoveralternatives.ThemostpopularuseoftheMAZIzonewasforsharingphotos,butetherpadwasalsowidelyused(even ifmainly itsonlineversion).Many discussions for future collaborations and a very positive view on the fact that MAZI supported theparticipationofactivistsforwhomitisnoteasytocometoINURAconferences.


Page25of55

5.3.Othercross-fertilizationeventsIn addition to the above major events, a few MAZI partners had more opportunities to come together indifferentlocationsandgetaglimpseoftheactivitiestakingplaceinthedifferentpilots.

TheDeptfordworkshop

AgatheringorganizedbySPCintheheartoftheCreekNetpilotstudylocation,DeptfordCreek,inApril2016.MAZIpartnersandmembersofINURAwereinvitedtogainabetterunderstandingoftheCreekNetlocaleinaday’s activities. First, by taking part in a ‘low tidewalk’ organised by local environmental charity CreeksideDiscoveryCentre,wadingalongthebedoftheCreektounderstandtheenvironmentandhowithaschangedovertime.Thenawalktotheartists’collectivefloatingprintworksandartsvenue,theMinesweeper,forlunchand discussion about local challenges. Then a furtherwalk along the lower end of the Creek terminating invisitingSPC’smedialab.Seehttp://wrd.spc.org/mudlarking-on/.

Figure6:Communityoutreachandcross-fertilizationinDeptford.MembersofMAZIConsortium,INURA,andguestsparticipatingin

educationaltourorganizedbyDeptford‘sCreeksideDiscoveryCenterAttheMinesweepertherewereinterestingdiscussionsaboutthethreatsthatthis1950sboatfacesduetotheintended development in the area and ideas on how a MAZI Zone could help them to better inform theneighbourhoodabouttheiractivities,evenprovideaplatformforalocation-basedcrowdfundingtorepairtheboat.


Page26of55

Figure7:MAZIandINURAcolleaguesininformaldiscussionafteraroundofself-introductionsaboardthefloatingartsvenue

“Minesweeper”However, there isa sadpostscript to thispromisingcollaborationwith thisartsorganisation: at the timeofwritingofthisdeliverable(January2017)theMinesweeperhasbeendestroyedafterafireonboardleadingtoa “massiveexplosion.”8A crowdfunding campaign9hasbeen startedbut the futureof thegroup’s activities,andthemoorings for theotherboats in theCollective (their rightof residencyontheCreek)arenowunderthreat.

GreekPavillion,VeniceArchitectureBiennale

InthecontextofthepreparationsfortheKraftwerk1pilot,NetHoodandINURAZurichInstituteincollaborationwith Co-Hab Athens organized a 4-day workshop titled “Co-housing practices: Inventing Prototypes forAthens”, a knowledge transfer exercise between experts on the Zurich cooperative housing model andresearchersandactivistsinAthens,theCo-HabAthensandINURAAthensteams.

8http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/deptford-creek-boat-fire-arts-venue-destroyed-after-massive-explosion-sparks-blaze-on-board-boat-a3433886.html9https://gogetfunding.com/DeptfordMinesweeper-Fire-Fund/


Page27of55

Figure8:AndreasWirtz(CooperativeHousingBoard,Zürich)introducingZurich’scooperativehousingsceneattheopeningofthe

symposiumintheGreekPavilion,VeniceArchitectureBiennale2016AndreasUnteidigfromUdKjoinedthiseventtoplaceintheGreekPavilionthePolylogueII,anovelinstallationinspiredbytheconceptoftheexhibitionpavilion.Morespecifically,PolylogueIIcomprisesofthreeboxesandakeyboard.Passersbycan typeaquestionon thekeyboardwhichappears inoneof theboxesand is sent topeoplethathaveinstalledontheirsmartphoneadedicatedapp.Whenoneofthemreplies,theboxprintstheansweronapaperroll.Afterapreviouslysettimeexpires,thequestionisalsoprintedallowingpeopletogobacktothehistoryof interactions,evencutandkeepasamemorythepieceprintedonthepaperrolewiththeirquestionandanswer(andpeoplediddothis!).

Figure9:VisitorsoftheGreekPavilioninteractwiththeMAZIprototype“PolylogueII”

AsaMAZIgroupitwas interestingtoberesponsibleforthesetwo“parallel”happenings inthePavillion:the“co-housingpractices”workshopand thePolylogue II installation.Themain functionalityofPolylogue IIwas


Page28of55

alsointeresting,asitisveryclosetothe“knowledgetransfer”topicoftheKraftwerk1pilot,whichwasacorethemeoftheworkshop.

unMonasterySummitatKokkinopilos

Paul Clayton from SPC participated at unMonastery’s unSummit at Kokkinopilos, and blogged about hisexperience: http://wrd.spc.org/326/, including the first experiences with the MAZI toolkit that was justassembledbefore this event andhis impressions about theplans of the group for running their pilot in theabandonedschoolofKokkinopilos.

Figure10:PaulClayton(SPC)leadingthedailytaichiexerciseattheunMonasterysummitatKokkinopilosvillage


Page29of55

6Synergiesandtensionsbetweenresearchandaction

In this section we elaborate on synergies and tensions that have been identified throughout the differentdimensionsoftheprojectbetweenresearchersandcommunityactivists.Althoughsomeofthesetensionsmayseem obvious, it is very valuable for the project to explore them diligently, drawing on real interactionsbetweentheproject’spartnersandanalyzethemasobserved.

Forthis,weincludeinthetheoreticalcontextofourframework(seeSection7.3below)theframingofthosetopicsasconflicts,asthemeetingofandexchangebetweenprofoundlydifferentdiscoursesthatareimpossible(and also undesirable) to resolve and to fully align with each other. They are, as RamiaMazé describes it,“rooted indifferentontologicalor ideologicalpositions,historicalmoments, geographic, and socio-economiclocations.Ratherthanapost-politicalapproach,whichmightdisregardcontradictionsandpresumeconsensus,examiningthepoliticaldimensionsinvolvesrecognizingdifferencesinpositionsandasymmetriesinrelations”(Mazé,2013).

Innovationversuspragmatism:Whento(not)design

MAZIasaprojectissetuparoundfourdifferentpilots,inwhichoneresearchinstitutionpartnerswithalocal,non-ICT community. The pilots hereby serve a dual purpose, namely a) the support, amplification andmoderation of the goals of the respective local community, through the appropriation and design of DIYnetworkingtechnology;andb)gatheringofknowledgethroughoutthoseprocessesthatcanbetransferredandmadeuseofinthedesignofMAZItoolkit.ThissetupbringsaboutaninterestingcontradictionthatweintendtobothuseforgroundingthedevelopmentswithinMAZIintheempiricalrealityofourpartnercommunities;but also as a driving force for creativity and innovation, as the constant negotiation ofwhat is superfluous,necessary, desirable or elemental opens up perspectiveswe deem valuable for our processes.Whereas thelocal communities are primarily interested in the appropriation of technology for their respective goals andprocesses, the partnering institution is, in addition to sharing this goal, interested in making use of thiscontextualenvironmenttobringaboutsomethingneworatleastrelevantinthecontextoftheICT,designorcommunityinformaticscommunity.

This somewhat abstract description becomesmore graspablewhen illustrated through the concrete case inMAZIpilotsettinginBerlin.Astheworkofsocialmovementsoftenisdonebyindividualsintheirsparetime(orwithrather littlefunding),thecommunitypartnerCommonGrounds isverysensitivetothe issueofcreatingadditionalworkforthestakeholdercommunitiesandindividuals,andinsteadwantstointegratetechnologicaldevelopmentssotomakethempartofthedailywork,andtodesignthemtohelpandtoamplifytheprocessesthat are already running. While this concern is fully displayed in the setup of the MAZI pilots, itsimplementation isnotalways trivial,asusefuldevelopmentsoftencomeabout throughdetours that initiallyproducetherequirementofattention,inordertofullyservethecommunity‘spurposeafterwards.

Paidresearchversusvoluntarywork,or:Thedifferenceincurrencies

Throughout thevariousdiscussions that tookplaceover thecourseofoneyear,anotherrecurringtopicwasthe asymmetric relationship to different forms of dissemination within the pilot teams, and within theconsortium as a whole (but primarily visible in comparison of research institutions with local [activist]communities).

While it seemsobvious thatdisseminationhappens inall conceivablecircles,andwith it thegenerationandaccumulation of “capital” of any kind, what seems profoundly different is the “currency”, with which thedifferent capitalsaredenoted,e.g.publications, community credibility,etc.Thispointhasbeendescribed inmoredetailinthedepictionoftheINURAconference(seeAppendixB).

Facilitationversusauthorship:Differentlevelsofinvolvement

Asdescribedabove,theBerlinpilotofMAZIacknowledgestheNAkasanentitythatcannotbeisolatedfromthe socio-political environment in which it is embedded in the city of Berlin and beyond. Hence, the“community partner” NAk is to be seen as an initiative that stands in close interdependence with other


Page30of55

initiativesandindividualsthatconsequentlyhavetobe,andhavebeen,includedintotheprocess.Withinthissetup,wemanagedtoinitiatelivelydiscussionsandtoovercomeinitialscepticismaboutthepotentialaddedvalueof technologyfortherelevant initiatives.Followingthisphaseweencounteredahigh levelofcuriosityaboutMAZI,and itspotentialasanaddedvalueforthecommunity.Aclearlymotivatingeffecthasbeenthedeep interest in thepoliticalapproachof theproject–communityownershipof technologicaldevelopment,communityowneddata,DIYtechnologyandself-organization.Theseaspectshavequicklybeen linkedtothepolitical visions ofmany of the initiativeswhen speaking of community owned housing, self-sufficiency andcommunity organizing around shared issues. The location-based quality ofMAZI is a facet that engages thecommunitymembers,asitstressestheimportanceofthelocal.AndalthoughweseetheMAZIasacollectiveproject,wehavetoconsiderthefactthattherearedifferentrolesandresponsibilitieswithinMAZI(referalsotoSection7).

IncontexttheBerlin-team,madeupofUdKandCommonGrounds,haveastrongcuratinganddecision-makingrole. We make this explicit and transparent in our work with communities. Nevertheless, the communityinitiativesandotheractorsinvitedintothisprocessarecollaborativethinkersandarevitalintheformingoftheprojectanditsresults.However,allinitiativesareboundtothelimitationoftime,lackofeconomicresources,limitations of voluntary commitment and the significant political pressure that underlines their day-to-daywork. These constraintswill always be theboundaries of the implementationofMAZIwithin the initiatives.Taking this aspect into account in every step of the way will be vital for the sustainability of MAZIimplementation.

Creatingexpectationsversuscreatingopenness:Managinganticipation

The term “toolkit” designates a decisive openness, something that can,will, andmust be appropriated andactualized throughactual use inorder tobecomea tool. It is ameans to anend,whereas theend remainsunspecified, asmuch as it is unspecifiedwhat one can dowith a hammer and a nail. To design the toolkit,nevertheless,acertaindegreeofuse-anticipationhastotakeplace,otherwisethereisnothingtodesign.

ExpectationmanagementappearstobecentraltotheparticipatorydevelopmentoftheMAZIzone,andweseeitasvitalnottocreateexpectationsthatwecannotmeetwithintheproject.Asdescribedinthepointabove,theprocessstructureinvolvesawiderangeofstakeholderswithverydifferentrolesandlevelsofinvolvement.Whilewedecisivelyaimatincorporatingtheneeds,wishesandconceptualframesoftherelevantstakeholdersinto the design of the prototype, it is not possible to fulfil the preferences of each and every participant inthese processes. Therefore, not to risk disappointing the partners, we chose to carefully communicate thestructureandaimoftheco-designsessions.Thegoal,again,istocreatetoolswithsufficientopennesstoallowforcreativeappropriation,productivemisuseandthealterationoftheprototypetofittheneeds,contextsandcircumstancesofmorethanjustonecommunity.

Addedworkversusaddedvalues:Context-sensitivedevelopment

Whileworkingtogetherwiththedescribedinitiatives/communities, itprovestobecriticaltoamplifyexistingprocesses instead of creating new ones, hence to anticipate any developments as added values, not asadditionalfieldsforwork.AriskweidentifiedatthebeginningoftheprojectissurpassingactualneedsofNAkaswellasofthewidercommunityinsearchofpossibleusesoftheDIY-network.Seeingthatresourceswithincommunity initiatives are most often strained in form of time and financial budgets, it is vital to createsituations where the MAZI activity is an added value and not an added burden. We are meeting this riskthrough the intense pre-surveying of needs through the community workshops as well as by developing aMAZI-prototype for the NAk that has the potential of being adopted, appropriated andmultiplied by otherinitiatives, focusing on questions of content production, editing processes, maintenance andadaption/multiplication.ThusitisparamounttoavoidtheunderstandingofMAZIasatechnologicalgimmick,aworkinglayerontopofalreadystrenuousworkingsituationsorasameansforitself.

Formalityversusinformality:the“informedconsent”tension

Oneinterestingtensionthatarosefromdifferentapproachesrootedininstitutionalpracticewasthequestionbetweenacademicformalityanda“lighttouch”approachintherelationshipsbetweentheMAZIconsortiumand the local communities affected by the project. This tension became apparent in a discussion aboutwhetherornottoaskparticipantsofcommunityworkshopstosignconsent forms, inorder for theresearch


Page31of55

consortiumtobeabletousethedatageneratedwithoutconstraint.Bysome,consentformswereseenasabarrierandperceivedtorepresenttakingfrompeople.

At the Berlin community workshop in July, researchers raised the issue of consent and asked participatingcommunityactorstosignoffondatacollection.Tosomeindividuals,bothontheresearchinstitutionsideaswellasamongactivists,theimpressiongivenwasthatinordertotakepartintheevent,oneneededtosigntheconsent form.Therewasnotenoughtimetoreadandto fullyunderstandthattheformwasonlyabouttheinterviewsgivenbyfew.Theinconveniencecausedtothehostcommunitywasexpressedbytheapologythat"[…]wearenotusedtosuchprocedures",followingtherequestforsignatures.Hence,thelearningisthatwecouldandshouldapplyacademicformality(suchasconsentforms,etc.)carefully,astheypotentiallydomoreharmthangood–especiallyincaseswhenwereachouttoactivistcommunitiestypicallysuspiciousoflarge-scale,institutionalprojects.

Weshouldalsoreflectonwhattypeofinformationisreallyneededforourresearchandwhetherwecandosome compromises like, for example, concerning the visuals to be published on thewebsite,we choose toexcludephotosthatshowclearly identifiable faces,andtopostonlythosethat includepeopleweknowandthus can ask their permissions after the event.Where the pilot projects engagewith their local people andwhere there is general collaboration of effort then it is easier to gather mutual consent to encouragecontributorstomaketheirmaterialspublicbydefaulthoweverrestrictedtheaccessmaybe.Consequently,wemakeahabitofengaging in collectivediscussionaboutwhatamorecollaborativeapproachmight look like,andinidentifyingwhatwedoandwhatkindofdatawecollect,weaimtobereflectivepractitioners.


Page32of55

7.Enrichingtheinterdisciplinaryframework

The previous sections provide a rich set of comparisons betweenpilots, community actors, and researchersinvolved inMAZI.Developingthesecomparisonsbasedonour initial frameworkpresented inD3.2 (Figure1)andD3.5(Figures2,3)wemadetherealizationthatthereisnotaclearseparationbetweentheresearchandcommunityactorsandpilotsareconsideredascompoundelementsinMAZIecosystem.

Forthis,weproposeheretwoenhancementsoftheinterdisciplinaryframework:

• Onetowardsopeningupandinspirationbydeconstructingthepilotentitiesandcomparingthemmorethoroughly

• Onetowardnegotiationandconvergencebyplacingthetoolkitasaboundaryobjectbetweendifferentsubsetsoftheproject’sactors

Theseenhancementswillhelpusmoreclearlyimplementdifferentphasesofcollaborationthatcorrespondtothe “back and forth” around theMAZI toolkit as the boundary object. They also open a newpossibility notconsideredbefore--thepotentialofimaginingdifferentresearchpartnersinteractingwithdifferentcommunityactors-- somesortof “kaleidoscope”phase thatallowsdifferentcombinationsof researchandaction,whichalthoughtherearenoresourcestoimplementinpracticecouldbehelpfulasconceptualexplorations.

InordertoextendtheinterdisciplinaryMAZIframeworkweproposeinthissecondversionofthedeliverabletocreate relational representations of the interdisciplinary activity in the project. For that,wemake analogieswithspatialrepresentations,suchasthenotionof‘frame’inanthropology(e.g.,Sclavi2006)andtheconceptof ‘territoriality’ in human geography (e.g., Delaney 2005), to depict the web that the researchers weavethroughtheiractivity(seeSection7.1.1).Similarly,tocreateanimaginaryforthefourdifferentpilotprojectsweemploythemetaphorsofthe‘seed’,the‘node’,the‘cluster’andthe‘network’(refertoSection6).

Thisrepresentationofrelationshipsmaybeseenasanextensionofthe‘catalogueofquestions’(D3.5,Section2.2), addressed to describe in detail the pilot processes for comparative analyses; at this later stage, thesedescriptions are presented in comparison in the current document (D3.6, Section 3). At the same time, thisextendedversioniswithinthetransdisciplinaryframework,asstatedalsointheIntroduction,theconceptualmomentofrepresentations.Thusinthefollowingsectionswedescribetheframeworkenhancementsinmoredetailaccordingtotwodomains

1. similarities,differencesandtensions,and

2. negotiationandtheMAZItoolkitasaboundaryobject.

In addition we discuss possible improvements for the organization and documentation of future cross-fertilizationevents.Finally,weproposeasetofself-reflectionexercisestoadvanceourcommonunderstandingwhoseresultsandanalysiswillbeincludedinfuturedeliverables.


Page33of55

7.1Exposingsimilarities,differences,andtensions

Figure 11: Each group (e.g. pilots, researchers, activists) in and for itself is far from homogeneous and free of tension but rather anassemblageofdifference,whichissubjecttoconstantnegotiation.TheMAZItoolkitprovidesstructureandvocabularyforthisdiscourse.Figure11depictsthethreeaxesoftheongoingproject“negotiations”,concerningthreeworkingrelationshipsnamelya) layersofnegotiationbetweenproject researchers,b) layersofnegotiationbetweenpilotprojects,andc)synergiesandtensionsbetweenresearchandaction.

Includingtheselayersofnegotiationintheanalysesandproducingself-reflectivesurveystodocumentthemasthey evolve over time, discussing them with MAZI group during the interdisciplinary meetings as well asobservinghowtheymanifestinourcross-fertilizationevents,havethepotentialtoreleasemanyoftheexisting(inherent)tensions,inordertofacilitatethecollaborationsinMAZIonamoretransparentground.

7.1.1 ComparisonsbetweenMAZIresearchersAsfortheanalysesoftheworkingrelationshipsestablishedsofarwithintheprojectteam,westructurethemaround the “frames” (refer to e.g., Sclavi 2006, Forester 2013) within which each member of the groupoperates.Thereisaninstitutionalframethatconstraintstheactionofresearchers,inadditiontothepersonalframethatweallcarryaroundinourprofessionaldealingsandpractice.Thelatteraretobeexploredbymeansof self-reflective answers to questionnaires, in future work. But the institutional frame is developed in thefollowing three subsections. By researchers’ institutional frame we imply here the net of influences thatformal institutions have on their research activity, together with the means of enforcement. These formalinstitutions include professional affiliations, the degree of commitment to the project, the time budgetallocated to the project tasks, the disciplinary frame, of course, and others of this sort. The means ofenforcementoftheseinstitutionsvaryinscalefromthepersonaltotheprojectlevel,whichcoversaspectrumofconstraintsfromtheEUprojectframetothelocal,pilotproject,frame.

In terms of institutional affiliations, the researchers in this project work with universities in four differentcontexts namelyUniversity of Thessaly inVolos, BerlinUniversity of theArts, theOpenUniversity inMiltonKeynesand theNapierUniversity in Edinburgh, aswell aswithanon-profitorganizationNetHood in Zurich.Asidefromthefactthattheresearchersareeachofthematdifferentmomentsalongtheirprofessionalcareerpath,alsotheprojectactivityiscarriedoutonvariousworkcommitments.Thereareresearchersworkingfull-time onMAZI, and others working on a part-time basis; and there are academics who are supporting theresearchwork,butthetimetheyallocatefortheprojectisincludedintheiractivityattheacademicinstitution.

Thesemultipledegreesof commitmentanddependency to theoverall researchproject generatea rangeof‘territorialities’,ifwemayborrowaspatialmetaphorfromhumangeography(referto,e.g.,R.D.Sack1983,D.


Page34of55

Delaney2005,D.Storey2012)thatdescribestheinterrelationsbetweenspace,powerandmeaningaffectingindividuals--researchersinMAZIinourcase--asaninfluence/controlstrategy.

Furthermore, thedisciplinary framevaries aswell, across computer engineering inVolos, design research inBerlin,computerinteractionandsocialsciencesinMiltonKeynes,humaninteractiondesigninEdinburgh,andan interdisciplinary approach (including urban design and network technologies) to participatory designprocessesofDIYnetworking.Inaddition,thedegreeofattachment,totheprojecttopicand/ortoitsappliedversioninthepilotprojects,isvariable.Nevertheless,fromthebriefnotesontherecentresearchpapersofthefourMAZIpilotgroupsthatwehaveincludedinSection4,wementionhereasdisciplinaryperspectivesoftheproject team,a) speculativedesign:participatorycreationanddialogue,b)co-designing (infra-)structures forthegrassroots,c)participatoryactionresearch,andd)interdisciplinarystructuresforinformationsharing.

Thesefourperspectivessketchaspectrumofpractices, inwhichtheresearchers/designers/activistsrelate inslightlydifferentmannerstothereferencecommunity,andthere isalsoavariationofunderstandingsofthedesigner’sroleandimpactonthecommunity,thetypeofengagementofthecommunityinthedesignprocess,theformofengagementoftheresearcherwiththecommunity(forelicitinginformationaboutneeds,etc),theframing of the result of design (addressing needs, providing tools, opening possibilities), the mechanismsavailableforresolvingconflicts,evaluatingtheresults,andmore.

7.1.2 ComparisonsbetweenthecommunityactorsThecomparisonofthedifferencepilotsaboverevealmanysimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthedifferentcontexts,thelocalcommunitiesandtheroleofMAZI.However, little isrevealedabouttheprofileofthekeyactors,MAZIpartnersthatwillberesponsibletodeploydifferentMAZIzonesintheircommunities.

TheNeighbourhood Academy (NAk) is, on the one hand, an extrovert and active group, linkedwithmanydifferent activities, busy receiving guests and answering interviews; on the other, it displays amultitude ofpreferences thatmayoftenprovedifficult to integratewithincollectivedecisionsduetoconflicting interests(e.g., the “garden” versus the “academy”).Moreover,wemay say that they are already “converted” toDIYnetworking,astheyfollowsimilarpracticesindifferentdomainsaswell(e.g.,fromagriculturetoDIYchairsinthegarden),but it isvery likelythattheywouldrequestacertain“quality” level,sincemanydigitally literatepeoplevisitorareactiveinthegarden.Allinall,thisisaverydemanding“productionenvironment”.

SPC’sJamesStevensisapioneerinDIYnetworking,andalsoaprofessionalinthetechnologysector.Bothhispassionandworkevolvearound thecore technologyofMAZI, and the fact thathehas somuchexperiencecouldbebothgoodandbad.Good,becausewe canavoid repeatingmistakesof thepast, andbadbecauserepeatingthemtodaymightleadtoadifferentresult!JamesworkswithpeopleatapersonallevelandtheSPCmedialabtheDeckspace,aplaceforworkshopsandknowledgesharing,ismorelikearetreatplacethanlikeabusypublicsquare.Jamesisagreatnetworkerandverymuchrespectedandtrustedinhiscommunity,whichisagain, a great advantage for MAZI activities, but also a challenge since we will not want to put thetrustworthinessofJamesatriskbecauseofthecontractualobligationsofourproject.

UnliketheNAkandSPC,atpresentKraftwerk1isnotaplacethatvisitorscomeinlargenumbers,astherearemanynewerhousingcooperativeprojectsinZurichthatattractoutsiders’curiosity;butpeopletalkaboutit.Itis a reference point (spatial, social and temporal) for cooperative housing projects, and a precedent to bereferred toasa success storyofanalternativepractice tourbandevelopment; it createdamilestone in thecourse of housing design practices. Although Philipp Klaus (INURA Zurich Institute) is a “member” of theKraftwerk1, --the core element of Zurich’s pilot-- he has not power of decision. Interestingly, he has beenworkinginsidethecooperativesincethebeginning(2001)butbecamealsoaresidentfourandahalfyearsago,placing in two distinct roles inside the cooperative, both worker and resident. Philipp has been for almosttwentyyearsINURA’ssecretary,andINURAisabigpartofhisidentitytryingtobalanceacademia,asalecturerofgeographyatETH/UZH,andaction,inthecooperativemovementandvariousinitiativesinthecity.Hegivesinterviews to national newspapers on developments in the city around urban issues and is one of the“alternative”mainstreamvoicesinZurich.

TheunMonasterygroupisverydiverseitselfandstillfluidinitsmembership;manydifferencesinbackgroundandmentality exist between itsmembers. They have a strong artistic outlook, claiming that their “working


Page35of55

modelofmonasticismprovidesgenerousexamplesofphysicalcleansingrituals,anditremainstogivethemanhonesttrial”but“toprotectourselves[themselves]fromfailurewehavestretchedthetimelineofourlearningperiodover200years”,andalsocriticalattitude,beingreadyto“contradictthepremiseofanytechnologicalfixasaviablemeetingplace”.

Partofourfutureself-reflectionexerciseswillbeexactlytorevealthespecificsofthedifferentactorsintheprojectthatwillhelpustoimplementandanalysetheprocessofnegotiationovertheMAZItoolkit.

7.1.3 TensionsbetweenresearchandactionThe research-action relationship and its associated tensions have been the subject of theory building inplanning for decades (e.g., Friedmann 1987, Forester 1999 etc), and have captured as well preciousdeliberationtimeduringinterdisciplinaryconferences,includingtheINURAconferences.

Planning theorist John Forester, for instance, has explored the nuances of applying theory in practice incomplexplanningprocesses,anddrawsonpracticalwisdominordertobuildtheory.InearlywritingsForester(1997) suggests to move beyond dialogue and use deliberative rituals toward transformative learning. In amore recent article he proposes to adopt an attitude of “critical pragmatism” developed through variouspracticalexperiences; inparticularwenotehere, theargumentofFrankBlechmanofMaryland,whostartedhis career as an advisor to a candidate for office, who observed that long lasting and the most damagingconflicts are rooted in non-negotiable issues like deeply held values, so they would not be resolved bynegotiation. Therefore, Forester argues, “Blechman shows us that a critical pragmatist orientationmight beboth process and outcome oriented: both respectful of parties’ initial “frames” and also respectful of theparties’capacitiestolearnfrom,andabout,eachother,sothattheycanworktoinventcreativenewoptionsfor action,work to produce pragmatic outcomes serving their values and interests, aswell” (Forester 2013,p.14).

Regarding the tensions and requirednegotiationbetween researchandaction, asdocumented in Section6,Marianella Sclavi (2006)proposesa spiral flowofa) active listening,b)emotional self-awareness,which is adialogue between emotions and the waywe deal with them, and c) creative conflictmanagement or, alsocalled, alternative dispute transformation. Building awareness and skills into the elements of this triad isessential to becoming a good listener and communicator, and to establishing common ground and opencommunication.

Activelisteningisanartratherthanscience,implyingtheabilitytochangedeeplyrootedhabitsofperceptionandevaluation,throughhumorandpoetry,consideringthat"thisisaplay"etc.Tobecomeagoodlisteneroneneeds to recognize first the difference between changing a point of view from within an assumed set ofalternativesorthesocalled"frame",andchangingthe"frame"itself,whichallowsthepossibilityofanother'sdifferences.

Thusinactivelisteningtherearetwostagesofchangingthepersonal"frame"inordertoopenupthedialogue.AccordingtoSclavi(2006)ontheonehand,thereisa‘thin’versionthroughempathy,consideringtheotherasbeing right, intelligentorbyat leastassuming thatwhat theothersays ismakingsense.Ontheotherhand,there is a ‘thick’ version through exotopy or extra-locality, requiring a displacement of yourself from theassumedsetofalternatives,fromyour“frame”,inordertobeabletodisplacetheinterlocutorfromhisownframe. This last version implies reciprocal recognition and respect, and a gentle elaboration of the traumainvolved, as there is always some degree of trauma related to conflicts. There is again an art required,nevertheless,mostlywhentherearedisagreements,thatthepartnersengagedindeliberationsshalldevelopindealing lightly,playfullyandcreativelywithdisplacements,whichareat the coreofa self-reflectivepracticeimplyingculturalshocks,cognitivedissonancesand"plaininterestconflicts"orpowerrelationships.

7.2NegotiationandMAZItoolkitasaboundaryobjectTheMAZItoolkitisconceptualizedastheproject’s“boundaryobject.”Thuswecouldimaginethespeculativedesign of theMAZI toolkit taking place betweenmany different groups such as a) between researchers, b)betweencommunityactors,andc)researchersandcommunityactors, insideeachpilotord)acrossallpilots


Page36of55

(see Figure 13), the latter being theoriginal plan in theproject:MAZI toolkit, as a “single” boundaryobjectbetweenallprojectmembers.

Figure12:MAZIToolkitactsasaboundaryobjectsacrossseverallayersofdifferences:Betweentheresearchinstitutionandthecommunityactorswithineachofthepilots,withinthediversegroupofresearchers(comingfromdifferentdisciplinaryandinstitutionalbackgrounds)aswellasinbetweentheactorsoftheconsortiumasawhole.Beforetakingupthiscomplextaskofnegotiation,weproposetomakefirstattemptsinsmallergroups,thatisthe individual pilots, which all work with a specific “disciplinary” perspective on participatory design to beapplied in very different environments. Thus, the proposed strategy is to place MAZI toolkit as a “local”boundaryobjectbetweentheseactorsineverypilot,andassignasfirsttaskofworkingtogetheronproposingaspeculativedescriptionofthetoolkit,includingtheformthatthisdescriptionshouldtaketoservebetterasaboundary object, but also an analysis of the negotiation process toward a commonly agreed outcome. Theresultsandanalysisoftheseexerciseswillbeincludedinthefollowingdeliverables.


Page37of55

SELF-REFLECTIONEXERCISE1:

Everypilotcoupleshouldnegotiateonaspeculativedescriptionofthemazitoolkitasaboundaryobjectandreflectontheprocessofconvergencetothiscommonlyagreedoutcome(seefigure13,c)

Somepossibleelementsthatcouldbepartofthedescriptionincludethefollowing:

a) Introductionandoverviewb) Structureofthetoolkitc) Guidelinesandscenariosd) Customizationoptionsforspecificapplicationse) Physicalrepresentationsf) Additionalphysical/hybridelementsg) Powersupplyh) Warningsi) other?

Note that thedescriptionof the toolkitdoesnotneed tobeexhaustive,but includemanyavarietypossibleelementsindifferentdimensions,fromtheverygeneric(likethewelcomemessage)totheverydetailed(likeasmallwarningintheguidelinesforthedeploymentofthetoolkitinaspecificscenario),fromtexttoimagesorevendescriptionofphysicalobjects(likecards),fromexpertuserstonovice.

7.3Organizationanddocumentationofcross-fertilizationevents

Documenting the interactions that took place during an event is one of the most challenging tasks, andespeciallywhenthese interactionsdonothappenatthe“mainstage”.Ourfirstexperiences, inBerlinandattheINURAconferenceinRomania,madeclearthatweneedtodeviseamoresystematicwaytocaptureourimpressionsduringthevariousupcomingcross-fertilizationevents.

We should also trigger reflection at later stages, when things have settled and surface themost importantmomentsandlessonslearned.Forthis,thenextself-reflectiondeliverableD3.11willincludealsotheresultsofa simple questionnaire to be answered by all partners that participated in the first two cross-fertilizationevents.ThisfeedbackwillthenhelpustoorganizeanddocumentthetwoimportantupcomingsummereventsinLondonandVolos:

SELF-REFLECTIONEXERCISE2:

Reflectontheinteractionsinpastmazicross-fertilization

Eventsandidentifyimportantmomentsandlessonslearnedregardingregarding

a) Yourunderstandingofotherpartnersb) Yourroleintheprojectc) Therelationshipbetweenresearchandactiond) Thedesignofyourownpilote) IdeasfortheMAZItoolkitingeneral


Page38of55

8Summaryandfuturesteps

We have analyzed the content produced during the first year of the project in accordance to the originalinterdisciplinary framework introduced in Deliverables 3.1 and 3.5. Out of this analysis, a wide variety ofsimilaritiesanddifferencesemergedwhichmotivatedustoenhanceourframeworktowardtwodirections:onetowardsopeningupandinspiration,bydeconstructingthepilotentitiesandcomparingthemmorethoroughly,and anotherone towardnegotiation and convergence, byplacing the toolkit as a boundaryobject betweendifferentsubsetsoftheproject’sactors.

Based on these enhancements, we identified a set of “self-reflection” exercises that will help us betterunderstandthedifferentperspectivesoftheprojectpartners,aswellastoinnovateinthewayswecollaboratearoundtheproject’sboundaryobject, theMAZI toolkit.Theoutcomeof theseexerciseswillbedocumentedandfurtherrefinedinDeliverable3.11(self-reflection).

Ingeneral,themoreweadvanceintheproject,thecleareritbecomesthattheinterdisciplinaryframework,theevaluationofthepilots,andtheself-reflectionareallstronglyconnectedandtosomeextentoverlappingtasks.For this, itwill forexamplehappenthatsomematerial reported inonedeliverableof the framework threadcouldalsofittheevaluationorself-reflectionthread.Inthiscasewewouldn’trepeatthesamematerialinits“rightful”deliverablebuttaketheopportunitytoextenditandreportontheprogressmadeinthemeantime.Thiswillallowustoprogressfasterandperformmoreiterationsonthemostimportanttasks.

Asafinalremark,theinterdisciplinaryframeworkintroducedinDeliverables3.2and3.5,andrefinedherewillbeinevitablyfurtherimprovedasweprogresswiththedevelopmentoftheMAZItoolkitandrealdeploymentsinthepilotareasofinterest.Oneofthemaincharacteristicsofinterdisciplinaryandtransdisciplinaryresearchis that it is highly context-specific (Hadorn et al, 2008; Frodeman et al, 2010), and thus the correspondingframeworksneed tobe flexible, inorder toaccommodate theevolutionof the sharedunderstandingof thecommon tasks and objectives, aswell as the corresponding roles and characteristics of the different actorswithinMAZI.


Page39of55

References

Delaney,David.2005.Territory:AShortIntroduction.Malden,MA:Blackwell.

Forester, John. 2013. "On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creativenegotiations".PlanningTheory12(1):5-22.

Forester,John(ed)2008.Interface:PracticeChallengingTheoryinCommunityPlanning.inPlanningTheoryandPractice,9(1):99-128.

Forester, John.1999.TheDeliberativePractitioner: EncouragingParticipatoryPlanningProcesses.CambridgeMA:TheMITPress.

Forester, John. 1997. “Beyond Dialogue to Transformative Learning: How Deliberative Rituals EncouragePolitical Judgment in Community Planning Processes”. (Chapter) in Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, CosimoLacirignola(eds)EvaluatingTheory-PracticeandUrbanRuralInterplayinPlanning.Vol37(GeoJournalLibrary).Springer.pp81-103.

Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: from Knowledge to Action. Princeton NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.

Frodeman,R.etal.(eds.).(2010).TheOxfordHandbookofInterdisciplinarity.OxfordUniversityPress.

Hadorn,H.etal.(eds.).(2008).HandbookofTransdisciplinaryResearch.Springer.

Holliman, R., and colleagues. 2017, in press. Planning for engaged research: a collaborative ‘Labcast’. In:Kucirkova,N.andQuinlan,O.(eds.)Thedigitallyagileresearcher.OpenUniversityPress,Maidenhead.

Holliman R., and colleagues. 2013. An engaging thesis. National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement(NCCPE) blog. Available online (checked in December 2016):https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/blog/engaging-thesis

Mazé,Ramia. (2013).Who is sustainable?Querying thepoliticsof sustainabledesignpractice. InR.Mazé, L.Olausson,M. Plöjel, J. Redström& C. Zetterlund (Eds.), Share this book. Critical perspectives and dialoguesaboutdesignandsustainability(pp.83-122).Stockholm:AxlBooks.

Sack, Robert D. 1983. Human Territoriality: A Theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers73(1):55-74.

Sclavi, Marianella. 2006. The Place of Creative Conflict Management in Intercultural Communications.Conference on Deliberative Democracy: New Directions in Public Policy Dispute Resolution, CambridgeMAJune28-30.

Storey,David.2012.Territories:TheClaimingofSpace.(2nded).London:Routledge.


Page40of55

APPENDIXA-Berlinworkshop

In this Appendix, we include additional descriptions to what is included in D2.1, which can shed someadditional light to the various interactions thatMAZI partners participated andhelp us reflect on additionallessonslearned,detachedfromthe“eventaction”.

Thedaywasdividedintothreeblocks:

1. Semi-publicworkingsessionintheformofthreeroundtablesregarding:a. Ownership,Privatizationandself-organizationinurbanandtechnologicalspacesTopicsdiscussed:

i. Nodeautonomy:Howareyouresponsibleforanodeinacommonsystem?Isitoktokicksomeoneout(policing)?Righttodifference…

ii. Privarevs.curare(lat:tocare):Private(personallimits,space)vs.Privatization(tosteal,tomakeprofitfromsomeoneelse‘swork)

iii. Commoning:Howdowebuildframeworksforsharing?iv. Incollectivelyran&developednetworks,whoownstech,resources,knowledge,

dissemination,…v. Negotiationoflimits&levelsofparticipationvi. Private/Common:AquestionofSecurity&Heritage

b. Publics,CreativePracticeandTechnologyQuestionsdiscussed:

i. Authorship/Ownership:Howdowecontinuouslyquestionourrolesproductively?ii. Authorshipvs.“makingapoint”whenworkingincollectivestructuresiii. Howdowereachpublics,whatdopublicsneedtoexpresstheirpoints?iv. Mediatingpeopleandneedsthroughtools:Whataretoolsyoucantrust?


Page41of55

c. Inclusion,Exclusion,Enablement

Topicsdiscussed:i. Powerrelationships:Roleofthe“designer”;whocontrols/ownssystems?Howdowe

makesuretohaveconsideredhow“others”areaffectedbythedesignofthesystem?ii. Conceptsofliteracy:Howmuchliteracyisnecessaryinordertodecidewhethertobe

includedornot?iii. Scalesofcontrol/Differentlevelsofexclusionandinclusion:Whatarethedifferent

dimensionsofstakeholders?Howmuchdoesonewant/needtobeincluded?iv. Howcantheconceptofthecommonsbeadaptedfordigital/hybridsystems?v. Howcanwemakesuretoprovideenougheducation/literacyforotherstobeinvolved?vi. “Howdowetellafishitlivesinthewater?”

Naturally,noneofthesequestionscouldhavebeenfullyandsatisfactoryanswered.ButboththecollectionofissuesworthnotingandtheirdiscussiontogetherwithimportantstakeholdersoftheBerlinpilotcontext,wasahighly valuable exercise for the pilot team aswell as the project consortium at large: The grounding in thecommunity‘spragmaticrealitiesisoneofthecoreprerequisitestocreateDIYnetworkingstructuresthatwillweadaptedandusedbythoseforwhomtheyaredesignedfor.

2. Threepaneldiscussionswithrepresentativesofeachoftheroundtablesandanopenaudience:a. DigitalCommons+InterdisciplinaryReflection


Page42of55

b. CivilSocietyandITCs+InterdisciplinaryReflectionc. Empowerment,LiteracyandInclusion+InterdisciplinaryReflection

3. ThepresentationoftheMAZI/Berlinprototype,itsinitialdeploymentsforthefirstinterviews,apublicdemonstrationandapublicdiscussion

Figure13:AsceneofthepublicpresentationofMAZIaspartoftheeventonJuly15th2016

Having had the opportunity to confront a vast number of very diverse people with our ideas, concepts andprocesses,butalsotheprototypesconcretely,wewereabletodrawanumberofconclusionsthatwillenableustoenterthenextphaseofdevelopmentbasedonveryvaluablelearningsandexperiences.Examplesinclude:

• TrustBuildingbetweencommunitiesandEU-partners:o MAZIasaprojectanditsmembersasaconsortiumgainedtrustinthecommunityandsceptical

positionstowardstheproject(institutional,bigpublicmoney,disseminationof initiative‘ssocialandpoliticalcapital)lostsomedistance.

○ Consortiummemberswent frombeingabstractnames to “real”people; relationships to actorswithintheBerlincommunitywereestablished.

○ The audience‘s need to receive information/knowledge about technological aspects was notcatered appropriately. This happened predominantly out of a biased view on visitors, as “notbeing interested” in technical details (wrongful dichotomy of “technologists” and “non-technologists”).

• Presentationoftheprototypetothepublico Thepresentationoftheprototypewaswellreceivedandrespondedwithinteresttouseitand/or

collaborateanddiscussindifferentcontexts.Forexample,wereceivedtheinvitationtopresenttheprojectattheMetrozonesCamp,aneventmostinterestingforMAZI,asitiscontextualizedatthefringesofacademiaandurbanactivisminGermany.

o Theeventbroughtuponinterestofdifferentnetworksandpublicitychannels.Asanexample,thenationalnewschannelSWRcoveredtheeventandconductedinterviewsoverthecourseoftwodaysinpreparationofastoryyettobepublished.

o Thepresentationfurthermoreconnecteddifferentactorsfromrelevantfields.Especiallythroughthe round-table format during the first part of the event, and positioned the NAk within thediscussionaboutDIYNetworksandAlternativeTechnologyDevelopmentinBerlinandbeyond.

• Testoftheprototypeo Consideringtheearlystageintheproject,theprototypefunctionedpleasinglywellandwaswell-

received.Therecorder-applicationfunctionedflawlessly,asdidtheautomaticuploadfunctionto


Page43of55

thearchive.Someminor issues (e.g.upside-downdisplayof images)weredetectedandwillbeworked on as a next step. The access to the archive-application through theWi-Fi was rathertroublesomeforsomeinexperiencedusersandwillpresentuswithoneofthebiggestchallengesforthefuture.Wetestedthetoolonmanydifferentlevels:Theinterviewsituation,theeditingofcontributions, the navigation within the interface, the interaction with the offline-network assuch,etc.Thus,thisfirstdeploymentprovideduswitharichpoolofknowledgetocontinuethefurtherdevelopment.


Page44of55

APPENDIXB-MAZIattheINURAconference

Context

TheannualINURAconferenceisaveryspecialandintenseeventorganizedeveryyearinadifferentcity,andisdividedintwoparts.

First,the"city"partinwhichthelocalorganizer,typicallyagroup,triestoachieveadoubleobjective

1. to introduce participants to the historic, socioeconomic, political, and planning situation of the city,includingvisitsanddiscussionswithlocalgrassrootsinitiatives,andtheirstruggles.

2. topromotetheorganisers’ownlocalagenda,getexposurethroughthereputationofINURAorganizingforexample public events, mostly panel discussions, for which the context of the conference can havesupportingandamplifyingeffects.

Followingthecitypartoftheannualconference,INURAmembersgetawayfromthecitytotheretreat,usuallyorganisedinaremotelocationinthecountrytodiscusswhattheylearnedduringthecitypart,devisewaystocontributetothelocalcauses,e.g.,bydraftingsupportlettersororganizingspecializedworkinggroups,aswellas to inform each other about the situation in their own cities, allowing for mutual learning, interestingcomparisonsandamoreholisticunderstandingofurbanissuesanddevelopmentsaroundtheworld.

Theatmosphereisatthesametimeintense,sincetherearereallymanythingstodiscuss in in just2-3days.Decidingonthescheduleatthebeginningoftheretreat isaparticipatoryprocesswhich isquiteuniqueandoftentakesuptotwoorevenmorehours.Dependingontheweatherquitesometimeisspentoutside inarelaxedambienceandoftenlargecirclesfordiscussionareformedinthemostunexpectedplaces.

Thefactthatthisexperience,7-9daysintotal,takesplaceeveryyearforthelast26yearshascreatedaverystrongcommunitywithlifetimefriendships.Formany“Inurians”,thefirstpeopletheycontactwhenvisitinganewcityarelocalINURAmemberswhoveryoftenofferaccommodationandprivatefieldtrips(theINURAwebsiteofferstheoptiontosearchforINURAmemberspercityandmanyarecontactedevenwithouthavingmetbefore).

This long-termprocess isvery important,orbetternecessary, tocreateasenseofcontinuityandacommonlanguage,requiredforsuchadiversegroupofpeoplefromsuchdifferentgeographic,culturalandprofessionalbackgroundstomakesenseofwhateachotherisreallysayingandtobuildthenecessarytrust.

INURAplaysakeyroleinMAZI,sincetheKraftwerk1pilotisrunbyPhilippKlaus(INURAZurichInstitute),thenetwork'scommittedsecretarysince1998,andPanayotisAntoniadis&IleanaApostol(NetHood),bothINURAmembers since 2013 andmembers of the organizing committees of the Athens conference (2015) and theBucharestconference(2016)respectively.

TheINURAnetworkis importantforMAZIalsobecauseof itsmainprinciplesandtacticsforthe"righttothecity"thathasmanysimilaritiesbetweentheroleofDIYnetworkinginenablingcitizenstoclaimtheir"righttotheInternet".ThefactthatthemajorityoftheINURAnetworkwithitsurbanresearchandactioncommunitiesis not very conscious about the similarities and possible synergies between these two domains of struggle,makesthestoryofMAZIausefuladditiontotheINURAresearchandactionagenda.

At thesametime,MAZI isalsousefulbecause,beingaCAPS-project, itexemplifiesapossible framework forbridgingresearchandactioninamorefairandproductiveway.

DespiteINURA'sstrongconvictiononsupportingactivistgroupsandincludingtheminthenetwork'sprocessesanddiscussions,thishasbeenprovenverydifficultinthecaseofitscoreelement,theINURAconference.Thereasonsaremostlypractical,sincemanyactiviststhatarenotatthesameemployedresearchershavedifficultytraveling around the world. This remains a big challenge today, even if there aremanymeasures taken tosubsidizeactivists,throughreducedregistrationfees,andadedicatedfund,theINURAconferencefund.


Page45of55

Inthisyear'sconferenceinBucharest,MAZIbroughttoBucharestaninterestingtechnologythatcanplayakeyrole in theextensionof theconceptof theright tothecity tothe"right tothehybridcity".The ideawastointroduceDIYnetworkingtechnologyasaverypowerfultoolforurbanactivism.

But it also broughtwith it an extended group of non-academic activists, both regular INURAmembers andnewcomers, someof thempartofMAZIs’ consortium,andothersas invited speakers for the twoscheduledworkshops.

Inthefollowing,wesummarizesomeimportantmomentsduringthissignificant"contact"betweenMAZIandtheINURAnetwork,whichprovideveryusefulinsightsonthedesignandpresentationoftheMAZItoolkitandhelpedtheenvisionedcross-fertilizationprocessbetweenpilots.

At this stage, thedescription is ratherdetailedand"raw" inaneffort toavoid losing information that couldprovevaluablelater,asweadvancewithourinterdisciplinaryframeworkandself-reflectionexercise.SomeoftheseexperienceswillalsoformthebasisforthetoolkitguidelinestobeincludedinDeliverable1.2.

MAZIworkshop,Bucharest

Before the official start of the INURA conference city part,MAZI organized aworkshop to introduce to theINURA network the project objectives and methodology, but also the activists that managed to join theconferencethroughthesupportofMAZI.Alltogetheraround35personsattendedtheworkshop,7fromtheMAZIconsortium.

Theformatwasverysimple:

An introduction to MAZI and the three of its pilots with presentations from the activist groups, commongrounds,INURAZurichInstitute,andunMonastery.(JamesStevenspresentedtheDeptfordpilotatthesecondMAZIworkshopduringtheINURAretreat).

Theworkshopstartedwithacollectivelunch[figure]andwewerehappytowelcomearound30people,agoodmixofoldmembersandnewcomers.Theintroductiontotheprojecttookplaceattherestaurantsincemanypeoplearrivedlateandwewantedtosavetime.

AfirstdemoofMAZIzone

PanayotisdecidedtointroducetheprojectthewayINURApeopleappreciatethemost:throughaction.Hehadalreadyset-uphisRaspberryPiin"dualmode",offeringbothlocalservicesandaccesstotheinternetthroughhissmartphone,inhotspotmode.

Itwasa"friendly"dualmodeinthesensethattherewasnoredirectionandpeoplecouldvisittheMAZIzonebytypingontheirbrowsers:http://mazi.zone.ThefirstpeoplethatarrivedattherestaurantwereveryhappytousePanayotis’Internetconnectionandmanypeopledidvisitthelocalservicesandwereaskingquestionsonthefunctionality.Thefirstbugofoneofthetoolkit'sapplicationsquicklyappeared:Whenowncloudwasusedwithaniphonealluploadedphotoswerenamedas"image.jpg"andinsomesmallphonespeoplecouldn'tseethebutton"Continue"inthewindowaskingtoreplaceornottheexistingphotoswiththesamename...andsotheygotstuck.

Butmore people started arriving, all from the airportwithout having figured out how to connect online inRomania.PanayotiswasveryconfidentthatMAZIwillmakeagreatfirstimpressionprovidingaMAZIzonethatreallymakessense.


Page46of55

Figure14:TheaudienceduringtheintroductiontoMAZIattherestaurant

Thefirstcriticalquestionwasquicklyraised:doyoutrytosellussomething?Itlooksbeautiful.

Panayotis answered that he also likes the Raspberry Pi, but unlike other commercial products it is an openplatformandnotaclosedtechnology.Hewantsto"sellit"butnotforhisownprofit,forthecommongood.

Inthemeantimethosethatarrivedfinishedlunchandtriedtoconnect."Itdoesn'twork!"someoneshouted.Ofcourse,Deliverable1.1makesclearthatthereisalimitofconcurrentusersthatconnecttoaRaspberryPi,but after Panayotis had increased their expectations people seemed a little underwhelmed, always with aplayfulattitudeand thealwayscriticalbut trustful INURA'swayofbeing together.A technicalperson in thegroup approached Panayotis to say that the problemwas from DCHP and he could enter if he fixed an IPaddress,butitwastoolate.Wethenmovedtotheworkshop'svenuewhichwaspackedsincesomeadditionalpeoplejoinedinthemeantime.

IntroducingMAZItotheINURApeople

TheMAZIpilotswerepresentedbyPhilippKlaus(Kraftwerk1),Anna&Andreas(Neighbourhoodacademy),andJeff & Lauren (unMonastery). Panos presented shortly the Creeknet pilot excusing James Stevens whowasorganizingatthesametimeabigfestivalinDeptford.

Figure15:PhilippKlauspresenringtheKraftwerk1pilotstudyduringtheMAZIworkshop


Page47of55

ItwasthefirsttimethattheMAZIpilotswerepresentedtogetherinsuchadiverseaudience.Hereisimportanttonotethat,becauseofitslonghistoryofcommonaction,theINURAnetworkexhibitsremarkablesolidarity,and the fact that Philipp Klauswas in our groupwas enough for everyone to listen very carefully. It is verydifficulttofindanaudiencesotrulyengagedandatthesame"non-expert",socriticalandatthesametimefullofsolidarityandtrust.

Interestingquestionsthatwereraisedduringthepilotpresentationincluded:

• The difficulties of knowledge transfer (e.g., for the Kraftwerk1 case study) between different social,cultural,andpoliticalenvironments,atopicthatisraisedrepeatedlyinINURAconferences,andcommoncomparative projects of INURA members such as the New Metropolitan Mainstream project(http://www.inura.org/v2/index.php/activities/nmm-project/),

• Howtheknowledgebroughtbyoutsiders, liketheunmonasterygroup,canstay inthecommunitywhentheactivistsleave.

• In what ways the attachment (literally) of digital information to a physical space, such as thePrinzessinnengarteninBerlin,canfacilitateknowledgesharing?

• WhetherICTtechnologyisenoughtoengagepeopleincommonpoliticalaction.Allveryimportantquestionsthatwewilltrytoaddressinthecourseoftheproject.Beforemovingtothenextpartof theworkshop,and listen towhatourguestactivistshad tosayabout the lastquestion,we took theopportunity to explain a littlemore thedifferent prototypes thatwebroughtwith us, nowdisplayed in themiddle of the room.All in all four Raspberry Pis andUdK’sHybrid Letterbox, each hosting a differentMAZIZone.

Figure16:ThedifferentMAZIzonesavailableduringtheMAZIworkshop

MAZIguests:differentformsofurbanactivism

The secondpart of theworkshopwasdevoted topresentationof ourdistinguishedguests, activists all overEurope, all with a different approach andwith different potential needs that technology and especially theMAZI toolkit could help to address or on the other hand, different tactics andmethodologies for engagingcitizens,approachingmedia,etc,fromwhichMAZIcanreceiveinspiration.

IvaCukic&KsenjaRadovanovicrepresentedtheurbanactivistgroup"MinistryofSpace"based inBelgrade,theorganizeroftheINURAconference2014,oneofthesuccessstoriesofthepresenceoftheINURAnetworkinacity.Morespecifically,INURAprovidedaveryeffectivecontext.ItalsoofferedcredibilityfortheMinistryofSpacetoorganizeapublicconferenceandtoinformcitizensabouttheforthcomingmega-project“BelgradeontheWater”,forwhichtherewasnopublicconsultationuntilthen,followedbyan"openlettertothepeopleofbelgrade", https://euroalter.com/2014/open-letter-to-the-people-of-belgrade, that has been shared widelyand has helped the ministry of space to gain more and more followers for building a widespread urban


Page48of55

movement,NeDa(vi)moBeograd(Don'tLetBelgradeD(r)own),https://nedavimobeograd.wordpress.com/.Ithasmanaged repeatedly tobring tensof thousandsofpeople in the street to takepart inorganizedplayfulurbanactions,andcoordinatethecitizensofBelgradeindemandingtransparency,legality,andparticipationinsuch important decisions that will affect severely the future of the city.https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/dec/10/belgrade-waterfront-gulf-petrodollars-exclusive-waterside-development. In their talk, Iva& Ksenja gave an update on the recent developments since the last INURAconference in Athens 2015 and showed us a short video of the latest demonstration with over 20’000participants: “Who's city? Our city!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbhcvqSFxjk. The type of activismthatMinistryofSpacehasexcelledin,isaboutbringingcollectiveawarenessonwhatishappeningbehindthescenes,againsttheinterestsofcitizens,andmobilizingtheminclaimingtheir“righttothecity”.Forthis,alargepartoftheunderlyingworkisaboutcommunicationanditisnotacoincidencethatanactivistoftheMinistryofSpacegroupwasarrestedforhandingoutflyerswithinformationabouttheBelgradeonWaterproject.

Figure17:ApanoramicviewoftheaudienceattheMAZIworkshop

AsanexampleonhowMAZItoolkitcouldsupportcommunicationinamovement,Panosdrewtheattentionofthe workshop participants to one of the MAZI zones with a more playful one that announced a"ministry_of_space_free_Internet", SSID, promising free access to the Internet but in reality directed theconnected users to a captive portal describing the goals of the Ne Da(vi)mo Beograd movements. Iva andKsenjalikedtheideabutdidn’tfeelcomfortablewiththetechnology.(OnemonthlaterPanayotiswasvisitingBelgradetoshowthemhowtouseaMAZIZonetoinformcitizensabouttheircampaigns)

ThenextactivisttopresenthisexperienceswasTomislavTomasevic,whohasadiverseprofileincludingbothinformalandformal formsofactivism. Inhis talkhefocusedonthe informalurbanstruggles fortransparentanddemocraticprocesseshewasinvolvedininthecityofZagreb,andelsewhereinCroatia,whichweresimilarin spirit, both playful and effective, with those led by theMinistry of Space. For example, peaceful sittingblockades to prevent demolitions, symbolic urban interventions, coordinating hundreds of people tocontinuouslywalkthroughapedestrianpassagetoblockofficialstoreachavenuewherepredefineddecisionswouldbe takenagainst thewillof thecitizens.Tomislav focusedmoreon technologyandexplained inwhatwayshewouldimaginethatMAZIcouldsupportthistypeofurbanactivism.

It was interesting to learn that one of the most pressing needs for such action is private communicationbetweenactivistsforcoordinationpurposes,butalsoinformingthepublicabout“whatisgoingon?”,and“howcantheyhelp?”.Forthefirstneed,theMAZItoolkitcannotreallyhelp,atleastnotatthisstage,sincesecurewireless communications are not easy to guarantee and coordination often requires long-distancecommunicationforwhichaMAZIzonemightnotbethebestoption.But forthe latter,as inthecaseof theMinistry of Space, a MAZI zone would be the ideal way to inform people on the background of an urbanintervention,andwaystocontributetoitscause.

ThomasRaosetarepresentingNeNa1cooperativeand5im5ineighbourhoodassociationfromZurichprovidedanexampleofalessdirect,butequallypowerfulformofactivism:thecreationofcrediblealternativesforlivingandworking together, but alsoeating together ashe stressed.Heexplained the realistic utopia thatNeNa1wants to build inspired by previous “young” cooperative housing projects like Kraftwerk1, Kalkbreite, andmore, and how it advances toward its realization step by step, through its monthly gatherings (see alsohttp://o500.org/pechakucha.html).Healsoexplained theplanofNeNa1 tobuild anewcooperativehousingcomplex inacentralneighbourhoodinZurichandcreatelinkswithfourexistingneighbourhoodsinthearea,Zurich’sdistrict5.Fromthese5neighbourhoodsindistrict5comesthenameoftheneighbourhoodassociation5im5iagainstgentrification,whichasheexplainedisnotaboutrichpeoplebeingmeanoraboutsquaremetersperpersonbutaboutmorepeoplelivingintheneighbourhood.


Page49of55

Constantina Theodorou followed to introduce the collaboration ofMAZI with her activist group in Athens,recentlycalledCo-Hab<http://cohabathens.com/>,givingalsoanoverviewofdifferentactions in thecityofAthens,likesquats,ofanabandonedcafetoaself-organizedspaceforhostingartisticandpoliticalevents.Sheexplainedhowhergroupwasfightedmorebypeoplefromthesomehow“sameside”whofoundtheirprojectnot“radicalenough”,demonstratingthedifficultyformakingcompromisesinordertoachieveacommongoal.This will be a challenge in the knowledge transfer between the cooperative housing projects in Zurich andAthens, and Contantina invited everyone to join at the Greek Pavillion of the Venice Architecture Biennalewhere this collaboration was officially initiated a few months afterwards.http://thisisaco-op.gr/en/events-press/events/34-co-housing-practices-inventing-prototypes-for-athens-26-28-30-october-venice.html

VesnaTomse,comingalsofromZurich,anINURAmember,presentedherworkoninformalandtemporaryusespaces,cooperativehousingprojects likeKalkbreite, localmobilizationfortherighttothecity,andendedupwithhermostrecentproject,atemporaryspace,agardensimilartoPrinzessinnengarteninBerlin,situatedintheperipheryof thecity, calledWunderkammer.Thenamerefers to the“cabinetofcuriosities”of the15thcentury, and the project aims to bring together forward-looking science and arts, interacting andcomplementingwith each other, from compost toiletswith solidwaste transformed to coal at the pyrolysestation,tolightinstallationsandartsculptures,andwhynot,MAZIzones,withantennasmountedonthetrees.Vesna mentioned more needs in terms of communication and expressed the desire to replace dominantplatformslikegoogledocsandgooglemapswithetherpadandOpenStreetMap,replacesocialmediawithalocalcommunitynetworking,evenaccounting,archivesandmore.PanayotiscommentedthatDIYnetworkingcannotdomiraclesandwecannotreallyreplacetheInternetwith it.ButmanyofVesna’saspirationsabouthow MAZI could help her innovative project are credible and MAZI will surely have a presence in theWunderkammerinthecomingmonths.

TheperspectiveofalternativemediawasrepresentedintheMAZIworkshopbyGintarėMatulaitytė,aneditorwith the Locomotive Press in Vilnius, Lithuania, http://www.locomotive.press/. Gintarė presented herjournalisticworkthatstartedat"EchoGoneWrong"andcurrentlyat"LocomotivePress",whichisnotonlyanewplatformforcriticalandcreativevoices,butalsosomethingqualitativelynewintheLithuaniancontext.Itoffersastageforthevoicesthatarenotheardinthemainstreammediatomanifestinvariousways,andthusbecomesanecessarycomplementaryformofpress inademocraticsociety.Shegaveexamplesofpublishingalongwithinrelatednarrativesofhandsketches,whichrepresentscenesataVilniusDistrictCourthearingindefenceofacauseofpublicinterest.Byrevealingwhatisnotrepresentedtodayinthemainstreammedia,thejournalistsintend,ontheonehand,toaffirmthesocietaldiversity,includingsmallormarginalizedinitiatives,actionsandcultures.Ontheotherhand,theywanttoexercisetheircitizenrighttoexpresspubliclyamultitudeof views, which will have an expected positive effect against the homogenization of information andcommunicationthatsocietiesfacetoday.

Brett Scott brought another different perspective on activism presenting his work on deconstructing thecomplexworldoffinance,whenheworkedinahedgefundtounderstandbetterthepeoplethatarebehindtheseinstitutionsandbringtolightsomeofthehiddenaspectsofthisindustrypointingtoadifferentformofactivism:thisofcreatingtransparency,educatingthepublicon“howthingswork”,anddrawingtheattentionto importantdevelopments, suchas the“waroncash”. In this sense,Brett isnot the typeofactivistwhosework can be supported by a technology like the MAZI toolkit, but he can contribute in making suchtechnologiesbetterunderstoodbythewiderpublic,ashedid in thepast for thecaseof finance,alternativecurrencies,andblockchaintechnologies.

Thediscussion inspiredoneof the INURAmembers,OrhanEsse,whoasked togivealsoapresentationofaveryinterestingprojectimaginingthecityofIstanbulasan“openmuseum”anditcouldbeindeedMAZIZonesthatadda“digitallayer”tothedifferent“exhibits”spreadalloverthecity.

Itwasanintenseandlongafternoonwithalotof“foodforthought”andthuswedecidedtogoearliertothedinner venue anddiscuss there in smaller groups.However,more Inurians started to arrive and itwas verydifficulttocontroltheenthusiasmofseeingoldfriendsandcatchingupwithhappeningsincitiesallovertheworld,sowedecidedtopostponethewrapping-upoftheworkshopforthe INURAretreat,whentherestoftheMAZIcrewwillhavealsojoined.Everyonewasveryhappyandpeoplethankedusforourflexibility.


Page50of55

Asa final remark, thereasonwedescribe indetailall thesecontributions is that theyprovideaverydiverseviewonthetacticsandneedsofurbanactivism,whichprovidesinspirationforthedevelopmentoftheMAZItoolkitbutalsoactsasasortoftriangulatorforfacilitatingcross-fertilizationbetweenpilots.

Figure18:TheINURAPublicPanel,“Cooperationforbetterurbanpolicies”,onbridginggrassrootscallsforactionwithpolicymakingandgovernance with Giovanni Allegretti, Irina Zamfirescu, Louanne Tranchell, Marco Clausen, Oana Preda, Richard Wolff, Sorin Cucerai,TomislavTomasevic,andmoderatedbyIleanaApostol(NetHood)After a very intense city conference, includinga very successpublicpanelon “Cooperation forbetterurbanpolicies” moderated by Ileana Apostol (see Figure 5), the INURA group arrived at Sibiel for the so-called“retreat”, after a short visit at the closeby cityof Sibiu,wherewehad the traditional roundof impressionsfromthecitypart(seeFigure12),atthecourtyardoftheSibiu’sRomanianChamberofArchitects(OAR)and,closebytook,agroupphotofeaturingmanyMAZIpartnersandguests.

Figure19:TheINURAgroupduringtheretreat

MAZIpresentationattheretreatplenary

Theretreatwasequallyintenseandwewereluckytobeabletoreserveaslotinoneoftheoutdoorplenarysessions,since it isalwaysdifficulttohaveallthevoicesheardattheINURAplenarysessions,areasonswhytheagendasettingsessionatthebeginningtakesoftenverylongtime.


Page51of55

Figure20:MAZIplenarypresentationattheINURAretreat

Forthis,wehadaveryshorttimetopresent,15min,andwechosetogiveafewminutestoeveryMAZIpartnerto say a few words about their motivation and role to be part of the project. A short discussion on thedifficultiestocombineresearchandaction inthecontextofaEUfundedproject,butalsothe importancetotakethechallengefollowed.

Marcomentioned that in suchprojects sometimesacademics “appropriate” theworkof theactivists,whichraised an interesting discussion afterwards with Andreas from UdK and whether there is evidence of thisphenomenoninthecaseofMAZI(seealsothedescriptionofthis“tension”below)

Alittle laterPhilipppresentedalsoinmoredetailthe INURAcoopinitiative,whichaimsatbringingtogetherexperiencesoncooperativehousingandotherformsofcooperativesfromasmanycitiesaspossible.TherearecitiesandINURAmemberswitharichexperienceinsettingupandbeingpartofexperimentalandfunctioningcooperatives. The INURA coop initiative enhances knowledge transfer on all levels of organisation andrealisationofcooperativebuilding,constructionandsocial lifeastostabilisestructure involatileorrundownrealestatemarkets.

During theconference Iwascarrying the "friendly"versionwithme,andmanypeoplewereconnectingandapproachingme forquestions.And sometimes Iwasalsoapproaching interestedpeople to show themhowtheycanusetheavailable localapplicationsstepbystep.Thiswasaveryencouragingexperiencebecauseinsuchintimatesituationseverythingworkedverywellandpeoplelikeditalot.

Figure21:ThehandwrittenscheduleoftheINURAretreatprogramme(left)transcribedfromtheetherpadversion(right),usedtofacilitatethenegotiationsduringtheplenarysession


Page52of55

Themostpopular localappwasowncloud,andmanyuploadedtheirphotos,especially inthebusduringthereturntoBucharest(an"ideal"situationinwhichonecantakeadvantagetoengagepeople,especiallyifhe/shehasaccesstothebusaudiosystem:-)).

Etherpadwasverymuchappreciatedasaconferenceorganizingandsynchronizingtool. Itsusetosetuptheretreat programmewas very successful. It turned out to be a powerful tool in supporting substantially theparticipatory process of programming. Subsequently, it became the main organizational tool of the wholeconference(peoplecommentedonhoweasyitwastoset-uptheagendainabottom-upself-organizedfashioncomparedtopreviousyears).

ConclusionforMAZI:However,thismeantthatpeoplehadalreadybookmarkedthe“online”versionanddidnotusemuchthe“offline”one.Agoodlessonfromthisexperienceisthatitwouldbegreatinfutureversionsof theMAZI toolkit to enable some sort of synchronizationbetweenonline and local instances of the sameapplicationstoallowpeopletousetheonlineonewhenreallyneededandavoidlosinginformationwhennotincontactwiththeofflineMAZIzone.

Figure22:Asessionofmultiplesmallworkinggroups,idealtoengagepeopleinusingtheMAZIZoneplacedinthemiddle.

MAZIparallelworkshop

Thesameafternoonwewouldhavethechancetoexplain inmoredetailtheMAZItoolkit inaparallel2hourworkshop. It was not a surprise that after a 30min tutorial on DIY networking by Panayotis, James, andAndreas, including demos of the different MAZI zones, the hybrid letterbox, and a mini radio transmitterbrought by James as a possible addition to a MAZI Zone, the discussion evolved around the key question“Why?”.WhowouldbeinterestedtousealocalDIYnetworkandtoservewhichneed?Whyisthisdifficultandwhatcanwedo?

Someof the old timers like Louanne, a 80-year old community activist and urban planner, had a hard timeunderstandingthereasonsforaddingyetanother“gadget”likeaRaspberryPiintheirdailylives.Otherswereenthusiastic about the opportunities that this technology might bring to their own contexts and startedproposingnewideasofhowitcouldbeused,raisingimportantchallengesandstrategiesthatcouldhelpustoachieveourobjectives.Wesummarizethembelow,tryingtopreservethe languageused.Notethatmanyofthese ideas are already included in the MAZI documentation but it is interesting to listen to similar ideasdescribedfromdifferentperspectives.ItwasalsorewardingtoseethatsomeofthepeoplekeptintheirmindtheideaspresentedintheMAZIworkshopandthoughtoverthem.


Page53of55

WhyDIYnetworking?

- Co-Presenceordefactophysicalproximity:interactingonlinewithothersataspecificlocalspot,knowingthatallother“users”arealsocloseby(sinceaccessislimitedbythecoverageareaofthewirelessaccesspoint).

- Anattributeofaplace,asortofaugmentedreality,enhancingtheexperienceofbeingpresentinacertainplace,somethingmoreishappeninghere

- Tool for group communication, like in blocks of apartments between residents, a sophisticatedannouncementboardandmore.

- Offersmeanstocreatenon-commercialplacesforgatheringsinthecityandinformpeopleaboutboththeexistenceofsuchplacesandactivitieshappeningataspecificmoment.Alsoplayfulinteractions,games.

- Leaveamessage in thegarden, tobecollected later (wouldallow less intrusivecommunicationand thepressureto“reply”createdbyvariousonlineplatforms)

- Push notifications through beacons, e.g., about contested spaces providing awareness, a gateway toimportant issues(astheexampleofMinistryofSpacediscussedintheworkshop),butalsofor informingabout interesting places close by, check-in/check-out to know “who is around” in co-living groups(concernsraisedforthe“pushing”dimensionsforvariousmanyreasons,seebelow)

- Publictransport:trains,buses(DeutscheBahnintroducedrecentlya“matching”serviceinitstrains)- Security, privacy, against censorship, surveillance, etc. How useful could this technology really be for

organizing urban actions like the ones presented in the MAZI workshop? Interesting discussion aboutanonymity.Theeavesdroppercanalsostayanonymous,butintheInternetit isthesame(andyoudon’tevenhavethechancetoknow“whoisthere”,whilewithofflinenetworksitiseasiersomehow).AndreasUnteidigmentionedexactlythatwithUdK’s“meetingpoint”installationinIsrael,therewastheproblemofunqualifiedpeople joiningtheconversationandthiswould intimidatepeoplebeingafraidfearofgettinghatespeech

- Usefulincaseofdisasters,earthquakes.Weneed“back-up”solutions.Likecandlesforelectricity...- Collectivelyproduced,acollectiveprocess,discussing,buildingituptogether(likethePrinzessinnengarten

up), it is attractive evenwith its problems because itwas collaboratively produced. It is the samewithsome chairs in the garden that are not comfortable, but people like them because they build themthemselves.

Challenges

- Alienation:therewasa longdiscussionabouttheconceptof listeningtoaudioinapublicspace, liketheBerlinpilot’s interview tool, and the fact that this could cause “alienation”.DIYnetworkingoffersmanyalternativeoptions,e.g.,tomaketheaudioavailablecertainperiodsoftheday,tomakeitmorecommunalthroughradiotransmission,touseittopromoteplayfulinteractions(e.g.,“gotoplot7”,or“findapersonwitharedt-shirtandsayhi”)

- Linkstogamification(likepokemon),addiction,automation.Canwereallykeepitsusemore“subtle”orallthe bad patterns of usewill reappear? This is a real danger, but there are a few characteristics of DIYnetworking that make it conceivable that could be used to increase face-to-face contact instead ofreplacingit,suchas:itdoesnotneedspecialfundingtobemaintainedandthusneednottobedrivenbycommercialmotives,whichmeansthatdoesnothaveto“maximize”onlineactivity.Itcouldverywellshut-downduringthenight.

- Thetragedyofthebeacons?Inadditiontotheinterestingideaspresented,manypeopleraisedtheissueofprivacy,bringingexampleslikeGPSwatchesusedbyparentstotracktheirchildren.Akeydifferencewithsimilar intrusive application is that DIY networking butmost importantly allows local ownership of thecorrespondingdata.So,evenifeveryoneintheroomwouldbeagainstsuchintrusiveusesofthisfeature,it still a choice for some people and with DIY networking they could do it without losing their data“sovereignty”.Also,onecouldthinkof“pushnotification”inalessaggressiveway,likeawellchosenSSID,aposter,etc.)

- Technologycanbemisusedbutalsoappropriated…wedothebranding,wethinkourpositivescenariosand then apple/microsoft do the same thing better but removing all the positive aspects, and we getlockedinagain.

Intermsof“strategy”,BrettScottproposedtopitchitasaneducationprojectandengagelocalyoungpeople.Itismuchmoreattractivetogetengagedinsuchaprojectifthenetworkiscreatedbythelocalyouth.Andas


Page54of55

Jamesadded,suchprojectscanalsoreplicatedatnocostandgoodideascantravelfast(whichofcourseworksforbadideasaswell).

Asafinalremark,PanosmentionedthatitisalwaysveryinterestingtotalkaboutDIYnetworkingandalwaysnewideasappearandithelpspeopletoimaginewaystolivetogetherandcommunicateinlocalitieswhicharevalidevenwithoutthetechnologyitself.

Researchvs.activism

(plenarysessionmoderatedbyMarcoClausen)

ThelastMAZI’sinterventionintheBucharestINURAconferencewasaslotmoderatedbyMarcoClausenwhoaskedashortslottodiscussabouttheoftenproblematicrelationshipbetweenresearchandactivists,atopicthat isalways raised in INURAconferences fromdifferentangles.Wehadalreadyasimilardiscussionduringthe “impressions” round in which some people felt that one of the guided tours was more like “povertytourism”.Thistriggeredalivelydebateabouttheorganizationoffieldtripsduringthecity(evenwhethertheyareneededinthefirstplace)withthemaincounter-argumentthatsuchfieldtripsareoftenveryusefulfortheactiviststhemselvesaswell.

Marcobroughthisownperspective,withaveryconcreteexample,andaprovocativequestion:“WhatshouldIdowhenanacademicresearcherasksmetogiveaninterview?”Asheexplained,theirprojectwasthesubjectofnumerousdemandsforinterviewsandtheyhavespentmanyhourswithresearchersbuttheoutcomeoftheresearchisopaquetothem:500pagesofaPhD,no-onehasthetimetoread.“Thisisnotdissemination”headded and wandered evenmore provocatively “In INURA, we have a Zurich professor with and an activistwithoutsalary.Aretheremutualbenefitsfromthisnetwork?”

Manyhandswereraisedandaheateddiscussionstarted.PeoplegaveexamplesofcaseswhereactivistsdidreceivevisibilityfortheircausethroughcollaboratingwithresearchersastheArchitectureAuto-GereeGardeninFrance.

Annaaddedthat this is rightandtheyarenowexperimentingwithdemandingexplicitly fromresearchers togivesomethingtous,practicalwaystogetsomethingbackfromtheexecutedresearch.

ThomasRaosetastressedthattherearetimeswhenapersonisanactivist,andtherearetimeswhenthesameperson isaresearcher.Forsuchpeopletimeiscrucial.Thomas is lookingforsituations inwhichthingscometogetherandworksonlyonprojectsthatarealignedwithhistheoriesandbeliefs.

ChristianSchmidnotedthatitisimportantthatMarcoraisedthequestionbutthiswayisoversimplifyingthediscussion. As he said, there are many ways of being an activist, and there are many ways of being aresearcher.Thereareactivists,ashimself,whobecamescientistsand joinedtheacademia-whereyouhaveresources,timetoreflect,etc.ManyPhDstudentswillnotbepartoftheacademiaafterwards,buttheycouldverywellgivetheircontributiontosomechanges.Academiaisanindustrywithconstraints,andofcourseweshouldchangesomeofthatbutatthesametimethesystemhasalotofinstrumentstoblockthesescientificcontributions that create awareness on urbanmovements and their importance, andwe have to challengethem.Wehavegreatscholarswhogavegreatsupporttothemovements.

MaritRosolagreedthattherecanbeamutualbenefitandalotofacademicscanbeusedasaresource,andespeciallyiftheyteachcritically,itisanimportantcontribution.it'sacontinuum...

Someonesaidthattheshareoftheprofitoutofthisrelationshipisstillveryunbalancedandacademicsdonotgivebackasmuchastheyshouldtothosethatarethemainsourceoftheirwork.Overtenhandswereraised,and Philipp decided to respect the timing and stop the session. Panos asked to say only twowords beforeeveryonegoesout:“INURAFUND!”

https://inura16.wordpress.com/registration/inura-fund/

Inthebus

InthebustotheairportfromSibielagreatopportunityappearedtodemonstrateveryclearlytheusefulnessoftheMAZIzone.ThebusWiFiwasnotworkingwellandPanostooktheopportunitytoactivatetheMAZIZone.He set asdefault service theowncloudapplication, and this timewasmore careful.Hewentpatiently from


Page55of55

persontopersonaskingthemiftheyhavetakenphotosandiftheywouldliketouploadthemontheRaspberryPiforthemtobeeasilyshared.

Thistimeeverythingworkedperfectlyand6peopleuploadedtheirphotosonthelocalMAZIzonewhichwasthen“synchronized”withtheonlineowncloudrepositoryforsharingINURAmaterial.Panoshadincludedalsoa folderwith a selection of 500 photos from the 25 previous INURA conferences andmanypeople enjoyedbrowsingthroughthemwhilewaitingimpatientlytoarriveattheairport.

Post-eventreporting

James Stevens also reported on his first INURA conference on the SPC blog, http://wrd.spc.org/well-conversed/. Among others he comments that “we tested out a ‘standalone’ Mazi Playground prototype,encouraginguploadofimages,recordingsandtextstotheOwnCloudandEtherPadservicesitoffersaswellasmobile broadband tethered through it to Panos smart-phone!” [...] Very intense program of talks, projectpresentations with some workshops but mostly together. With so many MAZI folk at the event [Marco -Prinzessinnengarten,Anna-CommonGround,Andreas,PanosandIleana,PhilippandYTmakes7.]therewasmuchmazi discussionbetween scheduled talks though just a brief presentationbyus all and thena 2hourhandsonworkshopwhichwasabarrageofquestionsbutwithfeweroftheinurianspresent[...]OntheInurianbusPanosoperatedhisportableMaziPlaygroundtetheredtohismobile phone formostof the trip.. andcontinuedtorunitduringtheretreat.Manyhaveusedittoshareimages-presentationsandnotes..notsurewhathappensnext.letsaskhim!”

ict - information and communication technologies · h2020 ! research and innovation project...

Documents