Anna Seravalli, Per-Anders Hillgren, Mette Agger-Eriksen - Malmö University K3 and MEDEA

1. Co-designing collaborative forms
for urban commons: using the
notions of commoning and agonism
to navigate the practicalities and
political aspects of collaboration
Anna Seravalli, Per-Anders Hillgren, Mette Agger-Eriksen
Malmö University K3 and MEDEA

2. • The rising of urban commons?
• Participatory design notions of commoning
and agonism
• Co-design collaborative forms in Malmö:
navigating practicalities and political aspects
of collaboration
Content

3. From triplex helix to
citizens’ co-ownership?
How to face contemporary urban challenges?
- Mobilizing different kinds of knowledge
- Collaboration between diverse actors

4. From triplex helix to
citizens’ co-ownership?

5. Empowerment or exploitation?

6. • How to design collaborative
forms for the management of
urban commons?
• How to consider both the
practicalities and the political
aspects of collaboration?

7. Urban commons (design) specificities
and challenges
Why ”traditional” commons design principles do
not hold when it comes to urban commons:
- The role of the public sector as an enabler/
participant in the commons (Foster 2011)
- Differences in actors’ interests-> diverse ways of
value the commons (Foster 2011, Nightingale
2011)
- Ossification dilemma (Daniels n.d., Foster 2011):
when structures hinder collaborative
management….

8. A Participatory Design perspective
• Since the ´70 dealing with collaborative processes involving actors with
diverse interests for the design of technologies (in the last 10 years also
collaborative forms)
• Both working with praticalities and political aspects of collaboration

9. Commoning
• Consindering commons as an action (Linebaugh
2009, Bollier and Helfrich 2012)
But what kind of action? PD suggests…
• Socio-material practice (Martilla and Botero
2014, Seravalli 2014)
• Located practice (Martilla and Botero 2014,
Seravalli 2014)
• Ongoing: design that allows for change (Binder et
al. 2011) and appropriation (Seravalli 2014)

10. Design for commoning
• Co-designing: Involving the different actors
already in the design process to foster co-
ownership
• Co-designing forms that allow for collective
appropriation and might be changed in time

11. Agonism
• Collaboration between different actors:
consensus might be not possible and neither
desiderable (Bodker 1996)
• Agonism (Mouffe 2009): collaboration beyond
consensus, allowing for multiple perspective
as a way to challenge hegemony… considering
and cultivating alternatives

12. Malmö

13. Malmö

14. Living Lab The factory: commoning production

15. Living Lab The Neighborhood: agonistic
collaboration for urban challenges

16. Innovation Platform Malmö South East:
commoning urban renewal?

17. Commoning in Fabriken
• Three different organizational models over 3
years: from participants’ control to NGO’s control
• Tension between managing shared resources and
different in perspective
• The centrality of the NGO in avoiding ossification,
but yet retaining power…
• ….who is included? How are collaborative forms
shaped? Where does the mandate comes from?

18. Agonism: pointing towards urban
commons but hindering collaborative
forms?
• Agonisitic perspective in urban challenges: opening up
for new perspectives, ideas and possibilities

19. Agonism: pointing towards urban
commons but hindering collaborative
forms?
….pointing a towards the need for co-
ownership…but lacking of resources and spaces to
experiment with what co-ownership might entail.
Malmö University
researchers
Civil servants from the
area
Private health care
company
Refugee children
Workers looking after
the children
Network of Swedish
female entrepeneurs

20. Innovation platform: civil servants
in the commoning…
• The Innovation Platform: involving civil
servants, academia and companies
• A high level of co-ownership between
participants
• Agonism is present but where are the
citizens?!

21. Innovation platform: civil servants
in the commoning…
• From a project to a permanent structure in the
city
• Striving towards diversity: political aspects
(citizens involement) and practicalities (activating
property owners)
• How much agonism can be bared by the
platform? The risk of prioritizing practicalities
over political aspects
• The importance of reflecting in and over the
platform and how it is going to be organized

22. Conclusions
• Designing collaborative forms for urban
commons: considering both practicalities and
political aspects of collaboration
• Commoning: collaborative forms which can be
appropriated and changed in time
• Agonism: considering diversity and hegemony:
Who is involved in commoning? Who is missing?
Where does the mandate come from?