Reviewer: A
1) Is the subject matter relevant?
2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
4) Is the article well written?
5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
This submission presents an ongoing process of co-creation of an urban space in Zurich. The submission attempts to contribute with a set of “guidelines for creating places like L2000”. The project seems very interesting and highly relevant to the journal; however, it is difficult to assess the contribution as it stays. It presents a series of critical issues such as structure of the paper, the theoretical framing, presentation of the results, and contribution.
The paper is grounded on a large corpus of research – maybe too large. This makes it difficult to understand what is the theoretical framing and the main argument of the paper. In addition, fundamental works seem to be missing (see potentially relevant references at the bottom of this review). More concretely, the theoretical framing section elaborates on “being in common and the right to centrality”, “common spaces”, “infrastructuring and the commons”, and “digital commons”. Each of these topics are so large that they could be a theoretical framing on their own. In the current submission, it is unclear how they relate to each other and to the case study, and they are not used them to elaborate the discussion (e.g. as operational or analytical lens). In addition, throughout the different sections, there is a large list of concepts and terms that are not clear how they are relevant (e.g. boundary objects, communities of practice, digital sovereignty, matters of concern, inoperative community, partner state, agonism).
More fundamentally, the theoretically grounding of each could be stronger. For example, the section on infrastructuring only refers to a few papers on infrastructuring and its unclear how infrastructuring is interpreted/enacted in this project. There are also some sentences that need to be elaborated/rephrased, which might entail reflecting on the theory (e.g. what does it mean that infrastructuring can be “promoted”? and how infrastructuring be “part of the solution”?). Also, it is unclear how digital commons are relevant in the context of the project. The submission mentions several tools, and technologies, which seem very interesting (e.g. MAZI toolkit) but it is unclear how they are relevant in the context of the case study.
The paper taps on different interesting subjects, which could be used for building arguments. For example, the submission highlights questions of power, but it doesn’t elaborate on them. For example, the submission describes that “no user should dominate, neither the space itself through extensive use nor its identity.” Who are the users? Are the initiators of the space also considered users? Also, the paper describes that all the requests for the use of the space that break some of the rules can still be accepted after a “proper decision- making process” which takes place during the two-monthly board. How is this “proper” decision-making process enacted? Who participates to the board? And who has the right to participate? How does this relate to power and governance? Relatedly, the paper often refers to issues of inclusion and diversity. For example, the submissions describe that “organizations that are today under-represented in the city.” What does under- represented mean in this context? Who decides? Furthermore, there are a few references to public policies, and relations with the city but these are very little elaborated. The same happens with other potential interesting topics such as questions of scale (in terms of space and time?). Maybe these subjects could be used for shaping the results/discussion?
There are also some potentially interesting concepts that need further clarification: what is the “extreme diversity” approach? What does it mean to “claim the right to centrality”? what is “the right to the hybrid city”? What is a “hybrid city” and how does it relate to the main argument? What is “design for contact”? They all seem very interesting, but they need to be unpacked and elaborated. Maybe it’s not possible to do that with all of them, so the authors might want to consider which ones are relevant to shape their argument and highlight their contribution.
There are very few descriptions on the method. The introduction mentions that the location has served as “the meeting point of two different threads of action research”. Was this the method followed? How was it enacted? The abstract mentions that the project follows a process of co-creation. How is this process? Who does participate? How do they participate? The paper would benefit from providing a list of activities, events, meetings etc. organised and that have served as empirical grounding for this paper. Indeed, it seems that the authors have engaged in a large amount of activities, but they are not visible in the current submission. In addition, it seems that the authors have analysed different sources of data (e.g. neighbourhood forums) but there is no much description of these activities in the current version.
The submission proposes a list of guidelines for co-creating a hybrid central space, but it is not clear where these guidelines come from (How have they been designed? Are they grounded on empirical data? Who has developed these guidelines?). The guidelines are a mixed of theory, data, and reflections. I think the paper would benefit from presenting more data, and linking the reflections to the data – the theory needs to be integrated (and possibly filtered) into the theoretical framing. Finally, the discussion is not really a discussion. In addition, there are some confusing reflections. More concretely, the submission describes that these kind of experiences “often cannot provide a simple answer. It resides within a realm of art, intuitive knowledge and social skills”. This reflection resonates to a great extent to with my personal experience with similar initiatives, but I wonder how this reflection relates to the attempt of the paper to propose a set “guidelines for creating places like L2000”? Could the learnings of this project provide guidance beyond guidelines (for example, by reflecting on some of the relevant aspects mentioned throughout the paper such as power, diversity, and scale)?
In summary, this submission presents a very interesting case which is highly relevant to the journal and can become an important contribution. However, as it stays, it is very difficult to assess its contribution. The submission requires substantial work in terms of the theoretical framing, main argument, description of the methodology, elaboration of the results, and discussion. I wish the authors all the best in reshaping this potentially very interesting piece of work!
Potentially relevant references:
Pipek, V., Karasti, H., & Bowker, G. C. (2017). A preface to ‘infrastructuring and collaborative design’.
Karasti, H., Baker, K. S., & Millerand, F. (2010). Infrastructure time: Long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19(3-4), 377-415.
Karasti, H. (2014, October). Infrastructuring in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1 (pp. 141-150). ACM.
Seravalli, A. (2014). Making Commons: attempts at composing prospects in the opening of production. Malmö University.
Teli, M., Bordin, S., Blanco, M. M., Orabona, G., & De Angeli, A. (2015). Public design of digital commons in urban places: a case study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 81, 17-30.
Mosconi, G., Korn, M., Reuter, C., Tolmie, P., Teli, M., & Pipek, V. (2017). From facebook to the neighbourhood: Infrastructuring of hybrid community engagement. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26(4-6), 959-1003.
Light, A., & Seravalli, A. (2019). The breakdown of the municipality as caring platform: lessons for co-design and co-learning in the age of platform capitalism. CoDesign, 15(3), 192-211.
Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Institutioning: Participatory design, co-design and the public realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 148-159.
Bassetti, C., Sciannamblo, M., Lyle, P., Teli, M., De Paoli, S., & De Angeli, A. (2019). Co-designing for common values: creating hybrid spaces to nurture autonomous cooperation. CoDesign, 15(3), 256-271.
Botero, A., & Saad-Sulonen, J. (2010, November). Enhancing citizenship: the role of in-between infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 81-90). ACM.
Review B
Reviewer: B
1) Is the subject matter relevant?
The paper presents the experience and the action research conducted for the creation of L200, an urban space in the city of Zurich where novel models of collaboration and ‘commoning’ have been successfully experimented by a variety of organisations. The paper offers details about the history and processes of creation of L200 as an example of infrastructuring urban commoning. This is done from the perspective of one of the organisations behind the L200 experience (Nethood). In itself the subject matter is very relevant for the present JOPP CfP, and it offers an experience of infrastructuring which is at one time physical and digital, and which brings together a variety of actors and experiences.
2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
Although offering a very interesting case study of action research about infrastructuring, the way the paper is written presents a number of issues, which then translates on the paper being less “intellectually interesting” than it actually could be. There are problem with the structure in particular and with missing content.
Among other noticeable issues. The introduction is very discoursive and largely presents, in an introductory manner, the L200 and the role of the organization Nethood for which the authors work. However, to make the paper more engaging it is recommendable that the introduction brings to the fore first what is the wider problem/research question being addressed before offering a short introduction about L200 as a case study to answer the question (i.e. going from the general to the particular). The section after (2) has the same problem. Although very interesting to read about this experience, it lacks analytical purpose. It may be better to devote section 2 to a review of literature pertinent to the research question addressed (which should appear in the introduction section) and move the current section 2 after the presentation of the theoretical framework. The literature review could focus on e.g. infrastructuring, commons in urban contexts etc etc This third section (3), while presenting relevant concepts, it also presents alongside elements of the L200 case study. I would suggest to keep the theoretical framework only about theory. Also the Theoretical framework section is quite long, that may be shortened to make room for a literature review. Also later in the paper, the elements of the framework appear very marginally. At the very least something should be brought back in a discussion section of the paper (which is also currently missing)
The section where the authors present the “Guidelines” is interesting to read and I do not have many comments on that. Actually, the guidelines are relevant for practice and I can see added value here for contributing to the special issue. However, because the remaining parts of the paper have issues (see above), the value of this section (4) remains limited. The guidelines are indeed not anchored enough to theory and to previous research. With a proper research question, literature review etc. then the Guidelines section would easily become (even as it is) far more interesting and relevant for theory and practice.
3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
Overall I would say yes. The way the paper is written is very descriptive, about presenting the L200 as an example of urban living labs. Even when theory is discussed it seems largely disjointed from much of the manuscript. There is limited process of validating assumptions etc.
To achieve this, what is needed is a clear research question, grounded in literature etc.
4) Is the article well written?
As said in section 1, the structure of the paper is not one of a research paper. While the text overall is engaging and interesting to read, with dense descriptions, interesting practices presented and relevant guidelines proposed, the lack of a more or less standard structure makes it difficult to assess the merit of this research. It may be, because the paper is outcome of a European project, that much of this paper is just a repurposing of a project deliverable.
5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
The paper effectively does not have a discussion section, clearly defined. It may be that the last paragraph of section 4 “Toward becoming a living lab” could be transformed into a discussion. But for this the author may have to consider also comparing their results with previous research (which at present can’t be done as the paper does not have a literature review section clearly defined). Other suggestions where made in section B of this review, but I think that also some kind of literature review is needed, grounding a research question within the literature. The Guidelines section are effectively describing a process of “design” of an urban space, with identification of needs, producing a vision for a “product” (the L200) etc., so one way to build a literature review could be around the topic of designing with end-users, for example.