Three clusters of research questions are introduced in order to illuminate this unknown territory: (1) researching as commoning and the contribution of the collaborative mapping of alternative economies; (2) unpacking the process of hybrid commoning locally; (3) exploring urban commoning as a transformative narrative.
1.3.1 Researching as a Commons: Collaboratively Mapping Alternative Economies
In “reading for economic difference” (Gibson-Graham 2008) the study of diverse and alternative economies has largely focused on depicting practices in individual locations. In a close academic field, the mushrooming of grassroots innovations (Seyfang and Smith 2007) has raised specifically geographic questions regarding their distribution and diffusion dynamics across spaces and along places (Feola and Butt 2015; Seyfang and Longhurst 2015). Some scholars have brought our attention to the fact that grassroots networks are often engaged in collecting systematic data about the community of practice they promote (Feola and Butt 2015; Borowiak 2015). Borowiak (2015) in particular has identified the use of mapping in making alternative economies more visible.
These mappings are particularly meaningful as a way to make visible sustainable alternatives whose very existence is negated by mainstream capitalo-centrism (Gibson-Graham 2006b). Yet they are barely addressed by scientific efforts.
At the beginning of this research, in 2013, I had noticed the wide-spread use of more or less collaborative forms of mapping among grassroots actors to make their work more visible. I rapidly saw an opportunity for research using those mappings for a geography of sustainability transitions. From this interest, I became aware of a grassroots initiative launched by commons evangelist Silke Helfrich to federate those mappings into a commons as a strategy to increase the visibility of “all alternatives”2. I decided to integrate the initiative as an action researcher, actively participating – in contrast to solely extracting knowledge – in the commoning effort and continuously reflecting (Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014). This effort was aimed at understanding the contribution of digitally-enabled collaborative mapping to a geography of transitions reframed as a commoning endeavor. In combination with a descriptive assessment of existing mappings I investigated the following lines of discussion (Labaeye 2017):
2 , last accessed on 07/12/18.
1) What can we learn from individual maps when reframed as mappings?
2) How does the concept of performativitiy bring light to evaluating the transformational nature of knowledge derived from mappings?
3) What avenues does collaborative mapping offer for thinking citizen empowerment in (co)producing knowledge about alternative economies?
4) What new challenges are emerging from acknowledging the (digital) knowledge derived from these mappings as a commons?
1.3.2 Unpacking the Intertwin of Digital and Urban Commons Locally
In the initial phase of my research I also noticed that some local grassroots initiatives were using collaborative mapping as an instrumental tool to support the commoning of urban space. In three cases at least (596 Acres in New York City, Mundraub in Berlin, Flaechen in Leipzig) I was witnessing how a data commons of vacant land lots or unused fruit trees was elaborated by an online crowd as a basis for the reclaiming of public resources as commons, generating actual physical interactions. This strategic combination of an intangible and a tangible commons has never been analyzed or even documented as such in the commons literature. To understand this two-pronged process involving a digital and an urban commons I analyzed two separate cases through an adaptation (Frischmann et al. 2014) of the seasoned Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework that has overwhelmingly been used in the study of the commons (Poteete et al. 2010).
The research questions are the following (Labaeye and Mieg 2018):
1) How does the hybrid process of constituting a data commons and reclaiming the related public space as a commons take place?
2) What is the role of grassroots organizations that provide the collaborative mapping infrastructure in this hybrid process of making commoning – i.e.
producing a new resource or turning an existing one into a commons?
1.3.3 The Commons as a Paradigm for a Transformative Narrative of Urban Sustainability
The study of grassroots innovations (GIs) shows that they are value-driven (Seyfang and Longhurst 2015). Their influence in sustainability transitions lies in the challenge to mainstream regimes through the alternative discourses and knowledge they generate (Smith et al. 2016). Building upon this discursive power of GIs, Avelino et al. (2017) identified narratives of change as a key analytical element in their theory of Transformative Social Innovation. Understanding such narratives is often overlooked by a literature focused on a rather technical
understanding of innovation and the way it diffuses from the niche to the regime, instead of looking at how value-driven innovations influences those regimes (Seyfang and Longhurst 2015).
Practices associated with digital and urban commons at the intersection of the digital and urban spaces are challenging the mainstream narratives about digitalization and urban sustainability – e.g. smart city. Sharing Cities is an emerging discourse that has placed the commons at the centre of its transformative view of digitalization in cities (McLaren and Agyeman 2015;
Shareable 2018; Fuster Morell 2018). In order to characterize the transformative scope of the Sharing Cities narrative and, in particular, the way it articulates the commons and digital technology, this doctoral research explored the following research questions:
1) How is the tension between communal and commercial sharing practices depicted in the Sharing Cities discourse?
2) What is the role of technology – and more widely of intermediation – in the practices depicted in the Sharing Cities narrative?
3) If at all, what arenas of norms, rules, and values (Harvey 2011) are being transformed by commoning practices of Sharing Cities ?
4) Are the initiatives depicted as constituent of Sharing Cities actually based on community-governed commons?
2 Summary of Articles
Three articles were prepared. This section presents a summary of the methods and materials involved, the main results and the discussion they triggered.