Abstract
This book presents the empirical findings collected during the case studies developed withing the Horizon 2020 research project SMOOTH—Educational Spaces. Passing through Enclosures and Reversing Inequalities through Educational Commons. The project involved a partnership of 12 entities (11 universities and one museum) located in 8 European countries: Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. Third Parties (schools, NGOs, and local authorities) were also included in the research fieldwork. The overarching goal of the SMOOTH project was to comprehend, foster, and expedite the potential influence of education in addressing and reversing inequalities, especially those experienced by people (young and adults) belonging to vulnerable groups at risk, hence preventing and reducing social isolation, marginalisation, political frustration, fundamentalism and extremism, insecurity, and fear among these groups. This was achieved by introducing the emerging concept of the commons as an alternative framework of values and actions within preschools, schools, and afterschool programs, focusing on the interactions among children and youth, as well as between children and youth and adults, within an utterly relational context.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Many European countries have been long experiencing a crisis characterised by social exclusion and marginalisation, high levels of unemployment and underemployment, declining trust in democracy, environmental degradation, and a widening gap in educational quality and equity within formal and non-formal institutions. This critical situation has particularly adverse effects on the status of children and young people, especially those at risk, such as those living in poverty, refugees, and migrants. In this context, education holds particular significance as it can act as a catalyst for addressing various forms of inequality stemming from factors such as poverty, gender, nationality, age, disability, and more. It can facilitate social inclusion for everyone by exploring and constructing an alternative, collaborative way of life rooted in the notion of the commons.
This approach embodies democratic principles, equality, and creativity, fostering a sense of community that embraces differences and promotes sustainable relationships between humans and the environment. The term “commons,” also referred to as “common-pool resources” [13] or “commons-based peer production” [2], encompasses goods and resources that are collectively utilised and generated. Access to these resources is provided on equitable terms, with possibilities ranging from entirely open access to exclusive consumption rights. The common good is managed collectively through egalitarian and participatory approaches by the communities that create or own it. In fact, the commons are not simply a set of resources or goods but also and foremost, a governing principle identifiable as the common [6, 8]. In their various forms, they typically exhibit a tripartite structure comprising three main components: (a) common resources or goods, (b) institutions (referred to as commoning practices), and (c) the communities (referred to as commoners) involved in the creation and perpetuation of commons [4].
From a socio-political perspective, the commons encompass a wide array of social structures and processes through which the commoners, potentially all community members on equal footing, shape and govern the production and utilisation of resources by collaboratively establishing the rules for such activities. Commoners continuously adapt and revise these rules to address specific socio-ecological conditions and historical contexts. Consequently, an incredible diversity of commoning practices exists across time, geography, resource domains, and cultural traditions, defying simple formulas and predefined classifications. However, what distinguishes them is that they are all driven by the commoners’ desire to self-create means and ways of meeting their needs and pursuing their desires, in part independently from the influence of the state and the market [4, 6]. The common, a guiding principle for structuring society and collective endeavours, emphasises that communities should create, govern, and share social goods and activities through equal and participatory means. As such, it aims to ensure the effective inclusion of all individuals in decision-making processes and challenges established boundaries, exclusions, and inequalities.
The concept of the commons (and the common) has also been applied to the realm of digital technologies and the Internet. The digital commons include areas like free or open-source software and are characterised by distinctive modes of governance with flexible hierarchies and structures that facilitate participation [3]. Self-governance is a crucial aspect, involving open input from volunteers and a participatory process for coordinating work [11]. Additionally, these online communities can encompass a “transparent heterarchy”, where qualified and elected community members may handle quality control and reject contributions that may threaten the system’s integrity [1].
Education plays a vital role in this context, as it can catalyse experimentation, exploration, alternative social construction, and active inclusion processes. In the context of education as commons, the process of learning, the transmission and acquisition of knowledge, and the methods of governing this process are collectively managed and co-constructed by the entire educational community. Like any other kind of commons, educational commons do not arise organically or spontaneously but are the outcomes of a peer-governance process [12], in which individuals collaboratively make decisions, establish specific rules to set boundaries, and manage conflicts. Peer governance develops a sort of “relational ontology” whereby the relationships between entities are more important than the entities themselves. Therefore, the focus shifts from individuals to the interactions among them so that they collectively create a new form of “entangled agency” and develop social systems (Bollier and Helfrich 2019). Framed within a commons-based perspective, education is not just about acknowledging individuals’ diverse social and cultural backgrounds; it is also about actively engaging them in initiatives and activities that take into account the interconnected nature of their identities and the world around them.
As outlined by Wright [16], for the educational commons to be effective, they should meet four key criteria:
-
a.
Desirability: they should be desirable, meaning they align with democratic ideals such as collective freedom, equal participation, solidarity, togetherness, caring, and sharing.
-
b.
Viability: they should represent a viable alternative to the existing structures and functions of educational institutions. They should not only make the institution sustainable but also effectively serve the intended educational goals.
-
c.
Contribution to civil society: they should contribute to strengthening civil society. This involves creating conditions that actively engage and include teachers, children, youth, and parents in educational and social life through egalitarian organisation and peer governance within the educational process and daily life of any educational setting.
-
d.
Achievability: they should be achievable and applicable to current critical conditions.
Undoubtedly, the educational commons challenge neoliberal models of educational system development. These models are increasingly influenced by a technocratic/managerial logic that promotes a utilitarian view of human capital and reduces education as a form of “social investment”. They transform education into an “asset” for the labour market and neglect the broader social, cultural, and civic roles of education, diminishing its value beyond its economic returns [5, 7, 9, 10, 14].
To develop empirically the emerging notion of the educational commons, we present here findings from the case studies developed during the research project SMOOTH Educational Spaces. Passing through Enclosures and Reversing Inequalities through Educational Commons, funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme for the period 2021–2024. The project involved a partnership of 12 entities (11 universities and one museum) located in 8 European countries: Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. Third Parties (schools, NGOs, local authorities) were also included as components of the research fieldwork which explored the notion of educational commons from an empirical point of view through a variety of teams and partners with different backgrounds, experiences, methodological approaches, and diversity of settings, contexts, and participants.
The overarching goal of the SMOOTH project was to comprehend, foster, and expedite the potential influence of education in addressing and reversing inequalities, especially those experienced by people (young and adults) belonging to vulnerable groups at risk, hence preventing and reducing social isolation, marginalisation, political frustration, fundamentalism and extremism, insecurity, and fear among these groups. This was achieved by introducing the emerging concept of the commons as an alternative framework of values and actions within preschools, schools, and afterschool programs, focusing on the interactions among children and youth, as well as between children and youth and adults, within an utterly relational context.
Together with Third Parties, the SMOOTH partners implemented about 50 case studies as instances of commoning education where the children and youth participated alongside adults as co-researchers/collaborators and played some part in the decisions about the research process and the assessment of the findings. More than 60% of the case studies were implemented in non-formal educational settings, while the rest occurred in schools and preschools.
All case studies explore whether the educational commons experimented meet the above criteria and successfully address inequalities. Here is a summary of the research questions that guided SMOOTH fieldwork:
-
a.
Similar patterns: are there recurring patterns in the diverse educational commons under investigation?
-
b.
Effectiveness of commons-based education: can education be successfully organised based on commons patterns, and if so, how?
-
c.
Impact on inequalities: what are the consequences of implementing commons’ logic for reducing inequalities and promoting social inclusion among children and young people from vulnerable social groups?
-
d.
Peer education and peer production: can commons-based peer education contribute to the further development of commons-based peer production?
-
e.
Children and youth experience: how do children and youth collectively experience and construct the commons in educational settings?
-
f.
Gender differences: are there gender differences in how children and youth engage with educational commons?
-
g.
Gender patterns: do gender patterns emerge in the diverse educational commons being studied?
-
h.
Peer governance: how do members of educational commons (children, young people, and adults) experience peer governance? How do they manage and resolve conflicts within their communities?
-
i.
Role of curricular and extra-curricular activities: how do adults, including teachers and parents, perceive the role of curricular and extra-curricular activities and educational commons in addressing inequalities? What are their expectations in this regard?
-
j.
Identity shifts: have there been any shifts in the roles and perspectives of the participants (children, youth, and adults) as they engage in educational commons?
In sum, viewed through the multifaceted perspectives of the different case studies developed during the SMOOTH project, the educational commons paradigm emphasises the cultural and social dimensions of education, challenging current neo-liberist models of educational system development that ultimately exacerbate educational inequalities [15] and “enclose” education within privatised and hierarchised modes of governance, making it harder for citizens and communities to have a say in how education is conceived, delivered and managed. In line with this challenge, findings from the project have been used to develop a series of policy recommendations on reconfiguring education as a tool for promoting democratic values, social justice and inclusion (https://smooth-ecs.eu/, last accessed October 2023).
1 Educational Commons. Democratic Values, Social Justice and Inclusion in Education: A Short View of the Chapters
We have organised chapters according to the educational context (formal, non-formal or mixed) where case studies occurred. Here is a short presentation of them.
In this chapter, From Crisis to Commons? Exploring the Potential of the Commons via Two Secondary Education Case Studies in Flanders, Juno Tourne, Rudi Roose, Jochen Devlieghere, and Lieve Bradt report on the implementation of two commons-based projects within secondary schools in Flanders, highlighting the challenges faced in adopting commons principles within traditional educational settings. These challenges include resistance from teachers entrenched in the existing educational culture, the tendency to consider the commons as an individual responsibility rather than a collective commitment and the risk of instrumentalising the commons by prioritising outcomes over the participatory process. While commons-based initiatives face substantial hurdles within the current educational landscape, the chapter concludes that the commons provide a valuable and necessary alternative perspective that challenges the status quo and potentially bridges the gap between educational ideals and reality in Flanders and elsewhere.
Chapter 2, Children and Adults Explore Human Beings’ Place in Nature and Culture: A Swedish Case Study of Early Childhood Commons for More Equal and Inclusive Education, authors Liselott Mariett Olsson, Robert Lecusay, and Monica Nilsson account for a Swedish case study on the potential of educational commons to promote a more equal and inclusive education in the early years. Several conditions decisive for this potential are identified and analysed: the relation between research and practice, the child’s image, the role of the teachers, the definition of the educational task, and the educational methods used. These conditions are described in terms of how they were activated within a Playworld/Interactive performance based on a common research question, shared by preschool children and adults, on human beings’ place in nature and culture. The chapter highlights that educational commons may function as a catalyst in promoting more equal and inclusive education, but only if necessary conditions are in place for this potential to be activated, conditions that are spelt out in detail in the chapter.
Chapter 3, Building Youth Civic Engagement through Media Education and Educational Commons written by Gianna Cappello and Marianna Siino, reports the findings of the implementation of an Italian case study carried out in a youth club in the city of Agrigento, which aims to introduce and study the emergent paradigm of the educational commons as an alternative value and action system to reinforce intercultural and intergenerational dialogue, establishing spaces of democratic citizenship that support local communities’ development. The case study adopts this paradigm in conjunction with insights derived from the field of media education and the notions of digital commons and “participatory culture”. The experimental media education activities implemented during the case study encouraged youths to develop the skills, knowledge, and ethical/critical frameworks needed to express a “civic intentionality” to be fully “engaged citizens” in the digital public sphere. Fieldwork, framed with an ethnographic and action-research approach, was developed by investigating the three dimensions of the notion of educational commons (commoners, commoning practices, and the community).
Chapter 4, The Challenges of Children’s Participation, Sharing, Collaboration, and Care in Non-formal Education Contexts-Insights from the SMOOTH Project, discusses how the two action research projects developed an outline of the four dimensions mentioned in the title, putting into practice the principles of Education as a Common Good. Natália Fernandes, Marlene Barra, Fernanda Martins, Daniela Silva, Joana R. Casanova, Teresa Sarmento, Vivian A. Madalozzo and Erika M. Ó Corrêa bring together a theoretical framework on the concept of children as commoners grounded on childhood studies. The authors reflect upon the “pedagogy of listening” and the participatory methodologies implemented in the fieldwork that ultimately led to the analysis of the four dimensions.
In Chap. 5, Stunt Scooter and Educational Commons—A German Case Study, Sylvia Jäde, Florian Eßer, and Judith von der Heyde describe the results of a case study dealing with the appropriation of public space through youth cultural practices, that is, how children and young people, move in public spaces with stunt scooters and utilise it for their own purposes. The chapter aims to observe and highlight commoning practices that emerged during the case study, i.e., sharing, caring, cooperation and engaged citizenship. Overall, the German case study shows that children and young people involved in joint political processes as commoners require a high degree of transparency on the part of the adults involved as to what scope they have for shaping these processes. Therefore, an intergenerational dialogue is necessary.
Chapter 6, Young People in Vulnerable Contexts: Shaping Collective Views through Media and Educational Commons, authored by María José Palacios-Esparza, Mittzy Arciniega-Cáceres, Macarena Vallejos-Cox and Mònica Figueras-Maz, shares the experience of a case study developed in non-formal education organisation in Barcelona with young people in vulnerable context. It focuses on the process of creation of audiovisual pieces through participatory workshops. These workshops were designed on the basis of participatory audiovisual methodology, a combination of alternative audiovisual approaches and the postulates of educational commons, with a special emphasis on pedagogical documentation, pedagogy of listening and project work. The results show how commoning practices emerge during the process and how the reflection and creation work promotes the emergence of collective discourses and makes it easier for the voices of minority groups to be heard.
Chapter 7, Agüita: Educational Commons, Arts and Well-being, written by Lucía Moral-Espín, Cristina Serván-Melero, Beatriz Gallego-Noche and Ana María Rosendo-Chacón, focuses on a specific experience of educational commons: the Agüita creative workshops in Seville and Jerez, two Andalusian cities in the south of Spain. The two case studies presented are linked to non-formal education programmes implemented with the support of social organisations in precarious neighbourhoods. The chapter shows how collaborative artistic work, understood as the central idea of the workshops, nourishes and reinforces the tripartite structure of the commons and favours practices of caring, sharing and cooperating on which it is based. All of this is in the framework of a feminist methodology approach, such as feminist critical ethnography that not only questions social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender structure but also seeks the keys to action.
Niki Nikonanou, Panagiotis A. Kanellopoulos, Elena Viseri, and Elina Moraitopoulou, authors of Chap. 8, Educational Commons in Art Museums, describe four case studies that took place at four museums in Thessaloniki, Greece. Different groups of young people participated in the case studies that sought to bring together educational commons and collaborative artistic experimentation, leading to the co-creation of art projects. The chapter highlights ways in which commoning practices might help a museum function as an open-source institution by: i) introducing new ways through which members of its community might experience the museum as a common space and ii) by enabling the participants to delve into art practices that lead to a creative relationship with museum content and exhibits, recasting them as open-source materials that its community can leverage. It also aims to emphasise the value of delving into forms of creative artistic engagement that induce unlearning traditional roles and questioning hierarchical power distribution.
In Chap. 9, Democratic Nowtopias from the Educational Commonsverse in Greece, Yannis Pechtelidis, Anna Chronaki and Naya Tselepi examine the role educational commons play in addressing inequities, advancing democracy, and fostering inclusion by allowing teaching and learning to be shaped by the educational community in terms of equality, freedom, and creative engagement. Through several case studies conducted in formal and non-formal educational settings in Greece, including a self-organised autonomous libertarian educational community, three public preschools, and a primary and secondary school, the discussion concentrates on the possibility of educational commons for the radical democratisation of education and society. The paper makes the case that, under certain circumstances, the logic of the commons can flourish in the educational field by countering inequities and enhancing active participation and inclusion for all. However, the co-production and co-management of the teaching and learning process enacted by all members of the educational community in its everyday life and on a footing of equality, solidarity, autonomy, sharing and caring still have a long way to go. Despite this, the diverse case studies presented here as examples of the Greek “commonsverse” operate as a “crack” in the education status quo, inspiring new conceptualisations, methods, and actions about the educational commons.
In Chap. 10, Children, Citizenship, and Commons: Insights from Three Case Studies in Lisbon on the 3 Cs, Catarina Tomás, Carolina Gonçalves, Juliana Gazzinelli and Aline Almeida review the concepts of children’s participation and active citizenship, exploring their intersection within the domains of sociology and educational sciences, and how they connect in the perspective of education as a common good. The authors discuss the main findings of the project developed by the team, highlighting three dimensions of the educational commons: the role of children as commoners, communing practices, and communal aspects of goods and values–the three Cs of children, citizenship and commons–and the relation with children’s understanding of citizenship and community. The authors acknowledge the multifaceted nature of children’s roles as citizens in different educational settings, assuming that different social and organisational aspects influence children’s integration into their communities.
Chapter 11, Commoning for Social Justice: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation in two Learning Environments, written by Carlos Moreno-Romero, Stamatia Savvani, Ülly Enn and Alekos Pantazis, delves into the relationship between education for social justice and the concept of educational commons, seeking to elucidate the connections that exist between these two distinct yet complementary components of inclusive and humanistic pedagogy and describe the diverse strategies that are based on or are aligning with commoning principles as enacted in two educational contexts (a formal and a non-formal one) located in Tallinn, Estonia. Through Action Research, which included observations in both a formal and non-formal learning environment and focus group interviews, these strategies were documented and discussed in relation to the principles of social justice. The chapter aims to highlight the capacity of these two pedagogical approaches to catalyse positive change within education systems.
In Chap. 12, Transformative Commons and Education in Greece. Τhree case studies, Alexandros Kioupkiolis and Νaya Tselepi draw on the concept of commoning in education. The authors analyse three case studies conducted by the team in the context of the SMOOTH Project to support the argument that the methodology of sociocracy and the educational commons put into practice are possible actions to address inequalities and exclusions, contributing to a more democratic school life. By exploring the notion of educational commons, the authors argue that it not only lowers barriers, combating exclusions and diluting rigid disciplines, but is also more respectful of individual autonomy in terms of solidarity, reciprocity, and equal freedom (beyond fixed hierarchies)–in other words, a free democratic education.
References
Bauwens M, Kostakis V, Pazaitis A (2019) Peer to peer: the commons manifesto, vol 10. University of Westminster Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfc53qf. Last accessed Oct 2023
Benkler Y, Nissenbaum H (2006) Commons-based peer production and virtue. J Polit Philos 14(4):394–419
Bollier D (2008) Viral spiral. The New Press, New York
Bollier D, Helfrich S (eds) (2015) Patterns of commoning. Levellers Press, Amherst
Cantillon B, Van Lancker W (2013) Three shortcomings of the social investment perspective. Soc Policy Soc 12(4):553–564
Dardot P, Laval C (2014) Commun. La Découverte, Paris
Esping-Andersen G, Gallie D, Hemerijck A, Myles J (eds) (2002) Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford University Press, New York
Hardt M, Negri A (2009) Commonwealth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)
Hemerijck A (2013) Changing welfare states. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hemerijck A (ed) (2017) The Uses of social investment. Oxford University Press, New York
Jenkins H, Clinton K, Purushotma R, Robison AJ, Weigel M (2009) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. The MacArthur Foundation, Chicago
Kostakis V (2010) Peer governance and Wikipedia: Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia’s governance. First Monday 15(3)
Ostrom E (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press
Parolin Z, Van Lancker W (2021) What a social investment ‘litmus test’ must address: a response to Plavgo and Hemerijck. J Eur Soc Policy 31(3):297–308
Rizvi F (2016) Privatisation in education: trends and consequences. In: ERF working papers series, vol 18. UNESCO, Paris
Wright EO (2018) How to be an anti-capitalist for the 21st century. J Austr Polit Econ 77(1):5–23. LNCS Homepage, http://www.springer.com/lncs. Last accessed Oct 2023
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cappello, G., Siino, M., Fernandes, N., Arciniega-Cáceres, M. (2024). Introduction. In: Cappello, G., Siino, M., Fernandes, N., Arciniega-Caceres, M. (eds) Educational Commons. UNIPA Springer Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51837-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51837-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-51836-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-51837-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)