Keywords

1 Introduction

The chapter focuses on the case studies ‘Occupying Public Urban Space with Stunt Scooters: Collective Learning through Motion in Children’s Peer Cultures’ realized in Germany, which was carried out as a series of four case studies and in cooperation between the University of Osnabrück and the Youth Department of a German urban municipality. Stunt scooter riding is a relatively new leisure praxis, which is nowadays nearly as popular as skateboarding or BMX riding. Stunt scooters are sports devices similar to children’s toy kick scooters. They are designed to perform tricks and stunts on all kinds of surfaces. As with BMX riding, beginners often tend to do simpler jumps that can be developed over time to produce increasingly complicated sequences of tricks, for instance including flips. There are various reasons why stunt scooters can withstand more stress than conventional scooters: among other things, they have special wheels and a one-piece handlebar that is not designed to fold. But not only the scooter riding itself is a relatively young sports practice. This also applies to many of the users riding the stunt scooters. As the stunt scooters are comparatively easy to handle at the start, rather like other sports equipment like skateboards, even younger children can gain access to the sport.

One place that scooter riders in the city where the sub-project was carried out like to use is the municipal skate park, which until recently was primarily frequented by users from established scenes (e.g. skaters, BMX riders and inline skaters). Due to the lack of public space that children and young people can freely use, the skate park became increasingly popular during the Covid19 pandemic. As a result of this, conflicts increased at the park, which was already frequently at its capacity limit even before the pandemic. In the end, the municipal administration perceived the only solution to the conflicts to be separating the scenes from each other, which was to be achieved by building a new trend sports area. Against this background, we were offered the opportunity to participate in the planning and construction of this new area.

The sub-project focuses on children and young people who frequent public spaces through engaging in the leisure praxis of stunt scooter riding and thus ties in with the topic of the spatiality of childhood(s), an issue that is currently the subject of wide-ranging discussion in Childhood Studies [1]. The central question is how children and young people appropriate public spaces using this leisure praxis. In line with the main project, the analysis is based on commons theory [2], used with a focus on education and knowledge as commons [3] to create a framework for the sub-project’s participatory approach.

In the following, we will present the central results of the case studies (CS). First, the four CS will be described, and particularities will be outlined that stem from the setting of the CS. In addition, the sample will be described as well as some first findings regarding the participation of the children and young people in the CS. Second, we address selected findings based on the key research dimensions, illustrated by excerpts from the data collected. The chapter ends with a conclusion regarding the main findings.

2 The German Case Studies

All four CS carried out in the German sub-project were linked to the planning (start 2022) and the construction (2022–2023) of the new trend sports area.

In the first CS, the participatory workshop, organized by the municipality, the main focus was on the scooter riders’ and planning experts’ negotiation processes regarding the planning of the new area. The second CS, in contrast, was about the actual praxis of scooter riding as commons. The aim of the case study was to find out more about how scooter riders share knowledge about their sport with one another and generate new knowledge. The third CS covered the dismantling, re-assembling and repairing of stunt scooters. The focus was on the sports device itself, along with hacks such as how to get hold of inexpensive but high-quality spare parts. The final CS concentrated on evaluating the joint participation and planning process involving participants on all levels (e.g. social workers, planning experts, town council representatives and scooter riders). All CS were carried out as unique events in one afternoon each.

Table 1 provides an overview of the participants, the third party members involved in each CS, the type of event and where it was carried out.

Table 1 General description of the case studies
Full size table

As mentioned before, we cooperated with the Youth Department of a German city, which is also our third party. Staff of the Youth Department are responsible for child and youth work (within and outside of youth facilities), educational child and youth protection, work with girls, cultural youth education as well as school and street social work. In this respect, due to the choice of the third party, we were able to work with staff members of different specialized services. The central contact persons were members from the Mobile Youth Work/Street Work Team as well as the staff of a youth and a family center. Through the overarching third party, we were able to establish cooperation with four institutions (street work, a local youth center and a family center as well as the municipality) in the community. We were able to establish contacts and relationships with the scooter riders in the course of a preliminary study lasting several months in summer 2021 during which one of the authors visited the urban skate park on a weekly basis. The field access was supported by the street workers, who visit the park as part of their outreach work with young people.

At the first CS scooter riders and the researchers, two social workers, two representatives of the company operating the facility to be built, an expert planner and one of his staff as well as the operator of the skate hall and one care giver of the children participating were present. It should also be emphasized that both the second and third CS were conducted by an 18-year-old trainer who rides stunt scooters himself and is supported by an official sponsor. He was employed as a freelancer by the third party. At the last CS, in addition to two researchers, two research interns were also present as well as one representative of the planning and construction company responsible for the construction of the scooter park.

During all the case studies, participant observation was carried out and written up in the form of field notes and protocols [4]. The data corpus was expanded with interviews, videos, photos, articles from daily newspapers and official documents (such as building plans and tender texts). In addition, the following methodologies were applied: a pedagogy of listening, pedagogical documentation, project work and in-field interviews. Apart from the researchers, the participating scooter riders, members of the third party and research interns were also involved in the data collection. The latter were also involved in the evaluation of the data. The research has been approved by the University of Osnabrück’s ethics committee.

For all our CS, it can be said that the children and young people were very keen to get involved. None of the offers we made to the scooter riders during the CS had an obligatory character. All the offers took place in the free time of the scooter riders. Participation in the activities of the CS was thus always associated with an additional time commitment, which was also linked with an organizational effort. In addition to school (which often lasted until 4 p.m.) and hobbies, participation in the CS also had to be organized. The very fact that we were able to conduct our CS at all against this background testifies to the high motivation and interest of the scooter riders in their leisure time practice. In this respect, the (non-)participation in the offers can also be evaluated as an expression of the interest in the CS. However, it must be pointed out that it is generally not possible to conclude from a (less) active participation to a (lower) greater interest. After all, many factors can contribute to whether children and young people take advantage of additional offers in their free time, for example, the question of whether they even knew that an event was taking place. Especially in the context of voluntarily participation, the accessibility of potential participants and their availability at the times when the activities take place plays a central role for their participation.

3 Commoning Practices

In this part of the chapter, we refer to sharing and caring practices (Sect. 3.1), cooperation (Sect. 3.2), engaged citizenship (Sect. 3.3) and conflict resolution (Sect. 3.4) as basic principles of the commons and key research dimensions of the SMOOTH project.

3.1 Sharing and Caring

With reference to the core dimensions of sharing and caring, we have chosen an extract from the second CS, so there were various situations in the different CS that can be assigned to above mentioned core dimension.

In the CS, we were able to identify a number of interactions, moments and situations in which sharing and caring play an important role in the community of scooter riders. In the following situation, which was observed during the activities that took place in the scooter riding workshop (CS2) on the skate park, caring is of particular importance:

Then a small group of young scooter riders come along, who do not belong to the group headed by Bryce.Footnote 1 They seem to be much younger. They can ride very quickly, and also do some tricks on the ramp. When one of them almost crashes while riding out of the ramp, his friend, who is already standing at the top and has been watching, asks “Hey bro, you OK?” in a tone that sounds truly concerned rather than off handed. The rider recovers, gets hold of his scooter and replies with a brief “Sure, fine”. He casually takes his scooter in his right hand […]. He then swings the deck equally casually under one of his feet […]. The other, worried rider tells him, “You almost made it, just that your left foot...” then shows him with his own foot what the left foot supposedly did wrong that ultimately led to the near crash. “Yeah bro” the dismounted rider says, “I already thought it was gonna be weird at the top”; he imitates the movement the other made with his foot. Meanwhile, the other casually gets back on his scooter and rides down the ramp. The rider who almost fell takes the handlebars in both hands, spins the scooter round in the air before him and places it back under his foot, then rides down the ramp too. They are both 8 years old at most and act as part of this skatepark without a second thought. It amuses me as they are so little and call one another ‘bro’, and at the same time I am impressed at how caringly they look out for one another [5].

In this situation, the scooter rider almost falls down while doing his trick, the other immediately expresses concern and asks him if he is ok. He seems to know how it feels to almost fall and that you can also hurt yourself. He takes care of the other scooter rider. Immediately afterwards, he demonstrates expert knowledge by explaining to him analytically what the mistake was. They share their knowledge with each other. This expert knowledge includes both the physical practice with the scooter, i.e. the tricks, as well as the knowledge of community and caring for each other.

The two boys create a safe space in which it is okay to care for each other beyond the stereotypes of masculinity. The communal practice of riding scooters gives them the opportunity to do this. The boys do not simply casually ignore mistakes and crashes, carrying on as normal: they look out for one another while also confirming one another’s skills and gender identity.

With the perspective of educational commons, these peer practices can certainly be identified as commoning practices. The boys are interested in generating and sharing knowledge together. And this field-specific knowledge also includes treating each other with respect and taking care of each other. Since all involved know that it is a physically demanding leisure practice in which the body is also at risk.

3.2 Cooperation

With a view on cooperation, we want to refer to the evaluation workshop (CS4). Due to different commitments, not all scooter riders who wanted to take part in the CS can be on site that day. This circumstance allows us to gain further insight into the cooperation between the scooter riders. At the beginning of the workshop, which was mainly about evaluating the process around the planning and construction of the scooter area, we asked the scooter riders to write down their criticism of the process, but also of the finished result (the pump track). For this purpose, we covered a table with a paper roll so that all participants could write something down. Afterwards, the written things were given points. The more points an aspect had, the more important it was for those people present.

As with the collection of the individual points, the weighting, which is done with sticky dots, shows that absent people are included. As before, Lennox and Bryce, who are not yet here or cannot be here today, are called up as speakers. Statements like “Bryce said that too” or “write that down for Lennox” are examples of this process. When it is time to distribute the sticky dots, the absent persons are called up again. And so, in the end, there are clearly more sticky dots on some of the aspects mentioned than there are people in the room.

The short excerpt from the observation protocol shows on the one hand that the scooter riders are well connected among themselves and know about the respective points of view of the people called upon. On the other hand, they communicate with others from the situation (participation in the workshop) via messenger service (we could also observe this) and thus bring them into the CS. The scooter riders cooperate with each other and thus manage to include absent persons and by doing so to give more emphasis to their points of criticism. They can communicate and cooperate in this way because they are so well connected with each other and have a common group on a messenger service, for example, through which they can exchange information quickly. This illustrates what we have been able identify as a common feature of the young people’s engagement with each other when it comes to riding scooter: Cooperation therefore takes place not only regarding the joint scooter practice (while they are scooter riding), but also regarding participation in the CS in order to manage their shared goals as commoners.

3.3 Engaged Citizenship

About the core dimension of engaged citizenship, we refer to data from the preliminary study we conducted in summer 2021 [6]. The planning and construction of the new pump track was partly a result of a political process in which various political actors emerged, including scooter riders and skaters. One starting point for the planning and construction were the ongoing conflicts at the municipal skate park, which was triggered in part by the addition of the new user group of scooter riders. In the words of one person in a position of responsibility, this has “clearly and ultimately led to processes of use, displacement and the taking over of public space” (Gustav Gerdsen; Head of Youth Service in the Department for Children, Youth and Families of the [City A]). As mentioned before, the skatepark was often already at its limits before the Covid19 pandemic. The pandemic acted as a catalyst, as there was a further rise in the need for public outdoor spaces for children and young people. Due to overcrowding, it became impossible to comply with Covid19 measures. In agreement with the municipal youth work department, the company operating the park initially reacted by introducing a regulatory measure: the young scooter riders were temporarily forbidden from using the park at all.

In view of the pandemic, the municipal youth work department portrayed this decision as the only possible choice, the sole other alternative being to close the park to everyone. Two explanations were given for this choice of action. On one hand, the quantitative argument was used, saying that the group of users was generally becoming too large. On the other hand, the qualitative argument was cited, saying that the different riding styles or lines were incompatible and adding that the park was not built for stunt scooters.

In other words, the pandemic was a catalyst for the problem in two ways: first, more children and young people relied on this already crowded public space, and second, the resulting large numbers of children and young people amassed in a tight space were declared problematic in terms of protecting against infection. After it was enacted, the policy measure of excluding the user group comprising scooter riders took on a rationality that remained even when there were no longer any social contact restrictions outdoors.

Various initiatives arose as a result of the exclusion. Supported by their parents, a group of scooter riders appealed to the local youth council. At the same time, the skaters organized themselves with the support of mobile youth workers and the local skate shop, and stood up for their interests in a manner that drew considerable public attention. Crashes between scooter riders and skaters, including some serious accidents, further aggravated the situation. In the end, those regulations were introduced as a compromise, which are discussed below in the core dimension of conflict resolution. The scooter riders were allowed to use the skate park two afternoons a week. This regulation was enforced by the municipal administration, the operating company of the skate park and the public youth work and without (official) involvement of the users on site.

With regard to the core dimension of engaged citizenship, the following can be shown with reference to the scooter riders: The older practice of skating, with its connotations of adolescence, enables members of that group to see themselves as established and to demand corresponding privileges as a group using the park. However, scooter riders are not powerless either. They certainly use the political means at their disposal: it is a privilege of scooter riders to be able to mobilize their parents and their ‘generational’ social capital, which young people, unlike children, do not have, because they are required to be independent political actors [7]. It is therefore no coincidence that the scooter riders are represented by their parents in public political negotiations, while the skaters organize themselves—albeit with the support of other institutions. In the end, the scooter riders succeed in obtaining temporary and partial toleration on the skate park, at least in the short term, and in the medium term in getting their ‘own’ scooter area—even if this of course means that the practice of scooter riding is further zoned [8].

3.4 Conflict Resolution

Regarding the core dimension of conflict resolution, we focus on material gathered in the fourth CS. The focal point is not a conflict that arose in the context of the workshop, but conflicts and attempted solutions that originate from the narrated practice of scooter riding and that sometimes arose due to measures that were used by the municipal youth work and administration on site at the skate park. The following excerpt aims at a particular zoning practice of the field. In this situation, four scooter riders talk to the researchers and those responsible for the city and the planning company about the situation at the skate park. The explicit issue is that they are banned from the park by skaters or encounter other exclusionary practices that are supposed to make it clear to them that they have “no business being there” (Ilja (15) scooter rider). He says:

That’s why I thought the signs were a bit stupid that they put them there, because it made things extremely bad with the scooters, […] because especially during the first three months [...] [then] we all went there on the days when we couldn’t, always always [...] it didn’t matter because we really didn’t like it that it's the way it is now, [...] which would be a solution if, they said, yes two scooter days […] but skaters can go too. And we said—we are not allowed to go on a skater day if they had said yes well only scooters and no skaters, then ok, then I would have understood but that only skaters are allowed to go every day, [...] that was a bit in my opinion a bit discriminatory for the sport of scooter you understand?

In this passage Ilja is referring to signs that are supposed to regulate the times of use for scooter riders on the skate park. While this time allocation should lead to a relaxation of the situation between the different scenes in their dealings with each other, the scooter riders perceive it as a strong restriction or discriminatory. Here, aspects of time are interwoven with leisure practices, so that the scooter riders have to deal with them. Not only because they have to actively deal with the fact that they are now breaking rules or evading temporally structuring attempts at zoning, but also because they are now marginalized from the outside, at least in terms of time. The fact that there are no explicit scooter days, but that the other users of the park are still allowed to be present, means that the park remains a place for skaters at all times. This in turn provides them with a special legitimization for exclusion practices, in which they ban the scooter riders from the park with reference to the signs or even actively prevent them from riding, for example by standing in the way and thus even provoking accidents. When the researcher then asked how the conflicts could be dealt with differently, Ilya replies,

Yes, what you can do is simply that that (1) the simplest thing you can do, so that they also get it somehow we've managed [...] that the scene is getting bigger, (..) first of all, scrap the signs because they don’t make sense any more anyway because I go there every day if I if I can’t go on Wednesday, then I go on Thursday [...] if I can’t go on Thursday, then I […] go on Sunday. Example: Saturday Sunday we are […] actually there all the time. so. so just take the signs away.

Ilya offers two possible solutions, one is that the scene is getting bigger, so they are convincing in terms of leisure time, so that they must be granted a certain amount of space just in terms of numbers. Secondly, he points out that the signs are nonsensical because they don’t follow them anyway. After all, their recreational practice of riding scooters cannot be ordered in terms of time. They are always scooter riders not only on two days a week.

Although the signs themselves are explicitly named as disturbing, what is problematized about them is the zoning or enclosure of one’s own leisure time practice in terms of time. In his argumentation, Ilya explicitly states that scooter practice takes place or has to take place in his free time. At the same time, he points out that the politically planned times for scooter riding do not correspond to his times. Time is thus significant in various ways within the examples: on the one hand, it is used by the scooter riders to prove their own affiliation to the scene and the park. On the other hand, it serves to control and order the practices on the skate park.

Ilja also talks about conflict resolutions practices that were negotiated directly between scooter riders and skaters on the park—without the interference of others (e.g. adults). These conflict resolution practices have been developed by both sport scenes together as one community, namely the one that uses the skate park together. In this sense, they are one community, despite all their differences and differences of affiliation of their belonging to different scenes.

There weren’t even these rules with Scooters […] and then at some point there was a that was cool- that was that was a cool- cool rule for example because there was there was a rule, we have now ((draws the park on the paper while he explains)) we have the whole park yes, so a pa:::rk I just make it like this and here, it was divided like this. here were skaters, and here […] [yes how should I do that with Scooter ((he notices that Skater and Scooter both start with S and he then abbreviates Scooter with Sc on his drawing where the skate park is divided into two sides))] and here were scooters and that was quite cool, because we scooter riders rode this:: side, the most, […] and the skaters here and then there's just because our park is a bit [(1) ((he paints another rectangular piece on the rectangle already designated as a park))] built like this and then we have stairs here. […] and that was for both so for both sides. […] for example, that was a cool arrangement […] that was that was that was I found completely okay

What is clear is that the solutions that the users of the park find themselves and in joint negotiation with each other are preferred to the solutions of the municipal youth work and administration. It is the solutions that skaters and scooters find together on site that satisfy both sides, at least until the signs appear, and that both sides can live with. The scarce resource of the skate park is divided up in such a way that everyone gets something out of it and no one is excluded. It must be said here that both scooter riders and skaters refer to the age limit for the use of the space, which is 8 years, and which is made visible on site by the sign regulating the general use of the space. Nevertheless, the reported solution from practice shows that both scenes can come into exchange with each other and find a productive solution to the existing problem (too little space for too many users). What is clear is that the solutions that the users of the park find themselves and in joint negotiation with each other are at least by the scooter riders preferred to the solutions of the municipal youth work and administration (namely the scooter days). From the scooter riders perspective it is the solutions that skaters and scooters find together on site that satisfy both sides, at least until the signs regarding the scooter days appear. The scarce resource of the skate park is divided up in such a way that everyone gets something out of it, and no one is excluded. It must be said here that both scooter riders and skaters refer to the age limit for the use of the space, which is 8 years, and which is made visible on site by the sign regulating the general use of the space. Nevertheless, the reported solution from practice shows that both scenes can come into exchange with each other and find a productive solution to the existing problem (too little space for too many users).

4 Community and the Common Goods

For this part of the chapter, we focus on a total of three key research dimensions: community belongingness and educational commons (Sect. 4.1), collaboration with members of the local community (Sect. 4.2), and intercultural and inter-generational dialogue and social inclusion (Sect. 4.3).

4.1 Community Belongingness and Educational Commons

In the following, we mainly reflect on the role of the researcher in the field. However, further considerations on actors in youth work are also addressed. For our sub-project, we decided, in accordance with the participatory methodology and the commons approach, to choose a research perspective that is deliberately not ‘neutral’ but “situated” [9] in such a way that it is in common with the practice of scooter riders. We have thus understood the practice of scooter riding as commons. But how is a researcher supposed to commune with a practice that is not one’s own, and how does one commune when one knows next to nothing about the practice itself? As in any research process, we first had to get to grips with our research object and the community associated with it.

The researcher who carried out the preliminary study in the summer of 2021 already had a more specific task than in other projects because of the project’s design and the methodological and meta-theoretical frameworks behind it: to become a commoner with the scooter riders. But this also meant deciding on a scene, namely that of the scooter riders, becoming part of this specific community and dedicating herself to the common interest, i.e. scooter practice. At first, it was a matter of an inner commitment, but due to the positioning of herself and others as a ‘researcher in the Scooter project’, this was present through her own person in contact with the actors involved. To make oneself common with one thing therefore always means to exclude other things. The same was true for some social workers who, due to their own sports biography as (former) skaters, made themselves common with the skate scene and therefore sometimes represented their interests (e.g. with regard to the demand to separate the scenes). In this respect, the commitment to the scooter scene and the common interest aimed at with it was also a reason why the researcher developed a closeness to scooter riders and their practice, whereas a distance to the skate scene emerged.

The fact that closeness had to develop first is shown, for example, by the fact that the first protocols are mainly characterized by orientation in the field.

There is not much going on at the skate park yet. Arne says: “Yes [name of researcher], you’re sitting next to the right guy, he rides both skateboard and scooter. [...] The [name of the researcher] is from the university and she’s here because of the scooters. Maybe you can tell her a bit about the situation here with the skaters and the scooter riders. I smile at the boy and say, “Hey.” The boy nods at me and Arne adds, “But you don’t have to if you don’t want to. Everything is voluntary.” I nod and the boy with the waistcoat tells me that there are “younger and older scooter riders” and that “the problems” actually “only arise with the younger scooter riders” because “they just don’t look, I don’t know why.” There are no problems with the older ones “fifteen or so”. Sometimes there are little kids on bobby cars on the park, which is also be “totally dangerous”. In the meantime, he has taken his skateboard, deck down, onto his knees and is playing with the wheels. The skaters on the left in front of me are also listening and the young skater says to Arne: “We’ve developed the theory that they don’t have eyes in their head and only have a guide scooter that looks out.” Arne laughs at her and I ask: “Yes, is that a problem?” “Yes, totally [...] the scooters just dropFootnote 2 in everywhere without looking” and “at some point you just shout out loud”. “Ah okay, because then they’re in the way or something,” I ask back. She nods: “Mhm.” And Arne then explains to me that “the scooters” are more often on the platform to the right of us—he points his finger in that direction—so you can’t really get through.

The excerpt traces a scene on the first day of the observations in June 2021. The street worker Arne introduces the researcher to the situation at the skatepark and makes contact with a scooter rider who rides “both”: “skateboard and scooter”. With the introduction of the researcher (“from the university and she is here because of the scooters”), he also makes her positioning in the field clear and locates her, as it were, in the vicinity of the scooter riders. The excerpt also shows the researcher’s questioning attitude, which is countered by the participants with introductions to the situation on site or spatial descriptions. It is necessary to introduce the researcher to the field so that she can orient herself there. At the same time, the conflict at the skate park is addressed directly on the first day of the observations, which shows how virulent it is within the scene(s).

Over time, the researcher’s position in the field changes. This can be seen in the language used in the field notes and protocols, as field terms are used as a matter of course, for example. Furthermore, there are also repeating passages in which the researcher’s involvement becomes clear.

There is now a strong smell of weed and the three skaters share a joint in front of the middle ramp. Shortly after they arrive on the park, they play rock-paper-scissors. I don’t know what it’s about, but the one who lost gets on the skateboard afterwards and rides across the middle of the lane towards the set of stairs. [...] Once there, the skater who was standing on the board sits down on the stone wall to the left of the staircase and the other two stand next to it. The joint makes the rounds again and the stair set is so occupied by the skaters that no one else can use it. The three skaters remain standing for a while before one of them sets off on his skateboard towards the middle ramp. The man from just now also sets off in this direction and the two collide at the middle ramp. “Woah, I didn’t see you, are you all right?” asks the skater, who looks surprised and irritated at the same time. “I‘m fine, are you?” the man replies. “Yeah yeah, everything’s fine,” says the skater and grins. [...] I have to think again that scooter riders (are supposed to) pose a danger to other users because of their sport and riding style. The fact that stoned or drunken skaters are not supposed to be a danger is something I can’t wrap my head around.

An important argument for the separation of the scenes, which the researcher refers to in the protocol and which already appears in the justification for the exclusion of scooter riders from the park, is the different driving styles of scooter riders and skaters associated with the sports equipment. Scooter riders, according to the narrative of the mostly older skaters, pose a danger because of their lack of overview (see first excerpt) and their driving style qua sports equipment.Footnote 3 The researcher not only questions this narrative, but also expresses her displeasure about the unequal treatment of the scooter riders, who are attacked by the skaters because of their sport. In some cases, they are insulted, but they are also attacked or, in extreme cases, physically assaulted. Skaters repeatedly criticize the formation of groups of scooter riders at different points on the roadway during the course of the observations. If skaters do the same, this is usually not a problem. This feeling of unequal treatment is reinforced not least by the fact that over the course of eleven visits to the skate park, the researcher has inwardly made herself common with the scooter riders and their practice. The practice of scooter riding as a commons, as a common interest, is now close to her heart and this despite the fact that she herself does not carry out this practice. The changed perspective on the field is gradual and, in retrospect, can be attributed to different aspects: Talks with the scooter riders and their relatives (e.g. (grand) parents) about the situation on site and the often rude treatment of the scooter riders by the skaters, her own observations as well as the self-positioning of some social workers as skaters, etc. The research assignment certainly also contributed to the change in perspective, which enabled the researcher, or even required her, to take a biased position. In addition, through her visits on site, observations, and conversations with scooter riders, she has developed a broad knowledge of what is involved in the practice of scooter riding and has thus become a commoner.

This knowledge then fed into workshops that are embedded as CS in the wider project framework. Through the joint work in the CS, the shared experiences and the common interest, our involvement as researchers also increased further. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that the perceived disappointment of the scooter riders about the eventually built pump track also ‘spilled over’ to us as researchers. At the beginning, the children and young people were promised their own space where they could decide “what should go up there” (Arne, street worker), but in the end they had to make do with a pump track. During the process, we as researchers felt the disappointment of the children and young people in this regard again and again and empathized with them. This also includes feeling responsible when promises cannot be kept and apologizing afterwards or being angry when children and young people who get involved are not noticed. Especially because the scooter riders were highly motivated and always contributed with constructive suggestions, even when the pump track was already built.

In summary, although it is always clear that we as researchers do not belong to the peer group of scooter riders, we have become part of the community by understanding ourselves as commoners together with the scooter riders and focusing on a common interest or commons: the practice of scooter riding. This made a research process on an equal footing possible, even though there were still lines of difference—such as age or gender. The integration and proximity to the scooter scene gave us the opportunity to gain new insights and knowledge, which we could then bring back to other levels, for example, to advance the process in the sense of the commons.

The perspective adopted here is only one example of how belonging to the community can be built. Overall belonging to the community is created for all actors in common practice. Skaters and scooter riders, for example, form a community, even if they differ in their leisure practice—some ride skateboards, others scooters. However, they are connected to each other through the specific location (the skate park), so that processes of community building can take place there. The creation of belonging is thus always to be thought of relationally. The processes that take place do not always have positive connotations and can also be quite conflictual. In this respect, the confrontation of the scenes with and among each other is an important part of the community building processes.

4.2 Collaboration with Members of the Local Community

Since our third party was not a single institution but a municipality, we had contact and exchange with many different actors. In the following, we focus on the different institutions and actors that came into contact with each other during the project. To structure the description, there is a figure (see Fig. 1) below in which the individual actors are shown.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Community SMOOTH UOS

Full size image

First, it should be pointed out that the emerging ‘problem’ at the skate park had a high activation potential in the municipality. The emerging conflicts on the park are significantly related to processes of displacement of children and young people from the public space. These processes become virulent on the skate park not least because different scenes that have been pushed out of the city are zoned in one place, where they now compete for a scarce resource (public space). The already scarce spatial resource of the skate park has to be re-allocated due to the emergence of the new trend sport of scooter riding. This was of great advantage for our project in that the situation to which our research was linked was already given and we could thus participate in the process that would lead to the solution of the problem. Through the CS and contacts with the different actors, we were also able to stimulate further exchange between the actors.

Figure 1 shows the various actors and institutions involved in their respective spatial locations in relation to city district A. Both the skate park and the newly built scooter area (the pump track) are located in this city district. The overlaps illustrate the proximity to the city district, although it should be noted that these are not static positions. The actors move back and forth between the individual institutions and locations, so that although the representation appears static overall, in practice it is to be understood as a dynamic event. For example, not all scooter riders live in city district A, but they still come to the skate park for their practice. Moreover, the Mobile Youth Work/Street work team is not only active in this district, but in the whole city. The CS have contributed to further promote the existing exchange between the actors. In addition, actors were brought together who would otherwise not necessarily encounter each other. For example, at the evaluation workshop (CS4), the representative of the Youth Service, as a municipal actor, was able to exchange ideas and views directly with the scooter riders and also with the representative of the planning agency. Without the workshop, such an exchange would not have come about due to the almost non-existent points of contact. In this respect, the workshops helped to promote collaboration between the participants.

4.3 Intercultural and Inter-Generational Dialogue and Social Inclusion

The subproject was primarily concerned with children and young people being able to represent their interests in the context of the generational order [10]. This initially happened intra-generationally in the negotiation processes with the youth groups competing for the same space—especially the group of skaters. But it also happened quite substantially in the context of intergenerational relations. The conflicts and negotiations were always about which resources children and young people claim for themselves in public space. In many respects, the interests of children and young people are at odds with those of adults (who, for example, are more interested in the construction of additional parking spaces or green spaces than in the construction of sports facilities for young people). However, in the process we accompanied, adults also acted, at least in part, as commoners for the children and young people involved. We understand participation as a relational process between children and adults [11]: In this sense, it is not about the greatest possible autonomy of children and young people, but about children, young people and adults working together to maximize the interests of children and young people. To do this, however, it was first necessary for the scooter riders to convince the relevant adult political actors that they represent a relevant group whose needs must be taken into account. In the local youth parliament, for example, scooter riders represented their interests and were heard by relevant adults. Representatives of the local authorities then took the opportunity to develop a free public area—which was originally intended for further public parking spaces—with the help of European funding in the interests of the scooter riders and thus use it for them. Even though the subsequent planning process was ambivalent and frustrating for the children and young people involved (see above), it was based on an intergenerational dialogue aimed at the social inclusion of children and young people and their leisure practices in the public space. Differences that arose during this process were dealt with in the final CS—the Evaluation Workshop—in inter-generational dialogue [6].

5 Other Findings

Finally, we would like to take a look at other findings that emerged as relevant in the course of the analysis. We will first look at the dimension of relations and impact on the wider community (Sect. 5.1) before turning to the development of common-friendly policies and states (Sect. 5.2). We conclude the consideration of the results with the dimension of spatiality and the connection between space and experience (Sect. 5.3).

5.1 Relations and Impact on the Wider Community

As already assumed at the beginning of the planning of the CS, the new scooter area is not only a recreational place for scooter riders. Since the pump track is not only used by children and young people who were present during the CS, it has an effect on the scooter scene within the city. In addition, the city’s idea of building a place for “everyone” has meant that the area can be used by different groups and people of almost all ages and abilities. For example, (Manuela an employee of the pump track’s planning and construction company) says at the opening of the pump track: “the pump track is suitable for everything that rolls. From bobby-car-riding children to 89-year-old wheelchair users”. In this respect—as disappointing as this may have been for the scooter riders—clearly a wider range of people is addressed to use the new area. This is also evident from the sign put up at the pump track, as can be seen from the following excerpt from the observation of the opening event in December 2022:

I take a photo of the sign that explains how to use the park, sets out rules and prohibitions and lists important contact persons [...]. The sign says “Pumptrack [name of street]”. Below the title, a mountain bike rider is depicted on a wave track explaining “[t]he pumptrack riding technique, the pumping” in a sequence of pictures. Below this are small pictograms, behind each of which is a red tick. Pictured are a mountain or BMX bike, a stunt scooter, a running bike, inline skates, a wheelchair rider and a skateboard.

The pump track, which was financed from public funds and subsidized with funds from a pot for social urban development, is thus a place for everyone who enjoys using it. The location of the area within the city and in the direct vicinity of a large playground and the city’s skate hall invites different people to use it, and the rather low level of difficulty of the pump track invites younger riders in particular to try out their first rides on the sports equipment of their choice.

5.2 Development of Common-Friendly Policies and States

Due to the experiences that the children and young people had through their participation in the planning and construction of the pump track, they experienced themselves as political actors, which in a certain way lead to political education.

However, the first CS in particular, namely the participation workshop (CS1), represented a major hurdle in this respect, as the following analysis makes clear. In this CS the scooter riders were invited to talk about and be part of the planning of the new trend sport area. After the children and young people had had a free ride in the skate hall where the CS took place, we called them together, played a game to get to know each other and then the planner presented his ideas and also discussed them with the children. In the analysis of the discussion, we were able to identify three central subjects. The whole participation process has been centered as different agendas, homogenization and self-efficacy. All three of these are mutually dependent.

Different agendas: Although the common goal was to build a scooter park, the agendas of the different actors varied quite a bit. The scooter riders attended this workshop to ride scooters and to get involved in the construction process of the park designed for them. In doing so, they assumed they were free to decide on elements for the area and that their opinion on this would count. But many negotiations about the area took place much earlier on a different stage. For example, the call for submissions for the construction of the area already specified that it should be a pump track. Which is a wave park that enables even beginners to gain momentum with body weight shifts. Most of the scooter riders at the participation workshop were no longer beginners but wanted ramps with which you can also do tricks (“But you could also make it so that on one half there is a pump track and on the other half there are ramps like we decide.”; Frederick (13) scooter rider). Therefore, the moments in the material that are really exciting are exactly the parts where the different agendas are negotiated between the actors. The planner said there was still a bit of space where other elements could be set up, but the scooter riders themselves were quite disappointed. They went to the workshop with other ideas in mind. The planner argued that, in addition to the mandate he received from the city to build a pump track, this place should also be inclusive and should give other children the opportunity to use the park, even when they are just started riding scooters (“You are I would say ambitious scooter riders who also want to do tricks and jumps but there are also I’ll call them everyday scooter riders who just ride around the skate park. […] That means that the guidelines for the pump track is that, that it should allow beginners to ride over it as well.”; Georg (~ 40) expert planner). On the one hand we see the children and young people who want to ride scooters and want to plan a park that meets their needs and the adults who are representatives of the city who have a broader view and want to include kids and people of all abilities and ages. In order to keep the scooter riders away from the existing skatepark and not to disturb the established scenes there—mostly the skaters (“so the motivation is also there from the city or in general, the basis why it should be built, one also wants to build it in order to rectify the normal skatepark a bit.”; Georg).

Homogenization: The adults responsible homogenize the scene of scooter riders into children. They are addressed as part of a group, namely children. This revealed some adultism in the negotiations. The social workers would like to create a place for as many children as possible regarding a certain focus on inclusivity, so that they do not disturb the other scenes, for example the skate scene, and get their own park. The children and young people, on the other hand, wanted to plan a park with their focus of interest that would meet their needs. This led to a certain amount of disappointment by the children and young people who have been involved.

Self-efficacy: In our opinion, it was very important not to let this disappointment remain as it was. After all, the scooter riders did have an influence. The adults have subsequently taken their suggestions seriously, otherwise there wouldn’t be a pump track now. Therefore, it was important to reawaken self-efficacy within the scooter riders, which we did by inviting them to the evaluation workshop (CS4). We wanted to show the scooter riders that they had an influence regarding the construction of the park. Nevertheless, we wanted the adults responsible to know that they should have listened better to what the children and young people were saying, that they should have been more open about their decision-making processes to make the new area more inclusive, and that by promising something different than what was eventually realized, they partly contributed to the disappointment on the part of the scooter riders. By focusing on the scooter riders’ need for discussion in the evaluation workshop, they had the opportunity to express their needs again and they got the feeling that they were being heard. This was also helped by the fact that the city officials present listened and took the concerns of the scooter riders seriously. This could be seen, for example, in the fact that the scooter riders were often asked how exactly they meant certain things, what their criticisms were based on, and that a possible retrofitting of elements on the pump track was considered together. In this respect, the CS offered the participating scooter riders the opportunity to experience themselves as political actors and to learn what it means to stand up for oneself and one's own interests, even in confrontation with others.

5.3 Spatiality: Space and Experience

Due to the limited resources available in terms of public social spaces, skate parks are places where specific cultural practices are carried out by both young people and children. They are not just meeting points, but also offer a very specific space, with very specific practical resources, to suit specific practices. Practices such as skateboarding, BMX-riding or in-line skating originally came about as a means of reinterpreting and appropriating spaces, materials, boundaries, places and urban spaces through these different youth cultural practices. Skate parks are a means of taking what was once a spatially unrestricted practice that blurred urban boundaries, and tying it down to, or “zoning” it in a single place [8]. This makes skateparks politically defined places for youth practices.

Skate parks are no longer only visited by young people on skateboards, BMX bikes or in-line skates, however; for some years now, “stunt scooter riders” have also increasingly appeared there. They use these enclosed places dedicated to youth subculture practices to carry out their own practices, like the others, but tend to be somewhat younger. From the point of view of Childhood Studies, the conflicts this has caused can be seen as side effects of childhood having increasingly shifted indoors over the last hundred years and more [12], progressively excluding children from public life. From the point of view of Youth Studies, this phenomenon can also be interpreted in the context of public spaces becoming increasingly functional and commercialized, and young people having less and less access to them [13].

In this respect, a policy of zoning, as undertaken in the context of the leisure practices of stunt scooter riding or skateboarding, which is characterized by the enclosure of child and youth cultural practices, is a (temporal) spatial experience that the scooter riders we researched experience in the course of engaging in their practice. Time also plays a role in this. Zoning as part of social pedagogical and social work practice does not only explicitly refer to a place—it does, because social work practice can be localized [8]—in our case the skate or a scooter park, but also to the connection and the relating of different policies to deal with childhood, youth and a practice identified as belonging to them. With our data material we can reconstruct how this zoning works. This makes it clear that, on the one hand, it is a relational and political process that is initiated and wanted by policy makers (municipal type) and social workers. On the other hand, the process takes place simultaneously as a field-immanent practice of the children and young people. A policy of zoning is part of the practice of the skate park. These policies of zoning can thus be understood as a central phenomenon of this field, which is produced from the interplay of the most diverse categories. In addition to generational orders, which in addition to age as a relational category also emphasize field competence in the sense of a capable human body as significant for zoning [6], these are also aspects of temporality and time per se that become relevant for the politics of zoning and help to produce it.

6 Conclusion

Our CS have shown how the political participation of children and young people in decisions that affect them can lead to commoning processes. In particular, it became clear that this cannot happen in the mode of maximum autonomy but requires an intergenerational dialogue [11] in which adult policymakers and educators work together with them to advocate for the interests of children and young people. This relationality is consistent with the principles of the commons [2] and presupposes a commoning process between children and adults. To some extent, the educators and other adult actors involved make themselves commoners in the practices of children and youth, as well as in their related interests, without exercising them themselves.

The CS have also shown, however, that the children and young people involved in such joint political processes as commoners require a high degree of transparency on the part of the adult decision-makers as to what scope the children and young people involved have for shaping these processes. Although the adults have partially made themselves commoners, they are ultimately in larger contexts and must also include different interests of other target groups (such as younger children who want to ride their bikes) in the processes.

In addition to transparent processes that also allow children and young people to express themselves critically and stand up for their interests, the joint evaluation of the process (CS4) has proven to be essential. Especially when it comes to the pedagogical aspect of commons as well as the lived experience of citizenship by children and young people, it is necessary to provide the children and young people with a framework for reflection on the jointly experienced processes.