Keywords

1 Introduction

Today’s complex social reality is marked by different problems such as social exclusion, the hollowing out of democracy or environmental degradation [1,2,3]. Problems which, for Pechtelidis and Kioupkiolis [4], p. 2, have given rise to the search for and emergence of spaces that are based on collaboration and where “democratic, egalitarian, creative ideas, community through different sustainable relationships between human beings and nature” are promoted. Spaces, also educational, where formulas are experimented in order to contribute to equity and social inclusion, guided by Human Rights and motivated by the participation and empowerment of the community (human beings and the environment).

One such experimentation is presented in this chapter: research based on case studies. The cases were implemented in non-formal educational contexts, linked to after-school programmes run by social organizations, involving young people aged 10–17, educators from different organizations and researchers.

The collaborating entities (third parties) work in areas classified by the Andalusian Regional Government as Disadvantaged Areas. Save the Children in Seville, Zona-Sur CEAin in Jerez (Cadiz) and the Tekeando Association. The latter organization has been in charge of designing and implementing the workshops in collaboration with the organizations and the research team from the University of Cadiz (UCA). In these workshops, the principals of the educational commons have been experimented with, using art as the central idea that inspires teaching and learning situations based on cooperation, care and sharing. These workshops were designed around the three fundamental dimensions of the commons: the common good (educational), the community (made up of all the participants, young people and adults) and governance (horizontal and democratic).

This 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. To this end, two actions from each of the rounds have been selected and are specifically addressed. In the first-round action, the workshops are open to specialists and artists who share their knowledge and dialogue in the processes of generating knowledge and artistic productions with the young people. In the second-round actions, it is the young people who go out into the surrounding environment and, after a process of exploration, cooperatively develop an intervention in the public space.

All of this is discussed in detail in the results section of this chapter. Before that, a theoretical framework is included to frame the concept of educational commons and artistic practices, as well as a section of methodological notes. Finally, the discussion and conclusions section are presented.

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Commons and Educational Commons

The rediscovery and recognition of the commons in the contemporary world has much to do with the work of political scientist Elinor Ostrom, specifically on the management of common pool resources, which she developed in great depth and breadth. She focused on the different forms of self-governance of common pool resources, arguing that the best way to manage a resource sustainably is by those involved [5].

Based on Ostrom’s idea of self-governance of the commons, different reworkings of the commons have been done from different perspectives. They all tend to share that “they are forms of collective ownership and rational management of material and/or immaterial resources that have been established by different communities to ensure their survival and the prosperity of each of their members” [4], p. 3. In other words, the commons are collectively produced, managed and used. As crucial and intersecting elements of its structure, we can firstly distinguish the resources or common goods themselves, secondly, the institutions understood from the practice of the principle of governance, and thirdly, the community involved in both the production and reproduction of the specific good [6].

The practice of “common” [7], is the practice of doing and managing a community good, from a perspective of openness, equality, co-participation, plurality and sustainability. It is precisely within this conception of the commons that we can situate the educational commons, where there is a community without prior barriers, but rather those resulting from the very process of community production and management of the commons, in this case, education [8]. “Education is perceived not only as a vital resource for people’s well- being and self- development but also as a key instrument of political empowerment for both children and adults” [4], p. 4. Thus, the concept of commons becomes an approach that allows control to be taken over education, in order to drive it towards social and political transformation. According to Korsgaard [9], this is because educational processes have the dual potential to continue to reproduce social systems or to revolutionize them.

For this idea of the educational commons to develop, a governance process is necessary in which community members can decide and establish boundaries and norms through collaborative processes based on communication [5, 8]. Children and young adults are understood as full members of the community, becoming visible actors in the processes of knowledge production, distribution and ownership, as well as in participation in decision-making processes. Educational commons advocate for the community to develop open access to knowledge, reinforcing intercultural and intergenerational dialogue and social inclusion. They also foster the development of social and personal skills in community members through spaces characterized by democratic relations [4].

This is possible (and shapes the educational commons) when the dynamics of educational communities are based on three interconnected practices: caring, sharing and cooperating. The boundaries between them are not always clear and they reinforce each other. Feminist approaches have revealed and vindicated the importance of care as a fundamental basis of well-being. Fisher and Tronto [10], p. 34 understand caring from a broad perspective “as species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue and ‘repair’ our world so we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environments, all of which we seek to interweave, in a complex life sustaining web” [the original in italics]. This definition accounts for interdependence between people and eco-dependence in relation to the environment. Our lives unfold in vulnerable bodies and psyches that need material and affective care throughout the life cycle. Hence, vulnerability and the need for care “is simply a human condition and must be met. To reject care is to reject life itself” [11].

Care takes on different interconnected dimensions, which can be observed within the framework of community. From “caring about” which involves becoming aware of and recognizing the needs and wishes of others (or of the community), caring for, taking care of (which involves implementing actions to respond to these needs and wishes), care receiving (which implies that these actions are welcomed, received in the form of good care by the person receiving them) and “caring with” [12]. In the framework of the educational commons, the latter dimension implies the development of solidarity, reciprocity and community care practices. In this way, care is also materialized as a relational good [13], necessary for the practice of the commons [14] and for the provision of well-being.

2.2 Education and Artistic Work

On the other hand, from a pedagogical perspective, the practice of the educational commons is linked to the experiences of Reggio Emilia schools, where listening is at the centre of action and the search for meaning [15]. This listening takes place through the worlds of play, experimentation and creativity [16]. The approach is based on respect and recognition of the potentialities of childhoods [17,18,19,20], and on the presence of artistic, critical and ethical dimensions [21]. Vecchi [20] connects physical and mental well-being with the aesthetic experience from which to express values, ideas and emotions that achieve a healthy relationship with the environment.

In these schools, art, embodied in the figure of the atelierista, is the possibility of questioning unquestionable academics, of contributing to the educational experience being creative, collaborative, non-routine and respectful of the languages of childhood. The motivation to include art as a “natural” part of the ways that children (and, in our case, adolescents) communicate is also a critical response to the preponderance of reading and writing as central languages in schools and the consequences of this [20]. Among the latter: the reproduction of strategies that generate inequality and exclusion [22]. Different research shows that the economic, cultural and employment opportunities of families influence the academic success of children and adolescents in general [23,24,25], and the development of language skills in particular [26,27,28,29]. Therefore, it is necessary to extend educational experiences to other expressive possibilities, enhancing other communicative competences that are usually silenced [30]. Likewise, focusing educational practice prominently on reading and writing limits the development of human potentialities, which can be used in other languages, such as the artistic one.

Artistic work in educational contexts also increases the possibilities of access to artistic manifestations which are very often found in facilities (museums, theatres, concerts, etc.) that are not part of the everyday lives of certain children and young people. This limits knowledge and collaboration in non-conventional cultural and artistic actions, which are, on many occasions, protest manifestations [22, 31]. The activist role of the arts is pointed out by Desai [32] as a pedagogy of possibility that allows the visualization of possible alternatives, and can be oriented towards social reconstruction, as Escaño et al. [33] point out. Artistic approaches in the community make it possible to broaden the possibilities for intervening in the public space, situating artistic work as a formula for structuring the territory in order to establish relationships from which to address issues of social interest [34]. There are specific working groups connected to collectives of socially committed education professionals, such as Enter-Arte,Footnote 1 which address research and innovation processes around the possibilities of arts education as spaces for expressions, emotion, internalization, creation and public exhibition, establishing creative relationships between the educational community and the social and cultural environments in which they are interwoven [35]. In this sense, the experiences that integrate urban art, public space, education [36, 37] and contextual art practices [38] are also significant, relevant in that art is the bridge to establish dialogues between disciplines, knowledge and wisdom.

3 Methodological Notes

This research adopts a case study approach, specifically developing what Stake [39] calls a collective case study. That is, studying several cases to make a collective interpretation of the issue or question posed [39, 40], thus facilitating the identification of patterns for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study. The case study approach allows us to obtain information about the educational phenomenon and, more specifically, about how and in what contexts it develops. Moreover, considering that in an educational process, social relationships are permeated with power inequalities [41], this perspective is useful for addressing the processes and dynamics of change [40].

The research methodology corresponds to a feminist critical ethnography that not only questions social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender structure, but also seeks the keys to action [42]. In addition, work is carried out from this perspective centred on childhood. Critical ethnography makes it possible to look more deeply at the participation of girls, boys and young adolescents in educational processes. This requires a process of community self-reflection to address three of the primary resistances of childhood studies, such as recognizing the expert knowledge of young people, establishing mechanisms for the disarticulation of generational hierarchies and contributing to the opening of structures in academia [43]. “Childhood” is not a universal and homogeneous experience [22, 44], but, on the contrary, it is an experience constructed through particular dynamics based on gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, class and geography.

The complexity of the object of the study has led to the use of different strategies and instruments to situate the production of data in an attempt to address different voices and scenarios.

A fundamental strategy has been the field diary, which is both ethnographic and collaborative in nature. The records made in the field diary contain all of the sessions carried out in each case study. In total, 57 workshop sessions have been recorded, 25 of which took place in the first round and 32 in the second round. Two of these sessions were joint activities between the two case studies promoting interaction between the two groups of young people. The narrative has been constructed around three open dimensions: descriptive, interpretative and reflective. The main voices of the three researchers present in the sessions and activities have been incorporated into this tool, as well as sporadic contributions to the record from the Tekeando educators, generating a balance between subjectivity and triangulation of the collective memory.

The pedagogical and research strategy also included pedagogical documentation. This was carried out jointly by the researchers, the educators linked to the case study groups and the young participants. Based on Gallego-Noche and Vázque Recio [22] we understand that it is not possible to document individually, it is essential to dialogue about the information selected and reconstructed. In our case, it is the material produced during the sessions through photographs, videos, audios and artefacts (compositions of objects, ceramic pieces, posters, drawings etc.). Observation, documentation and interpretation are integrated into a single process of metacognition and meta-reflection, allowing knowledge to be built. “It is accountability, but this time understood as an ethical commitment to the community, as a democratic and transparent demand of a public service, such as the school” [22], p. 212.

Part of this pedagogical documentation is collected in the narrative blog of the workshops, produced by Tekeando Association. In this blog, the educators narrate the creative artistic process in their own voices in the form of a weblog (https://elmanual.tekeando.net/2022/02/17/capitulo-ii-aguita/ in the first round, https://elmanual.tekeando.net/2022/10/17/capitulo-iii-ysilavidafueraunafiesta/ in the second round). Each activity is narrated with text supported by audio-visual materials that collect and emphasize both the contents and the teaching–learning process.

A total of 18 regular meetings have been held with the participating entities. These meetings provide spaces for communicating needs, expectations and perceptions of the process, which are fundamental for reflection, analysis and the building of knowledge. There are written records and/or collective products resulting from group activities in every single one of these meetings.

Interviews have also been used as a data production strategy in the case studies. On the one hand, interviews were conducted with peers (young people) and, on the other hand, with educators. The purpose of the peer interviews was to find out the young people’s perception of the educational commons based on their experience in the sessions. The interview script was based on a proposal from the research team, which was then worked on, in collaboration with the young people, in sessions prior to the interviews. These were carried out in the joint sessions for both case studies, with the young people from one group conducting the interviews with the young people from the other group, rotating the roles (interviewer/interviewee) later. Twenty-three peer interviews were conducted, in total. As for the interviews with the educators, 7 interviews were conducted with the educators/social workers and atelieristas who participated in the sessions and workshops.

During the information production process [45], the analysis was carried out based on the classic qualitative methodology that proposes a systematic coding and categorization (in continuum) from the beginning of information collection for its organization, hierarchization, systematization, saturation and reduction for analysis [46, 47]. The elaboration and organization of the dimensions of analysis follow the tripartite structure of the theoretical definition of the educational commons (1) the community, (2) the educational commons and (3) governance.

Community (1) is based on the different relationships between the different members of the groups (young people and adults) and shapes a specific experience. In this dimension, categories related to diversities, the intersectional perspective of inequalities and educational inclusion strategies are developed. The educational common good (2), as a dimension, refers to the co-creation actions and the perception of the process experienced in the sessions and workshops by young people and adults. Categories related to play, creativity, participation and freedom, among others, emerge from here. And governance (3), referring to practices related to the democratic management of the educational asset, participation in the development of activities and conflict management. From these dimensions, we derive categories related to caring, sharing and cooperating as fundamental relational qualities in the educational commons.

As for the unavoidable subjectivity of the researcher, this is dealt with, on the one hand, through the foundation and systematization of the creation of dimensions and categories; and, on the other hand, through the multidisciplinarity that the researchers contribute, favouring a critical questioning of the results. Likewise, inter-subjectivity and truthfulness are adopted as methodological principals [45]. Carrying out the two case studies in the same period of time and in two rounds has also made it possible to compare the depth of the elements of differentiation and similarity.

Ethical considerations in the research have incorporated mechanisms to preserve privacy, anonymity and the right of adults and young people to refuse participation.

In order to maintain this anonymity, but at the same time give a more complex, rich and aesthetic meaning to the information produced, the names of the young people were coded using the nomenclature of elements from the periodic table as a narrative resource and as a symbolic formula to represent the diversity of each group. This resource highlights the particular identity of each participant in the research, the reactive potential of the infinite relational possibilities and the humanist will of the researchers to seek alternatives to conventional numerical coding.

On the other hand, the research team established mechanisms to obtain informed and conscious consent from parents/guardians and the young people to participate in the research. Throughout the workshop process, the team tries to clarify to the young people both the meaning and the objective of the research and the voluntary and reversible nature of participation at any time. That is, obtaining consent does not exclude the possibility of modification over the course of the research [48].

Reflecting critically on the methodology adopted in the research is a hallmark of methodological validation that seeks to enhance self-awareness and minimize potential social harm [49] arising from the power asymmetry of intergenerational privilege. This approach becomes highly relevant during the facilitators’ group discussions and meetings that have challenged the role of adults in each and every phase of the research, from the initial design to the reformulation and return to the group of participants. The data analysis is based on diverse voices and scenarios that try to reduce the biases that can be expected either from the privileged position of researchers and educators or from the identities closer to the hegemonic profiles, questioning the discourse from the perspective of feminist research.

4 The Agüita Smooth Case Studies

Between March 2022 and March 2023, two case studies linked to non-formal education programmes were implemented with the support of social organizations in Areas in Need of Social Transformation (ZNTS in Spanish), involving young people aged 10–17. The workshops, held in Seville under the auspices of Save the Children and in Jerez with CEAin, were run by Tekeando’s educators/atelieristas. At the centre of the activity of Tekeando is the design and accompaniment of collaborative artistic processes and practices based on critical pedagogies, action art and technology as a tool for communication, organization and action, all from a perspective of eco-social transformation.

The case studies were organized in two rounds of three months each, simultaneously with both groups. The development and monitoring of the cases in two rounds allowed for reviewing the design, implementation and result of the workshops between rounds, enabling their adjustment and reformulation. The first round ran from March to June 2022, and the second from October 2022 to March 2023. Both were implemented in weekly sessions, 90-min sessions during the first round, and 120-min sessions during the second round.

The cases present subtle differences and similarities that make it possible to detect singular elements, favouring comparison and a deeper examination of the obtained results, typical of the collective case study approach. In the case of Seville, the Agüita Smooth workshops were carried out within the framework of a school reinforcement programme that Save the Children organizes during the school year (from October to June and from Monday to Thursday afternoons) onsite at a primary school. Specifically, during the time the study was carried out, the sessions were a break in the usual dynamics of Save the Children’s programme, which was interrupted on Mondays to host the workshops, and then continued the rest of the week with its usual program. In contrast, in the case of Jerez, the group was specifically constituted to participate in Agüita Smooth workshops, which were held weekly, on Wednesdays, during the indicated period at a Community Centre. This activity was not connected to other programmes and, therefore the group’s experience is framed within the workshop programme as a priority.

In terms of similarities, the educators/atelieristas from Association Tekeando worked in both case studies, with both groups and in both rounds. They were in charge of designing, applying, dynamizing and reformulating the proposed activities based on the theory of the educational commons, with the collaboration of the UCA research team. Active listening returned proposals and reactions from the young participants and the educators constantly adjusted the sessions according to these reactions and proposals. The Tekeando educators/atelieristas thus take on the role of promoters, dynamizers and, to a certain extent, also researchers of the actions that they put into practice in each session. The research team from the UCA joins the sessions with an increasingly participative observational role in the dynamization. Similarly, the workers/educators from the educational programmes of the other third parties (mainly in the case of Seville) are progressively acquiring a more participative and committed role in the design, dynamization and philosophy based on the commons, that govern the workshops.

Among the young participants, we find that both groups are made up of young people with different profiles: different ages, nationalities, cultures, genders, physical and cognitive abilities or command of the Spanish language. In terms of nationality, about half of the young participants come from non-EU countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. The number of participants in each workshop session has fluctuated between six and fifteen young people. This requires an exercise of continuous adaptation and readjustment to the number and characteristics of the young participants in each session, reaffirming the importance of listening and building the content on an ongoing basis. In addition, on occasions, there was also a fluctuation in the participation of the adults due to staff turnover with third parties or absences due to the need to attend to other work and/or personal responsibilities. There is confirmation about how the precarious situation of social and cultural workers (staff turnover, employability conditional on projects, low salaries, double shifts, feminization of the sector and therefore greater impact of care tasks in person etc.) does not favour the development of educational commons and is decisive for the sustainability of this type of projects and initiatives. On these occasions, the team responds from a logic of trust, support and what Tronto [12] calls caring with, respecting the adult who cannot attend the session and sustaining the activity.

5 Communing Education Through Arts:

5.1 From Outside in and from Inside Out

In both rounds, the actions have been grouped into thematic chapters: “Agüita” during the first round, and “What if life were a party?” on the second one. The workshops propose a community process of teaching and learning in a non-routine way, enhancing the artistic dimension in the productions of young people through a connection with the figure of the atelierista proposed by Malaguzzi [19]. Tekeando enhances this through an extensive and diverse battery of differently-themed actions on which to continually re-elaborate the possibilities of each session. Educational action is developed through creative provocations [20], which are reflected in the materials created by young people.

In the first round, artistic creation starts by approaching the theme of water (“agua” in Spanish) as a broad concept from which to address issues based on community memory, the right to water access or the environmental protection. The group work developed around clay pots, drawings and designs for creating a board game about water (including the design of game cards and tokens) and audio-visual clips using the stop-motion technique. In the second round, the creations connect to concepts and situations built around the concept of community and individual well-being. They are made by young people as collaborative artistic creations based on the composition of objects, murals or stories told through cartoons or comics, poster designs and brochures for public activities or small gifts designed to “feel better every day”.

At all times, observation and deliberate listening become key points to pay attention to the reactions of the young people and those who accompany them. Hence, the process of pedagogical documentation is a fundamental element, in which the collaborative contribution is emphasized. This type of methodology allows for the analysis of written and visual materials that show expressive moments that attest to the community construction of ideas [50].

The proposals based on pedagogical documentation generate a positive reaction in the young people, encouraging their interest and consequently their collaboration in the task being undertaken, whether by taking photographs, activating and directing the recorder or even writing on the continuous paper boards where the group’s ideas are recorded. Furthermore, this collaborative activation in the learning process dilutes the conventional roles established between the facilitators and the students. The adult team accompanies the young people in the development of the sessions and in the learning processes based on the moments experienced and subsequently reflected on by researchers and educators. The activities use play deliberately, but also spontaneously. It is the young people who find formulas within the proposals to enhance the fun, placing themselves as protagonists of their own events by deciding the tone in which they take place. This creates a scenario in which the degree of freedom, the equity within the group and the role of young people increases.

Young people as free subjects with the capacity to decide, had the possibility of freely rejecting the proposed activities, allowing them to decide how and when to participate. Although they are comfortable and relaxed with the idea of voting to carry out group decisions, this is not perceived in the same way when situations are controversial and require alternatives to be formulated. In these cases, after the initial refusal of the activity, a certain incredulity emerges with respect to the exercise of their freedom of decision. This generated some difficulty in the elaboration of alternatives, which usually leads to a return to the initial proposal, this time, with the realization that it is not an imposed action, but one that is offered to them as an option.

When asked, young people perceive that they can participate in a democratic model, even when participation is not high in the self-governance process. This can be seen in this excerpt from the peer-to-peer interview between Hydrogen and Lead:

  • Hydrogen: What is democracy?

  • Lead: For example, um… for him to say: “This is what we are going to do! [tone of imposition]”. That's not democratic, democratic would be for him to say: “We're going to do this tomorrow, is that OK with you?” Yes, everybody.

  • Hydrogen: Ah, right, taking the opinions of others.

  • Lead: Right, that's right, taking the opinions.

  • Hydrogen: Right, right.

  • Lead: Right. So, no, there's never been someone who rules like that, it's been all about… it depends on everybody.

Within this model of free participation, we find that young people show some resistance to abandoning traditional school models and participating in creative initiatives. In these situations, they are accompanied by the educators using the pedagogy of listening. They then collect the young people’s responses and integrate them into the design through permanent reformulation. This listening leads to an in-situ review of each session as well as the thematic direction of the design of the workshops in each round.

5.2 Two rounds: water and party for well-being

Tekeando designed the first round of workshops around water which connects with the traditional commons. “It is a collective approach, from arts and crafts, to a sustainable culture of water. Water means life and interaction between different species and with their/our environment” (Tekeando Blog). To this end, they proposed exploring learning concepts related to its benefits, resource protection and the right of water access, among other issues. Within this chapter, we focus on the analysis of the action “Like a fish in water: interviews and afternoon snacks”. The action consisted of designing a script and interviewing experts on water issues (academics, activists, environmental journalists, water company managers.) During each interview, the group shared cakes or fruit as an afternoon snack. It was the young people who decided how the food would be handed out and distributed in an atmosphere of welcoming and exchange. This not only refered to the snack, but also to the tasks of taking pictures, recording audio or asking questions, which makes it possible for the knowledge to be distributed with the same simplicity as the snack is distributed. This action’s sessions were developed with a high level of participation and interest in the tasks on the part of the young people, who showed an enthusiasm that is in tune with the Reggio Emilia proposal, for which motivation plays a fundamental role in the construction of knowledge.

This action was connected to the proposal called “Animated Water”, developed in two subsequent sessions in which short fragments were selected from the interviews conducted. These fragments serve as support and inspiration for the young people to make their video creations, collaborating in small groups, using the stop-motion technique. This creation process is carried out under the guidance of film director and audio-visual artist, Rocío Huertas. The resulting videos addressed different dimensions of water, questioning water ownership and management, reflecting on concerns about pollution and climate crisis, and addressing issues related to democratic memory and the power and exploitation of labour in intensive crops with high water consumption. In short, these two actions “Like a Fish in Water” and “Animated Water” reinforce young people’s understanding of the vital importance of water and the complexity of water resource management. In addition, the young people themselves create materials that, based on an awareness of social and environmental problems, promote a broad conception of care and a multidimensional notion of well-being.

The second round of sessions revolves around the theme of the well-being of young people and the community, posing the question “What if life were a party?” as the point of departure for exploring the territory and community action to “feel a little better every day”. This is an expression used by Tekeando in the workshops’ design and reflects the act of listening to the needs of young people during the first round, re-situating the production of knowledge on issues with a greater degree of connection with the participants. The collaborative artistic methodologies used were based on the resignification of public spaces, inserted in the territory where the workshops took place. Elements of the territory are claimed as their own in order to question them and to address the limits to participation and/or individual and collective enjoyment. In general, young people took active roles in carrying out the necessary tasks for developing a neighbourhood/community event. They enjoy the strategies based on the game in the territory from a critical and rebellious point of view. All these elements coalesce in the actions called Poo Party (Caca fiesta) in Jerez and Complaint Hill (Montaña de las quejas) in Seville. Through these activities, the public space is taken back to create scenarios where the relational priorities of young people can be developed within the framework of a community activity.

Complaint Hill is an activity developed in Seville within the neighbourhood where the workshops are developed and were Save the Children Resource Centre for Children and Adolescents is located. Specifically, the action takes place in an elevated area, a small hill, that does not meet conditions for use as part of the community space. It is full of weeds, neglected and abandoned, and there is a build-up of waste which rules it out for play. Thus, it is presented as a place to be conquered by the young people who, during the exploratory visit to the neighbourhood, were reprimanded for climbing it in order to shout their grievances into the air. This activity aims to make the needs and desires of young people visible in the public space by making posters, containing messages of complaints or desires. These were then placed on top as a form of community vindication and rebellion against the limitations on the use and adequacy of public space. This intervention was used as an tool to demand the improvement of environmental care conditions for public use. In this case, the involvement of the Save the Children organization made the participation of other after-school educational and leisure groups possible. The young people from the case study, acting as facilitators and transmitters of the action, accompanied these young children, who, likewise, adopted the initiative as their own.

The Poo Party was held in Jerez. The activity was developed in a public park near the site of the Community Centre where the case study workshops and other activities are developed. This activity arose from a previous activity implemented by Tekeando in which the group took a walk through a neighbourhood. The participants were accompanied by violin music (played lived) and said what they could see out loud, occupying the space with a disruptive approach. During the walk, the young people felt uncomfortable about the high concentration of dirt in the neighbourhood, highlighting the dog excrement. This identification of conditions contrary to welfare in public space is picked up by Tekeando, which offers a preliminary idea of the Poo Party. It comes together with the input of the young people in the group. It is proposed as an action where the people from the community could participate and the group would be the promoter, host and, at the same time, participant in the game proposed by the initiative. The Poo Party uses a game as a method, but also as a symbol of the appropriation of space, pointing out the dog excrement on the ground with flares to “illuminate” the dirt. Distributed in small groups, those who managed to place all their flares first won the game and as a prize they got a dog excrement bag dispenser. Just before leaving the park, all the participants put posters with a flare on the trees explaining the game, so that the proposal would go beyond the limits of the activity and other people would understand, through provocation, the importance of taking care of the space.

The actions analysed reflect how care is a fundamental part of the two case studies. Care for the environment, care for the community, care for others and care for oneself are evident through the artistic activities proposed in the sessions. A clear example of this is given in the action (second round) of making objects that can make another person feel good. The materials were developed on the basis of one’s own experience and as a tool for coexistence. The purpose was to put them in a box and share them as gifts that could improve the well-being of the other group. The following excerpt from the Tekeando blog describes the process of creating one of these objects:

One of the girls feels anxious during the session. She asks for something to touch with her hands. [the Tekeando Educator] gives her a ball of yarn. When she feels more relaxed, she is asked if she would like to turn it into an object for the box [51] (Tekeando blog “8. To share a dance, a song, a ball of yarn?”).

In the group, there are several levels of care depending on the relationships created. On the one hand, there is the care given to the young people by the educators, the association collaborators and the UCA researchers, which is a function of their role as companions. On the other hand, there is the care between young people which can be observed when they become aware of the needs of another companion (care about), take responsibility and implement actions to respond to these needs (care for, take care of) and thus help another in some activity or in their inclusion in the group, as we can see below:

When I ask Iodine to read it, she doesn’t seem to understand what is written. Carbon tries to explain to her what she has to read in sign language, making the letter signs with her hands. However, she does not seem to understand. Lead tries to explain by taking off their mask and gesturing for her to read (Field Diary. 18/04/2022).

Likewise, although in a more subtle and sporadic way, the care practices of the young people towards the educators and researchers can be observed. The care relationships of some young people towards younger children are much clearer, reproducing the formulas of non-authoritarian and open facilitation of the workshops. In the Complaint Hill activity, the young people in the group are the ones who accompany the younger children from Save the Children who join the activity. Care is also evident through the caring responsibilities of the young people, mostly girls, who must look after their younger siblings. This means that they sometimes bring their siblings to the sessions or are unable to attend in order to stay at home with them.

6 Discussion and Conclusions. Staying with the Trouble

A few videos denouncing water problems, a box with feel-good objects, a poo party, or a complaint hill, is it possible that someone might ask where the art is here? To this, Tekeando’s answer resounds: “Where is the art here? What a boring question” (Tekeando Blog 02/06/2022).

In this chapter, we have presented the multiple case study of the Agüita workshops, as an experience (always imperfect and in process) of educational commons. To speak of educational commons is to speak of relations and practices of creation and recognition of knowledge and culture by and for the community with the aim of activating eco-social justice [52]. Therefore, the incorporation of the philosophy of the commons into education (and the arts) affects not only teaching, learning and creative processes, but also the very building of knowledge and of artistic production and their relevance to the community.

To study all this, to approach such a complex object of study requires a methodological strategy that combines different tools for the production of information and incorporates the diverse voices present in the workshops into the analysis. In our case, this is approached from an ecofeminist sensibility and commitment that connects us with Haraways’s [53] call to “staying with the trouble” (continue working around the problem) as the best possible response to these urgent times in which we need to be truly present and intertwined in a multitude of unfinished configurations.

This strategy has allowed us to observe how, through listening, and the artistic doing, the Agüita workshops have promoted a careful, collective approach to two fundamental elements that guarantee well-being: water and being at ease (with ourselves, in our immediate environment). The actions developed have sought to facilitate the construction of relevant knowledge for the community (educational asset), to strengthen intercultural and intergenerational dialogue and inclusion (community), to generate spaces characterized by the search for horizontality and democratic relations (governance), and to promote the development of a culture of tolerance (community).

The proposals studied incorporate these aspirations and these practices without claiming to reach idealized results, assuming that it is not possible (nor fair to the young participants) to expect an immediate construction of values that are contrary to the dominant socio-political discourse. In our research, we have avoided considering that things only really matter if they work. On the contrary, along the way, we learn that our educational commons are always a polyhedral “in process”, characteristic of artistic practices in context [38], as well as a complex process: “The Agüita process, rich and diverse, is also exhausting and frustrating. Young people who have not been chosen to be accompanied by Tekeando, others who are delighted to be. Many adult voices… with a sincere desire to join in” ([54], Bonus Track 1).

The research reflects that the methodological proposal based on the philosophy of the educational commons, following the same initial design in both case studies, provides different results in each educational scenario. This visualizes the relevance of the singularity of the three pillars for the construction of the educational commons, but also the effects of applying the pedagogy of listening, pedagogical documentation and project work.

The introduction of artistic elements in educational spaces has undoubtedly had an ability to unsettle; has been a provocateur of improbable points of view and has allowed the connection with other places and human beings, in addition to the exclusively intellectual. All this makes it a powerful tool for creative collaboration in community (in line with the research results by Chamizo-Nieto et al. [37]) and the implementation of the educational commons.

The regular meetings with third parties and, in particular, the reflections of the Tekeando team in their blog, reflect how the construction of these educational commons are produced through dialogue (not without tensions) between disciplines and ways of understanding the creative. This leads to a questioning of who, when and how one is read as an artist and when and how one considers oneself an artist. In relation to these questions, the very precariousness of employment (and the precariousness of life) that characterizes the creative sector and also the social sector has an impact on the development of the case studies themselves. Becoming aware of the problem and denouncing it, establishing networks of support and care is part of the commitment to feminist research. As Haraway shows us, it is not possible to continue without relying on each other in ongoing practices. We know that the path is not easy, but we are committed to the more modest possibilities of partial recovery, to entangle ourselves and build relationships through which becoming (with and in) community and staying with the trouble.