Keywords

1 Introduction

Over the past two decades, an increasing number of architecture schools across Europe have allowed the space for experimenting with new roles of the engaged architect, roles that have strayed away from the consecrated ways of practicing architecture and have opened the panoply of clients of the professions of the built environment. Such education practices are in line with new professional strands built on the integration of the premises that the end users of architecture and the city are not only passive and compliant beneficiaries, but rather active participants in processes in which they bring unique and valid perspectives. This acknowledgement alone is not enough to foster real change in how architects can serve society. However, it has prompted new ways of thinking and doing architecture, expanding the collaborative approach and recognising and integrating the agencies of others over the built environment. It has also prompted new research objects and methods, carefully connecting academia with the grassroots initiatives looking to improve the spaces of the everyday life of urban communities.

“Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture” [1] was a first extensive collection put together by Nishat Awan, Tatjana Schneider, Jeremy Till, to showcase “new ways of doing architecture”, which has served as an inspiration for educators and students concerned with the uncertainties of our future. The online database [2] has thus become a destination for those interested in the process rather than the results, and in the opportunities that arise from venturing outside the established path of shaping the environment towards reflecting on questions of appropriation, dissemination, empowerment, networking, subversion, knowledge, organizational structures, physical relations, or social structures.

Among the more recent collections of alternative practices, the editorial project coordinated by Mathias Rollot verifies the “collaborative hypothesis” [3] while suggesting even the emergence of a new profession, which is coming to life in-between the constellation of actors that shape the built environment, and which is developing under the conceptual auspices of “making the city differently”. This “profession” would actually be the recognition of a new competence - that of working collaboratively within a knowledge producing system including and intertwining all sectors of our society. In fact, the various taxonomies and analyses of “other practices” overlay in several points: (1) that interdisciplinarity is a hub for different fields learning from each other; (2) that action research is a continuous learning and acquirement of skills, values and attitudes; and (3) that collaborative action research is a territory of mutually beneficial encounters of the various actors and stakeholders.

As urban stakeholders are redefining their roles within collaborative networks, architectural education is prompted to emphasize community involvement and partnership. Consequently, there is a burgeoning interest in cultivating learning experiences that intertwine with research on community-based initiatives and urban innovation ecosystems involving all stakeholders to co-create and co-design sustainable developments in support of more liveable, just, inclusive and attractive neighbourhoods. Simultaneously, these learning experiences have demonstrated their enhanced value when extricated from the confines of the "ivory tower" of academia and taken into the “real world” - by changing the place of learning, but also by changing the agents and the relationships of the pedagogical act.

The text will discuss a heuristic process of non-formal education developed by a Romanian NGO that gathers students and teachers from various universities to collaborate on live projects aimed at enhancing the neighbourhood practices for a better and more sustainable life within the city. First, we will place the program within the theoretical framework of the Multiple Helix Collaboration (MHC), [4] which fosters a holistic approach to addressing complex urban challenges and advancing architectural education. Second, we will present our way of blending interdisciplinary engagement and collaborative action research. Although we are also teachers within the “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urban Planning (UAUIM) Bucharest, we are developing this model through the Association for Urban Transition (ATU) as a platform where more university agents can meet in a transparent governance structure, inclusive decision-making processes, and effective communication that allows an equitable exchange among all the participants. Third, we will discuss the implications of such programs for curriculum development, research, and community engagement, highlighting the transformative potential of collaborative approaches in reshaping architectural practice and education.

2 The Multiple Helix Collaboration (MHC) for Urban Innovation at the Neighbourhood Level

Over the past few decades, innovation has proven extremely effective when understood as a multifaceted and collaborative process that involves interactions among a variety of actors across different sectors [5]. The first conceptualisation of this idea, as well as the first comprehensive framework for analyzing the dynamics of innovation in this context, was the Triple Helix Model (THM), proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff in the 1990s. They argue that the three primary institutional spheres - academia, industry, and the government - represent distinct yet interdependent actors, each contributing unique resources, expertise, and incentives to the innovation process. As the benefits of this three-way collaboration have grown, innovation ecosystems have developed to include civil society and the natural environment. These two additional helices were incorporated by Carayannis and Campbell in 2009, who coined the Quintuple Helix Model (QHM) [6] as an extension of the THM, broadening it on different collaboration plans, to create a more inclusive and holistic approach to innovation.

MHC can take various forms, including collaborative research projects, innovation clusters, public-private partnerships, and multi-stakeholder platforms. They facilitate knowledge exchange, technology transfer, and capacity building across sectors, fostering innovation-driven growth and socio-economic development. By engaging with civil society organizations, grassroots initiatives, and environmental stakeholders, MHC seeks to promote inclusive innovation that addresses societal needs and environmental challenges, and to enhance the resilience and adaptive capacity of innovation ecosystems, enabling them to respond effectively to changing socio-economic and environmental conditions.

Such initiatives can also offer numerous benefits for architecture education, including enhanced interdisciplinary learning, real-world experience, and networking opportunities for students. While the THM prompted the involvement of students in projects developed together with the industry, the QHM extended the realm of live projects to diversify the forms of collaboration between all categories of stakeholders, and also to explore more widely the role of instruments of design as a public service. The implications for curriculum development and research in architecture schools can be profound, given that by integrating interdisciplinary approaches, community engagement, and sustainability principles into the curriculum students can become more socially responsible and environmentally conscious architects. Moreover, by being part of collaborative research projects with external partners, architecture schools can generate new knowledge, promote innovation, and contribute to the advancement of architectural practice and theory.

Despite its potential benefits, MHC faces several challenges, such as institutional barriers, divergent interests, or power dynamics among stakeholders. Herein lies the need for innovation of the governance structures, as well, by crafting collaborative mechanisms that promote transparency, accountability, engagement and cohesion. An opportunity in this respect comes from the shift in the modes of organization of professional practice corresponding to the definition of new roles of architects and approaches to architecture. Within the Romanian context, the nonprofit sector has emerged as a prevalent form for alternative ways of practicing architecture, but also for innovative models of collaboration and community engagement that can complement and enhance MHC efforts. One example is ATU, [7] which stands as the oldest non-governmental organization dedicated to the built environment in Romania.

3 A Think Tank NGO as a Platform for Multiple Helix Collaboration

Established in 2001 as a spinoff of UAUIM (the Integrated Urban Development Master Program), ATU has sought to promote a more democratic approach to urban studies and practices, initially focusing its efforts in Bucharest, then expanding to Sibiu. Its foundational principles rest on two pillars: facilitating dialogue among various actors and stakeholders through negotiation-based decision-making, and advocating for an interdisciplinary approach to urban planning. These guiding principles were born out of the disparities observed during Romania's transition following Communism, but are still valid in the present state of transition towards ecological sustainability. Although the projects have shifted their focus and discourse in accordance with the global turning points at all levels, ATU has continued to develop their methods of collaborative action research, still exploring ways for bridging academia and local communities, engaging with diverse stakeholders to navigate this ongoing transition.

Over the span of two decades, ATU has cultivated a membership base comprising approximately seventy individuals, forty of whom are professionals of the built environment, a significant portion being UAUIM graduates, including seventeen who now serve as faculty members within the same institution. This representation has fostered a robust collaboration between ATU and UAUIM, but ATU has extended its reach to establish solid partnerships with various other universities, facilitating collaboration across disciplines such as construction engineering, art, anthropology, sociology, human and urban geography, law, political sciences, and public administration studies. This deliberate focus on interdisciplinary engagement has been ingrained in ATU's ethos from its inception, defining an independent platform for collaboration that transcends the constraints often associated with traditional disciplinary boundaries within the academic curricula.

In addition to serving as a versatile research unit registered as an NGO, facilitating collaboration among researchers from diverse academic backgrounds, ATU plays an interesting role in providing non-formal educational opportunities for students. These opportunities encompass a spectrum of engagement, from active involvement in events through volunteering to participation in structured internships or fellowship programs. Notably, within the framework of fellowship initiatives, the organizational structure fosters a horizontal dynamic between mentors and fellows, contrasting with the hierarchical mentorship models typically prevalent in university-based professional training programs. This emphasis on a more egalitarian relationship dynamic fosters collaborative and inclusive learning environments, which stand as a departure from conventional educational paradigms. Through fellowship programs embedded within ATU's projects, a methodological framework is being developed, which holds the potential to serve as a replicable model for fostering collaborative endeavors in other contexts of partnership.

This initiative aligns seamlessly with academia's third mission, [8] which emphasizes the generation of knowledge to address societal issues and contribute to societal development. Consequently, action research becomes intricately intertwined with societal engagement. ATU has been adjusting its discourse and methods by exploring collaborative mechanisms capable of addressing critical urban challenges, such as the preservation of public space, heritage protection, informal settlements, and the development of green and blue infrastructures. These efforts are underscored by the imperative of negotiating the public good and establishing a common ground among stakeholders within neighbourhoods or cities.

Both within ATU and UAUIM, an important and persistent inquiry revolves around the responsibilities of architects and urban designers in shaping the goals of spatial transformations, particularly concerning public spaces and amenities. Fundamental considerations include how project requirements are delineated and negotiated, how the professional responsibilities are shifting under the influence of the changing societal and environmental conditions, and how professionals can be more relevant within the decision-making processes and in relation to public institutions. This is especially pertinent in contexts where existing spaces are in use, and where the determination of public interest requires active engagement with the community. Public spaces and facilities mirror most accurately the challenge of defining the roles of architects, urban designers, or landscape architects in accurately identifying public interest. Thus, how can we structure commissions for interventions funded by public resources in a manner that enables meaningful public input?

In response to these inquiries, our projects have been experimenting with novel forms of collaboration between academia and urban communities, in a form of live pedagogy (the fellowship) that prompts complex and interdisciplinary learning experiences based on direct contact with socio-spatial situations and collaboration among students, mentors, and civic partners from various fields. The fellowship stands on the principle of mutual benefit: the collaborative milieus contribute to empowering residents to voice their needs and take action to improve their living environments; concurrently, they inspire students to evolve into empathetic professionals who harness their skills creatively for the betterment of urban life.

4 The Fellowship as a Pedagogical Framework for Collaborative Action Research

4.1 An Interactive Mobile Workshop for Public Participation

The most consistent program developed by ATU is URBOTECA, a set of instruments and methods for the research, mediation and design of frames of exchange and collaboration between the top-down and the bottom-up. Started in 2014, it stemmed from the ambition to disseminate academic knowledge and perspectives concerning effective urban governance and participatory democracy in urban planning and design processes in Romania. The need rose from the Romanian context, where there is no history of practices based on community engagement and urban development projects have a top-down approach, based on quantitative studies and generic surveys which lead to a birds-eye level context understanding. At the same time, both formally established or informally self-organized civic groups usually come together to react to stringent problems that affect them directly. Residents and communities are not informed about, or included in, processes and projects from the beginning, so their primary action is often to contest un-negotiated market driven urban developments that would negatively impact their living environments, or to demand fixing a problem or undoing what they consider to be wrongdoings.

Our initial scope of inspiring residents to also gather pro-actively and ask for more transparency of decision-making processes was followed by the intent to open a career pathway for graduates in architecture, urban planning, landscape architecture, along with professionals in sociology, anthropology, and communication, who would collaborate to facilitate negotiations among the various urban stakeholders, to better balance the forces shaping our cities. Thus, the students were our partners in testing and drafting guidelines for establishing impartial environments for constructive and efficient dialogue, wherein public officials, local representatives, and members of the community could express and understand conflicting views and common interests.

After this first experience blending action research and non-formal education, we felt that our efforts had been too dissipated in one-time actions across the city. Although we had much to learn from the occasional exchanges with residents, we had no way of verifying if our encounters had left any impact on our conversation partners. Consequently, we considered that a partnership with a civic initiative group would allow us to ask more complex questions and explore more ways in which academia might serve urban communities.

4.2 A Mobile Lab for Urban Education in Live Settings

In 2018 ATU designed the URBOTECA Fellowship programme [9], within a research project conducted together with the Sheffield School of Architecture, The Tampere School of Architecture, The Institute for Spatial Policies (IPOP), and The Centre for Spatial Sociology, University of Ljubljana. Between 2017 and 2021, Urban Education Live (UEL) [10] created and tested models of collaboration between universities and urban communities, where universities acted as catalysts of urban change through trans-educational urban capacity building. The objectives of the Fellowship were multi-faceted. Firstly, it aimed to enhance community engagement by broadening the participation of neighborhood residents, thereby fostering a more diverse and active neighborhood life and increasing residents’ attention level towards the possibilities for further development of their environment. Secondly, it sought to establish a meaningful connection between academia and the local community, facilitating mutual trust and creating the context for the residents to benefit from the professional expertise of the fellows. Thirdly, the initiative aimed to gather pertinent data and information through field research, and to present it in a user-friendly format accessible to both professionals and community members. This approach aimed to promote understanding and long-term engagement among residents, fostering a sense of ownership and contribution to the neighborhood's development.

From the pedagogical standpoint, the program's focal point revolved around the comprehensive consideration of the three domains of learning as delineated by Bloom’s Taxonomy [11]: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The targeted knowledge acquisition encompassed a profound understanding of various concepts, such as neighborhood communities, interdisciplinarity, live project cooperation (living lab), design thinking, participatory planning, as well as broader topics such as common agendas, public interest, decision-making processes, and indicators of change. The acquisition of skills, or the methodological approach to defining common interests at the neighborhood level, constituted a fusion of anthropological tools and those utilized by spatial planners, urban designers, or architects.

This interdisciplinary fusion was implemented over a duration of six months, during which fellows and the project team, as well as the community partners, engaged extensively in informal exchanges which proved more enriching than structured research methodologies like guided interviews or questionnaires. This “social mapping” was an ongoing process integrating an online mapping tool with a series of multimedia-recorded street interviews and interventions. These activities were documented in visual and written formats, and uploaded onto an online map of the study areas. Beyond the mere data collection, this process aimed to engage the residents in discussions about shared values, such as the public's right to be informed about impending changes to public spaces or common amenities, thus fostering a sense of collective ownership and engagement in the spaces of the everyday.

The 2018 Fellowship was intended for master's students and recent graduates (within five years of completing their master's degree) in various fields including architecture, urban planning, landscape architecture, geography, engineering, information technology, arts, anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, law, and journalism in Bucharest. We received fifty-two applications, selected an initial cohort of seven fellows, and finally worked with five (an architect, a landscape architect, an urban designer, an artist, and a communicator).

The program drew inspiration from the “Collective Impact” [12] concept, aiming to cultivate a unified urban agenda with shared objectives. This approach fostered novel collaborations across the third sector, engaging a spectrum of stakeholders from both public and private domains. By integrating both hyper-local and extensively networked strategies, the initiative sought to address urban fragmentation. Embracing a bottom-up approach to comprehending urban challenges, the program charted a course toward a novel modus operandi, that involved harnessing local resources, including human capital and expertise, to bolster capacity, cultivate new networks, and spur innovation within the urban landscape.

The program was crafted to meet the time constraints and format criteria necessary to be recognised by (and possibly integrated) into the official curriculum of several universities that might become keen to leverage their resources for the betterment of local communities while providing students with opportunities for applied learning. At the same time, the program was designed in alignment with the primary objectives of the Urban Education Live research project, which entailed immersive engagement with neighborhood communities, employing novel social mapping methodologies to discern what people consider to be an asset or a liability in their living environments.

The “Super Site Specific” defined within the international research project echoed locally in the determination of the local agenda, in choosing and adapting the methods and choosing the essential interventions that were considered to be transformative as addressing the socio-spatial complexities and contemporary challenges prevalent at that moment. The trans-educational approach was supported by mapping techniques and technologies which focused on emerging patterns of use, desires and needs, employing a keen sensitivity to the social dynamics at play.

The outcome was not a project, but a community-led development plan for the neighbourhood; more specifically, a handbook that gathered and illustrated the common visions of the inhabitants - clarifying, verifying the legitimacy, and translating their wishes and desires into objectives and briefs for specialized work to be hired by the municipality. [13].

4.3 Five Living Labs for Community Engagement

The second edition of the URBOTECA Fellowship (2024) is being delineated within another research project conducted alongside eighteen academic, industry, civic, professional organisations and public institutional partners from Romania, France, Sweden, Spain, Norway, and The Netherlands. [14] This edition brings a second turn in our approach, aiming to broaden stakeholder participation compared to its predecessor. Reflecting on the evaluation of the previous iteration, several improvements have been identified: (1) The expansion of involvement opportunities for young professionals: Despite the large number of applicants in the previous round, we had to select only a limited number of fellows in order to match the availability of hosts from the civic initiative group. To avoid this constraint, the second edition has chosen several urban situations while maintaining small teams of three to six fellows per situation, where hosts are willing to facilitate field-work contributions. (2) The choice of more diverse and established hosts, as institutions and organizations that might want to become more open and relevant to the local community in which they operate. (3) Scaling up the use of the disciplinary backgrounds among potential fellows: The initial focus on integrating spatial design skills with anthropology and visual arts yielded valuable insights. However, the documentation and demonstration of both process and outcomes were not prioritized, hindering communication with other professionals, researchers, decision makers, and potential collaborators. To improve this, the second round establishes clearer interdisciplinary teams comprising students in architecture, urban design, or landscape architecture; anthropology or sociology; and visual arts, especially documentary photography and videography. This aims to create powerful storytelling materials to enhance visibility for hosts, fellows, and their individual and collaborative experiences. (4) Flexibility in the level of professional training: While the first round required enrollment in master's programs, the second edition emphasizes stronger connections across formal training programs. The curricula analysis and interviews with teaching staff from various universities revealed the need for flexibility in professional training levels, provided that fellowship activities receive recognition within formal curricula at various levels (bachelor’s or master’s). This tightens the alignment between the fellowship and the academic requirements, facilitating broader participation from diverse backgrounds.

Hence, the second edition is designed to create more connections: (1) among at least three professional fields within a team, and also by having at least fifteen fellows in the program, a larger variety of perspectives and possibilities of collaborations is to be expected; (2) among five teams of fellows and their hosts that are from various categories: a community of artists, an independent theater, an NGO promoting the idea of a creative neighborhood in Bucharest, a public cultural institution under the general council of Bucharest, and an URBACT project team from the planning department of the inter-community association of municipality of Bucharest and Ilfov county council; (3) among teaching staff from various universities who will have to consider the recognition of the activities not just for their students, but also of their students' contribution in interdisciplinary teams. Besides, by having several pilot areas, the hosts will also see each other and learn to appreciate that the common interest definition needs and can be a participatory process. The comparative perspective among at least five different parts of the city will also allow various shapes and indicators around the same idea of public spaces or public facilities as public interest.

5 Capacity Building in Neighborhood Communities with the Support and in Support of Architectural Education

The experiences presented in this paper are related to action research projects that are aimed at placing the connections between the communities and their spaces in the public agenda. These experiments speak of testing ideas and tools coming from the training programs of the built environment professionals together with the ones from other fields of study. In the long run, the expected result is a more democratic definition of the public interest in relation to public spaces or public facilities. The cooperation between researchers, students and neighborhood communities is helpful in creating the necessary frames for dialogue leading to these definitions.

Simultaneously, these projects correlate the three missions of the academia: (1) the research mission is about formulating the questions and defining the indicators for experimenting; (2) the professional training mission is learning by doing within processes that allow students (and not just them) to understand and deal with the complexity of real life situations; and (3) the third mission, that has became more and more important in various public policies at national and local level, is here about engaging the teaching staff, students, and researchers, with societal issues of the democratic processes of the transformations of spaces at the neighbourhood scale. Collaborating with grassroots initiatives offers a mutually beneficial opportunity for both students and community representatives and stakeholders.

For students in architecture, the conventional academic environment often focuses on discussing outcomes and analyzing design proposals as if they were destined for actual construction. However, While students may grow well-versed in the typical format of architectural proposals and urban regulations, they lack exposure to the practical processes behind these outcomes. The live project formats open spaces for engaging with diverse stakeholders, and offer valuable experience in problem-solving, teamwork, and communication, contributing to projects with societal impact. By actively participating in how civic initiatives define expectations for public spaces, students gain insight into formulating briefs and understanding underlying agendas, enhancing their ability to create informed proposals.

Conversely, students can aid civic initiatives by assisting them in articulating their expectations, by posing pertinent questions, and by leveraging professional tools to create formats improving communication between grassroots initiatives and decision-making processes. Storytelling and visualization skills can offer innovative perspectives without immediately delving into technical solutions, and theoretical knowledge can enhance local self-organization or hands-on activities. Students are in a unique position to catalyze pertinent territories for stakeholder interaction and exchange, which is essential for collaborative approaches to urban challenges.

Our neighborhoods serve as the narrative backdrop of our lives, embodying the stories and experiences of those who inhabit them. Ensuring that public funding aligns with public interest is paramount, and one approach we employ to achieve this alignment is through collaborative action research. Through this method, we engage directly with community members to understand their needs, preferences, and priorities. By involving residents in advocating for more open decision-making processes regarding the allocation of public funds, we strive to ensure that these resources are directed toward initiatives that address genuine community needs and aspirations.