DIY networking as a facilitator for interdisciplinary research on the hybrid city

DIY networking is a technology with special characteristics compared to the public Internet, which holds a unique potential for empowering citizens to shape their hybrid urban space toward conviviality and collective awareness. It can also play the role of a “boundary object” for facilitating interdisciplinary interactions and participatory processes between different actors: researchers, engineers, practitioners, artists, designers, local authorities, and activists. This position paper presents a social learning framework, the DIY networking paradigm, that we aim to put in the centre of the hybrid space design process. We first introduce our individual views on the role of design as discussed in the fields of engineering, urban planning, urban interaction design, design research, and community informatics. We then introduce a simple methodology for combining these diverse perspectives into a meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration, through a series of related events with different structure and framing. We conclude with a short summary of a selection of these events, which serves also as an introduction to the CONTACT workshop on facilitating information sharing between strangers, in the context of the Hybrid City III conference

D3.13 MAZI as an experiment in interdisciplinarity: the outcome of a self-reflection exercise (version 3)

[Executive summary] This is the final version (#3) of the MAZI deliverables that propose self-reflections as a way of dealing with collective work in interdisciplinary action and research projects. Its goal is to provide a meta-perspective of the self-reflection outcome documented in detail in previous deliverables. More specifically, this document overviews the process as carried out in MAZI, and based on this experience It develops three categories of action toward shaping common spaces for inter- and transdisciplinary research. These are namely a) communities of practice around DIY networking technology (Section 2); b) transdisciplinary co-design of the MAZI toolkit across-localities (Section 3); and c) learning, appropriation of knowledge, sustainability and knowledge transfer (Section 4). It concludes with a few important lessons learned for the design of future projects, namely the positive impact of assigning overlapping leading roles to partners in interdisciplinary research, and the need for carefully designed intimate spaces for self reflection

Central urban space as a hybrid common infrastructure

In this paper we document and reflect on an ongoing co-design process of a new urban space, by the name L200, located in a very central and precious location in Zurich. L200 has the characteristics of an urban node at the confluence of many networks, a hub like railway stations provide these days but at a different spatial scale, acting as a much needed infrastructure for various commoning activities, among others. L200 is designed as a hybrid space, hosting a DIY digital platform, which is being co-created as a commons itself through a long-term participatory process and provides a building block for an alternative, bottom-up, vision to the “smart city”. In terms of participatory design, we experiment with, and advocate for, a structured laissez-faire methodology that frames both the physical and digital space as interconnected common infrastructures that the members of the association are free to use “as if it was their own” for limited periods of time. This participation through action approach allows for needs, ideas, and interventions to manifest naturally without any pressure or expectations. This means that the corresponding research for producing tools, methodologies, and designs need to advance in a slower than usual pace, and integrate many perspectives that use different languages and have different priorities. This slow design process allows for various forms of peer learning to occur. The paper lays out the overall L200 project in its full complexity through the dual role assumed by the authors, as researchers and activists, highlighting specific decisions, actions, and methodologies that contribute to the on-going research on infrastructuring the commons

D3.7 An interdisciplinary framework for comparisons and cross-fertilization strategies of MAZI pilots (version 3)

[Executive summary] The object of this deliverable is to present the final reflection on the framework developed and applied within MAZI that allows and supports the interdisciplinary development of four different MAZI pilot studies and the cross-pilot generation of insights and knowledge as well as the transfer of this knowledge into the design of the MAZI toolkit. For this, this report will first reflect on the very idea of a framework as an evolving concept – as an ever-changing notion that continuously develops as the consortium is moving along – and summarize the components of the framework as developed and enacted throughout the past 28 months. We will then take a step back to synthesize reflections on the different positions and roles taken on by project members and on how the interdisciplinary nature of MAZI manifests itself within and across pilot studies – both in terms of challenges and strategies in dealing with them, as well as in reflections on how the project affects the disciplinary positions of its protagonists. Concluding this deliverable, we will then discuss the framework depicted in the series of three reports as a negotiated outcome of the working process in MAZI and show how the threads woven here will be taken up and continued in future work

Comparative evaluation of the MAZI pilots (version 3)

This deliverable is the third of three, reporting on the comparative evaluation of MAZI pilots (Deliverable 3.10). Across the course of MAZI, the pilots have engaged with communities in different ways, for different purposes. Common to all pilots has been the focus on using and developing the MAZI toolkit in order to facilitate Do-It-Yourself (DIY) networking. This has involved collaborations characterised by inter-disciplinarity, where academic and community partners have worked together to find effective ways of engaging the communities in meaningful ways. In the previous version of this deliverable (D3.9), we defined our analysis methodology, which builds on the logic set out in the first report (D3.8). In this report, we will discuss the results of using of Realist Evaluation (RE) to form case studies (characterised by context, mechanism, outcome configurations) and Activity Theory (AT) to characterise each pilot as a separate activity system. To identify the generative mechanisms, we investigated the tensions and conflicts between the technical and semiotic levels of the pilots’ activity systems. Evidence generated was presented alongside the insights from the MAZI handbook to inform best practice for supporting the MAZI toolkit. Comparing across the pilots’, we reveal tensions and conflicts between the technical and semiotic levels of the activity systems and the generative mechanisms used to meet the project and communities’ objectives. This emphasised the importance of understanding the context, e.g. by valuing the time spent with communities and the importance of learning their language and vocabularies, and respecting others capital. It revealed mechanisms for understanding location, the importance of stories and storytelling, designing collaborative activities and embracing opportunities for conversations. It also echoed the need to identify key roles, guises and actors for DIY networking and the importance of the principle of adding value rather than adding work

D3.6 - An interdisciplinary framework for comparisons and cross-fertilization strategies of MAZI pilots (version2)

[Executive summary] The 1st version of this deliverable focused on framing and carrying out exercises of self-reflection across all MAZI pilots, which aimed to gather comparable knowledge of the respective partner‘s visions and anticipation of the pilot activities. This allowed us to draw comparisons that proved valuable as a starting point for the cross-fertilisation events, in which multiple partners met with the goal to work on the interdisciplinary aspects of MAZI as a project. In this second version, we make one step further toward four directions: a) we analyze the material included in D3.2 and D3.5 in light of further developments and interactions toward comparing the individual perspectives of partners on key concepts such as DIY networking, as well as the different pilot studies; b) we describe and analyse the cross-fertilization events that took place during the first year and the initial lessons learned from the pilots; c) we try to capture the similarities and differences between the disciplinary perspectives of the academic partners; and d) we identify important tensions between research and action as they have manifested during the crossfertilization events of the first year. Based on this material, we propose certain enhancements of our interdisciplinary framework, i.e., the deconstruction of the pilot studies into their core elements, the placement of MAZI toolkit as a boundary object between different subsets of actors in MAZI, and two self-reflection exercises to be carried out in the following months and to be documented in the Deliverable D3.11

D3.8 Comparative evaluation of the MAZI pilots (version 1)

This deliverable is the first of three reporting on the MAZI pilots’ comparative evaluation. We report on progress towards developing a comparative evaluation approach that will draw from the four MAZI pilots to inform the project, to understand progress and enable lessons learned to be applied across MAZI and beyond.In this report we introduce our approach to a comparative meta evaluation strategy in the context of MAZI, taking into account the rich diversity of the consortium partners, their wide range of disciplines, and the different contexts of the pilots. Given this diversity, we emphasise a participatory approach to evaluation, drawing from partners’ academic disciplines and practitioner fields to inform the development of an evaluation framework. Each partner brings with them their own paradigms and methodologies for analysing progress, and a ‘one size fits all’ approach to evaluation applied to all pilots risks losing the richness each has to offer. Therefore, we have found it necessary to begin the process through negotiating a set of high level, lightweight instruments that can initially engage each pilot team in the activity, and elicit data while enabling the reporting of local diversity.We briefly describe the diversity of contexts, then introduce our participatory approach to engaging with partners. We introduce the first set of tools used to gather data and report on initial data gathered from the two pilots that are underway, Nachbarschafts-Akademie / Neighbourhood Academy (NAk, Berlin) and CreekNet (London).We conclude by outlining the coverage of the second version of this deliverable (D3.9, to be reported in M26) and the third version (D3.10, to be reported in M36)

Sinteza, caracterizarea şi evaluarea fitobiologică a unei noi 2-[4-(4-bromofenilsulfonil) fenil]-4-metiloxazol - 5(4H)-one şi a unor noi 5-aril -2-[4-(4-bromofenilsulfonil) fenil]- 4-metiloxazoli

“Carol Davila“ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, Romanian Academy, “Costin D. Nenitescu“ Centre of Organic Chemistry, Bucharest, RomaniaPurpose. Heterocyclic compounds containing 1,3-oxazol-5(4H)-one and 1,3-oxazole ring are important targets in synthetic and medicinal chemistry, because of their applications as potentially active compounds. Thus, some 1,3-oxazol-5(4H)-ones have been reported to present antimicrobial and antitumor activity. 1,3-Oxazoles are frequent substructures in various biologically active compounds used in therapeutics as anti-inflammatory (e.g. Oxaprozin, Romazarit, Ditazol, Isamoxole), analgesic (e.g. Oxaprozin), antibacterial, antifungal (e.g. Sulfamoxole, Sulfaguanole), muscle relaxant (e.g. Azumolene) drugs. Therefore, there is considerable interest to synthesize new 1,3-oxazole- 5(4H)-ones and 1,3-oxazoles which contain 4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl) phenyl moiety in 2 position with a hope to obtain potent biologically active compounds. The plant growth regulatory effects of the new compounds were examined. Material and Methods. By Steiger N-acylation of α-alanine with 4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl)benzoyl chloride at cool afforded 2-[4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl) benzamido] propanoic acid. This compound underwent intramolecular cyclization in the presence of N-methylmorpholine and ethyl chloroformate or acetic anhydride to the corresponding saturated azlactone. Then, acylaminoacylation of dry aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, m-xylene, mesitylene) with 2-[4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl)phenyl]-4- methyloxazol-5(4H)-one or 2-[4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl) benzamido]propanoyl chloride in the presence of anhydrous aluminum chloride led to N-(1-aryl-1- oxopropan-2-yl)-4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl)benzamides. These new intermediates were heterocyclized under the action of phosphorus oxychloride or concentrated sulfuric acid in the presence of acetic anhydride in ethyl acetate to the corresponding 5-aryl-2-[4- (4-bromophenylsulfonyl)phenyl]-4-methyloxazoles. The structure of new compounds was confirmed by elemental analysis and different spectral methods (FT-IR, UV, MS, 1H- and 13C-NMR). The purity of the compounds was evaluated by RP-HPLC. The new compounds have been investigated for their biological activities in the growth regulation of wheat, using the phytobiological method, known as the Constantinescu bioassay – Triticum test. Results. Ten new compounds were synthesized and characterized in orther to evaluate their biological activity. The preliminary results indicated that the tested compounds exhibited a weak stimulatory activity, except of α-acylaminoketones. Conclusions. In conclusion, in this paper we described the synthesis, characterization and phytobiological activity of ten new compounds possessing the 4-(4-bromophenylsulfonyl)phenyl moiety