Leeds Co-production Lab Summary Report: Phase Two
June 2015
N8-ESRC Pilot project: ‘Realising the potential of co-production’
0. Introduction This summary report was prepared by Paul Chatterton and Yun Wing Ng. It documents Phase Two of the ‘Leeds Co-production Lab’ project, which is a pilot project of the wider N8-ESRC funded programme: realising the potential of co-production. This report is based upon three dedicated learning workshops with our three prototype clusters (which took place at the ODI Leeds, the Tetley Arts Centre and the Shine Centre) and follow-up meetings with cluster coordinators, as well as a synthesis meeting held amongst a subset of project partners who had attended all three learning workshops. In this Phase Two summary report we briefly reflect on the initial question we set ourselves in the project proposal: ‘what could a city co-production lab be for Leeds?’ To produce his report, we have drawn on the raw data sets (flipcharts, post-its, recorded conversations, observations) that were produced during Phase Two. We structure our findings around the following strands: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Guiding principles Spatial characteristics Temporal characteristics Accessibility issues The economy of the city lab Some suggested next steps
At the end of this report, we also include an annex with some general commentary and recommendations relevant to the three specific prototype spaces and co-production clusters. The intention is to present and explore these findings further at our final summary workshop on 26 June. At this workshop, project partners will be invited to explore topics of their choice in more detail and contribute towards an action plan for next steps. Please do not circulate this report without discussing with the project co-ordinators Paul Chatterton and Gary Dymski first. The work produced during the Leeds Co-production Lab project operates under a Creative Commons Attribution-share alike-non-commercial’ license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
1. Some emerging guiding principles for a Leeds City Lab These were recurring overarching themes that emerged throughout the workshops. These themes tended to relate to the ethos behind a Leeds City Lab and can be interpreted as the beginnings of guiding principles or general interests the city lab could follow: A new civic interface – the city lab links people from public and private sectors to work together and provides a place to link neighbourhoods/citizens to city institutions and ‘powers’. Co-production happens at the interface between lots of established categories/ institutions/ sectors. A new civic institution – the city lab operates in the ‘grey’ space in between defined groups and interests. It’s not a defined space, area, quality or identity so it is difficult to categorise. It is a mixture of who comes when and what they bring/what they are looking for. A city lab is not recognized as a public institution yet (vs the familiar library, museum, gallery etc) so it is even harder to put your finger on what it is. Even though the city lab as a typology might be hard to categorise – citizens still need challenges/theme/questions to convene around – how can these challenges be self-identified by citizens? A passion for Leeds – it is a place and time for doing activities that will change and benefit Leeds - a place for Leeds activism and articulation of ideas that will benefit the city. There is a feeling that you leave inspired - you contribute something and have something to take away too. Building citizen capacity/Civic Entrepreneurship - a space/platform/stage where citizens have a voice, it’s not just about experts having the right answers. It’s not a place for exhibiting/selling decisions that have already been made or to give out old information (consultation). Accumulation and leaving traces - Visualisation of process and building up a picture/paper/digital trail, record of people who are involved at different times. This is a process of collaging, not constantly starting from scratch/blank canvas, how do we continue and develop previous ideas and conversations? (Filling in the ‘jigsaw’) -
Conversely, it is a space also needs to support ‘blank canvas’ thinking that doesn’t carry too much baggage, and thus deters participation.
Process, testing ideas and iteration – it’s about the process of problem solving, an iterative ‘design’ process, and not necessarily (but hopefully) a solution. As one person commented ‘you can have a moan but you must also propose a solution’. Vulnerability & Risk – being comfortable with not having the answers or knowing the solution straight away (casting your bread upon the waters/into the unknown), being able to revisit questions and problems if you don’t get it right the first time. How to let go and deal with status and institutional anxieties about loss of power? Quirkiness, relaxed and fun – strong focus on coffee, food, shared meals, conviviality, siestas, hammocks, opportunity for children to use space, evening events Breaking boundaries - this applies to boundaries space, time and working practices. Operating at the interface means the city lab often blurs the boundaries between different organizations and professional and personal spheres.
Impact - how does the city lab monitor and assess its ongoing impact on Leeds and the effects it is having on the public? Need care to balance this so city lab does not over-rely on metrics and impacts to legitimise itself, some impacts are less tangible and hard to quantify/measure. Nurturing and collaboration - rather than a competitive and threatening environment - one organisation is not ‘bigger’ or more important than another, mutual respect rather than skepticism of the ‘other’ Co-ownership – who owns the products of co-production? There are important issues of intellectual property and common/public ownership which the city as a whole deal with. How do you foster a sense of co-ownership? Harnessing and using data - there is a huge amount of access to data that could be relevant Leeds data e.g. data about neighbourhoods, empty spaces, city systems, etc. Tension between balancing the high-tech ‘whizzy’ data side with quality of human interactions/face-to-face conversations. Using technology to visualise and display the work that’s going on to the general public could be very empowering Conflicts and Disruptive engagement - It will be productive to engage with people who don’t easily ‘buy-in’ to co-production. Need to find ways to talk about difficult and controversial issues. Is there a danger that co-production could be used for harm/used to discuss unsustainable ideas? Does the city lab need a level of moderation without becoming undemocratic? What’s missing? We need to know a little bit more about why a city lab is needed and what is missing from the conventional realm of work? Indicative responses include issues like serendipity, gregariousness, non-instrumental thinking, and sociability.
2. Spatial characteristics - some reflections on form, layout and space Branding of a network of different spaces? There are several strategic choices to make (which are not necessarily mutually exclusive) including a centralised hub, dispersed neighbourhood form, nomadic mobile, digital? Are all to form a network of spaces under umbrella name of Leeds City Lab? Finding and testing the locations where a City Lab can be the most effective. How can Leeds City lab have Centrifugal qualities (sending people out) and centripetal qualities (drawing people back in)? Building on what exists - Do we use existing spaces to create a network of spaces? e.g. ODI Leeds, The Tetley, Rotunda Map in City museum, community centres and libraries? Linking form and function - what exactly is the spatial form needed to address the kinds of problems we encounter, and make the kind of impacts we want to see? Different ‘problems’ require different scales and types of spaces - open and busy, intimate and calm. For example, if we start with the problem perhaps a city space is not a strategic direction. Making places that support different ways of working and thinking - how to create both space and process that allow for fast and slow working, deep and shallow thinking, long and short timescales. Spaces and time for extrovert fast discussion and collaboration, together with introvert/independent slow reflection and evaluation.
Public and private - Good to be next to space with bustle and noise e.g. cafe/bar, but can shut it off for quiet discussions and privacy Spatial neutrality - Where are there ‘neutral’ unaffiliated areas in the city? If you go too far near the campus, does it feel like a university space? If it’s too far in the south bank, does it feel like a developer’s space? Is it possible to have neutrality in such a clearly zoned city centre? Fine-grained detail - What are the small-scale details that make a space function? Many of these are outlined in the groundbreaking book Pattern Language. Some that came up during the fieldwork include: - bookable space and drop-in/hanging out space - perches around the edges for smaller, informal, stand-up meetings - great views can provide a back drop of the city to provide natural focus/conversation point - Would it need both a ground floor space (for visibility and accessibility from the street) as a well as a upper floor space (for views of the city) - providing flexible kinds of table/furniture so that layout can be changed to suit activity e.g. banquetting, movable/tessellating tables, kidney/U shaped for ‘product and process’, easy to move stools and comfortable easy-chairs. Should a city lab space deliberately look physically different, more comfortable and creative identity than standard work place? E.g. giving people subconscious permission to loosen up and think outside the box Social spaces - what are the characteristics of spaces that meet our gregarious and social impulses beyond work as mere work. 3. Temporal characteristics - When is a city lab? 24 hour place - The place that runs all day but comes to life in the ‘in between’/grey hours between normal work and home life e.g. after work, just before work, evenings - blurring the boundaries between work and ‘work-leisure.’ There are some important issues here about self-exploitation and extending work-like practices into non-paid time Meeting different needs throughout the day - Can it support parents who work - creche facilities? Can it support people who don’t want to work 9-5? e.g. nocturnal workers, weekend workers. Bookable time and drop-in time. Different timescales and work rhythms - These come to the fore - for example the online data community works at a quick pace (to hack labs and jams etc), academic and research community work at a slower pace (responding to the cycle of journal articles, teaching semesters and grant writing). Can the Leeds city lab provide the platform where different timescales and paces of working are deliberately interwoven within the same project?
4. Accessibility - broadening the audience Open and inclusive How can the city lab not feel like another ‘clique’? How to give voice to people who aren’t part of formal groups, who don’t happen to know the right people? Being non-judgmental and welcoming. Addresses a broad range of interests that will appeal to Leeds citizens - e.g. Leeds degree, city systems that citizens can relate to e.g. food, energy, healthcare, transport, housing, sustainable living, safety. Different scales of discussion – Interests can range across big questions e.g. HS2, and little questions e.g. events in Leeds, better use of public space. Dissemination - Could it use a Digital TV channel to broadcast activities, findings and ideas? Simple and clear pathways – Can Leeds City Lab offer a straightforward mechanism/vehicle for collaborative working, as well as a physical space? Should be easy and quick to find out how to set up co-production activities between different institutions e.g. whose door do I knock on, what are the steps I need to take, what do I need to have in place etc. Accessibility and speed are important so that the initiative doesn’t lose relevance due to unnecessary delays. Co-production and co-existence - Can different co-production groups convene in the same building? e.g. arts-focused, data-focused, health services-focused? Immediate street presence - It has to be visible to citizens of Leeds - ground floor presence could help make the City Lab feel more approachable and easier to drop in to find out what’s going on.
5. The economy of the city lab - funding and resource issues Funding and financial sustainability - How can a city lab be FUNDED and how can it sustain itself financially? What is the business model underpinning this venture? This is an important set of questions given that it cannot rely on free time or resources. Some suggestions from the workshops: -
Membership model: but how to avoid this feeling too exclusive Sponsorship: identify potential sponsors Crowd sourcing: but needs to articulate its relevance to Leeds citizens and would it work at this scale? Philanthropy: building on Leeds success stories? Alumni of Leeds universities who could provide a source of funding Identify potential future research funds e.g. Horizon 2020 Set up a Bid Consortium Income generator? e.g. bar, cafe, club? offers music, entertainment, cinema and provides the social element of the city lab
Management and moderation - Who manages the city lab? How could it be managed by a ‘partnership’? If it is moderated, who is in charge of the moderating?
Alternative forms of exchange - How much does the Leeds City Lab draw upon alternative forms of currency, such as Time Banking, ideas in return for work space or other skills, skills swap etc. Sweat equity - What do people get out of it if they help set it up? 6. Some suggested next steps for the city lab project The following suggestions were pragmatic, action-based ideas emerging from all three workshops. These actions have the potential to be explored in the near future, soon after this particular research project has ended.
Create a MANIFESTO for urban co-production: Partners agree and clarify values and core principles and long term goals/vision. This urban co-production manifesto could be rephrased slightly to appeal to different institutions
Set up project working group
Establish online presence/digital home - forum for all co-production lab participants. Unite emerging network started by this research project
Dissemination - Write up the findings of this project to submit to academic journals
Prototyping - How do we prototype and test the Leeds city lab at a viable level? o Stepping stone projects - mobile, temporary and small scale city labs? e.g. travelling bus, city conversation benches o Infiltration - setting up and embedding the culture of co-production first in each other’s workplaces (see Infiltration section below) o Audit – understand why co-production qualities are missing from existing workplaces and make sure we are filling the gap? E.g. serendipity, chance, neutrality? o Statement of Intent for participants – rigorous intent that it is embedded right now into day jobs to strengthen outputs to frame and enrich thinking and activities
Infiltration (symbiosis) experiments o Start the ACT of co-production in existing work spaces through professional secondments, student internships in partner organisations/third sector workplaces o Identify places where people can move their paid working hours to a place that’s not their usual workplace o Move work activities to these potential prototype spaces for periods of time - working on your own stuff while keeping your ears to the ground o Holding meetings/seminars in different places where and when possible o Identify existing and upcoming initiatives that involve co-production principles making connections and building them into institutional protocols o Identifying problems/potential projects within neighbourhoods that residents and organisations can collaborate on
Scope out further potential spaces - agree criteria for identifying suitable spaces e.g. accessibility, centrality in the city, potential for flexible configurations. This could include a call out for empty meanwhile spaces – East Street Arts? Sue Ball’s work on Leeds Empties, Merrion Centre etc. Test the city lab concept further in identified existing space(s) around Leeds and explore actions/recommendations
Appendix 1. Findings and suggestions specific to each of the prototype spaces
Workshop #1. What is your experience of co-production at ODI Leeds? 24.04.15 As an existing co-production space, and to mark their first anniversary in the space, the learning workshop at ODI Leeds (prototype space 1) provided the opportunity for our co-hosts to evaluate on the space’s achievements and development to date and brainstorm how the space and operations could be improved in the future. 1.1 Emerging themes: Serendipity – ODI space provides the perfect platform for the chance encounter - it attracts lots of different people from different backgrounds, similarly motivated to collaborate with new people and find new unexpected ideas. Getting unstuck - It’s a place to get ‘unstuck’ and a place to test an idea and make it more robust because you’re meeting different people with different view points A different place and a different mode by providing a physical break from the normal workspace, the space actively encourages a different mode of thinking ‘Inbetween space’ - owned by everyone and no-one, and therefore feels neutral Special spatial characteristics - pleasant, light, airy with backdrop of the city, re-use of former industrial space, has a deliberately different physical identity to standard workplaces Blurring boundaries - A place where you can work AND have fun, socialise and have parties Data provides focus for people to co-produce around, but not the reason for being – o Observation that ‘data’ was hardly mentioned in general workshop discussions – was more about practicing co-production, serendipity and the design process. o Even though the space has a data ‘brand’, lots of people from non-data backgrounds also use the space. o Observation that when ODI Leeds started, people signed up without knowing exactly what they were signing up for. o ODI Leeds space as a data ‘bakery’, where data is the ‘flour’ and the people who participate become a yeast colony! Two kinds of users – co-production ‘lite’ (fitting use of ODI space around work hours) and coproduction ‘heavy’ (moving your day job there) What is ODI about right now? Disrupting the way people work, democratic ‘sand pit’ – access to data, data dip, flexible and enabling spontaneity – contrasts with the way the university works (cautious, very planned) 1.2 Suggestions and observations: The ‘Welcome’ - anxiety over what to do in the space if you’re new to this kind of working, can be perceived as too loose, too open and impersonal
Nurturing - How can this be the place where big companies help smaller companies in a noncompetitive, non-threatening way? (Link to Ahead Partnership, which has a strand of work on mentoring by city centre corporates for inner city start-ups?) Foresighting – could this be a new USP for ODI Leeds to offer to Clients (versus only immediate future solutions) – we look 10 years ahead and we are linked to research at the universities, we have consortium partners etc? How can ODI Leeds carry on innovating to remain sustainable? Exclusivity – avoid being perceived as a secret members club - hidden on top floor, needs a code to get up, can be perceived as a luxury to be able to access a space like this in addition to your usual workplace, attracting the same kind of people - ‘preaching to the converted’ Widening inclusivity – o could hold workshops/training that covers a wider spectrum of interests (e.g. Leeds citizen degree, stuff for school children groups, artists and makers) o how to engage with changing work expectations and new types of entrepreneurs - young people not wanting to go into bog standard jobs, self-employed, people who work late at night, older generation wanting to set up their own businesses Independent, introverted working - build in time and space to be alone, to reflect and evaluate on what you’ve just done. Balance this with extroverted, collaborative working. Visualising the processes, products and people o want to capture what you’ve been working on that week, other people want to see what’s ongoing o how can digital advances help create an interface and record e.g. BIM model of Leeds, e.g. real time public digital interface - what’s happening, where, who’s got an idea?, capturing and visualising all the good ideas that are coming up o Leaving traces – is ODI monitoring who comes and uses the space? (individuals as well as individuals from member organizations). How to make it more personal - who’s been here today and what have they been working on? What and who have you missed? o If the ODI isn’t about physical accumulation, how can it build on accumulation in its ‘digital’ space? E.g. make this digital space feel welcoming like a physical space, feels very comprehensive, very user-friendly and constantly updated/’live’? e.g. breakthrough projects to date, charting the process of these projects, live and ongoing projects, Who’s who (faces) within the organizations using the ODI space and what are their interests, what’s on when. Can the space support alternative economy in the future? Alternative methods of exchange/value rating e.g. time banking, good ideas = free desk space for limited time, digital badges for civic engagement Capture people during non-core ‘transition’ hours: Can the ODI space be open to people on the way to work - fresh and alert and can be ‘briefed’/inspired for the day/week. Can it be open in the evening - as people are leaving work and consolidating information, minds have been warmed up and are still going and feeling creative. Extend operating hours: Support working parents coming to use the space by providing crèche facilities, provide breakfast and coffee, late evening uses – hostel, links to East Street Arts projects, homeless services?
Impact: How might ODI Leeds monitor and assess its impact on the public? Is there a way of monitoring the ripple effects that are invisible/intangible/operate on urban scales? Physical: consider having a greater ground floor presence/visibility from the street, consider how to improve acoustic and thermal comfort - shading from direct glare, some cosier warmer spaces for independent quiet working, improving the roof to conserve heat in cooler months and to reduce over heating in the summer
1.3 General co-production questions/issues arising
Exclusivity Visibility Timings - when does it operate? Monitoring impact Infiltration
Workshop #2. How can we use the ‘city workshop’ concept to promote new ideas and collaborative working for the regeneration of Leeds? 01.05.15 The City Workshop space (Prototype space 2) is a totally new space co-hosted by Leeds City Council at the Tetley. This workshop provided opportunity for the co-hosts, partners and participants to discuss the motives behind establishing this space, brainstorm potential activities and guiding principles to inform its future development and identify challenges and issues that the city workshop is likely to face. 2.1 Suggestions and observations: Establish guiding principles and ground rules - what is LCC’s role in this space? (see ideas below) What do people get from the space if they help set it up? Could there be a Council-friendly version of Manifesto for Leeds City Lab? Manifesto could include a how to do co-production guide for council officers, and citizens? Interface/ direct access to decision makers - this is the USP to Tetley City Workshop that should be developed as quickly as possible – who else at LCC would be interested in taking part? A place where Council members can act and contribute as CITIZENS of Leeds, BUT it’s not a ‘public stocks’ for Councillors and officers. The space should be about doing things for Leeds together WITH Councillors. Opportunities for one-to-one question time, Councillor/MP surgeries and ‘meet the politician’ sessions. Mechanism for getting wacky ideas endorsed e.g. ‘I have an idea and this is who it gets sent to/this is a place I can talk to this person who can help make it happen’ Who has ultimate say? Is it the Council (as usual?) Ways to change Council protocol e.g. hold meetings that are publicised and have to be held in Plain English Not just an exhibition/sales place for decisions that have already been made (consultation) – changing Council Protocol Set up basic physical and organisational toolkit for activities - then let activities happen, build on toolkit, repeat and build up. Urban design and regeneration-focused activities that also need appropriate facilities and tools e.g. digital interface that captures and records ideas, maps of Leeds with laminate overlays, models of Leeds - both physical and digital (changeable) Engagement with communities o How can city workshop be relevant to communities of Leeds - not just ‘Samies’ or those interested in regeneration/architecture/urban design of Leeds South Bank? o How to capture ideas from neighbourhoods in the ‘influence’ zone of the Tetley e.g. Holbeck, Hunslet, residents who aren’t part of a formal group? o Target range of people, e.g. shopkeepers, residents’ associations, schools o Could this be a place to develop and launch neighbourhood plans? o Engagement with communities can’t just be about programming and filling the space with activity - these activities must be framed within idea of how we change how Leeds is governed o City Bench outside the Tetley – Rachael Unsworth
Engagement with private sector - how to engage developers and landowners to come voluntarily rather than be obliged? Engagement with University – University can strengthen research base of Leeds City Council e.g. set students with ‘City Research’ themes that inform Council initiatives and projects (speak to Erik Thomasson) Spilling out of activities from City Workshop into Tetley and vice versa - could plan certain city workshop events so they happen before or after a planned event at the Tetley? Cross-fertilisation of ideas and inspiration. Moderation of ideas so ones with strong support/preferences are prioritised? But who moderates it? Can the public moderate it? Lots of ideas do not necessarily amount to sound proposals, not all ideas will be sustainable, e.g. how would the City Workshop/Leeds City Lab moderate controversial issues? Outcomes and impact – there is a sense that co-producing solutions may take slightly longer to achieve, but they will create more buy-in and be more durable. The time for this needs to built into how Council plans projects and initiatives. In the long run, this will save the Council time and resources and build effective relationships to go on to achieve other things. Accumulation and collaging – traces of work that’s happened before and work that is ongoing, building on what’s there, collecting wisdom and knowledge of the city, but things are constantly changing. Do co-production spaces like the City Workshop need somewhere to leave materials and products of co-production e.g. map drawers, wall space, ideas wall, graffiti wall, lockers, project pigeon hole, etc rather than taking it back to your own ‘work territory’? And what about eventually storing a digital version of physical artifacts and then clearing out superseded material so that it’s current, leading edge, instead of cluttered and random? Who decides? Who is the curator/housekeeper? 2.2 General co-production questions/issues arising
Accessibility to adjacent neighbourhoods and residents and city centre Where is the city lab? Do people go to it or does it go to the people? Interface to decision makers/Council where both are equal/help each other find solutions Moderation and capturing of good priority ideas and moderation of harmful ideas (not for public good)
Workshop #3. What is your experience of co-production between Higher Education (HE) and the Third Sector (TS)? (15.05.15) A partnership called Leeds ACTS (Academics Collaborating with the Third Sector) between members of the city’s universities and third sector organisations provided an opportunity for the third learning workshop. This was hosted at the social enterprise centre called Shine in Harehills, rather than the pre-identified prototype co-production space. This was interesting in itself as it highlighted that neither the University not the third sector in the city has its own dedicated co-production space. Therefore, the reflections below are pertinent more to the ongoing activities of the partnership between the universities and the third sector in the city, rather than the use and activities of an ongoing space. To clarify, the Shine Centre was used only to host this learning workshop rather than acting as an actual co-production space in its own right as part of this project. 3.1 Reflection on co-production activity between HE and TS Motivations for doing co-production between HE and third sector ‘Grounded’ focus on real city and neighbourhood problems - these are also unexpected and require innovative approaches and solutions Expertise and resources – collaboration means you can access specialist knowledge relatively quickly and more openly Co-operation vs competition – You have to work with others in a more positive and collaborative way, provides a way of diffusing skepticism/distrust between different institutions and areas of expertise Longer term benefits but long term vision needs to be clarified Scarce resources – having to do more with increasingly little, a chance to maximize skills and abilities Gaps and opportunities – symbiotic relationship - recognition that university research had to be relevant, and recognition that TS could move forward by being supported by good research and collaborative working Strengths of working this way in generating ideas and solutions: Challenges accepted ways of working - minimises ‘we’ve always done it like that’ cultures by introducing risk, constructive disruption and exposure to different skills/methodologies/backgrounds, accepting that we ‘Don’t know what we don’t know’ Trial and error - Being able to get it wrong but being able to revisit the problem - iterative design process of evaluation and improvement
3.2 Key recommendations for co-production between TS and HE Opportunities: Students as interns in partner third sector organisations but regular ‘turnover’ means challenge of continuity/handover of accumulated knowledge Create physical and ‘mental’ space to have barmy conversations/blue sky thinking and ask disruptive questions about real world problems - i.e. identifying problems and ideas at the ‘coal face’ where co-produced solution is needed Bid consortia - involving people who know what bids and where, being ready with a bid/proposal when funding is available Core values of co-production between TS & HE needs to be captured and clarified, how to be honest, specific and passionate AND avoid cliché and generic-ness Simple and clear pathways – Can Leeds City Lab offer a straightforward system/vehicle for collaborative working, as well as a physical space? Should be easy and QUICK to find out how to set up co-production activities between different institutions e.g. who do I speak to, whose door do I knock on, what are the steps I need to take, what do I need to have in place etc etc. Accessibility and speed are important so that the initiative doesn’t lose relevance due to unnecessary delays. Impact:
How can TS-HE partnerships monitor and assess impacts, while not being too impact-driven?
What exactly is an ‘impact’? Does the word get overused and become a means to an end?
Accountability o Impacts shouldn’t be driver but should be clear and simple structure set up that helps partners clarify: how research feeds into idea that leads to a solution that leads to effects (cause and consequence?) o Different measure of impact that doesn’t focus only on the outcome – an impact could be achieving a collaborative working relationship between a network of people from different organizations, or a significant improvement in the way we practice – how can the value of impacts on process be formally recognised?
Harnessing Data and working with data organizations o Need to understand the differences between and benefits of the different data organisations in Leeds and how they might help Third Sector/Higher Education activities (ODI, LIDA, Third Sector Infomatics), researchfish.com - public website for researchers/investigators to upload their data o Avoid over-reliance on data to assess impact - keep human perspective and experience-based knowledge as well
Accessibility, relevance & visibility
o What is the ‘front door’ of the University of Leeds? Is it the Parkinson Building - looks formidable and formal and presides over the city skyline o Could places of conversation happen on a much small informal scale? e.g. city chairs/benches, mobile bus o Connecting to different city spaces – Community Asset Mapping, Leeds Empties, What are the spaces within the universities that the public can use? o CITIZEN THEMES/CITY RESEARCH PROGRAMME - appeals to Leeds citizens about living in the city, e.g. food systems, energy, health care, safety, housing etc o Leeds Acts! work still primarily between those in professional/academic sectors – could identify projects/initiatives/themes that can actively involve and are relevant to BME communities or residents who don’t belong to formal groups? o What is the mechanism by which community involvement is embedded in Council protocol so plans are more likely to be implemented? (see Workshop 2 Notes) 3.3 General co-production questions/issues arising
How to identify and address issues that are relevant to Leeds citizens e.g city themes Not about primarily about co-production, or collaboration, or co-working – it’s about changing Leeds How can city lab be prototyped in small viable ways? Allowed to fail and learnt from. Balancing data use/digital interface with human interaction, values and judgment The third sector is more resource-constrained and outcome- and solution-orientated, and response to specific sector concerns and service delivery dilemmas. This needs to be built into co-production relationships. How does a city lab ‘space’ support TS-HE activities – important for collaborations not to form a group/identity/club and therefore territories in themselves – important to keep it loose, evolving and open by not being tied down to one space