JOINT reflections

debate). Moreover, there was a sustained high level of meeting attendance and engagement with the projects, indicating low levels of apathy amongst members. However, a more nuanced analysis revealed struggles of power and disagreements in day-to-day operations. Tasks and actions were notionally allocated during weekly meetings, but these were occasionally duplicated by other members of the group or control of the task was ‘wrestled from them’, indicating disagreements which were unexpressed during formal decision making. As shown in Figure 22 in the Discussion, members can be divided into a number of groups based on their attitudes and intentions, which in some cases led to veiled disagreement around ways of working and objectives.

Laura was part of the Association from an early stage, and as time went by became increasingly influential, and established working groups to improve the Association’s working efficiency. Fabian and Hamish joined in early 2020, and all the three of us started playing roles in different working groups. As logged in our weekly report sheets, we participated in organisational, structural but also content related topics. The beginning of the year was a good way to start our engagement as we facilitated the first meeting of 2020. By bringing in some structure into the meeting we immediately got positive feedback about increased efficiency compared to previous meetings.

Through the university and faculty we were able to benefit from a range of academic and human resources for support and to provide a critical perspective on our research process. We set up an art workshop where architecture students could design a physical structure under the umbrella of NTNU Live Studio, which was unfortunately interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Having the support of some NTNU professors was also beneficial for the communication with other stakeholders, such as Trondheim Kommune. Overall, these factors increased the legitimacy of the project.

Throughout the project, we paid particular attention to how the Association was operating, and its effectiveness in working towards its vision. Of interest was the application of the ‘consensus’ based system of decision making. As explored by Cunningham (2014), in a consensus-based system agreement is sought and disagreement is negotiated in order to find “collective solutions” (p. 237). In the case study of Cloughjordan Ecovillage in Ireland, he noted the need to make decisions within a reasonable time frame whilst avoiding ‘apathy’ where disagreements go unresolved (p. 246). The Research Group noted that there was little disagreement in formal Association meetings, creating a harmonious environment which led to rapid decision making (but with relatively little discussion or

Former members of Cloughjordan Ecovillage also highlighted “decisions being largely taken in smaller groups and then just brought to the main group for rubber-stamping” (p. 244) and that “every meeting was an emergency meeting” (p. 243) as reasons for them leaving the group. The Research Group noted very similar experiences in the Fargemarka Association, with meetings called at short notice with the possible intention of ‘rubber stamping’ decisions already made by smaller ‘sub groups’. Therefore, despite presence of harmony in weekly meetings, or the lack of visible disagreement, sub-surface disagreements continued to play a role in disrupting activities which had been formally agreed in meetings. In at least one case, this led to a member leaving the Association.

“The group appeared as an action group rather than a housing group. I joined the group with a desire to realise the housing project, but when “opposing” emerged as more important than the case, the work became meaningless.”

- A former member reflects on their reasons for leaving the Association

During the observed period some conflicts emerged mainly between ‘activist’ and more conservative ways of working.

“But I think even though we are quite similar in terms of having similar interests and a similar vision... but the backgrounds of people is just widely different to the point where I feel like it’s sometimes very difficult to talk to people. Cause you have completely different consumptions like in basic things, like how do you organise some things.”

“The group appeared to be somewhat polarized and some members gave the impression that civil disobedience should be the main instrument, without this being written. This created uncertainty. (...) I believe the Fargemarka could have been realized if everyone, not just idealists, but also realists, could be accepted and included to the fullest. I felt that to be a “colourful” group a large part of the palette was missing.”

- Fargemarka members.

For our research, we considered both the degree to which the group has progressed towards its published ‘Vision’, as described in the Background chapter, and the extent to which individual intentions of group members are being realised. We noted how quickly the Association formed as a legal entity, reached out to key stakeholders, formed sub-groups, and agreed a list of prioritised tasks – all of which went some way towards achieving the Vision. Individual objectives and priorities such as designing websites, occupying buildings and taking part in art projects, were also achieved to a great extent. However, despite these achievements we observed a lack of cohesion in the group, possibly due to the absence of team-building activities. The group made limited progress towards securing a short term lease or similar arrangement with the Municipality to use the buildings. Furthermore, interactions with other stakeholders never went beyond the ‘discussion’ phase, with little active cooperation or coproduction of outputs. Unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic seriously disrupted the progress of the group half way through our research period.

The Vision of the Association was a binding element, but expectations, ways of working and structuring, and previous experiences amongst members were highly diverse. We (as the Research Group) observed that we often acted as a bridge between members, and therefore arguably adopted a mediating role. We gained the trust of a wide range of members, to the point where they were willing to share their thoughts, feelings, and often grievances. During the last meeting before the Covid-19 disruption, we were in a position to propose a ‘conflict-management workshop’ in order to discuss and debate differing expectations and find a common way to communicate about them.