Professor Tomasz Jaskiewicz from Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences enjoys working bottom-up: from a neighbourhood or community centre, for example. His expertise lies in Civic Prototyping, which, on the face of it, appears to be a practical profession aimed at developing and testing innovations that improve the quality of life.
But Jaskiewicz’s research area seems to be much broader. ‘I believe that the democratisation of technological innovation processes plays an indispensable role in the systemic transition to a more inclusive, just and sustainable society.’
His aim is to grow modest initiatives in a neighbourhood to major systemic changes. And therein lies the link with ESC. ‘Civic prototyping is a hands-on form of co-creation that supports local innovation implemented by citizens,’ he insists. ‘In my projects, for example, I see how important a sense of ownership can be when technological innovation is introduced. Projects tend to develop differently if the initiative lies with the neighbourhood, as opposed to a municipality or a company. But by the same token, even if a certain innovation has a desirable effect in one neighbourhood, you can never be sure that the same innovation will work equally well in other neighbourhoods. Or the indirect effects it will ultimately have on the city as a whole, or on society. As yet, there are no good methods to measure and demonstrate how the ripple effects of modest interventions can lead to large-scale systemic change.’
Invasion of the robots
Technology is usually developed by tech companies on a commercial basis. In his research, however, Jaskiewicz opts for a different departure point: namely what would happen if, alongside that commercial basis, we were to add a social perspective? To this end he organises workshops, harvests ideas from neighbourhoods, and in conjunction with local residents and students, builds things like robot prototypes to try and establish in-situ what value these robots might add for a neighbourhood. ‘In addition to being functional, robots can also have social repercussions, both desirable and otherwise,’ he says. ‘A robotic street sweeper can be very efficient, for example, but it can also lead to job losses, among people who play a key social role.’ To date, dozens of experiments like these have explored the effects such interventions can have on the city. ‘They all help generate awareness among citizens and municipalities, as well as among researchers and designers.’
Jaskiewicz’s reason for wanting to know the social repercussions of robotisation, lies in the fact he expects a lot to change in our cities as a result of it. ‘And I don’t mean self-driving cars and drones here; developments like that are still quite a long way off. I’m leaning more towards the small autonomous vehicles on our pavements, like the ones that will deliver our groceries, for example, or monitor public places. During the next few years we expect to see an abundance of robots like these. The technology is already available and there are few regulations standing in the way. Our cities, however, are hardly prepared for such a robot invasion. A few robots arriving in our neighbourhoods might be construed as interesting. But thousands of them? That could have many unexpected repercussions. I think the best way to mitigate undesirable, systemic effects would be the co-creation – co-design and co-prototyping – of robots, in collaboration with city residents.’
Mapping out initiatives in Rotterdam
Rotterdam has plenty of experience with co-creation, making it a rich source from which to learn how the processes work. But at the moment no one has an overview of all the initiatives in the city, which is why they are currently being inventoried. ‘We are not only focusing on the success stories, we are also looking at those projects that strand or are held back. Why is it that one initiative might succeed, for example, while another doesn’t? We’re also looking at all manner of other aspects, such as who the initiator is, which creative competencies are available, or lacking, and the nature of the collaboration.’ The project’s Dutch title translates to ‘Creative Competence Mapping for Co-Creation in the City’. It kicked off in late 2023, with financing from KIEM, which is for exploratory research by colleges, universities or other knowledge institutions and part of the Task Force for Applied Research, or SIA. ‘It will also tell us about new business models for co-creation at local level.’
How to avoid another childcare benefits scandal
Another KIEM-facilitated project, ‘Digital inclusion by design’, also started in late 2023. The EU stipulates that all digital services should be accessible to all citizens, but what exactly does that mean? ‘A lot of exclusion is down to the context of use, often caused by the physical differences between people, but even more so by cultural or social factors. Co-creation is a way of improving the design of these services, by involving users in the design and development processes.’
To Illustrate why he feels inclusion is so important, Jaskiewicz refers to the Netherlands’ childcare benefits scandal. ‘What was so bad about the benefits scandal was that not only were incorrect decisions made, but that it also proved so difficult to amend the digital system on which those decisions were based. We must move towards technology that is both inclusive and “assailable”. The childcare benefits scandal would never have gotten so out of hand if the digital systems at its heart had been transparent and if mechanisms had been introduced to continuously request input from people during the fine-tuning of those systems. Digital systems, as well as the organisational and social practices in which they are embedded, must be open to continuous adaptation and evolution. Truth be told, the design process never ends. Citizens must be given the opportunity to help shape and amend the digital platforms that are part of their lives. That’s what I mean by the democratisation of technology.’
Just
In the RSD conference last October in Amsterdam’s Pakhuis de Zwijger, Jaskiewicz hosted a panel discussion called ‘Just Digital Life’, a theme that’s a good fit with his interests and research. Digital technology is an indispensable part of all our daily lives, he explains, and that the use of the word ‘just’ in the title was a deliberate play on its double meaning. It was used here to mean ‘just’ in the sense of ‘only’ and ‘just’ in the context of being ‘fair’ or ‘righteous’. In other words, a direct reference to the ethical side of digital technology.
During that panel discussion, Jaskiewicz concludes, he wanted to highlight the different perspectives from which technology can be looked at. The panel consisted of three members, namely: Sarah Giest, professor of Public Policy at Leiden University; Pieter van Boheemen, programme manager AI and ethics at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, having previously worked at the Rathenau Institute and the Waag Society; and Jaz Choi, associate professor in Civic Interaction Design at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. The discussion was about justice in the broadest sense of the word, exploring the limits of man and of nature. ‘The complexity lies in the perspectives, in other words, the systemic aspects that are involved. After all, systemic perspectives differ from one another and it’s about learning to navigate through all those perspectives.’