Protohome Portfolio
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Protohome</strong><br />
Dr Julia Heslop<br />
School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University<br />
(Credit: John Hipkin)
Contents<br />
Statement<br />
Factual Information<br />
Aims<br />
Research Context<br />
Methodology<br />
Project Process<br />
Outcomes and Impacts<br />
Testimonials<br />
Dissemination<br />
Bibliography<br />
Appendix A: Refereed Supporting Publication<br />
Appendix B: Marketing Material<br />
3<br />
5<br />
5<br />
8<br />
12<br />
13<br />
24<br />
36<br />
37<br />
39<br />
40<br />
70<br />
Statement<br />
Summary<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> was a collaboratively built art/architectural installation, 5 x 10 metres in size, designed as a<br />
prototype for a self-build house. It was sited in the Ouseburn, Newcastle upon Tyne from May-September<br />
2016 and was a collaboration between myself, Crisis - the national charity for single homelessness, xsite<br />
architecture and TILT Workshop. Working alongside an architect and joiners, homeless members of<br />
Crisis undertook workshops and built a timber frame self-build housing prototype based on the Walter<br />
Segal method of building. The ‘house’ hosted events and exhibitions examining the collaborative designbuild<br />
process and issues regarding housing and homelessness in an austerity context and participatory<br />
housing alternatives. A publication, report, website and film were also created. The work was then represented<br />
in the exhibition Idea of North at BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead in 2018 and<br />
the exhibition Missing Pieces: A History of Homelessness in Newcastle at Newcastle City Library in 2019.<br />
Questions<br />
1. What role can attention to the philosophies and<br />
methodologies of participatory action research<br />
(PAR) play in bringing forth new design and build<br />
processes in housing?<br />
2. What is the connection between participation in<br />
design/build and the creation of social networks<br />
and learning for those that might be socially or<br />
spatially isolated?<br />
Context<br />
Despite new attention to self-build housing<br />
within academia and policy (Benson and<br />
Hamiduddin, 2017), less attention has been given<br />
to participation in housing by those in housing<br />
and/or employment need, and even less to the<br />
mechanics of this participation, including the<br />
role of power and the potential for personal and<br />
collective transformation. Furthermore, there are<br />
few physical, built precedents to use as points<br />
of reference. Attending to this, <strong>Protohome</strong> brings<br />
together the methodological and philosophical<br />
approaches of PAR with innovative participatory<br />
design-build methodologies. The project critically<br />
examines the ‘participatory turn’ within art,<br />
architecture and the social sciences, building upon<br />
the theoretical insights of Till (2005), Miessen<br />
(2011) and Deutsche (1996), the practices of<br />
artists Thomas Hirschhorn and Suzanne Lacy and<br />
architecture offices MAM Architecture, USINA and<br />
MUF. <strong>Protohome</strong> recentred the ethics, processes<br />
and impacts of participation in design-build –<br />
elements that are often neglected - and opened<br />
a critical public conversation into homelessness,<br />
austerity and self-build through events which<br />
engaged a range of people and institutions.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> sited in the Ouseburn Valley, Newcastle upon Tyne The interior of <strong>Protohome</strong> Ribbon Road concert<br />
2 3
Factual Information<br />
Aims<br />
Methods<br />
The methodology drew on PAR approaches. TILT<br />
and myself held design and build workshops<br />
with Crisis members from February-May 2016.<br />
Throughout, members made decisions on<br />
workshop activities using a cycle of planning,<br />
action and reflection. Over two weeks the group<br />
built the prototype on site. Qualitative methods,<br />
including ten interviews with project members,<br />
ten focus groups and participant observation were<br />
also used, whilst five evaluation interviews with<br />
project members gauged the impact of the project<br />
on members’ lives.<br />
Overview of outcomes and impact<br />
A total of 1,700 people visited <strong>Protohome</strong> over 37<br />
events (film screenings, talks, workshops, artist<br />
residencies and performances) and a publication,<br />
website (www.protohome.org.uk), film and report<br />
were created (see the website for all dissemination).<br />
Activities created a space of knowledge exchange<br />
between group members, the public, housing/<br />
architecture professionals and the local authority.<br />
Two workshops on community-led housing were<br />
held in collaboration with Gateshead Council,<br />
Newcastle City Council and Homes England.<br />
The findings contributed to further research<br />
projects and practice, including the Housing and<br />
Planning All Party Parliamentary Group’s National<br />
Housing Taskforce workstream on New Sources<br />
of Supply, chaired by MP Helen Hayes, the North<br />
East Community Led Development Network, the<br />
Digital Civics module at Open Lab, Newcastle<br />
University, architects Transition By Design’s<br />
Homemaker project, which involved developing<br />
community-led housing for homeless individuals<br />
in Oxford, and architects HarperPerry’s Self<br />
Build Guild - a concept for a cooperative set-up to<br />
provide access to specialist knowledge, technical<br />
assistance, and professional equipment and<br />
machinery for self-building homes, which was<br />
longlisted for the National Custom & Self Build<br />
Association Self Build Starter Home competition<br />
and went on display at Grand Designs Live in<br />
Birmingham in October 2016. In 2018, BALTIC Centre<br />
for Contemporary Art, Gateshead commissioned<br />
a partial rebuilding of <strong>Protohome</strong> and a new<br />
documentary video, which was presented in the<br />
Idea of North exhibition for the Great Exhibition<br />
of the North. <strong>Protohome</strong> was also presented in<br />
the Missing Pieces: A History of Homelessness in<br />
Newcastle exhibition at Newcastle City Library.<br />
The project has also been spoken and written<br />
about at conferences and events, on TV and radio,<br />
online and in newspapers, books and journals.<br />
The building was reconstructed by volunteers and<br />
is now in use as a workshop and classroom for<br />
people with learning difficulties at the Ouseburn<br />
Farm - a community farm across the road from the<br />
original site of <strong>Protohome</strong>. Most importantly, Crisis<br />
members built skills, undertook qualifications,<br />
gained social networks and confidence.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> was a collaboratively built art/<br />
architecture installation, designed as a prototype<br />
for a self-build house. The building was sited<br />
from May-September 2016 in the Ouseburn<br />
area of Newcastle – an ex-industrial area, which<br />
is now known for its grassroots cultural and<br />
entertainment venues, on land owned by the<br />
Ouseburn Trust – a local development trust. The<br />
project was a collaboration between myself, Crisis -<br />
the national charity for single homelessness, xsite<br />
architecture and TILT Workshop. The budget was<br />
£18,158.01 and the project was funded by Seedbed<br />
Trust (£9,500.00), ESRC Impact Acceleration<br />
Account (£6,610.73), ESRC Doctoral Training<br />
Centre (£1,052.28), Postgraduate Conference<br />
Fund, Durham University (£500.00) and Durham<br />
University Centre for Social Justice and Community<br />
Action (£495.00). xsite architecture designed the<br />
single story building made from timber, based<br />
on the Walter Segal method of self-building.<br />
The building was 5 x 10 metres in size, whilst the<br />
outside decking area measured 5 x 8 metres.<br />
The building incorporated an open plan interior<br />
with a gable roof with 16 glass skylights and two<br />
windows, whilst four glazed doors led onto the<br />
decking area. Access was from the front of the<br />
building via steps and a ramp and the building was<br />
powered by batteries and an outside generator.<br />
1. To test a timber frame building method which is<br />
specifically designed for untrained self-builders.<br />
2. To build the skills and capacities of socially<br />
isolated individuals who may lack confidence.<br />
3. To examine the impacts (both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’)<br />
of participatory build projects on individuals and<br />
groups, examining how learning, gaining skills and<br />
building social ties occurs through co-production<br />
in design and build projects.<br />
4. To offer an increased awareness about<br />
participatory housing alternatives and to stimulate<br />
a cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral discussion<br />
on this through a range of events that help to create<br />
a space of dialogue, knowledge exchange and<br />
lasting connections between targeted individuals<br />
and groups (local authorities, Crisis and other<br />
charitable organisations, architecture/housing<br />
professionals, academia and the wider public).<br />
5. To contribute to the development of innovative<br />
participatory research methods in design and<br />
build.<br />
On site: fixing the flooring into place<br />
Learning woodwork joints in the Crisis workshop<br />
4<br />
5
<strong>Protohome</strong> members learning how to fix the flooring in place (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
6<br />
7
Research Context<br />
Impacts of Austerity and Rising Homelessness<br />
The concerns of <strong>Protohome</strong> are deeply embedded<br />
within the UK housing context - specifically the<br />
effects of austerity measures and the growth<br />
of homelessness. In England, rough sleeping<br />
increased by 165 per cent between 2010 and 2019,<br />
whilst placements in temporary accommodation<br />
have increased by 71 per cent since 2011 (Fitzpatrick<br />
et al., 2019). Often considered in relation to family<br />
breakdown, a lack of familial networks, substance<br />
abuse and mental health problems, the relationship<br />
between housing policy, property relations and<br />
precarious lives has become increasingly clear<br />
through austerity policies.<br />
Community-Led Housing<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> sought to critique and propose a new<br />
value structure for housing - one that may offer<br />
opportunities for capacity building for people in<br />
need of housing. It also sought to examine how<br />
participation in housing might redress the balance<br />
of power between the state, private housing<br />
developers and the resident through embedded<br />
participatory processes. The project references<br />
the growing interest in community-led housing<br />
(CLH), both in policy (see the 2011 Localism Act),<br />
as well as in practice (see the work of Power to<br />
Change, Community Led Homes and Locality);<br />
however, participation in housing is often colonised<br />
by those that have existing social, economic or<br />
knowledge capital and there are too few examples<br />
of co-produced housing by people without preexisting<br />
building knowledge or financial capital.<br />
Therefore the social and educational potentials<br />
arising from participation in housing by groups in<br />
most housing need are neglected (see my further<br />
discussion of this here: https://www.tandfonline.<br />
com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2020.173288). As<br />
a result <strong>Protohome</strong> sought to highlight the added<br />
value that can emerge from embedded processes<br />
of participation in design and build projects.<br />
Informal Housing<br />
Much of the inspiration for <strong>Protohome</strong> was taken<br />
from the ‘informal’ housing sector in eastern<br />
Europe and the global South. I undertook<br />
research into informal housing processes in<br />
Albania, with specific interest in the process of<br />
housebuilding and community creation in these<br />
new neighbourhoods (see Heslop et al., 2020). The<br />
work was particularly influenced by architect John<br />
Turner (1977), who believed that the West had a lot<br />
to learn from self-organised housing provision in<br />
Latin America. Turner emphasised the limitations<br />
of state and market-based housing solutions<br />
and critiqued the centralised administration of<br />
housing, believing that housing was best built and<br />
managed by those who are to live in it. Thus Turner<br />
understood that housing should be connected<br />
to participation, capacity building and human<br />
flourishing.<br />
The Segal Method<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> was also influenced by the work of<br />
Walter Segal (Broome, 2005) who developed<br />
a timber frame method of building designed<br />
especially for untrained self-builders, and selfbuild<br />
housing precedents such as Hedgehog<br />
Co-op in Brighton, and the work of Architype, an<br />
architecture firm that has developed and updated<br />
the Segal method to exceed current construction<br />
standards.<br />
Art and Architecture Precedents<br />
As both a housing prototype and a public art/<br />
architecture installation the work reflects the<br />
shift within artistic practices away from the<br />
conventions of the studio, gallery or museum and<br />
towards working in ways that are more engaged in<br />
the social or public sphere (Bishop, 2006; see the<br />
work of Thomas Hirschhorn and Suzanne Lacy). At<br />
the core of this practice are social processes such<br />
as relationship building, dialogue, participation,<br />
co-operation, exchange and collective decision<br />
making.<br />
Whilst <strong>Protohome</strong> created a public precedent for<br />
more participatory forms of housing for those<br />
in housing need (see MAM Architecture and<br />
USINA), it also developed a blueprint for ethical<br />
and embedded processes of participation within<br />
design and build, which have the potential to lead<br />
to personal and collective transformation. In so<br />
doing it brought practice and theory together by<br />
critically analysing processes of participation<br />
through a live project, building upon the largely<br />
theoretical insights of Till (2005) and Miessen<br />
(2010) into power and manipulation in participatory<br />
processes, and Deutsche (1996) into the social<br />
production of art and urban space.<br />
Informal housing, Tirana, Albania<br />
8<br />
Visit to a Segal inspired house in Northumberland<br />
9
The group lifting the panels onto the roof (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
10 11
Methodology<br />
Project Process<br />
Participatory Action Research<br />
The Segal Method<br />
We undertook the project using a PAR approach.<br />
PAR is a collective knowledge production process<br />
which seeks to enable people regarded as<br />
excluded or disadvantaged to have a voice (Fals-<br />
Borda, 1987; Freire, 1970 [2007]; Kindon et al.,<br />
2007; Reason and Bradbury, 2001). Therefore an<br />
extractive process of research is replaced by a<br />
collaborative one. Working with people through the<br />
co-production of new knowledge offers potential<br />
to create embedded and equitable processes<br />
of learning for individuals who may be socially/<br />
spatially isolated or excluded from political or<br />
economic power. There is an important ethical<br />
dimension to this process whereby participants<br />
set the terms and actions of the research.<br />
Attention to PAR in design-build processes is<br />
under-developed in practice and theory, yet it<br />
offers some distinct methodological and ethical<br />
tools to bring forth more inclusive, critical and<br />
transformational participatory design-build<br />
practices. <strong>Protohome</strong> analysed the mechanisms of<br />
participation within the process, placing emphasis<br />
on a reflexive methodology that prioritises learning<br />
through making, the role of communication and<br />
power, and how care and confidence are nurtured.<br />
We used a constant collective cycle of planning,<br />
action and reflection (Kindon et al., 2007) through<br />
which we could, as a group, analyse what was<br />
working and what wasn’t and change the course of<br />
action accordingly, which enabled us to critically<br />
analyse the participatory process.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> also explored the added social and<br />
educational value that processes of collaborative<br />
design and making can offer those that might be<br />
socially and spatially isolated, highlighting how<br />
practices of designing and making can be a tool<br />
for widening access to skills and qualifications,<br />
as well as generating opportunities for processes<br />
of personal transformation and the creation of<br />
new social networks for participant builders.<br />
Furthermore, in line with PAR’s focus on politicising<br />
participation, and political empowerment through<br />
the process, <strong>Protohome</strong> undertook a series of<br />
public events that brought forth the voices of those<br />
that have been the victims of housing precarity.<br />
In so doing the project recalled the origins of<br />
PAR within post-colonial struggles in the global<br />
South - origins which are often overlooked when<br />
transferred (and sometimes displaced) into a<br />
Western academic context (see Fals-Borda,<br />
1987; Freire, 1970 [2007]). These elements of<br />
participation are often overlooked in co-design<br />
and build processes, whereby participation<br />
becomes depoliticised and extracted from the<br />
context of social and political struggle for equality.<br />
In drawing on the global South tradition of PAR<br />
as a philosophy and movement of community<br />
education and empowerment, <strong>Protohome</strong> created<br />
a tentative framework for conceptualising__ and<br />
critically analysing participation within designbuild<br />
processes. I write about this in more detail in<br />
my paper ‘Learning through building: participatory<br />
action research and the production of housing’<br />
(see Appendix A).<br />
Support Networks<br />
Throughout the project we were especially sensitive<br />
to working with potentially vulnerable individuals<br />
who may have been historically marginalised and<br />
lacked confidence. A support network was built<br />
into the project: we worked in close collaboration<br />
with Crisis, who provided personal support to all<br />
participants. Each participant had a progression<br />
coach who offered advice on work, housing and<br />
other issues as well as pastoral support. Care<br />
was taken in group meetings and interviews to<br />
ensure that members were comfortable and not<br />
in distress, whilst members were free to leave or<br />
decline to participate at any point.<br />
We undertook the project using the Segal method,<br />
named after the architect Walter Segal, who<br />
developed a system of self-build specifically<br />
designed for untrained self-builders (Broome,<br />
2005). There has been a renewed interest in<br />
Segal’s work in the last few years, with a major<br />
exhibition at the Architectural Association in<br />
London and new projects in development, such as<br />
the community-led housing project The Rural Urban<br />
Synthesis Society in Lewisham, London. Flexibility<br />
of use and ease of construction are at the heart of<br />
the Segal system, which is reflected in the design<br />
of <strong>Protohome</strong>, developed by xsite architecture. The<br />
frame of the structure is on a dimensional grid,<br />
making plans easy to follow, and all construction<br />
is done using dry jointing techniques with bolts<br />
and screws, so there are no wet trades involved<br />
that might require more enhanced training.<br />
Right: The initial plan for the interior of<br />
the building showing panels between the<br />
posts that can be moved to create different<br />
spatial layouts (Credit: xsite architecture)<br />
The use of a core structure means that the walls<br />
and partitions are not load bearing, so the ‘infill’<br />
can be done incrementally over time. In the Segal<br />
method this infill is completed using modular<br />
panel walls held in place by wooden battens that<br />
can easily be unscrewed and moved around to<br />
change room formations or make spatial additions.<br />
Like Segal we made use of standard ‘off the shelf’<br />
material sizes, each 8 foot in length, so there<br />
was less cutting and waste, making the process<br />
more economical and saving time and energy.<br />
This system makes self-building achievable (we<br />
erected our building in two weeks), even for those<br />
without any previous woodwork skills - learning<br />
and training being at the core of this project. It<br />
also offers an approach through which learning<br />
can occur whilst building.<br />
Left: The site plan (Credit: xsite<br />
architecture)<br />
12<br />
13
The design of <strong>Protohome</strong>. Polycarbonate panels were replaced by glass windows. Glass was proved to be more affordable and less prone to being damaged (Credit: xsite architecture)<br />
MAKE SURE IMAGES AREN’T PIXILATED- NEED TO CHANGE<br />
THIS<br />
Sections of the building (Credit: xsite architecture)<br />
14 15
The dimensional frame of the building (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
16 17
Workshops<br />
The project began with a launch at Crisis. TILT,<br />
xsite and myself presented the project to Crisis<br />
members and offered two hour-long taster<br />
sessions in woodwork and the design software<br />
SketchUp. This helped give members an indication<br />
of what was involved in the project, as well as to<br />
get them doing hands-on work straight away.<br />
Following the launch we began the workshop<br />
process in Crisis’ wood workshop with joiners<br />
from TILT, a sessional tutor from Crisis who was<br />
responsible for the documentation of the project,<br />
and Crisis’ woodwork tutor. Workshops took place on<br />
two half days a week for 11 weeks. In the workshops<br />
participants learnt basic woodwork skills (working<br />
with hand tools and jointing techniques) as well as<br />
being introduced to SketchUp. When learning the<br />
techniques they undertook small projects, such as<br />
designing and making the furniture for <strong>Protohome</strong>.<br />
Working towards small goals helped to energise<br />
the group to develop their skills efficiently. Many<br />
of the members learned more effectively through<br />
practice, through tacit, hands-on methods instead<br />
of through linguistic methods.<br />
During the workshop process we attempted to<br />
engage participants in the more creative aspects<br />
of the project – such as designing a sign to be<br />
placed on the roof. In addition, although the<br />
design was completed by xsite architecture, we<br />
tasked group members with visualising the homes<br />
that they would create. This aided in highlighting<br />
the flexibility of the Segal method and how it can<br />
accommodate many different visions of home,<br />
but also helped to tap into individuals’ aspirations<br />
as well as enabling them to get a greater<br />
understanding of how design and function of space<br />
can be integrated. These designs were translated<br />
into SketchUp and exhibited in <strong>Protohome</strong> once it<br />
was completed and open to the public.<br />
Group members also undertook qualifications<br />
(working with hand tools, health and safety, and<br />
lifting and handling), which were administered by<br />
Crisis. It was important that there was a formal<br />
educational component for members - not only<br />
were they working towards creating a physical<br />
building but were also developing in an educational<br />
capacity.<br />
We made a site visit, to measure the area, and to<br />
begin to visualise how the building would sit in<br />
the landscape and to get an understanding of the<br />
environment (both physical and social) in which it<br />
was to be placed. We also made a visit to see an<br />
example of a Segal house built by two architects<br />
in Northumberland. This visit helped the group to<br />
better understand the build process, and how the<br />
individual building parts that they were creating<br />
fit together to make a whole. This visit acted as a<br />
catalyst for the group – helping to inspire them and<br />
boost their confidence prior to the site build. Trips<br />
also helped the group to bond.<br />
We used a cycle of planning, action and reflection<br />
(Kindon et al., 2007) through group meetings/<br />
discussions once a week. This enabled an ongoing<br />
dialogue to be maintained, encouraging a continual<br />
collective decision-making process.<br />
During the workshop period new members of Crisis<br />
were free to join and others were free to leave. The<br />
process needed to be as flexible as possible for<br />
members, whose lives were often complex, many<br />
needing to take time away from the project. It<br />
was important that the project was able to fit the<br />
individual needs of members. Overall, 14 members<br />
of Crisis participated in the project, with nine<br />
members participating from beginning to end and<br />
gaining qualifications.<br />
Collaboration<br />
The collaboration between myself as researcher/<br />
artist, xsite architecture, TILT Workshop and Crisis<br />
was central to the success of the project.<br />
xsite is a medium sized architecture firm, based<br />
in the Ouseburn Valley (opposite the <strong>Protohome</strong><br />
site). They are a design-oriented practice with a<br />
varied portfolio including residential, commercial<br />
and community-based. xsite offered their services<br />
for free, including designing the structure,<br />
undertaking SketchUp workshops with members,<br />
applying for planning permission, facilitating the<br />
insurance for the building and taking part in events.<br />
The director, Tim Bailey, played an integral part in<br />
the conception, realisation and dissemination of<br />
the project - promoting it amongst his network and<br />
being a sounding board and problem solver for<br />
myself on a personal level.<br />
TILT Workshop is a small art and joinery business.<br />
They organised and ran the workshops and the<br />
site build. They interpreted and developed xsite’s<br />
designs on site, sometimes making slight changes.<br />
For example the fins on which the roof panels sat<br />
were designed whilst building it - by testing and<br />
improvising - an interesting process of trial and<br />
error.<br />
Crisis provided pastoral support for members,<br />
organised health and safety, offered<br />
communications and PR support and the resources<br />
in which to undertake the workshops (including<br />
physical space, tools and computers for design<br />
teaching). Dom, the Crisis woodwork technician,<br />
played an integral role in teaching and supporting<br />
members both in the workshop and on site, and<br />
Hev, one of the tutors, helped with recording the<br />
project through film and photography and edited<br />
the final film.<br />
As project initiator and manager, I was the<br />
connector between all partners. This role involved<br />
taking a central role in every step in the process,<br />
from initially conceiving the project to building<br />
the partnerships, negotiating with the Ouseburn<br />
Trust for access to the land, facilitating and<br />
documenting workshops, and organising events<br />
and dissemination activities. Within the workshop<br />
process this included using my skills as an artist to<br />
teach members woodworking skills and SketchUp,<br />
alongside the two joiners from TILT, making sure<br />
that members were comfortable with the tasks and<br />
playing a pastoral role if they were experiencing<br />
personal difficulties, facilitating group discussion<br />
and interviews, recording conversation through<br />
film, photography and note-taking, planning<br />
sessions (alongside TILT), organising trips,<br />
making teas and coffees and providing biscuits!<br />
During the site build, this involved organising<br />
health and safety alongside Crisis, leasing and<br />
helping to install the Harris fencing and portaloo,<br />
moving materials, helping to build the structure<br />
and install the exhibition. From an administrative<br />
perspective, I acquired funding and administered<br />
the budget, organised the communications by<br />
setting up and running the Facebook page and<br />
website, contacting local press (alongside Crisis),<br />
editing and designing the publication, writing the<br />
report, and curating, facilitating and contributing<br />
to events.<br />
Group members designing their own homes using a<br />
plan template<br />
18<br />
A member’s design showing how they would use the<br />
flexible layout of <strong>Protohome</strong><br />
19
Testing the method of building frames in Crisis’ courtyard<br />
Learning jointing techniques<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> site Group Contract (Credit: Hev Johnson)<br />
20<br />
Learning the design program SketchUp (Credit: Hev Johnson)<br />
21
Site Build<br />
Temporary use of the site was offered by the Ouseburn Trust, a local development trust, and we received<br />
planning permission for five months. The site build took place over the course of 12 working days. As<br />
well as three joiners from TILT, volunteers came periodically to help with the site build and seven Crisis<br />
members were on site every day from 10am-2pm. The group was split into three teams, each led by a TILT<br />
joiner, all working simultaneously on different tasks or on different places on the building.<br />
The site build process included:<br />
Phase One: Preparation<br />
We first prepared and cleared the ground, and mapped the<br />
building onto the ground using string and stakes, making<br />
sure that the levels were straight. We then put concrete<br />
slabs in place, on which the posts sat.<br />
Phase Two: Frames<br />
We built each of the five frames one by one on the ground<br />
and then raised them up collectively, like a barn raising,<br />
securing them to each other provsionally before fixing<br />
them in place with crosspieces, which were screwed and<br />
bolted together.<br />
Phase Three: Floor joists<br />
To the frame we added floor joists, running across the<br />
length of the building, and between the joists the noggings.<br />
Adding the roof fins (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
Phase Four: Floors and walls<br />
We cut the floors and walls and screwed them into place.<br />
Phase Five: Roof<br />
The joiners made adjustments to the design of the roof<br />
fins in order for them to sit on the frame without needing<br />
metal fixings. These were cut to size and fixed onto the<br />
frame. The roof panels were painted and slid over the fins<br />
and fixed. Roofing felt was then sealed across the apex.<br />
Phase Six: Decking<br />
We built a large deck at the front of the building and<br />
steps and a ramp leading up to the entrance. Making the<br />
building accessible and inclusive to all was important.<br />
Phase Seven: Doors and windows<br />
We had previously cut the holes in the wall and roof panels<br />
for the windows, as well as built the window frames, so on<br />
site we fixed these into place. Because they were heavy it<br />
took a lot of teamwork to lift the panels onto the roof.<br />
Phase Eight: Interior<br />
The gaps between the panels on the interior were<br />
covered with wooden battens and the whole building was<br />
weatherproofed by painting a clear wood sealant on all<br />
external surfaces. Lastly, the exhibition was installed and<br />
the final pieces of furniture constructed.<br />
22<br />
Installing the walls (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
23
Outcomes and Impacts<br />
Impacts on participants<br />
1. Educational/learning<br />
Group members achieved formal qualifications<br />
in working with hand tools, health and safety,<br />
and lifting and handling, but they also developed<br />
interpersonal skills, confidence, motivation, raised<br />
aspirations and self-esteem and overcame social<br />
isolation through the creation of peer support<br />
networks. There was a significant growth in<br />
members’ confidence in woodwork and creative<br />
skills. Some members vocalised how wonderful<br />
it was to “discover a new passion at 46… I feel<br />
that this is the beginning of a life-long love”. The<br />
process managed to embed elements of deep<br />
learning and capacity building highlighted by<br />
group members teaching each other and sharing<br />
new skills.<br />
When we completed the final evaluation as<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> was being deconstructed we were<br />
able to trace changes in individuals’ lives and how<br />
their housing or employment situation had (or<br />
hadn’t) changed. One of the members was now in<br />
further education, two had found voluntary work<br />
in painting and decorating, and another person<br />
had found paid work in construction:<br />
“I’ve actually enrolled at the college. Through<br />
the Jobcentre first doing English and Maths<br />
as well as an ICT course two days a week…<br />
I’m actually able to do… calculations and<br />
things I forgot. I forgot… what I was capable<br />
of doing.”<br />
As highlighted, members took their new skills into<br />
other areas of their lives.<br />
2. Personal development<br />
We witnessed not only a change of lifestyle and<br />
habits in members, but also of aspirations. At the<br />
beginning of the project almost half of the members<br />
stated, in one manner or another, that their days<br />
were spent watching television or sleeping with<br />
little or “no motivation” to do anything different:<br />
“I’m getting better at getting out than just<br />
sitting in the house looking at the walls<br />
and watching the same repeat over and<br />
over again on the telly… That becomes your<br />
whole world you know. That gets you out<br />
of perspective… because it fills your whole<br />
world, it seems to overwhelm you. I’d rather<br />
get out and do something like this.”<br />
Members mentioned that the project aided them<br />
to “have something to get up for in the morning”;<br />
“It’s made us want to actually get out and do<br />
something”; “I was always in front of the telly. It’s<br />
opened the world a bit more for us”. This ‘opening<br />
up of the world’ through engagement in new<br />
activities was a key aspect of the project. This<br />
happened not just through hands-on tasks, but<br />
also through the group discussions.<br />
“What <strong>Protohome</strong> is to me, if I had to sum it up<br />
in one sentence and Crisis too to be honest, is<br />
that it gets rid of your self-limiting beliefs…<br />
it gives you the right catalytic environment<br />
for you to remember what you felt like as a<br />
child, that you could do anything.”<br />
3. Building friendships and support mechanisms<br />
During the project we witnessed the development<br />
of social ties for those that were previously<br />
socially, as well as spatially, isolated. These group<br />
dynamics developed gradually - through making<br />
space for group conversation, people opened up,<br />
made connections and eventually friendships as<br />
these quotes testify:<br />
“We all stuck together and acted like a<br />
proper team, looked after each other, instead<br />
of arguing and squabbling.”<br />
“The people that were involved… gave me<br />
the confidence to be able to do it and it definitely<br />
shone through.”<br />
These discussions managed to create a space for<br />
critical and also aspirational conversation into<br />
participants’ lives. Thus for some members it was<br />
a process of personal realisation: “It’s showing me<br />
that I can do what other people are saying I can”,<br />
one through which self-worth emerged, instead<br />
of feeling a burden on society, as one who is<br />
homeless, or living on benefits, or having health<br />
troubles:<br />
“<strong>Protohome</strong>’s been all about the people, as<br />
much as it’s been about housing… and how<br />
people work together to empower each other<br />
to make some kind of change, make some<br />
difference, make some kind of progress.”<br />
See further analysis of this in my paper ‘Learning<br />
through building: participatory action research<br />
and the production of housing’ in Appendix A.<br />
“Yesterday I went home and I was knackered<br />
and exhausted but I felt this new sense of ‘I<br />
love myself, I value myself’”.<br />
In the evaluation, growth of confidence was a<br />
key aspect for members, whether this was the<br />
confidence to build a piece of furniture for the<br />
house, leave the house, or do something new like<br />
speak in public (group members presented the<br />
project at two events once the building was open<br />
to the public):<br />
Cutting joists in the Crisis workshop<br />
24<br />
Building the furniture for <strong>Protohome</strong><br />
25
Furniture made by group members from practice joints<br />
Public engagement with homelessness and<br />
participation in housing<br />
Once <strong>Protohome</strong> was open to the public it hosted<br />
an exhibition, documentation of the project and a<br />
range of events (37 in total), which engaged the<br />
wider public in the themes of <strong>Protohome</strong> such<br />
as homelessness, austerity, the politics of land<br />
and development, and participatory housing<br />
alternatives. <strong>Protohome</strong> was attended by over<br />
1,700 people with over 700 guests on the opening<br />
two nights of the project (at The Late Shows – a<br />
cultural festival in Newcastle and Gateshead, coordinated<br />
by Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums).<br />
Three public forums took place on participation<br />
and housing, homelessness and austerity, and the<br />
politics of land and development and devolution.<br />
These forums created a space of dialogue<br />
and knowledge exchange between targeted<br />
individuals and groups (including local councils,<br />
architecture and housing professionals, and<br />
academia) as well as the general public. They<br />
were also important to extend the political reach<br />
of the project. In line with an imperative of PAR<br />
that participation should be politicised, members<br />
presented the project to people in positions of<br />
power in the local authority and beyond, speaking<br />
through their experience of homelessness. Other<br />
events included a series of film screenings, a<br />
children’s workshop with Woodcraft Folk, two<br />
networking events, two artists’ residencies that<br />
included talks, workshops and film screenings, a<br />
performance of the interactive theatre piece The<br />
Town Meeting by Cap-a-pie Theatre Company<br />
(https://www.cap-a-pie.co.uk/the-town-meeting/),<br />
an event hosted by the Ouseburn Trust examining<br />
past, present and future housing issues in the area,<br />
a drop-in event bringing together two participatory<br />
arts projects - Archive for Change (https://<br />
archiveforchange.org/) and Dingy Butterflies<br />
CIC (https://www.dingybutterflies.org/) - in a<br />
presentation of their work about the effects of<br />
urban regeneration processes on communities,<br />
a music and spoken word performance about<br />
large-scale housing demolition, a week of public<br />
artist classes in collaboration with the arts<br />
organisation Wunderbar (https://wunderbar.org.<br />
uk/), an event on participatory housing hosted by<br />
Homes England and the North East Community<br />
Led Housing Network and another in collaboration<br />
with Newcastle and Gateshead Councils, and a<br />
talk on housing by the New Economics Foundation<br />
(https://neweconomics.org/). The aim of these<br />
events, performances and artists’ residencies<br />
was to catalyse a conversation into creative and<br />
participatory approaches to housing and urban<br />
development through different artforms. All events<br />
were free (except for the theatre performance)<br />
and were open to all.<br />
Learning wood jointing techniques<br />
26<br />
Closing barbeque (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
27
Questions on housing crisis and homelessness, prompting ideas and discussion by members of the public (Credit:<br />
John Hipkin)<br />
Dwelling and its Discontents: Art, Home and Economy event<br />
28<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> also exhibited the documentation of<br />
the project through video and photography, Crisis<br />
members’ designs for their homes, a ‘have your<br />
say’ wall for the public to contribute to a discussion<br />
into homelessness and participation in housing, a<br />
collaborative map of Tyneside drawn by homeless<br />
people, a library of resources and books focusing<br />
on housing issues, and furniture made by Crisis<br />
members – including a large central table which<br />
incorporated different woodworking joints.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> received high satisfaction ratings in<br />
feedback forms, with 93% of attendees rating<br />
it as ‘excellent’. This was also seen through the<br />
increasing number of people attending events as<br />
the project went on and as more people became<br />
aware of it. Many people stated that it offered a<br />
different view of self-build that was about capacity<br />
building instead of ‘Grand Designs’. The project<br />
also had a good following online and on social<br />
media, with 361 ‘likes’ on Facebook whilst the<br />
publication (of which 1000 copies were distributed)<br />
traced the process of the project and included<br />
articles examining the themes of the project (see<br />
https://issuu.com/juliaheslop0/docs/protohome_<br />
publication_low_res_7130725f468305) ;<br />
the film offered physical and digital<br />
documentation of the project for the future.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> as a learning space: a library of resources<br />
29<br />
The website documents the process of the project<br />
and provides further information on it and the<br />
events that took place.<br />
In 2018, BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art,<br />
Gateshead commissioned a part rebuilding of<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> and a new documentary video of the<br />
project (see https://youtu.be/thbMU7Zl4Ro) that<br />
was presented in the Idea of North exhibition as part<br />
of the Great Exhibition of the North, a three-month<br />
festival of art, design and invention in Newcastle<br />
and Gateshead funded by HM Government,<br />
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport<br />
(see https://getnorth2018.com/previous-events/<br />
idea-of-north/). This involved the building of a<br />
small pavilion together with members of Crisis. We<br />
replicated the process of workshops at Crisis and<br />
then a two-week site build. The pavilion housed<br />
the film, documentation, publication of the original<br />
project and data about the housing crisis. I also<br />
worked with architects HarperPerry to develop<br />
the Self-Build Guild - a concept for a cooperative<br />
set-up to provide access to specialist knowledge,<br />
technical assistance, and professional equipment<br />
and machinery for self-building homes, thereby<br />
proposing a process-driven approach rather than<br />
a product-driven response to homelessness and<br />
the housing crisis (see https://www.harperperry.<br />
co.uk/portfolio/items/self-build-guild/ and https://<br />
www.harperperry.co.uk/news/self-build-guild/).<br />
Self-Build Guild used <strong>Protohome</strong> as a starting<br />
point to develop the idea. It was longlisted for<br />
the National Custom & Self Build Association<br />
Self Build Starter Home competition and went<br />
on display at Grand Designs Live in Birmingham<br />
in October 2016. The BALTIC exhibition was<br />
featured in the Financial Times (see https://www.<br />
ft.com/content/0e58459a-59b7-11e8-806a-<br />
808d194ffb75), and had 122,787 visitors, whilst<br />
the overall Great Exhibition attracted visits of 3.8<br />
million people across 300 events, performances,<br />
installations and activities spanning 80 days.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> also contributed to the Missing<br />
Pieces: A History of Homelessness in Newcastle<br />
exhibition at Newcastle City Library in 2019 (see<br />
http://homelesshistorynewcastle.blogspot.com/).<br />
This exhibition hosted the <strong>Protohome</strong> film and<br />
publication, and contributed to the section of the<br />
exhibition about housing alternatives for homeless<br />
people. During the period of the exhibition the<br />
library had a footfall of 69,588 people.
Dingy Butterflies and Archive for Change event (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
The interior of the <strong>Protohome</strong> pavilion at BALTIC<br />
Dingy Butterflies and Archive for Change event (Credit: John Hipkin)<br />
30<br />
Constructing the <strong>Protohome</strong> pavilion at BALTIC (Credit: Hev Johnson)<br />
31
<strong>Protohome</strong> pavilion at BALTIC<br />
32 33
Increased political awareness about<br />
participatory approaches in housing<br />
One of the key aims of this project was to develop<br />
a political awareness of the role that self-build<br />
housing could, and should, play, and to understand<br />
some of the obstacles to and opportunities<br />
for this. We collaborated with Newcastle and<br />
Gateshead Councils on a learning workshop<br />
for council officers about self-build in order to<br />
expand the councils’ knowledge and to assess<br />
the challenges to and opportunities for it. At<br />
all three public forums we had a council officer<br />
or an MP to present on the topic that was being<br />
covered. Other officers from local councils also<br />
attended as audience members. We also invited<br />
other groups and charities from around the UK<br />
who had undertaken collaborative build projects<br />
to present their projects (including the Community<br />
Land Trust Granby 4 Streets (https://www.<br />
granby4streetsclt.co.uk/), the self-help housing<br />
organisation Community Campus 87 (https://<br />
www.communitycampus87.com/) and housing<br />
developer TOWN (http://www.wearetown.co.uk/).<br />
The North East Community-Led Development<br />
Network (NECLDN), which is a group of North East<br />
local authorities, developers, housing associations<br />
and community groups, and Homes England<br />
hosted an event at which the assistant director<br />
of housing for the Greater London Authority<br />
spoke, alongside the Head of Tees Valley region<br />
at Homes England. Following this, I was asked<br />
to join the steering group of the NECLDN as an<br />
expert on self-build and participatory forms of<br />
development and have contributed my knowledge<br />
on participation in design/build to the setting up<br />
of new regional community-led housing hubs that<br />
focus on the provision of knowledge and resources<br />
to community groups interested in community-led<br />
development.<br />
Development of design-build methods in PAR<br />
The project contributes to the development of<br />
PAR in design-build projects – an area of research/<br />
practice which, to my knowledge, has not been<br />
applied before (see Heslop, 2020, in which I<br />
highlight the importance of going back to the<br />
roots of PAR in post-colonial struggle, a context<br />
which is often neglected within western-based<br />
PAR practices). As a result, many participatory<br />
design-build projects fail to critically analyse<br />
the participatory process and overlook the role<br />
of power. PAR provided a foundation for us to<br />
develop a tentative framework for a more ethical<br />
and politicised design-build process, through an<br />
embedded workshop process.<br />
In particular the project highlights how a process<br />
can be created in which the ‘professional’ builder/<br />
joiner/architect becomes the enabler. The<br />
Segal method, as a modular system, is notable<br />
for its flexibility and for its openness to user<br />
interpretation, both in the building process itself<br />
and in its future use. It empowers the user-builder<br />
to take control of their environment and offers<br />
an opportunity to create spaces more responsive<br />
to inhabitants’ and users’ needs and aspirations.<br />
The building process can also be the site of this,<br />
as a space for skills building and the generation<br />
of new aspirations. The workshop process has<br />
shown that a safe and durable building can be<br />
created by a team of untrained self-builders.<br />
Overall, the process and methodology has the<br />
potential to be replicated, as does the building<br />
typology. The design/build methodologies have<br />
fed into further research and practice, including<br />
architects HarperPerry’s Self Build Guild which<br />
was longlisted for the National Custom & Self Build<br />
Association Self Build Starter Home competition<br />
and architects Transition By Design’s Homemaker<br />
Oxford project, which uses design research and<br />
rapid prototyping to create affordable homes for<br />
homeless people (see https://transitionbydesign.<br />
org/projects/homemaker-oxford/).<br />
Further impacts and project legacy<br />
1. Providing a unique physical legacy (a building),<br />
so the impact is not a one-off or bound. After<br />
being disassembled the building was gifted to the<br />
Ouseburn Farm (http://www.ouseburnfarm.org.uk/)<br />
to be used as a training and educational workshop<br />
for the teaching of woodwork and carpentry<br />
skills for individuals with learning difficulties<br />
(see https://bdaily.co.uk/articles/2016/09/19/<br />
ouseburn-farm-seeks-volunteers-to-constructnew-protohome).<br />
2. The project has been nominated for a Festival of<br />
Learning Award.<br />
3. The project has been presented on a number of<br />
occasions at events, conferences and exhibitions<br />
and has featured in academic journals, books and<br />
in the media (see Dissemination section below).<br />
4. The methodologies and learning from the<br />
project have been used in a module on Digital<br />
Civics at Open Lab, Newcastle University, whereby<br />
students focused on developing a digital tool<br />
for designing self-build housing. A total of 40<br />
students contributed to the module.<br />
5. The findings fed into the Housing and Planning<br />
All Party Parliamentary Group’s National Housing<br />
Taskforce workstream on New Sources of Supply,<br />
chaired by MP Helen Hayes. I took part in a<br />
roundtable event to present findings and answer<br />
questions. The workstream was established<br />
in England in 2016 to develop clear, workable<br />
proposals for both Government and industry to<br />
address the UK’s chronic shortage of housing. The<br />
social impacts of <strong>Protohome</strong> were of particular<br />
interest to this group.<br />
MP Chi Onwurah presenting at an event on the Politics<br />
of Land and Development<br />
34<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> being reconstructed at the Ouseburn Farm<br />
35
Testimonials<br />
Dissemination<br />
Project participants:<br />
“I learnt how to value myself and I also learnt the<br />
value of accepting support and strength from<br />
others when I’ve mostly in my life been there for<br />
other people but not always been able to accept.”<br />
“It’s give me motivation basically.”<br />
“Inspirational… The people that were involved they<br />
gave me the confidence to be able to do it.”<br />
“Empowering is like the key thing, empowering.<br />
And a lot of fun, and a lot of fun, a lot of laughs.”<br />
“Getting up in the morning and getting motivated<br />
to come here changes your life, it’s not living the<br />
same lifestyle [but being] open to try new things.”<br />
“I’ve learnt to… communicate with people… it’s<br />
made us broaden me horizon, go out and do things.”<br />
Andrew Burnip, Director of Crisis, Newcastle:<br />
“Not only have members learned new skills in<br />
building the structure, but more importantly the<br />
members became a team. Over the months a<br />
dispirit group of individuals grew in confidence,<br />
started to communicate with each other, helped<br />
each other through the ups and downs along<br />
the way, had each other’s backs and created a<br />
community of spirit that has inspired everyone<br />
involved. This project has changed the lives<br />
of Crisis members and enabled them see their<br />
potential and that anything is possible.”<br />
Cath Scaife, Housing Unit, Newcastle Council:<br />
“<strong>Protohome</strong> has provided an excellent stimulus<br />
for exploring more diverse forms of housing and<br />
is enabling a number of cross-council discussions.<br />
I have been thoroughly impressed by the<br />
professionalism and sensitivity of the approach,<br />
and the commitment of all those involved.”<br />
Tim Bailey, Partner at xsite architecture:<br />
“I have found <strong>Protohome</strong> to be a truly inclusive<br />
and revelatory experience to date. The depth of<br />
investigation into the subject of homelessness<br />
from its causation to the health and security<br />
effects on people and some solutions through<br />
policy and action is astounding. Adding that to<br />
the hugely engaging process of designing and<br />
building the event house with Crisis members is in<br />
a class of its own as a research and do project.”<br />
Chris Barnard, Director of the Ouseburn Trust:<br />
“I think it’s refreshing to see self-build promoted as<br />
a solution for those in housing need. It challenges<br />
the perceptions people have that self-build is<br />
for those with the money who wish to construct<br />
a Grand Design. The breadth of events and the<br />
audiences who have engaged with the concept<br />
and the ideas housed and created within it have<br />
been far more reaching than I imagined. Let’s hope<br />
this can be used to stimulate the shift in focus that<br />
is so sorely needed.”<br />
Jo Gooding, Housing Growth Unit, Gateshead<br />
Council:<br />
“<strong>Protohome</strong> is providing timely intervention<br />
at a critical time when councils are reviewing<br />
the obstacles, opportunities and scope of the<br />
contribution of self-build to economic and<br />
housing growth. The range of discussion and<br />
events at <strong>Protohome</strong> are providing the right<br />
level of challenge and broadening thinking<br />
about self-build to encompass aspects of social<br />
regeneration and community sustainability<br />
and what approaches councils could consider<br />
adopting to support growth of this sector. This<br />
includes thinking about land assembly, access to<br />
council functions and integration with housing and<br />
regeneration activities. Along with Newcastle City<br />
Council we are looking forward to inviting officers<br />
from different disciplines to dedicated sessions to<br />
encourage new approaches in the public sector.”<br />
Visitors:<br />
“<strong>Protohome</strong> is a first-class example of how to<br />
inspire and communicate knowledge exchange and<br />
innovation through participatory action research.<br />
This project has achieved tremendous impact,<br />
both in the collaborative process of physically<br />
building a novel structure, and as a forum for<br />
locally relevant topical debate. I think the project<br />
as a whole has been invaluable in reviving interest<br />
in the North East in self-build as a vehicle through<br />
which issues of social inclusion, skills acquisition<br />
and affordable housing can be addressed.”<br />
“The events I’ve attended have been well managed<br />
and very successful in bringing together a range<br />
of different interest groups. They have acted as a<br />
focus through which useful contacts can be made<br />
and at which existing associations have been<br />
revived. It will be important to keep this momentum<br />
going once the project closes at the end of July.”<br />
A version of this portfolio has been available since<br />
2020 at: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/apl/research/casestudies/creativepractice/<br />
Press<br />
On the launch day the project featured on BBC<br />
Radio Newcastle throughout the Breakfast show,<br />
as well as ITV Tyne Tees News, throughout the<br />
day on the launch day. The project has also been<br />
featured in:<br />
The Big Issue (no link)<br />
The Self-Build Portal: https://selfbuildportal.org.<br />
uk/?s=protohome<br />
The Northern Correspondent: http://<br />
northerncorrespondent.com/2016/05/13/hometruths/<br />
NARC magazine: http://narcmagazine.com/<br />
feature-protohome/<br />
Idea of North review in Financial Times: https://<br />
www.ft.com/content/0e58459a-59b7-11e8-806a-<br />
808d194ffb75<br />
Idea of North review by Corridor8: https://corridor8.<br />
co.uk/article/gateshead-baltic-idea-north/<br />
Missing Pieces: A History of Homelessness<br />
in Newcastle review in Newcastle Evening<br />
Chronicle: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/<br />
whats-on/arts-culture-news/homelesshistory-newcastle-missing-pieces-15774610<br />
and https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/<br />
north-east-news/tommy-bridge-how-problemhomelessness-14411910<br />
36 37<br />
Papers, reports and book chapters<br />
These papers, reports and book chapters are wide<br />
ranging, from academic and practice journals to<br />
mainstream books, and self-published literature<br />
from the time of the project.<br />
Heslop, J. (forthcoming May 2021) ‘<strong>Protohome</strong>’, in<br />
Fokdal, J., Bina, O., Chiles, P., Ojamae, L. & Paadam,<br />
K. (eds.) Enabling the City - Interdisciplinary and<br />
Transdisciplinary Encounters in Research and<br />
Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 195-203<br />
Heslop, J., Marsden, H. & Merritt Smith, A.<br />
(forthcoming 2021) ‘Social Art and Feminist<br />
Participatory Action Research in Contested Urban<br />
Space’, in Vilenica, A. & Marchevska, E. (eds.) Art<br />
and Housing Struggles: Between art and political<br />
organising, Bristol: Intellect Books<br />
Heslop, J. (2020) ‘Learning Through Building:<br />
Participatory action research and the production<br />
of housing’, Housing Studies, Epub ahead of print,<br />
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02<br />
673037.2020.1732880? journalCode=chos20<br />
Heslop, J. (2017) ‘<strong>Protohome</strong>: rethinking<br />
home through co-production’, in Benson, M. &<br />
Hamiduddin, I. (eds.) Self-Build Homes: Social<br />
Discourse, Experiences and Directions, London:<br />
UCL Press, pp. 96-114, https://www.uclpress.co.uk/<br />
products/88244<br />
Heslop, J. (2016a) ‘Housing Crisis: Building a<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong>’, Architectural Research Quarterly,<br />
20(4), pp. 381-382<br />
Heslop, J. (2016b) ‘<strong>Protohome</strong>’, Architectural<br />
Research Quarterly, 20(4), pp. 387-389<br />
Heslop, J. (2016c) <strong>Protohome</strong> publication, Available at:<br />
https://issuu.com/juliaheslop0/docs/protohome_<br />
publication_low_res_7130725f468305<br />
Heslop, J. (2016d) <strong>Protohome</strong> report, Available at:<br />
https://issuu.com/juliaheslop0/docs/protohome_<br />
report
Bibliography<br />
Exhibitions<br />
Idea of North, BALTIC Centre for Contemporary<br />
Art, Gateshead, as part of the Great Exhibition of<br />
the North, 2018<br />
Missing Pieces: A History of Homelessness in<br />
Newcastle, Newcastle City Library, Newcastle<br />
upon Tyne, 2019<br />
Conference/event presentations<br />
2019:<br />
Archifringe, The Shieling Project, Inverness<br />
Experimental Research in Spaces, BALTIC<br />
39, Newcastle<br />
2018:<br />
In Certain Places Symposium, Preston<br />
Art and Housing Struggles conference,<br />
London South Bank University<br />
2017:<br />
European Network for Housing Research,<br />
Tirana, Albania: ‘Collaborative Housing’<br />
session<br />
Royal Geographical Society Conference,<br />
London: ‘A geography of small things:<br />
geographies of architecture and beyond’<br />
session<br />
Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle: ‘The Nexus of<br />
Art and Architecture’<br />
Revaluing the Mundane: Radical Social<br />
Colloquium on the Foundational Economy,<br />
Queen Mary University, London<br />
2016:<br />
Governance and Self-Governance ESRC<br />
Seminar series, Newcastle University,<br />
‘Learning through building: participation in<br />
housing’.<br />
European Community Led Housing Network,<br />
Brussels<br />
Co-Housing Durham day school, Durham<br />
The Maverick City symposium, Liverpool<br />
Benson, M. & Hamiduddin, I. (eds.) (2017) Self-<br />
Build Homes: Social Discourse, Experiences and<br />
Directions (London: UCL Press)<br />
Bishop, C. (ed.) (2006) Participation, London:<br />
Whitechapel<br />
Broome, J. (2005) ‘Mass housing cannot be<br />
sustained’, in Blundell Jones, P, Petrescu, D. & Till,<br />
J. (eds.) Architecture and Participation, pp. 65–75<br />
(Oxon: Spon Press)<br />
Fals-Borda, O. (1987) ‘The application of<br />
participatory action-research in Latin America’,<br />
International Sociology, 2, pp. 329–347<br />
Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G., Wood, J.,<br />
Watts, B., Stephens, M., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2019)<br />
The Homeless Monitor: England 2019 (London: Crisis)<br />
Freire, P. (1970 [2007]) Pedagogy of the Oppressed<br />
(New York: Continuum)<br />
Heslop, J. (2020) ‘Learning Through Building:<br />
Participatory action research and the production<br />
of housing’, Housing Studies, Epub ahead of print<br />
Heslop, J., McFarlane, C. & Ormerod, E. (2020)<br />
‘Relational Housing Across the North-South<br />
Divide: Learning Between Albania, Uganda, and<br />
the UK’ Housing Studies, Epub ahead of print<br />
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (eds.) (2007)<br />
Participatory Action Research Approaches and<br />
Methods: Connecting People, Participation and<br />
Place (Oxon: Routledge)<br />
Miessen, M. (2010) The Nightmare of Participation<br />
(Berlin: Sternberg Press)<br />
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001) Handbook of<br />
Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice<br />
(Thousand Oaks: Sage)<br />
Turner, J. F. C. (1977) Housing by People: Towards<br />
Autonomy in Building Environments (New York:<br />
Pantheon Books)<br />
Members of Crisis view the <strong>Protohome</strong> pavilion at BALTIC<br />
38<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> as a space to gather: Lloyd-Wilson discussion as part of their artist residency at <strong>Protohome</strong><br />
39
Appendix A: Refereed Supporting Publication<br />
HOUSING STUDIES<br />
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2020.1732880<br />
Housing Studies<br />
Learning through building: participatory action research<br />
and the production of housing<br />
Julia Heslop<br />
ISSN: 0267-3037 (Print) 1466-1810 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20<br />
Department of Architecture, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK<br />
Learning through building: participatory action<br />
research and the production of housing<br />
Julia Heslop<br />
To cite this article: Julia Heslop (2020): Learning through building: participatory action research<br />
and the production of housing, Housing Studies, DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2020.1732880<br />
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2020.1732880<br />
Published online: 18 Mar 2020.<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
This paper examines potentials for using the philosophies and<br />
practices of participatory action research (PAR) within the production<br />
of housing. Drawing on findings from a collaborative build<br />
project, working with a group in housing need in Newcastle upon<br />
Tyne, UK, the paper explores the added social and educational<br />
value that processes of collaborative design and making can offer<br />
those that might be socially and spatially isolated. The paper<br />
argues that participation in housing is often colonized by those<br />
that have existing social, economic or knowledge capital and<br />
therefore bringing PAR into conversation with housing offers<br />
some unique opportunities, and also challenges, that other forms<br />
of collaborative housing may not. In assessing these opportunities<br />
the paper focuses on the mechanics of participation, including<br />
ethics, processes of learning through making, power, care and the<br />
potential for personal and collective transformation.<br />
ARTICLE HISTORY<br />
Received 16 February 2018<br />
Accepted 13 February 2020<br />
KEYWORDS<br />
Community-led housing;<br />
participatory action<br />
research; homelessness<br />
Submit your article to this journal<br />
Article views: 155<br />
View related articles<br />
View Crossmark data<br />
Introduction<br />
Through a case study of a collaborative build project entitled ‘<strong>Protohome</strong>’, which<br />
involved working with homeless individuals in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK to build a<br />
prototype house, this paper examines what an attention to the philosophies and methodologies<br />
of participatory action research (PAR) can offer practices of housing. PAR<br />
involves collective enquiry into an issue, with an ultimate goal of social change and aims to<br />
democratize knowledge making, replacing an extractive mode of research with a co-produced<br />
approach, grounding it in real needs (Kindon et al., 2007). There has been little written<br />
about what PAR can offer processes of designing and building housing, yet it offers<br />
some unique challenges and opportunities for forms of community-led housing (CLH).<br />
This paper is framed within the growing CLH movement in the UK and beyond,<br />
whereby participation in housing is gaining increasing attention academically and<br />
politically. Whilst some of this work is grounded within issues of housing crisis and<br />
unaffordability (Hutson and Jones, 2002; Moore and Mullins, 2013; Teasdale et al.,<br />
2011; Turok, 1993), there are too few examples of co-produced housing by people<br />
without pre-existing building knowledge, capacity or financial capital, therefore the<br />
CONTACT Julia Heslop<br />
julia.heslop@newcastle.ac.uk<br />
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group<br />
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at<br />
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chos20<br />
40 41
2 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 3<br />
social and educational potentials arising from participation in housing by groups in<br />
most housing need are neglected.<br />
Whilst the use of <strong>Protohome</strong> as a case study is tentative, as this was a temporary<br />
housing prototype, instead of a full, working house with services and infrastructure<br />
connected to it, there are some key lessons that have emerged from this study that<br />
paves the way for further research and action on the role that PAR might play in<br />
housing. PAR offers some distinct methodological and ethical tools to bring forth<br />
more inclusive, critical and transformational CLH practices. As a result this paper<br />
analyses the mechanisms of participation within design and build processes by placing<br />
emphasis on a reflexive methodology which prioritizes learning through making, the<br />
role of communication and power, and how care and confidence are nurtured<br />
through participation. I highlight how practices of designing and making housing can<br />
be a tool for widening access to skills and qualifications, as well as generating opportunities<br />
for processes of personal transformation and the creation of new social networks<br />
for participant builders. This is a politicized process, one which questions how,<br />
where and by whom knowledge in housebuilding is nurtured, as well as aiming to<br />
bring forth the voices of those that have been the victims of housing precarity. As a<br />
result the paper seeks to create a tentative framework for conceptualizing and critically<br />
analysing participation within housing processes.<br />
The paper begins by contextualizing participation in housing through the CLH sector,<br />
highlighting that there is a lack of engagement with those that are the victims of housing precarity,<br />
therefore the added social and educational value that participation in housing may<br />
offer is neglected. I then discuss PAR’s roots and philosophy, and what unique opportunities<br />
it can offer practices of housing through its close attention to power and ethics – how people<br />
work together - and its overt political aim to catalyze multi scalar change through an<br />
embedded and non-hierarchical participatory process. Moving into the empirical material I<br />
then discuss the approach and ethical framework of <strong>Protohome</strong>, with attention to the reflexive,<br />
self-reflective methodology. I discuss how the project aimed to challenge the dichotomy<br />
between the ‘professional designer/builder’ and the ‘amateur user/participant’ and the<br />
Cartesian separation between mind and matter, thinking and doing, by foregrounding the<br />
importance of legitimating the experiential, pre-existing knowledge of participants, as well as<br />
through practices of ‘learning through making’ by focussing on the building typology we<br />
used - the Segal method. I then discuss how new social relations and confidences were conceived<br />
through the project for group members, yet at the same time I highlight moments of<br />
productive disagreement between people, and use this to call for a renewed focus on power<br />
within participatory processes of designing and building. Lastly, I discuss the political implications<br />
of bringing PAR into conversation with housing, through a discussion of personal<br />
and collective transformation and the self-representation of group members, and highlight<br />
some of the challenges inherent in this process.<br />
Context: participation in housing<br />
The ‘participatory turn’ in housing<br />
Participation in housing, whether in the design or making process is gaining increasing<br />
attention across Europe. Whilst the term ‘community-led housing’ (CLH) is used<br />
in the UK (see Benson and Hamiduddin, 2017; Chatterton, 2015; Jarvis, 2011, 2015;<br />
Moore and McKee, 2012; Moore and Mullins, 2013) the term ‘collaborative housing’<br />
is used elsewhere in Europe (see Czischke, 2018; Fromm, 2012; Lang and Stoeger,<br />
2018; Tummers, 2015). These terms broadly refer to housing that is designed and<br />
managed by local people to meet the needs of the community, as opposed to housing<br />
for private profit (Gooding and Johnston, 2015). Today CLH accounts for just 1% of<br />
UK homes, yet this varies across Europe – it is 18% in Sweden and 15% in Norway<br />
(Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing (CCMH), 2009). These practices<br />
have also been adopted into housing policy in the UK. In England, through the 2011<br />
Localism Act, there has been a particular focus on self and custom build and neighbourhood<br />
planning, whilst in Scotland, community landownership has been at the<br />
forefront of policy (see the 2003 and 2016 Land Reform Acts and the 2015<br />
Community Empowerment Act).<br />
Despite new attention to CLH, there has been less attention given to participation<br />
in housing by those in housing and/or employment need or how participation in<br />
housing might respond to the ongoing effects of austerity policies and welfare reform<br />
(but see Moore and Mullins, 2013; Teasdale et al., 2011). In England, rough sleeping<br />
increased by 165 per cent between 2010 and 2019, whilst placements in temporary<br />
accommodation have increased by 71 per cent since 2011 (Fitzpatrick et al., 2019).<br />
Within a context of prolonged austerity the added social and educational value that<br />
co-produced housing processes may offer, (such as opportunities for skills building<br />
through design and construction training, and personal and collective transformation<br />
in the form of confidence building and the creation of new social networks), is particularly<br />
pertinent, but has yet to be fully examined within academic literature.<br />
Furthermore, whilst forms of CLH are undertaken through prolonged collaborative<br />
processes, usually over many years, which include collective decision making in project<br />
design, implementation and management, the mechanics of this participation -<br />
how people work together, the dynamics, tensions and power interplays inherent<br />
within these relationships, has had little attention in the CLH literature (but see<br />
Chatterton, 2015; Fernandez Arrigoitia and Scanlon, 2017). Additionally, whilst<br />
accounts draw attention to ‘the community’ as a site for action and change, this is,<br />
arguably, seen as being bound, both socially and geographically. Local power relations<br />
stemming from, for example, gender, class, age and ethnicity are often overlooked or<br />
‘smoothed over’ (Coleman, 2007). Therefore in this literature the potential for CLH<br />
and other forms of collaborative housing not only to respond to new economic and<br />
social conditions, but also to actively resist and contest these conditions, is undervalued.<br />
Disengaging with both micro and macro power relations and assuming community<br />
homogeneity leaves structural constraints, which may prevent people from<br />
participating in CLH, such as poverty, weak ‘social capital’ and isolation from institutions<br />
of power, relatively untouched. Within this climate, without already existing<br />
economic and social capital or state support, inevitably poorer, urban communities,<br />
or vulnerable groups, less able or equipped, may be excluded (Barritt, 2012).<br />
However, within the literature on tenant participation in social housing, power is<br />
often foregrounded. Birchall (1992) highlights the competing interests within the<br />
management of housing, between tenants, arms length management companies,<br />
42 43
4 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 5<br />
councils, developers and others, whilst Cairncross et al. (1994; 1997) note the exclusion<br />
of social tenants from the political framework of housing development and question<br />
who is being empowered in these processes by examining how residents are<br />
‘selected’ to be political representatives on committees. Much of this literature<br />
explores theories of power from a post-structural, Foucauldian perspective, by examining<br />
how governmentality operates through enforced participation, which, in turn,<br />
acts to regulate human conduct and responsibilise the social tenant (Bradley, 2008;<br />
Flint, 2003; 2004; McDermont 2007; McKee, 2011; McKee and Cooper 2008).<br />
There are however some examples of community self-build (CSB) projects which<br />
do engage those in housing or employment need. This can be seen in Turok’s (1993)<br />
account of a CSB project in Glasgow which engaged unemployed young people,<br />
Hutson and Jones’ (2002) paper examining a CSB project with disadvantaged young<br />
people in Wales, Collins’ (2017) account of a CSB project with ex-service personnel<br />
in housing need in Bristol and the ‘Frontline’ project in Ravenscar Mount, Leeds,<br />
which involved the building of 12 new homes by unemployed African-Caribbean<br />
individuals (Hendrickson and Auber, 2015). Furthermore, elsewhere in the world participation<br />
in housing is connected to broader social movements fighting for housing<br />
rights and the political representation of socially isolated groups. For example Slum<br />
Dwellers International is a network of grassroots groups in Africa, Asia and Latin<br />
America fighting for the rights of slum dwellers which has gained traction within<br />
national housing policy (Pieterse, 2008), whilst Arquitetura Na Periferia (Architecture<br />
on the Periphery) is a Brazilian organization that works with women living informally,<br />
training them in housebuilding skills. Whilst many movements have emerged<br />
through acute poverty and large scale housing informality, they also show the potential<br />
for participatory housing processes to be politicized, and for learning and knowledge<br />
building to be triggered through processes of organizing, activating, designing<br />
and making.<br />
Therefore a critical engagement into the practical and ethical mechanics of participation<br />
in housing and its political potential within projects, including how power is<br />
manifest within groups and between groups and macro institutions of power (such as<br />
the local state, the government and welfare agencies) is much needed. There is also a<br />
need to focus on how personal and collective knowledge building, social repair and<br />
political realization can be triggered through co-produced housing processes, particularly<br />
for those that are vulnerable or socially/spatially isolated. This requires close<br />
attention to the philosophical and methodological elements of participation which<br />
PAR foregrounds.<br />
Participatory action research<br />
PAR offers some useful tools and approaches to aid in bringing forth more critical<br />
and politicized accounts of co-produced housing, through its close attention to ethics<br />
and power in the participatory process and to the capacity of groups that have been<br />
exploited socially and economically, to build and articulate knowledge and to use this<br />
for both personal and collective transformation (Fals-Borda, 1987, p. 330).<br />
PAR emerged in the Global South in response to efforts to decolonize the social<br />
sciences and bring forth new forms of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970 [2007]) by<br />
working with those that had been the victims of colonialism through programmes of<br />
social and economic ‘development’ (Fals-Borda, 2001, pp. 27-8). In its infancy it connected<br />
to various struggles regarding land reform and anti-colonialism and employed<br />
new research methodologies, such as ‘praxis’, whereby ideas are reshaped into actions<br />
(Fernandes and Tandon, 1983). For the past two decades PAR’s attention in academic<br />
contexts has been growing, as researchers have been questioning their role in a<br />
changing world (Kindon et al., 2007, p. 1). PAR is now a prominent paradigm within<br />
the social sciences (Brydon-Miller et al., 2004; Kindon et al., 2007; McIntyre, 2007;<br />
Reason and Bradbury, 2001; Taggart, 1997), and whilst PAR practitioners engage with<br />
a wide variety of research contexts, issues and methods, underlying all of these is an<br />
ethical commitment to challenge the imbalance between the ‘researcher’ and the<br />
‘researched’ by conducting collaborative research which attempts to challenge the<br />
hierarchies normally ascribed within academic research (Kindon et al., 2007;<br />
Wadsworth, 1998). Therefore an extractive process of research is replaced by a collaborative<br />
one. Working with people, not on them through the co-production of new<br />
knowledge offers potential to create embedded and equitable processes of learning,<br />
particularly for individuals who may be socially and/or spatially isolated or excluded<br />
from networks of political or economic power. And so PAR’s distinctiveness is not<br />
just about the terms of the engagement, it is also about who engages.<br />
PAR foregrounds power relations, both within the participatory process as well as<br />
beyond it (such as structural violence, racism and poverty). Recent work on PAR has<br />
been influenced by a poststructural, Foucauldian approach to power (as with the literature<br />
on tenant participation of social housing cited above). Kesby et al. (2007, p.<br />
19) argue that ‘while PAR is a form of power, its effects are not only negative. Rather<br />
they are messy, entangled, highly variable and contingent’. Furthermore power is not<br />
only ‘a commodity that can be held or redistributed, but [is] an effect: an action,<br />
behaviour or imagination’ (Kesby et al., 2007, p. 20). Here the Foucauldian notion of<br />
governmentality highlights how human conduct is regulated through the participatory<br />
process, causing people to exert power negatively over others, for example in the production<br />
of ‘disciplined subjects’, the reinforcement of existing power relationships<br />
within communities or the production of participants as subjects who require<br />
‘research’/’development’ (Kesby et al., 2007, p. 21; see also Cooke and Kothari, 2001).<br />
Yet PAR aims to go beyond merely recognizing the power relations that are at play in<br />
people’s lives, it actively seeks to upturn these through self-representation, whereby<br />
people speak through their direct experience of oppression – a route to empowerment.<br />
Consequently, PAR creates opportunities to question the supposed truths of<br />
dominant claims to knowledge, highlighting that knowledge is not always centred or<br />
produced in the centre, but might be concentrated over vast geographical distances or<br />
in groups and communities that have little economic wealth. This offers a powerful<br />
route to challenge the authority of economic and political elites, providing opportunities<br />
to speak ‘to’ and ‘with’ instruments of power - a process which has potential to<br />
lead to personal and collective transformation and political realisation (Freire, 1970<br />
[2007]). This is an overt agenda that is missing from other forms of enquiry/practice.<br />
44 45
6 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 7<br />
As a result PAR provides both a philosophical and a methodological framework for<br />
enacting an approach to co-produced housing which connects the design and build<br />
of housing to processes of social, political and educational learning.<br />
However the evolution and growing popularity of PAR within academia and<br />
beyond has brought critique. Critics note that PAR is often practiced without an<br />
understanding and appreciation of its wider epistemology with regards to decentring<br />
knowledge production, and so researchers often fail to relinquish control, that projects<br />
often reproduce the inequalities they seek to challenge by underplaying dominant<br />
power relations, that it is often applied in a ‘toolbox’ like manner, instead of being<br />
grounded in the specificities of people and place, that projects become depoliticized<br />
when ‘formalised’ within the academy and other institutions of power (such as governments,<br />
international agencies and the third sector who have used participation to<br />
legitimise policies of western modernization and globalisation), and therefore projects<br />
become disengaged from radical politics seeking structural change (Cooke and<br />
Kothari, 2001; Frideres, 1992; Wynne-Jones et al., 2015). Furthermore, today PAR is<br />
used in many (mainly academic) contexts which may not directly impact or work<br />
with those that have been the victims of oppression (see Rudman et al., 2017;<br />
Whitman et al., 2015). However I am interested in returning to the roots of PAR, to<br />
its mobilization of social change. Therefore it is important not only how personal and<br />
collective transformation takes place, but also who is being empowered. This conviction<br />
feeds back into my aforementioned critique of CLH as a sector which often<br />
excludes those without social, economic or knowledge capital, who are also often<br />
those with the least choice in housing. Instead PAR refocuses attention onto those<br />
that are the victims of oppression or, in the case of this research, those most affected<br />
by housing inequalities. As a result a critical engagement with PAR as an epistemological<br />
and methodological framework may provide a basis to enact a more politicized<br />
and potentially transformative CLH movement for those with little wealth or power.<br />
PAR and housing<br />
To my knowledge there are no UK studies to date that use PAR in the design and<br />
build of housing, however there are PAR projects which focus on housing-related<br />
issues (see Hardy and Gillespie, 2016; Whitzman, 2017). Whilst the CSB projects<br />
described above offer a good starting point for engaging with more embedded and<br />
transformative participatory processes within housing, the approach I am advocating<br />
for aims to use the process of housing production as an overt social and political tool<br />
to bring change at an individual and collective level, as in the aforementioned international<br />
cases which link housing and social activism.<br />
In bringing PAR into conversation with housing I aim to offer an alternative ethical<br />
and political approach to housing which attempts to work within a relatively<br />
hierarchy free structure and looks to redistribute power and give wider access to<br />
resources for designers/builders. This means that the process is led by participant<br />
designers/builders, with their voices and actions setting the terms and boundaries of<br />
the project, alongside professionals who act as ‘enablers’. Aiming to engage those in<br />
most housing and/or employment need means that there is a real focus on how the<br />
methodology – the learning and capacity building process – can be used as a political<br />
tool to bring forth the voices of those that may be spatially and/or socially isolated or<br />
the victims of an increasingly faltering welfare state. This means that within the<br />
methodology there is a real focus on knowledge building, learning, and the care and<br />
social relationships that are built between people through this process. This is a methodology<br />
which aims to challenge the mainstream imagination of house-building as<br />
one that is a complex, technical activity, and through this to trouble the Cartesian<br />
separation of the maker from the user of housing, by questioning how and where<br />
design and build knowledge is embedded and whether it can emerge from the bottom<br />
up, making use of tacit and experiential knowledges. There is also a chance to bring<br />
forth new typologies of housing architecture which are more conductive to participation.<br />
As a result part of the imperative to bring PAR into conversation with housing<br />
is to challenge the current hegemony of housing production, in which housing is<br />
used a method of capital accumulation by investment companies, developers and<br />
house-builders, and instead use housing as an overt social and political tool to bring<br />
forth the voices of those that are oppressed by the current housing system, whilst at<br />
the same time critically reflecting on the role of power in the participatory process.<br />
Below I discuss how the concepts and practices of PAR were manifest in a live<br />
build project in Newcastle upon Tyne. I use this tentative example to activate a discussion<br />
into what bringing PAR into housing production might mean through a<br />
focus on ethics, power, the methodology of making, care and the building of personal<br />
relationships and the potentials for personal and collective transformation. The use of<br />
this example intends to open an area of research, instead of providing an exhaustive<br />
account of the potentials for PAR within housing. Furthermore, because this example<br />
was not a ‘working’ housing model, it cannot speak to issues of land procurement,<br />
funding or planning (issues that are well-narrated within the CLH literature (see<br />
Chatterton, 2015; Gooding and Johnston, 2015)). There is thus a need for further<br />
scholarship on PAR and housing to follow.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong><br />
Project outline<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> was a collaboration between Crisis, the national charity for single homelessness<br />
and their members (individuals who are homeless, have been homeless in the<br />
last two years or are at risk of homelessness), xsite architecture (a local architecture<br />
firm), TILT Workshop (an art and joinery organization) and myself, as project initiator.<br />
It was a collaboratively built housing prototype, created over the course of four<br />
months and was temporarily sited in Ouseburn area of Newcastle, occupying a site<br />
owned by a local development trust, from May-August 2016 and open to the public<br />
(see Figure 1). Whilst <strong>Protohome</strong> was open it exhibited the documentation of the<br />
project and hosted a range of events, workshops, exhibitions, performances, artist residencies<br />
and talks examining issues of homelessness, the politics of land and development<br />
and participatory housing alternatives. Following the events programme<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> was deconstructed and reconstructed at a local community farm to be<br />
used as a classroom/workshop. A publication and a website (www.<strong>Protohome</strong>.org.uk)<br />
46 47
8 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 9<br />
Figure 2. Learning joinery techniques in the Crisis workshop. Credit: The author.<br />
Figure 1. <strong>Protohome</strong> on site. Credit: John Hipkin.<br />
was also created so that the impact and reach of the project could extend beyond the<br />
building, to continue conversations on these issues into the future. <strong>Protohome</strong> is not<br />
a ‘complete’ housing model, instead it is a test, a prototype, a ‘shell’ of a building at 5<br />
metres 10 metres in size, without insulation or services. Yet it is a model which<br />
does show the potential to be extended into ‘working’ housing in the future.<br />
Process overview<br />
The project was launched to Crisis members in February 2016. Membership of the<br />
project was open to all and individuals were free to join or leave the project at any<br />
time during the process. Overall 14 members of Crisis contributed to the project,<br />
whilst nine stayed with the project throughout. Three of these members were women<br />
and all had very different experiences of homelessness - some were ‘at risk’ of homelessness,<br />
living in crowded or unsuitable accommodation, some were street homeless,<br />
whilst others were ‘sofa surfing’, sleeping on friends’ or relatives’ sofas, or living in<br />
hostels. Following the launch, joiners from TILT Workshop and I worked with members<br />
of Crisis two half days a week for three months to train them in woodwork and<br />
design skills and to build the ‘house’ in sections in Crisis’ wood workshop. We used<br />
the Segal system of timber-frame building which is a method specifically designed for<br />
untrained self-builders, which I discuss further below.<br />
Most members did not have any previous experience of woodwork, so we began<br />
by learning how to use basic tools, such as chisels and saws, learning different jointing<br />
techniques and using these activities to build the furniture for <strong>Protohome</strong> (see<br />
Figure 2). During the first few weeks we also focussed on building knowledge about<br />
design, undertaking two sessions with the architect whereby members designed their<br />
own homes using a design template for <strong>Protohome</strong>. These designs were exhibited in<br />
the finished building to show the flexibility of the design system we were using,<br />
which is based on a dimensional grid. This allowed members to show creativity and<br />
individual needs and wants, by differently separating the space and adding outdoor<br />
areas. The designs also highlighted individual preferences and lifestyles. For example<br />
one member, Daz, designed a large kitchen because he enjoyed cooking and was<br />
undertaking training in cookery in Crisis’ cafe, whilst Nyree made room for a small<br />
workshop to continue her woodwork skills in the home. Knowledge about the planning<br />
and building process emerged through instances of seeing and hearing, including<br />
a site visit, whereby members discussed how the building might respond to its<br />
immediate environment, and a visit to a self-built Segal house in Northumberland<br />
where we met the two architects who had built it. The use of a precedent like this<br />
was an important tool to inspire and motivate members. Whilst much of the structure<br />
of the building was completed on site, each week in the workshop members<br />
learnt a new skill, for example learning how to construct window frames or doors,<br />
and during this period members acquired qualifications, distributed by Crisis, including<br />
working with hand tools, health and safety and lifting and handling. Yet, as I<br />
highlight below, beyond building individual and collective knowledge, our time in the<br />
Crisis workshop was vital in building group trust, confidence and a sense of collective<br />
purpose.<br />
After three months in the Crisis workshop we went onto site for two weeks to<br />
construct the building, using the elements built in the workshop, whilst the frame,<br />
flooring, walls and roof were completed on site. During this period Crisis members<br />
worked on site for four hours a day, from Monday to Friday, yet members had an<br />
active involvement in all processes of building, including cutting timber, lifting and<br />
securing materials into place, painting and installing the exhibition of project documentation,<br />
and so during this period the learning did not stop. The role of Crisis<br />
throughout the project was vital, as they provided pastoral support, advice on training,<br />
skills, employment and housing for group members, as well as resources for the<br />
project as a whole by providing a space to work in, organizing trips and<br />
refreshments.<br />
During the workshop process I conducted twelve individual interviews and three<br />
focus groups which concentrated on personal histories, hopes and futures, and experiences<br />
of the project. In September, whilst we were deconstructing and moving the<br />
48 49
10 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 11<br />
building to its new site, I conducted five evaluation interviews with people who were<br />
involved in the project from the beginning. Completing evaluation interviews four<br />
months after the project finished allowed me to track changes in group members’<br />
lives - whether they had accessed employment, housing or further skills. It also gave<br />
them an opportunity to reflect on the process and the role that the project had<br />
played/was playing in their lives. These interviews and focus groups were not intensive<br />
or extensive. Discussions took place in both an informal setting (over cups of tea<br />
and biscuits in the workshop, on a windy beach in Northumberland or whilst eating<br />
sandwiches on the <strong>Protohome</strong> site), as well as in a more formal setting (during<br />
organized focus groups and interviews), and instead of recording data through more<br />
formal routes I often just took notes of conversations or activities as it was often easier<br />
to get members to open up in informal scenarios.<br />
Approach and ethical framework<br />
PAR is contingent on an embedded and responsive participatory process. Throughout<br />
the project we used an open and reflexive methodology, using a cyclic process of<br />
planning, action and reflection (Kesby et al., 2007), which involved gathering knowledge<br />
on building techniques and processes, planning a task and then actioning this,<br />
and finally reflecting on what worked and what could be improved in order to begin<br />
the cyclic process again. Reflection was particularly important as it established a sense<br />
of self and collective criticality and allowed members to assess the knowledge gained.<br />
This methodology meant that members could be involved in decision-making processes<br />
and enabled the parameters of the project and the activities to adjust to changing<br />
conditions and challenges. The lives of group members were complex and<br />
brought with them certain sensitivities, as people moved on and off the streets, had<br />
health and money troubles. As a result an ‘ethic of care’ (Manzo and Brightbill, 2007)<br />
between people needed to be cultivated over time. The making process became a conduit<br />
to have conversations about the issues troubling people, and offered a space to<br />
better understand personal pasts and presents. In PAR these processes of building<br />
understanding and knowledge of one’s own situation is vital as it is only through this<br />
that personal realisation and transformation can occur.<br />
Understandably, when a process is co-produced and not fixed, this may bring forth<br />
complex ethical issues that other, non-participatory frameworks may not. Due to the<br />
fluid and emergent nature of the project, the ethical framework was designed to be<br />
reflexive in order to respond to shifting needs and situations, instead of being a fixed<br />
practice (Armstrong and Banks, 2011; Manzo and Brightbill, 2007). This approach<br />
differs from standard professional or research ethics which is a more generalized,<br />
‘box-ticking’ exercise (Armstrong and Banks, 2011, p. 24). Instead, PAR tends to raise<br />
more complex ethical issues which may be beyond the scope of institutional guidelines.<br />
Furthermore, as joiners, architects and researchers, we were not only accountable<br />
to a university ethical review panel, but more importantly to participants, which,<br />
in the case of our project, were potentially vulnerable. As a result, members wrote a<br />
Group Contract, which outlined the ethics of the project which included having<br />
respect and care for each other, the importance of listening and looking out for each<br />
other’s wellbeing in the workshop and on site. As one member, Nyree, said, ‘sharing<br />
responsibility … for each other, for the equipment, for the wood, for the whole build<br />
and for the project itself’ was vital.<br />
These methodological tactics helped members own and direct the process, to represent<br />
themselves, as well as to look after each other through nurturing a sense of<br />
reciprocity which was rooted in a commitment to others. This ethic of care is vital in<br />
PAR projects, but particularly in build projects when overall group safety is often reliant<br />
on the group working effectively as a collective.<br />
The professional as enabler<br />
Processes of participation are never without hierarchies, whether these emerge from<br />
professionals or from the group/community itself. As I highlight below, power is<br />
always present, yet when there is a process of knowledge building taking place – in<br />
our case designing and building knowledge – whereby there is a need for ‘outside’<br />
professionals, there is always a danger that the process will be co-opted by this<br />
expertise or that professionals will hold onto their knowledge, meaning that no<br />
‘devolution of knowledge’ (Fals-Borda, 1987, p. 344) to groups/communities takes<br />
place. This is a particular risk in building and housing processes which is seen as a<br />
technical activity, through which the power to control development processes and<br />
access to resources connected to this (be this knowledge, tools, equipment, networks<br />
or infrastructures) often resides with a range of professionals in the public, private<br />
and third sectors, such as developers, architects, builders, housing managers, estate<br />
agents and local government officers (Raco, 2013). Yet as Allen (2003) writes, authority<br />
need not be a negative exercise in power, instead expertise can enable whereby<br />
professionals can be important catalysts for knowledge production and learning. As<br />
Arendt (1961) claims, authority is not something that is merely recognized, it is also<br />
claimed. It is something that is held among people, not always over them. During<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> we tried to challenge the dichotomy between the ‘expert’ and the<br />
‘amateur’ through the cyclic process of planning, action and reflection, as well as<br />
through building a sense of trust, respect and reciprocity between tutors and members.<br />
Here the tutor took on the role of the ‘interpreter and co-ordinator rather than<br />
dictatorial designer’ (Fowles, 2000a, 2000b, p. 62). The role of ‘interpreter’ was particularly<br />
important. The housing and building industries are full of technical jargon,<br />
which isolates those without ‘received knowledge’ of the sector, so part of the role of<br />
the joiner and myself was to break language barriers down, not through ‘dumbing<br />
down’ terminology, but through careful explanation, grounded in real life examples<br />
(Figure 3).<br />
In line with PAR’s imperative to build critical capacity, Dean, the lead joiner,<br />
attempted to expand the analytical skills of the group by asking members: ‘What shall<br />
we do next? What’s working? What’s not working?’, prompting them to assess and<br />
change the course of the process and to problem solve. So instead of leading members<br />
directly, he led them indirectly. He also taught through trial and error whereby<br />
members learnt by trying and sometimes failing – such as the creation of complex<br />
joints, which one member, Daz, had particular trouble with, stating, ‘It looks like I’ve<br />
50 51
12 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 13<br />
Figure 3. Group members learning whilst building <strong>Protohome</strong>. Credit: John Hipkin.<br />
done it with a chainsaw!’. Yet the success of this methodology was realized when<br />
members started teaching other. Furthermore, the joiner and myself wanted to<br />
remove the workshops from an atmosphere of ‘schooling’, whereby the teacher tells<br />
and the student listens. Freire calls this the ‘banking’ concept of education – the one<br />
way ‘transfer’ of knowledge which turns the students into ‘receptacles to be ‘filled’ by<br />
the teacher’ (1970 [2007], p. 72). Our approach opened up opportunities for challenging,<br />
questioning and dissensus and for creative interrogation into our own professional<br />
working practices. As a result our own normative practices were often<br />
challenged - we were also subjects of learning throughout the project. When asked<br />
about the ‘teacher-learner’ relationship during <strong>Protohome</strong>, Nyree stated, ‘‘You’re<br />
doing it wrong’, it’s that whole expression. Nobody in the whole time in the Crisis<br />
woodshop or in <strong>Protohome</strong>, nobody once said to me ever … ‘You’re doing it wrong’,<br />
or ‘You’re not doing it right’’. This goes back to the sense of collective ethics, or<br />
‘communitarianism’, as Allen writes, ‘The idea of a hierarchical authority based upon<br />
technical expertise or impersonal rules stands in sharp contrast … to this more lateral<br />
sense of authority in the social community’ (2003, p. 58). Yet getting this balance<br />
right required the joiner and myself to be awake to our own positionality and privilege<br />
and to analyse how we might impose ‘well meaning’ values and practices on<br />
members. Yet it helped that Dean also had experience of homelessness – this shared<br />
experience was useful to break down the barrier between ‘learner’ and ‘teacher’.<br />
PAR foregrounds the pre-existing knowledge and skills held by people – experiential<br />
knowledge that should be put to work and grounded. Many <strong>Protohome</strong> members<br />
had relevant knowledge stemming from past experiences: Tony had experience of<br />
self-building during a youth programme abroad, Chris had spent time in Borneo in<br />
the army and had witnessed mass participation in housing by ordinary people using<br />
reclaimed materials, whilst Nyree had experience of woodwork from her childhood<br />
when her father was renovating their family home. Peter, who was street homeless<br />
throughout the project, would discuss his ad hoc means of making ‘home’ on the<br />
streets, which involved scavenging for objects and materials and repurposing them -<br />
making a bed out of pallets, using waste fabric to create ‘curtains’ for privacy and<br />
using discarded glow sticks as lights. For Peter the repurposing of material did not<br />
only arise out of a certain resourcefulness developed through scarcity, it also arose<br />
out of an innate creativity, as this quote suggests:<br />
‘Knowing that something’s not getting wasted and that I’ve done something with<br />
something that would normally go in the bin … It also makes you happy as well … I’m<br />
making key chains out of bike chains … I’m separating the links and then where the<br />
link hole is you put yer key in and then hammer it shut again and there’s the key<br />
ring … Fridge magnets out of bottle tops and champagne corks … I get the lead from<br />
round roundabouts off car wheels … And I melt the little blocks of lead down and turn<br />
them into magnets’.<br />
These experiences, existing knowledges and forms of creativity were harnessed and<br />
legitimized through different tasks, whether these were standard woodwork tasks or<br />
more creative tasks such as getting members to design a sign for the building out of<br />
scrap joints. So <strong>Protohome</strong> catalyzed a design and build process which attempted to<br />
trouble the dichotomy between the ‘amateur’ and the ‘expert’, and ways of teaching<br />
that merely ‘impart’ knowledge from one individual to another, at the same time as<br />
legitimising, valuing and employing the knowledge members already had.<br />
Learning through making<br />
As highlighted above, an imperative within PAR is to challenge received,<br />
‘professional’ forms of knowledge. In this project this meant challenging ‘stable’ housing<br />
types and building processes through the use of the Segal system of self-building.<br />
This system makes use of simple hand tools, standard material sizes, and is a design<br />
system built on a dimensional grid, making plans easy to understand by ‘lay’ builders<br />
(see the dimensional grid in Figure 4). Furthermore, because it is built with a post<br />
and beam timber frame the walls are not load bearing, meaning that walls can be<br />
positioned at will (Broome, 2005, p. 70). The architect Walter Segal aimed to democratize<br />
and demythologize the design and build process using tools and processes,<br />
such as dry jointing techniques, which are cheap and easy to acquire or learn for construction<br />
by untrained self-builders. Furthermore, using a limited number of standard<br />
components which can be assembled in many different ways allows a greater variety<br />
of building type through modular rearrangement (Umenyilora, 2000). As a result this<br />
system makes self-building achievable and understandable, even for those without any<br />
previous woodwork skills and it also offers an approach through which learning can<br />
occur whilst building, as I highlight in detail below. For <strong>Protohome</strong> members, using<br />
hand tools allowed a certain autonomy within the build process. Not only did we not<br />
need to purchase expensive tools, but we also learnt about the distinct properties of<br />
materials through the physical involvement of the hand with the material. In the<br />
workshop we had a discussion about the strengths of using hand tools over power<br />
tools and the connection to processes of learning:<br />
Jane: ‘… using machines is cheating, it’s not really made by you it’s made by machines.’<br />
Daz: ‘You’ve not learnt nothing … Apart from pulling a lever.’<br />
…<br />
52 53
14 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 15<br />
Figure 4. The dimensional grid frame of the Segal method. Credit: John Hipkin.<br />
Jane: ‘I … I’d rather be quite happy just doing [it] by hand because then you know<br />
you’ve done it and if you keep practicing with the hand tool then you’ve learnt how to<br />
make it properly by yourself … you can’t really learn how to make a thing properly<br />
with a machine ‘cause it’s going to be perfect every time, but if you use … hand tools<br />
you can make it perfect your own way.’<br />
Julia: ‘… so you think using your hands as opposed to a machine that … you’ve got<br />
more ownership over it?’<br />
Jane: ‘Yes.’<br />
Julia: ‘‘Cause you can look at that and go …’<br />
Jane: ‘I made that, it wasn’t done by a machine – hah!’ [Laughs]<br />
…<br />
Dean: ‘If you were using power tools all the time … you’re just learning how to use a<br />
particular tool … The whole point of this project is that with very limited tools we can<br />
build something quite substantial … well you can now just with a saw and a chisel, you<br />
see that’s the point, that you can make pretty much anything just with a few little tools<br />
and that’s how they’ve done it for thousands of years. So it’s more interesting because<br />
you’re actually getting skilled up.’<br />
Jane: ‘It just goes to show … you don’t need machinery to make stuff.’<br />
…<br />
Julia: ‘So it means that you could go home [Daz], …<br />
at home …’<br />
Jane: ‘Ah, he’s got a shed full.’<br />
you’ve got some wood …<br />
Julia: ‘… get a saw …’<br />
…<br />
Daz: ‘Get meself a table and chairs up for the garden.’<br />
Julia: ‘Instead of thinking ‘I need …’<br />
Daz: ‘… to go to B&Q and buy it’.’<br />
…<br />
Jane: ‘You can do it without having to go out and buy the stuff. Like at the beginning of<br />
the course I probably would of just thought ‘Ah right … the weather’s getting nice we’ll<br />
just go to B&Q and buy it, a bench and some chairs and you’re at like nearly, say …<br />
£200, but if you go and just buy …’<br />
Daz: ‘… a hammer and a chisel …’ [Laughs]<br />
Dean: ‘Yeah and some wood and you can make it yourself.’<br />
Jane: ‘You can make it yourself, cheaper!’<br />
Dean: ‘And it’s better though ‘cause it’s yours.’<br />
As the above conversation suggests, by making use of tools that are affordable,<br />
easy to acquire and use and simple processes of making, group members could then<br />
extend these newly learnt skills into other areas of their life, for example in personal<br />
DIY projects. Learning through making was a key ethos of <strong>Protohome</strong>. Within PAR<br />
the experiential production of knowledge is vital, with knowledge rooted in experience,<br />
not the abstract (Fals-Borda, 1987). This challenges the Cartesian division<br />
between mental and physical work (Fowles, 2000a) and disturbs inherited binaries of<br />
architect-user, professional-amateur, rational-experimental and thinking-doing. As<br />
PAR highlights there is a gap between language and bodily activity, yet most learning<br />
is tacit and non-linguistic, it is generated in practice, whilst western models of learning<br />
assume that knowledge is generated through language (Mohan, 1999, p. 45).<br />
Perhaps as Sennett suggests, we have an inability to put practice into words: ‘language<br />
is not an adequate ‘mirror-tool’ for the physical movements of the human body’<br />
(2008, p. 95), instead learning through PAR should unite mind and body. This sense<br />
of learning as rooted in practice ‘provides a basis for escaping the strictures of dominant<br />
cognitivist and individualistic notions of learning’ (Sennett, 2008, p. 62).<br />
Through this process the subject learns, builds social networks and forms identity,<br />
which connects with the wider imperative stemming from <strong>Protohome</strong> – that of personal<br />
and group transformation through the act of building, as I highlight in the following<br />
section.<br />
Therefore some architectural forms and processes of building can be enabling, creative<br />
and flexible like the Segal method, whilst others can be disabling. Whilst the<br />
work of Segal is significant, similar systems of building have been advocated by John<br />
Habraken (1972), who separated the building frame or ‘supports’ from the infill,<br />
through John Turner’s (1977) work on ‘site and service’ 1 schemes in the Global<br />
South or, more recently, work on ‘degrowth’, which challenges the hegemony of<br />
increasing production and consumption, by arguing that overconsumption lies at the<br />
root of long term environmental and social inequalities (D’Alisa et al., 2014). For<br />
54 55
16 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 17<br />
architecture this means generating new organizational models of designing and constructing<br />
which focus on democratic participation, as well as material processes such<br />
reusing or reclaiming materials, refurbishment, designing down or using locally<br />
sourced materials. This requires more research and material experimentation into<br />
building methods and materials which are socially and ecologically sustainable and<br />
more conducive to participation. Within <strong>Protohome</strong> this may have meant that instead<br />
of using large sheets of plywood purchased from a local builder’s merchant, which<br />
required some strength to move into position, we could have used timber sourced<br />
from a local saw mill, or smaller modulars, such as hand produced bricks, that could<br />
be moved into place by one person.<br />
Becoming ‘an extension of each other’: care and connection<br />
Dean: ‘…without us all working together …’<br />
Tony: ‘It’s not going to work is it really? … If all the cogs aren’t working in the<br />
machine then it stops, it doesn’t work.’<br />
…<br />
Nyree: ‘The best part of it is watching people come together and share a task and think<br />
about their place when this thing comes together and opens, but it’s not just that end<br />
thing, it’s the process of doing it.’<br />
Fundamentally, relationships between group members were at the core of the project.<br />
This emerged most resolutely in individual and group evaluations. In recognition<br />
of the need to build strong interpersonal relationships when working with potentially<br />
vulnerable people, and on a project that could be dangerous, the first three months<br />
in the Crisis workshop was vital, not just to build skills but also social relationships.<br />
PAR places importance on healing alienation and restoring community, particularly<br />
for groups where loss and precarity is a feature of everyday living. As Reason writes,<br />
‘It is not so much about the search for truth and knowledge as it is about healing.<br />
And above all, healing the alienation, the split that characterizes the modern experience’<br />
(1998, p. 42). Central to this is a recognition that humans are bound up in a<br />
mutual ‘interdependence’ with each other (Gibson-Graham, 2006) and so the prevention<br />
of harm to one another is paramount. During <strong>Protohome</strong> this required deep,<br />
attentive listening, being responsive to the needs of members, and, as highlighted<br />
above, critical reflection of power and positionality.<br />
Furthermore, in processes of building, when working as a team you’re often physically<br />
supporting each other, for example to take the weight of a piece of wood (see<br />
Figure 5) or offering a seat to someone when they’re tired, and so understanding the<br />
mental and physical strengths and limits of each other is vital. But this is also about<br />
sharing responsibility when something goes wrong, when something physically falls<br />
apart, when a piece of wood splits, when a concrete paving stone cracks, when a cut<br />
slips off the pencil line. Dean described how we needed to be ‘an extension of each<br />
other’, if someone ‘put[s] their hand out, I’ll put the right tool in their hand and vice<br />
versa, because you’re kind of always watching what other people are doing’. These<br />
collective working practices were of great importance because, as Dean said, in large<br />
scale builds, ‘if one thing stops functioning then the job wouldn’t get done’, but in<br />
Figure 5. Collaborative building processes on site. Credit: John Hipkin.<br />
the worst case, if we failed to work together, to watch out for each other, then someone<br />
could get physically hurt. And so the initial process of group formation within<br />
any PAR project is key, as this conversation highlights:<br />
Sarah: ‘… to me it was like learning to work with other people. You know people that<br />
you haven’t really met and known as long, so you kind of get the … gist of the ups and<br />
downs of people never mind just yersel, it’s how other people … work around yer and<br />
how [you] would work with other people.’<br />
Tony: ‘‘Cause we all stuck together and acted like a proper team, looked after each<br />
other, instead of arguing and squabbling on.’<br />
Drawing on the work of Yalom (1970) into interpersonal theory and small group<br />
development, we saw an initial phase of hesitation, whilst members oriented themselves<br />
both physically in the workshop space and socially with other members and<br />
tutors. As Dean recalls, ‘when we first started everyone was quite insular and working<br />
on their own’, whilst Daz said, ‘A lot of people were quiet at the start compared to<br />
now’. Furthermore, some people were quite wary of each other, as Nyree noted: ‘I<br />
think … we put on a lot of layers, don’t we?’ There was then a second phase in<br />
which individuals felt that they could open up to others and perhaps offer a viewpoint.<br />
This was a moment in which the seeds of trust and confidence were growing.<br />
There was finally a third phase when the group become extremely close, supporting<br />
each other on an emotional and a technical level, not just in the workshop but also<br />
outside of this space. Reciprocity between group members continued after the project<br />
through friendships and informal support mechanisms. But it must be noted that<br />
56 57
18 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 19<br />
some people found the establishment of trust easier than others - some were actively<br />
looking to build trust and relationships, whilst others were more isolated.<br />
Rather than being ‘designed into’ the project from the start, relationships were<br />
nurtured gradually (Heron and Reason, 1997), emerging through moments of mutual<br />
support, listening, spontaneous acts of kindness (like having a disagreement with<br />
someone and then in the next breath asking whether they would like to share a cigarette)<br />
and shared laughter (like Nyree saying to Daz: ‘You can just brighten up a<br />
room with the words you come out with’). The workshop became an important site<br />
of sociality, not merely a place of learning, but of uninhibited chatter - the laughs<br />
and energy giving the room its rhythms. So what members described as the ‘bonding<br />
experience’, only occurred through making space for these conversations, whether<br />
meaningful or not, to take place.<br />
But this is not to say that power was not present. As social dynamics were constantly<br />
changing and being reproduced, tensions and power relationships did occur,<br />
but care was taken by Dean and myself to avoid glossing over power relationships<br />
but to actively highlight and disrupt potentially exploitative or manipulative relationships<br />
that occurred either within or through the project (as a result of different personalities,<br />
dependencies or gender) or which framed group members’ lives in a wider<br />
sense (such as their relationship to the state, to housing or homeless services)<br />
(England, 1994). During <strong>Protohome</strong> we witnessed how productive disagreement can<br />
open up quite a different form of democratic practice than through consensus building<br />
methods (Miessen, 2010; Mouffe, 1992, 2000). As a result it was important not to<br />
view power as a ubiquitous force, but as a relational effect brought into being through<br />
participants’ action, behaviour, dialogue and imagination, as in the discussion of governmentality<br />
above (Allen, 2003; Kesby et al., 2007; Foucault, 1977, 2008).<br />
Consequently, there was a need to make space for honest dissensus, to allow people<br />
to work through their differences in a safe space (Mouffe, 1992), as highlighted in the<br />
conversation below. Whilst this may be challenging and disruptive, it can also be an<br />
honest and productive. These real, felt and lived properties of power, a poststructuralist<br />
view of power as an effect, emerging through thought and behaviour, as highlighted<br />
above - what Allen (2003) terms ‘power in proximity’ - were bound up in<br />
group scenarios whereby some voices were heard whilst some were silent.<br />
Furthermore, there were times when power relationships came to the fore in an obvious<br />
and antagonistic manner. Often external factors impacting members’ lives<br />
affected the atmosphere of the whole group, as Nyree stated, ‘not a one of us hasn’t<br />
had some kind of like hellish struggle to do with health, … money, benefits, our<br />
housing situations … I mean every one of us has had problems but coming to this<br />
gave us the strength to deal with them’. And on occasions tensions did emerge, particularly<br />
with individuals who worked less well in a group scenario or were going<br />
through a difficult period personally. For example, for Peter’s personal difficulties<br />
often emerged in the workshop - sometimes due to a lack of sleep, or because of his<br />
mental health, or because it was raining, or when his belongings were taken by<br />
Newcastle’s Business Improvement District street rangers who clean the streets, or<br />
when he’d had a brush with a police officer. These tensions emerged and were sometimes<br />
difficult to deal with. The conversation below highlights a point in the project<br />
when Peter was struggling with his mental health, which emerged in moments of<br />
frustration directed at other members:<br />
Julia: ‘What’s wrong Peter?’<br />
Peter: ‘I wish I could hit her with a hammer but I know I can’t.’<br />
Julia: ‘Who?’<br />
Peter: ‘This has gone skewwhiff ‘cause I’m asking Nyree to work together and help us<br />
but she’s gannin deeing her own thing. Work together as part of a team.’<br />
Nyree: ‘I agree. I agree.’<br />
Peter: ‘Well if you agree why were you fucking over there?!’<br />
Julia: ‘Peter, come on!’<br />
Nyree: ‘If you say it nicer, you see because [you said], ‘Why are you fucking …’<br />
I’m thinking …’<br />
Julia: ‘Yeah, just say it nicer Peter.’<br />
Nyree: ‘If you say it nicely I might consider it.’<br />
Peter: ‘Right right. You want the nice nice approach.’<br />
Julia: ‘And you don’t need to swear, like.’<br />
Peter: ‘I won’t, I won’t, I won’t.’<br />
Reflecting back on this conversation later in the project Nyree stated,<br />
‘Well personally for me speaking it was just like any other family. There were moments<br />
that were tricky … there were moments when there was a bit of miscommunication or<br />
there were moments when people were just upset, and because of that whole supportive<br />
environment, because of that openness, … because it was family, we all supported each<br />
other through those tricky moments so they never lasted’.<br />
Allen (2003) states that whilst proximity can create power and authority, it may<br />
also open up opportunities for the building of trust. Whilst there were moments of<br />
‘instrumental’ power – power held over someone, rooted in some sort of conflict, as<br />
we can see in the above conversation, there were also moments of self-discovery – of<br />
‘associational’ power – power rooted in mutual action and in the formation of a<br />
‘common bond’ (Mouffe, 1992, p. 233), and a sense of reciprocity, of mutual interdependency,<br />
as can be seen Nyree’s use of the word ‘family’ in the quote above.<br />
There were also moments when instrumental power was transformational, was productive,<br />
in the poststructuralist vein I highlighted earlier. Perhaps it was a breaking<br />
point that needed to occur to move beyond it – like the heated conversation between<br />
Peter and Nyree. As a result, whilst power relations emerged in the group, through<br />
heated conversations, or through the frustrations of working as a team, these were<br />
confronted through honest discussion and reflection. That is not, of course, to say<br />
that power did not continue to be present in thought or imagination.<br />
Through the project strong group relationships helped build personal confidence<br />
and trigger processes of social repair. Nurturing sociality can be an important way to<br />
aid social isolation. Yet friendship, the ‘wrapping together’ (Jackson, 2015) of people,<br />
does not end when the project finishes, but can be a catalyst for trying new things,<br />
58 59
20 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 21<br />
forging new opportunities. New confidences are grown and some members mentioned<br />
that a ‘new mentality’ - a new ‘way of seeing’ – came to the fore which<br />
became a catalyst for how futures were imagined. Thus nurturing confidence and<br />
sociality can be a powerful tool of transformation, which moves beyond psychological<br />
space and into physical lived lives. In the conversation below we can see how this<br />
confidence was beginning to shape everyday lives:<br />
Tony: ‘… unfortunately I was on the streets … for just under a year before I actually<br />
signed up for Crisis … It’s not actually very nice being on the streets but now I’m back<br />
to be honest with you. I’m feeling confident, I’ve got a bit more experience and, touch<br />
wood, I’m never back there in that situation again.’<br />
Daz: ‘… getting up in the morning and getting motivated to come here … It changes<br />
your life, it’s just not living the same lifestyle, open to try new things.’<br />
Control over life choices may actively offer a space to discuss futures and realistic<br />
aspirations. Since the project ended, two members have entered paid work (one in<br />
construction), five members are now in sustained housing and one member has<br />
enrolled at college, stating, ‘I’m actually able to do … calculations and things I forgot.<br />
I forgot … what I was capable of doing’ Thus for some members it was a learning<br />
process through which self worth emerged - ‘It’s showing me that I can do what<br />
other people are saying I can’ - instead of feeling a burden on society, as one who is<br />
homeless, or living on benefits, or having health troubles.<br />
It is the creation of social ties for those that may be physically or socially isolated,<br />
that may be stuck in certain rhythms and routines, that is vital in participatory build<br />
process. Sociality creates opportunities for change, it creates trust and confidence, but<br />
as I have highlighted, feeling ‘at home’ with those around you can also create further<br />
opportunities for self-reflection and what Freire (1970 [2007]) calls ‘conscientisation’,<br />
whereby a critical awareness of a personal situation is fostered which leads to positive<br />
action, thus providing real opportunities for personal and collective growth.<br />
I have managed to follow the different routes that members have taken since the<br />
project ended. Some have entered employment, training or are now in stable housing.<br />
For others such a project was too fleeting and the issues engrained within their lives<br />
too severe. Nevertheless there is some degree of evidence to suggest that social<br />
remediation can occur through embedded participatory processes. And whilst this<br />
was a fleeting project, longer projects might bring forth longer lasting change for<br />
group members, particularly if this enabled people to access stable and<br />
secure housing.<br />
Political implications<br />
Through participatory approaches to housing and the co-production of knowledge,<br />
new truths and representations may be brought forth. This is a practical and<br />
grounded form of theorization, as highlighted above, - praxis - informed action that<br />
leads to creative transformation. This form of conscientisation means that the<br />
‘oppressed’ begin to question and critique the structures and actions that oppress<br />
them. Sometimes these might be the very structures that seem key to their survival,<br />
such as, in the case of many <strong>Protohome</strong> members, welfare institutions. During<br />
Figure 6. <strong>Protohome</strong> open to the public. Credit: The author.<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> this occurred through the process of building, through group conversations<br />
about homelessness and self-build, and through self-representation when the<br />
building was open to the public and members presented the project and spoke about<br />
their experiences of being in housing need to people in positions of power in the<br />
region (local authorities and housing, planning and architecture professionals) and<br />
beyond (Homes England and the Deputy Head of Housing for the Greater<br />
London Authority).<br />
Furthermore, whilst the project did not propose that homeless people can or<br />
should ‘build the city’, by offering a visual and physical statement - a symbol of<br />
homeless people’s capacity, agency and learning, in the form of a prototype house situated<br />
in public space and a programme of events - a wider public narrative of resistance<br />
to rising housing precarity, homelessness and austerity was triggered (see<br />
Figures 6 and 7). As a result <strong>Protohome</strong> was at once a space of learning as well as a<br />
space of advocacy. Yet these events were also agonistic, as in the case of one event<br />
about homelessness, which prompted a difficult discussion into the rise of begging in<br />
the city, with one audience member stating that beggars outside her husband’s shop<br />
were impacting on his business by deterring people from entering. This comment<br />
upset and angered members of <strong>Protohome</strong>, who themselves had experience of begging,<br />
and felt that the serious issues that caused people to beg, such as welfare<br />
reform, drug and alcohol dependency and family breakdown, were being undermined.<br />
But these tactics, whether catalyzed through the creation of a temporary ‘house’ or a<br />
permanent housing development, can create new housing precedents, as well as helping<br />
to collapse embedded belief structures about who or what homelessness, and the<br />
homeless subject, is. Thus through the act of collectively building and exhibiting the<br />
60<br />
61
22 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 23<br />
Figure 7. Opening up conversation into housing issues. Credit: The author.<br />
results of our labour in urban space, an alternative set of political tactics was forged -<br />
the house became not only a social frame but also a political device.<br />
The limits of PAR in housing<br />
There are some particular challenges that using PAR within housing brings forth.<br />
Whilst barriers for all forms of community produced housing include the acquisition<br />
of land and funding, planning, and development support (the discussion of which is<br />
beyond the scope of this paper), there are some particular demands that emerge<br />
when undertaking building projects through intense participatory processes.<br />
Participation<br />
Through PAR the initial boundaries, as well as the evaluation of projects, are defined<br />
and analysed by the community/group, whilst for <strong>Protohome</strong> these were defined by<br />
myself and the other tutors. This was due to the short timescales involved in the project,<br />
but it was also reflective of the demands of working with potentially vulnerable<br />
individuals. In order for the true transformative potential of PAR to be realized<br />
within housing more open timescales are important. Pain et al. (2015) highlight that<br />
good co-production requires a long initial phase in order to embed relationships as<br />
well as processes of working (this is key when the project can have health and safety<br />
risks associated with it), as well as for in depth learning and transformation to take<br />
place. Furthermore, within participatory processes of building, unexpected issues may<br />
arise which require elongated timescales, which could be a mixture of external factors,<br />
such as funding, planning or insurance, and internal factors, such as issues that arise<br />
within groups, like pastoral care. Slow burning projects may also have more transformative<br />
potential, as opposed to fleeting projects, where transformation might be<br />
difficult to sustain - people might fall back into old routines when the project ends,<br />
or when the resources (whether this be people, skills or tools) are no longer available<br />
or present (mrs Kinpaisby, 2008; Pain and Francis, 2003).<br />
As stated above, the physical nature of the project (and building projects in general)<br />
meant that forms of professional knowledge and authority were required, so the<br />
process was not completely non-hierarchical. Therefore there is a need to be awake to<br />
how the participatory process can be improved – to critically evaluate whose voices<br />
are being heard and whose are being left out, and whether people are really being<br />
empowered, by undertaking an on-going, cyclical process of reflection. Furthermore,<br />
it is also important to highlight that the nature of the participatory process may<br />
change depending on the form and structure of the project and this may effect processes<br />
of participation as well as power relations. For example forms of competition<br />
may arise due to decisions regarding design or governance structures. These are, of<br />
course, aspects that were beyond the boundaries of <strong>Protohome</strong>, yet it is important to<br />
note that full housing projects will require more significant decisions which may trigger<br />
difficult relations within groups.<br />
Coercion, co-option and hierarchy<br />
Fals-Borda (1987, p. 332) notes that as PAR moves from the micro to the macro scale<br />
external supportive agencies become important, whether these are NGOs, local<br />
authorities, funders, charities or activist networks. This is particularly important for<br />
housing development to access land, finance and technical support. Further to this,<br />
participants may also need wraparound support structures to provide pastoral care<br />
and housing advice. Yet when working in partnership there is always a risk of getting<br />
co-opted into divergent value structures and hierarchical ways of working. For<br />
example recent research on partnerships between Community Land Trusts (CLTs)<br />
and housing associations highlights some key concerns for CLTs such as the dilution<br />
of a local focus, accountability and democratic decision making processes which stem<br />
from differing core values between partners (Moore, 2016). This may be at odds with<br />
the participatory ethics outlined above, and partners may have different guiding<br />
assumptions, practices and subjectivities to that of the group. Furthermore, many participatory<br />
projects can be prone to co-option because of financial constraints and<br />
dependencies (Pieterse, 2008, p. 100). As a result partners may act in coercive ways –<br />
offering funding or resources in return for gains in other areas, whether this be publicity<br />
or wider business interests. This can lead to ‘coercive conditionality’ (Allen, 2003,<br />
p. 121) - the ability to regulate conduct through the threat of negative sanctions. This<br />
is seen prominently in the Global South (Larmour, 2002; Stokke, 2013), yet it also<br />
occurs elsewhere, particularly when communities lack financial or knowledge resources,<br />
or are distant from institutional/political power.<br />
Additionally, large institutions/organisations may also have slow and bureaucratic<br />
working practices, at odds with communities (Chatterton, 2015). They may also ‘use’<br />
participation negatively, to control or coerce, as highlighted above. As Pieterse writes<br />
with regards to working with local authorities: ‘grassroots projects can be invaluable<br />
sites of experimentation with alternative ways of doing development. State bureaucracies<br />
tend to be rigid, hierarchical and conformist institutions. Little room is left for<br />
creativity, learning and innovation’ (2008, p. 99). Therefore, working with partners,<br />
projects may be expected to speed up processes that need more time for deliberation,<br />
62 63
24 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 25<br />
use standardized design systems that may not foreground learning, acquire funding<br />
from non-ethical sources and become a mouthpiece for certain causes which may<br />
result in projects becoming depoliticized.<br />
During <strong>Protohome</strong> the reflexive approach we took to the process and the activities<br />
are at odds with the way that housing is normally developed, and they may not be<br />
seen as being absolutely integral to getting housing built efficiently. Furthermore<br />
there are inherent difficulties in this more ‘open’ methodology, whereby the boundaries<br />
of the project changed whilst it was in motion. If projects are too open and lack<br />
organization, failure is possible which could have a devastating on vulnerable individuals.<br />
Therefore whilst reflexivity is important, there is a balance to be found between<br />
stimulating an open and inclusive process, at the same time as making sure that<br />
effective controls are in place to ensure project delivery. Yet working intuitively and<br />
as non-hierarchically as possible was at the centre of a wider aim to decentre knowledge<br />
production and to crack open the dichotomy between the ‘professional architect/builder’<br />
and the ‘amateur user’. This is not to say that more institutionally<br />
defined approaches are devoid of learning, sociality, laughter and fun, but instead<br />
participatory approaches actively make space for these within their structures and<br />
processes. Consequently, approaches must be context specific, avoiding standard project<br />
‘blueprints’.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The aim of this paper has been to highlight how, through an attention to the epistemological<br />
and methodological approaches of participatory action research (PAR),<br />
more equitable processes of co-produced housing can be harnessed which are open to<br />
those with little so-called social, economic or knowledge capital and who may be in<br />
housing and/or employment need. Participation in housing is gaining increasing<br />
attention with the development of community-led housing (CLH) in the UK and elsewhere<br />
in Europe. However, much discourse has focussed on specific governance,<br />
financial and organizational models, and has paid less attention to the mechanics of<br />
participation within them. Furthermore, many precedents within the CLH sector<br />
emerge from individuals and groups that are not the victims of housing precarity,<br />
and therefore the potentials for CLH to be a tool to bring forth more equitable housing<br />
futures for those in housing need has been under-represented in academic literature<br />
and under-realised in practice.<br />
Through the example of a participatory build project – <strong>Protohome</strong> – the paper has<br />
sought to create a tentative frame to begin to conceptualize and critically analyse participation<br />
within housing processes. Whilst PAR has had little attention within the<br />
field of housing production, this paper has highlighted that processes of design and<br />
build which are grounded in the practices and philosophies of PAR can be a tool for<br />
learning, skills building, the development of confidence and the flourishing of sociality.<br />
Importantly this is also a politicized process that has transformative potential for<br />
participants, including the development of a critical consciousness on personal pasts<br />
and presents. Unlike other forms of practice, PAR overtly aims to challenge the ethics<br />
of knowledge production and draw attention to the power relationships within the<br />
participatory processes. Within housing this means questioning how knowledge in<br />
house building is normatively produced and how this process can be opened up to<br />
new groups. Furthermore it draws attention to existing and experiential knowledge of<br />
participants, as well as tacit practices of learning through making. This involves reformulating<br />
the role of the expert builder, joiner or architect - not as distant professional<br />
but as catalyst and enabler.<br />
However, there are some key challenges associated with bringing PAR into processes<br />
of housing. Because housing often requires partnerships with outside actors<br />
and agencies such as housing associations, funders, local authorities, charities,<br />
developers and contractors who may have divergent working practices and ethics,<br />
the participatory ethics and reflexive working processes of projects may be co-opted<br />
and diluted. Furthermore, it is a challenge to facilitate projects aiming to be nonhierarchical,<br />
whereby each voice is valued. These working practices might be slower<br />
and messier. As a result, this is not a process that can be facilitated in all cases – it<br />
may only fully work in pioneering cases of housing development. Yet the CLH sector<br />
is perfectly placed to bring forth projects that confront increasing housing precarity,<br />
which are open to, and controlled by, those with the least power in society.<br />
This requires the sector to be bolder – to fully assess the added social value of participatory<br />
approaches, to connect up to broader social movements fighting for<br />
access to land and housing and to bring forth projects which, whilst they may be<br />
messy and complex, actively aid people in housing need to have more control over<br />
their lives and livelihoods. Whilst more research is needed into governance models,<br />
land acquisition, building typologies, housing management and funding structures<br />
(issues that were beyond the scope of <strong>Protohome</strong> and which are likely to be context<br />
specific), by focussing in depth on the mechanics of participation in the design and<br />
build process through the philosophies of PAR, this paper provides some key tools<br />
to create a more critical and politicized CLH sector.<br />
Note<br />
1. ‘Site and service’ schemes are the provision of plots of land, whether for ownership or land<br />
lease tenure, along with the essential infrastructure needed for habitation. In the 1970s the<br />
World Bank started to promote these schemes to tackle global problems of shelter.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
Thank you to <strong>Protohome</strong> members for their involvement in, and enthusiasm for, the project.<br />
Thanks also to Jo Gooding, Rachel Pain and Ruth Raynor for reading and commenting on earlier<br />
versions of this paper and to the three anonymous referees for their generous and helpful<br />
comments.<br />
Disclosure statement<br />
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).<br />
64 65
26 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 27<br />
Funding<br />
This article was funded by Economic and Social Research Council, Economic and Social<br />
Research Council, Impact Acceleration Account Fund, Centre for Social Justice and<br />
Community Action, Durham University.<br />
Notes on contributor<br />
Julia Heslop is an artist and postdoctoral research fellow in Architecture at Newcastle<br />
University. Her work is concerned with issues of land, housing and urban development.<br />
References<br />
Allen, J. (2003) Lost Geographies of Power (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).<br />
Arendt, H. (1961) What is authority? in: Between Past and Future, 91–141 (London: Faber and<br />
Faber).<br />
Armstrong, A., & Banks, S. (2011) Co-inquiry and Related Participatory and Action<br />
Approaches to Community-Based Research (Durham: Centre for Social Justice and<br />
Community Action).<br />
Barritt, A. (2012) Unpacking localism in voluntary action: the wider context in: Localism:<br />
threat or Opportunity? Perspectives on the Localism Act for Union and Community<br />
Organisers and Activists (London: TUC).<br />
Benson, M., & Hamiduddin, I. (Eds.) (2017) Self-Build Homes: Social Discourse, Experiences<br />
and Directions (London: UCL Press).<br />
Birchall, J. (1992) Housing Cooperatives in Britain (London: Brunel University).<br />
Bradley, Q. (2008) Capturing the castle: tenant governance in social housing companies,<br />
Housing Studies, 23(6), pp. 879–897.<br />
Broome, J. (2005) Mass housing cannot be sustained in: P. Blundell Jones, D. Petrescu, & J.<br />
Till, (Eds.) Architecture and Participation, 65–75 (Oxon: Spon Press).<br />
Brydon-Miller, M., Maguire, P., & McIntyre, A. (Eds.) (2004) Traveling Companions:<br />
Feminism, Teaching, and Action Research (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group).<br />
Cairncross, L., Clapham, D., & Goodlad, R. (1994) Tenant participation and tenant power in<br />
British council housing, Public Administration, 72(2), pp. 177–200.<br />
Cairncross, L., Clapham, D., & Goodlad, R. (1997) Housing Management, Consumers and<br />
Citizens (London: Routledge).<br />
Chatterton, P. (2015) Low Impact Living: A Field Guide to Ecological, Affordable Community<br />
Building (Oxon: Routledge).<br />
Coleman, L. (2007) The Gendered Violence of Development: Imaginative Geographies of<br />
Exclusion in the Imposition of Neo-Liberal Capitalism, The British Journal of Politics and<br />
International Relations, 9, pp. 204–219.<br />
Collins, K. (2017) Building a self: community self-build and the reconstruction of identity in:<br />
M. Benson, & I. Hamiduddin, (Eds.) Self-Build Homes: Social Discourse, Experiences and<br />
Directions, 192–206 (London: UCL Press).<br />
Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing (CCMH) (2009) Bringing Democracy Home<br />
(West Bromwich: CCMH).<br />
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? (London: Zed<br />
books).<br />
Czischke, D. (2018) Collaborative housing and housing providers: Towards an analytical<br />
framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing co-production, International<br />
Journal of Housing Policy, 18, pp. 55–81.<br />
D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (2014) Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era (London:<br />
Routledge)<br />
England, K. V. (1994) Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research, The<br />
Professional Geographer, 46, pp. 80–89.<br />
Fals-Borda, O. (1987) The application of participatory action-research in Latin America,<br />
International Sociology, 2, pp. 329–347.<br />
Fals-Borda, O. (2001) Participatory action research in social theory: Origins and challenges in:<br />
P. Reason, & H. Bradbury, (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and<br />
Practice, 27–37 (Thousand Oaks: Sage).<br />
Fernandes, W., & Tandon, R. (1983) Participatory Research and Evaluation: Experiments in<br />
Research as a Process of Liberation (New Delhi: Indian Social Institute).<br />
Fernandez Arrigoitia, M., & Scanlon, K. (2017) Of flux or finality?: On the process and<br />
dynamics of a co-housing group in formation’ in: M. Benson, & I. Hamiduddin, (Eds.)<br />
Self-Build Homes: Social Discourse, Experiences and Directions, 115–137 (London: UCL<br />
Press).<br />
Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G., Wood, J., Watts, B., Stephens, M., & Blenkinsopp, J.<br />
(2019) The Homeless Monitor: England 2019 (London: Crisis).<br />
Flint, J. (2003) Housing and ethopolitics: constructing identities of active consumption and<br />
responsible community, Economy and Society, 32(4), pp. 611–629.<br />
Flint, J. (2004) The responsible tenant: housing governance and the politics of behaviour,<br />
Housing studies, 19(6), pp. 893–909.<br />
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon<br />
Books).<br />
Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978-1979<br />
(Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan).<br />
Fowles, B. (2000a) Transformative architecture: a synthesis of ecological and participatory<br />
design, in: W. Fox (Ed.) Ethics and the Built Environment, 102–114 (Oxon: Routledge).<br />
Fowles, R. A. (2000b) ‘Symmetry in design participation in the built environment:<br />
Experiences and insights from education and practice’, in: S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball,<br />
& A. Woodcock (Eds.) Collaborative Design: Proceedings of Co-Designing, 59–70<br />
(London: Springer).<br />
Freire, P. (1970 [2007]) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum).<br />
Frideres, J. (ed.). (1992) A World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives (North<br />
York: Captus Press).<br />
Fromm, D. (2012) Seeding Community: Collaborative Housing as a Strategy for Social and<br />
Neighbourhood Repair’, Built Environment, 38, pp. 364–394.<br />
Gibson-Graham, J. K., (2006) Postcapitalist Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota<br />
Press).<br />
Gooding, J., & Johnston, T. (2015) Understanding the Potential of Small Scale Community Led<br />
Housing: Community Led Organisations Leading the Way (London: Locality).<br />
Habraken, N. J. (1972) Supports: Alternative to Mass Housing (London: Architectural Press).<br />
Hardy, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016) Homelessness, Health and Housing (Leeds: University of<br />
Leeds).<br />
Hendrickson, C., & Auber, P. (2015) Leeds Self-Build and Custom-Build Strategy (Leeds: Leeds<br />
West Indian Centre).<br />
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997) A participatory inquiry paradigm, Qualitative Inquiry, 3, pp.<br />
274–294.<br />
Hutson, S., & Jones, S. (2002) Community self-build for young homeless people: Problems and<br />
potential, Housing Studies, 17, pp. 639–656.<br />
Jackson, E. (2015) Young Homeless People and Urban Space: Fixed in Mobility, (Oxon:<br />
Routledge).<br />
Jarvis, H. (2011) Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing,<br />
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43, pp. 560–577.<br />
Jarvis, H. (2015) Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence<br />
from the UK, USA and Australia’, Urban Research & Practice, 8, pp. 93–105.<br />
Kesby, M., Kindon, S., & Pain, R. (2007) ‘Participation as a form of power: retheorising<br />
empowerment and spatialising Participatory Action Research’, in: S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M.<br />
66 67
28 J. HESLOP<br />
HOUSING STUDIES 29<br />
Kesby (Eds.) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People,<br />
Participation and Place (Oxon: Routledge).<br />
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (Eds.) (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and<br />
Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place (Oxon: Routledge).<br />
Lang, R., & Stoeger, H. (2018) The Role of the Local Institutional Context in Understanding<br />
Collaborative Housing Models: empirical Evidence from Austria, International Journal of<br />
Housing Policy, 18, pp. 35–54.<br />
Larmour, P. (2002) ’Conditionality, Coercion and Other Forms of ‘Power’: international<br />
Financial Institutions in the Pacific’, Public Administration and Development, 22, pp.<br />
249–260.<br />
Manzo, L. C., & Brightbill, N. (2007) Toward a participatory ethics, in: S. Kindon, R. Pain, &<br />
M. Kesby, (Eds.) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting people,<br />
participation and place (Oxon: Routledge).<br />
McDermont, M. (2007) Mixed messages: Housing associations and corporate governance,<br />
Social & Legal Studies, 16(1), pp. 71–94.<br />
McKee, K. (2011) Sceptical, disorderly and paradoxical subjects: Problematizing the “will to<br />
empower” in social housing governance, Housing, Theory and Society, 28(1), pp. 1–18.<br />
McKee, K., & Cooper, V. (2008) The paradox of tenant empowerment: regulatory and liberatory<br />
possibilities, Housing, theory and society, 25(2), pp. 132–146.<br />
McIntyre, A. (2007) Participatory Action Research (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).<br />
Miessen, M. (2010) The Nightmare of Participation (Berlin: Sternberg Press).<br />
Mohan, G. (1999) Not so distant, not so strange: The personal and the political in participatory<br />
research, Ethics, Place and Environment, 2, pp. 41–54.<br />
Moore, T. (2016) Replication through partnership: The evolution of partnerships between<br />
community land trusts and housing associations in England, International Journal of<br />
Housing Policy, 18, pp. 1–21.<br />
Moore, T., & McKee, K. (2012) Empowering local communities? an international review of<br />
community land trusts, Housing Studies, 27, pp. 280–290.<br />
Moore, T., & Mullins, D. (2013) Scaling-up or Going-Viral: Comparing Self-Help Housing and<br />
Community Land Trust Facilitation (Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre).<br />
Mouffe, C. (Ed.) (1992) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community<br />
(London: Verso).<br />
Mouffe, C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso).<br />
Kinpaisby, M. (2008) Taking stock of participatory geographies: envisioning the communiversity,<br />
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33, pp. 292–299.<br />
Pain, R., Askins, K., Banks, S., Cook, T., Crawford, G., Crookes, L., Darby, S., Heslop, J.,<br />
Holden, A., Houston, M., Jeffes, J., Lambert, Z., McGlen, L., McGlynn, C., Ozga, J., Raynor,<br />
R., Robinson, Y., Shaw, S., Stewart, C., & Vanderhoven, D. (2015) Mapping Alternative<br />
Impact: Alternative Approaches to Impact From Co-Produced Research (Durham: Durham<br />
University Centre for Social Justice and Community Impact).<br />
Pain, R., & Francis, P. (2003) Reflections on participatory research, Area, 35, pp. 46–54.<br />
Pieterse, E. (2008) City Futures: Confronting the Crisis of Urban Development (London: Zed<br />
Books).<br />
Raco, M. (2013) State-led Privatisation and the Demise of the Democratic State: Welfare Reform<br />
and Localism in an Era of Regulatory Capitalism (London: Routledge).<br />
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry<br />
and Practice (Thousand Oaks: Sage).<br />
Rudman, H., Bailey-Ross, C., Kendal, J., Mursic, Z., Lloyd, A., Ross, B., & Kendal, R. L. (2017)<br />
Multidisciplinary exhibit design in a Science Centre: A participatory action research<br />
approach, Educational Action Research, 26, pp. 567–588.<br />
Sennett, R. (2008) The Craftsman (London: Allen Lane).<br />
Stokke, O. (Ed.) (2013) Aid and Political Conditionality (Oxon: Routledge).<br />
Taggart, R. (Ed.) (1997) Participatory Action Research: Contexts and Consequences (New York:<br />
SUNY Press).<br />
Teasdale, S., Jones, P. A., & Mullins, D. (2011) Connecting the Dots: The Potential for Self-Help<br />
Housing to Address Homelessness (Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre).<br />
Tummers, L. (2015) Introduction to the special issue: Towards a long-term perspective of selfmanaged<br />
collaborative housing initiatives, Urban Research & Practice, 8, pp. 1–4.<br />
Turner, J. F. C. (1977) Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments (New<br />
York: Pantheon Books).<br />
Turok, I. (1993) Tackling Poverty through Housing Investment: An Evaluation of a<br />
Community Self-Build Project in Glasgow, Housing Studies, 8, pp. 47–59.<br />
Umenyilora, C. (2000) ‘Empowering the self-builder, in: J. Hughes, & S. Sadler, (Eds.) Non-<br />
Plan: Essays on Freedom, Participation and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism,<br />
210–221 (Oxford: Architectural Press).<br />
Wadsworth, Y. (1998) What is participatory action research?, Action Research International,<br />
Paper 2<br />
Whitman, G. P., Pain, R., & Milledge, D. G. (2015) Going with the Flow? Using participatory<br />
action research in physical geography, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and<br />
Environment, 39, pp. 622–639.<br />
Whitzman, C. (2017) Participatory action research in affordable housing partnerships: collaborative<br />
rationality, or sleeping with the growth machine?, Planning Practice and Research,<br />
32, pp. 495–507.<br />
Wynne-Jones, S., North, P., & Routledge, P. (2015) Practising Participatory geographies: potentials,<br />
problems and politics, Area, 47, pp. 218–221.<br />
Yalom, D. I. (1970) The Theory and Practice of Psychotherapy (New York: Basic Books).<br />
68<br />
69
Appendix B: Marketing Material<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> flyer front<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> poster<br />
<strong>Protohome</strong> flyer back<br />
70 71
© Julia Heslop 2021