26.10.2022 Views

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!