Exploring co-creation though cross-sectorial collaboration
SciArt operates as an emerging community of practice at the intersection of science, art and policy. Emerging as a bottom-up initiative within the highly institutionalized environment of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the SciArt project exemplifies how interdisciplinary collaboration can revolutionize both creative and scientific practices.
Since its launch in 2016, SciArt has been breaking down barriers between the traditionally separate fields of art, science and policymaking. Through co-creation, the project brings together artists, scientists and policy makers from the outset to develop artworks.
How does this work?
Co-creation in SciArt involves collaboration and shared responsibility. Rather than a top-down approach where curators or scientists control the content, co-creation ensures that all participants – artists, scientists and policy makers – contribute equally to the process. Within the SciArt project, the collaborative spirit drives both the creation of artwork and the exploration of scientific ideas. SciArt brings together different perspectives and inspires new approaches to tackling contemporary global issues such as sustainability and environmental responsibility. The last exhibition, NaturArchy: Towards A Natural Contract (2024), the result of two years of collaboration, invites us to reimagine our relationship to nature.
Contribution
What sets the SciArt initiative apart is its emphasis on experimentation. By fostering creativity, curiosity and collaboration, it creates an environment where participants can break new ground and produce new science-related art that engages broader audiences and challenges traditional perception of science. SciArt aims to inspire societal change as it addresses critical issues such as sustainability and the decolonisation of nature. The project challenges existing systems and narratives, encouraging participants to re-imagine possibilities and drive meaningful change.
We want to learn from your experiences. Feel free to leave your comment.
How GLAM Institutions Are Rewriting the Rulebook: Adapting to the Post-Pandemic and Digital Age?
Cultural institutions like museums, galleries, and archives—known collectively as GLAMs—have always prided themselves on being community-focused, participatory spaces. But the pandemic and the rise of digital technology have thrown these principles into sharp relief, pushing these institutions to adapt their management and organizational practices faster than ever before. How do these institutions maintain their identity while responding to new societal demands? And more importantly, how do they keep their core participatory practices intact in the face of rapid change? Our case study of the Schwules Museum in Berlin provides some compelling insights into these questions. The study explores the challenges GLAMs face as they attempt to balance traditional values with the modern pressures of digitization and post-pandemic reconfiguration.
ECHN met Ares Kalandides (Inpolis) and discussed what he has learned about the evolving role of management practices in cultural commons.
PART II
ECHN: Would you like to share some specific tools that emerged from this study?
AK: What emerged was the importance of communication and moderation in managing this shift. Moderation and clear vision were identified as essential tools for mediating between different stakeholder groups and creating an environment where all voices could be heard. Volunteers and staff alike needed a platform to express their concerns and ideas, ensuring that the institution’s participatory nature wasn’t lost in the process.
ECHN: How do you envision the Future of GLAMs?
AK: The paper concludes by emphasizing that the future of GLAMs lies in their ability to remain flexible—adapting to new internal and external demands—while remaining faithful to their foundational participatory principles. As these institutions expand and professionalize, they must continue to prioritize the involvement of their communities, volunteers, and commoners in the decision making process.
ECHN: What would be your suggestions for Museums?
AK: In the case of the Schwules Museum, the study suggests that institutions can succeed by finding new tools for coordination and conflict resolution. By embracing new organizational practices that still allow for participatory governance, GLAMs can continue to evolve without losing their original sense of identity.
ECHN: What can we take away from this research?
AK: First and foremost, that change is inevitable, especially in today’s fast-paced, post pandemic world. But that doesn’t mean institutions must abandon their participatory values. Instead, they should actively involve their communities in shaping the future of their practices. Whether through bottom-up initiatives, clearer communication channels, or more structured decision making processes, GLAMs must learn how to navigate these changes in a way that respects their history and ethos. As digitization and the pandemic continue to shape the cultural landscape, the research highlights a crucial point: the future of cultural commons will depend on institutions’ ability to adapt while staying rooted in the participatory principles that make them unique. The challenge now is to build GLAM institutions that are both innovative and inclusive, ensuring that their future is as vibrant and community oriented as their past.
ECHN: What are the conclusions from this research?
AK: The Schwules Museum case study offers a valuable lens through which we can better understand the evolving nature of cultural commons. As GLAMs face the challenges of modernity, they must remember that their greatest strength lies in their ability to bring people together whether physically or digitally—around shared values and practices. The future of these institutions will depend not just on how they adapt to external pressures, but on how they continue to center the voices of the very communities they were built to serve.
How GLAM Institutions Are Rewriting the Rulebook: Adapting to the Post-Pandemic and Digital Age?
Cultural institutions like museums, galleries, and archives—known collectively as GLAMs—have always prided themselves on being community-focused, participatory spaces. But the pandemic and the rise of digital technology have thrown these principles into sharp relief, pushing these institutions to adapt their management and organizational practices faster than ever before. How do these institutions maintain their identity while responding to new societal demands? And more importantly, how do they keep their core participatory practices intact in the face of rapid change? Our case study of the Schwules Museum in Berlin provides some compelling insights into these questions. The study explores the challenges GLAMs face as they attempt to balance traditional values with the modern pressures of digitization and post-pandemic reconfiguration.
ECHN met Ares Kalandides (Inpolis) and discussed what he has learned about the evolving role of management practices in cultural commons.
PART I
ECHN: What did your research reveal about the central question for GLAMs today: How can they remain true to their core values community involvement, participatory decision- making, and cultural representation—while adapting to external pressures?
AK: The pandemic has forced many institutions to reassess how they operate, and digitization has only added another layer of complexity. In the case of the Schwules Museum, which has seen significant growth and international recognition in recent years, the introduction of new organizational practices created friction within the institution.
ECHN: You mean, for example, how the museum can introduce new exhibition topics, attract more visitors, and meet the expectations of a global audience without compromising its core values.
AK: Yes, as the museum expanded to meet growing demands, it found itself at a crossroads. The internal challenges were palpable: volunteers expressed frustration over a lack of communication and coordination, while management struggled to maintain a cohesive vision.
ECHN: Can you talk a bit more about the role of volunteers in shaping the museum’s organizational practices?
AK: At the heart of this shift is the crucial role of volunteers, who often form the backbone of GLAM institutions. Many of them felt that as the institution grew, their voices were being drowned out by the expanding operations. Despite the museum’s commitment to participatory practices, volunteers expressed frustration over hierarchical divisions and a perceived lack of agency.
ECHN: What was the direct impact on the organisation?
AK: The research revealed that three key organizational modes emerged in response to these challenges: top-down professional consultancy, bottom-up semi-professional practices, and routinized participatory modes. These modes reflected the growing diversity of duties and thematic focuses within the museum but also highlighted the tensions between professional management and volunteer-driven governance.
ECHN: How can new organizational practices be seen as legitimate by the museum’s stakeholders, particularly its volunteers?
AK: The crux of the issue lies in legitimacy. As GLAMs, like the Schwules Museum, adapt to new demands, they must also ensure that their practices remain aligned with the values that originally gave them legitimacy. The research found that the museum’s management was caught in a delicate balancing act: striving to meet the external expectations imposed by global trends, while keeping the core participatory ethos alive.
The seminar marked the conclusion of the CROWDCULT research project on crowdfunding in the cultural sector, a collaborative initiative led by international partners from Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, University of Agder, University of South-Eastern Norway, University for the Creative Arts (UK), and University of Barcelona (Spain).
GLAMMONS aims to explore and assess practices related to management, finance, and participation within GLAMs.
Our partners regularly present the project and their research at conferences and events.
Recently, during an online masterclass for a PhD class at Peking University, Marilena Vecco (BSB) introduced GLAMMONS, focusing on her research with Lyudmila Petrova (Creare) and arts management in Europe.
Building on the taxonomy of cultural commons the masterclass “Making collective entrepreneurship in arts: the Nouveaux Commanditaires” explored the relationships between cultural goods and commons, focusing on entrepreneurship practices. Specifically, looking at the practices related to collective entrepreneuship that are implemented in the project.
Did you know the Schwules Museum in Berlin? The Museum stands as the most important international center for researching, preserving, and presenting the culture and history of queer individuals, sexual and gender diversity, and is a sought-after collaborative partner for museums, universities, cultural support institutions, artists, and activists from around the world.
The Museum is an inspiring practices of GLAMs operating as commons and exemplifies the significance of community engagement, volunteerism, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources.
Read more about this case #3:
The Schwules Museum in Berlin by Ares Kalandides, Bastian Lange and Georgios Thodos
The Schwules Museum is worldwide unique because it combines political expression, scientific archival work, exhibitions, and workshops within an association structure.
It focuses on LGBTQ+ history and culture and remains adaptable to changing demands while maintaining a strong volunteer presence.
The sponsor of the Museum is the non-profit Association of Friends of the Schwules Museum in Berlin, founded in 1985. In addition to institutional funding by the State of Berlin, entrees fees, membership fees and donations form an indispensable source of income.
The association is run by a board of executives that are volunteers and that are elected for 2 years by the members of the association. The board is in charge for the financial stability, employees, and the thematic principles of the association. Approximately 60 volunteers secure many daily activities.
The core values are a distinct search for a secure space to express needs of each sexual identity, protection from political oppression, anti-LGTBQ+-expression as well as fascism, racism, and practices of socio-spatial exclusion. The museum’s staff, its volunteers and members transfer and express these values not only within the institution (e.g. in meetings, exhibitions, gatherings) but also in public venues such as at parades, political, academic, and cultural venues.
The Schwules Museum hosts a range of collaborations in different thematic fields and on different scales.
Starting from worldwide academic and research-oriented collaboration to joint political activities in Berlin as well as educational offers for local to international students, guests, and tourists.
Do you have a similar community engagement?
Overcoming financial constraints, addressing community engagement issues, or finding innovative ways to ensure sustainability, what are your success stories? How these obstacles can be surmounted? We invite you to share valuable insights and best practices, and to offer practical guidance for those looking to embark on similar initiatives.
We want to learn from your experiences. Feel free to leave your comment.
The conference aims to map research activities in Greece, foster discussions among stakeholders, and create opportunities for new collaborations.
The main theme of the 2024 conference will focus on the evolution of labor and production/consumption in the Culture and Creative Industries (CCIs) in light of the various transformations of recent years, such as the pandemic and economic crises.
In addition to the obvious importance of technology as a key factor in shaping the operating environment of CCIs, developments in platforms and artificial intelligence are introducing new challenges for creative and artistic labor. Furthermore, new forms of spatial organization for labor and production are emerging, including collaborative workspaces, creative hubs, and shared workspaces, alongside new partnerships in the social and solidarity economy, cultural commons, and more.
Researchers from Panteion University will present Glammons during the session “The GLAMs of the Commons” on December 6th at the Archaeological Museum (10:00-11:00 AM).
Presentations include:
“Public Libraries, Archives, and Museums: A Conceptual Framework” by Vasilis Avdikos and Martha Michailidou
“Grassroots Archives: Networks and Subjectivities” by Dimitris Pettas
“Motivations, Dynamics, and Characteristics of Collective Action in the Commons of Culture” by Mina Dragouni
“Archaeological Sites in the Public Sphere: Possibilities, Perspectives, and Limitations” by Katerina Konstantinou
This week, we invite you to discover another inspiring practice of GLAMs operating as commons. This case exemplifies the significance of community engagement, volunteerism, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources. It shares a commitment to creating and sustaining accessible spaces for knowledge-sharing and cultural enrichment, often adapting to evolving circumstances and community needs.
We want to learn from your experiences.
Overcoming financial constraints, addressing community engagement issues, or finding innovative ways to ensure sustainability, what are your success stories? How these obstacles can be surmounted? We invite you to share valuable insights and best practices, and to offer practical guidance for those looking to embark on similar initiatives.
Case #2: The Contemporary Social History Archives (ASKI) in Athens by Mina Dragouni and Dimitris Pettas
The Contemporary Social History Archives (Αρχεία Σύγχρονης Κοινωνικής Ιστορίας – henceforth, ASKI) was established in 1992 as a civic non-profit organisation based in Athens, to preserve the history and memory of the Greek leftist political and social movements. It brings together a community of experts, who share an interest in the genealogy and biography of the Greek New Left.
The ASKI community (around 70 members) consists of historians and other scholars across the humanities and social sciences, a small team of paid staff (around 10) and an affiliated group of ‘friends’ (around 250).
ASKI holds a rich collection of archives (about 5 million files), which are open to the public. These include, among others, the records of political parties of the Greek Left, official reports documenting significant ‘chapters’ of recent national history (e.g. Resistance to Axis Occupation during WWII, Civil War 1946-49), personal archives and a collection that chronicles social movements, grassroots organisations and ethnic minorities in Greece in the post-WWII era (through oral testaments, photographs etc.). Around these archival collections, ASKI designs and delivers a rich programme of activities for the general public and audiences, including publications (books, periodicals), radio shows, historic walking tours, conferences and public talks.
ASKI provides free access to its archives and library. No attendance charges apply to its public engagement activities (e.g. walking tours) and other public events, with the exception of ASKI’s periodical sold at a small fee.
ASKI receives no direct state funding (e.g. through the Ministry of Culture) while a considerable amount of its operation costs (i.e. staff salaries and buildings’ maintenance) is covered through funds channelled by SYRIZA opposition political party.
ASKI cherishes openness and citizens’ access to history as a public good. Its work promotes historical awareness and the collective memories of marginalised social, political and ethnic groups (in a way, contributing to social justice and diversity). ASKI is also tied to the New Left and its values/beliefs.
If you want to know more about the importance of dissemination and exploitation, how to disseminate and exploit your research results, discover the free-of-charge dissemination and exploitation services, and find advice and resources for beneficiaries, we invite you to click here.
To complete the guidance made available for beneficiaries on their website, the European Research Executive Agency (REA) also released two new videos for beneficiaries.
We invite you to discover inspiring practices of GLAMs operating as commons. Each case exemplifies the significance of community engagement, volunteerism, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources. They share a commitment to creating and sustaining accessible spaces for knowledge-sharing and cultural enrichment, often adapting to evolving circumstances and community needs.
We want to learn from your experiences.
Overcoming financial constraints, addressing community engagement issues, or finding innovative ways to ensure sustainability, what are your success stories? How these obstacles can be surmounted? We invite you to share valuable insights and best practices, and to offer practical guidance for those looking to embark on similar initiatives.
Case #1: The Oral History Groups in Greece by Mina Dragouni and Dimitris Pettas
The Oral History Group (OHG) constitutes a unique case of bottom-up, self-organised initiatives’ network around the creation and dissemination of oral history archives.
The first Oral History Group was created in 2011, followed by five more in 2013 and 2014, in the midst of the multileveled crisis in Greece, aspiring to provide self-organised, grassroots groups of non-professional historians, yet highly educated, with essential methods, skills and tools in order to collect oral testimonies, mainly from everyday people, and create relevant archives. The Oral History Group network positions itself in the landscape of the large-scale mobilisations that emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, as expressed nationally – through the “squares’ movement”, as well as internationally, through the “Occupy” and the “Arab spring” movements. While the first groups developed in central Athens, during the following years, relevant groups also operated in smaller cities and islands around Greece. The OHG network is now (2023) comprising approximately 19 distinct groups, three of which developed around specific themes (e.g., the feminist OHG), while the remaining 16 have a specific geographical focus, extending from neighbourhoods to cities and islands.
The OHGs unique attributes which are contributing to their commons-oriented character lie in :
-their overall horizontal governance and management concerning each distinct group, as well as the “umbrella”, coordinating body, which operate and take decisions through assemblies that take place every three months,
-the inclusive and horizontal content creation, as the groups collectively decide on the content of the archives and design/ implement the data-collection process,
-the ties and relations of mutual support between OHGs’ members with actors and networks, extending from social movements and residents’ associations to local authorities and academic institutions,
-the clearly stated claim on behalf of the OHGs to operate as progressive political actors and
-their cooperative and open organisational structure.
The total of the OHGs, as well as the coordinating body are informal, meaning that they do not have a legal status/ form and ownership. Alongside that, there is no official membership status for participants. Nevertheless, OHGs are created, operate and design/ implement their activities under specific rules which are collectively decided upon. Moreover, there is a common methodology employed concerning the collection of oral testimonies, as well as the creation and maintenance of historical archives. As for the structure, there is no fixed organisation chart that includes sub-groups or a specific allocation of roles and duties. On the contrary, all members participate in the total of necessary tasks, varying on the time each one can devote to the group.
OHGs have limited operational expenses, which mainly concern the necessary equipment for creating and maintaining the archives (recorders, hard drives etc.). Members burden with these expenses themselves, while the volunteer engagement and provision of labour on behalf of the members significantly contributes to the financial sustainability of the groups. Moreover, they also rely on external actors, mostly for the provision of spaces and venues for the organisation of events. This mode of financing plays a key role in providing the groups with independence and autonomy but, on the downside, the lack of legal status prevents OHGs from applying for external funding through the acquisition of grants, participation in research projects, public funding etc.
The OHGs are motivated by and have clearly stated political and societal values, including the development of alternative narratives about history which could be employed in attempts to confront ongoing social, political and economic challenges, the juxtaposing of collective memory to the “faceless markets and oblivion”, the promoting of alternative modes of bottom-up (self)organisation and collectivity, the co-production of archives building upon cooperative principles. As we find in their website: “oral testimonies have a particular weight in a society in which painful memories are “hidden from history”, such as the Greek civil war trauma. People’s suffering because of the crisis has incited demands for a truth that is more “truthful” than history, the truth of personal experience and individual memory. And, last but not least, there is a remarkable analogy with the “acceleration” and the “democratization” of history. That’s why, in this time of crisis, oral history has become a “people’s project””.
OHGs build upon extended networks towards both gaining support and disseminating their operational model and archives. These networks include educational institutions (from primary schools and high schools to university departments), libraries and archives, social movements, professional and residents’ associations, local authorities etc. Concerning the aforementioned actors, collaboration can undertake various forms, from the provision of spaces and venues to presentations, walk tours and seminars.
Due to the informal character of the OHGs and the lack of a legal status that would enable their ‘official’ involvement in institutional actors’ processes, collaboration is also informal, often building upon the extent of the interpersonal and professional networks of the members.
