During the walk, look for signs of 'datafication' in the physical environment and think about the values they reflect. Consider what kinds of values are present and for whom; which and whose values may be invisible or rejected?

*datafication may include (but it is not limited to): infrastructure, data collecting devices, data about the area, spatial / physical interventions based on data.

start walk
[short talk to 'frame' the walk]

end walk
[coffee break]

form groups & assign roles (3-4 people per group, to include a note-taker, a data-collector and a map-maker).
*use instant cameras for capturing images.

aim: towards identifying emergent or potential controversies arising from datafication in connection to a specific urban context.
[next step > collective issue mapping]

experience & value mapping
[groups reflect individually on the walk experience and map values]

3. [20']

1. [1h]

aim: towards collaboratively defining forms of engaging diverse publics with the issues and controversies identified.
[next step > framing design interventions]

Using pre-designed sheets, each group creates a map of the walk, noting the values reflected in signs of datafication captured through instant photos, and their experience (tensions, issues, feelings).

*when discussing values, the groups should also reflect on them from the perspective of who might benefit / lose out. Identifying a minimum of 2-3 values for each form of datafication would be desirable.

4. [40']

controversy graph & tactics
[participants brainstorm on potential tactics / interventions to address controversies]

Step 1: Based on a discussion of the experience & value maps, the participants collectively map out emergent or potential controversies according to levels of visibility, using a pre-defined 'controversy graph'.

Step 2: The participants brainstorm on tactics (design interventions) that could be used to broaden engagement and debate on the controversies discussed. At least one type of intervention should be identified for each level of controversy visibility, identifying also publics / stakeholders, mode / medium and projects / cases to which they could connect.

"controversy co-design walkshop"

co-designing for smart city controversies

format to be refined and repeated with other groups

sessions to prototype design interventions
[reflecting on co-designed intervention frameworks, research team to define and prototype design interventions related to specific controversies, on the ground]

reflection on the capacity of design interventions to generate engagement / debate (publics?)

[end / borrel]

[take 1] / consortium partner meeting
27.11.2019

2. [30']

aim: towards transposing the findings of the "controversy co-design walkshop" into design interventions to be prototyped.
[follow-up prototyping sessions]

partner debrief & updates
[consortium partners share project updates]

Reflecting on the walk and the issues that it has triggered, the partners share project updates. These will be discussed again in relation to stage 4 / tactics.