Explore the full ebook collection and download it now at ebookball.

com

Co creation for Responsible Research and

Innovation 1st edition by Alessandro Deserti,
Marion Real, Felicitas Schmittinger 3030787354
978-3030787356
https://ebookball.com/product/co-creation-for-responsible-
research-and-innovation-1st-edition-by-alessandro-deserti-
marion-real-felicitas-
schmittinger-3030787354-978-3030787356-24334/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Browse and Get More Ebook Downloads Instantly at https://ebookball.com

Click here to visit ebookball.com and download ebookball now
 Your digital treasures (PDF, ePub, MOBI) await
Download instantly and pick your perfect format...

Read anywhere, anytime, on any device!

Co Creation Reshaping Business and Society in the Era of

Bottom up Economics 1st Edition by Tobias Redlich, Manuel
Moritz, Jens Wulfsberg ISBN 3319977873 978-3319977874
https://ebookball.com/product/co-creation-reshaping-business-and-
society-in-the-era-of-bottom-up-economics-1st-edition-by-tobias-
redlich-manuel-moritz-jens-wulfsberg-
isbn-3319977873-978-3319977874-24514/
ebookball.com

(Ebook PDF) Innovation Project Management Methods Case

Studies and Tools for Managing Innovation Projects 2nd
edition by Harold Kerzner 111993124X 978-1119931249 full
chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-innovation-project-management-
methods-case-studies-and-tools-for-managing-innovation-projects-2nd-
edition-by-harold-kerzner-111993124x-978-1119931249-full-
chapters-21778/
ebookball.com

Quakers Business and Corporate Responsibility Lessons and

Cases for Responsible Management 1st edition by Nicholas
Burton, Richard Turnbull ISBN ‎ B0DF3KRYBC
978-3030040338
https://ebookball.com/product/quakers-business-and-corporate-
responsibility-lessons-and-cases-for-responsible-management-1st-
edition-by-nicholas-burton-richard-turnbull-isbn-
aeurz-b0df3krybc-978-3030040338-24558/
ebookball.com

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Value Creation Needs

as a Strategic Focus for Organizations 1st edition by
Florian Kragulj ISBN 3031127285 Â 978-3031127281
https://ebookball.com/product/knowledge-management-and-sustainable-
value-creation-needs-as-a-strategic-focus-for-organizations-1st-
edition-by-florian-kragulj-isbn-3031127285-978-3031127281-20690/

ebookball.com
The Socially Responsible Organization Lessons from COVID
1st edition by Ian Mitroff 303099807X 978-3030998073

https://ebookball.com/product/the-socially-responsible-organization-
lessons-from-covid-1st-edition-by-ian-
mitroff-303099807x-978-3030998073-24284/

ebookball.com

Emerging Technologies Value Creation for Sustainable

Development 1st edition by Sinan Kufeoglu ISBN 3031071270
9783031071270
https://ebookball.com/product/emerging-technologies-value-creation-
for-sustainable-development-1st-edition-by-sinan-kufeoglu-
isbn-3031071270-9783031071270-24276/

ebookball.com

Building the Hyperconnected Society IoT Research and

Innovation Value Chains Ecosystems and Markets 1st edition
by Ovidiu Vermesan, Peter Friess ISBN 8793237995
 ‎ 978-8793237995
https://ebookball.com/product/building-the-hyperconnected-society-iot-
research-and-innovation-value-chains-ecosystems-and-markets-1st-
edition-by-ovidiu-vermesan-peter-friess-
isbn-8793237995-aeurz-978-8793237995-20284/
ebookball.com

(Ebook PDF) Creating Effective Teaching and Learning

Environments First Results from TALIS 1st edition by
Organisation for Economic Co-operation 9789264056053 full
chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-creating-effective-teaching-
and-learning-environments-first-results-from-talis-1st-edition-by-
organisation-for-economic-co-operation-9789264056053-full-
chapters-23264/
ebookball.com

Business Innovation For Dummies 1st Edition by Alexander

Hiam 0470601744 9780470601747

https://ebookball.com/product/business-innovation-for-dummies-1st-
edition-by-alexander-hiam-0470601744-9780470601747-14044/

ebookball.com
Springer Series in Design and Innovation 15

Alessandro Deserti
Marion Real
Felicitas Schmittinger Editors

Co-creation for
Responsible
Research and
Innovation
Experimenting with Design Methods
and Tools
Springer Series in Design and Innovation

Volume 15

Editor-in-Chief
Francesca Tosi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

Series Editors
Claudio Germak, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
Francesco Zurlo, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Zhi Jinyi, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Marilaine Pozzatti Amadori, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria,
Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Maurizio Caon , University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Fribourg, Switzerland
Springer Series in Design and Innovation (SSDI) publishes books on innovation
and the latest developments in the fields of Product Design, Interior Design and
Communication Design, with particular emphasis on technological and formal
innovation, and on the application of digital technologies and new materials. The
series explores all aspects of design, e.g. Human-Centered Design/User Experience,
Service Design, and Design Thinking, which provide transversal and innovative
approaches oriented on the involvement of people throughout the design
development process. In addition, it covers emerging areas of research that may
represent essential opportunities for economic and social development.
In fields ranging from the humanities to engineering and architecture, design is
increasingly being recognized as a key means of bringing ideas to the market by
transforming them into user-friendly and appealing products or services. Moreover,
it provides a variety of methodologies, tools and techniques that can be used at
different stages of the innovation process to enhance the value of new products and
services.
The series’ scope includes monographs, professional books, advanced textbooks,
selected contributions from specialized conferences and workshops, and outstand-
ing Ph.D. theses.

Keywords: Product and System Innovation; Product design; Interior design;

Communication Design; Human-Centered Design/User Experience; Service
Design; Design Thinking; Digital Innovation; Innovation of Materials.

How to submit proposals

Proposals must include: title, keywords, presentation (max 10,000 characters), table
of contents, chapter abstracts, editors’/authors’ CV.
In case of proceedings, chairmen/editors are requested to submit the link to
conference website (incl. relevant information such as committee members, topics,
key dates, keynote speakers, information about the reviewing process, etc.), and
approx. number of papers.
Proposals must be sent to: series editor Prof. Francesca Tosi ([email protected])
and/or publishing editor Mr. Pierpaolo Riva ([email protected]).

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16270

Alessandro Deserti · Marion Real ·
Felicitas Schmittinger
Editors

Co-creation for Responsible

Research and Innovation
Experimenting with Design Methods
and Tools
Editors
Alessandro Deserti Marion Real
Department of Design Fab Lab Barcelona
Politecnico di Milano Barcelona, Spain
Milan, Italy

Felicitas Schmittinger
Department of Design
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy

ISSN 2661-8184 ISSN 2661-8192 (electronic)

Springer Series in Design and Innovation
ISBN 978-3-030-78732-5 ISBN 978-3-030-78733-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78733-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribu-
tion and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were
made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

The relationship between science, technology and society is being rethought towards
logics of permeability and dialogue, rendering the needs, desires and expectations
of the latter as important drivers for innovation. A paradigmatic shift concerning
the role of citizens in science, research and innovation is witnessed, as well as in
Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policymaking. In particular, the discourse
on public engagement and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) powerfully
became a matter of spread interest, showing the need of models that lead to an
effective integration of co-design and bottom-up co-creation initiatives for encour-
aging/stimulating scientific and technological advancement as the result of a synergic,
inclusive cooperation among actors that usually work autonomously. To address the
topic, 17 cross-sector partners from all over Europe started the three-year EU-funded
project SISCODE (Society in Innovation and Science through CO-DEsign). Inter-
connecting an analysis of the theoretical background and existing cases with real-life
experimentations (RLEs), the investigation sets up a reflective and learning frame-
work to explore the transformations in initiatives and policies emerging from the
interaction between citizens and stakeholders.
The book presents a critical analysis of the co-design processes activated in 10 co-
creation laboratories addressing societal challenges across Europe. Each laboratory
as a case study of a RLE is described through its journey, starting from the purpose
on the ground of the experimentation and the challenge addressed. Specific atten-
tion is then drawn on the role of policies and policymaker engagement. Finally, the
experimentation is enquired in terms of its output, transformations triggered within
the organisation and the overall ecosystem, and its outcomes, opening the reasoning
towards the lessons learnt and reflections that the entire co-creation journey brought.

Milan, Italy Alessandro Deserti

Barcelona, Spain Marion Real
Milan, Italy Felicitas Schmittinger

v
Contents

Between Science, Technology and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo
A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts . . . . 11
Marion Real and Felicitas Schmittinger
Framing Real-Life Experimentations as Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Stefano Crabu, Ilaria Mariani, and Felicitas Schmittinger
FabLab Barcelona—Co-design With Food Surplus: Better
Redistributing, Upcycling and Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Marion Real, Anastasia Pistofidou, and Milena Juarez Calvo
Polifactory. Transforming Playful Movement into Sound:
Co-create a Smart System for Children with Cerebral Palsy . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Carla Sedini, Laura Cipriani, Mirko Gelsomini, Stefano Maffei,
and Massimo Bianchini
Maker—Plastic In, Plastic Out: Circular Economy and Local
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Asger Nørregård-Rasmussen, Malte Hertz-Jansen, and Felicitas Schmittinger
KTP—Collectively Improving Air Quality in Krakow: A New Air
Quality Plan for the Małopolska Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Agnieszka Włodarczyk-G˛ebik, Aleksandra Gabriel, Maria Dubis,
and Monika Machowska
PA4ALL—Innovative Learning Methods for Education
in Agriculture: An ICT Based Learning Programme for High
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Isidora Stojacic

vii
viii Contents

ThessAHALL—A Life-Long Learning Programme for the Social

Inclusion of “Early-Stage” Older Adult Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Despoina Mantziari, Evdokimos Konstantinidis, Despoina Petsani,
Nikolaos Kyriakidis, Vassiliki Zilidou, Efstathios Sidiropoulos,
Maria Nikolaidou, Aikaterini-Marina Katsouli, and Panagiotis Bamidis
Ciência Viva—Promoting Marine Activities Around Lisbon:
Self-Constructed Boats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Gonçalo Praça
Cube Design Museum—Empathic Co-design for Societal Impact . . . . . . . 109
Anja Köppchen
Science Gallery Dublin—Open Mind: Improving Mental Health
of Young People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Grace D’Arcy and Ilaria Mariani
TRACES—In 2030, Artificial Intelligences Will Visit Museums? . . . . . . . 129
Matteo Merzagora, Aude Ghilbert, and Axel Meunier
Assessing Co-creation in Relation to Context for RRI
Operationalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
Between Science, Technology and Society

Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

The intersection and permeability of science, innovation and society result in a series
of benefits and challenges, underlying the important role the latter can and should
play. The following paragraphs present the theoretical background and the objectives
of the SISCODE (Society in Innovation and Science through CO-DEsign) project
investigating this interconnection, the issues that emerged through its journey and
the results gained. Therefore, it frames the knowledge obtained throughout the three-
year duration of the project, situating the notion of Responsible Research and Inno-
vation (RRI) in the co-creation domain, and introducing the issues that emerge when
moving from the theoretical concept to practice [1, 2]. It inspects how co-creation
and design knowledge and tools can be applied to engage citizens in shaping solu-
tions that are meant to be more inclusive, responsible and sustainable, and how these
approaches and methodologies could be applied to operationalize RRI. Particular
attention is drawn to how small-scale experimentations can lead to significant scale-
in, scale-up and scale-out processes. The book will show how these processes can
lead to organizational learning and transformation, but also how they can provide
evidence-based knowledge which nurtures policy making processes with the poten-
tial of achieving broader societal impacts in Science, Technology and Innovation
(STI) policy making [3]. Investigating the benefits and implications of applying
participatory research and innovation approaches in society, this chapter embraces
a context-sensitive perspective [4] and explores the crossroads of diverse forms of
innovation: not only research-driven but also practice-based, and not only technolog-
ical but also social. This reasoning provided the theoretical background which led to
the construction of a learning framework, adopted as a guide for the 10 co-creation
labs in which the real-life experimentations described in this volume were conducted.

A. Deserti (B) · F. Rizzo

Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, 20158 Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2022 1

A. Deserti et al. (eds.), Co-creation for Responsible Research and Innovation,
Springer Series in Design and Innovation 15,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78733-2_1
2 A. Deserti and F. Rizzo

1 Areas of Interest of the SISCODE Project

SISCODE combined diverse fields of study and areas of work. In particular, the
research and innovation project investigated the relationship between RRI and co-
creation, with a specific focus on STI policy making. These distinct matters have been
reconnected in theory and practice, identifying a potentiality of achieving positive
results and impacts when applying co-creation approaches, methodologies and tools
to operationalize RRI [5].
Responsible Research and Innovation
Innovation and science are powerful drivers when it comes to the development
of all factors that influence modern society and therefore the direction of trans-
formation of societies and all the single individuals that are a part of it [6]. The
recognition of this influence has led to the emergence of a new approach in the fields
of science, research and innovation, to make them more responsible impacting STI
policy making. The emergence of the approach within the framework and context
of European policy making dates back to 2011 having been introduced as a top-
down approach for research policy which contrasts with the concept itself promoting
bottom-up initiatives and pathways to innovation [7].
RRI entails the transition from solutions developed internally within the research
community and only tolerated passively by society towards ones that are taking
citizens and other actors actively into consideration as part of the development of
solutions that are more apt to achieve desirable results with a high impact [6].
This reflection on the societal impact of innovation calls for a change in innovation
processes and a shift of roles of its actors, including all players into the innovation
process, which should lead to sharing and redefining power, privileges and respon-
sibilities [2]. Apart from the aspect of inclusion, RRI aims to anticipate impacts
by analyzing the contexts of implementation and taking into account all the actors
and factors that influence the implementation of a solution. Furthermore, findings
throughout the development are planned to impact on the process itself, making it
more reflective, flexible and responsive to new insights and perspectives [8].
Witnessing this shift towards the involvement of citizens and other actors in the
innovation process, it is necessary to understand its potentialities as well as its impli-
cations: this calls for new approaches, techniques, processes and mindsets for the
effective integration and involvement of society in innovation.
Despite having been widely discussed in theory as a relevant opportunity to move
towards more sustainable futures [9], there’s still a lack of evidence of impacts of
RRI in empirical settings, which leaves open issues especially in terms of context-
sensitivity and translation from theory into practice for real and measurable impact
[10].
It has been recognized that the full adoption of RRI requires an in-depth trans-
formation in organizations and ecosystems or institutional settings, to be embedded
as a general approach towards innovation that requires the reflection not only on the
outcomes of innovation itself but also the purpose and process of innovating leading
to a shift in the overall mindset and way of working.
Between Science, Technology and Society 3

The scientific and technological advancement and the responsibility related to it

discussed in RRI directly refers to the substantial societal challenges that are being
tackled with innovation [2].
Co-creation
Co-creation has received significant attention in the context of innovation in recent
years, in particular as a part of the field of participatory design. It has been identified
as a potential booster for the implementation of new and experimental solutions
due to both its practicality and its versatility in adapting to diverse and changing
environments and contexts [11].
One of the central points of co-creation is the transformation of passive actors like
end-users into operating ones, involving them actively in the development processes
of products, services and systems [12] to define and create value commonly and
taking all actors and their needs into account [13].
Co-creation considers users and actors not only during research phases, but aims
to actively involve them across the phases of ideation in co-design processes until
the prototyping and implementation of a solution, thus including co-production [14].
From a business point of view, this active involvement in participatory processes
usually aims at the co-creation of value, shifting the focus from a business-centric
one towards personalised and satisfying customer experiences [15].
These characteristics led to expanding the fields of application as well as the
notion of co-creation. In particular, it has been experimented as a promising means
to engage neglected actors and stakeholders in other fields of innovation (e.g. in
public sector innovation) and as a way to set up collaborative processes like those
that are needed to better include society in innovation [5].
The SISCODE project explored this pathway of operationalizing RRI through
co-creation to investigate the potentialities, opportunities and barriers of co-creation
in the RRI context. In particular, the project analysed the favorable conditions for
co-creation, the dynamics activated during the process of adoption of co-creation,
and how capacities for co-creation in organisations are built.

2 The SISCODE Project and Its Objectives

SISCODE (Society in Innovation and Science through CO-DEsign) is a three-

year EU-funded project within the Horizon 2020 programme with 17 cross-sector
partners, completed in April 2021.
It aimed to explore the application of co-creation, and co-design specifically, for
the operationalization of RRI in different contexts.
Its investigation is based on the triangulation of the results of different but inter-
connected research streams: the theoretical framing of the single areas of work
(primarily RRI, co-creation and policy making) and their interconnection; the anal-
ysis of existing cases where co-creation has been applied in the context of RRI in
Europe and beyond; and finally, the conduction of ten real-life experimentations. For
the conduction of the experimentation, an analytical, reflective learning framework
4 A. Deserti and F. Rizzo

was developed to explore the provoked shifts and transformations in projects and
organizations, as well as in policies and policy making processes triggered by the
interaction between citizens, stakeholders and policy makers. Therefore, the project
frames the knowledge obtained throughout the three years of the project, situating the
notion of RRI in the co-creation domain, and introducing issues that emerge when
moving from the theoretical concept to practice [1, 2].
Objectives
To grasp and further explore the circulation and establishing of the phenomenon
of co-creation as an approach for bottom-up and design-driven development as well
as its potential for replication and scaling when applied in the context of RRI, the
SISCODE project was carried out according to three main objectives:
1. The production of a study extended across Europe to investigate existing co-
creation ecosystems at different scales ranging from local and regional to
national levels and identify and extract patterns of dynamics, drivers and barriers
encountered when integrating society in science and innovation. It specifically
addressed the cultural, organisational, institutional and regulatory conditions
that may favour or hinder co-creation. Furthermore, particular attention was
posed to the engagement of stakeholders, the techniques and dynamics of their
involvement and how their diversity influenced and affected the process and the
final solution.
2. The experimentation of (co-)design not only as an approach, but also as a set
of skills and competences, to see how the building of these capacities can be
favoured and supported to enable the application co-creation in RRI and STI
policy making.
3. The understanding of the transformation needed beyond the development of
capacities in terms of organisational, procedural and cultural shifts for the
permanent and stable embedding of co-creation in organisational processes and
culture and how eventual barriers identified can be overcome.
In essence, SISCODE aimed to explore the operationalization of RRI by investi-
gating the application of co-creation to reach this goal, starting from the theoretical
background and existing cases to then conduct its own transnational experimentation
across Europe.
This book describes this system of co-creation labs and provides insights drawn
from their experimentation of applying co-creation in their single contexts while
being in constant exchange with each other, with the networks that they created to
conduct the experimentation and with the other partners in the research consortium,
to foster peer-to-peer learning and cross-fertilisation.
Between Science, Technology and Society 5

3 RRI in SISCODE—From Theory to Practice through

Co-creation

SISCODE investigated how knowledge, methodologies and tools from the field
of design can be applied to shape concrete solutions to relevant societal chal-
lenges towards Responsible Innovation taking the inclusivity, responsibility and
sustainability of these solutions into account.
The activities conducted are aimed to function as a bridge for the identified gap
between theory and practice in RRI through the collaborative development of specific
solutions.
In these processes, citizens and other stakeholders are engaged to collaboratively
develop solutions for specific local and global problems. The research project inves-
tigated and reflected upon the broader transformations triggered by the experimen-
tations and the exchange within the project, both at an organisational level of the
single labs as well as within their surrounding ecosystem.
Co-creation has been applied as a means to deal with and overcome the barriers
identified in the operationalization of RRI and to trigger the shift within organisations
needed to fully embed the new approach to then influence the entire ecosystem.
A series of activities were planned and conducted to support these processes in
the frame of the project and provide concrete support to the pilots:
• Training
Knowledge on co-creation was transmitted in specific training sessions, providing
background knowledge, tools for the conduction of co-creation activities, like
canvases, cards and instruction, and building capacities for the planning, conduc-
tion and facilitation of workshops and other co-creation activities.
• Opportunities for peer-to-peer learning
Acknowledging the diversity of the pilots and the influence of these differences and
the entirely distinct contexts, confrontation has been identified as an opportunity
to exchange best practices, ideas and collaboratively find solutions to specific
problems. For this reason, regular meetings and calls have been organised as a
space for interrelation, conversation and peer-to-peer learning.
• Dialogue between researchers and practitioners
Recognizing the gap between theory and practice not only identified in literature
but in the project itself among academic partners and practitioners, a series of
meetings have been organised to discuss specific research topics from the various
points of view, aiming to bridge this gap within the project and identifying points
of connection and dialogue between researchers and practitioners.
• Reporting as an instrument for self-reflection
Material to be produced for reporting and assessing the experimentation has been
mainly collected following templates composed by a series of reflective questions
to trigger reflections on the conducted activities and ongoing transformations
while reporting them.
A learning framework, described in detail in Chap. 2, was set up to support and
guide this process of moving from theory to practice having all pilots following the
6 A. Deserti and F. Rizzo

same general framework adapting its elements to the specific context and condi-
tions. This is relevant in terms of reacting to the previously identified importance
of the context while preserving the possibility to still assess and compare the
single experimentations notwithstanding their diversity.
The overall project adopted an approach to place these small-scale experiments
within larger ecosystems of co-creation exploring opportunities for scaling and
reconnect the findings to the general issues identified during the initial desk
research.

4 The Importance of Small-Scale Experiments

The necessity of impacting ecosystems on a broader scale to influence policies

requires impact at not only local, but regional, national and international levels [16].
Small-scale pilots have been identified as a potential to experiment new approaches
and concepts to then ‘scale, what works’ [17].
The advantage of pilots conducted on a smaller scale is not only related to their
feasibility but also to their focus on a limited and very specific environment adopting
a sensitive perspective in relation to the surrounding context [4]. This context-
sensitivity becomes particularly relevant when investigating RRI initiatives where
significant levels of context-dependence have been found as one of the barriers for
implementation [13, 18–20].
This aspect underlines both the importance of small-scale experiments conducted
in very specific contexts to then make considerations on their scaling as well as the
necessity to consider these scaling processes and integrate them into pilots like the
ones conducted in SISCODE from the very beginning.
Moore et al. have divided the scaling process into three different elements, scaling
up, scaling out and scaling deep, and all three of them combined are necessary to
impact larger systems [16].
• Scaling out refers to the wider dissemination and replication of the solution
to impact a larger number of addressants in this way [16]. In SISCODE, this
dimension has been addressed with a variety of dissemination activities in each
lab together with business model workshops and considerations on replication to
reflect and collect feedback on opportunities of scaling the single solutions out
beyond the project context.
• Scaling up relates directly to the influence on laws and policies transforming
existing institutions [16]. The pilots have addressed this dimension seeking direct
contact, exchange and confrontation specifically with policy makers and decision
makers in their respective field of work to collaboratively understand barriers and
opportunities within the current policy framework together with potentialities
to influence and transform this framework participating and contributing in the
shaping of new policies.
Between Science, Technology and Society 7

Here it is worth to be mentioned, that especially the value of evidence-based

knowledge has been explored to reach out to decision makers to achieve broader
impacts on society.
• Scaling deep introduces culture and mindset as an additional dimension to be
influenced to achieve impact at a greater scale. The cultural and visionary shift
that is required to deeply embed a new solution, its mindset and approach to ensure
not only its integration in a context but also create a fertile ground for replication
and scaling with the involved actors eventually becoming advocates to further
distribute innovation.
Particular attention has been posed at this dimension in SISCODE investigating
the changes in mindset and way of working, that the pilot has triggered both in the
organisation and the surrounding ecosystem together with the dynamics of these
transformations.

5 Levels and Dimensions of Investigation

The specific levels investigated in SISCODE range from the micro and meso up to
the macro level. While the micro level refers to the internal activities and dynamics
as well as the immediate surroundings of an organisation, the meso level zooms
out to networks of stakeholders and bigger groups often still limited to a regional
level, while the macro level takes a focus on national and institutional governance
processes up to transnational dynamics and systems [21].
While the experimentations did mainly take place and directly impacted on a
micro-level, the project explored and reflected on how each of the experimental
solutions could be scaled or replicated to influence systems on meso- and even macro
levels.
These levels of analysis are taken up in the final chapter, the comparative analysis,
where the ten experimentations conducted are compared identifying essential differ-
ences and common aspects with a specific focus on policies and policy making when
applying co-creation in RRI contexts, reconnecting them to the theoretical back-
ground of the project by drawing initial conclusions on barriers and opportunities
considering a wider scale from a future perspective.
The following chapter presents the empirical reasoning at the ground of the exper-
imentation and its methodology with the learning framework set up to plan, conduct
and monitor the pilots. In particular, it shows how the process has been established to
support the tackling of challenges for the single organisations in terms of stakeholder
engagement, dealing with communities and society and managing transformations.

References

1. Von Schomberg L, Blok V (2018) The turbulent age of innovation. Synthese, pp 1–17
8 A. Deserti and F. Rizzo

2. Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant
J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 51–74
3. Deserti A, Rizzo F, Smallman M (2020) Experimenting with co-design in STI policy making.
Policy Des Pract 3(2):135–149
4. Bekkers V, Tummers LG, Stuijfzand BG, Voorberg W (2013) Social innovation in the public
sector: an integrative framework. LIPSE Working articles, 1
5. Bajmócy Z, Pataki G (2019) Responsible research and innovation and the challenge of co-
creation. In: Responsible research and innovation and the challenge of co-creation (in press)
6. Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) (2013) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible
emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Chichester
7. Zwart H, Landeweerd L, van Rooij A (2014) Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the
European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI.’ Life Sci, Soc Policy 10(1):1–19
8. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation.
Res Policy 42:1568–1580
9. European Commission: Responsible research and innovation. https://ec.europa.eu/pro
grammes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation. Last accessed
2021/03/28
10. European Commission (2015) Directorate-general for research and innovation: indicators for
promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation: report from the expert group
on policy indicators for responsible research and innovation. Publications Office, Luxembourg
11. Payne AF, Storbacka K, Frow P (2008) Managing the co-creation of value. J Acad Mark Sci
36(1):83–96
12. Saarijärvi H (2012) The mechanisms of value co-creation. J Strateg Mark 20:381–391
13. Rizzo F, Deserti A, Komatsu TT (2020) Implementing social innovation in real contexts. Int J
Knowl Based Dev 11(1):45–67
14. Frow P, Nenonen S, Payne A, Storbacka K (2015) Managing co-creation design: a strategic
approach to innovation: managing co-creation design. Br J Manag 26(3):463–483
15. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value
creation. J Interact Mark 18:5–14
16. Moore M-L, Riddell D, Vocisano D (2015) Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of
non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. The J Corp Citizensh 58:67–84
17. Bradach J, Grindle A (2014) Emerging pathways to transformative scale. In: Smarter philan-
thropy for greater impact: rethinking how grantmakers support scale. Supplement to ‘Stanford
Social Innovation Review.’
18. Deserti A, Rizzo F (2019) Embedding design in the organizational culture: challenges and
perspectives. In: Design culture: objects and approaches, pp 39–51
19. Deserti A, Rizzo F (2019) Context dependency of social innovation: in search of new
sustainability models. Eur Plan Stud 28(5):864–880
20. Howlett M (2014) From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets
and collaborative governance. Policy Sci 47(3):187–207
21. Rizzo F, Deserti A, Crabu S, Smallman M, Hjort J, Hansen SJ, Menichinelli M (2018)
Co-creation in RRI practices and STI policies. SISCODE deliverable D1.2. https://ec.eur
opa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bedc3a0d&
appId=PPGMS. Last accessed 2021/03/21.
Between Science, Technology and Society 9

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
A Framework for Experimenting
Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts

Marion Real and Felicitas Schmittinger

The chapter describes the methodology applied throughout the experimentation, the
application of co-design, the tools used and their role briefly illustrating the single
cases. The underlying assumption is that design methodologies and tools are more
suitable to support co-creation for the inclusion of society in science and inno-
vation since their aim is to implement co-creation processes from the ideation of
new products, services and processes to their real implementation. What differenti-
ates design from other co-creation methodologies is the role of prototypes and their
experimentation in real contexts.

1 Introduction

In the following the results of a practice-based approach are presented that aims
to tackle the challenges of active actor engagement, the effective integration of co-
creation in STI policymaking, and the operationalisation of RRI practices. In this
context, exploring those practices in real-life opens up the possibilities to cope with
constraints, identify new opportunities and explore ways to effectively embed co-
creation.
The reasoning is situated in a context where many barriers are still in place,
hindering the development of ecosystems of co-creation aimed at better inclusion
of society in science and innovation. Still, the situation is evolving, pushed by a

M. Real (B)
IAAC, Fab Lab Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Schmittinger
Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, 20158 Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2022 11

A. Deserti et al. (eds.), Co-creation for Responsible Research and Innovation,
Springer Series in Design and Innovation 15,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78733-2_2
12 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

growing interest towards co-creation that led to its integration in European research
and innovation policies. Looking at the bigger picture, however, some of the main
obstacles need to be outlined that researchers and practitioners are encountering
when addressing RRI in practice. First of all, there is a general lack of awareness
and understanding of the potentialities of co-creation among researchers, innovators,
intermediaries and policymakers. The STI approach to policymaking, to which RRI
is bounded, is known for being “sectorialised”. This hampers collaboration among
sectors and organisations. However, one of the main hindrances is the shortage of
competences and methodologies to rely on for filling the gap between constructing
solutions and policies and their real implementation. Eventually, there is a scarcity of
learning frameworks to sustain and encourage the replication of co-creation mecha-
nisms. In consequence, the main need of a framework able to include and leverage
practical knowledge on how to cope with those constraints and barriers that come
along during co-creation processes and their implementation has been identified.
In many fields, Design has been already recognised as a key actor in operational-
ising co-creation. Especially, co-design and its iterative cycles of understanding,
ideating, prototyping, and verifying, resulted in successfully supporting co-creation
along the process, that is to say from the ideation of new solutions and policies to
their real implementation. In doing so, especially prototypes stood for contributing
in bridging the gap between co-production and its outcomes. This is made possible
by prototypes’ ability to trigger and feed processes of real implementation where to
experience all the aspects that come along when designing solutions. On a smaller,
but real scale, everything is experiences: from coping with resources available, need
and interests, conflicts with opportunities and barriers, organisational cultures and
values, and larger cultural, institutional and regulatory frameworks. Such an inherent
feature constitutes a strong rationale for understanding the potentialities as well as
the implications of co-creation as a design-driven approach for better including
society in science and innovation. Moreover, in the light of the main obstacles
depicted above, especially building an evidence-based learning framework becomes
paramount, allowing for the integration of co-creation with larger STI governance
systems.
In this volume, other than exploring the theoretical background of co-design in
RRI and analysing existing cases of the application of co-design in a European context
and beyond, conducting RLEs is a way for grasping concrete and situated knowl-
edge about a complex interaction where several actors participate throughout the
entire process. These actors can be either members of the organisation conducting
the experimentation or external to this organisation, but are relevant actors in the
context of the activity. These actors can be users of a product or service or stake-
holders of its delivery. Potential stakeholders can be public institutions, enterprises
or policymakers.
To advance knowledge on the topic, a set of field experimentations were conducted
and monitored purposely identified as cross-disciplinary and varied in their nature.
The results and outcomes obtained from such high-impact experiments in real-life
contexts allowed to gather concrete knowledge on the operationalisation of RRI
and the integration of co-creation in STI policymaking. By engaging citizens, local
A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts 13

actors, stakeholders such as policymakers and the wider scientific community, the
experimentation has the objective to increase knowledge on co-creation through
action research [1]. At the same time, the effectiveness of design methodologies is
tested to better combine co-construction or ideation with the co-production or actual
implementation of the ideated solutions and policies for the integration of society in
science and innovation.
Those experiments took place in 10 co-creation labs across Europe, each of them
is a member of one of three following networks that will be described in detail later
on:
• The Fab City Foundation managed in part by Fab Lab Barcelona,
• The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), and
• The European network of Science Centres and Museums (ECSITE).
The three networks as a system of trans-national collectors and areas of encounter
and exchange for their member labs provided first insights on co-creative environ-
ments within their networks. They contributed already in the initial phase of the
project with drivers and barriers previously identified by their members regarding the
effectiveness of the above-mentioned co-creation approaches, processes and tools;
during the ongoing experimentation they actively supported their respective members
in their journeys.
Although the experimentation was initially supposed to last around 18 months,
the period has been extended to 21 due to the manifold restriction caused by the
Covid pandemic. In these experiments, each lab tackled a specific societal challenge
and engaged a set of stakeholders in a co-creation process. from the stage of co-
design where stakeholders will analyse the context, reframe the problem and envision
alternatives, to that of co-production of prototypes within an iterative process.
The following sections detail the approach to co-creation on the base of the experi-
mentation consisting in a learning framework and process guideline and an accompa-
nying, modular toolbox. Furthermore, the objectives of this approach are illustrated
in detail together with the single labs and networks and how their experimentations
have been both supported and assessed throughout the process.

2 SISCODE Approach to Co-creation

Co-creation is approached in this volume as a design-driven and currently flourishing

phenomenon across Europe occurring in bottom-up initiatives like innovation labs,
social innovation initiatives, communities, and regions.
The experimentation aims to analyse significant conditions for the successful
introduction, scaling and replication of co-creation practices while cross-pollinating
RRI initiatives and the field of policymaking [2]. To achieve this, the approach applied
throughout the experimentation is using design practices and processes as a base for
the development of a process and attributive tools to build capacities and competences
for the implementation of RRI and STI policymaking [3]. This approach consists in
14 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

a learning framework and a toolbox specifically developed for the RLE conducted
aiming to overcome barriers and resistances to change. Both the organisation at the
core of the initiative as well as all the external actors and stakeholders involved in
the development are considered and targeted by this approach.

Experience-based learning framework

The way SISCODE looks at co-creation is seeing it as “a non-linear process that
involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assess-
ment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their effi-
ciency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process”
[1, 3, 4]. The integrated core structure of the design processes can be complemented
with appropriate tools associated to one or more phases to support the co-creation of
new solutions while the (organisational) learning process can be complemented with
appropriate structures and actions, and applied to the introduction and integration of
new knowledge.
By interpreting an organisation not only as a structure closed in itself but as an
actor in a greater network where other actors like municipalities, public services or
enterprises play their function and relate, the learning process can be extended to all
those actors being actively involved in the learning process through the application
of the principles of co-design [5].
In the light of this reasoning, to develop the theoretical framework at the ground
of the experimentation Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning [6] has been combined
with the iterative process of co-design. The scheme below represents the framework
integrating experimentation and learning. This framework will be used to connect the
activities conducted in the 10 co-creation labs with policymakers at local, regional,
national, and EU levels (Fig. 1).
The developed learning cycle basically foresees four stages within an iterative
process:
• Concrete Experience: the learner encounters a new experience or situation, or
reinterprets an existing experience.
• Reflective Observation: the learner reflects on the experience on a personal basis,
trying to map the gap between experience and understanding.
• Abstract Conceptualisation: the learner elaborates new ideas based on the previous
reflection or on modifications of the existing abstract ideas. This phase focuses
on envisioning alternatives.
• Active Experimentation: the learner applies the new ideas to his/her surroundings
to see if there are any modifications in the next appearance of the experience.
Beginning from the analysis of the context to then move from the reframing of the
initially defined problem and the envisioning of alternatives into an iterative cycle
itself of developing and prototyping. In the following each phase is detailed, pointing
out their main features and output.
Analysis of the context
The phase of context analysis has the scope of providing the space and instruments
needed to clearly define the context in which the chosen challenge is addressed with a
A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts 15

Fig. 1 The design-based learning framework

focus on specific local particularities, stakeholders, and current policies. Defining the
context through research is meant to form the base to explore the relation between the
context and the challenge itself, as well as to clarify the competences that the lab needs
to be able to frame and define the problem. Since this first phase, the involvement of
a variety of stakeholders and users is already required with them being part of the
ecosystem in which the lab operates. The aim is to obtain a complete picture of the
context and needs of the various actors: such knowledge is in fact key to precisely
frame the problem.
Problem framing
The precise definition of the root of the problem is essential for the ideation of an
efficient and effective solution. Moreover it is necessary to consider that the initial
challenge might be linked to other, greater problems underneath, which have to be
acknowledged and tackled all together in order to provoke real change.
This phase is entirely dedicated to the understanding of the problem, its roots and
the influencing factors. As in the first phase of context analysis, the active participa-
tion of stakeholders is fundamental to explore not only influencing factors, but also
different perspectives from which the problem could be seen. This is crucial to gain
a multi-perspective view and a complete understanding of the problem itself.
Envisioning solutions
Moving from problems to opportunities and solutions during the third phase, the
detailed challenge and needs defined previously are addressed to improve the current
situation. This phase is dedicated to ideating potential solutions imagining an ideal
scenario in which the problem is solved.
16 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

Building the ideal scenario itself and reasoning on its elements can already be a
starting point for the gathering of new ideas. To keep the variety of points of view
and needs to be satisfied the involvement of stakeholders needs to be kept consistent
also throughout this step. The presence of multiple perspectives leads to shaping a
value proposition from the different ideas generated.
Developing and prototyping
The last phase of the journey is dedicated to the application of the newly developed
concepts to turn them into implementable prototypes. The prototypes designed are
then tested and assessed through an iterative process aimed at identifying the best
possible solution step by step together with users and concerned actors.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the framework is presented as cyclical, emphasising the
importance of iteration when designing and experimenting in real-life.
In addition to this learning model, a toolbox has been developed to operationalise
and support the learning effect and favor capacity building in a variety of contexts.

The toolbox
The toolbox has been created as an open set of tools to operationalise the single phases
of the learning framework to facilitate both the design and the implementation of
the co-creation journeys of the labs while focusing on a better understanding of the
particularities within each context.

Fig. 2 Application process of the design-based learning framework

A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts 17

A premise to the construction of the toolbox is an extensive desk research aimed

at analysing co-design in RRI in literature as well as investigating existing cases in
Europe and beyond. The needs and gaps identified during this research led to the
definition of a set of goals to be translated in specifications for development of the
toolbox as pictured in Table 1. This toolbox was developed before the start of the
experimentation, composed by a set of important instruments to use in an entirely
flexible way throughout the co-creation journey. In the following, the main goals and
their sub-goals are reported that were identified as key elements in the design process
to be translated in specification that lead the construction of the toolbox (Fig. 3).
The learning framework and the toolbox as the two main aspects of the applied
experimentation concept are meant to give a clear framework to the experimentation
itself and support the process to reach the objectives stated in the following.

Table 1 Goals of the experimentation and resulting specifications for the toolbox
Goals Details Specifications for the toolbox
design
Fill the identified RRI gaps Complexity of societal Context-based approach using
problems systemic tools
Engagement of Use of stakeholder canvases all
stakeholders along the journey
Tangibility of RRI Use of prototypes as boundary
projects objects
Make the single tools modular Context Matters Adaptable selection of tools
and customisable according to cases
Tools appropriation Support provided to enlarge the
practical knowledge about tools.
101 methods design cards
Trigger reflexivity through the Comparison necessities Process characterised by
use of tools common macro-phases that can
be freely organised in
sub-phases, and on the other
hand the adoption of a limited set
of common tools that synthesize
the outcomes of each phase
Common knowledge Organisation of interactive
spaces moments with partners like lab
exchange day, skype call and
communication spaces (social
media, website…)
18 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

Fig. 3 Idea card—an example from the toolbox

3 Key Objectives and Originality of the Approach

As anticipated, each experimentation aims at the conduction of high-impact inves-

tigations in a real-life context. Through the direct engagement of a variety of users
and actors in a process of action research as well as the tackling of a relevant societal
challenge it aims to influence current organisational structures and policies at a wider
scale. In this, the effectiveness of design methods is tested in an RRI context to move
from sheer ideation to implementation.

Prototypes as a means to move from co-design to co-production

Having identified the issue to move from ideation to implementation [7], bridging
this gap is one of the main objectives in the experimentation. The underlying assump-
tion is that design methodologies and tools are suitable to support co-creation for the
inclusion of society in science and innovation and exploit their practical orientation to
bridge the aforementioned gap between ideation and implementation. What differen-
tiates design from other co-creation methodologies is the role of prototypes and their
experimentation in real contexts [8]. Prototypes can provide support in shortening
the distance between “co-construction and its outcomes as they are refracted through
practicalities embedded in existing institutions and interests” (SwafS-13-2017 topic)
[9].
The experimentation of this potential in a real context is crucial to explore the
possibilities of bridging the gap between ideal and real outputs that the application
of co-creation and RRI can produce.
A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts 19

Prototyping all revolves around giving people the space and time to materialize
and concretize their ideas, it brings an experience to a vision by creating objects of
dialog and designs that can afford interaction with people and place, to evoke debate
to capture the potential and risks involved in innovation.
Prototyping arouses empowerment, dialog, acts of creation and intents of empiri-
cism and allows practitioners to connect with realities and representations when
navigating towards the unknown.
Prototypes are objects manifesting the interconnection between ideas, matter,
theory and practices, bringing together soft systems and Hard Technologies. In the
approach, it is hypothesised they can create bridges between projects, scales and
stakeholders to support innovation.

Implementing RRI
While the potential of RRI as a new approach has been widely discussed in theory,
a lack of its translation into practice has been identified [7]. With its attitude of
previously evaluating impacts on the entire ecosystem of operation and society RRI
involves a variety of actors, including users and stakeholders, in the entire develop-
ment process from the very beginning. The experimentation concretely explored the
engagement of a variety of stakeholders using techniques and processes from the
field of design to operationalise this element of RRI involving actors from an early
stage keeping them engaged throughout the process.
Therefore, material is being produced to feed theoretical studies with experi-
ences in practice and application in real life. Concretely, theoretical concepts found
during the desk research on how RRI are experimented and verified for their imple-
mentability to undermine or confute the research statements from a practical point
of view.
This new approach together with the active participation is also meant to provoke
a learning process within the world of policymaking. The objective is to create a
fertile ground where to show possibilities and functioning of different approaches
opening up policymaking as a field that has been found to be often restricted and
closed in itself creating a safe playground for policymakers to experiment further,
acquire new knowledge and build themselves capacities in applying this knowledge.

Capacity building and organisational change through co-design

The objectives of capacity building within the pilots’ ecosystem are twofold: On
one hand, the capacity of co-creation within the lab leading the pilot is aimed to
be enhanced through the training provided during the project and the frequent and
iterative application and use of co-design tools. This knowledge generation on co-
creation is planned to go beyond the members of the labs involved, extending beyond
that to the application in other projects and to their spread over the entire organisation
as a means to co-create and lead co-creation initiatives themselves. On the other hand,
a further learning effect is meant to be provoked in the entire ecosystem, including
all actors and stakeholders involved in the activities of the experimentation. In a
learning-by-doing process their knowledge on the use of design methodologies and
their capacities to cope with barriers and constraints that may occur in the process
20 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

are expected to be built in consequence of practical activities. In this case, this

means developing knowledge because of their involvement in the co-design and the
prototyping of specific solutions.
To support and further exploit the bridges built between policymakers and prac-
titioners as well to give other interested policymakers the tools and possibilities to
experiment with new approaches, the best practices, learning outcomes and direct
feedback from policymakers are to be analysed and used to produce an open reposi-
tory of material, tools and instruction that have been proven successful in introducing
design into policymaking to spread and disseminate precious evidences collected
throughout the project.

4 The Networks and Labs

The cases of application of new processes and visions to involve actors that have not
been considered in the development process of new initiatives to date are constantly
growing. Greater, international networks function as a collector for those often
smaller initiatives and labs to provide support and foster the exchange among different
realities in local contexts and challenges to provide a broader view on small-scale
experiments and reflect on interconnections, scalability and replicability in diverse
contexts.

Description of networks and labs involved

The experimentation took place in 10 co-creation labs spread across Europe. All 10
labs are members of one of the three networks mentioned in the following.
The Fab City Foundation
The community of Fab Labs spreads over more than 78 countries with approxi-
mately 1000 members including fabricators, scientists, educators and professionals
of labs of all sizes from community-based small labs to research centers. Their
common goal is the democratization of access to the tools for technical inventions
and the spread of the culture of making. They are also experimenting with new
approaches and engagement of stakeholders to create new urban models within the
Fab City initiative.
European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)
The European Network of Living Labs with headquarter in brussels, Belgium
is composed of more than 400 recognised Living Labs as environments for open
innovation and promoting co-creation, stakeholder participation and active actor
involvement in real contexts.
European Network of Science Centres and Museums (ECSITE)
Ecsite connects science communication professionals from more than 400 insti-
tutions located in 50 countries. It connects member institutions through projects and
activities facilitating collaboration and the exchange of ideas and best practices on
current issues. Their members engage citizens in science fostering creativity and
critical thinking to inspire and empower society (Table 2).
A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts 21

Table 2 Overview of the labs taking part in the experimentation

Lab Description
Maker Maker is a non-profit association with the core objective of
Copenhagen (Denmark) connecting and supporting communities of makers and their
Fab Lab methodologies to the public and new sectors to facilitate new
relationships and collaborations among makers, civil society,
private and public organisations as well as policymakers
Fab Lab Barcelona Fab Lab Barcelona is a part of the Institute for Advanced
Barcelona (Spain) Architecture of Catalonia supporting a variety of education- and
Fab Lab research programs related to the human habitat on different
scales. Its mission is the provision of access to knowledge, tools
and financial means to foster technology-based and digital
innovation and invention for the improvement of life quality
Polifactory Polifactory is the makerspace inside Politecnico Milano as a
Milan (Italy) multidisciplinary research lab between design, mechanical
Fab Lab engineering, electronics and bioengineering. By the promotion of
a new culture of making new ways of manufacturing and
production systems are explored including areas like research,
experimental and peer-to-peer education and cultural
dissemination
PA4ALL Applying a multidisciplinary approach, PA4ALL, part of the
Novi Sad (Serbia) Biosense Institute, is focused on Precision Agriculture operating
Living Lab between the fields of ICT, Agriculture, Environmental
Engineering and Ecology
Involving multiple stakeholders PA4ALL combines user needs
with technology and innovative methodologies bring together
users, public institutions, researchers and technology
ThessAHALL The Thessaloniki Active and Healthy Ageing Living Lab
Thessaloniki (Greece) (Thess-AHALL) is governed by the Laboratory of Medical
Living Lab Physics of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki operating in
real community settings with a wide network of collaborators in
Greece and the Balkan region. Adopting co-creation approaches
they enable user-driven innovation in the field of Activity &
Health
KTP The Krakow Technology Park is a key actor in the development
Krakow (Poland) and implementation of Regional Innovation Strategies promoting
Living Lab user-driven innovation and smart specialisation. With an
ecosystem of 300 companies they support innovative
technology-oriented businesses at different stages of
development with a variety of services testing their products and
services in a Living Lab environment involving end users and a
variety of stakeholders
(continued)
22 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

Table 2 (continued)
Lab Description
Cube design museum Cube design museum is part of Stichting Museumplein Limburg,
Kerkrade a foundation that tells the story of the earth, sustainability,
(Netherlands) science, technology and design, in the context of society and
Science Centers & Museums education
Cube’s exhibitions are dedicated to design for human needs and
ambitions including a lab to co-create with the public to provide
open access to design tools and enhance their use for society
TRACES As a non-profit association between participatory science
Paris (France) engagement and social inclusion and a strong orientation towards
Science Centers & Museums innovation in research TRACES aims to create space for
reflection, experimentation and innovation for science in society,
science education and communication
Ciência Viva The Portuguese agency for public awareness of science and
Lisbon (Portugal) technology is a non-profit association in the fields of science
Science Centers & Museums awareness, science education and open science. One of its main
focus is on ocean literacy
SGD Science Gallery Dublin (SGD) is a living experiment by Trinity
Dublin (Ireland) College Dublin to encourage young people in an encounter of art
Science Centers & Museums and science. Unique exhibitions that allow participation and
social connections of visitors while exploring different aspects of
one topic

5 Support and Assessment Procedures

During their co-creation journey, the labs have received support from the various
project members and partners of SISCODE to fully exploit all present capacities to
combine the knowledge and abilities of practitioners and research partners. Apart
from active support to acquire knowledge on co-creation and its potential application
during the co-creation journey a peer-to-peer learning among labs and other interested
partners has been fostered to enhance exchange on experiences, practices, issues and
identified opportunities not only to confront with other, similar realities, but also to
self-reflect on current practices and how they could be improved in the future.
One of the main struggles that RRI is facing when moving from theory to practice
is the assessment of its impact within the context on application. To tackle this in the
specific project, an assessment framework has been set up to gather, mainly qualitative
data, from the pilots during their journey to monitor and evaluate their progress.
Initially planned to measure solely the success of the single pilots, the assessment
framework soon turned into an instrument to measure impact on a greater level
retrieving data on changes and transformations caused in the pilots’ organisations
and ecosystems beyond the single prototype.
The assessment explores three different dimensions to be explored specifically,
namely the ones of:
A Framework for Experimenting Co-creation in Real-Life Contexts 23

1. Stakeholder engagement, previously named as a fundamental aspect of the

entire project being both a crucial part of RRI and co-design identifying and
involving a variety of actors
2. Co-creation, the means for operationalisation and the base for the methodology
applied in the overall project investigating the effectiveness and appropriation
of the techniques and tools used
3. Dissemination, the opportunity and capacity to share successes and failures,
practice knowledge exchange and foster capacity building beyond the project’s
borders.
Three tools have been developed to assess the dimensions throughout the process:
• Excel spreadsheet focused on the reporting of activities conducted and numbers
of actors involved to keep track of direct outputs in the process
• Self-assessment questionnaire a questionnaire exploring the outcomes on a
broader dimensions and from a qualitative point of view triggering self-reflection
on current practices in the organisation as well as organisational change
• Scenarios to illustrate possible near futures to create an outlook on how the pilot
could impact the organisation and the ecosystem in the long-term.
The goal of the monitoring and assessment activity is the evaluation of the
single cases applying the three tools described previously either in a continuous
way throughout the experimentation like done with the spreadsheet or accurately at
specific points of the journey.
Its results are not only meant to assess the single prototypes, but also allow a
comparison among them and feed broader reflections on the application of co-
creation in RRI contexts and its impact assessment that is elaborated in the final
chapter of this book.
To allow this comparison and further evaluation of the cases, it has been decided
to elaborate them singularly as case studies after the conclusion of the prototyping
phase. The following chapter goes in detail on the choice of the methodology and
the guidelines developed to guide and regulate the writing.

References

1. Rizzo F, Deserti A, Crabu S, Smallman M, Hjort J, Hansen SJ, Menichinelli M (2018) Co-creation
in RRI practices and STI policies. SISCODE deliverable D1.2, https://ec.europa.eu/research/par
ticipants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bedc3a0d&appId=PPGMS, last
accessed 2021/03/21
2. Jakobsen SE, Fløysand A, Overton J (2019) Expanding the field of responsible research and
innovation (RRI)—from responsible research to responsible innovation. Eur Plan Stud 27:2329–
2343
3. Deserti A, Eckhardt J, Kaletka C, Rizzo F, Vasche E (2019) Co-design for society in innovation.
In: Atlas of social innovation, vol 2. Oekom, Munich, pp 91–96
4. Rizzo F, Deserti A, Komatsu TT (2020) Implementing Social Innovation in real contexts. Int J
Knowl Based Dev 11(1):45–67
24 M. Real and F. Schmittinger

5. Blomkamp E (2018) The promise of co-design for public policy. Aust J Public Adm 77(4):729–
743
6. Kolb DA (1983) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, 1
edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
7. Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Responsible
innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, pp. 51–74
8. Rizzo F, Cantu D (2013) From designing in protected environment to designing in real contexts-
Piloting digital services for elderly independent living. In: IASDR conference, International
Association of Societies of Design Research, 2, pp 2585–2596
9. European Commission: Integrating Society in science and innovation—an approach
to co-creation, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportuni
ties/topic-details/swafs-13-2017. Last accessed 2020/10/12

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Framing Real-Life Experimentations
as Case Studies

Stefano Crabu, Ilaria Mariani, and Felicitas Schmittinger

The chapter describes the case studies methodology on the ground of the volume: their
use and comparison are investigated from a theoretical point of view. This chapter
has a twofold aim: (i) contextualise case studies and the experimentation/prototyping
conducted by the pilots, then (ii) to provide a compass for going through the next
chapters in which it is detailed the experience of each pilot as a case study. This
reasoning is a premise for understanding and situating the relevant points emerged
in the larger picture of the RRI framework.

1 Introduction

This chapter has the purpose of presenting the overall methodological framework in
which the volume is rooted. It is aim to discuss the case study approach adopted for
orienting the production of self- and reflexive narrations about ten RLEs carried out
by as many pilot organisations across Europe (Fab Labs, Living Labs and Science
Centers and Museums) engaged in addressing relevant societal challenges entangled
with various STI domains. In doing so, a meaningful methodological compass is
provided for understanding the rationale and the structure of the next ten “empirical
chapters”. More in detail, the following chapters are consecrated to discuss each
“pilot experimentation” as a case study, which allow to critically present, analyse and

S. Crabu (B) · I. Mariani · F. Schmittinger

Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, 20158 Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
I. Mariani
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Schmittinger
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2022 25

A. Deserti et al. (eds.), Co-creation for Responsible Research and Innovation,
Springer Series in Design and Innovation 15,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78733-2_3
26 S. Crabu et al.

assess the effectiveness of the adopted co-creation approaches, processes and tools
(see Chap. 2). Thus this chapter serves as a methodological premise for clarifying
how data from the ten RLEs, in the form of self-narrative case studies, has been
gathered allowing: (i) a deeper understanding of the major dimensions at stake in
co-creation practices within STI domains and; (ii) a comparative analysis of these
major dimensions within the context of the RRI frame.

2 The Case Study Approach

As mentioned above, a methodological frame was adopted according to which each

RLE has been framed as a case study. The heuristic power of the case study approach is
well recognised in different fields, such as social research, design, law and policy, due
to its potential for eliciting in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in
their real-life, naturalistic settings. According to Yin [1], a case study can be defined:
“as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.” In this sense,
the case study approach is one of the most relevant research strategies to employ
for producing an in-depth and thorough appreciation of an event or phenomenon
of interest occurring within its natural real-life context. In research, the case study
approach can be mobilised, for example, to describe in details patient-physician
relationships within different hospitals and how the mutual consent is shaped; or
how different practitioners in high-tech firms cooperate for developing an innovative
technological solutions for monitoring the air quality; or again to investigate causal
links and pathways emerging by the implementation of a new regulatory initiative, or
a public service in a concerned geographical area. As a rule, a case study framework
selects a small geographical area or a limited number of organisations, or social
groups to be scrutinized. Thereby, the case study approach allows a researcher to
closely examine data within a specific context. So, case studies enable exploration
and investigation of both ongoing real-life processes by means of contingent analysis
of specific settings of interactions, and how interactions and conditions under study
can influence, and are influenced by the cultural, economic and political landscape.

3 Eliciting Experiential Knowledge on Co-creation in STI

Policymaking

A case study approach was adopted with the aim to investigate real-life co-design
and co-creation practices in STI as a way to (re)shape the missing links between
strategic objectives (to make research and innovation more “responsible”), topics and
communities (domains of science and technology, groups of stakeholders, citizens
Framing Real-Life Experimentations as Case Studies 27

and society at large), and the activities on the ground (research and innovation).
This approach allowed to generate data and information around the “how”, “what”
and “why” questions at different levels (i.e. national, regional and local), and about
different dimensions (i.e. economic, political and social). For example, it opens up
reasonings about questions such as “how pre-existing culture of engagement and
dialogue between citizens and stakeholders influenced the experimentation”. This
can support both in developing and refining fresh knowledge about the current forms
of public participation in STI policymaking and beyond, as expected within the RRI
frame. However, it is worth noticing that a case study is not aimed at exploring
an entire organisation. Rather, the analytical gaze focalised on particular issues, by
framing the specific RLE as the unit of analysis. This approach allows to understand
the complexity of the RLE, by carefully designing and implementing what was
called “the self-narration guidelines’ (see Sect. 4). This tool enables the production
and consistent organisation of the experiential knowledge shaped by the different
kinds of practitioners engaged within the concerned RLE, e.g. designers, science
communicators, engineers, students, patients and lay people in general. By means
of the self-narration guidelines it was aimed at generating “thick description” [2] of
what is going on within the experimentation. This work can be considered primarily
as an observation activity of ordinary practice occurring in a specific setting. More
critically, it is a reflexive activity oriented at producing a thorough account about
the multiverse co-creation activities, thus to make sense of local meaning and local
knowledge, and relating them to the broader organisational, social, political and
economic context. This is provided by the fact that this self-narration casework is
based on the direct participation of the authors in the real-time experimentation,
spending extended time on site, personally organising co-creation activities of the
case, reflecting and revising the descriptions of what is going on. Therefore, it is an
analytical and reflexive effort aimed at understanding what is important about the
specific experimentation within its own environment, which is peculiar and different
for each case. The goal set by the self-narration guidelines is not to describe data as
they occur during the RLEs; but to produce a detailed emic account able to provide
actionable and analytical insights about how the co-creation experimentation took
place, in its different phases, such as the definition of the challenge to be addressed
and the process of designing the solutions.
As it will clearly emerge in the next section, in designing the self-narration guide-
lines specific attention was paid to the mutual engagement between the situated
and specific practices for conduction the RLE, and the broad economic, political and
social contexts. As a consequence, practitioners were asked to clarify regulatory land-
scapes and social values and beliefs that entered as a relevant dimension in the course
of the experimentation. It is worth noticing that this strategy engendered complex
relationships. Indeed, the self-narration guidelines pull attention both to the situated
ordinary practices and experience of the practitioners and stakeholders engaged in
the RLE and also to the broad large socio-political and regulatory contexts in which
each experimentation is located. In this way, self-narration orients to complexities
connecting ordinary practices of co-creation occurring in specific settings of interac-
tion to some more broad concerns related to the regulatory and societal environments.
28 S. Crabu et al.

Thus, in this approach the self-narration guidelines enabled the consideration of the
case study both as a process of learning about the specific RLT and the product of the
learning produced in SISCODE. Under the aegis of this methodological approach
firstly the RLEs are considered as a bounded system that allows to capture specificities
at stake in STI co-creation around certain societal challenges developed according
to the RRI. Furthermore, the self-narration guidelines work as an “instrumental case
study”, aimed at highlighting the specific methodological choices, the tools mobilised
in the experimentation, and its interpretations in relation to the specific context in
which the RTE has been performed.
Finally, in the last chapter the 10 case studies will be analysed as a whole, or
as a “collective case study” [3] in order to develop a comparative investigation that
can lead to a better understanding of co-creation processes in relation to the STI
policymaking. This strategy offers an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of
co-creation in Europe, and across different STI domains (such as health, ICT and
environmental issues) as a bottom-up and design-led phenomenon together with its
corresponding suitable framework conditions. In this way it is aimed to analyse and
compare the outcome and condition of the RLEs under scrutiny, thus to assess the
result of the impact of co-creation in STI policymaking in relation to the RRI frame.
In doing so, the results of the comparative analysis (Chap. 14) will provide insights
on suitable strategies for coping with the limit of the current implementation of co-
creation in STI policy. Therefore, the comparative analysis is carried out according
to the following dimensions:
i. phases of the engagement process they support (i.e. research, Conceptualisa-
tion, development, prototyping and testing, assessment);
ii. expected output (i.e. opinions, feedbacks, ideas, product, and service);
iii. sectors of application (i.e. private, public, and third sector);
iv. typology of innovation (i.e. technological, social, scientific, and business).
Overall, innovative knowledge is offered on what works and what does not work
to boost the operationalisation of RRI through co-creation.

4 The Self-narration Guidelines: Rationale and Layout

The reasoning that follows stems from the awareness that the RRI field reports a
general lack of a learning framework aimed at supporting the validation and repli-
cation of virtuous mechanisms of co-creation for RRI. In such a context, gaining
understanding on how to cope with constraints and barriers that frequently come
about along the process constitutes relevant knowledge that can contribute to the
successful result of other initiatives.
As stated in the previous paragraph, the basic concept of creating guidelines is
based both on the concept of having the participants of the RLE themselves narrating
the cases, as well as aligning different pilots in terms of typology of organisation,
domains and addressed challenge, thus to make them comparable to some extent.
Framing Real-Life Experimentations as Case Studies 29

Moreover, introducing a unique format shared among the actors engaged in the RLEs
paves the way for mutual understanding, contributing in building useful knowledge
and consistent narrations about the processes of experimenting.
Exploiting their extensive knowledge of the process, the guidelines are meant to
encourage those who compile them—namely the team involved in the co-creation
within the labs—to describe their experience as a case considering all fundamental
aspects while self-reflecting during the writing.
Given these premises, the objective of asking the team of each RLEs to represent
their experimentation through the practice of self-narrations built upon the same
guidelines is twofold.
At first, the pilots should have the possibility to narrate their co-creation journey
themselves as protagonists of the process, without too much influence of third parties
but providing a direction on the desired outcome. This has not only the scope to create
a purely first-hand report from the people being directly involved in the experimen-
tation, but also stimulate self-reflection during the writing activity itself. As a matter
of fact, the reflective activity is valued that reaches across the process of writing as a
moment of fundamental learning per se. On the other hand, providing guidelines as
a general layout with key points and questions as an orientation is a way for aligning
the very diverse pilots in a similar form, making their process and experiences to
some extent comparable to each other. Notwithstanding their diverse background and
context, and the fact that each lab focused on different challenges/experimentations,
providing them with the same basic structure to follow was key for opening up
comparison and critical analysis, nurturing a discussion that goes beyond the singular
cases.
Therefore, the guidelines are the result of a methodological process applied to
gather information on some aspects fundamental for the experimentation.
In the following the layout is reported as an index, anticipating that each part will
be laid out later on sharing the rationale on their ground.

1. Synthesis of the pilot’s journey.

2. Initial context.

2.1. External context and ecosystem.

2.2. Organisational background.

3. Challenge.
4. The co-creation process of the envisioned solution.

4.1. Context analysis.

4.2. Problem framing.
4.3. Envisioning solutions.
4.4. Developing and prototyping.
4.5. The role of policies and policymaker engagement.

5. The Final Solution.

5.1. Final concept.

30 S. Crabu et al.

5.2. Sustainability strategy.

6. Transformations triggered and outcomes.

7. Conclusive reflections.
8. References.

In addition to this index as a basic guideline, every section unpacks into key points
referring to the desired content and contains a few questions aimed at triggering a
detailed and in-depth description of the experimentation, while further stimulating
reflection during the writing.
For example, in the final chapter on conclusive reflections, one of the questions
had been “Did you come across some unexpected opportunities that you weren’t
aware of?” to invite the pilots to a broader reflection on alternatives and opportunities
identified during the process.
The logic of the layout roughly follows the general co-creation journey that each
lab underwent during the experimentation process (see Chap. 2), hence starting
from the analysis of the context to the phase of developing and prototyping of the
solution. As previously mentioned, the layout is directed towards the collection of
specific information related to the main dimensions explored, namely the implemen-
tation of RRI in practice, the exploration of capacity building through co-design
and prototyping as an approach to transform ideas into implementable solutions.
Such dimensions and their enquiry were also carefully inspected during the desk
research conducted in the first year of the SISCODE project, and consisting in an
extensive literature review and an analysis of existing co-creation cases across Europe
(n:138). This preliminary study grasped the potential of co-creation approaches, RRI
practices and policies, and their cross-fertilisation to inform the experimentation on
the dynamics and outcomes that spurred form of integrating society in science and
innovation in a long-term perspective.
As a matter of fact, while RLEs benefited from the investigation of the state of the
art regarding practices on co-creation in contexts, as well as from the knowledge base
generated in such an enquiry to enrich their processes [4–6], the hereby presented
guidelines leaned on such scholarship for defining the dimensions to specifically vet
through its self-narrative approach.
Considering the overall objective of delivering insights into the use of collabora-
tive approaches for RRI and policymaking, the analysis of RLEs as case studies needs
to keep in mind that a successful implementation of co-creation strongly depends on
the interaction with the context [7]. Such interaction has a high degree of complexity,
since it is characterised by multilayered social dimensions on various levels. Grasping
its logics is primary for a more precise understanding of the dynamics triggered in the
ecosystem, as well as their opportunities and barriers [8, 9]. These can be attributed to
three levels related to as many scales. The macro-level identifies a “process of change
in the social structure of a society in its constitutive institutions, cultural patterns,
associated social actions and conscious awareness” [10]. The meso-level refers to
the intermediate structures as interactions with organisations and alliances. Finally,
the micro-level covers the individual scale of the person, its needs and role-conflicts,
Framing Real-Life Experimentations as Case Studies 31

and it allows to understand “how stakeholders and their everyday practices interact
with environmental factors” [4].
To gain such an accurate knowledge, the guidelines pose specific attention to
the exploration of the context of dependency, the way in which stakeholders are
involved, the co-creation practices operated, and the transformations triggered, from
the dimension of the team to at an organisational scale.
Table 1 unpacks the question starting from the overall goals of the experimentation,
to their sub-elements, up to the link to the dimensions explored.

Context dependency
Context and its specificities constitute a structural factor to consider when dealing
with co-creation and RRI, since it reflects established cultures, mindsets, practices,
and policies characterising the specific environment [11]. Since co-creation practices
take place in contexts as ecosystems that contain actors with their specificities and
inter-dependencies, their understanding can highly impact the success of an initia-
tive. Therefore, introducing this dimension is a way for asking labs to describe and
reflect on the context where the experimentation is taking place. Taking this into high
consideration means gaining understanding about the networks and partnerships the
initiating body upholds, as well as about local culture, structures and policies. As
its importance is meant to instruct the self-narrative of the labs, so it also exert its
influence in terms of tools. When creating the toolbox (see Chap. 2), the recognised
presence of extremely diverse contexts led to the need for modular and customisable
tools and activities. The inherent heterogeneity and diversification of contexts had
been identified as one of the barriers to the implementation of RRI. In consequence,

Table 1 Overall goals of the experimentation, sub-elements, and dimensions explored

Goals of the experimentation Details Dimension explored in case
studies
Fill the identified RRI gaps Complexity of societal Context dependency
problems
Engagement of stakeholders Context dependency
Stakeholder involvement
Co-creation practices
Tangibility of RRI projects Context dependency
Stakeholder involvement
Co-creation practices
Make the single tools modular and Context matters Context dependency
customisable & test their Tools appropriation Context dependency
functionality Co-creation practices
Capacity building and
organisational change
Trigger reflexivity through the use Comparison necessities Context dependency
of tools Common knowledge spaces Co-creation practices
Capacity building and
organisational change
32 S. Crabu et al.

several tools were inserted in the toolbox aiming at encouraging to explore the influ-
ence of this dimension, valuing the surrounding context specifically relevant and its
investigation in the policy context. In parallel, specific attention is drawn on how
tools and methodologies are adopted individually by each lab in relation to the envi-
ronment, as well as differences and similarities in regard to barriers and opportunities
identified in diverse contexts.

Stakeholder involvement
The engagement and constant relationship with concerned actors is crucial both in co-
design and RRI. Considering the relationship between the context where the problem
is situated and the network that will co-create the solution is central [12–14]. Espe-
cially in co-creation processes, the interaction between people with different cultures,
backgrounds and forms of knowledge within a frame of collaboration enables the
opportunity for both conflict and a learning process where knowledge is shared
among peers. Knowledge and expertise lies among different stakeholders, and their
involvement enables them to grasp complementary and critical insights. Therefore, it
becomes fundamental to identify the various stakeholders groups and local actors to
be actively involved throughout the entire process. Being it simple user experience,
social knowledge or ‘expert’ technical knowledge, the benefits from engaging the
public goes beyond the verification of hypothesis. Relevant advice, then, regards the
possibility to extract both behavioral schemes and best practices from their various
domains of knowledge. Public participation is a way to recognise and value their
motivation, needs and behaviors, as well as a way to develop context-based solutions
[7].
Moreover, recognising that policymakers often do not value social knowledge as
equal or valuable as ‘expert’ technical knowledge [7], the experimentation specifi-
cally focused on the inclusion of this group of stakeholders. Investigating possible
interplays and interactions by involving policymakers along the entire co-creation
becomes a way to better frame the context of STI policymaking in particular as one
of the core objectives of the study.
Specific aspects to be explored in the analysis are the level of engagement (active
or passive), the constancy throughout the various phases and their overall role.

Co-creation practices
Co-creation as the way to operationalise RRI in this experimentation is inspected
under various aspects. On one hand, its general efficiency and efficacy in RRI contexts
is to be explored together with the potential need to be adapted and modified to
entirely satisfy the needs for its application in an RRI context.
Aspects to consider in this dimension are its changeableness and potential to
be modified for specific contexts and situations, and how this variability can be
communicated minimizing the risk of being too broad and open hindering the actual
adoption. Finding this balance is specifically important for an effective introduction of
co-creation. Here it is particularly relevant to reason about the risks that come across
skepticism and resistance, especially in fields with very different current practices
like policymaking. Ways to deal with this resistance are to be investigated as well.
Framing Real-Life Experimentations as Case Studies 33

Addressing how such aspects have been tackled by going through a process of self-
narration is a way to encourage labs to gain further awareness about their learning,
turning them into shareable knowledge.
Particular attention is drawn to the phase of prototyping as the transition from
sheer ideas to potential implementable solutions [15]. This is a particularly crucial
point to be investigated to evaluate the potential of the design approach to bridge the
gap identified in RRI of moving towards real implementation [16].

Capacity building and organisational change

Co-creation can bring knowledge and assumptions about who contributes in creating
solutions and defining policies, also challenging existing or established practices
[7]. To ensure a long-term change and a full embedding of the design approach,
the capacities related to it need to be fully incorporated into the organisation and its
members to be applied successfully and trigger substantial change in the organisation
[17].
The specific focus here lies on two kinds of knowledge acquisition. On one hand
the capacities built within the organisation and their influence on its culture and prac-
tices beyond the project. On the other hand, the capacities acquired by participants
that are not members of the organisation like stakeholders or users are investigated.
This is relevant to explore the possibilities and methodologies of triggering change
in external entities and actors through concrete involvement in a project. In fact,
since they introduce practices and tools able to challenge an established order, co-
creation and co-design are political acts. In consequence, it is paramount to invite
labs to ruminate about the transformations they activated during their co-creation
processes, especially focusing on aspects and situations that encountered resistance
to change reflecting on potential futures and an outlook on long-term change.
Moreover, this dimension is also meant to encourage reflection about capacities
developed along the way, as well as about barriers to capacity building encountered.

5 Implementing the Guidelines: 10 Experiences

of Co-creation

Examples of realities where new visions and processes of co-design aimed at actively
involving stakeholders in the co-creation of solutions and favourable policies and
frameworks are flourishing across Europe in innovation labs exploring citizen science
like policy labs, Living Labs, Fab Labs or Science Centers and Museums. Within
this context, the experimentation has been implemented in three main domains, that
of Fab Labs (n:3), Living Labs (n:3), and Science Centres and Museums (n:4).
Recognising that the range of practices depends on the several variables of the
complex landscape where co-creation and design take place, innovation labs come to
the fore for being spaces where design-led practices are translated into implementable
solutions. In particular, they emerge as characterised by a variety of approaches
and tools not only adopted but often further developed to meet their needs and
34 S. Crabu et al.

better answer to local conditions and challenges, showing an inherent openness to

experimentation while being adaptive and flexible.
In the following chapters it will be explored how the structured process of self-
narration intended for connecting the practice with the capacity to set up an analytical,
reflective and learning framework, encouraged to frame and make the experiential
knowledge gathered intelligible. Although they all aim at a better inclusion and partic-
ipation of society in science, technology and innovation, each experiment presents
its own challenge, context, features and peculiarities, as demonstrated and discussed
in the following chapters.

References

1. Yin RK (1984) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
2. Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. Basic Books, New York, NY
3. Stake RE (1994) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln L (eds) Handbook of
qualitative research. Sage, London, pp. 443–466
4. Eckhardt J, Kaletka C, Klimek T (2019) SISCODE knowledge base. SISCODE deliv-
erable D2.1, https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?docume
ntIds=080166e5c1fca367&appId=PPGMS, last accessed 2021/01/21
5. Kaletka C, Eckhardt J, Krüger D (2018) Theoretical framework and tools for understanding co-
creation in contexts. SISCODE deliverable D1.3. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/doc
uments/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bed185fb&appId=PPGMS. Last accessed
2021/01/21
6. Smallman M, Patel T (2018) RRI research landscape. SISCODE deliverable D1.1. https://
ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bed1
7e30&appId=PPGMS. Last accessed 2021/03/02
7. Rizzo F, Deserti A, Crabu S, Smallman M, Hjort J, Hansen SJ, Menichinelli M (2018)
Co-creation in RRI practices and STI policies SISCODE deliverable D1.2. https://ec.eur
opa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bedc3a0d&
appId=PPGMS. Last accessed 2020/11/21
8. Domanski D, Howaldt J, Kaletka C (2020) A comprehensive concept of social innovation
and its implications for the local context—on the growing importance of social innovation
ecosystems and infrastructures. Eur Plan Stud 28:454–474
9. Kaletka C, Markmann M, Pelka B (2017) Peeling the onion. An exploration of the layers
of social innovation ecosystems. Modelling a context sensitive perspective on driving and
hindering factors for social innovation. Eur Public Soc Innov Rev 1(2)
10. Zapf W (2003) Sozialer Wandel. In: Schäfers B (ed) Grundbegriffe der Soziologie. Leske +
Budrich, Opladen, pp 427–433
11. Howaldt J, Schwarz M (2010) Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international
trends. Sozialforschungsstelle, Dortmund
12. Deserti A, Rizzo F (2014) Design and organisational change in the public sector. Des Manag
J 9:85–97
13. Deserti A, Rizzo F (2020) Context dependency of social innovation: in search of new
sustainability models. Eur Plan Stud 28:864–880
14. Manzini E, Rizzo F (2011) Small projects/large changes: participatory design as an open
participated process. CoDesign 7:199–215
15. Blomkvist J, Holmlid S (2011) Existing prototyping perspectives: considerations for service
design. Nordes 4
16. von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant
J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 51–74
Framing Real-Life Experimentations as Case Studies 35

17. Junginger S, Sangiorgi D (2009) Service design and organisational change. Bridging the gap
between rigour and relevance. In: International association of societies of design research.
KOR, pp 4339–4348

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
FabLab Barcelona—Co-design With
Food Surplus: Better Redistributing,
Upcycling and Composting

Marion Real, Anastasia Pistofidou, and Milena Juarez Calvos

The chapter analyses a co-designed project in the food value chain. Looking at how
to identify and stimulate new synergies among the local community in order to co-
develop educational, logistic and environmental supports for better redistributing,
upcycling and composting food locally, it critically presents the case of a symbiotic
system for food surplus and bio waste valorisation at a neighbourhood scale.

1 Introduction

IAAC|Fab Lab Barcelona is renowned as a key educational organisation in the

Fab Lab Network since 2007 participating in the strategy and coordination of
programs involving more than 1800 Fab Labs worldwide. IAAC|Fab Lab Barcelona
is promoting innovation for sharing and circular cities with a focus on educa-
tion, community empowerment and seven strategic areas of expertise: Sense
Making, Productive Cities, Materials and Textiles, Future Learning, Civic Ecology,
Distributed Design, and Emergent Futures. They have a pioneering and original
approach of co-creation at the crossroad between peer learning, citizen science [29],
digital fabrication and distributed design, central to engage with local communities.

M. Real (B) · A. Pistofidou · M. Juarez Calvos

IAAC, Fab Lab Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Pistofidou
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Juarez Calvos
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2022 37

A. Deserti et al. (eds.), Co-creation for Responsible Research and Innovation,
Springer Series in Design and Innovation 15,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78733-2_4
38 M. Real et al.

This practice has been built along the years thanks to European projects especially
like Making Sense,1 DDMP,2 ISCAPE3 [6, 14, 16].
The co-creation journey in SISCODE started with the wish of creating a play-
ground for atterizing the Fab City vision [5] into the locality of Barcelona, in
the creative neighbourhood of Poblenou. Since 2019, the team explored how
makerspaces such as fablabs can foster local transformations guided by circular
community and distributed manufacturing principles. After a first contextual analysis,
the local team could emphasise the importance of food and plastic waste in Catalunya
and discover new design practices emerging from new bioeconomy trends [8]. They
opted to address the issue of food waste creating synergies with the maker ecosystem,
food stakeholders and organisations of civil society in the area.
Cycles of collective activities, individual coaching and access to infrastructure
were proposed by the lab to support an emergent community group to learn, nest and
co-produce new design practices with food waste. Named Remix El Barrio, is now
defined as a collective of designers who propose projects with food leftovers using
artisan techniques and digital manufacturing to foster circular transformations in
Poblenou.

2 Ecosystem, Context and Challenge Addressed

Catalonia region and the city of Barcelona are the cradle of the Fab City network
and many innovative practices related to bottom-up approaches, participative policy
design processes and citizen-led platform like SmartCitizen, SuperBarrio and
DECIDIM4 [4]. As many cities and regions, they have also initiated the develop-
ment of circular economy action plans [18]. The climate action (from 2018 to 2030)
is highlighting actions for responsible consumption, zero waste and food sovereignty
and dedicating a specific part for the design of new training programs in the circular
economy [2]. Beyond that, they have been really active in the food-chain value trans-
formation especially with the program of the World Capital of Sustainable Food
2021. Concerning food waste, an important and innovative law [1] has been signed
in 2020 and a dynamic network of stakeholders is now operationalising the strategy
with promising changes to accelerate a better valorisation of food cycles in territories.
When zooming in the territorial distribution, the crucial role played by the neigh-
borhoods (aka barrio) in reconnecting people’s intentions and communities to public
institutions becomes visible [15]. The city originally introduced a plan for creating
self-sufficient neighbourhoods and relevant solutions to empower citizens and face
social struggles.

1 http://making-sense.eu/.
2 https://distributeddesign.eu/.
3 https://iscapeproject.eu/.
4 https://www.decidim.barcelona/ and http://superbarrio.iaac.net/.
FabLab Barcelona—Co-design With Food Surplus: Better … 39

Poblenou is one of the neighbourhoods situated in the Sant Marti district, an

old industrial area in urban regeneration since 17 years, Poblenou is now a mixed
place that joins the old and the new, hosts many creative designers and innovative
companies while fostering a large ecosystem of cooperatives and social enterprises,
an interesting and complex playground for prototyping with the Fab City framework
and move towards circular and bioeconomy transitions.

Challenge
The rise of material flows due to linear supply chain models is critical in urban context.
Plastic production and related pollution are no longer viable for sustaining the biodi-
versity while food waste represents one third of the food present in the supply chain
[13]. Waste Management strategies, circular initiatives and new design practices for
reducing or designing with food waste are recently seen as great opportunities to
better close the loop of systems and create materials from alternative sources that
potentially reduce the environmental impact of more conventional materials. This
will depend on the fabrication processes and local realities of production and uses.
Thus, there is an interest in developing local communities that explore and sustain
this new form of craft (neocraft) and manufacturing in a co-creative and responsible
way.
The SISCODE journey of IAAC|Fab Lab Barcelona explores the following
challenge with an intervention in the neighborhood of Poblenou:
How could co-creation foster the development of innovative ecosystems by
crafting and micro-fabricating with food surplus and waste?

3 The Co-creation Journey

Context analysis
The journey started by analysing the local context and identifying the policies and
local ecosystem relating to circular economy, social innovation and urban develop-
ment. After conducting desk research, participating in 5 public events, conducting 35
interviews, the team gathered a common base of knowledge and future interven-
tions. This preliminary grounding resulted in three outputs: an illustrated timeline
of initiative’s interviewees, a patchwork of the neighbourhood diversity and a stake-
holder mapping based on different models of food value chains and food waste
hierarchies.

Problem framing
To better frame the challenge, the local team has organised an original event to share
the first bases of knowledge to a real group of stakeholders of the neighborhood
and focus on the effective needs and motivations highlighted by thems. In this first
co-creation workshop named “Synergy Soup” (“Sopa de Sinergias”), invited stake-
holders took part in creative activities while preparing and eating a soup made with
local collected food ingredients. The organisers could collect and discuss 58 needs,
40 M. Real et al.

36 resources and 31 ideas of projects. An interactive categorization of ideas were

proposed in an open exhibition in IAAC (The Open Day of Poblenou) where visitors
could discover and classify each idea in a matrix that allowed to show and draw
how to locally improve material and food cycles at the neighbourhood scale. As a
result of those activities, a first group of stakeholders engaged in the co-creation
project with five categories of concepts to explore deeper: how to create a collective
bank for vegetable seeds and design a Fab Yurt (a mini Fab Lab designed in and for
an urban garden)? How to support the local collection of recovered food? How to
design with bio-based materials? How to build a library of things? How to promote
collective composting?

Envisioning solutions
To better envision the future solutions while keeping on rising community engage-
ment, the team has organised a series of five 3-h-events that took place in different
places of the neighborhood, between the 28th May and 28th June 2019 and that
were communicating in a same flyer diffused both online and off-line in restaurants
and community places:“¡Haz Comunidad!” (28.05.19), Practicing making (8.06. +
11.06.19), Eco-design and future narratives (18.06.19), convivial agora (28.06.2019).
Those events ranged from ideation sessions with customised tools (like 6Ws,
backcasting value opportunity mapping, idea cards, eco-design and scenario building
convivial design methods) to learning-by-doing experiences on digital fabrication
tools and biomaterial design.
The participants had the opportunities to refine concept proposals, network
with other stakeholders and get introduced crafting new materials using different
processes.
The events strenghtened connections and enabled the rise of a local symbiotic
system model representing each stakeholder with food waste project solutions at the
neighbourhood scale. Fructifying from the discussions, the core team could integrate
a layer of community services needed to support the development of such systems,
consisting in new infrastructures for synergy stimulation, shared learning and design,
production and logistics.
The workshop on biomaterial organized by Fabtextiles and based on past
researches from the Fabricademy network and aimed at exploring the potential of
material innovation from food waste raised a particular attention among the stake-
holders that clearly demonstrate an interest in exploring further techniques and social
experiences to scale it at the neighborhood scale.

Developing and prototyping

The prototyping phase started after a reflective summer and a creative phase of
planning where the team could publish their initial model and participate in various
local events to reconnect with the community members. The governance of the pilot
and local team were revised to adjust the new needs for co-production, creating
operational internal teams and a more strategic committee at Poblenou’s scale.
The prototyping phase went into two main iterations. The first loop was
composed of three fuzzy explorative projects: the co-design of a cargo bike km0,
FabLab Barcelona—Co-design With Food Surplus: Better … 41

the exploration of products based from locally collected eggshells and an awareness
campaign endorsing food waste valorisation initiatives. All projects ran in parallel
and ended with an open event to showcase the results and ideate on future actions.
In the second loop, the team co-developed and facilitated an incubation
programme about circular systems from food waste and surplus. Through an open
cal for ideas, the extended co-creation team selected 13 projects, and invited them to
start the incubation programme and engage through an agreement with the Fab Lab
offering material provision, access to infrastructure, a shared online access, weekly
collective session and individual coaching.
With the pandemic context, the program has been extended. It was beneficial both
for the team and the participants who could reinforce their cooperation, better finalise
their projects and go deeper in the definition of contents and external interventions.
It allowed the creation of a series of online events “Remix in conversation”, the
implementation of individual feedback assessment. The programme ended with a
final intervention: the co-design of an exhibition aiming at showcasing their projects
and campaign in the barrio to activate new bonds and more awareness about food-
waste-material making. More than 400 people, from newbies to gurus of design,
from neighbors to policymakers visited the exhibition which took place in the Leka
restaurant [26] following the barrier gestures and necessary restrictions imposed by
COVID-19.

The role of policies and policymaker engagement

Since its initiation 17 years prior, IAAC has collaborated with a wide scope of
strategic policy partners in the fields of urbanisation, computerised economy, culture
and schooling. Barcelona City Council worked intimately with IAAC and Fab
Lab Barcelona through numerous projects to advance new models of development,
uphold the maker district backing the Fab City agenda. They worked on the project
mode, collaborating according to circonstances and necessities. IAAC does not use
formalised methodologies or approaches for connecting with policymakers. Internal
dialogs remind primordial to initiate and sustain contacts with policymakers. In the
SISCODE pilot, it is impossible to say that they effectively take part actively in the
daily co-creation activities, however they had impacted the process or encouraged
the team. The team realised that the presence or absence of policymakers associ-
ated as direct partners in such co-creation projects has a direct influence on their
involvement.
Facing the difficulties to directly engage them in co-creation activities, IAAC
team used more indirect strategies to reach them and benefit from their feedback and
support. Here the most impactful ones:
• Conducting informal interviews with civil servants in the early stage of the process
• Be aware and active in local political events
• Create a climate of mutual trust to facilitate direct logistics and communication
• Co-organising activities and events led by the city (beyond the label of service
providers)
• Applying for city funding and local communication calls.
42 M. Real et al.

Finally, the team has created a policy brief at the end of the project in the format
of a manifiesto to communicate the recommendations of the collective Remix El
Barrio for the design of future policies on scaling circular ecosystem crafting and
micro-fabricating with food waste. This document has been transmitted to local and
european stakeholders via direct mailing, catalogue online diffusion and diffusion in
social media.

4 Experimentation: Output, Transformations, Outcomes

Remix El Barrio is now a collective of designers who propose projects with food
leftovers using artisan techniques and digital manufacturing. They collaborate with
agents from the Poblenou neighborhood to foster a more local and circular ecosystem.
9 main projects were developed: Kofi developed proposed to make paper and pack-
aging from coffee waste; Naifactory and En(des)uso is creating lamps, chairs and
pots from olive pits, eggshells, mate; Squeeze the Orange has designed an entire
jacket made with orange peels; Colores is creating natural dyeing from avocado pits;
Dulce de Piel is designing soap from used oils; Look Ma No Hand and Circular Gos
are cooking snacks respectively for neighbors and dogs from restaurant leftovers.
Remix El Barrio is more than the sum of individual projects mentorised by the Fab
Lab. Members are united around the values of local cooperation, solidarity, new form
of crafts and circularity in Barcelona. They are supporting each other, campaigning
together and co-producing a set of new experiences.
Beyond two research publications [19, 22], three main outputs were recently
co-created: the design of exhibitions and its catalogues in two languages,5 the devel-
opment of video tutorials6 and the co-elaboration of Gitbook7 [3, 23, 24]. The initia-
tive were awarded as Grand Prize for Innovative Collaboration by the Starts Prize
2021 [28].
The exhibition “Remix El Barrio—Co-design of biomaterials from food leftovers
in Poblenou” first took place from 14.10.2019 to 23.10.2020 in the open source
Restaurant LEKA [26]. It contains the nine projects accompanied by other artefacts
of the SISCODE co-creation journey, a special creation from the Fabricademy, locally
crafted labels and posters. The exhibition benefit from the visibility of the Fab City
Summit,8 the Poblenou Urban District open day/night,9 the Foodture event10 and
the local FOOD SHIFT pilot kick-off11 [7, 11, 12, 20]. The exhibition has been

5 https://issuu.com/iaac/docs/remix_el_barrio_catalogo_en__1__compressed.
6 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL33KKs9g8Y1K4MJGAUHpMZn-wMcbOVhnV.
7 https://flbcn.gitbook.io/remix-el-barrio/.
8 https://fablabbcn.org/calendar/fabcitysummit2020.
9 https://www.poblenouurbandistrict.com/es/category/poblenou-urban-district/podn12h/.
10 http://www.foodture.barcelona/.
11 https://foodshift2030.eu/labs/food-tech-3-0-lab/.
FabLab Barcelona—Co-design With Food Surplus: Better … 43

replicated from March to May 2021 in the design hub of Barcelona in collaboration
with Materfad [17] and the attendance of more 1000 visitors.
In times of COVID-19, online tutorials appeared as a relevant media to transmit
practical hands-on knowledge. Fab Lab Barcelona Communication’s team has
collaborated with the team of Remix El Barrio to shoot and edit a set of 9 trial
videos reviewing biomaterial recipes step by step from preparation, cooking and
use.
The book describes the narratives of the co-creation journey, presents the 9 key
design projects and associated educational materials such as a map of interactions
with business models and emergent future stories, presents a list of tips, tools, recipes,
courses, and protocols to better develop educational and incubation programs.
The team of IAAC|Fab Lab Barcelona experienced new learnings on co-creation
and became more familiar with the respective processes and competences needed
to apply it in a more structured way for long term projects. The co-creation lab
has made explicit and challenged ongoing practices about stakeholder engagement,
design processes, lab management, communication, policy context analysis.
Internally, the co-creation lab has contributed to the structuration of a circular
community expertise and the creation of knowledge crossing the strategic areas of
productive cities and Material and Textiles. It occured at the same time that many
organisational changes in Fab Lab Barcelona. The core team members could learn
about the agile environment and benefit of time to reflect on those practices dialoguing
with SISCODE partners.
In terms of stakeholder engagement, it can be said that Remix El Barrio engaged
with a dense network of stakeholders from local to global community. It is interesting
to highlight the position of the lab as an interface between the members of the collec-
tive, the local community partners and the distributed networks, allowing synergy
making, knowledge and technological infrastructure sharing and project incubation.
The stakeholder management process is echoing with ongoing models and practices
developed within the distributed design communities while really giving value to the
importance of “real-time” situated supports, interaction and attitudes.
Beyond SISCODE, the team is now offering a panel of approaches not only to
integrate circular principles and projects in existing global Fab Lab academies, but
also to sustain circular community engagement locally and provide service support
at the city scale destined to policymakers, makerspaces, civil society, industrials.
As an example, it can be mentioned the Pop Machina Circular Maker Academy,12
the development of new Fab City Hub open to public, new local collaborations
about biomaterial like Remix the School,13 new training, incubation and acceler-
ation programs elaborated through EU projects (FoodShift, Centrinno, Shemakes)
[21, 25, 27].

12 https://fablabbcn.org/projects/pop-machina.
13 https://fablabbcn.org/projects/remix-the-school.
44 M. Real et al.

5 Lessons Learnt and Reflections

This co-creation journey was a rich learning journey for the participants who could
have the chance to experience the benefit of research-action, distributing their time
between local co-creation management, activity design and reflective moments with
the SISCODE consortium.
The co-creation process also conducted the project members to envision and
test a set of indicators to monitor circular community projects emphasising the
importance of demonstrating the changes of material flows, being transparent about
the state of environmental impact analysis, commenting the learning curves and
cross-pollination of knowledge between members, showing the effective interactions
between stakeholders and expliciting honestly the capacity of the lab infrastructure
to respond to the local needs.
The team entered into the intimacy of the co-creation processes and could have
faced many complex situations. Some lessons learnt from this particular case could
be noted:
• Co-creation is about creating safe and accessible learning spaces to ensure people
have trust in themself, rising autonomy, regardless of their profiles or expertise,
while connecting them with ideas and realities, proposing innovative forms of
dialoguing with uncertain futures.
• Facilitating co-creation in Labs come with many soft skills to acquire and could
benefit from various profiles such as the “gurus”, technical experts passionate
about making, systemic designers acting as interfaces between people, design
artefacts and new policies and community managers that have a natural sense of
connecting with people embedded in the local territory.
• Co-creation processes are value-centred. The Remix collective all shares the
common motivation to create positive changes, rethinking how to better co-
create “commons” through knowledge cross-pollination and learning by doing
philosophy, and caring, by being curious and caring about others.
Co-creation is about dealing with creativity, uncertainties and tensions. Constant
efforts are being done to reframe the action, maintain the cohesion, dialoguing about
potential doubts of participants. Pollinating co-creation processes such as the ones
initiated through the Siscode project (letting open spaces for expressing common
aspirations and concerns has a strong role in better engaging with citizens and over-
coming tensions present in territorial dynamics.

References

1. Agència de Residus de Catalunya—Food waste. http://residus.gencat.cat/en/ambits_dactuacio/

prevencio/malbaratament_alimentari. Last accessed 2021/03/29
2. Climate Plan BCN—Climate Plan 2018–2030. https://www.barcelona.cat/barcelona-pel-
clima/sites/default/files/documents/climate_plan_maig.pdf. Last accessed 2021/03/29
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
 But to return to the Museum. The process of accumulation
continued, and the influx of works of art and other antiquities was
filling the National Institution to such an extent that it was deemed
necessary to decide whether the Natural History Departments should
be retained at Bloomsbury.
The various heads of Departments were invited to send in their
reports and opinions on the subject, and a few of their remarks may
not appear superfluous:—
Mr. Hawkins, the Keeper of Antiquities, reported that he could find
no room for the cases of Assyrian Sculptures which had arrived. Sir
Charles Fellows complained that Ionic Trophy Monuments and other
works of art found at Xanthus had been placed in an unbefitting
position. Dr. Gray, of the Natural History Department, conveyed the
pleasing intelligence that if the Zoological Collection in the basement
were not speedily removed to a dryer place it would be utterly
destroyed. Mr. Brown applied for additional room, as that occupied
by the Botanical Department in the basement was quite inadequate
to its demands. Professor Owen, in a report to the Trustees on the
same subject, January, 1857, approved of all the statements of Dr.
Gray, who, eight months later, came forward again with a demand
for his gallery and series of glass cases, and the enlargement of the
Insect-Room; and two months afterwards he laid before the Trustees
a fuller statement. Many more examples might be adduced, but the
reader who desires to push his investigations further should consult
a lengthy Parliamentary paper on the subject, ordered by the House
of Commons to be printed, 1st of July, 1858.
Panizzi also wrote two reports, one dated the 10th of November,
1857, and the other the 10th of June, 1858. In the first of these he
fully discussed the means suggested for relieving two Departments,
namely, those of Mineralogy and Geology, and then continued:—

“In the Department of Prints and Drawings the want of room,

even to lodge the portfolios containing the collection, is sufficiently
shown by the placing of presses in the narrow passage leading
from the landing into the Print-Room. The display of some of the
 best prints and drawings has often been entertained by the
Trustees, who felt how important it was that this should be done,
but who never could carry their intention into effect for want of
room. The Kouyunjik-Room, by the side of the North-Western
portion of the Egyptian Saloon, had been built for the purpose of
such an exhibition, when the influx of Assyrian antiquities forced
the Trustees to devote that room to their display.”

It appears that the Natural History Department will soon be

removed. As there will, therefore, be more space for a smaller
number of collections, we may hope that it will now be found
possible to make good certain deficiencies which have long been
fully recognised, especially in regard to the Exhibition of Prints and
Drawings. Glass and China too, will form a most attractive feature in
the new arrangements.
The author himself has had ample opportunities during the last
dozen years of visiting some of the most important Cabinets of Prints
and Drawings in Europe, and he has no hesitation in saying that no
single collection—not even a combination of two or three—could
compare with that of which our National Institution can boast.
Through the good taste of the present principal Librarian, Mr. Bond,
in placing so many screens in the King’s Library, a step has been
taken in the right direction, and no Englishman—nay, no Foreigner—
visiting London should omit to inspect this wonderful assemblage of
works of art.
It was Panizzi’s own idea that, as well as rarities from the Library,
specimens of the handiwork of Raphael, Michael Angelo, Dürer,
Rembrandt—and, indeed, his own $1m>—should be framed and
exhibited to the public gaze.
Instruction, practicable and visible, is one of the leading features
of the age; and it is our duty to meet this increasing want by every
means in our power. It is not the feeling that in our hands are the
keys of knowledge which will impart instruction; it is the practical
and sincere wish to utilize the means within our grasp, to educate
the masses, which will alone work a result so eagerly sought for, and
so materially tending to the benefit of future generations.
The enormous pile of building which has just been erected at
South Kensington may, in a sense, be said to owe its existence to
the persistent efforts of Panizzi, to secure more space for the
collections he loved so well. The two following letters on the subject
are, we consider, of great importance:—

“British Museum, October 8th, 1858.

“My dear Sir George,
As neither you nor Lord John will come up from Harpton
Court to attend the meeting of the Standing Committee at 12
o’clock to-morrow, I think it fair to ask you both to give half-an-
hour to the British Museum where you are; and this might be even
more useful than if you were to attend the meeting.
The Government are determined, it seems, to adopt the
principle of dividing the Museum; and Professor Owen, in his
address to the British Association at Leeds, having read an article
in the last Quarterly Review, drops his objections to the
separation, and is indifferent about the site of the Natural History
Museum: he only demurs to there being Trustees.
Mr. D’Israeli says that the Government have evidence enough as
to what is to be done, and that they want no more information. I
believe he is egregiously mistaken, and that the evidence hitherto
collected is sufficient to prove that things cannot remain in the
present state, and that something must be done; but there is no
evidence or suggestion as to what that something must be
(excepting only that the Superintendent of the Natural History, in
the service of the Trustees, thinks that his present masters, or
anything like them, are not desirable.) Now I have a great dread
of these indefinite somethings. I fear that one or two members of
the Government who have once walked through the Museum, or
may have assisted at a meeting of Trustees, may think themselves
quite competent to draw up a new constitution for this and other
Museums, which pompously and plausibly proposed to the Houses
of Parliament may be sanctioned, putting the British Museum and
all its collections in a worse position than they are now, and
rendering them less useful to the public. It seems, therefore, to
me that you and Lord John should consider well the subject, and
be prepared to advise the Government; and, if necessary, resist
any scheme that might be lightly or rashly introduced to
Parliament.
I apprehend that, whatever be thought of Trustees, it will not be
so easy to persuade the family Trustees of the Museum that they
ought to be extinguished.
I do not think that the Government have yet considered which
are the collections that ought not to be removed from the present
British Museum, and which are those that ought to be removed
elsewhere. We may agree as to removing the Natural History
collections; but is it quite clear we ought to keep ethnographical
collections and works of mediæval or christian art?
Has anyone thought how long it will be before what it may be
decided upon to remove, can be removed, what is to be done in
the meantime, and what alterations may be necessary in the
present building to fit the space left empty by the removal of some
collections for the reception of those which are to remain here?
It seems to be generally considered desirable, if not necessary,
that whenever the Museum or Museums are re-organised, lectures
should be delivered by its officers. I humbly consider this a great
mistake. No one can do more than one thing at a time well. A
Keeper of collections will neglect them to prepare his lectures, and
a lecturer will hurry through his lectures to attend to his
collections; and if not more inclined to one than to the other of his
two trades, the same man may be both a bad lecturer and bad
Keeper of collections. As the ‘Jardin des Plantes’ at Paris is so
much talked of here, with its numerous lectures, I trust some
evidence will be taken of its condition and of the working of its
organisation before we adopt it here.
I should also think that before the extinction of the Museum
Trust is decided upon, it would be well to consider whether it is
desirable to allow Institutions like the Museum to be governed by
learned and scientific men. I will not go so far as to say that the
system of Trustees is the best that could be devised, but I am fully
convinced, and ready to prove from experience, that learned and
scientific men are unfit to govern places like the Museum. Who
then is to govern these establishments?
There is a variety of minor points which are worth considering,
besides those above mentioned. If you and Lord John were to
agree to some general principles, I dare say Mr. Gladstone would
probably agree with you on the whole; and then you three might
induce, and, if necessary, compel the Government to consent to
adopting your views. I think it, however, requisite that, in some
way or other, evidence should be taken from men whose opinion
carries weight in these matters; that the public and the Houses of
Parliament should see that whatever be ultimately done is done on
good grounds and after mature consideration. I think the
information collected would be of great use in coming to a right
determination, and I do not see how it can be possible to do so
without.
The ‘Supply’ is coming home with a cargo of antiquities from
Newton, and will call at Carthage for some fifty cases of antiquities
from Davis. It was to be at Malta on the 25th of last month, and
will therefore soon be here. Where is all this enormous mass of
things to be placed?
Ever yours,
A. Panizzi.”

“Harpton, Radnor,
October 12th, 1858.
“My dear Panizzi,
I received your letter before Lord John went on to
Liverpool, and had some conversation with him on the subject of
it.
There are, as it seems to me, two questions respecting the
enlargement of the British Museum. The first may be called the
legal question, which is raised by Sir Philip Egerton and others—
viz., whether Sir Hans Sloane made it a question of his gift that all
his collections should be kept in one building, or whether, in
dealing with these collections, there is a ‘will of the founder,’ which
the legislature is bound to respect, and which is to be a law for all
succeeding generations, whatever additions the different branches
of the Museum may receive or require. If this view is to prevail, it
is clear that we are prevented from even entertaining any plan for
the division of the collections, whatever its intrinsic advantages
may be. But if this restriction upon the operations of the present
generation is not admitted to exist, then we come to the second
question—whether it is more expedient to enlarge the Museum by
adding to the present building, or by detaching some branches of
it, and providing them with a fit repository elsewhere.
I do not pretend to have mastered the subject sufficiently to
have formed a confident opinion upon it; but so far as I am at
present informed, the inclination of my mind is to believe that the
Natural History branches would be provided for in a separate
building, and to a certain extent under a separate management.
At the same time, if the scientific men are to take up the
question as one of personal feeling and party struggle, and if the
cause of stuffed beasts is to be argued against that of antiques, as
if it was Whig against Tory, or Catholic against Protestant, I am
not prepared to say what are the advantages, if separation are
worth the strife and animosity, which its accomplishment would
create.
A private gentleman, in arranging his expenditure, may say—I
allot so much for my kitchen, so much for my cellar, so much for
the education of my children, so much for my garden, so much for
my shooting, hunting, &c., &c., and each of his servants must be
satisfied with what they get. But what sort of life would he lead,
and how long would he remain out of the Queen’s Bench, if his
gardeners wrote letters in the Times to complain that he starved
his garden, and that his hot-houses were in a disgraceful state; if
his governess persuaded Roebuck to bring the state of his
daughters’ education before the House, and if his huntsman
inserted articles in the Sporting Magazine in the style of Junius,
displaying the scandalous defects in the management of his
stables. Yet, with regard to luxuries, such as science and art, the
Nation is practically in the same condition as a private individual.
It must measure its expenditure by its means, and not, as in the
case of the army and navy, consider its necessities first and its
means afterwards. Yet the representative of each Department of
Science and Art insists on having the largest possible building, in
the best possible site, and each Department finds successively
supporters and champions in Parliament.
I have no wish to volunteer advice where it is not asked; if the
Government think they can settle the question themselves, I have
no wish to interfere. My only fear is that they may find it more
difficult, on coming to close quarters, than it appears at a
distance. If the Government refer it to the Trustees for their
opinion, I shall be quite ready to take part in any Committee
which may be appointed to consider and investigate the subject.
At present I don’t think the facts are well ascertained, nor do we
know what are the precise objects which we should seek to
obtain. I see, for example, a great difference between keeping a
great exhibition of stuffed animals, &c., for all the nursery-maids
and children to look at, and keeping a collection of Natural History
for the use of men of science—like the Anatomical Collection at
Surgeons’ Hall in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I think that Lord John
concurs generally in the view that I have expressed, as to the
removal of the Natural History Collections.
There is much to be said in favour of the constitution of a
governing body like the Museum Trustees. A body of scientific
men might expect and demand too much; they would violate
Talleyrand’s caution about excess of zeal. On the other hand, it is
desirable to relieve the executive Government from direct
responsibility in such a matter.
Query—what is the oldest bilingual glossary of the Latin
language? What is the earliest vocabulary in which Latin is
explained by some other tongue? Is the earliest a Latin and Greek
(not Greek and Latin) glossary, or a Latin and Gothic glossary, or a
vocabulary in which Latin is rendered into the Lingua volgare? If
 so, what is the date of the latter? I hope you will not think this an
unfair question to address to so distinguished a bibliotecario as
yourself.
Yours, &c., &c.,
G. C. Lewis.”

That Panizzi was equally interested in other Departments of the

Museum Mr. Newton could testify, if need were, for that of the
antiquities, and the writer for his own.
Between Mr. Charles Thomas Newton, C.B., and Panizzi, there
subsisted something more than an intimate friendship; a more
proper term would be a warm attachment. We need no greater proof
of Mr. Newton’s devotion to his friend than the fact that when in
1867 the latter was ill, and his life despaired of, the former devoted
all his time to the care of his sometime colleague. The great number
of letters before us, from the hand of Mr. Newton, would indeed fill a
volume of most interesting matter, relating to his discoveries and
travels in the Levant; for he was in the habit of communicating to his
friend, it appears, all his adventures, whether at Rhodes, Mytilene,
Budrum, or Rome. These letters make us wonder, by their freshness,
how time and inclination could have been found to write them, and
are certainly deserving of publication at some future time. So much
important matter, from such a pen, would prove a treasure to future
antiquarians and travellers.
Now Mr. Newton, who had been in the Museum since May, 1840,
was, in February, 1852, appointed by Lord Granville to the Vice-
Consulship of Mytilene.
Whilst there, he carried on various researches and excavations,
sending home from time to time to the British Museum the fruit of
his labours. In April, 1856, Mr. Newton received directions from the
Foreign Office to proceed to Rome, to value the Campana collection
then offered to the British Government. On his return from Rome to
London he took this opportunity to submit his views as to further
operations at Budrum; these he naturally explained to Panizzi, and,
through him, it was arranged that the two should one day go to
Brocket Hall, Lord Palmerston’s country seat, and there meet Lord
Clarendon, to talk over the matter. Lord Palmerston, who was then
Premier, with his usual savoir-faire, at once suggested that the
Principal Librarian being present, and the two Ministers being both
ex-officio Trustees of the British Museum, the meeting of this triad
might be considered a quorum, for the settlement of a matter of so
much consequence to the National Institution. It was then agreed
that Mr. Newton should at once proceed to Budrum on special
mission. Those were days when operations of this kind could be
carried out with that secrecy and despatch which are necessary to
insure success. In this particular case, there was the more reason for
prompt action, because Ludwig Ross, a distinguished German
explorer, had already visited Budrum, and noticed in his travels the
Lions from the Mausoleum, then built into the walls of the Castle at
Budrum.
Mr. Newton’s demands were surely not exorbitant; he suggested
that a firman authorizing the removal of the Lions should be
obtained from the Porte, declaring that the sum of £2,000, and the
services of a ship-of-war, for at least six months, would be necessary
to insure the success of the expedition. These suggestions were,
without loss of time, acted upon, and H.M.’s ship “Gorgon,”
commanded by Captain Towsey, was chartered, and she arrived at
Budrum in the month of November, 1856.
It is unnecessary now to say that the finding of the ever famous
tomb of Mausolus at Halicarnassus (Budrum) was an event of the
first importance to Classical Archæology, or, what is better, that the
recovery of part of the slabs of the frieze of this monument, along
with other sculptures, was for the history of Greek sculpture in the
age of Praxiteles and Scopas, of the same importance, as the
marbles of the Parthenon for the history of sculpture in the time of
Pheidias. Several of the slabs of the frieze from the Mausoleum had
been obtained for the British Museum, through the late Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe, some years previous to Mr. Newton’s
expedition; but a comparison of them with the newly-recovered
fragments at once shows how admirably the skill of the artist, lost
and obliterated in the older slabs, had been preserved in Mr.
Newton’s. It was not from the circumstances, perhaps, possible to
affirm that this or that portion of the Sculptures was the work of
Praxiteles, or of Scopas; but this at any rate could be said, that the
Sculptures must be taken as works executed under the eyes of these
artists, and, doubtless, greatly influenced by them. Here is what Mr.
Newton says of them:—

“Budrum, 26th April, 1857.

“My dear Panizzi,
Since I last wrote, we have made some brilliant
discoveries. On the Eastern Side of the Mausoleum I have found a
beautiful piece of frieze, three figures, an Amazon attacking a
prostrate Greek, and a mounted figure.
This piece of frieze ranges with that now in the British Museum.
It is in much finer condition, and is a most exquisite specimen of
high relief. Being found in the Eastern Side, I think we may
venture to consider it the work of Scopas, because a block of that
size could not have been transported far without greater injury. On
the North Side, digging on beyond the apparent boundary of the
temenos, we came to a beautiful Hellenic wall about three feet
behind the line cut out of the rock, which marks the boundaries of
the quadrangle.
This wall, built of isodomous masonry, is evidently the boundary
of the precinct (Pliny’s circuitus) on this side. Digging beyond it to
the North, I came to a magnificent colossal female head lying in
the ground. The hair is arranged in regular curls on the forehead,
and bound with a coif behind, like the head-dress on the
contemporary silver coins of Syracuse. This head is one of the
most interesting discoveries we have made. It is in fine condition;
the nose and mouth have suffered a little. Following the wall
Eastward from this point, we came to a mass of ruins lying as they
had originally fallen. Near the surface was a Lion of the same size
as those in the Castle, nearly entire and in magnificent condition.
We have the two forelegs, and hope to find the paws. The face
quite perfect, the inside of the mouth coloured red, the very
 roughness of the tongue rendered. This Lion, though perhaps
inferior to the rest in style, and not finished throughout, is a most
noble beast. I think the British public will admire him, because
there is so little for the imagination to supply.
While we were getting him out, we discovered a male (?) head
in three pieces, but capable of being united without much loss. I
think, an Apollo, exceedingly fine, on a smaller scale than the
other; also part of a horse’s head, on an enormous scale, bigger, I
think, than the equestrian statue I first found. After getting these
out, we came upon a most beautiful draped female figure in very
fine condition, but headless; it is in two pieces, the first from the
neck to the knees, the second from the knees to the feet. The
drapery of this figure seems to me equal to any in the Elgin-Room.
The statue must have been about ten feet long. As we were
getting it out, we discovered another colossal figure lying a little to
the North of it. This we had not time to get out yesterday, and to-
day is Sunday, so it must remain till to-morrow. I forgot to
mention that on the piece of the horse’s head a portion of bronze
bridle, with a circular ornament, was still fixed, but another piece
of horse, with another piece of bronze bridle, was found close to
it. You see that these discoveries promise well. My impression is
that we are now, for the first time, exploring a part of the site
where the ruins have not been disturbed since the building fell.
Hence the completeness and fine condition of the sculpture....
Yours very sincerely,
C. T. Newton.”

On the 8th of June, of the same year, again Mr. Newton wrote to
Panizzi;—

“You will rejoice to hear that along the Eastern Side of the
Mausoleum I found two more very fine slabs of frieze, one nearly
six feet long, with an Amazon on horseback, sitting with her face
to the tail, shooting at a foe behind her, after the Parthian fashion
—a most bold and vigorous design; the other, a combat on foot. It
 is remarkable that these four slabs of frieze have been found in a
line on the Eastern Side. This makes me think they are all from
the hand of Scopas. Together they make up about 16 feet, which,
with the slabs now in the British Museum, will make up a total
length of about 80 feet. I hope you have secured the Genoa slab
at any price.
On the North Side, I have found the other half of the head of
the great horse. The bronze bit, in perfect preservation, was still in
his mouth! The nostrils are distended, much in the manner of
those in the horse’s head from the Car of Night in the Elgin-Room,
so that these two heads, the works of successive schools, will be
an interesting subject of comparison. Besides this, I have found a
face broken off from a colossal male head. I think this belongs to
the figure in the chariot. It seems to be an ideal portrait, not
unlike that of Alexander the Great on the coins of Lysimachus. It
represents a man, perhaps Mausolus himself, in the prime of life,
slightly bearded. It is in very fine condition, and is, altogether, the
finest head I have ever seen, particularly interesting, because it
seems to form the connecting link between the schools of Scopas
and that of Lysippus. I have still got a good deal of ground to dig
on the North Side, but the proprietors are very obstinate.
Yours ever sincerely,
C. T. Newton.”

On the 17th of January, 1861, Mr. Newton was appointed Keeper

of Greek and Roman Antiquities, then organized as a separate
Department of the Museum. From that time to now he has been
constantly occupied, with a success so well known that it is
unnecessary to refer to it. In the enlargement and enriching of his
Department, partly by the direction of excavations on classical soil—
memorably those at Ephesus, which resulted in the discovery of the
Temple of Diana—and partly by the purchase of celebrated
collections of antiquities. Chief among his transactions of the latter
kind was the purchase of the collection of the Duke de Blacas in
1866, which, as public opinion testified at the time, was a most
important gain to the National Museum. The acquisition was not
effected without difficulties, as may be seen from the following
letter:—

“Hôtel des Deux Mondes, Paris,

November 25th, 1866.
“My dear Panizzi,
Jones tells me that after the meeting of the Trustees on
Friday, Mr. D’Israeli had an interview with you about the Blacas
purchase. I write, therefore, to thank you for having backed my
recommendation, which I am quite sure you must have done
strongly, or otherwise the Government would not have come to a
decision so rapidly. I never was more astonished than when I
received authority to treat on Sunday morning last. While we were
signing the contract poor DeWitte was at the Grand’Messe. ‘If I
had only known,’ he said to me afterwards, ‘two hours sooner
what you were about, I would have telegraphed to the Emperor at
Compiègne.’ The French are greatly disgusted. From all I can
learn, they meant to offer about £40,000, and keep the matter
dragging on till they had found out our last offer. I am very much
pleased at the result, because I know how greatly the value of our
Museum, as a whole, will be increased by this purchase, which
supplies exactly what we were most deficient in.
There will, I have no doubt, be a great outcry in England about
the largeness of the sum; but I am perfectly ready to bear the
brunt of all that. The public will find out in time what a prize they
have got. I hear that Mérimée was very anxious that it should be
secured for the Louvre. He was on the Commission, but was
obliged to go South. Perhaps you may be writing to him; I should
like very much to hear what he has to say about the purchase.
There is no one who has done more to defend my purchases than
he has, up to this date, so I hope he will now. I am going to see
the collection of M. Thiers to-morrow morning, and shall be
curious to hear what he says.
 Yours ever sincerely,
C. T. Newton.”

We trust that we shall not be held to have failed in our endeavour

to do justice to the services rendered by Mr. Newton to the National
Museum. Apart from the high attainments to which testimony should
be offered, this gentleman was so intimately connected with the
subject of the memoir, that the omission of such a record would
have been a serious fault, considering the constant intercommunion
which existed between the two, and the mutual assistance they
rendered each other.
As a conclusion to our present chapter, it must be noted that on
the 6th of July, 1859, Panizzi was admitted to the Honorary Degree
of D.C.L. at the University of Oxford.
 CHAPTER XVI

Desire to Visit Naples; Pius IX; Ferdinand II; Revolution of 1848; Poerio and
Settembrini; ‘Giovine Italia;’ Gladstone’s Visit to Naples.

t may be readily conceived that Panizzi did not

regard as matters of secondary importance, or
affection, the affairs of his native Italy. In the
summer of 1846, being desirous of paying, for the
first time, a visit to Naples, he applied to the
Government of that State for the necessary
permission through Lord Palmerston, who
addressed the following letter to Sir William Temple on his friend’s
behalf:—

“September 25th, 1846.

“Sir,
I have to inform you that Mr. Panizzi, a native of Modena, who has
now been for many years resident in England, who holds the
appointment of Keeper of the Printed Books in the British
Museum, wishes to go to Italy in the course of this autumn, and
to visit Naples. Mr. Panizzi was, many years ago, connected with
some persons who, on account of their political opinions, had
incurred the displeasure of the late Duke of Modena; but Mr.
Panizzi has long ceased to have anything to do with Italian
politics, and confines himself entirely to his official duties in
England, where he enjoys the friendship and esteem of
distinguished men of all parties.
 Mr. Panizzi, however, would not like to enter the Neapolitan
territory unless he were previously assured that he would be
permitted to do so without hindrance, and that he would be free
from molestation during the short time he might remain there,
and as many members of H. M’s Government have a great regard
for Mr. Panizzi, and feel an interest in what concerns him, I have
to desire that you will mention this to the Neapolitan Government,
and that you will state H.M.’s Government would be much gratified
if the requested assurance could be given.
I have, &c., &c.,
Palmerston.”

After some delay, in consequence, according to Sir William’s

account, of difficulties raised by the Minister of Police at Naples, the
required permission was granted; but Panizzi did not think fit to avail
himself of it upon this occasion. His visit, however, as will be seen,
was only postponed. It will also be noticed that his influence was in
course of time an important, if not the main instrument whereby the
liberation of the unhappy victims of tyranny, then lying in the
horrible dungeons of Naples, was effected.
In order to lay clearly before the
reader the manner in which such
influence was exercised, it is best to
give a brief account of the condition
of Naples at and about the period of
turmoil and revolution in Europe in
the years 1847-9, and of the paternal
treatment bestowed by the
Government of Ferdinand II., monarch
of the Two Sicilies (justly entitled to
the appellation of pater patriæ) on
many of his ungrateful and
recalcitrant subjects.
On the death (June 1st, 1846) of
Gregory XVI., a pontiff with a true and
earnest feeling of respect for things as they are, and a righteous
aversion to all unnecessary and gratuitous reforms, great
expectations were anticipated throughout all Italy of good results
from the rule of his successor, Pius IX. The most sanguine hopes
were entertained that, through him, the rights of liberty would be
secured; and indeed, as Gioberti says, he was regarded as no less
than the arbiter of peace in Europe. Without casting the shadow of
suspicion on the genuineness of the new Pope’s good intentions,
whereof he gave ample proof on his accession to the Papal Chair, it
is nevertheless pretty evident that, under the most favourable
circumstances, these expectations stood but little chance of
fulfilment. Even had Pius IX. not been deceived in the first instance,
and by subsequent revolution frightened out of the liberal principles
to which he at first gave his adherence, he was scarcely, himself, in a
position to carry them into practice. To preach reform and
constitutionalism from the Vatican was to subvert the Papal seat.
External obstacles, again, would assuredly stand in the way of him
who should attempt to promote even moderate reforms in an Italian
State of the period. Many men who, in other places, and under other
circumstances, would have been regarded as models of
enlightenment and moderation, shamed by the miserable history of
their country, and exasperated by long-continued oppression and
misrule, had become somewhat blind to the wholesome doctrine
that the art of construction is a chief constituent of political order. To
another party, formidable in numbers if not conspicuous for wisdom,
it was but labour lost to proffer anything in the shape of reform;
these men would be content with nothing short of destruction. Of
them and their adherents Panizzi has, as will be observed, expressed
his fear and abhorrence in no measured terms. Hence his alienation
from Mazzini, who, in his egregious selfishness, would have
destroyed the elements of power that existed, but had never
displayed the ability to provide a substitute.
Pius IX., whose intellectual powers were far from equal to the
largeness of his heart, soon became involved in difficulties. His
constant dread of acting prejudicially to the interests of the Church
weighed him down; and the influence of Count Ludolf (Neapolitan
 Minister at Rome, well known for his
retrogressive opinions) probably thwarted
his good intentions in no small degree.
From want of confidence in himself, as
well as from despair at the impediments,
subjective and objective, which
perpetually obtruded themselves upon
him, Pius had recourse for protection and
direction to the counsel of others. Ill
advisers were those whom he chose—
Grasselini, Gizzi, and Antonelli. The results
of vacillation and evil communication were
speedily visible. Already, in November,
1846, a few short months after his
accession, in his address to the Patriarchs and Archbishops, he
roundly condemned everything that bore the name of Progress as
seductive, false, deceitful, seditious, foolish, and destructive of ties
religious, political, and social.
The first notable act of the reign of Pius IX. had been to grant a
general amnesty to all political offenders. This act of clemency,
though it gained for him a certain amount of well-deserved
popularity, unhappily smothered in the heart of Ferdinand II. all the
veneration with which that monarch had been wont to regard the
occupants of St. Peter’s chair. The King even went so far, in his
indignation, as to stigmatise the Pope as the head of “Young Italy.”
With his people it was different. The sensation created at Naples by
this amnesty was intense. The inhabitants demanded that it should
be placarded throughout the city; the King, however, not only set his
face against the proposal, but peremptorily forbade all
demonstrations in favour of His Holiness, suppressed the sale of his
portraits, and interdicted the admission into the country of Roman
newspapers. Indeed, the very mention of the Pope’s name was
regarded as bordering on treason, and as calling for the notice of
the police.
It might possibly have come to pass, had foreign powers
possessed more satisfactory relations with one another at this time,
that better order would, under the pressure of external suasion,
have been maintained in the Government of more than one Italian
State. The “Spanish Marriages” had created a coolness between
France and England, and M. Guizot’s foreign policy had thrown
France, so far as regarded Italy, into the arms of Austria and the
reactionary party. The prospect of establishing civil and religious
liberty in the Peninsula looked extremely obscure. The clamouring
for reform, however, continued, intermittently throughout Italy. In
Tuscany there appeared a speck of light in the surrounding
darkness: for, urged by his people the Grand Duke had shown
himself nothing loth to grant reforms demanded of him. In Rome
meetings and demonstrations were frequent. Amidst all this
Ferdinand remained unmoved, notwithstanding the importunate
entreaties of the emissaries of Louis-Philippe, the Duke D’Aumale,
and Prince de Joinville. In fact his Majesty plainly and deliberately
gave them to understand that their presence in his kingdom was
undesirable.
Liberty of the Press being excluded from the King’s Dominions, its
place was filled by the usual substitute, the issue of anonymous
pamphlets; amongst many others, was one entitled Protesto del
Popolo delle due Sicilie, from the pen of the celebrated Luigi
Settembrini. This work, which was immediately seized, contained a
long and detailed account of the cruelties inflicted during so many
years by the Neapolitan Government on its hapless subjects. A copy
of the pamphlet reached the hands of Ferdinand, who determined
that no pains should be spared to discover its author. Suspicion fell
on many of the leading Liberals, who were consequently imprisoned,
amongst them Carlo Poerio, Mariano d’Ayala, Domenico Mauro, and
others. Banishment was the sentence of those who could not be
seized, and amongst them was Settembrini, who escaping to Malta,
no sooner found himself on safe ground, than he avowed himself as
author of the pamphlet.
Meanwhile Calabria and Sicily were in a state of fermentation, and
the King perplexed by the general condition of affairs, was induced
to grant a general amnesty.
 The North of Italy was at that time in calmer and happier
circumstances. Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, had consented to
measures of Liberal Reform, and certain influential northern Italians,
headed by Counts Mammiani and Balbo, Massimo d’Azeglio, Cavour
and Silvio Pellico, had petitioned Ferdinand II. to make concessions
similar to those they enjoyed in their kingdom, but without avail. Nor
was England wanting in sympathy with the suffering, for Lord Minto,
by direction of Lord Palmerston, had arrived from the North of Italy,
at Naples, on an intercessory mission to the King in behalf of his
people.
This interference of England caused much consternation in
Austria. Prince Metternich warned Lord Palmerston that the Emperor
was firmly resolved to keep his Empire intact. His Lordship’s reply to
the warning was characteristic; that, although he respected the
rights of Austria, still he entertained a strong opinion that the people
of Italy had a perfect right to use all legitimate means for their own
amelioration. At Naples, notwithstanding Lord Minto’s mission,
troubles increased. The King remained as obdurate as ever, and was
supported by the members of his family, with the single exception of
the Count of Syracuse, who, for the expression of his views, was
forthwith expelled from the kingdom.
Earnestly as England desired the promotion of liberty in Italy, she
was not unmindful of the safety of Kings; and, consequently, the
then British Ambassador at Rome suggested that the English fleet
should proceed to Naples to protect the King, and that Count Ludolf
should be informed “that the encouragement of popular insurrection
formed no part of the hearty support England was disposed to give
to the progress of liberal reform in Italy, and at the same time
strongly impressing on him the danger to which the King would be
exposed, unless he made some advances to satisfy the just
expectations of his subjects.”
In December, 1847, a revolution of vast magnitude was impending
at Palermo, and in the same month a final appeal was made to the
King urging him to recognise the rights of his subjects.
The 12th of January, 1848, was fixed on as the day for the
expiration of this ultimatum. As heretofore, the application was
treated with contempt, and an armed force was dispatched, headed
by the Duke Serra Capriola.
The first shots were fired on the 12th of January, the fête-day of
the King, whereupon fresh troops were sent from Naples with orders
to Désauget, the General commanding, that, in case of resistance,
he should make a garden of Palermo. Désauget accordingly
bombarded the town, but happily failed to make a garden or a
desert of it, and was forced, after losing many men, to return to
Naples. So matters went on from bad to worse. No sooner had the
King made concessions than he withdrew them, continually fore-
swearing himself.
The subjugation of the Sicilians (in support of whom Lord Minto,
much disappointed by a pseudo-constitution granted by the King, in
which their rights were simply disregarded, had set out for Palermo),
still remained as difficult of completion as ever. On the 25th of
March, the Sicilian Parliament met at the last-named place, and
declared the dethronement of Ferdinand II. Thereupon ensued the
bombardment of Messina, whence arose the King’s universally-
known nickname of King Bomba. The independence of Sicily was
now recognised by France and England. In May the cry of “Religion
in Danger!” was raised by the Royalist clique, and the refusal of St.
Januarius to work his annual miracle infused much terror into the
superstitious minds of the lower orders. Unfortunately, the means
successfully employed in times past by a certain French General to
induce the Saint to perform his duty were now impracticable.
By this time, a National Guard having been instituted, the King’s
position was really imperilled, and he was in the act of preparing
with his family to quit Naples by sea, when the troops and the
populace came into collision. This, as usual, resulted in street
fighting; also, as a natural consequence, the regulars gained the
mastery, and a sad massacre ensued; whilst to slaughter, the
Lazzaroni, the natural adherents of the King, added the inevitable
accompaniment of pillage. Under such circumstances did Naples
remain in a state of siege until the 15th of June.
Meantime the Sicilians had proclaimed the Duke of Genoa their
future ruler; a division of 16,000 troops, under Filangieri, was
dispatched for active service, and, after an obstinate resistance,
landed at Messina.
In November the King proceeded to Gaeta, in order to meet there
Pius IX., who, by this time having lost his popularity, had gained an
equivalent by securing the friendship of Ferdinand. Whilst there,
news of the Austrian victory at Novara reached the ears of the two
confederates, and was the cause of great rejoicing to both;
notwithstanding that, forced by popular pressure, Ferdinand had
despatched 12,000 of his troops (he had promised 40,000) as a
contingent to the Sardinian army. This great triumph of absolutism
by no means disposed the King to alter, or even to moderate, his
style of government. Arrests and acts of violence and brutality
became continuous, and the unhappy Liberals were unduly rewarded
for their attachment to the cause of freedom—Filippo Agresti, Carlo
Poerio, and Luigi Settembrini being arrested and imprisoned in the
dungeons of the “Vicaria,” the most loathsome of the invariably
loathsome Neapolitan prisons.
Thus much have we written to show the state of Naples at the
time to which our biography appertains. Yet this brief sketch of the
position would be incomplete did we altogether ignore the two
patriots, Poerio and Settembrini, who, not merely on account of their
notoriety as chiefs of the Liberal party, but as friends both of Panizzi
and Mr. Gladstone, call for some especial notice in these pages.
Whoever has studied the history of Italy, more especially the
history of the country in these latter times, will have learnt that
Italian unity—the zeal for which had, during all the centuries
between King Arduinus and Victor Emmanuel II., never become
extinguished—was not accomplished by the efforts of any one
individual. Amongst the number of those in the highest rank who
devoted their lives to the achievement of the noble end, stand Poerio
and Settembrini.
Their patriotism extended beyond the circumscription of their
native town, province, or State; they felt that each subordinate
nationality must blend with the others, to enable their common Italy
to take her due place in the assembly of nations—to speak with
undivided voice on the affairs of Europe; to be, in fact, the one Italy
of their aspirations—strong because united. For this, while their
individual designations were still Modenese, Neapolitans, Venetians,
or what not, they must be, over and above all, Italians.
Poerio was born at Naples in 1803. He
afterwards became a lawyer, and for some
time during the troubled reign of Ferdinand
was, at least when at liberty, the leader of
the “Left” in the Neapolitan Parliament. The
term “a chequered life” might fairly be used
as expressive of such a career; were it not
that his undertakings, having all the same
end in view, in which he was almost
incessantly engaged, and the perpetual
series of arrests and imprisonments which
he suffered, imparted as it were, a
melancholy uniformity to his career. In 1831
the crown of Italy was offered by the patriots of the Romagno to
Ferdinand II. That monarch, probably feeling an innate disability to
govern constitutionally, or otherwise than according to the dictates
of his own will, a condition doubtless affixed to the tender, declined
the proffered gift. What he might have done had he accepted, must
remain in the realm of conjecture; his refusal to lend his aid to the
settlement of the country’s deplorably unsettled state caused plot
upon plot to spring up on all sides. The name Liberali was now first
given to the opponents of the King. These were unceasing in
preaching to the people, according to their light, the blessings of
Constitutional Government. If their skill in politics, as may
reasonably be supposed, was small, their honesty and love of
country were large; and assuredly no form which they may have
conceived, however crude, could have equalled in weakness and
depravity the various petty tyrannies by which their country was
distracted. Amongst these Liberali, the most active and beyond
doubt the most able, was Carlo Poerio. It is worthy of remark that
when, in 1847, Pius IX. had achieved his reputation as the first
reformer of Italy, the only two men of note who disbelieved in him
were Poerio and King Ferdinand II. After the breaking out of the
Sicilian Revolution on the 12th of January, 1848, at the time he was
a prisoner, Poerio’s fortunes took a more favourable turn. Freed from
his bondage, he was made Prime Minister, and subsequently Minister
of Public Instruction. His aspirations, however, were too modest to
assume such dignity—his aim was to be no more than a simple
Member of Parliament, and in two months he had retired from all
official life. But his days of freedom were destined to be but of short
duration. On the 19th of July, 1849, he was again arrested, and
confined in the Castel dell’ Ovo, and from thence removed to the
“Vicaria.” From this he was on the 1st of February, 1850, taken in
chains to the Arsenal, and with Michele Pironti sent as a common
convict to Nisida.
Were we to relate all the adventures of Poerio, interesting and
important as they are, it would be properly considered an
interpolation in our biography. A great and melancholy portion of the
story is best told in his own words. He was asked, on his way to the
dungeons, how he was, and he answered Fò questa cura di ferro da
parecchi anni, e mi sento più forte (I have now been taking this iron
remedy for several years, and feel much stronger). In a future
chapter we shall have still more to say respecting this martyr of
liberty; but let us pass to those later years of his life, when tardy
success hardly requited such loving patriotism, and barely
compensated for his great misfortunes. In 1859, when he came out
of prison, he was elected member for Arezzo, but steadily refused to
accept a place in the Cabinet, although much pressed by Cavour. He
died on the 28th of April, 1867.
Luigi Settembrini, though standing many rungs of the political
ladder lower than Poerio, was nevertheless a hardy and enthusiastic
patriot. Mr. Gladstone wrote of him in his letters to Lord Aberdeen
(hereafter to be mentioned) as one in a sphere by some degrees
narrower, but with a character quite as pure and fair as Poerio’s.
Settembrini was born at Naples, the 17th of April, 1813. His father
was a lawyer, and, like his son, a patriot, and had fought for his
country in the stirring days of 1820-1. Of Luigi’s private life we may
say that he was a teacher of Italian literature and an eminent
classical scholar. In 1848 he, together with Poerio, was tried on the
 trumped-up charge of being member
of a secret society. This charge was
further supported by a letter
concocted by the police, so gross and
palpable a forgery that the very
judges in the case considered it more
prudent to reject it as evidence. With
Poerio and forty more he was capitally
convicted. The sentence was not
executed, yet he was reserved for a
fate as hard—perpetual imprisonment
upon a remote sea-girt rock.
Although Settembrini was in the
above case most unjustifiably, nay,
iniquitously, convicted, and barbarously punished, it is well known
that he was, as a matter of fact, an ardent supporter of the society
called “Giovine Italia,” an association which, had the sagacity of its
directors been more, and the audacity of its purposes less, might
have given some trouble to the then rulers of Italy. When the King of
Naples, as has been said, charged Pius IX. with being at the head of
Young Italy, he probably made use of the most scurrilous phrase, by
way of accusation, which occurred to him. The “Giovine Italia,”
however, was an established fact, albeit the association numbered
not the Pope amongst its members, nor was it under the special
protection of the Church. Tyranny has this superiority over luckless
poverty that it renders those on whom it presses dangerous as well
as ridiculous. This peculiar form of danger, the Secret Society, which
tyranny calls into existence, is commonly less formidable to the
powers against which it is organised than to the causes which it is
intended to protect. Had the modest programme of the “Giovine
Italia” been carried into execution, a despotism would have been
created more unbearable than the yoke of Austria, the Vatican, and
King Bomba united. The prime object of this society was to abolish
all Princes then reigning in Italy—including, of course, the Pope—and
not only to drive the Austrians out of the country, but the French
from Corsica and the English from Malta. When these laudable ends
had been accomplished, a great Military Republic was to be
established under a supreme Dictator, residing at Rome, with ten
consuls to govern the ten divisions into which the whole of Italy was
to be parcelled out. Each province or division was to be under a
colonel, its Municipal Government being administered by a captain.
To each division, subject to the officers thereof, was to belong a
treasurer, himself also a military man. In addition to these officers an
order was to be instituted entitled “Apostoles,” whose duty it should
be to act as dictatorial or consular agents, and to settle and arrange
matters in general.
The regulations for the internal conduct of the Society show a
certain skill of organization, coupled with a good deal of the
childishness of bugbear solemnity usually appertaining to such
associations. The following will serve as specimens of some of the
more important of these regulations:—“No meetings of members to
be allowed, and no conversation between members more than two
in number at any one time. Oaths to be sworn on a skull and dagger.
The Republican flag to be a white skull on a black field, and the
motto Unità, Libertà, Indipendenza. The dress to be black, and the
arms a musket and bayonet, with a side dagger. Drilling to form a
principal and constant duty.”
Although a Secret Society of this description is a standing
monument of folly and wickedness, yet it is hardly possible,
considering the state of things in Italy at the time of which we write,
not to feel some compassion and make some allowance for the
conspirators of “Giovine Italia.” Their great idea—the Unity of Italy—
had been set forth by Dante according to a poet’s conception.
Macchiavelli had planned its execution as a statesman. The love of
country was extended by the patriotic subject of the kingdom of the
Two Sicilies to every comer of his native land. The dream—if dream
it may be called—has found its accomplishment in reality within our
own time, but happily not by the agency nor after the ideas and
programme of “Young Italy.”
 In the early part of 1851 Mr. Gladstone made his memorable visit
to Naples; Si natura negat facit indignatio versum. The great
statesman possessed a nature particularly averse to revolutionary
sentiments or prejudices, and a more impartial judge betwixt King
and People never existed. Shortly after his arrival he had “supped
full of horrors,” and he longed to express his inward feelings on the
palpable absence of justice in the actions of the Neapolitan
Government, and the cruelties practised on the persons of hapless
political offenders, many wrongfully condemned—cruelties of which
he was an unwilling and shocked witness. His observations resulted
in the two celebrated letters to Lord Aberdeen. The general
character of the administration is well summed up in a pithy
sentence quoted in the first, E la negazione di Dio eretta a sistema di
governo. (This is the negation of God erected into a system of
government.)
Mr. Gladstone, with his usual moderation and desire of accuracy,
declines, in these letters, to decide, and shows himself willing to give
Ferdinand the benefit of all doubt on the subject. He even records
an instance of “a direct and unceremonious appeal to the King’s
humanity, which met with a response on his part evidently sincere.”
His account of the prisons of Naples inclines us to refer our readers
to this correspondence rather than to transfer his description to our
own pages. Suffice it to say, that he calls them “the extreme of filth
and horror,” the Vicaria “that charnel-house,” in which, amongst
other iniquities, even proper medical assistance was withheld from
the sick prisoners.
It was not long ere an answer to these statements was attempted
by the Neapolitan Government, under the title Rassegna degli Errori
e delle Fallacie pubblicate dal Sig. Gladstone, &c, &c. This brochure
evinced an ingenuity of sophistical argument, to say the least of it,
only worthy of such a cause. Before any authorized reply to it
appeared, it had been skilfully and sufficiently answered by an
anonymous author in a pamphlet entitled:—A Detailed Exposure of
the Apology put forth by the Neapolitan Government, in reply to the
Charges of Mr. Gladstone, under the title of Rassegna, &c., &c.
(1852). London. Mr. Gladstone’s own answer, entitled, An
Examination of The Official Reply of the Neapolitan Government, was
published soon afterwards. In this the writer grants the utmost limits
of concession to his opponents; whatever rests not on manifestly
sufficient evidence, nay, on moral certainty, he retracts: whatever
even seems to require modification, he unhesitatingly modifies; but,
modification and retraction notwithstanding, it must be
acknowledged that the case stands much as it was. To quote the
author’s own words:—“I believe that, for my own vindication, I might
without any new publication have relied in perfect safety upon the
verdict already given by the public opinion and announced by the
press of Europe. The arrow has shot deep into the mark, and cannot
be dislodged.”
 Judging from a letter of Mr. Gladstone’s to Panizzi, it may be
concluded that the latter had much to do with the publication of
these famous letters:—

“October 6th, 1849.

“My dear Panizzi,
“... You and I have, I think, been looking with much the
same feeling at what has been passing; in Rome. I am no great
revolutionist elsewhere; but I am persuaded that the civil
Government of three millions of people ought not to be carried on
only by priests, and a real representative system giving the
community the power of the purse, is the best, and, so far as I
can see, ought to be accepted or endured.
Always very sincerely yours,
W. E. Gladstone.”
 CHAPTER XVII

Cardinal Alberoni; Panizzi and Lord Shrewsbury; Correspondence arising from

Gladstone’s Visit to Naples.

here now arose, mainly out of the great subject

treated by the Gladstone letters, an important
correspondence between Panizzi and Lord
Shrewsbury, who died at Naples, Nov. 9th, 1852.
In 1850, his Lordship went to reside in quiet
retirement at his villa near Palermo, from whence
he visited Switzerland, and returned in Oct., 1852,
but spent the Autumn at Rome. In politics he was a Whig. In the
Catholic Directory we read ‘that the angelic purity of Lord
Shrewsbury was the theme of every one’s admiration, and never did
he allow a light or indelicate word, or the slightest allusion contrary
to modesty to be made before him.’ In order that the reader may
rightly understand the first few lines of this chapter, it must be
stated en passant, that Panizzi had written in the British and Foreign
Review for October, 1844, an article on the Republic of San Marino,
in which he attempted a vindication of that brilliant example of a
self-made man and dexterous (we may say unscrupulous) politician,
Cardinal Alberoni. Let it also be said that the dark as well as the
bright side of Alberoni’s character is therein treated with perfect
impartiality. His intention was to write a full biography of the
eminent Cardinal, and had requested Lord Shrewsbury to procure
him some documents at Rome, as material for the work.
The commencement of Lord Shrewsbury’s first letter contains the
answer to this commission:—
 “Palermo, April 5th, 1851.
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
As a private opportunity offers for England, I take
advantage of it to say that I have by no means neglected your
commission, yet I can only say in general terms that I have not
succeeded in all your desire, for just now I cannot lay my hand on
the correspondence, but the papers are where no one can get at
them without a great deal of fuss, and without the intervention of
some influential person on the spot, and who will undertake to
examine them at the same time; and now that Cardinal Wiseman
has, to our great surprise, left the position he was destined for,
and taken up another where we did not expect to see him, the
scheme you had so honourably intended for the vindication of an
injured Prelate, and calumniated diplomatist and statesman, must
fall to the ground for the present. Of course you have “Istoria del
Cardinale Alberoni, Seconda Edizione, &c, &c., Amsterdam, 1720.”
This appears, by the notice of it, to be an authentic and able
defence of the Cardinal, containing four letters written by himself
from Sestri, in reply to the accusations brought against him. If you
can suggest anything I shall be happy to attend to it, but things at
Rome are so perplexed and troublesome that it is difficult to get
anyone to take an interest in matters that do not immediately
concern their own duties. Had our friend Cardinal Wiseman
remained, the thing could have been done no doubt, but he too
has other questions to occupy him just at present....”

The following brilliant passage in the same letter commences the

controversy between the correspondents on the affairs of the
Neapolitan Government—Risum teneatis?
 “We enjoy the peace and quiet—both civil and religious—of this
place amazingly: and begin to feel that we are safer and happier
under the absolutism of Ferdinand II., and the Martial Law of our
Good Prince Satriano, than under the boasted sway of the
‘Glorious Principles!!’ For, under your good friend Ferdinand, and
his worthy representative, we are sure of safety and protection, as
long as we observe the law, as becomes a peaceful member of
society. But, under the ‘Glorious Principles‘ we violate no law, and
fancy ourselves safe, when, lo and behold, we are arraigned as
criminals, and condemned to be mulct to the last farthing by an ex
post facto arrangement of the collective wisdom (?) of the freest
and most enlightened nation under the sun! But I shall shock your
sensitive nerves, and scandalize your constitutional orthodoxy, so I
must bid you good-bye, and beg of you to believe me, dear Mr.
Panizzi, your very obedient and obliged friend and servant,
Shrewsbury.”

Thus Panizzi replied to the first of these passages:—

“British Museum, April 24th, 1851.

“My dear Lord,
I have had the honour to receive, a few days ago, your
Lordship’s letter of the fifth inst., than which no letter could have
given me greater pleasure. I should have acknowledged this
honour ere this, had not the malady and subsequent death of Lord
Langdale, one of the best friends I have ever had, taken from me
the power of fulfilling even the most agreeable duty of thanking
your Lordship for the kindness in remembering my request in
reference to Alberoni, and still more for that of addressing to me
so excellent a letter as you have been pleased to do. I cannot give
your Lordship better proof of the value I set on your
communication than by respectfully and frankly laying before your
Lordship my views on the various topics to which your letter draws
my attention, even when those views do not unfortunately
 coincide with your Lordship’s. Before coming to that, however, I
wish to say a few words respecting Alberoni. From Prince
Castelcicala I had already received a message, for which I begged
him to thank your Lordship, showing that you had not forgotten
the favour I had been encouraged by your kindness to ask your
Lordship. I now beg to enclose a memorandum in Italian, stating
in a few words what I want from Rome, and why I want it, and if
a further attempt could be made I should feel obliged; if not, we
must have patience. The Emperor of Russia has actually graciously
condescended to order the copies of certain documents in his
Imperial Archives to be made out and sent to me, and at Rome
one cannot, even through the powerful interest of your Lordship,
find means of knowing whether certain papers contain any charge
against a Cardinal, who was certainly innocent, who is
calumniated in history, and whose innocence, it is expected, would
be fully established were the contents of the papers in question
known. These are mortifying comparisons, my Lord, for us both as
Catholics, and for me, moreover, as an Italian. The schismatic
Emperor more ready to assist in proving the innocence of a
Cardinal than Rome!!! Whatever has been printed and published
respecting Alberoni I have procured, and the letters mentioned by
your Lordship were the documents which led me first to suppose
him innocent and calumniated, a supposition which further
researches have amply confirmed.
I sincerely wish Cardinal Wiseman had remained at Rome, not
so much on account of the assistance which, I do not doubt, his
Eminence would have lent me in the Alberoni affair, as, on account
of the irreparable mischief that his coming back to England has
produced....”

The reader need hardly to be reminded that the last sentence

refers to the celebrated “Papal aggression” of 1851. Panizzi’s answer
to Lord Shrewsbury’s curious laudation of the Government of Naples
is direct and incisive:—
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookball.com