Editorial

The Santiago School of Cognition postulates that the process of intelligent cognition in any living system is a result of its ongoing process of adaptation to its medium. In other words, the very process of life in living systems is a process of cognition. It also establishes that human experience and cognition is embodied and enacted with the environment, through a continuous process of active perception and sense-making of the world. Coming from systems biology and founded on the concept of autopoiesis, literally meaning self-making, defining living systems as those that can reproduce and self-maintain themselves by creating their own parts, the Santiago school essentially offers an alternative epistemology for the understanding of human experience phenomena with digital tools and environments. It also provides a framework for the creation, design, development, implementation and use of digital affordances (possibilities offered by digital technology) in education and beyond. Informing immersive learning design research and practice from the epistemology of the Santiago school also helps exploring and navigating digital innovation and the emergence of new technologies and modes of user experience design and practice. Under the premise that the nature of the world we live in is complex, interconnected, unpredictable and ever-changing, and that human experience is subjective, ecosomaesthetic, symbolic and felt with the world, traditional western design concepts such as ‘one solution fits all’ or even the notion of ‘user experience (UX) design’ become problematic. Autopoiesis, cognition and enaction at the basis of human lived experience are some of the fundamental concepts and principles coming from the epistemology of the Santiago school that can inform and guide user-centred design and creative making practice in real and virtual worlds. Embedding properties found in living systems within creative solutions, or designing for users ‘to become with the world’ in a circular enactment within digitally immersive environments are only examples of where practice-led research and creative making can go. Here, the fundamental concepts and building blocks of the Santiago school are presented and reviewed in relation to their ability to inform the understanding of the nature of human experience in real and immersive worlds, and how we ought to design for it. Examples from research and practical work will help to portray how the epistemology of the Santiago school can become of interest and of real value to artistic and design practice and inquiry. Finally, the philosophical rationale guiding the inclusion of principles and concepts coming from the Santiago school in digital learning design, creative design and artistic practice not only invites us to reconsider and re-conceptualise the role of learners and of digital technology systems and tools in educational practice, but also to rethink the nature of learning and of human experience within creative practice.

In this paper theoretical concepts and paradigms through which and within which the challenges, ambiguities, contradictions of the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary participative and collaborative artistic practices, are recognized and explained, will be analyzed on the example of the artist Tanja Ostojić's project named Leksikon Tânja Ostojić, started in 2011. Participatory or collaborative artworks are almost always realized through various nonartistic practices, likely on the boundary of political or social engagement, and often in the absence of standard artistic practices, media, materials, expressions, even without any visual character. These artworks are being generated and constructed by different situations in response to specific contexts. Their already conventional structure, beside artists, implies the involvement of the public sphere and its subjects, the establishment of a close relationship with the existing or newly established social group in a certain period. The method on which these modern participatory art practices rely on is certainly cooperation. The third key element of participative and collaborative practices is a social problem that becomes 'material' for work. Therefore, in this paper functions and meanings of artists and the community in colabrative and participative artistic practices will be considered, on the basis of an interdisciplinary approach to contemporary art history, as well as on the basis of current debates within contemporary art studies.

Los trabajos participativos y colaborativos emergen como prácticas micropolíticas y emancipatorias que visibilizan nuevas funciones sociales en la práctica artística. Son exploraciones colaborativas y transfeministas que enfocan nuevamente las inquietudes del arte en la construcción política, la creación colectiva, el trabajo en red, la cohesión social, etc. poniendo en valor aquello que es intangible como la comunicación, las dinámicas grupales, los procesos colaborativos, o el ejercicio de la política. Generando nuevas formas comunitarias de producción, nuevos lenguajes creativos, nuevas vías de diseminación de trabajo artístico así como nuevos objetivos estéticos, ligados al quehacer social y político. En este artículo analizamos las prácticas artísticas participativas y colaborativas como estructuras de relación social híbridas e interdisciplinares que promueven la flexibilización y feminización del espacio público, del que hacer político y la producción cultural e identitaria. Estableciendo nuevos universos simbólicos y metodológicos que transforman la función social del arte y el artista.

The Relationship Between Art Theory and Design Education

Introduction The evolution of creative city paradigm in the last three decades has dramatically changed the notion of placemaking and the meaning of art and design for urban development in the creative and cultural economy context. Very recently, a spontaneously emerging art district has been exploited by policy actions in many cities, resulting in its presence on the global stage at the UNESCO Creative City Network. The two most common approaches that drive art and design-based development policies are seen in the creative city approach and community development approach (Evans; Murdoch III et al.). The creative city approach aims to contribute to economic development by focussing on the economic role of art and design (Florida; Murdoch III et al.). The community development approach, on the other hand, is seen as an important factor for social benefit and democratic development (Murdoch III et al.; Grodach; Markusen and Gadwa). Grassroots arts movements and community arts organisations, in the community development approach, support the arts as a low-income community involvement and development initiative (Murdoch III et al.). According to Grodach, public spaces and art and design spaces have three main roles in community development, and are built on local assets to increase community engagement, interaction, and participation. Despite the vast range of economic considerations in the current literature, it remains unclear how creative placemaking through arts, crafts, and design operates in the context of creative cities. Particularly, there is a need for a more comprehensive perspective of how creative placemaking contributes to art district development. Economic competition among creative cities has increased, especially since neoliberal policies diffused to the urban agenda. The city of Izmir, located in the Aegean coast of Turkey, being one of the world's top 130 cities (Tekeli), contributes to globalisation of the region and occupies a unique position in Turkey’s democratic history. Regarding the global arena, Izmir has reformulated its governmental structure in the making of places, with particular neighbourhoods seeking to increase their attractiveness to the creative class, support the creative industries, and to become a ‘Creative City’. Since the Culture and Art Workshop in 2009, when the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality established a creative city vision to serve as a high point in a democratic era, in particular involving elements of culture and creativity of importance for local and global actors, there has been a series of programs with different design strategies and governance mechanisms, such as the design projects (e.g. Izmir Sea Project and Izmir History Project, and History Design Workshop), formations (e.g. establishment of Izmir Mediterranean Academy with branches of history, design, ecology, culture, and arts in 2013), events and organisations (e.g. Good Design Izmir in 2016, 5th World Design Talks by the World Design Organization [WDO] in 2018), and applications for candidacy (e.g. for the World Design Capital title 2020, and UNESCO Creative Cities Network in 2019). The purpose of this article is to explore the drivers for art and design-based development in the urban environment through the lens of creative placemaking, and how this is practiced by creative class grassroots initiatives in cities such as Izmir, Turkey, which was shortlisted in the Creative City Network competition in 2019. The methodology is built on 1) a framework analysis through the research on art and design districts and the utilisation of creative placemaking, and 2) a field study exploring the creative placemaking drivers in an emerging art district, Darağaç, in Izmir. The field study is composed of site visits, visual mappings, the use of snowball sampling to reach the creative class, and structured interviews. The framework analysis findings suggest a set of creative placemaking drivers for art and design-based developments, and the case study findings present implications for future policies for integration of localised initiatives into the creative city framework. Framework Analysis The practice of creative cities applies one-size-fits-all strategies based on tangible and intangible characteristics to attract talent and support economic growth, whereas creative placemaking offers some crucial approaches to contribute to a locale's success and involvement in larger-scale plans. Therefore, placemaking appears as a phenomenological process that explains a sense of place, attachments, and, more broadly, the interaction between a region and its inhabitants (Mengi and Guaralda). The term ‘creative placemaking’ was first used by economist Ann Markusen and art consultant Anne Gadwa in the 2010 White Paper of the National Endowment for the Arts, as a solution when cities, suburbs, and small towns are faced with structural changes and displacement. Creative placemaking aims to revitalise space and economic development with creative initiatives. Markusen and Gadwa argue that creative placemaking provides gains in areas such as innovative products and services, livability, diversity, jobs, and income opportunities. Creative placemaking is also defined as a community-participatory tool to strengthen and enrich the identity of a place as well as development of a place. Community identity enables local assets to build trust and relationships (Kelkar et al.) while exploiting social and civic fabric that brings out the local character and narratives (Borrup). Moreover, Redaelli formulates creative placemaking as an innovative way of thinking for solving community problems that utilises the creative power of art and artists. From an economic perspective, Gallagher et al. point out that creative placemaking can happen in communities of any size and uses art and cross-sector collaboration to benefit the space. Creative placemaking through cross-sector collaboration is directly related to political ideology, social division, community size, resource limitations, and capacity of arts organisations. The theoretical discussion derived from the literature enables us to reconsider the use of creative placemaking approaches for creative city strategies and provides a framework that brings the most significant drivers of creative placemaking, especially for art and design-based strategies in urban environments (Table 1). Drivers Indicators Creative Practices Products Artworks Events Festivals Cultural Production Local Assets Local Knowledge Context Listening & Gathering Stories Knowledge & Skill Exchange Creativity Exchange Experiential Learning Community Involvement Co-Creation Collaboration Creative Placemakers Artists Designers Craftspeople Resident of the Community Local Audience Virtual Platform Archive/Publications Creativity Productivity Collectivity Spatial Environment Neighbourhood Streets Place Identity Digital Hub Atelier Digital Studio/Maker Space Art Galleries Exhibition Spaces Art Equipment Maker/Supplier Meeting Place/Third Place Institutional Support Networking Platform for Dialogue Space for Exhibition Publicity Public Fund Private Fund Philanthropists Sponsorship Education Institutions Art Institutions Art Organisations Non-Government Organisations Government Table 1: Major drivers of creative placemaking. Creative Practices, as the first driver, aim to describe tangible outputs such as products, works of art, events, and festivals. Wyckoff defines projects and activities involving art, culture, and creative thinking as the driving forces of creative placemaking to create collective memory. In this regard, Mutero et al. emphasise the importance of listening and gathering stories, in which it associates definitions such as community, local knowledge, and context. Describing community participation as a tool to improve the development of a place, Kelkar et al. mention that it helps to change the perception of the community. In this context, it creates trust and relationships while building community identity and sense of belonging. Creative Placemakers, as the second driver, represent actors in creative placemaking. One of the six drivers suggested by Markusen and Gadwa for creating a successful place are the creative initiators. Borrup, on the other hand, underlines the role of crucial actors, named as creative placemakers, such as city planners, developers, artists, local policy makers. neighbourhood residents, and local audiences, who also take part in creative practices guided by artists, designers, and craftspeople. According to Gaumer et al. and Schupbach, local actors must be involved as partners to realise more effective successful creative placemaking practices. Similarly, Kelkar et al. argue that the relationships that are built on the collaborative nature of involving actors transform productivity and create social capital. Spatial Environment, as the third driver, focusses on the spaces of creative practices. Spatial environments can be referred to at different scales, such as the digital hubs, ateliers, maker spaces, and event areas such as art galleries and exhibition areas that bring creative placemakers together and enable them to produce together. According to Ellery et al., such spaces enhance the use of public spaces while providing a sense of aesthetics, security, and community. Wyckoff lists drivers of creative placemaking as art spaces where artistic, cultural, and creative projects take place, work and living spaces for the creative class, art, culture, and entertainment activities. Institutional Support, as the fourth driver, underlines the expectations of creative placemakers from institutions. The institutional support through networking provides a platform for creative placemakers to establish dialogue as well as opportunities for exhibition areas and performances. The importance of the support of institutions and organisations s

The aim of this PhD research was to examine what happens when mischievous street theatre performers are deliberately agonistic in the public realm in the United Kingdom. The PhD practice-based research is contextualised by Chantal Mouffe’s political theory of agonism, and the instances in which she applies agonism to art practice (2001-2013). The research is led by the question How can mischievous and participatory performance facilitate politicised dissent? In this research, art practice is a method of research, and central to the methodology of argumentation using both theory and practice. The art practice takes the form of guerrilla street theatre.<br> The art practice adapts L. Frank Baum’s 1900 novel <i>The Wonderful Wizard of Oz</i> because of the opportunities Oz presents to initiate and facilitate public discussions about power and conflict through the structure of a journey. In this version, Lion [the doctoral researcher Antoinette Burchill], Tinman, and Scarecrow become exiled leaders who want to return home to Oz. In order to be allowed back, they must learn how to be fair and just leaders. The only way the characters can gain this information is by asking those they meet on their journey for advice. Therefore, public participation is a vital aspect of the performance. Each character leads with the quality the Wizard gave them with in Baum’s original novel: Lion with courage, Tinman with heart, and Scarecrow with brains. Consequently, each character interprets the advice they receive from participants with a particular bias. This ensures that conflict is a potential component of every performance. Baum’s motif of the yellow brick road as a journey full of obstacles and challenges is adapted to suit strolling guerrilla street theatre in the public realm.<br> The guerrilla street performances were planned and developed in Spring-Summer 2015, the performances took place over one day in Hackney and London Fields, East London in August 2015. The film clips are titled as Episodes in order to emphasis the iterative nature of the street performances. Only Episodes with ethical approval from participants are included in the Collection.<br> Episodes 4, 8, 9, 11, and 13 were explored through argumentation, analysis and reflections on performance in Antoinette Burchill’s doctoral thesis. The practice is archived as it holds a value for other researchers, especially those examining the difficulties and complexities of agonistic art practices. <br>The License for all items is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. If you wish to negotiate a different license to aid your research, please contact Antoinette Burchill directly.

With this publication we offer a space for critical reflection on participatory practices in art and cultural heritage. Our focus is on the emergence of new norms and forms of collaboration as participation, and on actual lessons learned from such participatory practices. If collaboration entails the acceptance of a shared problem space and necessitates an interdependent formulation of common problems (Rabinow and Bennett 2012), how best can we learn to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries and what exactly can be learned through and from such collaborations? What does it mean to practice collaboration, and how can we learn to better engage in and conceptualize participation? With these questions in mind, our volume explores instances of collaborative participatory practices in art and cultural heritage.

The article analyzes the concept of “more-than-human” perception, the features of which are constructed in the networks of relations, as a result of the interaction and relationships of heterogeneous forces (human activities, animals, bacteria, objects, technologies, etc.). This is not a subjective human perception, personal judgment of individual taste or social “distribution of sensitive”, but the collaborative process of configuring affective “field of the possible things” (define perception) as a result of the participation of multiple actants in the creation of life events, situations, processes, and conflicts. Based on the philosophical ideas of A. Bergson, W. Whitehead, J. Simondon, J. Deleuze, and F. Guattari, the author examines the affective nature of the interaction between the works of contemporary artists and the audience-participants. It is argued that creativity and artistic practice can be reinterpreted as processes of co-creation with the movements of matter formation. It is a way to think of art not as a form, but as a process open to a continuous interval of renewal and invention, which is revealed through the material relations of matter-energy, duration, transitions, and intuition. Through affective attunement techniques, participants organize the movements of matter-en- ergy flows, and each individual perception by the subject-actant becomes a joint “more-than- human” perception. Interactive and participatory works do not reflect reality in aesthetic forms, but instead create new processes, new places of creativity (manifestations of chance), in which the aesthetic is performatively realized before it is understood and reflected by the participants themselves. The text clarifies what constitutes “more-than-human” perception, how it relates to the usual understanding of the sphere of human sensory experience, and how it is implemented when working with modern interactive and participatory art projects.

Spoken and written communication plays a crucial constitutive role in both the production and reception of contemporary art and design practice, and as a result ‘conversation’ words, such as discuss, talk, communicate and respond frequently occur in the texts and talk of art and design educators, their students and creative professionals. In order to understand more about the role of communication in art and design practice, as well as the conceptualisation of art and design practice as communication, this study examines the use of these ‘conversation’ words in ethnographic data collected from a site-specific instance of art and design discourse practice. To achieve this objective, the ethnographic data is treated as sets of corpora which are examined using the tools of corpus analysis. Findings indicate the different constitutive, functional and strategic roles of ‘conversation’ words in art and design education and professional practice. They also shed light on the potential of corpus analytical resources to contribute to ethnographic research.

Collaboration is a highly desirable and, increasingly, often a mandated element in many modes of research, creative and business practice—and a factor on which successful and innovative outcomes, as well as funding, often depend. While there is a growing literature on collaboration (and especially teamwork) in business settings, there is little material to consult regarding how individuals or organisations in the spheres of media and culture collaborate when they work together. In many cases, moreover, participants in collaborative projects have a limited understanding of collaboration (in theory and practice) beyond that of a general concept, tossed about with nods of approval but rarely unpacked. In other fields of DIY content production, from open source software development to the large-scale distributed collaboration on projects such as the Wikipedia, collaboration often happens more intuitively, but nonetheless produces results that can usually stand up to serious professional scrutiny. So how, and why, do we collaborate? This issue of M/C Journal features general and theoretical studies of collaboration as a working practice together with case study articles from the point of view of practitioners and researchers who have worked together, and survived to tell the tale of that practice. These articles also offer readers wider insights into the apparent human need for interaction, collaboration, and what World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee has called ‘intercreativity’ together with case-specific best-practice examples of successful collaborations across communities, disciplines, media forms, space and time. The contributors to this issue also confirm what we, as coeditors proposing this theme, already knew and believed—that collaboration is not always an uncomplicated or straightforward working process. In offering new and innovative research about collaborative practice, a number of the contributors to this issue do not shy away from examining some of the difficulties arising in collaborative work such as authorship credit (‘Who goes first on publications?’) and copyright issues. Nor are all collaborative ventures entirely, or even partly, successful, and a number of contributors offer examinations of the most pressing problems that can arise in collaborative work and how they have (or have not) dealt with these. Some articles also examine how collaborations may not necessarily require the task to be shared, and even how all contributing members of a team do not always want to take an equal part in the endeavour—either of input and/or responsibility for the output. Other collaborations are framed with an attempt to override institutionally or culturally constructed hierarchies, and have egalitarianism as part of their purpose as well as working method. A number of our contributors have addressed whether the outputs produced by collaborative practice are different, increased, enhanced or even superior than those produced when someone works on their own. Writing about collaborative authorship, theorist Wayne Koestenbaum has suggested that collaborative works are intrinsically different than [sic] books written by one author alone … the decision to collaborate determines the work’s contours, and the way it is read. Books with two authors are specimens of relation, and show writing to be a quality of motion and exchange, not a fixed thing. (2) In many different ways, many of the authors in this issue attempt to unravel these complexities of relation, motion and exchange. In this, we hope to have removed the notion that the success, or not, of any collaboration is dependent only on the personalities involved and/or luck rather than on coherent, generalisable and reproducible, working methods and ideas. Indeed, we hope that these articles not only profile work on how the various stakeholders (individuals, enthusiasts, artists, university/research institutions, industry and non-profit organisations) successfully find each other and build working partnerships but, when taken together, begin to build new definitions of collaboration and collaborative practice. Working on this issue was also, of course, a collaborative endeavour. Apart from obviously collaborating in our shared editorial task, we also had the privilege of working closely with a very talented stream of authors (note what a bumper issue this is), who included a number of pairs, and even teams, of coauthors. A large number of referees gave generously of their time and energy and the articles in this issue reflect their expertise and insight. Then there is, of course, the input of the copyediting team who made this issue of M/C Journal possible—Meggan Vann and Donna Paichl, and their supervisor Peta Mitchell. QUT supports M/C’s production, the National Library of Australia archives all issues, and both our institutions have recognised the editorial effort that went into the production of this issue. All of which would, of course, remain silent type in cyberspace without you—the readers—to consume and consider that work and, hopefully, offer feedback to us. Donna Lee Brien &amp; Axel Bruns, ‘collaborate’ editors

Abstract: This paper examines the roles played by the National Museum Art Gallery (NMAG) and the artists involved in key events that shaped Singapore's contemporary art, highlighting NMAG's dual role as both part of a larger museum system and an interface within the evolving narrative of Singaporean artistic and curatorial practices. Focusing on Tang Da Wu's interventions, "Five Days at NAFA and Five Days in Museum" (1982), "Four Days at the Museum" (1987) and "A Sculpture Seminar 1" (1991), the study highlights the intersections of publicness, artistic practice and pedagogy in these transformative moments. These events reflect NMAG's openness as a nascent institution, fostering performative and participatory practices that challenged traditional curatorial frameworks. Tang's "Five Days" performances were processual and pedagogical explorations, transforming the gallery space into a dynamic forum for art-making and audience engagement. "Four Days at the Museum" expanded this approach, integrating site-specificity and public interaction to reimagine the gallery as akin to William Lim's concept of "city rooms". "A Sculpture Seminar 1" provided a collaborative platform for critical reflection on sculptural practices, engaging with both local and global discourses in art. Drawing on archival materials and interviews, the paper situates Tang's interventions within broader socio-political and cultural contexts. I argue that NMAG's experimental ethos, supported by key supporters of these events, enabled Tang's innovative practices to emerge as critical moments in Singapore's art history. These interventions catalysed new forms of artistic production and redefined the relationship between art, audiences and institutions, highlighting the transformative capacity of museums as spaces for collaboration, dialogue and public engagement.

PurposeIn Flanders, the subventions in the cultural sector are mainly divided and decided upon within the framework of the Arts Decree. Within this policy framework, art organizations may choose in their funding applications for “participation” as one of the five possible functions to describe their artistic and cultural practices. However, questions need to be raised about the different interpretations of the notion of participation within this policy framework. The growing trend of evidence-based policy-making implies that participation risks to become a “target” that needs to be achieved instrumentally, which paradoxically ignores the fact that participatory practices within culture and the arts are very often diverse, multi-layered and context-specific practices. Starting from this paradox, the purpose of this paper is to explore how the current policy framework is translated into different “participatory” art practices by art organizations and specifically how cultural practitioners themselves conceptualize it.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors discuss the results of a qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews with cultural practitioners about how they grapple with the notion of participation within their organizations and practices.FindingsThe results clearly show that practitioners use micro-politics of resistance to deal with different, and often conflicting, conceptualizations of participation in relation to this cultural policy framework.Research limitations/implicationsThe implications of the findings are vital for the discussion about cultural policy. These micro-politics of resistance do not only have an impact on the development of individual participatory art practices but also on the broader participatory arts landscape and on how the function of participation is perceived within the renewed policy framework.Originality/valueThe original contribution of this paper is to explore the perspective of practitioners in cultural organizations about the function of participation in the Arts Decree in Flanders and specifically how the notion of participation is operationalized in their practices in relation to this cultural policy framework.

Venus rising, Furies raging: bodies redressed in contemporary visual art

Communities and networks constitute complex socio-cultural ecosystems wherein participatory design and art practices assume a central role in fostering collaborative creativity and addressing collective challenges. The infusion of participatory design into these networks serves as a catalyst for social innovation, facilitating the active engagement of community members in co-creating their shared environments. Social design emerges as a strong tool, transcending disciplinary boundaries to harness the capacities of art and design in responding to intricate societal issues. This interplay between participatory design and art practices becomes a dynamic mechanism instigating positive transformations within communities, fostering diverse perspectives and inclusive solutions. University-level students can play a crucial role in the convergence of art and design activism, enhancing the impact of interventions with a socio-political dimension. As active participants in civic engagement through art and design, these students become vital advocates for social justice, contributing substantively to community empowerment and proactive determination of future trajectories. The genesis of the "O Bairro está IN(clusivo)" [The Neighborhood is IN(clusive)] project exemplifies this synergy. Promoted by ESAD — College of Art and Design and rooted in the principles of dream, imagination, fabulation, and self-build, the project endeavors to contribute to societal betterment through design and architecture, emphasizing positive transformation of Cruz de Pau's (social housing community in Matosinhos, Portugal) urban space through active community participation. Financed under the “Healthy Neighborhoods Program”, a governmental initiative to enhance the quality of life in vulnerable territories, the project focuses on Cruz de Pau—a neighborhood with diverse demographic profiles and varying economic and social needs. The project engages in workshops and participatory activities involving three generations —seniors, young people, and adolescents —, aiming to improve the surrounding space and leverage local knowledge. Through art and creativity, the project activates social and urban "regeneration," fostering participation and identification between inhabitants and their surroundings, while showcasing the effective transformative power of a united community.

What is the role of contemporary art and design practice within neurodiversity? How digital media is engaging people who have a neurodivergent perspective (e.g., autism, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia) into creating new art? This paper looks at giving a brief overview of the topic whilst looking into project Art, Design and Neurodiversity that the author started in 2015 in conjunction with the Graphic and Media Design course at London College of Communication, University of the Arts London (UAL). A collaboration was also built on some case-studies with Tate Digital Learning and BBC Research & Development. Exploring areas of sound art, graphic design, video art and storytelling, art practices around different forms of neurodiversity are investigated and produced. In this paper, there is also a key area of inclusive visual material and artistic work created by the participants. The art-design pieces can “live” independently but in this project they are also part of a wider communication that is taken into consideration also in the overall structure of this paper itself. With this paper, the author also looks at describing the way the project started, what outputs and findings are coming from the first phase of the work, and what are the next steps.