# 2 Methodology

To get a good understanding of the land/housing initiative’s efforts to decommodify land in Berlin, I chose a qualitative research approach. Based on the place-specific dynamics and the aim of this thesis to study the qualitative critique and relation of initiatives and experts in the field more closely, I chose semi-structured interviews as a qualitative data source to collect actor-specific knowledge and perceptions. The interview guide was built deductively with commons and decommodification theory in mind; the material was then coded to inductively generate themes: points of criticism, the initiatives’ _approach_, the envisioned _decommodification pathway_ and dichotomous inter-initiative _fault lines_. Finally, under the impression of De Angelis [-@deangelis2012, @deangelis2017], I then took a closer look at the social movement–commons-interaction.

Instead of following the rather apolitical institutionalist commons research strand [@ostrom1990; @hessMappingNewCommons2008; @feinberg2021], I engage more with the post-marxist strand that is concerned with commons as an emancipatory potential [@deangelis2003; @hardt2009; @harvey2013; @deangelis2017; @dardot2019]. I relate this to specific literature concerned with urban commons [@dellenbaughUrbanCommonsMoving2015], housing/land commons [@balmer2015; @davisCommonGroundInternational2020; @horlitz2021] and the relationship of commons and social movements [@deangelis2012, @deangelis2017 @varvarousis2020]. I bring this approach in conversation with relevant urban studies literature on housing and decommodification [@achtenbergDecommodificationHousing1986; @madden2016; @holm2016; @horlitz2013; @horlitz2021; @schonig2020; @holm2021] and, to situate my case, on Berlin [@bernt2014; @colombPushingUrbanFrontier2012; @novyStrugglingRightCreative2013; @silomon-pflug2013; @arch+BerlinTheorie2020].

To get an insight into current debates and struggles concerning land, recent literature [@hertweck2020], grey literature [@bunzel2017; @heinzKommunaleBodenfrageHintergrund2019; @adrian2021] as well as primary documents published by local state actors and the different initiatives proved a valuable complementary source.

### Role of the researcher

Instead of taking a positivist stance in which the researcher distances him or herself from its subject, I am taking a more involved stance of _activist research_ [@choudry2013]. I consider myself part of the Right to the City movement and a practitioner in the field of commons project development. The goal is therefore not “neutral”, objective research, but a more dialogic production of knowledge [@schipper2018], considering knowledge situated in sites beyond the academy [@oldfield2015].[^useful] This does not mean to sacrifice academic quality standards, as this would also be detrimental to the movement’s interest in knowledge, but it requires to make the implicit normative assumptions and the researcher’s stance and positionality transparent [@schipper2018a, 15].

[^useful]: A quality standard for political-solidary research with social movements are results, that are relevant for and received by movement actors themselves [@schipper2018a, 14-15].

My privileged positionality — as a white, German-descent, cis-male, academic researcher from a middle-class background — somewhat reflects that of many local experts, alternative project developers and activists in alternative city-making projects. This hints at a societal representation problem, but also at a limited accessibility of the not-for-profit project sphere, where a certain level of privilege may be required to afford the often precarious working conditions. This corresponds with “activism” and the resources (time, money, education) required for some parts of the movements’ activities. I am taking a progessive normative stance towards land as a common good, and towards property — rejecting the market mechanism as _the_ rational determinant of “value”. Thus I see the decommodification of land and housing as an important avenue to democratize urban development and planning and keeping the access to vital urban resources open.

### Sample

The interview participants were selected as representatives of their initiatives or institutions with the help of people in my personal, academic and professional networks. The preliminary work included the research about relevant institutions; exchange with collegues complemented the list of initiatives that I had identified through desktop research and previous experience in the field.

Two events that I attended previously helped getting an overview of relevant actors: both the Initiativenforum and the Netzwerk GI as intermediary institutions were preparing a catalogue of demands concerning land policy and new construction for the 2021 Berlin State elections. I actively participated in the collaborative writing and editing process of relevant documents to support their demands.


_Fig. 2.1: Demands to politics by housing and land related initiatives, facilitated by intermediary organizations [netzwerkgi2021; @initiativenforumstadtpolitikberlin2021]._

Subsequently, I contacted several people that had participated in the drafting of the demands to request an interview. Other interview participants were selected via personal networks that I had built when I was working as a freelancer for a commons project and for the Initiative StadtNeudenken (ISN)[^work]. More than half of the interviews came about on this way of asking former colleagues or people from the wider colleague circle, who are for instance also members of the urban development coop that I am part of[^zkb]. The contact to the Deutsche Wohnen & Co. Enteignen representative was established through a friend who had been active in the campaign.

Half of the interviews were done through a recorded video call; the other interviews were conducted in person in Berlin, using a tape recorder. While the in-person interviews took more logistical effort, it usually paid off due to the better nonverbal communication and less distraction by technical issues. In four out of five cases, the in person interviews took place in an exterior space close to or at the interviewee’s home. Half of the interviews were done in English in order to make data processing easier, the other half was held in German. Apart from one, all participants were native German speakers. The overwhelming majority of participants had a background in architecture or planning, interestingly all of them identifying as male. Out of 12 interviewees, only three were female, with a professional background in social sciences or arts. All participants had university education, with two in the course of finishing their degrees and at least three having a PhD.
The gender imbalance in my sample developed due to the responses, but also hints at a underrepresentation of women* in land, housing and construction issues.


Table 1: List of Interviews (ID0 = exploratory interview with former colleagues; ip = in person, vc = video call)

As an interviewer, I tried to lead the conversation as naturally as possible, jumping between the different promts as they fit into the running conversation. All conversations had a generally friendly atmosphere, some with more of a professional distance (ID5, ID8) and others with more familiarity (ID2, ID6, ID7), depending on the age and the level of aquaintedness with the interviewees. The interviews took between 45 and 90 minutes respectively.

[^work]: I have been working for the [Initiative Haus der Statistik](https://hausderstatistik.org) that saved a public office building complex from privatization and redevelopment and co-organized a conference workshop on municipal land allocations _(Werkstatt Konzeptverfahren)_ [@initiativestadtneudenken2019].
[^zkb]: The urban development coop ZUsammKUNFT Berlin eG is a coalition of mostly experienced alternative project developers that is behind Haus der Statistik.

### Limitations

A certain bias is in the sample: It represents only the most “active” groups in 2021, with the interviewees mainly being “professionals” from urban planning and architecture. There is no representation of groups who are fundamentally _against_ new construction, even though probably a majority of local protest initiatives could be put in that category. Also, there is no representation of groups that are concerned with green spaces or the ecological preservation of soil, even though these groups are confronted with the land issue as well. This is due to the focus on housing and land _development,_ but needs to be considered nevertheless.

Going beyond urban social movements and citizen initiatives, interviewing people from the spheres of politics, administration, or the (for-profit) real estate industry would have been insightful as well. However, I decided to keep the study more focused by concentrating on housing and land related initiatives and the internal dynamics of social movements and commons.

The results are, of course, highly specific for Berlin. Still, they could be relevant for comparative studies of networks of social movements, commons initiatives and intermediary organizations concerning land and urban development and their position vis-à-vis the state and capital in other places.