Co-curation as civic practice in community engagement

Sunikka-Blank, M; Purohit, R and Samuel, F (2025) Co-curation as civic practice in community engagement. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 899-916. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

How can engagement practices remain open to new dialogues, issues and possibilities beyond existing hierarchies and often exploitative conditions? The acts of co-curation are investigated as a mode of community engagement, focusing on the Cambridge Room, an experimental urban room (UR) in Cambridge, UK. By examining three projects in one of the UK's most unequal cities, this paper reflects on the forms and dynamics of community engagement and knowledge co-creation in URs, often seen as an alternative version to urban living labs. Drawing on emerging theories of care and civic empowerment within curatorial practices, this paper argues that co-curation in urban contexts functions as a practice of enabling, educating, critiquing and making public, reinforcing the civic dimension of participatory engagement. The Cambridge Room case study demonstrates how through co-curation URs can facilitate community-led initiatives, foster resource sharing and enhance collaboration across diverse demographic groups as multiple agents of care. At the same time, the case study reveals that co-curation faces critical challenges: building trust amid conflicting interests; engaging powerful yet underrepresented commercial stakeholders like developers; and generating robust evidence of impact through indicators including participation rates and influences on planning processes.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: care; civic engagement; co-creation; co-curation; participation; UK; urban living labs, urban life; urban planning; urban room
Index terms: face, evidence, community engagement, collaboration, urban planning, dynamics, agent, planning process, drawing, co-creation, dimension, empowerment, case study
Subjects: design process, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, health monitoring assessment and metrics, technical documentation, psychology, systems engineering, urban planning, project controls, community and social dimensions, management
Topics: Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Time Control, Health and Safety, Governance, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here