The French Common Spaces University Certificate on Europe Roads
This report traces the adaptation and testing of the DU Espaces Communs (Common Spaces University Diploma) in three European contexts: Brussels, Riga, and Naples. Through immersive training sessions, the program explores how a flexible, peer-based pedagogical model focused on common spaces and hybrid urban practices can be replicated or transformed in different national ecosystems. The aim is not only to expand the reach of the French diploma, but to co-create a European learning infrastructure that respects local dynamics, intercultural differences, and alternative knowledge systems.
The Diplôme Universitaire Espaces Communs (DU) is a modular, nomadic training program that offers 140 hours of field-based learning. Its core methodology blends urban studies, spatial practices, and community engagement. Students come from three profiles: site operators, project developers, and urban professionals. The program is built around immersive sessions—short residencies at different common spaces—combined with thematic “focus” modules.
Sessions follow a shared format: site exploration, small-group analysis, regional visits, expert dialogues, and co-creation with host communities. Pedagogy emphasizes peer-to-peer learning, flexibility, and place-based reflection.
Co-design was streamlined thanks to existing trust among partners (Communa, Yes We Camp, Ancoats). The shared use of French facilitated logistics, and former DU students in the host team helped align visions.
Learnings: While the focus on transitional urbanism rather than a single site created complexity, it helped situate Common Spaces within broader urban strategies. Clarity of learning goals could have improved the experience for new consortium members.
Participants: Dominated by French DU students (25), the group had limited intercultural balance. A preparatory session for consortium members could have enhanced mutual understanding.
Strategy: The session successfully seeded the idea of a DU-like training in Belgium. Communa is now considering launching a national version.
Co-design was challenging yet fruitful. Free Riga and ViA University managed recruitment and local adaptation, while the French team played a more observational role. The design process highlighted the tension between replication and localization of pedagogical models.
Learnings: The session, hosted at Free Riga’s Viskali site, was enriched by well-prepared background materials. However, learning moments were sometimes too one-directional or shallow.
Participants: Strong diversity from Latvia, including civil servants and local project leaders. The mix of professional and activist profiles mirrored DU standards.
Strategy: The partnership between ViA and Free Riga showed real potential for a Latvian DU pilot. National media coverage added visibility to the initiative.
Co-design encountered cultural and epistemological challenges. L’Asilo's informal, politically grounded mode of knowledge contrasts with institutional models. The community favored trusted informal exchange over formal frameworks and avoided standard recruitment methods in favor of relational outreach.
Learnings: Participants gained deep insights into Neapolitan urban commons, including their roots in civic resistance and self-governance. Some discomfort emerged around the lack of formal structure, but it fostered “mirror learning”: rethinking French practices through a new lens.
Participants: Italian attendance was low due to timing and outreach choices, but diverse. French students shifted from learner to critical co-observer. European partners were not strongly involved, partly due to resource limitations.
Strategy: The session showed potential for an Italian DU version that respects informal and activist knowledge systems, possibly using open-access models rather than certification-driven ones.
Co-design tension: Ambiguity around the term led to confusion about roles. Future iterations should clarify who leads design vs. who supplies local context.
Pedagogical posture: Unlike in France, where DU teams select and approach host sites, the European context required horizontal collaboration among equals. This changes the dynamics and demands clearer agreements on roles.
Interculturality: A crucial learning vector, but often underused. Future sessions should begin with dedicated time to frame intercultural exchange.
Language: Professional translation improves nuance but may slow informal learning. English-only formats favor fluency over depth. A balance is needed.
Academic anchor: Involving a university partner—like ViA in Latvia—can add legitimacy and structure to grassroots-driven models.
Are you up for some
E-Learnig?