[p2p-research] Kafka in Eu: the greek travails of the P2P Foundation

[Michel Bauwens]

EU PROJECT UPDATE FOR P2P RESEARCH LIST



Dear friends,

As some of you may know and recall, we were about to participate in a FP7 EU
project relating to migrants and their internetworks.

This was to be an important milestone for us, since it was not just the
first time we were asked, but also we won the call with the consortium. In
my vision, it would have been important that the P2P Foundation was not just
a talking and meshworking hub, but could also offer funding and practical
solutions for academic and non-academic participants in our network.

It now seems that project with fall through, and I want to give some
explanation. Of course, it is only our perspective and I’m sure ‘the other
side’ will have a substantially different story.  Be that as it may, this is
our side of the story, as we experienced it.

First,  we were invited by a Greek-led consortium, officially led by Gender
Pantheion, a feminist research outfit, but more concretely, by people from
the excellent Re-Public magazine, with whom we have closely worked in the
past.

Unfortunately, it seemed we stepped open-eyed in a trap. Here’s the story.

The first thing is that we were invited based on our wholistic approach, the
fact that we worked internationally, and because of our existing ‘brand
name’, as well as the good experiences of our past cooperation. That the
Foundation was only based formally in the Netherlands, was a well known
fact, but of course important for the rules of EU funding. None of our
friends in the Re-Public group, who are also at the core of the research
consortium, ignore this, on the contrary, they stated it was the reason for
having us in. What we offered was extra international presence in Thailand
and Singapore, to an otherwise exclusively European club, which would have
greatly helped internationalizing the research with comparative elements.
After how else could you study ‘migration’?

We formulated a sectional approach on the relation between migrants, their
religious affiliation and practice, and how the existence of cyber-networks
reflect back on the original country. From the beginning, we had in mind to
use our location in Thailand as an added value, since mixed couples
frequently move from one country to another, and this allows a comparison on
the role of locale. We believed such a comparative approach made a lot of
sense. Adam Arvidsson, (who along with Natalie Pang  and James Burke
responded to our call in the mailing list), proposed an addendum, i.e.
comparing low income migrants, with their highly paid counterparts in
Brussels (EU staffers), and see how their religious practice differs. These
were of course, our proposals, and of course subject to discussion and
amendment. They also knew that Natalie Pang was based in Singapore.

The consortium was to meet in Athens for a two-day workshop trashing out the
various proposal. Some background on the atmosphere and cultural differences
may be useful. The research proposal we adhered to, was steeped in a very
radical, ‘postmodern left’ language, and most of the researchers, at least
the dominating Italian and Greek sides, would easily be placed on the
radical left. Though the P2P Foundation is broadly placed in the
emancipatory tradition, our approach is of course different, let’s say a lot
less rigidly ideological as the language used in the proposal. We were a
little bit uncomfortable with it, but did not experience this cultural
difference as a major problem, especially as we had read and agreed on the
proposal.

The workshop thus proceeded, and we must say it was pretty chaotic, there
were many tensions amongst the Greek members, such as continuous fights
between Athina and her local compatriots, but NOT, I insist, with the P2P
Foundation, at least everywhere where I was present. Relationships were
cordial, and I/we used the occasion to ask a number of questions about the
practice and rules of such EU projects, since this was our first time.

We had our own project, in which we discovered we were the only ones to have
a concrete research proposal, as compared to statement of intentions of the
others, and for the record, the Greek member had no proposal at all apart
from stating her wish that it would have something to do with Pakistani
muslim women in Greece. I’m stating this in the light of the accusations
that will follow this explanation, i.e. that we were not prepared. We may
not have been perfectly prepared, but certainly not below the average of
other member groups of the consortium. Apart from the stated tension between
the Greek members and Athina, who represented the University of Hull, there
were no criticisms AT ALL, I insist, directed at me , nor the P2P
Foundation, nor any of its other members. NOBODY of the members of our
workshop, stated that our proposal was inadequate or problematic, we simply
tried to find the best integration of the different proposals. So, we went
to  the concluding session, in the impression that all was well, i.e. the
combination of one year of online preparation, and the consensus of the
workshop.

Then, we proceeded to the workshop summaries.  At this moment, the
coordinator, Maria Stratagaki, who had not participated in the workshops at
all (at least not in mine and I did not see her for the whole day),
proceeded to review the proposals. Not in the form of a consensual dialogue,
but in the form of: you can’t do this, this is how you will do it, not just
with our proposal, but with others. This is the moment that we discovered
that the coordinator was not a coordinator at all, but the head of a feudal
fiefdom and that the scienfific consortium was not based on consensus of
researchers, but on political decisions of a partisan, polemical and
authoritarian Greek politician.

It is in this context that we moved to the workshop to which we
participated. Maria refused to entertain the proposals, saying that it was
not in line with the DOW (description of work), and in a supreme moment of
irony threw at us the text  OF OUR OWN PROPOSAL. She claimed that EU rules
did not allow transnational and comparative approaches, and that all the
work should be done in the Netherlands, ONLY in the Netherlands!!

This was really shocking as it denied: 1) 18 months of preparation and
agreement on our proposal including the VERY REASON we were there as an
international network 2)  the consensus of our workshop; 3) any sense of
consensual  cooperation by the coordinator. She did not ask us to adapt or
change the proposal, but singlehandly decided to change it. Obviously I
protested and said that under those conditions, it would be very difficult
to me to do this, as this meant physically moving for several months to the
Netherlands.  I was really careful to speak in my personal name, not in the
name of the P2P Foundation, as obviously I could be replaced, but
nevertheless, I was clearly unhappy about the turn of events. It really
seemed like they had needed us to obtain the money, and once they had it,
they would have nothing to do with the original agreement anymore, we just
had to play by their rules.

While I could fully understand that a busy politician did not have the time
to study the project, what was more surprising is that nobody challenged
her, including the very people who had invited us on clearly different
terms.

However, before this could be fully discussed, I had the leave the meeting,
at what I believe was the official end time of the meeting (which had run
late), to go the a press interview that Mig at Net Greece had co-organised
along with a lecture I was to given the next day. As this was for the
foremost newspaper in Greece, and they had organized it, it seemed to me
proper to leave the meeting at the agreed time, having little inkling that
this would be the end of the conversation.  Adam had left a little earlier
to catch a plane.

Athina later told us that, just after my departure, she had been
“gang-banged” by the other Greek members, who flatly told her they would not
work with her, and Athina decided to be replaced on the project.

Obviously there was a problem, but we did not expect at all what would
happen next. In the next few days, we repeatedly emailed Dimitris, the
project leader, about how to proceed further, and he, nor any of the people
cc’ed, ever responded. Only after 10 days or so, did he send us a letter
apologizing for the dysfunctional meeting, and said we would receive a
message.

When that letter arrived, it was quite shocking.

The accusations were the following:

1)      That the P2P Foundation, through its questions, had singlehandedly
derailed the meeting (MOST UNLIKELY)

2)      That I had stated that I refused to do any extra tasks (OF COURSE,
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE)

3)      That we had left early (TRUE but at their own invitation)

4)      That Adam was a racist who denigrated migrants (of course absolutely
UNTRUE and in any case immaterial, why is it acceptable to have such
spurious charges in official documents???)

5)      That we did not know the rules of the project (NOT TRUE, THE
COORDINATOR TRIED TO CHANGE THE RULES POST-FACTO BASED ON NON-EXISTING EU
RULES)

In private conversations, and emails, I was told that Adam Arvidsson was the
crux of the ’problem’ and that all the rest was a sideshow.  How could I
work with such a person, I was asked …  well, I have cooperated for years
with Adam, who is one of the more interesting scholars I know. I did not
personally witness any behavior that could have let to such personal
hostility. They could not, they said, accept his disdain for poor migrants
(Adam  had once insisted “that not ALL migrants are poor” to justify his
desire to create a control group of higher income migrants, it’s hard to
believe that this could be so misconstrued, in any case, I have not received
any proof of this, did not witness it, and have known Adam for years as a
committed anti-racist, but in any case, WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE TO DISCUSS
THIS!!).

This whole issue gave the impression of being corralled by a politically
correct extreme left cult. This first letter, while shocking and so
erroneous in the light of our own experience, did not ask for withdrawal,
but a second letter send to all participants a few weeks later, did ask for
our withdrawal. It seems clear that this was the intention from the very
beginning, and this explains the total refusal to communicate after the
workshop.

Indeed, all our attempts at resolving this issue (easily proven through our
email records) were rebuffed, apart from the polemical letter and our
response.

Also and this is important, while we were entreated first to resolve the
issues, and later to voluntary leave, we received copies of independent
communication that clearly stated the intention to throw us out.

I explicitly asked project leader Dimitris, if the new meeting required by
the EU on June 2 in Brussels, would be an open meeting where we could
discuss the differences and restore the cooperation, and he confirmed, yes
at the same time sends out a letter to other members of the consortium
stating the aim of the meeting is to throw us out.

The cards are stacked against us, and it is therefore unlikely that we will
be able to continue this project.

First, the network pre-existed us and is wholly reliant on EU funding, we’re
the only independent player. Second, the EU officer in charge was very
inexperienced and got the project from a predecessor. Third, all the
advisors are friends of Maria Stratigaki. None of the members of the Greek
consortium,  will challenge this authoritian decision and they clearly sided
against us. Even Athina refuses to say anything on our behalf.

So what happened. Well, I don’t really know. Obviously, the cordiality shown
to me during those two days was not real, and neither were their agreement
in the workshop, since they did not defend it, nor us, against the diktats
of Maria Stratigaki. Obviously, Adam ruffled a few feathers.  Obviously the
political correct culture of the consortium cannot deal with more colourful
personalities such as Adm and Athina.

It also seemed obvious to us that the coordinator ignored the contents of
the proposal, otherwise she would not have thrown our own proposal at us,
she would have known that it said the same as we were saying, since pretty
obviously, we were the ones that wrote it, and got it accepted by the whole
consoritum. It is also obvious she did not care at all about EU rules.
Possibly, she did not know the terms of the agreement between us and those
that invited us, for our international ability. We are extremely
disappointed that those that invited us for precisely those reasons, did not
point this out to her .

One hypothesis is that it was all already planned from the beginning, in
order to funnel the money to other associates, but that is impossible to
prove. However, in the private emails circulating without us, the name of a
replacing member was already mentioned, even before we were supposed to have
a meeting of reconciliation.

In any case, I was totally surprised by the negative ending of the workshop,
by the subsequent refusal to do anything to solve the issues, and we know
now, the immediate intention to throw us out without any chance and due
process to defend us. Maria Stratigaki obviously proceeded on an effort of
intense lobbying towards other members of the consortium, the EU official,
and advisors to the project. As we didn’t expect this, we did not react in
time, we naively assumed that the process of preparation would continue with
other means after the inconclusive workshop. We did not realize at first
that the letter was designed to irrevocably shut us out with arguments
designed explicitely for that purpose, even if they were false.

All expectations are, given the copies of private communications that we
received, that the June 2 meeting will be a sideshow to finalize our
expulsion from the project. Like the first letter of easily refuted
allegations, t is simply a smokescreen for the EU official. Since none of
the accusations in the letter can be proven, how can this be a basis for
expulsion?  Should the facts of the matter not be investigated, before any
decision is taken? Is the coordinator, who takes a clearly partisan role in
this procedure, really still fit to lead this project? Should she not be
expected to have a deeper knowledge of the proposal? Should not a new
neutral figure be appointed? Given this debacle, can she expected to do
better in the future? How can we be genuine cooperation be restored, when
such a double game is played and secret emails are going back and forth,
unbeknownst to the EU official and to us, creating a two-tiered
communication system designed to exclude us without due process?

Obviously we lost a lot of time preparing this for nothing, then had to
suffer a lot of grief. In a way, the good thing is that I will not have to
divert my attention from the core p2p work, I had already quickly told Adam
that I could not be involved in a process that would require such political
infighting. I signed up for research, not a hornest’s nest and EU research
money grabbing operation that leads people to betray their friends for a few
miserable pennies …

Whatever the respective faults in this process, if the consortium had been
genuine:

1)      They would have discussed our proposal, and suggested changes, not
arbitrarily forced us to accept unilateral changes in the DOW (description
of work), nor invented non-existing EU rules (none of our requests for
concrete information on these supposed rules were answered, and we can be
pretty sure the EU does not impede transnational and comparative research).
They would have allowed the research, as originally intended, to take the
advantage of our internationality, not forced us to move to the Netherlands,
a very unreasonable request.

2)      Instead of sending us the letter, they would have proposed Skype or
other meetings in order to solve the differences, and would have responded
to our emails on this.

3)      There would have been a real process of reconciliation, not just a
process intended to comply with formal demands of the EU, with the real
intention to replace us from the very beginning

So, I want to stress these two points: 1) at no point did Maria accept to
discuss our original proposal, and change it in a way that was mutually
acceptable; 2) when the conflict erupted, at no time was an attempt made to
entertain a dialogue, and restore trust and cooperation; 3) at no point did
the people who should have intervened to explain the original agreement and
nature of the P2P Foundation as a global international network, intervene on
our behalf to Ms. Stratigaki. All kept quiet and acquiesced in the diktat,
despite their own previous agreements in the workshop.

Certainly, none of us is perfect, and the fact that we caused such hostility
and the completely lack of support from those members we had thought as
morally upright, give us pause. What did we do wrong? I would have liked to
know, but since the formal accusations are so spurious, it is impossible to
know the truth. If it is not any of the issue listed in the letter, which
can be easily refuted, but other mistakes, unstated ones, are these mistakes
of such a nature that they  cannot be listed in a official letter?? The
accusations are Kafkaeske, since they refuse dialogue and to reply to our
emails and other requests, then officially reprimand us of not wanting to
cooperate. They organize a lecture and interview, then reproach us for
attending  them. They invite us for our wholistic approach and international
network, then want us to move exclusively to the Netherlands. I could go on,
you hopefully get the picture. There must be a name for this no-win
situations, where every choice you make is wrong.

But in any case, I can see no mistakes huge enough to warrant the treatment
we received. I think it is normal that we should have expected due process,
not just formally, but in real terms, i.e. that the coordinator, had she
taken her job seriously, would have contacted us to discuss the
disagreements and tried to solve them. Instead, she immediately framed us as
the evil party holding up the project, refused any further communication,
and everything proceeded then from these premises, a war machine was set in
motion. This is the worst part of the experience, not that you have perhaps
done something wrong, but that, even if you did so, you have absolutely no
chance to rectify it.

None of us needed the money, and we accepted this project upon invitation,
in order to help what we thought were our Greek friends. The loss of income
is much less of a big deal than the grief of injustice that we feel.
Seriously, if I was rich enough to pay a lawyer, I would sue for moral
redress, as being attacked without a chance of defense and due process, is
always a painful experience. However, I was pleased that the P2P Foundation
could have been a EU-funded research player and help our academic network.
I’m sorry that it seems not to work out.

Frankly, after seeing all of this, I’m really surprised that the EU would
still fund such an obviously dysfunctional, and in my opinion, clearly
dishonest, consortium. Perhaps we were just a scapegoat so as to justify the
dysfunctional meeting in Athens, and they were so desperate for the funding
that they could broach no derailment and extra time to discuss the
disagreements? Who knows … In any case, they may formally play the game of
EU rules, as a front to the EU inspections, but they do not abide at all by
the spirit of scientific cooperation, as  the leaked emails that came to us,
prove without the shadow of a doubt. Clearly, the role of a coordinator is
to organize consensus, and to smooth over differences, not a  partisan role
of command and expected obedience and of organizing a war party against
dissenters. This is not the way adults cooperate. It is a shame we had to
find this out in such a hard and disagreeable way.

Well, they didn’t want to give us justice and due process, at least you know
about it. I needed to share this painful story of Kafka in the EU.


-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think thank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100519/761690f4/attachment.html>