Alin Gramescu is a social entrepreneur focused on helping people turn ideas into initiatives that matter for their communities. He is the founder of Station Europe, a civic creativity organisation that works with young people across Europe, with a strong focus on rural and underserved areas.
His work brings together education, creativity, and digital tools to support participation in democratic life. Through workshops, games, and collaborative formats, he creates contexts where young people can reflect, express their perspectives, and take action on issues that affect them.
His current work explores how creative methods and digital spaces can strengthen participation and connection at a community level.
Nica: Alin, do I have your consent to record this interview as part of our INTERFACED project recordings?
Alin: Yes.
From European Accession to Civic Participation
Nica: Okay, fantastic. Just as a brief preamble: because you have been involved in our project both as a practitioner — you were selected as a fellow because of your background, and you have been organising workshops and civic participation activities — and also as a collaborator working with us on the research team, I designed this interview to have two levels.
First, I would like to ask you some questions about your experiences and observations as someone working directly with participatory processes and communities. Then I have a few more meta-level questions about the work you have done with us in INTERFACED, and about how you think research and practice can intersect in projects like this.
So the goal here is to learn both from your on-the-ground experience of participation and from your perspective as someone who is helping shape the project. How does that sound?
Alin: All good. Okay.
Nica: We’ll start with your personal trajectory into participation work. I know we talked about this during the fellows interview, but for the purposes of this conversation, could you tell me a bit about how you first became involved in civic participation or organising work? What kinds of projects have been influential for you, and how do you think about civic participation today beyond voting?
Alin: I will probably answer a bit differently now. I do not remember exactly what I told you in the fellows interview: it was probably connected to some projects.
For me, it really starts in 2007, when Romania entered the European Union. I remember my grandfather telling us: now Romania is in good hands, and honey and milk will come to us as a country. I was only seventeen at the time, and I did not really know what the European Union was or what it meant. So I started to do my own research and try to understand it.
Then, the first time I voted, after I turned eighteen the following year, it was in the European elections. And I voted in an informed way, at least compared to before, because by then I had tried to understand what the European Union was. That was the first moment when I realised that I could actually do something, in a democratic system, let’s say.
That is my first memory of discussing this field seriously with someone: with my grandfather.
Then, after a few years, I started my career in communication. I remember doing campaigns for big companies, but at some point I wanted to use my skills for something good, not just to sell products.
That was the moment when I started volunteering in a project. It was in 2016, so ten years ago, in a project run by the European Commission in Romania. Because I already had those communication skills, and because I had this personal goal of using them for social good, I saw volunteering as a way to build a portfolio in this new field, the civic sector, civil society.
And it worked for me. I started with that first project, then moved to a national project, then to a European-level project, and so on. So within about two years, I was really involved in the civic sector.
That was the beginning for me. It started with my grandfather and Romania entering the European Union, then with voting, which felt like a normal thing to do, and then with this desire to do something useful for my community by using my own skills and starting my own projects.
Libraries, Schools, and Online Spaces as Interfaces
Nica: Okay, fantastic. In our project, INTERFACED, we often use the term interface , since it is also the title of the project. We talk about interfaces between citizens and power: institutions, decision-makers, and so on. From your perspective as a practitioner, and as someone who started thinking about these issues at quite a young age, what do you think an interface is? What does it look like in practice?
Alin: Could you frame that again, please?
Nica: We have quite lively discussions about what an ‘interface” exactly means. But the basic idea is that it is a kind of space, or node, where citizens, ordinary people, can engage with or interact with power, decision-makers, or institutions. So from your perspective as a practitioner, what do you think an interface is? What can it look like in practice?
Alin: From my experience, it is connected to what I also aim for, which is a participatory way of doing democracy — in other words, participatory democracy.
Right now, I think that as citizens, we vote, and then we mostly observe. And if something goes wrong, we protest. But we do not really have many active ways to participate. The options may exist in theory, but they are not really activated by the system.
For me, the point is that citizens should take part, in a participatory way, in everything that is part of society, not just observe it from the outside. So if I had to give a direct answer to your question, I would say that an interface is participatory democracy itself: involving citizens in decision-making processes, rather than just letting them watch.
Nica: Okay. That makes sense.
If we zoom in a little more concretely, what are some of the places, spaces, or opportunities where these kinds of participatory processes can be created? Is this something that happens in person, online, in specific kinds of spaces, in specific regions, or between particular individuals? What would be an example of an interface, in your view?
Alin: I can answer by telling you what we are actually doing.
One of the main spaces we like to work in is libraries. We like to run participatory processes there because we believe that the people who go to libraries are different, in terms of intention, from those who, for example, simply go to school.
When you are in high school, you cannot vote yet because you are under eighteen, although you may want to prepare for that moment. And when you go to school, you go because it is mandatory. But when you go to a library, it is not mandatory. So there is already a certain attitude there, a desire to improve yourself.
We like to work with that existing need people have for self-improvement, and from there we try to connect it to the needs of the community. In a way, we transfer that energy from personal development toward civic development. So the library is one important space where we try to meet people and talk with them about civic life.
Another obvious space is educational institutions — universities and high schools, the more standard educational environments.
Then there is also the online world, because nowadays people spend a great deal of time there and are strongly influenced by it. We know that, so some of our projects are active online as well.
If I had to identify the first three spaces that come to mind, I would say: libraries, educational spaces, and online platforms.
Of course, if we want to run a participatory process in a more formal or structured way, following certain procedures, then we can also use dedicated participatory platforms. So it is not only a matter of going to a library and doing everything offline; we can also do it online through tools specifically designed for participation. That would be a fourth kind of space.
And it is not only about taking decisions or creating policy recommendations. It is also about starting a conversation: identifying needs, understanding people’s opinions, views, and perspectives, and creating places where they can discuss those needs and how they feel about certain issues.
In that sense, it is actually quite similar to what this project is doing: creating conversations and spaces where people can talk about their needs and their experiences.
Nica: Can you think of a concrete example, either from your own work or from elsewhere, where ordinary people or citizens genuinely influenced a political decision or outcome? And in that example, what do you think made it possible? What made the process work?
Alin: Yes. The most recent example that comes to mind is one involving a high school and its students.
We started a participatory project there, but we did not want to impose a topic on them. We wanted the project to be open, with the students themselves deciding what mattered most in their community.
That was actually a surprise for us. We expected that the young people would want to focus on opportunities of some kind, or something similar. But what they chose was to create a wildlife garden in the school yard, because they felt they did not have enough green space.
Starting from that idea, they followed the steps of the participatory project we had designed for them. We organised meetings with the local mayor, the municipality, and other relevant actors. And, long story short, they managed to convince the municipality to invest in the school yard and create the wildlife garden there.
So that is the example that comes most strongly to mind right now. And it was also a surprise for me, because I had not expected the students to choose that topic.
But in a way, that is the best thing that can happen in a participatory process: not choosing the topic yourself, but letting participants choose it, because then it reflects their actual needs.
Youth, Well-Being, and the Politics of Digital Life
Nica: Okay, that is actually a very nice segue to my next question. In your work with young people, what kinds of issues or forms of participation seem to resonate most strongly with them? This example is about green space and their immediate environment, but beyond that, do you see any broader patterns, either in what matters most to them, or in how they want to engage?
Alin: Yes. One of the strongest themes, definitely, is their relationship to digital spaces — social media, smartphones, and what they themselves describe as forms of addiction connected to them.
That was also a surprise for me. When I create something for young people, I try, once again, to provide only the process or framework and let them bring in the topic themselves. What surprised me was how honest they were. Young people can be very honest with themselves when the context allows it. And one of the things they identified very clearly was this issue of their own dependence on smartphones, social media, and digital life.
Based on that, we created a campaign together with them to address exactly this issue. So that is the first thing that comes to mind: what moves them are the problems they are actually experiencing in their own lives.
After that, I would say mental health issues — especially those connected to well-being, and often also linked to these digital addictions, though not only to them. Then there is the climate issue, which is also connected, in a broader sense, to their well-being.
So overall, I think they are very interested in questions of well-being in the broadest sense. From there, they are able to identify more specific issues that matter to them and that they want to act on.
And if you ask them, and if you create the right context, they can actually give a lot of insight into what is happening in their lives. That means they are aware of their needs and aware of the issues they are facing.
Nica: That is very interesting. Listening to you, it seems to me that things like screen addiction and its effects on well-being, on the one hand, and climate anxiety and concerns about the future, on the other, are different kinds of issues and may require different kinds of campaigns.
Is that also how they see it? Even though both relate to well-being, do they understand both as issues that require some kind of interface with institutions or people in power in order to bring about change? It makes intuitive sense to me that institutions can act on climate. But what do young people think institutions or decision-makers can do about screen addiction?
Alin: Yes. In relation to screen addiction, they clearly recognise that the platforms that are part of their everyday lives — Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and so on — are not working in their favour. They see that the algorithm is part of what creates this kind of addiction.
So they can identify the problem, and they can recognise that while a campaign can help other young people understand what is happening, if you want to change something at a larger level, then you have to speak with the people who are in charge — the people who can influence how these algorithms work. So they are able to see the link between the issue and the structures that produce it.
When it comes to climate, from what I have seen, their focus is much more local. They want to solve the issues that are part of their own community, and they often have a lot of insight about them.
They know which places are polluting. They know where the municipality has made recent investments in green parks, or where it has not. They are informed about these things. But their understanding remains grounded at the local level. They do not usually try to speak as though they know everything about the national or European level.
And that is something I really like about them. They do not talk about issues simply because those are the issues one is supposed to talk about. They talk about them because they actually have knowledge and experience related to them.
So in the case of climate, they tend not to speak about it in abstract global or European terms. They speak about climate in the way they experience it in their own communities.
Nica: Just one more follow-up on the algorithm side of things: what kinds of interventions do they imagine institutions or people in power could make to help these platforms work better for them?
Alin: The first thing is age. They recognise that it was a mistake to start using these platforms so early. So age limits are the first issue they raise.
For example, they mentioned Australia, where there has been discussion about banning access for young people under sixteen, and they said they would like to see something similar in Europe. At the same time, they also pointed out that simply setting an age limit is not enough.
Right now, for example, the rule may say that you cannot create an account before the age of thirteen. But many of them created accounts when they were ten. So they are very aware that just writing “this is forbidden under sixteen” or “under thirteen” does not solve the problem.
Children will still find ways to create accounts, whether by using false information or by using their parents’ details. So from their perspective, the issue is not only setting an age threshold, but also finding ways to make those rules meaningful in practice.
They see early access as a bad decision, or at least as something that has had harmful consequences. So they want institutions and platforms to take age more seriously, but also to understand that young people can easily bypass the current procedures for creating accounts.
And although they did not speak very directly about parents in the beginning, they did talk about the complicity of parents more generally. Their point was that if children are still creating accounts while underage, this often happens because parents are helping them, or at least allowing it. So in their view, the issue is not only with the platforms, but also with the broader environment that makes early access possible.
AI, Accountability, and the Future of Participation
Nica: Okay. Let me shift gears a little. As you probably know from our discussions on the platform, one of the themes that has come up in some of the interviews I have been doing — especially with people from FOSDEM — is the question of AI and citizen participation.
There seems to be a lot of ambivalence around it. Some people think AI tools could make it easier for citizens to interact with institutions, for example by summarising policy discussions or helping people draft proposals or emails. Others are worried that these technologies will lead to more disinformation or even further centralise power.
So from your perspective, especially through the work you do with young people, what role do you think AI could play — if any — in civic engagement and citizen participation in the future?
Alin: That is a good question.
From my point of view, AI could play a guiding role in the participatory process. For example, if you want young people to create a policy recommendation and the process involves, say, five steps, then you could train an AI tool to guide them through those five steps. Starting from zero knowledge, they could answer simple questions, follow the process step by step, and by the end arrive at a policy recommendation while also understanding how that process works.
That is one way I imagine AI could be useful.
Another thing AI could do concerns the political system itself. A lot of decisions are constantly being made and voted on, and it is often hard for citizens to understand who voted for what, who supported what, and especially who did so several years ago.
I think AI could help by functioning almost like a more targeted search engine for political accountability. For example, if someone wants to know whether a political party supports or opposes a specific issue, AI could help them search through past positions, policy recommendations, or decisions made by that party’s representatives. Or they could search for a specific political figure and see what kinds of decisions that person has supported over time.
So I think AI could be very useful in strengthening accountability — helping citizens trace what policymakers, politicians, and decision-makers have actually done.
From Research to Practice in INTERFACED
Nica: Okay, that makes sense. Now I want to shift gears a bit and ask you some more meta-level questions — about our project, about the relationship between research and practice, and about your perspective on that. As someone who works directly with participants, how do you think the goals of our INTERFACED project align — or do not align — with what you see happening in real participatory processes?
Alin: I think they are connected, because the project can be a starting point.
Normally, people have these kinds of conversations in their families, or with friends. But they do not usually have them in schools or libraries. They do not go there expecting to talk about politics — or, not only politics, but civic life more broadly. And they also do not imagine an ordinary workshop as a space for these kinds of conversations.
So I think the project creates a very good starting point for that.
And here I am thinking especially about the methods you use — for example, the Civic Signals exercise. It is a simple method, easy to understand, but very effective. For many participants, it is the first time in their lives that someone has asked them: when was the first moment you became active in your community or in society? Just creating that context, where they can share those moments with others, creates something important for them.
It creates a good memory. And after the workshops, many of them mention exactly these exercises.
What happens is that they have the opportunity to share with others and connect with others through these memories. In doing that, they create a kind of shared group memory. And then, when they enter the platform itself — the INTERFACED platform — they are already, in a way, fans of the project, because what stays in their mind is that memory they built with the group.
So that is what I would say the project is doing well: it creates a meaningful first point of connection.
Nica: Yes, that makes sense. Let me ask a broader question. As someone who works directly with people as a practitioner, are there aspects of activation, involvement, organising, or facilitation that you think academic research tends to misunderstand, overlook, or simply not pay enough attention to?
Alin: It is a bit hard for me to answer that, because I am not doing academic research myself.
Nica: That is fair.
Alin: I mean, I could guess, but I do not really want to do that. I would rather stay with things I actually know from experience — like what I mentioned before about young people not really talking about issues unless they have some real insight into them. But beyond that, I do not want to speculate too much, because I am not the one doing the academic side.
Nica: That makes sense. So maybe let me narrow it down a bit. Since joining this project, have there been moments when the research context or research perspective has actually been useful for your work as a practitioner?
Alin: Yes, definitely.
I remember telling you from the beginning that I also came into this project to learn. And I really did. For example, the exercises I mentioned earlier — for me now they have become something almost mandatory in the workshops we run.
Why? Because we saw how powerful they are in creating the right context to start conversations and to create these moments between participants. That is the first thing I took from the project.
The second thing is the platform itself. I like the platform and the way it looks.
And third, I think that what you are doing now on the platform could become even more powerful if another layer were added in the future — for example, AI. In that case, you would have enough data there to cluster information and work with it differently after the research process.
So when I look at the platform, I also see it as an inspiration. And I connect that inspiration with the possibility of AI in the future.
Nica: Can you say a little more about that? How do you imagine connecting the platform with AI in the future?
Alin: I imagine it as a way of guiding people through the process without us having to be present at every step.
So, for example, if a method follows three steps, that is something AI could support in the future. Then we, as practitioners, could focus more on the activation part — the part where we bring people in and create those shared moments and memories, which we know are important.
After that activation stage, the platform should be there. And that is already what we are trying to do now: invite people onto the platform. But once they are there, after one answer or one question, usually we as facilitators have to step in with the second question, and then the third, in order to get more insight.
That is something AI could potentially do in the future. It could understand the goal of the process and, based on what someone says, generate the next question instead of requiring us to be there each time.
So the first layer is asking. But maybe the second layer should not only be about asking more questions. Maybe it should do something more than that. But in general, this is how I imagine it: AI as a guide through the process.
Nica: Great. I think this will be the last question, and perhaps you have already answered parts of it. But based both on your broader experience and on your experience in this project: when we write the final report, one of the things we will need to include is a set of policy recommendations.
So, thinking about the people and organisations who design these points of interface or engagement between citizens and decision-makers: what do you think they could do better? When designing these interfaces between citizens and institutions, or citizens and people in power, what should be improved? What would you see as good practice for the future?
Alin: The first thing I would say is: just do it.
At this point, I do not think the method matters as much as the fact of creating these links in the first place. Right now, in many communities, these links between citizens and decision-makers simply do not exist. And if we want people to be part of the process, then we need to create those connections.
What I would really like to see — and what I hope will happen — is something closer to what I saw in the Conference on the Future of Europe, which started around 2021. That was also a consortium-based process, but at the European level. And what is important is that the process has continued. Policymakers can go back to it when they want insights on specific topics. They can consult the recommendations that came out of it and use them.
I think that kind of connection is still missing in many other contexts, and this is where projects like INTERFACED could connect more strongly in the future.
I say this also because I took part in that project, so for me it is an easy comparison to make. But overall, I do not think the key issue is the method itself. The key issue is making sure that people understand the value of the process, and that they can integrate it into their lives in an accessible way, even if that starts with something as simple as beginning a conversation.
So for me, the best practice is not only about design. It is about making participation real, understandable, and easy enough for people to enter into.
Nica: So it is about removing barriers, and also about making sure people understand why the process matters.
Alin: Exactly, yes.
Nica: Well, thank you. I will let you get on with your day. I cannot remember whether we are meeting this Friday or not, but I will either see you then or at the next one. I also need to check with Boyan whether, in addition to the oral consent, you may also need to sign the informed consent form. If so, I will ask you to do that. But thank you again, this was really informative.
Alin: Thank you, Nica.