The ideas and concepts behind this project are the fruit of ongoing personal involvement in collective militant research projects related to public spaces, urban processes and commons; the participation in local, national and European municipalist movements and professional and academic experience as an urban designer. My activist position is grounded in 'urban social movements': "collective actions consciously aimed at the transformation of social interests and values in the forms and functions of a historically given [territory]" (Castells, 1983). In the last decades, these social movements have often made use of the ‘commons’ imaginary as a call for action to confront the plundering of collective resources that Midnightnotes Collective called the "new enclosures' (1990). In the collective projects I have participated, I contributed with theoretical and practical tools provided by my academic and professional background as architect and urban planner in the development of tactical cartographies, militant research, public interventions and strategic analysis. Since 2010, this work has focused on urban commons and municipalism. My experience within municipalist was related to the attempt to transpose the basic principles of the commons (Observatorio Metropolitano. 2011) into local public policies. This goal was shared by other actors in the municipalist movement (Blanco et al., 2018), brought to light the need to systematise the knowledges put in practice by social and institutional actors. **On Ethics** In activist research, ethical considerations go beyond “bureaucratic demands” - covered in the Ethics Application – to create “real research ethics” contextualised to the specific field of the research (Gillan & Pickerill, 2012, pp. 134–135). Here, ethics considerations assume that “all research is partisan in one way or another'' (Galis & Hansson, 2012, p. 1). To make it transparent and accountable is therefore necessary to explicitly incorporate the researcher’s positionality, relations with communities and practices, within an engaged commitment towards academic research. Other elements of this commitment are co-responsibility, reciprocity and care. The proposal takes Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012, p. 239) questions on "Who is the research for?", "What difference will it make?" or "How will we know it is worthwhile?" as a continuous reflection on the transparency and accountability towards the communities involved. The use and share of data, metadata and outcomes is a way to address these questions that highlights the collective responsibility of how knowledge is produced and shared in common (see Data Management Plan). Also, reflective sessions during the study will address principles of reciprocity, co-responsibility and political commitments (Kokot, 2017). Collaboration and reciprocity challenge the idea of power relations in research (Smith, 2006). It incorporates multiple points of view and the consideration of participants involvement not as data-providers, but as contributors. This approach considers all participants equally 'elite' with specific expertise and political agency. Care involves the respect to the autonomy and well-being of participants and researcher, especially relevant for research under the outbreak of Codvid-19 virus and its unpredictable consequences. The 'affective atmospheres' (Lupton, 2020) this crisis has produced will shape the approach to situations that might hinder the process, but also render it more relevant and pertinent.