People - Space - Technology: An Ethnographic Approach

Abstract

CyberParks aims at advancing knowledge on the relationship between information and communication technologies and the socially sustainable production and usage of public open spaces. Such research necessitates a solid methodological base. Urban ethnography brings together a number of perspectives and approaches to deal with cultural and social aspects of urban life, and as such it is able to provide an integrated methodological framework for the study of technology-public space relationship. The ethnographic approach means, by definition, an in-depth, micro-scale look at the phenomena under concern. However, the technological dimension makes the relationship between people and space more complex. This is not simply because an additional layer of analysis is added; it comes as a result of the emergence of multiple connections between the real and the virtual. From an ethnographic perspective, this requires the researcher to capture, explore and understand the cyber-social phenomena and dynamics in a multifaceted, hybrid, triangulated and crossreferenced way. This makes ethnographic research much more complicated but more interesting as well. The current chapter attempts to outline such an analytical framework to guide empirical research on the issues. This framework draws on the public space literature and adds the technological dimension brought in by the CyberParks project. We argue that this enriches the ethnographic approach providing a more integrated framework for the analysis of the relationship between people, space and technology.

A 4-dimensional model and combined methodological approach to inclusive Urban planning and design for ALL

“…In order to address this complexity and improve cities' functioning, safety, attractiveness, accessibility, inclusiveness and recognition as a Smart City, researchers have considered several holistic approaches and models. Examples include: a) modern city concepts, such as placemaking (Mackenzie, 2015), the smart cities concept (Smart cities, 2014), city as a sustainable ecosystem (Newman & Jennings, 2008), and city as a complex adaptive system (Albrechts, 2006); b) urban planning, design and governing concepts, such as a planning framework for green spaces (La Rosa et al, 2018), collaborative urbanism-oriented framework for interrogative infrastructures (Dyer, Gleeson, & Grey, 2017), and an action-oriented holistic planning approach introduced by Albrechts (2006); c) multi-stakeholder (Wai, Nitivattananon, & Kim, 2017), collaborative and participatory approaches (Castelnovo, 2015;Castelnovo, Misuraca, & Salvoldelli, 2015a, 2015bDionisio, Banwell, & Kingham, 2016;Dyer et al, 2017); d) multi-criteria evaluation models that support planning, design and decision-making processes (Cafuta, 2015;Dall'O, Bruni, Panza, Sarto, & Khayatian, 2017;La Rosa et al, 2018;Martinelli, Battisti, & Matzarakis, 2015), as well as user-centred methodological frameworks such as the ethnographic analytical framework introduced by Menezes and Smaniotto Costa (2016).…”

“…These approaches, however, mostly stay limited to their quantitative nature and therefore rarely further explore the reasons behind the quantitative results of the urban use. There are some exceptions, for example the qualitative multi-stakeholder and multi-benefit analytical approach tested by Wai et al (2018); an in-depth ethnographic analytical approach, introduced by Menezes and Smaniotto Costa (2016); and a perception-based inclusive design by Lukman, Bridge, Dain, and Boon (2014). A human dimension is a central point in these examples, and a qualitative user-centred approach is the backbone of the methodology proposed.…”

Teenagers’ Perception of Public Spaces and Their Practices in ICTs Uses

“…With the broad penetration of digital technologies and new media devices the world has increasingly become hyper-connected, melting together the real and virtual worlds and this makes the call to identity and address the complex, multi-causal, and even sometimes contradictory, relation of social life and spaces, termed here as urban spatialities (Menezes and Smaniotto 2017). Teenagers of the 21 st Century are born in a cybernetic era and are able to handle new technologies with utmost ease (Boyd 2014).…”

Cyberparki jako hybrydowe przestrzenie uczenia się: rozważania na marginesie projektu COST

“…2015). Jednym z najnowszych pomysłów na takie ulepszenie i uatrakcyjnienie miejskich przestrzeni zielonych jest dodanie do nich dodatkowego, cyfrowego wymiaru, a zatem przekonwertowanie tych przestrzeni do postaci hybrydowej -łączącej naturę i technikę (Menezes i Smaniotto Costa 2017;Klichowski 2019). Taki digitalny kontekst ma stymulować obywateli miast do odsunięcia się choć na chwilę od siedzącego, wirtualnego życia i zachęcać do zintensyfikowania własnej aktywnej partycypacji w "życiu na zewnątrz" (Raiyn 2015).…”

“…Musi być to inteligentne środowisko, w którym różnego typu czujniki i komputery monitorują aktywność użytkowników i reagują adekwatnie do niej, niejako dostosowując funkcjonowanie parku do aktualnego zachowania ludzi, którzy się tam znajdują, czy zachęcając ich do podjęcia określonego typu aktywności (Thomas 2014). Cyfrowy wymiar miejskiego parku, to więc zaawansowana technologiczna infrastruktura zaimplementowana w jego najpierwotniejszą tkankę (Menezes i Smaniotto Costa 2017).…”