So everybody's talking about making new urban land use policies that use Smart Growth to build community resilience. I don't think you can put new wine into old suburban policy, though, and so it becomes key to describe a new methodology for community research.
How, exactly, do we research all the ramifications of these policy changes, many of which seem eerily subjective (aesthetics, etc.)? Well, we dig into the theory of other areas that have made this jump before. We're basically going into the community unconscious here, right? We have to bring out all the identity buried with the gas mains and fill it with light.
That makes it fully appropriate to incorporate the methodology of postmodern and, to some extent, psychoanalytical observation into community-based research.
Okay, so how exactly do you delve into a sidewalk's sex drive?
The basic idea is that, first, you have to blend targeted scientific data with participatory dialog. Fine so far; lots of groups are doing that.
But at a certain point, unconscious dialog is needed. This can involve "undercover" researchers and the intent is to catch knew-jerk reactions generally hidden in dialog sessions.
This is coupled with Nonverbal and Symbolic Analysis, which is perhaps the most unorthodox aspect of the model. Some examples of this include:
- A survey and breakdown of fictive and non-fictive ideas in media
presentations of community through the past quarter-century. This
breakdown would focus on community influence and
interrelationship portrayed through all media, with special
influence on notably influential media and media that directly
concerns our targeted archetype areas. - Direct surveillance on the targeted areas of the study, including
video, audio and email surveillance. This may be prohibitive or
necessitate a surveillance waiver. In any case, this would provide
quantifiable data of time spent under various community
influences in an archetype area over the course of the surveillance. - Spatial or virtual symbolic analysis of communities related to the
archetype areas. This would include a study of advertisements,
layout, interior design, community logos, fashion, etc.
Yeah, I know it's wild. But I'm not sure how else to parse out all the relationships at play in a community, especially when you get to the level of detail which some of the new resilience materials discuss.
These ideas are couple with an appreciation for the analyst experience and the subjective aspects of their weighted matrix for the data.
That brings us to the results. When you are accruing this much geographic data, it's very difficult to create a useful narrative report. Instead, I advocate that the research product:
...should take the form of an actual network map of theories based on the study. Using [a relational] database, a visual map should be constructed that relates the researchers’ ideas about the network of overlapping community relationships through depictions of the spatial and virtual environments frequented by the study’s object population. This will allow forthcoming researchers to view geographic and Internet areas with overlapping color regions of community affiliation that may or may not be spatially related. Researchers can then analyze a given demographic area or population (united spatially or virtually) and view the study’s ideas about how communities overlap and interrelate within that population. This kind of work is already being done in such fields as medicine and construction; urban policy seems a logical extension.
Of course, some of this work is being done in urban policy now. But this aspect goes beyond mapping facilities on Google Earth; I think we need to map actual concepts geographically to see where certain innate biases really live--and where they commute. That way, we can tell (for instance) the relationships and community placements of those who want this or that improvement--so we can get as close as possible to the greatest good for the greatest number. I think the real resilience of a community will live at this level of detail. The residents know this inherently. But if we're coming in to do research, a lot of what we come up with will be bollocks unless we can understand it, too.
Comments