Reading Reflection 4

amydangg

ConnectBeforeCollaborate.pdf

Home >English homework help >Article writing homework help >Reading Reflection 4

Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later

Every community has experts with primary knowledge of the social, cultural, polit-

ical, and physical environment they live in. Yet people typically recognized as “the

experts”—especially during design work—tend to be from outside the community.

The knowledge these outside experts possess is usually based on secondary infor-

mation and best practice norms. It is not generated within the community itself.

Being aware that valuable knowledge lies with people within the community, and that these people can be great resources for designers, is critical to transactive and

transformative design.

Experts In and Out Experting gives equal value to and acknowledgment of the information and skills

of all parties to ensure an authentic process that makes room for co-defining the

problem and co-generating new information. It provides an approach that engages

community members to use their knowledge and skills, enabling them to fully

understand the implications of what they know about a landscape and how impactful

that knowledge can be. In time this makes them more effective in problem solving

Jones, A. D., Hester, R. T., Hou, J., Lawson, L. J., McNally, M. J., & de, L. P. D. (Eds.). (2017). Design as democracy : Techniques for collective creativity. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 21:39:14.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

74 Design as Democracy

because it shifts the focus from a onetime physical-solutions outcome to one that

builds local capacity over the long term.

A Tradition of Devaluing Local Knowledge This efficacy has been slow yet radical, particularly in acknowledging the wealth of

expertise held by communities of color and other marginalized people. As Freder-

ick Law Olmsted observed in his investigation of the southern states, African slaves

were extremely knowledgeable about weather and seasonal patterns, plants, the

land, the landscape, and building, which gave the slaves’ toiling its specific value in

the production process. Yet owners perpetuated the belief that their slaves were less

than human creatures that knew nothing outside of what they were told to do. Bru-

tality and punishment were the methods used to extract knowledge and skills, and

the perpetual ritualizing of slavery as “forced labor” distorted who knew what about

cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice farming in the American landscape. The cultural

remnants of slavery’s belief system are as pervasive as ever, including in design

practices that continue to devalue and usurp-sans-acknowledgment the environ-

mental and placed-based knowledge of the many communities of color found in the

United States today. Similarly colonialism and the acquisition and use of formal titles

everywhere diminish the value of local wisdom.

Co-producing Local Knowledge for Higher-Quality Design As professionals we often assume that community members can only contribute

their personal perceptions and values, but resident knowledge of circumstances,

events, relationships, and unique characteristics of place and their meaning almost

always leads to higher-quality design. Often a community member is the leader of

the collective creativity, producing the design itself with minimal professional help.

Experting in community design recognizes and acknowledges local expertise, fol-

lows local guidance, and takes cues throughout the design process. Sustainable

projects emerge with real partners because all can take credit for the knowledge

base of collaborative work. The techniques are similar to the co-production model

Jason Coburn put forth in Street Science: Community Health and Environmen- tal Health Justice, which describes a process of environmental health research and decision making in Brooklyn, New York. After the community questioned the

US Environmental Protection Agency’s risk assessment framework, government

representatives and the community worked together to design an investigation

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 75

that combined professional research methods with the deep understanding of the

daily life experience of residents. Local knowledge and professional expertise were

given equal weight; local and professional knowledge were challenged and nego-

tiated. The technical baseline changed, and political decisions about solutions

changed.

How Far Is the Future? For Real? The process of experting focuses more on discovery and knowledge exchange than

other community design processes. Others are often organized according to struc-

tures of criticism of the existing condition followed by visions and ending with a plan for

implementation. Depending on the community, the utilization of existing resources, emphasized in experting, rather than future visions that seem far-reaching for peo-

ple focused on daily survival, can be essential for engagement. This expands inclu-

sionary design so that it becomes truly transactional. Focusing on existing resources

goes beyond the involvement of users in the design to include claiming ownership of

the solution through the exchange of knowledge. This can be achieved with commit-

ment if the skills and knowledge of the community are given value and considered

essential to the process.

Transferring Expertise for the Long Term Employing the variety and depth of skills that the community possesses can be bene-

ficial to the short-term design but also creates stewards who are responsible for the

project long after facilitators, consultants, and designers have gone. Another advan-

tage of transactive design that transfers the title of expert to members of the com- munity is that it provides the opportunity to develop empowering outcomes. When

we as designers undertake an experting process in an underrepresented commu-

nity, we too often aim simply to provide a solution to a physical problem that meets

users’ needs. But we might just as readily aim to build local human capacity so that

future decisions regarding the built and natural environment can take place without

a dependency on outside experts taking the lead.

Techniques for Experting The techniques included in this chapter showcase methods to gain an understanding

of a community and its history through the engagement of community experts. They

also present ways to share design methods and expertise to increase the use of local

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

76 Design as Democracy

knowledge in a manner that demonstrates mutual respect between community and

designers. The techniques also include activities created to tap into expertise that

citizens may not know they have. Or activities could reveal important expertise that

citizens at first didn’t value as contributing to the design or development process but

that is key to developing resilient and sustainable solutions. The techniques lay out

how to create a forum for citizens to share their skills, communicate their own ideas,

and engage in the design process and problem solving with confidence. “Cellphone

Diaries” from Kofi Boone is a technique that allows communities to celebrate and

share their knowledge and points of view. Austin Allen’s “Mining the Indigenous”

technique shows how to cull expertise and knowledge within the community. Patsy

Eubanks Owens’s “Investigative Reporter” describes a way for designers to work

with community teens as research and reporting partners. C. L. Bohannon and Terry

Clements’s “Reflect, Articulate, Project (R.A.P.) Method for Sharing Community Sto-

ries” is one of the many techniques employed by the Virginia Tech design team in its

ongoing work in the Hurt Park neighborhood of Roanoke, Virginia. Yeun-Kum Kim’s

“Adults Designing Playgrounds by Becoming Children” provides a method to assist

in developing a playful design program. Each of these techniques makes experting a

shared experience. Each demonstrates that we can both develop concrete solutions

and produce psychological empowerment of participants. This enhances how people

think about themselves, builds an awareness of what it takes to achieve their goals,

and internalizes the actions it takes to address their needs in their context. When

experting is done with such acumen and sensitivity in a community, it enables citi-

zens to control their own future.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 77

Technique 3.1

CELLphonE DiariEs: assET Mapping WiTh MoBiLE TEChnoLogy

Kofi Boone

Cellphone Diaries was developed so community members could document their place- based stories independently, on their own time, and in their own voices. Through the use of smartphones, community residents can create self-authored digital videos leveraging sound and motion to add nuance and context to their stories. Additionally, videos are geo-located and can be linked to online maps adding relevant spatial characteristics, increasing acces- sibility for community review and discussion. The documentation of community stories can assist in the discursive process of community planning.

instructions 1. Focus. In the context of a design or planning process that will result in changes to

the environment, what are the stories about the environment that help give cul- tural relevance to these places? Where do you want to document these stories? Local buildings? Parks or open spaces? A neighborhood area? Are these places publicly accessible? Are there any safety or safety-perception concerns that might impact the process?

2. Assess. Identify the technology access and skill level within the community. Do people have access to smartphones? Do people have access to laptop/desktop computers with Internet access? If not, consider contacting cellphone providers to receive donations of phones and service, as well as using public computer resources (libraries, local schools, etc.).

3. Recruit. Identify a core group of people who want to participate in the process. People should be willing to commit to a one-hour orientation workshop, as well as field study time (per your project needs).

4. Train. The process requires use of a smartphone with digital video capabilities, as well as GPS (Global Positioning System) built in to locate the videos. It also requires development and access of an online map to link videos to locations, as well as an intermediate step of uploading videos and linking them to the map. It is helpful to train a support person to assist with the process (someone who can help other com- munity members if they get stuck, and can assist with linking videos to the map).

n Teach people how to use smartphones to shoot digital videos. This includes holding the camera steady and speaking clearly. Teach people where the videos reside on the phone, and (if desired) how to find the “geotag” (showing the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

78 Design as Democracy

location where the video was recorded). Teach people how to upload their videos to an online storage location. Because of its compatibility with Google Maps, YouTube is strongly encouraged. Also, ask people to keep all videos recorded on their phone in case other mapping processes are desired.

n Teach people how to create and modify an online map. For ease of use, Google Maps is strongly recommended. If people are comfortable reading maps, use pins on the map to mark video locations. If not, ask people to share their geo- tags with a support person.

5. Field study. Give a timetable for going on-site and recording videos. There is no limit assigned to video length. However, longer videos result in larger files and increase the time required in the next step (review and sort). If using donated mobile devices and service, require participation in the training workshop as a necessary step to using the devices. Provide contact information for support staff should people need help. Give clear deadlines for returning the devices (the case study required return of the devices after one week).

6. Review and sort. Review videos with community members and take notes. Are there key words, phrases, and ideas associated with the videos? Are there patterns? Analyze the entire collection of videos to determine if there are themes, common- alities, or differences in overall collection of videos. Discuss these themes with community residents.

7. Celebrate and share. Create an event that showcases the results. Gallery exhibi- tions, demonstrations at libraries, and other activities are impactful. Put the results in a form that can be used to access the information to influence community projects.

Case story Cellphone Diaries was useful in the inventory and analysis to complement ongoing commu- nity visioning and archival research processes for John Chavis Memorial Park in Raleigh. Chavis Park, a historically African American community, is in South Park East Raleigh and is a half mile southeast of Raleigh’s downtown. Participants used digital videos to commu- nicate the value of the park, which is the green heart of Raleigh’s African American com- munity, and to record stories of people, places, and events for which there is no longer any trace evidence. The process was facilitated by North Carolina State University College of Design’s Downtown Studio and worked directly with members of the Raleigh Central Com- munity Advisory Council as well the South Park East Raleigh Preservation and History

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 79

Figure 3-1: A resident begins the training process for Cellphone Diaries by reviewing a handbook created by the design team. The training was held in the Archive Room in John T. “Top” Greene Center, which contains memorabilia donated and curated by residents describing the history of the neighborhood.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

80 Design as Democracy

Figure 3-3: Another resident is in John Chavis Memorial Park creating a digital video about the history of the Carousel. The image shows the on-site documentation process where residents point the phone at a topic of interest and narrate their stories describing the topic.

Figure 3-2: Residents are excited that they mastered the technique and have successfully recorded a digital video for the first time. After training they are loaned the cellphones for one week to record as many digital videos on whatever topics they want. At the end of the week, they return the devices, and the team downloads, codes, and adds the digital videos to an online map.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 81

Program. Although these groups included a range of people, the people who wanted to par- ticipate in the process and who had oral histories to share were all senior African American women.

The process produced 58 self-authored digital videos. The videos ranged from 30 sec- onds to seven minutes in length. The videos uncovered a range of previously undocumented park activities that gave the park meaning to local people. The most significant finding affecting park perception was the result of several residents identifying the historic main entry and programmatic heart of the park. A park that once allowed vehicular access and housed amusements, including an Olympic-sized pool and a miniature train ride, now has a pedestrian entry and plaza with no interpretive elements. This finding directly impacted the subsequent Chavis Community Conversation (led by Skeo Solutions) resulting in a master

Figure 3-4: The Cellphone Diaries map and links to the videos. A free and online Google Map of the park was created by interns. Each video contained a GPS geotag showing the coordinates where the videos were recorded. Pins are placed in the Google Map to match the GPS locations of videos. The videos are uploaded to YouTube, producing a web link that has its respective pin, allowing anyone to go to the map, click on a pin, and view a cellphone diaries video.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

82 Design as Democracy

plan update for Chavis Park that aligned with community design values. The revitalization of the historic “heart of the park” is a key feature of the plan, and the park master plan was awarded a $12.5 million budget for first phase of implementation. Additionally, excerpted videos from the process were featured in local gallery exhibitions and were the subject of public radio broadcasts and a city educational program focused on cultural landscapes (see: https://goo.gl/J2HNwi).

reflection The technique was successful in engaging the specific people involved—local African Amer- ican seniors with an abundance of previously undocumented memories and local heritage. However, the technique could have been used with other groups in the community. In par- ticular, young people, who generally have a higher level of experience and interest in mobile technology, could have provided different perspectives on the places documented. New neighbors who may not have local historic knowledge represent another important group. In future efforts, attracting and encouraging dialogue between different neighborhood groups could enable critical dialogue about the collective awareness of important people, places, and events defining community heritage and meaning. Engaging a range of people with varying views and attitudes of a place and using this technique to document and share different perceptions of the same place is a future direction for this work.

Figure 3-5: The resulting redesign draws attention to no longer existing features that are important to older residents.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 83

Technique 3.2

Mining ThE inDigEnous

Austin Allen

Mining the Indigenous is an examination of the cultural struggle between the history and the codes of memory of a landscape, two often-opposing ways of identifying a place. Codes of memory are the visual or aural signs or physical forms, left by someone, to be read or experienced at a future point by other people, in order to reveal more about a place than what may be evident upon an initial experience in or around a place. Often the coding is a means to protect the memory from being erased by history, the official story. Thus history and memory are in a continuous contest to define a particular landscape, often two contra- dictory ways of understanding what happened in this time and place. History is where land- scape architects traditionally settle in on defining a space over a designated time period. Certain facts are indisputable about a place. But the cultural aspects beyond the history of a landscape are less certain and are often found in the codes of memory shared by the indigenous—the “Cultural Keepers.”

Mining the Indigenous starts with the premise that cultural aspects of a landscape are intertwined with codes of memory held by the Cultural Keepers of a place and time. Cultural Keepers are not necessarily the community leadership. Even if they are not offi- cial leaders, however, their neighbors recognize and respect their knowledge. As the name implies they are keepers of memory and interpreters of place.

Mining the Indigenous is a technique developed to accomplish at least two tasks: first, to empower an individual or a group of Cultural Keepers to fully realize the implications of what they know about a landscape (steps 1–4); and second, to assist in applying this knowl- edge to problem solving in a specific landscape (steps 5–7).

instructions 1. Identify what is peculiar, missing, confusing, or conflicted in the known or official

documentation of a specific landscape. What are those matters during charrettes, workshops, site inventories, and site analyses defying easy explanations or logic and often dismissed as fantasies, myths, or lies? List them; see where they overlap and, most importantly, start to identify the sources.

2. Identify those people who step forward or are known by others who have alterna- tive interpretations to official accounts or thinking about a particular landscape. Who stands out in workshops, charrettes, and other gatherings with views that do not always align with historical documentation? These may be your Cultural

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

84 Design as Democracy

Keepers and should be seen as a potential valuable resource as you make sense of contrary or opposing points of view. You might even ask the individuals to self identify as Cultural Keepers: “Are you the Keeper of the Culture of this place?”

3. Engage those people in informal discussion of what they know and how they began to understand this particular landscape with a different way of seeing and interpreting.

4. Use techniques often employed through ethnographic and documentary filmmak- ing to record the stories explained by the Cultural Keepers as a means to examine how they see themselves and your role as one who can act on their narratives. Ulti- mately define and agree on the role of the Cultural Keeper in relation to the project at hand. This is particularly useful during disaster recovery efforts accompanied by a catastrophic disruption of place and the knowledge of the place.

5. Be patient. Cultural Keepers are experts on their set of knowledge of place and its relationship to time and how and when to use this information. This is probably one of the most difficult steps to comprehend and embrace because of the expecta- tion as outside experts that the transfer of knowledge will be shared in an orderly, predetermined pattern common to our field. This will not be the case. You will be told when it is time to tell you and in ways that may not be readily apparent.

6. Interpret, ask for feedback from the Cultural Keepers and others, reinterpret, and begin to compose what you, the outside expert, have learned about a place. This step toward a greater collaborative trust in the process is driven by a critical awareness that Cultural Keepers exist in a world where the outside expert has been positioned as the primary source and the Cultural Keepers’ knowledge base is considered sec- ondary in terms of usefulness in problem solving. Cultural Keepers are aware that their knowing has value. But times of sharing this knowledge with whomever and for whatever reasons are critical moments. Will the secondary status be removed or will the Cultural Keeper be silenced in terms of usefulness? Each time codes of memory are revealed also holds in the balance the future survival of those mem- ories and ultimately the survival of the keeper of those memories. Coded mem- ories, by their very nature, have had to be protected knowledge! This knowledge reshapes the way that tradition and official stories are communicated; thus it is a disrupting knowledge, upsetting the norm. In return, many officials, professionals, or scholars invested in traditional or normative narratives have often suppressed or at least attempted to silence the Cultural Keeper’s point of view. Thus Cultural Keepers often specialize in narratives, in coded and fragmented ways deemed as essential ways to eke out information without jeopardizing cultural preservation of practices, or the vernacular of the place.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 85

7. Frame the problem to be solved along with the Cultural Keeper. This consists of revealing one’s expertise to the Cultural Keeper in a manner that demonstrates mutual respect in assessing the value of information.

8. Keep the Keeper engaged as the project moves forward, asking for guidance as things become more concrete. This is an ongoing process in sharing knowledge and creating change.

Case story John Taylor is a Cultural Keeper. I have enlisted his expertise for 10 years in the disaster recovery phase of the Lower Ninth Ward and the adjacent Bayou Bienvenue Wetlands Tri- angle. He was born in the Lower Ninth Ward, centering his life in the culture of the Lower Ninth Ward and around the plants and animals and environment of the vanished cypress forest and now wetlands in the Triangle. Over time I have walked with him and conducted many interviews to begin to assemble his knowledge of the place into a transferable set of information to be used by all of those interested in rebuilding neighborhoods and restoring coastal areas and wetlands. He has lived in and photographed this landscape and regularly holds tours and educates people from around the world about how the flooding happened in 2005. He also explains to them the global-to-local impact of climate change today.

We met in 2006 when a group of us were climbing the levee wall at the site of what was to become the Bayou Bienvenue Wetlands Overlook. We had brought along a writer from the New Yorker Online who was writing a story about the need to prevent the development of a bridge that would isolate the Bayou Bienvenue Wetlands from the Lower Ninth Ward

Figure 3-6: John Taylor in the Bayou Bienvenue Wetlands Triangle, a self-portrait. Source: © John W. Taylor.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

86 Design as Democracy

Neighborhood. Taylor stopped me and asked what we were doing, having seen me walking with others in the wetlands over several months. When I told him, he was more than willing to fill in huge chapters of information and missing data. John knew where infrastructure lay (e.g., huge sewerage pipes that had been inaccurately located on official maps). He could explain ruins on a track of public land where no one lived. “At one time,” he said, “people who had no money were allowed to live and build small houses on this track, as long as they kept it clean.” Ultimately, with the help of John and many others, the bridge “to nowhere” was never built. John has become one of the Bayou Bienvenue Wetland Triangle’s greatest protectors and Cultural Keepers.

reflection John Taylor’s work in the wetlands and his ability to articulate another way of seeing this space has served as a catalyst and source for many artists, scientists, ecologists, planners, and designers. Journalists and scholars reference his words in publications, scientific papers, the- ses, and doctoral dissertations. His work encourages us to build a more extensive forum that legitimizes and encourages Cultural Keepers to become engaged in civic problem solving. Cultural Keepers can be authorized through a network of people to maintain codes of mem- ory, even by communities who may not agree with the Keepers’ stated memories. We benefit when we include Cultural Keepers on equal footing in analyzing a place, as co-investigators on grant proposals, in contentious problem-solving situations, and in strategic planning.

Figure 3-7: Ghost cypress trees in the Bayou Bienvenue Wetlands Triangle. Source: © John W. Taylor.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 87

Technique 3.3

ThE invEsTigaTivE rEporTEr

Patsy Eubanks Owens

The Investigative Reporter builds narratives to highlight important community issues. The community participants identify issues to be explored, formulate questions that will help them to learn more about these issues, and record interviews with other commu- nity members. After learning the basics of conducting an interview and how to operate a video recorder, participants practice and hone their new skills with one another. Com- munity members to be interviewed are identified and investigative assignments under- taken. These reports are shared with one another, the design team, and the broader community.

These investigative reports may be used throughout a design process. For example, they can help to uncover community knowledge and sentiment early in the process, to inform design development, or to verify previous findings. This exercise can be implemented in stages. For example, steps 1–3 may be conducted during one community workshop, steps 4 and 5 at a second, and steps 6 and 7 at a third.

instructions 1. The design team presents the overriding purpose of the effort (e.g., why were they

hired, what issue were they asked to address, what are the objectives) and facilitates a discussion with workshop participants to identify the issues they think need to be addressed.

2. The design team asks the community participants to think about these issues and helps the group more fully understand the issue and identify related concerns. The design team should prepare for the meeting by identifying possible responses and developing discussion prompts.

3. Once the main issues have been identified and discussed, the group is divided into smaller groups of four to six participants plus a facilitator from the design team. The facilitator asks the groups to imagine they are producing a news story on this issue and to decide which questions need to be answered in order to be able to explain the issue to someone else. Their responses are discussed, refined, and developed into interview questions.

4. The participants are given a brief tutorial on filming. Afterward, they conduct practice interviews with one another, and, with assistance from the design team, refine their questions and filming technique.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

88 Design as Democracy

5. Once the group is satisfied with their questions, the issue groups interview one another. For example, groups 1 and 2 interview each other.

6. A member of the design team uploads the videos to a shared computer while another leads a discussion focused on what the participants learned about con- ducting interviews and what they learned about the issues. Participants are asked to recommend which of their videos should be viewed by the entire group, and these are watched. The number of videos to be watched should be determined by the time available.

7. The design team leads a discussion on who should be interviewed to get the full story for each issue. The group develops a list of future interviewees, decides which of these interviews are most important, and determines who will conduct them.

Case story This technique was developed through our work with a group of young people, aged 12 to 18, on the Youth Voices for Change project in West Sacramento, California. Our youth part- ners had been collecting information for a few weeks about their favorite and least favorite places, and the places they would like to see changed. Although the youth had previously photographed these places around the community, it was difficult for them to express all the reasons they had for identifying the various places.

We conducted three 30-minute workshops over a three-week period. At first we divided the youth into small story circles. The purpose of these story circles was to flesh out the sto- ries the youth had about their community, such as what places were important to them and why, and what places they wanted to see changed. The youth drew these stories out of each other. Using this input, we helped them develop their interview and paired them with other

Figure 3-8: Youth conducting practice interviews. This young woman was particularly concerned with schools and how they should become more welcoming to the students.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 89

participants. After practicing, the youth interviewed each other at these favorite and least favorite places, and the places they wanted to see changed.

The material gathered during these interviews was reviewed, summarized, and shared with the broader community. The youth developed a web-based map that linked their vid- eos to the locations discussed. Over a 10-month period the videos were also presented, along with other findings produced by the youth, at a well-attended public project show- case. During this event, youth used their new skills and conducted additional investigative reports with adult community members, notably the city’s mayor.

reflections The Investigative Reporter has four main positive characteristics. First, trust is developed between designer and community members by giving community members control over identifying the issues, questions, and collection of information. Second, novel information is obtained because of the diverse participant perspectives and the willingness of others to talk to them. Third, participant ownership of the process and the results grows through cumulative engagement opportunities. Finally, individual competency, contributions, and capacity are bolstered through guided inquiry, use of common technology, and modest training.

In particular, this process is ideal for engaging older youth and soliciting their opin- ions. They are naturally inquisitive and are comfortable with being behind the camera and on video. Potential hurdles to this technique include the availability of video-recording and editing equipment, adequate video-production training of the design team, and time. While recording participant impressions can be conducted during a shorter community

Figure 3-9: Youth videos posted to the Youth Voices for Change Google map. This video on transportation added to ongoing discussions about bus routes in the community.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

90 Design as Democracy

meeting, the training of participants, the subsequent gathering of information from others, and the analysis of this information make up a longer process.

The Investigative Reporter technique is transactive in that it promotes the active engagement of participants. The design team helps the participants get the information out to others through this process. We also found that this effort was transformative. The videos produced by the youth and the process itself informed and transformed how city officials and adults view their community. The youth perspective on issues influenced city decisions. For example, parks and recreation officials immediately incorporated youth concerns into the recreation planning process and even recruited youth to assist in conducting a design workshop.

Figure 3-10: Youth Voices for Change project showcase. The city’s mayor and community members listened intently while the young people shared their ideas.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 91

Technique 3.4

rEfLECT, arTiCuLaTE, projECT (r.a.p.) METhoD for sharing CoMMuniTy sToriEs

C. L. Bohannon and Terry Clements

The process of Reflecting, Articulating, and Projecting (R.A.P.) provides community mem- bers an opportunity to actively participate in an oral history and a mapping process with designers that reflects on their core stories, and projects toward a future narrative of change and growth. This process advances the community physically and socially by building rela- tionships between residents and designers. R.A.P. allows for active sharing of both indi- vidual and collective stories to facilitate archival documentation so community narratives become agents of change. Honest dialogue merges into transformative practices shifting ownership of the design process toward community members.

Stories convey complex practices that have shaped our lives. Stories articulate essential struggles, values, and hopes that we have. Stories shape historical understanding. These nar- ratives have the potential to construct contemporary perspectives that run counter to dom- inant ideologies, and open a space for authentic dialogue about the future. Local accounts express opinions and views on issues that shape community identity and spatial realities. The R.A.P. method offers a safe space for communities to tell their stories, helps recog- nize and map shared aspirations, and honors local people as they address actions to meet needs.

instructions 1. Prepare for the meeting. Work with neighborhood leaders to invite residents

across boundaries such as age, gender, and ethnicity. 2. Make a toolbox for each table: a recent large-scale community aerial map with

street names, note paper, sticky notes, markers, and colored pencils (sometimes a historic map will help too).

3. On the day of the meeting get there early to arrange the tables and chairs so six to eight community members can sit at a table.

4. Designate one facilitator, who can be a community member or design team mem- ber, per table to keep time, take notes, and ensure the storytelling process is open and inclusive.

5. Make sure all participants provide written consent if needed. 6. Make sure a recorder, which can be a community member or design team member,

documents the stories.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

92 Design as Democracy

7. Start the Reflection process, which will take between 25 and 30 minutes. Agree on ground rules and objectives so all parties can share stories without being interrupted.

8. Identify a community starting point, creating an open-ended dialogue between participants, for example, “What does this community mean to you, its history, and valued places?”

9. Have participants take turns telling stories while marking on maps the places where story events took place and what the story was.

10. Identify community strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities by a similar process of taking turns.

11. The next step is Articulate. Ask two members from each table to display their map and describe what they learned about the neighborhood. Take between 25 and 30 minutes for this step. Each team should take no more than 3–5 minutes to report to the larger group.

12. After all maps are shared; facilitators should invite comments from community members.

13. Develop a concept map of the community’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. 14. Refine and develop a set of goals and objectives that can be charted and explored. 15. Identify gaps in goals and objectives that need to be addressed. 16. The final step is Projection. It should also take between 25 and 30 minutes. Collec-

tively, break community goals into manageable tasks that allow community mem- bers the space to express their hopes about a future story that can be used to shape community interventions.

17. Identify actors within the community and external partners that can make com- munity goals achievable. Create an action plan positioning community stories as a catalyst for change.

18. Archive copies of voice recordings and maps so they are accessible to the community.

19. Keep the conversation fluid so that, as community needs shift, the R.A.P. process can continue.

20. Take action on projects that project a specific future.

Case story The Hurt Park Community Garden is the result of an ongoing relationship between Virginia Tech’s Landscape Architecture program, the Hurt Park Neighborhood Alliance, the City of Roanoke, and the Roanoke Community Gardens Association. The project, started in 2009,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 93

reflects the work of multiple community members, partners, and students. Critical parts of the process employed the R.A.P. method to understand the relationship between open space, local food (in)security, gardening practices, and community identity in Hurt Park.

An interdisciplinary university team facilitated the R.A.P. method during a community forum. Stories and three maps produced a design program and conceptual master plan. In particular, Reflection allowed residents to develop a critical understanding of community resources, including churches, schools, and other existing institutional assets. Articulation enabled community members to reenvision vacant land as a potential neighborhood asset. Projection yielded a mobilized populace who designed, developed, and implemented a new community garden and green space.

Since its completion, the community garden has transformed a half-acre vacant lot into a thriving neighborhood hub where low- and moderate-income residents have access to garden plots. The Hurt Park Community Garden has become a focal point of the neighbor- hood and serves, directly or indirectly, hundreds of Hurt Park residents.

Figure 3-11: Hurt Park community member sharing ideas from the Articulation step of the R.A.P. method.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

94 Design as Democracy

reflection The R.A.P. method offers a unique opportunity to realize the power of community through personal and shared histories. It builds and maintains trust with outside partners, but maybe more important, among community members with different priorities. R.A.P. can be difficult for community members who are not keen on sharing their personal stories or talking about difficult or taxing aspects of their lives. We continue to refine our process to overcome this.

Figure 3-12: Hurt Park residents planting vegetables at the opening of the Hurt Park community garden.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 95

Technique 3.5

aDuLTs DEsigning pLaygrounDs By BECoMing ChiLDrEn

Yeun-Kum Kim

Adults Designing Playgrounds by Becoming Children encourages adults to think about design not from the perspective of guardians but from that of a child. This workshop method helps designers and other adults to develop and exchange ideas about play, and to incorporate creative childlike ideas into the design. It taps into expertise that resides in memories of childhood, not just the experience of parenthood, beginning with a familiar game modeled after Bingo, and progressing from there to a detailed design.

instructions 1. Prepare for the workshop. The design team requires one main facilitator who leads

the process, guides the group through all the activities, and encourages active com- munication among participants. Assistant facilitators, assigned to each group, help participants conduct activities at each step and record participant opinions about design ideas.

2. To enable effective idea sharing, limit the number of participants to less than 24 at any single workshop. Include residents of the area near the playground, kindergar- ten teachers, members of a local child-rearing community group, and playground management officials.

3. Choose a venue near or in the playground. The playground is a good place where participants can obtain a sense of realism; however, it may be so busy that par- ticipants are distracted. Prepare templates to play Bingo for breaking the ice, and forms for the persona technique activity with space to list activities and playground equipment. (See steps 7 and 8 for details.)

4. Prepare models of the empty playground site using Styrofoam or thick paper and diverse materials, such as colored paper or clay, for participants to create play areas. Provide sheets of paper to record results of discussions about questions asked by the facilitator. Set up activity tables according to the number of teams (four tables with six participants at each table). The tables should be big enough for model making but not so big as to hinder communication.

5. The main facilitator should take about five minutes to describe the playground to be designed, its location, and its present condition, and introduce the workshop’s process, goals, and objectives. Explain the three activities and time to be spent on

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

96 Design as Democracy

each. During the first activity, participants will recall their own childhood play; in the second, they imagine who will play and how and what is needed for the games. The third activity is designing the playground.

6. Each team’s assistant facilitator asks members to introduce themselves. Then par- ticipants recall and discuss how they played as children, and what settings and moments they remember as most interesting. This step should take 20 minutes.

7. If time allows (20 more minutes) participants can play Bingo using types of play they enjoyed as children. First, each team member writes down names of activities (tag, merry-go-round) on their Bingo card templates, and then takes a turn calling them out. This is a fun way to see which childhood activities were shared by the adults, and it establishes connections between people.

8. To generate concrete, lively results, use the persona technique. In 20 minutes each team member imagines one specific child; decides the child’s age, gender, and character; and decides how the child wants to play. Then they describe the child’s play on the sheet already prepared. After each person’s character is detailed, they introduce their character to the other team members.

9. For the next 20 minutes participants are asked to imagine play, not play equip- ment, for each child. In our experience, when individuals without a design edu- cation design playgrounds, they tend to imagine familiar equipment like slides, swings, and seesaws, without considering diverse play activity. Therefore, we ask them to imagine how their hypothetical child might play, and then identify what settings best suit these activities. This activity sheet can be prepared as follows. The space on the right is for types of play, and the space on the left for play facilities. The left side can be hidden until the participants finish the right, allowing them to concentrate on thinking of play itself.

10. The final team activity is to create a playground model using the materials you provide (in 45 minutes). Before each team makes models, the facilitator informs the participants of the sizes of different objects, such as the height and length of the desk and the room, to create a sense of scale.

11. Once teams complete their models, they present their playgrounds to the audi- ence, describing their imagined children, their intention, the activities, the play equipment, and the meaning obtained from the workshop. After each presentation, the facilitator summarizes the design character. Use only 15 minutes for this step.

12. With the remaining five minutes the main facilitator explains that, after the work- shop, the designer will develop a design based on the workshop results and consult with the participants.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 97

Case story My company (Wul Landscape Architecture Company) has used this technique for over five years to design play areas in various Korean cities. Although we try something new each time, we follow the steps above, sometimes omitting Bingo if time is limited. In one Seoul playground design, an adult team decided to design for children’s adventure play. Another chose to encourage youth to play with their friends, not with structures. One team imag-

Figure 3-13: Participants working on park plans using childhood play memories to guide them.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

98 Design as Democracy

ined playgrounds for active girls, suggesting some structures that allowed girls to climb and jump. The final team discussed a playground that would allow young children to “play house.” As adults recall their delightful childhood play settings and how they stimulated imagination, the play areas become more creative. In one case, adults decided to simply use existing trees in the site for youth who might enjoy a natural challenge. Still another team suggested a site for timid children to imagine their own world, such as a space hidden from view where a child feels protected.

reflection This technique encourages adults to imagine children’s play rather than focusing on new play equipment. When designing playgrounds in Seoul, adults started out wanting a num- ber of facilities. This is common in Korea. As the work progressed, they recalled that they had played with their friends, rather than with facilities.

Figure 3-14: This playground was built in Seoul in 2015 with the support of the nonprofit Save the Children. Responding to workshop design requests, the playground center was kept open for free play, with facilities around it.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 3: Experting: They Know, We Know, and Together We Know Better, Later 99

The participants enjoyed recalling their childhood experiences, and they became less preoccupied with safety as the sole design determinant. This freed them to design more adventuresome play areas. They shifted their focus to inventive, interactive, entertaining, and often inexpensive games. In one case participants agreed what was needed was an empty space to play rather than the facility. As a result, we left the center wide open, plac- ing the play equipment to one side of the playground so that the children could climb and slide.

In our park design projects we are able to integrate most of the adults’ intentions, but care must be taken to tell participants that not every idea can be realized. We also need to inform participants this technique alone cannot establish consensus among diverse stake- holders. Therefore, other methods of communication must follow this workshop.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. Is

la nd

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed