Summarizing
the Urban Tapestries Social Research:
Experimenting with Urban Space and ICTs
This social research has been designed and conducted by Professor Roger
Silverstone and Zoe Sujon from the Media and Communications Department
of the London School of Economics. The final report of this research is
now available as a Media@LSE
Electronic Working Paper. The aims and objectives of the social research,
the methodology and key findings are summarized below.
This online
summary is an excerpt of a much larger work and may not be used for commercial
purposes or gain in any way. It may be cited using standard academic conventions
(e.g. Silverstone, Roger; Sujon, Zoe. 2004. Summarizing
the Urban Tapestries Social Research: Experimenting with Urban Space and
ICTs.
Published on-line by Proboscis, URL: http://www.proboscis.org.uk/urbantapestries/socialresearch.htm)
Key words
/ Abstract / Key Research Goals / Aims and Objectives / Methods: Experimental
Ethnography / Sample / Findings / Conclusion: Mapping Urban Experience
/ References
Three
Respondents' Threads
Key
words:
Everyday life, place, urban space, social knowledge, communication,
information and communication technologies, mobile technologies, location
based applications, experimental ethnography, Bloomsbury
Abstract
Urban Tapestries provides a mobile location-based platform to connect
people with the places they inhabit through their stories, experiences
and observations. Currently based on an 802.11b mesh network in the heart
of London, ordinary people author their stories of the city and embed
them in the places that inspire them. Others who are logged into the system
can read these stories, author their own and engage the largely invisible,
multidimensional layers accumulating in the city. Our research asks if
people use UT in meaningful and interesting ways. Drawing from theories
of everyday life and urban space, we have developed experimental ethnography
as a method for investigating the relationships between communication
technologies, users and the socio-geographic territories around them.
Respondents are asked to play with an early Urban Tapestries proto-type
and this research explores what they do, their technological identities,
relationship to place and the meanings they generate. Urban Tapestries
facilitates the negotiation of boundaries and does augment notions of
connectivity – to place and to those within that place. However,
our research revealed that some do not interpret this connectivity positively.
Key
Research Goals:
1) to study emergent technologies in every day contexts
2) to observe how people use UT, including understanding:
- "the
kinds of relationships people have with the communication technologies
in their every day lives, or what we have termed their technological
identities"
- the relationship
between mobile technology, users and place
- the kinds
of content respondents create for UT and how this content may (or may
not) relate to social and embedded knowledges
- the social
opportunities and costs associated with UT
Aims
and Objectives
Ultimately, this research is about the kinds of interaction and relationships
existing between our respondents, communication technologies and place.
The Urban Tapestries (henceforth UT) social research targets how users
respond to the early technological manifestation of UT. In this way, this
explores the conceptual usability of UT, rather than conducting a usability
trial. In other words, UT may be able to theoretically deepen people’s
connection to urban spaces and facilitate new kinds of collaborative relationships,
but does it? Perhaps more precisely, do respondents want it to? For this
investigation, one of our central questions asks: do people use UT in
meaningful and interesting ways? Related to this question are a series
of sub-questions including: What do respondents do with UT? Can UT reveal
how people negotiate and make meaning of their urban spaces? Drawing from
these answers, we conclude with an overview of the social costs and opportunities
attached to UT.
In order to address these questions, we have proposed ‘experimental
ethnography’ as a provisional methodology involving a methodological
triangulation of ethnography, interviews, a survey and a quasi-experiment.
This research and the UT proto-type is based in central London’s
Bloomsbury area. The small sample of nine individuals is a small yet diverse
group of people with very different relationships to Bloomsbury. It is
important to note that including individuals with a range of socio-economic
backgrounds and relationships to technology generally was a central consideration
when enlisting respondents.
This research
aims to accomplish two things: first, to propose a set of methodological
tools useful for looking at emerging technologies, and second to understand
how individuals experiment with UT. Findings suggest that UT successfully
augments our respondents’ relationship with Bloomsbury, but fails
to convince many of them that this is a valuable or worthy asset.
Methods:
Experimental Ethnography
We have proposed the term experimental ethnography in order to encapsulate
the methodology we have developed for the research reported here. This
is a methodology for tracing connections and change, as it happens, instead
of as it is predicted. As such, experimental ethnography is not representative
or generalizable, nor does it aim to be. Rather, we hope to situate the
specificities of not just each respondent’s experience with UT,
but their biographies, their social, cultural and geographic locatedness
with their (non)responsiveness to UT. In this sense, experimental ethnography
is an emerging method for understanding emergent socio-technical systems.
One that is doubly experimental, as it were. In this respect the methodology
was required to be oriented to the future. But it also needed to confront
the socio-technical as a grounded phenomenon, grounded, that is, in the
density of everyday life and the subtleties of individual biography. What
makes this ethnography experimental is the juxtaposition of its aim to
capture the relationship between present and future uses of technology,
and the passage of that relationship, as it were, through the sieve of
culture, biography and experience. It aims to capture the fluidity of
technological change and the fuzziness of objects, machines and media
as they feature in the daily round.
Sample
Four of our informants were Bloomsbury residents, two were regular commuters,
two were occasional visitors and one was a tourist. Our final sample was
comprised of a journalist, a labourer, a tourist, an executive, a public
relations consultant, a student, a nurse, a security guard and a freelance
writer. Respondents ranged in ages from 19 – 61, and came from a
diverse range of socio-economic backgrounds. Respondents were contacted
using a variation of traditional snowball sampling, drawing upon referrals
from some team member’s, from local groups and also from some respondents.
All respondents were interviewed individually, with the exception of one
couple, Mandy and Stanley, who were interviewed together. All names of
respondents have been changed in order to protect their anonymity and
confidentiality.
Findings:
Technology, social knowledge and community
Reiterating that our central research question asks, do people use UT
in interesting and meaningful ways, it is important to note that, yes,
some respondents did engage UT in interesting and meaningful ways. Despite
some criticism about UT, all respondents agreed that the experience was
an enjoyable one. As such, the findings are organized around four themes,
namely, technological identity, place and public authoring, social knowledge,
and lastly the role of UT in communicating place.
‘Technological
identity’ is meant to capture not only how and what people consume,
but also what their communication technologies – including other
ICTs like the radio and the television in addition to computer and mobile
technologies – mean to them on personal, social and functional levels.
‘Technological identity’ is not just about respondents’
skills and abilities; it is also about their experiences and extended
relationship with their ICTs. Thus, the first cluster of findings indicate
that people have complex relationships (like all relationships) with the
communication technologies in their lives. Our respondents technological
identities’ ranged from the neo-luddite to the wanna-be cyborg.
Yet, each of these identities is neither static or fixed, and frequently
respondents described contradictory perceptions of and relationships with
ICTs. Uunsurprisingly, these identities influence and are influenced by
each respondent’s social, economic, geographical and cultural context.
The key features defining the relationships our respondents had with ICTs
are the importance of control (or lack of it), socio-cultural contexts,
expectation management, external or internal locus of control, and personal
aesthetics.
The second
theme sought to identify, through interviews and observation, the dynamics
of an existing social space. Figure 1 (see below) maps the paths and pockets
seven individuals and one couple wove during this research, exposing our
respondent’s trajectories and their points of interest along the
way. Rather than a top-down, one-to-many platform with content conceived
and designed by some invisible producer, public authoring calls upon users’
and city dwellers’ experiences and individual knowledges to create
the content of the system. Theoretically then, UT is about transforming
abstractions into practices. In this sense, UT facilitates memory, association
and connotation – all of which are experiences that theoretically,
would enrich one’s relationships to and with local places. Yet,
the question remains, does public authoring actually do these things for
those using UT?
It is clear
that respondents used UT in order to negotiate boundaries and mark their
territories, stake claims and identify their personal preferences. Informants
responded to UT by marking boundaries and rather surprisingly, introduced
personal aesthetics or the customization of place through UT. For respondents,
UT was about carving out the spaces that held some kind of personal relevance
or had some individualized meaning. In this sense, public authoring promotes
a sense of control not only over users’ territories, but also over
their boundaries and their own role in those territories. Each thread
shown in figure 1 (below) illustrates a customization of place, which
implicitly, or explicitly trace who and what belongs (or doesn’t
belong) to each customization – because in a sense, as Michael Bull
argues, this kind of personalization indicates a claiming of territory
akin to marking ownership (2000: 172-5). Thus, the navigational tactics
(e.g. structured or meandering) respondents engaged are reflected in the
above map. Respondents engage public authoring as a way of personalizing
the aesthetics of their surroundings, and marking some of their socio-geographic
interests on the digital surface of the city. Some respondents claimed
that UT did at least marginally enrich their experience and perceptions
of Bloomsbury.
Figure
1: Map of All Respondents’ Threads
Thirdly,
Urban Tapestries translates social, or what Donna Haraway would call ‘embedded
knowledge,’ into everyday life, in the form of place-based stories.
By weaving these stories into a publicly accessible platform, UT provides
a catalyst for other people to reveal their embedded knowledges and their
‘views from somewhere’ (Haraway 1996). Situated or ‘social
knowledge’ opens up public space and categories of knowledge, not
only to achieve greater social and cultural inclusivity, but also to understand
unrecognized vocabularies, marginal signs and the meaning of unfamiliar
habits. Respondents also produced exploratory threads, showing what kinds
of public places could be friendly or interesting. This highlights the
surprising number of commercial recommendations (i.e. “this place
is great,” or “DO NOT eat here”) that respondents created.
Recommendation systems, (e.g. e-Bay, Amazon.com or Friendster) suggest
that peer based referral systems are a powerful source of social currency.
A currency that is exchanged through the articulation of social and collective
knowledge. Going back to notions of gossip and personal recommendations,
UT may be a potentially powerful vehicle for the exchange of this kind
of social currency.
The fourth
cluster of findings is organized around the communication of place by,
first, assessing the social costs and opportunities attached to UT, and
second, by situating UT both in relation to its broader conceptual history
and within a collection of similar projects.
UT resonated
with respondents in widely varying degrees. Mandy’s view, that UT
lacks practicality and a real purpose, for instance, was echoed in some
way, by more than half of the participants as they claimed to be unwilling
to use UT on their own time and in their own spaces. Aside from the nascent
state of the proto-type, some of the key barriers included cost, social
context, interest and connectivity. Connectivity, for our respondents,
meant the connections one had to one’s surroundings, the connections
people had to others and lastly, the connection between the respondent
and the technology. Two respondents interpreted connectivity as highly
desirable, two viewed is it as invasive and threatening, while the others
regarded connectivity as generally neutral. Respondents continually brought
up connotations of memory, of multiple versions of connectivity, control
– whether control over or controlled by – and finally of play.
Critics justified their scepticism by citing barriers like cost, risk,
loss of control and lack of interest personally and at the level of their
social networks. Whereas those who were more enthusiastic cited the increase
of control, of connectivity, and of exploration to support their excitement.
Conceptually,
projects like UT have a long intellectual history. For example, the international
situationist practices of ‘‘derive’’ (Debord 1958)
and ‘unitary urbanism’ (1959) illustrate a fascination with
“spatial practices,” as de Certeau describes (1984). The recent
emergence of a number of location-based projects touches upon what Meyrowitz
(1985) has referred to as ‘no sense of place.’ The proliferation
of such projects suggests that place occupies an important role in our
ideational and socio-cultural framework. In contrast to losing our ‘sense
of place,’ it appears as if those responsible for creating such
projects are trying to capture the ephemera of place, and digitally ‘fix’
it to a larger framework. The conceptual history related to UT suggests
that the search for a ‘sense of place’ is not necessarily
new, yet UT articulates this search by reconfiguring socio-spatial relationships.
Conclusion:
Mapping Urban Experiences
A number of issues have emerged during the course of the research and
in our account of it in this report. Broadly speaking they concern the
relationship between an individual, technology and social and cultural
space and the possibilities for the enhancement of the quality of everyday
life which many if not most technologies claim, but which few offer in
any singular or uncontradictory sense. UT is a technology which embodies
a whole range of possibilities, those that its designers have discussed
and are attempting to facilitate in the design of the machine, and those
too that they may not have envisaged clearly, if at all. These possibilities
and their expectations are open and open-ended. Indeed it is the nature
of UT, as of many of the latest generation of digital technologies, to
provide ways of enhancing interactivity. Here it might be said that the
ordinary sense of interactivity, that between persons, is being supplemented
by an interactivity between person and space. Location is of its very
essence.
References
Primary Sources:
Armand. 2003. Four stage interview. YMCA, London
Betty. 2003. Four stage interview. YMCA, London
Jill. 2003. Four stage interview. YMCA, London
Joe. 2003. Four stage interview. YMCA, London
Justin. 2003. Four stage interview. Cruciform Building, King’s College,
London
Mandy and Stanley. 2003. Four stage interview. YMCA, London
Maria. 2003. Four stage interview. Cruciform Building, King’s College,
London
Mark. 2003. Four stage interview. YMCA, London
Urban Tapestries. 2003. URL: http://www.proboscis.org.uk/urbantapestries/
[date last visited: 23/11/2003].
Secondary
Sources:
Anon. 1996. ‘Anthropology and the Continuing Salience
of Experimental Ethnography’ panel at the 1996 Meetings of the American
Anthropological Association. URL: www.ltcconline.net/lukas/pages/aaa/1996.htm
[date last visited 17/07/2003]
Bogard, William. 1996. The Simulation of Surveillance: Hypercontrol in
Telematic Societies. Cambridge University Press
Postrel, Virginia. 2003. The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic
Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, & Consciousness. Harper Collins
Brady, Florian. 2000. ‘The Medium is the Memory.’ Peter Lunenfield
(ed.) The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media. Leonardo Books.
pp. 130-149
Bull, Michael. 2000. Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management
of Everyday Life. Oxford, New York, Berg.
Chatwin, Bruce. 1987. Songlines. Penguin
Couldry, Nick. 2000. Inside Culture: Re-Imagining the Method of CulturalStudies.
London, Sage
Crabtree, James; Nathan, Max; Reeves, Richard. 2002. Reality IT: Technology
and Everyday Life. The Work Foundation
Curry, Michael. 1999. ‘New Technologies and the Ontology of Places.’
Phile Agre (ed.). Red Rock Eater Digest. URL: http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/1999/RRE.New.Technologies.acnd.html
[date visited: 4/29/03]
Debord, Guy. 1958. ‘Theory of the Dérive.’ Internationale
Situationniste #2. Ken Knabb (Trans.). URL: http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/situationist/si/theory.html
[date last visited: 12/12/2003]
de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, London,
University of California Press.
Deleuze, Gilles; Guattari, Felix. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia. vol.2. Brian Massumi (Trans.). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press
Ellis, Catherine. Nd. ‘Contemporary Thinking’ URL: http://sobek.colorado.edu/SOC/SI/si-ellis.htm
[date last visitied [10/10/2003].
Everett, Rogers. 1995 [1962]. The Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.).
Free Press
Featherstone, Mike. 1990. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London,
Sage
Galloway, Anne. 2003. Resonances and Everyday Life: Ubiquitous Computing
and the City. Draft. Available online at http://www.purselipsquarejaw.org/mobile/cult_studies_draft.pdf
Gardiner, Michael. 2000. Critiques of Everyday Life. London, New York,
Routledge
Greenfield, Adam. ‘Whatever Happened to Serendipity.’ v-2
Organisation interface + usability. URL: http://v-2.org/displayArticle.php?article_num=501
[date last visited: 07/072003]
Haraway, Donna. 1996. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question
in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.’ Keller, Evelyn
Fox; Longino, Helen E. (eds.). Feminism and Science. Oxford University
Press: Oxford, pp. 249-263
Hillis, Ken. 1999. Digital Sensations: Space, Identity, and Embodiment
in Virtual Reality. University of Minnesota Press
Jungnickel, Katrina. 2003. ‘Where History Comes Alive.’ Digital
Eve Now! URL: http://www.digitalevenow.com/Articles/technology308.php
[date last visited: 20/11/2003].
Jungnickel, Katrina; Lane, Giles; Murphy, Rachel; West, Nick. Forthcoming.
‘Urban Tapestries: an experiment in location-based wireless co-creativity.’
Pervasive Computing.
Kearns, Kevin C. 1994. Dublin Tenement Life: An Oral History. Dublin,
Gill and Macmillan
Lane, Giles. 2003. ‘Urban Tapestries: wireless networking, public
authoring and social knowledge.’ Fourth Wireless World Conference,
17 & 18 July. URL: http://www.proboscis.org.uk/urbantapestries/UniS_WW_paper.html
[date last visited: 15/11/2003].
Lane, Giles; Murphy, Rachel. 2003. ‘Dimensions of Information: Location-Specific
Information and Public Authoring in the Museum.’ Paper for Chart
Conference, November.
Lefebvre, Henri; Ross, Kristen. 1997 [1983]. Interview with Henri Lefebvre
on the Situationist International. Kristen Ross [Trans.]. URL: http://www.notbored.org/lefebvre-interview.html
[date last visited: 10/10/2003]
Locust World. 2003. http://www.locustworld.com/
[date last visited: 11/12/2003]]
Lukas, Scott A. n.d. Home page. URL: http://www.scottlukas.com/
[date last visited
Lukas, Scott A. 1996. ‘Beyond Alphabets: An Interview with Stephen
A. Tyler.’ Pomo Magazine. 2 (1), pp 11-30
McGrath, Dermot. 2003. ‘Space Technology Helps the Blind.’
BBC News – Technology. Monday, February 10th. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2721245.stm
[date last visited 12/02/2003]
Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1985. No sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media
on Social Behaviour. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Place
Micallef, Shawn; Roussel, James; Sawhney, Gabe et al. 2003. [Murmur] http://murmurvancouver.ca/about.php
[date last visited: 12/10/2003]
Mobile Bristol: 2003. http://www.mobilebristol.com/flash.html
[date last visited:12/11/2003]
Moretti, Ben. 2003. ‘South Australia’s Streetwise Hot Zone.’
Planet.Com URL: http://www.80211-planet.com/columns/article.pho/1579061
[date last visited: 09/01/2003]
Morrison, Ian. 2003. ‘Let’s Just be Friendsters.’ Mute,
Summer/Autumn (26), p. 15
Nardi, Bonnie; Schiano, Diane. 2002. Ethnographic and Experimental Approaches
to Usefulness and Usability. URL: http://hci.stanford.edu/cs377/nardi-schiano/CS377d.020404.pdf
[date last visited: 07/10/2003]
Naureckas, Jim. Nd. New York Songlines. URL: http://www.nysonglines.com/
[date last visited: 01/15/2004].
O'Donovan, Caitlin. 2003. ‘Murmurings: An interview with members
of the [murmur] collective.’ Year Zero One Forum. 12, Summer. URL:
http://www.year01.com/forum/issue12/caitlin.html
[date last visited: 10/10/2003]
Open School of Ethnography & Anthropology (OSEA) and Community Institute
of Transcultural Exchange (CITE). URL: http://www.osea-cite.org/about/ab_index.php
[date last visited: 10/10/3/2003]
Pile, Steve; Thrift, Nigel (eds.). 1995. Mapping the Subject: Geographies
of Cultural Transformation. London, New York, Routledge
Rheingold, Howard. 1994a. 'PARC is Back', Wired 2.02 (April), URL: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.02/parc.html
[date last visited: 22/10/2003].
-- 1994b. Virtual Reality, New York: Simon and Schuster.
-- 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, Cambridge, MA, Perseus.
Rokeby, David. 2003. Neighbourhood Markup Language. URL: http://www.proboscis.org.uk/prps/artists/rokeby/nml5.html
[date last visited: 12/12/2003]
Ruby, Jay. 2001. ‘Digital Oak Park: An Experimental Ethnography.’
Meetings of the American Anthropological Association. URL: http//:astro.temple.edu/~ruby/opp/lastqreport/rubyaaa01.pdf
[date last visited 17/07/2003]
Russell, Catherine. 1999. Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in
the Age of Video. Durham NC, Duke University Press
Shields, Rob. 1999. Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. Routledge,
London, New York
Shirky, Clay. 2003. ‘Permanet, Nearlynet and Wireless Data.’
Mailing list about Networks, Economics and Culture. 2.5, March 28th. URL:
www.shirky.com
Silverstone, Roger. 2003. ‘Private Reveries and Public Spaces.’
Proboscis Cultural Snapshots (4), January. URL: www.proboscis.org.uk
[date last visited 06/06/2003
--. 2002. ‘Regulation, Media Literacy and Media Civics.’ Zerdick,
Axel; Picot, Arnold; Silverstone, Roger; Burgelmann, Jean-Claude (eds.).
E-merging Media: The Digitalisation of Media Economics. European Communication
Council Report, Berlin: Springer
--. 1999. Why Study the Media. Sage, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi
SMIT. 2003. Social Aspects of Technologically Mediated Environments and
Pervasive Computing. Unpublished Research Proposal.
Storer, Neil. Nd. Statistics/Demographic Profile 2001 [of Camden Council].
URL: http://www.camden.gov.uk/camdentemplates/search2000/websearch.cfm?mainpage=%2Fyourcouncil%2Fcamdenbynumbers%2Fcamden%5Fby%5Fnumbers%2Ehtm
[date last visited 11/20/2003]
Teunis, Neils. 2003. Racism in the San Francisco Gay Community: An Experimentall
Ethnography to Create New Visibility to an Old Problem. URL: http://wiserweb.wits.ac.za/conf2003/teunis.doc.
[date last visited: 10/10/2003]
Thumim, Nancy. 2004. Mediation and community space: television, internet
and museum display in contemporary Britain. Doctoral presentation at the
London School of Economics, January 29th.
Unattributed. 1959. ‘Unitary Urbanism at the end of the 1950s.’
Internationale Situationniste 3, December. URL: http://www.notbored.org/UU.html
[date last visited: 10/17/2003]
Urry. John. Draft. Mobile Cultures. Published by the Department of Sociology,
Lancaster University. URL: http:www.comp.lans.ac.uk/sociology/soc030ju.html
[date last visited: 05/01/2004]
Visweswaran, Kamala. 1994. Fictions of Feminist Ethnography. Minneapolis,
London, University of Minnesota Press
© 2004
Roger Silverstone, Zoe Sujon & the London School of Economics &
Political Science. |