Observing and Writing about Communities for Social Design
Today (7 May), MaD’s Park Lab has come to the fourth workshop. I was glad to be invited to audit as a participant of the LIBoratory project before. In previous sessions, labbers had learnt about the AEIOU model, which refers to Activities, Environments, Objects and Users that mingle as Interactions. The model helps them organise their findings and identify interrelationships between elements of the park. They had also done field research at Lai Chi Kok Park by zone and by user group, making observation and (perhaps less dominantly) talking to people. Then they wrote stories (more like snippets than full-length profiles of interviewees) of what they saw. So today we sat together to improve the stories to provide the right context for future idea development.
What is a story?
A story consists of:
- Textual information: a description of an observation, and the writer’s interpretation of or deduction from it, and
- Visual information: a photo of the protagonist (if applicable) in its context
The need for both textual and visual data is because words can highlight specific elements in the photo and shed light on non-visual aspects such as smell. In the words of former Chinese teacher Maggie Chau, one of the facilitators, the description should be illustrative (說明) while the deduction is argumentative (議論). I find it a very fitting comparison, that the writing in this case of social design shouldn’t be flowery or emotional, but rooted in observed reality. We will analyse the current situation, identify problems and tackle them all based on what we write now, so it is very important that the writing be as detailed and realistic as possible.
Reviewing stories
A few labbers shared their write-ups, and a common flaw was found to be a missing link between description and deduction, that is, how the observation leads to the deduction. As a student of literature in the past years, I feel very strongly how teachers used to comment the same in my essays, that I jumped too fast to my conclusion and the connection between ideas was unclear, or simply that I narrated without analysing. It took me years to understand I have to show explicitly my train of thought for others to grasp what I mean, even though the flow is obvious to me.
So I heard all about it today, and I particularly saw why clarity is crucial to social design. We have to be conscious to differentiate between happenings/phenomena, the interviewees’ perspectives and our own opinion. Very often we impose our assumptions onto other people from the outset, which in turn hinders us from meaningful conversations with them. Then the writing will serve as (primary) raw material from which to formulate the design brief. Accuracy in writing helps a lot in preserving the details which may later become key threads across stories, and recalling us to the real picture to keep possibilities open when we proceed to generalise themes and develop prototypes. The same observation can lead to multiple interpretations, and each of these interpretations is valuable. In the LIBoratory project, we deferred analysis while we interviewed, and used Wieteke’s canvas to break our collected stories down to issues, themes or concerns. Every analysis we made had to be supported with textual evidence, or else the conclusion couldn’t be valid, just like how labbers now have to clearly illustrate their deductive process at the writing stage.
Another problem came up with some of the stories: impertinence to the site. While we observe, our main focus is naturally the subject, be it a user, an activity or a thing (an object). We may find a solitary old man or a photo-taking group or an artificial path interesting, but the gist is its relation to the park. After all the social lab is about envisioning a better park for the neighbourhood, not about any individual. The matter of pertinence is however related to how intentional we want to be with the subject. Do we ask park-related questions or direct the conversation to the park? Or do we just randomly chat about anything to get a glimpse of the interviewee’s everyday life? For the LIBoratory project, we did the latter, but this time the approach seems to be the former, hence the question of impertinence. Whichever approach we adopt, we still seek to ground the observation and deduction in the park’s potential.
From stories to design
Apart from improving writing skills, we also brainstormed what to look for in stories. As labbers read their work aloud, we threw in issues that immediately came to the fore. It was like a preliminary exercise in idea generation, something we didn’t do in the LIBoratory project but that I believe is constructive at an early stage. This way we get to see how the stories can be used: whether they sufficiently reflect a problem, what issues are at stake in an observation, and what possibilities they open us to. This can also make us more aware of writing stories well. I also think it is a good idea to introduce a bit of perspectives from different stages of the lab while moving forward, rather than going strictly the linear way from story collection (defer analysis here) to story analysis (stop collecting more stories), idea generation (based on analysed themes) and finally prototyping.
A facilitator also introduced how each story can be viewed (and used) as a design story, that is, a story that “leads to design”. For example, a labber interviewed a man who puts on gloves to use a poorly maintained sport facility to alleviate pain. Several design scenarios may arise out of this story about malfunction:
- Park officials fix the facility
- The user fixes it himself (he may do it well or poorly, the latter may lead to safety concerns on the part of park officials)
- The user adapts to it (wears gloves)
Realising what we see is one of the many potential scenarios prevents us from taking reality for granted, and opens our imagination to alternatives. At the idea generation stage in the LIBoratory project, what we did was dreaming up design scenarios other than what happened at the time: how things could otherwise be understood, done or used. It is important to always keep our minds open.
Trial investigation
The workshop ended with an impressive case study of a labber’s interview with a solitary old man sitting in a pavilion. The writer found him “lonely” on account of him talking only about himself, while Maggie suggested the man might very well feel it natural to avoid bringing up family in a conversation with strangers in a brief encounter in the park. She then proposed viewing solitude as a typical condition in the park. People usually take their space and engage in some private activities, like FaceTiming with overseas friends, not necessarily interacting with other park users. They personalise the public space. This is something I noticed also in the Po On Road Library (station of the LIBoratory project) and the Sham Shui Po neighbourhood before. People take their liberty in a public space to do their own things, perhaps for the sense of freedom and anonymity that others won’t pay them attention. I was also attracted to quietness as a motif in those stories: a recurring complaint that everywhere was too noisy and they needed “peace and quiet”.
So how can we approach, for instance, solitude as a condition? A labber suggested having facilities for the solitary. As someone who enjoys being alone, I’m not sure if it is useful, though. I think the solitary won’t need any specific facility to be alone in; they can appropriate any existing facility for their own use or enjoyment. A lab facilitator also commented in the teachers’ circle that Lai Chi Kok Park has more than enough facilities and perhaps it doesn’t need more of them. An alternative angle may be programming. I agree that sometimes our observation or analysis of the park can be too facility-driven when it is just one of the many facets to the whole. Another labber suggested asking if the solitary are aware of opportunities to socialise in the park (such as in the Community Garden) and encourage them to interact with others. This seeks to alter their solitary condition altogether, which deserves another round of discussion whether it is a good thing to do.
From the LIBoratory project to the Park Lab now, I am excited to learn about different methodologies to social design. Kennisland brought us their experience in the Netherlands. This time, PolyU lab facilitators share their design expertise and way of thinking, and guide each group through every stage. As a continuously flourishing movement around the world, social labs evolve from city to city and each site/issue must entail a highly specific set of principles and methods, aligned with the broader values of co-creation, multi-sector collaboration and participatory design, to fit the actual situation in the neighbourhood. I too look forward to “observing” and learning from the Park Lab as it grows.
