This paper puts forward a conceptual proposition that ties the discourses on ‘urban memory’ (Stillman and Johanson, 2009; Ringas, Christopoulou, Stefanidakis., 2011; Loughran, Fine & Hunter, 2015), sensory ethnography (Pink 2017 ), and counter-mapping (Crampton and Krygier 2018; ) with digital methods (Rogers, Sánchez-Querubín, and Kil, 2015). As an ‘interventionist’ approach, we understand co-producing counter (dynamic) maps with local stakeholders (actors), coupled with sensory and sentient data as a way of capturing the memory of urban peripheral landscapes (through intervention and participation) and thus creating archival knowledge.Urban memory is often understood as a form of collective memory that isconstituted by individual experiences within the place itself and through its historyand social environment (Ringas et al., 2011). With rapid changes in digitaltechnologies, digital and material have become “inseparate and entangled inenvironments people move and navigate their lives through'' (Pink and Fors, 2017).Memories are “evoked with material engagement with devices” which “opens up afield of sensory and affective engagement” research (ibid). While Pink and Forspropose to follow such engagement in a mundane and everyday setting, seen as anon-representational, phenomenological approach, we put forward a mixedmethods approach that connects sensory and sentient data (as agents) with the largerenvironmental context.Urban areas are often conceptualized as sites of ‘creative destruction’, in between stability and change, space (that can be developed) and place (that is lived in), often subjected to planning, regulation, and economic forces (Batty, 2007). This is especially true for urban areas that are located outside of the ‘center’ or in the cities’ periphery. These areas have experienced an endless cycle of deconstruction and reconstruction often witnessed and captured by local inhabitants, creatives, and activists. Currently, many of the peripheral areas are emancipating, bringing forward and openly communicating their complexities, values, and engaging various stakeholders in their regeneration efforts (which happens in a broader context of many European cities repositioning themselves in more polycentric and polyphonic ways, (Scott, 2015).To be able to capture the memory of ever-changing, ‘built a new’ urban places, we put forward counter (dynamic) mapping using digital methods as complemented with sensory and sentient data generated through interactions with digital technologies. Building on Crampton’s notion of maps (Crampton and Krygier, 2018), cartography is understood as existence (becoming) rather than essence (fixed ontology). Maps are therefore taken not as ‘objects’, but as performative practices. Digital methods, on the other hand, enable us to understand dynamic place-making, through ‘tracing’ the stakeholders (actors) and their relations overtime to capture the ways the urban environment gets performed.To clarify with an example, in Spinoza Imaginaries Lab & Cafe situated inAmsterdam Southeast we have been capturing the ever changing urbanenvironment in partnership with local stakeholders (actors), mapping their evolvingrelationships (and grouping) using the IssueCrawler and sentient data co-gatheredby researchers and students, with the clear understanding that to be able to capturea place, it is important to map the vernacular knowledge of that place (imaginaries,including art, movies, unrealized plans and initiatives, etc.). We propose this mixedmethods approach as an epistemological practice geared towards archiving thedynamic state of urban peripheral landscapes.
MULTIFILE
Building on the Minds-On project, this study developed the online module “Celestial Bodies” to enhance hands-on and minds-on learning, providing students with individualised feedback prompts to monitor and identify weaknesses in their understanding. The lesson centred on classifying 14 celestial bodies based on three properties, with the guidance of the online module and a map and cards. This study aimed to (1) enhance student engagement with the software, and (2) asses the impact of guided instructions and feedback prompts. We introduce our interactive lesson, present findings, and discuss their benefits in upper primary education classes to enhance student engagement, concept learning, emphasising enhanced integration of minds-on and hands-on activities.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundIn 2015, Amsterdam became part of the WHO Age Friendly City community, thereby accepting the responsibility to work towards a more age friendly Amsterdam. To study senior citizens’ needs and wishes concerning the age friendliness of their neighbourhood, the municipality asked the Amsterdam University of Applied Science to set up two pilot projects in two neighbourhoods. Aim was to 1) gain insight in seniors’ views and wishes regarding an age friendly city, and 2) reflect on the experiences with working with senior co-researchers. MethodologyThe study followed a Participatory Action Research approach with research teams consisting of seniors as co-researchers and professional researchers. We chose two neighbourhoods with distinct characteristics: the Indische Buurt which is centrally located, vibrant, multicultural, and strongly gentrifying, and Buitenveldert, a suburban and spacious neighbourhood, with less facilities and a dominance of well-to-do senior citizens. In both areas, we recruited senior co-researchers to form the research teams. They generally lived in, or close to, the pilot neighbourhood, and varied in age and ethnical background. The aim was to put the co-researchers in the lead during the entire research process. However, it differed between the neighbourhoods which type of researcher was in the lead. As a team, they formulated the main research question, constructed a topic list for interviews with older citizens, convened the interviews, analysed the data, wrote the report, and presented the results. During the entire process, they were supported by professional researchers.Both research teams interviewed 40 senior citizens, who were recruited through the co-researchers’ networks, professional care organisations, neighbourhood communities, and local media. We intended to gather a sample representative for the neighbourhood population. In the Indische Buurt, this proved to be difficult, since the relatively large Turkish and Moroccan communities were difficult to get into contact with, and it was hard to find co-researchers from those communities who could have provided a way in. Process and outcomesWe will share some of the results, but we will mainly reflect on the research process. ProcessRegarding the process, we found some differences between the two neighbourhoods. In the Indische Buurt, it took much effort to find co-researchers, since the seniors we encountered said to be too busy with other neighbourhood activities. We did recruit a small group of four co-researchers of different ethnical background, but sadly lacking Turkish and Moroccan seniors. They started with a very limited research experience and experienced ownership, which greatly increased during the process. At the finalisation of the project, the group ceased to be, but the outcomes were followed up by existing groups and organisations in the neighbourhood.In Buitenveldert, a large group of co-researchers was recruited in no-time, bearing more resemblance to an action group than a research group. They were generally highly educated and some already had research experience. The group proved to be pro-active, had a strong feeling of ownership, and worked in constant collaboration with the ‘professional’ researchers, respecting each other’s knowledge and skills. At the finalisation of the project, the group remained active as partner of the local government. OutcomesConcerning the content of the outcomes, we found some expected differences and unexpected similarities. For instance, we expected to find different outcomes concerning housing and facilities between the neighbourhoods. Indeed, in Buitenveldert, housing was already age friendly whereas facilities were scarce and geographically far apart. Yet, in the Indische Buurt, housing was poorly equipped for physically impaired seniors, but facilities were abundant and close by.We also found that, in both neighbourhoods, senior citizens were reluctant to share their limitations and ask for support, despite differences in neighbourhood, ethnicity, age etc. Of course, this can be expected of seniors from the ‘silent generation’. However, they seemingly shared these emotions more easily with their peers than with professional researchers. ConclusionThe social-cultural context of the neighbourhood impacts the research process. Overall, co-research appears to be a fruitful method to involve senior citizens in decisions concerning the improvement of their neighbourhood. Aims and content of the workshopWe aim to:• present our reflections on the participative process of working with senior co-researchers in Amsterdam• exchange and discuss with the participants of the workshop the lessons learned on how to facilitate citizens’ participation in the community• discuss similar and future projects and possibilities for collaboration among the participants of the workshopContent of the workshop• Presentation• Exchange and discussion in small groups • Plenary discussion on possible collaboration projects aiming to enhance citizens’ participation in the community
DOCUMENT
