I visited my friend in Seattle this past weekend and binge-watched a bunch of reality TV, so now I have a much more exciting way to look at thesis. I now imagine each week narrated by an un-identified voice (or maybe Jim Proctor) with a quick montage of clips of each of us doing our own thesis work. This week it would go something like this:
This week in the Hourglass, the students of ENVS 400 were introduced to the idea of the IRB, and realized that their projects would probably be much more complicated than they had ever anticipated. To be determined whether or not their research ideas will actually be accepted or not by the ethics board. Guest appearance from Mark Duntley. After that, they were split off and introduced to a group challenge. Each group raced to record as many theoretical frameworks as they could on the whiteboards of Howard 135. Drama ensued as the “Core” group and the “Concentration” group both attempted to write about Tragedy of the Commons. Stay tuned to see what happens in this week’s episode of Hybrid Objects…
For my non-current research related theories, I looked into Actor-Network Theory. Actor-Network theory is a social constructivist approach to explain interactions between people and objects. As I see it, it is a way to look at an object or organization as a sum of its parts. For example, if I were to choose a community organization I could include the people who work there, the organizations it is connected to, funding sources, programs within the overarching organization, and any other relations it may have. Some criticisms of ANT from the Dictionary of Human Geography include ANT’s oversight of the effect of race, class and gender on these networks, as well as the unequal power relations that occur as a result of this. ANT theory could play a part in my final thesis since it is related to mapping and awareness of surroundings, but I think it’s not comprehensive enough to be a foundational source for my final outcome.
Kevin Lynch’s book Image of the City has been referenced in a number of articles I have read about mapping, city layout and accessibility. In particular, authors refer to his notions of the five elements of a city: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. Paths are where the observer usually moves and views their surroundings. They are commonly streets, transit lines, and railroads. Edges are boundaries between two particular places, like shores, walls, or railway cuts. Districts are large areas within a city that are characterized by some unifying factor, but their specific boundary is dependent on individuals and the given city. Nodes are points where several things intersect such as two paths, transportation hubs, or gathering spaces in a district. They are often thought of as the core of a specific district. Finally, landmarks are usually a physical object such as a sign or building, or geologic landmark. The observer doesn’t usually enter into them, they are just a form of point-reference to guide the observer on their journey. This framework could be really helpful in describing different parts of a community, and why they’re helpful. Lynch also writes that “every citizen has had long associations with some part of his city, and his image is soaked in memories and meanings” (Lynch 1960). This idea relates to what I’m interested in looking for in communities: how people perceive certain places, their awareness of organizations, and their willingness to approach these organizations for assistance.
I also looked at Doreen Massey’s influential article, A Global Sense of Place. She presents a theory of time-space compression present in modern day life, which refers to “movement and communication across space, to the geographical stretching out of social relations, and to our experience of this all” (Massey 1991). Her theory could be important to my thesis on a community level: if there is in fact a stretching-out of social relations like Massey argues, does a person’s immediate community really matter anymore? I’m planning to look at a specific Portland neighborhood to see what local community resources are available to people and known about. Perhaps community members won’t really care about these resources though if they are being assisted by other systems and organizations that they can access, for example, on the internet. In that way, they never have to leave their own social sphere or enter their physical community at all. Massey also discusses the idea that more often than not, place is not equated with community because of the extensive networks people form and the ease of transportation to different neighborhoods, cities, and countries. In the face of a natural disaster, I would argue that it would be beneficial for people to have a community in their immediate place since transportation will be difficult. If we keep stretching social relations geographically, then when we need connections close by we could very well find ourselves at a loss. This could be where trusted organizations come in — if people don’t have a social network in the area in which they live, perhaps a trusted organization is the first place they would turn to for help.
I enjoyed applying different theoretical frameworks to my topic this week. It helped expand my thoughts on what is possible and began legitimizing some of my ideas. I hope to continue this type of research to keep expanding my knowledge on this ever changing idea!
“Actor-Network Theory (Ant).” 2009, The Dictionary of Human Geography.