Response to assessor’s report of the HDR

Confirmation Seminar and PhD Research Proposal

Gregor H. Mews Student ID: U3153497E: Gregor.Mews@canberra.edu.au Date: 16th January 2017

Supervisors: Dr. Milica Muminović, Dr. Andrew MacKenzie, Prof. Rachel Davey and Dr. Paul Tranter.

University of Canberra Health Research Institute & Faculty of Arts and Design

2

Table of Contents

1. To select references that do not conflict with each other as far as objectives of the

selected authors is concerned............................................................................................3

Conceptual triad of space...........................................................................................................4

Play and public spaces................................................................................................................6

Consciousness and being in relation to play................................................................................7

Research gap and contribution to knowledge.............................................................................9

Research objective revisited.......................................................................................................9

Research questions....................................................................................................................9

Revised provisional title...........................................................................................................10

2. To define the concept of play clearly.........................................................................10

Ambiguities of the play concept...............................................................................................10

Play and age.............................................................................................................................12

Play concept definition.............................................................................................................13

Terminology clarification..........................................................................................................14

3. To limit the focus of empirical study to one city with convincing discussion for the

choice...............................................................................................................................15

Conclusion........................................................................................................................19

References.......................................................................................................................20

3

1. To select references that do not conflict with each other as far as objectives of the selected authors is concerned.

Cities are the engines of modern economic life as described by Glaeser (2011, p. 11) by

focusing the energy on consumption and functions designed to satisfy resource rich groups

creating an urban theme park environment. They offer with their accumulation of resources

and its people opportunities for encounter and possibilities that shape their environment in

various forms. The common ground for such encounter is the public space in a city as

(Jacobs, 1961) highlighted in her masterpiece “The Death and Life of the Great American

Cities” celebrating the divers and mixed spaces for pedestrians in American cities in the

second half of the 20th century.

If we want to create cities that satisfy people on psychological level and meet their spiritual

needs, some critical aspects need to be achieved as Stevens (2007) highlights.

In addition to Stevens question we need to be able to explain why people engage in

voluntary actions outside of their own conceptual frameworks as well as why we deny some

people to access to certain places where they express their existence in materialised world.

Conceived social relationships exist disconnected of space. Further he argues that

consequently public spaces are a place either for delusion or a false consciousness.

In the city context, Urban Designers such as Whyte (1980) or Gehl (1987) were fascinated

how people spend time in public spaces includes street environments. One focus is the

study of non-instrumental behaviour such as play behaviour. Stevens framed his

philosophical discourse around the broader critique of urban social life with the French

Marxist Henri Lefebvre as one of the first to theorised on the dialectical relationships of

social life in cities, everyday life of individuals (1991a) and explicitly mentions the play

concept in his work. Lefebvre sees an explanation in his critique of everyday life through the

distinction between the real and surreal. He suggests ‘By abandoning the everyday in order

to find the marvellous and the surprising (at one and the same time immanent in the real

and transcending it), Surrealism rendered triviality unbearable.’ (1991a, p. 29). Further he

notes that surreal activities are part of the everyday life by referring to it as leisure activities.

He acknowledges that the relationship is a difficult one to grasp at unites but also

4

contradicts and concludes that the relationship is dialectical. At the same time for him

leisure activity is indistinguishable to work (1991a, p. 30).

The contemporary neoliberal zeitgeist creates on civilisation level the imperative that leisure

must produce a break from work in form of a distraction. Lefebvre argues that the genuine

sense of leisure through social gathering or gardening (1991a, p. 33) is losing out. However,

leisure in its origin remains a necessity as Marx referred to it as the ‘true realm of freedom,

the development of human powers as an end in itself, begins beyond it, through it can only

flourish with this realm of necessity as its basis’ (Marx, 1981, p. 959). In accordance to

Lefebvre the ultimate cultivation of leisure activities creates a pathway back to feeling

present, bringing us closer to nature and a life stimulated by the senses (1991a, p. 41). His

concern in the context of the critique of everyday life that what is living - leisure activities

are worthwhile needs and fulfilments preventing us from alienation (1991a, p. 42).

Lefebvre has also written on the production of spaces (1991b) and on concept of right to the

city (1967). He developed the conceptual triad of space, which can be used to understand

spatial practices and social interaction in urban everyday life (Lefebvre, 1991b, pp. 38-39).

The right to the city concept creates a platform to argue that playful activities as an element

of social interaction can be understood as a fundamental part of being human (Huizinga,

1950). Therefore, it should be able to be experienced in public spaces in cities.

Conceptual triad of spaceWith his book “The Production of Space” Lefebvre expands the concept and its

consequences ranging from immediate body and space relation to power and domination in

space. (Merleau-Ponty, 2002, pp. 289-291) examined the relationship between objects and

subjects in space and their perception in relation to consciousness. He argues that

perception recognises a certain spatial level before the experience. Physical objects function

as “anchoring points” working within certain spaces to receive an orientation from the

experience. Merleau- Ponty suggests that the possession of a body allows change and an

understanding of space (2002, p. 293). He refers to it as the essence of space, which is

always ‘already constituted’. If the space is already constituted and we can perceive this

space one may inquire about the forces that create spatial change that led to the essence of

space. Lefebvre based his approach extensively on spatial architectonics in relation to space

and the meaning of social in space. Every space says something about a space, entitled from

5

a space. He described ‘body is space and has its space: it produces itself in space and it also

produces that space’ (Lefebvre, 1991b, p. 170). He established a connection between the

meaning of space, the social production of these spaces and specific manifestation of

material environments that were already constituted. The conceptual triad includes the

representation of space, representational (conceived) space and the spatial practice

(perceived) space. The representation of space also referred as lived space is the way we

understand the material space with our own history and imagination certain codes (e.g.

names) around us. This space can subsume both other spaces (Balivé, 2011). The

representational space also known as the conceived space ‘overlays physical space making

symbolic use of its objects.’ (Lefebvre, 1991b, p. 39). The spatial practice also known as

perceived space includes the material forms and objects in space, where everyday life

happens. This space is the most tangible one to observe. All three spaces and sometimes

clash and interact in different way with each other. The spatial practice can disrupt the

abstract representation of space and asserts spaces of representation (Barron, 2016, p. 3).

Lefebvre saw that spaces are a means of production and therefore can serve as a mean of

control, power and domination. However, he also acknowledges that the ‘social and

political forces seek, but fail, to master it completely; the very agency that has forced spatial

reality towards a sort of uncontrollable autonomy now strives to run it into the ground, then

shackle and enslaves it.’ (Lefebvre, 1991b, p. 26).

With the conceptual triad dynamics, forces and tensions of spaces in cities can be explored.

Lefebvre (1967) earlier work on concept of the right to the city explores the struggles and

experiences during the second half of the twentieth century. He argues that spaces which

are socially produced should be able to be accessed by all. What follows is a description of a

new social utopia as an alternative way to produce cities based on the absence of

discrimination and given those a voice that are either affected, excluded or marginalized

(Lefebvre, 1996).

For this research the definition of the ‘Right to the city’ from the global platform for right to

the city shall be adopted.

‘The right to the city is the right of all inhabitants, present and future, to use, occupy

and produce just, inclusive and sustainable cities, defined as a common good

essential to a full and decent life.’ (Chueca, 2016, p. 13)

6

In accordance to this definition public spaces in cities are a common good and should be

able to be occupied and produced by all inhabitants. Public spaces are the places where

social everyday life can be observed.

Stevens (2007) tested the in several cases and confirmed the theory with his observational

studies in Melbourne, Berlin, Brisbane and London across all ages. However, a test in an

Asian context remains open. His observations have proven that the concept of play can be

experienced by a wide range of people in public spaces. Play can also function as a vehicle to

demonstrate the occupation of space by engaging in a fun experience.

Play and public spaces Why is play relevant in the context of public spaces? Stevens (2007) aimed to understand all

types of uses is a city and explores in “The Ludic city” the concept of play in the context of

public spaces. He saw value in the discourse as a much needed counterpoint to the idea that

the urban design discipline is based on a very vague, abstract and potentially ambiguous

concept, that of amenity. Martin Heidgegger (1971, p. 145) shared a similar view

highlighting that architects were more concerned with aesthetics rather than priorities of

people who create spaces themselves. From a dynamic point of view and in relation to non-

instrumental behaviour such as play in physical spaces Lefebvre outlined that ‘energy must

be wasted: and the explosive waste of energy is indistinguishable from its productive use:

beginning on the plane of animal life, play, struggle.’ etc. (Lefebvre, 1991b, p. 177). This

production, destruction, and reproduction overlap and intersect in cities. This ‘waste’ of

energy is closely linked to production as long there is some change that can reach an effect

in the world. Further Lefebvre states ‘The concept of production is thus sharpened and

revived without becoming so broad as to lose all meaning: we see that a game may qualify

as a piece of work, or as a work in the strong sense of the world, while a space designed for

playful activity may legitimately be deemed a product in that it is the outcome of an activity

which regulates itself (lays down rules for itself) as it unfold.’ (Lefebvre, 1991b, p. 179).

If play can be a product as well produce space, that transcends us simultaneously into

different spaces as part of public everyday life it can be a meaningful vehicle in favour of

Stevens (2007, p. 1) argument that one of the essential functions of urban public spaces is to

be a setting for informal, non-instrumental social interaction such as play.

7

According to Lefebvre people have the right for social interaction as outlined in the concept

of “rights to the city”. However, cities contain spaces that inhibit informal and non-

instrumental social interaction. Experiences in spaces of everyday life being restricted and

can prevent us from producing space where we connect with other people.

Play as a non-instrumental activity lends itself to become a heuristic device to better

understand spatial practice and social interaction in everyday life spaces.

Consciousness and being in relation to playCan consciousness be generated through the process of a playful activity? For example, by

playing with simple pens and a stone a child can create disorder or even break them.

Lefebvre suggest that this is when the child begins to ‘be’. He argues further that

consciousness is a result of knowledge creation that generates an environment where

misunderstanding can be formed through an extension into the unknown realms of

unconsciousness (Lefebvre, 1991b, p. 208). Heidegger on the other hand focuses on the

ontological state and argues that every understanding is temporal (Heidegger, 1971 in:

Blaikie, 2007, p. 123). Sharr (2007) highlights that he believed that knowledge should be

generated out of first hand experiences, generating an antipathy to knowledge created out

of theory. Lefebvre’s philosophical approach creates room for both, merit of theoretical

knowledge as well as the importance of the lived experience.

Coming back to the example of the playing child with the pens and stone. The child must

have found the stone and pens to begin with. Heidegger (1972) referred to them either as

‘Vorhandensein’ (drawn to existence) and ‘Zuhandensein’ (drawn to attention) in relation to

things in nature or artefacts. Further he argues:

‘To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only

grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all

metaphysics. To think Being explicitly requires us to relinquish Being as the ground of

beings in favor of the giving which prevails concealed in unconcealment, that is, in

favor of the It gives. As the gift of this It gives, Being belongs to giving. As a gift,

Being is not expelled from giving.’(Heidegger, 1972, p. 6)

Should being give space to creation of meaning through interpretation of a lived experience

or encounter with things of nature one may argue that this can indeed create a level of

consciousness on the basis that being is a gift. Huizinga (1950, p. 45) suggests that play

8

receives a higher order than seriousness and argues that ‘Seriousness seeks to exclude play,

whereas play can very well include seriousness’.

Playful activities in space can generate and be perceived as things in nature or as artifacts. If

perceived as a thing in nature unconscious behaviour can support a level of

misunderstanding and less so the prevalence of artefacts generating the basis for a shared

interpretation through a conscious effort. This means the more space for multiple

interpretation the more options for creative interpretation through a non- instrumental

lived experience such as play is possible. A space for change is generated.

In the city context, Gleeson makes also the remark ‘if we approach cities as complex social-

ecological systems we must embrace change and evolution. There is no single optimal state

towards which we may strive.’(2014, p. 141). Public spaces are a fundamental part of urban

systems and are shared by all its inhabitants. If consciousness can derive through lived

experiences as well as through signs such as language and writings the experience of a

playful behaviour may very well be a contributing factor to consciousness and become a

catalyst for change or evolution.

Two additional theories were found to be helpful in relation to playfulness as a human

experience in space. The first on is the affordance theory by Gibson (1979) originating from

the field of environmental psychology in line with Heidegger’s approach to things in nature

and artifacts. He suggests that objects can afford something to the subject. The more

versatile the affordance is the more possibilities there are created for the subject to make

sense of it. The subject starts to engage in a process that supports a situation for new

knowledge creation simply by playing around through a lived experience. In relation to

Lefebvre’s approach on the production of space, the child starts to create a space where it

produces a space through making sense of an object. At the same time this object can

become a product for example a toy. The space is transformed as it allows for production.

The second useful theory in relation to consciousness and the state of being through playful

activities originates from Csikszentmihalyi (1971) research on optimal experiences. As

indicated in the original PhD proposal his theory suggests that happiness emerges out of an

experience where a person is fully immersed in an activity in the moment. In that moment

the person disregards the conscious state being and immerges themselves in a state of

“flow”. The person is engaging in the process for the sake of it, with no necessary aim and

allowing space for failure (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). A playful activity is also

9

described as something opposite where there is space for something can fail (Goodale &

Godbey, 1988). This is an important link between the subjective experience and space that

can be produced during the activity enabling enjoyment or fun. The research van Leeuwen

and Westwood (2008, p. 154) found that the creative and experimental elements of play

can have a positive self-therapeutic consequence for health- and well-being across all ages.

From Silverstone’s view is that in play we have the license to explore our selves and our

society (Silverstone 1999, p. 64 in: van Leeuwen & Westwood, 2008).

Research gap and contribution to knowledgeThe research findings of (van Leeuwen & Westwood, 2008) conclude that there is a need to

gain a better understanding why and how people engage in lifelong play. This can advance

the understanding of human behaviour and it would provide designers with strategies to

discover concrete needs for play.

Stevens in his research on the dialectical relationship between play and the city comes to

the conclusion that ‘Fun follows form, fun follows function’ (2007, p. 196). However, his

deployed case study method investigates only the space of spatial practice and does not

interrogate the full conceptual triad of space. This research project will attempt to explore

the possibility and build on Stevens work to understand what undermines or encourages

play in public spaces in cities. He examined case studies over a period of 10 years, which

creates a challenge towards replication. By using his work as the theoretical basis and

creating a methodology that allows data collection from all the space dimensions and

deploying them on a very narrow scope, e.g. one street over a 10-day period, I shall be able

to explore a novel approach and reveal some of the spatial violence in space.

Research objective revisitedTo gain a deeper understanding of the dialectic between play in the city and uncover new

knowledge about its role as an urban experience. To explore ways that can help urban

designers to determine the role of play in street environments.

Research questionsWhat undermines or encourages play in public spaces in cities?

What are the environmental triggers that facilitate playful experiences in urban streets?

10

How can play uncover, reveal optimal urban experiences and conditions that inhibit citizen

engagement in public life?

Revised provisional title“Play in the city- an exploration of the experience in urban streets.”

2. To define the concept of play clearly.

The following definition of the play concept draw on arguments in sociology, anthropology,

philosophy and environmental psychology. Huizinga (1950) work entitled “Homo Ludens”,

Sutton-Smith (1997) comprehensive work on the ambiguity of play as well as Stevens (2007)

work on the ludic city informed the conceptual understanding and the definition for this

research project.

Ambiguities of the play conceptHuizinga defined play as a ‘free activity standing consciously outside “ordinary” life as not

being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an

activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained from it. It proceeds

within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in orderly

manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves

with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other

means.’ (1950).

Caillois (1961) critique on Huizinga’s definition was that it is too broad and at the same time

too narrow. He also argues that the play aims to demystify rather than strengthen the

nature of fiction (Caillois, 1961, p. 4). An additional critique point for him is that play as an

action denudes of all material interests such as gambling or racing. He suggests an extension

of the definition that includes economic interests, despite of the fact that if one plays for

money the activity remains unproductive. More importantly Caillois refers to play as a

‘waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill, and often money for the purchase of gambling

equipment.’ (1961, pp. 5- 6). His observation also support Lefebvre’s remarks that energy

must be wasted in space and hence the conclusion that play can one of these catalysts in

public spaces in cities. Caillois attributes of play include: free, separate, uncertain,

11

unproductive, governed by rules and make believe (1961, pp. 9 -10). Based on this definition

he classifies play into four categories (pp. 15- 20):

1. Agôn or competition found in games and gambling codes but unknown in animal

behaviours as it only seeks a brutal victory in combat rather than a challenge of

strength. Some of the activities related to agôn are include collecting things, races,

board games, ground games, card games, sport, playing ball games etc.

2. Alea or chance as it reveals an element of destiny. Alea rejects elements such as skill,

patience, qualification or experience. Alea and agôn are both examples of the

confusion of contemporary life. Elements of alea can include activities such as bird

watching, playing around with voice, loud laughter etc.

3. Mimicry or simulation is a way to escape the real world- a temporary activity that

creates an imaginary universe. It can be a complementary act in any form of play

unless alea is involved. Children can imitate adults and adults can engage in theatric

performances or carnivals. The joy in the activity lies in passing it onto others.

Mimicry includes for example listening to music, making art, reading/ writing,

window shopping, festivals, gardening, modelling, construction, using computer

devices (virtual reality), celebrations, magic tricks, yoga or walking a pet.

4. Ilinx or vertigo a state of altering the perception of reality through running, twisting,

rotating, dancing, sliding, jumping etc.

Both definitions have been subject to critique as they consider play as an ‘escape’ option. In

addition Fagen reviewed the play definitions of 37 authors (1981, pp. 500-504). All of them

imply that play refer to some kind of progress linked to functions that aren’t play in

themselves with a domination of extrinsic theories with a child focus (Sutton-Smith, 1997, p.

51). Sutton-Smith concludes that there are no marked clarifications of their differences or

even their similarities and play is an irrational act of pleasure through one own illusion

(1997, p. 54). He expands the concept and analysis play with its ambiguities including the

question of appropriate age for play and theorises on the meaning for all ages.

12

Play and ageSutton-Smith (1997) argues that play can not only be observed in animals, children but

adults into old age across different cultures. Woodyer (2012) confirms that play also occurs

in adulthood. Sutton- Smith also indicates ‘that children’s and adults’ play are also quite

different, that of children being open, or creative, and that of adults being closed, or

recreative’ (1997, p. 19).

In the child context Sutton- Smith argued in the past that ‘play is a mental process that

builds upon and integrates many other processes in the developing child’s mind- thinking,

imagining, pretending, planning, wondering, doubting, remembering, guessing, hoping,

experimenting, redoing and working through. The child at play, using these varied mental

processes, integrates past experiences and current feelings and desires.’ (1997, p. 37). For

Winnicott play originates clearly from the mind and referring to those who retain the skill to

enjoy solitary mind play as infants maintain their behaviour throughout live (cited in: Terr,

1999, p. 59).

If play would just be important for the learning process of growing up play must be

irrelevant for adults. Longitudinal research has provided evidence that people with more

interesting and fulfilling lives were those in which playfulness was kept at the heart of things

(Erikson, 1972; quoted by Bruner, Jolly, and Sylva, 1976, p.17 in: Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 39).

Further he also suggests that during the time a child goes forward in his play, the adult goes

sideways (Erikson, 1956 in: Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 47). Sutton-Smith also critically reflects on

his own writings and highlights that if one would argue that play is a preparation for

maturity, then what are the matured people do when they play? Perhaps they are not

preparing for anything and ‘play seems to have more to do with waiting than preparing,

more to do with boredom than with rehearsal, more to do with keeping up one’s spirit than

with depression’ (1997, p. 47).

In the contemporary world humans celebrate the achievements of various illusionary

creations such as virtual realities in computers or more traditionally in music, dance,

literature, and science. Sutton-Smith argues that ‘in such play worlds can be seen not as

defect, or as compensation for inadequacy, but rather than illusory worlds highlights this

move towards a more positive, if narrower, epistemological attitude about their function.’

13

(1997, p. 54). Further he clarifies that play is now considered as a legitimate way to create

human meaning and therefore it is central to human culture.

A definition of play in urban environments must therefore be applicable for all ages and

reflect its origin the cognitive state of mind as a central part of the human identity.

Play concept definitionPlay is an intrinsic induced activity, but can include a degree of extrinsic motivation, that

takes place on a voluntary basis and creates opportunities for social inclusion through

enjoyment and liberty in its temporary transformational nature.

Furthermore, play constitutes the acceptance of risk and can embrace attributes such as

spontaneity, curiosity, creative processes and purposeless can support this activity as it is

situated outside of the ordinary. This activity is necessary to the human identity as an

exploratory pursuit of enjoyment outside of social purpose.

Play is a concept which traditionally does not lend itself to an easy and precise definition.

Figure 1 below reveals the elements of the applied definition of play with all its

determinants that derive from the definition with several levels of depth. These levels will

be described as clarity. The minimum level of clarity is achieved when the following

attributes are met: voluntary, intrinsic (or with a degree of extrinsic motivation), liberty,

enjoyment and temporary. Play becomes easy to identify if the maximum level of clarity is

met. This includes attributes such as spontaneous, purposeless, curious and creative.

14

Figure 1: Definition of play (source: own illustration)

Terminology clarification The definitions of the terms have been retrieved from the Macquarie Primary Dictionary

(2010). For the minimum level of clarity the term voluntary derives from ‘done or made by

free will or choice’. Intrinsic means ‘belonging to a basis nature of something or someone’.

Liberty is understood as ‘a freedom to do, think or speak as you choose’. Enjoyment as noun

originating from the verb enjoy standing for ‘to get happiness from’. Temporary as in ‘lasting

for a short time’ and in opposite of permanent.

The medium level of clarity includes the recommendation that the play activity should sits

outside of the ordinary meaning in opposition of the adjective usual or normal, average or

mediocre.

The maximum level of clarity of play is achieved when all the optional attributes such as

spontaneous, purposeless, curious and creative are met. Spontaneous derives from

‘happening naturally and often, unexpectedly’. Purposeless meaning the opposite of ‘the

reason something or done or made’ or without ‘aim, function, intention, object or point’.

Curious is understood as ‘wanting to learn’ or ‘interesting because strange or new’

associated words are ‘bizarre, extraordinary, odd, unusual or weird’. Creative originates

from the term create and means ‘to make or invent’.

15

In order to be able to demonstrate the relationship between concept of play and space

characteristics, they need to be separately classified and then linked to each other. The

testing and validation of the data collected in field work may reveal this type of information.

This includes collection of data from physical traces, recordings of play experiences and

interactions in space as well as targeted inquiry into the realm of memory of the player.

3. To limit the focus of empirical study to one city with convincing discussion for the choice.

Firstly, I’d acknowledge the concern in relation to complexity of the research project and the

comment in relation to the amount on cities.

Yin (2009) also confirms the concern and suggests that often too much attention goes into

the subunits and the larger, holistic aspects of the case being ignored. This is an opportunity

to critically revisit my choice of the unit (city) and reflect on the assessor’s recommendation

in the context to Yin’s case study research approach.

The rational account for the choice of study is important to clarify the selected methodology

in detail. The overall research design methodology is based on Yin (2009) work on case

study research as a legitimate tool in its own right. A case study comprises embedded units

and they again can include subunits. This methodology is useful to narrow the scale and

develop criteria framework or filters for the analysis.

Yin suggests several options including a single case study approach or a multiple case study

approach, that is commonly comprised of six to eight cases. Benefits of a multiple case study

is the comparability between the different cases, but the volume of data generated through

a multiple case study approach may be difficult to handle. In a multiple case study approach

each case is considered a study by itself. Yin highlights if one does not seek replication,

contrasting situation can be easier analytically concluded.

A single case study approach offers the option to study a single case in depth, but receives

the general critique that due to its uniqueness it is not ideal for empirical studies.

Based on the awareness of having to deal either with a large quantity or a weak dataset for

empirical study I chose a methodology that offers benefits of both case study design

options.

16

The figure 2 visualises Yin’s generic single case study approach (left) in comparison to the

much more simplified approach for this empirical study (right). Most evident is the

reduction of subunits in order to enable a in depth inquiry into one setting.

Figure 2: Case study approach in comparison to Yin (Source: own illustration)

However, I am also conscious that the research question “What undermines or encourages

play in public spaces in cities?” may not be able to sufficiently answered by exploring a

single situation in a city. The research question requires that the experience of play will

need to be explored in its full breath as the overarching case. Instead of using the city as a

case study it will be play. The investigator, in this case myself, has an opportunity to observe

and analyse a phenomenon previously inaccessible to the social science, Whyte (1980)

“Street Corner Society” is a prominent example for this approach. The streets in different

cities shall reveal empirical depth required to validate the data in line with Yin’s case study

approach. By focusing on Canberra and Potsdam to test the device in two different cultural

settings will be the most sensible way forward. Pending on validity and richness of data the

Asian city shall remain an open option at this stage. Should the data be sufficient and allow

for conclusive results an application in an Asian city may become a future research project in

its own right as long as each city that meets these criteria could theoretically apply this

heuristic device.

17

Why play as the overall case? Reasoning: Play is essential to the human identity. The case is

the overarching as it frames the embedded units and subunits. Play as the core theme of

this research project is the overarching framework enabling a shared understanding

applicable to each unit. If there would be multiple cases, there is a high risk to be drifting

into unwanted areas. This makes it difficult to replicate the study. The proposed methods

can ensure that the framework could be replicated.

The city will be classified as an embedded unit of the case study on play.

Reasoning: Cities are inherently complex, messy, constantly changing and evolving. They are

the places of encounter and exchange generating opportunities and spaces for people to

flourish. Based on the accumulation of resources and the level of social interaction cities,

they provide the vehicle to study a broad variety of everyday social life. Theoretically every

city could become an embedded unit, however the city relevant to this study should favour

three criteria.

1) The city needs to include a network of public spaces within the urban core

supporting an neighbourhood identity and a high degree of connectivity. Christopher

Alexander indicates in his book ‘A Pattern Language’ that “any street with greater

than 200 cars per hour, at any time, will probably seem “major” and starts to destroy

the neighbourhood identity.” (Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977, p. 84).

2) Play is strongly linked to cultures and serve as the overarching case. Validity on the

play concept in space can only be achieved by investigating different cities in

separate cultures. People in Asia may play in urban spaces differently than their

European or Australian counterparts. Stevens (2007) iterated from international play

experiences from cities such as Berlin, Melbourne and London, which creates an

intriguing invitation to expand the investigation into an Asian city.

3) Cities are places where play cultures can merge, flourish and prosper. The symbolic

attributes of play can be the quantity and quality of institutions relating to lived

culture and the enablers that foster play in the city.

Why is the street the subunit of this single case study? Reasoning: I will focus on the playful

activities of urban streets (Appleyard, 1981, p. 1) with a high place function (Gehl, Svarre, &

Steenhard, 2013).

18

Appleyard argued that “People have always lived on streets. They have been the places

where children first learned about the world, where neighbours met, the social centres of

towns and cities” (Appleyard, 1981, p. 1).

In order to understand the tension between the production and consumption of space it is

desirable to have an environment that includes commercial activities depending on the

access, but the street itself needs to be quite, comfortable and convenient from pedestrian

paths in surrounding areas as indicated by Alexander et al. (1977).

In light of the criteria mentioned above the following aspects were associated to avoid a

random choice for the units.

Given that the play concept is associated and linked to cultural attributes I chose to take

advantage of my cultural familiarity and insight of several societies where I have a lived

experience.

Firstly, having a German background opens up a number of cities that meet the criteria

including Kassel or Potsdam, both cities have a pedestrian space with a high level of

connectivity and commercial activity in the urban core.

Secondly, having lived many years in Canberra, Australia allows to apply the rational in this

context. Canberra has also a well- connected pedestrian and shared space, a high level of

connectivity and a commercial urban core.

Thirdly, I worked across Asia in particular Hanoi, Vietnam and spend much time in

Singapore. Both cities provide another cultural access point. Both places have shared

pedestrian dominates spaces with commercial activity in their cores.

However, an advantage is that Singapore official language is English and an advantage in

Hanoi is the established relationship with academic staff members that would be able to

support my research project. All cities in Asia have one disadvantage compared to both

other locations, as I don’t have an in-depth familiarity with their culture or speak the local

language.

19

ConclusionThis detailed response to the three most critical points raised by the assessors revealed

some of the challenges that can occur in relation to the methodology and their underlying

philosophical approach. It became clear that Henri Lefebvre with his conceptual triad of

spaces as the preferred theoretical framework. With the conceptual triad dynamics, forces

and tensions of spaces in cities can be explored. The research problem and questions where

revisited, amended and resulted in a change of the title to “Play in the city- an exploration of

the experience in urban streets.”

This project will build on Stevens work on play and city, as an exploratory pursuit of the

possibility to understand what undermines or encourages play in public spaces in cities

detached from the concept of amenity in urban design. What does “play” mean? Play does

not lend itself to a clear and easy definition as it reveals many ambiguities. A discourse into

the literature informed the development of a clearer understanding and a definition of play

for this research project.

Play is an intrinsic induced activity, but can include a degree of extrinsic motivation, that

takes place on a voluntary basis and creates opportunities for social inclusion through

enjoyment and liberty in its temporary transformational nature.

Play can happen on three different levels of clarity if one wishes to observe playful activities.

This is useful to determine and distinguish play from other activities in public spaces. the

Yin’s case study approach was revisited in regards to the amended research questions and

its purpose. A discussion highlights the rationale behind a simplified single case study

approach and the reduction of different subunits to just one in each city. Three selection

criteria where established to narrow the focus in relation to street environments, resulting

in arguing for the need for at least two different units with an open option for a third unit to

validate the findings. The heuristic device will be initially deployed in Canberra, Australia. In

the second phase data will be collected in Potsdam, Germany. The play concept is closely

associated with culture attributes and this research will take advantage of that as I, as the

researcher, are familiar with both cultures by firstly, being German and secondly, having

lived in Australia for many years.

I’d like to express gratitude and wish to acknowledge the constructive critique of the

assessors and the valuable suggestion and guidance of my supervisors on this research

20

endeavour.

21

References

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language (Vol. 2). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Appleyard, D., Gerson, M Sue, Lintell, Mark,. (1981). Livable streets, protected

neighborhoods: University of California Press.

Balivé, T. (2011). The production of space. (Territorial masquerades [blog]).

Barron, J. (2016). Community gardening: cultivating subjectivities,

space, and justice. Local Environment. doi:DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1169518

Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry, (2nd Edition ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press.

Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play and games. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Chueca, E. G. (2016). the right to the city - building another possible world. In G. p. f. t. r. t. t.

city (Ed.).

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Bennett, S. (1971). An exploratory model of play. American

anthropologist, 73(1), 45-58.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815-822. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.56.5.815

Fagen, R. (1981). Animal play behavior New York: Oxford University Press.

Gehl, J., & Koch, J. (1987). Life between buildings: using public space. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.

Gehl, J., Svarre, B., & Steenhard, K. A. (2013). How to study public life. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the city: How urban spaces make us human: Pan Macmillan.

Gleeson, B. (2014). The urban condition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Goodale, T., & Godbey, G. (1988). The evolution of leisure: Historical and philosophical

perspectives: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Building Dwelling Thinking (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). London: Harper &

Row.

22

Heidegger, M. (1972). On time and being, trans. J. Stambaugh. New York: Harper and Row.

Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. New York: Roy

Publishers

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York Random House.

Lefebvre, H. (1967). Le droit à la ville. (Vol. 29).

Lefebvre, H. (1991a). Critique of everyday life (Vol. 2): Verso.

Lefebvre, H. (1991b). The production of space (Vol. 142): Oxford Blackwell.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. Writings on cities, 63-181.

Maquarie Primary Dictionary. (2010). Milton: Maquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd.

Marx, K. (1981). Capital (D. Fernbach, Trans. Vol. 3). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception (Colin Smith, Trans.): Routledge

Classics by Routledge.

Sharr, A. (2007). Heidegger for Architects. London and New York: Routledge.

Stevens, Q. (2007). The ludic city : exploring the potential of public spaces. London; New

York: Routledge.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play (Vol. New). US: Harvard University Press.

Terr, L. (1999). Beyond love and work: why adults need to play. New York: Touchstone.

van Leeuwen, L., & Westwood, D. (2008). Adult play, psychology and design. Digital

Creativity, 19(3), 153-161. doi:10.1080/14626260802312665

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C: Conservation

Foundation.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (Vol. 4.). Los Angeles [u.a.]: Sage.

23