Research Strategy

An expert on language and social change within urban space suggests a "plastic" and "open-ended process" for my research (cite email and conversation with Johan?). Therefore, my research strategy needs to be rigorous but flexible. For that reason, I choose multiple methods (cite) for data collection because some methods might work better than others in reaching different groups within the Price Hill neighborhoods.

Further, this study bridges my background as a professional visual communication designer and my graduate-level design and anthropology training. As such, it is a combination of anthropology for design and design for anthropology {Murphy, 2016, #139421}.

The institutional review board at the University of Cincinnati identify the following methods as exempt from IRB protocol since the focus is on Price Hill and the results are non-generalizable.

Research method one (RM1) is a 90-minute semi-structured interview with neighborhood experts who live in or work with groups and organizations in Price Hill. The interviews take place both on Zoom and in person. I can examine all my research questions across identity, quality of life, and design through these interviews.

Research method two (RM2) is an online survey for neighborhood experts who are 18 or older and live in Price Hill. It consists of 21 questions concerning basic demographics and perception of quality of life in Price Hill, addressing RQ1, RQ2, RQ4, RQ5, RQ6, RQ8, and RQ9. The method includes room for follow-up interviews about a respondent's activities in the neighborhood.

Research method three (RM3) is photo ethnography or ethnography by design {Cantarella et al., 2019, #232381}. Neighborhood experts submit photos anonymously of design efforts that "enhance" and "hinder" the quality of life in Price Hill to pricehilldesign@gmail.com. The goal is to gather an emic view of visual design in the neighborhood. RM3 addresses RQ5, RQ8, and RQ9.

Research method four (RM4) is a visual anthropology method where I capture photos of visual communication design in the neighborhood. In doing so, I, the researcher and resident of Price Hill, examine the neighborhood etic-ly and emic-ly.

Research method five (RM5) is a research-through-design mini-workshop worksheet activity for neighborhood experts who live in Price Hill. The primary purpose is to answer RQ9 but addresses RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3.

Additionally, I collect information about the neighborhood through newspaper clippings, books, and content from the Price Hill Historical Society. This research gives me a historical grounding for my research questions. I also utilize early 2020 Census data from justicemaps.org to answer RQ1. However, I use the City of Cincinnati data based on 2010 census data for population data because official 2020 Census data is not available yet for the Price Hill Neighborhoods.

Sample and Recruitment Procedure

For RM1, I utilize snowball sampling to recruit neighborhood experts {O'Grady and O'Grady, 2009, #271845}. That means that I start with a leader from the neighborhood and ask them to recommend one or two more people to interview in the neighborhood. Recognizing that the neighborhood population consists of three large populations (white, Black, and Hispanic), I aim to interview people representing the neighborhood's diverse population. My goal is five interviews.

For RM2 and RM3, I develop a website, Instagram account, and social media graphics to promote the online survey (available in Spanish and English). I share the survey link through the website, Instagram, printed posters in the community, and my personal Facebook page (see appendix). Furthermore, I share the link with neighborhood experts in the community who share the information through several community newsletters (print and digital) and Facebook pages. In addition to the RM2 survey, I may request a follow-up interview with respondents. My goal for these RM2 and RM3 is 100 responses between the two methods. There is no set goal for survey follow-up interviews.

For RM4, I walk and drive every street in Lower Price Hill and East Price Hill. I walk and drive about half of the streets in West Price Hill. West Price Hill is the largest of the three Price Hills. Collecting data in half of the neighborhood is a fair community sampling.

For RM5, I create a calendar showing when and where I will be conducting the mini-workshop in the neighborhood. I select locations that span the three neighborhoods and visit each neighborhood as equally as possible. The mini-workshops occur within the boundaries of RM4. However, unlike previous methods, RM5 does not have a digital component, meaning neighborhood experts must fill out the worksheet in person. Like RM1 and RM2, I promote the mini-workshops through the project website and social media. Additionally, I reach out to survey respondents who say they are interested in participating in a workshop.

I recognize that my methods sample at most 150 people. That means a confidence level of 95% and an 8% margin of error. With funding, more time, and increased collaboration amongst diverse team members, future work will achieve greater participation.

The project website about page and RM2 and RM3 promotions include general definitions of design, quality of life, and Price Hill. I also communicate the definitions of the design and quality of life on the RM2 (survey). Further, there is a quote by John Heskett on Design's relation to one's quality of life at the top of RM2. I share these references, along with descriptions of my project, to provide context for my participants (see appendix for survey and promotions).

RM1 includes two sections of questions related to the quality of life and design in Price Hill. Questions about quality of life include the neighborhood experts’ definition of quality of life, their perception of quality of life in Price Hill, ways to enhance the quality of life, and future scenarios for the neighborhood. Design questions contain the neighborhood experts' definition of design, how they see it in use within the neighborhood, the needs for design, and their description of place branding.

RM2 comprises three sections of questions. The first is about the neighborhood experts’ identity, asking which neighborhood they live in, how they describe themselves, and why they live in Price Hill. The second portion asks them about the quality of life in the neighborhood without explicitly asking about design. The quality of life questions includes a 10-point scale to rank the quality of life in Price Hill. The section also asks qualitative questions about hindrances and ways of improving the quality of life in the neighborhood. The third section is for people who wish to partake in a focus group. It asks for their name and contact information. The section concludes by asking the participant if they are willing to partake in a short interview.

RM3 prompts resident experts to share photos of design that enhances or hinders the quality of life in Price Hill. I borrow inspiration from the work of "Yes, We're Open" in Bed-Sty {Cantarella et al., 2019, #232381}. The method easily translates into Spanish and extends participation to those who do not prefer surveys or writing (see appendix for poster).

RM5 is a research-through-(minimal)-design activity. In that way, it presents a design solution for anthropology or research through design. In RM5, I present imaginary community groups and ask neighborhood experts to choose the top five groups they would join or think the neighborhood needs the most. Participants use markers and stickers to select their choices. Additionally, they may propose a group by writing a group name in a group identity template. Finally, I ask participants about their groups' activities for the community.

Procedures

Add a diagram of methods on a timeline

During phase one, I conduct RM1 through RM4 simultaneously in the fall 2021 school semester. For RM2 and RM3, I promote them to the neighborhood at the onset of the research and after my completing RM1. During phase two, I will conduct RM5 in the spring 2022 semester, building upon learnings from phase one methods.

For RM4, I create a Google map of the neighborhood to document traces and the streets I visit (appendix). Additionally, I use field worksheets to collect traces of visual communication design and jottings from the field (appendix). I look for signage, posters, wayfinding, graffiti, public art, and memorials that communicate messages about the neighborhood and its residents. RM4 occurs within an Urban Design course under Professor Vikas Mehta in the School of Planning at The University of Cincinnati.

In RM5, I utilize the data collected from the prior methods to develop a mini-workshop. I simplify the identity questions from the RM2 to Race, Age, Quality of Life, and Neighborhood. Instead of asking qualitative questions about quality of life, I propose imaginary groups based on the codes created to analyze the previous methods. Finally, instead of asking what they are doing in the neighborhood (RM1 and RM2), I ask them to brainstorm community-organized activities for their groups.

RM5 is essentially a micro presentation of my insights from previous methods. Additionally, it alludes to a suggestion of pluralistic possibilities through multiple identities instead of one place brand identity. The imaginary groups act as a minimal form of design that prompts a response from neighborhood experts. The groups are not "really real," but neither is a place brand. Like a place brand, the groups are speculative and prompt thoughts and discussion.

RM5 is an experimental method for generating community feedback that does not assume that place branding is the only option for a neighborhood. The method will generate many more possibilities for visual communication design that the community may select from as they work together toward enhanced quality of life in Price Hill.

I evolve RM5 as participants interact with the worksheet. Each session teaches me how to describe the exercise better, simplify the imaginary groups, and make the interface more usable across various reading levels and two languages (English and Spanish).

Measures

The primary measures are the codes I use to analyze all five methods. After coding the interviews and a portion of the surveys, I realize that my codes are too numerous. I decide to collect all my codes and bucket them into categories. This process gives me nine different parent codes by combining two groups of three categories. One group includes the three primary areas of examination in this study: identity, quality of life, and design. The second group includes layers of each of those sections: definition (what is it), experience (what is it like), and engagement (where are opportunities). Combined, they form a nine-block table that reflects the research questions above in the introduction. This diagram becomes a parent code guide, and a set of questions designers should ask before branding a place.

After re-coding my interviews and surveys, I code excerpts based on standard topics related to quality of life. I make jottings, attached to excerpts, which reference imaginary groups in Price Hill. After completing this pass, I export my jottings and organize them by categories. For example: "affordable and safe for everyone" and "better, cleaner streets." Each category relates to qualitative responses in the interviews and surveys. I extend these categories to traces of visual communication design found in RM3 and RM4. Therefore, I can say which categories are most important and to whom (QOL x Engagement). The "to whom" I speak of reflects the shared descriptors in my methods: race/ethnicity, age, neighborhood, and quality of life.

Knowing what quality of life groups are most important and to whom, I can look at where the groups co-occur with the design x engagement code. Patterns will reveal possibilities for visual communication that advance Price Hill while reflecting its multiple identities.

Secondly, I will look for visual communication design possibilities within the activities suggested across the methods. For instance, if someone suggests a weekly trash pick-up, visual communication designers might offer a poster, brochure, or social media graphics. I will categorize the opportunities by types of visual communication design artifacts and processes (website, yard sign, e-newsletter, invitation, signage, and wayfinding).

The final area that I will highlight is identity x engagement or "what are the best ways to invite participation?" Using that code and learnings from the field, I will recommend pathways for engaging the diverse population in the design process.

By comparing identity, quality of life, and design across methods, I can demonstrate that place branding Price Hill is impossible for such a multi-faceted community and potentially harmful to underrepresented groups. Beyond a critique, I propose a set of questions for designers and a diagram of opportunities for visual communication design in Price Hill.

Methods - Draft 1