Abstract
To understand increasingly complex planning issues, methodologies are needed that make knowledge and values explicit and communicable in a language that can be shared by diverse stakeholders and can address multiple points of view. Communication is a dialogical process oriented toward developing a shared understanding of the meaning of events and experiences. Effective communication recognizes differences and builds trust. Planners, engaged in interactions of diverse perspectives, necessarily need tools that allow for “active listening” (and seeing) to build that trust. Stakeholders need to be engaged in a social learning process of sharing experiences, learning together, and contributing to decisions within their communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Attili, G. (2007). Digital ethnographies in the planning field. Planning Theory and Practice, 8(1), 90–97.
Clover, D. (2005). Sewing stories and acting activism: Women’s leadership and learning through drama and craft. Ephemera, 5(4), 629–642.
Corbett, J., & Keller, C. (2004). Empowerment and participatory geographic information and multimedia systems: Observations from two communities in Indonesia. Information Technologies and International Development, 5(2), 25–44.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frantz, J. (2007). Using participatory video to enrich planning processes. Planning Theory and Practice, 8(1), 103–107.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gurstein, P., Johnson, L., Schatz, L., Tate, L., & Hallenbeck, J. (2007). Global work/local lives: Multimedia in creating public dialogue. Paper presented at 48th Annual ACSP Conference, Milwaukee, WI.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society (T. McCarthy, Trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hallenbeck, J. (2007). Video and social justice: Reimagining the city. Unpublished Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC, Vancouver.
Harries-Jones, P. (1991). From advocacy to social movements. In P. Harries-Jones (Ed.), Making knowledge count: Advocacy and social science. Montréal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Ingersoll, R. (2006). Sprawltown: Looking for the city on its edges. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Levy, R. M. (2006). Urban design and computer visualization: Applications in community planning. In S. Tsenkova (Ed.), Places and people: Planning new communities. Calgary: University of Calgary Printing Services.
Marchessault, J. (1995). Reflections on the dispossessed: Video and the “Challenge for Change” experiment. Screen, 36(2), 131–146.
Mitchell, W. (1999). Equitable access to the online world. In D. Schon, B. Sanyal, & W. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(1), 11–28.
Sarkissian, W. (2007). Video as a tool in community engagement, Planning Theory and Practice, 8(1), 98–102.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2007). Film, space and place identity: Reflections on Urban planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 8(1), 108–112.
Throgmorton, J. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
White, S. A. (Ed.). (2003). Participatory video: Images that transform and empower. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Wiesner, P. (1992). Media for the people: The Canadian experiments with film and video in community development. American Review of Canadian Studies, 2(1), 65–75.
Williams, T. (1988). The fogo process. St. John’s, NF: Memorial University Snowden Centre for Development Support Communications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gurstein, P. (2010). Seeing and Being Seen: The Potential of Multimedia as a Reflexive Planning Methodology. In: Sandercock, L., Attili, G. (eds) Multimedia Explorations in Urban Policy and Planning. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3209-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3209-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3208-9
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3209-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)