Beyond the Flatlands: Digital Ethnographies in the Planning Field

  • Giovanni Attili
Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 7)


New technologies represent a system of constraints and possibilities that constitute the foundation of new rhetorical spaces: the spheres of new communicative and persuasive procedures. Nowadays, urban planning has the chance to critically and rigorously experiment with these new spaces. It has the chance to transgress traditional representational codes and to expand its semantic horizons.

This chapter portrays one such challenging exploration: the fecund crossroads between qualitative analytical approaches and digital languages within the planning field. It is a path that embraces diverse dimensions media and messages, analysis and rhetoric, ethics and aesthetics.


Urban Space Relational Space Situational Ethic Planning Field Ethnographic Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott, A. E. (1993). Flatlandia. Racconto fantastico a più dimensioni. Milano: Adelphi Edizioni.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchard, M. A. (2002). Should all disciplines be subject to common rule? Human subjects of social science research panel. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1995). Ragioni Pratiche. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  4. Debord, G. (1989). Rapporto sulla costruzione delle situazioni. Torino: Nautilus.Google Scholar
  5. de Certeau, M. (1990). L’invenzione del quotidiano. Roma: Edizioni Lavoro.Google Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretative ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Doglio, C., Mazzoleni, C. (Eds.). (1995). Per prova ed errore. Genova: Le mani Microart’s Edizioni.Google Scholar
  10. Eckstein, B., & Throgmorton, J. (Eds.). (2003). Story and sustainability: Planning, practice and possibility for American cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gargani, A. G. (1999). Il filtro creativo. Bari: Editori Laterza.Google Scholar
  13. Lanzani, A. (1996). Immagini del territorio e idee di piano 1943–1963. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  14. Levy, P. (1997). L’intelligenza collettiva. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  15. Mandelbaum, S. (1991). Telling stories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10(1), 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manganelli, G. (1993). Un luogo è un linguaggio. In: A. E. Abbott (Ed.), Flatlandia. Racconto fantastico a più dimensioni. Milano: Adelphi Edizioni.Google Scholar
  17. Melucci, A. (2000). Culture in gioco. Differenza per convivere. Milano: Il Saggiatore.Google Scholar
  18. Olivetti, A. (1954). Perché si pianifica. Comunità 27.Google Scholar
  19. Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II – mongrel cities of the 21st century. London, New York: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
  20. Tosi, A. (2000). L’inserimento urbano degli immigrati. In AAVV (Eds.), Migrazioni Scenari per il XXI secolo, Dossier di Ricerca vol II. Roma: Agenzia Romana per la preparazione del Giubileo.Google Scholar
  21. Turner, V. (1993). Antropologia della performance. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  22. Young, I. M. (1997). Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy and policy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Architettura e Urbanistica per l’IngegneriaUniversità “La Sapienza” di RomaRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations