“First we shape the cities – then they shape us.”

 

—Jan Gehl

​

Overview
As design ethnographers move from the peoplescape to the servicescape and cityscape, they must engage with broader contextual factors such as policy, ritual, and geolocation (Gehl, 2011). Through cases like Disneyland and the Utrecht bus stop, students examine how ethnographic insights can shape the design of inclusive environments and experiences. These examples illustrate how qualitative research can be translated into spatial and service strategies—from empathy-oriented public spaces to sustainable mobility systems.

Students engage with autoethnography as a research method that draws on the researcher’s lived experience to interpret cultural phenomena (Bochner & Ellis, 2016; Ellis et al., 2011; Anderson, 2006). Blending autobiography and ethnography, autoethnography requires reflective narration to understand how personal experience connects to broader social, cultural, and political contexts.

To address increasingly complex socio-economic challenges, system-level thinking becomes essential (Lee, 2024; de Weck et al., 2011). Students also explore systemic analysis tools that illuminate these complexities. Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) from system dynamics (Sterman, 2000) help identify reinforcing and balancing feedback within user experiences. Object-Process Methodology (OPM) (Dori, 2002) offers a structured approach to modeling interrelationships among systems, subsystems, and components.

Through collaborative inquiry, students learn to reframe and decompose complex design ethnography challenges—not only by synthesizing interviews and field observations, but also by modeling interdependencies and envisioning possible futures (Goodspeed, 2020). This integrated approach reveals systemic implications and design opportunities for Urban Technology (UT) applications.

 

Reflections

• How do ethnographic case studies, such as Disneyland or the Utrecht bus stop, reveal the translation of human insight into inclusive and experiential design outcomes?

• What parallel examples can you identify in your own urban encounters—where everyday community interactions similarly embody or resist inclusive design principles?

 

References

• Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449

• Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative Autoethnography: Writing Lives and Telling Stories. Routledge.

• Dori, D. (2002). Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Springer.

• de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). Engineering Systems: Meeting Human Needs in a Complex Technological World. The MIT Press.

• Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An Overview. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4 (138)), 273–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23032294

• Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings. Island Press.

• Goodspeed, R. (2020). Scenario Planning for Cities and Regions. Lincoln Institute.

• Lee, S.-H. (2024). Transformation by Human-Centered System Design. Design Management Review, 35 (1), 88-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/drev.12390

• Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston.