Talking about the city: Focus group discussions about the city and the community as developmental grounds with children aged 5–17

Abstract

Due to its complexity, size, diversity (internal or external) and meanings, it is possible to analyse the city from various points of view, which are, ultimately, references for the construction of knowledge about the urban space, and the logic of apprehension and appropriation used by individuals and organizations in relation to the place they inhabit. The city is, increasingly, a context for isolation and exclusion, where individuals share fewer experiences, which therefore become less significant. The effective range of action each person or group has towards the city is clearly limited. This interferes with the process of producing practical and emotional meanings, since the message conveyed is that such a space is defined ‘in spite of people’ and not ‘because of people’. In this article, the author mobilizes the productions of children between the ages of 5 and 17 in an attempt to capture their perceptions (their discourse) about urban life and education, as well as their appropriations (their projects), either past, present or future. In the process, the author also discusses focus groups as platforms for participation in the community context.

Introduction

While analysing the process of modernization of cities in the contemporary Western world, Ascher (2010) highlights rationalization as one of the core dynamics at play; tradition is progressively replaced with rationalization in determining the acts of an individual and/or a group. That is, in fact, as the author points out, one of the main features of the contemporary experience of ‘living (in) the city’: as co-presence and proximity play a progressively less relevant role in everyday interactions, the management of risk and uncertainty becomes more and more the individual’s responsibility. With a delocalization of social exchanges comes a progressive weakening of local networks: the pluralization of social interactions (becoming more diverse in their nature and in the platforms they use) does not necessarily translate into a densification of social structures, but quite the opposite.

In this article, we will discuss cities as contexts for social and educational development, with a particular focus on the experiences of children. We will begin by discussing the relationship between the ‘city’ and ‘education’, mobilizing the concept of territory to explore the ‘educational’ recognizable within the ‘local’, as well as the city as a referential for identity development and tension. For this purpose, we will elaborate on the impact of built space, its distribution and configuration. We will also discuss operational aspects of the relationship that individuals and organizations establish with the city: first, by reference to the notion of ‘public space’ and how the public–private dichotomy has evolved; second, we will discuss the city as a dialectic context, as a space for memory and projects, and as an archetype of what we can call the ‘common good’; and, finally, we will invoke and discuss the concept of citizenship as a rational and structured way of experiencing the city, in light of the relevance of civic and political participation, and the role of Utopia in the apprehension of the city as a developmental space. Following on from these considerations, we will address the concept of an ‘educating city’ as a community-based project.

As Roig (2007: 173) points out: ‘the future of a city is closely linked to the educational process … understood as the acquisition of knowledge and values … It is an open-ended process, of permanent learning, that is carried out through the relationship with others’. From this, we can draw a series of key elements for the discussion presented in this article: the idea that learning and education in a broader sense are not limited to a stream of information (from one who knows, and therefore teaches, towards one who does not know, and therefore learns), but are instead based on a process of co-construction of a system of values and rules; the idea that the educational process takes place throughout the course of one’s life (both timewise and context-wise); and, finally, the idea that the educational process and human development are, ultimately, relational processes.

This article presents original data obtained over the course of the Massarelos, Educating Civil Parish project (2007–2011), developed in Massarelos, Porto, Portugal. This project culminated in a thesis, which was presented to the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences at the University of Porto in May 2012 (Lúcio, 2011).

The city and education: territory, meaning(s) and participation

The first point to be made in this discussion is that the concept of the ‘city’ that we explore here is, in our view, more closely related to the word’s Greek root polis, which does not refer to the ensemble of spaces, but rather to the exercise of citizenship. Likewise, the Latin word civitas refers to a group of citizens bound by law, which grants them responsibilities and duties. Therefore, the Roman civitas was not a gathering of individuals, but rather what linked them as citizens. So, this is a discussion about the city as a territory and not so much as an administrative entity (hence the idea of an ‘educating civil parish’, by reference to the concept of the ‘educating city’, which will be discussed further on). This territory is not only a context, but also an identitary construct.

Our focus on the city (as opposed to other territories/spaces) stems from an understanding of urban contexts as those where individuals and groups find the best opportunities to acquire knowledge, develop skills, debate and establish meaningful interactions. If education is a fundamental aspect of human experience, the city is a particularly favourable context for the construction of meaning(s) associated to that experience, by reference to social and community frameworks.

According to Guitart (2006), it is through a process of subjectivation that a certain space ‘becomes’ a place or a territory. A territory is therefore a social construction based on the attribution of contents and meanings to a certain space which a certain individual or group experiences on a regular basis. This subjectivation is essentially a collective process in the sense that ‘people need to identify with a specific group or territory, since they need to feel part of a collective and rooted to a particular place’ (Guitart, 2006: 69). It is precisely this type of experience that is reduced or limited in contemporary cities, due to the restriction of opportunities for meaningful interaction between individuals, and between individuals and the city, given that, as Innerarity (2009: 107) highlights, ‘the logic of mobility imposes upon that of territorialisation’.

As a decisive aspect of the lives of individuals and groups, the attribution and recognition of meanings (with respect to objects, places, other individuals/groups, phenomena, etc.) is a fundamental process to accessing and processing information and, therefore, to more effective and satisfactory interaction. Nonetheless, as Lynch (2007: 141) points out, when it comes to the management of urban spaces and temporality, the tendency is often towards the suppression of the ‘legibility of places’ rather than the opposite. There is, according to Lynch (2007), a proliferation of spaces of an ambiguous nature, with unclear patterns of fruition, the appropriation of which is therefore more difficult.

According to Hertzberger (1996: 15): ‘all over the world, we find gradients of territorial limitation, accompanied by a sense of access. Sometimes, the degree of access is an issue of legislation, but generally, it is exclusively an issue of convention’. What we often find in Western cities are spaces that, from an administrative point of view, are considered to be for public use, but which are not, in fact, appropriated by individuals and groups. With regard to spaces of transit, Gehl (2010: 19) points out that, ‘in lively, safe, sustainable and healthy cities, the prerequisite for city life is good walking opportunities’, given that, when we walk, we are not only moving from one place to another, but also experiencing all the stimuli inherent to urban life: personal interaction, contact with the environment, and a (however brief) contact with spaces of trade, services and cultural events. Walking is therefore – as much as sitting – a sensory experience that promotes the production of meanings and memories.

The city is a place that reflects the history and the knowledge produced by the community that inhabits it. It is an ever changing and oftentimes expanding context. As they welcome a significant percentage of the world’s population, cities are, inevitably, spaces of encounters and conflicts. In spite of this – or because of this – they are particularly suited for the integrated development of individuals and communities. The identity aspect of said development is crucial – i.e. the sense of who we are, where we come from and where we are going.

The issue of illegibility (Lynch, 2007; Sennett, 2001) pertaining to urban spaces is closely connected with the growing relevance of the private sphere: while it is increasingly difficult to read and draw meanings from objects, experiences and interactions in the public space, the home becomes ever safer and multivalent. In his socio-historical analysis of how the relationship between public and private has evolved, Sennett (2002) highlights the second half of the 18th century as a decisive moment, as children began to be considered (and treated) substantially differently from adults: they were seen as being more fragile, and therefore less able to endure the challenges dictated by the urban experience and public life.

The transformations within the fabric of cities are paralleled by the transformation of the ways in which individuals and groups experience the city, appropriate its spaces and organize their relational networks. Living in the city (as opposed to living in a non-urban context) influences experiences of participation not only in terms of the diversity of opportunities to participate, but also in terms of the variety of stimuli and incentives to act. If the city is changing, what exactly defines a citizen?

Traditionally seen as the quintessential form of participation, the exercise of the right to vote is progressively losing relevance in contemporary societies. Rosenau (2010: 66) discusses how citizen participation is simultaneously decreasing and expanding: ‘if voting rates during election are examined, proof points towards the indisputable finding that a decrease is happening’; at the same time, the media is fraught with increasingly expressive and frequent protests and dynamics of cooperative response to social issues. As Borja and Muxí (2003) point out, the solution may be government decentralization – legitimizing not only instances of municipal/local government, but also more informal social movements and interventions. Therefore, education for citizenship cannot settle for the promotion of the individual’s adhesion to traditional values and formats of participation – i.e. learning a role – but must take on the purpose of giving people the tools to question the value of community and the relevance of a common project.

Methodology

Massarelos, Educating Civil Parish

The project was based on the principles that founded the Educating Cities movement, which conceives the city as an educational environment (it is possible to learn in the city), an educational content (it is possible to learn the city) and an educational agent (it is possible to learn from the city).

While there are other ways to operationalize the ‘educating city’, the strategy used in this project was based on the concept of the ‘integrated training system’ (Villar, 2007). In such a system, education and socialization are seen as trans-institutional processes, and five territorial agents contribute to an integrated and consensual development project: the local government/administration (which leads, plans and catalyses efforts and interests); families (who ensure that individuals’ educational itinerary is not limited to their academic path); citizens’ associations (which enable routes of direct connection with the city); the production system (offering rich and complex experiences to the territory); and educative/training institutions (which transform life experience into cultural experience).

While, within this project, we contacted and gathered data from several locally relevant actors and organizations (using interviews, questionnaires and focus group discussions), in this article we will discuss the data resulting from our interactions with children (between the ages of 5 and 17) who lived and/or studied in Massarelos.

Focus groups

We developed a series of six focus groups: one group of kindergarteners (aged 5–6); one group of 1st and 2nd graders (aged 6–8); one group of 3rd and 4th graders (aged approximately 8–10); two groups of 6th graders (aged approximately 11–12); and one group of 9th graders (aged approximately 14–17). Aside from this population, we also developed focus groups with representatives of citizens’ associations and small and medium-sized enterprises (although we will not be discussing that data for the purpose of this article).

In order to reduce bureaucratic concerns, and because the project was based in the civil parish government (which had a close and positive institutional relationship with the local school group), the choice was made to limit the sample to children studying within the vertical school group (including the kindergarten and the basic, middle and secondary schools). After obtaining permission from the school group’s director and the students’ legal guardians, and ensuring the anonymity of the participants, a more or less flexible script was designed. This document listed a series of issues for discussion, and it was planned with the aim of helping to produce an understanding of the perceptions of children who lived and/or studied in Massarelos about the educational potential of their territory – i.e. their discourse about this issue – as well as their appropriations of the urban space – i.e. their projects for the city, either past, present or future.

The focus groups were registered exclusively via audio-recording, and later transcribed and subject to content analysis. A single script was designed and used for all six focus groups, covering several aspects of the experiences about which we were hoping to gather the children’s views. Since it was an open script, the way the questions were posed and how the discussion was stimulated – and developed – varied widely from group to group.

The choice of focus groups was made for two main reasons: first, the expected number of subjects required an adequately extensive and complex methodological approach, and, second, it was related to an understanding of their potential as instruments for participation. What truly distinguishes focus groups from other group data-collection methods is the discussion aspect – namely, what emerges from the interaction between individuals and the expression of their ideas. While they were first developed for use in the field of marketing (namely, product development, market positioning, consumer habits, etc.), focus groups have become increasingly popular in the field of social sciences. As Kitzinger and Barbour (1999: 5) point out: ‘focus groups are ideal for exploring people’s experiences, opinions, wishes and concerns … [They] also enable researchers to examine people’s different perspectives as they operate within a social network’. This means that, aside from being useful in the assessment of standpoints (both individual and collective), they are also relevant for gauging the participants’ ‘social skills’, as well as the power dynamics that already exist or that are established during the focus group. Focus groups are, therefore, contexts of social production and reproduction, which is why they offer researchers some clues about relationships and networks.

Baker and Hilton (1999: 79) define focus groups as ‘any group-based research activity that is grounded in regular interaction among the participants such that it becomes a social and political forum in its own right’. In this project, each group of children participated in only one focus group discussion, so the aspect of ‘regular interaction’ is somewhat compromised. Nevertheless, there was already a history of interaction between the participants, as they were students in the same class and/or school.

As Barbour (1999: 118) points out: ‘although, in theory, focus groups can simply reflect or monitor change, there is always the potential for the focus group process itself to initiate changes in participants’ thinking and understanding, merely through exposure to the interactive process’. This is, in fact, the core premise behind our choice of focus groups: the healthy and framed discussion of ideas and concepts has the potential to initiate change at the individual level, which has, in turn, the potential to induce change at the organizational level. Within communities, and particularly in the urban context, there are not many opportunities for discussion among peers about the (shared) experience of ‘living in the city’, and this is what we expected to provide.

With regard to focus groups as platforms for accessing community dispositions, Waterton and Wynne (1999: 136) highlight that community interactions ‘are not just a neutral medium through which intrinsic preferences and values are expressed, but are themselves a substantive part of the formation of values and attitudes’. This argument is, of course, connected with the understanding of social action as a ‘social relationship’ – the eminently relational dimension of the human experience. Community dispositions, we should point out, do not need to be consensual or even consistent. Perceptions, such as identities, are flexible and mutating constructs – for individuals, groups and, ultimately, communities.

As for the role of the person who moderates or facilitates focus groups (in this case, the researcher, who was also a socio-educational mediator), it is important to note that ‘the researcher, as “outsider”, may provide a coherent identity for an otherwise fairly disparate group of people through his/her “otherness”’ (Waterton and Wynne, 1999: 139). The researcher, as a foreign element, may therefore boost a sense of belonging and identification between the participants of the focus group, which may, in turn, favour the emergence of more intensely shared perceptions that better represent the ‘community’ – in this case, the community of children.

The city as a discourse, the city as a project

After transcribing and submitting the focus groups to content analysis, we were able to identify five main dimensions – transversal aspects or consistencies – of the experience of living and studying in Massarelos, as seen by these children: the ‘physical’ city; the city of rights and duties; the city as a learning context; the city as a relational space; and the city and identity. For the purpose of this article, we intend to present a discussion that is less framed by these categories, but still conveys the key points emerging from the discussion within the focus groups.

In our city, can we play outside?

No!

So you’ve never played outside?

No…

I did, once…! (Excerpt from one of the focus groups)

Play is a transversal dimension in the discourse captured by the focus groups: younger children talk about their own experiences and older participants refer to those of their younger siblings or extended family. Playing in the street – experiencing the street – is an almost foreign notion to some and strongly frowned upon by others. The grandparents’ house and the company of older cousins are often a safe platform from which to experiment with the public space of the street. For those who express positive feelings about playing in the street, they report feelings of belonging: getting to know the street where one’s family lives (or has lived), the neighbours or the coffee shop round the corner, playing football or other team sports with other children, etc., promote a sense of affiliation and connectivity. Although they tend to convey a mostly positive perception about playing outside, the older participants also express some reservations about promoting their younger family members’ interaction in such a space: they either believe it not to be a vital experience or present themselves as potential supervisors.

Playing is also discussed by the younger participants as an experience lived in either an intimate context (their home, their friend’s home, the school enclosure) or outside (the park, a garden, a green place). The shopping centre, for example, does not emerge in the discussion as a context for playing, but rather as a context for displaying a tamer, more well-behaved (perhaps, more adult) version of oneself. The shopping centre is a space the children ‘love to hate’ – a space that they find stimulating but simultaneously limiting.

Do you think that the things you learn in school are different from the things you learn elsewhere?

Yes.

How are they different?

There are no books.

In school we have books and homework … At home, you only learn how to ride on the swing, the bike, the skateboard, the scooter. (Excerpt from one of the focus groups)

When discussing the learning process, its dimensions and its contexts, the children make a very clear distinction between what happens within school and what happens outside. Learning in school happens through trial and error; learning at home, for example, has to do mostly with the regulation of the self – i.e. civility, demeanour and honour. In this respect, grandparents and the elderly emerge, again, as key figures: they are associated with the history of the community and the neighbourhood, they represent culture, and they are connected with books and knowledge. For these children, speech is particularly relevant. They discuss accents: not only how they brand the speaker in terms of their origin, but also how they are symbolic borders: ‘my accent is my neighbourhood’.

While different spaces are discussed as potentiating different types of learning, the learning process is seen as omnipresent and said to take place within the school, within the family, at the library, at the museum, at a concert, etc. At the same time, the children also discuss learning as an impossibility: certain spaces, such as those with public access and shopping centres, do not potentiate or allow learning.

Even the City Hall should be more careful with cleaning and maintaining the sidewalks and the bridges, because there’s always a lot of gum everywhere.

Why do you think that’s important?

Because, thinking of the tourists and also the old houses, they’re not given proper attention. Through old houses we can see who the people who used to live in them were. The ceramic tiles are also a part of those old Porto houses, they’re also very important. (Excerpt from one of the focus groups)

While they are very critical about the current state of the city in terms of the dilapidation of the buildings and historical sites, the children also discuss their role in this situation. They talk about how their own actions corrode the school buildings and public infrastructures, such as city parks and playgrounds. The decaying city is equated with the decay of a group identity: as the city’s history is fading away, so does the children’s sense of belonging to the community. Play is discussed as an exhaust valve for civility, and a bargain: the children demand free and unsupervised activity in exchange for good behaviour. They also argue that previous generations had more opportunities of this kind. Urban voids – structures which do not yet exist, which are inaccessible or subpar in terms of what the children want, or which have been abandoned – also appear as a concern.

The ‘physical’ city is also discussed as a place of activity (work, opportunities, events) and as something that can be appropriated. This sense of appropriation (or the possibility thereof) depends on the spaces and their features. Again, the shopping centre emerges from the discussion in opposition to the street and the park. The shopping centre is seen as sheltered but also unsafe (because of the large crowds), as stimulating but also exhausting, and as loud but also constrained. The street is perceived as dangerous and dirty (mainly because of traffic) but also necessary, as an experience, to identity-building. The park is perceived as somewhat boring but also free and full of potential.

But it’s not worth it! Because the more you complain, the worse it gets…

They just want the citizens’ money…

It’s all about the money for car races.

You think that the initiatives that take place in our city don’t correspond to what you’d like, is that it? But do you feel that, if … you don’t agree with what is done, you can complain and be heard?

It just gets filed. (Excerpt from one of the focus groups)

The children perceive themselves as having weak autonomy, in terms of both their participation in the decision-making process and the usage/appropriation of spaces. They discuss the city as a space of possibility, but also a context of prohibition, establishing a set of dichotomies: it is a space of rules versus transgression; an existing space versus a desired space; a space of action versus inaction. Civic and political participation – i.e. the opportunity to participate, as well as the limits and disadvantages of participating – is one of the concerns that these participants express. Children between the ages of 11 and 12 seem to be those who, on the one hand, have greater confidence in the range of their action but, on the other, are more concerned with the responsibility that participating brings. Older participants convey a more cynical stance towards the limits of participation: they feel that they have the right to an opinion, but they also feel that there is a high likelihood that it will not be heard.

As for its relational dimension, the city is discussed by these participants in a historical perspective: neighbourhood dynamics/networks are mainly the result of the passage of time and people. The urban context is also discussed as a platform for diversity – and potentially conflict. In this sense, the city as a space for conviviality is seen as depending not only on the individual’s ability to manage his/her time and interests, but also on the community’s ability to reduce the risks associated with the urban experience.

So how do we know if what we want to do in our city is possible?

It isn’t always possible. If we wanted to build a football field here now, we couldn’t.

So how would we know?

If there was no one around and we were adults, we would have to go to City Hall to hand that request, and to the civil parish’s presidents.

And then he would send a letter to the address.

He would give us a permit, and, when the day came, a company would come, this would be destroyed and something else would be built in its place. (Excerpt from one of the focus groups)

In the younger children’s speech, citizenship is mostly related to the fruition of the urban space and individual rights and freedom. Amongst the older participants, the issue of bureaucracy – associated with transformative action within the city – emerges as relevant. Not only is change in the urban fabric discussed as time-consuming and laborious, but participation is also often felt to be a burden – when one chooses, one becomes responsible for the consequences of that choice. At the same time, children praise popular initiatives as ‘the way to get things done’ and circumvent red tape.

The city is also discussed as an ever changing context – a succession of buildings and infrastructures (as well as people), as if empty spaces are a reflex of a certain dysfunctionality which should be avoided. The children themselves have projects and expectations with regard to these urban voids, including a ‘playground for t[w]eens’ which not only allows childlike play, but also offers a place simply to sit and talk.

The idea that cities are intrinsically diverse (with different neighbourhoods, different customs and also different linguistic nuances, as was previously mentioned) serves as the basis for a discussion of some concerns pertaining to the disappearance of traditional quarters and the ways of life – and, ultimately, the identities – associated with them.

Closing remarks

The focus groups had fairly diverse durations – those involving younger participants were, on average, shorter than those involving older participants – and it was also possible to identify within the several groups those who participated more and those who did not participate at all. The fact that the discussions took place in the classroom, or at least in the school, and within regular school hours is not negligible and may have accounted for a certain formality. In general, the focus groups developed in an orderly manner and, at least at the beginning, the participants would often raise their hand to ask for permission to intervene. However, as the discussions progressed, the moderator’s intervention or prompting became less frequent.

At any rate, we believe that these findings support the notion that children have, indeed, highly complex perceptions of the physical, acting, learning, experiential, relational and identity aspects inherent to urban spaces. The data also supports an additional argument of this project’s framework, concerning the role of social and educational mediators in promoting children’s direct contact with the physical, historical, social, cultural and relational resources of the territory they inhabit.

As there has been, to date, no follow-up to this study, we have no way of assessing the long-term impact of this type of activity for this group in particular. However, from what we were able to gather immediately after the focus groups, both from the participants and the teachers (who were present in the room but did not intervene), the children felt very stimulated not only by the opportunity to discuss these themes in particular, but also by the opportunity to interact with their peers in a novel manner. At the end of at least two of the focus groups, the students addressed the moderator to inquire whether their opinions would be taken to the City Hall and/or civil parish government, which in turn prompted a brief discussion about their interest in participating in the municipal assembly.

It is important to note that these activities, however extemporaneous they sometimes are and however difficult it may be to assess their results, may have unexpected outcomes for the individual participants, the groups themselves and the wider community of which they are a part. If there is a need to remain humble in terms of the expected impact, it is also important to remain hopeful.

Finally, and while this is not a dimension of the analysis presented in this article, the broader project on which this contribution is based featured a discussion about the role of social and educational mediation professionals/platforms in community development processes. To this extent, the results of these focus groups seem to support our notion of how mediators could contribute, for example, in developing a series of initiatives to promote children’s first-hand contact with the territory they inhabit, such as photographic wanderings, fairs, visits to local organizations and a more active engagement with the activities of the local government.