The course offers a system of knowledge and tools useful for interpreting urban dynamics through the application of qualitative and quanti-qualitative methods aimed at investigating the practices of actors operating in a social innovation perspective, the nature of public policies aimed at local development, and the institutions in charge of governing the territory. Students will be called upon to confront themselves with the tools of anthropology applied to urban and territorial planning and with methods of analysis that allow them to map the forms of relations between the various actors responsible for the socio-spatial transformations of the city.

For attending students, the training approach includes: 

• a series of lessons aimed at the acquisition of the different methods proposed; 
• the accompaniment of a group practical exercise; 
• integration with complementary training activities. 

The course is organised in such a way as to allow the learning process to be matured and the exercise to be carried out as much as possible during the lesson hours, so that individual study time can be dedicated to in-depth study of the course topics. 

For non-attending students, the training approach involves 

• individual reading and in-depth study of the teaching materials in order to achieve an understanding of the theoretical reference framework; 
• the performance of an individual exercise involving the drafting of an essay (20,000 characters including spaces) on a topic agreed with the lecturer; 
• the possibility of using the reception hours (by appointment, agreed by email) for any clarifications and possible revisions of the individual exercise. 

If the course is taught in a blended mode or at a distance, the necessary variations from what has previously been stated can be introduced. 

Information for students with disabilities and/or DSA: In order to guarantee equal opportunities and in compliance with the laws in force, interested students may request a personal interview so as to plan any compensatory and/or dispensatory measures, based on the teaching objectives and specific needs. They can also contact the CInAP (Centre for Active and Participatory Integration Services for Disabilities and/or SLDs) contact teacher in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Prof. Anna De Angelis.

I recommend that students have acquired knowledge of the following subjects:

• Analysis of the territory and settlements

• Geography 

• Urban history and planning 

• Landscape Planning 

• Urban and territorial planning II

Attendance is strongly recommended, and it allows to gain some advantages, such as ongoing tests, group assignments, etc. 

In the case of workers or athletes students, I kindly ask you to indicate your condition to evaluate the best ways of attendance based on the different individual situations.

Reviews: by appointment, agreed in the classroom, or via email: giusy.pappalardo@unict.it

• Introduction to the course: qualitative and quanti-qualitative methods for planning
• Mapping of territorial actors and their relations in the theoretical framework of social/public innovation 
• Data analysis and restitution 
• Ethnographic, auto-ethnographic, digital ethnography research 
• Reading and analysis of the "traces" of territorial transformations 
• Shadowing, visual methods and hybrid methods 
• Art of listening and life stories
• Methods of social museology applied to urban planning

• Attili, G. (2008). Rappresentare la città dei migranti: storie di vita e pianificazione urbana. Editoriale Jaca Book.

• Cardano, M., & Gariglio, L. (2022). Metodi qualitativi. Pratiche di ricerca in presenza, a distanza e ibride. Carocci

• Gariglio, L. (2017). L'Autoetnografia nel campo etnografico. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, 10(3), 487-504.

• Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader, pp. 41-51. Routledge.

• Mugerauer, R. (2000). Qualitative GIS: to mediate, not dominate. In Information, place, and cyberspace: Issues in accessibility. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

• Ostanel, E. (2017). Spazi fuori dal Comune: Rigenerare, includere, innovare. FrancoAngeli, Milano

• Sandercock, Leonie; Attili, Giovanni (2010). Digital Ethnography as Planning Praxis: An Experiment with Film as Social Research, Community Engagement and Policy Dialogue. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(1), 23–45. 

• Scavarda, A. (2017). L’illusione di non esserci. Aspetti metodologici nell’uso dello shadowing nella ricerca sociale. The Lab's Quarterly, 93-110

• Sclavi, M. (2003). Arte di ascoltare e mondi possibili. Come si esce dalle cornici di cui siamo parte. Pearson Italia.

• Zeisel, J. (1984). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behaviour research. Cambridge University Pres

• Handouts

First, the exam consists of a written test to verify the learning process. 

If students join the ongoing tests (recommended for students that attend the class), the written test will be carried out in two phases: 5 open-ended questions as part of the first test, and 5 other open-ended questions in the second test, held at the end of the course. 

If you do not participate in the ongoing tests (for non-attending students), the written exam will be conducted in a single test (10 open-ended questions), carried out during the exam sessions.

Each question is assigned a score from 0 to 3. The sum of the scores determines the individual starting mark (from 0 to 30). The score is assigned according to the completeness, correctness, clarity, and critical judgments expressed through the answers. 

For attending students, the exam also consists of an oral test relating to the presentation and discussion of a practical group assigment, which will be awarded a rating: insufficient (does not allow to pass the exam), sufficient (18-23), good (24-26), distinct (27-29), excellent (30).

For non-attended students, the oral exam consists of the discussion of an individual paper, which will be awarded a rating: insufficient (does not allow to pass the exam), sufficient (18-23), good (24-26), distinguished (27-29), excellent (30).

The assignment is assessed on the basis of the completeness, correctness, legibility, and originality of the documents displayed. The discussion of the assignment is assessed according to the ability to connect with the theoretical framework.

Both for the written exam and for the oral presentation of the assignment, evaluation is based on the quality of the contents, the ability to critically connect the contents of the course, the ability to report examples, the property of language, and the expressive ability of students.

For attending students, the evaluation will also take into account the proactive participation in the class discussion, the contribution offered to the class group, and to the broad learning group, including the local actors with whom the course will be in partnership. Proactive participation will be surveyed regularly and discussed periodically. At the end of the course, each student will receive a brief qualitative note on this aspect.

The final grade will be calculated through the arithmetic average between the written exam and the practical assignment.

The grade can be positively corrected according to the proactive participation in the class discussion, and the contribution offered to the class group.

Verification of learning can also be carried out electronically, should the conditions require interpersonal distancing and according to indications provided by the University.

The reasons behind the use of qualitative methods 

Why do we talk about quanti-qualitative methods for the study of the city and the territory?

How is qualitative analysis structured? 

How are data analysed and systematised?

Main sources of qualitative analysis 

How is an auto-ethnography constructed?

What are hybrid methods and why are they used?

Why are 'life stories' important for planning?