Applying Narrative inquiry method in evaluation of identity of place (Case study; Fouladshahr new town)

Identity has always been a popular research subject for various disciplines, such as psychology, philosophy, sociology, human geography and anthropology. The role of "place" concept in forming the Identity of a person, society or group has been emphasized in environmental psychology and relative disciplines. On the other side, “Identity of place”, has been emphasized as a significant dimension of place that concerns the meaning and significance of places for their inhabitants, users and others. “Identity of place” is among the notions specifically being considered in the second half of the 20th century in urban planning and design literature and some methods were applied to assess “Identity of place” based on various definitions. The objective of current paper is to present a research framework for evaluating the Identity of Place. This paper is provided in three general sections.
In the first part, a definition for “Identity of place” and its forming elements is provided after investigating the theoretical bases and the literature available in the field of “Identity of place”. According to the content framework, the identity of place is the output of the dynamic system of interaction between internal meaning and external meaning created and endorsed about the place.
In the second part of the paper, the research framework for evaluating “Identity of place” is explained based on the discourse study methodology, narrative inquiry method and analytical framework based on discourse analysis. Then, Fouladshar new town is selected as the case study and the aforementioned research framework were tested on it. Recognizable social forces, respective place independence, and outstanding elements are the most important criterions in process of case study selection. Also, identity crisis of new towns in Iran is a Meta criterion in the case study selection process.
In third part, collected data in Fouladshahr is analyzed in two levels including separated level and integrated level. In the separated level, analysis indicated that among any elements of “identity of place” in each social group, there is a distinguishable “dominant discourse”. Also, each “dominant discourse” can be categorized on the basis of “discourse orientation” and “discourse type”. According to “discourse orientation”, dominant discourses can be “Negative” or “Positive” and according to “discourse type”, dominant discourses can be categorized in three types including “Descriptive discourse”, “Argumentative discourse” and “Propaganda discourse”. These three types are differentiated on the basis of intensity and emphasize of respondent to deliver a specific meaning.
In the integrated level, dominant discourses are analysed according to other groups. In this level, analysis reveals the potential and crisis elements of the “identity of place”. Also, Crisis elements can be categorized in three types including “negative same-directed” elements, “intrinsic tensioned elements” and “extrinsic tensioned elements”.
This research and analytical framework in evaluating the “identity of place” can be utilized in places in different scales. Also this framework utilized “identity of place” as a strategic and applicable concept.