Page 72 - SHELTER
P. 72
CASE STUDIES
verbally explained their dream participants talked not just about unhappy not being allowed to play
home and the facilities they their dream home, but they also with their relatives anymore. So, she
aspired to have near their homes. compared their house in the wanted her dream house to be near
The oral presentation of their previous neighbourhood with to her relatives’ house.
drawings reconfirmed a few their current apartment life and Many of the participants
main elements: its neighbourhood.” expressed the same grievance
● The participants wanted Examples of that mentioned by about not having nearby bus
single detached houses on the participants were: stops, hospitals, schools, parks
their own plots, instead of One participant expressed that and groceries shops. So, they
vertical structures; in the resettlement tenement wanted all of those facilities
close to their dream house.
● The participants wanted (Perumbakkam) where they
greenery such as trees, parks currently live, they have the The analysis explored the main
and gardens; and kitchen near the bathroom cum elements elicited from women’s
● The participants wanted toilet entrance, which she found explanations at the end of the
problematic. She wanted the kitchen
workshop by performing a
proximity and access to not to be next to the bathroom in her qualitative comparative analysis
utility facilities like hospitals, dream house. of the drawings themselves. The
schools, shops, ration shops, analysis was organised using as
bus stops and children’s Another participant expressed that the guiding structure the main
playgrounds etc. in the neighbourhood where she
resided before, she had a bathroom aspects which were derived
INTERPRETATION OF cum toilet a small distance from from womens’ explanations of
DRAWINGS the house and she did not like the their drawings. This was done
“What I like about drawings, as attached bathroom setup in her to minimize any wild subjective
interpretations of the drawings.
a method, is their simplicity. All Perumbakkam apartment, so in her
you need is paper and a pencil dream house she wanted a bathroom The first step of the analysis
or pen. But if there is simplicity that was not close to the other rooms. consisted of the broad
in collecting the data, there is Another participant expressed that categorisation of the drawings,
complexity in the interpretive she wanted to live within Chennai and the enumeration of the
process “(Mitchell, Theron and city limits and she did not like her different items represented in
Stuart et al., 2011, p. 2). In order current house because it was very each drawing in order to draw
to conduct the analysis it is far from Chennai city. So, she some conclusions regarding
important to understand how wanted her dream house to be built what the participants considered
the drawings were generated, inside the Chennai city limits. important for their ideal home
the conversation that occurred One participant expressed that and built-environment.
around them and what context her relatives used to live nearby Two broad categories were
brought them into being in their previous neighbourhood identified. The most frequent
(Woodhouse 2012). and her children often used to go category (16 of N=18)
Reflecting on the drawing to their house to play. But after represented a house surrounded
workshop one of the assistants the resettlement, her relatives were by one or more urban facilities.
mentioned that: “While allotted a flat in a faraway block, so The second category of drawings
expressing their thoughts she was not able to send her children just represent a house (2 of
about their dream house, some there to play and her children were N=18). Tables 1 and 2 show the
70 HUDCO-HSMI Publication
