Understanding Designers\' Knowledge Acquisition Processes: A Potential for Enhancing Information Transfer
Descripción
UnderstandingDesigners' Knowledge Acquisition Processes: A Potential for Enhancing Information Transfer Paul Markus Newland B. A. (Hons) Arch. Portsmouth Polytechnic Workhouse Ltd.
in collaboration
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Council for National Academic Awards March 1990
LIBRARY 0
9006623
with
dedicated to my parents Ray and Rita
Wealth of Awareness Stars burning bright in summer night; and I Standing alone with lifetime on this lawn; Smelling the dew that soaks the sunburnt grass, Alone with moth-winged gloom and folded flowers And secret stirrings, hours away from dawn. One with these garden silences that pass, I know that life is in my saturate sense
Of growth and memories of what lifetime meant. I am yet young with my unheardunspent Awarenessof slow-stored intransience: And still, where trees like sentinels look for day, I feel what all have felt and know what none can say. Siegfried Sassoon
Acknowledgements To the individuals known and unknown who have given me the confidence to express my thoughts and to two very special colleagues, James Powell and Chris Creed, who have made me realise it is the friends made on this journey that make it worthwhile.
PAGE NUMBERING
AS. ORIGINAL
Contents
Page
Acknowledgements
v
Chapter Contents
vii
List of Appendices
xv
List of Figures
xix
Abstract
1
Chapter 1
2
Chapter 2
35
Chapter 3
40
Chapter 4
126
Chapter 5
159
Chapter 6
239
Chapter 7
265
Chapter 8
270
Chapter 9
-291
Appendices
297
References
403
vi
Chapter Contents Chapter 1
Information Transfer Design Process the and
1.0
Resume
3
1.1
Personal Interest
4
1.2
Exisiting Information Transfer to Designers 1.2.1 1.2.2
1.3
1.3.1
Introduction
8
1.3.2 1.3.3
A Design Metaphor Describing Design (a designerly perspective from a neuro-biological context) Design and the Self-ConsciousMind Designer Autonomy - Paradox and Creative Circles
8
A Working Definition of Design for the
PresentContext 1.5
11 18 23
28
Designers and Information 1.5.1 1.5.2
1.6
5 5
Defining Design
1.3.4 1.3.5
1.4
Introduction Attractive Information?
The Relationship The Knowledge Gap
Summary
Chapter 2
29 31
33
Aim, Objectives and Outcomes
2.0
Resume
36
2.1
Aim
37 vii
2.2
Objectives
38
2.3
Outcomes
39
Chapter 3
Architects' Learning and Interpersonal Interaction Strategies
3.0
Resume
3.1
The Domains of Designer Action to be Investigated 3.1.1 3.1.2
Introduction The ChosenDomains - Learning and Interpersonal Interaction
3.2
Learning Domain - Theory 3.2.1 3.2.2
3.3
42 42
44 49
Measurement Instrument for Kolb's Experiential Learning Model: The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4
3.4
Review of Studies on Learning Kolb's Model of Experiential Learning
41
Kolb's Justification for the Learning Style Inventory The Validity of Kolb's LSI in the Present Context Other Rejected Contendersfor Instruments to AssessDesigner Learning Conclusion -A Sound Theory and Instrument for Exploring Designer Learning
59 63 64 65
Empirical Study I: Architects' Preferencesfor Learning 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3
Aim Subjects Procedure
67 67 68 vi"
3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4.7 3.4.8 3.4.9
3.5
basis of Empirical Study 1
75
Review of Studies of Interpersonal Interaction Leary's Interpersonal Theory of Personality
72 74 75
78 84
Measurement Instrument for Leary's Interpersonal Theory of Personality: The Interpersonal Check List (ICL) Leary's 3.6.1 TheICL's Validity for Assessing 3.6.2 3.6.3
3.7
69 70
Interpersonal Interaction - Theory 3.5.1 3.5.2
3.6
Scoring and Statistical Treatment Presentation of Results Interpretation of Results and Comparison with Other Research Discussion of Empirical Study I Conclusion Proposed Research Developments on the
Theoretical Model The Format of the ICL and Relevancein the PresentContext Conclusion -A Sound Theory and Instrument for Exploring Designers' Interpersonal Interaction
93 93
95
Empirical Study II: Architects' Preferences for Interpersonal Interaction 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.8 3.7.9
96 Aim 96 Subjects 97 Procedure 97 Scoring and Statistical Treatment 98 Presentationof Results Interpretation of the Results and Support 100 from Other Research 102 Discussion of Empirical Study II 103 Conclusion ProposedResearchDevelopments on the basis 104 Empirical Study II of
ix
3.8
Conjectured Unification of Typologies
3.9
Empirical Analysis I: The Relationship of Architects' Data from the LSI and ICL
3.10
3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3 3.9.4
Aim Procedureand Statistical Treatment Presentationof Results Interpretation of the Results and Support from
107 108 108
3.9.5
Other Research Discussion of the Empirical Analysis
110 112
3.9.6 3.9.7
Conclusionsto Empirical Analysis I ProposedResearchDevelopments
113 114
Empirical Study III: A Comparison Scientists Design Architects, and of Humanities Specialists 3.10.1 3.10.2 3.10.3 3.10.4 3.10.5 3.10.6
3.11
105
Aim Subjects Presentationof Results Interpretation of Results Discussion Conclusion to Empirical Study III
Conclusions
Chapter 4A
115 115 116 118 120 122
124
Fourfold of Self-Informing Strategies - Extending the Conjecture and Theoretical Discussion
4.0
Resume
127
4.1
Introduction
128
4.2
Approaches to Knowledge Structure Pepper's World Hypotheses 4.2.1
Inter-Connective Domains
130 X
4.2.2 4.2.3
4.3
4.5
131 137
Approaches for a Viable Cultural Stance Douglas' Cultural Bias 4.3.1 4.3.2
4.4
Pepper's World Hypotheses A Fourfold of Design Orientations
The Individual A Cultural Typology
Strategies for Handling Information Thompson and Wildavsky's Information Rejection Development of Research 4.5.1 4.5.2
Chapter 5
Limitation of Theoretical Typologies Proposed Direction of Further Research
143 145
151 157 158
Individual Architects' Strategies and Self-Informing their Supporting Information Scenarios
5.0
Resume
5.1
A Fourfold Categorisationof Architects'
160
Individual Self-Informing Strategies 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3
5.1.4 5.1.5
5.2
Introduction Analysis of Architects' Individual Positions Strategy Self-Informing Typology the on Subjects' Positions in the Self-Informing Strategy Typology Compared to their Positions in the Kolb Typology Conclusions Further Development of Research
Thematic Interviews with Architects 5.2.1 5.2.2
Aim The General Approach
161 162
166 172 172
174 175 xi
5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5
5.3
5.4
Strategic Interpretation of Responses
182
5.2.6
Discussion
215
5.2.7
ProposedDevelopment to Support the Fourfold of Self-Informing Strategies
220
Designer Supportive Information Scenarios 5.3.1 5.3.2
Making Information Appropriate A Fourfold of Information Tones and
222 223
5.3.3
Interactions Towards a Useful Implementation of
the Fourfold of Information Scenarios
228
A Fourfold of Energy ConsciousDesign Information Scenarios
5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6
A Relevant Topic Energy ConsciousScenario to Support the Dynamic Self-Informing Strategy Energy ConsciousScenario to Support the FocussedSelf-Informing Strategy Energy ConsciousScenarioto Support the Contemplative Self-Informing Strategy Energy ConsciousScenario to Support the Rigorous Self-Informing Strategy ProposedDevelopment to Validate Scenarios
Testing the Appropriateness the Supportive Information Scenarios
Resume
229 230 232 234 235 237
238
Summary
Chapter 6
6.0
181
to Themes
5.4.1 5.4.2
5.5
175
Thematic Interviewing Procedure Transformation of Accounts and ContentAnalysis
of
240 X11
6.1
The Need for Further Paper Based Empir ical Study 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4
6.2
Requirements A Suitable Questionnaire Appropriatenessof Questionnaire Presentationof QuestionnaireData
241 242 245 246
Empirical Study IV: Architects' LSI Profile Compared to Ranking of Energy Conscious Design Scenarios 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.2.7 6.2.8
6.3
6.4
Aim Subjects Discussionof Subjects' Overall Reactions to the Questionnaire Procedure Scoring and Statistical Treatment Presentationof Results Discussion Conclusion
247 247 248 249 249 250 252 255
Empirical Analysis II: Test-Retest Scores LSI Architects' reliability of 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5
Aim Subjects Statistical Treatment Presentationof Results Discussion
257 257 257 258 258
6.3.6
Conclusion
259
Analysis of Responsesto Open Ended
Questionson Issuesof Communication 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5
Aim Subjects Treatment of Responses Discussion Conclusion
260 260 260 263 263
X111
Chapter 7
Research Summary
7.0
Resume
266
7.1
Summary of Research
267
7.2
Proposed Development
269
Chapter 8A
Prototype Design Information Transfer
System
8.0
Resume
8.1
Appropriateness of an Interactive Medium 8.1.1 8.1.2
8.2
Requirements The Medium of Interactive Videodisc
271
272 272
Prototype Design Information Transfer System 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3
Access and Introduction to the System: A Control Template and Card Game PossiblePathways Designers' Reactionsto the Prototype Design Information Transfer System
274 277 283
8.3
Future Research
289
8.4
Summary
290
Chapter 9
Conclusions
9.0
Resume
292
9.1
Overall Conclusions
293 xiv
List of Appendices Appendix I. 1
I
Published Paper
Note to Research Paper
Appendix
II
298
Validation Studies with the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and the Interpersonal Check List (ICL)
11.0
Resume
11.1
Validation of Kolb's Learning Style
315
Inve story (LSI) II. 1.1 Introduction 11.1.2 Face Validity of the LSI 11.1.3 Construct Validity of the LSI 11.1.4 Context when Undertaking the LSI 11.1.5 Test - Retest Reliability
11.2
316 316 317 319 324
Validation of Leary's Interpersonal Check List (ICL) 11.2.1 11.2.2 11.2.3 11.2.4
Appendix
III
Introduction Face Validity of ICL Construct Validity of ICL Test - RestestReliability
Questionnaires:
327 327 328 329
LSI and ICL
111.1 Learning Style Inventory
331
111.2 Interpersonal Check List
333
xv
Appendix
IV
Scoring and Subject Data for the LSI and ICL Instruments
IV. 0
Resume
IV. 1
Empirical Study I- Using Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI) IV. 1.1 IV. 1.2 IV. 1.3
IV. 2
Subjects' Raw Scores on the LSI Example of LSI Scoring Kolb's Norm for Adults
Subjects' Raw Scores on the ICL Example of ICL Scoring
350
Empirical Study III - Subjects' Raw Scores
on the LSI
IV. 5
346 348
Emprical Analysis I- Comparing the LSI
ICL Data and IV. 4
343 344 345
Empirical Study II - Using LaForge and Suczek's Interpersonal Check List (ICL) IV. 2.1 IV. 2.2
IV. 3
342
352
Individual Categorisation of Architects:
Subjects' Factor Scores
Appendix V
Fourfold
354
Typologies
V. 0
Resume
365
V. 1
Fourfold Typologies
366
Appendix
VI
VI. O Resume
Thematic
Interviews
370 xvi
VI. 1
Interviews with Dynamic Architects VI. 1.1 VI. 1.2 VI. 1.3
VI. 2
Interviews with Focussed Architects VI. 2.1 VI. 2.2 VI. 2.3
VI. 3
Interviewee D (Partner, 6 person practice) Interviewee E (Chartered Architect) Interviewee F(Partner, 2 person practice)
371 372 373
374 375 376
Interviews with Contemplative Architects VI. 3.1 VI. 3.2 VI. 3.3
VI. 4
Interviewee A (Partner, 5 person practice) Interviewee B (Senior Partner, 14 person practice) Interviewee C (Chartered Architect)
Interviewee G (Chartered Architect, 18 person practice) Interviewee H (Chartered Architect, County Council) Interviewee I (Partner, 6 person practice)
378 379 380
Interviews with Rigorous Architects VI. 4.1
VI. 4.2 VI. 4.3
Appendix
VII
Interviewee J (Senior Partner, 10 person
practice) Interviewee K (Chartered Architect, City Council) Interviewee L (Chartered Architect)
382 383 384
Questionnaire for Appropriateness of Supportive Scenarios Information
VII. 1 Supportive Information Scenario Questionnaire
387
xvii
Appendix
VIII
Subject Data for the Supportive Information Scenario Questionnaire 390
VIII. O Resume VIII. 1 Empirical Study IV - Using Kolb's LSI
VIII. 1.1 Subjects' Raw Scoreson the LSI and Rank Ordering of Energy ConsciousDesign Information Scenarios VIII. 1.2 Statistical Treatment and Output
391 393
VIII. 2 Empirical Analysis II - LSI Test - Retest
VIII. 2.1 Subjects' Pair Scoresfrom Empirical Study I and IV VIII. 2.2 Statistical Treatment and Output
Appendix IX
396 397
Collaborators
IX. O
Resume
399
IX. 1
Collaborators
400
IX. 2
Further Information
402
xviii
List of Figures 1.3.1
Design Development Spiral
1.3.2
Development of Design Definition Spiral
1.3.3
Various specific performancesof the dominant hemispheres and minor Tabular representationof the three worlds that comprise all existents and all experiences
1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6
Drawing Hands The Key to Cellular Organisation
3.2.1 3.2.2
Onion Theory of Learning Constructs Structural Dimensions Underlying the Process Learning Experiential of
9 10 18 22 24 25 47
3.2.3
Experiential Learning Model
3.2.4
Model of Learning and Cognitive Development
50 51 52
3.4.1
The Combined Learning Preference Profiles of the 45 Architects Studied
71
The Combined Learning Preference Profiles of the 40 Control Subjects Studied
71
3.4.2
Development Stagesin Interpersonal Orientations Interpersonal Circumplex Comparison of Kolb's Experiential Learning and Leary's Interpersonal Circumplex
79 85
3.6.1
Interpersonal Circumplex
94
3.7.1
Architects whose Preferencefor an Octant exceeded 83% of the Control Group Control Subjects whose Preferencefor an Octant Group 83% Their of exceeded
3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3
3.7.2
87
99 99
xviv
3.8.1
A Comparison of 45 Architects' Profiles in the
105
3.8.2
Learning and Interpersonal Interaction Typologies Conjectured Relationship for the Kolb and Leary Typologies
3.9.1
Factor Analysis of the Kolb and Leary Data
109
3.9.2
Profiles of 45 Architects upon the Integrated
Typology of Learning and Interpersonal Interaction 3.10.1 3.10.2 3.10.1
112
Profiles of all 105 Subjects, Architects, Design Scientistsand Humanities Specialists 117 Profiles of 38 Design Scientistsupon the Integrated Typology of Learning and Interpersonal Interaction 118 Profiles of 22 Humanities Specialistsupon the Integrated Typology of Learning and Interpersonal Interaction
4.2.1
106
119
4.2.2
Tabular representationof the three worlds that comprise 130 all existentsand all experiences Four World Hypotheses 133
4.5.1
Comparison of Fourfold Typologies
5.1.1
Positions of 45 Architects on the Self-Informing Strategy Typology The Position of 45 Architects in the Self-Informing Strategy with an Indication of each Subjects' LSI Assignment Those Subjects at Variance with the Prevalent Pattern Unique LSI Signaturesof those Exceptional Subjects
5.1.2
5.1.3 5.1.4
8.2.1
Control Template for the Interactive Design Information Transfer System
157
163
168 169 170
275
xx
Abstract This thesis explores the nature of architectural designers as users of information and the need for information to support their own personal self-informing strategies if such information is to be appropriate and useful to them. Firstly, a discussion of why architects often decline the opportunity to seek and accept socio-technical design information is presented. Limited time, limited resources and inappropriate formats of presentation do play a part. However, the literature survey presented here suggests these factors are contributory, but are not at the root of architects' disinclination to access information resources. Rather, following a detailed discussion on the individualistic nature of the design process it is suggested that socio-pyschological factors are more fundamental: in particular those factors relating to learning and interpersonal communications. However, the precise influence of such factors was not clear at the start of the doctoral programme. Therefore, a series of studies was mounted in order to understand their key role in the relationship between information and designers. This series of empirical studies, designed to assess the preferences architects have for both learning and interpersonal interaction, strongly indicates that architects cannot be seen as a group having the same perceptions of information as other groups, such as design scientists or humanities specialists; nor can they be seen as a group within which all individuals have one distinct perception. Rather, the present studies have shown that the majority of architects portray one of four possible self-informing strategies. These strategies appear extremely stable and deeply seated, relating strongly to the preferences designers show for learning and interpersonal interaction. Wide ranging theoretical by further them so that they can these that are adopted evidence strategies suggests maintain their viability as professional environmental decision makers.
In the theory building section of this thesis a context is given for a fourfold design information transfermodel to be developedby meansof a comparisonof related theories and hypothesesconcerning philosophy, cultural stance and information handling. The strength of the correlation between the different models clearly lends validity to the here. Thematic information fourfold the strategies presented of particular nature interviews undertakenwith a representativerangeof practising architects,enableda fuller testing, enrichment and focusing of the model so that it could be made useful to developersof architecturaldesignguidance/communication. The thesis finishes by suggesting that the distinctive nature of each self-informing strategy necessitatesthe delivery of information for a given topic in a corresponding fourfold variety. In order to be appropriate and useful to designers, supportive information should be provided in a way which matcheseach self-informing strategy. In recognition of the above theoretical and empirical conclusions, a prototype design information transfer system was created on the topic of energy conscious design. Developed using advanced interactive videodisc technology, this prototype system presentsinformation in the four distinct ways shown to be supportive of designers' four self-informing strategies.Early testing of this prototype indicates it to be a powerful tool for more appropriate design information transfer. It also further supports, in a practice-basedrather than psychological-testenvironment, the fourfold cultural model of design information and technology transfer.
First, draw a distinction. The Laws of Form, Spencer-Brown, 1972
Information
Chapter 1 Transfer and the Design Process
PAGE' NUMBERING
AS. ORIGINAL
1.0
Resume This initial chapter presents a context to give meaning to the objectives of my thesis. In particular I discuss here the predominant means of information transfer to designers, and inappropriate. be Then, in the light of why such ways may current understandings of the architectural design process I propose a definition of design which I believe is appropriate for designers as users of information. The exploration which gives rise to this definition draws on ideas from neurology and biological autonomy and I also infer the importance of considering designers' self-conscious minds as an integral part of the design process. The implications of these discussions for designers as users of information are defined towards the end of the chapter.
3
1.1
Personal Interest My personal interest for undertaking this thesis was to seek a means to enable an improved three way reciprocity in communication between designers, design researchers (like myself) and those with expert knowledge of value to the design community. The following extract from the introduction to a paper by myself and my colleagues, written at the start of my research (Newland, Powell and Creed, 1987, see Appendix I), summarises the essential reason for the thesis and highlights the dilemma: that, if the barriers which arrest designers from being able to perceive information remain ill-defined (and so strengthened by virtue of this vagueness), then the available information lies forever latent. Undeniably
there
is
of now a wealth information emanating from many sources be useful to designers. could which Unfortunately, this well-established scientific, technical and social knowledge about the built is in the main unexploited by and does not, therefore, become
environment architects
manifest in much architectural design. This situation is not new and was recognised some time ago by Powell (1968) who concluded that if no matter how good or appropriate, designers do not choose to access information, cannot access it, cannot understand it or cannot apply it readily, then it is of no value to them.
I make an attempt here to explore the nature of these barriers to communication and indicate ways to initiate their dissolution. This thesis, therefore, seeks the patterns which connect (Bateson, 1980) the different parties together and the reasons for failures in communication where they do not connect.
4
1.2
Existing Designers
Information
Transfer
to
1.2.1 Introduction is accepted by a designer, patterns of This information in the connect. understanding embedded brings the information under the control of the designer. Therefore, the major task of an information disseminator is to is in information is information sought, such ensure that when I designer. is form to that any would readily acceptable a contend that at present those who perceive themselves as disseminators of information to designers feel that this acceptability mainly relates to the attractive presentation of information. However, in the following review of research I is that not sufficient to attractive presentation alone suggest interest. designers' gain Once information
1.2.2 Attractive Information? twenty years ago the apparent lack of impact of technical literature upon architectural designers' decision National Standards Bureau both the of making motivated USA and the Building Research (NBS), Washington, Establishment (BRE), UK, to commission major studies to (1971) Goodey Matthew the and reported to reasons. assess the BRE that their findings suggested presentational style was a key factor for encouraging the transfer process of available literature. Their concluding recommendations emphasized the importance for brevity, the clarity and of visual requirement Almost
illustration and vocabulary of an architectural nature.
Burnett (1979a,b) for the NBS, endorsed these findings with respect to American designers and suggested that when the format had been decided, the information should appear consistently within that format: Once familiarity with a format is attached, the 5
architect will avoid using a formal index relying instead on memory, browsing and place recognition to locate information. Knowledge of the formats themselves also serve as a memorised guide to content and thus to the relevance of the resources for the problem at hand, while facilitating quick access in this way consistent formats also promote a consistency in the quality and scope of information on the items described.
Despite the enormous effort to reformat information to be consistent with the detailed recommendations of the above least BRE for those the many, not at researchers, responsible intrigued find improved to that making relevant changes, were did improve to technology seem markedly not presentation transfer. Attractive and more relevant presentation alone does not seem to gain the confidence, acceptance or interest of the design profession to an extent where they actually use information any more readily. In 1982 MacKinder and Marvin made a follow-up study for the BRE in order to give them a rigorous understanding of the failure. Their findings reasons for this communication importance the of their previous presentational confirmed recommendations, but went on to highlight the unwillingness of architects even to consult technical information, whether in exemplary formats or otherwise. There is no doubt better in did help designers information presentation memorising it and effectively. However, I believe that efficiently exploiting in the first instance designers must be prepared to expose themselves to, and have accepted such information, if they are to make it part of their designing.
In one sense this appears trivial but, unfortunately, creating exemplary formats does not appear to serve as a means to initial attract attention to information. Formats may appeal, they may even be beautiful, but if designers have a 6
predisposition to ignore information there is clearly no way the format of information presentation by itself will overcome these prejudices. This view has led me to contend that instead of research attention being placed solely on information be should given to presentation, greater consideration designers the use to self-informing strategies understanding facilitate their own design process. With such knowledge, information proffered to designers could then be appropriately designers' to match actual self-informing strategies portrayed in the hope that they would then choose to perceive the information as being relevant and useful.
The question raised in my own mind when I started the present research was whether common self-informing strategies in be did, if they they elicited could whether existed at all and, design form those to who others and especially useful a information systems for designers? This question led to the in As thesis. this a prerequisite of empirical studies reported it based, they to soundly were was ensure such studies, designers definition to of as establish a working necessary information. of users
7
1.3
Defining
Design
1.3.1 Introduction This section is firstly a review of recent conceptions of the design process and secondly a speculation on the relevance of the self-conscious mind of the designer in the accomplishment information My designing, aim sources. of using external here is to tailor a definition of design that is appropriate and definition for the which clarifies the present context -a useful information. both designers by and role played
1.3.2 A Design Metaphor The current English definition of design as a verb, is to formed in the mind as a noun, a scheme contrive; generate 1987). My (Kirkpatrick, a deeper own attempt to definition of design was made with acknowledgement of this it However, definition. was soon clear that the common usage development of a richer definition for such a changing and dynamic activity as design was not the usual job of the lexicographer and should have been more likened to the act of design itself. Therefore, the following text presents a recent is designing which an appropriate of conceptualisation designerly metaphor for the development of my own defining While in the self-referencing of this this section. procedures fatuous, it is first appear one of my may at argument intentions in this section to show that self-reference is a indeed for, factor the that and allows, makes stabilising design. possibility of
In his book entitled Enquiry by Design, Zeisel (1981) identifies five design characteristics which interact together to design development create a spiral (refer figure 1.3.1). Three elementary activities combine to create a cycle of imaging (envisaging something beyond the initial information), presenting (visualising ideas so they become understandableto the designer and others) and testing (stepping back with a 8
critical eye to assess the product). This cycle is supported by Information which acts as a catalyst two types of information. for imaging, and information which is aa body of knowledge for testing. Both types of information can create conceptual designer's ideas lead to new cycles the and which modify shifts of imaging, presenting and testing. Vision of Process and Product Conceptual Shifts
Decision to Build
Initial Image Formation
Domain
lil
of
ý°y
Consecutive Image Present Test Cycles
Acceptable Responses
Figure 1.3.1 Design Development Spiral, after Zeisel (1981) The aim of the designer is to move a design towards an in designer With this the aim mind acceptable response. gradually hones these cycles so they spiral towards, and The domain of acceptable responses. eventually enter, a diagram in figure 1.3.1 illustrates this domain of acceptable designer's the the tube path of around which responses as a domain they this enter and a cycles spiral ever closer until decision to build is taken. The design development spiral is the outcome of this conceptualisation of design and Zeisel sees this spiral as: the following characteristics of reflecting ... design: (1) designers seem to backtrack at certain times to move away from, rather than toward,
resolution; activities
goal of increasing problem (2) designers repeat a series of
the
again
and again,
resolving
new 9
problems with each repetition; and (3) these apparently multidirectional movements together result in one movement directed toward a single action. Zeisel's
design
development
spiral
provided an extremely useful metaphor in helping me set a theoretical framework on for to this section of the construct a relevant argument which thesis.
In particular the section begins with a review of various descriptions of design, (refer figure 1.3.2), and these reviews body for initial imaging the and as a of act as catalyst knowledge for testing. In other words, a range of design design descriptions the process acted sometimes of researchers' as an impetus and sometimes as a yardstick against which a deeper understanding of designing, using information, might fully design, later, reported of also final knowledge body my which working of stand as a definition should respect, if it is to be itself an acceptable
develop. These definitions
response. Movement towards conscious appreciation of design Neurology
Biology %
Decision W Concretise Definition
of Design
ý..:.. Initial exploration of design descriptions Domain of Appropriate Definitions
Consecutive Image-Present-Test Cycles
Figure 1.3.2 Development of Design Definition
Spiral
As I honed my definition of design, conceptual shifts took place along, the conceptualised spiral path. Conceptual shifts are equated here with the introduction of new perspectives 10
through reference to research undertaken in the fields of neurology and biological autonomy. Although broadening the scope of my work beyond conventional design theory development, these influxes of information from other cognate highlighted areas, consistent features which are present when all design occurs. In this respect they allowed me to focus towards a particular and useful working definition of design. Finally these consistent features of boundary, difference and self-consciousness also provided the basis for a definition of design appropriate to the context of designers use, or failure to information. use,
1.3.3 Describing Design (a designerly perspective from a neuro-biological context) The studies of the principles, practices and procedures of design have been thoroughly documented by Cross (1984) (see also Jones, 1970; Broadbent, 1973; Wang, 1982; McCartney, 1985; Powell, 1987); it is not my intention here to repeat those descriptions design be Instead, of particular will reviews. drawn upon to highlight some of the consistent features of design which have arisen in over twenty-five years of concerted study. Therefore, the only studies reported here are those that I perceived to be salient to the particular standpoint in designers design the thesis their this context of of and interaction with information. I begin by citing a seminal work in design method, that of Systematic Design, described by Jones in the early 60's. In 1963 Jones proposed a procedure, in the form of a design method, that attempted to resolve the conflict between logic and imagination. He felt the failure of earlier design methods lay in their inability to cope with this duality of interests: Existing methods depend largely on keeping logic and imagination, problem and solution, apart only by an effort of will, and their failures can largely be ascribed to the difficulty of 11
keeping
both
going of these processes in the mind of one person. separately Systematic Design is primarily a means of keeping logic and imagination separate by external rather than internal method is:
means.
The
(1). To leave the mind free to produce ideas, time hunches, at any guesswork, solutions, limitations by inhibited being practical without and
without
confusing
the
processes
of
analysis. (2). To provide a system of notation which information design item of records every design keeps the memory, outside completely and solutions requirements separate from each other, and provides a to solutions relating of means systematic least the possible with requirements the This that mind while means compromise. to from analysis problem moves it feels the need, whenever solution-seeking the recording develops in three distinct stages:
of all design to these the a of reduction and requirements logically related performance of set complete specifications. Synthesis: Finding possible solutions for 2. each individual performance specification and building up complete designs from these with 1.
Analysis:
Listing
least possible compromise. Evaluation: Evaluating the accuracy with 3. which alternative designs fulfil performance requirements for operation, manufacture and sales before the final design is selected.
In Jones' exemplification of his suggesteddesign method great 12
emphasis was placed on the importance of completely separating possible solutions from design requirements. Furthermore, he postulated that the process of creating solutions was intuitive and the assessment of design requirements logical, with both remaining quite separate processes. However, neurological research findings by Bogen (1969a, b) and Sperry (1984) suggest the mind has a natural capacity to handle both intuitive and logical processes. There is an analytical, abstracting capacity which perceives and orders information and a metaphoric, synthetic capacity which perceives and elicits workable patterns. For convenience these functional capacities can be respectively sited in the left and brain. With due the consideration to these right sides of Cross, Cross Glynn (1986) and conclude: neurological studies Broadly, and very generally, what has been confirmed in the neurosciences is that the human brain has dual, or complementary functional capacities.
Awareness of the differing functional capacities of the left and brain led human McCartney (1985) the to sides of right describe a method of design which relied upon interaction between the various functions of these two brain hemispheres. Looked at in architectural design terms, requirements, the constraints of the building site and the desires of the client, would be held in the logic orientated and symbolically active left hemisphere. Such requirements would thus be filtered through the designer's present knowledge of procedures (usually actions that are known to be possible from previous in experience use), to give a manageable collection of design objectives. Meanwhile the designer's right hemisphere could make available associative memories of spatial and visual exemplars, which are also mediated by known procedures. In the normal state, these differing functional capacities of the left and right hemispheres of the brain function together as a very closely integrated whole (Sperry, 1974) by means of the 13
bundle of interhemispheric connecting nerve fibres called the corpus callosum. While there is an inbuilt antagonism between analysis and intuition requiring subtle mediation to attain common ground, this interaction to attain a dynamic is thought to be the fundamental source of much equilibrium Lack of data on creativity (Bogen and Bogen, 1969). designers, or others, makes it difficult to assess precisely the lack of creativity resulting when the corpus callosum is is for (the term this operation severed medical is usually undertaken to arrest the commissurotomy, and by However, studies severe epileptic attacks). of occurrence Bogen et al (1972) tentatively suggest that creative impairment does occur in all individuals who otherwise have normal brain function when their brain hemispheres are separated in this way. This need to integrate both intuitive and logical brain is by to suggested observations of enable creativity capacities designers in action. Studies by Schön (1983) of practising based) affect designers reveal that solutions (intuitively in based) (logically and vice versa a continual requirements In Schön's view a feedback / feedforward conversation. designer: in his the accordance situation, with shapes ... initial appreciation of it, the situation talks back, and he responds to the situation's back-talk. In a good process of design, this conversation with the situation is reflective. In answer to the back-talk designer the situation's reflects-in-action on the construction of the problem, the strategies of action, or the model of the phenomena, which have been implicit in his moves.
By using the notion of conversation, Schön gives appropriate emphasis to the fact that initial solutions certainly rely on 14
design requirements, but that these solutions can also reframe and indeed suggest other design requirements. In this sense design requirements and solution proposals are an integrated duality whose mutual interaction is the design process. As Lera (1983) reports: although given a set of constraints or ... the designers nevertheless requirements, identified new constraints as the design proceeded.
The production of a solution and the way designers present solutions to themselves can generatenew requirements. Lera takes the design of a bathroom to illustrate this mutual interaction of requirementsand initial solutions: for example, only when a section is drawn ... through a bathroom does a child's ability to reach the taps become an issue.
This anecdotegives illustration to the theoretical standpoint of Rittel and Webber (1973), who believe architectural design deals with wicked problems. Such tricky and aggressive have a unique and rather paradoxical feature - the problems information needed to understand them depends on the designer's ideas for solving them. Rittel and Webber restate it thus: That is to say: in order to describe a wicked problem in sufficient detail, one has to develop an exhaustive inventory of all conceivable solutions ahead of time. The reason is that every question asking for additional information depends upon the understanding of the problem - and its resolution - at that time. Problem understanding and problem resolution are concomitant to each other.
15
Because the process of solving the problem ... is identical with the process of understanding its nature ...
In short the real problem is to know what the real problem is ? To conclude this section I shall describe how thus far I have arrived at, or designed, my definition of design. From the outset there has been a translation of experience -I gathered information from other authors who have assessed their own its design their thoughts on nature. This and experience of information equates with what has been termed, so far, as information has However, such constraints or requirements. it If had the requirements. a not necessarily presented all irreversibly directly from have followed and solution would Such a sequence of events, where the the requirements. inevitably from to a problem arises automatically and solution the interaction of the data, as Archer (1965) clearly states, design. Indeed, be observation would considered cannot in is design the this case architectural clearly not suggest (Wang, 1982; MacKinder and Marvin, 1982; Eckersley, 1988), where initial solutions redefine requirements and there is no simple linear sequence of analysis, synthesis and feedback loops far There many are which give evaluation. design to the real situation. In greater choice and complexity feedback, I contend that a this to take of account order definition of design should go further and explain how initial solutions change requirements.
The importance of the initial requirements lies in their ability to draw an initial distinction. Each requirement provides a filter which informs by distinguishing what should, and what should not, be considered as relevant. In this way a set of requirements becomes a mesh of filters sifting and separating the relevant from the irrelevant - creating a notional boundary is irrelevant is with what relevant on one side and what on the other side. If this notional boundary is taken as a representation of any set of requirements then this becomes a 16
useful metaphor to reveal how a solution itself alters those requirements. The initial solution can be viewed as growing within the boundary and so changing the nature of that boundary. The effect of an initial solution is to cause the boundary to draw distinctions in a manner slightly different from the way in which the initial requirements had intended. In a sense the boundary gains a will of its own and can it filters that the things mesh of restructure which create irrelevant become and vice versa. were relevant With reference to Lera's example, the designer in presenting a in initial for bathroom the cross section caused a solution boundary to become permeable to the relevance of a child's definition bathroom. In this the the chapter's case of of use of design, an initial solution suggesting that the interplay of intuition and logic was important but consisting of quite separate processes, was extended and altered after explorations in the field of human brain neuro-physiology. Findings from this literature survey changed the permeability of the initial boundary formed around the problem of designers' mental in beginning boundary drew Further, the this a processes. distinction between definitions of design and anything else. Now the initial solution has altered this boundary so that definitions of design which ignore the mutual interaction of intuition and logic have been placed in the irrelevant category. Such a change in emphasis has enabled me to refocus onto the brain's dual human left the and of complementary relevance hemispheric capabilities. and right
For the present, I therefore suggesta working definition of the design process as the negotiation between requirements (logic) and initial solutions (intuition) towards the formation of a boundary which unfolds novel distinctions. As my involvement the understanding of of the human brain appeared fundamental to the design process, I decided to make a more detailed survey of its functional capacities and attributes in the following section. I give particular attention to the brain's ability to give rise to a self-conscious mind: for in many 17
aspectsthe design process reflects this human ability to be the product that observes and changes itself in the process of its creation.
1.3.4 Design and the Self-Conscious Mind In their collaborative book The Self and its Brain, Eccles and Popper (1977) summarise the distinct and consistent specialisations within each hemisphere of the human brain (refer figure 1.3.3): In general the dominant hemisphere (left) is specialised in respect to fine imaginative details in all descriptions and reactions, i. e., it is analytic and sequential - properties that seem essential for verbal feature extraction and for arithmetic...
Dominant Hemisphere (Left)
Minor Hemisphere (Right)
Liaison to consciousness
No such Liaison
Verbal
Almost non-verbal
Linguistic description
Musical
Ideational Conceptualsimilarities
Pictoral and Pattern sense) Visual similarities
Analysis over time
Synthesisover time
Analysis of detail
Holistic - Images
Arithmetical and computer-like
Geometrical and Spatial
Figure.1.3.3 Various specific performances of the dominant and minor hemispheres, after Popper and Eccles (1977) 18
But of course its dominance derives from its ... verbal and ideational abilities and its liaison to Because self-consciousness. of its deficiencies
in these respects the minor hemisphere (right) deserves its title, but in many important properties it is pre-eminent,
particularly in respect of its spatial abilities with a strongly developed pictorial and pattern sense. For example, after commissurotomy the minor hemisphere programming the left hand is greatly superior in all kinds of geometrical and perspective drawings. This superiority is also evidenced by the ability to assemble coloured blocks so as to match a mosaic picture. The dominant hemisphere is unable to carry out even simple tasks of this kind and is almost illiterate in respect to pictorial and sense, at least as revealed by its It is an arithmetical copying disability. hemisphere, but not a geometrical hemisphere. pattern
how sharply It is quite surprising distinctions can be made.
these
This statement makes clear the specific performances of each hemisphere, but claims an extremely important role for the left hemisphere. The suggestion that the left hemisphere alone harbours a self-conscious mind places this hemisphere in a is Indeed, dominance. there substantial anatomical position of left hemisphere that to the areas suggest particular of evidence far larger birth than comparable areas in the right are at hemisphere. Corballis and Beale (1983) explain thus: The argument that left-cerebral dominance is biologically preprogrammed is rather more direct. The strongest line of evidence has to do with an anatomical asymmetry of the human brain that appears to be related to the representation of language and that can be 19
detected
before
even
birth.
objective ... measurements have revealed that some of these anatomical asymmetries are larger than hitherto suspected, and that they correspond at least roughly to areas known to mediate language.
By maturity the right hemisphere of the brain can have for acquired skills that rival this initial predisposition superiority of verbal language skills in the left hemisphere. Studies by LeDoux et al (1977) of the actions of split-brain patients (those that have undergone commissurotomy) demonstrated that the right hand (i. e. left hemisphere brain the split controlled) of patient was severely curtailed in its ability to arrange blocks in patterns or draw three dimensional cubes. However, the priority to attain verbal language skills is demonstrated in cases where only one hemisphere is present. Corballis and Beale (1983) continue: Although early removal of the left hemisphere results in reallocation of verbal process in the right hemisphere, incapacitation of the right hemisphere does not bring about reallocation in the left skills of right-hemispheric hemisphere. abilities mediation
Rather,
depend
the subjects' spatial on a left-hemispheric
of
processes which are characteristic of right hemisphere functions in That is, the subjects the human brain. apparently use inappropriate verbal strategies to solve spatial problems.
This suggests that it is the specialised left-hemispheric functions that have the priority, and can switch to the right hemisphere if the left is damaged.
According to Eccles (1977), one-of the fundamental issues for 20
individual is to discover the self by discovering what the any is self not, and language provides the capability to draw this distinction. Without such a distinction a self-conscious mind cannot arise. This is because a self-conscious mind actively recognises the difference which a distinction -a boundary is no less an Recognition creates. of difference Bateson designing However, than accomplishment as yourself. (1980) explains, difference is only an idea: Difference, being of the nature of relationship, is not located in time or in space. We say that the white spot is there, in the middle of the blackboard,
but the difference
between the
spot and the blackboard is not there. It is not in the spot; it is not in the blackboard; it is not in the space between the board and the chalk. I could perhaps lift the chalk off the board and send it to Australia, but the difference would not be destroyed or even shifted because difference does not have location.
When I wipe the blackboard where does the difference go? In one sense, the difference is randomised and irreversibly gone, as I shall be gone when I die. In another sense, the difference will endure as an idea the and ... idea has no location in space or time - only perhaps in an idea of space or time.
For ideas, i. e. differences, to exist and remain stable they have to be memorised and this requires as a prerequisite a language for their representation. To give their understanding richer (1977) Eccles Popper meaning and concluded from their human develop that studies minds a context for experiential thinking, in the form of a three world scenario, which permits them to make senseof the world in order to be able to exist in it and manipulate it better. These three worlds represent all existents and all experiences (refer figure 1.3.4) and give a 21
forum in which difference can be created. The states of consciousness within World 2 act as boundaries which distinguish between order and chaos. Order in this is ideas (seen be differences the to context or information) World 1. from be the to of sensed or chosen perceived chaos These differences are then abstracted and recorded in order to create World 3. Prior to structuring by World 2 of human minds, World 1 is chaos and moreover unknowable. I see it (World 3) when I conceive it (World 2), a perception made 1. by distinction imposed World When the on only possible it is imposed World 2 any situation, on and while viewpoint of 1. kind be World The of order can coded onto remains, some 3 1 is 3. World World World of uses parts as a storage result for order and is wholly dependent on World 1 and World 2. World 1 Physical Objectsand States 1). INORGANIC Matter and energyof cosmos 2). BIOLOGY Structureand actions of all living beings brains human 3). ARTEFACTS Material substrates human creativity of tools of -
- of machines books of -
World 2
9 Statesof
Conciousness
Subjective Knowledge Experienceof - perception - thinking - emotions
dispositional intentions - memories
dreams - creative
World 3 Knowledge in Objective Sense Cultural Heritage codedon material substrates - philosophical -
theological scientific historical literary artistic
technological -
Theoretical Systems - scientific problems - critical arguments
- of works of art - of music
Figure1.3.4 Tabular representation of the three worlds that comprise all existents and all experiences as defined by Popper, after Eccles (1977) When World 2 is in communication with this storage of order it can be treated as a collection of known differences (memories). The self-conscious mind embedded in World 2 22
has the ability to manipulate, create and repattern these differences. In this sense the self-conscious mind is actively engaged in modifying the brain and the conscious experience of World 1. Eccles (1977) in conversation with Popper clarifies this point: have come just now to recognise that, in we ... the creative imagination, the self-conscious mind is actively engaged in the World 2in bringing about new, completely new, concepts or ideas or problems or proofs or theories. The creative imagination is being driven by the self-conscious mind into World 3 interchange
flights of imagination which of course are the greatest achievements of humanity. We can look back in the past and think of the great flights of imagination in all the creativeness of art and science and literature and philosophy and ethics, etc. that have made humanity what Now this it is and given us our civilisation. again we are crediting to the Of mind in the first place. self-conscious course eventually it is played down through the brain and encoded there, and also it is achievement
expressed as World 3 objects; nevertheless it is in the first place the activity of the self-conscious
mind.
The self-conscious mind would appear to be a prerequisite for design, but what is the self-conscious mind? From where did this autonomy arise? In order to answer these questions I now investigate the view of autonomy in biological terms.
1.3.5 Designer Autonomy - Paradox and Creative Circles The useful exploration of autonomy in designers' minds requires us to make a conceptual shift at this juncture. In 23
the biologist Varela, and his work on creative better in a gave me context circles, which to understand the development In 1984 Varela of human mental autonomy. found himself posing to himself, in the field biology, a question similar in nature to that above, namely how could an particular
him To to give a context enabling arise? autonomous cell perceive an answer to this question Varela defined two types logical the the paradox and pictorial of creative circle, impossibility. The first is best portrayed by the pictorial Drawing Hands, (1948), by Escher entitled representation is figure The in 1.3.5. the circular statement or second shown Cretans Cretan Epimenides by that the all are argument made liars. Both these examples present paradoxical loops with the intercrosses both from that a self-referencing paradox arising level. the same one and Products and operations at
Figure 1.3.5 Drawing
Hands, Escher (1948)
24
In the case of Drawing Hands, the product, the hands, are drawing hands. In his the the the of operation, undertaking circular statement, Epimenides being a Cretan is a product who denies and affirms his own operation. Are these paradoxes nonsense or can their peculiar nature produce interesting? is Looking the at a cell same paradox anything A present. cell produces molecules which act as a membrane which permits the operation of the cell in order that it can produce molecules which acts as a ... etc., (refer figure 1.3.6).
membrane
boundaries 00- which permit
the production of molecules constituting the
cell dynamic
Fig. 1.3.6 The Key to Cellular Organisation, closure of operations whereby products are in the same level as operations, Varela (1984)
The cell specifies the environment and the environment specifies the cell. To the observer the outcome of this paradox is life. Varela (1984) discussesit thus: It is through this kind of articulation, in the molecular domain, that life specifies itself and acquires its autonomous quality. A cell stands out of a molecular soup by defining and specifying boundaries that set it apart from what it is not. However, this specification of boundaries is done through molecular through the productions made possible boundaries themselves. There is therefore, a mutual specification of chemical transformation and physical boundaries; the cell draws itself out of a homogeneous background.
...
within
this
organisation,
the
usual 25
distinctions between producer and product, beginning and end, or input and output cease making sense... In all such cases, the basic phenomenon is closure of always the same: operational elements in separate levels inter-crossed to constitute a unity. When such level crossings and tangledness are interrupted, the unity Autonomy arises at this point of vanishes. intercrossing. The origin of life is no meagre example of this general law.
More significantly the self-conscious mind is the domain law. In this the caseof the of general which enablesawareness is by the operational closure self created a self-conscious mind idea boundary the of of and cognitive generalisation difference. A boundary specifies a difference -a difference specifies a boundary. The self-conscious mind would appear to be the boundary that has recognised the difference it has created. From this starting point, we thus assert the primacy of the role of the observer who draws distinctions wherever he pleases. Thus the distinctions made which engender our world reveal precisely that: the distinctions we make and these distinctions pertain more to a revelation of where the observer stands than to an intrinsic constitution of the world which appears, by this very mechanism of separation between observer and observed, always elusive. In finding the world as we do, we forget all we did to find it as such, and when we are reminded of it in retracing our steps back to the act of distinction, we find little more than a mirror-to-mirror image of ourselves and the world. In contrast with what is commonly 26
a description, when carefully reveals the properties of the observer. We, observers, distinguish ourselves precisely by distinguishing what we apparently
assumed, inspected,
are not, the world.
Varela, 1975 From Varela's perspective the self-conscious mind can be viewed as a self-sustaining design process -a continuously redefined solution which constantly changes the nature of the boundary it conceives and, therefore, the continuous stream of differences it perceives. The novelty and appropriateness of the interface of boundary / difference, relies on the openness of the self-conscious mind to the experience of World 1 and World 3. In short, experience is dependent on the state of consciousness which the framing of World 2 provides. Seen in this light the role of complementary brain functions is to expand both the perception and actualisation of experience. At present the dominant approach used to actualise experience is via a verbal language. This I suggest has mistakenly led to the self-conscious mind being attributed only to the left hemisphere of the brain. To be self-conscious there is a ideas, be for the to of requirement aware a stable prerequisite code based on memory and language, but that language does be have The Bogen to verbal. necessarily research not of (1969a, b) and Howell (1982) reveals that both brain hemispheres provide a repertoire of complementary functions, firing that the and collective neuronal across the whole brain is structure accessible to consciousness. In other words, the does, its have can, and right-brain own language of language This representation. can, and should, be allowed to in language to reveal the full operate conjunction with verbal potential of the designerly mind. As will be described in the following sections, the means of making this work in reality are not simple or easy, but are extremely necessary if designers are to achieve their fullest potential.
27
1.4
A Working Definition Present Context
Design of
for
the
The previous section's conceptual exploration into the fields of neurology and biological autonomy have affirmed in my mind that the nature of design resides at a nexus of logic and intuition, product and operation. Design as a product (noun) is a concretised boundary which unfolds particular distinctions and gives awareness to particular differences (information). Design as an operation (verb) is the active manipulation and formation of these boundaries attainable through the action of the self-conscious mind. The assertion I draw from these working definitions is that the structuring of designers' self-conscious minds will permit what information, from the information that abounds in their design The they environment, acknowledge. processes which reveal this structuring (what I shall later term a self-informing fundamental be individual's to an strategy) will, necessarily, inhabiting of the world. I suggest later that the processes that importance designers to with respect are their are of interaction learning both to and approaches with others. For the present I will bring this chapter to a close by focusing on the relationship of designers and information in the context of the above definition of design.
28
1.5
Designers and Information
1.5.1 The Relationship The relationship between architectural designers and information has recently been brought into focus by two questions posed by Cooper (1988): 1).
Is building design dependent activity?
2).
What
role
does
an
information
the
precision and of information play in
manipulation legitimising architects
as a separate
occupational group?
The simple answer to the first question is that quite clearly any design activity ought to be, and in at least one sense is, dependent. For, as indicated earlier, the key information is designers distinctions to their ability select of useful aptitude (information) in order to formulate a boundary appropriate for a required solution. In other words designers are able to boundary, by boundaries, constructing a a solution or unfold from distinctions which need to be accounted for in the designed solution. Even to conceive of solutions requires dependence on a selection of appropriate information from that held within the architect's culture heritage (World 3). Each designer requires some kind of self-informing strategy to in the world. operate viably
Interestingly architects, and designers in general, are have from discretion, to the to select, perceived ability with a (a information spectrum range of previously created particular distinctions) which is both broader and richer than those open to lay people (non-designers). Therefore, by implication of professional training and experience, designers ought to have developed a greater creative potential and worldly understanding: to the extent that they are able to devise more informed boundaries concerning any architectural problem. 29
Readily acknowledged by society in the past, this capability for undertaking a broader and richer view of recognised information, gives architects a status which goes some way in answering the second question posed by Cooper.
However, having attributed this status to architects, society increasingly feels that on too many occasionsthis status is abusedby the architecturalprofessions(PrinceCharles,1984). Why? Above I have placed two phrases in italics, a particular information spectrum and recognised information. It is my designers here that conjecture place particular constraints on themselves, and have constraints placed upon them by the limits This they their perception affiliate. groups with whom Each of what should be regarded as relevant information. designer should be capable of covering a broad spectrum of information, but, as suggested previously, it will be a spectrum is dependent on the self-conscious mind unique to each which designer - the particular self-informing strategy adopted by each designer.
Both the perceived spectrum of information, and the discretion in choosing from it, may appear wholly inappropriate in the different information eyes of others who recognise as being legitimate and/or give credence to different selection principles. My concern here is to understand why these constraints have developed and why information that others feel is relevant to design is ignored by designers. Indeed, I hope to begin to respond to the research needs noted by Lera, Cooper and Powell (1984) in their conclusion to an investigation on this designers information: subject of and If the transfer of information to architects is to be improved, it will be necessary to gain some understanding of how their existing means of 30
acquiring knowledge operate, what sort information they feel really is informative the sense of enabling them to give form to idea - and a deeper systemic understanding designer
audiences, their activities, problems, their attitudes, and their needs.
of in an
of their
These summary requirements are in accord with Ritter (1981), induce designers information, it that to to who proposes select be their must reflect personal perceptions and relevant to them. It is my conjecture that these requirements imply that designers' preferences for the selection of information are predominately due to the context in which it is perceived. I define context here as the quality and texture of the events that surround and give an outline to anything that purports to be design information; in other words it is the light in which information is first seen, that enables the designer to recognise Unfortunately, for distinctions. designers the most particular design (so information fails illuminate in to called) majority of this sense. As Powell (1968) found out from his large scale survey of design guidance, notes and literature, most of it is just too diffuse to aid designers' recognition of necessary distinctions, or worse it often appears in opposition to their predisposed view of what constitutes relevant and useful information.
1.5.2 The Knowledge Gap So what is the nature of the contexts designersneed to perceive before they are predisposedtowards information selection, and are these contexts so entirely individual to each designer that catering for this design information tailoring would necessitate unbounded resources? It is my contention that what is selected to be information by designers, actually reinforces and creates their perception of the world. It follows from this that in order to develop appropriate contexts for information transfer, it is important 31
to understand designers' existing world views and, in interpret information to their they the already use particular, be in My to therefore this thesis primarily aim will world. gain an insight into such designerly interpretations and world help descriptors in define doing, that could any so views and, improve the potential for architectural design information and technology transfer.
32
1.6
Summary The theoretical exploration reported in this chapter has focused on giving a definition of design that allows insight into the role of designers' use of information in the act of designing. I contend that designers' choice of information, is a choice of differences that they perceive as appropriate and drawing ideas In to the useful consider. presented in this chapter together I would suggest design resides in the capacity to exercise discretion (Levin, 1966). The designer's task is to discretion differences be the to and choose create with The perceived - what is relevant and what is irrelevant. boundary which supports the appreciation of these differences is the designer's product. The appropriateness of this product, whether building, artifact, etc., lies with the product's ability to provide a concretised boundary in which (an appropriate (an from appropriate metaphor) which environment) or further design can arise. On a fundamental level I contend the creations of designers 1. boundaries World These the chaos of a of upon web project localised pockets of order in the chaotic whole allow further if but to take the boundaries set-up only place, creative acts are sufficiently ingenious to still allow views of the chaotic further design. Otherwise In they restrict arguing that whole. designers are both product and producer of their self-conscious minds, they can themselves cause their own The boundaries self-conscious mind to be too restrictive. designers construct to understand their experience can all too strategies which ignore the easily become self-informing relevance of those boundaries formed by others, and the information that those other boundaries entail.
At present I would conjecture the majority of both designers design information disseminators work within a variety of and appropriate and useful boundaries, but that many of these are different too either or too restrictive for overlap to occur. The aim of the following chapters is to understand the variety 33
(architectural designers) have designed for themselves (their in World 2 order to structure of self-consciousness), preferred in 1, World their action and structure what each views enable 3. information World coded as as appropriate and useful Knowing the variety of architectural designers' self-informing for is first I the to step provide guidance suggest a strategies information design transfer system. creation of an appropriate
34
The Environment as We Perceive It is Our Invention. burden is now upon me to support this outrageous claim.
The
On Constructing a Reality, Heinz von Foerster, 1984
Chapter 2 Aim, Objectives and Outcomes
2.0
Resume The intention of this chapter is to put forward a clear statementof the aim, objectives and outcomesof this thesis.
36
2.1
Aim The
sole aim of this thesis is to understand, in as doctoral time and resources comprehensive a manner as permit, the range of viable self-informing strategies designers engage to facilitate their design process and to demonstrate a practical and useful application of this knowledge in the form of a working prototype.
37
2.2
Objectives
In order to meet the general aim specified in the previous section the in following the research undertaken chapters worked towards satisfying the following objectives: i).
To understand the nature of architects' self-informing strategies with particular reference to their preferences for learning and interpersonal interaction.
ii).
To determine whether any variety in the self-informing strategies exhibited by architects could be explained, clarified and made useful to disseminators of design
information. iii).
To implement such knowledge so that information on the topic of energy conscious design would be conveyed appropriately to architects.
38
2.3
Outcomes i).
A thesis of explanation.
ii).
An extension to the present knowledge in the realm of designers and their use of information.
iii).
An exemplary design information transfer system.
39
the inherent tragedy that these necessary representations of the known are necessarily misrepresentations: doing it, but it do one cannot well. one cannot survive without All the operations into which the knowing process can be analysed in form falsifications both the of over simplifications produce (ignoring most aspects of the known, over looking unique features of entities grouped together, reducing a complex entity to its aspects on a few dimensions, etc. ) and in the form of distortions (capriciously slicing up the seamless web of reality, locating axes of meaning arbitrarily in reality-space, distorting fit they that preexisting categories, unique experiences so ). Knowledge is that equal, etc. everything else assuming insofar inevitable the as over representations are adaptive distortions largely brilliantly the apt and simplifications are irrelevant for the task at hand. One can reasonably hope that
Knowing
involves
phylogenetically acquired genetic endowment and ontogenetically have human the shaped structures will acquired experiential knowledge that concrete of recurrent, so our cognitive system involve such adequate important situations will typically representations.
A Contextualist Theory of Knowledge, William McGuire, 1982
Chapter 3 Architects' Learning and Interpersonal Interaction Strategies
3.0
Resume In this chapter I investigate those actions designers adopt while trying to inform themselves about the world. In particular, I explore designers' learning and interpersonal interaction To this end, appropriate models of learning and strategies. interpersonal interaction are reviewed first. Then, I report a series of experiments in which suitable psychological instruments capable of defining learning strategies and interpersonal interaction were used to compare a population of designers with a control instruments These group. operationally reflect appropriate models of learning and interpersonal interaction. The robust psychological instruments chosen to explore the two above mentioned human characteristics showed extremely interesting trends in designers' learning strategies and interpersonal interaction. In particular, a correlational analysis of the data from the studies on architectural designers between their learning and confirmed a strong relationship their interpersonal interactions.
As a result of this correlation I am able to propose an integrated typology, enabling a better interpretation to be made of designers' self-informing actions. Finally, at the end of this chapter, I undertake further studies to determine the position on this integrated typology of specific groups who information interact designers transfer on an regularly with basis; namely, design scientists and humanities specialists. I show that, with respect to learning and interpersonal interaction, each of these groups exhibit particular and distinct strategies to manage the acquisition of information. These different from those exhibited underlying strategies are quite by the group of architects.
41
3.1
The Domains Investigated
of Designer
Action
to be
3.1.1 Introduction As previously stated, over the last decade concern has developed due to designers' inability or unwillingness to refer to important design information. Previous research suggested to me that the restricted self-informing strategies of designers in the generation of this concern. In played a major role by Cross Nathenson found I and a suggestion particular, (1981) helpful in enabling me to establish a description of for For designers' they suggested action. strategies possible that the way designers design is closely related to the way they learn. So perhaps learning, or rather individuals' different issue in key determining be learning, their a might styles of decided, I therefore, to make a major self-informing strategy. learning. designer investigation this of study an aspect of Furthermore, other reading (Leary, 1957) suggested that the basis individuals deal on a personal also other each with way information In influenced their strategies. addition, strongly therefore, I decided to extend my principle investigation in this part of the thesis to include a study of designers' interpersonal interaction, an equally important aspect of human informing strategies for acquiring information.
3.1.2 The Chosen Domains Interpersonal Interaction
-
Learning
and
Learning and interpersonal interaction are particular domains fundamental two that centre on aspects of researchexploration individual's involvement with the environment. of an Individuals who have become conscious of their distinctness in the environment also initiate and respond to directed changes in that environment. I believe these are interactive exchanges: which for individuals acting by themselves can be defined as learning, and with individuals acting socially can be defined 42
interpersonal interaction; as, learning. promote
the latter can itself clearly
My earlier conclusions of the theoretical explorations of design's general prevalence, predispositions, and the overall in design similarities regardless of domain (Thomas and Carroll, 1979), imply that both learning and interpersonal interaction can be seen as acts of design. This is because both behaviours enable the creation of boundaries from which distinctions may be unfolded. Such behaviour I believe is design in its fundamental sense. Further, I contend that the information be has been, to and continues acknowledged way in these actions, defines what information be will
in by designer's their continuing career. acknowledged In my view both domains relate to underlying socio-cultural contexts from which designers develop their behaviour, and literature My to they seek support. continue within which domain has that a well validated model search revealed each rigorous summary can be used to provide which Each domain. that model, and the related understandings of define its instrument to operationally used psychological important scales and characteristics, I describe in some detail in the sections which follow. Finally, I report empirical studies undertaken using each instrument on representative architects
and a control population.
43
3.2
Learning
Domain - Theory
3.2.1 Review of Studies on Learning To state that the learning process and the design process are synonymous is in accord with the views of Cross and Nathenson (1981), Pask and Scott (1972), Glanville (1980) and Powell (1988). For instance Cross and Nathenson reason from observational studies: The design
process is often likened to a learning process. This is because a designer is quite clearly learning about the design problem as he attempts to solve it. Much of his
activity is concerned with attempting to clarify the problem as given, with seeking information, and with attempts to come up with an acceptable answer. As he goes through the design process he is learning more and more its constraints, and its potential solutions. At the end of the process he usually regards himself as appreciably both older and wiser than when he began it. about the problem,
significance here, is Cross and Nathenson's conclusion that the experimental evidence indicates that designers exhibit preferences for learning on the basis of divergent / convergent, impulsive particular cognitive styles / reflective, field-dependent / field-independent, and serialistic / holistic. Cross and Nathenson emphasise that no-one is exclusively divergent or convergent, or exclusively any of the other polarities in these duals of cognition. However, they are clear that these duals represent the existence of preferential options for designers which allow only a limited number of for them to understand reality. possible ways Of further
In recent years the acknowledgement of these preferential options has produced a range of models of the designer. Most 44
for different learning that the typologies to account create aim individuals. design by At the are adopted approaches which importance I on choosing a start of my research set great known the that range of options. encompassed robust model To assist in this search the following criteria were used, namely that the model:
i).
be specific to learning and acknowledge the established variety of learning approaches; ii). have a sound and rigorous theoretical/ philosophically base; iii). be capable of being operationalised by a validated and instrument. instrument An which was clear, reliable be to parsimonious and shown viable across a range of " populations. A review by Curry (1983) of 21 models of learning style and strategies, each with its own instrument for eliciting acceptable. preferences, found ten to be psychometrically However, only three of these were in her opinion assessing learning in the strict sense of information processing style. One of these was Kolb's (1978) Learning Style Inventory (LSI), based on his Experiential Learning Theory which had been used with much effect by Talbot and Davis (1987) in their studies of Royal designers (the remaining two are discussed below with reasons for the eventual choice of Kolb). Furthermore, colleagues in our own Management Centre of Portsmouth Polytechnic had used Kolb's methodology for almost a decade, (Howard, 1984) for use on courses encouraging impatient British managers to be aware of the learning. Impatient British to architects approaches of variety in I common, as share much report managers may and such later by further comparisons between these groups (see 3.7.6).
Kolb's original LSI (which was produced in a North American investigated (Prigg 1980; been had al, et extensively context) Marshall and Merritt, 1985,1986) and validated in a British II). (refer Appendix (1985), Talbot by context 45
Curry's reviews, and the other supporting studies, led me to an extensive research of Kolb's work. My own literature review led Kolb's learning its to me choose eventually model, with instrument, learning preference as the primary related for learning in it this thesis tool since satisfied the assessment it Furthermore criteria. was also the one earlier mentioned for design A the context. appropriate model most for justification for this the choice and reasons comprehensive in is 3.3. detailed In instruments section rejecting other instrument Kolb's the that the of choice make summary, points it: design that to the are context present most pertinent i).
has validity with respect to a British audience,
ii). is short yet comprehensible while being easy to use and quick to complete; this acknowledges architects' (see instruments lengthy to note on page refusal complete 60), iii). has a superior face validity and test-retest reliability (Wunderlich and Gjierdl, 1978; Zakrajsek et al, 1984; Katz, 1986). Before discussing Kolb's theoretical model in greater depth it ideas his to ones more closely related to seemssensible relate to particular studies of designers and their learning behaviour. Interestingly, both Curry (1983) and Powell (1987) independently proffer an onion analogy to highlight how ingrained in designers become learning preferences particular it is difficult indicates to so elicit why also model which -a designers underpinning behaviour with simple paper and instruments. pencil According to Curry (1983) the nature of learning is an intention: both a process and a product. The process ... is adaptive, future focused, and holistic, affecting an individual's cognitive, affective, social, and moral volitional skills. The product 46
is
observable as a relatively permanent change in behaviour, or potential behaviour. The process is observable in the improved ability
of
the
environmental
individual
to
adapt
to
stimuli.
It appears from Curry's observations that designers who have decided upon a viable way of adapting to environmental stimuli are likely to show a similar preference in many other learning instances. In her onion theory of learning (see figure 3.2.1), Curry
implies
the guiding preference is a cognitive personality style which lies at the heart of the individual's interaction with information. This cognitive construct core, layer information directs the the out, strongly next processing is direct layer final, The a reaction to what a outer style. is least in learning and stable particular environment offers Investigating the outer layer of instructional terms. Curry in has been the of models many attempted preference her developing own. reviewed when Outer Layer: Instructional Preference (reacts directly with environment, hass stable)
(orientating. cnhanccd
loading,
srnsury assý,ri; itinn,,
short term mcnwry,
lung; ternI "lol: Ji
lLr L, 1)ý'r. (u ntltý'C t'Critýn; tltlý Jl (approach to adapting and assimilating information)
Figure 3.2.1
Onion Theory Curry
of Learning (1983)
Constructs,
I lowever, she has shown the preferences elicited by individuals level this preference outer at can be easily misinterpreted. For 47
while individuals may be identified as saying they prefer instruction, little how this these means of says about particular individuals are actually learning. Changing tack slightly to a cognate perceptual domain, I Curry by like layers the three the three are suggest -presented before (1962) Vygotsky states are necessary you can aspects individual's For full the speech. of an meaning grasp Vygotsky is of the opinion that: to understand another's speech, it is not ... his to words - we must understand sufficient understand his thought. But even that is not its know motivation. enough - we must also No psychological analysis of an utterance is is that reached. plane complete until
little by like instructional convey preference, themselves, for it is the thought, the information processing (corresponding deeper behind to them motivations and style Curry's schema) which allow the cognitive processing style of The fully be individual's to multiple, understood. actions an indication layering the of reaching why an gives onion-like Using difficult is task. a quite separate a core motivation (1987) Powell timely a reminder of provides analogy onion and the key issue relating architects and information, by barriers illustrates to the difficulty produced Words,
communication.
For as he says:
Rather like an onion, architects have protected themselves with a thin, horny outer layer of general design awareness - on any topic they have learned enough information to stop you wanting to go deeper - but if you persist and try to delve into their deeper thinking, just as with an onion, a defensive system comes into play to ward you off.
48
If there were particular learning preferences held by designers I needed to ensure that both the model of learning and its related instrument were capable of eliciting their real In short, after a detailed literature survey I preferences. considered Kolb's model of Experiential Learning, and its operationalising instrument the Learning Style Inventory (LSI), to be the most effective for the defined task of eliciting real preferences. I therefore chose to use the LSI as the primary assessment tool in the empirical studies described in detail in section 3.4.
3.2.2 Kolb's Model of Experiential Learning Kolb's
in learning its domain had first the of work major in in Goldman, 1973 Kolb reference conjunction with when, undertook a study of MIT Seniors to create a typology of learning styles. The two major publications that resulted from this study and subsequent investigations are; The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual (1978) and Experiential Learning (1984). In this section I will describe Kolb's model is latter by to the the fullest work, which mainly referring review detailing his theoretical standpoint.
It is Kolb's contention that learning is primarily experiential [following the ideas of Dewey (1934)] and centres on two is first The the concept of prehension, structural generators. how the individual gathers experience from the world. The secondthat of transformation, how the individual's ephemeral becomes frozen into representation of experience understanding. Both prehension and transformation are dimensions which extend to bipolar attributes. Further, Kolb be inclined individual that towards a will contends an in dimension (see figure 3.2.2). particular pole each Taking the argument a little further, prehension relies either on the tangible, felt qualities, which Kolb terms the of experience, or on the tendency towards apprehension comprehension, a conceptual, symbolic representation of 49
experience. Gr.Lcpingvia APPREHENSION
ansformation via INTENTION
I r:U NI )tin: uion vi; 1:X FNSION
GrLsping via COMPREHENSION
Figure 3.2.2 Structural Dimensions Underlying the Learning, Kolb (1984) Process of Experiential
The polar attributes on the orthogonal transfornwtion axis deal internal for individuals' either reflection on the choices with Kolb intention, calls which or experience, pre%lensioned by to the external manipulation of the experience reaction (1984) Kolb summarises these world, an act of extension. underlying themes thus: The central idea here is that learning, and therefore knowing, requires both a grasp or figurative
representation of experience and some transformation of that representation. Either the figurative grasp or operative
transformation
alone is not sufficient.
The
is not of experience perception sufficient for learning; something must be done with it. Similarly, transformation alone cannot
simple
represent
learning,
for
there
must
be 50
something to be transformed, some state of experience which is being acted upon. To affect learning, individuals
need to have been aware of an With experience and register a reaction to that experience. two options in each of the two dimensions of Kolb's model, a2 into is brought decision existence. This matrix x2 matrix of of four quadrants, each representing a typology 3.2.3) (figure learning Kolb. to according style particular allows
REFLECTIVE (RO) OBSERVATION
ACTIVE EXIIIRIM
a
FNTATION
Cunverger
III
Assimilator
ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALISATION (AC)
Figure 3.2.3 Experiential
Learning Style Model, Kolb (1978)
The development of a fourfold (an integrated set of four is dissimilar learning to the outcome of typology not options) the work of Piaget (1975) on learning and cognitive development (see figure 3.2.4). With this in mind I will, therefore, digress for the moment to explain Piaget's theoretical stance on learning (or in his terms, intelligent adaption). Such a comparison between how Piaget views this typology and how it is perceived by Kolb should enrich the present understanding of Kolb's work. 51
In the first
instance,
it is interesting
to note that the more metaphoric descriptions of the poles of Pia; et's axes are not far removed from those descriptions given to the poles by Kolb in his final and most widely adopted typology (compare Bioures 3.2.3Auld3.2.4). ('ON('RF! T :NON [NALISM
Ikonic Lrarning
Fnaclive I. r: unin
ACI l\'I .II\ I: (; OCl -N'IRICl
INTERNALISED
\I
IIýlwtlictiro-d dULtiýc Lrarnin
rI
Indeucti L i nnve
ABSTRACT CONS'IRUCTIONISM
Figure 3.2.4 Model of Learning and Cognitive Development, Piaget (1975) For Plaget the key to learning lies in the tension which is created between the desire to accommodate and the desire to individuals Acconit'noclation to mould enables (Issiniilate. themselves to the environment, while assimilation is the ability individuals to project their own mould or concept onto the of' Cognitive growth through childhood to early environment. be can adulthood seen as a change in emphasis from For individuals to enhance to assimilation. accoinnioclation their intelligent adaption, Piaget contends they move away from
concrete
phenomenalism
constrrrctioni'si i and employ active inrtrriialisc'il rejiection when necessary.
towards
abstract
egocentricism
and
According to Puget (1975) the progression of learning from 52
childhood follows a clockwise direction around the four quadrants (see figure 3.2.4). The first stage (0-2 years) is a period of cnactive learning, feeling, touching and handling are (2-6 In the second stage years) emphasis moves to uppermost. ikonic learning, a manipulation of observations and images. Stage three (7-11 years) leads onto inductive learning where things are classed and relations abstracted. The final stage (12-15 years) is hypothetico - deductive learning, the implications of constructed theories are investigated. Kolb's interpretation of learning, is that all four quadrants in this typology remain equally valid for any stage of an individual's development, and not just in childhood as Piaget felt Kolb Indeed, that complete originally would suggest. learning would be achieved only by engaging with each polar in (see 3.2.3) figure a continuous circular process attribute (CE), feeling based an open, where concrete experience involvement, is followed by careful consideration and taking a holistic viewpoint, reflective observation (RO). Then, using logical, (AC), a analytical approach, abstract conceptualisation hypotheses could be formed that are tested with active (AE); undertaking such a practical application experimentation creates new experiences and initiates a fresh learning cycle.
However, Kolb (1984) soon realised this was an ideal, and began to show that individuals adopted a restricted scenario of dimension. For it from each appearedthat a preferred options descriptors of orthogonal complementary pair gave an identifiable, but personal understanding of the world to each individual. So, for instance an individual who favours concrete experiencerather than abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation rather than reflective observation, will be identified by the categorisation accommitodator. Continuing around the circle the other categorisations would be, diverger, assimilator and converger. These are terms which Cross and Nathenson (1981) and Pask and Scott (1972) have already suggested are pertinent as descriptors of designers. 53
Quadrants
labelled
according to Kolb are shown in figure 3.2.3. This fourfold typology of processing-structures for designers' learning, are best exemplified by depicting the various options they give a designer who needs to learn about (The clockwise a proposed new urban building site. convention initiated with the description of Piaget's model and carried into Kolb's work should not be thought of as hiving any bearing on the importance of any one quadrant over another, as is explained later, all have equal validity): Accommodator
Learners
Design
(CE) i CONCRE'T'E EXPERIENCE
Accommodator
ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION
Preferences for:
active experimentation (AE) concrete experience (CE)
heavily on direct sensory relies This is sought for in the experience and exploration. immediate surroundings and so a trip to the site would Physical presence at the site would be essential. The accommodator
for this designer
learner to provide Since the and manipulate experiment actual reality. the prime action of accommodators is to enrich reality they would make themselves and their ideas known to the opportunity
residents. the place,
It is important know
for them to gain a feel
"fmwhat
are possible, challenges are present and what statement they can leave as their signature. what
risks
54
lliverger
Design
Learners
(CE. ) CONCRETE,
EXPERIENCE
I)ivergcr
REFLECTIVE (1W) OBSERVATION
Preferences for:
(CE) concrete experience reflective observation (RO)
The diverger has an inherent interest in people and in gaining an awareness of values and meaning. As with the accommodator, visiting the site is important. The learner is inherent designer this to aim of understand ideas in to that and generate relationships, are natural accord concerns
with of
adapt reality. used to assist
Assimilator
future and immediate Their strategy looks to the residents. Sketches and measurements would be in understanding the building site. the
Design
present
Learners REFLECTIVE Ob- (1W) OISERVATION
ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALISATION (AC)
Preferences for:
reflective observation (RO) abstract conceptualisation (AC) 55
The aim of the assimilator
is the accumulation
of a can be holistic
wide variety incorporated
of observations which into a well reasoned, First-hand experience of the site by conceptualisation. this designer learner is likely to be supplemented by photographs, and climate data. They are keen to search for detailed assessments of the site's physical Finally
attributes. global implications
they
for
have
a preoccupation Assimilators of development.
attempt to absorb reality.
Converger
Design
Learners
ACTIVE (AE)EXPERIMENTAT1O
CONCEP'T'UALISATION (AC)
Preferences for:
(AC)
abstract conceptualisation (AE) active experimentation
The converger is concerned with dealing efficiently in logical designer This manner. a with problems learner would make a rational assessment of the site, formal recommendations and clarify prepare for Emphasis is towards them procedures. necessary by abstracting a theoretical model recreating reality lead imply to that experiments correct which can directs The attention to the site's action. converger history in order to make predictions for the future: knowledge of the site's immediate condition is its knowledge to perceived as secondary of recorded past. 56
In Kolb's theory all the above options are open to designers who could employ any combination of them. However, and counter intuitively to most designers who feel they should be all-rounders, Kolb's empirical studies found the choice was often not as open as it first appears being in many respects limited. (1978) For Kolb rather showed that we all bring a particular pair of tinted spectacles to bear upon the options open to us: The concept
of a possibility-processing structure gives central importance to the role of individual choice in decision making. The way the possibilities event determines
of each new the range of emerging choices and decisions we see. The choices and decisions we make, to some extent, determine the events we live through, and
we process
events influence our future choices. Thus, people create themselves through their
these
choice of the actual occasions they live through. Human individuality results from the pattern or program created by our choices and their consequences.
studies indicate that individuality will always individual's learning to approach affect an preferentially and further, once engendered, such a preference appears to become relatively stable. Such a stability in human strategies is further supported by the work of the anthropologist (1978) (1982a, Douglas Thompson b) whose and researchers, theories on cultural biaseswill be discussedin Chapter 4. Kolb's
It should be clear from the above that Kolb's Experiential Model of learning provides a useful starting point for an exploration into designers' learning styles. Since it is: i).
a robust theory in much general use; 57
ii).
well founded, being supported by numerous validation studies;
iii).
encompassesother design researchers'understandingof designer learning.
Kolb did not only develop a theoretical view, he also sought to do To individuals' learning it preferences. against examine this, he firstly operationalised the model, and from the criteria instrument which evolved, constructed a useful psychological for assessing individuals' preferences. This instrument, which has shown itself to be a robust and reliable means of in is detailed learning, individuals' the next categorising section of the thesis.
58
3.3
Measurement Instrument Experiential Learning Model:
for
Kolb's
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) 3.3.1 Kolb's Justification Inventory
for the Learning
Style
The following extract, from Kolb's (1984) review of his is he in full to the set original convey objectives cited work, himself, and his researchers, in devising a rigorous tool to individual's learning of an elicit a constructive understanding style. His objectives are extremely pertinent to the current study and are described in some depth to aid understanding. To recap from the last section, the essentials of Kolb's Experiential Learning Model are that: -
i.
there are four equally valid approachesto learning and
ii.
individuals exhibit a bias towards a particular learning preference or group of preferences.
Kolb created the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) to assess individuals' learning in to orientations matched whether reality his theoretical view: The development of the LSI instrument was guided by four design objectives: First, the test way in be that such a constructed should people would respond to it in somewhat the same way as they would a learning situation; that is, it should require one to resolve the opposing tensions between abstract-concrete and active-reflective orientations. In technical testing terms, we were seeking a test that was both normative, allowing comparisons between individuals in their relative emphasis on a given learning mode such as abstract conceptualisation, and ipsative, allowing 59
comparisons within individuals on their relative emphasis on the four learning modes - for instance, whether they emphasized abstract conceptualisation more than the other three learning modes in their individual approach to learning. Second, a self-description format was chosen for the inventory, since the notion of structure relies heavily possibility-processing on conscious choice and decision. It was felt that self-image descriptions might be more powerful determinants of behavioural choices and decisions than would performance tests. Third, the inventory was constructed with the hope that it would prove to be valid - that the measures of learning styles would predict behaviour in a way that was consistent with the learning. A final theory of experiential consideration was a practical one. The test should be brief and straightforward, so that in addition to research uses, it could be used as a means of discussing the learning process with those tested and giving them feedback on their own learning styles.
[Note: Short questionnaires are absolutely essential in the designers' attitudes and exploration of architectural in preferencessince, the past, this subject group have shown an intense dislike of lengthy assessmentprocedures which they believe to be irrelevant and inappropriate (Powell and Nichols, 1982). Even the 10 minutes requested to complete the questionnaire administered as part of the study reported here resulted in one architect returning a blank with the comment, "10 minutes costs £50 for this practice."]
"
The final form of the test is a nine-item self-description questionnaire. Each item asks 60
the respondent to rank-order four words in a way that best describes his or her learning style. One word in each item corresponds to one of the four learning modes - concrete experience (sample word, feeling), reflective (watching), observation abstract conceptualisation
(thinking),
and active
(doing). The LSI measures a person's relative emphasis on each of the four modes of the learning process - concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), experimentation
(AC), and active conceptualisation experimentation (AE) - plus two combination
abstract
scores that indicate the extent to which the person
emphasizes abstractness over (AC-CE) concreteness and action over The four basic learning reflection (AE-RO). modes are defined as follows:
" An orientation toward concrete experience focuses on being involved in experiences and dealing with immediate human situations in a It emphasizes feeling as personal way. opposed to thinking; a concern with the uniqueness and complexity of present reality as opposed to theories and generalisations; an intuitive, artistic approach as opposed to the systematic, scientific approach to problems. People with concrete-experience orientation enjoy and are good at relating to others. They are often good intuitive decision makers and function well in unstructured situations. The person with this orientation values relating to people and being involved in real situations, and has an open-minded approach to life. " An orientation toward reflective observation focuses on understanding the meaning of 61
ideas and situations by carefully observing and impartially describing them. It emphasises to practical understanding as opposed application; a concern with what is true or how things happen as opposed to what will work; an emphasis on reflection as opposed to People with a reflective orientation enjoy intuiting the meaning of situations and ideas their at seeing and are good They are good at looking at implications.
action.
things
from different
and at appreciating different points of view. They like to rely on their own thoughts and feelings to People with this orientation form opinions. perspectives
value patience, impartiality, thoughtful judgment.
and considered,
toward abst ra ct orientation " An focuses on using logic, conceptualisation ideas, and concepts. It emphasizes thinking as opposed to feeling; a concern with building general theories as opposed to intuitively unique, specific areas; a scientific as opposed to an artistic approach to A person with an abstractproblems. understanding
conceptual orientation enjoys and is good at systematic planning, manipulation of abstract People symbols, and quantitative analysis. with this orientation value precision, the rigour and discipline of analysing ideas, and the aesthetic quality of a neat conceptual system.
" An orientation toward active experimentation focuses on actively influencing people and changing situations. It emphasizes practical applications as opposed to reflective understanding; a pragmatic concern with what works as opposed to what is absolute truth; an 62
emphasis on doing as opposed to observing. People with an active-experimentation orientation enjoy and are good at getting things accomplished. They are willing to take some risk in order to achieve their objectives. They also value having an influence on the environment
around them and like to see
results.
3.3.2 The Validity Context
Kolb's of
LSI in the Present
Research using the Learning Style Inventory (see Appendix II), to quantify individuals' preferences for each learning style, is extensive. In 1978, in his updated technical manual, Kolb cites 58 references in academic journals where researchers have used his technique. Research since then, in learning the many disciplines, professions and studying other fields of endeavour, has continued to give support to the fundamental basis of the LSI, (refer Appendix II, for a review of the major validation studies on face validity, construct In test-retest the literature review to reliability). validity and date the only voice of dissension against the validity of the LSI Stumpf by Freedman (1978) who and was presented concluded: The LSI appears to be an example of a worthwhile idea which has some theoretical value but has been operationalised too soon.
However, in Freedman and Stumpf s attempted validation of Kolb's model and instrument they used data from only one in Business Administration population, students enrolled courses. While their population of 1600 was fairly large, it is in small comparison with the 10,000 plus subjects from other major studies endorsing the validity of the LSI and, unlike them, does not representa spread across many populations but a rather narrow self selected group. As such, the major 63
studies validating Kolb provide a statistically sound base from which to assess the validity of the LSI compared to those of Freedman and Stumpf. Furthermore, Freedman and Stumpf's major motivation for their study was to ensure students' instrument did not prematurely fix the to the response approach taken to teach them. I contend they are, therefore, concerned more with how the results from such an instrument less far are used and with the validity of the instrument. However, even Freedman and Stumpf conclude the LSI is an instrument whose data nevertheless provides, some support for the usefulness of the model as a cognitive approach to the Furthermore, they suggest no understanding of learning. alternative to Kolb's model of learning, or an instrument that can assesslearning preference any better.
One final criticism that should be answered if the LSI is to be used in a British context, concerns the relevance of its North As was shown in reviewing Kolb's American origin. theoretical development, the naming of his model's axes owe Piaget's Indeed, the thirty-six words that Kolb to work. much in his LSI European based are as much as used constructing they are American. Each word has the same meaning on Atlantic. Furthermore, the the extensive use of side of either the instrument by Talbot (1985) in a British context, in studies designers both and general managers, reports no difficulty on for English subjects in understanding the words of the instrument. More importantly Talbot generally endorses the instrument for the use within a British context. validity of
3.3.3 Other Rejected Contenders for Instruments to Assess Designer Learning The only three contenders that might have come up with a better instrument to measure, learning preferences, are two American instruments cited by Curry (1983), those of Tamir (1980) and Schmeck (1977), and a British instrument based on Kolb's theoretical work by Honey and Munford (1982).
64
Of these, Tamir's instrument has no reported test-retest is its internal correlations and consistency basedon a sample of only 37 medical students. Schmeck's instrument fairs better on test-retest correlations by its internal but Dunn (1981) as reported and consistency, it 20 Even then takes minutes. administration approximately dimension, that of task on one only assesses subjects in deep learning and elaborative versus shallow engagement 5 LSI Dunn takes this the with which compares and repetitive. for 10 mins self-report. factor in administrating already stated importance for is the context of of considerable questionnaires Honey In designers' this the and respect attitudes. exploring Munford psychological instrument based, on Kolb's theory, involves a questionnaire which consists of 80 long and often As
the
time
annoyingly ambiguous statements to which the subject agrees is for Administration disagrees. this time at questionnaire or least 30 minutes for the test; as already indicated far too much time for eliciting responses from busy architects. Finally, by far has been instrument their so only reported validation of the authors themselves.
3.3.4 Conclusion -A Sound Theory and Instrument for Exploring Designer Learning Having reviewed the available literature, the conclusion I Kolb's that model not only provides a sound reached was theoretical model for the learning domain, but also an in instrument the to compared which, others operational domain, has substantialvalidity and could be easily and quickly impressive is 50 page technical There also an administered. instrument's the to robustness. The style of manual support item format questionnaire, also elicitation, using a nine presentsadvantagesin its acceptanceby a designer population. Therefore, it is with the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) that the empirical studies detailed in the next sections are 65
undertaken.
66
3.4
Empirical Study I: Architects' for Learning
Preferences
3.4.1 Aim I undertook an empirical study of architects (a culturally determine design to subjects) of specific acknowledged group for learning differed markedly architects' preferences whether from a control group. The data collected on the architects also allowed further analysis with the aim of assessing whether learning favoured preferences. particular architects as a group
3.4.2 Subjects Kolb's Learning Style Inventory was administered by post to the following populations with the guarantee that all replies would be treated in strict confidence: 120
80
Fully qualified and ARCUK (Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom) registered British from RIBA the chosen at random practising architects (Royal Institute of British Architects) Directory of Practices, 1986: Staff Portsmouth Polytechnic non-architectural (lecturers, technicians and secretaries).
The number of fully completed questionnaires that were from design the population and the control group returned follows: as were 45 40
Practising Architects Polytechnic Staff
In combination this gave 85 subjects with complete data sets. Throughout the statistical analyses that follow, the most It is variables assessed 'at any one time are eight. recommendedby Child (1975) that there should be at least 10 subjects for each variable for the type of statistical analyses 67
used in these studies - the number of subjects studied, therefore, fulfills this recommendation.
3.4.3 Procedure The Learning Style Inventory (see Appendix III for the format of the LSI administered) asks subjects to first envisage themselves in a learning situation so that a context is given for imagined instrument. This the engaging with setting also fact the that the questionnaire they are asked to reinforces complete should not be viewed as a test, but rather as a means for subjects to understand their own learning preferences. The subject is then presented with a set of nine groups of in four For there are which words, the each group, words. basis is the the to on of their words asked rank order subject learning by to the evoked each word approach affiliation with An example of a group of words is the in the group. following; feeling, watching, thinking, doing. The subject marks with a4 the word which evokes the most appealing (preferred) learning approach. The second best is ranked as 3, the third a 2, and the remaining word is marked with a 1.
Interestingly, in the study reported here, two architects far be it that easier to rank order each would commented This by to the most appealing. assigning a1 usual group however, Gordon does first more practical, as at seem strategy Pask commented, when undertaking the questionnaire at a 1989 Cybernetics conference in Amsterdam - inverting this usual strategy is a subtle method to gain more interaction. It also demonstrates the creative and practical approach of designers. architectural A ranking procedure is carried out for each of the nine groups in the 36 word questionnaire. For each group of four words subjects determine their particular preference for learning by comparing all four of the learning approaches suggested by Kolb's Experiential Learning Model. Each of his underlying learning strategies (CE), concrete experience reflective 68
observation (RO), abstract conceptualisation (AC) and active (AE) is by four the experimentation represented one of in words each group. If subjects have particular learning preferences they will consistently rank words that correspond to those strategies, higher than other words within these groups.
3.4.4 Scoring and Statistical Treatment Six ranked words from each of the four columns are added to give a total score for each learning preference CE, RO, AC, AE. A partially different sequence of six items is taken from each column to give a degree of independence between the items that those to and ensure only six which columns (1978) item highest [by Kolb's analysis] with a correlate An selected. preference are example of the scoring particular Appendix is in IV along with the raw score shown procedure data.
The raw-scores for each subject then underwent two treatments. In the first instance, from the raw scores of CE, RO, AC, AE, summary-scores, coded as CET, ROT, ACTR, AET, were derived by subtracting from each raw (Kolb, 1978) for learning the that corresponding norm score preference. The aim was to obtain the clearest representation data the that might exhibit. Each subject's of any preferences data was, therefore, reduced to a profile of preferences relative to the norm of the general population (after Talbot, 1985). The second treatment involved a subtraction of the raw-scores on the same axes from each other, AC minus CE (ABST) and AE minus RO (ACT), to give scoresfor each axis of the Kolb typology - the tendency for abstraction (ABST) and the tendency for activity (ACT). For this further analysis the control group was used as the general population for comparison, in order to keep the treatment independent of any previous Kolb normalisation. In both cases, in order to 69
compare the two groups' scores, two tailed t-tests were employed (the conventional and well validated approach for analysing this type of data).
3.4.5 Presentation of Results From the first treatment, the group of architects in the study showed themselves to be significantly less attracted to the in reflective observation preference comparison to the control group [derived ROT score, t= -2.50, df (degrees of freedom) 83, (significance) 0.05]. < p = This lack of engagement for the learning preference of is by from the the confirmed reflective observation result second treatment. Here architects are found to be significantly higher on their Active (ACT) preference when compared with Overall there the control group (t = 2.03, df = 83, p
ý
ý`Vý O NM Op Z CU C» C) Co 72C: E0'ON CN oc 3 LCU. 0 L 'Ü O0Z0N
0
Ov)
Np
ý+ý
ýd(D CýOÜp
ý. ýCRf OUCpp
Y caO _
0cy
m
V
3:
(U O
O >%
Ein
OpU
OtoU
>mo
E; _
äfv2
F-
111.2 The Interpersonal
Check List
The format of the Interpersonal Check List presented overleaf was sent out to the populations indicated in part 3.7.2.
333
Self Description Test Over the page you will find a number of words or short phrases. For each item, consider whether you think it describes yourself. If you think it does, then tick in the 'True' it If doesn't, tick then think you column. the 'False' column. Please make a response to each item.
True
1. Able to give orders 2. Appreciative 3.
Apologetic
4.
Able to take care of self
5. Accepts advice readily 6. Able to doubt others 7. Affectionate and understanding 8.
Acts important
9. Able to criticize self 10. Admires and imitates others 11. Agrees with everyone 12. Always ashamed of self
13. Very anxious to be approved of 14. Always giving advice
15. Bitter 16. Bighearted and unselfish 17. Boastful 18. Businesslike
19. Bossy 20. Can be frank and honest 21. Clinging vine
22. Can be strict if necessary
False
True
23. Considerate
24. Cold and unfeeling 25. Can complain if necessary 26. Cooperative
27. Complaining 28. Can be indifferent to others 29. Critical of others
30. Can be obedient 31. Cruel and unkind 32. Dependent 33. Dictatorial 34. Distrusts everybody
35. Dominating 36. Easily embarrassed 37. Eager to get along with others 38. Easily fooled 39. Egotistical and conceited 40. Easily led 41. Encouraging others 42. Enjoys taking care of others 43. Expects everyone to admire him 44. Faithful follower
False
True
45. Frequently disappointed 46. Firm but just
47. Fond of everyone 48. Forceful 49. Friendly 50. Forgives anything 51. Frequently angry 52. Friendly all the time
53. Generous to a fault 54. Gives freely of self 55. Good leader 56. Grateful 57. Hard-boiled when necessary 58. Helpful 59. Hard-hearted 60. Hard to convince 61. Hot-tempered 62. Hard to impress 63. Impatient with others' mistakes 64. Independent 65. Irritable 66. Jealous
False
True
67. Kind and reassuring 68. Likes responsibility
69. Lacks self-confidence 70. Likes to compete with others 71. Lets others make decisions 72. Likes everybody 73. Likes to be taken care of 74. Loves everyone
75. Makes a good impression 76. Manages others 77. Meek 78. Modest 79. Hardly ever talks back 80. Often admired 81. Obeys too willingly 82. Often gloomy 83. Outspoken 84. Overprotective of others 85. Often unfriendly 86. Over sympathetic 87. Often helped by others 88. Passive and unagressive
False
True False
89. Proud and self-satisfied 90. Always pleasant and agreeable 91. Resentful 92. Respected by others 93. Rebels against everything 94.
Resents being bossed
95. Self-reliant and assertive 96. Sarcastic 97. Self-punishing 98. Self-confident 99.
Self-seeking
100. Shrewd and calculating 101. Self-respecting 102. Shy
103. Sincere and devoted to friends 104. Selfish 105. Skeptical
106. Sociable and neighbourly 107. Slow to forgive a wrong 108. Somewhat snobbish 109. S ineless 110. Stern but fair 111. S oils people, with kindness
True
112. Straightforward and direct
113. Stubborn 114. Suspicious 115. Too easily influenced by friends 116. Thinks only of self 117. Tender and soft hearted
118. Timid 119. Too lenient with others 120. Touchy and easily hurt 121. Too willing
to give to others
122. Tries to be too successful 123. Trusting and eager to please
124. Tries to comfort everyone 125. Usually gives in
126. Very respectful to authority 127. Wants everyone's love 128. Well thought of 129. Wants to be led 130. Will confide in anyone
131. Warm 132. Wants eve one to like him 133. Will believe anyone 134. Well-behaved
False
Appendix IV Scoring and Subject Data for the LSI ICL Instruments and
IV. O Resume In this Appendix the data collected for the empirical studies reported in chapter 3 is presented along with detail on the The main scoring procedure for the LSI and the ICL. statistical output for these empirical studies and the relevant empirical analyses are also presented, along with factor scores of individual architects which are reported in chapter 5.
342
IV. 1 Empirical Study I- Using Kolb's Style Inventory (LSI)
Learning
IV. 1.1 Subjects' Raw Scores on the LSI 45 Practising Architects no. 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
CE 19 13 12 17 20 10 21 18 8 14 17 12 13 13 13 11 21 16 11 16 21
RO 9 12 14 16 15 14 11 16 15 15 16 12 12 14 11 10 13 11 14 13 10
AC 18 13 21 12 9 16 20 18 21 19 15 20 21 17 19 22 12 21 22 18 20
43
20
9
21 17
45
21
12
13 20
AE 18 20 11 19 19 19 15 10 18 17 18 17 11 22 21 16 20 11 13 21 17
no. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
CE RO AC AE 16 12 20 13 21 10 20 15 14 15 18 17 17 13 15 14 18 14 12 19 18 13 17 13 11 11 16 20 11 18 16 21 22 19 9 7 16 14 18 16 11 11 19 21 16 21 10 16 19 11 20 15 18 8 20 16 11 11 22 19 12 10 19 18 10 10 22 17 17 15 12 14 14 19 20 9 19 19 10 18 18 13 12 18 17 12 13 22
40 Full-Time Polytechnic Staff
no.
CE RO AC AE
no.
CE RO AC AE
1 3 5
13 12 16
2 4 6
16 10 19
19 10 23
14 16 23 14 14 11
10 15 12
13 20 18 16 15 17 343
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
19 23 10 20 16 15 13 14 16 16 17 18 18 17 14 15 20
18 11 17 8 18 16 10 21 18 19 13 10 8 15 24 19 18 14 11 16 16 11 20 19 10 19 15 12 16 19 12 16 18 14 15 19 14 10 16 16 19 8 20 16 16 17 12 20 14 19 8
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
13 16 9 15 15 17 7 14 16 14 17 11 15 14 17 20 15
18 12 14 13 15 11 17 13 15 18 14 14 18 21 22 19 7
19 17 19 17 14 21 23 18 15 18 13 23 18 15 11 15 17
15 16 16 15 21 11 10 16 16 11 21 10 9 16 14 13 21
IV. 1.2 Example of LSI Scoring With reference to the completed LSI at the end of this Appendix, the following raw scorescan be calculated: Concrete Experience (CE) items 2,3,4,5,7,8 4+3+3+4+3+4 CE = =
in column 1 21
Reflective Observation (RO) items 1,3,6,7,8,9 3+4+4+4+2+1 RO = =
in column 2 18
Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) items 2,3,4,5,8,9 column 3 13 AC = 2+2+1+2+3+3 = Active Experimentation (AE) items 1,3,6,7,8,9 4 AE = 2+1+2+1+1+2 =9
in
in column
344
IV. 1.3 Kolb's Norms for Adults These norms are based on a sample of 1933 adults ranging in 2/3 2/3 60. About from 18 to of the group were men and age had college degrees or higher. A wide range of occupations including is backgrounds represented, and educational doctors teachers, counsellors, engineers, salesmen, managers, 1978). (Kolb, lawyers, and
At the fiftieth percentile: Concrete Experience Reflective Observation Abstract Conceptualisation Active Experimentation
At the seventy-fifth percentile: Concrete Experience Reflective Observation Abstract Conceptualisation Active Experimentation At the ninetieth percentile: Concrete Experience Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation Active Experimentation
= = = =
14 13 18 16
= = = =
17 16 20 18
= = = =
19 18 23 21
345
IV. 2
Empirical Study II - Using LaForge and Suczek's Interpersonal Check List (ICL)
IV. 2.1 Subjects' Raw Scores on the ICL 45 Practising Architects ICL Scores no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
AP 19 36 20 20 21 14 11 23 23 36 23 6 18 7 6 7 10
BC 20 20 23 10 14 12 11 14 20 33 16 10 17 12 18 2 12
DE 33 29 24 18 19 7 22 12 18 26 15 10 21 6 19 9 18
FG 6 26 10 10 11 2 14 9 12 17 10 4 9 9 24 4 10
18 19
8 8
13 12
18 6
18 2 1 6
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
14 10 10 30 20 20 20 7 27 15
15 9 12 23 4 12 10 5 15 20
15 16 6 20 24 26 22 13 16 22
13 18 9 14 25 17 10 6 11 12
30
34 15
20
14 8
LM 12 15 16 13 8 13 12 6 17 8 26 11 20 8 8 18 13
NO 16 30 33 19 13 12 16 10 29 12 27 8 20 14 14 26 14
5 4
8 4
19 11
22 21 2 14 10 19 11 9 8 9
14 23 15 8 12 10 16 8 10 12
34 28 18 15 10 15 19 18 22 8
13
26 28
HI JK 5 18 17 20 6 4 5 11 5 7 8 5 14 26 3 3 13 13 10 14 23 13 9 10 12 12 17 2 12 11 16 12 8 9
26 19 17 5 7 4 5 15 4 7
346
31 32 33 34
21 8 33 12
36
35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
8 13 27 13
15 16 20 18
17 6 19 18
6 13 7 2
6 7 14 9
25 14 8 15
13 9
7
27
34
26
17 24
17 11 18 23 27 20 31 30 20 23
10 12 17 16 17 21 31 17 24 11
13 13 11 10 7 9 12 11 10 4
6 6 18 23 4 12 11 4 8 22
7 3 16 15 10 13 4 8 6 16
6 6 14 23 11 20 21 10 19 22
15 9 5 14 25 17 17 19 21 9
26 19 11 22 12 9 31 27 15 20 32 22 33 37
40 Full-Time Polytechnic Staff no. 1
AP BC DE 19 25 18
FG M 9 9
JK 3
LM NO 13 24
2
11 15
18
13 1
9
15 6
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
15 24 3 6 12 7 25 5 17 11 31 15 20
17 17 0 5 13 16 18 10 16 12 23 12 15
16 29 10 16 9 13 18 26 13 15 25 12 21
7 22 21 21 4 11 16 25 5 4 18 5 17
6 13 25 38 11 31 10 24 12 7 17 6 7
6 4 13 38 13 24 12 23 15 6 17 6 13
10 5 10 20 10 24 12 21 17 22 32 13 17
16
9
15
22
10 14
13
16 18
17 18
15 16 30 25
19 11
15 11 13 12
26 27
18 13 33 23
19
22 10
14
13 9
4
18 19
10 11 14 30 14 25 26 16 17 8 36 14 14
347
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
7 11 16 20 5 13 25 11
8 12 19 34 8 14 18 11
18 18 12 10 20 21 18 11
14 9 13 17 14 16 8 10
31 7 3 12 22 11 20 20
10 6 6 8 15 8 23 5
4 13 13 20 13 12 23 14
8 13 24 15 8 11 12 31
28
10
12
13
7
12
9
18
18
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
8 18 12 10 15 19 23 15 6 7 27 15
10 10 18 6 8 9 9 6 8 13 22 8
14 22 26 6 19 10 11 7 7 18 17 11
9 7 20 3 14 18 6 7 7 26 15 7
13 7 16 6 11 8 15 23 19 25 13 24 18 16 13 24 14 20 32 18 4 11 10 11
11 7 15 19 34 27 22 27 21 17 36 23
5 4 20 37 40 24 37 11 11 13 27 11
IV. 2.2 Example of ICL Scoring With reference to the completed ICL at the end of this Appendix, the following raw scores can be calculated (phrase in brackets): by followed rating no. Managerial (AP) items 1(1), 8(3), 14(3), 19(3), 33(4), 35(3), 43(4), 48(2), 55(2), 68(2), 75(2), 76(3), 80(2), 92(2), 122(3), 128(1) 1+3+3 AP = =7 Responsible (NO) items 16(2), 23(1), 41(2), 42(2), 50(3), 53(3), 54(2), 58(1), 67(2), 84(3), 86(3), 111(4), 117(2), 119(3), 121(3), 124(4) 11 NO = 1+2+2+1+2+3 =
348
Cooperative (LM) items 7(2), 11(4), 26(1), 37(2), 47(3), 49(1), 52(3), 72(3), 74(4), 90(2), 106(2), 115(3), 127(3), 130(3), 131(2), 132(2) 16 2+1+1+2+3+3+2+2 LM = = Docile (JK) items 2(1), 5(2), 10(2), 13(2), 21(4), 32(3), 38(3), 56(1), 71(3), 73(3), 79(3), 87(2), 123(2), 126(2), 129(3), 133(4) 27 2+2+3+1+3+3+2+2+2+3+4 JK = = Modest (HI) items 3(2), 9(1), 12(4), 30(1), 36(2), 40(2), 69(2), 77(3), 78(2), 81(3), 88(3), 97(3), 102(3), 109(4), 118(3), 125(2)
HI
=
1+2+2+2+2+3+3
=
15
Skeptical (FG) items 6(1), 15(3), 25(1), 27(3), 34(4), 45(2), 62(2), 66(3), 82(2), 91(3), 93(4), 94(2), 95(2), 107(3), 113(3), 120(2) 1+3+1+3+2+3+3+2+2+3+3+2 = 26 FG = Aggressive (DE) items 20(1), 22(1), 29(2), 31(4), 46(2), 51(3), 57(2), 59(4), 63(3), 65(2), 83(3), 85(3), 96(3), 99(3), 110(2), 112(2) 20 1+1+2+3+2+3+3+3+2 DE = = Competitive (BC) items 4(1), 17(3), 18(2), 24(4), 28(2), 64(2), 70(2), 89(3), 95(2), 98(2), 100(3), 101(1), 39(4), 104(3), 108(3), 116(3) 10 1+2+2+2+3 BC = =
349
IV. 3
Empirical Analysis Iand ICL Data
Comparing
the LSI
The relevant statistical output for this analysis is presented below.
Canonical Correlation:Number
Eigenvalue
Canonical Correlation
Significance
1 2
0.28 0.18
0.53 0.43
0.013 0.17
Factor Analysis:Eigenvalue 2.01 1.75
Factor 1 2
PercentageVariance 25.1 21.9
Factor Matrix: Variable CE RO AC
AE DOM CRIT SUB FRIE
Factor 1 0.47 0.63 -0.58
-0.13 -0.01 0.08 0.54 0.38
Factor 2 0.52 -0.48 -0.27
0.30 0.52 0.27 -0.25 0.15
Factor Matrix (after rotation with Kaiser normalisation): Variable
Factor 1
Factor 2
CE
0.69
0.11
RO AC
0.21 -0.63
-0.78 0.15
AE
0.09
0.31 350
DOM
0.32
0.42
CRIT SUB
0.08 0.27
0.27
FRIE
0.40
-0.12
-0.54
351
IV. 4
Empirical Study III - Subjects' Raw Scores LSI the on 38 Design Scientists no. 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
CE 16 12 9 15 12 13 13 13 12 13 9 11 13 15 10 22 18 10 21
RO 11 10 16 20 17 15 16 10 11 13 7 19 15 16 11 11 9 12 11
AC 20 23 20 17 18 20 19 24 18 19 22 15 19 20 21 18 20 22 19
AE 17 12 18 10 12 17 15 17 18 13 19 21 18 13 17 15 16 19 15
no. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
CE RO AC AE 12 21 18 7 13 17 20 8 9 17 23 11 12 22 18 6 12 11 19 21 16 17 24 14 10 16 19 12 13 12 23 11 18 21 13 9 14 12 19 19 12 14 21 12 9 16 20 20 13 12 20 17 14 19 19 10 10 12 19 21 15 14 11 16 13 11 19 20 11 10 21 17 16 14 18 21
RO 7 17 9 19 16 14 18
AC 18 19 11 12 15 20 18
22 Context Lecturers AE 14 14 18 12 18 16 10
no. 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
CE 18 16 18 17 19 12 13
RO 14 22 21 21 16 18 19
AC 12 15 10 16 14 18 17
AE 15 11 11 14 9 16 13
no. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
CE 14 17 18 19 12 14 17
15
15
21
13 12
16
15
14
18 17
17
17
18
18 15
18
21
14
11 20 352
19 21
15 19
21 19
13 16 11 17
20 22
18 13
15 15
13 12 16 22
353
Categorisation IV. 5 Individual Subjects' Factor Scores
Architects: of
To determine the position of each individual architect within my designer self-informing strategy typology required the further derived from factor the extension scores calculation of in 3. I IV. the used the statistical analysis reported of Anderson-Rubin method of calculating these factor scores as this method ensures the scales created by the factors are individual for factor The are each scores orthogonal. Score indicates 1 below. Factor the position of the produced individual on the axis of sensing needs - abstracting patterns, individual indicates Score 2 Factor the the on position of while the axis of controlling action - reflective observation.
Factor Matrix: Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Factor Score 1 49767 . 63214 . 36110 . 30494 . -1.23244 72741 -. 83964 . 01048 . 1.96432 1.52324 27929 -. 31896 -. 57864 . -1.13193 14941 . 77231 -. -1.78255 -1.95279 -1.16743 30236 .
Factor Score 2 1.38033 24291 . 83617 . 1.08439 01802 -. 39245 -. 68381 -. 55601 . 18257 . 92298 . 34278 -. 09264 -. 79042 . 26944 . 49801 -. -1.40945 40468 -. 1.35601 28913 -. 54436 -. 354
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
73227 . -1.24119 66845 -. 98855 . 83884 -. 10148 . 79414 -. 02716 . 70992 -. 67667 -. -1.19719 -1.09237 1.75830 -1.53811 19938 -. 39699 . -1.84596 45809 -. 30470 . 1.51018 64451 . 1.49615 31960 . 1.05270 1.57464
79978 -. 36234 . 76724 . 95707 -. 33318 . 83034 . 32036 -. 1.63918 89384 . 84219 . 74503 . 50096 . 1.16014 73803 . 44125 -. 05448 -. 20887 -. -1.63961 14971 . 26762 -. 1.10265 84086 . 1.71245 97218 . 30373 .
355
C 0
(ý
CU
a)
o
Ec
E
le:
ao«
rn c
a
>
o,
r-- Ei u
rn
cc
m8
12L
-a c
c
w
n_ EI
LL.
19
c
> C C, cm m le, EI ooo o oa0 a0 a 0) 0) o ooo o oa ox o c
9 C
CD
>
't
E
C
a)
0)
CL
0
r
0)
oC
NM
tCý
cC
öE-ý
32
30= öEc
aý.. N rýcUU'a
000 ''
,. NU2
102 L "X
C=
Co (D
D
V
c 0 O.
3-r (D (öý. .ý o03e NU 0'O
CN
LCýÖ . ECU :ECCO 0 "C
(dL'N -00 C)
CU vö
o
-. CLCl) V e cu tö ý. r- ýO +- ' º. O
'''
3Li-mö cd>+ -co 00 . cn im ° `n
Q . vi 7 c o ° Ov
O
i> .ý
w
>+
NNN '-
0
O Ü
> G)-. ßa1 8
O++
filar WO LN
C
E
0
E (D
OL
ccc
-ö
N ihm
cd O.
QýÜN3
L=. :
C N
C)
°: Ocd
cd
oý o ,= aha 0
Zö>äiäi , aD aD ý° 20 «00 v cý. eU C-a "_ "ý >'L
d Cd0c
CO
n
sin 3° : c °ý "°N ýc)C
ýoüýö0 O
a0
ti
i
4N..
cC
W
u.
M D oo "
Iy
ý thO C ?: ONOu E
-c O wo ý o
L
>,
"O
OO
O
c,
,
'a
ýcc`-ooCL)
Co
Self Description Test Over the page you will find a number of words or short phrases. For each item, consider whether you think it describes yourself. If you think it does, then tick in the 'True' it If doesn't, tick think then column. you the 'False' column. Please make a response to each item.
True
1. Able to give orders 2. Appreciative 3. Apologetic 4.
Able to take care of self
5. Accepts advice readily 6. Able to doubt others 7. Affectionate and understanding 8.
Acts important
9.
Able to criticize self
10. Admires and imitates others 11. Agrees with everyone 12. Always ashamed of self 13. Very anxious to be approved of 14. Always giving advice 15. Bitter
16. Bighearted and unselfish 17. Boastful 18. Businesslike 19. Bossy
20. Can be frank and honest 21. Clinging vine 22. Can be strict if necessary
Is/
False
True
23. Considerate 24. Cold and unfeeling 25. Can complain if necessary 26. Cooperative
27. Complaining 28. Can be indifferent to others 29. Critical of others 30. Can be obedient
31. Cruel and unkind 32. Dependent
33. Dictatorial 34. Distrusts everybody 35. Dominating 36. Easily embarrassed
J
37. Eager to get along with others 38. Easily fooled 39. Egotistical and conceited 40. Easily led 41. Encouraging others 42. Enjoys taking care of others 43. Expects everyone to admire him 44. Faithful follower
/ I-.
False
True False 45. Frequently disappointed 46. Firm but just 47. Fond of everyone
v
48. Forceful 49. Friendly 50. Forgives anything 51. Frequently angry
52. Friendly all the time 53. Generous to a fault 54. Gives freely of self
v
55. Good leader 56. Grateful
v 1
57. Hard-boiled when necessary 58. Helpful 59. Hard-hearted 60. Hard to convince 61. Hot-tempered 62. Hard to impress 63. Impatient with others' mistakes
64. Independent 65. Irritable 66. Jealous
v
True False
67. Kind and reassuring 68. Likes responsibility 69. Lacks self-confidence 70. Likes to compete with others 71. Lets others make decisions
72. Likes everybody 73. Likes to be taken care of 74. Loves everyone
75. Makes a good impression 76. Manages others
77. Meek 78. Modest 79. Hardly ever talks back 80. Often admired
81. Obeys too willingly 82. Often gloomy 83. Outspoken 84. Overprotective of others
85. Often unfriendly 86. Over sympathetic 87. Often helped by others 88. Passive and unagressive
5/
True
89.
Proud and self-satisfied
90. Always pleasant and agreeable 91. Resentful 92.
Respected by others
93.
Rebels against everything
94. Resents being bossed 95.
Self-reliant and assertive
96. Sarcastic 97. Self-punishing 98. Self-confident 99.
Self-seeking
100. Shrewd and calculating 101. Self-respecting 102. Shy 103. Sincere and devoted to friends 104. Selfish 105. Skeptical 106. Sociable and neighbourly 107. Slow to forgive a wrong 108. Somewhat snobbish
109. Spineless 110. Stern but fair
111. Sp-oils people with kindness
False
True
112. Straightforward and direct
113. Stubborn 114. Suspicious 115. Too easily influenced by friends
116. Thinks only of self 117. Tender and soft hearted
118. Timid 119. Too lenient with others 120. Touchy and easily hurt 121. Too willing to give to others 122. Tries to be too successful
123. Trusting and eager to please 124. Tries to comfort everyone
125. Usually gives in 126. Very respectful to authority 127. Wants everyone's love 128. Well thought of 129. Wants to be led 130. Will confide in anyone
131. Warm 132. Wants everyone to like him 133. Will believe anyone 134. Well-behaved
False
Appendix V Fourfold Typologies
V. 0
Resume A range of fourfold typologies are summarised in this Appendix.
365
V. 1
Fourfold
Typologies
The three tables below summarise fourfold typologies which have been expressed by various authors across the whole spectrum of human endeavours. Table 1 presents those fourfold typologies cited in the main text of the thesis. Table 2 makes reference to the fourfold typologies cited by Tayler (1985) in his work on connecting scale and complexity in fourfold 3 Table evolutionary cycles. presents miscellaneous typologies found in a general literature review.
Model Name: Author(s)
Categories of Fourfold Typologies
Designers
(Newland, Powell & Creed, 1987)
Dynamic
Focussed
Contemplative
Rigorous
Accommodator
Diverger
Assimilator
Converger
Dominance
Friendly
Submission
Critical
World Hypotheses (Pepper, 1942)
Contextualism
Organicism
Mechanism
Formism
Cultural Bias
Entrepreneurial
Sectist
Ineffectual
Hierarchist
Cerebral Hygiene
Foreign Body Expulsion
Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1978)
Interpersonal Interaction (Leary, 1957)
(Douglas, 1978) Information Rejection Stategles (Powell, Thompson & Wynne, 1984)
Risk Absorption
Paradigm Protection
Table1 Fourfold Typologies cited in Main Text
366
Model Name: Author(s)
Categories of Fourfold Typologies
Dynamic
Designers (Newland, Powell & Creed, 1987)
Exploitation
Eco-System
Focussed
Mobilisation-
Contemplative
Creative
Rigorous
Climax
Retention
Destruction
Causal Texture
Disturbed
Placid
Random
Turbulent
of Environment
Reactive
Clustered
Strategic Choice
Collective Action
Natural Selection
System Structural
Active
Adaptive
Passive
Interactive
Proactive
Reactive
Inactive
Interactive
Oligopoly
Imperfect Competition
Function (Holling, 1984)
(Emery & Trist,
1965) Organisational Theories (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983) Cybernetic Function (Jantsch, 1980)
Managerial Styles (Emery, 1982)
Economic Policy (Metcalfe, 1974)
Perfect Competition
Macro economics
Tayler Comparison Typologies Fourfold after Table2 (1985)
367
Model Name: Author(s) Designers
(Newland, Powell & Creed,
Categories of Fourfold Typologies
Dynamic
Focussed
Contemplative
Rigorous
Air
Fire
Water
Earth
1987) Four Vital
Essences (Gullan-Whur, 1987)
Physics and Psychology (Pauli and Jung,
Indestructible Energy
Causality
Synchronicity
Space-Time Contiuum
Communication (Albarn and Smith, 1977)
Diffusion
Trigger
Montage
Transfer
Brain
I-Explore
I-Pursue
I-Preserve
1981)
Processing (Lynch, 1986) Psychology of Time (Mann, Stegler
I-Control
Processing
Processing
Processing
Processing
Relating to Present
Relating to Past
Relating to Future
Relating to Time Line
and Osmond, 1972)
Table3 Fourfold Typologies from other Fields
368
Appendix VI Interpretation of Learning Preference Profiles Arising from Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI)
VI. O
Resume Presented in this Appendix are summaries of the accounts interviewing during the thematic of twelve practising gathered architects. Those statements or parts of statements from each 5.2 have in I are section architect which quoted verbatim shown in italics.
370
VI. l
Interviews
Dynamic with
Achitects
The summarised accounts that follow are from those practising architects whose previous LSI and ICL profiles indicated a Dynamic self-informing strategy.
VI. 1.1 Interviewee A (Partner, 5 person practice) -
-I
-I
-
Yes we've just had that model made - you get a good feel for a design that way - helps enormously with the client, for and good publicity of course. feel - ah inspiration that's tricky - it has to be innovative to motivate me, the vital thing is that a design reponds to its time - there's too much of this historical stuff at the moment. find myself getting very enthusiastic over drawings, they say so much more - it's very constraining if I can only talk about ideas. Images, putting different things together -I need a variety keep interest. inputs to of my Yeah, great working with the others - you can get a good be just to things that spark repartee going - gives pleasant and enthusiasitc.
bland people where or places can't stand environments -I look really depressed- places I like have a bit of spark to them. bound how It are we all rule really sometimes gets me break just the rules now and again. somepeople can't is hot there's technical the always and stuff really on -X the consultants. I If it's interested I'm then ask. new and -
-
-
It's a pretty active environment - we've usually got at least three major buildings on the go and I like to feel I'm involved with all of them. The kick is really from doing it yourself, knowing it's yours up there - it's just a good feeling.
You just do what you can - I'd always like more time but you have to make room for what's important. 371
VI. 1.2
Interviewee
B (Senior
Partner,
14 person
practice) -
For some of the time I stand back -I see my role as quite managerial in many senses, but when I'm in a team it has to be active participation on my part.
-
The designing is central though and it's a joy - yes - it's a pleasure to say, it's my design - of course that means the it's lies don't that responsibility with me -I mind -
-
refreshing. It's certainly true that all major decisions come through has to be at thefocal point of any practice. me - someone It's good to give encouragement, good to keep the
-
It's difficult to explain and words are pretty useless.
-
-
-
-
-I -I -
pressure up too - we are not a large practice and the is in high this area. competition Yes - there's the technical library - it's kept up to date -I retain things quite well myself and everyone here has specialised knowledge to call upon - they all have talent, they wouldn"t be here otherwise. Yes some of this is filed, but I never really look at it again.
Everything's changing - commercially you do yourself an injustice if you are not forward thinking - clients are always changing their minds too - it's the nature of the beast - you respond, you cope -I have to create the environmentfor it to be possible. for it don't I take must admit anyone's word really - you have to find out yourself it if I've the that work on seen then its possible policy and you have to be confident you can give that bit extra. I've built up a great deal of contacts over the years - it's one big information network you just tap into when you need to.
372
VI. 1.3
Interviewee C (Chartered Architect) -I
-
-I
-
-I -I
-
-
find it necessary to be arrogant now and again I don't think I'd get anything done if I wasn't - you just have to show people it is possible. Look at it this way, I'm the one getting the commissions, I have to get the damn thing built - plain guts most of the time - stick your neck out and get on with it. in don't like being one place probably seek change -I for too long - I'm always off looking for new experiences.
Well -I can say this -I do feel I'm a good designer in to you've got push on - my adventure the end -I can't wait around for someoneelse to take the decision. Design is fundamental to me -a driving force. The inspiration comes really from everyhting I do and feel. Yes -I mean, expressionwith the body - you have to live this stuff you know. just haven't the time to seat and soak up this stuff (journals, brochures) -I work with what I know. look for direct experience - that really counts and through that you get the major ideas and the rest just falls into place. If you want information - well look around you - that's what I do in the main Most of the problems I solve aren't really logical be it's just intuition sometimes expected to and you can't give absoluteproof. Time just flows really - I'm working with things around me - you can't fix things rigidly - things are very random in my life.
373
VI. 2
Interviews
Focussed Achitects with
The summarised accounts that follow are from those practising architects whose previous LSI and ICL profiles indicated a Focussed self-informing strategy.
VI. 2.1
Interviewee D (Partner, 6 person practice) -I
feel I'm concerned with basic human issues and I see myself as someonewho can assist.
-I
just it friendly important that's see as a practice - you have to trust each other - this is a complex business after all.
-
-
-I
-
-I
-I
You can make real changes with a collective, but all the firmly be involved to committed and people need fundamentally after the same goal -I don't think it's has design have team where everyone possible to a fundamentally different motives. Technological advances that would be useful I would read. It only suceedswhen you can give a place something that wasn't there before - the old cliche - something the client never thought was achieveable. definite don't have I way of obtaining guess any information I just look for and keep the stuff that is of use to what I am doing. Change is something I respect the need for - sure you have to be flexible and respond if necessary, but any changeshould be - has to be constructive in some way. think your own feelings are probably the best judge though I certainly take notice of others - but I don't like having things passing over a good go myself. without There are particular environments I feel very at home in in familiar the gives you security. - a sense don't think I plan for the future in detail, but you do have to work towards it.
374
VI. 2.2
Interviewee E (Chartered Architect) -I
-I
-
-I
would probably describe as one of my assetsis that I do have an ability to relate quite well to people in that sort of client relationship that you have. because I try would and achieve as much as possible think they would go with me and be enlightened to the possibilities of a particular project. Working by myself I don't have to have those arguments to try and establish what I believe to be right - all I've done is eliminated thefrustration of being over ruled. supposeI design on the basis of what seemsright, what it it's to the anyway me natural, seems appropriate be to the natural solution to the problem. appears
-I
suppose that's what I'm trying to say - that the be financial factors they or physical to a constraining just part of the process of refining are particular project the solution.
-I
do work in association with other people on occasion long find know I as as they are and you generally design design I the towards similarly motivated as am it process - and they are not precious about - then the dialogue is always beneficial. feel design to respond to the pragmatic approach -I know for best the things the adage old simple you are -I find myself thinking about the sort of Scandinavian but is architecture which emotive sort of a very simple, landscape is to the and the that architecture one very close fashioned to any great materials are very natural and not degree. like to refer to journals as that brings everything into
-I
-I -
your office quite neatly. I'm always impressed by the way in which buildings are I lot delight because know think together the put a of you for the general public - who ever they are - are the smaller details of buildings rather than the sort of overall 375
-
-
-I
-
-I
-I
VI. 2.3
form. By reading the magazinesand looking and pondering -I do it by observation I suppose. In terms of change during the sort of design process - yes I would find that disruptive. If you then change one element of that quite dramatically it makes a mockery of all the reasons why you are running on from that point onwards - and I would f ind that frustrating. All the time that you are at a meeting or all the time local firm to get some to a you've perhaps gone printing dyelines done - it's just time ticking away that you are not drawing - so you tend to be very aware of time or lack of it should I say. think if I chose an office and had other people working like I I'd to share that to them close me, with me want I working environment, enjoy the rubbing shoulders with other colleagues. Everything is very close to hand, I can more or less touch everything I need to, quite easily. If you can copy it and have it by the drawing board then that is great, but if it is remote that becomes a nuisance it. by try without and you perhaps and get
find a lot of trade publications particularly very good now - you get something that you understand clearly and document. in information is the there one all don't want that to sound a little like Emperor's cloths, is know there which you something sort of pretending isn't there.
Interviewee F (Partner, 2 person practice) -
-
Well I use things around me to get meaning across - see this model there's a good impression of how the volumes fit together that is easier to show than describe The practice I was with before was all right, but one of the partners was very style conscious and that's not my approach. 376
-
As an architect I'm looking for solutions which are a positive improvement - as a human being I just hope we can get the world out of the present mess.
-
At the bottom line you need clients who support your beliefs - then you can really work together.
-I
-
-
-
-
-I
-
find you need different information at different stages have things you as progress you need more specific - well to start specifying the detail. Learning has to be a continuous process, you have to remain open, but bring your own experience to bear.
There has to be some natural elegance that you look for it's instinct more than anything I think it works at quite a deep level. You do need confidence to take a design through to completion. As long as you are selectiveyou don't get overwhelmed. Some of the committees we come up against have very divorced totally appear narrow views - some restrictions from reality. There are particular people I admire and do take notice of their views - let's say I listen to my partner some of the time. feel you seek out places that match your philosophy don't you get any creative support otherwise.
You tend to gauge the service as it were to what people I the service are expecting of me and my perception of is it is them that about right. give
377
VI. 3
Interviews with Contemplative Achitects The summarised accounts that follow are from those practising architects whose previous LSI and ICL profiles indicated a Contemplative self-informing strategy.
VI. 3.1
Interviewee G (Chartered Architect, 18 person practice)
-
Certainly there are many facets to architecture - we design a lot of public buildings in this department and they need to be seen in the context of their community. Designing is rewarding but I find it is very intensive issues diverse dealing and set of you are with such a is find I there quite an effort constraints - personally involved in finalising a design.
-
Ocassionally I've found myself deeply involved and not completely cognizant of why I'm this committed.
-
The practice is reasonably large, quite a community, have be is to there and some peace alone nevetheless space don't for interruptions. care endless -I
-
-
-
-I
My nature tends to air on the side of caution - I'm very before thoroughly to careful review situations recommending the next move. On some issuesthere is a lot at stake and I dislike taking hasty decisions. There aren't any particular sources or types of information I prefer, to some extent it's all as potentially useful. tend to look into the background of a site when we are commissioned- that's an aspectI enjoy.
-
Generally I'm the one who writes the reports and locates any infomation we require.
-
Some of the buildings we undertake here can demand detailed specification and to be able to communicate effectively with consultants you do need a general understandingof technical aspects. 378
-I -
VI. 3.2
would say it pays to have a systematicapproach. There are times when you question and doubt the has been instigated. that approach
Interviewee
H (Chartered Architect,
County
Council) -
-I
-
-
-
Groups tend to be assembled and disassembled according to the needs of the project - the groups are fairly amorphous. designing design inverted in commas actually work on be ideas drawing board on may out on a sketching four day three the or other a week, average about one days a week are meetings, getting information, doing analysis work, writing reports and generally trying to set things up to allow opportunities for other designers to create projects.
There are two ways of retrieving information either the latter is the the more accurate establishmentor authority imbued be instilled former to the tends or with whereas desiresand you can't guarantee that it is wholly accurate. The problems with the information at present is that it tends to be stored in a variety of ways - so the process in fairly diverse. be information to tends gathering this Personal information tends to accrue into a great heap that is then distilled into a report -I always keep a mass dross jottings, computer printouts, of odd notes, photocopies of plans.
-
-
The report is put together in such a way that it forms an argument for an approach to problem solving. Four years have elapsed now since we did it and it would be interesting to see how accurate our predictions were or how much flexibility has been built into that sort of system. Not in the sense of trying to control it - but trying to understand how open ended solutions must be to accommodate change. Within limits you can leave it a 379
fairly
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
VI. 3.3
open ended solution to allow things to evolve and that's why things tend to be fairly indefinite and fairly loose fit. Ambiguity exists in a designer's life continually I suppose. You still need to build in this flexibility, this looseness to flux, things to the and with allow evolve move sort of to flux this that exists all the time. accept
My personal space is - the word monastic struck me then find like find I I that noise as get old can't cell -I -I distracts - the interrupts - breaks into concentration and therefore if I canfind somewherethat is isolated. There are times even when I resort to what I call hilltop hill I'll top and go and sit and work of a sitting park on up there. If I can approximate an understanding because I don't think you ever will fully understand - at least get some way down the road.
Suddenly they will give you perspectivesthat you haven't it before seen and certainly make some comment and happens all the time and I think this again helps you to broaden your view. If I'm not careful I tend to get bogged down in very fine problem solving.
Design work tends to be a fairly personal, egotistical thing and therefore if you are confrontational you immediately become defensive and I think that's detrimental. If you don't believe - what somebody called it once - if like it have back let's a was said you someone a- no go Victorian building.
Interviewee I (Partner, 6 person practice) -
-
Groups are full of potential, but I prefer working in many respectsby myself - too many people I find can be a distraction. severe Working late is necessary now and again it makes no 380
senseto me not to be thorough. -
-I -
-
-I -
-
-I
Inevitably there are problems, this is epitomised for me by the insidious nature of one contractor we had the unfortunate pleasure of engaging. design it doesn't say should was a continual process really stop. Design is a culmination of diverse knowledge, but the detail is endless -I usually find it necessary to arrest my thoughts and attempt a concrete formalisation.
Decisions are a responsibility and this necessitatesthat they should be informed decisions -I don't look at everything, but certainly a substantial amount. wouldn't say you could regulate change - you make allowancesand tolerate it. The Architectural Review is a valuable resource -I have them bound every year. Wherever I am, I'm looking out for inspiration - if you are an architect you can't go around without registering the environment even if it's subliminally. In exceptional circumstancesI would take decisions with limited knowledge, but design should be the culmination of a thorough exploration. History, present and future, they are all one global thing in the end we seemto go in circles. In essenceplaces where I know where everything is and bother. can work without any far heed there to reaching are a range of sources, pay by lay inevitably tend to careful store consequences-I consideration of all information available.
381
VIA
Interviews
Rigorous with
Achitects
The summarised accounts that follow are from those practising architects whose previous LSI and ICL profiles indicated a Rigorous self-informing strategy.
VI. 4.1
Interviewee
J (Senior
Partner,
10 person
practice) -I
-
-I
-I -
-
-
-I -
if language is you accurate make certain my use of don't make things absolutely clear - you are in for a tough time.
We have a hard working team here that's why I think we because just I've collapse are successfulseenpractices they didn't have an eye to basic businessprinciples - dead lines have to meanjust that. I've been here about 15 years now - there's been a definite step-by-step progresion.
think it's good practice to build on your achievements,I don't see it as style so much as an aprroach - we don't changewithout good reason. think design has to be a managed process you need direction. to constraints give you The brief is the starting point, we look for information just fulfil it to to over gone we've which will enable us becoming is the Barbour Microfiche very - which popular. It is important to gain a reputation to be a practice which
satifies their clients. There's different needs at different stages, you get the brief - form an overall plan and get down to the actual mechanicsof getting it built. don't really accept anything until I've seenit. To be totally honest, it probably boils down to the money, I've got a skill, which is recognised and it pays You look back and project forward I don't think anything radical happenstruly - there are always some clear steps. 382
-
VI. 4.2
disorder I can't tolerate if drives insane me is in everything a shambles -I mean if you can't get the work place right there's not much hope for the buildings is there.
It's
Interviewee
K
(Chartered
Architect,
City
Council) -
-
-
-
-I
-I
The architectural side of it is broken down into a series of groups - these range in size from just 2 people up to about has is I the the seven one run seven people one which people in it. Authority for Local Broadly speaking we work for is servicing responsible committees a member of staff formal have to through that committee - we a series of go for apply planning permission until stages we cannot do to trigger so and so committee resolution we've got a individual the who maintains an as see myself on -I
in design and particular of quality. overall standard of It does happen that I will condemn something which the looking because I'm to project architect would accept build up the standards and I get the opportunity to see a lot more different jobs and see what can be achieved. So my role has been now ensuring that we maintain a build it to trying up competent standard and obviously improve do, is things to on a try which what we all make basis. continuous don't think you should rely on magazines, 1 don't read them conscientiously enough - which is a pity, but when I do I'm amazed at how little they actually contain so it's like BD bad like things to through on a not quite so go -I bit be basis AJ, but tend to the the of a a regular rest and luxury. think without exception we all like the idea of our own personal libraries because (a) we know where the information is (b) we know it's up-to-date and (c) nobody else has stolen it. 383
-
Someone has a need and you feed in at one end what those needs are and what the other constraints are that may be bearing down on it and the problem is to resolve those in the best way that you can.
-
Everybody within the group will come to me at least once day a with some query usually they will come to me when they want a decision about something.
-
You can spend the whole day doing absolutely nothing except signing your name and talking to people not frustrating. doing is that actually any work and quite
-I
-
-
-
VI. 4.3
be like information to the that we possess would be like I to times able simply and would up-to-date at all to rely on it. It does tend to be confrontational with other disciplines more so - becauseI'm looking at the whole picture, not just at one discipline's point of view. It's quite common jealousy lot interdisciplinary there's anyway well a of betweenquantity surveyors, engineersand architects - it's a perfectly standard thing. When X was the city architect he was an authority above me who would set standards. Where we get new work it will be from an appraisal of what's going on generally within that particular sphere but forward, improve on and move each one we try to basis from last the taking the which we one as always work. I'm not quite sure how it has come about, it's obviously how decided has many square money related, someone depending is on status. metres per person appropriate
Interviewee L (CharteredArchitect) -
Uppermost is definitely the concept of fitness for purpose buildings. in to that strive realise my -I This is probably due to being in practice on my own but I'm sometimesquite hard nosed with people- you have to 384
-
make sure they've got the message. The advantage and disadvantage is obviously you have sole responsibility that's a major impetus for me.
-
Creativity is to my mind and over used term - the ability to bring everything together is the skill of an architect.
-I
have limited time so a well thought out 1 day seminar is keep to up to date - qualified a good means helpful. the most recommendationsare Journals like the AJ I've got time for, but most are just hype and none of it's in plain english.
-
-
-I -I
I'd only work with materials that are approved or you can into deep get yourself water -I think there's great importance on being seen to be both efficient and giving excellence. Rules are a necessary evil - well at least I try to convince but be the myself authorities can a right pain sometimes, at least you know where you stand - there's always a clear right or wrong. can usually work out what the main trends are going to be and put my concentration there. enjoy taking a set of requirements and trying to resolve them as best I can with all the things that we all know about as constraints - money, time, space what ever - you for being design buildings people - without can't without a client it is a waste of time doing it.
385
Appendix VII Questionnaire for Appropriateness of Supportive Information Scenarios
VII. 1 Supportive Information Questionnaire
Scenario
The questionnaire overleaf was used in the empirical study reported in chapter 6.
387
Portsmouth Polytechnic, School of Architecture, King Henry Building, King Henry Ist Street, Portsmouth, Hants. POI 2DY .r'
Dear Architect, As part of our research programme here at the School of Architecture, we are exploring the notion that architects adopt particular learning strategies to facilitate their design process. These strategies may entail the need for unique presentations of information, if the information is to be relevant and useful to an architect like yourself. I am aware you are a busy professional and it is a great liberl y on my part to thrust this It 10 however, take at about questionnaire you. should, iinuutes and your unsolicited insight. be a valuable will responses Your patience and participation
are much appreciated
Yours faithfully,
Paul Newland
Opposite you will find a series of four word sets. For each four, rank of set order the group of words. Assign
a4
l
Discriminating
2
characterising your learning strategy, a2 to the next and a1 to the word that least describes your approach to
learning.
Q Receptive
3
Q Feeling
to the
word in each group that best describes your learning strategy, a3 to the word within each group which is next best at
El
4
Q Accepting
5
El Intuitive
6
Q Abstract
7
Q PresentOriented
8
Q Experience
1: 1 Tentative
Q Relevant
Q Watching
El Risk-Taker
Q Productive
Q Observing
Q Reflecting
Q Observation
There are no right or
wrong answers each strategy is equally
9
Q Intense
Q Reserved
El Involving
Q Analytical
Q
El Practical
Q Impartial
Q
Thinking
Doing
1: 1
ED
Evaluative
El Logical
Q Concrete
Q FutureOriented
Q Conceptualization
Q Rational
Aware
Q Questioning
Q Active
Q Pragmatic
Q Experimentation
Q Responsible
good. (pleaseturn over...)
Below there are four scenarios. Please rank these scenarios in order of preference for receiving information on energy, conscious design (as before, 4 for the most preferred). presentation of opinion-, of five architects, who see a concern for energy as Buildings designed by each of these architects are giving an edge in gaining commissions. For shown in visual summary and each building is linked to a relevant energy metaphor. example, a totally enclosed artificially maintained building is seen as a spacecraft and an An audio/visual
elongated school with enclosed and open sides is compared to a hard hacked/soft bellied millipede. Designers who interact with the information system are asked to take one building that captures their interest and are then challenged to compare and contrast it with another to note the various energy strategies that the architect of their chosen building has adopted. The more detailed consequences of these strategies can be explored if the user so wishes by accessing other sections of an interactive videodisc. Energy conscious design is introduced as a major global issue that becomes inevitably interlinked with building design. To maintain both global reference and to show that all energy trade-offs in buildings should reach equilibrium, a ten issue menu is presented on a revolving globe. Each issue is described on its own, for instance artificial lighting versus natural lighting and then the connections to other energy issues are explored. The overall presentation is mainly visual stills with self-paced textual commentary. A storyline which clearly states at the outset the importance of energy efficiency. Reference is made to an authoritative energy code (the CIBSE Building Energy Code Part 2: Calculation of the Energy Demands and Targets for the Design of New Buildings and Services) and the Government's commitment with which it is endorsed. The definitions that underpin the code are presented under eight headings in a loss and gain balance table - four on each side, for example, ventilation loss, solar gain. Each issue is presented primarily in an abstract form as a model or equation. The consequences of changing or neglecting factors in these equations such as volume and number of occupants are shown by relevant video and graphic renditions of buildings. In this storyline the fact that over 50% of Britain's energy output is consumed by buildings is highlighted and the possibility of informed design lowering this consumption is conveyed. The approaches to lowering consumption are put forward in five documentary style case studies of buildings covering a range of types from offices to leisure centres. Each documentary gives an overall assessmentof the building, the energy issues that the designer saw as major concerns and the way these were tackled in the final design. Specific detail on design elements that counter energy consumption are given at the end of each building review, for example, treatment of fenestration and centrally controlled lighting with user overrides. Emphasis in all five case studies is on presentation of practical design solutions that have shown designers' awareness of energy issues. In what situations do you feel your own ideas most threatened or blocked? -----------------------------------In what contexts do you feel most at ease and generous
to share ideas with others?
-----------------------------------How do you feel you best communicate?
Thank you again for your trouble, please return using the pre-paid envelope enclosed.
Appendix VIII Subject Data for Supportive Information Scenarios Questionnaire
VIII. O Resume In this Appendix the data collected for the empirical study reported in chapter 6 is presented along with detail on the involved in the test-reteststudy for the LSI. subjects
390
VIII. 1 Empirical Study IV Using Kolb's LSI VIII. 1.1 Subjects' Raw Scores on the LSI and Rank Ordering Energy Conscious Design of Information Scenarios The layout below presents the LSI raw scores for each subject along with their rank ordering of the four energy conscious design information scenarios included on the questionnaire. The last column indicates which self-informing strategy the LSI scoring would suggest; Dynamic (D), Focussed(F), Contemplative (C) and Rigorous (R). If the subjects' denoted by LSI, the as matches the self-informing strategy, corresponding energy conscious design information scenario that was chosen, then a star (*) is placed by the letter.
51 Practising Architects no. 001 002 003 004 005 006 007
CE 19 15 19 15 14 15 12
RO 22 13 16 19 17 15 13
AC 9 20 18 19 16 15 21
AE 13 16 13 10 15 15 16
D 4 1 1 1 3 1 1
F 1 3 4 4 4 4 3
C 3 2 3 2 2 2 2
R 2 4 2 3 1 3 4
F C *F F *F *F C
008
17
9
16 14
3
4
2
1
D
009 010 011 012 013 014 015
17 11 15 16 14 13 15
12 10 15 11 16 14 8
20 22 17 20 18 16 21
14 21 15 20 13 20 13
3 2 1 4 4 2 1
2 3 4 1 3 4 3
4 1 3 3 2 1 2
1 4 2 2 1 3 4
F *R F *D F D *R
016
10
13 21 16
1
3
4
2
R
017 018
15 17
9 17
19 15 10 17
4 1
2 4
3 3
1 2
*D *F
019
15
12
21 12
3
4
1
2
C 391
020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051
12 14 19 9 13 22 20 14 11 14 19 14 11 11 14 13 16 17 19 16 17 13 13 13 16 14 7 11 12 14 10 17
14 19 19 14 14 18 17 17 14 11 24 18 17 20 9 16 15 17 14 12 18 14 17 17 13 19 17 14 16 17 10 20 15 16 19 17 11 24 18 17 22 14 13 21 15 13 19 19 14 17 15 13 18 16 11 14 19 10 21 17 17 12 20 7 21 16 20 19 9 13 20 11 11 18 15 12 17 21 12 23 18 24 19 8 14 20 17 17 18 14 24 15 8 9 20 13
1 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 4 1 3 2 4 4 2 2 4 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 4
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 1 3 3 4 3 4 4 1 4 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 2
2 2 3 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 3 4 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 2 2 4 1 3 1
3 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 4 3 1 2 1 4 4 1 4 4 3
R D *F R R F D *F R *F *D C R C C R F F *D R *F *R R *C D D *R *R *C F *R *D
392
VIII. 1.2 Statistical Treatment and Output The test statistic for the Friedman Test with b blocks of data is k by: each with ranked observations reperesented F=
(b - NB - bk(k + 1)2[41 A-B
where
A=
bk(k + 1)(2k + 1)/6
and
B=
1/b(sum of the squares of each column sum)
degreesof freedom for F are df l= (k - 1) and df2 = (b - 1)(k - 1) When there is a significant difference between the ranking of (least factor LSD the multiple comparison observations determine be difference) to where the calculated can squares between if difference lies, (i. difference the e. significant different column totals exceeds the LSD there is a significant for one scenario above the other). preference LSD =
t(,
'J 2b(A - B) -1)(k -1) (b - 1)(k - 1)
Values for F and t for various degrees of freedom and Conover in be found in Iman levels tables and can significant (1982). For the total subjectsn= 51 DFCR Column Totals for Scenarios
A= 1530 F0.01,31150 3.95 =
112
B= 1306.63
162
119
117
F=7.08
1.66 10.05,150 =
LSD = 20.5
Outcome: Focussed scenario ranked higher (i. e. F column 393
totall of 165 exceeds any of the other column totals by 20.5) than the other three scenarios, no significant difference between Contemplative, Rigorous and Dynamic scenarios.
For the subjectspreferring a Dynamic information strategy n= 11 DFCR Column Totals for Scenarios
34
34
23
19
F=4.14 B=291.1 A=330 9.08 LSD 1.7 Fo.05,3,30 2.92 to. = = 05,30= Focussed Outcome: Both Dynamic and Contemplative both higher than ranked
scenarios were and Rigorous
scenarios.
For the subjects preferring a Focussed information strategy n=17 DrcR Column Totals for Scenarios
35
59
B=448.59 A=510 4.31 1.68 FO.01,3,48 10.05,48 = = Outcome: scenario. scenarios.
42
34
F=6.15 LSD = 11.1
Focussed scenario ranked higher than any other No significant difference between remaining
394
For the subjects preferring strategy n=8
Contemplative a
information
DFCR Column Totals for Scenarios
18
23
22
17
F=0.85
B=203.25 A=240 3.07 F0.05,3,21 =
Outcome: Null hypothesis accepted,no significant preference between scenarios. For the subjects preferring a Rigorous n= 15
information strategy
DFCR Column Totals for Scenarios
26
46
B= 397.47 A= 450 1.68 4.31 F0"01,3,42 t0.05,42 = =
31
47
F=5.99 LSD = 10.29
Outcome: Both Rigorous and Focussed scenarios were Contemplative Dynamic both higher than and ranked scenarios.
395
VIII. 2
Empirical
Analysis II - LSI Test-Retest
VIII. 2.1 Subjects' Pair Scores from Empirical Study I and IV initial in the practising architects part empirical study also completed questionnaires for the last empirical study. Presented below are each subject's scores on the LSI for the first study paired with their scores 18 months later.
Nineteen
taking
19 Practising architects Empirical Study I AC CE RO no. 4 21 10 20 5 12 14 21 17 16 12 7 11 10 14 16 12 18 13 17 22 9 7 18 16 14 18 20 17 16 15 21 23 12 12 20 28 18 8 20 29 13 11 19 30 11 11 22 31 11 10 22 32 12 10 19 33 21 13 12 35 16 11 21 37 11 14 22 43 18 13 12 45 21 12 13
AE 15 11 19 19 13 19 16 18 17 16 21 19 16 18 20 11 13 18 20
Empirical Study IV AC CE RO no. 030 19 10 20 043 13 13 20 040 17 17 12 014 13 14 16 022 19 17 17 046 7 12 23 031 14 16 19 018 17 17 10 007 12 13 21 013 13 7 21 028 11 13 19 016 10 13 21 032 11 11 24 047 11 8 24 026 20 14 12 035 15 12 21 033 11 17 22 015 15 8 21 038 19 11 14
AE 15 11 20 20 14 18 17 17 16 16 17 16 18 19 18 12 14 13 19
396
VIII. 2.2 Statistical Treatment and Output The test statistic for the Spearman rank correlation by: is 10, is larger N than represented where
t=
( rs
rs4N-2 1 -rs2
degreesof freedom for t=N-2 For N= 19 and subject's first and secondCE raw scores t=7.27
df= 17
p
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentarios
